Creationism in Court
Lines Blur Between Church and Judiciary in the Heart of the Bible Belt
In a recent decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the 1872 Wrongful Death Act1 has been expanded in its interpretation, granting parents the right to pursue punitive damages for the loss of in vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos, now recognized as "extra uterine children."
This ruling emerged from a distressing incident where an individual breached hospital security, mishandled a tray from a freezer, and inadvertently destroyed all the embryos stored within it. This act of negligence led to three families initiating a civil lawsuit under the Act, which traditionally facilitated parents in seeking redress for the wrongful death of a "minor child."
The court's reasoning in this case is significant, based on an 1872 statute that the Alabama Supreme Court had previously extended in 20112 to encompass unborn children as "minor children," irrespective of their developmental stage or viability. The crux of the matter lay in determining if this statute could also encompass embryos outside the womb, particularly those frozen for IVF purposes. The court concluded affirmatively, positing that if scientific advancements make extra uterine development feasible, then logically, the wrongful death act should extend to these embryos as well.
In Justice Mitchell's decision, the invocation of religious texts and figures notably intertwines legal reasoning with theological principles. Specifically, the decision quotes from the Bible, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Genesis 9:6), and draws on Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and John Calvin to assert that humans, being created in the image of God, have a divine mandate against the intentional taking of human life.
This theological underpinning, particularly the direct citation from the Bible and the reliance on religious scholars to frame legal arguments, raises critical questions about the adherence to the principle of separation of church and state within judicial reasoning.
Using Biblical references and theological reasoning in a court decision could be viewed as a departure from the secular foundations of legal analysis, potentially blurring the lines between religious doctrines and state laws.
While the moral and ethical dimensions of life and death are undoubtedly significant, the explicit reliance on religious texts in a legal decision may prompt concerns regarding the neutrality of the law and its independence from religious beliefs.
The incorporation of religious references into the legal reasoning of Justice Mitchell's decision represents a significant and concerning fusion of religious beliefs with judicial reasoning. This melding of religious doctrine with legal interpretation fundamentally challenges the secular underpinnings of the United States' legal system, which is built on the principle of the separation of church and state 3—a cornerstone of the Constitution designed to ensure that governmental decisions and laws remain free from religious influence.
The explicit reliance on biblical scripture and Christian theological thought to underpin arguments within a legal decision not only raises questions about the impartiality of the judiciary but also about the inclusivity of the legal process. This approach appears to contravene the foundational American principle of freedom from religion, enshrined in the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of any religion by the state and guarantees the free exercise of religion.
By integrating biblical principles directly into the fabric of legal justification, the decision potentially alienates individuals and groups of diverse or non-Christian faiths, suggesting a preference for Christian viewpoints in the interpretation of laws that are meant to be universally applicable and neutral with respect to religious belief.
Moreover, the invocation of Christianity in the decision provokes a broader dialogue on the role of personal beliefs within the judiciary. While judges are undoubtedly influenced by their personal convictions, the explicit grounding of legal reasoning in religious doctrine may undermine the perceived neutrality of the judicial system, leading to concerns about the equitable application of laws. This approach risks eroding the secular barrier intended to safeguard the legal system from becoming an arena for religious endorsement or discrimination, thereby challenging the democratic ideals of equality and religious freedom.
Justice Greg Cook4, through his dissent (pg. 75), highlights concerns about the blending of moral, ethical, and religious considerations into the fabric of legal interpretation and decision-making. His emphasis on adhering to the original language and intent of the legislature, irrespective of his personal beliefs on the sanctity of life, underscores a commitment to the principles of originalism and textualism. This perspective not only highlights the complexities involved in applying historic statutes to modern dilemmas but also cautions against the implications of allowing contemporary moral or religious values to retrospectively alter the understood original public meaning of laws.
My sympathy with the plaintiffs and my deeply held personal views on the sanctity of life cannot change the meaning of words enacted by our elected Legislature in 1872. Even when the facts of a case concern profoundly difficult moral questions, our Court must stay within the bounds of our judicial role.
- Justice Greg Cook, dissenting
The intersection of religious beliefs with legal reasoning presents a challenge to the principles of separation of church and state. Cook's dissent, advocating for a restrained approach that honors the original legislative intent without yielding to external moral or religious pressures, echoes a broader constitutional dialogue on the delicate balance between faith, ethics, and the rule of law. This balance is crucial for maintaining a legal system that respects diverse beliefs while upholding the impartiality and universality of justice.
Alabama's 1872 Wrongful Death Act enables the pursuit of punitive damages for wrongful deaths, recently interpreted to include IVF embryos as "extra uterine children." More details at "Ala. Code § 6-5-391 (2022)".
In the 2011 case of Mack v. Carmack, the Alabama Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of the Wrongful Death Act to include unborn children as "minor children," setting a significant legal precedent for the rights of unborn children in wrongful death claims stemming from a miscarriage due to a car accident.
The concept of the separation of church and state was articulated by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, which described the First Amendment as erecting "a wall of separation between Church & State."
Justice Gregory Carl Cook, elected to the Alabama Supreme Court in 2022, A Duke University graduate and Harvard Law alumnus, Cook served in the Air Force before practicing law in Alabama, contributing significantly to legal scholarship and civil procedure. His extensive legal career, community involvement, and dedication to family and faith highlight his profound impact on law and society.