Kentucky judge: Definition of 'human being' in pro-life state law is 'vague'

A Kentucky judge has struck down a portion of the state's abortion law that defined when human life begins, ordering that the language could have legal ramifications for those who practice in-vitro fertilization (IVF). However, he disagreed with a complaint that the law violates religious freedom.

Key Takeaways:

• Judge Brian Edwards ruled that the definition of "human being" within Kentucky's pro-life law is "vague and unintelligible."

• He ruled against a complaint that the law violates religious freedom.

• The decision will likely protect IVF in the state.

• The ruling did not place an injunction on any portion of the law, which continues to protect most preborn children from abortion.

The Background:

Four years ago, three women sued the state of Kentucky over its abortion ban, arguing that the ban violated their religious freedom, as they claim their Jewish beliefs do not hold that life begins at conception (fertilization).

Jessica Kalb is now the sole remaining plaintiff in that lawsuit. She alleges that the state's law prohibits her from expanding her family through IVF, as under the definition of the law, embryos created through the IVF procedure are classified as human beings (Spoiler alert: they are human beings).

The case has gone back and forth within the courts for years. Last July, an appeals court overturned a lower court ruling that had told Kalb she could not proceed with the lawsuit. A hearing for the case was then heard in December.

The Details:

In the ruling, Jefferson County Circuit Court Brian Edwards decided that a portion of the state's law protecting nearly all preborn children from abortion is "unconstitutionally void for vagueness," because the definition of "human being" within the law is "vague and unintelligible."

As Kentucky Today reports:

"According to Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 311.720, the commonwealth’s abortion ban defines the terms as follows:

• "Unborn child" has the same meaning as “unborn human being” in 311.7KRS 72, meaning “an individual living member of the species homo sapiens throughout the entire embryonic and fetal stages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth.”

• “Fetus” means “a human being from fertilization until birth.”

• “Human being” means “any member of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until death.”

Edwards has ruled that these definitions are "conflicting and intertwined" and therefore the statutes "must be deemed void for vagueness and unintelligibility as to their scope."

However, he did not agree with Kalb that the law violates her religious freedom, as he said the law is  “religiously neutral” and doesn't burden the Jewish community  “any more than it burdens followers of Christianity, Islam or Hindu from exercising their religious beliefs.” 

Edwards' ruling did not place an injunction on any portion of the law, which continues to protect most preborn children from abortion.

What We're Hearing:

Lisa Sobel, one of the original three plaintiffs in the case, expressed disappointment that Kalb was not granted a full victory.

“The Court did not rule in our favor on our religious freedom claims, and that matters to me,” she said. “Jewish law has a clear, millennia-old answer to the question of fetal personhood — and it is not the answer Kentucky wrote into its statutes. I wanted the Court to see through the neutral-sounding language to the sectarian belief embedded within it.” 

Aaron Kemper, one of Kalb's attorneys, said the ruling should protect IVF in the state.

“I think this clears up all issues of IVF and reproductive access. I don’t think there could be any prosecution of IVF under this decision,” Kemper said. “Because if you strike down the definition that a human being is a fetus, then IVF should be completely clear.” 

Addia Wuchner, Registered Nurse, bioethicist, and executive director of Kentucky Right to Life, emphasized that there is no doubt to when life beings.

“As a Registered Nurse and bioethicist, I state with scientific clarity that human life begins at fertilization. At that moment, a new, distinct human organism is formed—possessing its own unique DNA and the inherent capacity to grow and develop through every stage of life," she said. "This is not a matter of opinion, but of established biological fact.”

The Bottom Line:

Science consistently says that a new human being is created at the moment of fertilization. It's for this reason that those who are truly pro-life cannot support IVF, as it leads to the widescale destruction of embryonic humans. Pro-life laws need to be consistent in protecting all preborn humans, regardless of the method through which they were created.