The vital role of traditional moral values in American
society is a theme shared by two legal briefs just submitted
by Agudas Yisroel of America to the United States Supreme
Court.
The group submitted two "friend of the court" briefs,
authored by its attorneys Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, Eytan Kobre
and Abba Cohen, with the assistance of Columbia Law School
student Moshe Klein. They were entered in cases addressing
issues of the taking of life and immoral personal
practices.
In one case, the Court is considering whether a state has the
right to ban a procedure in which a living fetus is partially
delivered and then killed, a murdered, prior to full
delivery.
The brief argues that such a ban is constitutionally
acceptable, even under the framework of the High Court's
Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized the termination of
fetal life. In addition, the group said, banning the
procedure furthers a state's strong interest in protecting
human life and grants a state a means of "expressing and
preserving, through its laws, a moral consensus that exists
among citizens" opposing the procedure.
The gruesomeness of the controversial practice, which has
been described as being "literally seconds and inches away
from being classified as a murder by every State in the
Union," has provoked massive public opposition. Thirty
states, as well as both houses of Congress have passed
resolutions to ban its use. The Agudas Yisroel attorneys
contend that the procedure in question is not only unusually
inhumane, but "from the perspective of classical Jewish
law...most likely would in fact be deemed infanticide."
As a result, the brief argues, state prohibition of this
procedure also serves as a "bulwark against...the threat of a
creeping social legitimization of infanticide."
In another case soon to be argued before the High Court, the
Boy Scouts of America is appealing a decision of the New
Jersey Supreme Court, which ruled that a local chapter
violated a state anti-discrimination law when it discharged a
man who was openly living an immoral lifestyle.
Agudas Yisroel's submission supporting the Boy Scouts appeal
calls the Court's attention to the ramifications that the New
Jersey ruling holds for a broad range of religiously-
affiliated youth programs.
The brief contends that the ruling disallows private
entities like Boy Scouts of America from embracing their own
notions of moral propriety." As such, the ruling "could
threaten the religious independence of countless programs
and institutions" run by "religious denominations like
Orthodox Judaism...and the numerous other faith groups across
this nation that are not prepared to concede the irrelevancy
of Leviticus" and its absolute rejection of certain
activities.
"Agudas Yisroel's involvement in these cases underscores our
firm view that the laws of the land should preserve the long-
standing moral bonds that hold our society together," said
Mr. Zwiebel, the organization's executive vice president for
government and public affairs.
Legal briefs opposing perspectives on the two issues,
including submissions by other segments of the Jewish
community, are slated to be filed later this month. The Court
is due to issue rulings in both cases by late spring or early
summer.
