Professional Documents
Culture Documents
First Amended Complaint
First Amended Complaint
THE SATANIC TEMPLE, INC. and ANN DOE CASE NO. 4:21-CV-00387
PLAINTIFFS,
V.
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH
SERVICES, and
COMES NOW Plaintiff The Satanic Temple (“TST”), by and through counsel Matthew A. Kezhaya
(AR # 2014161, pro hac vice pending) of Kezhaya Law PLC, and Brad Ryynanen (TX # 24082520), of
the Ryynanen Law Office PLLC with this, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint seeking declaratory
EXPLANATORY NOTE
1. This complaint asks for judicial review of four Texas abortion regulations through the lens of
religious liberty. As further detailed below, TST and its membership holds religious beliefs and
practices surrounding the abortive act which are entitled to protection from state interference under
2. Ann Doe is a member of TST who sought to engage in a religious ceremony culminating in
the abortive act. Texas abortion regulations interfered with this ceremony, raising constitutional
suspicions. As further detailed below, the regulations fail constitutional scrutiny and fail scrutiny under
Complaint Page 1 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 21
3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 USC § 1331 (federal
question) because TST complains of alleged constitutional violations under color of state law which
are actionable under 42 USC § 1983 (authorizing a cause of action for such claims) and 28 USC § 2201
(authorizing declaratory judgments), both of which are federal laws. See also Ex parte Young, 209 U.S.
123 (1908). Under Ex parte Young, state officials, like Dr. John William Hellerstedt, who enforce an
unconstitutional law are stripped of their official character and become merely another citizen who
4. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the TRFRA claim under 28 USC § 1367. This
state law claim is so related to the federal claims that it forms part of the same case or controversy.
5. Texas has expressly waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit for the TRFRA claim.
6. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they all exist or regularly
conduct business within this District. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants
because the situs of the injury sought to be avoided will take place in this District and it is reasonable
to exercise jurisdiction here because the relevant facility is located within this District.
7. Venue properly lies with this Court under 28 USC § 1391(b) because the conduct complained
PARTIES
atheistic religious corporation with its principal place of business in Salem, Massachusetts. TST’s
membership exceeds 270,000 and was recently the subject of the acclaimed film, “Hail Satan?” (2019,
Complaint Page 2 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 3 of 21
Magnolia Films). See also Satanic Temple v. City of Scottsdale, No. CV18-00621-PHX-DGC, 2020
WL 587882 (D. Ariz. Feb. 6, 2020) (holding that TST is a bona fide religion). TST’s membership can
be found in every state, including Texas. TST venerates (but does not worship) the biblical adversary
as a promethean icon against tyranny. For TST and its membership, the Satan described in Paradise
Lost and like works is a revolutionary antihero who stood up against impossible odds to seek justice
and egalitarianism for himself and others. TST propagates its Seven Tenets:
(1) One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in
(2) The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over
(4) The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To
willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
(5) Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One
should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
(6) People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and
(7) Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought.
The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken
word.
religious ceremonies is the Satanic Abortion Ritual, described in detail below. TST sues on behalf of
itself and its membership, seeking a declaratory judgment that TST’s membership is entitled to a
Complaint Page 3 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 4 of 21
religious exemption to Texas abortion regulations whenever the regulations act as a substantial
9. Ann Doe, plaintiff, sues anonymously because she wants to avoid the catastrophic side-effects
from the controversy surrounding this case and the deeply personal nature of the subject of this
dispute. Doe was a pregnant woman at the time of filing the Original Complaint who resides at least
100 miles from the nearest abortion clinic, which is a facility in Houston, TX. Doe is a TST member,
and has been since before she became pregnant. Doe wants to participate in TST’s Satanic Abortion
10. Dr. JOHN WILLIAM HELLERSTEDT, defendant, is the Commissioner of the Texas
Department of State Health Services. Dr. Hellerstedt is being sued in his official capacity, only.
11. The Texas Department of State Health Services (the “Department”), defendant, is the
Texas agency responsible for enforcing the complained-of Texas abortion regulations.
STANDING
12. TST has direct standing because the complained-of regulations are anathema to TST’s Satanic
13. TST also has associational standing to present the claims of other members, similarly situated
to Ms. Doe, who want to participate in the Satanic Abortion Ritual but are impacted by these
regulations.
14. TST’s organizational purposes include litigating to protect the religious liberty rights of TST’s
15. Due to the cost of litigation and the short window between “unripe” abortion claims and
16. Their participation is not “necessary” to the litigation, even though some of them may provide
Complaint Page 4 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 5 of 21
evidence, because only enough participation to show a pattern is needed. See Ass'n of Am. Physicians
& Surgeons, Inc. v. Texas Med. Bd., 627 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2010).
17. TST thus sues, both directly and on behalf of its affected membership, for an order to require
the Department to create a mechanism for seeking an exemption to these regulations insofar as they
FACTS ALLEGED
18. Ms. Doe was a pregnant woman at the time the Original Complaint was filed and a TST
member who wanted to participate in TST’s Satanic Abortion Ritual but was forced to comply with
19. Part of this case will require proving that Ms. Doe’s decision to engage in the Satanic Abortion
21. The following is not an invitation to litigate the truth, the reasonableness, or the centrality of
the Display to TST’s beliefs or practices. E.g. Employment Div., Dep't of Human Res. of Oregon v.
Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 887, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (1990) (“Repeatedly and in many different contexts,
we have warned that courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion
22. TST shares with all other Satanic groups a veneration for the biblical concept ha satan (literally:
24. Satanism, broadly, can be roughly divided into “nontheistic” and “theistic” groups.
25. Nontheistic Satanists venerate the concept of the Biblical Satan and may participate in ritual,
Complaint Page 5 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 6 of 21
but do not literally worship the divine entity that Christians identify as “The Devil” and do not have
any expectation that participating in ritual, by itself, will affect the outside world.
26. Ritual is not useless to a nontheistic Satanist, however. Ritual has a powerful, and studied,
effect on the subjective experience of the participants. Hobson NM, Schroeder J, Risen JL, Xygalatas
D, Inzlicht M. The Psychology of Rituals: An Integrative Review and Process-Based Framework. Personality and
27. TST is a nontheistic branch of Satanism. This is enshrined in TST’s Fifth Tenet (“Beliefs
should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to
distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs”), which posits that beliefs and actions should be guided by
28. Theistic Satanists differ from nontheistic Satanists by taking the extra step to literally worship
a deity that Christians identify as “The Devil.” If they participate in ritual magic, a theistic Satanist
will believe that the ritual, by itself, causes an effect on objective reality.
if it is tyrannical.
30. When something becomes “tyranny” is the subject of TST’s religious doctrine. Suffice it to
31. This is an inversion of Christian norms, which holds that authority–particularly divine
32. Another Satanic inversion of Christian norms is the balance of perceived importance between
33. To Satanists, the self should be assigned a greater importance than the outside world. This is
an inversion of the Christian norm, that for example, the outside world (God and the Church) may
Complaint Page 6 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 7 of 21
34. TST’s membership does not subscribe to humility as a virtue and self-deprecation as a lifestyle.
TST’s membership does not denigrate desires and practices that they enjoy which does not harm
others.
35. TST has enshrined this belief in the Third Tenet (“One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s
36. Other common applications of bodily inviolability include a religious objection against
corporeal punishment of minors, a liberal view on body modification, and unwavering acceptance of
37. TST and its membership are nontheistic Satanists, with an added influence by the philosophy
38. The core philosophy behind TST’s Satanism is in propounding those elemental propositions
that–we believe–all nontheistic Satanists can agree upon: the pursuit of “justice” and “empathy” is
“good” and our worldview should be determined exclusively by reason, with room to grow or change
39. In this worldview, TST shares much with the Founding Fathers. This great nation began as
an act of insurrection against a tyrant-king who claimed divine authority. The Founding Fathers
pursued justice and egalitarianism for all. Replace George Washington with Satan, and TST’s
40. TST’s membership holds the Founding Fathers and the Constitution in high esteem.
41. But despite holding these ideals in the highest esteem, TST makes no claim to having the
“highest ideal” or “divine truth,” and will vigorously defend religious freedom in its many forms.
42. This commitment to pluralism is rooted in a profound respect for the individual but is
Complaint Page 7 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 8 of 21
43. As addressed above, many of TST’s membership believe that ritual can have an important
44. Other than the Satanic Abortion Ritual, TST’s membership engages in destruction rituals
(ceremonious destruction of items with symbolic meaning), the Unbaptism (ceremonious casting off
of religious indoctrination), various meditations and mantras, and sex magic. See generally Shiva
Honey, The Devil’s Tome: A Book of Modern Satanic Ritual (Serpentīnae, March 25, 2020).
45. There are other rituals, too. The point is that the Satanic Abortion Ritual is not an end-run
46. TST developed the Satanic Abortion Ritual to help its membership cast off guilt, shame, and
mental discomfort that the member may be experiencing in connection with their election to abort
47. The Ritual also confirms the member’s choice and wards off effects of unjust persecution. Id.
48. Here, the unjust persecution is an improper effort of the State (the “outside world”) to infringe
on the decision-making of a member about her own health decision (the “inside world.”)
49. This tension is recognized as a secular legal issue. See Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania
v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 852, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 2807, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992) (recognizing a woman’s
50. But for TST’s membership (including Ms. Doe), it is more than a simple privacy interest.
51. For plaintiffs, the State’s intrusion into a member’s decision about their own body is a tyrant
52. Not only is it an abuse of power, but the political rhetoric surrounding abortion is notably
religious.
Complaint Page 8 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 9 of 21
53. So, from the perspective of a Satanist, abortion regulations place the State in the role of tyrant-
king which claims divine authority to in an effort to make the Satanist feel guilt, doubt, and shame on
an issue of religious significance. This is deeply offensive to those who subscribe to the Third Tenet.
54. The Satanic Abortion Ritual was created to combat those efforts, and, for TST’s membership,
it is empowering to assert or re-assert (as appropriate) power and control over their own mind and
body.
55. To implement the Satanic Abortion Ritual, it depends on the nature of the abortion.
EXHIBIT A at p. 4.
Id.
Complaint Page 9 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 10 of 21
58. The last day of a woman’s period is used as the date to mark the beginning of pregnancy.
59. December 5, 2020 was the last day of Ms. Doe’s period.
60. Ms. Doe learned that she was pregnant on January 13, 2021.
61. After that, Ms. Doe considered her options and then resolved to abort the pregnancy.
62. Ms. Doe also resolved to use the Satanic Abortion Ritual for its intended purposes.
63. Ms. Doe lives more than 100 miles from any nearby abortion facilities.
65. Ms. Doe reached out to the facility to arrange for her medical appointments.
66. Through the course of her communications with the facility, Ms. Doe learned of certain
abortion regulations which act as an impediment to Ms. Doe being able to participate in the Ritual.
(b) A forced decision to reject the “opportunity” of seeing the sonogram results,
(d) A mandatory waiting period between the sonogram and receiving the abortion.
See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 171.012(a)(4) and (5) and TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE § 171.0122.
68. Ms. Doe perceives no medical basis for Texas to require a sonogram before an abortion. See
Dr. Jen Russo, “Mandated Ultrasound Prior to Abortion” Virtual Mentor. 2014;16(4):240-244. doi:
10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.4.ecas1-1404.
69. Ms. Doe objects to the sonogram requirement as violative of the Fifth Tenet.
70. There being no medical need for the sonogram, Ms. Doe objects to the related regulations
Complaint Page 10 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 11 of 21
(forced rejection of the “opportunity” to see the results, the forced listening of the narrative
explanation, and the mandatory waiting period) all as violative of the Fifth Tenet.
71. These requirements’ sole apparent purpose is to influence some patients away from the
abortion and toward childrearing. See Gatter M, Kimport K, Foster DG, Weitz TA, Upadhyay UD.
Relationship between ultrasound viewing and proceeding to abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):81-
87.
72. As explained above, Ms. Doe objects as violative of the Third Tenet to these requirements’ as
efforts to control the decisions she makes for herself and her body.
73. Additionally, the requirement of a sonogram increases the financial cost of the abortion.
74. For Ms. Doe, the sonogram makes the abortion cost $150 more.
76. Ms. Doe was forced to expend her limited funds on a medical procedure which she objects
to.
77. By regulating the abortive act and refusing to grant exemptions for the Satanic Abortion Ritual,
the State placed a barrier between Ms. Doe and her ceremony.
78. On January 22, 2021, Ms. Doe’s religious beliefs compelled her to seek a religious exemption
to these regulations: both because the regulations violate her beliefs and because they substantially
82. If the facility granted Ms. Doe a religious exemption, the facility would incur sanctions from
the Department.
Complaint Page 11 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 12 of 21
83. Through counsel, Ms. Doe issued a TRFRA demand letter to the Department. EXHIBIT B.
86. Counsel immediately sought local counsel to handle any litigation or applications for
emergency relief.
87. Several local counsel who expressed interest in assisting TST were unable to do so for various
reasons.
88. Local counsel was located and retained on February 3, 2021. The Original Complaint (Dkt. 1)
and an Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 2) were filed at
89. Counsel for TST and Ms. Doe contacted the Southern District of Texas clerk’s office at 8:00
AM on Friday, February 5, 2021 to ask for the case to be assigned so the emergency relief
sought in the Original Complaint and Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining
90. The case was not assigned to a judge, until approximately 2:30 PM. Shortly thereafter, Judge
91. The case was reassigned to Judge Andrew Hanen late on February 5, 2021. (Dkt. 6). Judge
93. Although the emergency relief sought in the Original Complaint and Emergency Application
for Temporary Restraining Order can no longer be granted by the court, the remaining relief
may still be granted. Indeed, the circumstances of this case meet the classic definition of an
issue capable of repetition, yet evading review. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125 (1973)
Complaint Page 12 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 13 of 21
(“Pregnancy provides a classic justification for nonmootness.”); June Med. Servs. L.L.C. v.
Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103, 2169 (Alito, J., dissenting) (“[I]f a woman seeking an abortion brings
suit, her claim will survive the end of her pregnancy under the capable-of-repetition-yet-
evading-review exception to mootness.”); see, also 13C Wright & Miller § 3533.8 (collecting
examples).
94. Being within the first trimester, the fetus was nonviable at the time of the appointment.
95. Absent the relief prayed for below, Ms. Doe’s religious objections were overrun and her
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 1
Hybrid Free Speech / Free Exercise claim
96. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the Government from making a law “prohibiting the free
exercise” of religion. U.S. Const. amend. I; see also Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60
S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940) (the First Amendment prohibition is applicable to the States as
97. The Free Speech Clause prohibits the Government from “abridging the freedom of speech.”
Id.
98. The First Amendment, which includes the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, was drafted
to protect against political division along religious lines. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 622, 91
99. To that end, the Free Exercise Clause prohibits governmental restraint on the free exercise of
religion. U.S. Const. Amend. I (“Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of
religion]”); Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 607, 81 S. Ct. 1144, 1148 (1961) (“If the purpose or effect
Complaint Page 13 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 14 of 21
of a law is to . . . discriminate invidiously between religions, that law is constitutionally invalid even
though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect”) (emphasis added); see also Church
of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534, 113 S. Ct. 2217, 2227, 124 L.
100. Likewise, the Free Speech Clause prohibits governmental suppression of expression–
particularly to include religious expression. Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515
U.S. 753, 760 (1995) (“government suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at
religious speech that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince.”)
(emphasis in original)
101. By officiating the Satanic Abortion Ritual, Ms. Doe (and TST’s similarly situated
members) will be uttering religiously charged speech and will be engaging in religious conduct.
102. Texas places barriers between Ms. Doe (and TST’s similarly situated members) and
this religious speech and conduct by first requiring she undergo a medically unnecessary operation,
requiring she reject the “opportunity” to see the results of the imaging, requiring she listen to the
103. As applied to Ms. Doe (and TST’s similarly situated members), these regulations are
constitutionally suspect barriers between an officiant and their religious speech and conduct.
104. Therefore, the complained-of regulations are constitutionally suspect and must survive
105. Pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 and 28 USC § 2201, the Court should declare these
regulations unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Doe and TST’s similarly situated members because they
106. The Court should issue permanent injunctions (1) barring the Department from
Complaint Page 14 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 15 of 21
enforcing this regulation in a manner that interferes with TST’s Satanic Abortion Ritual and (2)
requiring the Department to develop a mechanism to accommodate TST’s Satanic Abortion Ritual.
Count 2
Equal Protection
107. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits Texas from disparately treating similarly
situated classes of people. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216-17, 102 S. Ct. 2382, 2394 (1982); see also
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV (“nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
108. When a regulation disadvantages a suspect class or the exercise of a fundamental right,
like the free exercise of religion, the regulation is presumptively unconstitutional and must be justified
by a showing that the regulation is precisely tailored to a compelling governmental interest. Id.
109. Or, when “important but not fundamental” rights are impacted, the governmental
regulation must be justified by a showing of a substantial interest which is closely related to the
regulation. Id.; see also District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 at fn. 27 (2008) (rejecting the
rational basis test because, otherwise, constitutional guarantees would be “redundant with the separate
110. At issue under this count is the “narrative” regulation. TEX. HEALTH & S §
171.0122(d).
111. The “narrative” regulation delineates between two classes of pregnant women who
112. On the one hand: victims of a sexual crime, minors with a judicial bypass, and women
Complaint Page 15 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 16 of 21
113. All other pregnant women, importantly to include those who intend to participate in
114. Both are similarly situated in that they are pregnant and don’t want to listen to the
115. But the regulation only permits the former camp to reject the narrative.
117. This regulation must survive strict scrutiny. It impacts the fundamental right of free
exercise of religion because Ms. Doe and TST’s similarly situated members intend to participate in the
118. Alternatively, it must survive intermediate scrutiny because it impacts the Fourteenth
119. Pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 and 28 USC § 2201, the Court should declare this
regulation unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Doe and TST’s similarly situated members because it
120. The Court should issue permanent injunctions (1) barring the Department from
enforcing this regulation in a manner that interferes with TST’s Satanic Abortion Ritual and (2)
requiring the Department to develop a mechanism to accommodate TST’s Satanic Abortion Ritual.
Count 3
Violation of Casey
121. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits Texas from enacting an “undue burden” on a
nonviable fetus, i.e. an “a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a
nonviable fetus.” Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 877, 112 S. Ct.
Complaint Page 16 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 17 of 21
2791, 2820, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992); see also U.S. Const. amend XIV § 1 (“nor shall any State deprive
122. By requiring a sonogram before Ms. Doe can get an abortion, the State has imposed
123. The financial requirement attending the sonogram is an “undue burden.” Cf. Texas
Med. Providers Performing Abortion Servs. v. Lakey, 667 F.3d 570, 576 (5th Cir. 2012) (the Fifth
Circuit has held that the sonogram, itself, is not an undue burden but did not address the financial
124. Pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 and 28 USC § 2201, the Court should declare the sonogram
requirement unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Doe and TST’s similarly situated members because it
125. The Court should issue either of two permanent injunctions: (1) the Department is
barred from enforcing this regulation; or (2) the Department shall pay all costs of the sonogram for
Ms. Doe and TST’s similarly situated members. 42 USC § 1983 (authorizing injunctive relief).
Count 4
Violation of TRFRA
126. To some extent, the constitutional issues will need to overcome Employment Div.,
Dep't of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S. Ct. 1595 (1990) (holding that generally
applicable rules that only impact free exercise, unaccompanied by evidence of an intention to prohibit
127. Texas encoded the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act in response to Smith.
128. Under TRFRA, it is irrelevant that the regulations at issue are generally applicable and
Complaint Page 17 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 18 of 21
it is irrelevant whether the regulations were motivated by religious discrimination. The applicable
questions are (1) whether any of the regulations are a “substantial interference” with the free exercise
of religion; and (2) if so, whether the regulations can survive strict scrutiny. In other words, even if
the State proves that its regulations are in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, the State
must also prove that the regulations are the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
129. Plaintiffs expect an argument that TST’s Satanic Abortion Ritual cannot “really” be
130. The Texas Supreme Court has already resolved this argument in favor of TST. Barr
v. City of Sinton, 295 S.W.3d 287, 300 (Tex. 2009) (“the fact that a halfway house can be secular does
131. The regulations are a substantial interference with Ms. Doe’s and TST’s similarly
situated members because they place hurdles in front of religious speech and religious conduct. The
132. The State must raise and prove a compelling interest and how the regulation is
133. Plaintiffs issued appropriate demand correspondence before filing this lawsuit.
Exhibit B.
liberty were “imminent” when the Original Complaint was filed because Ms. Doe’s religious objections
were overrun on February 6, 2021. Thus, the 60-day waiting period did not apply. See TEX. CIV.
Count 5
Texas Constitution Free Exercise, Art. I § 6
Complaint Page 18 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 19 of 21
135. The Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 6, provides that: All men have a natural and
indefeasible right to worship . . . according to the dictates of their own consciences.” Likewise, “[n]o
human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in
matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of
worship.”
136. Here, the Texas regulations prevent TST members, such as Ms. Doe from worship
“according to the dictates of their own conscience.” Further, these regulations “control or interfere”
with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, including TST members such as Ms. Doe and give
preference to a mode of worship that is anathema to TST members and Ms. Doe’s religious practice.
137. Accordingly, the regulations violate the Texas Constitution, and the Court should
Count 6
Texas Constitution Equal Protection, Art. I, §§ 3 & 3a
138. The Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 3, provides that “[a]ll free [persons], when
they form a social compact, have equal rights and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive
separate public emoluments, or privileges[.]” Article I, Section 3a provides that “[e]quality under the
law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin.” And further,
139. Here, the Texas regulations treat women and those who ascribe to TST’s creed
differently. In other words, it violates the Texas Constitution’s Equal Protection based on sex and
creed.
140. A “creed” under Texas law includes “common beliefs.” Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d
Complaint Page 19 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 20 of 21
141. Accordingly, the Regulations violate the Texas Constitution, and the Court should
strike down the regulations under the Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 3 and 3a.
1. The Court should declare the regulations at issue unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Doe and
2. The Court should issue a permanent injunction against the Department to bar enforcement
of the regulations insofar as they substantially interfere with the Satanic Abortion Ritual.
3. The Court should issue a permanent injunction against the Department to require the creation
4. The Court should order compensation to TST for costs and attorney’s fees. 42 USC § 1983
5. And the Court should order all other relief to which it finds TST entitled. FRCP 54(c).
Complaint Page 20 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 21 of 21
EXHIBIT LIST
A. Religious abortion ritual pamphlet
Complaint Page 21 of 21
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12-1 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 1 of 5
Exhibit A
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12-1 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 5
Tenet III
One’s body is inviolable, subject
to one’s own will alone.
Tenet V
Beliefs should conform to one's best
scientific understanding of the world.
One should take care never to distort
scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
Personal Affirmation
By my body, my blood
By my will, it is done.
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12-1 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 5 of 5
PROCEDURES
Exhibit B
Case 4:21-cv-00387 Document 12-2 Filed on 02/12/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 4
February 3, 2021
Re: TST v. Tx. Health and Human Serv’s Comm. and Planned Parenthood – demand letter
I represent The Satanic Temple, Inc. (“TST”) and an anonymous pregnant member who desires
an abortion (“Ann Doe”) in a potential dispute surrounding my clients’ demand for a religious
exemption to the following Texas abortion regulations:
TEX. HEALTH & S § 171.012. The abortion is to be performed by the Planned Parenthood facility
addressed above. The facility has refused to provide a religious exemption to the sonogram
requirement, which is enforced by the Texas Department of State Health Services.
This letter is a demand for a religious exemption to the sonogram requirement. TEX. CIV. PRAC.
& REM.CODE § 110.006. I use the word “demand” in the legal sense; i.e. only as the assertion of a
legal right, without connoting any ill will. If this matter does turn to litigation, please know that TST
and Ms. Doe both support the mission of Planned Parenthood and understand its obligation to adhere
to applicable Texas law and regulations.
The primary legal basis for the religious exemption is the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration
Act (“TRFRA”) encoded at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 110.001 et seq. Under TRFRA, the
government “may not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion [unless it] demonstrates
that the application of the burden to the person . . . is in furtherance of a compelling governmental
interest; and . . . is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.” Barr v. City of Sinton, 295
S.W.3d 287, 296 (Tex. 2009) (quoting TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE § 110.003(a)-(b)).
Ms. Doe will be participating in an abortion ritual. The details of the ritual are enclosed with this
email. Importantly, the abortion ritual (1) requires an abortion; and (2) affirms her religious
subscription to TST’s Third and Fifth Tenets.1,2 But before Ms. Doe can get her abortion–and
therefore participate in the abortion ritual–the government has required that she get a sonogram.
TEX. HEALTH & S § 171.012(a)(4) and (5).
The requirements substantially interfere with Ms. Doe’s religious beliefs and practices for two
reasons. First, the requirements are a precondition to Ms. Doe’s ability to participate in a religious
ceremony. It is a substantial interference per se for the State to place a regulatory hurdle–one that
costs money–in front of a religious exercise. The State might as well tax and regulate Mass.
Second, the requirements violate her sincerely-held religious beliefs. As stated above, Ms. Doe’s
sincerely-held religious beliefs are that (1) her actions are to be rooted in peer-reviewed scientific
consensus; and (2) her bodily autonomy is inviolable. These requirements violate both Tenets.
There is no medical basis for Texas to require a sonogram before an abortion. See Dr. Jen Russo,
“Mandated Ultrasound Prior to Abortion” Virtual Mentor. 2014;16(4):240-244. doi:
10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.4.ecas1-1404. Its sole apparent purpose is to influence some patients
away from the abortion and toward childrearing. See Gatter M, Kimport K, Foster DG, Weitz TA,
Upadhyay UD. Relationship between ultrasound viewing and proceeding to abortion. Obstet Gynecol.
2014;123(1):81-87.
The requirement that Ms. Doe be presented with the “opportunity” to see the sonogram images
and hear the heart auscultation is a transparent effort to infringe upon Ms. Doe’s zone of conscience.
There is no subtlety to the State’s position, communicated through these requirements, that Ms. Doe
should feel doubt, guilt, and shame about her decision to have this abortion. See Planned Parenthood
of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 852, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 2807, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992).
I acknowledge Texas’s efforts to minimize the intrusion on Ms. Doe’s zone of conscience. She
can, after all, reject the “opportunity” to see the sonogram images and hear the heart auscultation.
TEX. HEALTH & S § 171.0122. But there is no mechanism for her to reject the opportunity to
receive the verbal explanation of the results. Id. It strains imagination why the victim of a sexual
assault can waive this requirement, but someone with a religious objection cannot. The same is true
for the waiting period between sonogram and abortion. TEX. HEALTH & S § 171.012. There is no
credible basis for this period except to intrude on Ms. Doe’s conscience.
Because these requirements have no basis in science, they violate the Fifth Tenet. Because the
unifying purpose of all these requirements is to undermine Ms. Doe’s decision for her health and her
future, they violate the Third Tenet.
Based on the foregoing, these requirements substantially interfere with Ms. Doe’s religious beliefs
and practices. Thus, it must survive the strict scrutiny test. While it has been established that this
statute survives intermediate scrutiny, see Texas Med. Providers Performing Abortion Servs. v. Lakey,
1The Third Tenet is “One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.”
2The Fifth Tenet is “Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care
never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.”
667 F.3d 570, 576 (5th Cir. 2012), I think it falls short under the strict scrutiny analysis. Under the
circumstances, a religious exemption to the requirements is reasonable and will obviate the need of
expensive litigation.
I anticipate an argument that the abortion ritual is not “really” religious. That would be ill-advised.
TST is a bona fide religion. Satanic Temple v. City of Scottsdale, No. CV18-00621-PHX-DGC, 2020
WL 587882 (D. Ariz. Feb. 6, 2020) (holding that TST is a bona fide religion). It is not a valid judicial
inquiry to determine the plausibility of TST’s Tenets or their application to the matter at hand. E.g.
Employment Div., Dep't of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 887, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 1604
(1990) (“Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to
determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim.”) And the
Texas Supreme Court has held that an activity can be religious for one person, even though that same
activity can be secular for someone else. Barr v. City of Sinton, 295 S.W.3d 287, 300 (Tex. 2009) (“the
fact that a halfway house can be secular does not mean that it cannot be religious.”)
It is my understanding that Ms. Doe has an appointment scheduled for February 6, 2021. If
litigation will be necessary to vindicate my client’s rights, please let me know at your earliest
convenience. If I do not hear that a religious exemption to Ms. Doe will be granted by February 4,
2021 at 5:00 pm Central Time, I will have to draft the complaint.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Kezhaya