opinion
Jewish Tradition ‘Permits’
Abortion. If You Believe in Bodily
Autonomy, That’s Not Enough
BY MICHAL RAUCHER
E arlier this month, Israeli Health Minister Nitzan
Horowitz responded to the draft U.S. Supreme
Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, “A
woman’s rights over her own body are hers alone.”
It might seem odd that the Israeli health minister
was commenting on American abortion law, but
his response, contained in a tweet, addresses
a theme common to the abortion discussion in
Israel and America that I research as an ethicist
and scholar of reproduction among Jews.

In the 1970s, the Israeli Knesset debated the
legalization of abortion. After several years of dis-
cussions, it ultimately passed a law that permitted
abortion in certain circumstances: 1) If a woman is
younger than 17 or older than 40; 2) when preg-
nancy results from rape, incest or extramarital
relations; 3) under the possibility that the baby will
be born with a physical or mental deformity; and
4) when the continuation of the pregnancy could
endanger a woman’s life or mental health. This
law allows for certain abortions to be performed
until the 39th week of pregnancy.

When I teach Americans about abortion law in
Israel, they often express shock that Israel seems
much more progressive than America. That’s
because their frame of reference for religion
and abortion is a particular strain of American
anti-abortion Christianity. My students — col-
lege-aged and adult, Jewish or not — are sur-
prised to see a country so strongly influenced by
religion that is not opposed to abortion.

Yet in one important way the Israeli and
American attitudes toward abortion are similar.

They both reflect the fundamental assumption
that abortion is wrong, and one must have a “good
enough” reason to do something that is otherwise
wrong. This is called the justification approach
to abortion. Certain abortions are justified, while
others are not. The justification approach to abor-
tion also assumes that women were meant to be
mothers. As a result, not wanting to be pregnant
for nine months, give birth or raise a child are
not considered good enough reasons to get an
abortion. In order to qualify for an abortion that is legal
and paid for by the state, Israeli women have to sit
in front of a committee and tell them why they are
requesting an abortion. Although 98% of abortion
requests are approved, the law reflects the belief
16 MAY 26, 2022 | JEWISHEXPONENT.COM
that women cannot or should not make this deci-
sion on their own.

Consider the case of a pregnant 24-year-old
married woman who is pregnant from consensual
sex but does not want to be pregnant because of
the potential harm to her career. Or a 35-year-old
married haredi (ultra-Orthodox) woman who has
eight children and who simply cannot care for
one more. In Israel, both of these women must lie
or otherwise mislead the committee to get their
abortions. Horowitz opposes these committees and has
been advocating to get rid of them, at least
through the first trimester. He says that women
should not need to give any reason for their
request, and that nobody should have to deter-
mine whether their request is valid.

There’s a temptation right
now to say that
restrictions on abortion
rights in the United States
violate the religious
freedom of Jews.

While we don’t have these committees in
America, we have heard a lot this month about
the legislation that many states have developed,
each providing different circumstances under
which they would permit abortion. Some say that
abortions will only be permitted if the woman’s
life is in danger. Others allow abortion after rape
or incest. And of course one’s ability to terminate
a pregnancy is already limited by where one lives,
how far along one is in pregnancy and the finan-
cial resources one has available.

Well-meaning Jewish groups often draw on rab-
binic sources to claim that Judaism is supportive
of abortion rights. Unfortunately here, too, we see
the justification approach. Last week, in a state-
ment, the Orthodox Union explained that it cannot
support an “absolute ban” on abortion because
Jewish law requires abortion when “carrying the
pregnancy to term poses real risk to the life of the
mother.” This popular argument is commonly also
heard among more progressive Jewish groups.

But when you hear that “Jewish law permits and
sometimes requires abortion,” you must also lis-
ten to the assumption underlying this statement:
Women do not have the bodily autonomy to make
that decision on their own. Jewish law must per-
mit it — and sometimes demands it, regardless of
what a woman prefers. These statements, often
used to express support for abortion rights, are
ultimately stymied by the assumptions of rabbinic
law, a system that does not support bodily auton-
omy or the ability to make decisions about one’s
own body.

The statement by the Orthodox Union goes
even further. It also explicitly prohibits what the
group and others call “abortion on demand,” or
abortion because someone doesn’t want to be
pregnant. By contrast, the Reform movement’s Religious
Action Center bases its position on reproductive
rights on “the core belief that each person should
have agency and autonomy over their own bod-
ies.” Other progressive Jewish groups, including
the National Council of Jewish Women, have
gone on record highlighting the value of bodily
autonomy over reproduction, but too few. Some
non-Orthodox rabbis even expressly forbid it.

Unless you support a person’s right to bodily
autonomy, then you are supporting a system
wherein someone else determines what you or
anyone else can do with their bodies. It does
not matter whether that person is a lawmaker, a
judge, a contemporary rabbi or one from 2,000
years ago. It does not matter whether that per-
son would permit most abortions or even require
some. There’s a temptation right now to say that
restrictions on abortion rights in the United States
violate the religious freedom of Jews. That’s true,
to an extent. But a religious argument based on
Jewish law and rabbinic texts only goes so far.

Those of us who support reproductive health,
rights and justice ought to be honest about the
connection between that and our rabbinic tradi-
tion. I believe in the same bodily autonomy argu-
ment that Nitzan Horowitz makes. It may not be an
argument rooted in Jewish law, but it is a Jewish
argument — and it’s time to make it. JE
Michal Raucher is an associate professor of
Jewish studies at Rutgers University and author
of “Conceiving Agency: Reproductive Authority
Among Haredi Women” (Indiana University Press).