According to the court's published opinion, Eguia complained that "the State’s definition of 'individual' 'has the effect of endorsing religion as it is based solely upon a religious belief that life begins at conception.'"
Religious belief? Okay, then-- when does an individual member of the species homo sapiens begin his biological life?
They never seem to answer that question.
Justice Elsa Alcala concluded that, because a statute does not violate the Establishment Clause when serving a secular purpose, "the definition of 'individual' serves the State’s legitimate secular interest in protecting unborn children from the criminal acts of others."
The court also cited precedent to affirm that, "a statute is not automatically rendered unconstitutional simply because it advances ideals that harmonize with religious ideals."
No kidding! How convenient for militant secularists to object only to those points of religion they disagree with, but not to the ones they do agree with. Take theft, for instance. Taking someone else's property is wrong in any religion. But somehow they never object to that, do they?
In addition, Eguia argued that under such a statute abortion practitioners would also be guilty of murder, but the court noted that earlier legislation had already "narrowed the class of murderers who may be charged by specifically excluding 'conduct committed by the mother of an unborn child' and 'a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician ... with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure.'"
