Satanic Temple challenges Texas law that requires proper burial for aborted babies

The Satanic Temple has stated that it will not comply with the new Texas regulations which require aborted babies to be buried or cremated.

Last week, the Texas Department of Health and Human Services finalized the rules that would require abortion facilities to bury or cremate aborted babies instead of throwing them in landfills or garbage disposal.

The Temple claimed that its objection to the new rule was based on religious grounds.

"The Satanic Temple believes burial rites are a well-established component of religious practice. This is undisputed in the entirety of US legal history," the group stated on its website.

"In addition, members of The Satanic Temple believe in the inviolability of the body and, as such, these rules contradict our fundamental beliefs," it added.

The new rules, which was proposed back in July, will take effect on Dec. 19. It will affect hospitals and abortion centers, but it does not apply to women who miscarry or perform chemical abortions at home, according to LifeSite.

"Clearly, the State of Texas has no compelling reason because these rules were not enacted to promote health and safety, but rather to harass and burden women who terminate their pregnancies," the statement continued.

Texas HHS spokesman Bryan Black said that the new regulations were created in order "to ensure Texas law maintains the highest standards of human dignity."

The Satanic Temple maintained that its members are not required to comply with the law, but the group will need legal support to protect its members' rights.

Some pro-choice advocates were concerned that the new regulation would add to the cost of abortions but the HHS stated that the cost would not be more than what the abortion facilities already pay to dispose of the aborted babies.

Lawyers with the Center for Reproductive Rights have suggested that the new rules are likely to be challenged in court. The lawyers stated in a letter to health officials that the proposal "will almost certainly trigger costly litigation."