A state appeals court said Tuesday the Missouri Supreme Court must decide issues that Mary Doe raised in a 2015 lawsuit.
"Because we believe that this case raises real and substantial constitutional claims," Judge Thomas H. Newton wrote for a three-judge appeals court panel, "it is within the Missouri Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction (under) the Missouri Constitution, and we hereby order its transfer."
In a statement, Attorney General Josh Hawley said: "I look forward to vigorously defending Missouri's sensible waiting period law from this challenge by the Satanic Temple in the Missouri Supreme Court."
Doe - who was born in 1993 and otherwise isn't identified in the court records - thinks Missouri's abortion informed consent law violates both her religious freedom rights and the U.S. Constitution's ban on the government establishing a religion.
Her main attorney, W. James Mac Naughton of Newton, New Jersey, said Doe is "an adherent to the religious principles articulated by The Satanic Temple, one of which is the life of a human being begins at viability and a non-viable fetus is part of her body over which she has absolute dominion.
"The religion clauses of the First Amendment prohibit government from indoctrinating anyone into any religious beliefs."
In the appeals court ruling, Newton noted Doe "traveled by bus to St. Louis in May 2015" to have an abortion, then challenged the state's abortion regulations in the same month.
Last December, Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem granted the government's motion that Doe failed to state a claim the court could act on, and dismissed the lawsuit "with prejudice" - meaning Doe can't file a new lawsuit with the same claims.
However, Beetem's finding didn't prohibit Doe from appealing his ruling.
Doe's lawsuit said she was required to comply with the informed consent law, including receiving printed materials, having an opportunity to view an active ultrasound of the fetus and to hear the fetal heartbeat, then wait 72 hours before the abortion could be performed.
Newton wrote: "Ms. Doe alleges that these abortion preconditions promote the religion-based 'Missouri Tenet,' that 'the life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.'
"She further claims that these preconditions 'cause doubt, guilt and shame in a pregnant woman who does not believe the Missouri Tenet' to achieve their purpose, which 'is to discourage a pregnant woman from getting an abortion.'"
Doe's lawsuit reported she worked about 45 hours to earn the money to pay for the ultrasound, which her abortion provider required under the law, as well as for the "Audible Heartbeat Offer" and lodging for the 72-hour waiting period.
Newton wrote: "She alleged that the Informed Consent Law caused her to devote some 45 hours of her life 'to finance the promotion of a religious doctrine she does not believe.'"
A lengthy footnote to the court's ruling explained that Doe's own, "deeply held religious beliefs" include the idea that her "body is inviolable and subject to her will alone."
The appeals court opinion also said Doe "alleged that the state has no compelling interest in applying these restrictions to her because she had already made an informed and voluntary decision to undergo an abortion before entering the abortion provider's facility. By its terms, the Informed Consent Law's purpose is to ensure that a woman's decision to have an abortion is voluntary and fully informed."
The U.S. Supreme Court last year overturned a Texas law that included a 72-hour waiting period before an abortion can be performed.
But, the Missouri appeals court noted Tuesday, neither the U.S. nor Missouri Supreme Courts have determined whether required printed material, an ultrasound, fetal heartbeat offer or the 72-hour waiting period "violate the Religion Clause rights of pregnant women who do not believe in the 'Missouri Tenet.'"