The Life at Conception Act: Implications for Religious and Reproductive Freedom
- WULR Team
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
Religous implications of H.R. 722
Published December 11th, 2025
Written by Peyton DeVepo
On January 20th, 2025, Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Missouri, proposed House Resolution 722, or the Life at Conception Act. This bill seeks to implement the idea of a “preborn human person” as subject to the right to life protected under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Article 1, Section 3 of the proposed bill suggests the definition of human persons should be expanded “to include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.” The Life at Conception Act has ebbed and flowed in and out of Congress for years without ratification, but the 2025 provision of the bill overwhelmingly attempts to control women’s bodies under tight-knit jurisdiction over reproductive health. Most notable about the 2025 bill is the exclusion of exceptions for in-vitro fertilization, a fertility treatment where a woman’s eggs are externally fertilized by sperm in a lab, and contraceptives, as seen in previous provisions of the bill. In a 2017 version of the Life at Conception Act proposed by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, S. 231 suggests “nothing in this Act shall be constructed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in-vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.” In contrast, H.R. 722 does not make this distinction, leaving the future of such methods uncertain.
The Life at Conception Act is just one example of the larger ongoing conservative battle to dismantle abortion at the federal level, with the overarching goal being the enforcement of religious dogma over the existence of women’s bodies. “Every life is a sacred gift from God, deserving of dignity and protection from the moment of conception,” said Burlison in a press release about the proposed bill. The reference to God is indisputable evidence of the underlying religious impetus behind such anti-reproductive rights bills. The clear religious motivations behind H.R. 722 and its counterparts warrant questions regarding the merit of modern-day separation of church and state, as increasing bills borne from religious beliefs challenge the Constitutional right to freedom of, and from, religion as protected under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause, work harmoniously to ensure government neutrality on religion, protecting every citizen equally without interference of religious bias or discrimination. The Establishment Clause bars the government from establishing or favoring specific religions, whereas the Free Exercise Clause guarantees the right to freedom of religion without governmental interference. The protections these clauses guarantee are brought into question when lawmakers seek to implement policies overtly aligning with, or discriminating against, specific religions. In the context of abortion bans, both the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause can be infringed upon if there is found to be 1) a clear religious incentive behind the bans, violating the Establishment Clause, or 2) if these bans limit the freedom to exercise religious beliefs, violating the Free Exercise Clause. In 2022, Jewish synagogue Generation to Generation filed a lawsuit against the State of Florida for the abortion ban under House Bill 5 on the grounds that the bill violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, according to Clearing House. The synagogue argued Florida’s HB 5 violates the Free Exercise Clause because in Jewish law, “abortion is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical, well-being of the woman.” The Free Exercise Clause guarantees freedom of religion from government interference, making Florida’s abortion ban a substantial burden on Jewish women’s freedom to exercise their beliefs. A substantial burden is a specific requirement for a law to be found guilty of violating the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, as stated under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the government from “substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” According to this, a law can only impede upon the freedom to exercise religion if said law “1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and 2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” There is perhaps no greater restrictive means than legislating one’s bodily autonomy and the sovereignty to make decisions regarding personal health. As these bills become increasingly more extreme in their proposals, pro-life policymakers fail to support and defend the Constitution.
Burlison’s reference to God in regards to H.R. 722 is emblematic of the clear religious motivations behind these anti-abortion policies, leaving the future of reproductive freedom at the mercy of religious ideology regardless of one’s personal beliefs. By imposing religious constraints around healthcare, lawmakers such as Burlison have set an unconstitutional precedent disproportionately affecting the liberty and freedom of women in attempts to push policies arguably violating the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses.
