Illinois Demands Pro-life Pregnancy Centers Promote Abortion – ACLJ Files Amicus Brief in Key Case

The American Center for Law & Justice has filed an amicus brief in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Treto, a case that revisits a question the Supreme Court has already addressed – whether the government may compel citizens of faith to violate their conscience or whether the Constitution still protects their right to stand firm in defense of innocent human life.

Illinois has taken what was once a law meant to protect conscience and twisted it into a weapon to crush it. The state now demands that pro-life Pregnancy Resource Centers (“PRCs”) – organizations dedicated to supporting mothers, protecting babies, and offering compassionate life-affirming care – must help facilitate abortion by providing referrals, transfers, and written information directing women to abortion providers. These are not neutral administrative tasks. This is the government ordering pro-life PRCs to play a role in ending human lives.

For years, Illinois recognized that healthcare providers should never be forced to violate their moral convictions. But amendments to the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act flipped that principle upside down. Legal protections now come with strings attached: To keep their protections, prolife PRCs must promote access to abortion – the very act they exist to prevent.

That is not “healthcare policy.” It is ideological coercion. Take action with us and add your name to the petition: Defeat Pro-Abortion Propaganda.

The First Amendment protects far more than the right to speak. It protects the right not to be forced to speak; however, Illinois is demanding speech. Referring a woman for abortion, transferring her to an abortion provider, or supplying paperwork clearing the path to abortion all communicate a clear message: that abortion is “legitimate care,” something worthy of endorsement and facilitation. That is expressive conduct. That is speech. And the Constitution protects the right not to express that point of view.

But perhaps even more troubling is the fact that this law is not neutral in whom it targets. It applies only to conscientious objectors. It is aimed squarely at pro-life PRCs and those whose faith compels them to protect unborn life. To enforce the law, the government must first examine an organization’s beliefs about abortion and identify its religious objection. That is not hidden bias; it is open, direct viewpoint discrimination.

This is exactly the type of hostility toward pro-life conviction the Supreme Court rejected in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra and its sister case, LivingWell v. Becerra. California tried to force pro-life centers to advertise taxpayer-funded abortion services. The Supreme Court condemned that attempt. Illinois is now trying to do the same thing under a different label – but coercion is coercion, no matter how it is packaged.

Illinois would like to pretend this is merely “government speech,” but that simply isn’t true. The state is not speaking. It is conscripting private, religiously motivated organizations – pro-life centers that exist to defend life and protect mothers – as unwilling messengers for abortion access.

The Supreme Court has made clear that the government cannot force private citizens to carry its ideological agenda, and when full constitutional scrutiny is applied, Illinois’ law collapses. It punishes the very people that the laws of conscience were enacted to protect. It ignores numerous other ways the state could promote abortion without violating religious liberty.

If Illinois wants to push abortion, it can do its own messaging. It cannot force pro-life centers to do it for them.

At stake here is whether America will allow government to dictate morality – to say, “You may believe life is sacred, but you may not live as though life is sacred.” If Illinois prevails, states nationwide will have a blueprint for crushing prolife convictions under the weight of regulatory force. Make no mistake: This is not an accident. It is a deliberate strategy to weaken the witness, mission, and effectiveness of pro-life PRCs by forcing them to help facilitate abortions or face punishment.

The ACLJ is no stranger to this battle. We helped litigate one of the companion cases that led to the Supreme Court’s landmark NIFLA decision. We understand what is truly at stake – not just legally, but morally, culturally, and spiritually. Pro-life PRCs stand on the front lines providing hope, resources, support, and life-affirming alternatives to abortion. They should not be punished for refusing to participate in the killing of unborn children.

Our amicus brief urges the Seventh Circuit to strike down Illinois’ unconstitutional mandate and reaffirm that the government may not compel believers to betray their convictions. No person of faith should ever be forced to help end a human life. No pro-life center should ever be required to facilitate abortion. And no government should wield its power to silence conscience and force obedience to a pro-abortion ideology.

We will continue to stand for life. We will continue to stand for religious liberty. And we will continue to defend those who refuse to bow to the demand that they help take innocent human life – sign our petition to defeat pro-abortion propaganda.