Yesterday we filed an amicus brief (a “friend of the court” brief) before the Northern District of Illinois in a continuation of our nationwide fight on behalf of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (“CPCs”). These amicus briefs allow us to set arguments and legal analysis before a court in cases where we are not counsel for a party, but we have additional information or insight that may assist the court as it reaches a decision on the matter at hand.
The case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, et al. v. Rauner, et al., involves the effects on CPCs and CPC workers of an amendment to Illinois’s Health Care Right of Conscience Act (“the Act”) that was passed last year. The Act allows healthcare workers to refuse to perform abortions on the basis of their conscientious objections – an Act for which we have worked to enact and protect.
Now, while CPC workers may still decline offering abortion or objectionable contraceptive services, the passage of SB 1564 requires Plaintiffs to discuss abortion as a legitimate option for their pregnant patients in direct violation of their moral and religious beliefs.
Moreover, if the patient requests assistance that the physician will not provide because of his or her conscientious objection, the physician then must point the patient to where she may obtain such assistance.
In other words, although physicians are still able to refuse to conduct procedures they object to, they must now usher a patient into the office of another doctor who will.
Additionally, physicians are forced to not only discuss the objectionable procedures as viabletreatment options, but must also offer an explanation of their so-called benefits. Not only is the state mandating that CPC workers discuss abortion services with their patients, but they are forced to do so from a supportive perspective. This is textbook content- and viewpoint-discrimination in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
We explained in our amicus brief that in enacting SB 1564, the State of Illinois did exactly what the First Amendment forbids. It gave partisans on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate a decided advantage in expressing their views on how conversations should be shaped with women considering the options facing them in crisis pregnancies.
Moreover, SB 1564 also unconstitutionally burdens CPC workers’ right to freedom of assembly and association. SB 1564 impermissibly interferes with, restrains, and undermines the ability of Plaintiffs to speak with their patients without complying with the bill’s requirements.
SB 1564 prevents assembly between CPC workers in Illinois and pregnant women seeking healthcare unless the CPC workers follow a script that violates their moral and religious beliefs. Clearly such a statute is a “direct,” “substantial,” and “significant” infringement on the Plaintiffs’ freedom of assembly protected by the First Amendment.
We encouraged the Court to support the Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction that would halt the enforcement of SB 1564 as the case moves forward on the merits.
Along with your support through our petitions, we’ve been involved in several cases to protect the rights of CPC workers to act within their beliefs to save unborn babies and advocate for mothers in crisis pregnancy situations. Even now, before the Supreme Court of the United States, we are representing three CPCs in California against an unconstitutional law similar to SB 1564.
We will keep watch on the progress of this case in Illinois, and others like it, and continue to fight this crucial battle on behalf of the most vulnerable among us.
We’re engaged in a comprehensive legal strategy to defend pro-life pregnancy centers. Stand with us. Have your gift doubled today.
Your data is secure. Learn More »
Can the government compel pro-life pregnancy centers—facilities that offer abortion alternatives and support to women—to tell their clients that they might be able to get a free abortion, paid for by the state? While the State of California says, yes , the First Amendment says, no . As explained in...
The numbers are shocking. Earlier this week, Planned Parenthood released its annual report for the 2015-2016 fiscal year after a six month delay. What this report devastatingly confirms is what we have been arguing all along: Planned Parenthood is in the business of abortion, its priority is not in...
Earlier this year, I wrote about the significant pro-life victory when President Trump reinstated Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Policy to prohibit the use of U.S. taxpayer money in foreign aid to organizations that either fund or promote abortions around the world. President Trump did exactly what...
How could France censor a pro-life video message of people with Down Syndrome talking about how much they love life and love their mothers? Our European affiliate, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), has just filed a legal application with the European Court of Human Rights to challenge...