Illinois Judge Delivers split Ruling on Abortion Law, citing Free Speech Concerns
Rockford, Ill. — A federal court has partially struck down a 2016 Illinois law, finding that it violates the free speech rights of anti-abortion medical professionals [2],[1], [3].
Key points of the Ruling
- The Ruling: U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston issued a split ruling on a case brought by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three anti-abortion pregnancy centers.
- Free Speech Violation: Judge Johnston found that compelling anti-abortion medical professionals to provide information about abortion care without being prompted violates their constitutional right to free speech [2], [1], [3].
- Constitutional Section: The judge upheld the section requiring providers to refer, transfer, or provide written information about other providers if they have a conscience-based objection, when requested by a patient.
Legal Arguments and Justifications
The plaintiffs argued that the law imposed unconstitutional conditions by forcing them to discuss the benefits
of abortion, which they do not believe in, and that abortion counseling would encourage the procedure.
The Court concludes that Public Act 99-690 Section 6.1(1), in exchange for a liability shield, compels speech, requiring a discussion about the risks and benefits of childbirth and abortion. That compelled discussion violates the First Amendment.U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston
The section struck down mandated that healthcare providers inform patients of legal treatment options,and the risks and benefits of the treatment options in a timely manner.
Judge Johnston reasoned that requiring providers to discuss abortion treatment options mandates speech regardless of anything else; whereas,the latter requires actions when prompted by a patient.
However, Johnston noted that providing information upon a patient’s request is a rational
tool for the state.
Conceivably, the State has a legitimate interest in facilitating abortions provided by health care professionals to reduce the number of ‘self-managed abortions’ or ‘self-induced abortions,’ which are inherently dangerous. Requiring the Plaintiffs to provide the requested information is a rational means of meeting that goal.U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston
Background of the Law
The 2016 amendment to the Illinois Health care Right of Conscience Act, signed into law by former Gov. Bruce Rauner, was met with strong opposition from Catholic and anti-abortion groups. It required healthcare providers to discuss the benefits
of abortion and, if requested, refer clients to abortion providers to receive legal protections for conscientious objection.
The Thomas More society sued on behalf of Dr. Ronald Schroeder of 1st Way Pregnancy Support Services and Pregnancy aid South Suburbs. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in 2017, temporarily blocking both amendments to the law.
Reactions to the Ruling
State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-chicago, a sponsor of the 2016 amendment, described the split ruling as both gratifying
and disappointing.
It is indeed gratifying to see that the court recognized that patients must be provided with information about the best options for care when they see a provider who denies a particular type of care. At the same time, it is disappointing that the most logical and direct way of ensuring the flow of this information has been blocked, putting the burden on patients to request the information.State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-chicago
The Alliance Defending Freedom, representing the plaintiffs, emphasized the importance of allowing anti-abortion pregnancy centers to continue their life-affirming work without fear of government punishment.
No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions. The court was right to protect pregnancy centers’ freedom to advocate that life is a human right. The government can’t compel medical professionals to choose between violating the law and violating the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm.Kevin Theriot,Senior Counsel,alliance Defending freedom
The Thomas More Society plans to appeal the split decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
Thomas More Society will keep fighting to protect our heroic pro-life ministries. Forcing pro-life doctors and pregnancy centers to facilitate abortion unconstitutionally burdens their faith and conscience.Peter Breen, Vice president and Head of Litigation, Thomas More Society
neither Gov. JB Pritzker’s office nor Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office immediately responded to requests for comment, though Raoul’s office indicated they are reviewing the decision.
