Latest news with #IllinoisHealthCareRightofConscienceAct
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Federal judge sides with pro-life pregnancy centers, finds part of Illinois abortion law unconstitutional
A federal judge in Illinois has issued a split ruling in a case against a state abortion law, finding part of the law violates the constitutional right to free speech by compelling medical professionals who do not believe in abortion to discuss its benefits. U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston on Friday found part of the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act unconstitutional in a case brought by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three pro-life pregnancy centers. "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," Johnston said in the ruling. Johnston, however, ruled another section of the law in question constitutional. That part of the law requires medical providers, if a patient asks, to either refer or transfer patients, or give written information about which other providers may offer services that they "can't provide because of a conscience-based objection." Texas Lawmakers Consider Bipartisan Bill Aimed At Clarifying Exceptions To State's Abortion Restrictions "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," Johnston wrote. "Requiring the Plaintiffs to provide the requested information is a rational means of meeting that goal." Read On The Fox News App Of the two sections of the law in question, Johnston wrote that requiring providers to discuss abortion treatment options "mandates speech regardless of anything else; whereas, the latter requires actions when prompted by a patient." Pro-life Activist Assaulted, Bloodied During Street Interview About Abortion Following Johnston's split ruling, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represented the plaintiffs in the three-day bench trial in 2023, said pro-life pregnancy centers "must be free to continue their life-affirming work without fear of government punishment." "No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions," said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot, who argued before the court in September 2023. "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." The Thomas More Society, a non-profit that opposes abortion, said it is planning to appeal the split decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Click To Get The Fox News App "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, the group's vice president and head of litigation, said in a statement, adding that the "fight is far from over."Original article source: Federal judge sides with pro-life pregnancy centers, finds part of Illinois abortion law unconstitutional
Fox News
08-04-2025
- Health
- Fox News
Federal judge sides with pro-life pregnancy centers, finds part of Illinois abortion law unconstitutional
A federal judge in Illinois has issued a split ruling in a case against a state abortion law, finding part of the law violates the constitutional right to free speech by compelling medical professionals who do not believe in abortion to discuss its benefits. U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston on Friday found part of the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act unconstitutional in a case brought by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three pro-life pregnancy centers. "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," Johnston said in the ruling. Johnston, however, ruled another section of the law in question constitutional. That part of the law requires medical providers, if a patient asks, to either refer or transfer patients, or give written information about which other providers may offer services that they "can't provide because of a conscience-based objection." "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," Johnston wrote. "Requiring the Plaintiffs to provide the requested information is a rational means of meeting that goal." Of the two sections of the law in question, Johnston wrote that requiring providers to discuss abortion treatment options "mandates speech regardless of anything else; whereas, the latter requires actions when prompted by a patient." Following Johnston's split ruling, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represented the plaintiffs in the three-day bench trial in 2023, said pro-life pregnancy centers "must be free to continue their life-affirming work without fear of government punishment." "No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions," said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot, who argued before the court in September 2023. "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." The Thomas More Society, a non-profit that opposes abortion, said it is planning 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, the group's vice president and head of litigation, said in a statement, adding that the "fight is far from over."
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Federal court overturns Illinois law requiring pro-life centers to promote abortion
ROCKFORD, Ill. (WTVO) — A federal court has struck down an Illinois law that required pro-life pregnancy centers to promote the 'benefits' of abortion to patients. U.S. District Court Judge Iain Johnson handed down his decision in the Schroeder, et al. v Treto, Jr. case, saying, 'Constitutionally, to obtain the liability shield, the State can't require medical professionals to discuss with patients what the State believes are the benefits of abortions,' requiring pro-life physicians to 'to effectively endorse a course of conduct they find morally abhorrent.' In 2016, Illinois passed Senate Bill 1564, which amended the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which granted a legal shield for conscientous objectors of abortion, so long as they discussed 'benefits' of the procedure and referred clients to abortion providers, upon request. The suit was filed on behalf of Dr. Ronald Schroeder, 1st Way Pregnancy Support Services, and Pregnancy Aid South Suburbs. In 2017, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the amendment, which held for nearly a decade until the court's final judgment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
