A Federal District Court has granted a preliminary injunction in a right-of-conscience case, the controversy of which the Illinois Family Institute has been following for several years.

The religious liberty defending law firm of Mauck & Baker, LLC is reporting some very good news out of that Federal District Court regarding an Illinois law mandating that pro-life medical personnel provide their clients with positive information about abortion services:

CHICAGO— Wednesday a Federal District Court granted the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) and several pro-life pregnancy centers a preliminary injunction against an Illinois law that forces pro-life healthcare professionals to make abortion referrals. The injunction prohibits the State from enforcing the law against healthcare facilities or physicians who have a conscience objection to performing abortions or making abortion referrals.

In their news release, Mauck & Baker provided background on the state statute and the challenge to it:

In 2016, Illinois amended its Healthcare Right of Conscience Act to require pro-life doctors and medical staff to provide referrals to abortion clinics and to speak of the “benefits” of abortion as a treatment option.

Late last year, another group of pregnancy centers obtained an injunction in state court.

The words of the opponents of the legislation were echoed in the court’s opinion, which questioned “why Illinois would require the very individuals who object to abortion services to become a source of information about them.”

In yesterday’s order, the federal court wrote, “It is clear that the amended act targets the free speech rights of people who have a specific viewpoint.”

The federal court preliminary injunction broadly protects all “healthcare facilities, health care personnel, or physicians who object to providing information about health care providers who may offer abortion or who object to describing abortion as a beneficial treatment option.”

Here is Noel W. Sterett, co-counsel on the case with the Alliance Defending Freedom:

“The government has no business forcing pro-life doctors and pregnancy care centers in Illinois to operate as referral agents for the abortion industry. A law that targets medical professionals because of their pro-life views and right of conscience is unconstitutional and unethical.”

To read the entire court order, click here.

Click here to learn more about the law firm of Mauck & Baker, LLC, which “was established in 2001 to defend the broken and the religiously oppressed.”

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Written by Ryan T. Anderson

Earlier today, President Barack Obama issued an executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Employers should respect the intrinsic dignity of all of their employees, but as I explain in greater detail at the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal, today’s executive order undermines our nation’s commitment to pluralism and religious liberty.

The order does not contain any religious-liberty protections — though it does leave in place an older federal regulation that permits religious organizations that favor employment of co-religionists to continue such practices. But there is no protection for organizations that hire based on mission — not on affiliation — to continue to do so. This in effect excludes taxpayers who hold conscientious beliefs about sexuality that run counter to Obama’s from being eligible for federal contracts funded with their own tax dollars:

Today’s order is problematic for four reasons, but there is at least one thing that can be done in response.

1. Today’s order undermines our nation’s commitment to reasonable pluralism and reasonable diversity, as it disregards the consciences and liberties of people of goodwill who happen not to share the government’s opinions about issues of sexuality. All Americans should be free to contract with the government without penalty because of their reasonable beliefs about morally contentious issues. The federal government should not use the tax code and government contracting to reshape civil society about controversial moral issues that have nothing to do with the federal contract at stake.

2. Today’s order treats conscientious judgments about behavior as if they were insidious acts of discrimination akin to racism or sexism. But sexual orientation and gender identity are not like race. Indeed, sexual orientation and gender identity are unclear, ambiguous terms. They can refer to voluntary behaviors as well as thoughts and inclinations, and it is reasonable for employers to make distinctions based on actions. By contrast, “race” and “sex” clearly refer to traits, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, these traits (unlike voluntary behaviors) do not affect fitness for any job.

3. Today’s executive order also does not contain a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) exemption. BFOQs allow employers to make employment decisions so long as those decisions are honestly related to job qualifications. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act contains a BFOQ that allows employers to take sex into account: hiring a female camp counselor at an all-girls sleep-away summer camp, for example, which might otherwise seem to be “sex discrimination.”

4. Today’s executive order is unnecessary. Voluntary market forces are already eliminating true discrimination, as making employment decisions based on non-relevant factors hurts one’s ability to compete. But the federal government should not penalize those contractors that do conscientiously judge sexual orientation or gender identity to be relevant to their mission and purpose.

5. In response to this executive order, Congress has an opportunity to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience. Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation, or contracting. This is the policy approach proposed by the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act (H.R. 3133, S. 1808). 

Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience fosters a more diverse civil sphere. Indeed, tolerance is essential to promoting peaceful coexistence even amid disagreement.

This article was originally posted at the National Review Online website.

Over one hundred Catholic bishops and institutions across the nation have issued statements denouncing the Obama administration’s national requirement to include contraception in employees’ health benefits.  Bishop Thomas G. Doran of the Rockford Diocese issued a strongly worded statement urging parishes to stand up against what he calls an assault on religious liberty.

“The federal government, which claims to be ‘of, by and for the people,’ has just dealt a heavy blow to at least a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful,” reads the letter, which is signed by Bishop Doran.

The Affordable Care Act mandates faith-based employers offer employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and contraception.  Bishops across the nation are asking Catholics to voice their opposition by contacting Congress to support legislation that would reverse the Obama Administrations health care reform law.

“We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law,” the statement said. “People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom.”

Catholic Church teachings oppose contraceptive use.  According to Church teaching, suppressing fertility by using contraception denies part of the inherent meaning of married sexuality and does harm to the couple’s unity.

Doran’s letter reads “Unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics must be prepared either to violate our consciences, or drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so).”

While churches themselves are exempt from the law, religiously affiliated institutions, including non-profits, schools and hospitals, must comply by August 2013. On Jan. 20 the Department of Health and Human Services finalized a rule requiring “preventive care” insurance coverage for sterilizations and contraception, including the abortifacient drug Ella.

Barack Obama won the Catholic vote in 2008 in his bid for the White House.  Catholics supported Obama over GOP nominee John McCain by a nine-point margin (54 percent vs. 45 percent). By contrast, four years ago, Catholics favored Republican incumbent George W. Bush over John Kerry by a five-point margin (52 percent to 47 percent).

Les Rayburn, a highly decorated combat veteran, said President Obama lied to Catholics to get their support in 2008.

“This is flat wrong on so many levels,” said Rayburn. “It is about time to stand up to Obama.  He threw the Jews under the bus and now he has thrown the Catholics under the bus.  Maybe people are going to wake up and realize that it is time to break away from the Democratic Party because they really don’t take care of [Jews and Catholics].”

Under the change, the Department of Health and Human Services is giving organizations up to a year to comply, but religious liberty experts believe the law is certain to face a legal challenge.  Two religious colleges have already sued over the law.

In response to these threats to religious liberty and rights of conscience posed by President Obama’s National Health Care law, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act has been introduced in Congress (H.R. 1179 and S. 1467).  This proposal will ensure that those who participate in the health care system “retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions.” It is more important than ever that members of Congress be urged to co-sponsor this measure.   Illinois Congressional co-sponsors include U.S. Representatives Jerry Costello, Randy Hultgren, Adam Kinzinger, Dan Lipinski, Don Manzullo, Peter Roskam, Robert Schilling, Aaron Schock and Joe Walsh.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to President Barack Obama, U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Mark Kirk and your U.S. Representative to ask them to support the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179, S. 1467) and help enact it into law.

You can also call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at: (202) 224-3121 to reach your Congressional members.

Nurses in a New Jersey hospital who refused to participate in abortions will be able to keep their jobs under an agreement reached in federal court. The twelve nurses had been threatened with termination from their jobs by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey if they failed to assist in abortion procedures. TheAlliance Defense Fund (ADF) had filed suit on behalf of the pro-life nurses in defense of their conscience rights under federal law.

Under the agreement reached with hospital administrators, the nurses will no longer be required to undergo abortion training or assist in any way in the performance of abortions. They will only be called upon to be involved in an abortion procedure if a mother faces a life-threatening emergency. The University of Medicine and Dentistry may not discriminate or retaliate against the nurses because of their pro-life convictions by replacing them or reducing their hours.

In September the group of nurses were abruptly informed without warning that they were to undergo abortion training in order to assist in abortion procedures. When they objected to having any involvement in the destruction of unborn children based on moral grounds, they were informed that their religious convictions were of no consequence.

Fe Esperanza Vinoya, who spoke out on behalf of the nurses, says they were heartbroken by the edict. “We don’t consider nursing our jobs, we consider it our calling. Ours is a profession of caring. We felt betrayed–we felt a great sense of sadness in all of us.”

Vinoya was further repulsed when she was curtly told by one of her supervisors: “All you have to do is catch the baby’s head. Don’t worry, it’s already dead.” Vinoya found the explanation revolting. “As a Christian, I don’t believe in abortion. I think it’s murder.”

Pro-life U.S. Representiative Chris Smith (R-NJ) applauded the outcome. “[The hospital’s] coercive abortion policy was a blatant violation of the civil rights of its health care professionals. The right to conscience is a federally protected fundamental right that cannot be abridged, undermined or violated in any way.”

Federal laws prohibit any health care facility which accepts federal funds from compelling any medical professional from participating in abortion if it violates their individual conscience. New Jersey state law also includes similar conscience protections.

U.S. Rep. Smith commended the nurses for putting their jobs on the line to stand up for their personal convictions. “Due to the brave voices of these twelve nurses, the hospital has finally agreed to respect their rights. These nurses may now continue to provide
compassionate life-affirming care without being complicit in the destruction of innocent human life.”

Not surprisingly, the American Civil Liberties Union isn’t happy. A spokesman for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project says they do not support civil liberties for medical professionals. Brigitte Amiri says that nurses have a responsibility to place their duties over any personal “ideology,” and that failure to perform abortions amounts to “discrimination” against women.

U.S. District Judge Jose Linares had issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the University of Medicine and Dentistry from requiring the nurses to assist in abortions or taking any adverse employment action against them for their refusal to do so. Linares says he will retain jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the agreement is enforced.

The nurses expressed relief over the settlement. “I’m a nurse so I can help people, not help kill people,” said Beryl Otieno-Negoje. “No health professional should be forced to choose between assisting abortion or being penalized at work.”

Vinoya says she was sustained through the ordeal by the prayers and support of her fellow church members at Life Christian Church. She says she was especially encouraged by her own children. “The day we received the new orders my eight year old son was learning about the Ten Commandments in church. He recited the Sixth Commandment — that we are not to kill anyone. I just cried. I knew that God had given me hope and that He was on our side.”

Vinoya says she was also encouraged by her thirteen year-old son who was working on a school project on the subject of religious freedom. “I realized that that was exactly what this was all about, and that it was being violated right in front of us. We knew this would be a David versus Goliath battle. But we all know who won.”

A great way to help IFI protect the time-honored values such as the sanctity of life, natural marriage and religious liberty is to become an IFI Sustaining Partner. By pledging $10, $25, $50 or $100 a month (or whatever you can afford) to IFI, you will be ensuring that our work and ministry stays strong so that we can staunchly defend and strengthen your values in the Land of Lincoln.

Click HERE to make that pledge.

Thank you!