Temporarily Halts Illinois Abortion Referral Mandate

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It seems that our nation’s founding fathers were not clear enough with their use of language in the First Amendment, which protects some of our God-given rights. That “make no law” thing is confusing for many, and that “abridging” business, well, that’s way over the heads of Leftists.

While the U.S. Constitution binds Congress, our state constitution binds our state government, and the spirit of the First Amendment is expressed using different words in our state constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Regardless, in Illinois, our governor and General Assembly have now taken up the task of telling people what they can’t say. Reparative therapy is now against the law. So anyone seeking help to escape unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion are going to have to find a state where therapists retain their freedom of speech.

In addition, they passed a law forcing pro-life counselors and medical professionals to violate their conscience by telling patients the benefits of abortion and going so far as to require them to give referrals, making them complicit in ending a human life. Here is Michele Bachmann speaking at an IFI event in September:

It is amazing to me that the law compels believers to say something they know isn’t true. Doctors, caregivers, people in pro-life centers — they’re forced, compelled, by a state entity, to share information that not only violates their moral conscience, but they know fundamentally, maybe even experientially in their own life — it is not only wrong — it will bring about death. And yet their government says they must say it.  (Read more here.)

The Alliance Defending Freedom is reporting some good news on this latter front — the doctors and healthcare professionals at the Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford have been given a reprieve by a state court in the form of a preliminary injunction.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Matt Bowman commented on the injunction:

“Forcing pro-life doctors and pregnancy care centers in Illinois to operate as referral agents for the abortion industry in violation of their freedom of conscience is unconstitutional, illegal, and unethical. No state has the authority to compel health professionals, against their will and their sacred oath to “do no harm,” to promote abortion. We commend the court’s ruling which is a victory for free speech and the freedom of conscience.”

ADF reported that in its nineteen-page order issued Tuesday, “the state court noted that Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford raised sufficient questions as to whether the new law is either legal or constitutional as applied to pro-life doctors and pregnancy care centers.”

As an example, according to ADF, the ruling states:”Why must the State, which licenses and regulates those who provide the objected-to services, rely on the very people who object to the services to be the source of information about them?”

Click here to read the order of the state court granting preliminary injunction.

Upcoming Event:  Join thousands at March for Life Chicago 2017 as we come together from across Chicago, the Midwest and the U.S. to defend, protect and celebrate LIFE on January 15th.

Illinois Family Spotlight:  Listen to this week’s podcast as Monte Larrick and Dave Smith talk with pro-life hero Jill Stanek about what the pro-life movement can expect over the next few years in a Donald Trump administration.

End-of-Year Challange

As you may know, IFI has a year-end matching challenge to raise $110,000. That’s right, a small group of IFI supporters are providing a $55,000 matching challenge to help support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.

Please consider helping us reach this goal!  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2017!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 876
Tinley Park, Illinois 60477

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing an Illinois doctor and two pregnancy care centers filed suit in state court against Gov. Bruce Rauner after he recently signed a bill into law that forces doctors and medical facilities to promote abortion regardless of their ethical or moral views on the practice.

ADF sent a letter to Rauner in May on behalf of numerous pro-life physicians, pregnancy care centers, and pregnancy care center network organizations advising him that the bill, SB 1564, would violate federal law and therefore place federal funding, including Medicaid reimbursements, in jeopardy. ADF also warned legislators about the problems with the bill last year. The lawsuit claims the new law, which is actually an amendment to the existing Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act, violates state law and the state constitution.

“No state should attempt to rob women of the right to choose a pro-life doctor by forcing pro-life physicians and entities to make or arrange abortion referrals. What’s even worse is that Illinois did this by amending a law designed specifically to protect freedom of conscience,” said ADF Senior Counsel Matt Bowman. “The governor should have vetoed this bill for many reasons, including its incompatibility with Illinois law and the state constitution, which specifically protects freedom of conscience and free speech.”

The new law forces medical facilities and physicians who conscientiously object to involvement in abortions to adopt policies that provide women who ask for abortions with a list of providers “they reasonably believe may offer” them. Illinois law prohibits government from placing burdens on religious conscience without a compelling interest for doing so. Additionally, the Illinois Constitution protects “liberty of conscience,” saying that “no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his religious opinions.” It also protects free speech, which includes the right not to be compelled by government to speak a message contrary to one’s own conscience.

“Pro-life health care professionals shouldn’t be forced to hand out lists describing how to contact abortionists, yet that’s what this law mandates that they do,” explained ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “If this profane amendment to Illinois’ conscience protection law remains on the books, doctors and medical staff committed to saving all lives will be forced to promote the killing of some children, women will lose access to doctors who unconditionally value human life, and pregnancy resource centers that offer free help and hope to pregnant women will be forced to refer to abortionists. This is the kind of government coercion that the state constitution, the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the very law that was amended were all designed to prevent.”

Mauck & Baker LLC attorney Noel Sterett, one of more than 3,000 private attorneys allied with ADF, is co-counsel in the case, The Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford v. Rauner, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in Winnebago County.

Attorney Noel Sterett, co-counsel in the case and partner at Mauck & Baker, LLC, in Chicago, says, “These crisis pregnancy centers have been doing tremendous work serving their community for years, but now their core mission is being threatened. People disagree on whether abortions end human lives, but I’d hope we can all agree that pregnancy centers dedicated to protecting the unborn should not be forced to recommend abortion to mothers.”

Another legal challenge to ObamaCare that raises crucial questions related to other pro-life cases awaits a federal court decision within the next few months.

March for Life has challenged the Obama administration’s mandate to provide free insurance coverage for contraception and abortion-causing drugs on a pro-life organization. ObamaCare, which forces employers – regardless of their moral convictions – to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs under threat of heavy financial penalties, has been under fire from pro-life organizations and Christian business owners.

Alliance Defending Freedom is representing March for Life in the case. Elissa Graves, the ADF attorney on hand for arguments in federal district court in Washington, DC, tells OneNewsNow, “March for Life is an organization that holds 100-percent pro-life views based on science and ethics instead of religion. It advocates for life at all stages which includes from conception until death. Some of these drugs do have effect after conception.”

As a pro-life organization, the attorney says, “March for Life should not be forced to help destroy life.”

According to Graves, the presiding judge was very engaged during the court proceedings. “The judge was very interested in arguments for both sides and seemed to really know the arguments and asked a lot of great questions of both sides,” she offers.

A similar lawsuit was brought by Priests for Life, a Catholic pro-life group that also objects to the mandate on religious grounds. Graves maintains that if courts can force coverage on groups like these two, they can likely compel all to do so.

ADF senior legal counsel Matt Bowman, who presented arguments Wednesday on behalf of March for Life said, “Pro-life organizations must be free to operate according to the beliefs they espouse. March for Life was founded to oppose the tragedy of abortion – the very thing the government is forcing the organization to provide through its health insurance plan.”

Hobby Lobby, in a high-profile Supreme Court case ruling in June, won the right to exclude coverage for abortion-causing drugs on religious grounds.

Bowman added: “The government cannot selectively punish organizations that wish to abide by their beliefs.”

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a brief Wednesday that responds to the Obama administration’s defense of its abortion pill mandate in one of two major legal challenges the U.S. Supreme Court will hear on March 25. Alliance Defending Freedom and allied attorneys represent the Hahns, a Pennsylvania Mennonite Christian family, and their woodworking business in one of those cases, Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius.

The mandate forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy financial penalties if the mandate’s requirements aren’t met.

“In America, we tolerate a diversity of opinions and beliefs; we don’t try to separate what people do from what they believe,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel David Cortman. “The Constitution guarantees the highest form of respect to the Hahns’ freedom. The government must prove why disregarding that freedom is somehow justified.”

According to the Alliance Defending Freedom reply brief, “the government contends that [the Hahns] harm the ‘freedom’ of third parties simply by not buying them abortifacients…. But that turns ordinary notions of liberty upside down. Citizens are already free to buy birth control for themselves and the government often subsidizes those purchases. Yet in the government’s view that is not enough. For the government, coercion is the new ‘freedom.’”

“Americans must be free to exercise their constitutionally protected liberties without punishment,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “That at least includes freedom from government attempts to force them to pay for other people’s abortion pills.”

In January, numerous third parties filed briefs in both Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius and The Becket Fund’s Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius case, which also challenges the mandate. The briefs filed in support of Conestoga Wood Specialties and Hobby Lobby outnumbered the briefs filed in favor of the Obama administration by nearly three to one.

The Hahns asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled 2-1 against them. The decision conflicts with most other circuits and with the vast majority of rulings on the mandate so far. According to a dissent that Circuit Judge Kent Jordan wrote in that case, the mandate could cost the Hahns $95,000 per day if they don’t agree to live contrary to their Christian convictions.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are lead counsel in the case together with co-counsel Randall Wenger of the Independence Law Center and Charles Proctor III of the Pennsylvania firm Proctor, Lindsay & Dixon. They are two of nearly 2,300 attorneys allied with Alliance Defending Freedom.

Written by Michael Foust

The Obama administration proposed a rule change Friday it says will appease the concerns religious organizations have about the abortion/contraceptive mandate, but legal groups who defend religious liberty called the proposal inadequate and said it fell far short of what is needed.

Religious groups had hoped the Department of Health and Human Services would announce that all religious organizations — universities, hospitals and charities — are exempt from the mandate, which requires employers to carry health insurance plans covering contraceptives and drugs that can cause chemical abortions. Churches, for example, are exempt from the mandate. Instead, HHS issued a rule it says allows for employees to obtain contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs without the religious employer taking part in the process. Religious liberty groups say employers still will be involved. 

The proposal also does nothing to help businesses such as Bible publisher Tyndale House or Christian-owned Hobby Lobby or any other for-profit whose owners have religious objections to contraceptives and/or abortion-causing drugs. 

“Having reviewed this proposed rule, we … have to say we’re extremely disappointed,” Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a conference call with reporters. Becket Fund has helped lead the legal charge against the mandate. More than 40 lawsuits have been filed against the mandate. Duncan called the proposal “radically inadequate.”

According to an HHS website, under the proposal, the religious employer “would not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for any contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds.” Employees “would receive contraceptive coverage through separate individual health insurance policies, without cost sharing or additional premiums.” The insurance company would be required to offer the drugs for free, HHS said. 

Religious organizations that are self-insured would have to contact a third party administrator, which would “work with a health insurance issuer to provide separate, individual health insurance policies at no cost for participants.” 

Religious liberty groups had multiple objections to the proposal. First, the groups said, religious organizations still will be required to carry an insurance plan that is tied to coverage of contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs. Second, religious employers — particularly those who are self-insured — will be acting as “conduits” with health providers to ensure their employees can obtain the drugs. Third, it’s unclear who is paying for the “free drugs.” As some religious commentators were suggesting: Will insurance companies simply raise rates — and thereby pass the cost for the abortion-causing drugs on to the religious organization? 

Duncan said religious organizations are “going to have to carefully consider whether this accommodation really doesn’t change the moral landscape at all. It’s going to be up to them to make that determination. We believe they’re going to have some serious concerns about remaining unacceptably involved in the provision of these drugs and devices.”

Alliance Defending Freedom senior legal counsel Matt Bowman said the proposal still infringes on religious liberty.

“Religious non-profits will, in fact, be forced to provide an insurance plan with a provider that gives the religious group’s employees abortion-pill coverage in direct connection with that plan, the coverage is definitely not free, and the coverage is imposed ‘automatically’ even against the objection of many employees who don’t want free abortion-pill coverage for themselves or their daughters,” Bowman said.

To qualify for the proposal, an organization must self-certify that it “holds itself out as a religious organization,” according to HHS. Ironically that could mean that many of the nation’s leading pro-life organizations — despite being non-profits — won’t qualify for the accommodation because they’re technically not religious organizations.

The HHS announcement did nothing to change the coverage by for-profits. Hobby Lobby, the arts and crafts store whose Christian owners say they will not follow the mandate, apparently will face fines of more than $1 million each day if a federal court does not step in. Its owners always have made their faith a central part of their business. Their stores play Christian instrumental music and are closed on Sundays. Hobby Lobby contributes to Christian organizations and runs full-page ads in newspapers during the Easter and Christmas seasons with Gospel-centered messages.

The good news for Christian for-profits is they are winning in court, having seen 10 wins and only four losses. Hobby Lobby, though, is one of those losses. The issue likely is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The administration fails to understand,” said Gene Rudd of the Christian Medical Association, “that many employers and individual Americans, regardless of a religious label or not, maintain strong conscience objections to participating in any way, shape or form in a plan that promotes pills that the FDA says can cause the demise of a living human embryo — a developing baby in her earliest stage.”

Covered under the mandate are emergency contraceptives such as Plan B and ella that can kill an embryo after fertilization and even after implantation. Pro-lifers consider that action a chemical abortion.

The mandate was announced by HHS in August 2011 as part of the health care law championed by President Obama. Although the Supreme Court upheld the health care law last June, the justices’ ruling did not deal with the religious liberty issues surrounding the abortion/contraceptive mandate. That means the nation’s highest court could yet strike down what has been for religious groups and some business owners the most controversial part of the law.

Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress ) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp).