From Mauck & Baker

WASHINGTON—today twenty-three Illinois pregnancy centers filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra. Their brief defends their right to not promote abortion and a woman’s right to choose life for her unborn child. The NIFLA v. Becerra case out of California deals with whether the government can force pro-life pregnancy care centers to provide free advertising for the abortion industry. The Illinois centers contend that they, like the California centers, are also being targeted by state efforts to force them to provide pro-abortion information to those who come to them for support.

In July 2017 an Illinois Federal District Court granted several pro-life pregnancy centers a preliminary injunction stopping Illinois’ efforts to enforce a recent amendment to the Healthcare Right of Conscience Act which forces pro-life medical professionals to promote the benefits of abortion and inform women where they can obtain an abortion. California enacted a similar law called the Reproductive FACT Act which is at issue in NIFLA v. Becerra.

Attorney Noel W. Sterett of Mauck & Baker, LLC, who represents the twenty-three pregnancy centers before the Supreme Court, said “The government has no business forcing pro-life doctors and pregnancy care centers 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.”

There are thousands of pregnancy centers across the country that work to ensure that women are not burdened by fear, financial concerns, or lack of information about their pregnancy. Last year alone, the twenty three pregnancy centers represented in the brief served over 14,000 women with free pregnancy services and support including free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, parenting classes, baby clothes and other material assistance.

This press release was originally released at MauckBaker.com.

In a fast-moving story, right of conscience cases are moving forward and possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here are just two recent headlines from Life News:

October 30: Pregnancy Centers Ask Supreme Court to Overturn California Law Forcing Them to Promote Abortions

October 31: Judge Blocks California Law Forcing Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortions

In a case that could impact Illinois, Life News reports, “California pregnancy centers could hear any day now if the United States Supreme Court will hear their appeal for relief from a pro-abortion state law”:

Their cases involve a pro-abortion California law that forces pregnancy centers to promote abortions. Deceptively named “The Reproductive FACT Act” by its pro-abortion authors, the 2016 law is the subject of multiple lawsuits. It forces about 200 pregnancy help non-profits to either promote taxpayer-funded abortions through the state or face heavy fines.

Jay Alan Sekulow, an attorney for the American Center for Law and Justice which is representing several pregnancy centers, said the case is about whether California can “compel nonprofit, faith-based, pro-life licensed medical facilities, against their religious convictions and identity to advertise a government program that provides free or low-cost abortions.”

If that sounds familiar, it is, because back in 2016, Governor Bruce Rauner signed SB 1564, which forced

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. Two federal laws, known as the Coats-Snowe amendment and the Hyde-Weldon amendment, together prohibit states that receive federal funding from forcing pro-life physicians and entities to refer women for abortion or to make arrangements for their referral. Illinois law also prohibits government from placing burdens on religious conscience without a compelling interest for doing so.

Since then, the Alliance for Defending Freedom, alongside attorneys at Mauck & Baker, filed suit on behalf of Illinois clients to overturn the law.

As IFI reported back in August,

a Federal District Court granted the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates 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.

Attorney Noel W. Sterett told the Illinois Family Institute that the Illinois case is now proceeding through the discovery phase.

Life News reports that whether the challenge to the California law will be heard by the United States Supreme Court might be known as early as Monday.

The Justices have considered the appeals for more than three weeks in their weekly conferences, suggesting at least several of them are inclined to hear the cases.

Recently, lower courts have split on controversies arising from state regulations of medical professions.

The American Center for Law and Justice’s Jay Sekulow said the law violates “the principle that one cannot be conscripted into acting as a ventriloquist’s dummy for a government message.”

“This law is like forcing the Sierra Club to advocate for oil spills or demanding St. Jude expose their patients to lead poisoning,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which is representing another group of California pregnancy centers.

“However, this law is actually much more repulsive. While those situations might cause unintended harm, abortion is intended — even specifically designed — to kill.”

Here is Mauck & Baker’s Noel W. Sterett on the topic of the Illinois law:

“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.”

In the Life News story from October 31, Jay Hobbs reports:

In a major victory for free speech, Riverside County Superior Court Justice Gloria C. Trask ruled late Monday that California must not force pro-life pregnancy medical clinics to post signage promoting state-covered abortions to their clients.

The October 31 Life News article also includes a reference to the above-referenced statewide preliminary injunction on the 2016 Illinois law.

The Illinois Family Institute will continue to monitor the news regarding both the Illinois and California lawsuits.  Please pray for the ultimate demise of these tyrannical laws.

Download the IFI App!

We now have an IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the “Tracks” you choose, including timely legislative alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

• It’s FREE!
• Specific content for serious Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get

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.