Illinois cannot require pro-life ministries to promote abortion but can require pro-life doctors to provide referrals for abortion because such a requirement doesn’t “implicate speech,” a federal judge ruled.
In an opinion published Friday, Judge Iain Johnston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’ Western Division sided with a pro-life ob-gyn and pro-life pregnancy care organization to rule that Section 6.1(1) of Illinois Public Act 099-0690 violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The relevant portion of the law requires healthcare facilities, physicians and healthcare personnel to “inform a patient of the patient’s condition, prognosis, legal treatment options, and risks and benefits of the treatment options in a timely manner consistent with current standards of medical practice or care.”
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.
The section of state law is part of an amendment to the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act that seeks to ensure that healthcare facilities “adopt written access to care and information protocols that are designed to ensure that conscience-based objections do not cause impairment of patients’ health” and detail how “conscience-based objections will be addressed … to facilitate patient health care services.”
Another challenged section of the law, Section 6.1(3), requires healthcare facilities, physicians and healthcare personnel to “(i) refer the patient to, or (ii) transfer the patient to, or (iii) provide in writing information to the patient about other health care providers who they reasonably believe may offer the health care service the health care facility, physician, or health personnel refuses to permit, perform, or participate in because of a conscience-based objection.”
While Johnston, appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump, agreed with the plaintiffs that Section 6.1(1) violated the First Amendment because it amounted to compelled speech, he did not grant the plaintiffs’ request to invalidate Section 6.1(3).
Section 6.1(3) regulated conduct, not speech, and therefore doesn’t violate the free speech protections of the First Amendment, the judge contends.
“The Court ultimately concludes that Section 6.1(3) doesn’t implicate speech, so it doesn’t violate the Free Speech Clause, either facially or as applied to the Plaintiffs,’ Johnston’s memorandum states.
“Whereas Section 6.1(1) requires health care professionals to say something to obtain immunity from civil or criminal liability, Section 6.1(3) explains what covered people and entities must do to earn immunity after the triggering event occurs: refer, transfer, or provide written information. As discussed more below, those three options are all conduct; none of them cognizably implicate speech.”
Plaintiffs in the case include the National Institute of Family Life, a nationwide network of faith-based pregnancy centers, and three additional pregnancy centers, Dr. Ronald Schroeder of 1st Way Pregnancy Support Services and Pregnancy Aid South Suburbs.
The Thomas More Society, which represents Schroeder and Pregnancy Aid South Suburbs in their litigation, offered a mixed reaction to the ruling.
“We welcome the court’s ruling striking down Illinois’ attempts to force our pro-life physicians and pregnancy centers to parrot pro-abortion talking points, in violation of their First Amendment rights — a victory we’ve fought for since this case began nearly a decade ago,” Thomas More Society Executive Vice President Thomas Olp said in a statement Monday.
Olp, however, is not pleased Johnston upheld the abortion referral requirement.
“We are greatly concerned that the court did not fully protect conscience rights, leaving our clients forced to compromise their deepest beliefs,” he said, vowing his organization will be “continuing this fight against the State of Illinois in the Seventh Circuit.'”
Judy Cocks, executive director of 1st Way Life Center, said the court’s ruling will “permanently protect” pro-life pregnancy centers from the state’s “attempt to force us into becoming mouthpieces for the abortion industry.”
“To share so-called ‘benefits of abortion’ would go against the very foundation of our ministry and our First Amendment rights. I have yet to see what the so-called’ benefits of abortion’ are,'” Cocks said.
“What I see regularly at our centers, instead, is the pain and regret that comes with abortion,” she continued, stressing that women “deserve options rooted in love, not mandates that harm our communities and the women and children we serve.”
“At the same time, we are deeply troubled that the court’s decision upholds Illinois’ abortion referral mandate. We cannot, in good conscience, recommend or refer for abortion. That’s not who we are, and it hurts our hearts to even contemplate being mandated to do so. We’re grateful Thomas More Society is vowing to keep fighting against Illinois’ abortion referral mandate.”
Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: ryan.foley@christianpost.com
