* Press release…
Attorneys with the Thomas More Society have filed a Civil Rights Discrimination Complaint today with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights. The complaint is over an Illinois law that forces doctors and pregnancy centers to make referrals for abortion, even if they have sincerely held religious convictions against doing so.
The complaint is lodged against the State of Illinois, for its enactment of Illinois Public Act 99-690. The filing charges that the law, previously known as Senate Bill 1564, amends the 1977 Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, “in ways that gut its protection of state and federal conscience rights.”
The Thomas More Society is acting on behalf of Dr. Jim Gallant, M.D., and Hope Life Center, a pregnancy help center in Sterling, Illinois. The Office of Civil Rights is being asked to investigate this claim of religious discrimination and to take appropriate action to prevent Illinois’ application of this law to Gallant, Hope Life Center, and similarly situated health care providers in Illinois, who cannot comply with the amendment because of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Gallant and Hope Life Center provide pro-bono assistance to women, including pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and consultations. P.A. 99-690 mandates that they must present abortion as an option, discuss its “benefits,” and provide referrals to abortion facilities. This directive is completely contrary to their reason for existence, which is to provide life affirming alternatives to abortion. The Civil Rights Discrimination Complaint requests enforcement of multiple federal laws that prohibit states from passing laws which seek to force health care providers to violate their religious convictions.
Thomas Olp, Vice President and Senior Counsel for the Thomas More Society, noted that both federal and state courts have issued injunctions temporarily preventing Illinois from enforcing this law while litigation is pending. He added that the complaint filed with the Office of Civil Rights is a strategic step in the ongoing battle against P.A. 99-690, and that it complements the pending federal and state litigation. He explained, “We believe that P.A. 99-690 violates several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of physicians and other healthcare providers. But some courts have held that only the federal government, not individual citizens, can enforce these laws. Our administrative action is designed to trigger enforcement action by the federal government. We are hopeful the Trump administration will act on the pro-active pro-life principles it has articulated since the President took office.”
Debbie Case, Executive Director of Hope Life Center, anticipates tragic consequences if P.A. 99-690 is not revoked. “Since 1986, we have been serving women in our community with free, no-strings-attached education and medical services. We provide these services from a sincere compassion and concern for women facing unexpected pregnancy,” Case explained. “Our ability to care for these women is threatened by this overreaching law. It would be a tragedy for women to lose access to our services because of discriminatory sanctions imposed upon us in violation of our civil rights.”
The complaint is here.
* Personal PAC’s Terry Cosgrove…
It should not surprise anyone that Peter Breen and his Thomas More Society will stop at nothing in lying to women about pregnancy and abortion in order to prevent women from making the reproductive health care choices they believe are best for them and their families. Peter Breen is afraid to admit publicly that his real goal with this action, his lawsuits and attempts to repeal HB 40 are just part of his ultimate goal to make abortion and the most commonly used forms of birth control illegal in Illinois. The media needs to start doing its job in holding Breen and all the other right-wingers accountable as to their real objectives. The voters deserve to know the truth.
* This is what the statute requires…
(1) The health care facility, physician, or health care personnel shall 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.
(2) When a health care facility, physician, or health care personnel is unable to permit, perform, or participate in a health care service that is a diagnostic or treatment option requested by a patient because the health care service is contrary to the conscience of the health care facility, physician, or health care personnel, then the patient shall either be provided the requested health care service by others in the facility or be notified that the health care will not be provided and be referred, transferred, or given information in accordance with paragraph (3).
(3) If requested by the patient or the legal representative of the patient, the health care facility, physician, or health care personnel shall: (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.
(4) If requested by the patient or the legal representative of the patient, the health care facility, physician, or health care personnel shall provide copies of medical records to the patient or to another health care professional or health care facility designated by the patient in accordance with Illinois law, without undue delay.
Paragraph 3, proponents have said, could simply be a page out of the Yellow Pages.
The legislation was essentially designed to put crisis pregnancy centers out of business.
- Gooner - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 11:47 am:
Interesting approach, considering the fact that many states have passed anti-abortion bills requiring things like ultrasounds and information about alternatives to abortion.
Apparently “full disclosure” only matters when you want the other side to act.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 11:57 am:
I’m very curious as to when Illinois media is going to ask Erica Harold where she stands on this lawsuit. Is she going to sign on, or submit any support? She is running for AG, will she refuse to defend this law if elected? Inquiring minds want to know….
- Saluki - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 12:05 pm:
I hope the lawsuit is successful.
- Art Student - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 12:12 pm:
I hope the lawsuit flops. All the law is saying is that if the facility doesn’t preform any of the services the patient needs or wants that they must refer or transfer them. If crisis centers go out of business because of that then it just means that they were set up to mislead women who were in genuine need of accurate information to make the best decision for themselves.
- Ron - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 12:14 pm:
The lawsuit will go nowhere. Thank goodness.
- Amalia - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 12:14 pm:
Grown women get to decide what to do with their bodies. That’s it, boys.
- Sue - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 12:16 pm:
This could work. Same type of issue now at S Ct. can’t force a doc to perform service violative of religious brlief
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 12:30 pm:
Too bad we don’t have a real Republican governor in charge, so that these obvious issues could have been worked out without making Illinois the home of taxpayer-funded death penalties for prenatal human life.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 12:35 pm:
Over the top screeds like VM’s make me want to go nuclear, but this isn’t my blog so I won’t make Rich delete what I’m thinking.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 12:41 pm:
Why is pro-life comments ‘over the top screed’? Save the animals, kill the fetus. Love the hypocrisy
- Gooner - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 12:46 pm:
Taxpayer funded death penalties? Sure, that will help the cause. Nice way to appeal to moderates!
Vanilla, do you believe that a doctor should tell a patient about alternatives to abortion?
Anon 12:41, because there is a difference between a fetus pre-viability and a baby. They are not the same.
- Mongo - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 12:46 pm:
So a doc in one of these crisis centers has to say “we don’t do that here, but here are other places you can go” and that merits a lawsuit? This is ridiculous.
I usually like VMan, but it is over the top to call that “taxpayer-funded death penalties for prenatal human life.”
Can I fix it?
Try “taxpayer-funded information and referral.”
- Excessively Rabid - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 1:06 pm:
I’m with Mongo. I don’t get why it’s such a big deal to say I don’t believe in that, if you want information about that you have to call XXX.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 1:23 pm:
==taxpayer-funded death penalties==
It’s that kind of hyperbole that doesn’t allow for reasoned debate on the topic of abortion.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 1:30 pm:
I don’t see a problem asking people to provide a list of places where you can get the service you are seeking. Of course perhaps facilities that perform abortions could provide information to those seeking abortions on places that will assist them with adoption or other choices.
- Liandro - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 1:39 pm:
If a medical professional–sworn to save human life–doesn’t want to send an innocent human life to his or her death, they absolutely should not be forced to. It’s that simple.
- Liandro - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 1:44 pm:
“provide a list of places where you can get the service you are seeking”
The “service” provided is death…the exact opposite of why most medical professionals enter the medical field. A successful abortion ends with the death of a unique human life; there simply is no way around that fact.
- Gooner - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 1:45 pm:
Liandro, do you see any significant differences between a fetus at 7 weeks and a 70 year old man? To you, are they both humans with rights?
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 1:47 pm:
==The “service” provided==
The service provided is a legal medical procedure.
As I stated, hyperbole like “death” is why you can’t talk about this subject. Reason goes right out the window.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 1:48 pm:
==It’s that simple==
And those that have been raped? Incest? Is that “simple” also?
Nothing about this topic is simple.
- Liandro - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 1:57 pm:
–hyperbole like “death” is why you can’t talk about this subject–
Are you trying to say no one dies during an abortion? What, exactly, do you think is getting aborted? I’m not asking to be rude…I genuinely want to know how you can completely disregard the death that actually happens in the process. What happens to the unborn in a car crash? Death. In a murder of the mother? Also death. In an abortion? Death. The baby dies–that’s how it ends.
–And those that have been raped? Incest? Is that “simple” also?–
For the victim, nothing at all will be simple. That’s obvious and horrific. Did I miss the part of the law where it says that it only applies in such cases, or are you pulling out a massive, tragic straw man?
- Liandro - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 2:13 pm:
“do you see any significant differences between a fetus at 7 weeks and a 70 year old man? To you, are they both humans with rights?”
Your question gets closer to the heart of the issue. We can’t ignore the humanity of the unborn, but that doesn’t mean they have all rights. We don’t give the right to drive until 16. You don’t have the right to drink until 21. Your right to free speech is fairly limited in younger years, as is your ability to own property. The foundational right to any other is the right to life.
So, at what age do we get that core right? At “viability”, which is simply a measure of how good our medical science is at any given point in history/geography? At the heartbeat? After conception (a long process), when your unique identity/DNA has finished forming? Or, other end of the spectrum, at the point at which you are old enough to fend for yourself?
Different ages and cultures have answered that differently. Given what science has shown us about unique identity, there is little to no genetic/DNA different between seven weeks and 70 years. While that doesn’t mean, case closed, that both have attained right to life…it’s certainly the start of a powerful argument, no?
For me, anything after conception has fully finished (lets say after a week, even though conception doesn’t take that long) gets morally questionable. There is a clear, unique human life in play that should be considered on some level.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 2:15 pm:
Cheryl44 mentioned saving animals? When?
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 2:17 pm:
Both a 70 year old man and a fetus are forms of human life. We all had been a fetus and many aspire to become a 70 year old form of human, or even older.
Medical science recognizes this scientific fact, even if our politics don’t. People are human regardless of their legal status. At one time society saw differences between genders and races and overlooked science, leading to unfair discriminations. Lawyers aren’t scientists, and neither are Supreme Court justices.
Go ahead and craft reasons for abortions, but start with the medical scientific fact that human life begins when it is a proven fact, not when it is politically convenient. Stop hiding behind legal arguments, gender politics and denial.
Unrestricted abortions are unfair, discriminatory and to many citizens in many cases, immoral. We’re all humans and we can all respect one another’s point of view once we stop pretending that prenatal human life isn’t human and worthy of protection.
It’s the 21st century, not the 20th. Let medical science be accepted as fact over political science.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 2:24 pm:
==Unrestricted abortions are unfair==
Because you say so? Couldn’t it also be “unfair” to dictate to someone else what they may do with their own body?
- Gooner - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 2:24 pm:
Vanilla Man,
Are you really saying that suggesting that a 7 week old fetus can be treated differently than a 70 year old man is just like treating white people differently from black?
Give that one some thought.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 2:28 pm:
==Are you trying to say no one dies during an abortion? ==
No, I’m not necessarily saying that. I’m not sure I have an answer to that. It depends on when you define “life.”
- Gooner - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 2:32 pm:
Liandro,
Roe v. Wade answered your questions.
- Gooner - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 2:34 pm:
Vanilla Man,
Unless your taxes go up by $50,000 a year, some strangers are going to die.
Since you value life so highly, I’m sure you are fine giving up your own comfort so that others can life.
That’s fair, right?
I mean, if you want to force a woman to suffer for the life of somebody else, you should do the same.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 2:35 pm:
==also be “unfair” to dictate to someone else what they may do with their own body?==
==can be treated differently ==
Go ahead and debate the justification for abortion. Just begin by acknowledging the scientific medical fact that we’re dicussing human life.
We have done this exact thing regarding capital punishment. We can do it here as well. Make your case. Prove your point. Just stop pretending about what abortion is, and when a form of human life occurs. Medical science has already given us the truth. Now let us work together to define when it is acceptable to end a form of human life.
I know we can do it.
- ste_with_a_v_en - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 2:37 pm:
Termination life is a matter of circumstance. Pregnant as a result of rape? Even those who are Pro- Life would argue that she doesn’t have the right to terminate the pregnancy. Miscarriage as a result of being robbed and assaulted? Everyone who is pro-choice would agree they can be charged with murder.
Kill someone in self defense? Most agree you shouldn’t be punished. Murder someone for wearing the wrong colors? Go to prison forever.
We have DNR’s because we realize being alive technically is not same as having a pain free existence. Death is a part of life, and circumstance dictates when we consider it justified or not.
- Cubs in '16 - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 2:38 pm:
===Couldn’t it also be “unfair” to dictate to someone else what they may do with their own body?===
Indeed. Helmet and seat belt laws are unfair as well.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 2:41 pm:
==I mean, if you want to force a woman to suffer for the life of somebody else, you should do the same.==
I don’t.
I’m not telling you that there are no reasons. I’m requesting that you tell us when it is OK to end that life.
We don’t have unrestricted capital punishment do we? We can do it, but be honest about it.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:01 pm:
==Grown women get to decide what to do with their bodies. That’s it, boys.==
Then you should support an end to sex-selection abortions. Newsweek magazine 4/4/2016 reports on this and no one considers Newsweek a conservative organization, right?
Females are disproportionately aborted over males. How many white families are forcing mixed race abortions because they don’t want a mixed race child or grandchild?
That’s wrong.
We need to stop that kind of abortion, in my opinion.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:09 pm:
VMan:
For me the issue boils down to whether I believe I have a right to tell another person what they should or should not do when it comes to medical decisions. And if you want to know what my limit is I suppose that limit is to support that right up until life can be sustained outside of the womb (and yes I know that exact time is debatable).
And, I hold the personal decision belief when it comes to life in general. I also support a persons right to end their own life if, for example, they are terminally ill.
- Arnold Ziffle - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:10 pm:
This man sez: Men have NO Say WRT Abortion.
No. Say.
Now, is that too hard to understand?
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:10 pm:
Adding . . . or if medical necessity dictates an abortion later in pregnancy
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:11 pm:
Abortion has been an ongoing battle my whole life. This is because the issue has been about politics, and has failed to acknowledge modern medicine over the past half century.
We know. We know tons more about pre-natal human life than we did in Rowe v. Wade days. Time to drag this issue into the 21st century and get serious about it.
Enough with the emotional gender politics.
- GraduatedCollegeStudent - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:27 pm:
VMan
Are we able to fully explain why all natural miscarriages happen?
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:30 pm:
==== Time to drag this issue into the 21st century and get serious about it.
I agree, let’s have a war against nature since nearly 50 percent of pregnancies are likely to be spontaneously aborted. Claiming the science is all on your side is generally only helpful if you understand the science. You are trying to equate a 1/2 inch embryo at 7 weeks to a 70 year old human. Those are not the same things and do not deserve the same protections.
- Pundent - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:31 pm:
=This is because the issue has been about politics, and has failed to acknowledge modern medicine over the past half century.=
According to you. I think prior to Roe v. Wade and to this present day we’ve fully acknowledged the medical science here. If anyone needs to be dragged into the 21st century it’s those that want to continue to re-litigate the issue.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:35 pm:
==Are we able to fully explain why all natural miscarriages happen?==
About as well as we can fully explain anything, LOL.
Too cute by half, my friend.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:41 pm:
==You are trying to equate a 1/2 inch embryo at 7 weeks to a 70 year old human. Those are not the same things and do not deserve the same protections.==
They are not the same thing, except they are both humans. We begin by acknowledging that, and go from there.
- Gooner - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:45 pm:
Vanilla, no they are not the same. One may become a human. The other is human.
Insisting that they are the same distracts from real issues.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:48 pm:
====They are not the same thing, except they are both humans. We begin by acknowledging that, and go from there.
No, the embryo has the potential to develop into a human. It does even have all of the structures in place at 7 weeks that a human requires. That’s why it is still called an embryo and not a fetus. Even a fetus does not necessarily have all of the requirements, but the basic structures are there.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:48 pm:
== I think prior to Roe v. Wade and to this present day we’ve fully acknowledged the medical science here. If anyone needs to be dragged into the 21st century it’s those that want to continue to re-litigate the issue.==
Adorable. You sound just like my grandmother.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:51 pm:
==has the potential to develop into a human==
So do people in comas. We don’t end their lives, right?
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:53 pm:
—–So do people in comas. We don’t end their lives, right?
First, no they are fully developed human beings with systems and a brain that is capable of self awareness.
And second, we do end the lives of those in a coma who have no hope of recovery through the withdrawal of food and water.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 3:56 pm:
====The legislation was essentially designed to put crisis pregnancy centers out of business.
Yes, since they are largely masquerading as health care providers without actually providing health care this seems like a reasonable thing to do. If they want to properly point out to pregnant women they are there to counsel them to keep the baby no matter what and not provide medical services, that would be different.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 4:14 pm:
==So do people in comas. We don’t end their lives, right?==
Sometimes we do
- wordslinger63@gmail.com - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 4:20 pm:
Lawyers lawyering. Throw the spaghetti bowl at the wall, hope something sticks.
A lot easier than electing candidates who share your view.
- Gooner - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 4:26 pm:
Vanilla Man,
This is all abstract to you.
It is theory.
A few years ago, I stroked my wife’s head as I listened to her doctors talking about what they needed to do in order to save her life.
She was dying on the table during childbirth.
They escorted me out, an additional doctor was brought in, and they were able to complete life saving surgery.
But for the amazing skills of our doctors, we could have lost her.
My wife and I had decided that we wanted children. We knew the risks.
You, in contrast, want to force a woman to undergo the surgery, while you personally will never have to do it.
Your opinions are amazingly self-centered. You want to require others to do something you cannot do.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 4, 18 @ 8:05 pm:
==You, in contrast, want to force a woman to undergo the surgery, while you personally will never have to do it.
Your opinions are amazingly self-centered. You want to require others to do something you cannot do.==
Can you read at all?
I have repeatedly wrote that I have no interest in abolishing medical abortions. Your story is touching, but you are also mischaracterizing what I have clearly stated.
- Chicago Barb - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 11:43 am:
As long as we define “life” in religious terms we have a serious problem. Some religions define life as the moment of conception, and others as the moment of birth. We should not allow one religion’s determination of life overrule other religions that do not agree.