* Hannah Meisel for Capitol News Illinois…
A new law allowing Illinoisans to sue so-called crisis pregnancy centers under the state’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act is on hold after a federal judge late Thursday granted a preliminary injunction against it.
After a lengthy hearing in his Rockford courtroom, Judge Iain Johnston issued a brief oral ruling on Thursday evening, saying the law violated the First Amendment. Nearly 24 hours later, Johnston on Friday filed a 14-page order explaining the preliminary injunction, which began by recalling a joke told by the late conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
“Justice Scalia once said that he wished all federal judges were given a stamp that read ‘stupid but constitutional,’” Johnston wrote. “SB 1909 is both stupid and very likely unconstitutional.”
Johnston, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump in 2020, went on to characterize the law as “likely classic content and viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment.”
Read the ruling by clicking here.
* Crain’s…
The law, signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker last week, was challenged by the National Institute of Family & Life Advocates, Women’s Help Services (doing business as 1st Way Life Center and Focus Women’s Center), Rockford Family Initiative, Relevant Pregnancy Options Center and Pro-life Action League. […]
In the motion, the anti-abortion groups argue that the Illinois law violates First Amendment protection of speech because it “goes far beyond traditional restrictions on deceptive business practices, in part by stating in its express legislative intent that it unapologetically targets alleged pro-life ‘misinformation’ — that is, controverted facts about abortion that the Illinois General Assembly majority believes are not among the ‘orthodox’ views on the subject.”
During a press conference last week, Raoul said the law simply clarifies that the state’s long-standing deceptive practices law applies to crisis pregnancy centers that use practices like deceiving patients that they are part of existing abortion clinics or removing people from near an abortion clinic to delay them from entering that clinic.
* Sun-Times…
Pritzker said he’s confident the law will ultimately be upheld.
“I’m disappointed that the far right is interfering with the ability for women to access safe medical care without deception or lies,” Pritzker said in a statement. “This law is constitutional, and I am confident that the law will ultimately be found constitutional and we’ll continue to work alongside Attorney General Raoul to ensure Illinois patients are protected from misinformation.”
Johnston heard more than four hours of testimony from anti-abortion advocates during an emergency hearing Thursday afternoon. They said the law has threatened their rights to free speech and expression and their ability to distribute literature that identifies alternatives to abortion.
* WIFR…
During Thursday’s hearing, the plaintiffs presented four witnesses to the stand, where the defendant had none. Those testifying included Anne O’Connor, vice president of legal affairs for NIFLA; Judy Cocks, executive director of Women’s Health Services; Kevin Rilott, director of the Rockford Family Initiative; and Matt Yonke, communications director for the Pro-Life Action League.
During the courts final moments, Judge Johnston said he thought it was “crazy” that Raoul was not stopped while creating the bill.
The state is expected to appeal the ruling. The plaintiffs said they will continue to fight for their side of the debate, no matter how high the case goes in the federal court process.
* More…
* ABC Chicago | Federal judge halts law targeting crisis pregnancy centers; Pritzker responds: At the Waterleaf pregnancy resource center in Aurora, there was relief Friday. Volunteers were once again sitting and praying right across the street from a Planned Parenthood clinic, which provides abortion care.
* WTVO | Rockford holds emergency federal hearing over Illinois abortion law: “This injunction against SB 1909 is not just a victory for the pro-life community in Illinois. It’s a victory for the women of Illinois, who are being pushed by J.B. Pritzker and the General Assenbly into abortions they often desperately do not want. This injunction restores real choice to women facing untimely pregnancy in Illinois — and a chance at life for their unborn children,” said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League.
* Fox News | Judge blocks Illinois law targeting crisis pregnancy centers, calling it a violation of the First Amendment: Jennifer Welch, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Illinois, called the ruling frustrating. “For decades, crisis pregnancy centers have targeted our patients using deceptive and false practices,” she said. “Often crisis pregnancy centers provide misleading and medically inaccurate information, sometimes deliberately misdiagnosing patients or misdating their pregnancies, so people think they have more time to decide about abortion or that they are past the time when they can have an abortion.”
* WAND | Motion to temporarily halt crisis pregnancy center law granted: The Thomas More Society announced that a federal judge granted a motion requested by the organization for a preliminary injunction seeking to immediately halt the law which bans crisis pregnancy centers from deception in advertising, soliciting, or offering pregnancy-related services.
* Rockford Register-Star | Injunction halts new law aimed at ending deceptive practices at Illinois pregnancy centers: The act, signed by Gov. JB Pritzker last week, bans crisis pregnancy centers from using “misinformation, deceptive practices, or misrepresentation” in order to interfere with access to abortion services or emergency contraception. Violators faced up to $50,000 fines.
- TheInvisibleMan - Monday, Aug 7, 23 @ 9:58 am:
Reading through the text of the ruling, this judge seems to be a student of judge McHaney.
It starts out with a joke, which seems appropriate based on the ‘reasoning’ which follows.
Also, this judge *really* does not seem to like Raul for some reason, at a personal level.
- H-W - Monday, Aug 7, 23 @ 10:04 am:
Pregnancy is not an equivalence of speech.
Pregnancy is a concrete, physical reality, to which science applies. Such facts are not subject to transformative interpretation. They are immutable. Speech is a mental interpretation of both real and imagined phenomena. Those interpretations are not tangible, real phenomena. Speech represents theoretical treatises that can be both true and false, due to the absence of complete knowledge.
Speech is not an equivalence of pregnancy. If it were, wishing for a boy or a girl would determine the biological sex of a zygote. We cannot and should not allow intangible, incomplete, unproven, and non-demonstrable theories of biological certainties to regulate those certainties. Such is the subject matter of scientists, not theologians and philosophers.
Theorists cannot become the sole arbiters of science, reality, nor women’s health matters. Such is nature of tautology, not truths. Pregnancy is a biological matter, best left to the scientists, and the pregnant.
- Google Is Your Friend - Monday, Aug 7, 23 @ 10:18 am:
==During the courts final moments, Judge Johnston said he thought it was “crazy” that Raoul was not stopped while creating the bill.==
Pretty concerning that a judge apparently doesn’t know the difference between branches of government.
- Jocko - Monday, Aug 7, 23 @ 11:04 am:
==Obviously, because of their nature and
purpose, they don’t offer information or resources about abortions.==
Then why do their flyers talk about ‘post abortion syndrome’ or abortions increasing their risk of breast cancer and/or infertility?
- Louis G Atsaves - Monday, Aug 7, 23 @ 11:08 am:
“Federal courts are “deeply skeptical of laws that distinguish among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others.”
and: “Content-based regulations “target speech based on its communicative content-are presumptively unconstitutional,” and subject to strict scrutiny which “may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.”
and: “The principal inquiry in determining content neutrality is “whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys.”
and: “The government’s purpose is the controlling consideration.”
and: “In contrast, abortion providers are not subject to civil penalties. In the same vein, Plaintiffs are subject to civil penalties for omitting “material facts” but abortion providers are not.”
The court felt this was not commercial speech being regulated, it was not professional speech and was critical of the AG for pushing this bill through and soliciting sponsors through the legislature.
Seems to be plenty of case law to support this decision.
I am not sure that the criticism of AG Raoul is as justified as the court claims. Yet he is “government” as defined by the case law cited by the judge.
- H-W - Monday, Aug 7, 23 @ 11:46 am:
@ Louis G
I’ll give you the strict scrutiny argument, but that’s all. The problem I see with the conservative opinion on that one is that it is premised around allowing harm. I oppose the latter and suggest the “rule of law” on such matters should be “do no harm; where possible, do good.”
- yinn - Monday, Aug 7, 23 @ 12:20 pm:
==“likely classic content and viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment.”==
Speech is a part of transacting all business. The law “discriminates” only against that which serves fraudulent conduct, which can be fairly readily separated from statements of religious belief and other protected speech.