Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Exelon, ComEd, Anne Pramaggiore charged with fraud by SEC
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Posted in:
* Crain’s…
The same federal judge who is hearing a case challenging an Illinois law that targets anti-abortion health care providers for defrauding patients is also hearing a case against a similar state law passed years ago. […]
Conservative Chicago law firm Thomas More Society said in a statement that it filed the lawsuit on behalf of obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. Ronald L. Schroeder and pro-life pregnancy help ministries 1st Way Pregnancy Support Services and Pregnancy Aid South Suburbs challenging an amendment to the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which passed into law in 2016.
The amendment, Thomas More Society said in the statement, is meant to require health care providers to provide referrals of abortion providers to patients, regardless of the provider’s own beliefs about abortion. […]
“Health care professionals should provide patients with information on all their medical options in a timely manner,” Jennifer Welch, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Illinois, said in a statement. “Challenging the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act is another attempt to deprive people from accessing essential reproductive care like abortion services. Everyone should be aware of all their options in order to make the best decision for themselves without discrimination or coercion.”
* Hannah Meisel at Capitol News Illinois…
When Illinois Democrats passed the 2016 law, its sponsors’ rhetoric was focused not on crisis pregnancy centers, but Catholic hospitals, which do not provide elective abortions and often bar doctors from prescribing contraceptives and sterilization.
In extreme cases, like to save the life of the mother, Catholic hospitals may terminate a pregnancy, but sponsors pointed to the story of a woman who was made to wait five weeks during her prolonged miscarriage until she was bleeding enough to justify the procedure. Then, as now, roughly 30 percent of hospital beds in Illinois are in Catholic-affiliated institutions.
But negotiations over the bill in 2015 and 2016 were able to neutralize opposition from influential organizations like the Illinois Catholic Hospital Association and the Catholic Conference of Illinois, and arguments against the bill evolved to prioritize the First Amendment concerns of CPCs. During debates over the bill in the House and Senate, Republican opponents warned the law would violate both the facilities’ rights to free speech and religious liberties.
Those comments turned out to be a preview of the legal battle over the Health Care Right of Conscience Act’s amendment; last week’s trial involved no plaintiffs associated with Catholic hospitals. Instead, plaintiffs are a handful of CPCs in Illinois, one doctor who volunteers as a medical director for a CPC, and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, a Virginia-based nonprofit that offers resources, training and legal advice to CPCs across the U.S. Out of the roughly 100 CPCs in Illinois, 81 are members of NIFLA’s network.
posted by Isabel Miller
Friday, Sep 29, 23 @ 2:13 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Exelon, ComEd, Anne Pramaggiore charged with fraud by SEC
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I actually loathe the Thomas More Society. That said, I believe their argument concerning an individual doctors theorized right to not assist by providing information may well work at the federal level with the current US Supreme Court. In that context, I could see the federal court that is hearing the case granting individual plaintiffs relief from the existing law, while preserving the law.
Comment by H-W Friday, Sep 29, 23 @ 2:36 pm
Religious accommodations were affirmed 9-0 in a Supreme Court ruling this year
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/vax-mandate-suits-get-lift-from-new-religious-accommodation-test#
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Sep 29, 23 @ 3:30 pm
Good to see you LP. While we always disagree, good to se you.
Comment by H-W Friday, Sep 29, 23 @ 3:39 pm
Same to you but it looks like we agree on this one HW
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Sep 29, 23 @ 3:41 pm
- LP -, you anti-vax
That I didn’t know
The Thomas More wants to take away rights for their rights.
We’ll know soon.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Sep 29, 23 @ 3:42 pm
So you think the 3 liberal Justices are anti vax too?
Typing 100 words a minute is not a good predictor of a logical mind
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Sep 29, 23 @ 4:02 pm
=== So you think===
No.
It was about you, which you could easily rebuff.
You didn’t.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Sep 29, 23 @ 4:26 pm