Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Pritzker: Majority of effort ‘needs to be in the city of Chicago’ *** April gets closer every day (Updated)
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Fundraiser list
Posted in:
* Maia McDonald in the Chicago Reader…
In Illinois, the latest legal decision to impact reproductive health care involves so-called crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), organizations (typically affiliated with national religious groups opposed to contraception) that pose as medical clinics to dissuade pregnant people from considering abortion and other pro-choice options, often through deceptive means.
In a shocking about-face, Illinois attorney general Kwame Raoul’s office announced an agreement last month with anti-abortion advocates that the state will not enforce legislation that would have cracked down on deceptive practices by these fake abortion clinics. It was a surprising move for the attorney general, who’d helped introduce such legislation himself earlier in 2023. As a result, many Illinois abortion rights advocates say they’ll need to work even harder to protect residents seeking reproductive health care. […]
State representative Terra Costa Howard, who carried the bill in the house, says she and other sponsors were initially confident in its chances (similar laws in Colorado and Connecticut had been successful) and are disappointed in its outcome. Costa Howard, who says she has a CPC in her district, also doesn’t believe the First Amendment should shield groups that jeopardize the health of Illinois residents from being held accountable for dishonesty and misinformation.
“I don’t believe that the First Amendment protects lies, and that’s what’s occurring. If these fake clinics were giving accurate information—that’s one thing,” Costa Howard says. “There is nothing in the bill that required the fake clinics to provide information about abortion. There’s nothing in the bill that requires them to give that information. You can’t lie about health care.” […]
Costa Howard says she and other members of the Illinois General Assembly who’d previously supported Senate Bill 1909 are working to find ways to address the negative impacts of CPCs, though they’ll also “have to make sure that we have somebody who’s in place who’s actually going to enforce the laws that we pass.”
Ouch.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jan 29, 24 @ 10:56 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Pritzker: Majority of effort ‘needs to be in the city of Chicago’ *** April gets closer every day (Updated)
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Fundraiser list
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Of course the First Amendment protects lies.
Comment by wishbone Monday, Jan 29, 24 @ 11:43 am
===Of course the First Amendment protects lies.===
Not in healthcare.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jan 29, 24 @ 11:53 am
The new law got definitively slapped down in federal court. Yes, it was a conservative lower court judge, so the AG could have appealed and maybe won at the 7th Circuit. But I think we all know the likely outcome if it reached the US Supreme Court.
Had Raoul followed that path, he would have avoided the sniping he’s getting now from Costa Howard and others, but he also could have put the state on the hook for Peter Breen’s legal bills. I’m not sure a couple of years of de facto taxpayer funding for the Thomas More Society is an outcome the pro-choice community would be happy with either.
Kwame does not use his platform as AG to score easy political points — at least not to the extent many of his predecessors did. I’m willing to bet he’s had fewer press conferences than any of them. The decision he made not to further pursue this case is in keeping with that approach.
He probably did the right thing legally, but the wrong thing politically. Particularly if he’s going to be in a primary for governor or senator in two years.
Comment by Telly Monday, Jan 29, 24 @ 12:03 pm
=== But I think we all know the likely outcome if it reached the US Supreme Court. ===
That’s not necessarily true.
The simple fact is this was AG Raoul’s bill. And he bailed on it.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jan 29, 24 @ 12:06 pm
I am not much of a TCH fan but she isn’t wrong and agree with Rich as well.
I don’t think this USSC is as predictable as some believe. There have been several instances where they defied “conventional” thought on their position.
AG Raoul should have gone forward with an appeal.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Jan 29, 24 @ 12:11 pm
== The simple fact is this was AG Raoul’s bill. And he bailed on it. ==
Agreed. The question is why? He obviously didn’t suddenly become a pro-lifer. I think it’s because he thought he had a loser case. He’s thinking like a lawyer, not a politician.
Comment by Telly Monday, Jan 29, 24 @ 12:19 pm
I think two things can be true: 1) The Conservatives have taken over the courts, so AG’s need to accept realities and pick their battles, and 2) This was very bad politics for AG Raoul. Even if he knew that a court battle may have been a lost cause, advocates now don’t believe that he’ll be a true fighter for their cause.
Last year the general thinking was that the assault weapons ban would get taken down by the Supreme Court. For some reason that hasn’t happened yet. If you don’t take on the fight, how will you know?
Comment by NIU Grad Monday, Jan 29, 24 @ 12:33 pm
===He’s thinking like a lawyer, not a politician===
Except a large section of his client base is not happy with their attorney.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jan 29, 24 @ 12:47 pm
- but he also could have put the state on the hook for Peter Breen’s legal bills. -
So what? I get so tired of the excuse that someone might lose in court so giving up is acceptable.
Leaders aren’t afraid of losing.
Comment by Excitable Boy Monday, Jan 29, 24 @ 12:50 pm
Uh, the Colorado law just took effect in April. Has anyone called the Republican Attorney General of Colorado to see if she has taken any enforcement action?
Because the law is not being enforced in Connecticut:
https://www.ncregister.com/news/connecticut-crisis-pregnancy-center-withdraws-lawsuit-against-deceptive-advertising-ban
“Connecticut Attorney General Tong revealed in the litigation that he is not aware of any women being deceived by pro-life pregnancy centers. Therefore, he currently has no basis to enforce this law. Our client, Care Net New London, will continue to focus their energy and resources on serving unborn children and their mothers,” said Mark Lippelman, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, in a written statement to the Register through a spokesman.
Maybe Raoul knows something lawmakers don’t. Like there is a risk of SCOTUS taking up the case and expanding the definition of Religious freedom in a way that would strike down all state laws regarding all abortion-related services and referrals.
Comment by Juvenal Monday, Jan 29, 24 @ 1:02 pm
==pose as medical clinics to dissuade pregnant people from considering abortion==
I guess bearing false witness is okay…as long as you have a good reason. /S
Comment by Jocko Monday, Jan 29, 24 @ 1:22 pm
What’s the deal with the Senate amendment? The original bill created a new act and the amendment amended the Consumer Fraud Act. Did that change the underlying substance in anyway?
Comment by Dan Johnson Monday, Jan 29, 24 @ 1:45 pm
==Kwame does not use his platform as AG to score easy political points==
Hahaha, good one!!
Comment by charles in charge Monday, Jan 29, 24 @ 2:59 pm
I’m sorely disappointed in AG Raoul.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Monday, Jan 29, 24 @ 6:29 pm