Illinois Sued Over Bill Targeting Pro-Life Counselors, Pregnancy Centers for Supposed ‘Deceptive Business Practices’
Ridiculous and disgusting, even for a pro-abortion state like Illinois.
The Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit against Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul over Senate Bill 1909. The organization is representing the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) and Pro-Life Action League and Rockford Family Initiative. The latter provides sidewalk counselors.
The bill targets crisis pregnancy centers in Illinois, an abortion haven state. So much for “pro-choice.” Love it when the pro-abortionists show their true colors.
The Bill
Illinois claims the bill prevents “deceptive business practices” because they supposedly talk women out of abortions.
No words about Planned Parenthood, which has a deceptive name!
The legislature insists it does not intend “to regulate, limit, or curtail the ability to counsel against abortion if an organization and its agents are otherwise operating in compliance with the law.”
The bill is disgusting and filled with lies because crisis pregnancy centers unless associated with a religion, provide women with information on all options.
Illinois describes these centers as “limited services” centers:
(b) A limited services pregnancy center shall not engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact, with the intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression, or omission of such material fact:
(1) to interfere with or prevent an individual from seeking to gain entry or access to a provider of abortion or emergency contraception;
(2) to induce an individual to enter or access the limited services pregnancy center;
(3) in advertising, soliciting, or otherwise offering pregnancy-related services; or
(4) in conducting, providing, or performing pregnancy-related services.
So the legislature’s intent is:
It is also the public policy of the State to ensure that patients receive timely access to information and medically appropriate care and that consumers are protected from deceptive and unfair practices. Despite these laws, vulnerable State residents and nonresidents seeking health care in this State have repeatedly been misled by organizations and their agents purporting to provide comprehensive reproductive health care services, but which, in reality, aim to dissuade pregnant persons from considering abortion care through deceptive, fraudulent, and misleading information and practices, without any regard for a pregnant person’s concerns or circumstances.
Illinois has a problem with the centers’ advertising because they dare to go against the gospel of abortion:
The advertisements and information given by these organizations provide grossly inaccurate or misleading information overstating the risks associated with abortion, including conveying untrue claims that abortion causes cancer or infertility and concealing data that shows the risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than the risk of death associated with an abortion. This misinformation is intended to cause undue delays and disruption to protected, time-sensitive, reproductive health care services, and the State has an interest in preventing health risks and associated costs caused and compounded by unnecessary delays in obtaining life-changing or life-saving reproductive care. Even when an organization offers free services, all of this activity has a commercial and economic impact on where, when, and how reproductive care is provided.
The Lawsuit
The Thomas More Society filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. The complaint also notes Illinois’ obsession with abortion and how the state protects abortion providers.
“This law is a blatant attempt to chill and silence pro-life speech under the guise of ‘consumer protection,’” Peter Breen, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation, and a former Illinois State Legislator, said in a press statement. “Pregnancy help ministries provide real options and assistance to women and families in need, but instead of the praise they deserve, pro-abortion politicians are targeting these ministries with $50,000 fines and injunctions solely because of their pro-life viewpoint.”
The complaint spells out the services many crisis pregnancy centers provide for women and pregnant women.
As I said before, many pregnancy centers affiliated with religion do not provide information about abortions.
But Relevant Pregnancy Options Center, a non-profit organization, provides abortion information: “While it has religious objections to performing or providing referrals for abortions, Relevant does discuss abortion as one of many options available to its clients as it seeks to empower women to make informed choices regarding their futures.”
Women’s Help Services, another Christian organization, does not promote abortion services. It does discuss it: “Women’s Help Services discusses abortion in many of the services it provides, but its religious beliefs prohibit it from promoting or participating in any manner in abortion, including providing referrals to or affiliating with organizations that provide abortions.”
Then there’s the targeting of sidewalk counselors. Many women seeking abortions are either forced to do it or think it’s the only choice they have. They do not ambush, force, or threaten women. None of those represented in the lawsuit have ever had complaints or lawsuits against them.
The lawsuit has six causes of action. The first two allege a violation of free speech and religion.
The first cause of action regarding free speech states:
The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects Plaintiffs’ rights to speak, to publish speech, to be free from content and viewpoint discrimination, to be free from unconstitutional conditions, to be free from vague laws allowing unbridled discretion, and to be free from overbroad laws.
SB1909 subjects Plaintiffs to investigations, subpoenas, fines, injunctions, and even dissolution because of the pro-life content and viewpoint of their speech and because they are life-affirming organizations. SB1909 further subjects Plaintiffs to civil liability in private rights of action because of the pro-life content and viewpoint of their speech and because they are lifeaffirming organizations.
The “Legislative Intent” Section One of SB1909 demonstrates that SB1909 targets Plaintiffs because of their pro-life views.
If not for SB1909, Plaintiffs and their agents, including their staff and volunteers, would freely engage in protected speech, without hesitancy or fear of government punishment
The second cause of action regarding freedom of religion states:
Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that motivate and require them to operate their ministries in accordance with biblical moral teachings affirming the value and dignity of life at every stage, from the moment of conception, and to teach and explain those beliefs to the public and those they serve.
SB1909 substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ right to the free exercise of religion by forcing them to choose between complying with their religious beliefs or complying with Illinois law. Specifically, SB1909 inhibits Plaintiffs from freely following their religious beliefs about abortion, which includes obligations to inform others about their religious beliefs and scientific information about pregnancy and the unborn, and to perform acts of charity for those in need, because of the chilling effect of SB1909’s threatened punishment.
SB1909 is not a neutral or generally applicable law for multiple reasons
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Ya know, if they’re truly deceptive practices, there are already laws to handle that.
That you think there needs to be a new law means you’re not really targeting things you could prove are “deceptive practices.”
Let’s say a woman wants an abortion and goes to one of these places and discovers she can’t get an abortion there.
She can just walk out the door and go to a clinic that does offer that service. So what’s the problem?
Right, I mean, it’s not like a used car lot.
Don’t you know, standing up and walking out is too hard for these poor drones of the state. They’ve been conditioned to obey. Thinking for themselves? Gasp!
My question is, why would a pregnant woman seeking an abortion actually go to a pregnancy center in the first place when they could simply look up the address of their local Planned Parenthood abortion facility (it seems every major city has one) and go there for an abortion with no questions asked.
These people stand in the way of the State conducting as many abortions as possible. That makes them a threat to the State, and they must be punished. (or at least that’s the opinion of the State)
The legislature insists it does not intend “to regulate, limit, or curtail the ability to counsel against abortion if an organization and its agents are otherwise operating in compliance with the law.”
IOW, we totally don’t intend to limit you, as long as you stay within the limitations of the new law. That’s the very definition of a tautology.
data that shows the risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than the risk of death associated with an abortion
Is that actually in the law?! Because I think I found me some “deceptive practices” right here! Aside from the near 100% death rate of the fetus in abortion, deaths of women associated with abortion is way under-reported, as attested by several studies.
ProLifers need to get their butts back into gear! Since Roe V Wade was overturned there have been 6 states that held referendums on Abortion and the baby killers have won every one.
The basic majority position in red States is something like Mississippi did resulting in the Dobbs Case and its victory; a ban at about 15 weeks. In purple States the majority position is more like 22- 24 weeks/at the point of fetal pain. In blue States we would be lucky to get a hard ban at less than 30 weeks.
The reason for the pro abortion victories is the imprecise language in the proposed bills that has been exploited very effectively by pro abortion side to claim the bill will be more restrictive than it actually is. Another problem in a couple of the referendums was voter confusion with what a yes vote meant v what a no vote meant. When this occurs and a voter is confused they often instinctively vote no.
Swinging for the fences is fine but don’t expect to hit high % of homeruns. Getting singles and doubles, putting runners on base creates scoring opportunities with more singles and doubles later on. This is especially true in blue and probably purple States where the pro abortion side has more organic support and less cultural or religious opposition.
IIRC, a couple have passed laws making it legal up to birth.
Yes indeed. This illustrates exactly why Federalism is the better option that in a post Dobbs world we can embrace. When each State can decide for themselves then there isn’t a need or overwhelming motivation to push for a national policy imposed from DC. Apart from Hyde amendment limitations on use of federal funds DC should stay out of the discussion.
Alinsky would be proud.
So, if I understand this bill correctly, the purpose of the Illinois legislature is to defraud the public;
please correct me if I’m mistaken
Defraud and make sure women murder their unborn children.
Well if the woman is after an abortion she deserves warning that that’s not what this outfit is up to. They want to offer a sales pitch, which in normal commerce would be deceptive advertising about their service.
Easily fixed with more accurate advertising. Let us discuss the positives in carrying the thing to term, perhaps something you’re not considering, which is what they’re up to.
“Let us discuss the positives in carrying the thing to term …”
The thing? Do you mean that unborn person we all were?
.
Easily fixed by better research on the part of the consumer. You know, the women eager to kill her unborn kid because the State says she should.
While there are large numbers of folks eager to adopt. Lots. My wife an I adopted.
These places have websites–I know, new concept! And these websites make it clear what they believe:
https://www.heartbeatinternational.org/about/our-commitment
“Heartbeat International does not promote abortion, abortifacients, or contraceptives.
Heartbeat International does not promote birth control (devices or medications) for family planning, population control, or health issues, including disease prevention.
Heartbeat International does promote God’s Plan for our sexuality: marriage between one man and one woman, sexual intimacy, children, unconditional/unselfish love, and relationship with God must go together.
Heartbeat International does promote sexual integrity/sexual purity before marriage and sexual integrity faithfulness within marriage.
All Heartbeat International policies and materials are consistent with Biblical principles and with orthodox Christian (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) ethical principles and teaching on the dignity of the human person and sanctity of human life.”
So WHERE is the deceptive advertising, rhhardin?
“Hello, I’d like to schedule a hasty abortion..” Ellen Page, Juno (2007)
And 13 years later, she called again to stage a hasty transition.
Sin in haste, repent at leisure?
This billionaire hotel chain heir looks more like the house dick from a bad 1930s B movie.
This misinformation is intended to cause undue delays and disruption to protected, time-sensitive, reproductive health care services, and the State has an interest in preventing health risks and associated costs caused and compounded by unnecessary delays in obtaining life-changing or life-saving reproductive care.
What I don’t understand is that if they are so concerned about “time-sensitive reproductive health care services” why doesn’t the Illinois legislature simply remove those time constraints from state law and make abortions available to women at any point in a pregnancy. Up to and including the day of birth. I would think that would be an easier way to do things than try and do a end-run around the 1st amendment with their “deceptive advertising/practices” nonsense.
Crisis pregnancy centers are one of the main ways that the pro-life movement has of aiding low-income pregnant women. This is why the state is trying to destroy them. No alternative but abortion.
Thomas More Society is a great group.