CV NEWS FEED // An Illinois federal judge ruled April 4 that a state healthcare law does not require physicians to discuss the “benefits” of abortion with patients but does compel them to refer patients to abortion facilities upon their request.
An Illinois physician, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, and several pregnancy care centers had challenged the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act (HCRCA) on the grounds that two of its provisions unconstitutionally restricted healthcare workers’ rights to free speech. The plaintiffs are represented by the Thomas More Society, a nonprofit law firm.
One of the provisions forced physicians, healthcare workers, and healthcare facilities to provide patients with “legal treatment options, and the risks and benefits of the treatment options in a timely manner.” For a physician with a pregnant patient, the requirements of the provision could include discussing the “benefits” of abortion. U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston found that the provision forces speech in return for a liability shield, constituting “compelled discussion” that violates the First Amendment.
The second challenged provision requires healthcare workers to refer or transfer a patient to other providers at the patient’s request, which includes referrals to abortion facilities. The lawsuit argued that the provision also constituted compelled speech and violated healthcare workers’ consciences; however, Johnston allowed the provision to stand.
“The Court understands the Plaintiffs’ position that, while complying with Section 6.1(3), they are required to effectively endorse a course of conduct they find morally abhorrent,” Johnston wrote, adding that a solution would be for healthcare workers to “rearticulate their stance on abortion or explain that their conduct is required by the State” while providing the referral.
He later stated, “Conceivably, the State has a legitimate interest in facilitating abortions provided by health care professionals to reduce the number of ‘self-managed abortions’ or ‘self-induced abortions,’ which are inherently dangerous. Requiring the Plaintiffs to provide the requested information is a rational means of meeting that goal. So, Section 6.1(3) doesn’t offend the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.”
In a news release, the Thomas More Society both celebrated and expressed disappointment at Johnston’s ruling.
“We welcome the court’s ruling striking down Illinois’ attempts to force our pro-life physicians and pregnancy centers to parrot pro-abortion talking points, in violation of their First Amendment rights — a victory we’ve fought for since this case began nearly a decade ago,” Executive Vice President Thomas Olp stated. “But we are greatly concerned that the court did not fully protect conscience rights, leaving our clients forced to compromise their deepest beliefs.”
Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation Peter Breen stated that the ruling “unconstitutionally burdens their [doctors and pregnancy centers’] faith and conscience.”
“We will keep fighting Illinois’ abortion referral mandate and appeal to the Seventh Circuit, to ensure our pro-life clients can continue serving women and children, in accord with their faith and without penalty,” he added. “This fight is far from over.”
The post Court strikes down Illinois pro-abortion amendment, upholds another appeared first on CatholicVote org.