Saying it amounts to little more than an effort to marshal the powers of the state to crush the religious and speech rights of abortion opponents, a group of pro-life organizations who operate so-called crisis pregnancy centers have filed suit to challenge a new Illinois law that would expand the power of the Illinois Attorney General to use Illinois’ consumer fraud law to fine and close such pregnancy centers in the name of fighting “misinformation.”
The lawsuit was filed on July 27 in federal court in Rockford. It came the same day Gov. JB Pritzker signed into law the legislation known as Senate Bill 1909.
The law has drawn full-throated support from Pritzker and all other prominent Democratic elected officials who dominate Illinois’ state government, including Attorney General Kwame Raoul.
Peter Breen
Indeed, the complaint asserts the legislation, though approved by the Democratic supermajority in the Illinois General Assembly, was authored by Raoul, whose office will now be empowered to enforce it.
The law took effect immediately.
Supporters of SB1909 said the law was needed to protect women from alleged “deception” at the hands of pro-life advocates who seek to talk with women arriving at abortion clinics, and who operate the crisis pregnancy centers, which then provide a range of services to women, with the goal of persuading them to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, rather than choose to terminate the fetus.
“Patients report going to crisis pregnancy centers – sometimes even receiving exams and ultrasounds – thinking they were visiting a clinic that offers the full range of reproductive care," Raoul said in a release applauding Pritzker for signing the bill into law. "In addition, patients may disclose personal medical information, unaware the center may not keep that information private and confidential. By signing this law at a time when reproductive health access faces continued attacks in other states, Gov. Pritzker is helping to protect patients who seek care in Illinois from these extreme violations of trust and privacy.”
In their complaint, the pro-life advocates, however, said the new law does much more than address documented instances of “deceptive business practices,” as are traditionally policed by the consumer fraud statute.
They assert the law, instead, empowers state officials, who not only favor abortion, but wholeheartedly promote the procedure, to use the law’s combination of fines and closure orders to silence religious and political speech about abortion with which those powerful state officials disagree.
In the lawsuit, they note, during hearings on the legislation, representatives of Raoul’s office specifically refused to say the state would not investigate or prosecute abortion opponents for stating such beliefs and opinions as “Life begins at conception” or that abortion may present health risks to mothers, or “that abortion poses a 100% risk of death for the unborn child.”
The complaint further notes that representatives of Raoul’s office further conceded under questioning at hearings that the crisis pregnancy centers were never somehow exempted from the provisions concerning deceptive business practices under the state’s consumer fraud law. However, under questioning, the “could provide no examples of claims ever brought against an organization providing pregnancy counseling” under that law.
When presented with specific examples of common pro-life opinions and beliefs, the attorney general’s office refused to say which of those they would or would not investigate as supposedly illegal “misinformation.”
“We would evaluate each case on a case-by-case basis,” they said repeatedly.
However, when taken in conjunction with public statements from Raoul and his office, trumpeting the law, the pro-life organizations said it was clear the law was intended for nothing more than to “illegitimately … censor one side” of the abortion debate, “precisely where Plaintiffs’ pro-life speech may be most persuasive.”
“But now, speaking common pro-life views as a part of a pregnancy help ministry, or failing to speak the State’s pro-abortion views on hotly disputed issues, is illegal under state law, on pain of crippling fines, injunctions, and attorney fees,” the plaintiffs wrote. “Meanwhile, abortion facilities … remain free to engage in their own controversial speech about abortion, as they wish.
“It is for days like today – perhaps more than any other – that the First and Fourteenth Amendment were ratified, to stop such affronts to core premises and promises of our national life.”
Plaintiffs in the action include the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, as well as crisis pregnancy center operators in McHenry, Rockford and Highland, and the Pro-Life Action League.
NIFLA has also fought in court against similar efforts in California to use the power of the state to target abortion opponents.
Five years ago, NIFLA scored a big win at the U.S. Supreme Court, when it secured a decision striking down a California law requiring abortion opponents operating the pregnancy centers to refer women to abortion providers. The Supreme Court ruled this represented unconstitutional state-compelled speech.
This year, California’s left-wing and solidly pro-abortion supermajority appears ready to adopt the same approach now joined by Illinois, using a state law dealing with false advertising to seek to shut down crisis pregnancy centers over “misinformation.”
The legislation remains pending, but NIFLA has already threatened to use the earlier ruling to challenge any similar action in California.
However, Illinois raced ahead of California, and now faces the legal action directly.
In the lawsuit, NIFLA and its co-plaintiffs are seeking court orders blocking Raoul from enforcing the law, and then declaring the law unconstitutional.
NIFLA and its co-plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Peter Breen, Michael McHale and others from the Thomas More Society, of Chicago.