As a state appeals court prepares to hear arguments in a similar challenge, a new lawsuit filed in federal court seeks to overturn an Illinois state law which requires all employers and health insurance providers in the state to pay for abortions, arguing the law unconstitutionally tramples religious freedom and conscience rights.
On Nov. 20, a group of plaintiffs, including a manufacturer, a private school, a church, pro-life advocacy organizations and Illinois residents, filed a complaint in Chicago federal court against Gov. JB Pritzker and others, seeking to strike down the state's so-called Reproductive Health Act.
“For Christians and many other pro-life advocates, Illinois’ abortion-coverage mandate is fundamentally opposed to their religious beliefs and runs roughshod over their constitutionally protected conscience rights," Peter Breen, an attorney from the Thomas More Society, which is representing the plaintiffs in the action, said in a prepared statement.
Peter Breen, Executive Vice President & Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society
| Thomas More Society
"Gov. JB Pritzker and his administration are on an uncompromising campaign to transform the Land of Lincoln into the nation’s abortion capital. In doing so, they have shown little-to-no regard for the rights of those who believe that all human life is worth protecting.
"... There’s no reason for pro-life individuals and organizations to be denied the option to choose an insurance policy that exempts them from covering others’ elective abortions.”
The lawsuit took aim at provisions in the RHA law, which was enacted in 2019, requiring every health insurance plan regulated by the Illinois Department of Insurance to provide abortion coverage, if the plans also provide pregnancy-related benefits.
Pritzker and his allies in the Democratic supermajority in Springfield have described the law as a key cog in their goal to make Illinois into a safe haven for abortions and abortion providers, particularly in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v Wade and returning the question over the legality of abortions to the states and the people.
"In this state, women will always have the right to reproductive health care," Pritzker said at the time he signed the RHA into law.
In the new federal lawsuit, however, the plaintiffs say that goal conflicts with the rights of those opposed to abortion - an opposition often based on deep religious beliefs concerning the sanctity of human life - to not be forced by the state to pay for others' abortions.
Plaintiffs named in the lawsuit include anti-abortion organizations, Students for Life of America, the Pro-Life Action League and Illinois Right to Life; Midwest Bible Church, of Chicago; Clapham School, a private Christian K-12 school in Wheaton; DuPage Precision Products, a manufacturer, in Aurora; and individuals associated with all of those organizations and companies.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs say the law forces them to choose between purchasing health insurance premiums for themselves and their employees that fund abortions, or foregoing such coverage altogether.
They said forcing them to purchase such health insurance products would mean they have been compelled to be complicit in a procedure they regard "as an act of murder."
The individual plaintiffs who run the companies and organizations said they are devout Christians who hold a "sincere religious belief that life begins at conception and that the unustified taking of an unborn human life is an act of murder."
The lawsuit said the Illinois law "substantially burdens" their "free excerise of religion" by making it impossible for them to purchase health insurance in Illinois "unless they pay for other people's abortions and become complicit in the provision of elective abortions and abortion-inducing drugs."
"There is no compelling governmental interest in forcing religious objectors (or anyone else) to pay for other people's abortions," the lawsuit said. "And even if the defendants (Pritzker and other state officials) wanted to assert a 'compelling governmental interest' in making elective abortions available at no charge to any person who wants them, there are ways to accomplish that goal without forcing religious objectors to choose between paying for other people's abortions and foregoing health insurance entirely."
The plaintiffs further asserted the Illinois RHA law violates federal laws which prohibit state governments receiving Medicaid dollars or other federal health care funding from discriminating against health care providers that refuse to cover elective abortions or abortion-inducing drugs.
In this case, they said, the Illinois law illegally discriminates against health insurers offering health insurance plans that do not pay for abortions.
They are represented in the action by attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell, of Mitchell Law PLLC, of Austin, Texas; and Breen and Thomas Brechja, of the Thomas More Society, of Chicago.
Breen and the Thomas More Society also are representing plaintiffs challenging the RHA in state court.
In that action, now before the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court, an Illinois state association of churches associated with the Southern Baptist Convention asserted the RHA law violates their rights under Illinois state laws protecting religious freedom and rights of conscience.
Their lawsuit did not implicate the First Amendment or other provisions of the U.S. Constitution or federal law.
But they said the RHA law illegally prevents Illinois employers from opting out, even if owners or the organizations object to such abortion coverage on religious or conscience grounds.
A Sangamon County judge in Springfield rejected that challenge in September, finding the Baptist churches' rights weren't violated because they can still purchase health care coverage from insurers regulated by other states or the federal government.
According to the court docket, the Illinois Baptist State Association appealed that ruling in October to the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court in Springfield.
The Fourth District court has not yet ruled in that appeal.