Pro-Life Lawsuit against the state of Illinois
Pro-Life Lawsuit against the State of Illinois
|On November 30, 2017, the Thomas More Society filed a taxpayer lawsuit against State of Illinois officials in a counter attack against House Bill 40, which requires public funding of tens of thousands of elective abortions. The taxpayer lawsuit, filed in the Sangamon County Circuit Court, is brought on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Illinois taxpayers, represented by county and statewide pro-life organizations including the Illinois Federation for Right to Life and it's many affiliates. |
|HB 40 would force every Illinoisan to pay for free abortions for those on Medicaid and state employee health insurance. This would apply through the full nine months of pregnancy and for any reason, even when the latest scientific research has shown that the unborn child can feel pain and survive outside the womb. |
The Thomas More society is a not for profit national public interest law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious freedom. The Thomas More Society is based in Chicago. Please consider helping the Thomas More Society with your financial support.
July 11, 2012
NRLC Letter to Congress on the Repeal of Obamacare Act
RE: H.R. 6079, "Repeal of Obamacare Act"
Dear Member of Congress:
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) urges you to vote in favor of H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act, and intends to include the roll call in our scorecard of key right-to-life roll calls of the 112th Congress.
NRLC vigorously opposed enactment of the Obamacare law in 2009-2010, because of its multiple provisions authorizing federal subsidies for abortion insurance, multiple provisions allowing abortion-expansive federal mandates, and multiple provisions that will place unacceptable limits on the right of vulnerable Americans to use their own money, if they choose, to obtain both health care and health insurance less likely to deny needed health care.
Regarding the abortion-expansive provisions of Obamacare, finding (7) in H.R. 6079 aptly summarizes some of the problems:
(7) While President Obama promised that nothing in the law would fund elective abortion, the law expands the role of the Federal Government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion. The law appropriates billions of dollars in new funding without explicitly prohibiting the use of these funds for abortion, and it provides Federal subsidies for health plans covering elective abortions. Moreover, the law effectively forces millions of individuals to personally pay a separate abortion premium in violation of their sincerely held religious, ethical, or moral beliefs.
More detailed discussion of the pro-abortion provisions of Obamacare can be found in NRLC's 2011 testimony in support of the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358):
Since its inception, the pro-life movement has been as concerned with protecting the lives of older people and people with disabilities from euthanasia, including the involuntary denial of treatment, food, and fluids necessary to prevent death, as it has been dedicated to protecting unborn children from abortion. Obamacare threatens those lives by authorizing the imposition of unacceptable limits on the right of vulnerable Americans to use their own money, if they choose, to obtain both health care and health insurance less likely to deny needed health care.
The focus of many on discussion about the Independent Payment Advisory Board's (IPAB) authority over Medicare reimbursement rates, as described in finding (4) of the bill, has resulted in far too little attention being given to the grave threat the board poses to the ability of Americans of all ages to obtain life-preserving health care after 2015: IPAB's key role in suppressing nongovernmental health care spending so that private citizens are not even allowed to keep up with the rate of medical inflation. The health care law empowers IPAB, in conjunction with the federal Department of Health and Human Services, to achieve this goal by limiting what treatment doctors are allowed to give their patients.
IPAB is instructed by the health care law to make recommendations to limit what all Americans are legally allowed to spend for their health care so as to hold it below the rate of medical inflation. The health care law then authorizes the federal Department of Health and Human Services to implement these recommendations by imposing so-called "quality" and "efficiency" measures on health care providers. The documentation can be found here: http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/Life at Risk Routes to Rationing 6272012 (1).pdf
What happens to doctors who violate a "quality" standard by prescribing more lifesaving medical treatment than it permits? They will be disqualified from contracting with any of the health insurance plans that individual Americans, under Obamacare, will be mandated to purchase. Few doctors would be able to remain in practice if subjected to that penalty.
This means that treatment a doctor and patient deem advisable to save that patient's life or preserve or improve the patient's health -- but which exceeds the standard imposed by the government -- will be denied even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it. Repeal of Obamacare is critically important to prevent this rationing of life-saving medical treatment.
Obamacare also authorizes the imposition of limits on the ability of all Americans to choose to pay for, and on the ability of senior citizens' to add their own money on top of the government Medicare payment to pay for, health insurance less likely to deny medical treatment, as more fully described and documented at http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/Life at Risk Routes to Rationing 6272012 (1).pdf
NRLC strongly urges you to vote in favor of H.R. 6079, and will include the vote in our scorecard of key right-to-life roll calls of the 112th Congress.
David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.
Burke Balch, J.D.
Robert P. Powell Center for Medical Ethics