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 6, 2012

Several states refuse Medicaid expansion


Several states say they will reject ObamaCare's expansion of Medicaid, and one expert on the law believes even more states will follow suit.
States that are saying 'no' to expansion include Wisconsin, Iowa, Louisiana and Florida, which is also opting-out of creating an insurance exchange. Nina Owcharenko, director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, explains why the states are making this decision.

"I certainly don't think that any state has any real incentive right now to rush to implement this healthcare law," she says. "Even before the court's ruling, the wheels on the wagon were falling off -- and I think the decision has just made the demise of the healthcare law possibly move faster."

In the case of Florida, Governor Rick Scott told Fox News this week that he opposes the Medicaid expansion because Floridians will be the ones ultimately picking up the tab after the first three years of federal funding. As for the insurance exchange, Scott says "they don't work [and] if it is such a great idea, the private sector would do it."

"Certainly on the Medicaid front, the administration has tried to make the states feel that they were picking up the whole tab," Owcharenko tells OneNewsNow. "But I think most governors saw right through that, which is why the Medicaid mandate to expand coverage was included in the court case in the end, and, thankfully, was probably the silver lining of this entire court case."

On the exchange front, Owcharenko says "the administration would love to have states helping them administer this subsidy scheme for government health plans; but because of the court's decision, states are not under the black cloud that they used to be with the Medicaid piece, and they really can take their time and figure out, maybe after the election, what the future of this healthcare law is."

Contact: Chris Woodward
Source: OneNewsNow