Pro-Life Lawsuit against the state of Illinois Dismissed

UPDATE: Pro-Life Lawsuit against the State of Illinois Dismissal Appealed

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 was dismissed by Associate Circuit Judge Jennifer Ascher. A notice of appeal was entered on January 2nd, in the 4th Appelate Court.

September 3, 2014

National Right to Life will score U.S. Senate vote on Democrats’ constitutional amendment to curb political speech

The proposal would “empower incumbent federal and state lawmakers to restrict and criminalize speech that is critical of their actions,” NRLC warns in letter to senators

freedomofspeech3The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nation’s oldest and largest pro-life organization, today warned members of the U.S. Senate that it will “scorecard” the upcoming Senate roll call on a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Congress and each state legislature to restrict or prohibit virtually any type of communications to the public that might “influence elections.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has indicated that he will seek Senate action on the measure on September 8. Fifty (50) Democratic senators have so far expressed support for the measure.
The letter, signed by National Right to Life President Carol Tobias, Executive Director David N. O’Steen, Ph.D., and Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, referred to the proposal as “a radical assault on the Bill of Rights.”

“The dispositive Senate roll call on S. J. Res. 19 will be included in NRLC’s scorecard of key roll call votes of the 113th Congress, with a vote in favor of the amendment accurately described as a vote to empower incumbent federal and state lawmakers to restrict and criminalize speech that is critical of their actions on crucial public policy issues, including abortion,” the letter advised. “. . . One can hardly conceive of language more sweeping than the phrase ‘to influence elections.’ On its face, it could encompass not only communications regarding the actions of individuals who hold or seek elective office – which would be bad enough – but also communications regarding politically charged public policy issues (i.e., issue advocacy). . . . There would be nothing to prevent Congress or a state legislature from crafting restrictions that effectively define one side of a public policy debate as the election-influencing side, and restricting communications to the public that advocate that particular viewpoint.”

The complete letter to the Senate may be viewed or downloaded at: