Pro-Life Lawsuit against the state of Illinois

Pro-Life Lawsuit against the State of Illinois

NO HB40
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.

June 28, 2016

Justice Ginsburg recycles Abortion Industry mantras

For whatever reasons of High Court protocol (or politics), Justice Stephen Breyer did the heavy lifting in today’s Supreme Court decision gutting the 2013 omnibus Texas pro-life law, HB 2. His majority opinion ran 40 pages.

It was left to a mere 385-word-long concurring opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to summarize the argument that HB 2 could not possibly be what legislators said it was: a good faith effort to protect women from the likes of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, convicted of three counts of first degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter. It was, in Ginsburg’s words, “beyond rational belief.”

The usual in-the-tank suspects provided the medical cover to “prove” that abortion is safer than a walk in the park, an aspirin, or a tooth extraction. But it was left to Danielle Paquette, a Washington Post reporter, to tease out that Justice Ginsburg was rebutting a contention made by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent.

Which was? That HB 2 was intended to cause unsafe abortion clinics to close and that it was the absence of active supervision “by state or local authorities or by his peers” that allowed abortionist Kermit Gosnell to run riot. Gosnell, as you recall, delivered three late-term babies alive and then murdered them by severing their spinal cords.

Ginsburg brushed this motivation aside. Or, put more accurately, turned it inside out:

When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux [for lack of a better option ] at great risk to their health and safety.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.