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 6, 2016

Supreme Court approaches deadline for decision on pro-life Texas law HB 2

Just to be clear, no one except the eight Supreme Court justices and (to a lesser extent) their clerks know exactly when the High Court will rule on a host of controversial cases, some of which raise new issues, others of which will finesse previous rulings. Could be this week, could be the end of the month.

According to ABC News, “The court still has 24 opinions left to release before it recesses for the year in late June.”

HB 2 is best known outside the Lone Star state for the filibuster that temporarily derailed the law. Pro-abortion state Senator Wendy Davis catapulted her role in that filibuster to national fame, which tempted her to run what proved to be a disastrous 2014 campaign for governor.

At issue are two provisions: (1) that abortion clinics meet the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs); and (2) that abortionists have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital for situations of medical emergencies.

What gives the case such importance is that the justices will be challenged to flesh out yet again what an “undue burden” on the “right” to abortion means.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.