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.

August 24, 2016

Having dismantled standard pro-abortion talking points, columnist can’t see how illogical it is to stand by and do nothing

National Post’s George Jonas
National Post’s George Jonas
Anyone who keeps track of the abortion debate is painfully aware how amazing it is that some observers can tip-toe right to the edge, conclude that all the reasons for abortion are examples of shoddy and/or self-exculpatory reasoning, and then….punt.

Or better put, say “Forget how I have just decimated the standard pro-choice talking points, because in the end….”

I don’t think I’ve read a better example than George Jonas’s piece for the Canadian newspaper, the National Post. The headline certainly catches the bottom line—“Abortion is a parent’s decision, not the government’s”—but it misses the wrecking ball Jonas wields to dismantle the basic foundation of excuses for abortion.

He tells us right out of the chute

“I don’t necessarily oppose abortion; I oppose fuzzy thinking. I oppose the arguments ‘pro-choicers’ customarily use to support abortion. I find them flimsy at best, and at worst, false.”

For example

“Pro-choicers argue, for instance, that society shouldn’t interfere with what a woman does with her own body. Well, society doesn’t. Society interferes with what she proposes to do with someone else’s body. Few societies expect a woman to keep her baby if it’s inconvenient for her. They only expect her not to kill it.”

Or

“There are those who say that, well, you can outlaw abortion, but women will just keep doing it in back alleys. I suppose on the same basis we could legalize holdups since people keep robbing banks anyway. Others argue that men shouldn’t participate in the debate because they can’t get pregnant, which is true. That’s why I never rely on my credentials as a man in the abortion debate, only on my credentials as an ex-fetus.”

Click here for more from National Right to Life.