Pro-Life Lawsuit against the state of Illinois Dismissed
UPDATE: Pro-Life Lawsuit against the State of Illinois Dismissal Appealed
January 12, 2018
Amicus Brief filed on behalf of 23 Illinois Pregnancy Centers in NIFLA's Supreme Court case
As you know, the Supreme Court's decision in this case will have a significant impact on the ongoing litigation challenging Illinois' unconstitutional amendment to the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act (SB1564). Mauck & Baker's brief voices our support of the pregnancy centers in California and highlights the need for the freedoms of pregnancy centers all across the nation to be protected. Click here for more
Twenty-three Illinois pregnancy centers filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of NIFLA v. Becerra. Their brief defends their right to not promote abortion and a woman’s right to choose life for her unborn child. The NIFLA v. Becerra case out of California deals with whether the government can force pro-life pregnancy care centers to provide free advertising for the abortion industry. The Illinois centers contend that they, like the California centers, are also being targeted by state efforts to force them to provide pro-abortion information to those who come to them for support.
In July 2017 an Illinois Federal District Court granted several pro-life pregnancy centers a preliminary injunction stopping Illinois’ efforts to enforce a recent amendment to the Healthcare Right of Conscience Act which forces pro-life medical professionals to promote the benefits of abortion and inform women where they can obtain an abortion. California enacted a similar law called the Reproductive FACT Act which is at issue in NIFLA v. Becerra.
Attorney Noel W. Sterett of Mauck & Baker, LLC, who represents the twenty-three pregnancy centers before the Supreme Court, said “The government has no business forcing pro-life doctors and pregnancy care centers to operate as referral agents for the abortion industry. A law that targets medical professionals because of their pro-life views and right of conscience is unconstitutional and unethical.” Click here for more