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.

January 4, 2018

Federal judge sides with Indiana University to block key provisions of fetal trafficking law

U.S. District Court Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
U.S. District Court Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson mainly sided with Indiana University last week in striking down key fetal trafficking provisions of Indiana’s Dignity for the Unborn Act. The ruling means Indiana is blocked from enforcing much of the law aimed at prohibiting the trafficking of parts from aborted babies in Indiana.

“We are gravely disappointed with this ruling,” stated Indiana Right to Life President and CEO Mike Fichter. “The purpose of the law is to prevent the trafficking of aborted baby parts in our state. Most of the safeguards in the law are now gutted due to Indiana University’s penchant for using the parts of aborted babies for experimental purposes.”

Indiana University [IU] sued to block the law due to its provision that prohibits the “acquisition, receipt, sale and transfer” of aborted fetal tissue. In its pleadings, IU acknowledged it obtains tissue from organs such as brains, livers and kidneys for experiments. However it argued the law’s definition of fetal tissue is too “vague” when defining it as, “tissue, organs, or any part of an aborted fetus.” IU also argued that the definition of what it means to “transfer” aborted tissue is too “vague.”

While undercutting much of the law’s effectiveness, Magnus-Stinson’s ruling does let stand provisions including the prohibition of selling aborted tissue or organs and the prohibition on altering the timing or type of abortion for the purpose of obtaining parts from aborted babies.

Click here for more from NRL News Today