Pro-Life Lawsuit against the state of Illinois Dismissed

UPDATE: Pro-Life Lawsuit against the State of Illinois Dismissal Appealed
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 was dismissed by Associate Circuit Judge Jennifer Ascher. A notice of appeal was entered on January 2nd, in the 4th Appelate Court.

Legislation

Senate to debate Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act next week

Senate to debate Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act next week
The bill is based on model legislation developed by National Right to Life in 2010, and enacted thus far in 16 states.

“This bill would save thousands of unborn babies annually from terribly painful deaths,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, when it passed the House, 237-189 . “It is now clear that the overwhelming majority of House Democrats believe that painfully dismembering babies, in the sixth month and later, is just fine – now let them try to explain that to their constituents.”

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act has been among the right-to-life movement’s top congressional priorities for the 115th Congress. Like the state bills, the proposed federal law would generally extend legal protection to unborn humans beginning at 20 weeks fetal age, based on congressional findings that by that point (and even earlier) the unborn child has the capacity to experience great pain during an abortion.

Click here for more from NRL News Today

 

7 Members of Illinois Congressional delegation co-sponsor Born Alive measure

Trump on video at March for Life 2018
After the Democrat-controlled Illinois House and Senate refused to pass any measures banning the practice, it took President George W. Bush and a pro-life Congress to move at the federal level. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 ("BAIPA" Pub.L. 107–207, 116 Stat. 926, enacted August 5, 2002, 1 U.S.C. § 8) extended legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion, but had no legal teeth to enforce the law or protect the innocent victims.

The U.S. House voted Friday to pass a measure protecting babies born alive in a botched abortion, and punishing those performing the abortions. It next faces the U.S. Senate. The prolife movement was assured Friday during their annual March for Life that President Trump would sign the measure into law. He addressed the crowd via live video.

U.S. Representative Mike Bost (IL-12) voted with a majority of his colleagues in favor of the Born Alive Abortion Survivor’s Protection Act (H.R. 4712). The bill, which Rep. Bost and six other Illinois congressional delegates cosponsored, ensures medical care and legal protection for babies who survive an abortion, while protecting their mothers from prosecution.

Click here for more from Illinois Review

National Right to Life applauds House passage of Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

preemie and nurse
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) today applauded a vote by the U.S. House of Representatives to extend federal legal protection to babies who are born alive during abortion. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 4712) passed 241-183. All Republicans voted for final passage, but only six Democrats voted in favor of it.

National Right to Life President Carol Tobias commented, “The 183 House Democrats who voted against the bill will need to try to explain why they voted against making it a crime to treat a born-alive human person as medical waste, as a source for organ harvesting, or as a creature who may be subjected to lethal violence with impunity.”

H.R. 4712 contains an explicit requirement that a baby born alive during an abortion must be afforded “the same degree” of care that would apply “to any other child born alive at the same gestational age,” including transportation to a hospital. This language does not dictate bona fide medical judgments nor require futile measures, but rather, requires that babies born alive during abortions are treated in the same manner as those who are spontaneously born prematurely.

Click here for more from NRL News Today 

Congress has means to pass ‘real protection’ of the unborn

Heartbeat Bill HR 490
Janet Porter, president and founder of Faith2Action, says President Donald Trump supports H.R.490, Vice President Mike Pence "loves it," Congress has 170 co-sponsors - and that it could actually pass by Friday.

"It's remarkable to think about the fact that we could be ending nearly every abortion through Congress by the end of the week,” Porter tells OneNewsNow. Friday, January 19, is the 45th annual March for Life in Washington, DC. “It's what we've been marching for for the last 45 years,” she adds, “and they know it's within their power [and] within their means to do it."

H.R.490 is sponsored by Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa, who has said of the bill: “If a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected.” Porter says pro-lifers are not going to be fooled by what she considers “fake” pro-life legislation that does little or nothing to protect children.

Click here for more from OneNewsNow
 

New pro-life bill challenges Gosnell apologists

US Capitol
Congress is gearing up to debate a pro-life bill that will add enforcement to a previous law. 

Brendan O'Morchoe of Students for Life says the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is directly related to Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist currently serving two life terms after he was convicted of killing babies born alive.

O'Morchoe says the legislation, which will be voted on around the annual March for Life, will make it a crime if the abortionist fails to provide care for a baby that survives an abortion.

A similar bill was signed into law in 2002 but it was did not provide punishment. If passed, this current bill would call for a criminal fine and up to five years in prison, or both.

Click here for more from OneNewsNow

NRLC calls on Members of Congress to co-sponsor Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act

Stop Dismemberment Abortions
Dear Member of Congress:

The National Right to Life Committee, the federation of state right-to-life organizations, urges you to co-sponsor the Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 1192).

This vital pro-life legislation, introduced by Rep. Chris Smith, would prohibit the performance of dismemberment abortion. H.R. 1192 is based on a model state bill proposed by National Right to Life, which has been enacted in Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia. More states are expected to consider the legislation in 2018.

H.R. 1192 defines “dismemberment abortion” as “knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting such unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments that, through the convergence of two rigid levers, slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off . . .”

This definition largely overlaps with what those in the abortion trade currently refer to as “dilation and evacuation” or “dilation and extraction” (D&E) abortions. The method is commonly used starting at about 14 weeks of pregnancy, and extending into the third trimester.

H.R. 1192 allows performance of a dismemberment abortion if necessary to save a mother’s life. The bill also says that it does not limit abortions performed in cases of rape or incest, if performed by a method other than dismemberment abortion.

In his dissent in the 2000 case of Stenberg v. Carhart, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote regarding D&E abortion: “The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.”

A medical illustration of a D&E dismemberment abortion is available here: www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/deabortiongraphic.

If you agree that an unborn child should not be subjected to the cruel violence of having her arms and legs torn off by brute force, with steel tools that grasp, tear, and crush, please co-sponsor the Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act. Thank you for your consideration of the importance placed by our organization on this landmark legislation

Click here for more from NRL News Today

Pro-life Illinois legislators introduce bill to ban Down syndrome abortions

Illinois state Rep. Allen Skillicorn
The worse fear of pro-abortionists is that a particular type of pro-life legislation will “catch on.”

Currently Indiana and North Dakota also ban abortions based on genetic anomalies.

On Monday, the Peoria Journal Star reported that Illinois state Reps. Allen Skillicorn of Crystal Lake (pictured) and Thomas Morrison of Palatine have submitted House Bill 4210.

According to Maximilian, Kwiatkowski, HB 4210 “would make it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion with knowledge the mother is ‘seeking the abortion solely on account of the fetus having a test result indicating Down syndrome, a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, or any other reason to believe that the fetus has Down syndrome.’”

Skillicorn said the bill’s inspiration came from similar measures, including, most recently, passage in Ohio.

Click here for more from NRL News Today


Illinois Pro-abort Bill:


SJRCA 0004 Equal Rights Amendment 

We happy to report that the ERA was not called for a vote.  Thank you for all your hard work to contact your legislators and reach out to others to engage their help on this important issue.  Your efforts combined with divine intervention kept the ERA from moving forward.  Your voices were truly heard in Springfield this week!

The resolution to ratify the ERA still remains on the table and can still be voted on, but the Illinois Senate and the Illinois House will not meet again until mid January 2018.   

Please be aware that the supporters of the ERA are visiting our legislators in the district and in Springfield, and they are telling them that the ERA is not connected with abortion.  We need to help our legislators see the truth.  With this in mind, please take some time to educate others, gather together, and schedule a group visit with your state senator and state representative to talk to them about the problems with the ERA.  

We need to help them see the truth, that the ERA has been used successfully in states with state ERAs, and will be used on the federal level to strengthen abortion rights.  The only way to guarantee the federal ERA won't be used to strengthen abortion rights is to write a new ERA that includes a clause that guarantees that "nothing in the article shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof."  If it doesn't have that clause, there is no guarantee, and given the facts, we are taking a losing risk with the life of the unborn child.
The laws we need to provide women with equal opportunity are already in place, and if we are lacking in any area, we should write precise laws that will actually benefit us instead of using a broad vague amendment that will cause unintended harm.  If they want an amendment in the Constitution, they need to write a better amendment that won't harm women and the unborn child


Gov. Rauner signed into law HB40, the massive taxpayer funding of abortion bill last month. Now anti-life forces want to pass a the ERA in the General Assembly that would lock in abortion rights in the U.S. Constitution and would cause HB40 type taxpayer funding of abortions in every state in our country and the federal budget. 

Stop the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)Supporters of the ERA are targeting legislators and threatening to run candidates against them in the upcoming elections if they don't vote for the ERA. 

To counter these tactics, your Illinois state legislators need to hear from you.  They need to hear your continued encouragement for them to vote against the ERA, and they need to know you will support them if they vote no on the ERA.  Please remind them that the poorly worded ERA will harm women, harm our unborn children, and harm our society.
 
THE ERA-ABORTION CONNECTION

The ERA will harm our unborn children by overturning all restrictions on abortions and mandating taxpayer funding for elective medicaid abortions. 

Leading pro-abortion groups – including NARAL, the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood -- have strongly urged state courts to construe state ERAs, containing language virtually identical to the language of the 1972 federal ERA proposal, to invalidate laws that treat abortion differently from other “medical procedures,” including laws restricting tax-funding of abortion and laws requiring parental notification or consent for minors’ abortions.

Consider, for example, the case of New Mexico, which in 1973 adopted a state ERA (“Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person”) virtually identical to the federal language that SCR 194/HCR 109 purports to ratify.  In New Mexico, this ERA language was subsequently used as the sole basis for a successful attack the state policy against tax-funding of abortion.  In 1998, every justice on the New Mexico Supreme Court agreed that the state ERA makes it unconstitutional for the state Medicaid program to refuse to fund “medically necessary” abortions (which simply means any abortion performed by a licensed medical professional) if procedures sought by men (e.g., prostate surgery) are funded. The case was NM Right to Choose / NARAL v. Johnson, No. 1999-NMSC-005 – you can read or download it here: http://nrlc.org/uploads/era/ERANewMexicoSupremeCourt.pdf.  (Moreover, similar arguments regarding tax-funding of abortion have been accepted by some courts in other states, including Connecticut.)


The New Mexico Supreme Court based its ruling solely on the state ERA, and the justices merely adopted the construction of the ERA urged upon it in briefs submitted by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund.  The doctrine that the ERA language invalidates limitations on tax-funded abortion was also supported in briefs filed by the state Women's Bar Association, Public Health Association, and League of Women Voters.


Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Pamela Minzner wrote that “there is no comparable restriction on medically necessary services relating to physical characteristics or conditions that are unique to men. Indeed, we can find no provision in the Department’s regulations that disfavor any comparable, medically necessary procedure unique to the male anatomy . . . .[the restriction on funding abortions] undoubtedly singles out for less favorable treatment a gender-linked condition that is unique to women.”

It should be obvious that this same analysis – that limits specific to abortion are by definition a form of sex discrimination and therefore impermissible under ERA – can be used to invalidate any federal or state restrictions even on partial-birth abortions or third-trimester abortions (since these are sought “only by women”); the federal and state “conscience laws,” which allow government-supported medical facilities and personnel -- including religiously affiliated hospitals -- to refuse to participate in abortions; and parental notification and consent laws.  Indeed, the ACLU “Reproductive Freedom Project” has published a booklet that encourages pro-abortion lawyers to use state ERAs as legal weapons against state parental notification and consent laws.

When questioned about the New Mexico ruling and other such rulings, some ERA proponents reply that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously reviewed abortion-related restrictions under a “privacy right” analysis, and ruled (5-4, in 1980) that this “privacy right” does not invalidate a law (the Hyde Amendment) restricting federal Medicaid funding of abortion.  They go on to assert that the proposed federal ERA would not “change” these past “privacy” rulings.  But this argument is transparently evasive, wholly begging the question.  Obviously, past U.S. Supreme Court rulings on abortion issues have dealt only with the current U.S. Constitution – without the ERA’s absolute prohibition on abridgement of “rights” on the basis of “sex.”  Whatever one thinks of the Supreme Court’s “privacy” doctrine, that doctrine is irrelevant to the question of what legal impact the ERA itself – as a new constitutional provision -- would have on future cases involving abortion-related laws, when ERA-based challenges come before judges.

For additional documentation on the ERA-abortion connection, see the NRLC website at http://www.nrlc.org/federal/era.



Illinois Pro-Life Bill

HB 282 - Abortion Limitations Bill

House Sponsors:
Rep. Barbara Wheeler and Allen Skillicorn

Status:
Re-referred to Rules Committee

Summary:
Amends the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. Provides that a person may not perform an abortion of a fetus solely because of the fetus's race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability

Click here for more information on this bill.



Illinois Pro-Life Bill

HB 283 - Ultrasound Opportunity Act

House Sponsors:
Rep. Barbara Wheeler and Allen Skillicorn

Status:
Re-referred to Rules Committee

Summary:
Provides that at any facility where abortions are performed, the physician who is to perform the abortion, the referring physician, or another qualified person working in conjunction with either physician shall offer any woman seeking an abortion after 8 weeks of gestation an opportunity to receive and view an active ultrasound of her unborn child by someone qualified to perform ultrasounds at the facility, or at a facility listed in a listing of local ultrasound providers provided by the facility, prior to the woman having any part of an abortion performed or induced and prior to the administration of any anesthesia or medication in preparation for the abortion.

Click here for more information on this bill.



Illinois - Pro-Life Bill

HB 467 - Amends the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act

House Sponsors:
Rep. Sheri Jesiel


Status:
Re-referred to Rules Committee

Summary:

This bill amends the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act.  It basically renames abortion clinics to "pregnancy termination specialty center" and now will require unannounced inspections of each pregnancy termination specialty center.

Click here for more information on this bill.



Illinois - Pro-Life Bill

HB 532 - Amends the Illinois Anatomical Gift Act

House Sponsors
Rep. Peter Breen


Status:
Re-referred to Rules Committee

Summary:

This bill is amends the Illinois Anatomical Gift Act and adds the unborn child as a decedent so that no part of the the body cannot sold for any purpose without consent. "Decedent" means a deceased individual and includes stillborn infant or fetus and a deceased fetus or unborn child,

Click here for more information on this bill.



Illinois Pro-Life Bill

SB 78 - Funding Responsibility Act

House Sponsors:
Sen. Kyle McCarter

Status:
Re-referred to Assignments

Summary:
Creates the Public Trust in Funding Responsibility Act. This Act would prohibit a State agency from contracting with or making a grant to any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed that involves the expenditure of State funds.

Click here for more information on this bill.