Posted on 06/11/2016 6:35:35 PM PDT by Coleus
Illinois came one step closer to forcing its pro-life medical community to choose between violating state law and violating deeply held religious conscience Wednesday, as the state’s House approved Senate Bill 1564 and set the legislation on the governor’s desk. The bill, which would introduce decisive changes to Illinois’ Health Care Right of Conscience Act, passed by a 61-54 margin and now awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner.
Originally put forward in the summer of 2015, the legislation would require pro-life medical providers, including 51 Illinois nonprofit pregnancy centers offering free services including ultrasound and STI testing, to take action the bill’s opponents say amounts to participating in an abortion.
[CONTACT ILLINOIS GOV. RAUNER AND URGE A VETO ON SB 1564]
Particularly at issue is the bill’s requirement that every Illinois pro-life medical provider of any kind who chooses not to perform a procedure such as abortion or a prescription for birth control has one of three options: Either they must “refer the patient” to another provider, “transfer the patient” to another provider, or provide a list of “other health care providers who they reasonably believe may offer the health care service.” One way or another, the law would compel pro-life medical providers in Illinois to participate in abortions.
Stripping pro-life medical providers of their freedom to hold to life-affirming beliefs and refuse to participate in abortion would have a far-reaching effect on Illinois women, Matt Bowman, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), said.
“This Amendment takes away the rights of Illinois women to be treated by a pro-life doctor, because it would force medical facilities and physicians who conscientiously object to performing abortions (and other procedures) to refer for, make arrangements for someone else to perform, or arrange referral information that lists willing providers, for abortions,” Bowman said.
“By violating the pro-life principles of pro-life physicians and medical organizations, the Amendment would deprive Illinois women of their choice of a medical provider that does not refer for arrange for abortions in any way.”
Bowman, who urged the pro-life community to contact Gov. Rauner’s office immediately (click here to contact Gov. Rauner) and ask him to veto the legislation, has helped spearhead the opposition to SB 1564 since 2015, drafting a letter to the state Senate, in which he stated ADF’s intention to oppose the law in court, if needed.
Co-signatories on the letter included pregnancy help organization affiliate organizations Heartbeat International and Care Net, as well as American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, six Illinois physicians—four of whom are OB/GYNs—and 11 Illinois pregnancy medical centers. Wednesday’s vote in the Illinois House comes just two days after Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer vowed to enforce California’s so-called “Reproductive FACT Act,” which Bowman and ADF are currently scheduled to challenge at a June 14 hearing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“We’re seeing a renewed sense of vigor and vitriol directed at life-affirming professionals, practices and pregnancy centers,” Jor-El Godsey, president of Heartbeat International, said. “No woman should ever be compelled by her state to consider abortion as her only option in an unexpected pregnancy, and that is exactly who will suffer because of this legislation.” While pregnancy help organizations counsel clients and patients on such facts as the baby’s development, and the physical and psychological dangers of abortion, the proposed legislation’s inclusion of a requirement to counsel on the “benefits” of abortion has also raised concern among pro-life opponents to the bill.
Although the bill requires pro-life healthcare providers and organizations to participate in abortion, it does not include stipulations that healthcare professionals, institutions, or organizations counsel patients on alternatives to abortion such as parenting or placing for adoption. Similar government-sponsored speech for pregnancy centers has been struck down as unconstitutional in Austin (TX), Baltimore and Montgomery County (MD) and New York City.
“We have over 100 pregnancy help centers for women in Illinois that are supported by private donations and run by people who selflessly give their time to help women in an unplanned pregnancy,” Emily Zender, executive director of Illinois Right to Life, said. “This bill would destroy the pregnancy centers forcing them to violate their own mission and jeopardize women’s health. We strongly urge the Governor to veto this bill.”
In addition to contacting the governor’s office directly, Illinois Right to Life is building a petition at www.ProtectMyConscience.org.
LifeNews Note: Jay Hobbs writes for PregnancyHelpNews, where this originally appeared.
Our fellow citizens are insane.
The face of evil.
I see a lot of “celebrities” representing some cause like Save the Whales, don’t wear fur, adopt a puppy, etc. I have never seen one of them stand up for the millions of unborn children that are killed by abortion. To them, a human life is just a choice.
BABY KILLING SINNERS!!
To reveal it to whom, to please whom?
It has been generally found that such an approach is a loser. The foundations of pro-life support do not rest there, but elsewhere.
Leni
However hot hell will be for the Illinois State Senate and House members, it will not be hot or long enough.
All opposed, move to a different state.
This is to force people to choose between their jobs and their faith. Most will choose to keep their jobs.
A free People that does not respect the sanctity of life, deserves neither.
The only reason that I can imagine that this attack on religous convictions would be a problem is if members of the medical community who have religous convictions are clueless about their 14th Amendment (14A) protections.
More specifically, not only have the states never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called right to have an abortion, that “right” wrongly legislated from the bench with state powers stolen by state sovereignty-ignoring activist Supreme Court justices imo, but consider the following.
When the states ratified 14A (under very questionable circumstances), they prohibited themselves from making laws and policies that abridge rights that they have amended the Constitution to expressly protect, 1st Amendment-protected free speech and religious expression in this example.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Regarding medical professionals with religous convictions using their 14A protections to protect themselves from misguided, low-information state lawmakers and officials, note that Acts 22:23-30 indicates that Paul claimed his rights as a Roman citizen to save himself from being flogged.
Quote:
“A free People that does not respect the sanctity of life, deserves neither.”
America is fast approaching the point where it has no moral right to exist.
IF they made abortion completely legal, with no questions asked, but had the government (taxpayers) quit paying for it, abortion would be almost zero rather quickly.
That would be a pretty short counseling session, wouldn't it? Because there is absolutely no benefit for a perfectly healthy woman to kill a perfectly healthy baby.
One can be evil without being insane. These people will answer for their actions before God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.