Court Rules After IL Tried to Force Pro-Life Centers 'to Parrot Pro-Abortion Talking Points'

A federal court has ruled in favor of free speech for crisis pregnancy centers in Illinois. 

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois struck down a law that forced pregnancy centers to promote abortion – a measure that was in direct violation of their deeply held beliefs about protecting unborn life.

In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Treto, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three pro-life pregnancy centers filed a federal lawsuit in 2016 to challenge a state mandate that would require pregnancy care centers, medical facilities, and physicians who conscientiously object to involvement in abortions to adopt policies that provide women who ask for abortions with a list of providers "they reasonably believe may offer" them.

Additionally, those same pregnancy resource centers and medical staff would be required to counsel clients on the so-called medical "benefits" of abortion.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a non-profit legal group, warned Illinois legislators about the problems with the mandate even before it became a law. 

"No state should attempt to rob women of the freedom to choose a pro-life doctor, but that is the choice that Illinois is eliminating by mandating that pro-life physicians and entities make or arrange abortion referrals. To make matters worse, the state did this by amending a law designed specifically to protect freedom of conscience," ADF Senior Counsel Matt Bowman said at the time. 

"Medical professionals and pregnancy care centers shouldn't be forced to speak a message completely at odds with their mission and ethics," ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot added. 

The non-profit legal group filed a lawsuit in 2016 on behalf of the pro-life pregnancy centers. 

In a decision made just last week, the federal court found that a provision of the law compelling the centers to promote abortion and its supposed "benefits," violated their freedom of speech. 

***Please sign up for CBN Newsletters and download the CBN News app to ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.*** 

"In demanding that health care professionals discuss the benefits of abortion (and thereby concede to the State's view), the State makes the providers 'instruments in delivering a particular message,'" the court wrote in its opinion. "Ordinarily, the First Amendment bars a state from commanding this type of speech."

However, the court did uphold a portion of the law requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to provide referrals to abortion providers. 

"No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions. The court was right to protect pregnancy centers' freedom to advocate that life is a human right," said Theriot, who argued before the court in September 2023. "The government can't compel medical professionals to choose between violating the law and violating the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm." 

He added, "The U.S. Supreme Court held in NIFLA v. Becerra that forcing people to promote abortion is unconstitutional. Pro-life pregnancy centers must be free to continue their life-affirming work without fear of government punishment."

The Thomas More Society, another non-profit legal group, represented Illinois physician Dr. Ronald Schroeder of 1st Way Pregnancy Support Services and Pregnancy Aid South Suburbs, in a parallel lawsuit.

Thomas More Society Executive Vice President Thomas Olp applauded the court's ruling while adding that litigation will continue to fully protect pro-life beliefs. 

"We welcome the court's ruling striking down Illinois' attempts to force our pro-life physicians and pregnancy centers to parrot pro-abortion talking points, in violation of their First Amendment rights—a victory we've fought for since this case began nearly a decade ago. But we are greatly concerned that the court did not fully protect conscience rights, leaving our clients forced to compromise their deepest beliefs. We look forward to continuing this fight against the State of Illinois in the Seventh Circuit," he said.