Pregnancy Resource Centers Fight Against Mandatory Abortion Referrals in Illinois
The hard-fought battle to protect the rights of pregnant mothers and their preborn babies continued last week in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Treto.
NIFLA disputes an Illinois law that forces pro-life pregnancy resource centers to refer pregnant women for abortions, arguing it violates their right to free speech.
Illinois courts have hotly debated the free speech rights of pregnancy resource centers for some seven years.
Attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) appealed NIFLA’s case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit on May 29 following an April court ruling declaring that forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to refer their clients for abortions does not violate speech or conscience rights.
In the same ruling, however, the court permanently blocked an Illinois law requiring pro-life pregnancy resource centers to promote abortion and its possible “benefits.” Judges found the law an unconstitutional infringement on the pregnancy centers’ freedom of speech – a stark contradiction to their previous assessment of pregnancy resource centers’ free speech rights.
“No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions, and compelling people to refer others for abortions does that,” said ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley. She continued, “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.
While the lower court correctly ruled that these centers can’t be forced to advertise the so-called ‘benefits’ of abortion, it failed to protect them from being compelled to refer for abortion.
In their appeal, NIFLA’s attorneys explain the district court erred by arguing mandatory abortion referrals are standard healthcare practice, and do not implicate “speech” at all.
Yet, to refer pregnant women for abortions, healthcare professionals must provide the expecting mothers with written information on abortion providers and procedures. These documents constitute speech.
The appeal states:
Laws that compel individuals to speak when they’d prefer to remain silent “pose the inherent risk that the Government” may seek to “manipulate the public debate through coercion.”
This is especially so when government-coerced speech compels individuals to be complicit in a medical procedure that violates their most deeply held beliefs.
In situations such as these when the court contradicts itself, we can be thankful truth never changes — especially when it comes to believers’ duty to protect the rights of preborn children and their mothers.
This case is National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Treto.
Related Articles and Resources
Become An Option Ultrasound Life Advocate
Alternatives to Abortion: Pregnancy Resource Centers
America Needs Convictional Pro-Life Politicians
Planned Parenthood Earns $2 Billion Killing Over 400,000 Babies, Annual Report Shows
