Pro-life advocates seek injunction against Illinois law targeting pregnancy centers.

Illinois’ Senate Bill ​1909: A Threat to Life-Saving Pregnancy Centers

Illinois’ Senate Bill 1909, which could⁤ shut down life-saving pregnancy ‌centers, was signed by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker last week. Attorneys with the Thomas More ‌Society immediately filed a federal lawsuit, NIFLA et al.​ v. Raoul,‌ seeking a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction from the bill.

SB 1909’s title, “Deceptive Practices of Limited Services Pregnancy Centers Act,” shows how state abortion proponents aim to put pregnancy centers under suspicion. But the evidence tells a different story. ‍Pregnancy centers have a record of providing critical medical help ⁤to thousands of women experiencing unexpected ​pregnancies. Detractors ⁢have failed to demonstrate why these centers require special fraud laws beyond what already exists.

“What ⁣this act does is ​allow the attorney general’s office to investigate situations, to investigate such claims that are under the Consumer ‍Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act,” said Terra Costa Howard, Illinois representative ⁢and chief House sponsor ⁢of SB 1909‍ at an April 25 Health Care Availability and Accessibility Committee (HCAAC) hearing. When signing the⁢ bill, the ‍governor similarly claimed the ‍bill “[empowers] ​ the attorney ​general’s office to battle deceptive‌ practices.”

However, according to⁤ the attorney ⁣general’s office, they ‍already have ⁣the ‌ability to investigate such​ situations without SB 1909. This⁣ was admitted during ‌a March 29 Senate Executive Committee hearing.

“[T]his bill clarifies our ability ‌to already do this under the Consumer Fraud Act,” ​said Ashley Hokenson, Illinois deputy attorney general.​ “Under the Consumer Fraud Act, ‍we can already bring claims for unfair ⁤and deceptive practices.”

What Fraud Is Being⁤ Fought?

Despite the‍ attorney general‍ office’s admission, supporters of⁢ SB 1909 have‍ been unable to identify a pattern ​of supposed deceptive legal violations by the pregnancy​ help industry.‍ Nor have they been able to explain why the​ attorney general has not availed existing​ fraud law ⁤if a pattern of past violations actually existed.

A client of ‌the Thomas More ​Society ‌law firm filed a Freedom of ⁣Information ​Act request for Illinois complaints over ⁣the past 10 years. The results of that request revealed no verifiable complaints against ‌Illinois ​pregnancy centers.

“The attorney general has actually received zero ⁢complaints from members‌ of the public against ⁤an Illinois pregnancy​ help center for alleged violations of the Deceptive Business⁣ Practices Act,”⁢ said Peter Breen, vice president and head of litigation of the Thomas More Society and former Illinois state representative. “The handful of documents we received were about squabbles⁤ on the sidewalk or where an ultrasound van should park. None of the complaints resulted in any legal action.”

“In the First Amendment context, the⁢ burden is​ on the​ government to show that it needs whatever new regulations are being proposed,” Breen ‍said. “But here, in addition to there being no​ actual complaints, the attorney general’s‌ office has to⁤ show that it’s used its immediately available legal means, ‌which ​is the existing Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act; Department of ⁤Financial, Professional​ Regulation Acts; and otherwise.”

Costa Howard claimed she knew ‌“story after‍ story” of lies told to⁤ women at pregnancy centers. Bill supporters ultimately showed themselves as opponents of a fictional caricature of what pregnancy resource centers are. “These fake clinics⁢ were set ‍up specifically to⁤ deceive‍ patients who are ​seeking reproductive healthcare,” said Howard.

Opponents of the bill recognized SB 1909’s lack of grounding. ⁣“We need sound proof,”‌ said Illinois‍ Rep. Kevin Schmidt to the bill’s supporters. “And you don’t ⁤have any proof.”

Time and⁤ again, bill supporters failed to account for⁤ the objections, but ​they passed the legislation anyway, most recently in the House on May 11. The representatives’ votes did not reflect⁣ that of the Illinois public. Witness slips, by ‌which Illinois⁤ citizens can formally voice their opinion for or against a‍ bill, overwhelmingly opposed the bill by 18,116 to ​3,945.

Of additional concern, the attorney general’s office issued conflicting statements regarding the enforcement of SB 1909 if it were elevated to ⁣law. After the March 29 and April 25 committee hearings, the attorney general’s office​ issued a press release ‌ applauding each ​partisan ‍vote. Both⁣ releases included a personal anecdote from⁣ the AG.

“I experienced deceptive crisis pregnancy center​ tactics firsthand,” said Illinois Attorney General​ Kwame Raoul. “People who appeared as though they might work there were outside attempting to divert us ‌away from ​the health center.”

However, the attorney general’s office elsewhere denied that scenario ​would be considered deceptive ⁢under SB 1909. During the April hearing, Deputy Attorney ⁣General Hokenson insisted ⁣the bill “only applies” ⁣to pregnancy‍ center​ staff ⁢and that people with “a sign and standing in front of ⁤Planned Parenthood would not fall under this bill.” Although‍ the AG claims to have witnessed a “deceptive” act relevant to SB 1909, he took ⁣no action against ‍it⁤ under the ‍very laws his ⁢office ⁣confirms were ⁢available to him.

No Definition of Deception

During the hearings, the ‌attorney general’s office would not define the boundaries⁢ for what constituted a deceptive practice. It planned to ⁢decide ⁤after the ⁤fact. For example, the bill states it would be misleading to conceal data “that shows the risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than the risk of death associated with an‍ abortion.” However, State Sen. Sue Rezin cited another medical study that reveals the flaw in the study, referenced by SB 1909, because “abortion reporting is not required by federal law” and therefore‌ adverse effects of abortion⁣ are under-reported. ⁤Rezin asked​ if the attorney general would initiate​ a deceptive practices investigation if a pregnancy center‍ cited such contrary ‌data.

Hokenson replied, “We would evaluate ⁤on​ a case-by-case basis.” She responded‍ to ⁤similar questions with​ that verbatim noncommittal answer⁣ at​ least a dozen times.

“These … items are ‍hotly disputed between pro-life and pro-choice advocates,” said‍ Breen. “And the government can’t shut down a public⁤ debate on issues like this or otherwise ​force or coerce people of faith, who have good faith beliefs … into delivering a government⁣ talking point.”

Bill proponents are “targeting one side​ of‍ the argument,” Rep. William Hauter ‌added at the‍ HCAAC hearing.

Challenged in Court

Several state representatives condemned the bill’s passage. ⁢“This legislation is⁢ not about ‍protecting anyone but the monsters in our state who ⁤celebrate the brutal murder of innocent children as a ‘right,’” they‌ wrote. ‍“[The bill] is an overt persecution of people whose only crime is‌ disagreeing​ with the abortion death cult. Senate Bill 1909 ⁤will be challenged in court. It will be ​overturned, and we will continue to speak out against the extreme positions of ⁢the ⁣pro-abortion advocates in ‍our state.”

Although the language of the bill claims to​ facilitate a woman’s “informed” decision, SB 1909 obstructs informed decisions. The federal lawsuit recognizes the irony, stating ​that SB 1909 reduces the ability of a pregnant woman to ‌receive information necessary to make⁤ an⁤ informed ⁣decision. Instead, the law⁣ allows “only the limited data ⁣approved by the state, instead of⁤ allowing ‍her⁢ to hear both ​sides’ advocacy and⁢ information before making an abortion ‌decision.”

In fact, it​ is ⁤the defendants in the lawsuit who ⁣are the ones being deceptive.