A federal judge has issued a temporary injunction blocking a week-old Illinois law authorizing prosecution of “limited services” crisis pregnancy centers for allegedly duping women to believe they could get abortion services at the pro-life centers.
The Deceptive Practices of Limited Services Pregnancy Centers Act, passed by the state legislature in May and signed into law July 27 by Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, would levy civil penalties of up to $50,000 per incident.
Judge Iain D. Johnston of the U.S. District Court for Illinois’ Northern District issued the injunction in response to a lawsuit challenging the law. The lawsuit was filed by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and four other pro-life organizations seeking a permanent injunction.
The lawsuit said the law “targets life-affirming organizations with the threat of investigations, subpoenas, civil liability, and even dissolution for expressing sincere religious beliefs, should the attorney general or a private citizen who disagrees with those religious views determine that such expressions are deceptive or misleading.”
Judge Johnston, who was named to the federal bench by then-President Donald Trump, earlier denied Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s request for more time to respond to the NIFLA lawsuit.
Anti-abortion activists cheered the injunction.
“Free speech won today in the Land of Lincoln — pro-life advocates across Illinois can breathe a sigh of relief they won’t be pursued for ‘misinformation’ by Attorney General Kwame Raoul,” Thomas More Society Executive Vice President Peter Breen said in a statement. The Chicago-based law firm represented the pro-life groups in the action.
“Across the nation, pregnancy help ministries are being discriminated against by laws that target their life-affirming work,” Mr. Breen said in the statement. “The injunction granted today sends a strong, clear message to the country that the First Amendment protects pro-life speech.”
Eric Scheidler, president of the Pro-Life Action League, one of the plaintiffs in the Illinois action, said in a telephone interview, “It’s profoundly insulting to women to suggest through a piece of legislation that they are incapable of recognizing where they can and cannot get an abortion, Illinois has one of the highest abortion rates in the entire United States.”
Mr. Raoul took credit for the bill’s passage and earlier said he’d “witnessed deceptive crisis pregnancy center tactics firsthand on a visit to tour a Planned Parenthood health center in Illinois.” He did not respond to several requests for comment about the temporary injunction.
The law allowing prosecution of pro-life pregnancy centers may have been an attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in NIFLA v. Becerra that sided with pro-life crisis pregnancy centers against a California law requiring that the centers tell women about the abortion option.
By a 5-4 majority, the high court said the California law abridged the freedom of speech guaranteed to the crisis pregnancy centers’ workers.
In the Illinois case, the NIFLA suit also made a free-speech claim, arguing that the First Amendment “prohibits the government from banning people from associating with others in an association expressing messages” such as those advocating against abortion.
• Mark A. Kellner can be reached at mkellner@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.