Governor gets sued for demanding Christians pay for others’ abortions

Gov. J.B. Pritzker, the far-left billionaire governor of Illinois, is being taken to court over his schemes that force state residents to make the choice between paying for abortions or going without health insurance entirely.

The case has been brought by the Thomas More Society on behalf of Students for Life of America, Midwest Bible Church, Pro-Life Action League, Right to Life, Clapham School, DuPage Precision Products and a list of individuals.

“For Christians and many other pro-life advocates, Illinois’ abortion-coverage mandate is fundamentally opposed to their religious beliefs and runs roughshod over their constitutionally protected conscience rights,” explained Peter Breen, of the Thomas More Society.

“Gov. J.B. Pritzker and his administration are on an uncompromising campaign to transform the Land of Lincoln into the nation’s abortion capital. In doing so, they have shown little-to-no regard for the rights of those who believe that all human life is worth protecting. We are proud to represent this coalition of clients in challenging this unconscionable mandate. There’s no reason for pro-life individuals and organizations to be denied the option to choose an insurance policy that exempts them from covering others’ elective abortions.”

The problem facing the governor is that the case alleges he is violating the U.S. Constitution is his abortion promotion.

The filing in U.S. district court in Illinois explains Pritzker’s plan “requires health-insurance policies to cover elective abortions on the same terms as they cover pregnancy-related benefits. It also requires health-insurance policies to cover abortion-inducing drugs, and it forbids insurers to impose any cost-sharing arrangements such as co-pays or deductibles on this coverage.”

“These abortion-inducing drugs must be provided free of charge to any beneficiary who demands them, and they are paid for entirely by premiums charged to other beneficiaries. These compulsory abortion-coverage laws provide no exceptions or accommodations for employers or individuals who object to abortion on religious or moral grounds, not even for churches,” the filing states.

“As a result, Illinois residents who oppose abortion have no way of obtaining state-regulated health insurance that excludes abortion coverage, forcing many of them to choose between paying for other people’s elective abortions with their premiums or forgoing health insurance entirely.”

The Thomas More Society filing states, “Illinois’s compulsory abortion-coverage laws abridge the free exercise of religion and other constitutional rights secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They also violate numerous federal statutes…”

In an announcement about the launch of the case, the Thomas More Society explained, “The complaint asks the court to block state officials from enforcing these abortion-coverage mandates, which violate the free exercise and expressive association rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, as well as numerous federal statutes.”

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, noted, “If billionaire Gov. J.B. Pritzker wants to pay for abortions in his state out of the generosity of his heart, that can be his choice. Instead, Pritzker and state officials have manipulated and supported a law to force all Illinois residents to cover his choice of abortion for them.

“In fact, when spending his money in the election, it was to get more radical abortion policies in place, to demand others to pay for abortion. Students for Life of America’s team members and supporters in Illinois should not be forced to violate our consciences just because the abortion lobby and its cheerleaders like the governor have moved from ‘choice’ to coercion.”

The case seeks to have enforcement of the abortion payments through insurance be voided and a declaration that such a scheme violates the U.S. Constitution.

The filing charges, “The defendants’ enforcement of Illinois’s compulsory abortion-law cover age laws violates the each of the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to freely exercise their religion.”