Court Dismisses Challenge To Illinois Law Allowing Medicaid Payments For Abortions

As previously reported, in a suit filed earlier this month plaintiffs challenged HB 40 which eliminates the prior ban on coverage for abortions by the state employees' insurance program and by the state's Medicaid program.  The complaint alleged that funds cannot be expended on abortions because no appropriation has been made, and challenges the effective date of the law.  The Chicago Tribune reports that yesterday state court judge Jennifer Ascher dismissed the challenge, holding that questions such as a law's effective date and whether there is an appropriation are "political questions" which courts cannot decide. Plaintiffs say they will appeal.

Suit Challenges Illinois Law Allowing Public Funds to Be Used To Cover Abortions

Last week, various Illinois right-to-life groups and several Illinois legislators filed a taxpayer lawsuit in state court challenging House Bill 40 which is scheduled to go into effect on January 1. The bill eliminates the prior ban on coverage for abortions by the state employees' insurance program and by the state's Medicaid program.  The law also eliminates a prior provision in state law that declared that an unborn child is a human being from the time of conception.  The complaint (full text) in Springfield Right to Life v. Norwood, (IL Cir. Ct., filed 11/30/2017) contends that funds cannot be expended on abortions because no appropriation has been made, and challenges the effective date of the law.  Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone Upheld

In Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, (WD PA, Nov. 17, 2017), a Pennsylvania federal district court, in a case on remand from the 3rd Circuit (see prior posting), granted summary judgment to defendants in a case challenging Pittsburgh's ordinance that imposes a 15-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics and other health care facilities.  According to the court, "the undisputed evidence in this case demonstrates that the Ordinance places only a minimal burden on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment free speech rights."  The court went on:

Plaintiffs argue that the City should have considered any number of other alternatives prior to adopting the Ordinance, including targeted injunctions and/or the enforcement of antiharassment statutes.... [I]n light of the Court’s finding that the current law burdens very little speech to begin with, there is no reason to believe that any of these alternative measures would burden substantially less speech than does the current Ordinance.

BNA Daily Report for Executives [subscription required] reports on the decision.

Federal Court Strikes Texas' "Dismemberment Abortion" Ban

In Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton, (WD TX, Nov. 22, 2017), a Texas federal district court struck down Texas' ban on abortions performed through the standard dilation and evacuation procedure-- a procedure that the Texas law terms "dismemberment abortions."  The court said, in its 27-page opinion:

... [T]he Act prohibits the performance of an outpatient standard D&E abortion unless fetal demise occurs in utero before the fetus is removed from the woman. It is also undisputed that after approximately 15 weeks of pregnancy and before a fetus is viable, nationwide the most common second-trimester abortion is a standard D&E without inducing in utero fetal demise....

... [T]he State's legitimate interest in fetal life does not allow the imposition of an additional medical procedure on the standard D&E abortion  procedure not driven by medical necessity. Here the State's interest must give way to the woman's right. The Act does more than create a structural mechanism by which the State expresses profound respect for the unborn. The Act intervenes in the medical process of abortion prior to viability in an unduly burdensome manner.

Courthouse News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Court Strikes Down Health Clinic Buffer Zone

In Turco v. City of Englewood, New Jersey, (D NJ, Nov. 14, 2017), a New Jersey federal district court struck down as overbroad a city ordinance creating an 8-foot buffer zone around health care and transitional facilities.  The ordinance was a response to militant activists and aggressive protesters who congregated outside an Englewood abortion clinic. The court said in part:

Defendant created a sweeping regulation that burdens the free speech of individuals, not just in front of the Clinic, but at health care and transitional facilities citywide. To meet the narrowly-tailored requirement, Defendant must create an Ordinance that targets the exact wrong it seeks to remedy.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

Pro-Life Group Sues Over City's Enforcement of Sign Ordinance

A suit was filed last week in a North Carolina federal district court by an anti-abortion group which contends that the city of Charlotte acted unconstitutionally when it applied an ordinance directed at preventing installation of permanent or semi-permanent signs and flyers in the public right of way to prevent plaintiffs' display of placards. The complaint (full text) in Cities4Life, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, (WD NC, filed 11/17/2017) alleges in part:

Defendants, through their enforcement of City Code § 10-212, prohibit speakers from resting their signs on the ground while they are assembled outside of abortion facilities and thereby restrict Plaintiffs’ right to free speech on significant portions of land. This restriction does not apply to many other types of signs whose content is different from those used by Plaintiffs. Defendants thus unconstitutionally restrict Plaintiffs’ rights because of the pro-life messages their signs convey.

Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Grants Review In Pregnancy Center Required Disclosure Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, (Docket No. 16-1140, cert granted 11/13/2017) (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld  California's FACT Act which requires licensed pregnancy counseling clinics to disseminate a notice on the existence of publicly-funded family planning services, including contraception and abortion.  Unlicensed clinics must disseminate a notice that they and their personnel are unlicensed. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court limited its grant of review to the Free Speech issues, excluding review of Free Exercise challenges.  SCOTUSblog's case page has links to the cert. petition and amicus briefs filed in the case.  The 9th Circuit in the case held that the required disclosures are regulation of "professional speech" subject only to intermediate scrutiny.  Washington Post reports on the Court's grant of review.

Cert. Filed In Challenge To Abortion Clinic Anti-Noise Law

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last week in March v. Mills, (cert. filed 11/6/2017).  In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a provision of the Maine Civil Rights Act that prohibits a person making noise that can be heard within a health care facility where the intent is to jeopardize health or interfere with the delivery of health services.  In March v. Mills, (1st Cir., Aug. 8, 2017), the appeals court rejected a constitutional challenge brought by an abortion protester who is the pastor and co-founder of a church whose mission was described as including "plead[ing] for the lives of the unborn at the doorsteps of abortion facilities." The 1st Circuit held that the Noise Provision is a content-neutral time, place and manner restriction. Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

California Pregnancy Clinic Requirement Violates State Constitution

In Scharpen Foundation, Inc. v. Harris, (CA Super. Ct., Oct 30, 2017), a California state trial court held that the state's Reproductive FACT Act violates the free speech protections of Art. I, Sec. 2 of the California Constitution. The challenged statute requires licensed pregnancy counseling clinics to post or provide to patients a notice on the existence of publicly-funded family planning services, including contraception and abortion. Applying strict scrutiny, the court said in part:

There is no question that the State has a legitimate regulatory interest in the practice of the healing arts.  In the midst of this contentious political dispute the State commands that specific State authored words be mouthed by the clinic at the very beginning of its relationship with those who come to it for guidance.... The statute interferes with both the right of the clinician to speak and with the right of the patient to hear what the clinician would say in the absence of State censorship....

It is entirely proper for the State to take its position supporting access to abortion.... But its ability to impress free citizens into State service in this political dispute cannot be absolute....

Last year the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the California statute against free speech and free exercise challenges raised under the U.S. Constitution. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing this week's state court decision.

Catholic Nurse Sues Duke University Hospital Seeking Religious Accommodation

A lawsuit was filed last week against Duke University and the Duke University Health System by a Catholic emergency department nurse who claims that Duke University Hospital discriminated against her because she requested accommodation of her religious beliefs.  The complaint (full text) in Pedro v. Duke University, (MD NC, filed 10/27/2017), alleges in part:

7. Because of her Catholic faith, [plaintiff] objects to assisting in abortions, dispensing birth control and contraceptives, and receiving as well as administering vaccines. Ms. Pedro’s employer, Defendant Duke, discriminated against her because of these religious beliefs and practices.

8. Furthermore, after Ms. Pedro made known her religious beliefs and requested religious accommodations, Defendant Duke subjected her to a degrading series of actions designed to punish and retaliate against her for engaging in federally-protected activity.

Apparently the Hospital was willing to accommodate Pedro's objection to receiving vaccines, but not her objection to participating in abortions.

Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

No Unemployment Benefits Where Religious Objections Leading To Resignation Were Not Disclosed

In Kelly v. Unemployment Compensation Review Board, (Commonwealth Ct. PA, Oct. 17, 2017), a Pennsylvania appellate court affirmed the denial of unemployment compensation benefits to an employee who resigned her job for religious reasons, but did not first inform her employer of her religious concerns.  In the case, petitioner Lori Kelly worked as a project manager for the University of Pittsburgh's Health Science's Tissue Bank. Kelly, who is Catholic, became concerned when she learned that some of the fetal tissue samples whose distribution she facilitated came from aborted fetuses.  However she complained at work only about the contentious relationship she had developed with her immediate supervisor.  The court concluded:

Respectful of Claimant’s religious beliefs, we must nevertheless affirm the order of the Board denying Claimant unemployment compensation benefits under Section 402(b) based on her failure to notify Employer of her religious objections to Employer’s use of fetal tissue in GUDMAP. Such notification would have provided Employer with an opportunity to accommodate her religious objections by transferring her to a project that did not involve the use of fetal tissue.

California Governor Vetoes Expanded Labor Protections For Employees of Religious Organizations

On Oct. 15, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed AB-569 (full text of bill) that would have expanded the employees who are protected against dismissal for their reproductive health choices.  The bill provides in part:

The Legislature finds that employees of religiously affiliated institutions are entitled to the same protections as any other employee under the California Labor Code, unless the employee is the functional equivalent of minister, and therefore subject to a “ministerial exception” as developed in First Amendment case law.

California's current Fair Employment and Housing Act does not cover any employees of non-profit religious associations or corporations (Sec. 12940(j)(4)).  Governor Brown's veto message said:

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act has long banned such adverse actions, except for religious institutions. I believe these types of claims should remain within the jurisdiction of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

In a press release on the governor's veto, ADF described the vetoed bill as one that "would have prohibited churches, religious colleges, religious non-profit organizations, and pro-life pregnancy care centers from having faith-based codes of conduct with regard to abortion and sexual behavior."

Religious Challenge To Missouri Informed Consent Abortion Law Goes To State High Court

In Doe v. Greitens, (MO App., Oct. 3, 2017), a Missouri appellate court transferred to the state Supreme Court an appeal in a religious freedom challenge to the state's abortion Informed Consent Law.  Missouri's law requires that a person seeking an abortion first receive a booklet containing specified information, including a statement that life begins at conception and that abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.  It also requires that the woman be given the opportunity to view an ultrasound and hear a fetal heartbeat, and then wait 72 hours before the abortion procedure.  According to the court:

Ms. Doe has alleged that the Informed Consent Law restricted her free exercise of religion and constitutes the state’s establishment of religion. The law, allegedly based on a religious tenet, required that she act and spend time and money, before undergoing a medical procedure in this state, contrary to actions—substantially motivated by her sincerely held religious beliefs—that she would have taken or refused to undertake....

Ms. Doe has alleged that Missouri’s Informed Consent Law unconstitutionally fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. In this regard, she claims that the sole purpose of the law is to indoctrinate pregnant women into the belief held by some, but not all, Christians that a separate and unique human being begins at conception. Because the law does not recognize or include other beliefs, she contends that it establishes an official religion and makes clear that the state disapproves of her beliefs.

Under Missouri law, a transfer to the Supreme Court is required where a constitutional claims are real and substantial.

Court Enjoins Florida Law Restricting Abortion Advice

In Fuldwider v. Senior, (ND FL, Sept. 29, 2017), a Florida federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a Florida statute placing limits on individuals and organizations that provide advice or help to individuals seeking an abortion. Among those challenging the law were a minister and two rabbis who provide religious counseling that sometimes includes discussion of religious beliefs about abortion and sometimes includes referrals to organizations that provide abortions.

The challenged law requires those who provide advice or referrals to register with the state. It requires anyone making a referral to first provide a detailed explanation of abortion, including alternatives. Before referring a minor, the person or agency must also attempt to provide the same explanation to the minor's parents or guardian.  The court summarizes its holding:

This case presents a challenge to a state law that (1) imposes a content-and viewpoint-based requirement to register and pay a fee to engage in speech protected by the First Amendment and (2) makes it a crime not to simultaneously engage in compelled speech that the law describes so vaguely that even the state’s Attorney General does not know what is required. This order grants a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of these provisions.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

Court Upholds California Requirement That Health Plans Cover Abortions

In Foothill Church v. Rouillard, (ED CA, Sept. 1, 2017), a California federal district court upheld against a free exercise challenge letters from the California Department of Managed Health Care requiring private health insurers to remove all limitations on or exclusions of abortion services from their health care policies.  Three churches sued arguing that this prevents them from providing their employees with health insurance that is consistent with their Christian teachings.  The court in dismissing plaintiffs' amended complaint held, however, that the Department's letters were neutral and generally applicable, and thus consistent with the free exercise clause.  Plaintiffs also alleged that the Department had granted an exception to one health care plan, allowing it to exclude coverage for abortion except in the case of rape or incest, but has not granted an exception for a policy that excludes abortion coverage in all cases. The court said, however, that plaintiffs did not allege that a plan with total exclusions had been submitted, or that an exemption for it had been rejected. WND has additional background. (See prior related posting.)

Court Enjoins Illinois Law Requiring Referrals Out For Abortions

In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Rauner, (ND IL, July 19, 2017), an Illinois federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs, a group of pro-life health care facilities and medical personnel, who object to Illinois SB 1564.  The statute, as a condition of immunity from suit for not performing conscience-infringing health care services, requires objecting personnel to refer the patient elsewhere for the services.  The court, citing other free-expression cases, concluded:

...the amended act under review in this case applies only to health care providers with conscience-based objections to certain legal treatment options such as abortion. Therefore, the court finds that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of showing that the amended act discriminates against health care providers that are of the point of view that abortion is wrong by compelling only them to speak a message that, from their viewpoint, is abhorrent.

The court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the statute

to the extent that enforcement would penalize health care facilities, health care personnel, or physicians who object to providing information about health care providers who may offer abortion or who object to describing abortion as a beneficial treatment option.

Christian Post reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Hawaii's Notice Mandate For Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers

A suit was filed last week in Hawaii federal district court challenging Hawaii's SB 501 enacted earlier this year that requires "limited service pregnancy centers" to disseminate on-site to patients a notice that says:

Hawaii has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, including, but not limited to, all FDA-approved methods of contraception and pregnancy-related services for eligible women. To apply online for medical insurance coverage, that will cover the full range of family planning and prenatal care services, go to mybenefits.hawaii.gov. Only ultrasounds performed by qualified healthcare professionals and read by licensed clinicians should be considered medically accurate.

The complaint (full text) in Calvary Chapel Pearl Harbor v. Chin, (D HI, filed 7/12/2017), alleges in part:

Plaintiffs are a non-profit, pro-life, Christian church operating a pregnancy center known as A Place for Women ..., and a national non-profit pro-life membership organization with 5 affiliates in Hawaii. Plaintiffs seek to provide help and pro-life information to women in unplanned pregnancies so that they will be supported in choosing to give birth....

The Act, however, imposes government compelled speech upon the Plaintiff pregnancy centers ... in ways that undermine the centers’ messages.

The complaint contends that the law infringes free speech and free exercise of religion, is unconstitutionally vague and violates federal statutory law that protects health care entities from being required to refer patients for abortions. Christian Times reports on the lawsuit.

Michigan Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Pro-Life License Plate

On June 30, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder vetoed SB 163 (full text), a bill that would have required the state to issue a fund-raising "Choose Life" license plate, with proceeds to be distributed to crisis pregnancy centers and similar pro-life non-profits.  In his Veto Letter (full text), the Governor said in part:

... SB 163 is not about a license plate; it's about the State of Michigan making a political statement. And that statement arouses strong emotional reaction that divides the residents of this state.

Detroit Free Press reports on the governor's action and response to it.

9th Circuit Refuses To Enjoin California's Notice Requirements For Crisis Pregnancy Centers

In Mountain Right To Life, Inc. v. Becerra, (9th Cir., June 19, 2017), in a brief opinion, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a California federal district court's refusal to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of California’s Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act. (See prior posting).  The Act requires licensed crisis pregnancy centers to notify clients of programs offering free or low-cost abortions and requires unlicensed centers to notify clients that they are not state-licensed.  The court said:

The district court properly concluded that Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment free speech or free exercise claims.... The Act regulates licensed covered facilities’ professional speech, and is therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny, which it survives.... The notice requirement for unlicensed covered facilities survives any level of review.... And as to the free exercise claim, the Act is a neutral law of general applicability that survives rational basis review.

Missouri Governor Calls Special Legislative Session To Enact Pro-Life Bills

Missouri Governor Eric Greitens on Wednesday issued a Proclamation (full text) calling a Special Session of the state legislature for June 12 in order to enact legislation to respond to two pro-abortion developments.  One was the enactment by the City of St. Louis of of an Ordinance barring discrimination in employment and housing because of reproductive health decisions or pregnancy status. (See prior posting.)  The Governor's Proclamation states that the St. Louis Ordinance "undermines pregnancy care centers that provide critical resources for women seeking counseling and support for alternatives to abortion," and calls on the legislature to preempt legislation like that enacted by St. Louis.

The second development triggering the call for a Special Session of the legislature is the federal district court's decision last month in Comprehensive Health of Panned Parenthood Great Plains v. Williams, (WD MO, April 19, 2017) which preliminarily enjoined state law requirements that doctors who perform abortions have hospital admitting privileges, and that abortion clinics meet requirements for ambulatory surgical centers. The Governor's Proclamation contends that the effect of the ruling is to eliminate meaningful licensure of abortion clinics and the Proclamation calls for enactment of a number of new provisions on licensure of abortion clinics.

The Governor issued a press release and a Facebook video explaining his action in more detail, saying in part: "I'm pro-life, and I believe that we need to defend life and promote a culture of life here in the state of Missouri."