Nat'l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Schneider
| Citation | 484 F.Supp.3d 596 |
| Decision Date | 03 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 17 C 4663,No. 3:16 C 50310,3:16 C 50310,17 C 4663 |
| Parties | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES, d/b/a NIFLA ; Tri-County Crisis Pregnancy Center, d/b/a Informed Choices; the Life Center, Inc., d/b/a TLC Pregnancy Services; and Mosaic Pregnancy & Health Centers, Plaintiffs, v. Bryan A. SCHNEIDER, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, Defendant. Doctor Ronald L. Schroeder, 1st Way Pregnancy Support Services, and Pregnancy Aid South Suburbs, Plaintiffs, v. Bryan A. Schneider, Secretary of Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Elissa M. Graves, Kevin Hayden Theriot, Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale, AZ, John W. Mauck, Mauck & Baker, LLC, Chicago, IL, Noel W. Sterett, Dalton & Tomich PLC, Belvidere, IL, for Plaintiff National Institute of Family and Life Advocates.
Elissa M. Graves, Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale, AZ, John W. Mauck, Mauck & Baker, LLC, Chicago, IL, Noel W. Sterett, Dalton & Tomich PLC, Belvidere, IL, for Plaintiffs Tri-County Crisis Pregnancy Center, The Life Center, Inc., Mosaic Pregnancy & Health Centers.
Elizabeth A.F. Morris, Lauren Hancock Barski, Matthew Vincent Chimienti, Illinois Attorney General, Sarah Jeanne Gallo, Illinois Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
In August 2016, then-Governor Rauner signed into law an amendment to the Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act. The amendment, adopted after negotiations with religious groups, directs that healthcare providers provide patients with information about how medical treatments the patients seek might conflict with the medical providers’ religious beliefs. In two lawsuits, Plaintiffs, pro-life crisis pregnancy centers and doctors, challenge the amendment as a violation of their First Amendment rights. Plaintiffs contend that the amended Act compels them to speak an objectionable message and burdens the free exercise of their religion. In July 2017, then-Judge Kapala entered a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendant Secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation from enforcing the amended law. Plaintiffs now seek permanent injunctive relief and have moved for summary judgment declaring that the law infringes their First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights. (See Nat'l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates, et al., v. Schneider , No. 16 C 50310 (hereinafter "NIFLA ") [90]; Schroeder, et al., v. Schneider , No. 17 C 04663 (hereinafter "Schroeder ") [67].) The court concludes, however, that genuine disputes of material facts remain and denies the motions from both sets of Plaintiffs.
The NIFLA Plaintiffs are three pro-life Illinois nonprofit organizations—Tri-County Crisis Pregnancy Center (d/b/a "Informed Choices"), The Life Center, Inc. (d/b/a "TLC Pregnancy Services"), and Mosaic Pregnancy & Health Centers—and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, a faith-based nonprofit incorporated in Virginia with members comprising pro-life healthcare facilities across the nation. ( NIFLA Pls.’ Statement of Material Facts [92] (hereinafter "NPSF") ¶¶ 14–19.) The Schroeder Plaintiffs include two pro-life Illinois nonprofits—1st Way Pregnancy Support Services and Pregnancy Aid South Suburbs ("PASS")—and Dr. Ronald Schroeder, who serves as the medical director of Options Now, another pro-life healthcare organization. (Schroeder Pls.’ Resp. to Def.’s Statement of Facts ("DSF") [144] ¶¶ 13–14.) A goal of the Plaintiff healthcare facilities or crisis pregnancy centers ("CPCs") is to dissuade pregnant women from having abortions. ( NIFLA Pls.’ Resp. to DSF [165] ¶ 14; Schroeder Pls.’ Resp. to DSF [144] ¶ 17.) Defendant is Deborah Hagan,1 the Secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation ("IDFPR"), the state department responsible for, among other duties, prescribing rules and regulations for professionals, including health care professionals. The IDFPR has the authority to discipline medical professionals, including imposing fines and revoking licenses. ( NIFLA Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Summ. J. [91] at 4.) Secretary Hagan, sued here in her official capacity, is charged with enforcing the law challenged in Plaintiffs’ suits.
The Plaintiff CPCs all offer a similar set of services to further their pro-life message.2 They all provide pregnancy tests and ultrasounds. ( NIFLA Pls.’ Resp. to DSF [165] ¶¶ 15–16; Schroeder Pls.’ Resp. to DSF [144] ¶¶ 15–16.) Plaintiff Dr. Schroeder testified that viewing an ultrasound that shows movement or a heartbeat might change a woman's mind about having an abortion. (Dr. Schroeder Dep., Ex. 12 to DSF, at 154:10–24; see also Dr. Anthony Caruso Dep., Ex. 32 to DSF, at 74:17–20 ().) Indeed, there is evidence in the record that CPCs’ motivations influence the timing for administration of these tests: while Plaintiff Mosaic will not schedule an ultrasound appointment for a "non-abortion-minded" patient until six to eight weeks after her last menstrual period ("LMP"), Mosaic will conduct an ultrasound—as well as a counseling session—as soon as possible for an "abortion-minded" patient. (Ex. 21 to DSF at NIFLA00045.) Likewise, 1st Way will offer an "abortion-minded" patient an ultrasound if she is six to twenty-four weeks since LMP, but will not provide such a test for a patient who is "non-abortion-minded" after fifteen weeks of pregnancy unless she has some other symptoms. (Appointment for Pregnancy Test Policy, Ex. 23 to DSF.) Plaintiff TLC Pregnancy Services takes steps to determine whether the ultrasound has had TLC's desired effect, tracking whether a woman's plans change after seeing a sonogram
. (Vivian Maly Dep., Ex. 15 to DSF, at 110:6–12; see also Options Now Ultrasound Form, Ex. 30 to DSF (asking sonographers to determine "the patient's abortion vulnerability after the Sonogram").)
The CPCs do also discuss abortion with pregnant women or provide them with materials aimed at discouraging use of the procedure. ( NIFLA Pls.’ Resp. to DSF [165] ¶ 19; Schroeder Pls.’ Resp. to DSF [144] ¶ 19 ().) CPCs provide women with information about the risks of abortion; they do not review any benefits abortion might offer—either in a patient's particular circumstances or in general. ( NIFLA Pls.’ Resp. to DSF [165] ¶¶ 20–21; Schroeder Pls.’ Resp. to DSF [144] ¶¶ 20–21.) Risks that CPCs discuss with patients include not only medical risks like excessive bleeding, perforation of the uterus, or not being able to bear children again;3 CPCs may also tell pregnant women "about the spiritual aspect ... and the ramifications for future relationships and how they view themselves as a person." (Susan Wilson Dep., Ex. 17 to DSF, at 64:18–65: 1.) As the director of Plaintiff 1st Way tells patients, abortion is "more than just a choice on their part" because it can "affect[ ] you completely physically of course and mentally and spiritually." (Judy Cocks Dep., Ex. 18 to DSF, at 56:5–18.)
The CPCs’ communications concerning abortion occur at various stages in the provision of services. Options Now talks to patients about abortion during intake. (Dr. Schroeder Dep., Ex. 12 to DSF, at 82:2–12.) 1st Way provides counseling to women interested in terminating their pregnancy after providing them with other services; as they tell their volunteers, because "we have given her a free service, so we can respectfully and firmly request some of her time to speak with her on this important issue." (Basic Counseling & Dealing with Abortion-Minded Women, Ex. 44 to DSF.) Other CPCs will provide patients with DVDs (see Informed Choices DVD Selection/Release Form, Ex. 45 to DSF), and printed handout materials (see PASS Abortion Raises Breast Cancer
Risk handout, Ex. 54 to DSF) at various times.
The CPCs do not provide obstetrical or gynecological care. If a patient is in need of care from an Ob/Gyn physician, the CPCs refer the patient to see her own doctor, whether or not the CPC staff is aware of who that doctor is or what treatments the doctor provides. ( NIFLA Pls.’ Resp. to DSF [165] ¶ 18; Schroeder Pls.’ Resp. to DSF [144] ¶ 18.) For example, Informed Choices instructs its sonographers, should they discover an ectopic pregnancy
, to direct the patient to go to the emergency room or contact her obstetrician. (Ex. 20 to DSF at NIFLA00020.) The CPCs also maintain lists of physicians to whom they will refer patients who do not already have a relationship with an Ob/Gyn.
As the CPCs advise their patients, the CPCs do not perform abortions. ( NIFLA Pls.’ Resp. to DSF [165] ¶ 28; Schroeder Pls.’ Resp. to DSF [144] ¶ 28.) The CPCs do not necessarily also make clear their pro-life position, however, nor do they always disclose that one of their goals is to dissuade women from having abortions. For instance, TLC Pregnancy Services, according to its executive director, does not disclose its pro-life policy on its website, verbally, or in advertisements. (Vivian Maly Dep., Ex. 15 to DSF, at 75:1–23.) And although they do not perform abortions, the CPCs do offer other services to women interested in abortions. For example, Options Now's "talking points" for telephone calls instruct that staff tell callers that while Options Now does not perform or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tranchita v. Callahan
...analysis takes into consideration any alleged burden on Tranchita's beliefs. See, e.g. , Nat'l Inst. of Family and Life Advocates v. Schneider , 484 F. Supp. 3d 596, 624 n.27 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 3, 2020) (noting that recent decisions from the Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit, and this Distri......