A federal judge struck down part of an Illinois law compelling pregnancy centers and doctors to promote abortion as beneficial in discussions with women, while also upholding a portion of the law requiring that they refer for abortion in violation of their conscience.
The split ruling was considered a partial victory for pregnancy help and pro-life advocates while also remarkable for arguably being the first time a judge has noted on record the danger of so-called self-managed abortions.
U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston issued the decision April 4 in Schroeder, et al. v. Treto, Jr., which had been consolidated in 2023 with a parallel case, National Institute for Family and Life Advocates v. Treto, Jr.
The ruling concerned part of Illinois’ Health Care Right of Conscience Act (HCRCA), which had been amended in 2016 to mandate that healthcare providers discuss abortion’s “benefits” and must refer, transfer, or offer written information about other providers that provide abortion.
Legal non-profit Thomas More Society (TMS) challenged both provisions on behalf of Illinois physician Dr. Ronald Schroeder, 1st Way Pregnancy Support Services, and Pregnancy Aid South Suburbs. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys represented the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) along with Informed Choices, TLC Pregnancy Services, and Mosaic Pregnancy and Health Centers, and Dr. Tina Gingrich.
In addition to the freedom of speech victory for pregnancy help organizations and pro-life doctors, the judge acknowledged the heightened harm of chemical abortion when conducted without appropriate medical oversight.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
In his decision Johnston wrote:
“Conceivably, the State has a legitimate interest in facilitating abortions provided by health care professionals to reduce the number of “self-managed abortions” or “self-induced abortions,” which are inherently dangerous. Requiring the Plaintiffs to provide the requested information is a rational means of meeting that goal.”
The majority of abortions in the U.S. are chemical abortions, the access to which has become increasingly unregulated placing women at increased risk.
The head of the largest network of pregnancy help organizations in the U.S. and globally welcomed the federal judge’s upholding of the First Amendment by ruling that compelled pro-abortion speech is unconstitutional and praised the recognition of risk with self-managed abortions.
“We are encouraged by the federal court’s recognition that compelling pro-life medical professionals to speak in favor of abortion violates their constitutional rights,” Heartbeat International President Jor-El Godsey said. “But what’s especially revealing is the court’s acknowledgment that self-managed abortions are inherently dangerous.”
Tweet This: What’s especially revealing is the federal court’s acknowledgment that self-managed abortions are inherently dangerous.
“This statement confirms what we have long known: abortion is not health care, even less so when it bypasses medical oversight, leaving women to navigate a potentially life-threatening situation alone,” Godsey said.
“This moment of honesty—coming directly from a federal judge—stands in stark contrast to the narrative pushed by the abortion industry, which increasingly promotes do-it-yourself chemical abortions as safe, easy, and, somehow, empowering,” he said.
“In reality, these abortions leave women vulnerable to serious risks: hemorrhaging, infection, trauma, and even death,” said Godsey.
“Women deserve better than isolation and silence,” he continued. “They deserve real care—compassionate, respectful, and rooted in their natural instinct to protect life. That’s why we stand with the brave medical professionals and pregnancy help organizations offering hope, not harm.”
ADF, which had represented its plaintiffs since 2017, celebrated Johnston’s decision for protecting free speech.
“No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot, who argued in court for the case in September 2023.
“The court was right to protect pregnancy centers’ freedom to advocate that life is a human right,” Theriot said. “The government can’t compel medical professionals to choose between violating the law and violating the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm. The U.S. Supreme Court held in NIFLA v. Becerra that forcing people to promote abortion is unconstitutional. Pro-life pregnancy centers must be free to continue their life-affirming work without fear of government punishment.”
Thomas More Society applauded the First Amendment win for pregnancy centers and announced that it would appeal the decision for upholding the abortion referral mandate.
“We welcome the court’s ruling striking down Illinois’ attempts to force our pro-life physicians and pregnancy centers to parrot pro-abortion talking points, in violation of their First Amendment rights—a victory we’ve fought for since this case began nearly a decade ago,” said Thomas More Society Executive Vice President Thomas Olp. “But we are greatly concerned that the court did not fully protect conscience rights, leaving our clients forced to compromise their deepest beliefs. We look forward to continuing this fight against the State of Illinois in the Seventh Circuit.”
TMS client Judy Cocks, executive director of 1st Way Life Center, remarked how the compelled speech element and abortion referral mandate conflict with the center’s missions and is a conscience violation.
“We’re relieved that the court has permanently protected our pro-life pregnancy centers from Illinois’ attempt to force us into becoming mouthpieces for the abortion industry,” Cocks said.
“To share so-called ‘benefits of abortion’ would go against the very foundation of our ministry and our First Amendment rights,” she said. “I have yet to see what the so-called ‘benefits of abortion’ are—what I see regularly at our centers, instead, is the pain and regret that comes with abortion.”
“At the same time, we are deeply troubled that the court’s decision upholds Illinois’ abortion referral mandate,” said Cocks. “We cannot, in good conscience, recommend or refer for abortion. That’s not who we are, and it hurts our hearts to even contemplate being mandated to do so.”
Peter Breen, TMS executive vice president and head of Litigation, said, “Thomas More Society will keep fighting to protect our heroic pro-life ministries.”
“Forcing pro-life doctors and pregnancy centers to facilitate abortion unconstitutionally burdens their faith and conscience,” Breen said. “We will keep fighting Illinois’ abortion referral mandate and appeal to the Seventh Circuit, to ensure our pro-life clients can continue serving women and children, in accord with their faith and without penalty. This fight is far from over.”
Editor's note: Heartbeat International manages Pregnancy Help News.
