Client Name:
The Women's Center of Greater Chicagoland, Hope Life Center, Inc.
Lawsuit Filed:
February 2, 2017
Case Status:
Active
Venue:
Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit Sangamon County, Illinois

Abigail v. Rauner

Client Name:
The Women's Center of Greater Chicagoland, Hope Life Center, Inc.
Lawsuit Filed:
February 2, 2017
Case Status
Active
Share

In February 2017, The Women’s Centers of Greater Chicagoland (TWC) and Hope Life Center (HLC), two faith-based pregnancy resource centers, filed a lawsuit against Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner and Secretary Bryan A. Schneider. The suit challenges Public Act 99-690 (SB 1564), which amended the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act effective January 1, 2017. This law mandates that health care providers with conscience-based objections must inform patients of "legal treatment options" like abortion, contraception, and sterilization, discuss their "benefits," and provide referrals or information about providers—violating the centers' Christian principles that affirm life and oppose abortion. (Note: As of April 2025, part of SB 1564 has been struck down.)

TWC, serving over 39,000 mothers in 32 years across Chicago-area sites, and HLC, aiding women in Sterling and Ottawa since 1986 with 83% choosing life, suspended operations due to the law's sanctions, discrimination, and liability threats. The amendment forces speech contrary to their religious beliefs, frustrating their mission to counsel abortion alternatives like parenting and adoption.

The complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Constitution: free speech (content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory compulsion), equal protection (targeting conscience objectors), religious freedom (supporting abortion, which is opposed to the Christian faith), and due process (vague standards). It seeks declaratory judgment declaring sections unconstitutional, injunctions, damages, and fees.

On February 9, 2017, Thomas More Society amended the suit to include 18 additional PRCs statewide, highlighting the law's "nefarious" targeting of pro-life efforts. Plaintiffs argue abundant public abortion information negates any state interest in coerced speech.

Share

Case Documents & Updates

Press

View featured press releases related to the case

No press releases currently available.
Media

View featured media appearances related to the case

No media appearances currently available.
Case Timeline

View documents related to the case

Date
Category