0:00

in a fight right now for the

0:02

future of Western civilization and for

0:04

the preservation of free speech. And I

0:06

view all of my commentary work

0:08

and all of my interests in the

0:10

American political system through that lens. CNN

0:13

political analyst Scott Jennings talking about

0:15

his presentation at this year's

0:17

issues, etc., making the case conference.

0:20

We have to preserve Western civilization. We

0:22

have to preserve free speech. And I

0:24

think most issues and most politics comes

0:26

down to those two fundamental issues. I

0:28

think it's good for audiences to have

0:30

their bubbles popped. I think it's all

0:32

too easy in American political culture right

0:34

now to get yourself in a silo

0:37

or in a bubble where only the

0:39

information that you want to hear that

0:41

confirms your priors is what you see. And

0:43

I think it's detrimental to the average

0:46

citizen to be stuck in a silo

0:48

or a bubble like that. You can

0:50

meet and hear Scott Jennings at the

0:52

2025 Making the Case Conference Friday, July

0:54

18 and Saturday, July 19 at Concordia

0:56

University, Chicago. Find out

0:59

more at issuesetc .org. There

1:11

is a law in Illinois. Currently,

1:14

or has been for the last decade

1:16

or so, been working its way through the

1:18

courts, being challenged in the courts, it's

1:20

called the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience

1:22

Act. Sounds good, doesn't it? Well, because

1:25

there was a

1:27

Senate bill in Illinois added

1:29

to this provision, the

1:31

law actually ends up violating

1:34

the conscience of health care

1:36

workers and of crisis pregnancy

1:38

center workers. Welcome

1:40

back to Issues, etc. I'm Todd

1:42

Wilkin. Joining us to talk about

1:44

a federal court judge striking down an

1:46

Illinois law forcing pro -life ministries to promote

1:48

abortion. Thomas Ulp is

1:50

counsel in Schroeder v.

1:53

Trito, Jr., and he

1:55

is executive vice president of the Thomas

1:57

Moore Society. Thomas, welcome.

2:00

Yes, thank you, Todd. Do a little

2:02

history for us, if you would. What

2:04

was Illinois Senate Bill 1564? So

2:07

that was a bill that

2:09

was passed into law in

2:11

2016. So that's over

2:13

10 years ago, signed

2:15

by Governor Rauner at that

2:17

time. Illinois has prided

2:20

itself as being the Midwestern

2:22

capital for abortion services. And

2:25

Senate Bill 1564 was just

2:27

one of the tools that they

2:29

wanted to put into effect

2:31

that would make abortion more accessible.

2:33

to people who came to

2:35

Illinois. And what it required was

2:37

that healthcare providers, they

2:40

had to do two things. One,

2:42

they had to talk about the

2:44

risks and benefits of all legal

2:46

treatment options. Now abortion

2:48

is a legal treatment option.

2:50

And so it needs to

2:52

be talked about. So

2:55

for our pregnancy center

2:57

clients, that law

2:59

essentially required them to talk

3:01

about the benefits of

3:03

abortion. And the second thing

3:05

the bill did is it

3:07

required healthcare providers or facilities

3:09

that employed them to

3:12

refer for abortion and or

3:14

give information about providers

3:16

that would do the services

3:18

that the conscientious objectors,

3:20

the medical professionals who did

3:22

not want to perform

3:24

those services would not want

3:26

to do. The bill

3:28

was tucked into the

3:30

Illinois Rides of Conscience Act.

3:32

which was passed after

3:34

Roe v. Wavis was decided

3:36

in 1973. And

3:39

that Illinois Right of Conscience Act

3:41

gave physicians and health care

3:43

providers the right not to participate

3:45

in abortion. And

3:47

Senate Bill 1564 basically carved down

3:49

those rights saying, if you

3:51

want the protections of that Illinois

3:53

Right of Conscience Act, you

3:55

have to do the following. Talk

3:57

about the risks and the

3:59

benefits of abortion. and refer

4:01

for abortion. We filed

4:03

lawsuit against that

4:06

bill back in late

4:08

2016, early 2017,

4:11

a law was enjoined preliminarily, and

4:14

then many years went by

4:16

before a trial was held in

4:18

2023, and we've recently got

4:20

a decision in that case. So

4:23

if you would, it's been

4:25

a long time, talk about this long

4:27

legal challenge. to this part of

4:29

the Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act. First

4:33

of all, it takes a

4:35

while to do discovery and

4:37

to do, you know, the

4:39

various different preliminary activities that

4:41

is before trials occurred. In

4:44

our case, one of the reasons why

4:46

it took longer is that there was

4:48

a Supreme Court decision,

4:51

Nifla v. Becerra, that

4:53

we thought would

4:56

essentially resolve the case in our favor

4:58

And so we waited around for

5:00

that decision to be briefed

5:02

and then decided. And that

5:04

added a couple of years to

5:07

it. As a result

5:09

of that decision, the state, however,

5:11

did not think it resolved the

5:13

case. So it wasn't willing to

5:15

agree to an injunction against that

5:17

law. So the case continued on

5:20

for a few more years. And

5:22

we filed for, I mentioned

5:24

that there was a primary

5:26

injunction. we filed for summary

5:29

judgment and the judge who

5:31

issued the preliminary injunction retired,

5:34

the case was then sent to the chief

5:36

judge here in Chicago, Rebecca

5:38

Palmer. She denied

5:40

our motion for summary judgment,

5:42

thinking that this issue involved

5:44

a question of what the

5:46

scope of informed consent is.

5:49

And so she said, you're going to

5:51

have to hire experts and have them

5:54

testify at a trial. Well, that took

5:56

a long time too, so we eventually

5:58

did that, had the trial, and

6:00

then the decision came out earlier this

6:02

year. How would

6:04

you summarize the arguments that were made

6:06

in Schroeder et al. v. Trito?

6:10

Well, our argument is

6:12

that the state was

6:14

compelling speech. That is

6:17

that the state is not

6:19

in a position to tell

6:21

people, especially on fundamental moral

6:23

issues. what has to be

6:25

said about them. The First

6:27

Amendment says that the government

6:29

cannot abridge freedom of speech

6:32

and compelling speech is not

6:34

acceptable. That's the principle that

6:36

was involved in Nipola v.

6:38

Becerra. Now, the

6:40

problem with that case

6:42

was that Judge Paul Meyer,

6:44

she said, well, we're

6:46

dealing with the medical field

6:48

here and the doctors

6:50

have to practice of standard

6:52

of care. And part

6:54

of that is the principle of

6:56

informed consent. And she asked herself, well,

6:58

what's that mean? What is informed

7:00

consent? So their argument,

7:02

the state's argument was that

7:05

talking about the benefits

7:07

of all legal treatment options

7:09

simply indicates what the

7:11

informed consent obligation is for

7:13

any physician or medical

7:15

professional. We responded to that

7:17

saying, hey, the only medical procedures

7:20

we do are a pregnancy

7:22

test and a sonogram, and

7:24

we do proper informed consent

7:26

for those, and we shouldn't

7:28

have to do informed consent

7:30

for procedures we do not

7:32

perform. And the

7:34

judge, in our case,

7:37

Judge Johnston and Rockford

7:39

basically agreed that or

7:41

took note of our

7:43

argument. He also pointed

7:45

out that informed consent decisions

7:47

are usually made after the fact.

7:50

And he appreciated that since

7:52

we don't do the abortion

7:55

medical procedure, that our argument

7:57

that we shouldn't have to

7:59

give informed consent concerning it

8:01

seemed like a strong argument. So

8:04

what does Judge Johnson's

8:06

decision to strike this

8:08

down? What

8:10

does it mean now? Well,

8:14

Judge Johnson recognized that

8:16

in the area of

8:18

abortion, which

8:20

is fraught with moral

8:23

disagreement, that the

8:25

state improperly forces

8:27

the issue when

8:29

it compels speech

8:32

about risks and

8:34

benefits of abortion.

8:37

Our clients do not see

8:39

any benefit to abortion. their

8:41

whole existence is to try

8:43

to talk women out of

8:45

having an abortion and to

8:47

convince them that having their

8:49

baby is the morally correct

8:51

and the appropriate things to

8:53

do as a life choice

8:55

and that having an abortion

8:57

is oftentimes caused and ultimately

9:00

is not to the woman's

9:02

benefit. So for the state

9:04

to step in and try

9:06

and put their thumb on

9:08

those scale in terms of

9:10

this kind of issue is

9:12

inappropriate. So we're happy

9:14

with Judge Johnson's decision

9:16

in that area. The

9:18

second issue, though, in the

9:20

case was whether pregnancy centers

9:22

were required to refer for

9:24

abortion. And Judge Johnson said,

9:26

well, I don't think that

9:28

involves speech, and therefore I'm

9:30

going to uphold that portion

9:32

of the law. Our argument

9:34

there is that we think

9:36

that it clearly is pretty

9:38

much the same as having

9:41

to talk about the benefits

9:43

of abortion. Normally,

9:45

doctors don't have to refer. Referral

9:47

is essentially almost a

9:50

recommendation that another doctor can

9:52

perform a medical procedure

9:54

in an appropriate way. We

9:56

don't believe that's the

9:58

case in terms of abortion,

10:01

nor do we know

10:03

abortionists and our clients are

10:05

unwilling to refer or

10:07

even to give information about

10:09

abortion providers, we think that

10:11

that really is another form of

10:13

chorus speech. And so we're

10:15

appealing that aspect of Judge Johnson's

10:17

ruling and hope to prevail on

10:20

that and our arguments. How

10:22

does the impact of at least

10:24

this part of the court's decision

10:26

go beyond crisis pregnancy centers? The

10:30

First Amendment is a

10:32

very important principle, maybe the

10:34

most important right that

10:36

citizens in the United States

10:38

have. It demarcates

10:40

our democracy with other

10:42

countries where speech is

10:44

coerced. I think of

10:46

China, for example, where

10:48

you can get in trouble for expressing

10:50

your point of view. You're not supposed

10:52

to have that happen to you in

10:54

a democracy like the United States of

10:56

America. So the

10:58

issue we're talking about,

11:00

a free speech issue,

11:03

those to all of

11:05

the First Amendment rights

11:07

that Americans have, which

11:09

transcend what pregnancy centers

11:11

do and go to

11:13

all kinds of speech

11:15

concerning contentious issues like

11:17

abortion, like transgender,

11:19

like assisted suicide.

11:22

All these areas need to

11:24

have ample expression in

11:27

terms of free speech so

11:29

that our society can

11:31

reach the truth. and make

11:33

good decisions based upon

11:35

reason and belief, too. You

11:39

mentioned the need to continue

11:41

to offer a legal challenge on

11:43

these remaining issues. How does

11:45

that proceed? Well,

11:47

we filed an appeal in the

11:49

Seventh Circuit. This case was

11:51

in the U .S. Federal District

11:54

Court, and now it's in the

11:56

Federal Seventh Circuit, which is headquarters

11:58

here in Chicago. So,

12:00

that appeal now will be briefed,

12:02

there'll be a response from

12:04

the state, then be an oral

12:06

argument, and then we'll wait

12:08

for a decision by the 7th

12:11

Circuit. The 7th Circuit

12:13

could uphold our arguments, they

12:15

could reject them. If

12:18

we lose the case, we would

12:20

very much consider going to the

12:22

U .S. Supreme Court, since this

12:24

is an important free issue. So

12:26

it's in the federal system, It'll

12:28

go up through the federal system

12:30

to the Court of Appeals and

12:32

possibly to the Supreme Court. Hopefully,

12:34

we'll win at the Seventh Circuit,

12:37

and then this issue will be

12:39

put to bed forever. Thomas

12:41

Olp is counsel and shorter

12:43

of the Trito Jr. He's

12:45

executive vice president of the Thomas

12:47

Moore Society. Find out more about

12:49

the Thomas Moore Society on the

12:52

podcast page of this episode at

12:54

issuesetc .org. Thomas, thank you.

12:57

welcome, welcome, Todd. Thank you very much for your interest. You're

13:00

to issues, etc. I'm Todd

13:02

Wilkins. Defending

13:10

life beginning to end.

13:12

You're listening to issues, etc.