A group of residents in Illinois have filed suit to prevent the implementation of a law that would use taxpayer dollars to pay for rampant abortion.
Know as HB 40, the state’s Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner signed the law earlier this year after making claims that he would veto the measure. The legislation allows state employees and Medicaid recipients to have access to on-demand abortions and taxpayers would foot the bill.
Led by the Thomas More Society, the activists have initiated a lawsuit on behalf of 10 other pro-life organizations, The Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield and eight state lawmakers. The premise behind the action is that this would constitute a gross misuse of taxpayer money. The suit calls for the court to “restrain and enjoin” the state from using public money in this fashion. Court documents also argue that the State of Illinois lacks the allotted budgetary mechanism for the medical procedures that kill unborn babies.
The state has a balanced-budget provision that has already been exceeded. The state government has overspent by upwards of $1.7 billion in 2017 and HB 40 would continue to push fiscal year deficit spending, according to Thomas More Society attorney Peter Breen.
Fiscal hawks, Christians and national-level pro-life organizations are keeping a watchful eye as the court battle plays out. It’s unique budgetary elements may open a new vein of litigation against state laws that use tax money to take life.
“Into that scenario, you add an additional mandate that is likely to cost the state tens of millions of dollars,” Breen reportedly said. “There’s no money available for these new services.”
Estimates provided by the Thomas More Society conclude that taxpayers could be held financially responsible for more than 30,000 abortions at a total cost of approximately $30 million.
What may help the Thomas More Society’s cause is the fact Illinois lawmakers passed HB 40 after the state’s fiscal budget had been finalized and approved. Because upwards of 30,000 abortions and their cost have not be accounted for, no taxpayer money has been allocated. The lawsuit further argues that the policy cannot lawfully go into effect until June 1, 2018, at the earliest. That date would be the next time state lawmakers could reconcile the additional spending with the budget. The abortion law was schedule to take effect Jan. 1.
“The large majority of people of the state of Illinois oppose taxpayer funding of abortions,” Breen reportedly said. “So, this is something that needs to be squarely placed before the legislature.”
Pro-life and Christian organizations have grown fearful that the willingness of states to pay for abortions will increase the unborn death rate.
“HB 40 is going to force taxpayers to pay directly for abortions in Illinois, and it is going to increase the number of abortions. Some say by 12,000, some say by 15,000. Forcing taxpayers to pay for this is very unpopular.” Chris Iverson, a board member of the Pro-life Action League reportedly said.
Supporting their concerns, Pro-life groups point out that 16 other states currently provide Medicaid funding for abortion under any circumstance. Prior to HB 40, Illinois had covered abortion in cases of rape, incest and instances where the mother’s life was in jeopardy.
“What Illinois is doing is starting to gain steam,” Ingrid Duran of the National Right to Life Committee reportedly said. “I’m just afraid that this (HB 40) is another one of the bills that will be coming from the other side that will probably be introduced in 2018.”
Pro-life taxpayers are feeling betrayed in a fiscal sense and a moral sense over HB 40. The deficit spending is widely considered a wrongful use of tax money.
Illinois State Rep. Allen Skillicorn, R-East Dundee, said the governor’s signing of the abortion law “will ensure that Rauner serves only one-term.”
Many Illinois Christians are also struggling with the moral implication about how their money is being utilized. Compounding the additional financial burden placed on the state, HB 40 and similar laws effectively force taxpayers to pay for abortions and that constitutes a significant ethical dilemma.
“The double evils of forcing taxpayers to pay for other people’s elective abortions are, No. 1, that tax funding incentivizes the killing of innocent children,” Cathy Ruse of the Family Research Council reportedly said. “It coerces cooperation on the part of unwilling taxpayers. That affects all of us.”
~ Christian Patriot Daily
