Religious rights don’t trump IL’s authority to force abortion coverage
[October 09, 2025]
Jonathan Bilyk | Legal Newsline
Illinois' state government can force all health insurers regulated by
the state to provide abortion coverage without violating the religious
rights of Christian abortion opponents - including churches - because
they can still purchase health insurance elsewhere, an Illinois state
appeals court has ruled.
On Oct. 1, a three-justice panel of the Illinois Fourth District
Appellate Court in Springfield rejected the appeal brought by the
Illinois Baptist State Association, as they sought to overturn the
ruling of a Sangamon County judge.
In that earlier ruling, Sangamon County Circuit Judge Christopher G.
Perrin had sided with the state in knocking down a legal challenge
brought by the Baptist group against an Illinois state law requiring all
health insurance policies issued by insurers regulated by Illinois'
state government to include coverage for abortions, regardless of the
views on the procedure or the desires of their policyholders.
The Springfield-based Illinois Baptist State Association is a religious
organization representing a partnership of nearly 900 local Southern
Baptist churches in Illinois.
The Illinois Baptist State Association's lawsuit came as one of two
lawsuits filed which accuse the state of trampling the religious rights
of abortion opponents.
In 2019, the pro-abortion Democrats who dominate Springfield enacted the
law, which they called the Reproductive Health Act.
The law requires every health insurance plan regulated by the Illinois
Department of Insurance to provide abortion coverage, if the plans also
provide pregnancy-related benefits.

Pritzker and other Illinois Democrats have described the law as a key
cog in their goal to make Illinois into a safe haven for abortions and
abortion providers.
"In this state, women will always have the right to reproductive health
care," Pritzker said at the time he signed the RHA into law.
The lawsuits from religious organizations and other abortion opponents,
however, claim the state's goal of advancing abortion rights conflicts
with the rights of those opposed to abortion - an opposition often based
on deep religious beliefs concerning the sanctity of human life - to not
be forced by the state to pay for others' abortions.
After the Illinois Baptists filed their lawsuit, a coalition of pro-life
organizations, chuches, employers and individuals lodged a separate
lawsuit in federal court, accusing the state of violating federal law
and the U.S. Constitution in imposing the abortion coverage mandate.
Both lawsuits claim the law forces them to choose between foregoing
health insurance coverage for themselves and their employees, or
purchasing health insurance policies which include abortion coverage,
which they said would make them complicit in a procedure they regard "as
an act of murder."
In response, however, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul - a noted
strong supporter of abortion access - has argued the lawsuits should be
ended by the courts, in large part, because the state is not "forcing"
anyone to purchase health insurance coverage.
The case in federal court remains pending, as a judge has not taken any
action in the case since July. At that time, the judge granted Raoul
permission to argue that a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that
permitted the state of South Carolina to cut funding for abortion mega
provider Planned Parenthood should also be read to allow the state of
Illinois to require health insurers to cover abortion, regardless of the
religious beliefs and moral principles of policyholders.
In Sangamon County court, though, Judge Perrin agreed with the state
that the religious convictions and beliefs of the Baptist churches in
the IBSA are irrelevant in this case because the Baptists can purchase
health insurance elsewhere that is not governed by Illinois state law.

[to top of second column]
|

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul speaks to reporters inside the
Illinois State Capitol in Springfield. Photo: Greg Bishop / The
Center Square

On appeal, the Fourth District justices also landed on the same
conclusions.
The decision was authored by Justice Amy C. Lannerd. Justices Robert
J. Steigmann and David L. Vancil Jr. concurred.
The decision was issued as an unpublished order under Supreme Court
Rule 23, which may limit its use as precedent.
In arguments, the IBSA based its case largely on a different U.S.
Supreme Court ruling, in which the country's highest court said the
federal government couldn't force retailer Hobby Lobby to purchase
health insurance which included coverage for a type of contraception
known as abortifacients.
The IBSA said that ruling should be applied in this instance in
combination with a state religious freedom law to mean the state's
abortion coverage mandate can't be applied to them and other
religious employers who object to paying for abortions.
However, the Illinois appellate court said the IBSA's case was very
different from that of Hobby Lobby. In this case, they said, unlike
the federal law, the state law doesn't require IBSA to provide
health insurance for its employees, nor will the state "tax" or
otherwise financially penalize them if they do not.
Further, the appellate panel said, the IBSA is not required to
purchase a policy through an insurer regulated by the state of
Illinois.
"In other words, the Association (IBSA) is free to purchase health
insurance, either out of state or through a self-funded or
level-funded in-state plan, that does not include coverage for
abortions without having to pay any kind of penalty or tax to the
State," Justice Lannerd wrote.
And finally, the justices noted, the IBSA allegedly chose to
purchase a state-regulated policy that included abortion coverage
because the plan offered in-network coverage for its employees at a
particular desired health clinic in Springfield.
"As a result, the mandate, as applied to the Association under the
facts of this case, did not create a substantial burden for the
Association," Lannerd wrote.

Writing in a special concurring opinion in the case, Justice
Steigmann took the opportunity to further return to a familiar topic
of his, urging the Illinois Supreme Court to potentially use this
case or another as a vehicle to end a judicial practice he believes
shouldn't continue:
The use by judges of so-called "legislative intent" to interpret
laws.
In this case, the IBSA pointed to discussion held among lawmakers at
the time the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed
to buttress its claims that the lawmakers who enacted the IRFRA law
would have backed the IBSA's claims in this case.
Currently, Illinois Supreme Court decisions require Illinois state
courts to consider "legislative history" to help determine who to
interpret laws.
In his concurring opinion, though, Steigmann said he believed the
courts should not be bound by the intent of the people who passed
the laws being interpreted.
"In my opinion, a claim that a statute should be interpreted based
upon the remarks of some legislators during the legislative process
is completely without merit and should be rejected by the courts
accordingly," Steigmann wrote.
This report was produced by Legal Newsline and
distributed by The Center Square as part of a content-sharing
agreement. Reach editor John O’Brien at john.obrien@therecordinc.com.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved |