Welcome to the TMS Weekly Dispatch for April 7, 2025—with the latest news and updates from the front line, to keep you in-the-know on all things Thomas More Society.

Here’s a look back at the past week:

COURT STRIKES DOWN ILLINOIS LAW FORCING PRO-LIFE MINISTRIES TO PROMOTE ABORTION, BUT UPHOLDS REFERRAL MANDATE: Late Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston issued a long-awaited decision in Schroeder v. Treto, Jr., permanently blocking Illinois' abortion promotion mandate and ruling it unconstitutional. However, in the same decision, Judge Johnston upheld the state's abortion referral mandate.

In Schroeder v. Treto, Thomas More Society represents a pro-life physician and Illinois pregnancy centers in challenging Illinois Senate Bill 1564, which amended Illinois’ Health Care Right of Conscience Act (HCRCA) to mandate pro-life doctors and pregnancy centers to share so-called "benefits of abortion" with their patients and to refer for abortion. The law was challenged by Thomas More Society in 2017 and consolidated with the parallel case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Treto, Jr.

However, in the same decision, Judge Johnston also upheld the state's abortion referral mandate, ruling it constitutional. Prior to the April 4 ruling, a preliminary injunction protected pro-life doctors and pregnancy centers against both of the Illinois law's mandates. Thomas More Society will continue its challenge against SB 1564 gutting of conscience protections for pro-life doctors and pregnancy centers, and plans to appeal against the court's ruling on the abortion referral mandate—advocating for full protection of pro-life healthcare providers’ conscientious objection to abortion referrals.

“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," reacted Thomas Olp, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President. “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.”

“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,” said Judy Cocks, Executive Director of 1st Way Life Center and Plaintiff in Schroeder v. Treto, Jr. “To share so-called ‘benefits of abortion’ would go against the very foundation of our ministry and our First Amendment rights. 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. 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,” Judy added. “We’re grateful Thomas More Society is vowing to keep fighting against Illinois’ abortion referral mandate. Our women deserve options rooted in love, not mandates that harm our communities and the women and children we serve.”

NEW STUDY BACKS TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION PILL REVERSAL EFFICACY—TMS ASKS COURT TO TAKE NOTICE: A new study released in March 2025 provides further insight into the process and efficacy of the Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) protocol. TMS attorneys representing pregnancy center Culture of Life Family Services against California Attorney General Rob Bonta have asked the federal judge assigned to the case to take official notice of the latest scientific evidence for APR's effectiveness.

The study is brought to the attention of the court through supplemental testimony by Dr. Elena Kraus, in support of Thomas More Society’s lawsuit challenging California AG Rob Bonta’s unconstitutional attack on the free speech rights of pro-life ministries. Thomas More Society seeks a preliminary injunction from the Court protecting California pregnancy centers’ right to share information about Abortion Pill Reversal without fear of lawfare from AG Bonta—who is currently suing Heartbeat International with the aim of dismantling the Abortion Pill Rescue Network, a legal battle in which Thomas More Society is defending Heartbeat International.

TMS FILES NEW BRIEF DEFENDING CHRISTIAN LIFEGUARD CAPTAIN’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: TMS attorneys have filed a brief in opposition to the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s Motion to Dismiss a case defending the religious liberty rights of Captain Jeffrey Little, a devout Christian father and Lifeguard Captain with the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Captain Little faced illegal discrimination and retaliation after requesting religious exemption from raising the “Progress Pride Flag” while on-duty during “Pride Month” in June.

The brief contends that L.A. County's partial accommodation fails to eliminate his religious conflict, as he remains responsible for ensuring flag compliance, which he cannot do without violating his beliefs. Even though Captain Little has proposed workable solutions, his superiors have rejected them, without proving undue hardship. The brief also argues that L.A. County's “good faith” defense lacks legal basis at this stage and is factually unsupported, given its delayed and inadequate responses. L.A. County's refusal to fully accommodate Little’s religious beliefs—past and future—violates federal and state law, TMS attorneys argue in the filing, and the lawsuit should be allowed to move forward as amended.

‍MCHALE IN FOX NEWS—SCOTUS RULINGS THIS TERM COULD STRENGTHEN RELIGIOUS RIGHTS PROTECTIONS: TMS Senior Counsel Michael McHale was interviewed by Fox News Digital about the future of religious liberty and high-profile First Amendment cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court this term. "I think it's fair to say here that all three cases involve questions that have been lingering in courts for a long time, or that raise issues that are especially pressing right now around the country," McHale told Fox News Digital.

"To me, it seems clear these cases, at least potentially, could stand for the principle that as long as someone's acting out of a sincerely motivated religious beliefs or sincerely held religious beliefs that triggers the First Amendment, and it requires the government to show a really good reason why the government interests should override that belief," he added.

‍“A MEDICAL SCANDAL”—TMS FILES FRIEND-OF-THE-COURT BRIEF IN CASE CHALLENGING MICHIGAN'S COUNSELING CENSORSHIP LAW: TMS Senior Counsel Tyler Brooks helped file a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Ethics and Public Policy Center supporting a legal challenge to Michigan’s “Conversion Law," or HB 4616, now on appeal in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Michigan law prevents counselors from using a cautious, science-backed approach to helping children suffering from gender dysphoria. Rather than allowing children to work through the root causes of their challenges, the law requires counselors to affirm children in their belief that they were born on the wrong bodies and to “provide[] assistance to [a child] undergoing a gender transition”—which often includes puberty blocking drugs, cross sex hormones, and surgeries that cause irreversible harm. Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee & Hillsdale, and others, have brought a suit against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, challenging the Michigan law.

From the brief:  

Michigan’s choice to ignore the evidence and foreclose sound therapeutic options for identity-distressed minors is a medical scandal— and a human tragedy. Clinicians know the “bedrock principle of all clinical practice: First, do no harm.” HB 4616 effectively mandates pediatric gender affirmation, putting vulnerable children on a one-way path towards irreversible harm. This is ethically indefensible.  

The brief comprehensively outlines the ethical, legal, and practical concerns inseparable from the new law. It argues that the Michigan law erroneously presumes gender affirmation is the only ethical response to gender dysphoria; reflects a faulty anthropology that claims gender identity is immutable, but sex is not; forecloses therapeutic exploration and healing; ignores the weak evidence for gender affirmation and the overwhelming evidence of irreversible harm; and forces vulnerable adolescents towards gender affirmation and irreversible harm.