EFILED 57312021 12:52 PM Paul Palazzoio 7th Judicial Circuit Sangamon County, IL STATE OF ILLINOIS qretnnnaeee: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT SANGAMON COUNTY ia an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, [NOIS BAPTIST TATE ASSOCIATION, SOUTHLAND SMILES, LTD., an Illinois corporation, and its owner and president, DR. RICHARD MANTOAN, an Illinois resident, Case No. 2020MR000325 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) and, ) ) ROCK RIVER CARTAGE, INC,, an Illinois ) corporation, and its owner and chief executive) officer, CURT HOUSE, an Illinois resident, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, —_) ) Defendant ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECI Plaintiffs Ilinois Baptist State Association, Southland Smiles, Ltd., Dr. Richard Mantoan, Rock River Cartage, Ine. and Curt House, by and through their attorneys, for their First Amended Complaint against the Illinois Department of Insurance, state as follows: Introduction 1. Plaintiffs seek judicial review of the State of Ilinois’s Reproductive Health Act of 2019 (Reproductive Health Act), by which the Ilinois State Legislature mandated, among other things, that every health insurance plan in the State of Illinois that provides pregnancy-related benefits also provide coverage for abortion (Mandate). 2. The Mandate violates PlaintiflS’ rights under the Ilinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (I-RFRA) and Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act (Conscience Act), Case No. 2020MR000325 Page 1 of 163. Specifically, the FRFRA and the Conscience Act protect Plaintiffs" sincerely held religious beliefs which forbid them from funding and providing employee health care coverage for abortion. See Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014). 4. Before the Reproductive Health Act, Plaintiffs never provided abortion coverage to their employees. The Reproductive Health Act has now coerced Plaintiffs, in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, to provide such coverage. 5. That Plaintiffs" health plans now cover abortion is, undoubtedly, the result of the Reproductive Health Act. This is a direct injury to Plaintiffs, clearly caused by and traceable to the actions of the defendant. Jurisdiction and Requested Relief 6. This Court has subject matter and personal jurisdiction over this lawsuit, which challenges the effectiveness of an Ilinois statute under the laws of this state. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5: 701, 5/11-301 and 5/11-303, the Illinois Constitution, and under this Court's common law equitable powers. 7. Venue is proper in Sangamon County as the physical location of the governmental department sued. The Parties Plaintiffs 8 Plaintiff Ilinois Baptist State Association (IBSA) is an Ilinois not-for-profit corporation with its principal office located in Springfield, Sangamon County, Illinois. It provides Case No. 2020MR000325 Page 2 of 16health insurance coverage (and specifically, pregnaney-related benefits) through a third-party insurer to more than 20 employees. 9. IBSA, founded in 1907, is a partnership of nearly 1,000 churches and mission congregations working together to advance the gospel in Illinois and around the world. 10. Through its ministries and missions, IBSA. seeks to develop healthy, effective Baptist churches, sacrificially working together to advance the Gospel, make disciples of Jesus, and establish new churches throughout Illinois and the world. 11, IBSA and its member churches are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, and because “the Bible affirms that the unborn child is a person, bearing the image of God, from the moment of conception (Psalm 139:13~16; Luke 1:44),” Southern Baptists have “historically upheld the sanctity of life in the womb and repeatedly reaffirmed opposition to legalized abortion. 12, Plaintiff Southland Smiles, Ltd. is an Ilinois closely-held corporation with its principal office in Flossmoor, Ilinois, Plaintiff Dr. Richard J. Mantoan is an Illinois resident and a dentist who is the president, chief executive oflicer and chief decision-maker of Southland Smiles. Southland Smiles and Dr. Mantoan provide health insurance coverage (and specifically, pregnancy-related benefits) through a third-party insurer to more than 25 employees. 13. For more than 30 years, Southland Smiles has offered family, cosmetic and general dentistry services to those in and around the Flossmoor community 14, Plaintiff’ Rock River Cartage, Ine. is an Minois closely-held corporation with its principal office in Sterling, Illinois. Rock River Cartage is a trucking company. Plaintiff Curt J. “On Celebrating The Advancement Of Pro-Life Legislation In State Legislatures,” Southern Baptist Convention, bip/'www. she net/resolutions!2300 on-celebrating-the-advancement-of-proife-legislation-in-state-lewistatres, Case No. 2020MR000325 Page 3 of 16House is an owner, chief executive officer and the chief decision-maker of Rock River Cartage. Rock River Cartage and Mr. House provide health insurance coverage (and specifically. pregnancy-related benefits) through a third-party insurer to more than 25 employees. 15. Plaintifts believe they have a religious and moral duty to provide health coverage, including pregnancy-related benefits, to their employees Defendant 16. Defendant Ilinois Department of Insurance is a department of the State of Tinois. 17. The Department is tasked with enforcing the challenged aspects of the Reproductive Health Act, described herein. ‘The Reproductive Health Act of 2019 ‘Abortion Coverage Mandate 18, Following passage of the Reproductive Health Act, any health insurance plan that includes pregnancy-related benefits must also provide coverage for abortion, 215 ILCS 5/356z.4a 19. Sec. 3562.4a, as to abortion coverage, states in full: Coverage for abortion, (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Seetion, no individual or group policy of accident and health insurance that provides pregnaney-related benefits may be issued. amended, delivered, or renewed in this State after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 101st General Assembly unless the policy provides a covered person with coverage for abortion care (b) Coverage for abortion eare may not impose any deductible, coinsurance, waiting petiod, or other cost-sharing limitation that is greater then that required for other pregnancy-related benefits covered by the policy (c) Except as otherwise authorized under this Section, a policy shall not impose any restrictions or delays on the coverage required under this Section (@) This Section does not, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18054(a)(6), apply to a multistate plan that does not provide coverage for abortion. (©) If the Department concludes that enforcement of this Section may adversely affect the allocation of federal funds to this State, the Department may grant an Case No. 2020MR000325 Page 4 of 16exemption to the requirements, but only to the minimum extent necessary to ensure the continued receipt of federal funds. 20. The Reproductive Health Act contains no religious or moral exemptions to these requirements, 21. The Reproductive Health Act requires that the Plaintifis’ group health plans provide and pay for coverage for abortion. 22. The Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 {720 ILCS $10/2(4)] defines abortion as “the use of any instrument, medicine, drug or any other substance or device to terminate the pregnaney of a woman known to be pregnant with an intention other than to inerease the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead fetus.” Plaintiffs’ Health Insurance Coverage hefore and after the Reproductive Health Act 23. Before the Reproductive Health Act, each of the Plaintiffs had insurance coverage that included coverage for reproductive health services but that excluded sbortion coverage, given their religious and moral objections to abortion 24. IBSA, for instance, currently has and at the time the Reproductive Health Act was enacted had a Blue Cross Blue Shield small group plan. The plan for 2019 did not include coverage for abortion but, because of the Reproductive Health Act’s abortion coverage mandate, began covering abortion in 2020. 25. Rock River Cartage has a United Health Care plan that did not cover abortion prior to June of 2019 (when the Reproductive Health Act was enacted) but now is forced to cover abortion due to the Reproductive Health Act. 26. Southland Smiles also had a Blue Cross Blue Shield health plan that excluded abortion before the Reproductive Health Act but now ineludes it Case No. 2020MR000325 Page 5 of 1627. Asamatter of sincerely held religious beliefs, Plaintifis believe abortion involves the destruction of human life and is gravely wrong and sinfl 28. As Plaintiffs believe that abortion separates the unitive and procreative aspects of human sexuality, involves the destruction of human life, and is inherently evil, gravely wrong and sinful, Plaintiffs also believe such practices are harmful to the health and well-being of all human beings. 29. Plaintiffs believe that they cannot facilitate access to, subsidize, or otherwise materially cooperate with the provision of abortion without violating their conscience and most sacred and solemn obligations to God, betraying their professed religious faith, and disserving the best interests of their fellow human beings 30. Plaintiffs believe that providing their employees with insurance coverage for abortion constitutes cooperation with intrinsic evil and violates the laws of God 31. As such, Plaintiff each believe that paying for, participating in and/or providing a group health insurance plan that complies with the Reproductive Health Act is sinfial and immoral because it requires PlaintiffS to pay for and be complicit in abortion in violation of their sineerely held religious beliefs 32. Plaintifis made the original choice to not facilitate the coverage of abortion in the employee health care they provide. 33. Plaintifis desire to continue offering group health plans and maternity benefits to their employees, but wish to exclude coverage for products and services that violate their religious beliefs, such as those required by the Reproductive Health Act—namely, abortion Case No. 2020MR000325 Page 6 of 1634. Plaintiffs are currently being impermissibly coerced to violate their religious beliefs. Plaintiffs will continue to be harmed unless this court provides them their requested relief from the State’s unlawful and unconstitutional actions. 35, The Reproductive Health Act is causing serious, ongoing hardship. Plaintiffs need relief now in order to be in compliance with the law. 36. Plaintifls have no adequate or speedy remedy at law to correct or redress the deprivation of their rights caused by the Reproductive Health Act 37. Unless the Reproductive Health Act is declared unlawful and enforcement of it enjoined, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable injury. 38. Plaintiffs do not have adequate alternatives to their current insurance plans. 39, IBSA indeed went to great lengths to find an insurance plan that would help it avoid the abortion coverage mandate at issue in this case, IBSA previously had an out-of-state, denominational plan and has enjoyed considerable savings since it moved to an IIlinois-based plan. Alter the abortion coverage mandate passed, IBSA inquired about returning to an out-of-state plan, and IBSA was told that that would have required returning to a much more costly plan. IBSA also researched self-insured plans with a third-party administrator, and the cost estimates involved with those were almost twice as expensive as IBSA’s current plan. 40. Moving to a self-insured plan involves more than just a cost inerease. A third-party administrator must be engaged, small employers like Plaintifis need to beware that a catastrophic claim could bankrupt them, and those who do have self-insured plans must first build up a cash reserve to cover basic claims. Such a move would present stewardship problems for organizations Case No. 2020MR000325 Page 7 of 16such as IBSA, which would put its donors’ gifts, among other things, at risk, all in order to avoid a burden put in place by the State of Ilinois, 41. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief from the operation of Illinois’ abortion coverage mandate, which requires that, in order to provide health benefits for their employees, the insurance purchased by PlaintifiS must include abortion coverage that Plaintiffs cannot make available to their employees without contravening Plaintiffs’ sincere religious convictions. By requiting Plaintils to provide employees with access to abortion, this law violates Plaintiffs’ legal rights. 42. By seeking injunctive relief pending an adjudication of their claims, Plaintiffs seek only to conduct their businesses in a manner that does not violate the core tenets of their conscience and religious faith relating to the senetity of human life while their claims are otherwise being adjudicated. 43. Plaintiffs have filed suit in this case to escape the dilemma in which they find themselves. Plaintiffs cannot continue in good conscience to comply with the State's immoral and illegal mandate in violation of their faith. ‘The Reproductive Health Act’s Legislative History Shows that the State Knew the Potential of Claims Like those of Plaintiffs, and Legislators Assured the Public that the Rights of Plaintiffs and Similar Emplovers Would Be Protected 44, Sponsors Kelly Cassidy (house of representatives) and Melinda Bush (senate) both spoke in favor of the Reproductive Health Act during floor debates in late May of 2019. 45. Notably, they both answered the same question relevant (o this case: Rep. Robyn Gabel: “Does the Reproductive Health Act require all health insurance policies, even those purchased by churches, other religious entities, and persons and employers with moral or religious objections to abortions, to cover abortion services?” Cassidy: “No. Our state’s existing Health Care Right of Conscience Act already provides protections for those with moral or religious objections, including permitting insurance Case No. 2020MR000325 Page 8 of 16companies and other health care payers to opt out of coverage for any health care serviee to which they have a documented conscience-based objection. This is the same way that contraceptive coverage requirements are handled for entities with conscience-based objections. Regardless, the Bill was amended with language to clarify this point. I understand that some Members have received calls and letters from various institutions or companies claiming that their insurance providers are not asking whether the employer has a conscience objection to providing coverage for services such as abortion. The Health Care Right of Conscience Act provides that any health care payer, including an employer paying for health care, has a right to opt out of the coverage mandate. A ‘health care payer’ is defined as a health maintenance organization, insurance company, management services organization, or any other entity that pays for or arranges for the payment of any health care or medical care service, procedure, or product. The language covers any company purchasing insurance, not just those who are self-insured. For purposes of legislative intent, the language of Senate Bill 25, ay amended by House Amendment 1, makes it abundantly clear that the intent of the language in this Bill is to require an insurance company to offer a health care product but not to interfere with the right of the entity purchasing the health care policy to refuse to provide coverage for abortion care.” hups://vww.ilga, gov/House/transeripts/Htrans1 01/10100059 pdf (at 12-13) (emphasis added); see also Senator Bush’s almost identical answer at https:/Avww.ilga. gov/Scnate/transcripts/Strans 1 01/10100055.pdf (at 201-02). 46. The Illinois General Assembly thus anticipated claims of those in the position of Plaintiffs and assured the public that those rights would be protected. 47. These statements of Rep. Cassidy and Sen. Bush demonstrate two clear facts: (1) that the Reproductive Health Act does act upon employers, whether directly or indirectly, and it impacts them and their religious beliefs; and (2) that the legislative intent was to allow religious employers such as Plaintiffs to eseape this burden by being allowed to opt out of abortion coverage under the Health Care Right of Conscience Act. 48. The Department of Insurance, however, now denies both of these facts, COUNT I 49. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the foregoing allegations in this Complaint. Case No. 2020MR000325 Page 9 of 16