EFILED 6/30/2021 10:50 AM Paul Palazzoio 7th Judicial Circuit Sangamon County, IL IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR TH NTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT qretnnnaeee: SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS ILLINOIS BAPTIST STATE ASSOCIATION, SOUTHLAND SMILES, LTD., DR. RICHARD MANTOAN, ROCK RIVER CARTAGE, INC., and CURT HOUSE, Case No. 2020 MR 000325 Plaintiffs, v ‘The Honorable Christopher Perrin ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, Defendant, Defendant Illinois Department of Insurance (the “Department”), by its attorney, the Illinois Attomey General, respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Count II of Piaintifis’ First Amended Complaint with prejudice, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2- 615. Plaintiffs have realleged that enforcement of the Reproductive Health Act (“RHA”) violates their rights under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Count I) (“IRFRA”) and the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act (Count II) (the “Conscience Act”). However, Count IT suffers from the same deficiencies as the initial pleading for failure to establish a cause of action. Accordingly, dismissing Count I with prejudice is appropriate. In support of this motion, the Department states as follows: 1. On June 10, 2020, Plaintiff’ filed a complaint challenging the validity of a provision of the Reproductive Health Act, 215 ILCS 5/356z.4a (the “RHA Provision”), which requires insurance companies and managed care entities regulated by the Department that sell pregnaney-related policies to cover abortion care2. On September 8, 2020, the Department filed @ motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim and did not have standing to bring suit. 3. After briefing and oral argument, on April 3, 2021, the Court granted the Department’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Section 2-615 for failure to state a claim and provided Plaintiffs leave to replead. (See Apr. 5, 2020 Ord.) 4. On May 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint and re-alleged IRFRA and Conscience Act claims against the Department. 5S. The Department now seeks dismissal of the Conscience Act at Count II, pursuant to Section 2-615 of the [linois Code of Civil Procedure, because Plaintiffs cannot establish that they are “health care payers” to whom the RHA Provision applies, and thus they do not need an exemption. 6. A defendant may move for dismissal under Section 2-615(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure if the complaint is “substantially insufficient in law[.]” 735 ILCS 5/2-615(a). “While the plaintiff is not required to set forth evidence in the complaint” to survive a Section 2-615 challenge, “the plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to bring a claim within a legally recognized cause of action, not simply conclusions.” Marshall », Burger King Corp., 222 Il. 2d 422, 429-30 (2006) (citations omitted). 7. Plaintiffs aver that they are entitled to protection under the Conscience Act because the RHA Provision coerces them to purchase insurance that covers abortion, in contravention of their religious belief’. (See, e.g., Ist Am. Compl. € 4.) However, the Conscience Act does not protect employers or individual businessowners like Plaintiffs who purchase insurance benefits for their employees and are health care “purchasers.” The Conscience Act protects health care payers that sel! or manage health insurance products, as defined in theConscience Act. See 745 ILCS 70/3(f). Moreover, nothing in the RHA requires employers or individual businessowners to purchase pregnaney coverage that includes abortion care, and the Department does not have any enforcement authority or jurisdiction over Plaintifis as purchasers of health care. 8. In fact, the injunetion that Plaintiff’ seek would not accomplish what Plaintiffs desire. If the Court enjoined the Department from enforcing the RHA against the Plaintiffs, the result would be that the Department could not require Plaintiffs to sell insurance products with, abortion coverage. But the Department already cannot require Plaintiffs to do anything because Plaintiffs do not sell insurance. No do the pleadings identify any insurance companies that wish to seek a Conscience Act exemption from the RHA Provision 9. The Department submits and incorporates herein a Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Partial Section 2-615 Motion to Dismiss Plaintifis" First Amended Complaint under ection 2-615, which further addresses the bases for the dismissal of Count I. WHEREFORE, for these reasons and for the reasons given in its supporting Memorandum, the Hlinois Department of Insurance respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Count IT of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief with prejudice, and order other selief that is equitable and just.Dated: June 30, 2021 Respectfully submitted, KWAME RAOUL Attorney General for the State of Illinois By: /s/ Elizabeth Morris Elizabeth Monis, ARDC#6297239 Deputy Bureau Chief Sarah Gallo, ARDC#6320644 Assistant Attorney General Office of the Illinois Attorney General 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, Ilinois 60601 (312) 814-3000 elizabeth. morris@illinois.gov sarah gallo@illinois. gov Attorneys for Defendant Minois Department of InsuranceTIFICATE OF. I, the undersigned, an attorney, hereby certify that I caused to be served upon those listed on those individuals listed below copies of DEFENDANTS PARTIAL SECTION 2-615 MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by electronic mail on this 30th day of June, 2021: Randall A. Mead DRAKE, NARUP & MEAD, P.C. 107 E. Allen Street Springfield, Ilinois 62704 mead@dnmpe.com ‘Thomas Brejcha Peter Breen Joan Mannix Martin Whittaker THOMAS MORE SOCIETY 309 W. Washington St., Suite 1250 Chicago, Minois 60606 threjcha@thomasmoresociety.org, pbreen@thomasmoresociety.org jmannix@thomasmoresociety.ong mwhittaker@thomasmoresociety.org, Timothy Belz J. Matthew Belz OTTSEN, LEGGAT & BELZ, L.C. 112 South Hanley Road, Suite 200 Clayton, MO 63105 thelz@otblaw.com Jmbelz@olblaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs {si Elizabeth Morris