Illinois Law May Prevent Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccinations

From Illinois Leaks, republilshed with permission:

IL. Law Prohibits Asking About Vaccines, Health Treatments –


The Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, 745 ILCS 70, protects people from government and businesses inquiring into or mandating any health care issues. This particular law was brought to our attention by Shelby County Board member Dereck Pearcy several months ago. As we waited for multiple attorneys to validate Pearcy’s understanding as well as ours, we now see we finally have lawyers chiming in.

Illinois Review recently published an article on this subject (here), and we urge our readers to mosey on over there to read it.

We urge everyone to read this law and apply it as they see fit.

In September of 2020, an Illinois Court upheld this Act in determining in a preliminary Motion that Nurses can recover triple damages under the Right of Conscience Act – even against public employers and that this Act trumps other older and less specific laws, including TORT. This case was filed in 2016 and has not had a final ruling yet. The next hearing is scheduled for September 16, 2021, in Winnebago County Circuit Court.

Particularly, the Act states the following:

Section 2 states Illinois’ public policy on the issue:

. . . It is the public policy of the State of Illinois to respect and protect the right of conscience of all persons who refuse to obtain, receive or accept, or who are engaged in, the delivery of, arrangement for, or payment of health care services and medical care whether acting individually, corporately, or in association with other persons; and to prohibit all forms of discrimination, disqualification, coercion, disability or imposition of liability upon such persons or entities by reason of their refusing to act contrary to their conscience or conscientious convictions in providing, paying for, or refusing to obtain, receive, accept, deliver, pay for, or arrange for the payment of health care services and medical care. . . 

Section 3 defines “Health Care” to include any phase of patient care, including, but not limited to testing, diagnosis, and medication, among others.

Section 5 determines that discrimination is unlawful by stating that it shall be unlawful for any person, public or private institution or public official to discriminate against any person in any manner . . . because of such person’s conscientious refusal to receive, obtain, accept, etc., any particular form of health care. . .

Section 7 prohibits discrimination by employers or institutions – by stating that it is unlawful for any public or private employer, entity, agency, institution, official or person, etc., to deny admission because of . . . to orally question about . . . any forms of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.

Section 8 prohibits denying aid or benefits and declares any such denial as unlawful . . .

“It shall be unlawful for any public official, guardian, agency, institution or entity to deny any form of aid, assistance or benefits, or to condition the reception in any way of any form of aid, assistance or benefits, or in any other manner to coerce, disqualify or discriminate against any person, otherwise entitled to such aid, assistance or benefits, because that person refuses to obtain, receive, accept, perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.”

Section 12 of this Act provides that any person injured by anyone may file a lawsuit seeking treble damages and payment of costs and attorney fees incurred in the filing of such a suit and that the damage remedies are cumulative – meaning not the exclusive form of remedy and can be used in addition to other remedies.


Illinois Law May Prevent Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccinations — 36 Comments

  1. This law requires that the conviction not to be subject to certain medical treatments be derived from a belief in God or some similar conviction equating to religious faith.

    Political convictions would not fall into that category unless you believe that Trump is God.

  2. Perhaps BecauseScience is eligible for exemption due to his chronic TDS affliction/disability.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket !

  3. “ (e) “Conscience” means a sincerely held set of moral

    convictions arising from belief in and relation to God, or which, though not so derived, arises from a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by God among adherents to religious faiths;”

    BS, as a zealous but heretical believer in Science, does indeed have grounds for exemption to the fake vaccine.

  4. Laws protecting the people no longer apply because of our tyrannical government.

  5. Employers are now starting to require vaccinations amoung their employees because they are getting billed for the costs of expensive ICU treatment that could have been avoided by a free vaccine.

    Insurance companies are considering charging higher rates for people who are unvaccinated as well for the same reason.

    A typical ICU bill averages $250K and the patient may die anyway.

    It’s time to put your money where your mouths are people.

  6. BecauseScience is, in my opinion, correct.

    In a previous post I pasted the definition of “conscience” contained in the statute, which requires that any claim of discrimination be based upon a sincerely held religious belief or a belief arising from a belief system akin to religious faith.

    I’d be interested in where such a belief is contained in the Judeo-Christian belief system.

  7. “We urge everyone to read this law and apply it as they see fit.”

    — It is an elected Judge who is responsible for applying the laws of this state, not individuals.

    Also, one could read Section 2 to mean that nobody is ever responsible for paying their portion of medical bills.

  8. BS- its clear that liberalism and covid have completely destroyed the one brain cell you had left.

    If you were an animal in the wild the pack would have left you long ago.

  9. This is the Christian Science/Jehovah’s Witnesses law.

    It allows people who hold those beliefs to refuse medical treatment.

    You are not going to be able to apply it to people who have been getting medical care all of their lives and suddenly have a “religious conviction” against vaccinations.

    Moreover, as I said in a previous post, government cannot force vaccinations on people as it is an invasive technique.

    All government can do is require proof of vaccination for certain things or allow the individual to produce weekly test results.

    Employers can, however, require vaccinations as a prerequisite to the employment, or charge higher fees for employee health insurance for unvaccinated.

    Those states where governors have purported to prevent private employers or school boards, or places of business from doing that are infringing on the “freedoms” of those people and will probably not be upheld in the courts.

  10. The year is 2021.

    Civilization is being destroyed by a virus you wouldn’t know exists if you didn’t watch the news.

    Democrats suddenly love big drug and big insurance companies.

    You are here.

  11. No, they are not, Because. You just know so much stuff that is totally untrue. Hospitals are going the way of the dodo bird. Hmmm. That should be right up there in your wheelhouse.

  12. Bonanza

    I don’t believe that secular belief systems are protected by the law.

    Moreover, unless merely being asked about vaccination status violates some tenet of religious belief or akin faith it is hard to conceive how such inquiry runs afoul of the law.

    (By the way, under such a scenario who would be violating the law ? The person or entity doing the asking ? But if it violated a tenet of belief, why would they be doing the asking ? And if the person being asked has no such scruples, what damages would they conceivably suffer by merely being asked ?)

  13. Kelly Liebman, is The Toad Giad storing Underwood campaign signs on township road district property as alleged.

    You are my township trustee.

    Find out!

  14. Curious if employers can regulate your smoking, eating habits, exercise activity, life style choices because it costs them more money in healthcare bills?

    That’s right Obamacare changed that so everyone paid the same essentially.

    If you’re obese you pay the same as someone that eats right and exercises.

    I suppose businesses should just hire people that have no medical issues or the unhealthy should pay much more in healthcare for their lifestyle choices.

    Should we go down the slippery slope

  15. Note how the goalposts have been moved.

    The original article seemed to assert that it was a violation of the statute to even ask about vaccination status.

    (“IL Law Prohibits Asking About Vaccines”).

    (Query: wouldn’t such a statutory construction prohibit medical personnel from even asking about such status ?

    After all, they wouldn’t know beforehand of a person’s religious scruples, so the only way to prevent such liability is to not ask anyone.

    Moreover, who has religious scruples that would be violated by someone merely asking the question ?

    After all, if you ask a Jehovah’s Witness whether they would consent to a blood transfusion the mere asking of the question doesn’t violate any of their religious tenets.)

    However, after it was pointed out that the purpose of the legislation was to prohibit mandating certain medical treatments (e.g., blood transfusions) which it is known segments of the populace have religious objections to (the legislation is decades old), this blog changes the intro to “Illinois Law May Prevent Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccinations”.

    Which, of course, not only interjects the “legal fudge factor” (“may”) into the discussion, but also begs the question as to who it is that has sincere religious scruples against such vaccinations. (Kids vaccinated for school ?

    Ever had a flu shot ?)

    It’s all really silly, isn’t it ?

  16. charge higher fees for employee health insurance for unvaccinated?

    So then higher fees for obesity?

    Higher fees for smokers?

    Higher fees for cancer?

    Looks like higher premiums only in regards to poisonous injections.

    expensive ICU treatment that could have been avoided by a free vaccine?

    The evil treasonous CDC and WHO protocols dictate ZERO treatment.

    Stay home, no prescribed treatment, come to ER when you can’t breathe, oops too late, ICU, vent, die.

    You are a hospital prisoner until you die. Hospital protocols do NOT allow for actual treatments; HCQ and Ivermectin.

    The test is the scam.

    NO tests = NO virus.


    The vax is poison.

    99.7% survive the flu or inject unknown poison into your body.

    WAKE UP!

  17. “I don’t believe that secular belief systems are protected by the law.”

    Then you can’t read.

    “Moreover, unless merely being asked about vaccination status violates some tenet of religious belief or akin faith it is hard to conceive how such inquiry runs afoul of the law.“

    Quit sperging over a headline. No one cares about mere inquiries, we care about mandates and discrimination.

    Furthermore, it doesn’t matter what the law was meant to apply to.

    There’s clearly an application for all other mandated care that has yet to be proven in court.

    “The law” is whatever you can get away with.

  18. What’s this about Greenwood Township Road Commissioner storing Lauren Underwood campaign signs?

    s he really?

    Does he charge rent?

    Can Republicans store?

    These township jukes always do what they want for their friends and family on the taxpayers’ dime.

    One of my neighbor gets his driveway plowed gratis by township trucks.

    When I asked him about it, he did an about face.

  19. Bonanza

    Read the definitional sections.

    “(e) ‘Conscience’ means a sincerely held set of moral convictions arising from belief in and relation to God, or which, though not so derived, arises from a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by God among adherents to religious faiths;”

    (745 ILCS 70/3(e)).

    All of the prohibitory sections address discriminatory practices violating a person’s “conscience” (“contrary to his or her conscience”), which, as the definitional section sets forth, only encompasses a “belief in and relation to God, or which, though not so derived, arises from a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by God among adherents to religious faiths”.

    I’d be interested in your explanation of how “conscience” as so defined encompasses secular belief systems.

  20. PSA: The “approved” vaccine has not been released.

    If you see a bottle, let me know because Pfizer-BioNTech will keep jabbing everyone with the EUA version as long as the FDA keeps giving them extensions.

    Don’t believe the lies.

    They have until 2027 to issue their final reports on this thing.

    It’s all in the FDA documents.

    Furthermore, I hope that most of you spent at least the last 1.5+ years setting yourself up to tell your employer to f-off if it came down to this.

  21. The students at Loyola were granted a requested exemption with regard to the University’s vaccine mandate because they asserted that such a mandate violated their religious beliefs.

    As has been noted on several occasions, a religious ground for challenging such a medical mandate falls squarely within the terms of the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act.

  22. AlabamaDave: We can’t read articles behind a paywall.

  23. Are you actually able to read, or did your dorkie bow tie cut off the air to your brain?

    Nobody is claiming that the vaccine hasn’t been approve.

    They are claiming that the approved vaccine has not yet been released in the USA.

    What part of that do you not understand?

  24. This is why liberals are mentally ill idiots who can’t even seem to read the actual words that are posted by the “fact checkers”.

  25. Aren’t the trials for all of the vaccines not scheduled to conclude until 2022 or 2023?

    Everything the FDA does seems to be motivated by politics. The way it appears to an observer is that the drug companies call the shots and then the FDA goes along with the drug company’s recommendation about a week later. Case in point: boosters.

    Phizer said you need to take more Phizer shots (gee I wonder why they would say that?)

    (Then other companies like J and J said you need a booster too. I wonder why…)

    FDA said we’re not sure. About a week later they said yeah you need to take boosters. I don’t believe for a second they had all the necessary information to make that call after a week. They just wanted to put some space in between what Phizer said and what they said to appear to be independent and scientific.

    I think they are owned by big corporations. It’s troublesome that so many Democrats and people left of center are totally on board with what ever the big drug companies say. 🙁

  26. The average age of a COVID death is 76-77, same as average life expectancy for males.

    In 1970, one out of every 17.0 persons 65 and older died.

    SAFER: 2020, one of every 20.1.

    From 1/1/2020 to the present, one of every 21.7.

    Year 2003: 19.9, and every year prior was more death-risky for those 65 and older.

    Prior to the mRNA poison shots being available, it was all about asymptomatic spread.

    If you have HAD THE VIRUS, why take a vaccine?

    If you have been inoculated for tetanus, do you fear being near people who have not?

    If you have had the measles, to you get inoculated for measles?

    How many people have taken the time to download VAERS data and read the ‘symptoms’ —

    you can sort by the deaths column and read case after case of people who, if they were alive, would have said, ‘no way’.

    There is no emergency, and ivermectin has eradicated COVID in a state within India of 200 million people: Uttar Pradesh.

    The USA is now a medical tyranny for no good reasons.

  27. Part of the Marxist operations is to put “organizations” between the voters (you and me) and our elected officials.

    This gives them “plausible deniability” so the voters can’t “vote them out” of office.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *