Christian crisis pregnancy centers in the south and far western suburbs are challenging a change in the state's right-of-conscience law that since January requires physicians and nurses to notify pregnant patients of all their available options, including abortion.

The lawsuit, filed against state officials including Gov. Bruce Rauner, claims their constitutional free-speech rights are violated by the changes to the law because they have to offer advice they find morally wrong. The clinics also allege the new law violates federal laws banning discrimination against doctors and other health care workers who do not provide or refer patients for abortions.

Supporters of the law say the changes only require health care providers to inform patients of all their options — a standard practice of care in the medical field.

The law was originally passed — after the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion — to shield physicians opposed to performing the procedure. Modifications to that law, designed to protect patients who didn't know all their options, were signed into law by Rauner last year after an emotional Illinois Senate subcommittee hearing that drew testimony from patients.

Providers must offer a "standard of care" that includes informing patients of their medical options, such as abortion or contraception, even if the physician is opposed to it for religious or moral reasons, under the new law, which went into effect Jan. 1. If the patient is seeking a particular treatment, the physician or nurse must at least provide a list of providers.

"A pro-life physician cannot in good conscience do that," said Thomas Olp, an attorney for the Thomas More Society, a nonprofit religious liberty law firm. Olp said providing a referral to an abortion provider would be considered by pro-life physicians "material involvement in something that's inherently evil."

The two Christian clinics — 1st Way Pregnancy Support Services in McHenry County and Pregnancy Aid South Suburbs — and Dr. Ronald Schroeder, who works at various crisis pregnancy centers, filed a lawsuit earlier this year in federal court in Springfield. The case recently was transferred to federal court in Chicago, and then to Rockford, where it will be consolidated with another Thomas More lawsuit over the law.

The two clinics are among a handful that have filed lawsuits in the state, some by the conservative legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom, all of which are now being heard in Rockford state and federal courts. A circuit court judge in Winnebago County has barred the state from enforcing the law against three health care providers that operate pregnancy centers in Rockford, Chicago and the suburbs while the case is being heard, attorneys said.

The governor's office said in response to litigation filed in Rockford that it does not comment on pending litigation but that "Gov. Rauner has never pushed a social agenda and remains focused on passing a balanced budget with reforms to create jobs, lower property taxes, improve schools and enact term limits."

It's unclear exactly how the state's new law would be enforced. Patients who aren't told of all their options could sue their health care provider for malpractice, and Olp said the state's licensing board could discipline doctors or nurses directly.

The clinics in the lawsuit don't receive state or federal funding, according to Olp.

None of the state's large Catholic health care providers has joined in the legal challenge to the legislation sponsored by state Sen. Daniel Biss, an Evanston Democrat. The Catholic Conference of Illinois remained neutral on the legislation and said the dictates of the new law were already in place at Catholic health care facilities.

"You can go ahead and object and not provide certain types of care, but the patient has to get standard of care information about medical circumstances and treatment options," said Lorie Chaiten, director of the women's and reproductive rights project at Illinois ACLU, which pushed for the amendments after hearing for years from patients affected by the law.

"People were being denied care who weren't told their options — they didn't find out until they were suffering," she said. "If you're an objecting provider, nobody is saying you have to provide any care you object to, no one is defining what that information is that you have to give."

"You can't mislead people with disinformation or withhold material information."

After her water broke prematurely, Mindy Swank was devastated to learn that not only would her baby not survive, but that she herself was at serious risk of infections that could prevent her from having another child or even threaten her life.

Swank, who was living in western Illinois at the time, prayed with her husband, Adam, and, despite her religious upbringing, decided that ending the pregnancy was the right choice, the 32-year-old testified before a Senate panel last year.

But her Catholic hospital refused to treat her, saying its religious restrictions only permitted it to act if she was already infected or bleeding heavily, and told her of no other treatment options.

She went to a regular hospital, but insurance would not cover her treatment in part, she said, because the Catholic hospital refused to say an abortion was medically necessary. Unable to pay for the procedure out of pocket, Swank instead went home to wait out the "nightmare."

"Desperate to prove I was sick enough for them to treat me, I brought to the hospital all the pads and clothing I had bled through," she testified. "The doctors decided that I was sick enough to induce delivery. I gave birth to a baby boy who never gained consciousness and he died within a few hours."

"No one should ever have to go through this."

sschmadeke@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @SteveSchmadeke