* I have no idea why she called this bill yesterday when 20 members were absent from the chambers…
A bid to block therapists from engaging in “conversion therapy” with gay, bisexual and transgender youth in order to make them heterosexual failed Thursday in the Illinois House.
The measure, proposed by Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, lost on a 44-51 roll call despite her plea to colleagues to stop gay, bisexual and transgender teens 17 and under from being “horribly and humiliatingly abused.”
“This treatment plan causes depression, causes suicidal actions and is incredibly harmful to children,” said Cassidy, who is openly lesbian and one of the lead architects of Illinois’ same-sex marriage law.
“The practice of conversion therapy is dismissed by every major scientific organization and should not be utilized. There’s not a single scientific basis for one’s sex orientation being a disorder,” she said. “We need to protect our children.”
* The Illinois Family Institute was overjoyed…
In an article last month on this issue, IFI’s Laurie Higgins pointed out that the “ultimate motivation behind this legislation is to promote the Leftist assumptions of adult homosexuals who seek to wipe disapproval of homosexual acts from the face of the planet even if doing requires deception, harms children, undermines parental rights, and corrodes fundamental First Amendment speech and religious liberty.”
In a remarkable display of rhetorical excess, Cassidy argued that minors who desire to change their unwanted same-sex attraction through counseling are “horribly and humiliatingly abused.” It boggles the mind that Cassidy would expect her colleagues to believe that every counselor who helps minors with unwanted same-sex attraction “horribly and humiliatingly” abuses their young clients. Further, Cassidy expected her colleagues to believe her without any conclusive studies to support such an outlandish claim.
It defies logic that “progressives” believe that gender-confused minors should be able to receive treatment to change their unwanted “gender identity” but not their unwanted sexual preferences.
* Meanwhile, Rep. Cassidy did pass a bill yesterday recommended by Illinois’ Bullying Prevention Task Force. Illinois Review’s take…
Rep. Cassidy said that the ban on bullying was needed because of students with disabilities being “tortured” and biracial students being “attacked.” Cassidy said, as she called for the House floor vote, that she was bullied as a student, not because of being a gay student, but because she held strong religious convictions.
“The fact that the bill’s sponsors and the ACLU have refused to ensure the rights of students and school employees to opt-out of ‘programming’ and ‘training’ that promote ideas that conflict with their personal and/or religious beliefs reveals the real goal,” Illinois Family Institute said in a statement issued after the bill passed.
That goal, IFI says, is to use public education to promote unproven, non-factual beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality and “transgenderism.”
* And quite a large number of pro-life legislators opposed a bill that would increase protections for pregnant mothers in the workplace…
The bill, which moves now to the Senate, requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees, if so requested, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the business’ ordinary operation.
Also, it would be considered a civil rights violation if an employer denies employment opportunities or benefits to a pregnant woman, or takes adverse action against an otherwise qualified job applicant or employee. The employers may not require an employee or job applicant to accept an accommodation offered or force that employee to take leave.
State Rep. Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton) said that she was pregnant twice while serving in the military, was provided numerous considerations while expecting and understood the need to make accommodations for pregnancy. However, the mother of five was concerned about a possible rise in litigation the bill would fuel.
Flowers’ bill would make employers permit frequent bathroom breaks, water breaks, seating, assistance with manual labor, less physically demanding duties, adjustment of the work schedule, time off to recover from childbirth, leave and break space for breast feeding. […]
Rep. Ron Sandack, R-Downers Grove, who voted against the legislation, said “no one’s against pregnant women” but said the bill goes too far.
“It’s problematic because it expands rights beyond what’s already provided in federal law,” he said. “It has many undefined terms that could be abused.” […]
But Flowers said litigation didn’t erupt in California after it enacted a similar law.