Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Schock’s new TV ad; Flider; Granberg; Soto; Haring; Unions; Women guvs; Target feed (Use all caps in password) *** Updated x2 ***
Next Post: Defiance as diversion *** Updated x3 ***
Posted in:
The Tribune has details.
In a victory for those seeking stricter limits on abortion, the Illinois Supreme Court decided Monday to revive a long-dormant state law that prohibits minors from obtaining abortions without notifying a parent.The General Assembly passed the law in 1995, but it never went into effect because the state Supreme Court refused to issue rules to govern how minors could seek waivers in special circumstances.
Without those rules, the Parental Notice of Abortion Act was unenforceable, a federal judge ruled in 1996.
But on Monday, the state Supreme Court–which has only one of seven members remaining from 1995–issued a one-sentence announcement saying it would issue the needed rules
According to the article, no date has been set for issuing the new rules yet, but the ACLU, Lisa Madigan or others could challenge them. Read the whole story for more.
OneMan asks whether this might have any impact on races this November. Good question.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 9:43 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Schock’s new TV ad; Flider; Granberg; Soto; Haring; Unions; Women guvs; Target feed (Use all caps in password) *** Updated x2 ***
Next Post: Defiance as diversion *** Updated x3 ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This is designed by the Democrat controlled Illinois Suprene Court to remove one Republican issue.
Comment by Truthful James Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 10:00 am
I don’t care what is the reasoning for this law. It makes sense. Only an extremist would favor permitting minors open access to abortions w/o special circumstances. If a minor cannot go tanning or get ears pierced w/o consent from a guardian, how much sense did being able to get an abortion make?
Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 10:14 am
Won’t this hurt the businesses like Hope Clinic in the border areas? A lot of business comes from bordering states that do have these kinds of laws.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 10:15 am
I don’t see how this will impact the election. It moderates an extreme social issue at a time when both gubernatorial candidates are pro-abortion.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 10:37 am
Wumpus,
The reason is the reason some minors get abortions is because of incest or because they are driven to do things because of domestic abuse.
Either way, I don’t see how the parents should have any say.
The tanning analogy is not on point. Incest does not cause an urgent need to get a tan.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 11:48 am
Skeeter –
Perhaps you should publish some numbers on this inflated bogeyman “rape and incest.” Like how many. “Driven to do things because of parental abuse.” Another category that defies description.
This is the feminist mantra. “Do nothing to limit any female of any age from having abortions for any reason at any time.” The mother to be has no responsibility.
So come on, Skeeter, how many incest cases– provable — have there been in Illinois?
Incest is intra family rape, with DNA it should be easy to track and prosecute these.
Comment by Truthful James Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 12:00 pm
Truthful,
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
Are you claiming that because the numbers of women who get pregnant from rape or incest is small, their safety and concerns should be ignored?
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 12:03 pm
Skeeter,
Killing a child because one parent is a rapist is not justice. It’s indefensible.
And by the way, the new rules deal specifically with the situation you mentioned — a judicial bypass of parental control.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 12:16 pm
Anon,
How do you know what the new rules say since they haven’t been announced yet? Try thinking before you type.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 12:25 pm
Skeeter –
just asked for some numbers instead of generalities. If you haven’t got them and documented, just say so instead of attempting to put words in my mouth. That’s very unsanitary.
Comment by Truthful James Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 12:25 pm
Truthful,
Please explain what difference those numbers make.
If we are demanding that one girl in Illinois make the choice between a back alley abortion and making her incestous father give his consent, that is too many.
And the girl will get the back alley abortion.
Nothing about this law will “stop” abortion.
It will just make the abortions less safe.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 12:33 pm
Things that the politicians in Illinois think a teenager *IS NOT* emotionally mature enough to do, and thus, needs a parent’s permission:
1. Buy a ‘violent’ video game
Things that the politicians in Illinois think a teenager *IS* emotionally mature enough to do, and thus, doesn’t need a parent’s permission::
1. Have an abortion.
That is all.
*Note* this post makes no assumption on whether abortion is right or wrong.
Comment by Leroy Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 12:38 pm
Skeeter, Skeeter, Skeeter
Just a simple question, too hard for you to answer, obviously. How many?
This is a giant smokescreen you raise. All I am trying to do is get an estimate of the existing problem — or what you say in generalities is a problem.
And you obfuscate the issue forther. Consent can be with proper legislation omitted but notification remain in case of incest.
You are still true to the feminist line.
Comment by Truthful James Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 12:50 pm
Truthful,
What difference in the world do the numbers make?
If the feminist line is “protect young girls from sexual abuse by their family” then yes, I do follow the feminist line.
What line are you taking?
Enlighten us: Tell us why the number of victims matters.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 12:54 pm
Skeeter,
Skeeter,
I postulate the answer is zero incest abortions (not miscarriages).
And your argument is specious.
Prove me wrong.
Comment by Truthful James Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 1:02 pm
Truthful:
1. If you think there are zero, then you are a fool.
2. Even if the answer in the past is zero, why make a girl in the future get her abusive father provide permission?
Tell us, TRUTHFUL (an odd name given the argument that you are propounding) what difference in the world the numbers make.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 1:14 pm
Why not leave it up to the girl whether she wants to tell or not? Seems to me she is in the best circumstance to know her parents and know how they will react. I’ve seen a stat out there that about half of girls are accompanied into the clinic by their mothers, so obviously there is some parental involvement going on there.
Wouldn’t a parent’s goal be to culture the kind of relationship that leads to openness and honesty rather than trying to legislate it?
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 1:22 pm
Skeeter —
I did not say there were zero. I postulated (do you know the difference?) there were zero and asked you to prove me wrong.
All you can do is to hurl names at me instead.
Since you can not disprove my postulation, then it must be correct.
In answer to your second point, if it is zero now, what makes you think it will ever be one?
You always raise these straw men without having facts. I pointed the way that this might be legislated.
I win the argument by default.
(By the way, I can not believe that — if there ever were an incestuous conception by a parent — the father would not want to destroy the damning evidence for which he is criminally liable. Can You?
Comment by Truthful James Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 1:35 pm
“true to the feminist line”
But you Truthfully meant that in the best possible way.
Go ahead. Declare victory. Do what you can to make yourself feel good.
But we both know that you have not addressed the issue.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 1:37 pm
the arrogance of people to think the government should have the right to tell women what they can/cant do with their own bodies. mind your own damn business and keep government out of our private lives.
Comment by HANKSTER Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 1:55 pm
Wow Skeeter… out in full force. What is the reason that you have to explain yourself over and over and over again? We get your point. You don’t think that minors should be under parental control. You should be able to have an abortion, buy cigarettes and alcohol, drop out of school at any age. Got your point. You hate family and don’t think that family has any role in government. You believe in social radical individualism… if only you felt that way about personal economics….
Comment by Lovie's Leather Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 1:57 pm
“the arrogance of people to think the government should have the right to tell women what they can/cant do with their own bodies. mind your own damn business and keep government out of our private lives.”
Quit this bull-crap. You think the government shouldn’t interfere with our bodies, yet have full rights to our wallets!!!
Comment by Lovie's Leather Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 1:59 pm
Hankster - so a woman should be allowed to prostitute herself? It’s her body, right? A woman should be allowed to take cocaine? It’s her body, right?
No regulation = anarchy = bad. We live in a society of rules. Your position is too extreme.
Comment by Smith Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 1:59 pm
Lovie: the only crap here is that you are arrogant enough to think “wallets” are the same as a womans right to do what she chooses with her body.
Smith: Yes a woman should be able to prostitute herself. It is the same view I have on abortion, regulate it and make it safe.
Comment by HANKSTER Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 2:05 pm
Skeeter,
We’re all waiting for you to answer Truthful’s question. It does matter.
Your argument is useless if you don’t have facts to support your case. A “strawman” is just a tool used by those who don’t have facts on their side. You want respect for your opinion, use facts to bolster it.
It matters because we’re talking about how the state has legislated a disparity in the perceived maturity of young women. In reality, young women in these unfortunate situations that you describe should feel welcomed by a state DCFS that would protect them from abusive parents, and provide them with the legal remedies to get an abortion should they so choose. But cutting parents out of the process JUST because the girl says so is abusive to parents who love their children, and who legally still have responsibilty for their health and welfare.
Comment by Southern Illinoisian Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 2:06 pm
So, Hankster, tell Castro I say hi! Yeah, wouldn’t America be great if we could have abortion on demand and a 92% tax bracket?! Nothing like total domination over the will of the people, eh comrade, eh?
Comment by Lovie's Leather Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 2:09 pm
Lovie,
Noone is talking about taxes but you. IF you think the government should have the power to regulate anything at all the want, even the most personal things, that is what Castro does so think before you speak.
It is also obvious to anyone who knows anything that the majority of Americans support a womans right to choose and furthermore you might want to read up on law and the constiution and American history if you think the the the rights guranteed to citizens is based on majority will.
Comment by HANKSTER Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 2:17 pm
Hold on there, Hankster. You seem to be confused. Yes, most people are pro-choice. But they are pro-choice with exceptions. I would technichally be considered “pro-choice” but I definately have some reservations.
1. Parental notification
2. No abortions after 1st trimester
You think that any female, regardless of age, should be able to have an abortion. I don’t think that should be the case. I think it is funny that a school won’t give a 13-year-old girl a pain killer yet planned parenthood will give the same girl an abortion. Not to mention the older the fetus, the more barbaric the procedure. So, you are radically pro-choice, and most pro-choicers are not. Also, many pro-lifers believe in exceptions such as rape, incest, life of the mother. You want to make it a black and white issue. It is not. And you are wrong!
Comment by Lovie's Leather Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 2:24 pm
Where did I say I support unregulated abortion? In fact, I said just a few posts ago I support regulated abortion.
As far as parental notification, I would support notification to someone, if it is a therapist, a doctor, a counselor, or a parent, or someone. But I don’t think a minor who wants an abortion should be forced to have parental approval.
Comment by HANKSTER Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 2:33 pm
I am not for minors to be able to get a fetus sucked out with a plastic tube without parental notification.
I am pro-choice for adults, but for kids, and that includes 17.9 years old, they need to go to their parent(s) or the many social services that are available.
This might sound contradictory but I belive minors should have easy access to birth control without their parents consent. That doesn’t require a surgical procedure that may cause complications down the line physically and mentally.
The extremists on both sides of this issue is what makes abortion such a hot button issue. With the new morning after pill being avaliable over the counter, I hope this diffuses both sides a bit.
Comment by anon 9:10 Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 2:36 pm
I also hope that the morning after pill alleviates these issues.
I guess the reason I am against parental notify is that parents wield a lot of control over their children’s lives. So they can use that pressure to pressure the child to make the decision the parents want. And I am against parents pressuring either for or against abortion. It should be the girl’s decision. She will live with the consequences one way or another. Also, parents may, possibly, punish the child for (obviously) having engaged in sex. Such as by declaring they won’t pay for her college or such. And the results of the choice made will last beyond the time that the girl will be her parent’s ward. If she bears an out of wedlock child at the age of 16, when she is 18 and free of her parents control, she cannot just dump the toddler off somewhere. It is hers to cope with the best she can until the child is 18. Likewise if the decision is to adopt out or abort, there are psychological issues that will last beyond her parent’s reign of influence.
Now, I would say that a child under 15 years of age should not be able to have an abortion without at least talking to a therapist to determine if abuse is an issue and if the minor is mature enough to truly understand what is at stake.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 3:06 pm
People, people, people. You are NEVER gonna convince each other to change positions on abortion, notification, etc. in the comments section of any blog or newspaper.
How about arguing instead over what sort of impact this might have on an upcoming election?
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 3:11 pm
Regardless of whether it’s 100% or 99.9%, the VAST majority of teenage pregnancies are NOT due to incest. So why make a blanket rule based on the exception?
Law abiding parents who are doing their best to raise their kids right, but who are unfortunately failing in the face of an increasingly sexual pop-culture, deserve to know if their kids are sneaking around behind their backs and having unprotected sex. Knowing that their parents WILL find out if they get pregnant will make teens more hesitant to have sex, or at least push them to practice safe sex. This has the added benefit of reducing both teenage pregnancies and the spread of disease. Imagine that!
Now, to address skeeter’s concern: Children often do not report sexual abuse by their parents for fear of destroying what is left of their warped, dysfunctional family life. It is a tragedy, not doubt. But by allowing teens to abort the resulting child without their parent’s knowledge, no questions asked, you are actually allowing the abuse to continue. On the other hand, by requiring the parent’s involvement, you increase the chances that the abusive parent will be exposed and prosecuted.
Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 3:23 pm
Seriously, that’s it. Move on. You can’t solve this issue here. Debate politics. It’s much more fun anyway.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 3:43 pm
OK, OK, maybe Joe Birkett’s appearance of having been out in front on this issue, shores up the pro-life base for the GOP ticket. I kind of doubt it as the IL pro-life movement tends to be dogmatic and unwilling of compromise, but maybe it takes a few votes away from Stufflebeam.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 3:54 pm
It helps Democrats.
It was accomplished under Democrat rule in Illinois. The Democrats have the gov’s office, the state house and senate, and the courts.
Parental notification is popular and it happened on our watch.
Like tort reform, Republicans couldn’t do it when they had the chance.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 4:47 pm
I read the bill in 1995. It’s HB 955.
I have commented on the 1995 politics a bit on McHenryCountyBlog.com and will post loopholes tomorrow.
That still does not answer Rich’s question about the effect on this year’s politics.
Comment by Cal Skinner Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 4:56 pm
Topinka supports parental notification, and while Madigan has been doing a great job on some issues, I certainly hope she comes to her senses on this one so it is more in line with the mainstream.
Even if people have NO kids, it is creepy that Illinois has not put this into place! Pedophiles and assorted creeps lurk around enough as it is without our state looking like a great place for the worst creepos to come to in order to chase teenage girls around due to our laws. They go venue shopping and move where the laws are weaker on them.
Madigan needs to seriously rethink this, although she’s doing well on other stuff. Don’t think it’ll matter in the election, though. I mean, hey. If people still plan to vote for Rod after Amygate, Levinegate, SisterClaudettegate, etcetera, then what do they care about this issue?
Yes, I’m being sarcastic.
Comment by Angie Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 5:38 pm
Not enlightened on the details, can anyone tell me what happens when both parents are dead or are no longer legal guardians of the child? Is there a guardian notification, or is this an exemption to notification???
Comment by Lovie's Leather Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 5:49 pm
Pro-choice republican with anti-choice running mate vs. pro-choice democrat who may be indicted with pro-choice running mate. Birkett gets to make a statement saying how great this is (cheering anti-choice voters) and pro-choice people can be reassured by JBK’s position. What does it all mean? This could actually be a red herring issue ( even more than whether or not incest is involved). I haven’t seen any statistical presentation of how many abortions take place by minors where at least one parent has not been informed? 2004 Illinois Department of Health Statistics show 41,000 total abortions with only about 3100 under the age of 18. (by the way, sadly, 290 of those are 14 yrs or less). Also, isn’t it parental notification and not parental veto? Since we are mainly talking 15-17 year olds, I suggest that even with parental notification and (presumed) parental disapproval — which is a big assumption — the fraction that did not already inform a parent would complete their plans regardless.
Comment by NoGiftsPlease Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 6:14 pm
LL:
Do you know of any times that a girl with deceased parents has ever sought an abortion?
I suspect the answer is zero. Unless you can prove otherwise, I win.
Your Comrade,
Truthful
Comment by Truthful (or not) James Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 6:20 pm
NoGiftsPlease, the main thing is that this state look like it protects minors. There are lots of characters prowling around by the high schools trying to get all friendly with jailbait girls who may be good victims, because they come from broken homes, and then what happens if the girl gets pregnant and then decides on abortion? Not one parent will ever know that the minor is hanging out with some 39 year-old guy that was prowling around? Don’t make the state look like the best place for those types to hang out in when they go venue shopping.
Besides, I’m terrified of having Bill O’Reilly poke ridicule at Illinois sometime when discussing states that don’t protect minors and kiddies enough. You know it’ll happen. Birkett and Topinka have the sane and sensible positions on this issue. Whether or not it’ll get staunchly pro-life social conservs out of the house to vote for Judy, I don’t know. Some people vote on only one issue, unfortunately.
Comment by Angie Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 6:32 pm
“This is designed by the Democrat controlled Illinois Suprene Court to remove one Republican issue.”
Bob Thomas, the chief justice, ran on being a pro-life candidate back in the GOP primary of 2000. Now that he’s chief, he’s done something about it. Yeah, the Dems have gone along so far. But that doesn’t make it a Dem plot.
Comment by Just Saying Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 6:34 pm
Terrified of Bill O’Reilly?
I thought the only that were terrified of Bill O’Reilly were female Fox Network staffers.
Comment by Truthful (or not) James Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 6:37 pm
Tsk tsk. Come on now. For all of his “bloviating,” O’Reilly does get people in the hot seat over his push to pass tougher legislation protecting young people. He does good when he’s not–you know–calling Fox News staffers.;-)
Comment by Angie Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 7:04 pm
Angie,
If Bill O’Reilly really wants to protect women, he should have himself locked up.
Loofa phone calls?
No wonder young women get pregnant. With people like him in positions of power they assume they have no chance.
Comment by Truthful (or not) James Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 7:51 pm
Hey Cal, If I’m not mistaken, didn’t you vote against HB 955 back in 1995?
I’m stunned that no one so far has commented on Chief Justice Bob Thomas’ timing in announcing the court will take on this issue after a mere 11 year delay.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 9:11 pm
Ahem. Rich was asking if this would sway voters. Back to the point.
And it is a good thing to turn off SOME of the creeps from moving to Illinois. God knows we have plenty of creeps living here as it is. Why help even more go venue-shopping? Birkett and Topinka have the (cough) Right (clears throat) idea on an issue that mainstreamers on both sides of the aisle can enthusiastically support.
Side note: Loofah phone calls? ROFL
Comment by Angie Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 9:50 pm
Since EVERYTHING that state government does these days seems designed to get the Governor free press - frequently with fabricated issues - does the timing on this bother anyone else? Here we have the sudden resurrection of a law dealing with a highly emotional issue that has lain dormant, ignored and forgotten for ten years. Can it be that this is being done at this moment just to afford Rod, the Defender of the Downtrodden, the chance to quixotically interpose himself between the law and pregnant teenagers everywhere? With the headlines and media attention that would accompany such an action, of course…
Comment by Casey Jones Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 10:23 pm
Angie,
So do you think this law will prevent Bill O’Reilly from coming into Illinois?
Actually, since he apparently only sexually harrasses women of legal age, probably not. Still, we need stronger laws against people like him.
I don’t watch his show much. Maybe you can fill me in. Is he only against perverts going after women below the age of consent? Does he mention his view that women over 18 are fair game for creeps like him?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 6:45 am
To T. (or not) James
I am flattered but not amused that you would seek to use my Blog Name, warped for your own purpose.
And warped it was. Am I such a threat to people who disagree with me? I am honored to be held in such regard.
But the the Blogsters here should accept no substitute: Truthful (or not) James is not Truthful James. Those who know of me know from whence my monicker comes.
Now, let us get back to the facts.
Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 7:37 am
I do not know if anyone else has addressed this in the 50+ entries, but the first entry on this thread took be aback, “This is designed by the Democrat controlled Illinois Supreme Court to remove one Republican issue.â€
Folks, just because the Il. Supreme Court has more democrats sitting on it than Republicans does not mean that all those Dem. Justices are pro-choice by association to a particular party. That is one hell of an assumption. Bear in mind that Speaker Madigan (who has been heavily involved in Supreme Court races) has a near zero pro-choice voting record. Conversely, Republican House Leader Cross and many, many other House GOPers have a 100% or near 100% pro-choice voting record.
Point being, the abortion issue in Illinois cannot be drawn along party lines. Moreover, there are very few current justices on the bench that have had to make any type of decision concerning abortion or abortion access. Some of the democrats on the bench could possibly be as conservative on this social issue as their republican counterparts. It seems very odd that, without what appears to be any petition to the court regarding this enjoined law, that the court should take it up so close to the election.
Don’t be surprised if the abortion issue comes up in some tight legislative races this year regardless of whether people want to avoid divisive social issues or not; that’s the nature of Illinois politics.
Comment by Xolotl Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 8:11 am
Comments are closed. Move to Wednesday’s post, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 10:12 am