Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: This just in… CSU to issue “potential layoff” notice to all 900 employees
Next Post: New TV ads in US Senate race
Posted in:
* Reps. John Cavaletto and Keith Wheeler…
Amends the Vital Records Act. Removes a provision concerning use of the biological father’s name on the birth certificate if not married to the biological mother. Provides that if the unmarried mother cannot or refuses to name the child’s father, either a father must be conclusively established by DNA evidence or, within 30 days after birth, another family member who will financially provide for the child must be named, in court, on the birth certificate. Provides that absent DNA evidence or a family member’s name, a birth certificate will not be issued and the mother will be ineligible for financial aid from the State for support of the child. Provides an exception for artificially inseminated mothers. Amends the Illinois Public Aid Code. Provides that a family that does not comply with the Vital Records Act provision concerning birth certificates of unmarried mothers shall be ineligible for aid for support of the child. Effective immediately.
They have an exception for artificially inseminated mothers, but not rape victims?
This is “Nanny State” legislation for the extreme right. Some folks are just convinced that the poors are wrongly reaping the benefits of luxurious freebies, which justifies this sort of governmental intrusion.
* Chicagoist…
“This is a punitive and outrageous bill that would have a hugely negative impact on those most likely in need of safety net programs and support,” said Ed Yohnka of the Illinois American Civil Liberties Union.
The site also pointed out some similar logic used during the Child Care Assistance Program funding bill debate…
In September of last year, there was a floor debate in the House that ultimately killed a bill that would’ve restored subsidies lost due to the budget impasse. During this debate, Ives said:
“You need to have verifiable need. You better know who the daddy is and whether or not he can afford that child and whether or not the taxpayers should be funding that or if there’s actual child support he can provide.”
Hat tip: Jezebel.com, but beware of foul language.
*** UPDATE 1 *** Since this post went up, the bill’s status changed…
2/26/2016 House Motion Filed - Table Bill/Resolution Pursuant to Rule 60(b), Rep. John Cavaletto
2/26/2016 House Removed Co-Sponsor Rep. Keith R. Wheeler
Dead.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Rep. Wheeler…
Rich,
Regarding the now dead HB 6064:
The intention of HB 6064 was to provide for the long-term support of hardworking single mothers by strengthening the legal responsibilities of fathers, while also improving the rights of fathers as well as grandparents who provide care for a child in place of a parent. However, the bill as introduced has flaws that would produce unintended consequences. I have therefore chosen to withdraw my support of the bill and thank all my constituents and others who offered feedback on both sides of this issue.
Thanks,
Keith R. Wheeler
State Representative for Illinois’ 50th District
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 10:47 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: This just in… CSU to issue “potential layoff” notice to all 900 employees
Next Post: New TV ads in US Senate race
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
But I thought ‘it takes a village to raise a child’… Particularly as a single parent… No?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 10:51 am
When did we decide that a single woman cannot make the decision to take sole responsibility for a child? Perhaps the father was abusive, absent or just otherwise a jerk. Doesn’t she have the right to choose to be solely responsible without burdening some other family member for her choice?
Comment by Dilemma Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 10:56 am
From the party of life and family values. Because denying a, frightened, poor mother public aid benefits and a birth certificate to her child is a surefire way to keep her away from an abortion clinic, right?
Shaking my head.
Comment by Nick Name Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 10:57 am
So… in order to mitigate these circumstances, this bill provides for increased access to abortion, contraceptions, and sex ed?
No?
Comment by There is power in a union... Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 10:57 am
How does this bill affect women who are raped by someone they do not know?
Comment by Mama Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 10:59 am
So if there isn’t a father listed on a birth certificate, it won’t be issued. While this may not be an immediate issue, how will a child be enrolled in school, etc.
Comment by Huh? Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:00 am
I emailed Cavaletto last week to express my displeasure with his ‘NO’ vote on HB580 and haven’t heard back. Now I see why. He was busy drafting this game-changing piece of legislation. //s
Comment by Cubs in '16 Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:00 am
How does someone this mean-spirited and hateful live with themselves? Does the soulless hypocrisy of such mindless judgment and hatred toward unwed mothers and their babies when you profess to care so much for them in the abortion debate just cause mental anguish, or does it physically hurt?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:00 am
This is terribly sexist legislation. I saw this on social media and figured it was an Onion article.
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:00 am
I’m no lawyer but I’m pretty sure this violates federal SNAP policy. Superstars better be darn sure they don’t tangle with the Feds on this one. Fed’s at Ag are just itching to go after Rauner. A fine from Ag for a food stamp violation like this would be in the tens of millions.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:02 am
This is way too far out there. They know this won’t pass so is the idea just to get attention from the others who are hating on the poors??
Comment by Joe Biden Was Here Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:02 am
Hopefully the state can match DNA from the child to DNA of the rapists who have a record on file.
Comment by Mama Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:02 am
Mothers who choose artificial insemination are less likely to need and qualify for government assistance than rape victims. This is just stinginess masquerading as moral rectitude, with a side of dog whistle.
Comment by Commander Norton Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:02 am
This should be sent to the floor and debated.
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:04 am
360 it just might be. Does Indiana have a similar law or are leading the pack on this one?
Comment by Annon3 Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:07 am
Honeybear, “A fine from Ag for a food stamp violation like this would be in the tens of millions.”
Would the ‘food stamp violation’ create another funding crisis. Lack of food stamps would create another hostage for Rauner? Remember he loves a good crisis.
Comment by Mama Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:07 am
We should totally punish small babies for what their parents do. /s
Illinois! Competitive AND Compassionate!
Comment by There is power in a union... Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:12 am
== So if there isn’t a father listed on a birth certificate, it won’t be issued. While this may not be an immediate issue, how will a child be enrolled in school, etc. ==
And, assuming the child makes it to adulthood, he/she won’t be able to vote.
Might as well go back to the lovely practice of stamping ILLEGITIMATE across the birth certificate.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:14 am
Please, please send this to the floor. Let the GOP try to defend this. Let them show what thugs and bullies they are to women and the poor.
Comment by northsider (the original) Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:15 am
Illinois Republicans must be especially proud today. Poor, unwed mothers are being limited in how they can care for their children. An Illinois public university is going to be shut down. People with developmental and other disabilities are being kicked into the streets. And it’s not even lunch time yet. I can’t wait to hear their Friday afternoon actions to turn around our state.
Comment by Past the Rule of 85 Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:16 am
==This should be sent to the floor and debated.==
Absolutely!
Comment by AC Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:16 am
Sign zee papers or your baby dies!!!
Comment by GOP Extremist Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:22 am
Illinois the welfare state, from birth, till death!
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:23 am
For a bunch of “Christians” they sure would put a modern-day Virgin Mary in a tight spot with this bill
Comment by Jimmy CrackCorn Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:23 am
As Rome burns… This is the best use of time right now?
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:24 am
The party of personal responsibility doesn’t like some people’s personal responsibility. Got it.
Comment by Cheswick Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:25 am
Motion to table has been filed. Grab those paper bags and end the hyperventilation
Comment by hot chocolate Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:27 am
So those kids without a birth certificate will not be able to go to school? Nice, way to class up our state.
To some extent I get the frustration of feeding and housing others, but only a little. I am frustrated when the able bodied refuse to support themselves. But, we are now considering devastating punishment for children and single mothers for a tiny fraction of people?
What is their major malfunction?!
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:28 am
IMO - this is a poorly devised bill to try and combat perpetual welfare versus trying to craft a bill that limits benefits for a period of time relating to circumstances, e.g., child care, nutrition, training and work. I would hope like minded persons could have a civil discussion on the types and length of state assistance any one person should qualify for - and the answer should not be “forever”…keep in mind, I’m talking about able bodied persons, not those with unique or disabling issues.
Comment by Captain Illini Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:30 am
I take it filling in ‘John Cavaletto’, ‘Keith Wheeler’, ‘Mike Madigan’ or ‘Bruce Rauner’ will not suffice. Maybe ‘Illinois’ will be acceptable.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:31 am
This bill is ridiculous.
But besides that, who is going to pay for the DNA testing? The young unwed mother?
Comment by A Jack Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:32 am
It’s been tabled by Cavelletto Resolution Pursuant to Rule 60(b).
Can someone fill me in on Rule 60(b)?
Comment by Anon221 Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:32 am
What is the Governor’s position on the bill?
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:32 am
Check out the updates from today with a motion filed to table this and Keith Wheeler dropping off as a co-sponsor. lol
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:32 am
I wonder if people even think sometimes before they write things like this. There are a lot of things you have to have a birth certificate for. But these yahoos want to withhold that certificate. And, they want to withhold support for the child as punishment. Great plan. That’ll show everyone.
This is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:33 am
Hey now. An exception for rape isn’t necessary because if the rape is “legitimate” the female body has a way of shutting the whole thing down. /s
Comment by Pessimistic Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:34 am
I wonder if Rauner told them to remove the bill for fear of bad PR
Comment by Blake Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:36 am
To the update..profile in courage. The dems could still give this bill to a retiring member, like Jackson, and have him run it as Wheeler’s idea. Dems can vote against it. Let the debate and freedom of speech ring!
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:37 am
If only CapFax could get action on higher ed and social services funding this fast.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:40 am
Mama, the only way they wouldn’t get Foodstamps is if the workforce was out on strike. More precisely anyone who needed a change on their case, a redetermination, or apply wouldn’t get their stamps because that action must be done by certified HSC. Fed money would continue to flow to folks. No the fine would be for intentional program violation which would be leveled at the entire state but would not take anything away from recipients of SNAP.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:41 am
Why doesn’t John Cavaletto ride off into the sunset with the other dinosaurs? He hasn’t had a good idea in decades.
Comment by Former State Employee Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:42 am
Because… The Superstars! Because… Rauner!
Um, this was Cavaletto’s bill. It has nothing to do with “the superstars” or “Rauner.” For crying out loud.
Comment by Jack Kemp Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:44 am
I get the need to establish paternity for child support, I really do. But people who are in poverty lead incredibly complex lives and this would be just one more thing to shove them down the hole farther. These poor folks are just getting destroyed. Now we’re seeing a lot more of the mentally ill. I swear a treatment center or something must have just gone down. Our security guards are having to accompany a lot of customers lately.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:46 am
Taking into consideration an exception for rape which would be statistically insignificant what is the objection to having fathers provide for their children? There would seem to be a reduction in social services coming and it would make sense to recover every cent from a Dad that the children are entitled to.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:46 am
I think Dunkin should carry this forward. Seems to be in his wheelhouse lately…
Comment by There is power in a union... Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:46 am
As to the update, I smell Darth Arduin.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:47 am
I wonder if Rauner has his name attached to this is some manner?
Comment by Tinsel Town Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:48 am
I want a roll call.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:51 am
Lucky Pierre, I’m sure impoverished pregnant rape victims would be ecstatic to know that they are statistically insignificant.
Sheesh, man. Get out of the sophomore dorm room for two seconds.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:54 am
Ignoring the ideological aspects of this issue, strictly looking at it from an administrative/information processing basis, why are we even considering doing this?
First off, we have a fairly complex set of rules (and a information technology system) that sends VR data all over creation on a constant basis.
So in the guise of doing a superior job of data validation, we’re going to in effect ‘pull’ (or withhold) certain ‘data sets’ from the state’s Vital Records system become some data (for whatever reason) isn’t provided?
Not smart, guys. This whole step really needs to be thought over in considerably larger depth before something like this is done.
———–
Think of this proposal from a different standpoint:
01 Currently, VR is like having a 3 selection option for each record:
- Please Select
- Yes
- No
02 Now, change it to be….
- Please Select
- Yes
- No
- Pending (or something similar)
Sounds easy, right?
It’s not:
Because remember, you are dealing with a system designed to reliably push data in/out to all sorts of different entities, including units of local government. Maybe federal also.
Putting data validation steps right in the middle of a primarily data transfer environment just isn’t smart. Anybody recall systems similarly designed (i.e.; healthcare.gov) and how well they worked?
DDT (Don’t Do This).
There’s a lesson here for those folks also trying to do automatic voter registration. May sound good, but nowhere as easy as one thinks. Works fine when things go right - but when things go wrong (and it does happen), it’s a real nightmare to clean up.
Just saying.
Comment by Judgment Day Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 11:57 am
“There would seem to be a reduction in social services coming and it would make sense to recover every cent from a Dad that the children are entitled to.”
TANF clients already are forced to open a child support case…
Why deny the birth certificate?
Comment by There is power in a union... Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 12:06 pm
Low blow Rich , not minimizing the rape argument at all I said it was reasonable but a small percentage of births and thus a statistically insignificant amount.
With the majority of births in poor communities being to single mother households I really don’t get the argument letting the father off the hook of providing for the child.
Perhaps you can explain
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 12:09 pm
People who write others off as statistically insignificant is the reason and the need for constitutional rights. 8th grade social studies Lucky.
Lucky, everyone here believes a biological father should be required to provide for his child, its just most here would recognize that life is not always so clear cut.
You should probably re-read the synopsis as well, we are not talking soley about a fathers responsibility.
Comment by Lil Squeezy Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 12:12 pm
Looks like at least one person has given this issue a fair review at snopes.com.
Comment by SoILiberty Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 12:20 pm
==what is the objection to having fathers provide for their children==
Having been raised by a woman who had the tar beat out of her by her first husband on a regular basis, I would say 1 concern would be having any contact at all with that person. For some dropping off the map is the better way to go. She never went after him for child support because he would have been able to find her.
Comment by HangingOn Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 12:32 pm
…I thought these guys were anti-abortion.
Ba-dum-chih.
Comment by Boooooooo Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 12:39 pm
HangingOn - Good point
Comment by This And That Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 12:46 pm
Lucky Pierre:
Did you read this part:
‘’another family member who will financially provide for the child must be named, in court, on the birth certificate'’
So if the father isn’t named they have to go find someone to say they will be financially liable for the child. And that person will be listed on the birth certificate. That’s just ridiculous.
The good thing is they killed the bill, and rightly so.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 12:50 pm
“the bill as introduced has flaws that would produce unintended consequences”
Perhaps they were unintended, but the negative consequences were blindingly obvious to anyone with any sense whatsoever.
And if that seems a touch insulting, I assure you that is merely the unintended consequence of my sentence as introduced.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 1:07 pm
-MisterJayEm-
The unintended consequences were that people reacted remarkably negatively to some poorly thought out proposed legislation.
Comment by illini97 Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 1:14 pm
This isn’t a Rauner “superstar” bill. It comes from the self-righteous far-right wingers of the party, and their talk radio shouters.
Comment by walker Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 1:14 pm
==This isn’t a Rauner “superstar” bill. It comes from the self-righteous far-right wingers of the party, and their talk radio shouters.==
Eh, tomato - tomahto. These two fine examples of courage in leadership, along with the folks you are referring to, all loudly support Rauner and voluntarily fund and vote for his Raunerites in the IL GOP.
Comment by Lester Holt's Mustache Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 1:35 pm
Ok I never said a life was statistically insignificant I was just making the point that the rape argument was a red herring and should be removed obviously. Given that we all agree the Father should be financially responsible for every one of his children what is the current way to enforce this if he is not listed on the birth certificate?
It’s am just arm chair quarterbacking here but this is a huge problem and it is in the child’s interest to have the father pay to raise them.
The States budget for social services is most certainly going to decline so a mechanism to recover some of this money from the father is a excellent idea
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 1:40 pm
“I was just making the point that the rape argument was a red herring and should be removed obviously.”
ICASA reports nearly 1 in 3 women have experienced rape or some other from of sexual assault in their lifetimes.
You just sound ignorant.
Comment by Politix Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 2:17 pm
==what is the current way to enforce this if he is not listed on the birth certificate==
Paternity can be established at a later time. All it takes is a DNA test or for the guy to man up and admit it’s his. And a court order can help it along. It doesn’t all have to be done the day the child takes its first breath.
Comment by HangingOn Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 2:23 pm
@
- Lucky Pierre - Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 1:40 pm:
“It’s am just arm chair quarterbacking”
Coach just signaled, you’ve been benched quarterback. Let’s try next game when perhaps you’ll be able to contribute some meaningful thoughts rather than rash, offensive ‘compassionate conservative’ talking points.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 2:24 pm
The unintended consequences would have been far reaching. They must not know all of the systems they would have affected- Social Security Administration, being able to prove a child’s identity, enrollment in daycare, school and any other agency that requires a birth certificate- local,state and federal- for refusing to release a birth certificate. Not to mention just because a child is born to an unmarried mother does not automatically mean that mother requires public assistance.
Do they not realize that just because a mother names a father on the birth certificate does not mean they are the father? They do know that’s what would have happened, right? Have they never watched a Maury show? They would name anyone to release the birth certificate from being held hostage. This would have also proved to be awkward situation to place the hospitals in as well since they initiate the paperwork.
Currently, unless the father is present to sign the putative father form, a father’s name will not appear on the birth certificate. They used to put the father’s name reported by the mother on the birth certificate but that changed some years back. This may have been due to multiple factors, like the man named on the BC was ruled out by DNA and now you have to get a corrected BC(which is a process). Having worked in child welfare for 20 years and dealing with several hundred of birth certificate issues, I have seen too much.
Comment by carbaby Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 2:29 pm
test
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 2:36 pm
== it is in the child’s interest to have the father pay to raise them==
I’m sure withholding a birth certificate would accomplish that.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 2:39 pm
Lucky Pierre @ 12:09 pm: “I really don’t get the argument letting the father off the hook of providing for the child.”
What you don’t understand is the threat of domestic violence when a woman names an abusive man as the father of her child. Homicide is the leading cause of death among women who are pregnant. In the United States 1,500 women are killed each year by husbands or boyfriends and about 2 million men per year beat their partners.
Comment by Enviro Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 2:41 pm
What we are doing here is questioning who pays for children. Traditionally, governments want someone designated as being fiscally responsible for children. This is why governments issued marriage certificates, remember? To establish paternity and responsibility.
Without a marriage certificate, there needs to be another means of establishing paternal responsibility, which in turn, becomes the man who is responsible for paying for his children.
This has been the case for centuries. It isn’t about not loving children, or not wanting to care for them. It is about establishing the paternal and fiscal relationship with each birth.
Do we just want to pay for every child born? If we do, we need to make that the new law. If we do we need to find the fiscal means of doing that. What some here are considering being hard hearted against the poor, are missing the point entirely.
We do this in order to decide who pays. It isn’t about values. It isn’t about sinfulness. It never has been. It is about how is responsible for paying for children. Traditionally, it has been the father.
So - if we don’t want to do this, well, that is a win for FATHERS, not mothers. Men will have a new line of legal defense when they are taken to court to pay for a child born during a relationship with a woman. Right now, men are paying for children who are not theirs, because as a society, we demand that men pay for children. In many cases, men end up paying the bills for children who are not theirs.
So this is a win for MEN. Not for women. A society that lets women be the decision makers for children empower MEN, while burdening women with additional responsibilities that were once shared.
There - just another point of view.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 2:42 pm
Please cite the statistic where 1 of 3 women have been raped.
Also, what is the number of women who are raped, get pregnant, chose to have the baby and then raise the child?
As I said the rape exclusion was reasonable because this is such a small number. I did not realize looking out for the interests of poor children was liberal or conservative. I thought it was just common sense to have fathers responsible for the financial well being of their children. I think the family courts and social workers agree.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 2:45 pm
===As I said the rape exclusion was reasonable===
Dug your hole deep enough yet?
Move along. Don’t be a fool.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 2:55 pm
as an aside, many of these folks complaining about feeding children are the same ones who oppose abortion and planned parenthood…. so you must have children, no contraception but they arent our problem you provide for them?????
Comment by Ghost Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 3:06 pm
Thank you VanillaMan. The left can’t seem to calm themselves without help.
Comment by Liberty Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 3:10 pm
Lucky,
TANF clients automatically get a child support case opened for them. They have to cooperate with a few exceptions such as rape, incest, and domestic violence.
DHS and HFS already do this.
No reason to hold up the birth certificate.
Comment by There is power in a union... Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 3:17 pm
I’ll try this a third time . . .
Lucky Pierre:
How does this bill further the “cause” you are advocating? Withholding a birth certificate accomplishes what exactly?
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 3:20 pm
Is there a particular reason my comments do not post?
I’ll try a fourth time . . .
Lucky:
How does withholding a birth certificate further the “cause” you are advocating?
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 3:21 pm
There are laws/rules on the books that hold fathers accountable. Loss of drivers license, garnished wages, forfeiture of tax returns, jail, ect. I can agree with Wheeler that the language is flawed. It sounds more like coercion and extortion than any type of protection. EXTREMEly bad legislation!!
Comment by GOP Extremist Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 3:24 pm
I see all your of posts demoralized.
Comment by Politix Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 3:28 pm
This makes the assumption all unwed mothers collect, or are looking to collect public aid. What about the single moms who don’t receive benefits?
Comment by transplant Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 3:46 pm
If that is what Rep. Wheeler thought the legislation would do, I can only assume that he agreed to sponsor it sight unseen.
Comment by tominchicago Friday, Feb 26, 16 @ 4:35 pm