Madigan on the hot seat
Monday, Jan 22, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
Attorney General Lisa Madigan is not exactly popular with pro-choice groups right now.
Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan said Friday that a long-dormant state law that prohibits minors from obtaining an abortion without notifying a parent is constitutional and should be enforced.
The General Assembly passed the notification law in 1995, but the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois won a federal court order that has blocked it from taking effect for 12 years.
In court papers filed Friday, Madigan asked the federal court in Chicago to dissolve the long-standing court order and, in a statement, said she had little other choice. […]
Illinois is the only state in the region without a parental involvement law. Abortion opponents say that has caused minors to come to Illinois from neighboring states to obtain abortions, skirting their local laws.
The former conservative, pro-life state Rep. Cal Skinner takes note that the pro-choice Madigan has “taken action that will please pro-lifers.”
Politics certainly makes strange bedfellows, as the cliché goes.
The pro-choice groups lashed out.
“It’s a sad day because our attorney general has gone to court and asked a judge to put in effect a very harmful statute,” said Lorie Chaiten, director of the state ACLU’s Reproductive Rights Project.
Chaiten says young women will be more likely to seek illegal abortions than to want to go through a court proceeding.
“It is a statute that makes it very difficult for young women to access reproductive health services,” she said. “This is the kind of law that every major medical organization, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, opposes.”
But, as Skinner has said before, the original law was full of holes.
This is definitely a “headline bill†without the substance which is promised.
But as I pointed out to subscribers this morning, there may be another story here. By taking over the lawsuit, Madigan could conceivably slow down implementation long enough to allow Rep. John Fritchey to pass his new bill that kills off the old law and substitutes a more pro-choice friendly alternative.
- Leroy - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 7:55 am:
Things the Illinois legislature thinks a teenager is *NOT* mature enough to do, without parental permission:
Buy a violent video game
Things the Illinois legislature thinks a teenager *IS* mature enough to do, without parental permission:
Get an abortion.
Note: The purpose of this post is not to state any moral position on abortions. Instead, the purpose of this post is to point out the inconsistency in the judgments of the Illinois legislature.
- Bridget Dooley - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 8:25 am:
My initial, knee-jerk response to this was “What the hell is she doing???”. But someone on another board pointed out to me that she may be doing this with the expectation that the law will be killed with new legislation.
Someone get Rep. Fritchey a cape already. I love that guy.
- Fan of the Game - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 9:14 am:
Ms. Madigan is simply doing what the Attorney General should as the state’s top law-enforcement officer.
To add to Leroy’s list, the state legislature doesn’t think a child is mature enough to receive a pain killer at school without parental permission, but it evidently thinks a child is mature enough to undergo a medical/ surgical procedure without parental knowledge.
- Pat Hickey - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 10:00 am:
Parental Notification and Mom being a parent - now how does this set back a woman’s right to choose anythimg . A kid, a minor can not get an abortion without her Mom and Dad, or Mom, or Dad, or Guardian approval. It is time for the pink-shirt “I Had and Abortion” crowd to exit stage left and none too soon. Good job Attornery General Madigan!
- diane - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 10:08 am:
An even more friendly pro-choice bill? The mind boggles.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 10:11 am:
most pro-choicers support parental notification except the radical left.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 10:31 am:
Enforce the law or change the law. I’m tired of lefties using our court system to bypass democracy.
If you favor infantcide, then write it into law and pass it.
- Pat Hickey - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 10:32 am:
most pro-choicers support parental notification except the radical left
Exactly, anything that the ACLU touches must not pass the common sense/common decency test. From its founding the sole purpose ofthe ACLU is the undermining of common values and common sense.
The ‘dress-up radical prophet’ act serves this country very little.
- Rep. John Fritchey - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 10:59 am:
I’m reluctant to weigh in because I don’t have time to check back in here through the day, but let me posit one small thought for the readers.
My legislation is not inherently ‘pro-choice’. I would point to a case several months ago where a minor female who told her parents that she was pregnant was forcibly taken by them across state lines to get an abortion that she did not want. Police intervened before the girl was forced to undergo the procedure.
My point is that many times, for many reasons, a girl is unable to go to her parents in this type of situation. As such, I believe that if we are going to have a notification law in Illinois, expanding the scope of persons who can be notified to include people such as grandparents and clergy members strikes a reasonable balance on a difficult issue.
My bill is not a referendum on the issue of abortion. It is about how best to have a young girl get counseling, one way or the other, about an extremely important decision.
Obviously, this is an subject that can be discussed at quite some length. Thanks for hearing me out on this one point.
- independent downstater - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 11:23 am:
Rep. Fritchey voiced my exact concerns regarding parental notification. Being a parent does not automatically endow wisdom nor compassion.
- Pat Hickey - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 11:41 am:
Certainly not, necessarily wisdom or compassion, but it does endow parents with legal custody and guardianship whether the parent listens to NPR or WACKO -FM; reads Granta or Mad Magazine; Eats steamed vegetables or defrosts dinner. Using choice and elitist buzz-feelings to justify the murder of child does nothing for me and less so now that ACLU’s collective undies are twisted.
Parental notification is a nice beginning but doing away with abortion altogether is much better. Save me the Margret Sanger voodoo; the old harpy hated kids to begin with.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 1:18 pm:
Fritchey’s bill is NOT parental notification. It’s a way around notifying parents. Let’s not be fooled by this.
- paddyrollingstone - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 1:47 pm:
Good for the AG. She lived up to her Oath of Office. Politically, this is also a smart move. She will never have to worry about the pro-choicers supporting her, so why not seek the support of others? Politics is a game of addition, not subtraction.
- Rep. John Fritchey - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 2:10 pm:
Anon. 1:18,
I have expressly said that the purpose of the bill is to provide for those times where a girl can’t, for whatever reason, go to her parents. There is no attempt to ‘fool’ anyone.
- independent downstater - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 2:50 pm:
I am not talking about the pros or cons of abortion. I am absolutely against it but I also understand how some parents should not be told about a pregnancy for any reason. Just the fact that a daughter had sex could set off some parents to indulge in violent mental or physical abuse.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 2:57 pm:
The 1995 law ALREADY allows a minor in many circumstances to bypass telling their parents. It would be the weakest parental notification law in the country. why are you offering an alternative? you are just fronting a fake parental notification law to give far lefties cover.
- cermak_rd - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 3:32 pm:
I would think that if a parent actually has a decent relationship with her child, the child will tell the parent because she will seek the parent’s advice. In many cases, young women do inform the parent and it is the parent that drives them to the clinic and pays for the procedure. If a parent hasn’t done the hard work of creating a good relationship with the young woman, why should they expect the state to step in and help in this circumstance?
- Smitty Irving - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 6:57 pm:
With the millions of parents in this country, simple math tells you that there will be parents that minors cannot approach about issues. There are all sorts of confidential medical services for teenagers. Yet no one wigs out - until the word “abortion” is used.
- So Blue Democrat - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 7:22 pm:
What about more effective access (with more funding) to family planning which does reduce the need for abortions? It always amazes me when people are against both abortion and dollars for family planning. It say they are living in the 19th century.
- So Blue Democrat - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 7:24 pm:
I also state thank you Rep. Fritchey for your courage on this issue.
- Rep. John Fritchey - Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 8:37 pm:
Let me just add that in the overwhelming majority of cases, girls (thankfully) can and do make a decision with the assistance of their parents.
But in those cases where that is not a realistic option, expecting a young girl to have the ability to wind her way through our court system is not realistic. In my opinion, the judicial bypass was intended by many not to be an option, but a barrier to a girl seeking to terminate her pregnancy. If that is the goal, the proponents should be honest about it. I may disagree with them, but I would at least respect their opinion.
If the goal is to provide a young girl realistic counseling and consent options, I believe that HB317 provides a solution that puts the focus on the health and safety of the girl, rather than on escalating the debate over choice.
And speaking of debate, I appreciate that people on both sides here kept the comments on a very contentious issue relatively civil.
- Papa Legba - Tuesday, Jan 23, 07 @ 2:06 am:
Whatever, really. Just think of all of the hollering if the states highest ranking law-enforcement officer didn’t enforce a law. Or picked and chose which laws to enforce.
Politically motivated or not, she sorts of has to follow the law.