Stung by the deaths of two teenagers in a drunken homecoming night car crash last fall, north suburban lawmakers proposed legislation on Monday that would toughen the penalties for parents who condone underage drinking in their homes.
It already is illegal for parents to knowingly allow minors to drink in their homes and to provide them with alcohol or fail to control access to it, but the stiffest penalty is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and up to 364 days in jail.
Under the bill proposed by state Sen. Susan Garrett (D-Lake Forest), if bodily harm occurs, parents could be charged with a felony punishable by 1 to 3 years in prison or probation and up to a $25,000 fine.
“[This] is not designed to put unwitting or unknowing parents in jail,” Garrett said at a news conference with other state lawmakers, police officials and activists at the Lake County Building in Waukegan. “We are attempting to heighten awareness of and increase sensitivity to the dangers of underage drinking.
Now, the question: Would you favor this concept? Why or why not?
Bonus question: Do you think we should have more laws that hold parents accountable for their knowing approval of illegal behavior by their children? Offer examples.
Also, there are more details in the story, so if you have more questions, go read the whole thing. Don’t just ask other commenters to clarify something for you. Thanks.
I’ve kept this issue confined to subscriber-only blog posts because it’s a legislative issue and I felt that the debate has been so distasteful, but now that the mainstream press has picked up on it, we might as well get it out in the open here.
Legislation to vaccinate pre-teen girls against a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer has sparked a heated debate at the Illinois Statehouse.
The discussion has even moved to the point where one opponent of the legislation has publicly called on a sponsor to reveal her sexual history.
At issue is the human papillomavirus, or HPV, the primary cause of cervical cancer in females. A new vaccine, Gardasil, has been shown to protect against HPV strains that cause 70 percent of the cancer cases. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recommended vaccinations for 11- and 12-year-old girls - before they are likely to become sexually active.
An Illinois House bill would require girls to be vaccinated before they enter sixth grade beginning in 2008-09 unless their parents formally opt out. A similar Senate bill would have schools provide information about HPV and cervical cancer to 11- and 12-year-old girls beginning this fall and then would require immunizations - again, unless parents decide against them - in 2009.
As the New York Times notes, the manufacture of the vaccine, Merck, is making a national state-by-state push to require the shots, adding…
And in Illinois, a bill introduced by a legislator who had the virus the vaccine is intended to prevent prompted a conservative group’s blog to speculate that she had been promiscuous.
“I’m offended by their ignorance, but if I have to take a hit to educate people, I’m willing to do it,†said the bill’s sponsor, Debbie Halvorson, the Democratic majority leader in the Illinois Senate.
Ms. Halvorson is also a director of Women in Government, a national association of state legislators that has embraced the fight against cervical cancer and has received funding from Merck. The group has posted model mandatory vaccination legislation on its Web site, www.womeningovernment.org. The rush for mandatory inoculation — most of the state proposals have been introduced since the beginning of the year — is unusual. It was only last June that federal regulators approved the vaccine, called Gardasil.
Jill Stanek has taken the lead among the conservative Right in opposing the bill. One of her first posts on the legislation was a doozy…
…So when state Sen. Debbie Halvorson admitted she had HPV and worried others might get it, you would think she’d focus on her behavior that caused her to contract that sexually transmitted disease.
Halvorson would be most helpful by discussing the health consequences of pre- or extra-marital sex. […]
But no, Halvorson does not advocate avoiding a risky behavior that leads not only to HPV but to 20+ other STDs and their strains, along with unplanned pregnancy. Halvorson merely advocates trying to avoid the consequences of risky behavior. Shame on her.
I left out some very pointed, very personal even weird “questions” that Stanek demanded answers for. Read it yourself if you want.
Stanek’s reaction has overshadowed the legislation itself. Here’s a recent column from Kristen McQueary, who notes that she would oppose the Halvorson bill if she were in the General Assembly…
For someone with a well-worn barometer for political mean-spiritedness, I was stunned by an online diatribe hurled at state Sen. Debbie Halvorson (D-Crete) from a fellow Southlander. […]
Stanek demanded that Halvorson disclose “whether it was her husband who passed HPV on to her after sleeping with other women” or how, exactly, the Senate majority leader believes she contracted the virus. […]
Stanek’s vitriol does nothing to further her cause. In fact, her shark mentality often hurts the very issues for which she so desperately crusades. Even those in her small circle of flag-wavers cringed at her remarks.
I’ve always liked Jill, but her remarks crossed the line of decency and could backfire. The legislation could pass just because of the tactics used against it. This slash and burn stuff might work in the national media (although its influence seems to be fading fast), but people here are a bit more reasonable than the DC gasbags.
As I wrote in this morning’s Capitol Fax, I don’t think that this is a particularly huge deal…
Gov. Blagojevich and his wife, Patti, upgraded their Northwest Side bungalow in 2003 by renovating their family room and building a deck.
What makes the home improvement project noteworthy is who Illinois’ first family put in charge of it: a company owned by now-indicted political fund-raiser and real estate developer Antoin “Tony” Rezko.
Even this part doesn’t really trouble me…
Chicago Construction Services began overseeing the Blagojevich work in July 2003, six months after Rezko began pushing the governor to place friends and associates in key state posts. The project took place during a 16-month period in which Patti Blagojevich, a real estate broker, netted about $86,000 from Rezko-orchestrated real estate deals.
I do have a problem with this, however…
Despite repeated inquiries, the Blagojeviches declined to provide bills or canceled checks for the work or a list of subcontractors.
Normally, it might be unseemly to demand that a governor “prove” his innocence. But Rezko raised a lot of money for the guv, “recommended” a whole lot of high-level appointees (some who contributed big bucks to the guv’s campaign fund around the same time), did a bunch of work with the First Lady (some of which looks like she was added to the list of realtors at the last minute) and has been indicted by the feds.
The governor has also refused to divulge how much cash he and his family have received as “gifts” from other inner circle members. That leaves me with no alternative except to ask…
Here’s what should be at the top of that list: ending the culture of corruption at City Hall. We endorse Richard M. Daley’s re-election as mayor with the hope that he’ll spend the next four years doing just that.
“If you spend too much time . . . on tangential issues and trying to micromanage our personal lives, you lose sight of larger priorities,” said Reilly, a former aide to state House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago). Madigan, whose law firm files property tax appeals on behalf of many downtown businesses, has issued a glowing letter in support of Natarus.
* Mundelein Trustee’s re-election campaign will continue
* A look at the long shot challengers:
Dorothy Brown and Dock Walls
* Mark Brown: What do teenage voters think of Chicago candidates?
* Oak Brook trustee bounced from ballot for “major flaw” in paperwork
And Mayor Richard Daley’s swelling re-election campaign fund now has received money that originally was donated for the political account of Democratic powerbroker George Dunne. The late George Dunne.
* Obama’s liberalism to draw heat as campaign progresses
During his eight-year stint in the Illinois Senate, Obama carried the reputation of a liberal Democrat, a standing gleaned from his votes on abortion, guns and other key or controversial issues.
The delays mean schools will have to administer another round of tests next month without having a chance to learn from last year’s results. The state tests are used to judge schools under No Child Left Behind federal standards, and schools face sanctions if too many children fail.
* Layoffs announced in Cook Co. State’s Attorney’s office: In the first wide-scale job cuts resulting from Cook County’s budget problems, State’s Atty. Richard Devine announced Friday that he was laying off 43 prosecutors and 10 investigators.
From 2000 to 2003 Hastings earned $1,250 per month to review the college’s safety procedures and collected another $2,304 for teaching two classes. In total he received $46,679 from South Suburban College, financial documents reveal. All the while, he held down a full-time job as a “business liaison” with the Illinois secretary of state’s office.
* Tribune: Let the llinois Health Facilities Planning Board fade away
* Editorial: We don’t need a law to tell us what to eat
Whew, what a week. Lots of comments, lots of debate - some more heated than others.
All good things must come to an end, however, and this week is no different. Relax, take a deep breath, go shovel some snow, and if you still feel like tearing each other apart, head to Illinoize, where the meat’s always cookin’…
*** UPDATE *** I was watching Channel 11’s Natarus-Reilly debate on YouTube and during the first few seconds of Part 2, Natarus flat-out lied…
NATARUS: “I have not received from anybody a contribution of $7,000. Not one of my contributions is that high.”
From the State Board of Elections’ site [click for a larger image]
*** UPDATE 2 *** Check out this TV ad from 50th Ward candidate Greg Brewer entitled “Sleeping Bernie.” Ouch…
All Chicago-related videos from my collection can be found at this link. Unfortunately, YouTube lists them in the order they were posted, so the newest ones are at the end.
The University of Illinois says Chief Illiniwek will perform his last dance this month. The U. of I. today announced that the 81-year-old mascot will no longer perform at athletic events on the Urbana-Champaign campus after this season. A news release issued by the university today says that Chief Illiniwek’s last performance will be next Wednesday (Feb. 21) at the final men’s home basketball game of the season.
Seriously, does this white boy in goofy makeup look dignified to you?
Unless a judge stops them, University of Illinois officials will announce Friday that Chief Illiniwek, the controversial and storied mascot who has performed for 81 years, is to dance for the last time next week.
University officials had made extensive preparations for Friday’s announcement. But according to a source familiar with the university’s plan, the process took a turn Thursday when the two students who portray the chief filed a lawsuit against the university and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
The students are seeking a restraining order that would prevent the university from dumping the chief and would lift the NCAA’s sanctions against the university’s sports teams. A Champaign County judge will hear their application Friday morning in Urbana.
The university will decide how to proceed after that hearing, the source said.
Sources within the University and close to the Chief tradition said Thursday that Board of Trustees Chairman Lawrence Eppley intended to single-handedly retire Chief Illiniwek Friday under pressure from Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones.
A student government member said, based on his conversations with University administrators, Eppley was the driving force behind the move to retire the Chief. […]
According to the University Board of Trustees bylaws, the chair of the board can call an “unplanned executive session” in case the board must discuss and decide on “any business which is urgent and cannot be postponed to a regular meeting of the board.” The executive committee, which comprises the chair and two members of the board, can meet “by conference telephone call” or any other means that would allow the members to communicate with each other simultaneously. Eppley, Kenneth Schmidt and Niranjan Shah are the current members of the executive committee.
Bylaws state that the executive committee has the power to make binding decisions if it does not act on matters settled during a session in a regular board meeting.
There’s been chatter all over about this for the past few days, but I’ve now confirmed with enough off-the-record sources to move with the story: absent some sort of intervention by the courts at a 10 AM hearing tomorrow, the UI Board of Trustees plans to eliminate Chief Illiniwek tomorrow.
I know some of you will be upset, but, seriously, is a mascot that so many consider racist really worth supporting to the end just because it was there when you were in school?
The House Republicans have a new website. One of the guys asked me what I thought of it yesterday, but I figured why not have readers here weigh in?
They’ve also got a blog and a page called 102 Ideas, which encourages people from “all 102 counties” to send in their “new, innovative ideas.”
IlliniPundit has already weighed in with his thoughts, some of which were postive, others not so, including the lack of an RSS feed. Still, he offered this praise:
It’s not a perfect effort, but it’s more engaging of the online community and more solicitous of input than either of the other legislative caucuses, and probably the most ambitious effort ever attempted in Illinois State Politics, where lack of information, lack of access and lack of public input is the standard operating procedure (Rep. Fritchey is a notable exception.). Hopefully the House GOPs will open it up even more, and the others will follow their lead.
By the way, it looks like Tom Cross won’t be cooperating much with Gov. Blagojevich in the coming months. A page on the new site is called Rod’s Rubberstamp Award.
Each month, the ILHRO website will announce a new winner of the “Rod’s Rubberstamp Award†for a person who has demonstrated a commitment to advancing the principles espoused by Governor Blagojevich.
I’ve heard that Jack Ryan’s 2004 opposition research report on Obama is floating around out there somewhere, and I’m wondering whether Nathan Gonzales got it because I highly doubt he pored over umpteen thousand Senate floor votes before he wrote this piece.
Still, Gonzales’ column is an interesting read. [Corrected because I didn’t notice that Rothenberg was reprinting a column whole cloth]
For example, in 1997, Obama voted “present” on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted “present” on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.
In 1999, Obama voted “present” on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted “present” on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.
In 2001, Obama voted “present” on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted “present” on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the “born alive” bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote “present” on the bills instead of “no.”
And finally in 2001, Obama voted “present” on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.
If Obama had taken a position for or against these bills, he would have pleased some constituents and alienated others. Instead, the Illinois legislator-turned-U.S. senator and, now, Democratic presidential hopeful essentially took a pass.
Meanwhile, John Fritchey links to a column that has to be one of the most god-awful, over-thought, ridiculous thing ever written on this campaign which appeared in a supposedly mainstream publication.
The New York Sun column gives us lots of cut and paste history: snow storms, labor negotiations, 1968 convention, Abner Mikva, Royko, Harold Washington, Lincoln, Walker and this…
Illinois history also explains the Daleys’ endorsement of Mr. Obama. The brothers learned not only from their father’s victories but also from his mistakes. They don’t want to look out of step with their times, as he did in 1968.
First of all, why is it that the Baby Boomers have to run everything through the prism of their youth? Why does everything have to relate back to that convention, or McGovern, or Woodstock or whatever?
The author of this goofy column never once mentions the fact that Daley is running for re-election and wants to show his critics he can still rack up huge numbers, and therefore needs to sew up as much black support as possible (see: Wal-Mart pandering, Olympics patronage) in a city where the black vote can ruin or make a white candidate. No mention that Obama has endorsed Daley over two black opponents, or that they both share the same media consultant (Axelrod). No consideration given to the fact that Obama’s statewide approval rating is in the 70s and his approval in Chicago is probably over 90. No ironic mentions of the fact that even though Obama endorsed Daley, his people are criticizing black leaders who endorse Hillary Clinton.
Instead, we’re treated to pure, unadulterated Baby Boomer crapola. Ugh.
* Claypool endorses Reilly for Alderman [from a press release]:
Brendan Reilly shares my drive to reform government and hold the line on taxes, by eliminating wasteful spending and holding elected officials and public employees to the highest ethical standards,” said Claypool.
“With his years of experience working as a senior advisor in the state legislature and serving in his current post as an executive for a Fortune 50 Company, Brendan Reilly has the values and the leadership skills to make a difference on the City Council.”
To be alderman of the 42nd Ward is akin to being mayor of a medium-size city: the booming Loop, North Michigan Avenue, Streeterville, River North and the Gold Coast. Natarus can be eccentric, cranky and, sometimes, outrageous, but his judgment on what’s right for this teeming area tends to be sound. He expertly guides complex zoning and development issues. He is justly proud of bringing 32 acres of new park land to the ward
But Mayor Daley insisted Thursday that the lessons of 1979 had nothing to do with his decision to order a “Phase 3″ snow-removal plan after this week’s snowstorm. Phase 3 dispatches a blitzkrieg of 750 city workers normally assigned to other duties to shovel sidewalks and crosswalks.
Federal Election Commission Advisory Opinion 2006-36 represents the first time a political party other than the Democrats or Republicans has been granted a national party campaign committee. Such committees have higher limits on campaign contributions that they can accept and give to candidates.
* The state’s export business is growing, up 17% in 2006
Mayor Daley is so gung-ho about the idea of building 5,000 units of market-rate and affordable housing and hotels with up to 1,000 rooms that he’s determined to build the project, whether or not Chicago hosts the 2016 Games.
* Duckworth admits to anxiety about husband’s mission
* Editorial: Awareness of Suburban poverty is a start
* Report: Health Facilities Planning Board no long needed
Lang’s Southland casino legislation merits support: the reality is that casino gambling has been legal in Illinois for several years. And as long as it is legal, it makes little sense to us that there isn’t a casino in the Southland. The state of Indiana has cornered much of the Southland gaming market. Shouldn’t that segment of the market belong to Illinois? Common sense says yes.
