* My weekly syndicated newspaper column is about something that happened just before spring break…

Retiring state Rep. Joe Lyons (D-Chicago) said a debate on the House floor last month was his “finest hour.” He was probably right.

Lyons successfully fought off five hostile floor amendments to his bill requiring that women seeking abortions be offered a look at an ultrasound test before having an abortion. The proposal has been a matter of much contention for three years, and it came to a head again in late March.

Last year, after two years of failing to pass the House Human Services Committee, the ultrasound bill was assigned to the infinitely more conservative House Agriculture Committee, a move that enraged pro-choice advocates. They vehemently protested the assignment, claiming that “women are not livestock,” and were able to stop the legislation on the House floor with a flurry of parliamentary moves.

Lyons is a member of Democratic leadership who’s leaving the House early next year, so he took sponsorship of the bill this year to help give the effort some muscle. The measure was again assigned to the ag committee, where it was again approved.

This time, pro-choice opponents filed several hostile amendments, one requiring that men with erectile problems view a video of a painful pharmaceutical side effect. Those amendments were assigned to the House Human Services Committee, which approved it last month and sent it to the floor.

When the amendments were called on the floor for a vote, Lyons claimed that House Democratic leadership, which controls the rules committee, had deliberately shepherded the hostile amendments through the process.

“If the rules committee will do this to me as a fellow member of leadership,” Lyons said, “think what they’ll do to you if the will is there to try to hurt one of your bills and sabotage it, sabotage it in the rules committee.”

Lyons was applauded by the House several times during his speeches against the hostile amendments. Rep. Sara Feigenholtz (D-Chicago) said that if Lyons’ bill had been sent to “an appropriate committee and addressed in a dignified manner,” her erectile amendment wouldn’t have been needed. Rep. Jim Watson (R-Jacksonville) then rose to Lyons’ defense.

“There is no more dignified member of this chamber than Joe Lyons,” Watson insisted to roars of approval, “and for somebody to take this opportunity to try to slight him is a little out of hand.”

Feigenholtz’s amendment was soundly defeated 66-36.

Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) rose next to explain her amendment, which changed the bill’s title to the “Ultrasound and Erectile Dysfunction Information Opportunity Act.” After seeing what happened in the previous debate, Cassidy showed respect to Lyons up front but said it was “profoundly insulting” that his bill was assigned to the agriculture committee.

Lyons pointed out that the bill had gone nowhere in the human services committee and claimed the opinion of ag committee members were “just as valid as any other committee.” Cassidy’s amendment received a mere 32 votes. Three more hostile amendments went down in flames after that.

When the Chicago Sun-Times still endorsed candidates, the editors would ask my opinion of legislators. Lyons had a general election in 2010, and the editorial board seemed ready to support his opponent. But I told them that they were looking at Lyons too much from outside appearances as a mere run-of-the-mill Chicago political hack.

Lyons, however, had become one of the most respected members of the House. Legislators of both parties recognize the great reverence he shows the chamber and its members. There is, I told the editorial board, no more beloved figure in the House than Joe Lyons.

Republicans will loudly chant “We want Joe!” if whoever is sitting in the speaker’s chair acts less than evenhanded. They know Lyons always tries to be fair when he’s in that chair, and that’s why so many of his colleagues sided with him during those amendment debates.

The Sun-Times endorsed him.

Lyons’ retirement is going to be a huge loss for the House. Whatever you think of his stance on the issues, I’m here to tell you it’ll be impossible to replace him.

Discuss.