[Comments are now open on this post.]
* Illinois Review…
Friday, Governor Rauner signed into law Senate Bill 1564, which requires medical personnel and pregnancy resources centers to refer for abortions and discuss abortion benefits with their clients.
Illinois Right to Life’s Emily Zender wrote in response that the Governor’s actions were disappointing.
“It’s unfortunate that Governor Rauner didn’t keep his campaign promise to steer clear of social issues,” Zender said.
The governor chose to ignore the pro-life community’s efforts to stop the bill’s progress.
“We hosted press conferences, wrote op-eds in the most prominent newspapers, educated state and federal legislators, and delivered nearly 6,000 petition signatures to the governor asking him to veto this bill,” Zender wrote.
* The Pro-Life Action League highlighted the partisan nature of the legislation…
Gov. Rauner had promised during his campaign for office that he would steer clear of social issues. We knew he was not with us on abortion, but trusted that he would not undermine efforts to protect conscience rights and to enact measures that ensured the safety of women. Not one Republican voted for this anti-conscience bill. Rauner has chosen to side with the pro-abortion Democrats in Springfield, rather than his own party.
* As did Rep. Jeanne Ives…
I cannot say it any better than my colleague Rep. Tom Morrison. Here is his response to Gov. Rauner signing the mis-titled “Rights of Conscience” bill today. In the final votes, no Republican supported this bill.
Rep. Morrison: New Medical Mandates Make Illinois “Less Free for People of Faith”
”By adopting these new mandates, Governor Rauner and Democrat legislators are forcing medical professionals, including non-profit, privately funded crisis pregnancy centers, to participate in procedures for which they have strong ethical and moral objections. I spoke vociferously against this bill during the House debate and with the Governor and his staff directly. I am greatly disappointed in his decision today. The message delivered to Illinois citizens is that their religious beliefs and free speech rights do not matter. Illinois is less free and more hostile to people of faith as a result of this likely unconstitutional law,” said State Representative Tom Morrison (R-Palatine).
Under this law, medical personnel and facilities will have to follow an objection protocol that includes providing a patient with information about the “risks and benefits” of all legal procedures, regardless of religious or moral objection, as well as information about where the patient can access objected-to procedures.
“Pro-life physicians, nurses, and other medical personnel do not, nor should they ever, have to check their faith at the door when they care for their patients. The benevolent, life-affirming employees and volunteers at Illinois’ crisis pregnancy centers deserve our admiration and respect, not attacks by an over-reaching state government that violates their religious liberty and free speech rights.”
“As plaintiffs line up to fight back in court, I proudly and wholeheartedly support their efforts to overturn this despicable law. Thankfully, their chances of success are high, as Illinois pharmacists successfully challenged the state’s attempt to limit their rights of conscience back in 2005. We should do everything we can to help uphold our citizens’ civil liberties once again,” Representative Morrison concluded.
* And the notoriously over the top Illinois Family Institute went over the top yet again and called the governor a “traitor”…
* From the link above…
Despite the fact that not one Republican voted for the final version of SB 1564, Rauner decided to side with the Democrats in approving its final passage.
Thankfully, we have a system of checks and balances. IFI has been informed that a lawsuit is being planned to challenge this onerous and tyrannical new law. So now we must now shift our focus to praying for the Thomas More Society in their effort to overturn this unconscionable law in court. […]
Instead of throwing in the towel in response to the traitorous outrage perpetrated by Rauner–who has demonstrated his willingness to thwart the will of Democrats with regard to the budget bill–IFI wants to challenge conservatives to double down instead. We desperately need more–many more–pro-life/pro-family/pro-children’s rights men and women in Springfield.
* From the other side…
* Mindy Swank: SB 1564 is reasonable compromise between patients’ rights, providers’ faith: Over the course of five weeks, I made four trips to our local hospital, bleeding and in discomfort. On the last trip, I brought all the pads and clothes that I’d bled through and asked if it was enough to prove I was sick. The doctors induced labor and our son was born. He never gained consciousness and died within a few hours. We still think of him, and remember him — my husband and our three boys, whom we love very much.
* SB 1564 is about protecting patients’ rights, not denying providers’ rights
* Press release: SB 1564, Sponsored by Sen. Biss and Rep. Gabel, Signed into Law
- Delimma - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 9:29 am:
Personal moral decisions are something we should all respect in each other. Sometimes, life is difficult and we are faced with choices that test our convictions. In those times, I turn to my upbringing, the faith my parents instilled in me, my experiences, and my inner voice. I try to do what I think is the right thing. But, in those times, I know that I’m trying to do what is right for me. I don’t believe that my choices MUST be the choices of other people.
If you choose to serve the public, then I think you have to serve all of the public. If your job is to provide medical advice, I see no reason why you should be allowed to be deceptive just because of your personal choices. Why would that be ok, but a soup counter cannot refuse to serve a few black students? What’s the difference?
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 9:31 am:
To the GOP members of the General Assembly.
Gov. Rauner appreciates your concern, but it’s not about Republican ideals, but Raunerite calculations based on an unspoken, misguided, and misunderstood social agenda Rauner himself can’t fully understand.
If you think appealing to Bruce Rauner, or holding Bruce Rauner accountable, to being an actual Republican is the way to make yourselves understood…
… where have you been for the past 18 months?
The only thing Republican about Bruce Rauner is the primary ballot choices divided by the Democratic ballot choice when Rauner “lived” in Chicago after clouting his denied Winnetka-living daughter into an non-prison looking school over a worthy child… with the help of Democrats.
Forget the Republican thingy. It’s a Raunerite thing… but… Rauner owns the brand and the caucuses…
So, complain, and I understand the tact, but if one of the angles is “no Republican support”, all you did was make me laugh out loud, and not figuratively.
To the policy and specifically to the bills and what it means on a political spectrum, Democratic or Republican, conservative, moderate, or liberal… I’d be hard pressed to frame Rauner correctly on the far right to far left spectrum when it comes to issues and bills of this nature.
Bruce Rauner is not s reliable conservative, nor is he a solid moderate… or a left of center moderate.
I dunno what Rauner is, but someone who u see stands the political reasoning to make social choices when it best suits him, and knowing that, I have to accept that Rauner is where Rauner is. He is the governor. His choices are his, and that’s how it goes. Whining isn’t going to help. Polling may, but whining won’t.
- Liandro - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 9:53 am:
**”I see no reason why you should be allowed to be deceptive”**
How is refusing to refer for life-ending abortions “deceptive”?
**”What’s the difference?”**
One is denying to sell food to a fellow human being based on what I consider to be atrocious reasoning; another is sending a fellow human being to his or her death based on…what?
I would deem both immoral, but certainly not equivalent. Sending a human being to his or her death is an abrogation of the most powerful right a human being has: the right to live. As a society we need to come up with some higher standards for ending a fellow human being’s life.
- Federalist - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 9:57 am:
“Forget the Republican thingy. It’s a Raunerite thing… but… Rauner owns the brand and the caucuses…”
That very much sums up Rauner and many in the Republican Party seemed to ignore that, for whatever reasons, when they voted for him in the primaries
- Downstater - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 10:08 am:
There’s nothing I could write here that might convince someone on the other side of this debate to see my viewpoint. So instead I’ll just say thank you to the Governor for doing something I agree with.
And thank you for the link to Mindy Swank’s story. It’s hard to wrap my head around the fact that she had to endure something like that.
- Jocko - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 10:28 am:
==Gov. Rauner had promised during his campaign for office that he would steer clear of social issues.==
I guess you hadn’t noticed while those LSSI and Catholic Charities contracts went unpaid for the past year and a half.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 10:39 am:
The question that remains to be seen is how many Republican voters who think what Bruce did is reprehensible will not vote for him in 2018.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 10:42 am:
- GoM -
Rauner is more than likely and the odds on favorite to win re-election.
We’ll see what November 2016 shows us what Labor and Democrats learn in the many, many proxy races.
Rauner is gearing up for 2018 already. Rauner will be… very tough to beat.
- Delimma - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:10 am:
@Liandro - The patient is the female sitting in your office. That patient is seeking professional advice about medical options that are legal and available to her. Your personal opinions should not have any bearing on the advice given. Period. You, hypothetically a doctor, aren’t sending anyone to their death. You are performing as a neutral doctor, giving all options, and letting the patient decide. To decide for them is what is immoral.
- Tommydanger - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:14 am:
OW: Maybe a sports analogy is in order. When the team(state government)is under-performing, its easier to replace the manager(governor)than the whole team.
- The Captain - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:25 am:
The Governor has recently been aligned, financially and politically, with some of the more assertive social conservatives like Proft, Uihlein and their Liberty Principles PAC. It will be interesting to see whether these actions affect that dynamic.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:29 am:
- Tommydanger -
Easier said than done. The best way right now is to “vote accordingly” where ya can.
Less leverage for Rauner, and in a second term, might be effective.
I hear ya, thou, I hear ya, bud.
- DuPage Bard - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:45 am:
So I would imagine at this point GOP members will run from Rauner and hold a revolt?
- JoanP - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:49 am:
First of all, if they think he has steered clear of social issues up to now, they are living in a different world than the rest of us.
Secondly, a bill was in front of the governor. I fail to see how he could “steer clear” of the issue. Pretend the bill wasn’t there?
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:49 am:
===So I would imagine at this point GOP members will run from Rauner and hold a revolt?===
Nope. Wong happen. I live the idea of autonomy to help the Governor govern, but that not what Rauner bought, and doesn’t want any ROI that is a revolt, so… Rauner will fund them all in their campaigns at a ridiculous amount, and let them vent, but no one will break away, let alone a group, and forget a whole caucus.
No. Way.
- RIJ - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:55 am:
To the religious right: you’re surprised? Anyone with half a brain could tell he leaned liberal on many social issues. You elected him because he was “successful” in business and hated unions. Nobody really pried into his social beliefs.
I do not support abortion, but it is the law of the land, and consumers must receive information on all their legal options.
- RIJ - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:58 am:
Well, liberal on some social issues. He has been doing some good work in law enforcement that social conservatives won’t like.
- Ghost - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 12:28 pm:
side note, how many of the folks opposed to this bill have suppprted tax increases to pay for social services and map grants for education? Protecting life is not just about makin sure somone is breathing; it includes care and development.
- just askin - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 1:46 pm:
Delimma, sometimes a faith-based community creates organizations and offers services to assist their community in living according to their values. There’s nothing wrong with serving your community even though it’s only a segment of the broader public.
The pregnancy crises centers are not really medical clinics and aren’t really there to provide medical advice. They are counseling centers that offer support to women who might otherwise seek an abortion. This law essentially requires these privately funded centers to do the opposite of what they were created to do. It also arguably requires them to violate their right to freedom of speech (which includes the right not to speak) and their right to freedom of religion where it poses no risk to a woman’s health.
Did all know that these centers would be included when an agreement was negotiated? Would it have been so bad to exclude them with an amendatory veto? Methinks the answer to both is no. But really I’m just askin’…
- so... - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 3:37 pm:
==The pregnancy crises centers are not really medical clinics and aren’t really there to provide medical advice. They are counseling centers that offer support to women who might otherwise seek an abortion. This law essentially requires these privately funded centers to do the opposite of what they were created to do. It also arguably requires them to violate their right to freedom of speech (which includes the right not to speak) and their right to freedom of religion where it poses no risk to a woman’s health.==
Crisis pregnancy centers are deceptive scams created to trick vulnerable women. They usually have limited to no actual medical staff, and they’ve been known to list themselves in directories as providing abortion services.
They’re not worthy of any sort of protection.
- just askin - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 5:02 pm:
- so… If they they have limited to no actual medical staff, why classify them as healthcare providers? (And if they’re deceptive by listing themselves as abortion providers, let them be classified as healthcare providers …and watch the scam disappear.)
- Liandro - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 5:17 pm:
- Delimma - Monday, Aug 1, 16 @ 11:10 am:
The second human life involved wasn’t worth even a mention, eh? Just a minor death? That’s where we disagree.
“Options that are legal and available” has covered all manner of evil over the course of human history. Thankfully there have been those whose conscience didn’t end where legality began.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 7:43 am:
Then don’t be a healthcare professional Liandro. Problem solved. You nor anyone else should have a right to stick your nose into a decision where it doesn’t belong.