|
Question of the day
Wednesday, Apr 19, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller * As we discussed yesterday, candidate Bruce Rauner told the pro-choice group Personal PAC during the 2014 campaign that he supported “restoring abortion coverage under the state Medicaid plan” and backed legislation “to restore state employees’ health insurance coverage for abortion.” Both of those provisions are in HB 40, plus a provision to delete the “trigger” mechanism in state statutes that many say would repeal abortion rights protections if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Rauner cited the public funding aspect when he vowed to veto the bill last week. Personal PAC held a press conference today (click here for video) to publicly release Rauner’s 2014 questionnaire to reporters, saying it was the first time it had ever released one of its questionnaires. Rauner was also repeatedly criticized during today’s press conference for “lying” to pro-choice voters, particularly by the group’s director Terry Cosgrove. Rauner, you will recall, ran as a pro-choice Republican and his wife Diana and several of her friends helped pay for a full-page Chicago Tribune ad that touted him as a pro-choicer. The rhetoric was also harsh about Mrs. Rauner today, with Personal PAC founder Marcie Love saying about that newspaper ad, “So, Diana, did you lie to all your friends… or did Bruce lie to you?” * The feeling is mutual in the Rauner camp. Back in 2014, Personal PAC paid for advertising which claimed that Rauner supports “dangerously restricting abortion.” Rauner, however, only differed with Personal PAC on his 2014 questionnaire by saying he favored parental notification, which the group opposes. That same Personal PAC ad also claimed that Rauner and his wife had each contributed $100,000 to “the most right-wing, anti-abortion and anti-birth control Republican candidates running for the Illinois House and Senate.” * Mrs. Rauner fired back in an open letter…
Cosgrove was appointed to the Human Rights Commission by Quinn, a position he no longer has. * Anyway, back to HB 40. Cosgrove pointed out today that state fiscal impact notes filed on an identical bill in 2015 by the Rauner administration found little to no actual impact …
* But Cosgrove also admitted that there aren’t enough votes in the House to override a Rauner veto. There are committed believers on both sides of this issue. No doubt about it. But there’s also been a ton of speculation that this bill was designed to do what it has done: Put Bruce Rauner on the spot in a big way with pro-choice and pro-life voters. Rauner took big heat from his right flank, so he appeased them and flipped on Cosgrove, whom he doesn’t like anyway and who failed to defeat him in 2014. And now Cosgrove is kicking up dust in the media. But since there is a credible veto threat, HB 40 proponents have to make a decision: Do they push ahead as-is and dare Rauner to veto their bill; or do they pull out the Medicaid funding and state employee health insurance aspects and just run the “trigger” component? If they try to call Rauner’s bluff and he vetoes it anyway and Roe v. Wade is overturned and they can’t override the veto, havoc could ensue. But they probably won’t get the full “benefits” of this alleged political hit without Rauner’s veto. And if Rauner signs an amended bill, he could then take victory laps around both the pro-choice track (for guaranteeing women’s rights to choose in case the Supreme Court rules against them) and the pro-life track (for preventing state taxpayer funding of abortions beyond what is already allowed). * The Question: Should HB 40’s supporters forge ahead as-is, or amend the bill to Rauner’s liking? Give it some thought, then click here to take the poll and explain your answer in comments, please.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
- The Captain - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:07 pm:
I’d like to see them play out the string and force the Governor into making a tough decision but that’s a strategy that has real-world consequences for women and so I would understand the reluctance.
- ste_with_a_ve_en - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:12 pm:
Depends. If they want to make a big fight, then push ahead. If they want something actually accomplished, they should amend it. I’m sure he would sign the trigger repeal, even though odds are that will never happen.
- walker - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:14 pm:
Forge ahead. Both a good bill, and good politics.
Cosgrove usually loves pro-choice Republicans, but apparently not the unreliable.
Why Diana and not Bruce replying. Because he has “no social agenda?”
- Responsa - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:15 pm:
Amend the darn bill. Everyone will win something. Nobody will lose everything. That’s how politics is supposed to work.
- Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:16 pm:
not in Illinois
- Cubs in '16 - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:20 pm:
===Everyone will win something. Nobody will lose everything. That’s how politics is supposed to work.===
It’s rather ironic then that you cheerlead for Rauner as it relates to the budget and union impasses.
- Ron Burgundy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:23 pm:
Depends on what the goal is — to get something done or to score political points. Same calculus we’ve been dealing with here writ large for several years.
- Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:23 pm:
Forge ahead. If he vetoes it, it just proves he’s been telling untruths all along. Then if, God Forbid, Roe is overturned, immediately pass another bill.
- Nick Name - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:24 pm:
Forge ahead. Call his bluff. An added benefit is making him own an amendatory veto, with which he can strip out the funding elements if he wants.
- CCP Hostage - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:25 pm:
Forge ahead and force the veto. Another bill can be introduced later.
- Responsa - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:27 pm:
Whatever the issue is in IL, or what the year is, I don’t “cheerlead” except for the taxpayers. That’s the constant.
- Cubs in '16 - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:28 pm:
===Then if, God Forbid, Roe is overturned…===
Let that sink in for a moment.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:30 pm:
===What Terry neglects to mention is that he is a paid appointee of the Quinn administration with a salary and pension===
I don’t want to hear… anymore… “Why are you all ‘attacking’ Diana Rauner”
Diana Rauner adds her name to specific millions donated to Bruce’s campaign that runs a political apparatus to destroy Democrats, was in ads and wrote specifically to politics… politics… to help Bruce, was in ads on TV proclaiming herald a Democrat to aid Bruce… not a sharply partisan open letter, attacking someone for a political appointment, by a Democrat (delicious irony there) and continuing the pension and salary “boogeyman” thoughts.
Diana Rauner is complicit in the destruction of Higer Education, the crumbling of Illinois’ social services, and this current letter, now, reinforces the “Democrat” Diana Rauner is a Raunerite, not a spouse defending “her spouse”, but a Raunerite taking that sharp aim, and mincing no words in her own hypocrisy.
To the QOTD,
I say “no amend”?
“Why????”
It’s time both RaunerS live with their blatent hypocrisy for voters to see, and make clear that RaunerS are about Rauners, and Raunerism means saying one thing, doing another, and being an ally with the RaunerS is a one way street.
Only by forcing Gov. Rauner to make his realities come to light do you get all, especially Social Services, the hypocrisy of “no social agenda” and what monies and phony support means when Rauner had a choice, and Rauner chose to veto.
Amending, at this point, only enables the RaunerS to continue to fly false colors, as Diana Rauner targets Terry Cosgrove in the interim.
Voted “no amend”
- Amalia - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:34 pm:
no compromise on healthcare rights of women. Rauner out.
- Rogue Roni - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:35 pm:
I voted Forge Ahead. Let’s see where the guy with no social agenda stands
- Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:39 pm:
I say amend the bill and get it passed.
While I have no personal religious objection to abortion or to having tax money pay for it, I recognize that there are many for whom this is a major problem. As a general rule, we try not to tax people to support activities they find morally objectionable. When we do, such as taxing Quakers to support spending in the common defense, it is usually a case of an indivisible good. Even then we created the class of conscientious objectors so that Quakers and similar people would not be required to carry arms.
An abortion may be many things, but it is not an indivisible good. It affects a particular person.
I find it more troubling that Medicaid pays for more than half of the live births in Illinois (per a study reported in Kaiser news). That means that most of our fellow citizens are being born into poverty.
- Henry Francis - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:46 pm:
Voted forge ahead. The Guv obviously has difficulty with this issue, make him put his name on something. As others have mentioned, you can always run the trigger bill later.
Totally agree with OW on the First Lady. I do agree that family should typically be left out of it. However she integrated herself as one of his top sponsors when she vouched for him in all those commercials. She has cashed in her credibility as a democrat and as head of Ounce to help Bruce destroy the social service network that she presumably cares so much about.
She also took an assistant and is paying her a six figure salary with taxpayer dollars.
Her line about Cosgrove being a Quinn appointee would only be appropriate for someone who has sunk to level of others slinging innuendo laced mud. She apparently has finally revealed her true self.
- LIberty - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:48 pm:
So if I understand Mrs R. she says don’t point out her hubbies hypocrisy so he can get reelected again (and wink, wink, he will have more flexibility after the election)…
- Handle Bar Mustache - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:50 pm:
==he has chosen to use innuendo and misinformation to smear Bruce’s views and record. ==
Glad to see our first lady fight back!
But careful, Dr. Rauner, your husband has mastered the very tactics you decry. Ask those he’s beaten about innuendo, misinformation and smears.
Karma’s a B.
- Handle Bar Mustache - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:52 pm:
As to the QOTD, forge ahead as is. Smoke out Bruce Rauner and expose his dishonesty in even fuller form.
- Anon414 - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:52 pm:
We are assuming the votes are there to pass it in the House “as is.” I’m not certain there are 60 “yes” votes lined up. There maybe more than seven Dems who don’t support Medicaid funding for abortion services.
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:56 pm:
Forge ahead; we’re still one SCOTUS seat away, if not more, from overturning Roe, so there is some academia to this. But they need to show people that they mean this.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:58 pm:
==he has chosen to use innuendo and misinformation to smear Bruce’s views and record. ==
And then in the very next sentence, the First Lady uses innuendo and misinformation to smear Cosgrove’s views and record.
The hypocrisy of that couple.
I presume whoever wrote that statement for the First Lady was paid with campaign funds.
- Henry Francis - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:59 pm:
Sorry - 2:58 was me.
- JoeMaddon - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 3:06 pm:
Folks seem confused… the Diana Rauner letter is from 2014, not now.
- Perrid - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 3:09 pm:
I said forge ahead. Even though I lean pretty hard towards the Pro-Life side of the argument, the odds that Roe V Wade are so small that just getting the trigger taken out would mean very little. If they really feel abortion is not only fine it is a human right, then they should fight for that and not take the hollow, meaningless victory of undoing the trigger clause.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 3:09 pm:
===Folks seem confused… the Diana Rauner letter is from 2014, not now.===
That’s on me, my bad. Shoulda read better. I now remember why this sounded so familiar.
I read too fast. I was wrong. I stand by my discriptions, however, as Diana’s continued political behavior has not been curbed, especially the donations with her name squarely attached.
- Henry Francis - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 3:17 pm:
Whoops, my mistake. But still think the First Lady is fair game.
- Signal and Noise - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 3:21 pm:
The vast majority of pro-choice voters will support whomever challenges Rauner. The vast majority of anti-abortion voters will support Rauner no matter what happens with this bill. Partisanship is our only real wedge issue anymore.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 3:28 pm:
- The Duder -
I made a mistake, I admitted I was wrong in the timing.
I stand by my assessment.
When Bruce and Diana admit their mistakes, I’ll look forward to that too.
Funny, someone admits a mistake and instead of recognizing that people admit mistakes, you try a drive-by.
Speaks volumes about you…
- Rabid - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 3:30 pm:
The Halloween musings of private citizen Dr. Rauner before her cranium expanded
- The Duder - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 3:39 pm:
We get it, you are protected and most of our comments are wiped away before they have a second to absorb. I promise not to be a drive by. I will follow all of your comical comments and respond accordingly. Also, please refer to me as The Duder or I wont respond. Lets go Willy!
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 3:42 pm:
===I will follow all of your comical comments and respond accordingly.===
I dunno if that’s adding to the discussion, but…
You’re quite obsessive. Medication, naps help, fishing, sculpting, walks.
Your sole purpose here will now be, according to you, is to “respond to a person blogging from their mom’s basement”
That’s quite sad to have a goal, bud.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 3:45 pm:
=== I will follow all of your comical comments and respond accordingly===
That’s a good way to get banned for life. Keep your comments focused on the post or leave.
- Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 3:46 pm:
What makes anyone think Roe is about to be overturned? Replacing Scalia with Gorsuch restores the same ideological balance to the court as we have had for many years.
This a smokescreen designed to pass a radical expansion of taxpayer funded abortion that is only voluntarily allowed by 4 states.
The Hyde Amendment barring federal taxpayer funding of abortion has been in effect since 1976, through the entire terms of Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.
Most states have followed the federal government’s lead in restricting public funding for abortion. Currently only seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services. (See map.) Four of these states provide funding voluntarily (HI, MD, NY,1 and WA); in thirteen, courts interpreting their state constitutions have declared broad and independent protection for reproductive choice and have ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion (AK, AZ, CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WV).2
https://www.aclu.org/other/public-funding-abortion
- The Duder - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 3:52 pm:
I am sorry Rich. You are to be respected and I am apologetic for being on the edge of banishment. I got a little carried away expressing my views - along with many others. I guarantee to abide by the rules and stick to the post topics.
- Harvest76 - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 3:56 pm:
“What Terry neglects to mention is that he is a paid appointee of the Quinn administration with a salary and pension.”
Boy! Pick your logical fallacy here! Red herring? Ad Hominem appeal to motive? Retrospective determinism? This statement is easily the most transparent example of poor argument.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 4:10 pm:
I don’t know if they have 60 or not, but my vote goes to forging ahead. Anything that puts Governor Gaslight on the record is worthwhile. He won’t be able to lie about it whether he signs it or not. It will be in ink.
- Joe Bidenolopous - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 4:12 pm:
But I’d also immediately put a trigger-only bill on the board if he vetoed it too.
- A guy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 4:14 pm:
Amend it. I’m not surprised by the greater input to forge ahead here. It’s legislation that can be repaired to achieve it’s original intent. I’m a Pro Lifer. There’s no part of the bill I like. But, I’m a realist too. Don’t obligate me to pay for something I morally oppose. These procedures occur now without turning them into public paid events. Medicaid is already tremendously burdened. Adding isn’t part of any formula that makes sense.
Terry Cosgrove is fundamentally dishonest in all of his mailings. Don’t fill out his questionnaire (or fill it out completely) and he gets to decide what your position is. Truth or not, he sends out tens of thousands of offensive mailings. He’s despicable.
- Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 4:49 pm:
This is the kind of terrible legislation that comes from losing over 1,000 democratic seats since 2008
9 US Senators
62 US House Seats
12 Governors
Over 950 state legislative seats
Hillary lost the Catholic vote for the first time since 2004
The moderates have left the party
Theie is no place for pro choice democrats in the party today even though 32% of Dems identity as such
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 4:54 pm:
- Lucky Pierre -
A veto of HB40 is not something a pro-choice governor would do.
When Cosgrove goes after both RaunerS for their flat out hypocrisy, the mailers and calls by Personal PAC telling how Bruce Rauner turned his back on suburban women might be the difference.
I’ve seen this movie before…
- Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 5:07 pm:
If HB 40 is so mainstream why does California have a similar law?
Only 4 states do. Are there only 4 pro choice Governors in America?
Taxpayer funded abortion on demand is a huge expansion of medicaid which in case you haven’t noticed has already been expanded. Can we afford the program as it is now much less expand it?
Can’t be any more liberal than California yet they do not allow.
Why is the liberal Governor of California who has a democratic legislature so behind the times?
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 5:14 pm:
- Lucky Pierre -
Your deflecting and ignoring the politics;
Diana and Bruce said Bruce has no social agenda.
There is a questionnaire that has Bruce committing, and this veto flat out refuting those answers.
Cosgrove is calling the RaunerS out in this.
Your argument, while maybe meriting discussion, leaves no doubt to Cosgove and PP that Rauner isn’t keeping his word.
Your frustration should be aimed at PP and Cosgrove, but their minds, with written evidence from Rauner is where they see the dispute, not where you want the discussion to be.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 5:22 pm:
I shouldn’t have short-handed Personal PAC by the PP.
My intention was Personal PAC.
Apologies
- Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 5:53 pm:
What are the politics of expanding medicaid in the midst of a budget crisis so left wing activists are happy?
We can’t pay for all of the spending we have now which is of course no concerns to the candidates for the Democratic candidates for Governor or the supporters of this bill.
They have interest groups to please now and billionaires to bury in taxes 3 years from now.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 5:59 pm:
===What are the politics of expanding medicaid in the midst of a budget crisis so left wing activists are happy===
Good try.
Rauner’s own responses to the questionnaire and this upcoming veto is where the discussion is, and you know that.
===We can’t pay for all of the spending we have now which is of course no concerns to the candidates for the Democratic candidates for Governor or the supporters of this bill.===
So now you want to make this solely an economic issue, and “cost”?
That isn’t going to bode well when Cosgrove and Personal PAC remind suburban woman Rauner turned his back on them, and… it’s now solely due to… cost… not ideology, or the hypocrisy of the veto based solely on dollars?
That won’t work. Try again.
===They have interest groups to please now and billionaires to bury in taxes 3 years from now.===
This is just plain changing the subject….
- Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 6:04 pm:
Legislation like this has been approved in 4 states. Even California has not approved anything like this.
Are the other 46 states run by neanderthals or are there good, solid reasons for even pro choice voters and legislators to oppose?
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 6:11 pm:
- Lucky Pierre -
Who are you arguing with?
Bruce Rauner? Rauner’s own answers?
Are you ignoring the questionnaire? I guarantee Cosgrove and Personal PAC are far more concerned with Rauner, his answers, and the subsequent actions counter to those Rauner answers.
Explain where Rauner, the respondent to the questionnaire is wrong. Explain how Diana Rauner was wrong too.
Otherwise, who are you arguing with, because the questionnaire answers and the possible veto action is the only thing at play.
- Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 6:39 pm:
This is way to inside baseball Willy
No one knows who Cosgrove is
Do you think all pro choice voters support taxpayer funding?
Care to back that up?
this is nowhere near the slam dunk you claim it is
Show me some non existent polling that shows there is majority support for taxpayer funded abortion only currently passed in four states and banned by the Federal Government
Cosgrove’s questionnaires are only for the left wing activist radical abortion lobby. No one else even knows what they are
Can’t to see the attack ads on Rauner if he vetoes. It will help him trust me
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 6:48 pm:
===This is way to inside baseball Willy
No one knows who Cosgrove===
Hmm. Good try. Cosgrove has already flipped one close gubenitorial election, Rauner could be the 2nd.
Why are you ignoring the questionnaire?
===think all pro choice voters support taxpayer funding?
Care to back that up?
this is nowhere near the slam dunk you claim it is===
Cosgrove doesn’t need them “all”, Cosgrove just need enough.
That, and the complete discrediting of Diana and her vouching for Bruce in 2018. That’s all this is; highlighting Rauner hypocrisy, making sure that both RaunerS can’t have it both ways. That’s it.
The Diana Rauner ads, “no social agenda” are just not truthful or possible now.
===Cosgrove’s questionnaires are only for the left wing activist radical abortion lobby. No one else even knows what they are===
… and yet, Bruce Rauner, candidate for governor filled it out in hopes to clarify he (Bruce Rauner) has no social agenda.
Nice try.
===Can’t to see the attack ads on Rauner if he vetoes. It will help him===
Cosgrove made a difference once before. I’ve seen this movie.
===trust me===
No, it seems suburban women trust Personal PAC enough to sway elections.
Ask Pat Quinn, lol
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 6:51 pm:
Oh, and - Lucky Pierre -
Explain Sen. McCarter’s thinking on this and his comments, and how Rauner is also Pro-Choice.
Paul Caprio’s comment too, since you’re explaining.
- @misterjayem - Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 8:04 am:
“What makes anyone think Roe is about to be overturned? Replacing Scalia with Gorsuch restores the same ideological balance to the court as we have had for many years.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was born on March 15, 1933.
The “trigger” component of this bill is vitally urgent.
– MrJM