* Tribune…
Terry Cosgrove, the president and CEO of the abortion-rights advocacy group Personal PAC, says a bill that would extend the availability of taxpayer-subsidized abortions to state workers and Medicaid recipients won’t be sent to Gov. Bruce Rauner’s desk unless he says he will sign it.
Lawmakers approved the legislation known as House Bill 40 on May 10. But Democratic state Sen. Don Harmon of Oak Park put a procedural hold on the bill, preventing it from being sent to the Republican governor. […]
There has been speculation that with Rauner’s vow to veto the measure, Democrats were looking for the best time politically to send it to the governor to energize abortion-rights supporters.
But Cosgrove said on WGN 720-AM on Sunday that he wasn’t aware of such a tactic. He said the bill won’t move without a Rauner promise to sign it.
“As far as I know, House Bill 40 is not going to be sent to Gov. Rauner until he says he will sign it as it was passed by the Illinois General Assembly,” he said. “That is my view of what should happen and currently the view of the sponsors and the people in control of the legislation.”
- Fax Machine - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 9:20 am:
Whether Rauner signs or vetos this would depend on if he has a primary challenger right?
What is going on with Sam McCann? Is he circulating for his Senate Seat? He hasn’t announced a running mate so he can’t circulate for Governor.
- Saluki - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 9:23 am:
It should be illegal for the legislative arm to “hold” bills after they have passed both Chambers. The Governor has the right to veto the bill, and if you didn’t want him to do that, then you should not have run the bill in the first place. Childish parliamentary maneuvering isn’t helpful.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 9:28 am:
===It should be illegal…===
It’s a process issue, not a legal issue.
The rules of the Chambers exist, like them, loathe them, to allow the Chambers themselves to best function and be effective within the governing.
The best members, some say, ate those with the institutional knowledge of the parliamentary rules.
Deciding rules of the Chambers, and there are rules that have real statutory weight, is something that is always debatable, but making parliamentary maneuvers illegal restrains with language some useful tools in the sausage making.
- Texas Red - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 9:28 am:
=Saluki=
“It should be illegal for the legislative arm to “hold” bills after they have passed both Chambers”
Totally agree; once legislation is passed the parlor games should stop.
- Nick Name - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 10:12 am:
(d) Each house shall determine the rules of its proceedings, judge the elections, returns and qualifications of its members and choose its officers.
- Article IV, Section 6, Illinois Constitution
- Last Bull Moose - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 10:25 am:
When the house rules change the timing set forth in the Constitution, we have a problem. This practice of holding bills after they pass should end.
- Anonymous - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 10:39 am:
GAmes, games, and more games.
- Norseman - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 10:42 am:
This is the legislative equivalent to the little boy holding his breath until his parents agree to buy him a toy. Good luck with that.
You’re giving Rauner an easy out by letting him respond that he can’t act or commit to a bill that is not on his desk. Rauner is going to enjoy watching the little boy’s face turns blue.
- Norseman - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 10:42 am:
P.S. Don’t sweat the process.
- A guy - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 10:58 am:
I forgot whether Terry Cosgrove was in the House or the Senate?? Must be a leader to get to make this decision, right?
Among the more unethical people in the public space…that’s saying something.
- walker - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 11:33 am:
A guy: Cosgrove did not claim to be in control of the legislation, as he states in the final sentence above. He offered his opinion on what should happen.
- NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 11:49 am:
Yet again more evidence of why these people need to go. They just can’t play a straight game.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 12:00 pm:
Cosgrove can ask, plead, give an opinion to how he’d handle it, or “requires” it to be handled.
Cosgrove might even be “consulted”… but it won’t be his call and the decision to when will have political underpinings, signature or veto.
- Thomas Paine - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 12:28 pm:
So, it is dishonorable for the legislature to hold onto legislation….
…but it is honorable for the governor to threaten to veto legislation that he promised he would sign as a candidate?
Gimme a break.
Three lefts make a right in this case.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 12:41 pm:
A guy, you think it’s wrong of Cosgrove to pretend as if he was elected to some official post, yet you never complain about Rauner pretending to be clueless about the duties and responsibilities he was elects to fulfill. Is that irony?
- A guy - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 1:39 pm:
47, no doubt to you it’s irony. I’ll live with that. Fact is, like him or hate him; Rauner was in fact elected. Cosgrove can hold whatever view he wishes. When he sends his missives of questionnaires; he clearly says, “if you don’t answer it or only partially answer it” He is free to pass along his interpretation of your positions on the only issue he has any interest in. It’s plenty deceitful to people and despicable. Where I work precincts, even the crowd he’s lined up with find him disgusting. So, no skin off my nose.
The fact you can’t even be a Pro Life Democrat anymore says everything about how PP and Cosgrove go about their business. He’s unethical.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 1:54 pm:
===Rauner was in fact elected===
Yes he was. Anytime he wants to start doing the job, fine with me. Let me know if Rauner needs a dictionary definition of leadership, because he hasn’t demonstrated that he knows what it means to lead.
And he was elected in large part to promising to be pro-choice. I seem to recall his “Democratic” wife smiling on my television, telling me Bruce had no social agenda. Wink-wink, nod-nod, everyone on the North Shore cocktail party circuit is pro-choice, right?
Cosgrove is doing his job. Anytime Rauner wants to start doing his, as I said, would be fine with me. He backs pro-choice candidates and opposed all others. No surprise there. Rauner promises one thing, then does another. Who is the unethical one?
Here’s a link to the bill. Maybe you can forward it to the Governor. God forbid a citizen asks the Governor for his position on a bill. Don’t we deserve to know where our Governor stands on this?
It’s not about Cosgrove, this is about Governor Rauner’s cowardly political calculus.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 1:59 pm:
http://ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=40&GAID=14&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=99242&SessionID=91&GA=100
- A guy - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 2:09 pm:
47, the definition of pro choice expands more than a little when it becomes:
== a bill that would extend the availability of taxpayer-subsidized abortions to state workers and Medicaid recipients===
That’s a good deal more than just pro choice. Nobody agreed to that while campaigning. The law of the state (and the land) allows for this procedure. It doesn’t demand we pay for it.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 2:12 pm:
===The law of the state (and the land) allows for this procedure. It doesn’t demand we pay for it.===
Then if/when Rauner vetoes it, Diana Rauner can explain the no socal agenda for the next year at cocktail parties since it will be Diana’s brand that will take the biggest hit with any type of veto.
Less we forget that night with all the messages Rauner himself faced while attending an event trying to pretend he and Diana had no social agenda.
People will kinda not be too… understanding.
Vetoes have that effect.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 2:14 pm:
I don’t disagree Guy, but why can’t you get the Governor to say that publicly? You might also tell him that taking tough positions is part of the job he spent $70 million to win.
Or does he subscribe to the old adage: the buck stops over there somewhere? Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Even Illinois Review wants to pin him down on his decision. It is a simple question that Rauner pretends he can’t answer: yes or no on HB40.
Communicating with the public, especially about controversial bills, is a really big part of his job. Did no one tell him there would be issues like this that he’d need to take a stand on?
Regardless of where he ends up on HB40, he has once again failed to be the kind of leader Illinois deserves.
- A guy - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 2:34 pm:
On this, we agree 47. I wish he’d be more forthcoming. I’m guessing that we prefer different outcomes.
Not defending Rauner here. Beyond the “moral” case of whether or not on the larger issue, there’s a moral case to be made that taxpayer money shouldn’t be used for this purpose.
If that’s what proponents want, have a fundraiser. Other than a tax hike.
- A guy - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 2:37 pm:
==but why can’t you get the Governor to…”
People many times closer to him and his office than me have tried. Your confidence in me on this may be a bit misplaced. lol
- Cosgrove - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 5:10 pm:
“I dislike the Illinois law that restricts abortion coverage under the state Medicaid plan and state employees’health insurance because I believe it unfairly restricts access based on income. I would support a legislative effort to reverse that law.” Bruce Rauner, April 25, 2014
HB 40 is that legislative effort Governor Rauner should sign as it passed the General Assembly.
- A guy - Monday, Sep 18, 17 @ 5:18 pm:
Use some of that money you raise for this.