46 Comments - wordslinger - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 9:15 am: Time to show your cards, governor. - You could say that, I couldn't - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 9:15 am: Anyone who thought the motion would be in place long enough for Rauner to avoid a primary challenge hasn’t thought things through. The bill isn’t worth very much politically unless it’s on Rauner’s desk with enough time for a challenger to collect signatures if he signs it. - SAP - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 9:29 am: C’mon guys, the bill won’t even reach the Governor’s desk until later today. How can you expect him to know what’s in it already? He still has to read it and consult BTIA tm. This just might take a while. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 9:30 am: If Bruce has no social agenda, he’ll sign it and move on, alienating the Right, and pleasing the alleged Democrat Diana Rauner, saving her brand. If Bruce vetoes, than Democrat Diana Rauner let down suburban women, fooling them with a phoniness only a fake Diana Rauner brand could do, so Bruce and IPI can roll back Illinois, and using an outright fib, and the phony Diana Rauner credibility to do it. It’ll be interesting if “Diana’s Brand” wins out. After all, it’s always been about the comfort level of Diana and Bruce at cocktail parties. We just didn’t realize that until Sneed told us so… with the 350 emails. We’ll see… - cdog - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 9:31 am: This is simple. AV HB40 Leave stand the feared SCOTUS doomsday overturning of Roe. AV the public funding of abortions for Medicaid and state employees on fiscal principles, which are imperatively needed in this broke state. - Curl of the Burl - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 9:35 am: Rauner should AV it and take out the Medicaid funding for abortions. He needs to start being more aggressive with people like Don Harmon and putting them on the defensive instead of Rauner always being on the defensive. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 9:39 am: ===AV the public funding of abortions for Medicaid and state employees on fiscal principles, which are imperatively needed in this broke state.=== Normally that could work. Then there’s that pesky written response that refutes that AV, making Diana Rauner and her brand toxic to… truthfulness. - A guy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 9:44 am: He’s already seen the response to what happens if he vetoes or AVs this bill. If he signs it, I honestly believe every member of the GA in both chambers will run away from him as fast and far as they can. He shouldn’t have put himself in this pickle. The Senate games with holding the bill should be noted. It’s not cute. - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 9:48 am: ===It’s not cute=== Maybe, but it sure ain’t beanbag either. This is the business he chose. He can always return to the bidness world, where no one ever does anything underhanded or “cute.” Lol. He needs to put on his big boy pants. They must be brand new given how little use he’s had for them. This might be the first major decision of his tenure. And if he finds a way to make a bad situation worse, it might be his last. - A guy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 10:01 am: ===Maybe, but it sure ain’t beanbag either.=== But with all of the problems we have that really need attention, this is the idiocy we focus on. So actually it’s a “little too much like beanbag”. I’m forced to reconcile that abortion any time, for any reason is the law this land has put in place. A bill that forces me to pay for it, along with many self-described pro choice people who oppose that view is being shoved down our throats. It’s not so expensive that it’s “unaffordable”. If the creeps like PP used the money they use to get more public money into their coffers spent their money “helping” all these people who can’t afford the procedure, they’d still have change. This is a money grab. And it’ll cost all of us. - Deft Wing - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 10:02 am: The fact Rauner finds himself in this predicament is because he still doesn’t know what he’s doing. That said, he must AV the bill as cdog notes; and then take his lumps. He can defend his position based on IL’s still declining financial position; frankly, it’s his only play. Paying for abortions with taxpayer money — when the state is broke and unable to pay for some pretty basic state services — is defendable … even though I know he’ll screw up his messaging if he does AV it. - Arsenal - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 10:04 am: ==If he signs it, I honestly believe every member of the GA in both chambers will run away from him as fast and far as they can.== You think? Conservatives will certainly be disappointed, and moderate Republicans will thus probably have to act put out, but I’d think the sponsors and major allies of the bill would bite their tongue for a while. Then again, that’s perhaps only a small sliver of the legislature… - @MisterJayEm - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 10:14 am: You know what’s really cute? Screwing Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services for political leverage. That’s super cute. – MrJM - Highland IL - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 10:31 am: What was that again about taking arrows for tough decisions because he’s not a “politician”? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 10:39 am: ===A bill that forces me to pay for it, along with many self-described pro choice people who oppose that view is being shoved down our throats=== No. It just passed both chambers of the General Assembly. Nothing more. ===It’s not so expensive that it’s “unaffordable”.=== According to who? What rate dues it become unaffordable. Put a price you “feel” … “Yeah, that’s unaffordable” - Griffin - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 10:40 am: ==If Bruce has no social agenda, he’ll sign it and move on== In what world does “no social agenda” translate to: Dems can send whatever hard left legislation they’d like and Gov will roll over? It was very clear that it meant “I’m going to focus on economic and related issues”, which also would inherently serve as a blockade to any conservative GA members who had machinations of running their own social bills. “You don’t push this stuff, and we won’t either.” Only progressives and the Edgar Republican brigade (but I repeat myself) could understand this the way you continually do. - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 10:41 am: ===A bill that forces me to pay for it, along with many self-described pro choice people who oppose that view is being shoved down our throats.=== Nobody held a gun to Rauner’s head and made him make this promise. No one forced him or Mrs. Rauner to publicly and loudly claim that there was no difference between Rauner and Quinn on choice. Now he’s being held accountable for his promise. I agree there are other problems that need attention, but now, even you, have to admit that one of the problems is the Governor’s credibility problem. He is estranged from the truth, and he’s demonstrated a very odd ability to sat one thing and do another. To me, this is less about HB 40, and more about the Governor’s credibility. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 10:51 am: ===In what world does “no social agenda” translate to: Dems can send whatever hard left legislation they’d like and Gov will roll over?=== lol… “No” has an odd definition for you, it seems. Did ya forget the written response Rauner gave to PersonalPAC. Maybe you’re just ignoring it… conveniently. ===It was very clear that it meant “I’m going to focus on economic and related issues”, which also would inherently serve as a blockade to any conservative GA members who had machinations of running their own social bills. “You don’t push this stuff, and we won’t either.”=== Nope. Good try. No way. If Rauner meant that, Rauner would’ve said that. “Bruce has no social agenda” … that’s what was said. Capiche? ===Only progressives and the Edgar Republican brigade (but I repeat myself) could understand this the way you continually do.=== This. Is. Adorbs. Rauner said nothing that you want interpreted, so it’s “others” fault they aren’t a convenient “Car-Nac”? LOL - Arsenal - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 10:53 am: ==In what world does “no social agenda” translate to: Dems can send whatever hard left legislation they’d like and Gov will roll over?== This one. Rauner knew what he was doing when he said “no social agenda”, and it was really smart and it worked like a charm. Voters, especially pro-choice women in the suburbs, assumed he meant he’d defer to liberals on choice and marriage equality. And that’s just exactly the assumption he wanted them to make. - Arsenal - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 10:57 am: ==Only progressives and the Edgar Republican brigade (but I repeat myself)== Don’t you kinda want to avoid giving those two groups much reason to vote together? - cdog - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 10:59 am: “What rate does (abortion) become unaffordable? Put a price you “feel” … “Yeah, that’s unaffordable” As a proponent of personal responsibility, maybe not having unprotected sex would help out that affordability problem. This is a simple intersection of basic human physiology, and mindful personal conduct. No excuses, please; they’re too easy to critique. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 11:05 am: ===As a proponent of personal responsibility, maybe not having unprotected sex would help out that affordability problem.=== The “bury your head in the sand” or the “too bad, so sad” rationale isn’t the best way to approach this issue. The idea that “unaffordable” was a debatable position is only being discussed because I’d like to know… what is the financial “affordable” price. - Langhorne - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 11:11 am: Can we please do away w the silly charade, that rauner cant read the bill or know whats in it, until it is physically delivered to him? It passed may 10. It is available. He is having problems w his flip floppery in october, so he had to read it, right? BTIA should have had it analyzed every step along the way. - Langhorne - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 11:16 am: Floppery oct/14, vs april/17 - siriusly - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 11:17 am: He can hold the bill for 60 days, which is exactly up to the deadline for candidate filing. So the prospect of “drawing a conservative primary opponent” is not that clear. - Rich Miller - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 11:21 am: ===which is exactly up to the deadline for candidate filing. === Candidate filing period begins on 11/27 and ends on 12/4. https://twitter.com/ILElectionData/status/912321499868155905 60 days from today would be November 24th. - DuPage Bard - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 11:51 am: Here’s the real rub for Rauner and his folks he made promises to in April, do they go back to the days of 2014? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03NQWYFq25M - A guy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:04 pm: ===What rate dues it become unaffordable. Put a price you “feel” … “Yeah, that’s unaffordable”=== 300-500 bucks. A pittance compared to what PP, Personal PAC and Cosgrove spend on their junk mail. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:11 pm: To the Post, Diana Rauner loves her brand. The Diana Rauner brand solely exists in Bruce’s realm to help with a phony narrative that Bruce should not “scare” suburban women during election time. Then, HB40. Diana Rauner did commercials to either fool Illinoisans or to be honest as to where Bruce stood… with no social agenda. When you actually read the Rauner response to PersonalPAC, the signing of this bill, HB40, would be a slam dunk, a “given”, a “cheer-able” event, with Diana Rauner leading the cheers, proudly standing with Bruce, even collecting a pen for herself. What I learned with the IPI taking over the Rauner Administration, orchestrated and aided by Diana Rauner to feel better at cocktail parties, is that perceived branding is far more important than policy. Diana Rauner, the Democrat obsessed with IPI messaging seemed to be enthralled by the messaging that would allow people to embrace the RaunerS want to destruction, including where a social service test may appear. It’s critical, therefore, that Diana Rauner, her brand, her own role in social services be held accountable, and this ad may force Diana to choose to side with signing HB40, thus saving face and her brand. Allowing Diana Rauner a pass if Bruce vetoes any or all of HB40 would allow Diana and the phony brand of “no social agenda” be a pivot after Bruce’s own flip flop, recorded by Bruce’s own response to PersonalPAC. The RaunerS boxed themselves with 3 words and a phony brand that funds Republicans over Democrats by millions… Diana Rauner’s “no social agenda” words, those 3 words sealed a fate that we will all see with a pen or a stamp, chosen by Bruce Rauner as governor. Rauner will either alienate the Right, the Left, suburban women, and Diana Rauner’s alleged perceived brand. All may not elude alienation. Three words any a phony brand. That’s what this ad is about. It’s worth the money, placing this ad, because what is the real worth of someone’s brand? We may find out. - A guy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:12 pm: ==I agree there are other problems that need attention, but now, even you, have to admit that one of the problems is the Governor’s credibility problem.== 47, I certainly do if he signs this lousy bill. Yep “Even me..” has had some issues with a number of things he’s done. Every pro choice bill that’s come in front of him has been signed to date. The difference with this one is the public funding of this procedure. I’m sure there are many procedures everyone here would object to being forced to pay for. Medicaid and State Employees; if this is added, what might get subtracted to make up the difference? This is incredibly stupid legislation well beyond the (arguable) moral ineptitude of it. - Cubs in '16 - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:41 pm: The Pritzker campaign is firing on all cyllanders. That’s a heck of a response. - 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:47 pm: Thanks Guy, and I agree, I’m mostly pro-choice, right up until the public funding question is on the table. Then I get really squishy. I’m glad I don’t have to make that call. But that’s the rub. Rauner has to make the call. And moreover, the Rauners made great public claims about how there was no difference between Rauner and Pat Quinn on this issue. Rest assured, they told us, women’s healthcare is a right, they told us, not subject to political whims, they said. It’s all in that full page ad Rich linked to in the earlier thread. So he told pro-choice activists he supported abortion rights. He also said he would support legislation aimed at helping women have access, regardless of ability to pay. Then he told pro-life legislators he would veto the bill that contains the provisions he told the pro-choice community he would sign. Simply put, he did this to himself and he’s got to own it, regardless of which way he lands on HB40. He has to come out of hiding, finally, and show Illinois who he really is on this issue that I think a lot of voters feel is important. But again, he volunteered for this job. Tough calls come with the job. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 12:58 pm: ===300-500 bucks. A pittance compared to what PP, Personal PAC and Cosgrove spend on their junk mail.=== So is it $300 or $500? How does that compare to the actual cost? And… that’s the value you put on something that arguably is ending a life, and then comparing that it’s “affordable” to the cost of junk mail? Your idea of the “value” of things is quite flippant, maybe too flippant, as a $200 swing is flippant to real costs to real people. Whew. - Last Bull Moose - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 1:26 pm: The cost of an abortion varies greatly depending on when it is done. Per google, a first trimester abortion average cost is $500 and a second trimester abortion can cost @2,000. The morning after pill costs about $50, not everybody considers this an abortion. We have a history in this country of not taxing people to support religious practices to which they object, nor for providing services to which they object on religious grounds. These aren’t two sides of the same coin, but they are close. We also make a distinction between divisible and indivisible goods. A vaccine against smallpox protects the person getting the shot and the person who comes into contact with them. It is both divisible and indivisible. An abortion is a divisible benefit. - cdog - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 1:35 pm: “I’m told that HB40 has been received by the governor’s office.” Check your inbox at 4:55pm, on some future Friday, for the AV. ha. Or, maybe they’ll surprise and kick it out sooner. - wordslinger - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 2:59 pm: Guy, I thought it was adorably cute to sign billions in contracts with social service providers and then veto the appropriations to pay them. I recall you were supportive of those tactics. - DuPage Bard - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 3:10 pm: The longer this goes for Bruce the worse the narrative. This is a really rough spot but the longer he takes to make the decision the worse it gets. Both sides have lots to lose and now it’s all in his lap. He’s in a no win situation. Your either a liar or a liar? - A guy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 3:23 pm: ==. I recall you were supportive of those tactics.== Your recollection would be innocently mistaken. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 3:28 pm: ===Your recollection would be innocently mistaken.=== You’ve been notorious to try to say both sides, or that “Rauner is taking the blame for the legislative” I can’t recall a single instance where you held Rauner accountable for the purposeful squeezing of the beast. If you’d like, please pull up a comment or two. Thanks. - A guy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 3:33 pm: Further, I’m not amused by any of the cute parliamentary sleight of hand by the legislature or the Administration. And Willy, I do believe that we’re talking about a life with regard to this discussion. I have purposely avoided the emotional rhetoric that makes this topic one that can’t be argued rationally. In this case, it shouldn’t be hard for anyone. We’re talking about using public tax payer money to pay for abortions, regardless of the reason, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of when they may occur. It’s been pointed out that later term abortions are more expensive (and more risky). Early term abortions, when more occur are less expensive. They also have a market price fluctuation if you check around. It’s an amount of money people can come up with if they make this choice. And it’s about “choice” for many people, right? Except me and others who don’t believe in absolutely unlimited access to this procedure. We won’t have a choice. We’re just condemned to pay for the choice. That line hasn’t been crossed here. And it shouldn’t be. When Medicaid starts adding this at the cost of $30M +/-, it doesn’t matter about the number quibble when Medicaid is already seriously underfunded…What service might be subtracted to make room for Planned Parenthood to get their mitts into the State Medicaid treasury. They will be the provider of choice, won’t they? - A guy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 3:36 pm: Willy, let’s have a partial agreement, shall we? True, I didn’t join in on the discussions where he was being pummeled for the policy with these social service agencies. Just as true, I never defended him on this. You’re well aware of my involvement with Catholic Charities. I was in fact, and continue to help address those shortfalls the best way I know how. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 3:43 pm: ===I didn’t join in on the discussions where he was being pummeled for the policy with these social service agencies=== Your admitted purposeful silence while it’s gone on for 3 fiscal years… that’s on you. Your silence… tough to say that’s not acceptance, given… “I didn’t join in on the discussions where he was being pummeled…” Was it not justified? Interesting way to turn a phrase… “..,for the policy with these social service agencies” Some called it a business decision. Also, it was you above making “cost” and “price” something of significance. If you’d like I’ll point it out with or without you indignation. As to who pays what? Your beef should be with the Rauner PersonalPAC response, not with anything else. - Lamont - Monday, Sep 25, 17 @ 5:42 pm: There’s lots of things the government uses our taxes for that I don’t agree with. It doesn’t matter if you “agree” with abortion or not—its lawful. I’m a pacifist that doesn’t believe eve in war yet every year my taxes pay for the military. Can I get my money back? No. - cc - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 12:13 am: People have babies even after having had “protected sex”. That is a fact; ask any ob/gyn. Can anyone read the news about the unwanted newborns and their older siblings being harmed, tortured or thrown out with the trash and wonder how this is not almost at epidemic levels. This is not a simple subject, nor a dollars and cents subject, it is one of the most complicated human subjects that could ever be discussed at every level and some of the above statements seem quite simplistic an oblivious to reality . - Sue - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 7:20 am: There is a video floating around that shows an actual abortion in progress. When shown the clip,abortion-minded mothers invariably change their mind and position. This needs to be shown in gory detail to each person in the decision-making process. - cc - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 11:57 pm: I agree with Sue. Anyone making decisions of this magnitude need to research and study all aspects. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.