* To the Brittany Clingen Carl op-ed…
Beyond supporting Rauner during his 2014 campaign, I also briefly worked in his administration this summer. I learned firsthand during that time how strident the Rauners are in their support of abortion, so I’m not going to attempt here to prove to them how morally wrong it is. I won’t try to convince them that abortion is murder; that claiming to fight for women’s rights is contrary to allowing millions of them to be exterminated in utero; that science proves life begins at conception; that pre-born children are more than just “clumps of cells.” (Perhaps on this last item, the Rauners can refer to a recent social media post by the Ounce of Prevention Fund, where Diana Rauner is president. A Sept. 18 Ounce of Prevention Fund Facebook post said: “Parenting begins before your baby is even born: Did you know babies’ taste buds begin developing at 8 weeks? Research suggests that what you eat during your pregnancy impacts what your child eats as they grow up — so time to start developing their taste for veggies now!”)
Since moral arguments will not resonate, I’ll stick to the political and economic ones.
In April, the governor’s office stated he did not support HB 40 due to “the sharp divisions of opinion of taxpayer funding of abortion.” Rauner’s initial assessment of the situation is correct, and he should stick to it. Taxpayers on both sides of the abortion debate are deeply divided over whether taxpayers should pay for abortions, especially abortions that are entirely elective and are not related to rape, incest and/or the life of the mother.
The governor should stick to the theme that was his battle cry during the 2014 campaign: Protect taxpayers. Forcing taxpayers to pay for elective abortions is not consistent with the promises Rauner made when he ran for office. […]
If Rauner wants voters — especially those who comprise his conservative base — to believe anything he says on the campaign trail in 2018, he should veto the abortion bill on his desk. If Gov. Rauner truly believes in doing what’s best for taxpayers, he must veto the legislation.