* From a letter to state legislators that went out this morning…
NO ABORTION FUNDING IN THE BUDGET
On September 28, 2017, Governor Rauner signed into law House Bill 40, which authorizes the use of taxpayer funds for abortions through Medicaid and state employee health insurance. This new mandate is not eligible for reimbursement by the federal government, putting the entire cost on Illinois taxpayers.
House Bill 40 did not contain an appropriation; therefore, funding for elective abortions will come out of state Medicaid and health insurance funding.
No one knows how many more abortions there will be due to House Bill 40, but no matter the number, the principle is the same: our state tax dollars should not go to pay for abortion. You have the opportunity to ensure that no taxpayer money is used to end the life of any unborn child.
We are asking all members of the Illinois General Assembly to refuse to provide the means for House Bill 40 to accomplish its deadly consequences by including language in annual appropriations denying the use of tax dollars for elective abortions.
Due to our less-restrictive laws, in 2016 there was a 40 percent increase in the number of people coming to Illinois from out-of-state to undergo an abortion, forcing Illinois taxpayers not only to pay for abortions of Illinois citizens but of those from out-of-state. House Bill 40 will accelerate this trend.
Please work with us to protect taxpayers and unborn children.
Robert Gilligan, Executive Director
Catholic Conference of Illinois
Mary Kate Knorr, Executive Director
Ralph Rivera, Legislative Chairman
Illinois Right to Life Action
Dawn Behnke, President
Illinois Federation For Right to Life
Bonnie Quirke, President
Lake County Right to Life
Eric Scheidler, Executive Director
Pro-Life Action League
This could make it more difficult to reach a budget deal. We’ll see.
*** UPDATE *** Statement from Brigid Leahy, Senior Director of Public Policy for Planned Parenthood Illinois…
“Whether she has private or government-funded health insurance, every woman should have coverage for a full range of pregnancy-related care, including abortion. Last year, the Illinois General Assembly recognized the right of women to safe and legal abortion regardless of how much money they make or how they get health care coverage when it passed HB 40. And, Governor Bruce Rauner showed leadership when he signed the bill into law. Now, in the last days of the legislative session, anti-abortion groups are calling for legislators to hold up the budget process so that they can deny a woman health coverage and overturn HB 40. This move is dangerous for the women who rely on Medicaid and State Employee Health Insurance, and it is irresponsible to all Illinoisans who are relying on the timely passage of a state budget. We urge the members of the General Assembly to pass a budget that serves the interests of all Illinoisans and not be distracted by cynical attempts to insert the issue of abortion into the process.”
…Adding… ACLU…
When it comes to the most important decisions in life – including whether to become a parent – a woman must be able to consider all options available to her, regardless of how little money she makes or how she is insured. Last year Illinois took a big step in respecting this goal for all women. Because of House Bill 40 being enacted into law, the State of Illinois joined the list of states recognizing that coverage for comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion, is critical to women’s health.
Politicians should not be allowed to deny a woman’s health coverage simply because she is poor. And attempting to turn back the clock through a budget maneuver should not be tolerated. Politicians have no business controlling the decision-making process for women regarding their most personal health care decisions.
- Chris Widger - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:17 am:
I understand that the in vogue commentary here will be to lash out against Governor Rauner for the words he said to a cardinal last year (as if they are somehow more important than average citizens). I think the key point is that the Catholic Church’s stance is completely at odds with the arc of history and with decent values worth promoting, and their use of the political process should disgust us all.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:21 am:
===This could make it more difficult to reach a budget deal. We’ll see.===
Phonies like Mr. Breen already chose Rauner over their alleged “Manifesto of Principles”… it could be more difficult, absolutely, but Mr. Breen already made it clear… I stand for things… until I don’t… burning the ships notwithstanding.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:22 am:
But Rauner is tryin’ to pivot away from his North Shore neoliberalism by pro-death penalty panderin’ and “Back the Blue” costume/hat. Anybody buyin’ It?
- PJ - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:23 am:
==forcing Illinois taxpayers not only to pay for abortions of Illinois citizens but of those from out-of-state==
What? How is someone from Indiana coming here for an abortion costing Illinois tax dollars?
- Honeybadger - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:26 am:
PJ- I was thinking the same thing.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:26 am:
==forcing Illinois taxpayers not only to pay for abortions of Illinois citizens but of those from out-of-state==
Where is this coming from? Out of state individuals aren’t going to be on Illinois Medicaid.
- Perrid - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:29 am:
@Chris, You said the “Catholic Church’s stance is completely at odds…with decent values worth promoting” in regards to abortion, and that is the whole argument. Other people think that pro-choice/abortion advocate’s stance is completely at odds with decent values. You might disagree but just dropping that statement is as meaningful as a shouting match of “Yes” and “No”, or in other words a complete waste of time.
- DuPage Saint - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:33 am:
Maybe the state could save money by not giving tax credits to fund scholarships to private schools too
- Anon49 - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:35 am:
@Chris - I think that even most pro-abortion people believe that the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions is wrong.
- cover - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:35 am:
= forcing Illinois taxpayers not only to pay for abortions of Illinois citizens but of those from out-of-state =
does not jibe with “thou shalt not bear false witness”…
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:36 am:
===I understand that the in vogue commentary here will be to lash out against Governor Rauner for the words he said to a cardinal last year (as if they are somehow more important than average citizens).===
You should talk the the phony Mr. Breen. He did a whole “Manifesto of Principles” that were based on flat out lying to a Catholic Cardinal. I guess that makes Mr. Breen, phony as he is, a former “in vogue” speaker to your… whatever.
===I think the key point is that the Catholic Church’s stance is completely at odds with the arc of history and with decent values worth promoting…===
Ya sure the right tact is to attack a religion when what you’re requesting is… tolerance?
Not a practicer of a faith? Don’t know anyone who practices a faith? Ever talk to someone about how their faith isn’t what you expect them to be?
So, ya still want to go after Catholicism?
===their use of the political process should disgust us all.===
Hmm. Maybe you need to grasp what some Catholics abd the Catholic Church itself feels about abortion.
- Thoughts Matter - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:38 am:
State employees are taxpayers too. Medicaid recipients could be. As for the rest of the quoted material… Catholic religious principles don’t get to dictate public law any more than Sharia law does. Does the author of the letter understand why we have the separation of church and state?
Furthermore, I dont get to dictate where tax dollars get spent just because I have an objection to it. If I did, tax dollars wouldn’t be going for lots of things.
- PJ - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:39 am:
== I think that even most pro-abortion people believe that the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions is wrong. ==
Uh, no. Not at all, if by “state funds” you mean “poor people on Medicaid”.
What’s the Catholic Church’s stance on the infinitely greater sum of our tax dollars that goes to fund military adventures worldwide? Nary a peep, despite the enormous number of lives that end as a direct result.
- Anon - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:41 am:
The out of state part comes from Illinois’ “Medicaid Presumptive Eligibility” law that allows coverage for pregnant women up to 213% of Federal Poverty Level. With MPE, no Social Security number is required, and “temporary” residency at an IL address is sufficient. There’s no real way to verify the info or challenge the status, so IL will be open to providing abortions to women from out-of-state (& those not legally in the country).
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:41 am:
Due to our less-restrictive laws, in 2016 there was –a 40 percent increase in the number of people coming to Illinois from out-of-state to undergo an abortion, forcing Illinois taxpayers not only to pay for abortions of Illinois citizens but of those from out-of-state.–
That requires some explanation. Or it needs to be withdrawn.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:51 am:
It’s 2018. Abortion is a legal healthcare procedure. Why wouldn’t Medicaid cover this for low income women?
I understand that many people oppose abortion rights. But until the courts rule otherwise, abortion is a legal healthcare procedure and should be available, safe and, hopefully, rarely needed.
- Anon49 - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:54 am:
@Anon 10:41 and wordslinger - There was a front page article in the Tribune last summer or thereabouts about this issue and women flocking from neighboring states for abortions and being put up by certain organizations intended to house the out-of-state women who are having abortions.
- Honeybear - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 10:57 am:
Ok so there is a bit of truth here. We do have s known problem with folks coming to Illinois and applying for benefits. We get folks from MO coming to metro east DHS, claiming they are homeless and using the local office as their address. This is done to skirt the work requirement for food stamps in MO. I have never seen someone applying for just medical in this situation. But DHS caseworkers are totally on this and requiring proof of residency, (Which shelters and unitedway, Lessie bates can help confirm for the homeless) according to policy.
But folks coming from other states for benefits
I can confirm is true
How many I can’t say
- ANON - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 11:00 am:
Here is that article on out-of-state abortions.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-abortion-numbers-illinois-20180222-story.html
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 11:08 am:
–There was a front page article in the Tribune last summer or thereabouts about this issue and women flocking from neighboring states for abortions and being put up by certain organizations intended to house the out-of-state women who are having abortions.–
Flocking, were they?
That has nothing to do with the state paying for procedures, with it obviously was not doing.
- Anonni - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 11:21 am:
If you’re traveling out of state for an abortion, it’s often due to strict timeline (before so many weeks, and you can’t get a local appointment) or 48-72 hour waiting period requirements in your state. So why would it be “easier” to… 1) drive to Illinois, 2) apply for Medicaid, 3) wait over a month for approval (more if the stories about the current system issues remain, 4) use your Medicaid to get an abortion you may no longer need because you probably gave birth in the meantime?
The other way that state taxpayers would pay for out of state abortions is if Illinois hires a bunch of non-Illinoisans and offers them state health insurance, and then they all turn around and get abortions because that’s why they took the job in the first place.
Sounds completely rational to me. /s
- Anon - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 11:25 am:
@Anonni 11:21 - With Medicaid Presumptive Eligibility, you get approval immediately for services rendered that day. The MPE provider judges your eligibility on the spot.
- Downstate Rube - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 11:26 am:
“But until the courts rule otherwise, abortion is a legal healthcare procedure and should be available, safe and, hopefully, rarely needed.”
I understand sometimes it’s necessary for the health of the mother, but you could argue in most cases it’s an elective procedure.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 11:32 am:
===but you could argue in most cases it’s an elective procedure.===
What difference does that make? It is still legal, regardless. And like all private healthcare matters, none of anyone’s business.
You can argue that it shouldn’t be, but that doesn’t change the fact that it remains a legal healthcare procedure.
- Downstate Rube - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 11:34 am:
I thought we were arguing about Medicaid paying for it. I never said anything about it being legal.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 11:39 am:
Sorry Rube. My point is that, if it is a legal healthcare procedure, why wouldn’t this be covered for low income women under Medicaid.
If I’m reading you correctly, your position is, since it is an elective procedure (in some but not all cases), then Medicaid should not cover it. Fair point, but take vasectomies: all but two states cover these elective procedures under Medicaid.
https://www.kff.org/report-section/medicaid-coverage-of-family-planning-benefits-results-from-a-state-survey-sterilization-procedures/
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 11:39 am:
If it’s a legal procedure Medicaid should be paying for it.
- Downstate Rube - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 11:43 am:
I wouldn’t cover vasectomies either. And also, liposuction is legal, but Medicaid shouldn’t pay for it.
- Anon49 - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 11:47 am:
Does private insurance cover abortions?
- Cubs in '16 - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 11:51 am:
===If it’s a legal procedure Medicaid should be paying for it.===
Gender reassignment surgery is also a legal (and elective) procedure. Should Medicaid pay for that as well? Where should the line be drawn? This state isn’t exactly flush with capital.
- Amalia - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 11:59 am:
Your religion is not mine. Your views on reproductive choices are not archaic, they aren’t even based in the bible. Remember back when the standard in certain religious hospitals was to favor the life of an unborn child over a mother, even in delivery? so another soul could come onto the earth, re you. You are not just against abortion, you are against birth control pills and infertility treatments. You are against a woman’s control of her body. some of your churches do not even allow women as priests. Stay out of my health life.
- Hysteria - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 12:02 pm:
What are some other things that, like abortion, are opposed by a whole lot of people on religious grounds but that the government has made legal?
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 12:05 pm:
===Where should the line be drawn?===
Good question, despite your awkward attempt to equate a common family planning procedure with a relatively rare decision to physically alter one’s body via surgery. Even the US Army thought Chelsea Manning required hormone treatments. Their doctors believed that her treatments were medically necessary for they paid for it.
You see, it’s not what you think or what I think. It’s what doctors think is necessary and it’s no one else’s business. If states are in the business of providing health care coverage for residents, then let the medical professionals choose the best available legal treatments.
If you want to outlaw abortion, then say so and get out there and win more elections. Because arguing that the state can’t afford to pay for abortions for low income women is a really dumb thing to do. It’s patently false and makes you look like a fool.
- Downstate Rube - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 12:06 pm:
This isn’t about religion or your body. It’s about Medicaid paying. I never mentioned anything about making it illegal.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 12:17 pm:
Gender reassignment surgery is also a legal (and elective) procedure. Should Medicaid pay for that as well?
Yes.
- Groucho - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 12:23 pm:
To “Thoughts Matter”: You are correct in that the church should not dictate to the state what it does, nor should any other organization for that matter, as we live in a democracy. So since we live in a democracy, the Church has every right in the world to let political leaders know where it stands on policy issues. Like everyone else, the Catholic Church has the right to advocate for the issues it believes in, just as many other groups and organizations do.
To “PJ” and his concerns about the Catholic Church’s stance on Military spending. I can tell you that Church has opposed all the military actions of the United States in my recent memory. In fact, the Catholic Church was the first group I read about who opposed our military actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Cubs in '16 - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 12:25 pm:
47th Ward-
So Chelsea Manning’s doctors make the argument that her treatments were medically necessary. Good for her. I’d like to hear the doctors’ rationale for deeming terminating a healthy pregnancy medically necessary. Just because a procedure is legal doesn’t mean the state should be forced to provide it although Illinois seems to think so. Why should there be no limitations to the elective procedures Medicaid recipients can obtain when private insurance policies place plenty of limitations on them?
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 12:26 pm:
Run for office Cubs. Then you can try to do whatever you want.
- Cubs in '16 - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 12:29 pm:
Cheryl44-
So where would you draw the line? Or would you? Just curious.
- Hysteria - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 12:37 pm:
Exactly, Cubs. My insurance, which I pay for, doesn’t cover elective procedures that aren’t medically necessary (e.g., cosmetic surgery). I don’t think anyone can argue with a straight face that abortion, except in the case of the health of the mother, isn’t an elective, non-medically necessary procedure. So why should taxpayer funds cover that? Does Medicaid cover elective cosmetic surgery?
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 12:42 pm:
===an elective, non-medically necessary procedure. ===
Many women would disagree with that.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 1:03 pm:
Cubs,
I am opposed to punishing people for being poor.
- NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 1:10 pm:
2 points, some of which have been stated previously. First, unless medically necessary, no abortion should be covered by insurance (public or private) it is an elective procedure. Second, and more importantly, the underlying issue that won’t go away despite the best efforts of the left is that this is taking the life of a human being. Every year, with ever increasing life support available we have the ability to help early born children alive. But the abortion industry won’t accept this, they want no restrictions. So until we are willing as a society to protect the lives of all children, wherever they are living (either in uterus or out) we’ll continue to have these debates.
- For Life - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 1:11 pm:
Abortion takes a baby’s life and harms the mother. Why would the government want to pay for that?
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 1:16 pm:
Our government pays for many things that take human life and harm people. The funding issue is silly. Just say you believe abortion should be illegal. Don’t try to make this about spending money. That’s a weak argument.
- Monique7 - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 1:25 pm:
There are tons of standard medical procedures not covered by private insurance - chiropractic, neurofeedback for treatment of ADHD, anxiety or depression… these are things we pay for out of pocket. So why in the world would abortion be covered? Haven’t heard a good argument yet.
- Smitty Irving - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 1:34 pm:
Monique -
Chiropractic has been available through State Employee insurance since Doc Davidson was in the Illinois Senate in the 1980s.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 1:34 pm:
Well Monique, first, we aren’t discussing private insurance, are we? Second, abortion is part of a continuum of family planning medical services that are quite common that Medicaid has long paid for, from fertility treatments to vasectomies.
Something tells me you’ll never hear an argument that convinces you anyone should have an abortion. Thankfully, the courts have ruled that abortion is legal and we won’t have to worry about living in a world where you make all of our decisions for us.
- Cubs in '16 - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 1:35 pm:
===So why in the world would abortion be covered?===
1. It’s legal
2. To avoid punishing people for being poor.
Like you said, still waiting for a good argument.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 1:35 pm:
==There are tons of standard medical procedures not covered by private insurance - chiropractic, neurofeedback for treatment of ADHD, anxiety or depression==
You must have horrible insurance if those sorts of things aren’t covered. That’s pretty standard and I’m pretty sure it’s illegal not to cover mental health treatment.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 1:37 pm:
===Like you said, still waiting for a good argument.===
As a Cubs fan, you should be used to waiting a long, long time. Lol.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 1:38 pm:
Nice diversion but still not a good answer. Polls show most people think it’s one thing to have abortion be legal and another to have the state pay for it. Yes it’s legal, but there are lots of standard procedures that are legal and helpful that are t paid for. It’s not on the continuum of care like paps or fertility services. That’s why it’s done mostly in separate facilities.
- Cubs in '16 - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 1:39 pm:
47th Ward-
Well played. Lol
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 1:44 pm:
===It’s not on the continuum of care like paps or fertility services. That’s why it’s done mostly in separate facilities.===
Not to get off-topic, but there are plenty of Republicans that want to end funding for Planned Parenthood, which does provides these other services in addition to providing abortions. So a lot of people not only want to prevent public funding for abortion, but to also prevent public funding for paps or birth control or other necessary healthcare.
That’s why this debate is important. Because to some pro-life supporters, this is not about public funding. It’s about eliminating abortion. And if they can’t do that (and they can’t), they will try to undermine any and all attempts at providing low income women with quality reproductive healthcare.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 1:48 pm:
I have CIGNA PPO so pretty good insurance and those things aren’t covered. Generic are mostly covered. Neurofeedback is not, chirp is not, could list lots more. So just because something’s not covered doesn’t mean it’s a punishment. But if the abortion providers feel that way, why don’t THEY pay for it? Those pregnancy centers have tons of resources for poor women who choose to parent or place for adoption. These facilities get tons of state $ for contraception etc. plus private donations.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 2:22 pm:
Good to know you want to punish the poor, Cubs.
- Cubs in '16 - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 2:32 pm:
You got me Cheryl. Thought I had everyone fooled with my 26 years working in social services but you see right through me.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 2:36 pm:
Just because something isn’t covered doesn’t mean it’s a punishment. Plenty of standard procedures aren’t covered. If the abortion facilities feel it’s a punishment, why don’t they pay for it themselves? They get tons of state $ for contraceptives etc., plus private donations.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 2:40 pm:
===Plenty of standard procedures aren’t covered.===
Examples?
- Hysteria - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 2:43 pm:
@cheryl44 - But aren’t people who pay for insurance that doesn’t cover abortions also then being punished? Those on Medicaid get free abortions, but if you’re not poor, you don’t.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 2:59 pm:
Examples of non-covered services from personal experience: chiropractic, neurofeedback, I can list more…
- ste_with a v_en - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 3:15 pm:
Hb 40 is cost neutral and might even save the state money. You would think fiscal conservatives would be all for that.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 4:02 pm:
How can it be cost neutral?