* Finke…
Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law Wednesday the Reproductive Health Act, which supporters said will guarantee abortion rights in Illinois should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.
Surrounded by dozens of lawmakers and abortion rights advocates, Pritzker signed the controversial legislation that he said will ensure that Illinois is “going to be there for women if they have to be refugees from other states.” […]
Pritzker said the law simply codifies what was already case law in the state through a series of court decisions over the years.
However, pro-life groups that oppose the law said it goes far beyond that and have labeled the law “the nation’s most extreme abortion expansion.” The Susan B. Anthony List said the bill “is so radical (lawmakers) even went out of their way to repeal the state’s ban on barbaric partial-birth abortions. Americans of every political persuasion are appalled by these attempts to expand abortion on demand through the moment of birth and even infanticide …”
Illinois’ partial birth abortion ban was put on hold by a US Supreme Court justice in 1999. The full US Supreme Court, however, upheld the federal partial birth abortion law in 2007. So, it’s still banned in Illinois regardless of the RHA.
* One Illinois…
The signing ceremony took place in the Grand Army of the Republic Hall at the Chicago Cultural Center, with walls bearing lists of Civil War battles. Pritzker and lead sponsor state Rep. Kelly Cassidy of Chicago both emphasized how this too was a pivotal battle on women’s rights.
Citing how Illinois just this week celebrated its centennial in ratifying the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote, Pritzker said, “Today, Illinois is making history again.
“When I became governor,” he added, “I promised Illinois would become a national leader in protecting reproductive rights. And with the signing of the Reproductive Health Act, I’m keeping that promise.” […]
Pritzker pointed to Georgia, Alabama, Ohio, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, and Indiana, all of which have recently passed “near-complete bans on access to abortion,” he said, adding, “Abortion bans don’t ban abortion. They just endanger women — and none more than rural women, poor women, young women, and women of color. It’s wrong, and here in Illinois we reject it.”
* Kass…
Under the legislation, gone is a provision for spousal consent or waiting periods. And soon, the next target will be to end parental notifications to parents of minor children, all but assuring an increase in abortions.
Spousal notification was ruled unconstitutional back in 1992.
Parental notification’s future is still somewhat up in the air…
State Rep. Chris Welch (D-Hillside), who sponsored the House version of the repeal bill, HB 2467, also told The Daily Line that focusing on the RHA this year was about the time crunch lawmakers faced.
“As you know we ran into problems; [the two bills] got buried in committee,” Welch said. “As we were running out of time, we wanted to focus on the RHA because of everything that was going around across the country.”
But Welch said he’ll continue to push for the repeal of the parental notice law, possibly as soon as the Fall Veto Session, which begins during the last week of October.
* Fox St. Louis…
This comes less than three weeks after Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed a law banning abortions after eight weeks of pregnancy and the state health department is looking at taking away a license to perform abortions from Planned Parenthood of St. Louis, citing medical deficiencies at the clinic.
New pro-life bills are being introduced, sponsored, and co-sponsored at the federal level by members of Congress, including US Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri.
“I support trying to protect life,” Hawley said. “I’ve always been 100 percent pro-life. That’s why in the Senate I’ve tried to do my part to introduce legislation already that would protect life, like the Infant Born Alive Act, which actually says that every baby born in the country should get the same medical care, even if that baby was the target…of an abortion.”
* Capital News Illinois…
“There is a war against women, a war against bodily autonomy, and our opponents are using hateful, untrue and outright misogynistic rhetoric, which escalates daily and endangers women everywhere,” Cassidy said. “At our very doorstep, in 11 days, the people of Missouri will find out if they will lose the only clinic in their state and today, with the signing of this bill, we are building a firewall around Illinois to protect access to reproductive health care for everyone.”
Cassidy and Bush had another message — “elections matter.”
“When you elect women that are here to make a difference, that’s what they do and that’s what they did and I want to be clear. The freshmen women of the House, they really did move this bill,” Bush said. “Without their help, without their commitment, without their saying ‘Not on our watch;’ We ran when a president ran and told us it was OK to grab our body parts, and we’re saying ‘no more.’” […]
The Thomas More Society, Breen added, will mount a legal challenge to the new law.
He said he was most concerned about the removal of licensing requirements for abortion clinics, but pointed out the law also requires insurance companies that cover pregnancy-related benefits to cover abortion procedures and includes language specifying fetuses have no legal rights in the state.
Alabama’s governor is a woman. Just sayin…
Employers, like Catholic hospitals, can opt out of paying for abortion insurance coverage for employees under the state’s Health Care Right of Conscience Act.
* WBEZ…
An abortion rights package signed by Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is causing political ripples nationally as anti-abortion Republicans showcase it in dozens of congressional districts that are expected to determine control of the U.S. House next year. […]
The national Republican party is describing the Illinois legislation as the handiwork of the “socialist Democrat death cult,” focusing particularly on the bill’s repeal of a dormant statutory ban on a late-term abortion procedure critics call “partial birth abortions.” […]
In Illinois, the U.S. House GOP’s political arm has targeted freshman U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood, D-Ill., who last fall upset long-serving former GOP Rep. Randy Hultgren in her far west and northwest suburban congressional district. Also on the party’s hit list is U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill., who is Emmer’s political counterpart as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. […]
In graphic terms, Emmer specifically singled out Bustos and her silence on the Illinois legislation.
“If she’s running the campaigns for Democrat House members across the country, what’s her message? Is she embracing this far left, extremist position that basically you can suck the brains out of a child that is viable right up until the time of natural birth and even after natural birth under certain circumstances, you can take the life of that child or you can choose not to support the life of that child?” he asked. “I think you do have to ask those questions because it is important to voters, and voters can make a choice.”
* Illinois Public Radio…
Meanwhile, the Thomas More Society, a Roman Catholic legal group, says it’ll be challenging the new law in court.
“We have now gone way beyond Roe v. Wade in terms of post-viability abortions,” said attorney and former Republican legislator Peter Breen. “It’ll now be A-B-C: abortion, bankruptcy and corruption in the state of Illinois.”
* Sun-Times…
There have been 53 abortion restrictions enacted in the United States this year, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization in support of abortion rights.
In Tennessee, Gov. Bill Lee in May signed a bill that would ban abortions in the state should the U.S. Constitution be changed or if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota have passed similar laws. […]
In Kentucky, lawmakers passed a “heartbeat” bill in March — banning abortions between six and eight weeks — but a temporary restraining order was issued by a federal judge.
- Perrid - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 9:56 am:
Thanks for the context Rich, helps cut through the BS
- PJ - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 10:00 am:
“Socialist Democrat death cult” is the national republican messaging. I’m sure when someone shoots up or fire bombs a planned parenthood (again), they’ll be horrified that anyone might blame them.
- Jess - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 10:10 am:
The thing about parental notification that I hadn’t thought about until I was in a position to drive a friend of my kid’s for an abortion is… how do you demonstrate parental notification? It’s not parental CONSENT, just NOTIFICATION. Can she just sign a paper saying she notified her parent? Can her parent sign something saying she told them? If they don’t consent, why would they sign that they were notified? Can I take her and confirm she told? Or could I be her stand-in parent and they wouldn’t actually know the difference? Nope! The parent has to actually show up and go with them. (At least in our case at this clinic… others could be different.) Implementation is way trickier than I had considered before and it’s given me a whole new perspective about parental notification. Of course I want to know if my teenager is getting an abortion, and teenagers will tell their parents if they can - but the mandate really complicates things.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 10:19 am:
Good roundup putting things in perspective. Personally, I think the Illinois bill went a bit too far and will trigger some backlash. I know that was Mrs RNUG’s reaction to it.
- DuPage Saint - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 10:26 am:
I support the law. I believe it is a woman’s choice that she has to make and is no one’s business except hers. At the same time I think signing the bill was important but should have been solemn occasion. A law passed out of necessity not a law to be celebrated. So I found the pictures of the celebration jarring
- Atbat - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 10:36 am:
Kudos to the Governor, the General Assembly and all the organizations(Planned Parenthood, Personal PAC and the Illinois ACLU)and other supporters of this legislation, which is a crucial step in promoting women’s health and autonomy in Illinois and surrounding states.
- Pick a Name - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 10:36 am:
RNUG, it went waaaay too far, agree with Mrs. RNUG.
Not sure how some of these politicians sleep at night.
- Pundent - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 10:37 am:
Polling generally shows that the majority of people want abortions to be safe, legal and done in a limited number on instances. That approach and philosophy has served us well as safe access has remained available while the number of abortions has declined.
The problem is the extreme nature of the arguments on this issue. The pro life side of the scales wants the procedure banned completely while at the opposite end there’s a desire to allow abortions in all instances with no restrictions.
Neither argument seems to acknowledge that our current state is what most people want and its actually working quite well.
- Quibbler - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 10:45 am:
One quibble: it’s not really correct to say that “Illinois’ partial birth abortion ban was put on hold by a US Supreme Court justice in 1999.” That was an interim phase of the case. SCOTUS sent the case back to the Seventh Circuit court of appeals for further consideration in light of its 2000 ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart that struck down the Nebraska PBA ban. Before the Seventh Circuit in 2001, Illinois conceded that its own PBA ban was unconstitutional in light of Stenberg, and the Seventh Circuit accordingly struck it down. So the more accurate phrasing would be “Illinois’ partial birth abortion ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the federal courts in 2001.” That said, it’s still correct to say that there is a federal ban on dilation and extraction (”partial-birth abortion” isn’t a real medical term), sustained by SCOTUS in 2007, which still makes the practice illegal in Illinois.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 10:55 am:
I would question the politics behind the partial birth ban. What’s the point of putting it in the RHA if the practice is still banned under federal law. It seems like you’re handing the Republicans an issue to exaggerate for no real benefit.
- Enviro - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 11:22 am:
I am in agreement with DuPage Saint. Unfortunately this law is necessary for a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions. However I found the celebration pictures inappropriate for this occasion.
- Jibba - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 11:23 am:
Breen is concerned when states enact laws that are less restrictive than Roe, but not when states restrict or ban abortion in contradiction to Roe. Consistency is not a virtue, apparently.
And is the Thomas More Society led or funded by the church? If so, perhaps they should go easy on bankruptcy and corruption, which sounds a lot like politicking to me.
- Count Floyd - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 11:27 am:
I’ve held off commenting on this issue until now. My thoughts are somewhat complicated. I am a man who finds the concept of abortion somewhat distasteful. I believe that life starts at conception. However in a free a modern society I do not believe a woman should be prohibited from having an abortion in the pre-viability stages of pregnancy. And I think it’s absolutely reasonable to provide for exceptions when they may be medically or ethically needed later in pregnancy.
I am disheartened and disturbed with what Illinois has done. Going out of its way to declare a viable fetus has no legal right to exist seems particularly cruel. It is our shared humanity that should wish us to care for our young and our unborn. Especially when that unborn person has developed to the point where they could live outside the womb.
Madigan’s and other’s argument about what is happening in Alabama is a canard. Our choice as a state was not Alabama or this law. I understand that the vast majority or women would not wish to terminate a late term pregnancy unless absolutely necessary. But that’s not an valid argument in favor of late term abortion on a whim. We have laws to protect us from the very few of us out there that wish us harm. I don’t see how this law treats the unborn (all the way up to birth) as anything more than a cyst or a tumor. It is shocking to me that Illinois saw fit to go beyond what even is in place in what we consider the very liberal nations of Western Europe on this regard.
Anyway yes, I think there will be blowback from this. I think their should be. It will just be a matter of time once many voters realize the excess of this bill.
Believe me or not I am a supporter of Roe v. Wade as presently interpreted. I know my opinion (especially as a guy) will offend some of you. But I can only express how I feel and I really believe a large number of folks in Illinois and elsewhere fall somewhere in my range on this.
- nice things - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 11:32 am:
== RNUG, it went waaaay too far, agree with Mrs. RNUG. ==
How? Curious what aspect of the bill you think went too far.
== I would question the politics behind the partial birth ban. What’s the point of putting it in the RHA if the practice is still banned under federal law. It seems like you’re handing the Republicans an issue to exaggerate for no real benefit. ==
The RHA does not authorize partial birth abortions. Medically there is no such thing as a partial birth abortion. If you look at the text of the bill, you’ll see there is a very clear limitation on abortions after fetal viability. The RHA affirmatively states abortions can only be performed after fetal viability if the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the patient. This is directly from case law.
- Quibbler - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 11:42 am:
== late term abortion on a whim ==
This isn’t a thing. People that get abortions later in pregnancy do so because the fetus isn’t viable, or because of major health complications, or because logistical or economic challenges prevented them from getting an abortion sooner. If you’re concerned about later abortions, the best approach is not jail time for the people who get them, but rather to make sure they have access to health care resources much sooner during pregnancy.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 11:57 am:
Nice things, from the floor amendment summary for SB25 on the ilga.gov website:
“Repeals the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act, and the Abortion Performance Refusal Act.”
- Jocko - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 11:59 am:
==Going out of its way to declare a viable fetus has no legal right to exist seems particularly cruel.==
But making someone wait 24 hours, be forced to watch an ultrasound, and possibly be criminally charged is acceptable?
- Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 12:01 pm:
This is all about the national context in which it happened. The bill was going nowhere this session, but the anti-abortion moves in Alabama, Missouri and other states revived it. This is all about the impending reversal of Roe v. Wade. With Kavanaugh on the high court, the decision is doomed. Regulation of abortion will revert to the states. Pritzker, Cassidy et. al did the right thing by cleaning up the Illinois law before that happens.
- NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 12:15 pm:
I suspect that my position is not one that will be shared by many here but it is one supported by many in Illinois, although not by the majority at the present time. The RHA law is a sad day for our state and reflective of how little respect the majority of people have for life in Illinois. It also is, yet again, a reminder of the inability of the Pro-abortion supporters to be honest about what they want. The very term Reproductive Health is deceptive. Being able to get an abortion at any time for any reason has nothing to do with reproductive health. Reproductive health in non-1984 language would mean ensuring the ability to reproduce. But we have twisted it to focus on the death of humans. And why do so many want this right? If you look at the most recent statistics where a reason is given, and to be honest that group is a minority, from data in Florida from 2018 20% aborted for social or economic reasons. In other words because it was inconvenient for them. We mentally justify this killing of people by telling ourselves they are not people. Of course that is a scientific lie but with the help of the media and compliant politicians who seem to not have a moral center we let the lie become our mantra. I still believe at the very core of this headlong rush towards unrestricted abortion of children is our ever growing focus societal narcissism. A movement like that for any society will never end well.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 12:28 pm:
Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one, don’t cause one.
- RuralJewel - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 12:38 pm:
Emmer showing he is a class act by using inaccurate and inflammatory language once again. I fail to see how this bill is overly expansive, but I suppose I am biased. This bill only looks expansive because other states are so overly restrictive. Anyone who thinks that providers hand out abortions like freebies or that women seek out late term abortions is severely ill informed. Anyone who has spent time in the medical field or in social service knows better. It floors me that folks normally who want the government as far away from their lives as possible seem to want them in the room with a woman and her doctor. I empathize with those that struggle with this decision, but I fully believe that the decision should be an individual’s choice.
- Catherine Meyer - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 12:39 pm:
==The very term Reproductive Health is deceptive. Being able to get an abortion at any time for any reason has nothing to do with reproductive health. Reproductive health in non-1984 language would mean ensuring the ability to reproduce. ==
Reproductive health means the ability to safely decide if, when, and how to reproduce with the support of a medical professional. The freedom to have an abortion is integral to reproductive health.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 12:46 pm:
===Going out of its way to declare a viable fetus has no legal right to exist seems particularly cruel.
Actual text: A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent rights under the laws of this State.
Of course, a viable fetus may not be terminated. So I don’t know of any practical effect of “no legal right to exist,” other than saying it is inflammatory, inaccurate, and misleading.
- Illinois Refugee - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 1:04 pm:
Cheryl44 - I couldn’t agree with you more. I always thought this issue should be left up to the states and not mandated one way or the other out of Washington.
With all of the restrictions coming out in other states, the real opportunity for Illinois is to use the new law to generate additional revenue. Once the other states see the revenue they are losing out on, they might reconsider their stances.
- Perrid - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 1:11 pm:
ArchPundit, what hair are you trying to split there? You don’t think “viable fetus” is included with the word “fetus”, or do you not think that “Legal right to exist” is an independent right?
The text you yourself quoted says that no fetus, which includes a viable fetus, has any rights whatsoever.
- Nick Name - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 1:13 pm:
===late term abortion on a whim.===
There is no such thing as late-term abortions “on a whim.” Late-term abortions are less than 2 percent of all abortions in the United States. They are done only when there is a serious risk to the life or health of the mother, or when there are serious fetal abnormalities in the fetus, such as not having a skull. A late-term abortion costs north of $20,000 and insurance covers them only when medically necessary. It does not cover elective late-term abortions.
And while we’re on the subject, abortions “all the way up to birth” do not happen either. When a mother goes into labor, the only thing that’s going to happen is the delivery of the baby, period.
Of all the lies told by pro-lifers, “late-term abortions on a whim” and “abortion right up to birth” are just about the worst.
- DeseDemDose - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 1:14 pm:
How dare any men remotely dare to comment on something that is absolutely none of their business.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 1:21 pm:
=== You don’t think “viable fetus” is included with the word “fetus”,
Abortions are only legal when the fetus is non-viable. This is national law question is why are you misleading people? Seriously, acting like this changes the status of viable fetuses is just false. Why do it?
Furthermore, it doesn’t say “No Legal right to exist,” it says “fetus does not have independent rights under the laws of this State.”
That’s different from no legal right to exist and is a statement of whether someone can sue for the rights of the fetus or not. It does not mean the fetus can be terminated at any point. The change in language is purposeful to make it sound insidious when it has no effect on viable fetuses and clarifies that the rights of a fetus are not independent of the mother. That should not be controversial.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 1:22 pm:
===The text you yourself quoted says that no fetus, which includes a viable fetus, has any rights whatsoever.
That’s not what it says. It says a fetus does not have independent rights from the mother. Legally that’s a huge difference. And again, you ignore the actual state of the law regarding viability.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 1:29 pm:
===Late-term abortions are less than 2 percent of all abortions in the United States
1.3 percent in the most recent work after the 21st week.
~91 percent are before 13 weeks. Another ~8 percent under 21 weeks.
Late term abortions are extreme cases that are required due to health crises including non-viable fetuses. RHA does nothing to allow abortions past viability.
- LakeCo - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 2:02 pm:
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Everyone who is wringing their hands and clutching their pearls over abortion would be better served channelling that energy into advocating for access to health care, day care, paid maternity leave, education, gun control, and all the other social supports that a woman needs to raise a child. Quit being pro-birth and start actually being pro-life in the fullest sense of the term.
- @misterjayem - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 2:27 pm:
“I found the celebration pictures inappropriate for this occasion.”
The RHA was a victory over men like Kass — men who believe that a woman’s decisions regarding her own body should require “spousal consent.”
That victory merits celebration.
– MrJM
- LoyalVirus - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 3:26 pm:
I’m a lil disappointed at how so many comments reflect/repeat the misinformation & often outright lies that those opposed to the RHA have been perpetuating. Don’t fall for that b.s., people.
- DeniDeni - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 3:56 pm:
A few comments. This bill is about women’s rights. If you are male and don’t get it don’t comment. The best comment, don’t want one, don’t get one and most importantly don’t cause one. And yes people read the actual bill and stop listening to the inflammatory misguided comments. And the Catholic Church commenting?They lost that right years ago when the abuse of their own and children began.
- cover - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 4:32 pm:
= Once the other states see the revenue they are losing out on, they might reconsider their stances. =
Don’t count on it - those states are led by the same kind of (mostly) men as that “dirt road” T-shirt guy who appeared on CapFax last month.
- Graduated College Student - Friday, Jun 14, 19 @ 12:42 am:
===Of all the lies told by pro-lifers, “late-term abortions on a whim” and “abortion right up to birth” are just about the worst. ===
The pro-lifers are outraged because this undercuts their de facto bans in certain states. Which is also why the Illinois law does what it does-it’s for Americans, not just Illinoisans.