* More later…

Democrats voting No: Ammons, Burke, D’Amico, Deluca, Flowers, Hurley, Kifowit.

Democrats voting Present: Guerrero-Cuellar, Mayfield.

       

16 Comments - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Oct 27, 21 @ 10:48 pm: Just watched it happen. It really helps to have a comfortable partisan advantage in the legislative branch, compared to the national Congress and its struggle with the Biden agenda. - Anne Onymous - Wednesday, Oct 27, 21 @ 10:54 pm: When did Butler switch parties? - Justin - Wednesday, Oct 27, 21 @ 10:56 pm: The Dems who voted no or present on this deserve to be primaried. - Kyle’s mom - Wednesday, Oct 27, 21 @ 10:59 pm: Seems to me that, arguably, if the “this is a statement of existing law” language is in there (and I don’t know if it is) than maybe the effective date is a bit less important. - watchdog - Wednesday, Oct 27, 21 @ 11:58 pm: According to the sponsor it was simply a statement of existing law. Courts may buy it, but seems like BS. As Rep. Caulkins said, how does the current GA know what the GA 40 years ago intended. If it just based on how the law has been used in the past 40 years, courts don’t need the current GA to tell them. That is better determined by evidence. - Just Me 2 - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:07 am: Gotta’ love the present votes. Can’t help but wonder what their conflict of interest might be. - Candy Dogood - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:19 am: ===The Dems who voted no or present on this deserve to be primaried. === Before that happens we should force them to go on the record and explain why. Being a COVID denier or an anti-vaxxer is certainly a different kind of awful than believing that the purpose of the State of Illinois that when it comes to an area of dispute, the rights of the bigot supersede those of the targets of their hatred. That will help the voters make informed decisions. ===As Rep. Caulkins said, how does the current GA know what the GA 40 years ago intended.=== I don’t recall the 1980s being a dark age where our civilization lost the ability to write and record events and for those unfamiliar with the legislature, it’s been my experience that transcripts of floor debates are usually available and easy to find if you’re into that sort of thing. It is very doubtful that people who were specifically intending to make it very clear that a physician or pharmacist could not be “forced” to perform an abortion or forced to provide medical treatment to LGBTQ folks were proposing that the purpose of the bill was to prevent prison guards and school teachers from getting vaccines required for employment. Back when the bill was drafted things like AIDS denialism or the effects caused by high voltage transmission lines was way more popular and prevalent than being in the anti-vax, but they didn’t have the benefit of using Facebook to spread their complete nonsense so doesn’t stand out as part of the zeitgeist. Andrew Wakefield didn’t publish his fraudulent paper claiming that MMR caused autism until 1998. Being anti-science has always been with it, but the crazy conspiracy theory changes every few years though typically is used to justify the same kind of hatred. - Candy Dogood - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:30 am: This is again getting more into the background than I think anyone any really needs to understand, but might be appropriate for this blog the basis and intent behind this bill as being to protect religious bigots over their patients; An abortion induced by taking pills was first legalized in 1988 in France and started going through the process in other countries. It was FDA approved in 2000 and was going through the FDA approval process throughout the late 1990s and so there was quite the dramatic push to make it so a physician or pharmacist couldn’t be forced to write the prescription or fill it and to shield them from any liability for explicitly disregarding the medical oaths and obligation to the healthcare of their patients. The above is my interpretation which relies on primary and secondary sources since I wasn’t wrong. I am happy to be corrected. I have previously suggested that the bill is working as intended because it was never intended to be in the public’s best interest, or in the interest of public health and was always intended to protect the rights and privileges of people making poor decisions based off of the wrong information. That’s me being a little tongue and cheek. The legislature and thereby the State of Illinois was not intending to outlaw vaccine mandates for public sector employees. - E town - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:25 am: So Dems who voted no deserve a primary because they actually voted their conscience instead of just blindly following whatever Pritzker wants Please - The Dude - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:28 am: While I don’t agree with the change I am at least glad that the legislative branch has a say as opposed to letting the executive branch just continue to make all the calls. This needs to happen a lot more. - Downstate - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 8:14 am: …..and somewhere, a perp who commits sexual acts against minors, is smiling. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 8:16 am: === …..and somewhere, a perp who commits sexual acts against minors, is smiling.=== … and you will mock the victims. - Manchester - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 8:48 am: Glad to see this passed. Closing the loopholes for the antivax crowd helps us get somewhere closer to normal. - JS Mill - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 8:50 am: =…..and somewhere, a perp who commits sexual acts against minors, is smiling.= …and somewhere a village is looking for it’s fool. The legislation in no way shape or form protects people who commit sexual offenses on children or anyone or anything else. Dumbest comment of the year. Hands down. - Jocko - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:30 am: ==protect religious bigots over their patients== Hear hear (exclamation point) We’ve gone from pharmacists who refuse to fill scripts to hospital staff who refuse to take safe, life-saving vaccines. - Mayo sandwich - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:31 pm: == …..and somewhere, a perp who commits sexual acts against minors, is smiling.== When has parental notification stopped a perp committing sexual acts against minor? Can you provide some evidence? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.