The rest of the story
Thursday, Oct 28, 2021 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Center Square has a story entitled “Pritzker calls concerns about changes to Right of Conscience Act ‘Facebook fakery’”…
Pritzker Wednesday called some concerns “Facebook fakery.”
“It’s a very, very narrow adjustment that is focused only on COVID-19 and getting through this pandemic,” Pritzker said.
Pritzker said the HCRCA is being “misinterpreted and used in court cases to try to allow people who just don’t want to get vaccinated, the anti-vaxxers, the anti-maksers, to avoid the rules.”
* The governor used the “Facebook fakery” response to this rather odd question from a mainstream media reporter…
Governor, the Healthcare Right of Conscience Act. How is that not the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent? How many people are actually using the act to avoid vaccination? Is it really a problem? And are you just emasculating the Right of Consciousness [sic] Act by making these carve-outs?
Whew.
* Pritzker’s response…
No, that’s Facebook fakery, that last part.
[cross-talk] The fact is that the law that we’re talking about, the Healthcare Right of Conscience Act, it kind of was never intended to cover a pandemic where we’re trying to keep people alive. This is a law that was passed decades ago that was intended, I think with good intention, to allow healthcare providers and people who work for healthcare providers to by virtue of their conscience, not provide services that they don’t want to.
That’s very different than someone refusing to get tested when they’re walking into a school. That’s not a health care provider. That’s just an individual just yelling out ‘Conscience!’ and saying, ‘I don’t want to do it!’ isn’t good enough. We have to keep people healthy and safe. That’s the whole purpose of the mitigations that we’ve put in place. The Healthcare Right of Conscience Act is being misinterpreted and used in court cases, to try to allow people who just don’t want to get vaccinated, or anti vaxxers, the anti maskers to avoid the rules.
We’ve got to get through this pandemic. So the Attorney General came to me and said that, you know, he believes that we should try to get a change in the law or, you know, adjustment to the law. It’s a very, very narrow adjustment that is focused only on COVID-19 and getting through this pandemic.
Also, the number of cases involving this law was reported by Hannah Meisel earlier in the week.
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:51 am:
As “reported” by Greg Bishop.
Which is all you need to know.
- Norseman - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:53 am:
[GIF of someone banging their head against a wall.]
- Glenn - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:01 am:
By my recollection the Healthcare Right of Conscience Act prevented a pharmacist from denying a customer access to the “Plan B” contraceptive based on the pharmacist’s conscience.
- Cook street - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:26 am:
Flying’ ELvis has it right.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:27 am:
=== Healthcare Right of Conscience Act prevented a pharmacist from denying a customer access===
No. It would allow a pharmacist not to service the customer.
- Candy Dogood - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:37 am:
Must be tough to report on the “facebook fakery” without also covering that it is typically linked to a broadly or specifically antisemitic conspiracy theory.
- Aaron B - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:53 am:
According to their Facebook page, the Kankakee County Board has sent a letter to state legislators saying, among other things, “It was the original intent of this legislation to protect the rights of individuals to make their own decisions regarding their personal health care”. It sounds like they are trying to change the original intent to suit their purposes now.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:07 pm:
I swear we used to just call this stuff BS.
- Glenn - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:13 pm:
==No. It would allow a pharmacist not to service the customer.==
I see that you are correct as far as you go.
My understanding is that the pharmacist denying the service would have to find another in the pharmacy who will sell Plan B so the customer would not have to leave without exercising the legal right to make the legal purchase.
Neither the conscience of the pharmacist nor the right of the customer would be denied in that case.
- Me2 - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:15 pm:
One thing I haven’t heard (or maybe missed) in this discussion are references to the original legislative intent of the HCRCA. Obviously there would be transcripts of the debate that would support the original purpose? Or was it really just that badly drafted?
- NonAFSCMEStateEmployeeFromChatham - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:36 pm:
== odd question from a mainstream media reporter…==
Was that reporter from either the SJ-R or Channel 20? If so, not surprised the reporter goofed and called it the “Right of Conciciousness Act.” Bloopers seem to be par for the course on two once proud media outlets lately.
- Springfield Westsider - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 3:14 pm:
“Facebook Fakery”. I like it.
Personally, I’d change a few letters in that second word, but the Governor’s descriptor is better than mine yet our sentiments are the same.
- DTown Resident - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:12 pm:
Devore and Caulkins and others are sadly already doing their best to stir up anger because of the amendment to the HCRCA. Devore claims it changes nothing and cannot have any bearing until June so it all should just be ignored. Tired of them failing to protect others. Sad to see how much Dan C embraces grifters for someone who claims he would deal with corruy.
- DTown Resident - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:14 pm:
Last word should be corruption.
- bkhartbnjo - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:27 pm:
Facebook Fakery may have to change to Meta Malarkey
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:28 pm:
bkhartbnjo, that made me chuckle.
- bkhartbnjo - Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 7:06 pm:
Thanks. I release it to the public domain