|
Pritzker won’t sign birth equity bill if Senate strips out abortion coverage (Updated x3)
Tuesday, May 14, 2024 - Posted by Rich Miller * Background is here if you need it. Personal PAC’s Sarah Garza Resnick…
The bill is here. Resnick promised a “war” over this when I called her. I have calls and messages out to the Senate sponsor, Lakesia Collins, and the Senate President’s office. The House sponsor, Majority Leader Robyn Gabel, referred me to Senate President Don Harmon. * From the governor’s office…
* Coincidentally, this polling memo was sent out by the governor’s campaign today…
I’ve asked for toplines. …Adding… From Rep. Kelly Cassidy, who chairs the Dobbs working group…
…Adding… The Senate sponsor, Sen. Lakesia Collins (D-Chicago), told me she will not move the bill if it’s amended to strip out abortion coverage. Sen. Collins had sponsored an identical Senate bill, but couldn’t get more than a subject matter hearing in the Insurance Committee. Now, though, the insurance industry is neutral after negotiations she participated in, and she said she told Senate President Harmon that they’d reached a point where the bill needed to be called. Collins said Harmon told her that he “cares about the issue a lot,” but that there were still some issues with the bill. Asked what those were, Harmon told Collins it was the abortion coverage issue and he’d work on it. “And then I find out today that they stripped the whole piece around abortion out,” Collins said, adding that no members from her side of the aisle had ever approached her about the topic being a problem. “I don’t know where the pushback is coming from.” Collins said since the House was unlikely to pass an amended version and the governor won’t sign it, there’s no purpose in moving the bill forward. “You’re basically killing the bill,” she said. “This has been a long time coming,” she said of her bill. “There have been advocates fighting around this for a very long time who are looking forward to this bill passing. And it’s like, here we are fighting about something to me that’s just fundamental.” …Adding… Senate President Don Harmon…
|
 |
|
|
|
|
- @misterjayem - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 11:23 am:
“Pritzker won’t sign birth equity bill if Senate strips out abortion coverage”
If I’ve learned one thing in the last five years, it’s that JB is who he says he is.
– MrJM
- Cosgrove - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 11:29 am:
In the post-Roe world, it is pure insanity to support removing abortion care from this legislation or any other bill or law. You have to wonder what Senate leadership could possibly be thinking to even be discussing doing this. Thank you Governor Pritzker and Personal PAC!
- lake county democrat - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 11:31 am:
MrJM - unless it’s a pledge not to sign a gerrymandered redistricting map. But yeah, on this one you could take his pledge to the bank.
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 11:41 am:
=This bill, as passed by the House of Representatives, would end cost-sharing and extend coverage for all services for pregnancy, postpartum, and newborn care=
CDC reports That the IL Infant mortality rate is 5.62 (infant deaths per 1,000 live births). Unfortunately, that is a below-average rate with many sites doing much better. But JB won’t approve legislation meant to improve that unless his abortion provision is included. Sad
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/illinois/il.htm
- 13th - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 12:08 pm:
But the “gerrymandered redistricting map” was prior to being elected o believe, since being elected he not went back on issues he stated strongly about
Beside the “gerrymandered redistricting map” is really a federal issue that needs to solved, as why should Illinois do it when there are states worst than Illinois that does it in both sides
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 12:09 pm:
Let’s stay on topic, please.
- The Opinions Bureau - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 12:11 pm:
Remind me again of the point of a Democratic supermajority where the most conservative three or four members dictate what comes to the floor?
- Who else - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 12:34 pm:
Donnie, it’s his initiative.
- Former ILSIP - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 12:36 pm:
The consensus for every other topic of legislation (including various controversial topics such as drug legalization, etc.) in Springfield is: “take what you can get,” “compromise to get the legislation passed,” “pass a trailer bill,” etc.
Why does this have to be the only area where the above principles do not apply?
- James - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 12:36 pm:
Signs of Life in the Democratic caucus.
- vern - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 12:49 pm:
To the update -
Sen. Collins’ comments seem like a big deal. She’s putting Harmon in a position where he needs to either pass the full bill, identify the source of opposition, or take responsibility for killing it himself. That’s quite a bus to throw your own leader under.
Add in Personal PAC’s very strong language, and Harmon seems to have a serious problem brewing. This is a very bad political moment to get crosswise with the pro-choice movement.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 12:52 pm:
- But JB won’t approve legislation meant to improve that unless his abortion provision is included. Sad -
There’s no bill on his desk you utter phony. This is how real leaders participate in negotiation, something im sure you know nothing about.
- Politix - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 12:52 pm:
Because it’s been such a smart move politically in Illinois and across the country to oppose reproductive health measures…
- Lincoln Lad - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 12:54 pm:
Why would Don Harmon allow that to happen?
- Wobblies United - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 12:57 pm:
I totally agree that women should have all access to reproductive care with out extra costs on them, but if we believe that to be true, how do we want not advocate for it across the board in all aspects of necessary healthcare?.?.?
#Medicare4All
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 12:59 pm:
===There’s no bill on his desk you utter phony===
I mean, he could’ve put it into his budget proposal every year.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 1:01 pm:
===Why does this have to be the only===
There are way more than enough votes to pass the bill.
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 1:09 pm:
@Excitable Boy
=There’s no bill on his desk you utter phony=
Simply responding to the headline from Rich’s post - but have a wonderful day anyway.
- Suburban Mom - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 1:15 pm:
=== That the IL Infant mortality rate is 5.62 (infant deaths per 1,000 live births). Unfortunately, that is a below-average rate with many sites doing much better. But JB won’t approve legislation meant to improve that unless his abortion provision is included. Sad ===
As a woman who barely survived a high-risk pregnancy and whose child almost died during delivery, it does very little good to improve pregnancy and prenatal care if women or their providers are then left without a whole suite of options for when a pregnancy is not viable or when life-and-death decisions are being made on the operating table.
Why should I have my insurer fully cover my procedure if they’re able to deliver a live baby, but be punished with tens of thousands of dollars in costs if my high-risk pregnancy had ended in the loss of the fetus to save my life? Isn’t losing the baby enough punishment? I should pay $30,000 for the horror of it?
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 1:44 pm:
@Suburban Mom
Because a bill dealing with coverage for all services for pregnancy, postpartum, and newborn could unite Dem and GOP - both parties can pass it and have a feel-good moment showing how they are making the world a better place. A bill guaranteeing funding for abortion will be a single-party initiative that can and would pass with the Dem supermajority - so why combine?
- Politix - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 2:16 pm:
@Donnie: It’s not about services. It’s about women. Women are not a priority.
- Tony T. - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 2:22 pm:
I am a supporter of abortion rights, but if I understand what this bill does, it seems like eliminating insurance co-payments for abortions (even for people who can easily afford them) deserves some discussion. I mean, there are a lot of medical procedures and treatments worth considering for “no co-pay” status. The insurance companies aren’t just going to take the loss. The costs will be socialized among all participants in the plan. I can live with paying a few extra bucks out of my pocket to cover abortions for working class and poor folks. Not sure about everyone else.
- Suburban Mom - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 2:36 pm:
===A bill guaranteeing funding for abortion will be a single-party initiative that can and would pass with the Dem supermajority - so why combine? ===
Because the care I required on the operating table could have been either pregnancy care or abortion care, as defined in law — you really think I should be charged differently based on whether my kid dies?
and frankly, in states where abortion is banned, I would have been much more likely to die, because the ob/gyns are afraid to perform life-saving procedures or hospitals forbid them, because of legal concerns. There are states where it can be hard to schedule a D&C for uterine polyps — which can be cancerous or precancerous, and cause infertility even when benign — because D&C is also an abortion procedure. So med students and residents struggle to get training in it, and providers are hesitant to provide it, so women with uterine cancer struggle to schedule.
A uterus doesn’t care if you’re cutting out a baby or a cancer. When you’re saying “take abortion out of the picture,” what you’re really saying is “provide uteruses inferior care by limiting procedures doctors can perform.”
That you do not know this tells me that women’s health is not important to you. “Abortion bad” — you don’t know what the word means, or what failure to fund abortion services entails. The knock-on effects are substantial and far-reaching and include your 70-year-old mom struggling to schedule a uterine cancer operation because there aren’t enough ob/gyns with appropriate training and insurance coverage.
- Cosgrove - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 3:00 pm:
This is the same Harmon who continously held up PNA repeal over many months for the same reason. With the overwhelming majority of the caucus being pro-choice, they should just demand the bill be called immediately with the abortion coverage and then elect a new Senate President this January. Enough is enough!
- Juvenal - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 3:08 pm:
To the Updates:
Maybe I am cynical, but it seems the primary issue that needs to be worked through is that the Senate committee is chaired by Napoleon Harris III, who just got clotheslined by Personal PAC in his bid for County Clerk.
- Cosgrove - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 3:30 pm:
To The Updates: 72 State Reps who voted for the bill were fully educated and found consensus to include the abortion coverage. A vast majority of Senators are fully educated and have found consensus to vote for it too. Enough is enough!
- Friday Addams - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 3:32 pm:
Controversy on May 14? This is great. The sooner the “blowups” start the sooner they get resolved and session ends. And there are always blowups. My optimism has never been higher for a timely adjournment.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, May 14, 24 @ 5:57 pm:
- I mean, he could’ve put it into his budget proposal every year. -
Still, it’s not as though he’s holding up the bill. And if Donnie Elgin is a sincere champion of birth equity then I’m Brad Pitt.