* Capitol News Illinois…

House Bill 5408 would take advantage of an under-used provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance plans that offer coverage for abortions in instances that go beyond rape, incest and life of the mother to collect at least $1 a month from enrollees to cover the cost of abortion claims.

Federal law requires the insurers to segregate that money and use it only for abortion care. Illinois’ bill would allow the state to exert greater authority over the funds.

The bill is meant to give insurers clarity about how to use the money they collect, according to Rep. Anna Moeller, D-Elgin, who sponsored the bill. She also said another reason for the bill is because the state doesn’t have a clear picture of the amount of funds being collected. […]

HB 5408 would require insurance companies to report to the Department of Insurance how much money is in these separate accounts, how much has been spent, and to transfer remaining funds to the newly created state Abortion Access Fund. After that, the Illinois Department of Public Health could use the money to award grants for abortion providers to cover uninsured and underinsured individuals through a new grant program.

Moeller presented the bill at the House Human Services Committee on March 25, where it passed 8-4 along partisan lines and was placed on the House calendar for a second reading.

* Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias…

Insurance companies don’t always base premiums on how safely Illinoisans drive. That principle is at the heart of the “Driving Change” legislation our office is championing in Springfield, which would move Illinois toward a fairer, more affordable system that prioritizes what should matter most — a driver’s record behind the wheel.

This proposal is part of a Senate bill that also aims to rein in the surging cost of homeowners insurance in Illinois. The Illinois House recently passed the measure, and it now awaits consideration in the Illinois Senate. […]

As you might imagine, the insurance industry vehemently opposes efforts that would make coverage more affordable for Illinois families. Instead, they’ve come up with an alternative to legislation — another study. […]

But here’s the problem. Big Insurance wants its “impartial” study conducted by the University of Illinois’ Office of Risk Management and Insurance Research, which is funded by the very insurance industry whose practices are under scrutiny.

Illinois doesn’t need more analysis. We need action.

* WTTW…

Anjanette Young, a social worker who was handcuffed while naked during a botched 2019 Chicago Police Department raid, renewed her push Monday for a new state law that would ban officers from serving no-knock warrants or from pointing guns at children during raids.

Seated next to state Rep. Kam Buckner (D-Chicago), Young urged state lawmakers to pass House Bill 1611, dubbed the Anjanette Young Act, to impose new limits on how, when and why police departments across the state serve search warrants.

“A system that avoids accountability does not offer safety,” Young told the Illinois House Judiciary Criminal Committee. […]

The proposed law would ban no-knock warrants in all but “exigent circumstances” where the safety of officers or others was threatened, according to the bill.

In addition, the proposal would require officers to wait at least 30 seconds before entering a home with a search warrant if they do not get an immediate response.

* WTVO…

Illinois lawmakers have significantly rewritten a bill aimed at regulating how cities and counties handle unsheltered homelessness, replacing an earlier proposal that expanded the state’s Homeless Bill of Rights with a new, standalone law focused on local enforcement standards.

House Bill 1429, which previously sought to bar fines and criminal penalties for people experiencing homelessness across a wide range of public spaces, has been rewritten through a new amendment filed in late March. The amendment renames the proposal the Local Regulation of Unsheltered Homelessness Act and narrows its scope to when and how local governments can intervene at encampments or public sites. […]

Under the revised bill, municipalities, counties and other local governments would be prohibited from fining or arresting people solely for engaging in “life‑sustaining activities,” such as sleeping, resting, eating or protecting themselves from the weather on public property, as long as those activities do not create a physical hazard.

The amendment allows enforcement when there is an “imminent risk”, a term now clearly defined in state law. Examples include extreme weather events, encampments located in roadways or highway rights‑of‑way, or dangerous conditions that threaten public safety. Complaints from residents or public pressure alone could not be used to justify removals.