Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Thursday, Apr 18, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller

* The Illinois Family Institute was pretty darned angry about the passage yesterday of medical marijuana, but they were even angrier about another bill that passed the House today. From an action alert…

The Illinois House of Representatives passed the disastrous “Comprehensive”Sex Education (HB 2675) this afternoon by a vote of 66–52. This bill would mandate that public school who teach sex education teach “comprehensive” sex education in grades 6-12. That may sound reasonable until you read what the national go-to organization for sex-ed curriculum, SEICUS, lists as “age-appropriate.”

Illinois law currently mandates that schools teach abstinence until marriage. Teaching “comprehensive” sex education is currently optional as a local school decision. This bill was sponsored by State Representative Camille Lilly (D-Chicago) and heavily promoted by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Illinois.

Click HERE to see how your state representative voted on this anti-family legislation. It is important to note that State Representatives David Reis (R-Olney), Tom Morrison (R-Palatine), Pam Roth (R-Morris), and Dwight Kay(R-Edwardsville) raised strong objections to the bill during floor debate.

HB 2675 is completely unnecessary and an intrusion into local control. Public schools in Illinois already have the ability to teach “comprehensive” sex education if they wish. Local public school administrators do not need a mandate from Springfield telling them they must teach comprehensive sex education when the preponderance of evidence suggests, and the U.S. Congress agrees, that authentic abstinence education is successful. […]

Contraception-centered sex-education curricula encourage children and youth into early sexual experimentation. They mislead youth and create a false hope that condoms will provide sufficient protection from the physical, emotional and social consequences of early sexual activity. Authentic abstinence education programs provide youth with life and character skills, not condom skills. Sexual activity among youth is far too costly for adolescents, families, society and taxpayers.

Passing HB 2675 would mandate the teaching of curricula that most parents and taxpayers would find objectionable. Please take a moment to contact your state senator to urge him/her to stand in opposition to this bill.

* Rep. Morrison, mentioned above, repeatedly asked whether the bill was an initiative of Planned Parenthood (his questions begin at the one hour, 47-minute mark of this video). He was told it was an initiative of several groups.

Morrison said he was curious why Planned Parenthood would be a supporter of the bill. He noted that the group is a “major abortion provider in this state and in this country.” And then he said…

It’s not a stretch to realize that young people as they engage in more sexual activity are going to be in situations where they’re going to be pregnant, where they’re going to turn to an abortion provider liked Planned Parenthood

So, Planned Parenthood wants comprehensive sex ed because they want the cash for providing the resulting abortions?

Sigh.

* Rep. Dwight Kay asked (starting at about the two hour 15-minute mark) the sponsor why she didn’t introduce a bill dealing with drugs in schools. “We ought to be teaching about how to avoid drug addiction,” Kay said. “I’m wondering about why we’re not talking about that?” The sponsor, Rep. Lilly, said she really appreciated Kay’s” passion,” and said she’d be glad to consider such a bill if Kay ever introduced one. Rep. Kay has not introduced such a bill this year, according to the ILGA website.

Sigh again.

* Here’s what is really going on with the bill…

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Camille Lilly (D-Chicago), emphasizes “that abstinence from sexual intercourse is a responsible and positive decision and is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and [AIDS] when transmitted sexually.”

Despite Republican concerns that the measure goes too far in taking local control away from schools and that some children may be too young to be taught sex education, the bill passed by a 66-52 margin and now moves to the Senate. […]

Lilly said local school districts would determine their own curricula using guidelines set by the Illinois State Board of Education that are “developmentally and age-appropriate, medically accurate and complete.” She said sixth graders, for instance, could learn to identify reproductive parts, while students couldn’t learn about contraceptives until high school.

“We do not want sex education to be taught to children at an inappropriate age,” Lilly said. “This legislation brings standards to what is going to be taught and approved by each of the individual educational boards.”

Lilly’s bill would also allow parents to remove their children from the class for any reason with a written objection.

“The school and the school officials approve every curriculum here in their particular school system,” Lilly said. “And also the parents have the ability to opt out of whatever was approved by the school officials.”

* From the bill’s synopsis…

Makes changes to provide that each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. Makes changes to provide that all classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual intercourse in grades 6 through 12 shall emphasize that abstinence from sexual intercourse is a responsible and positive decision and is the only protection that is 100% effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) when transmitted sexually. Makes changes to provide that all classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual intercourse in grades 6 through 12 shall satisfy specified criteria. Provides that an opportunity shall be afforded to individuals (not just parents or guardians) to examine the instructional materials to be used in the class or course. Provides that the State Board of Education shall make available resource materials. Provides that school districts that do not currently provide sex education are not required to teach sex education. Provides that if a sex education class or course is offered in any of grades 6 through 12, the school district may choose and adapt the developmentally and age-appropriate, medically accurate, evidence-based, and complete sex education curriculum that meets the specific needs of its community. Provides that the Comprehensive Health Education Program shall include the educational area of evidence-based and medically accurate information regarding sexual abstinence (instead of the area of sexual abstinence until marriage). [Emphasis added.]

It’s not a mandate, so public schools which don’t currently teach sex ed don’t have to. Parents can opt out (that’s in the underlying statute), which is a very good thing. Abstinence is part of the curriculum. Private schools are not included. Citizens, not just parents, can examine the instructional materials. And, by the way, the statute hasn’t been updated in almost thirty years.

* There is always good reason to have a healthy skepticism of any and all legislation debated by the General Assembly. This bill is no different. At all. In any way.

But a healthy skepticism doesn’t include bizarre conspiracy theories, red herrings and false statements.

* The roll call is here.

House Republican Leader Tom Cross and GOP Rep. Kay Hatcher both voted “Yes.”

33 Comments

Looks like a sure bet

Thursday, Apr 18, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Hallelujah…

After years of rejecting plans to legalize medical marijuana, the House narrowly approved House Bill 1 on a 61-57 vote today. The measure now advances to the Senate. If it passes that chamber, Gov. Pat Quinn said he would be “open minded” but would not commit to signing the bill.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat, said stricter restrictions in the current measure helped to persuade some representatives who had not voted for legalization in the past. “This is not about getting high,” Lang said. The measure was designed to “better provide health care to people who desperately need this product,” he said. Lang told the House his priority was to assist patients in chronic pain. “I know every single one of you has compassion in your heart,” he said. “This is the day to show it.”

The measure would implement a four-year pilot program legalizing medical marijuana from 2014 through 2018. Patients at least 18 years old applying for a medical marijuana card through the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) would have to prove they have one of 33 serious or chronic conditions specifically listed in the bill, such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson’s disease or cancer. IDPH is authorized to add to the list in the future. Applicants must show they have an established relationship with their doctor who approves the use, and they would have to submit medical records for verification. Both patients and their caregivers, who must be 21 or older, would be subject to background checks. If a patient’s or caregiver’s card is revoked, he or she would not be allowed to reapply for a new one later. […]

Rep. David Harris, an Arlington Heights Republican, said he was satisfied the bill was regulated “from seed to sale” and voted for it. Several supporters during the floor debate cited people they knew who could have benefited from access to medical marijuana.

* Passage was never completely assured, so the debate mattered…

With her voice breaking, Rep. JoAnn Osmond, R-Antioch, told colleagues she opposed a similar measure in the past but changed her mind because of an ill friend and his wife who spent time at Osmond’s home while the man battled chronic pain tied to complications from cancer.

Osmond would not let him use marijuana in her house. Now, two years since his death, she said she wonders about her decision because he was in a daze from a painkiller prescription that “made him extremely sick, very sick.”

North Side Democratic Rep. Kelly Cassidy told colleagues the story of a brother-in-law who suffers from terminal cancer and “would not be with us if not for making use of cannabis.” Pain pills were “sucking the life out of him,” but now he and her sister can “enjoy what will be his last days,” she said.

“My sister and my brother-in-law, who I love dearly, are able to make the best of an absolutely horrific situation as a result of this product,” Cassidy said.

Rep. Deb Mell, D-Chicago, said she has taken medicine for pain since having a mastectomy in August and can relate to the suffering. “There’s a real panic that comes in because it’s like, ‘I can’t live with this pain, but I can’t keep taking these pills,’” she said.

Rep. Lang mostly kept his cool during the debate, and that was important because Lou can be off-putting at times.

* On to the Senate…

It’s unclear how it might fare when it gets to the state Senate. The narrow House vote shows how politically tricky the issue can be.

State Sen. Terry Link, a Waukegan Democrat, said he’d favor the plan. But others appeared more hesitant and wanted time to review what the House did.

“It definitely needs to be regulated correctly,” said state Sen. Tom Cullerton, a Villa Park Democrat

Gov. Pat Quinn said he’s “open-minded on that. I think we’ll watch what the legislature does today.”.

The Senate has already passed a much less stringent med-mar bill, so passage should be much easier than in the House. Sen. Cullerton is a DuPage County freshman Democrat, so he is just watching his own back. However, polling shows this is overwhelmingly favored by Illinois voters. Lang said during debate that the proponents had polled several House districts and not one of them was under 60 percent in favor, including GOP districts.

* Quinn despises Rep. Lang and Sen. Link (lots of gaming expansion fights), but he will likely be for it in the end as well…

Quinn on Wednesday said the bill’s sponsor hasn’t reached out to him to build support on the measure.

The Democratic governor said he was recently visited by a veteran suffering from war founds who was helped by the medical use of marijuana. Quinn said he was “impressed by his heartfelt feeling” on the issue.

“I’m certainly open-minded to it,” he said.

* The roll call bounced around a lot…

* Related…

* Final roll call

* VIDEO: State Rep Mike Bost: Medical marijuana today, legalized marijuana next

18 Comments

Huge setback for “may issue”

Thursday, Apr 18, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller

* A vote yesterday represented a gigantic defeat for gun control advocates…

The Illinois House on Wednesday overwhelmingly rejected a strict concealed carry measure in a test vote on the contentious gun legislation.

The measure emerged in the form of an amendment modeled after a highly restrictive New York gun law that has survived a court challenge. It drew support from a number of gun control advocates but failed on a 76-31 roll call, with six lawmakers voting present.

The state’s regional differences were on full display as fellow Democrats who control the legislature argued for and against the proposal.

“More guns are not the answer to the city’s gun violence problem,” said Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a North Side Democrat who sponsored the amendment.

But Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Democrat from Harrisburg in southern Illinois, called on lawmakers to reject the Cassidy bill and throw support to a less-restrictive proposal he is pushing.

* More…

Phelps said he is working on revisions to his concealed-carry bill, including raising the fee to $100. He said Wednesday’s vote shows a “may issue” bill cannot pass in Illinois.

He’s probably right.

* Things got tense…

Tempers raged in the Illinois House Thursday as lawmakers debated a last-minute plan to have the state adopt “may issue” concealed carry permits.

“All of this nonsense and two-facedness from the other side of the aisle,” Democratic state Rep. Scott Drury declared after listening to Republicans argue against a plan to let the state and local police decide if someone should be allowed to carry a gun. “It’s nonsense.”

That touched off a torrent of yelling and screaming from Republicans, most notably state Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, an adamant gun rights supporter.

To which Drury added “We don’t want someone like that carrying a concealed weapon.”

House Republicans then bellowed out a chorus of boos and catcalls.

The scene bordered on getting out of control. State Rep. Al Riley, D-Hazel Crest, who was moderating the floor debate, threatened to call in House doorkeepers to clear the chamber or restore order.

* I thought Rep. Al Riley did a pretty good job of making sure the argument didn’t spiral out of control. Video from our good friends at BlueRoomStream.com…

* And the proposal was seriously flawed…

However, gun-rights advocates argued that a “may issue” law would essentially mean no concealed carry for people living in some parts of Illinois, despite their Second Amendment rights. Rep. Jerry Costello II, D-Smithton, said that in New York, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of residents have concealed-carry permits. Many of those have been issued to celebrities and people of authority.

“We don’t need bureaucrats issuing these permits to their friends and such,” Costello said.

Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, a proponent of a “must issue” bill, said Cassidy’s amendment was opposed by the Illinois Sheriff’s Association and did not restrict the fees that could be imposed for a concealed-carry permit.

“These are unlimited fees. This could be $1,000 a permit,” he said.

* Also, Rep. Phelps’ bill may come up for a vote today. From ISRA…

URGENT ALERT – YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

ISRA-SUPPORTED HB 0997 COMING UP FOR A VOTE SOON

HB 0997, the ISRA supported version of Concealed Carry will be coming up for a vote at any time. It is urgently important that you take action immediately.

* More from Rep. Phelps…

He said he plans to call legislation for a floor vote tomorrow that is similar to House Bill 997, a concealed carry bill he introduced earlier this legislative session. “We’ve got to have something done,” he said, citing the June deadline a federal court gave lawmakers to pass concealed carry. If there is no law regulating carry when that deadline hits, the court could opt to allow what many are calling constitutional carry, which would let anyone with a Firearm Owners Identification Card carry a gun anywhere in the state. […]

Phelps said he has worked compromise into his legislation, which was being drafted late tonight. Under his previous proposal, the state police would issue concealed carry licenses, but sheriffs could contest applications. Phelps said he also plans to give that option to Chicago city police. Phelps said he also plans to increase the fee for licenses from the $25 fee in his first iteration of the plan to $100 and call for $30 from each license to go to a special fund dedicated to repairing the state’s troubled FOID card system and ensuring that county mental health records are reported to the state police. He said training requirements would also be increased from four hours in the original bill to 10 hours and would include a live ammunition test. “We’re offering a lot of things,” he said. “This version of what we’re going to try to run tomorrow is a combination of about four bills that we have had in the time that I have been here.”

Phelps said supporters of his plan believe it is a “last chance” to get a compromise before the deadline runs out. “I don’t know if there’s another chance to pass anything. I think that there’s a lot of people who are going to say, ‘Look, we tried. Let’s just go off the cliff. Let’s do constitutional carry.’” He said a lot of House members who have never voted in favor of a concealed-carry bill are afraid of that happening. “I’ve got a lot of people who are interested in voting for this that never have before because they don’t want constitutional carry.”

But gun control advocates cautioned not to read too much into today’s vote. They said they knew the support wasn’t there yet, but they think they can find backing for a bill that allows Chicago some local control. While lawmakers must get something done, they say, it isn’t crunch time yet.

* Related…

* Tempers flare during state House debate on concealed weapons bill

* VIDEO: Brandon Phelps wants to stop a may issue concealed carry plan

* VIDEO: Roll call

* Final House roll call

61 Comments

« NEWER POSTS