Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Personal PAC wants more answers

Posted in:

Illinois

* From a press release…

Today, Personal PAC called on the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor to publicly state their positions on the June 30, 2014 Hobby Lobby U.S. Supreme Court decision. In addition, Personal PAC wants to know if these candidates support legislative measures to address the horrible situation in Illinois that now allows for-profit employers to invoke a privately held religious objection in refusing to cover prescription birth control as part of their employees health insurance compensation package.

“In light of yesterday’s defeat in the U.S. Senate of the “Not Your Boss’ Business” Act to correct the disastrous Hobby Lobby decision, it is more critical than ever that candidates for the two highest offices in Illinois tell voters where they stand on addressing this issue at the state level,” said Terry Cosgrove, President and CEO of Personal PAC.

Personal PAC has sent each Democratic and Republican candidate for Governor and Lt. Governor the following four questions with a deadline of 5 p.m., Thursday, July 24th, 2014 for a response from each candidate. Cosgrove continued, “With upward of 96% of Illinois women using birth control at some point in their lives, 25% of whom for medical reasons such as controlling fibroid tumors, voters have a right to know who is standing with women in keeping their health care choices private and out of reach of their bosses.”

It is time to save birth control in Illinois and the referendum question on the November 4th ballot dealing with this issue will guide elected officials in adopting laws to put the decisions about birth control back in the hands of women. “It is hard to believe we even have to discuss women being allowed to have access to birth control in 2014” concluded Cosgrove.

* The four questions, with a couple of non-content edits to make it easier for us to read here…

1. Do you OPPOSE the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case?

2. Will you SIGN legislation containing these three provisions in order to reverse the impact of Hobby Lobby in Illinois and protect access to birth control in our state?

As a result of the serious threat to women’s health from the Hobby Lobby decision, legislation will be introduced in the Illinois General Assembly seeking to (1) require disclosure to current employees and job applicants to ensure that women know whether a particular employer refuses to provide full preventive health care coverage, including birth control; (2) ensure that employers cannot retaliate against employees who make reproductive health care decisions that conflict with the employer’s beliefs; and (3) ensure that low-income women without adequate health insurance coverage have access to affordable birth control through safety net providers.

3. Will you vote “YES” on this ballot question?

The following referendum will appear on the November 2014 general election ballot: “Shall any health insurance plan in Illinois that provides prescription drug coverage be required to include prescription birth control as part of that coverage?” The purpose of this referendum is to demonstrate strong public support for full access to birth control and for the three provisions described above.

4. Will you publicly state your SUPPORT for the birth control ballot measure?

Obviously, Gov. Quinn will be answering to Personal PAC’s liking. I’ll let you know if Rauner comes up with a response.

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 12:42 pm

Comments

Rock on, Terry Cosgrove!

Comment by Amalia Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 12:49 pm
=== I’ll let you know if Rauner comes up with a response. ===

It’s coming, it’s coming, it’s coming, well maybe. I suspect it will take a month or so for his brain trust to come up with good a non-answer answer.

Comment by Norseman Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 1:06 pm
“The purpose of this referendum is to demonstrate strong public support for full access to birth control and for the three provisions described above.”

Cynical me. I believed the purpose for this inane referendum question was something else entirely.

Wonder if we’ll get a Terry Cosgrove style tutorial and questionnaire on each of those vital referendums that were added to the ballot for equally compelling purposes. Now, excuse me while I puke.

Comment by A guy... Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 1:08 pm
Nothing like being asked to answer loaded questions from an opposition Partisan PAC.
The best response is could you elaborate on those questions.

Comment by Apocolypse Now Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 1:16 pm
How stupid. All Personal PAC wants to do with this is rile people up. Ask state candidates a federal completely loaded, self-centered question? Please.

Here’s a better question for them: if it’s “Not (Their) Boss’ Business”, why is the boss required to pay for it? Doesn’t being required to pay something for somebody else automatically make it their business, pretty much by definition?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/06/30/hobby-lobby-shows-that-we-need-to-get-rid-of-the-employer-based-health-insurance-system/

Comment by liandro Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 1:27 pm
===Doesn’t being required to pay something for somebody else automatically make it their business===

What a slavish attitude. And I mean that literally.

You get a paycheck from your boss, should s/he approve how you spend his/her money?

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 1:32 pm
No wiggle room in those questions. Rauner will pass.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 1:44 pm
I am not the brightest bulb in the bunch but how will passing a law that has already been determined by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional accomplish anything? Can someone enlighten me?

Comment by Eastside Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 1:45 pm
Health insurance is part of your compensation package. What you do with it ain’t your bosses business.

Strange to me to see alleged “conservatives” sticking their heads in the ob/gyn office.

If it were a “closely held” corporation run by pious Muslims, do you all feel the same way?

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 1:49 pm
@liandro:

So because I might work for you it makes everything in my life your business? Please.

What really gripes me here is this continued nonsense from the Supreme Court giving businesses the same status as an individual. Now a business can use religious objections to keep from doing something? What a load of bull.

Here’s a thought . . . if you can’t abide by the rules then don’t operate a business. Don’t come crying about not liking some of the rules stomping your feet and complaining something offends you. I could care less. If you don’t like it then close. Simple as that.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 1:55 pm
I don’t think Rauner will respond, unless Quinn uses this to attack him.

Comment by Wensicia Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 2:03 pm
OK, he is overreaching here with clearly loaded questions and scenarios. Partisan groups are allowed to do that in my humble opinion.

But: he is asking an Illinois Governor to sign legislation overturning the United States Supreme Court? Little jurisdictional problem there?

Then he is asking the Illinois Legislature to circumvent Hobby Lobby with legislation of their own? Little jurisdictional problem there?

Better luck with the President and Congress on this subject.

Comment by Louis G Atsaves Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 2:04 pm
Unless the next governor of Illinois has appointment powers to the US Supreme Court- what possible relevance is Hobby Lobby issues to the Illinois race- Between Rauner and Quinn the better inquiry is which candidate has the chance to improve the Illinois economic climate so all of us can better afford to pay for health care

Comment by Sue Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 2:09 pm
Businesses did at one time not so long ago have some options as to how ‘comprehensive’ their health coverage was to be. Vision, Dental, Mental Health, Hospice, Wellness, even well baby care.

There is a difference between pay and benefits. I have a health club at work. Not everyone does. I have assigned covered parking.

The moment President Obama and HHS started making exceptions for some companies for whatever reason, it opened the door for others to express their concerns as well. Healthcare can intersect with Birth Control obviously. This is far more about Birth Control and Abortion than it is about comprehensive healthcare for women. To suggest women’s healthcare is under attack is idiotic on its face. It isn’t. To suggest that business is under attack because of any number of forced mandates is not unreasonable. It is.

No employer needs to be in anyone’s house or bedroom outside of work. The Hobby Lobby case doesn’t put an employer there anymore than before it was decided. If your method of birth control is abortion inducing, you may have to pay for it yourself if you work for this particular company. If you choose any one of the myriad of other methods of birth control, it’s between you and your pharmacist. It’s not your boss in your bedroom. Yet, welcome Terry Cosgrove into your HR department office. Cosgrove’s a creep.

And Slinger, I would answer your question yes, if you were serious.

Comment by A guy... Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 2:10 pm
The Hobby Lobby decision was based on a federal statute, not the Constitution

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0710/Hobby-Lobby-101-explaining-the-Supreme-Court-s-birth-control-ruling

Whether a state statute could contravene that particular federal statute is a complex question.

Comment by Bill White Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 2:12 pm
“It is more critical than ever that candidates for the two highest offices in Illinois tell voters where they stand on addressing an issue at the state level they have no say or control over, and that has no bearing on the problems sinking the state.”

This kind of stuff makes me crazy. Let the Tea Party run the purity test madness.

Comment by Toure's Latte Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 2:13 pm
From the CSM link:

Q: Did the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion apply in the Hobby Lobby case?

A: No. Instead of analyzing the case from a constitutional perspective, the high court examined whether the ACA’s contraception mandate complied with the requirements of a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Comment by Bill White Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 2:13 pm
Good for Terry. Rauner will continue to run from his party’s crackpot social agenda.

Comment by Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 2:28 pm
You have access

Pay for it yourself

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 2:31 pm
==There is a difference between pay and benefits.==

Nope. Sorry. There isn’t. It’s all part of what you are being given to work for a company.

==And Slinger, I would answer your question yes, if you were serious.==

I think it probably was a serious question. Time and again I hear Christians whining about how persecuted they are in this country. You would never hear a peep out of them if this were a muslim company trying to uphold some religious belief they had. I guarantee it.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 2:32 pm
A Guy, I was serious, and I don’t think you, or your boss, or Hobby Lobby need to be in ob/gyn office picking and choosing health care for others.

But I must admit, your holding for Sharia law surprises me a bit.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 2:40 pm
Thank you Mr. White for that explanation. And, I agree with you that it would be very complex if a state statute were adopted to be in opposition to federal law as defined by the US Supreme Court.

Comment by Eastside Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 2:45 pm
Guy, you want to walk us through your analogy on your covered parking space and how that relates to an employer imposing religious beliefs in regards to health care?

I’m sure I’m missing something very logical and obvious.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 2:49 pm
Since you asked for help Slinger, I feel an obligation to provide it.
First, I’m not ‘all in’ on Sharia Law, but if Muslims would like to honor a different holiday per their beliefs, I could go along with that. If a Muslim company wanted to exempt from a dietary requirement i.e. something else in a school lunch, not sell a particular meat product, etc. I could go along with the wishes of their faith.
Stoning someone; I would object to that.

Parking is a benefit where I work. A nice one actually. Until ACA, Healthcare was a benefit employers had some control over what they offered. Mostly, their concerns were cost. Better healthcare plan means better applicants in many cases. Those days are over. The Government took over the whole benefit and mandated what must be done.

Then, the President and HHS ‘arbitrarily’ made some exceptions. I’m not quibbling with who or why, simply stating they did so.

Before ACA, an employee at HL could choose from any number of contraceptives available on their plan. No boss was in any bedroom (unless invited I guess-lol)After ACA, HL was required to add abortion inducing birth control to the plan. They said no.

So after the Government entered the bedroom with a “go” sign, did HL kick open the door with a red octagon? Was birth control ever denied before, during or after? Prescription plans frequently didn’t cover certain pills, or if they did, you had to dig deeper yourself to buy them.

Finally, with all these people running in and out of your bedroom, how in the world is anyone going to get pregnant?

Comment by A guy... Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 3:20 pm
One thing I think needs to be made clear about the Hobby Lobby case is that they have and will continue to cover 16 of the 20 FDA approved birth control devices. Their objection was to only 4 devices.

Plan B “morning-after pill”
Ella “morning-after pill”
Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)

The objection to IUDs and morning-after pills is that they cause abortions by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

So if you work for Hobby Lobby, you have a choice of 16 different contraceptives. If you choose one of the 4 that are not covered, you have to pay out of pocket.

Comment by The KQ Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 3:23 pm
==After ACA, HL was required to add abortion inducing birth control to the plan. They said no.==

And that’s the problem. I don’t think companies should get to use moral or religious arguments to try and exempt themselves from provisions of laws they don’t like. If we want to go back to not requiring minimum levels of coverage then fine. But if it’s a requirement no company should be able to opt out.

Unless you are a church you shouldn’t get to bring in any religious argument, IMO. I think it’s utter nonsense that we have reached a point where corporations are now the equivalent of “people.”

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 3:29 pm
Demo, When you bite off something as big as Healthcare (reportedly 20% of our economy), our government entered a lot of places they never were before. I’m giving you a “right” and guaranteeing it with “someone else’s money”. It was bound to get like this in certain areas. Frankly, I’m surprised it’s not worse than it is. HHS started making exceptions. No one’s forced to work at HL for double the minimum wage, Sundays off, nice benefits including comprehensive healthcare. If you absolutely have to have one of the few contraceptives they don’t cover, you can work elsewhere or pay for it.

These things are so easy to get now, I haven’t seen a ring shape worn into a wallet in over a decade! Have a good weekend Demo.

Comment by A guy... Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 3:42 pm
Terry Cosgrove, the leader of Personal PAC, is a Quinn appointee. Not a surprise that he is using his PAC to stir the pot for Quinn.

A question that Personal PAC will not ask is whether or not an activist like Cosgrove should have a compensated position.

Comment by Under Further Review Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 3:43 pm
Why don’t we solve the real problem. In this case, all the birth control products are prescription. We’ve developed an enormous body of evidence over time that virtually none of these different birth control products still deserve to be prescription based.

Honestly, the FDA would probably benefit from the different birth control products being placed in non prescription status. They’re way overloaded with work as it is.

Now, Big Pharma probably wouldn’t be in favor, because right now, everything’s prescription, so there’s a little added premium.

If you really want to make birth control more available to everybody, then that’s how you accomplish it.

Fight the smart fight. Tell the ideologues to ‘Go Away’.

Comment by Judgment Day Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 3:52 pm
Just for the record, this is the form in which almost all every advocacy groups send their endorsement questionnaires to candidates. Half tutorial, half highly demanding questions. You should see the NRA one, or the various “Taxpayers” groups, or even the business lobbyists, and Med Mar ones. Serious and complex answers by candidates, usually don’t impact the final score. They are more communications devices.

Comment by walker Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 4:11 pm
==And that’s the problem. I don’t think companies should get to use moral or religious arguments to try and exempt themselves from provisions of laws they don’t like.==

Well, then you’ll have to get the religious freedom act amended or changed, because it says the government must make a reasonable accomodation of a person’s religious scruples when possible. The Hobby Lobby case boils down to two conclusions by the S Ct: corporations are persons protected under that act (a conclusion it reached, in part, because the administration admitted that nonprofit corporations were persons covered, and the court said that a corporation is a corporation) and the government could easily accomodate Hobby Lobby’s objections by paying for the objectionable birth control itself or making the insurance companies eat the cost (which it had done for religious organizations). All the screaming about this decision allowing employers to deny birth control or to get out of any legal obligation by claiming religious objection all ignore the key holdings on “reasonable accomodation,” which held that the government could accomplish its goal of insuring the employees received the birth control without imposing the burden of payment on Hobby Lobby.

Comment by Anon. Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 4:28 pm
In April the AP reported

“CHICAGO (AP) - A new television ad from Republican Bruce Rauner’s (ROW’-nur) campaign features his wife saying he “doesn’t have a social agenda” in his bid for Illinois governor.”

As birth control is a social issue I would guess that he will not issue a comment and will not respond to Personal PAC.

Comment by Hit or Miss Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 4:41 pm
I double dog dare you! By July 24! Cosgrove is a partisan putz.

Comment by Bored Chairman Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 4:41 pm
while you’re at it Terry, ask the Lt. Gov candidates these ?s and more on choice.

Comment by Amalia Friday, Jul 18, 14 @ 5:02 pm