Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Rauner then and now on abortion

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* Gov. Rauner’s biggest problem with his threatened veto of HB40 - which would, among other things expand Medicaid and state employee health insurance coverage of abortion - is what he wrote on Personal PAC’s questionnaire in 2014…

“I dislike the Illinois law that restricts abortion coverage under the state Medicaid plan and state employees’ health insurance because I believe it unfairly restricts access based on income. I would support a legislative effort to reverse that law.”

* The governor’s position now…

But Rauner’s office last week said the governor doesn’t support the current bill because of “sharp divisions of opinion of taxpayer funding of abortion,” while offering that he’s “committed to protecting women’s reproductive rights under current Illinois law.”

The administration on Wednesday said the current law already covers abortions [in instances of rape, incest and life of the mother] and “goes above and beyond federal law by covering abortions to protect the health of the mother.” They noted that 17 states including Illinois allow taxpayer funds to pay for abortion beyond the federal guidelines.

And as pro-choice activists seek to blast the governor, his administration contends he has signed two bills protecting women’s reproductive rights — one mandating private insurance coverage for birth control and a right of conscience measure.

Rauner, too, has the support of Cardinal Blase Cupich, who on Wednesday thanked him for his stance.

…Adding… A pretty good insight from the comment section…

Not surprising, candidate Rauner knew he could gain votes from disillusioned Democrats with lip service to liberal positions.

Reelection Rauner knows that’s not going to happen again so he needs to shore up the base that will vote for him no matter what, conservatives. Didn’t his office say they support whatever polls well? And this polls well with his supporters.

It actually polls pretty well across the board, as Cardinal Cupich noted yesterday. So, this is a way of both shoring up his base and aligning himself with popular opinion.

…Adding More… Sen. Daniel Biss reacted yesterday on Twitter and I didn’t see it until today. Click here.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 8:22 am

Comments

If his mouth is movin, he’s lying.

Comment by Generic Drone Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 8:26 am
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say Bruce Rauner is the type of person who will say or do anything in order to get what he wants.

If I didn’t know any better…

– MrJM

Comment by @misterjayem Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 8:27 am
It makes no political sense (or any sense at all for anybody) to cater to the right wing, he’s getting really bad advice and then making bad decisions.

Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 8:27 am
===“I dislike the Illinois law that restricts abortion coverage under the state Medicaid plan and state employees’ health insurance because I believe it unfairly restricts access based on income. I would support a legislative effort to reverse that law.”===

Candidate Rauner didn’t have to “worry” about Illinois law, and how a governor faces real decisions.

Governor Rauner, when “called” on his questionnaire… and standing by his own words… and the outward and politically charged support of Diana Rauner back when Bruce was a candidate… does have a social agenda that isn’t the same “non-agenda” Diana Rauner personally peddled in Ads, or the words Bruce Rauner wrote or said as a candidate.

Suburban women will be interested to learn how the “no social agenda” Bruce Rauner made clear, with a veto in his sights, that his word, and Diana’s word just aren’t good enough to rely on when it comes to social issues suburban women may find important.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 8:34 am
Because Madigan?

Comment by Whatever Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 8:36 am
A “business man” turned politician who has credibility issues that adopts an evangelical stance to get votes? Stop me if you’ve heard this one before

Comment by Rogue Roni Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 8:38 am
One way or other other, “Did you lie about your views on abortion?” is pretty low on Rauner’s “Conversations I Want to Have” depth chart. It probably ranks above “Donald Trump?” and “Which of your wife’s friends is the prettiest?” but that’s about it.

Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 8:38 am
As a committed pro life voter this won’t get me to support his re-election. I made that mistake once.

Comment by Callistus Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 8:40 am
During his election campaign some of his ads clearly stated that he had “no social agenda”. Has he completely reversed his position and now has a social agenda or was the “no social agenda” statement incorrect? Which position is the true position of Governor Rauner?

Comment by Small town taxpayer Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 8:42 am
Not surprising, candidate Rauner knew he could gain votes from disillusioned Democrats with lip service to liberal positions.

Reelection Rauner knows that’s not going to happen again so he needs to shore up the base that will vote for him no matter what, conservatives. Didn’t his office say they support whatever polls well? And this polls well with his supporters.

Comment by Anonin-aint-easy Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 8:45 am
He is getting really bad advise..not where you want to be in a blue state..

Comment by Not Rich Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 8:46 am
He flipped under pressure from some GOP lawmakers so now he has to deal with it like any other politician.

Perhaps some other GOP lawmakers will realize that they have leverage over Rauner in all things. If enough of them beef, they can move him. We saw that when he was holding the muni income tax share hostage.

GOP lawmakers in university towns take note. Or hope your constituents do not.

Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 8:59 am
to several female friends on the North Shore who told me not to worry re Rauner and I then disagreed….. told ya so!

Comment by Amalia Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 9:05 am
Considering the demographic he’s alienating with his threatened veto is the one that helped him beat Quinn, wouldn’t the correct strategy actually be the opposite of what he’s doing? Continue catering to the pro-choice voters because his ‘base’ is more likely to support him regardless?

Comment by Cubs in '16 Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 9:13 am
==wouldn’t the correct strategy actually be the opposite of what he’s doing?==

It does seem like he’s creating unnecessary problems with suburban women, a demo who had, up to this point, at very least been receptive to his message (but also a demo very upset at the Republican Party in general right now). But who knows, maybe he can bluster the issue. $100 million buys a lot of bluster.

Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 9:18 am
That is a very insightful comment explaining the politics behind Rauner’s flip-flop.

The question is, are there enough conservatives in Illinois for that strategy to pay off on Election Day? Can he sacrifice suburban women (long the linchpin for GOP success in statewide elections) for a Trump-style doubling-down on the conservative base?

Comment by Roman Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 9:19 am
Two days in a row on this issue, one would think capfax has a social agenda.

Comment by Colby jack Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 9:20 am
Colby jack

It’s is very childish to see an agenda when the news worth reporting is inconvenient for you.

Comment by AlfondoGonz Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 9:25 am
===Two days in a row on this issue, one would think capfax has a social agenda.===

Candidate Rauner says and writes one thing about a social issue

Governor Rauner plans to act in complete reversal to what Candidate Rauner said and wrote… on a social issue.

You may think this story doesn’t have legs, but I guess you haven’t read ALL the react, including a Catholic Cardinal and two of the opposing sides on the issue, one applauding, the other confused and feeling… duped.

You think this is a one day story? The story is moving itself now.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 9:29 am
I predict he vetoes HB 40 then denies he vetoed it

Comment by CCP Hostage Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 9:30 am
I would call him a windsock but I don’t want to insult windsocks.

Comment by Jocko Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 9:31 am
Are we sure there are 60 votes for the bill in the House? There are at least a handful of moderate/conservative Dems who are either pro-life or against public financing. If HB 40 is short votes, Rauner just kicked up a bunch of dust for no reason.

Comment by Anon414 Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 9:36 am
The Cardinal’s support and position will have some effect on the NW, SW sides of the city and the close in suburbs there. Actually could have an effect in Lake County too.

This is fixable legislatively…and should be fixed. It’s not like pro lifers are getting a half loaf, let alone a full one by simply not forcing public payment for a procedure they morally oppose. If the law of the land is that the procedure is legal; that’s something we have to live with. We shouldn’t have to pay for it.

Comment by A guy Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 9:43 am
Abortion is such a divisive issue and therefore earns its place as the politician’s favorite distractor.

If a politician has no will to accomplish anything real and substantive, this is a good way to keep the base stoked.

I find this issue personally unanswerable, and that’s ok, especially when I remove my personal religious values. I just don’t have good answers to these questions–

Pro-Life.
How can we maintain a healthy western capitalistic market based economy if we don’t encourage and support the birth of babies? (I am not a big fan of non-western immigration and we are really lagging compared to other countries/cultures.)

Pro-Choice
How can it ever be acceptable that government statute controls an individual’s person at this level? (Libertarian lean)

Maybe I can solve this at 4:20, today.

Comment by cdog Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 9:51 am
Mr. Flip meet Mr. Flop.

Comment by Flynn's mom Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 9:53 am
Trump-like reversal.

Comment by Winnin' Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 9:55 am
I’m guessing Women are tired of subsidizing *Men’s Health* issues.

For instance male prostate exams or government entitlements via the tax code for multi-national pharmaceutical corporations that manufacture and sell erectile dysfunction meds.

Comment by Mike Cirrincione Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 10:09 am
Rauner has an interesting issue. What will he use to woo the suburban women demographic?

Comment by Barrington Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 10:09 am
=Didn’t his office say they support whatever polls well?=

Rauner is nothing but a politician.

One that is exponentially increasing the destruction of the state, but a politician none the less.

Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 10:21 am
By “it” in this sentence - “It actually polls pretty well across the board”, do you mean medicaid funded abortions?

Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 10:26 am
“The question is, are there enough conservatives in Illinois for that strategy to pay off on Election Day? Can he sacrifice suburban women (long the linchpin for GOP success in statewide elections) for a Trump-style doubling-down on the conservative base?”

Roman, I think this is less about it being the best strategy and more about it being his only one. Let’s say he signs it, are liberals really going to vote for him again because of it? What Dem is going to say “Now I know Rauner is responsible for no budget and all these social services shutting down, but he did vote for that abortion bill so I’m voting for him anyway.”

Personally I don’t see it, and frankly I think he needs to do it since I’m sure the pro-life crowd is still angry about that previous abortion bill he signed so if supported this it would really endanger his conservative votes

What Union members and liberals are going to support this guy again? He needs conservatives and the anti Madigan crowd to pull through.

Comment by Anonin-aint-easy Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 10:28 am
As the Cardinal says, the Governor’s position is in line with polling on the subject of taxpayer funded abortion, banned by the Federal Government since 1976.

Everyone is missing that even in blue states, taxpayer funding for abortion is rejected by a majority of voters which is why only 4 states voluntarily pay for it.

Don’t let the energy behind the Women’s March fool you, this is not supported by the majority, even in California

Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 10:53 am
===Everyone is missing that even in blue states, taxpayer funding for abortion is rejected by a majority of voters which is why only 4 states voluntarily pay for it.===

Does that include Candidate Bruce Rauner and his answer on the questionnaire and Diana Rauner vouching for Bruce with that whole “no social agenda” thingy?

You should be upset the RaunerS flat out misled suburban woman and Personal PAC

Are you saying the RaunerS aren’t Pro-Choice and further, why should I believe you when Bruce’s own questionnaire answers might be in total conflict with his gubenitorial actions.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 11:00 am
“- Mike Cirrincione - Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 10:09 am:

I’m guessing Women are tired of subsidizing *Men’s Health* issues.

For instance male prostate exams or government entitlements via the tax code for multi-national pharmaceutical corporations that manufacture and sell erectile dysfunction meds.”

We pay for and support women’s health issues. You have a flawed argument. Abortion is a whole separate issue.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 11:02 am
I think everyone is overthinking this. Bruce said he does not have a social agenda and he doesn’t. Instead he will support what ever position that will get him enough votes.

Being pro-choice in 2014 may have peeled him off some suburban women voters from Quinn. That won’t work in 2018, so by flip flopping he may win the support of some conservatives who simply would undervote a race if both candidates are pro-choice.

Anonin-aint-easy nailed it.

Comment by G'Kar Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 11:37 am
==Two days in a row on this issue, one would think capfax has a social agenda.==

It ain’t just CapFax covering this, dude.

Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 11:48 am
- Anonin-ain’t-easy -

Good points. Rauner’s moderate street cred might be so shot to hell he can’t get it back. I just think there are a lot of moderate suburban women who hate Madigan but are also pro-choice. Rauner risks losing them, especially if there is another Supreme Court vacancy before Election Day.

Bush in ‘04 and Trump last year both defied political convention and shifted right in the general election — mostly because they really had no where else to go — and won. Maybe Rauner has no where else to go, too. But Illinois, obviously, has a much different electorate than the nation as a whole.

Comment by Roman Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 12:23 pm
Well and some would argue that a Republican hasn’t actually won a presidential election since 1988. It always took something fishy to happen in order to win (look up 2004 Ohio if you like). The electoral pain is coming for the GOP and it’ll be decades in the wilderness without changes…and not just in Illinois. Texas will flip fairly soon.

Comment by Chucktownian Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 1:39 pm
@anonymous:

Abortion is a medical procedure, thus making it part of a Womens Health.

But I’ll put it this way. If the Governor/TV Commercial *Star* doesnt want to pay for abortion, then Illinois tax dollars should not subsidize Male Prostate Exams and Erectile Dysfunction products. Men should pay for this themselves.

We have a big deficit and cannot afford it.

Comment by Mike Cirrincione Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 2:16 pm
Lame excuse.

80% of the public opposes taxpayer funding of abortion.

80% of the public supports raising minimum wage, Millionaire tax.

Rauner uses phony populism as an excuse when it suits him.

Comment by Juvenal Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 2:23 pm
Pat Robertson and many of his followers will also appreciate Diana’s deferral to husband Bruce on all things political.

Comment by Winnin' Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 4:41 pm