Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Way to go, Tina
Next Post: Pritzker budget boosts early childhood education, child care
Posted in:
* Summary of HB3550, sponsored by 17 members…
With regard to a sex education course, provides that course material and instruction in grades 6 through 12 must include an age-appropriate discussion on the meaning of consent that includes discussion on recognizing that (i) consent is a freely given agreement to sexual activity, (ii) consent to one particular sexual activity does not constitute consent to other types of sexual activities, (iii) a person’s lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use or threat of force does not constitute consent, (iv) a person’s manner of dress does not constitute consent, (v) a person’s consent to past sexual activity does not constitute consent to future sexual activity, (vi) a person’s consent to engage in sexual activity with one person does not constitute consent to engage in sexual activity with another person, (vii) a person can withdraw consent at any time, and (viii) a person cannot consent to sexual activity if that person is unable to understand the nature of the activity or give knowing consent due to certain circumstances. Removes a provision requiring material and instruction to include, with an emphasis on workplace environment and life on a college campus, discussion on what constitutes sexual consent.
* Proponents held a press conference today…
Senate Leader Kimberly Lightford speaks passionately about the need to gain an understanding of consent in High School sex education pic.twitter.com/SY5qjjSSkD
— Rep. Ann Williams (@RepAnnWilliams) February 21, 2019
* Meanwhile, here’s a summary of HB3528, sponsored by just one member…
Provides that the Act may be referred to as the Consent-Required Workplace Act. Amends the Illinois Human Rights Act. Defines terms. Provides that an employer shall require active consent for any physical touch beyond a handshake between colleagues, contractors, customers, students, direct reports, or business-to-business clients. Provides that a person with a higher pay grade or higher status than another person shall not ask the other person to initiate a physical touch beyond a handshake or engage in unwanted or offensive speech. Provides that if employees develop a personal relationship, active consent paperwork may be filed with their employer. Provides that if a non-consensual behavior complaint is filed against an employer, the employer’s policy shall be updated within 7 business days to address the current complaint. Provides that any employer having a complaint of a violation filed against it with the Department of Human Rights is subject to randomized auditing to ensure the company has an acceptable policy and is following the policy to protect its employees. Provides that if an employer receives 10 or more non-consensual behavior complaints, the Department is required to conduct an audit. Provides that a violation of the new provisions constitutes a civil rights violation. Provides that, in addition to any remedies available under the Act, a person or employer is subject to a $1,000 penalty for each violation, collectible by the Department and to be used by the Department for the administration of the new provisions. Effective January 1, 2020.
If you read the complete text, there are no exemptions for people like medical workers, who routinely touch patients. In fact, there are zero exemptions, including for people like child care workers and those who work with the aged and infirm, who do things like change diapers.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 10:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Way to go, Tina
Next Post: Pritzker budget boosts early childhood education, child care
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I think HB3528 will have only one sponsor for the foreseeable future.
Comment by Montrose Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 10:54 am
I couldn’t believe what I read on Hb3528. Then I looked at the bills sponsor.
OMG.
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:00 am
In reading the second one I would be unable to perform CPR on a co-worker or offer first aid without confirming they gave consent.
As a large guy I would need to everyone to completely part like the Red Sea getting on or off an elevator.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:01 am
==sponsored by just one member==
*makes bet with self, clicks link*
Yep, I’m buying a cookie at lunch today
Comment by In 630 Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:02 am
So will employers need to publish a list of employees who are ok with receiving a hug or pat on the back from coworkers? Will my employer be open to lawsuit if I hug someone? The majority of those pictured are always hugging their collegues…hypocrites
Comment by realtalk2019 Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:03 am
One bill will move because the sponsor did her homework beforehand on the issues and got cosponsors (right way to make a difference), the other wont because the sponsor believes she is an expert on everything and everyone should listen to her only (not terribly effective)
Comment by low level Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:07 am
This is frustrating (the second bill, not the post) because it allows people to conflate teaching consent to kids, which is vitally important, with silly nanny-stateism.
Comment by lakeside Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:08 am
So no more mind melds?
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:16 am
Stava-Murray is a blatant Handshaker Supremacist who seeks to discriminate against Fist-Bumpers and High-Fivers.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:21 am
“Physical touch beyond a handshake.” Meaning no more non-consensual high-fives, fist bumps, etc.?
Comment by West Side the Best Side Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:25 am
Sorry, wordslinger, I’m a slow typist.
Comment by West Side the Best Side Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:27 am
Looking at ASM’s bill led me to looking at all the bills she has filed. 39. She has filed 39 bills. And many of them are just as viable as the one linked in this post.
Comment by Montrose Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:32 am
Future Cub’s game if ASM’s bill passes. “You’re out!” “Sorry ump, I think not since I didn’t give my consent for Jones to touch me with that baseball.”
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:35 am
And just when I thought Jason would be biggest story of the Freshman Class in the GA, I am becoming convinced that Anne is determined to outdo him.
Comment by illini Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:41 am
Has a house member ever been recalled?
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:44 am
And some people wondered why I poke fun at Stava-Murray so often. The chair should call this as her first bill, would love to watch her try to defend it in front of the rest of the chamber
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:45 am
ASM, the AOC wanna-be of Illinois….
Comment by Fav human Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:50 am
ASM is going to become a new code for ridiculous.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:50 am
–Has a house member ever been recalled?–
How could that be done, exactly?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 12:06 pm
I’m confused, does ASM want workplace conduct to consist solely of “whassup” nods…or is she giving permission for employees to do the “hand fake” gesture (to the hair) without employer repercussions?
Comment by Jocko Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 12:07 pm
ASM complained right-out-of-the-gate about being subjected to unwanted hugs from her colleagues. Not that the hugs were sexual in nature, just that they were unwanted.
So let’s call this what it is: an anti-hug bill.
Comment by Thomas Paine Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 12:23 pm
Lightford has been a burden to public education for a very long time. She is not helping.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 12:23 pm
The Rep is out of touch.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 12:25 pm
==So will employers need to publish a list of employees who are ok with receiving a hug or pat on the back from coworkers? Will my employer be open to lawsuit if I hug someone? The majority of those pictured are always hugging their collegues…hypocrites ==
Those pictured are not sponsoring the bill you are complaining about.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 12:53 pm
===Those pictured are not sponsoring the bill you are complaining about===
Some folks have serious reading comprehension problems. The headline emphasizes two approaches, there’s clearly a break between the first bill and the second, yet people either don’t or can’t read.
Take a breath before every comment, people. This isn’t Facebook.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 1:04 pm
=(vii) a person can withdraw consent at any time, =
“any time” = 20 years later
Comment by Blockedmore Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 2:04 pm
The first bill reminds me of this video: “Tea and Consent”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Nii5w2FaI
Comment by yinn Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 3:22 pm
Wow, are we sure that Drury didn’t just move to Naperville and change his name?
Comment by Morty Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 4:09 pm
How can this be done? I don’t know. Gonna call that McCabe fella and invoke some amendment or something.
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 6:00 pm
Needs some work, but who equivicates giving CPR with sexual touching???? EeWWWWW.
Comment by Union Thug Gramma Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 9:17 pm
@Blockedmore
So funny. Much laughs. Your “superior” intellect definitely shines through with that “edgy” joke. Bravo.
If you’re ready to be serious about a serious issue, then let me give you an example of what it means that “a person can withdraw consent at anytime.”
You’ve been dating someone for [insert your “acceptable” timeframe here]. You go back to their place with the hopes that things get physical. They start to, but then you start to feel uncomfortable. You state that you want the physical interaction to stop. At that point your partner must stop because you’ve withdrawn consent. It doesn’t matter that the interaction started consenually. What matters is that your partner stops when you say stop.
That doesn’t mean 20 years from now a consensual physical interaction can be deemed nonconsensual. But you already knew that, didn’t you? Do me a favor, and either grow up or take your middle school grasp of comedy elsewhere.
Comment by Chicago_Downstater Thursday, Feb 21, 19 @ 11:31 pm