Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

The man who shall not be named

Posted in:

Illinois

* Press release…

The Illinois House and Senate chief sponsors of the Reproductive Health Act (RHA) were joined [yesterday] afternoon by a number of other legislators and advocates to call on the Illinois House to advance critical legislation that protects access to reproductive health care in our state. The RHA – introduced in February – repeals long-blocked abortion laws in Illinois and assures that all reproductive care (including abortion care) is treated as health care. The two chief sponsors will be joined by Handmaids representing characters from Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel. The Handmaids have been standing vigil in the Capitol for weeks to support the legislation.

“As we saw last week in Georgia and this week in Alabama, powerful forces are coordinating around the country in a full-scale attack on women’s health care – especially reproductive health care,” said State Representative Kelly Cassidy, the lead sponsor of the RHA in the Illinois House. “These anti-abortion activists are pushing hard to get a case to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. We must act in Illinois – with urgency – to pass the RHA and protect women’s access to health care.”

The Reproductive Health Act was introduced in February by Representative Cassidy and Senator Melinda Bush in the Illinois Senate. The measure has been stalled in the House since that time. The legislators expressed concern today that women’s health care is not being prioritized in the legislative session that ends on May 31.

“Women in Illinois cannot wait to see what the Supreme Court does with our basic rights – including the ability to decide when (and if) to become a parent,” added Senator Bush. “Fearing this moment, women came out in large numbers in November 2018 to vote. We need to represent these voices here in Springfield and pass the RHA. I look forward to the debate in the Senate.”

Also addressing the event was State Representative Emanuel “Chris” Welch, chief co-sponsor of the RHA and Chair of the Executive Committee of the House. Representative Welch joined the sponsors in calling for the bill to be moved to the Executive Committee so that it can move to the floor of the House for a final vote.

“The RHA should be in the House Executive Committee where it will get a full hearing and a vote to go to the floor,” said Representative Welch. “With cases headed to the Supreme Court that could reverse Roe, it is time for us to act.”

One person wasn’t mentioned in all of this: House Speaker Michael Madigan. MJM could move that bill to House Exec because it’s now in Rules after languishing in subcommittee for months.

* Capitol News Illinois…

“Since that day, each week has brought a new horror, a new reason why this is so much more important,” Cassidy said. “I woke up this morning to yet more news of how close we are to losing our right to self-determination, our right to access true reproductive health care.”

She was referencing a law signed Wednesday by Alabama’s governor effectively banning abortion in the state. Other states, including Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio, have passed restrictive abortion laws this year.

Some of those states aim to get their laws before the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that legalized abortion nationwide.

Sara Hutchinson Ratcliffe, vice president of Catholics for Choice, called those bills “onerous and cruel.” The group supports the Reproductive Health Act.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 10:55 am

Comments

–One person wasn’t mentioned in all of this: House Speaker Michael Madigan. MJM could move that bill to House Exec because it’s now in Rules after languishing in subcommittee for months.–

I doubt very much that Madigan can keep a brick on this bill, if that’s his intention.

Despite the irrational beliefs of his omnipotence in some circles, he can’t buck such a major faction of his caucus on this issue in the current environment for long.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 11:02 am
Timing, man, timing. If the Supreme Court does further restrict abortion rights, the GA can pass the bill immediately after to maximum political effect. Timing.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 11:04 am
“Timing, man, timing. If the Supreme Court does further restrict abortion rights, the GA can pass the bill immediately after to maximum political effect. Timing.”

It’s my understanding that whole helluva lot of women are damn sick and tired of waiting for the ‘right time’ to secure their rights.

– MrJM

Comment by @misterjayem Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 11:19 am
The baby should have rights.

Comment by Evanston Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 11:25 am
== he can’t buck such a major faction of his caucus on this issue in the current environment for long==

Maybe. But we’re also speeding toward end of session with a ton of big initiatives, including another one from Rep. Cassidy. If it was a quiet session (if that exists), he probably couldn’t. But MJM has enough big bills to handle that he could effectively divide the caucus’ attention for two weeks without breaking much of a sweat. We’ll see where they focus their attention.

Comment by OutOfState Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 11:27 am
== It’s my understanding that whole helluva lot of women are damn sick and tired of waiting for the ‘right time’ to secure their rights. ==

I am not saying it’s right, but I think it’s at least possible that is what MJM is thinking. Read Phil Rock’s book. It’s pretty clear that is how to Speaker thinks about really any issue.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 11:29 am
Evanston - I think ‘babies’ do have rights. The question is/has always been when is that label meaningful. In my mind the mantra that “all life is sacred” is just lip service until I see real some concern that every child who is born has adequate healthcare, education, housing & nutrition.

Comment by OutHereInTheMiddle Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 11:55 am
==always been when is that label meaningful==

The AL law both says that life begins at conception and that a fertilized egg not implanted doesn’t count. State Senator Clyde Chambliss: “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”

Making it up as they go along. The definition of ‘life’ and ‘baby’ suits their whims. Speaking of whims, get the brick off this bill.

We’re losing population. Be a big hero and let those families that can afford to flee their repugnant legislatures that IL will protect them. That’s your timing.

Comment by lakeside Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 12:13 pm
OutHereInTheMiddle - I agree with you whole heartedly. Until we have enough resources to ensure children are educated properly,fed properly and raised to become productive members of our society, abortion should not only be legal, but in certain cases, encouraged. Unsupported babies become a drag on are whole society.

Comment by Sensible Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 12:15 pm
The tide on abortion rights is turning but probably not here in Illinois. And to “OutHereInTheMiddle”, Your argument makes the right to life conditional on some level of perceived quality. So who gets to make that determination, what is adequate. If you start tying right to life to quality of life you start down the slope of mercy killing or (and this is happening currently) you get the situation tht is happening in Iceland where practically all babies with Downs Syndrome are being aborted. This is an issue that has profound challenges for us and how we view humanity.

Comment by NeverPoliticallyCorrect Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 12:16 pm
… has adequate healthcare, education, housing & nutrition…

Good luck defining these with legislation. Poverty does not equal neglect.

Comment by don the legend Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 12:22 pm
==abortion should not only be legal, but in certain cases, encouraged.==
==who gets to make that determination==

What if - and I’m spitballing here - we left women alone and let them make decisions about their bodies and childbearing with the help of their doctors and whomever else they choose?

Comment by lakeside Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 12:24 pm
==let those families that can afford to flee their repugnant legislatures that IL will protect them===

This. This is how we differentiate ourselves from other states. Protect rights of women, LGBT, and others. Work on similar quality of life issues, such as education. This will grow Illinois and our economy, not by becoming North Alabama. I want no part of that.

Comment by Jibba Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 12:52 pm
“a fertilized egg not implanted doesn’t count”

“Making it up as they go along. The definition of ‘life’ and ‘baby’ suits their whims.”

After conceptions, a unique human life exists. It has it’s own DNA, genetic code, etc.

An egg does not have that. It is not a unique human life; it’s simply another part of the body. That’s not “making it up”, that’s science.

You can argue about whether or not that unique human life has rights, but there is no argument as to whether it is a unique human life. After the conception process if fully complete, it clearly is.

Comment by Liandro Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 12:54 pm
Every cell in the human body is alive, has the complete instructions for building a human, and has the potential to become a human being in its own right. That’s science too.

Comment by NoGifts Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 1:03 pm
“Every cell in the human body is alive, has the complete instructions for building a human, and has the potential to become a human being in its own right.”

But does not yet have the new, unique DNA and genetic code of a brand new human life such as exists after concepeiton is fully complete.

Your comment has little to no relation to my comment; we’re talking about what has actually happened (ie new life), not what could happen.

Comment by Liandro Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 1:11 pm
The human cell “actually happened.” It is the culmination of the conception. It has the same new combination of dna the fertilized egg had. It is a new unique genetic code of human life.

Comment by NoGifts Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 1:31 pm
I’d like to know who the genius was who rebranded abortion as “reproductive health care.” There certainly are many types of reproductive health care, but an abortion, unless medically necessary to ensure the ability to have children in the future (i.e., to reproduce) is not by any stretch of the imagination reproductive health care. Separately, even though I know the laws in Alabama, Georgia and Missouri will not stand, I am enjoying watching the media, Hollywood elites and Dems collective heads explode as these states pass anti-abortion legislation.

Comment by consmom Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 2:13 pm
==The Illinois House and Senate chief sponsors of the Reproductive Health Act (RHA) were joined [yesterday] afternoon by a number of other legislators and advocates==

A pretty “small” number in fact. Not like a few weeks ago when the Capitol had to be closed to any more visitors for a period of time when people with different views were there.

Comment by A guy Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 2:19 pm
Consmom—I’d like to know who the genius was who rebranded abortion as “reproductive health care.”

They use that because it sounds so much better than, We believe killing baby’s is a good thing. The followers of Margaret Sanger really couldn’t sell the fact that their foundation was formed to reduce the number of minority, and other undesirable, baby’s so they have to use terms like Health Care.
Occasionally some do slip up, like the State Rep in AL last week who said “You can kill them now, or kill them later”.

Comment by SOIL M Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 2:55 pm
Still think it’s funny that a bunch of white men in Alabama can tell a woman what to do with her body.

Comment by LOL Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 2:59 pm
–The followers of Margaret Sanger –

You’re opposed to legal contraception?

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 3:04 pm
===bunch of white men in Alabama can tell a woman===

The governor of Alabama is a woman.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 3:10 pm
That’s exactly what my 16-year old daughter pointed out to a bunch of teenage girls who are just regurgitating what they are seeing on social media about it being passed by 25 men. It shuts them up real quick.

Comment by consmom Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 3:45 pm
The GOP prizes personal freedom…unless you have a uterus or want to smoke cannabis.

Comment by Jocko Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 3:52 pm
You’re opposed to legal contraception?
Nope. Never said that, nor implied that. I am opposed to eugenics, and the idea of killing unborn minorities and other undesirables. But spin that how you will.

Comment by SOIL M Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 3:56 pm
–I am opposed to eugenics, and the idea of killing unborn minorities and other undesirables.–

Thank goodness that’s not a thing in the United States these days.

What’s your position on access to prenatal care, obstetrics and health insurance for “minorities and other undesirables,” as you call them?

Spin that how you will.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 7:34 pm
–I am enjoying watching the media, Hollywood elites and Dems collective heads explode as these states pass anti-abortion legislation.–

I think it’s adorable that you’ve learned to parrot the things the you favorite entertainers on the tee-vee box say.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 7:36 pm
Lakeside, to me, it comes down to the consequences of action/inaction. If a fertilized egg is not implanted in a woman, the current state of the world is that no baby is going to be born. No life is going to be lived. Therefore it’s not a person. On the other hand, if the embryo is growing and developing in a woman’s body, the current state of the world IS that a baby will be born and a life will be lived. If you want to stop that from happening, an action (abortion) has to be taken. That of course is barring any kind of disease or defect. That doesn’t seem random or made up to me. It’s all about what the consequences of the decision are. Depending on which choice is made, a person will live a life, or not. I’ve never understood anyone trying to make an argument that abortion isn’t taking a human life, therefore.

Given that, then you have the rights of two people that are in conflict, the mother’s freedom to live her life and control her body, and the baby’s right to life. And laws control how people can interact with one another all day long.

Comment by Perrid Thursday, May 16, 19 @ 9:07 pm
““Since that day, each week has brought a new horror, a new reason why this is so much more important,” Cassidy said. “I woke up this morning to yet more news of how close we are to losing our right to self-determination, our right to access true reproductive health care.” - If you need an abortion you have already reproduced so you have in fact been in charge of you reproductive choices, all an abortion does is end the life of the human life that you have reproduced. Scientific fact is that a new human life begins at conception shouldn’t be that hard to figure out. Healthcare does not intentionally end a life.

Comment by Arock Friday, May 17, 19 @ 9:04 am