Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

HCRCA amendment coverage roundup

Posted in:

Illinois

The Illinois House voted 64-52 on Wednesday night to alter the Health Care Right of Conscience Act to shield employers from civil suits if they enforce Coronavirus vaccine or testing mandates.

The Senate could send the measure to Governor J.B. Pritzker’s desk on Thursday. Attorney General Kwame Raoul (D-Illinois), who represents school districts and state agencies against lawsuits in court, was seen speaking with representatives moments before the debate began.

Several Republicans opposed the changes, arguing individuals should have rights to make health care decisions for themselves without being coerced by their employers.

The bill won’t take effect until June 1, 2022, but could still influence pending court cases.

* Capitol News Illinois…

In floor debate, Gabel said the HCRC Act was initially passed “to preserve the ability of health care providers, including pharmacists, to refuse to perform or provide health services related to abortion and reproductive health care that violate their conscience.”

The reason for her bill was to clarify that existing law, she said, because it should not be applicable to mitigation measures aimed at slowing a deadly pandemic. Those with health care or religious concerns regarding mandate compliance can still access federal exemptions, she said.

“Contrary to rampant misinformation campaigns, this bill is not a vaccine mandate,” she said. “In fact, it does not require anyone to do anything. As the bill itself says, this is simply a declaration of existing law and shall not be construed as a new enactment.”

The only thing this bill really does is delete treble civil damages including for pain and suffering if an employee is disciplined for not following COVID-19 mitigations. It’s basically a tort reform bill.

* Tribune…

Republicans blasted the effort as a continuation of Pritzker’s “unilateral authority” during the pandemic, a “backdoor” vaccination mandate and “an end run around the judicial branch.”

“Ladies and gentlemen, this is absolutely atrocious,” said Rep. Adam Niemerg, a Republican from Dieterich. “This is unbelievable we’re considering this on the House floor. This is not about the Health Care Right of Conscience. This is about the last 18 months and unilateral authority from the governor.” […]

“I want you to know that people have come into my office and said they get the flu shot every year,” said Rep. C.D. Davidsmeyer, a Republican from Jacksonville. “But they are concerned about this vaccine because it hasn’t been around for very long.”

Gabel often answered questions from Republicans opposed to the amendment by repeating her same talking points: The new measure was merely inserted into the right of conscience act to clarify the law, not change it. And the new measure “doesn’t affect any of their other rights under any other laws, particularly under federal law.”

* Sun-Times…

Still, seven Democrats broke ranks on the measure to vote no, and another two Democrats voted present.

The proposed amendment to that law, sponsored by state Rep. Robyn Gabel, D-Evanston, is intended to make clear that public officials and private companies can impose COVID-19 requirements as part of conditions of employment.

Previous language in her amendment said those who don’t comply with the requirements could be fired, but that language was eliminated in a new amendment filed Wednesday — though officials and companies would still be able to “enforce” the COVID-19 measures or requirements and would not be considered in violation of the act.

Gabel said the removal of that language came from “feedback in committee.”

* WTTW…

State Rep. Mark Batinick, R-Plainfield, said the change will cause those who are hesitant or scared about getting vaccinated to dig in their heels.

He said the legislature is to blame because the General Assembly has avoided passing laws to fight COVID-19, relying instead on Pritzker to use his executive authority.

“We haven’t done our job for 20 months debating these nuances,” Batinick said.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:03 am

Comments

“individuals should have rights to make health care decisions for themselves”

Still do. Employers also enjoy the right not to hire or retain you.

Yay free market.

Comment by Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:07 am
Does any of this mean my big boss (the gov) can make Revenue, and are over 100 employees, get vaccinated? If not, then pass that and make him.

Comment by Lurker Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:10 am
I remember a House GOP caucus that included reps like Bellock, Lyons, Linder, Daniels, Mulligan and the like. Could any of them win a GOP primary today?

The GOP has become a group that panders to and prides themselves on appealing to the most uneducated members of the society.

Comment by Give Me A Break Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:12 am
I listened to that exchange last night on the house floor and Batinick’s point about the legislature not doing anything until this bill. I haven’t seen any Republican bills brought forward to challenge the Governor. They all say it’s no use we are in the minority. Isn’t it their job to at least work for the people they represent and put a bill on the table? Some of them just sound pathetic.

Comment by Club J Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:18 am
== Mark Batinick, R-Plainfield, said the change will cause those who are hesitant or scared about getting vaccinated to dig in their heels. ==

A condition which mainly exists because out of the other side of his mouth his legislative and consulting staff is running massive nationwide anti vaccination campaigns to sow doubt and mistrust.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:26 am
-“I want you to know that people have come into my office and said they get the flu shot every year,” said Rep. C.D. Davidsmeyer, a Republican from Jacksonville. “But they are concerned about this vaccine because it hasn’t been around for very long.”-

The flu shot is literally different every year.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:34 am
“The flu shot is literally different every year.”

Shhhhh. Now you’re talkin’ science. Not real big with this crowd.

Comment by Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:52 am
“a continuation of Pritzker’s “unilateral authority” Why doesn’t the Legislature do something? [Legislature does something] “Why doesn’t the Judiciary do something?” I have yet to see a set of goal posts with as many wheels on it as these folks have.

Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:56 am
== I haven’t seen any Republican bills brought forward to challenge the Governor. ==

Aren’t you lucky. Every week or so a new bill is introduced by the republicans in the house. They all seem to be rather pro-covid/pro-disease spreading though.

HB4174 - prohibits schools from requiring a vaccination for COVID.

HB4149 - prohibits any school or agency from taking any action based on the lack of any vaccinations for an individual.

HB4131 - lets local school boards make their own decision on mask requirements when a public health emergency has been declared by the governor

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:06 am
But didn’t we have more witness slips? Didn’t that mean we won?

Gov. Bailey’s Ambassador To Chicago

/s

Comment by Gov. Bailey's Ambassador To Chicago Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:53 am
===Does any of this mean my big boss (the gov) can make Revenue, and are over 100 employees, get vaccinated? ===

The Governor’s office has had this legal authority the entire time. The clarification in the Health Care Right of Conscience Act was intended to avoid lawsuits that courts would probably rule against given the original intent and case law around the HCRCA.

All the State House has done is vote to clarify that the intention of this law was to make it legal for healthcare providers to discriminate against women and LGBTQ patients.

This law remains a stain on human rights in the State of Illinois and at some point in time a future Legislature and future Governor will have to come back and address that the root of this law is to legalize discrimination against more than half of the population of the state.

Comment by Candy Dogood Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:59 am
The effort spent fighting (not to mention creating) the avalanche of (forbidden word) coming out of efforts to undermine public health is colossal. We could change the world if that energy could be directed to helping each other and ourselves.

Comment by froganaon Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:30 pm
Ron Burgundy

That’s not what they are arguing. They are arguing that MRNA technology is new. Not sure how you came to your conclusion.

Comment by The Dude Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:08 pm
- MRNA technology is new -

It’s not.

Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:25 pm
-Not sure how you came to your conclusion.-

By quoting a Republican State Representative who gave bad information? It’s quoted right there in my response.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:30 pm
-They are arguing that MRNA technology is new.-

Get the J&J one then. Issue resolved.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:31 pm
-They are arguing that MRNA technology is new.-

Get the J&J one then. Issue resolved.

And mRNA technology isn’t new either.

Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:50 pm
My favorite part is the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments from Niemerg. For the past 18 months, they have argued for the legislature to get involved on some cockamamie theory the Democratic supermajority would do something different than what Pritzker has been doing. Now the legislature gets involved, like they have been clamoring, the Dems have th votes and steamroll the asinine opposition, and they get mad. They’ve been daring the legislature to act, and they called the bluff. Now deal with the consequences.

Comment by Anon324 Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:38 pm
If this is a statement of existing law, then I’m not sure the effective date is all that relevant.

Comment by Kyle’s mom Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:43 pm
I love how Republicans think employers should be able to fire workers for being gay (something that isn’t a choice), but can’t fire workers who choose to not guard against a contagious and potentially deadly disease.

Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 9:14 pm