Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Cassidy wants constitutional amendment that protects reproductive health care and gender-affirming care

Posted in:

Illinois

* The Tribune takes a look at the abortion issue, including Gov. Pritzker’s involvement in other states and what to look for in Illinois. Excerpt…

State Rep. Kelly Cassidy of Chicago, who leads abortion-related negotiations for Democrats in the Illinois House, said that while she believes a constitutional amendment in Illinois is necessary in the long term, the need is more urgent in other states.

Protecting access to abortion in other states also could help ease the burden on Illinois providers, who’ve been swamped with out-of-state patients seeking care as restrictions elsewhere go into place, Cassidy said. […]

When the time comes for Illinois, Cassidy said, she wants to see an amendment that addresses protections for both reproductive health care and gender-affirming care, which also is facing an onslaught of restrictions in GOP-led states.

“If someone were to present a (reproductive health)-only constitutional amendment, I will be vehemently opposed to it,” she said.

Harmon, the Senate president, likewise said he believes the state should protect gender-affirming health care.

Thoughts?

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Mar 1, 24 @ 10:07 am

Comments

==“If someone were to present a (reproductive health)-only constitutional amendment, I will be vehemently opposed to it,”==

There’s something every Democrat wants on their resume. /s

Comment by City Zen Friday, Mar 1, 24 @ 10:17 am
Even though neither is in danger in this state right now it is good to ensure that there is never any question about rights with regard to these two things. Making it crystal clear in the constitution that these things are absolute rights eliminates any ambiguity.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 1, 24 @ 10:20 am
My thoughts are I don’t agree with her positions but hopefully something can be worked out for all. Probably just a dream but maybe?

Comment by clec dcn Friday, Mar 1, 24 @ 10:38 am
I appreciate Cassidy immensely, but I’m conflicted.

Both should be protected, and strongly, but Cassidy seems to be noticing the disparity in support for the two causes. As much as I don’t like to admit it, I’m not sure a gender affirming care amendment would get the % required. Putting the two together might be the only way to get the latter.

The concern comes from my worry that this would risk tanking the reproductive rights amendment if combined. It comes down to “a better chance of one and less of the other” or a “moderate chance of both succeeding or both failing.”

I don’t envy the legislators weighing that calculation.

Comment by Shibboleth Friday, Mar 1, 24 @ 11:35 am
Both are good, but refusing to support one if the other isn’t also included seems to me to be the same as letting perfection be the enemy of good.

Comment by TJ Friday, Mar 1, 24 @ 11:56 am
I’d happily support both, but I think they’d have to be careful how they write the gender affirming care part. If the opponents can credibly argue it usurps parental rights (like the recently filed Stava-Murray bill) it won’t only make it harder to pass the amendment, it could hurt suburban dem legislators down ballot.

Comment by TNR Friday, Mar 1, 24 @ 12:04 pm
I appreciate every opportunity to act for the preservation of reproductive choices rights. including legal and legislative and supporting candidates who believe in these causes. and supporting candidates who do not donate to candidates who are anti choice. check your privilege Rep. Cassidy.

Comment by Amalia Friday, Mar 1, 24 @ 12:36 pm
Why not an amendment enshrining a Right to Privacy for all health care?

Comment by Thomas Paine Friday, Mar 1, 24 @ 1:15 pm
Kudos to Rep. Cassidy for understanding intersectionality. The only way forward is together and we need more pols who get that. Thank you.

Comment by SWSider Friday, Mar 1, 24 @ 1:32 pm
==check your privilege Rep. Cassidy.==

Rep. Cassidy is using her privilege and power to help those who have neither.

Comment by SWSider Friday, Mar 1, 24 @ 1:33 pm
@SWSider, perhaps I should have simply said be consistent. supporting a candidate who has donated to an anti choice Congressional candidate is inconsistent with what she preaches.

Comment by Amalia Friday, Mar 1, 24 @ 1:43 pm
TP + 1 Why stake out a position that’s already well established in Illinois?

When thinking about the legislation in red states I’m reminded of the adage ‘never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself’.

Comment by Jocko Friday, Mar 1, 24 @ 3:04 pm
Can we talk about how wild (albeit perhaps necessary) it is that legislators vote on constitutional referenda before the voters? Also there should probably be a referendum to require a simple majority to pass referenda.

Comment by Macon Bakin Friday, Mar 1, 24 @ 4:31 pm