Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rauner called out for constant deflections
Next Post: What’s up with her timing?
Posted in:
* Tony Arnold at WBEZ…
Rauner: One eye on Trump, another on 2018 election
Rauner has worked to balance his approach to Donald Trump’s presidency, being a Republican governor in a state that went heavily for Hillary Clinton.
For example, on the executive order regarding the travel ban, a Rauner spokeswoman said in a statement that the governor opposes a ban that targets a religion and thinks the courts should determine the legality of Trump’s executive order. But Rauner has supported limiting the number of Syrian refugees coming to Illinois.
In that statement, Rauner is speaking to the unpopularity of it and the controversy of it without fully condemning it.
I’ve also been told over and over this week that Rauner won Illinois in 2014 by doing well in Chicago suburbs, which is where Trump did poorly. So Rauner’s trying to draw a distinction between himself and the new president.
* And that last bit about the suburbs is the main political reason behind this bill…
While the likelihood of a Roe repeal in the immediate future is up for debate, a law on the state books has some advocates alarmed that such a move could spell quick trouble here: Illinois has a so-called trigger law for abortion, meaning the instant Roe were to be repealed, all abortion in which the mother’s life is not endangered could potentially cease to be legal in the state.
One of only a handful of states with such a law on the book, Illinois passed its measure just two years after the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v Wade decision. At the same time, some legal experts have argued that Illinois’ trigger lacks real power. According to the Tribune, in 2006, laws like Illinois are “statements of policy, not actual bans,” as noted by attorneys on either side of the debate. Illinois’ law lacks specifics and the state’s abortion ban that preceded Roe was repealed, the Trib notes.
Still, it’s a surprising statement, considering the abortion advocacy network that extends from the present moment (groups like the Midwest Access Coalition, which helps abortion seekers from more restrictive states come to Chicago) to decades back (the iconic Jane Collective helped provide the service to women in need in the early 1970s, when abortion was illegal.) And some Illinois lawmakers want a change of text regardless.
A bill in the Illinois state house, sponsored by Representative Sara Feigenholtz, would change the law and remove the trigger effect.
We’ve talked about this bill before. There’s disagreement over whether the trigger means anything, but putting it on Rauner’s desk would force him to take sides.
* But there’s also this provision…
HB 40 also removes discriminatory provisions from Illinois law that denies insurance coverage of an abortion to many women who depend on Medicaid and State Employee Health Insurance.
“Every woman, regardless of whether she has private or government health insurance should have affordable and comprehensive health care coverage,” said Brigid Leahy, Director of Public Policy for Planned Parenthood of Illinois. “Women should not be denied abortion coverage because of how much they earn. Access to full coverage enables a woman to make personal health decisions based on what is best for her and her family,” added Leahy.
If passed, Illinois would join 15 other states that provide women with health assistance funds that cover the full range of pregnancy-related care including a woman’s decision to end a pregnancy.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 6, 17 @ 11:08 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rauner called out for constant deflections
Next Post: What’s up with her timing?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If HB 40 does not pass, it will definitely be because it doesn’t limit it’s ambition to changing the language in the “trigger law”. It would be that it looks to expand the existing law to force tax payers to publicly pay for abortions.
That’s where a lot of Pro Choice people (who personally are opposed, but don’t want to make the choice for someone else) draw the line. The public debate on this subject could be more than anyone bargained on.
Comment by A guy Monday, Feb 6, 17 @ 11:16 am
I don’t want my tax dollars going towards ELECTIVE abortions but in cases of rape/incest it’s understandable. There are many elective procedures that are not covered by public and private insurance. This should be one of them. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard elective cosmetic surgery referred to as “health care”.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Monday, Feb 6, 17 @ 11:25 am
Prwgnancy is a medical condition, a potentially fatal one in certain circumstances. It should be handled like other medical conditions.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Feb 6, 17 @ 11:29 am
Not to worry. The governor has no social agenda. He won’t take any position on any abortion bill. /s
Comment by Deft Wing Monday, Feb 6, 17 @ 11:35 am
==I don’t believe I’ve ever heard elective cosmetic surgery referred to as “health care”.
Ridiculous comparison. The risks of death from pregnancy and childbirth are many times higher than the risk of death from cosmetic surgery.
Comment by yinn Monday, Feb 6, 17 @ 11:43 am
===Ridiculous comparison.===
Yeah, I always get that from pro-choicers. My point is if a woman is pregnant and everything points to a normal, healthy pregnancy then terminating the pregnancy would be an elective procedure. There’s no medical reason for doing so. If there is some medical risk to the mother that’s a different story. I always make that distinction but pro-choice folks refuse to acknowledge it.
===The risks of death from pregnancy and childbirth are many times higher than the risk of death from cosmetic surgery.===
Got any statistics to back that up?
Comment by Cubs in '16 Monday, Feb 6, 17 @ 11:58 am
We have a history of not taxing people to pay for things they oppose for religious reasons. This is not an absolute rule; Quakers are taxed to pay for defense Christian Scientists are taxed to pay for fluoridated water. But these are public goods where they are provided to all and cannot reasonably be provided individually.
An abortion is an individual good (or bad if you think abortion is murder ). It can be provided individually with private funds. The same arguments would apply to euthanasia.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Monday, Feb 6, 17 @ 12:14 pm
Got any statistics to back that up
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that pregnancy-related deaths increased from 7.2 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987 to 17.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2011.
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2015/06/too-many-us-women-are-dying-during-childbirth-problem-not-paperwork
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 6, 17 @ 12:54 pm
So if this goes through you’ll be adopting how many unwanted children?
FTR, I would rather pay for comprehensive birth control/sex ed than for abortions. Which is why I support Planned Parenthood. But people are people, mistakes happen. It should be an absolute last resort, but it shouldn’t be unavailable.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Feb 6, 17 @ 12:56 pm
C44, With respect, children would be adopted. The ability to do so is very scarce. I’m in the camp that would emphatically say there’s not an “economic” case for this procedure. Our society can absorb these lives, love them and raise them in a loving and supportive home.
We are in agreement on the issue of birth control and sex education. There’s no reason to omit those lessons to people old enough to create an unplanned pregnancy.
It’s something you hear more from younger people now who are Pro-life because the practical solutions to preventing unplanned pregnancies. It’s more intellectual than emotional for them as they describe it.
This bill aims to go much further than maintaining the status quo by requiring public funds to pay for this procedure. I’ve never met anyone who was against providing breast cancer exams, mammograms or other GYN services to a needy person. The notion of publicly funded abortions is a giant leap in a direction that even many practical Pro Choicers don’t wish to go. You sound like you may be one of them.
Comment by A guy Monday, Feb 6, 17 @ 1:37 pm
–I’ve never met anyone who was against providing breast cancer exams, mammograms or other GYN services to a needy person.–
You can’t be serious. Or you’re not paying any attention to the votes in the General Assembly and the vetoes from the governor’s office.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 6, 17 @ 2:21 pm
Old Blue is never wrong (ask Mrs Blue), the only , and i mean only 2 Democrats that Rauner can beat in 2018 wold be Mike Madigan or Rahm Emanuel. Take that to Vegas.
Comment by Blue dog dem Monday, Feb 6, 17 @ 2:36 pm
== the only , and i mean only 2 Democrats that Rauner can beat in 2018 wold be Mike Madigan or Rahm Emanuel==
Nah, he’d beat me like a rented mule.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Feb 6, 17 @ 2:56 pm