Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Raoul gets Bluhm boost
Posted in:
* Subscribers were tipped to this earlier today…
Today, State Representative Peter Breen (R-Lombard) and State Senator Dan McConchie (R-Hawthorn Woods) filed the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” which would prohibit units of government in Illinois from using taxpayer funds for elective abortions, reversing key provisions of the recently enacted House Bill 40. Breen and McConchie are pressing for full debate and a floor vote on the measure during the upcoming fall veto session later this month, before HB 40 goes into effect in 2018.
“With the signing of HB 40, Illinoisans will be put on the hook for roughly 75% of the state’s 40,000 annual elective abortions,” said Breen. “Strong majorities of Illinoisans, especially folks in the suburbs and downstate, oppose taxpayer funding of abortions, and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act will respect both their pocketbooks and their consciences. Considering the average cost of $1,000 per Medicaid abortion, we don’t have the $30 million required to cover 30,000 abortions every year.”
“The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act is a critical piece of legislation that respects the moral and fiscal concerns of our residents,” said McConchie. “In states that have legalized Medicaid abortions, over 50% of all abortions become taxpayer-funded. The residents in my suburban district are overwhelmingly opposed to this new spending scheme.”
The legislators are relying on data from the Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, about income levels of those seeking abortions and payment data from other states that provide elective abortion funding. Guttmacher indicates that 75% of women seeking abortions are below 200% Federal Poverty Level, and that, in states with elective abortion, over 50% of all abortions are paid for by Medicaid. See, https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014. Because Illinois’ Medicaid system extends eligibility to pregnant women up to at least 213% Federal Poverty Level, those who will be eligible for taxpayer funded abortions may be even higher than 75%. See, http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=14091 (pregnant women considered at least family size 2, as Illinois law counts unborn children in family size). The legislators also received information from the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services showing that the average cost, over the past five years, for a Medicaid abortion and ancillary services is approximately $1,000 per procedure.
Breen drafted the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act on the model of the federal Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funding for abortions, other than for abortions sought in connection with pregnancies that result from rape or incest, or that threaten the life of the mother. Abortions under these circumstances constitute roughly 1% of all abortions. Federal law already requires states to provide Medicaid abortions under these three conditions, and the proposed Act recognizes those federal provisions.
While the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act reverses the substantive provisions of HB 40 and prevents taxpayer funding for abortion at all levels of government, it adds new public policy language on abortion, not including controversial “trigger language” about Roe v. Wade that was at issue in HB 40.
“The ‘trigger language’ in HB 40 had no legal effect, and there’s no need to reopen a theoretical debate about language from over 40 years ago. Instead, we wanted to start fresh with updated language and concepts that reflect the majority position of Illinoisans, especially folks in the suburbs and downstate, who care very deeply about this issue,” Breen added.
“This controversial and culturally divisive act should not be one that taxpayers should be forced to fund,” said McConchie. “Likewise, there is no good reason for taxpayers to be on the hook for someone else’s personal decision.”
Additionally, while the federal government typically matches a state’s Medicaid expenses, it will not do so for elective abortions. Breen has stated previously that, based on the estimated direct cost to the state of $30 million for abortions, the true impact to the Medicaid system is actually double that, $60 million in lost medical services.
Within an hour of the filing of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, numerous legislators from across Illinois joined the bill as cosponsors. The bills are pending as HB 4114 & SB 2241. Legislators are also considering legal action in the coming weeks to challenge whether HB 40 can be effective before June 1, 2018, due to it being held beyond the May 31 deadline set by the state constitution for the passage of bills. The current effective date is set at January 1, 2018, and legislators estimate the five-month difference in effective dates could prevent taxpayer funding of 10,000 abortions or more.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 1:31 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Raoul gets Bluhm boost
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Old white Republicans yell at cloud”
Comment by PJ Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 1:34 pm
What sense does it make to bring more unwanted children into this world?
I don’t see a bill that provides them a happy life, job, house, and world free from the criminal justice system.
I’m sorry, but last time I checked, not having enough unwanted people didn’t seem to be a big problem. In fact, it seems like less unwanted/unloved folks would be better.
Get real.
Comment by 33rd ward Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 1:44 pm
“… but we’ll still take Daddy’s money. Cuz, you know, he’s got a lot of it.”
Comment by Macbeth Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 1:46 pm
Lots and lots and lots of words and numbers.
Can’t get 71 and 36 for this. Can’t see Rauner signing this, especially after the brou-ha-ha to get this to clean signature, then get those 71 and 36 to override?
This is member management.
Rauner signed what he promised. The questionnaire and Diana Rauner told me so, then when Rauner signed the taxpayer paid abortions as part of the reason both RaunerS supported Bruce’s signature, something even a Democratic governor anywhere hasn’t done.
The only thing I know about this is the next 5 years, there won’t be a full repeal of HB40, Rauner winning or not.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 1:47 pm
I love when rich white men dictate the healthcare of poor minority women. Not.
Comment by Lamont Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 1:48 pm
===I don’t see a bill that provides them a happy life, job, house, and world free from the criminal justice system.===
Republicans care a lot about embryos. They really don’t give a damn what happens to poor people once they actually become people, though.
Comment by PJ Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 1:54 pm
“Can’t get 71 and 36 for this.”
And there’s need to because it’s fund-raising stunt.
Breen hopes that performances like this can be used to ween himself and his peers from the Rauners’ checkbook.
We’ll see.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 1:56 pm
The bill doesn’t have a chance. The big question is how will Madigan play this for optimum political benefit.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 1:59 pm
I mean this in all seriousness. Why not include a box on Illinois tax forms that says, “Do you wish to opt out of your tax dollars going toward funding abortions for low-income women? Check yes or no.”
There’s a box for public financing of elections, why not do this for abortion and settle this once and for all?
Comment by Dr. M Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:00 pm
Is this a prelude for Ives entering the race?
Comment by Macbeth Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:03 pm
===The big question is how will Madigan play this for optimum political benefit.===
He voted for HB40, so I doubt he’ll switch his vote now. But I could see him allowing a vote on this and maybe hoping Breen can cobble together 60 votes to put this on the Governor’s desk. That’d be fun.
But even if they could get it out of the House, the Senate is more than an uphill climb. So yeah, whoever guessed that Breen et al will milk this effort for all of the money they can raise off of it is probably correct.
Why let a good issue go to waste?
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:04 pm
If they want to pass this the need to start pushing the more moderate issue, why are taxpayers paying for a elective procedure? If I make poor decisions and become chubby and want to keep buying new pants, Medicaid and employee heath insurance is going to pay for bariatric surgery or even weight loss treatment. However, if I develop diabetes or other heath risks, that’s a different matter. Same with abortion coverage, if there are no immediate health risks through pregnancy, than abortion is an elective procedure, and pre-HB40 the health risk exemption existed.
While I can’t speak for all Republican or “rich white men”, but a lot of us believe everyone should get a chance to live and have an opportunity to have a happy life. Being born to a poor mother is not a condemnation to a life of poverty and to think so is really an insult to poor mothers everywhere.
Comment by Swift Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:16 pm
=== Why not include a box on Illinois tax forms that says===
Because I don’t get to check a box on my federal form that says “none of my tax money to our bloated defense budget”. Because taxes are not about ordering off a menu of what you like. Not only does it make taxes even more complicated and expensive to manage than they already are, but it just isn’t how government works. If you don’t like what your taxes are used for, vote for someone else.
Comment by PJ Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:20 pm
How many of the supporters of this bill will foster/adopt an unwanted child? How many will support financing healthcare, school lunch, after school programs? How many care about children after birth? My guess is not many.
Comment by Flynn's mom Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:25 pm
===And there’s need to because it’s fund-raising stunt.
Breen hopes that performances like this can be used to ween himself and his peers from the Rauners’ checkbook.===
This is where the rubber hits the road.
Good catch, honest to the move and separation too.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:27 pm
===The big question is how will Madigan play this for optimum political benefit.===
A: Maybe give the proponents additional floor time to speak in favor of the bill
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:28 pm
ba dum tss
Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:29 pm
===The big question is how will Madigan play this for optimum political benefit.===
A: Help find a pollster willing to tell Jeanne Ives she has a realistic chance to defeat Governor Rauner in the primary.
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:30 pm
“Unwanted children”. Is that an admission of life?
Comment by blue dog dem Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:32 pm
“I love when rich white men dictate the healthcare of poor minority women. Not.” Lamont, I am not rich, but I am old and white. I do not dictate healthcare to anyone, but do not wish to pay for anyone’s other than my family.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:39 pm
==I do not dictate healthcare to anyone, but do not wish to pay for anyone’s other than my family.==
You aren’t gonna like it when you find out how health insurance works.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:41 pm
==I love when rich white men dictate the healthcare of poor minority women. Not.==
I don’t think that way.
If I thought like you, I’d believe that only parents who experience pregnancy and birth should decide, right?
But I don’t think like you.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:43 pm
Been catching the wind in the sail for a hopeful Jeanne run. We’ll see if there’s enough folks on the bill that will then stand up with Ives for her primary?
Comment by DuPage Bard Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:47 pm
=I do not dictate healthcare to anyone, but do not wish to pay for anyone’s other than my family.==
==You aren’t gonna like it when you find out how health insurance works. ==
Or auto, life, renters, boat, camper or homeowner insurance either. What he meant is that he only wants to pay for health care he approves of in addition to only fie his family. Insurance is the spreading of costs over a large number of people so as to make the cost affordable. This guy is free to also self insure his property, life and his liability to others. Of course, he won’t be able to replace his property, and he/his family will go bankrupt If he dies or gets sued.
Comment by Thoughts Matter Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:53 pm
Arsenal FTW.
Reminds me of Medicare recipients railing against socialized medicine.
Comment by Jocko Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 2:54 pm
Rauner has protected taxpayers like he protected babies.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 3:09 pm
No downside for supporters of this legislation.
At the very least, they put themselves on the record again and can use it for fundraising.
And, if it should pass, who can say categorically that Rauner wouldn’t sign it? The guy’s been all over the road.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 3:11 pm
People get to decide what is covered under insurance. They go into a pool of people with similar coverage.
Elective surgery, such as rhinoplasty, is not usually covered. Unless it is reconstruction after an accident. Breast surgery is the same, covered for cancer, not for vanity.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 3:14 pm
VM for the burn…..
This is a legit use of time and resources…. we don’t have drug treatment centers thast need rescued or child services that need funded…. this, this is the bill we need; then when the unwanted kids without finacial services are born they can feast on cake…..
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 3:41 pm
@blue dog dem: “admission” you stick to that line of argument. You see where it gets you.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 3:48 pm
===People get to decide what is covered under insurance.===
At the companies that I have worked for health insurance was one of the benefits provided by my employer. I have never been allowed to decide what was covered by my health insurance plan. My employers have always made that decision for me.
Comment by Hit or Miss Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 3:48 pm
–People get to decide what is covered under insurance.–
Huh? How many plans does your employer offer?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 3:51 pm
==this is the bill we need; then when the unwanted kids without finacial services are born they can feast on cake….==
Coming from unemployed teen parents living in an attic when I was born - I’m glad my folks didn’t think like that.
Reproductive freedom to become parents regardless of income, age or race - I say.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 3:59 pm
Reproductive freedom? But no freedom for reproductive rights. Um ok.
Comment by Baloneymous Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 4:03 pm
===Reproductive freedom to become parents regardless of income, age or race - I say.===
And no help from the government if you, like the majority of children born into poverty, aren’t able to “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” - say all Republicans.
“Be born then eff off” should be the party motto.
Comment by PJ Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 4:15 pm
–At the companies that I have worked for health insurance was one of the benefits provided by my employer. I have never been allowed to decide what was covered by my health insurance plan. My employers have always made that decision for me.–
Considering this isn’t Soviet Russia I am assuming that you were able to decide what employers you worked for.. thus by extension decided that their benefits package was suitable, thus decided their health insurance was
Comment by pundemonium Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 4:19 pm
It’s the personal choice aspect of the argument against public funding that should catch decent people’s attention.
It’s a failed maxim to think that unprotected sex has no consequences.
Maybe we can incorporate this new Medicaid benefit into school sex ed literature. /s
Comment by cdog Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 4:39 pm
–It’s a failed maxim to think that unprotected sex has no consequences.–
LOL, quite a scoop there.
Who thinks that, by the way? Is not abortion a consequence?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 4:42 pm
Word, not if it’s free and you don’t care about the moral implications.
Comment by cdog Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 4:44 pm
DOA
Comment by lady Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 4:44 pm
Cdog, apparently you have your own dictionary.
–con·se·quence
ˈkänsikwəns
noun
1.
a result or effect of an action or condition.–
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 4:49 pm
==And no help from the government if you, like the majority of children born into poverty, aren’t able to “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” - say all Republicans.
“Be born then eff off” should be the party motto==
Right, and every Republican wears a black cape a twirly mustache and ties poor helpless girls to railroad tracks.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 5:04 pm
If we are evolving our sexual mores in the blue state of Illinois are more in line with the “Weinstein Values” of Hollywood, maybe we should just legalize prostitution, encourage the porn industry, and make certain sex crimes just misdemeanors.
Limits-off. Everybody needs “access” to what they “feel” is right.
/s
Comment by cdog Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 5:38 pm
CDog, and how did you land there in this context?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 5:41 pm
The ability to choose coverage has been one of the key areas of debate about Obamacare.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 5:53 pm
==if there are no immediate health risks through pregnancy==
Pregnancy is plenty risky. Look it up.
Comment by yinn Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 7:53 pm
==maybe we should just legalize prostitution, encourage the porn industry, and make certain sex crimes just misdemeanors. ==
Donald?
Comment by HangingOn Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 9:08 pm
=== maybe we should just legalize prostitution, encourage the porn industry … ===
More revenue sources. Prostitution tax can help fund the gov and GA.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Oct 12, 17 @ 9:25 pm
I am all for this bill. A clause banning right to work and $15 an hour minimum wage should be added to it so the new parents will be able to support their little on eafter she is born.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Friday, Oct 13, 17 @ 6:19 am