Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: False Information on Reproductive Health Act (HB2495) Rebutted
Next Post: Dunn is done
Posted in:
* Illinois Review…
So one by one, elected officials within over 60 Illinois counties have agreed to stand up against state lawmakers restrictions by resolving not to enforce any laws that would infringe on American citizens’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
HB 3553, sponsored by freshman Democrat Terra Costa Howard, is a measure to stop the Second Amendment movement from building steam against the Leftist Progressive at the State Capitol - although many say it’s too late. The movement is big and growing.
The bill is scheduled to be heard in the Illinois House’s Judiciary - Criminal Committee Tuesday, March 19, at 5:00 PM. It says that a county or municipality “may not pass an ordinance or resolution restricting enforcement of any State law or regulation concerning the ownership or use of firearms unless permitted to do so under the express provisions of the law or regulation.”
Effingham County board member Dave Campbell, who has been at the forefront of protecting Second Amendment rights with county resolutions, worked with his state’s attorney to put together their county’s Second Amendment resolution. Campbell was aware of the legislation being proposed to stop the resolutions, and was curious just how lawmakers would address Howard’s bill.
“Will state lawmakers vote to uphold Second Amendment rights? Or will they vote against locals declaring sanctuaries against state policies while Chicago and Cook County oppose federal laws concerning illegal immigration?” Campbell asked Illinois Review.
Campbell must’ve never heard about federalism. The state can indeed place limits on local government ordinances. And state and local police are under no statutory mandate to work hand-in-glove with federal immigration authorities.
* From an Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health action alert…
While we do have support in the senate for SB 1594, the Repeal of Parental Notice of Abortion, many senators are still on the fence, saying that though they “understand” that not all youth have healthy or safe relationships with their parents, but they are still conflicted.
* The Sun-Times published an editorial on the topic this week…
Before retiring last year, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Susan Fox Gillis heard some of these cases, known as judicial bypass. She heard different reasons why girls couldn’t turn to their parents.
Many of the girls, she found, lived in volatile homes and reasonably feared being thrown out. Some girls had been sexually abused by family members.
“If the girls had been found out,” Judge Gillis told us, “there could have been serious repercussions.”
We strongly support parental rights, but we equally support the rights of minors to be safe.
It is sometimes said, rather glibly, that if a girl must by law tell her parents when she’s going to get her ears pierced, she should have to tell them when she’s going to get an abortion.
But nobody throws a kid into the street, or worse, for getting her ears pierced.
The Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act fails to protect. It only punishes.
* McDonough Voice…
Two abortion bills have been scheduled for a hearing in the Illinois House’s Informed Consent Subcommittee — bills which 93rd District State Rep. Norine Hammond, R-Macomb, refers to as “extreme.“
House Bill’s 2495 and 2467 are collectively referred to as the Reproductive Health Act. But, according to Hammond, the act has little to do with informing women about their reproductive choices.
“The bills are a way to ensure that the abortion industry grows and that — if there were a reversal of Roe v. Wade — it would have no effect on that very lucrative business in Illinois,” Hammond said. “In 2017, abortion numbers continued to increase with 39,329 performed here. If these bills pass, that number will increase, and Illinois will become a third-trimester abortion destination.“
Pretty cynical take, if you ask me.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 11:21 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: False Information on Reproductive Health Act (HB2495) Rebutted
Next Post: Dunn is done
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rich, you expect reasonableness around a discussion about abortion? Don’t you know that all pro-life people are neanderthals that want women barefoot and in the kitchen, and all pro-choice people drink the blood of children from a chalice carved out of a skull?
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 11:33 am
Could reverse that bill and let counties ban hunting…It is embarrassing to be a downstate today.
Comment by Not a Billionaire Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 11:41 am
=Illinois will become a third-trimester abortion destination=
Uh…so what?
Women in dire straits already travel to Canada to receive healthcare, including abortions. I welcome a future where they can receive help in Illinois instead.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 11:48 am
I’m thankful to your blog as a place where we can even approach the issue. I am really concerned that the pro-choice pro-life divide is going to get super ugly as we approach Roe coming down. I’m pledging to be active but civil and respectful.
I’m ardently pro-choice and am all for strengthening our own laws here in Illinois.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 11:52 am
I urge my side…pro choices….to give the entire range of choices a look, explain that we stand with women on choices, and if there are other gaps in choices, to enact legislation to assist like this the legislation under discussion. birth control, abortion, adoption, infertility treatments. choices for women to control their bodies and when and how to have children if ever.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 12:10 pm
If the male of our species bore children…would this issue even be up for discussion…I often wonder?
Comment by Dotnonymous Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 12:19 pm
I’m sure these same folks were good with Neil Hartigan when he decided to simply not enforce abortion restriction laws he disagreed with. This stuff is toxic: let the courts decide constitutionality.
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 12:25 pm
I really wish the anti crowd would leave the 3rd trimester abortions alone. They are only performed if there is something so horribly wrong with the fetus that if it isn’t already dead and not spontaneously aborting than it has such problems that it can’t live once it’s born. This is a tragedy for the parents.
Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 12:33 pm
Dotnonymous, I truly believe some form of it would still be an issue. I think some of the further right individuals would be closer to the center, i.e. there would be less people saying that no abortion should be performed ever. I don’t think that so called “elective” abortions, meaning a doc hasn’t said it’s medically necessary for the life or even health of the mother, would ever be uncontroversial. That’s just my unasked for opinion on it though.
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 12:46 pm
== Or will they vote against locals declaring sanctuaries against state policies while Chicago and Cook County oppose federal laws concerning illegal immigration?” Campbell asked Illinois Review.==
Then I’m sure Campbell won’t mind if state lawmakers follow pres trump’s lead and withhold whatever funding cities in Effingham county recieve from state government. I mean, if it’s a good policy for Los Angeles and San Francisco, then it’s surely good policy for Effingham, Altamont and Beecher City - right? These towns probably wouldn’t even notice anyway, since, you know, all state money goes to Chicago.
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 12:54 pm
“So one by one, elected officials within over 60 Illinois counties have agreed to stand up against state lawmakers restrictions by resolving not to enforce any laws that would infringe on American citizens’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”
Are these constitutional conservatives proposing that they can usurp the role of SCOTUS?
Comment by very old soil Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 12:55 pm
Do teens have an alternative to parental notification? Can they seek an okay from a judge? If you could make that process as easy as possible, that might at least partially appease both sides.
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 1:24 pm
Ducklings gotta quack, Mushrooms gotta shroom.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 1:54 pm
In the spirit of rational discussion, those of us who are anti-abortion would contend that the pro-abortion (yes I am using direct language) advocates play a very slippery game with insisting that it’s all about reproductive choice. I think if they were honest the only choice with regard to reproduction is do I or do I not engage in activities that will result in pregnancy. After that the choice is on terminating another persons life. This is a real sticking point because if you are willing to admit that a fetus is another person then there really needs to be a compelling reason to kill (abort) that person. Your age isn’t the issue. Your health may be if your physical life is at risk but most studies indicate this is rare.
Comment by NeverPoliticallyCorrect Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 2:40 pm
Ultimately, these county resolutions are an attempt to preserve a moral and ethical standard of decency until SCOTUS intervenes.
Comment by logic not emotion Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 2:43 pm
It is sad that society has gotten to the point where anyone even thinks they are needed.
Comment by logic not emotion Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 2:44 pm
Reasonable discussion is only possible if each side admits the other side might have a point. When one side believes a human begins at conception and the other side doesn’t, the discussion is pretty much over. Religious beliefs that differ as to when a life is a human life aren’t valid and beliefs not based on religion aren’t either. It’s sad that the vast majority have beliefs somewhere on a scale that is not black or white and those beliefs are drowned out by the absolutes. These decisions are agonizing for the families involved and the discussion should be respectful of that fact.
Comment by Sense of a Goose Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 3:09 pm
==if you are willing to admit that a fetus is another person then there really needs to be a compelling reason to kill (abort) that person==
if you’re willing to admit that a woman is a person then there really needs to be a compelling reason to remove her innate right to bodily integrity and the practice of medicine that is literally older than Jesus
Comment by crazybleedingheart Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 3:12 pm
I agree with the Goose in that it is very difficult to have a rational discussion about many issues. Abortion and gun rights are two of the issues for which emotion seems to override logic for many. Most fall somewhere in the middle but are driven to the extremes by others.
In my opinion, individual rights should be very strongly considered except where they pose a grave, real (not just perceived) risk to another individual.
On the pro-life pro-choice debate, the pro-choice side should prevail until such time as that egg becomes an individual human. Some say that is at conception. Some say that is when the heart starts beating. Some say that is when it becomes viable outside the womb. At whatever point that is and with a few medical/other exceptions, the woman’s rights are mitigated by the baby’s right for life.
On gun rights gun control debate, the gun rights should prevail until such point as their rights impose upon other’s rights to life. The logical extension of that, with a few exceptions, is that individuals should be able to freely carry weapons and defend themselves or others; but not to kill innocents.
Seems pretty basic to me; but…
Comment by logic not emotion Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 3:37 pm
sigh. crazybleedingheart, no one is arguing women are not people. No one. People ARE arguing fetuses are not human. Stop with the straw man arguments.
And if both the mother and the baby are people, then you are saying one person’s right to live freely is more important than another person’s right to live.
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 3:49 pm
Regarding parental notification, the judicial bypass already exists for the hard cases. But repealing the law because there are hard cases reminds me of Aristotle’s saying that hard cases make bad law.
Comment by anon2 Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 4:35 pm
As was pointed out above, there cannot be any debate when anyone argues that a fetus is a person who has a much right to live as the mother, or that a fetus can never be considered a person and has no right to live. Those are arguments that have only one side. There is absolutely no reason to have a discussion with anyone with either view because they are never going to change their mind or give any ground. They just end up screaming at each other.
Comment by Shevek Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 5:22 pm
The Informed Consent sub-committee is not posted for this week.
Comment by Minor Detail Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 5:42 pm
the Costa-Howard bill does 2 things. Preempts resolutions and ordinances.
The first if the governmental form of speech, hard to see how that flies. the second is somehting else, but like the feds the county can say non money appropriated under the budget can be spent for anti-gun stuff.
deal with it. the differance between the fedral immigration laws and state gun laws to those south of I80 is insignificant. If elected officials at one end of the state can igore laws they choose, and lets not for get Cook Couty and pot or Kim Foxx’s other stuff, then they say eff you.
and now they will just look at it as a differnet form of officer discreation and prosicutorial disscreation.
if you didn’t want to head Heller and McDonald and try to drive a truck through the dicta, then to bad.
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Mar 19, 19 @ 7:12 pm