Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Support Regulated Pet Stores And Defeat Puppy Mills
Next Post: HCRCA amendment coverage roundup
Posted in:
* Tribune…
The House voted 62-51 to repeal a quarter-century-old law requiring parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion. The measure, approved Tuesday in the Senate, now heads to the desk of Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who has expressed his support. […]
Those pushing for repeal of the 1995 abortion notification law say it does nothing to protect the most vulnerable young people — those living in unsafe and unstable households. Opponents of the repeal argue that parents shouldn’t be kept in the dark about their children’s well-being, particularly when they decide to have an abortion, though they also tied it to larger concerns about parental rights.
Supporters also are seeking to secure Illinois’ place as a stronghold for abortion rights that are being restricted in other states.
“Illinois is different,” said state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat who supported repeal. “In Illinois, we trust women to make decisions about their bodies. We trust people to control their reproductive health.”
* WCIA…
Rep. Anna Moeller (D-Elgin), the lead sponsor of the proposal, described the Parental Notification Act as “the last anti-abortion law that we have on the books in Illinois.” Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), who sponsored the Reproductive Health Act in 2019, described the current notification law as a “gaping hole” in the state’s “firewall to protect reproductive health.”
Illinois Democrats have sought to respond to the recent abortion restrictions enacted in Texas. That law, which is being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court, bans abortion after a heartbeat is detected, which is around six weeks into the pregnancy and before most women know they are pregnant.
“Anti-abortion politicians all across the country are seeking to curb our access to abortion for anyone and everyone,” Cassidy said during floor debate. “They literally want to just force us all to keep every pregnancy to term regardless of what’s happening, regardless of the risks to our lives.” […]
“This is no easy, minor bureaucratic process,” Moeller said on the House floor. “This involves a young woman hiring an attorney on her own setting up a court date; finding a way to get to court standing in front of a judge in a courtroom that’s generally a venue for criminal activities; explaining why she’s pregnant; explaining why she needs to have an abortion, and why she can’t go to her parents to let them know about that.”
* Center Square…
“I have reviewed and I know the medical evidence, and I know that forced parental involvement laws serve no valid purpose and can hurt young people and delay care,” said Dr. Erin King, executive director of the Hope Clinic for Women.
State Rep. C.D. Davidsmeyer, R-Jacksonville, said the legislation will allow some kids to bypass their parents.
“I think you are opening this up where supportive families will not be involved in these incredibly difficult decisions, and that is a major, major problem,” Davidsmeyer said.
With the law in place, minors are allowed to go through judicial bypass proceedings if a girl fears her family situation, where telling her parents could result in her harm. A judge then decides whether she is mature enough to decide for herself.
Retired Judge Susan Gillis presided over numerous judicial bypass proceedings as permitted by the current law.
“That law in my experience as a judge tasked with deciding these waivers is unnecessary, overly punitive and places burdens on young women seeking health care,” Gillis said.
* Sun-Times…
In an impassioned speech opposing the bill, state Rep. Avery Bourne, R-Morrisonville, said a vote for the repeal is not just “failing girls — it’s failing good parents.”
“We’re not talking about 17-year-olds exclusively who are months away from being 18, we’re talking about middle schoolers — potentially parents of middle schoolers — not having the right to know that their daughter is going through this and not having the foreknowledge to know what happens afterwards,” Bourne said.
The Legislature passed the Parental Notice of Abortion Act in 1995, but it didn’t go into effect until 2013 due to legal challenges. It requires a doctor providing care to a young person under age 18 who is seeking an abortion to notify a designated adult family member at least 48 hours before the procedure.
* WTTW…
Cassidy said the notification requirement treats minors differently if they want an abortion rather than other forms of health and reproductive care.
“You can get pregnant. You can stay pregnant. You can give birth, you can have a C-section, you can give a child up for adoption, all without ever having anybody call your parent. To say that this is not about abortion, that this is about some high-minded protection for you all is a flat out lie,” Cassidy said.
* Capitol News Illinois…
Opponents of the bill, however, argued that the issue is not about a pregnant minor’s right to seek an abortion but rather the right of parents to be involved in their child’s health care decisions.
“No abortion clinic should be able to perform irreversible surgery on either of my daughters without telling me,” Mary Hallan FioRito, an attorney with the Catholic Women’s Forum, told the committee. “At a time when there is so much division in our state, in our country, the Parental Notice of Abortion Act is a popular and broadly supported and reasonable safeguard that allows parents to properly exercise responsibility for the care of their children.”
* ABC 7…
Planned Parenthood Illinois is one group supporting the repeal and said this is an especially important step at a time when reproductive rights are under severe attack across the country.
“By passing the Youth Health and Safety Act, Illinois has ensured that young people can choose to involve the people they trust in their health care decisions and are protected from harmful domestic situations and unnecessary judicial interactions. In short, all Illinoisans, regardless of age, now have the full legal autonomy to make decisions about what’s best for their bodies. We look forward to Governor Pritzker upholding his promise to sign this bill when it crosses his desk,” the organization said.
On the other side, Catholic Conference of Illinois was disappointed by the decision. They said in part that Wednesday’s “vote is and will be a tragedy for many families, young girls and so many unborn children. We pray for the day when every human life may be cherished from conception to natural death.”
At a time when abortion laws are getting tighter nationwide, Illinois is now one step closer to doing the opposite with this now headed to Governor J.B. Pritzker’s desk. The governor has previously said he supports it.
“As more states consider and adopt increasingly draconian bans on access to abortion service, Illinois stands out for recognizing that everyone should have the power to make decisions about their reproductive health without government interference. We encourage Governor Pritzker to sign this measure as soon as possible,” the ACLU said in a statement.
* I missed this quote during Senate passage…
Illinois State Senator Darren Bailey says minors shouldn’t be able to get an abortion without talking with their parents first.
“I’m going to call it what it is…other than just an absolute godless mindset. What’s driving this — to allow a 12-year-old girl to make her own decision without the consent of her parents,” Bailey said.
“I simply cannot fathom the recklessness of a bill like this.”
It’s notification, not consent, but proponents of the legislation say the two are actually one in the same.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 9:30 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Support Regulated Pet Stores And Defeat Puppy Mills
Next Post: HCRCA amendment coverage roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
As a male I always try to stay out of this but I do wish we did more (and did better) at avoiding situations that lead to unwanted pregnancies.
Comment by Lurker Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 9:37 am
In high school, a small group of girls committed to each other that we would help whomever in case of abortion need, money to go to a place that allowed it. I still cannot imagine telling my parents about such a situation. fantastic legislation.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 9:40 am
How many pregnant 12 year olds does Darren Bailey know? And secondly, why?
Comment by Shield Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 9:42 am
Are Bailey, Bourne, Republicans ready to defend that 12 year olds could and should possibly be required to see a pregnancy through full term?
Now, after this passes and it’s signed, how pro-life are these folks if they now feel a judge can allow an abortion is “more acceptable” than the repeal of PNA?
If they now feel a judge should have remained as before, thus supporting abortion, how will they feel about voting for a Texas like bill on abortion?
Statewide, it may get tricky, in solid GOP districts, maybe not so much tricky, but are candidates going to tell suburban women “we want to legislate your choices, here’s what we will allow or not if you elect us”?
Rauner faced backlash from the base AND his own signature supporting abortion didn’t save him from the party either.
How vocal now will GOP legislators be after signature?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 9:44 am
If abortion is healthcare, Democrats don’t just want to take away child education choices from parents, they want to take away child healthcare influence from parents as well.
Comment by Lake Effect Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 9:56 am
In functional households children talk to their parents- even about painful things. But in functional households these conversations are mostly not necessary, because children are nurtured and supported. We are not talking about functional households or nurtured young people.
Comment by West Sider Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 9:56 am
=== Democrats don’t just want to take away child education choices from parents, they want to take away child healthcare influence from parents as well.===
In other words, Republicans want to force the issue that a parent can force a 12 year old to see a pregnancy to full term, even against the child’s will.
Wonder how suburban women will feel about that.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 9:58 am
== not having the right to know that their daughter is going through ==
That’s up to their daughters to decide. The bill does nothing to restrict the rights of parents.
It seems to me there are a lot of people who aren’t aware what they are complaining about. They aren’t complaining about this bill, they are complaining that they already know their own daughter doesn’t trust them enough to tell them, and now the state can’t force her to.
There’s an easy non-government way to resolve their complaints. I’m sure these same people complaining can appreciate that. I know I certainly do.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 9:59 am
Apparently some people think pedophile teachers, attorneys, doctors and priests should be able to dispose of the evidence of their crime without alerting their parents to a crime in progress. Stunted pedophile thinking. What a bunch of Roman Polanski admirers.
Comment by Al Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:02 am
=== Apparently===
… you haven’t thought about criminality as just that, criminality, and the only way you see indictments is if the pregnancy is notified to parents.
I don’t think this bill absolves criminality, what language makes that so… very specifically
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:07 am
===teachers, attorneys, doctors and priests===
Did you forget about incest or predatory family on accident or did you type all those words specifically to absolve those crimes?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:08 am
=Apparently some people think pedophile teachers,=
A new challenger for dumbest comment of the year has availed himself.
You have to be some kind of special fool to think that the intent is to allow child abusers to get away with it.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:11 am
Al, and stay with me I’ll type slowly, a great number of minors who are sexually abused are done so by family members.
You advocating for them?
As a side note, I was going to pull a GOP ballot to vote for a candidate for sheriff I support.
Now, I also have to vote for Bailey. Watching Durkin trying to distance himself all summer/fall will be a gas.
Comment by Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:12 am
OW - your arguments are ridiculous. You really think republicans want a 12 year old to carry a pregnancy to full term. That is your argument here? That is what you truly believe causes R’s to vote against this? Really?
You seem to be way smarter than your argument dictates. Way smarter.
Comment by allknowingmasterofraccoodom Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:17 am
Avery Bourne and impassioned. Now those are two terms I’ve never seen in the same sentence before.
Comment by Furtive Look Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:31 am
=== your arguments are ridiculous===
Wait until the mailers come out from Personal PAC
If you’re not educated enough in how I comment sometimes by looking at what could or may be used in campaigns…
You’re not grasping… that these arguments to box Republicans in… are very real possibilities?
“Oh, you think a judge can help as it did before, so you are pro-choice?”
The way this bill will be framed with the Texas law…
You’re very ridiculous if you don’t think “forcing children to have children” will be a campaign issue now.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:34 am
I also won’t be surprised to see mailers that may read;
“(Candidate X) is dangerous for women’s health, even as young as 12”
May not be all that fair, but…
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:37 am
===You really think republicans want a 12 year old to carry a pregnancy to full term.===
Pro-Life, “no exception” Republicans advocate for this.
That’s what “no exceptions” means.
You realize that, right?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 10:41 am
=You really think republicans want a 12 year old to carry a pregnancy to full term.=
You have to be able to see both the policy and politics behind this. If the ILGOP fails to see both they’ll be walking out in front of a bus.
You think a Republican is going to be able to make an impassioned argument against the repeal of the PNA without wading into the larger abortion and women’s health debate? Well that sounds like being “a little pregnant” too me.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:02 am
Just going to point out to the people using incest as the reason for their support of the repeal that the PNA didn’t require the judicial bypass to waive the notification requirement for those cases. A minor could tell their doctor they were abused by their family member and it would be waived.
Comment by Illiana Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:05 am
===for those cases===
It appears the point of the repeal is to allows all cases, any case, the same child has an option.
If one is staunchly pro-life, all exceptions are unacceptable. Those pro-life folks now wanting PNA to stand because of exceptions might be considered pro-choice going forward?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:10 am
===Apparently some people think pedophile teachers,===
I would encourage you to read 325 ILCS 5/4 regarding mandated reporting in Illinois. It includes abortion clinics so your argument fails. The mandated reporter language now includes “licensed professional counselors of any office, clinic, or any other physical
location that provides abortions, abortion referrals, or contraceptives.” Maybe check with your local rape crisis center to get information on this in the future. They could be a big help to you.
Comment by Saluki with a Job Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:11 am
=You really think republicans want a 12 year old to carry a pregnancy to full term=
Um, yeah. Rape victims too. Have you heard of Texas?
Comment by LakeCo Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:12 am
Oswego - that’s a fair point about the staunchly pro-life individuals, but what about around 50% of people polled as pro-choice who thought parental notice should be required?
I’m pro-choice myself,but it’s hard for me to ignore the fact our government doesn’t allow minors to make essentially any other important decisions on their own, including ones related to healthcare.
Comment by Illiana Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:41 am
=== but what about around 50% of people polled as pro-choice who thought parental notice should be required?===
“Republicans want children to have children”
My belief is the politics to the bill, the repeal, and the actions now available may not see the same end games, insofar as a real comparison now to Texas and putting in play that abortion’s legality is at stake.
If Republicans wanna go down this road to discuss the bad of the bill, then they better be prepared to then first compare to Texas, and the idea of “children having children” argument.
I’m not saying it’s fair, but it’s also fair game.
=== I’m pro-choice myself,but it’s hard for me to ignore the fact our government doesn’t allow minors to make essentially any other important decisions on their own, including ones related to healthcare.===
Do you want laws that require a 12 year old to have a pregnancy thru full term? As a law? Like Texas?
We’ll see how it plays but there’s no winning idea when the mailers are going to be about comparisons to Texas.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:49 am
== Apparently some people think pedophile teachers, attorneys, doctors and priests should be able to dispose of the evidence of their crime without alerting their parents to a crime in progress. Stunted pedophile thinking. What a bunch of Roman Polanski admirers.==
Has parental notification ever caused a sexual predator to be arrested and convicted? Do you have the proof?
Comment by Mayo sandwich Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:58 am
=Do you want laws that require a 12 year old to have a pregnancy thru full term? As a law? Like Texas?=
Absolutely do not support that at all. What Texas passed lacks common sense and if I was from that state I’d be embarrassed. However, I do think the parent of said 12 year old probably has the right to know that they were pregnant.
Comment by Illiana Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 11:59 am
===However===
The political argument is to compare Texas, the legislative argument is the nuance the politics will gladly ignore, or gladly highlight, depending on the side you sit.
This repeal allows the discussion and puts the GOP on the spot to Texas… because groups like Personal PAC will use that prism to PNA.
Again, fair? Maybe, maybe not, but fair game, or at least will be discussed.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:04 pm
=This repeal allows the discussion and puts the GOP on the spot to Texas… because groups like Personal PAC will use that prism to PNA.=
While you are 100% right, I would guess that the GOP would try to hit at least moderate Democrats for taking away parents’ rights. Though the real question with that is do they have the money to do that and do that effectively. Answer: probably not
Comment by Illiana Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:14 pm
=== I would guess that the GOP would try to hit at least moderate Democrats for taking away parents’ rights.===
“If parents were notified as you want, would you be in favor of the abortion?”
“I’m pro-life”
“So you’re against abortion, even for a 12 year old, with consent, like the Texas law?”
Walking into pitfalls is where the GOP sits. “We’ll see”
===Though the real question with that is do they have the money to do that and do that effectively. Answer: probably not===
Also guessing Personal PAC in competitive races will insert themselves, with ample resources, and using Texas too.
If the GOP wants to make abortion, crime, social programs, whatever, a cornerstone political play, agreed, as of now, they lack real resources, “today”
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 12:19 pm
OW, I see your point, but I wonder if 2022 will be different than other years. Will the “Parental Rights” be the battle cry of Republicans? “Dems are taking away Parents’ rights to oversee their curriculum in school, forcing children to wear masks, and taking away notification if my child is pregnant.” I suppose we will have a better idea if this argument is perceived by Republicans to be successful with the Virginia vote next week.
With respect.
Comment by G'Kar Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:02 pm
It’s all good, honest discussion to this and other things going into 2022 must include the social agenda items…
===Will the “Parental Rights” be the battle cry of Republicans? “Dems are taking away Parents’ rights to oversee their curriculum in school, forcing children to wear masks, and taking away notification if my child is pregnant.”===
By 2022, with the Texas law, and the Mississippi law being heard and decided by SCOTUS, the GOP dog catching the car on abortion might be too much of a hurdle?
I do feel strongly the silence of both national GOPers and ILGOP folks on the Texas law is a tell, it’s not great news to run on with an actual law like that on the books, and pro-choice folks motivated by that actual law.
If they all thought it was a winner, it’d be much louder to it’s existence and the victory.
Right back at ya, much respect to you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:13 pm
=Will the “Parental Rights” be the battle cry of Republicans?=
Not hearing much from McConchie and Durkin on the subject right now and that’s where I’d take my cues. If the minority leaders don’t want to wade into the pool it’s a pretty good indication of how they see things playing out at the state level and in suburbs.
I don’t see this as a tactical error on the part of Dems, I see this more as setting a trap. A slight twist on what they did with HB40. Of course in that situation the governor had no choice but to step into it. Doing so here could be an unforced error if you get the calculation wrong. Time will tell.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 1:24 pm
Young people can’t buy cigarettes, alcohol or handguns until they’re 21. They also can’t enter a casino or run for the legislature until that age. The law assumes that many of those under 21 have poor judgment. Except when it comes to abortion.
Comment by anon2 Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:05 pm
=== The law assumes that many of those under 21 have poor judgment. Except when it comes to abortion.===
You’re saying they had good judgment in pregnancy?
That’s an odd take, especially if it’s a rape or incest
So you think, “hey, kids make poor choices, so a child has no choice, full term pregnancy”
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:08 pm
=Young people can’t buy cigarettes, alcohol or handguns until they’re 21. They also can’t enter a casino or run for the legislature until that age.=
All very valid points. But if you’re making those arguments you may be missing the forest through the trees. That is unless you can talk about “parenting” while completely side-stepping “women’s health.”
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 2:22 pm
== completely sidestepping women’s health ==
Is a pregnant junior high student a woman? I wouldn’t call a 13-year old male a man, even though he may be capable of impregnation.
== So you think, “hey, kids make poor choices, so a child has no choice, full term pregnancy” ==
Does parental notification automatically mean “a child has no choice, full term pregnancy”?
Comment by anon2 Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 3:22 pm
=== == So you think, “hey, kids make poor choices, so a child has no choice, full term pregnancy” ==
Does parental notification automatically mean “a child has no choice, full term pregnancy”?===
First, it’s statutory rape, it may be incest, and there are folks and already one state in the Union that won’t allow an abortion, Texas says after 6 weeks.
The only reason to defend a pro-life stance it appears in this instance is that you must override the statutory rape and possible incest as acceptable in your mind.
Keep that in mind as your query my thoughts to the politics of wondering about a 12 year old going full term on the pregnancy.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 3:30 pm
== First, it’s statutory rape. ==
Adults who impregnate underage girls ought to be prosecuted. On the other hand, if the girl gets pregnant, and her adult boyfriend takes her for an abortion without her parents’ being any the wiser, that helps the perp get away with his crime.
Comment by anon2 Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 3:38 pm
=== that helps the perp get away with his crime.===
Hmm.
===I would encourage you to read 325 ILCS 5/4 regarding mandated reporting in Illinois. It includes abortion clinics===
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:03 pm
== mandated reporting ==
If the adult boyfriend tells the clinic operators that he is the adult who impregnated the minor, then there should be a report. How many perps are likely to volunteer that information? I doubt the clinic asks the girl who is the impregnator. What do you think?
Comment by anon2 Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:10 pm
=== I doubt===
Please go back to Facebook.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:12 pm
Abortions only connection to Reproductive Rights is that it ends the life of the unborn child that has been produced from a properly functioning reproductive system and taking away the right of the unborn child to continue its life.
Comment by Arock Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:18 pm
===I doubt the clinic asks the girl who is the impregnator. What do you think?===
I think you should read the full mandated reporter guide available from DCFS. Then post it on Facebook.
Comment by Saluki with a Job Thursday, Oct 28, 21 @ 4:47 pm