Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: If you want to truly address homelessness, look to Rockford (and Houston)
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
The Illinois Senate debated and passed several bills last Thursday dealing with what the news media likes to call “culture war” issues.
Perhaps the least controversial (there was almost no debate) was House Bill 1591, which deletes some anti-miscegenation laws still on the books since 1915. Even so, nine Republicans voted against the bill.
A bill pushed by the American Civil Liberties Union to amend the state’s Children and Family Services Act, House Bill 1596, also attracted GOP ire. The bill is an attempt to address an auditor general’s report about how the Department of Children and Family Services was “failing to meet the needs of the growing number of LGBTQ+ youth under their care.” So, phrases like “he or she” was replaced with “minor” or “the child,” etc.
In language addressing what happens when mothers relinquish their children or neglect or abuse them, the word “mother” was replaced with the word “person,” although “mother” was left intact in a definition of the term “parent.”
A couple of Republican women said they were insulted by the word change. “I earned the right to be called mother,” said Sen. Terri Bryant, R-Murphysboro, adding that she was “offended” the bill was brought to the floor shortly before Mother’s Day, even though most of the language changes were about people who aren’t exactly model parents. The opposition appeared to have an impact because a handful of Democrats took a walk and the bill passed 36-19.
Then came House Bill 2350, which changed some state insurance code language to make sure a small number of people receive Pap smears and prostate cancer screening. The way the current law mandates insurance coverage seems to exclude those who no longer identify with their birth gender. So, the bill changes some words in the statute to make sure nobody is left out of what can be life-saving coverage.
Things got a bit heated. Sen. Jil Tracy, R-Quincy, declared the Senate was “wasting our time” on the legislation while good Republican bills were “languishing” in the chamber’s Assignments Committee, which is where bills that aren’t voted on by certain deadlines are sent to die. She also called the bill “bizarre.”
“Biological males cannot get Pap smears! It’s not possible!” thundered Sen. Andrew Chesney, R-Freeport.
Well, yeah. Nobody, including the bill sponsors, said they could.
Chesney then went even further by spreading a rumor during debate that has been debunked about a kabillion times.
“This is why your kids are dressing up as furries and want kitty litter in the bathrooms!” Chesney declared about the legislation. The kitty litter thing is a completely fabricated far-right claim that some schools are being forced to put kitty litter in their restrooms to accommodate students. It’s utter nonsense.
Eventually, Sen. Rob Martwick, D-Chicago, had heard enough. “The idea that you would make a stand against simply ensuring that the law provides that human beings, human beings can get life-saving cancer screenings because you have some ideological opposition to the lifestyle that they chose is really nothing short of cruel,” Martwick said. The bill passed 37-17.
House Bill 2389 was called a bit later. It’s an initiative of Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias to prevent police from using the excuse of things like an air freshener or parking pass hanging from a driver’s rearview mirror as a pretext to pull drivers over.
Black and Brown drivers have complained for years that police single them out for enforcement of a law that few people even know exist. But you’d have thought the sponsoring Democrats were trying to enable horrific dangers the way the opposition reacted. Drivers with no front view at all could run down kids near schools if this bill passed, one warned.
Sen. Bill Cunningham, D-Chicago, eventually rose to point out that the extreme scenarios outlined by the Republicans were all addressed in the state’s reckless driving statute. “This is a good bill,” Cunningham, a former Cook County Sheriff employee, said. The bill passed 41-11.
An anti-bullying bill, House Bill 3425, was debated near the end of a long day. The proposal would require school officials to notify parents of alleged bullying incidents involving their children within 24 hours after the officials learn of the allegations.
Sen. Seth Lewis, R-Bartlett, warned that the legislation could exacerbate the state’s growing difficulties with retaining and recruiting school administrators. Lewis wound up voting “No” along with four GOP colleagues. But several Republicans voted for it, and it passed 50-5.
It was quite a day.
* Related…
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 8, 23 @ 8:59 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: If you want to truly address homelessness, look to Rockford (and Houston)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
== anti-miscegenation laws==
had to Google that one.
Thanks Rich, added to the knowledge base.
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Monday, May 8, 23 @ 9:07 am
So Republicans want parents notified if their child wants to use a different name, which hurts no one, but not if their child is being bullied?
I can’t even with these people.
Comment by JoanP Monday, May 8, 23 @ 9:08 am
“I earned the right to be called mother”
You certainly have.
– MrJM
Comment by MisterJayEm Monday, May 8, 23 @ 9:17 am
I don’t deny that I’m fairly left of center. But I also freely admit that there are lots of serious policy issues that require frank and thorough discussion, even with people who may bring very different policy approaches than I would prefer.
But I don’t know how you can have those kinds of discussions when one side of the aisle keeps jumping to debunked fantasy arguments like kitty litter in school bathrooms.
Comment by Homebody Monday, May 8, 23 @ 9:29 am
Retirement cannot come soon enough.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, May 8, 23 @ 9:52 am
House Bill 1591, which deletes some anti-miscegenation laws still on the books since 1915. Even so, nine Republicans voted against the bill.
This is insane and I really hope someone gets these nine to explain or defend their votes.
Comment by The Truth Monday, May 8, 23 @ 9:56 am
I’m assuming the 9 “republicans” who are against “anti-miscegenation laws” have made their feelings known to a certain Supreme Court justice who would be in violation of their law.
Comment by Jerry Monday, May 8, 23 @ 10:01 am
===which deletes some anti-miscegenation laws still on the books since 1915. Even so, nine Republicans voted against the bill.===
How does your life end up in this place?
Comment by Suburban Mom Monday, May 8, 23 @ 10:14 am
I wonder if all 9 knew what they were voting against… worth a follow up for sure.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Monday, May 8, 23 @ 10:18 am
“But several Republicans voted for it”
Good. Now if only enough Republicans can work with Democrats and pass more gun reform, but on a national level. If a few want to fight bullying in schools, some should also want to reduce or stop mass shootings.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, May 8, 23 @ 10:19 am
–Even so, nine Republicans voted against the bill.–
Now imagine how fun it would be to try to delete the state law against flag burning. Despite the US Supreme Court having ruled such state laws are unconstitutional - 35 years ago.
I still like the idea of cleaning up old and outdated laws still on the books. It removes a potential avenue of harassment from the police.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, May 8, 23 @ 10:22 am
==Retirement cannot come soon enough.==
Do you have a problem with the bullying bill and if so why? Seems like schools should be doing that anyway.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, May 8, 23 @ 10:23 am
RE: the anti-miscegenation law
One possibility that I see on why republicans voted against it is because bill sponsor Mike Simmons is framing the bill as being “to strengthen marriage equality for same-sex couples looking to get married in Illinois” in addition to the anti-miscegenation. Also, I definitely had to google the meaning of miscegenation.
Comment by Aaron B Monday, May 8, 23 @ 10:41 am
==How does your life end up in this place?==
You mean being openly racist?
Comment by Demoralized Monday, May 8, 23 @ 10:49 am
It confounds me why some people get so worked up over this. At one point I thought it was religion, but then I realized that those folks were using a sort of “cafeteria” approach, meaning focusing on some tenets and now others. No consistency. Ugh!
Comment by levivotedforjudy Monday, May 8, 23 @ 10:50 am
This is making me feel old because I didn’t have to look up the meaning of miscegenation. That word was used a lot when I was growing up.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Monday, May 8, 23 @ 11:01 am
I’ve had something hanging from my car mirror for well over a decade. I knew about the law, but did not care.
Why, yes, I am an upper middle, middle-aged, white guy, how did you guess?
Would be nice if the legislature had a goal of removing X number of these pretextual, or unconstitutional, or generally out of date laws every year. Cleaning up the statutes is a usually minor, but always worthwhile, task.
Comment by Chris Monday, May 8, 23 @ 11:19 am
There are some who’d like America to go back to early 1960’s Alabama or Tennessee, and all the worst it means.
Nine serve in the ILGA.
“I earned the right to be called mother”
All truth. All of that.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 8, 23 @ 11:24 am
Obviously, the rear view mirrors’ law was being pushed by the Big Fuzzy Dice lobby.
Comment by JT11505 Monday, May 8, 23 @ 11:31 am
===Things got a bit heated. Sen. Jil Tracy, R-Quincy, declared the Senate was “wasting our time” ===
There are simple solutions, right? Either do not rise to express your prejudicial rhetoric when you hear ideas about righteousness that challenge you, or find an alternative career path.
As suggested above by Homebody, at some point those on the side of nondiscrimination and opposed to bigotries need to stop tolerating others expressing their contempt toward the citizenry of Illinois.
Comment by H-W Monday, May 8, 23 @ 11:36 am
Calling it an “anti-miscegenation law” is a bit misleading. The law basically said that a marriage that would be invalid in the parties’ state of residence could not be contracted in Illinois.
While that would apply to some mixed marriages, it would also apply to marriages within forbidden degrees of consanguinity, marriages between parties where age was an issue, and what is most likely the reason for the Republican “nos” - same sex marriages when Obergefell is overturned.
Comment by JoanP Monday, May 8, 23 @ 11:40 am
===Calling it an “anti-miscegenation law” is a bit misleading===
It is how the entire floor debate was framed. Sen. Tracy asked a question (the only question) on whether this was about getting rid of a 1915 law.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 8, 23 @ 11:56 am
–need to stop tolerating others expressing their contempt toward the citizenry of Illinois.–
At which point, you will be castigated for being ‘uncivil’.
As long as someone is politely describing their contempt for residents, and even their desire to eliminate them, you have to let them continue with no resistance. The person speaking will also be the only person to decide if what they are saying is polite or not.
And that’s how ‘civility pledges’ will end up working. And why such pledges are a terrible idea.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, May 8, 23 @ 12:14 pm
==== Calling it an “anti-miscegenation law” is a bit misleading. The law basically said that a marriage that would be invalid in the parties’ state of residence could not be contracted in Illinois.===
As the lead House sponsor, I can share that committee testimony from the IL State Bar Association cited a publication from a turn of the century version of ALEC that presented these laws as a way for states that did not want to pass anti-miscegenation laws to support states that do. So, it is in fact about anti-miscegenation. Also, the US codified Obergefeld this year, so even if the court acts on it, marriage equality is protected under both state and federal law. This really is removing a horrifically racist statute from our books. Plain and simple.
Comment by Kelly Cassidy Monday, May 8, 23 @ 12:26 pm
“No one said they could”
Then why does it need to be written into law… words matter. Only woman can get Paps… someone please convince me otherwise???
Comment by Someone Monday, May 8, 23 @ 12:50 pm
===Then why does it need to be written into law===
Try reading it again. You cannot possibly be that daft.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 8, 23 @ 12:52 pm
Rich…
I’m not… why was the word “woman” removed? Just because it’s not said doesn’t mean there isn’t intent. Dems believe gender is non binary and Republicans do.
Cover it how you want to cover it but it’s just a virtue signal and aside from raising premiums possibly what else does this do for the state and its denizens?
Comment by Someone Monday, May 8, 23 @ 12:55 pm
===and aside from raising premiums===
Why? Because more people will get possibly life-saving tests? Is that what bothers you?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 8, 23 @ 1:10 pm
==Then why does it need to be written into law==
A better question is why do you care? Is it harming you in some way?
Comment by Demoralized Monday, May 8, 23 @ 1:14 pm
@ Someone
Let’s take this slowly.
A Transitioning man benefits from a Pap Smear. An insurance adjuster on the phone a thousand miles away (or around the globe) might not know about the actual person requesting a Pap smear. The insurance adjuster may in some cases not have the correct information regarding the person applying for coverage.
No “virtue signaling” there.
As an aside suggested by your post, you might find it noteworthy that man is a gender identity, not a sex category.
There are in fact a lot of gender identities, from boy, young man, middle-aged man, elderly man, to girls, and sisters and young women and mothers and middle-aged women, and elderly women, etc. These are all gender identities.
Man and woman are about the presentation of certain social selves, that are influenced by a lot of factors (including ethnicity, religion, culture, etc.).
Gender is unrelated to sex category.
I hope this helps.
Comment by H-W Monday, May 8, 23 @ 1:15 pm
===why was the word “woman” removed? ===
If someone is born with congenitally atypically genitalia and has aspects of both male and female genitalia present (typically called “intersex”), regardless of what gender they choose for their social presentation, do you believe that person should have to choose which set of reproductive cancers they’re allowed to get tested for, on the basis that while 99% of people may only either have penile cancer or ovarian cancer, but not both? Even though this intersex person CAN, in fact, have both.
“No, that’s ridiculous, they should be able to get tested for all the cancers they’re susceptible to,” I hear you saying. Well, good, I guess you actually DO understand the point of removing the word “woman” from pap smear rules.
Comment by Suburban Mom Monday, May 8, 23 @ 2:16 pm
- H-W - - You nailed it.
Comment by Mama Monday, May 8, 23 @ 2:29 pm
The value of any title you may have, be it mother, father, or honorable, is what you determine it to be. If you let society’s perceptions determine that value, you need to consider what value that title has to you.
It seems like something one of the stoics would have written (or should have).
Comment by OneMan Monday, May 8, 23 @ 2:35 pm
== I’m not… why was the word “woman” removed? Just because it’s not said doesn’t mean there isn’t intent. ==
I generally lean to the right, but in this case I’m fine with the wording change. I just read the bill text and it simply says any insured individual can get those tests. It’s not like a doctor is going to request a prostate exam for a person who does not have a prostate. And if they did, the insurance company can deny the request based on lack of a prostate, without even getting into the whole gender issue. I think this is a case where the reaction from Republican side was based on reflex.
Comment by Occasional Quipper Monday, May 8, 23 @ 2:52 pm
===It’s not like a doctor is going to request a prostate exam for a person who does not have a prostate.===
Exactly.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 8, 23 @ 2:54 pm