Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood

Aldermania V! Live blogging from City Hall

Posted by Eric Scheidler on Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007

Eric blogging, by photo JT Eschbach10:40 a.m. Just a heads up that I'll be live blogging from City Hall, starting with the Government Operations Committee meeting at 4:30 at the Alderman's Office (map), and then at the regular City Council meeting at 6:00 in the Council Chambers.

This will be the fifth City Council meeting in a row at which pro-life citizens have stood up to speak on the issues. Our focus in "Round 5" will be the parental notice ordinance proposed by Rick Lawrence.

Check back this afternoon at 4:30 when the live-blogging will commence.

Government Operations Committee

4:25 p.m. I'm outside on the sidewalk on Downer Place waiting to be let into the meeting. Our foes Bonnie Grabenhofer and Gay Braun are out here with me too.

Roger and Elizabeth Earl have been let inside already, since they have baby Isabelle with them and it's a little chilly out here. Should have brought Sarah with me!

Alayne4:30 p.m. Waiting to get in still. Saw Corporation Counsel Alayne Weingartz coming down the block and snapped a photo of this notable public figure. When Alayne reached me she declared, "Mr. Scheidler I don't believe I've given you written permission to video tape me."

I informed her that I wasn't videotaping her, that it was just a camera. "I haven't given you permission to take my photograph either. Just wanted to be clear on that." I don't know if she heard me saying the Supreme Court is pretty clear on stuff like that, too.

4:45 p.m. They've finally let us into the meeting room. Aldermen Lawrence, Beykirch and Irvin were raising a bit of a stink with the police about why citizens were being kept out of a public meeting despite seats being available, asking questions like who asked for the police to be outside in the first place. Next thing you know, they let us in.

Right now Alderman Keith is talking about ad hoc homeowners traffic assessment groups bypassing their homeowners associations with regard to speedbumps, or something like that.

4:50 p.m. Alayne Weingartz has just left he committee table and sat down next to me in the gallery. Maybe she likes me more than I thought!

5:15 p.m. Weingartz returned to the table for a few minutes, then sat down beside me again. I observe that she is reading a Supreme Court case on parental notification. Interesting.

Meanwhile Whitey Peters is here to discuss a No U-turn sign for over by the Home Depot.

5:20 p.m. I find the case Wingate is reading is Ballotti v. Baird (1979), which overturned a Massachusetts parental consent law. Not sure what parental consent (permission required) has to do with parental notice (permission not required).

5:45 p.m. We've finally reached item #20: "Discussion Item: Parental Notification." Somebody just passed out a memo from Attorney General Lisa Madigan, apparently in response to the proposed ordinance. It seems nobody has seen this memo until now.

Alderman Lawrence is providing and overview. He will present the current situation and what they hope to achieve with the ordinance, then Chris Beykirch will offer some remarks and finally Richard Irvin will address some of the legal challenges.

Alderman Lawrence begins his presentation by thanking Beykirch and Irvin for their dedication on this issue. He notes that until the recent controversy, he wasn't even aware that there was any medical institution that would perform medical procedures without parental notice.

Lawrence says this is not about Planned Parenthood or abortion. It's about parental responsibility for their children. Adults know the questions to ask of a medical provider, the research to do; children don't know that.

He says what he presented last week is a first draft, a beginning. Yes, there are issues to be worked out, but we have a responsibility to find a way to ensure the safety and welfare of our children:

If the state cannot get past politics for passing laws like this and hold people responsible and businesses responsible for this, then it's our job to do it. I'm a father of 2 daughters and if someboby tells me a doctor can make a decision for my daughters over and above my wife and me, that's a problem.

He says the point is to discuss this out on the open. He notes that this isn't a stealth effort with "four months of secret meetings"—I presume a reference to how the Planned Parenthood approvals went down.

If nothing else, he says, this opens an important discussion. And as to the abuse questions, he says that that's a matter for law enforcement, that we dare not keep that hidden and send that child back into that situation (by procuring an abortion).

Government Operations Comittee5:55 p.m. Chris Beykirch is now adding his own remarks. He's addressing the problem of the recuperation of a minor from a medical procedure; will a "small minority of medical providers" be there for the minor if parents, unaware of the procedure, can't be. I take it the "small minority" is Planned Parenthood.

Beykirch notes that he is eager to review Madigan's memo, but that it's ultimately irrelevant because the State of Illinois has so abjectly failed to address the parental notice issue.

He is now reading the "whereas"-es of a new proposed resolution for the City Council calling on the State to enact the as-yet-unenforced parental notice law, and inviting other municipalities to do the same. They're asking for the G.O. Committee to pass this resolution on to the Committee of the Whole, which meets next Tuesday.

6:00 p.m. Alderman Richard Irvin is now addressing the legal challenges. He says that these challenges are no reason not to act on this issue.

Irvin identifies three legal hurdles: (1) that Medical Practice Act, (2) the abuse of minors issue and abuse reporting and (3) the issues of judicial review, due process and enforcement.

Since the proposed ordinance has nothing to do with licensing, Irvin doesn't think that will be a big problem. The abuse issue to is one that can be dealt with.

The judicial review is the most serious challenge, because the City can't order the state circuit courts to be involved in this. But, says Irving, "We owe it to our children to find other ways to provide that protection to our children."

6:05 p.m. Alderman Stephanie Kifowit, who is apparently acting chairman for this meeting, is now remarking. She's punting the whole thing to the legal department, it appears.

Beykirch has jumped in to ask for comment on the proposed resolution and to ask why that can't be sent to the Committee of the Whole. Kifowit reponds that there are questions about the resolution to be answered and that this is not an action item for this meeting. Beykirch notes that acommittee just yesterday acted on a non-action item, and Lawerence reminds Kifowit that the committee has the authority to act on this.

Kifowit has focused on one phrase in the resolution, that the State law was found "unenforceable in a court of law." Lawrence says that phrase could be taken out or clarified at the Committee of the Whole. Beykirch wants to keep it.

But it's clear that Kifowit is not going to act but punt this to legal. But maybe it will be on the agenda as an action item for the next meeting.

Now Irvin is calling again for the resolution to be forwarded on to the Committee, where it can be modified. But Kifowit is standing firm on not forwarding this matter to the Committee of the Whole.

Now Weingartz has jumped in to ask who the counsel is who was retained by the aldermen to construct the resolution. The three aldermen have informed her that they did not receive legal advice on drafting the resolution, and procured from Weingartz assurances that no such legal advice is needed.

Stephanie Kifowit and Fellow6:15 p.m. All three aldermen have appealed to Kifowit to send the item on to the Committee of the Whole, but she's not budging. However, she says that it will be an action item at the next G.O. meeting.

I am told that the fellow here talking to Kifowit after the meeting was giving her thumbs-up and thumbs-down throughout the whole meeting. I am informed he is Alex Arroyo, chairman of the Aurora Township Democrats.

City Council Meeting

6:25 p.m. The City Council meeting has begun. It will be a while before public comment begins, so I'm going to take a break from this furious blogging and and get some photographs.

Channel 7 Cameraman7:05 p.m. I see that Channel 7 is here. But I only see a camera, no reporter. There's a rumor going around that some kind of prohibition on videotaping may be forthcoming from Weingartz. It would be interesting to see Channel 7 ordered to put away their camera.

7:10 p.m. The contentious red light camera issue is punted to the November 6 City Council meeting at the recommendation of Finance Committee Chairman Bob O'Connor.

7:40 p.m. They're motioning to shut down public comment after two hours again. And Alderman Elmore is bringing up the idea proposed last week of picking up where the list finished last week. That means it may be unlikely that I (#12 on the new list) will have a chance to speak. Aldermen opposing the public gag motion were the usual Lawrence, Kifowit and Irvin, joined this time by Hart-Burns. Good for her.

Now a ten-minute recess.

7:55 p.m. We're back. Chris Beykirch asks whether non-residents on the "old list" will come before residents on the "new list." It seems that all Aurora residents on both lists will speak before any non-residents get to speak. But nobody in the gallery is quite sure if that is what was decided. Lawrence pipes up: "Or you could let everyone speak," to great applause.

8:00 p.m. Leah Mitchell is the first speaker from the old list. She takes Weisner to task for issuing the occupancy permit. One comment received a gasp of horror from a small number in the crowd: "Naperville is the third best place to rasie your kids in America, and Aurora is the best place to kill them."

Then Rachel Howard presents the case in favor of a parental notice ordinance, including some stark examples of the harm that can come to teens when they are left to make such perilous decisions alone. Next speaker too.

8:15 p.m. After a couple more critique's of the mayor and an interesting proposal by Henry Treftz that any building employing such defensive measures as bulletproof glass and infrared sensors require a special use permit, Lauren Kurek delivered the following brief and poignant remarks:

Contraceptives "the pill" . . . $30 per month
Antibiotics for some STD treatments . . . $75
Abortion due to antibiotics making contraceptives absolutely worthless . . . $500
Psychiatric care due to anxiety, depression, and loss of self worth . . . $1,500
Funeral costs for unexpected teen suicide . . . $6,000
Parental Notification . . . Priceless

8:20 p.m. John Zahm responds to Mayor Weisner's attempt at the last City Council meeting to deflect responsibility for his unilateral decision to grant Planned Parenthood's occupancy permit by reference to his experience in the Peace Corps and raising a disabled child. He talked about how his own parents had similar experiences, but that fostered a deep respect for all life.

8:25 p.m. Youth for Truth President Sean Grismer suggests to Mayor Weisner that if he can't answer the criticisms of the citizens of Aurora, it will be hard for him to face the judgment of God. Focusing on the Aurora's youth, he says, "If you want us to make the right decisions, you guys better start making the right decisions."

8:30 p.m. Phil Howard breaks the ice by welcoming back Alderman Saville—due to illness, he has been away during our City Council visits until now—and by cracking a joke about the City's refuse program. He goes on to support parental notice, and ends with the proposal that parking be free on City Council night by way of a "color code" password delivered to citizens at the meetings. Laughs and applause.

City Council8:35 p.m. Lisa Koepele: "Alderman Lawrence, you're the man!" Lisa goes on to talk about how the movement opposing Planned Parenthood has transformed so many, drawing us out of our comfort zone, increasing our dedication to prayer, inspiring us to help Planned Parenthood clients with medical care and generally becoming much more involved in our community.

8:40 p.m. Rebekah Christenson, a pastor's wife, describes how she got a call from a teen girl needing someone to talk to. She knew even before meeting with the girl what it would be about. The girl said she was pregnant. She told the girl she had to tell her parents. The girl didn't want to, but she did. Bekah has continued to counsel the whole family towards healing.

Bekah concludes: "Pouring yourself into someone else and helping your fellow man brings healing, not secrets and lies that destroy families."

I observe that Channel 7 has left. So too has the reporter from the Chicago Tribune. Apparently Andre Salles form the Aurora Beacon News has left too.

8:45 p.m. Ann Canning: "Why aren't more of you upset about this? We judge by your body language, and most of you look bored." Ann talks about "common sense," both in terms of the deceit practiced upon the city by Planned Parenthood and the parental notice issue.

8:50 p.m. Now Jerry Nickels presents the remarks of a professional grief counselor that abortion is one of the hardest types of grief to overcome, with severe depression, insomnia, flashbacks brought on by all manner of triggers such as hearing the sound of a vacuum cleaner—and suicide.

8:55 p.m. Andrea Heeg, a realtor and stellar FVFAPP volunteer, remarks on how being the abortion capital of the country is bad for property values in Aurora.

I tell you what: live blogging a meeting like this gets pretty exhausting; I can't quite keep up with the pace, so the best I can do is a few notes on speakers whose remarks stand out for whatever reason. Somewhat random since I might be putting in a photo or typing up the last talk and miss something good. To get it all, you have to come to the meeting!

Time to stretch my legs!

Ann and Joe Scheidler9:05 p.m. It looks like maybe they've moved on to the "new list." By the way, my folks, Ann and Joe Scheidler are here.

9:10 p.m. Dale Hammond: "For the sake of the safety of our children, Mr. Mayor, tear down that building." Cheers.

9:15 p.m. Luis Vasquez is the first person to speak out against the parental notice ordinance. He says that if his sixteen year old sister got pregnant and had to inform his parents that she was seeking an abortion, they might even physically abuse her. To which, one might suggest that DCFS be contacted immediately.

9:20 p.m. After John Thorn's exhortation to the Council to to the right thing, Bonnie Grabenhofer speaks out against the parental notice ordinance, calling on Lawrence and company to withdraw it. The two other pro-aborts in the audience clap.

By the way, that Alex Arroyo fellow who was consulting with Kifowit and apparently coaching her during the G.O. Committee meeting is sitting with a little group of Planned Parenthood supporters. But this time around I don't see any of those pink shirts.

Alayne9:35 p.m. I just delivered my remarks about taking care of my daughter Liza when she had a bone tumor that had to be removed. I passed out a picture of Liza and her sister Sarah from a recent apple orchard outing. My new assistant Matt Yonke took a photo of my friend Alayne Weingartz while I spoke.

Bruce Sutcliff prays: "We will not move from that sidewalk, Father, come hell or high water"

Karen Nickels tells of a woman who had an abortion who came up to her on the sidewalk outside the now-closed abortion facility on the West side: "It's the worst thing I've ever done. Why didn't you stop me. Why didn't someone stop me. . . . No, I chose it myself."

9:40 p.m. Elizabeth Earl cites—yes, with sources—the suicide rate of teens who have had abortions and such, followed by numerous cases of teen girls who died from abortion. She's followed by her husband Roger who first speaks out in favor of parental notice and then clarifies for the mayor the difference between judging actions ("You lied to us") versus the person ("You're a liar").

9:50 p.m. Vernon Cupes: "If the Founding Fathers had thrown up their hands and said, 'It's the law,' we wouldn't be free today."

9: 55 p.m. Charles Chat: "We've just learned that before us is a legislative body," apparently in reference to the Council's irrelevance in the Planned Parenthood controversy. He goes on: "I want to thank those of you who have brought forward this parental notice ordinance." Charles goes on to criticize the mayor's action in issuing the occupancy permit and concludes by reminding the mayor that on September 11 he promised that everyone would be allowed to speak after the investigation had concluded. He asks when that will be.

10:00 p.m. Alderman Lawrence thanks everyone for supporting parental notice. He regrets that the resolution proposed to urge the State of Illinois to implement parental notice was not passed out of committee, and urges the Council to bring it forward to a vote.

Lawrence also calls on the zoning board to address the appeal raised by FVFAPP regarding the occupancy permit. The meeting ends.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 am and is filed under Legal and Political. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

46 Responses to “Aldermania V! Live blogging from City Hall”

  1. Eileen Peterson says:

    You guys in Aurora Illinois are our heroes!!!! You are showing us how to to get it done. You are the light at the end of this horrific tunnel of death and destruction for MONEY! God Bless You and We Love You.

    Prayers and Fasting with you.

    God won this victory so long ago. We just need faith.

    October 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 am
  2. Charles says:

    The Mayor’s promise –

    For those of us who attended the Sept 11, 2007 City Council meeting, do you recall the Mayor’s promise to listen to the people? During that meeting (I believe during the vote to limit speech – or at the end of the session) the Mayor stated to everyone in the Council Chambers that the members would listen to EVERYONE wishing to speak (regardless of address) once the investigation concluded. Two weeks ago, the investigation was concluded (if you can call it that) and we filled the chambers once again. However, the usual suspects limited our speech.

    Now, either my ears and memory isn’t what it used to be or the Mayor pulled a fast one.

    If someone can confirm this, please post here, or better yet – has the video, I would like to get that one posted.

    October 23rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
  3. Kathi says:

    This is for those folks who don't live in Aurora or who don't get the local newspaper the Beacon News. Last Sunday there were two full page front page articles presenting ridicules arguments against the parental notification law. I wondered how in the world did they think thaty would fly? The articles were straight out of Planned Parenthoods playbook. Anyway, the newspaper did post a number you could call to say if you were for or against parental notification. Today, Tuesday the papper reported out of 1800 people calling in 75% were for parental notification. To bad it won't make Sundays paper.

    October 23rd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
  4. Erin says:

    Mr Scheidler–

    Thanks so much for live blogging. My husband and two of my sisters-in-law are speaking tonight, and I'm glad to be able to keep up on the action from home (where I am watching two sick toddlers). But, was it really right to photograph someone and then challenge her on it? I was not there to witness the exchange, so perhaps it was friendly, but if not, you might want to apologize. It seems to me there is no need to make enemies over something so small.

    Thanks for all you do and for keeping us up to date tonight.


    October 23rd, 2007 at 5:01 pm
  5. Tim says:

    Many thanks to Eric for the live blogging. Wish I were there but my wife has evening nursing clinicals so I am home with my two girls, and loving it. Thanks to all who do show up tonite, my family appreciates the effort.

    October 23rd, 2007 at 5:02 pm
  6. Erin says:

    Mr. Scheidler:

    Sorry if this is a repeat, but I didn't see my post come up. Thanks so much for live-blogging tonight. My husband and sisters-in-law are speaking later, but I'm holding down the fort with 2 sick toddlers. Thanks for letting me be part of the action.

    Also, if the exchange with Alayne Weinzgart was at all unfriendly, I hope you might apologize. There is no need to make enemies over something so small.

    Thanks again for all you do!


    October 23rd, 2007 at 5:25 pm
  7. Nancy says:


    If Alayne is still sitting next to you, go to and get a big picture for her to look at. See you in a few!

    Love and prayers ~ The Weber Chicks

    October 23rd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
  8. Jerry Nickels says:

    I find it interesting that Alayne is sitting next to you–a clear case of game playing.

    October 23rd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
  9. Tara says:

    Eric –

    In the 4th district court of appeals, they ruled in favor of the Commonwealth of VA. Case PP vs. Camblos. I've email you the case. It ruled that states have an interest in seeing parents raise their children and be actively involoved, especially in these types of decision, although the final decision rests on the minor. Please read.



    October 23rd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
  10. Paul says:

    Illinois law requires "mandatory reporters", which include health care providers, medical clinics, doctors, nurses, counselors and others, to report any and all suspected cases of child abuse to Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, aka DCFS. This state agency has a special hotline for reporting:

    1-800-25ABUSE OR 1-800-252-2873

    DCFS has a special website with information and forms.

    Illinois Law requires all agencies, including health clinics, to retain in their personnel files, signed statements "certifying that they understand their mandated reporting requirements" according to the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act (ANCRA).

    The question is: Does Planned Parenthood in Aurora have these signed statements on file for all of their mandated reporters? Who is responsible for ensuring that they comply with the law?

    October 23rd, 2007 at 6:40 pm
  11. Paul says:

    Kifowit "says that it will be an action item at the next G.O. meeting."

    Is that so the opponents of the proposed ordinance can prepare their strategy to defeat it before it even gets off the ground?

    Alex Arroyo, "chairman of the Aurora Township Democrats" "giving her thumbs-up and thumbs-down throughout the whole meeting."

    In other words, they are playing political games regarding the health and safety of the children of Aurora, by trying to exclude the parents from just being informed ahead of time, if their daughters are going to have an abortion, or if any child would be going for a medical procedure?

    October 23rd, 2007 at 6:50 pm
  12. Eric Scheidler says:

    Jerry writes: "I find it interesting that Alayne is sitting next to you—a clear case of game playing."

    To be fair, her purse (though I didn't know it was hers) was on the chair next to me, so she had already "staked out" that spot for her seat when not needed for items on the committee agenda.

    October 23rd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
  13. Renee says:

    "When Alayne reached me she declared, "Mr. Scheidler I don't believe I've given you written permission to video tape me.""

    This is fresh, considering she had the people at the final Jericho march video taped. So, which is it Alayne, does one need written permission to be video taped, or not? Hmmm??

    October 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 pm
  14. michelle says:

    We appreciate anything you can give us!! Thank you for having a servants heart!!


    October 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 pm
  15. Denham says:

    Can anyone tell me if there are people there video taping the meeting tonight? Last meeting someone recorded it and had it played on Comcast Public Access Channel 10 & 17 and it was great. I would like to see that again.

    October 23rd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
  16. Bren says:

    So was Sharons question on the 2/3 vote by council to let us speak unlimited not answered? I had to leave early.

    October 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
  17. anna mynus says:

    I read last week that Illinois law considers a pregnant teenager an emancipated minor. Therefore parental notification is not necessary. It is her body and she should be able to decide as she sees fit.
    Too many are intolerant of others views as you try to impose your ideas on others.

    Other truths -

    Studies have shown that depression after abortion is rare.
    (article in Sun Times about a year ago)

    Having an abortion is carries less risk to the mother than delivering a full term baby.

    Abortion is legal. It was just as prevalent when it was illegal, but now it's safer than a coathanger.

    October 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
  18. Jon Zahm says:

    It was a good night. The room was packed with pro-life Aurorans who spoke with passion and sincerity.

    We need 7 votes to pass the parental notice.

    Going to be tough to get to that number. Can't do it if Stephanie votes NO.

    Best scenario
    Lawrence, Beykirch, Irvin, Hart-Burns,
    Kifowit, Peters

    I would be shocked if Saville, Keith, Garza, or O'Connor voted YES

    Therefore the deciding vote comes from Elmore or Schuler. I think we have the best chance with Elmore.

    If we are stuck on 6-6, Weisner will kill it.

    October 23rd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
  19. Mary says:

    To Anna Mynus,

    For the stat that depression after abortion is rare–tell that to all the family members who lost a girl or woman to suicide following an abortion. See the Black Wall where some of them are named.

    And to the more danger in delivering than aborting. Simply not true. And for all your information. Come up with the exact rescources to them. Just the same ol' pro-abort comments.

    October 23rd, 2007 at 11:35 pm
  20. Ana says:

    Dear Paul;
    In regards to your question:
    "The question is: Does Planned Parenthood in Aurora have these signed statements on file for all of their mandated reporters? Who is responsible for ensuring that they comply with the law?"

    DCFS is responsible to ensure that PP is in compliance with the Abuse and Neglect Child Reporting Act ILCS 325 5/4. Further, all mandated reporters are required to sign a form entitled “Acknowledgement of Mandated Reporter Status” an in accordance to the Abuse and Neglect Child Reporting Act. In Illinois, the public in general may report child abuse, but in the instance of mandated reporters they are obliged to report “abuse or neglect” in accordance to Illinois State Law. So “…failure to report suspected instances of child abuse or neglect to DCFS constitutes a Class “A” misdemeanor; ..and … simply reporting suspicions to a superior does not satisfy legal requirements.”

    Now, you bet! All medical personnel working at PP are mandated reporters as per the definition: Medical Personnel: Physicians, psychiatrists, surgeons, residents, interns, dentists, dentist hygienists, medical examiners, pathologists, osteopaths, coroners, Christian Science practitioners, chiropractors, podiatrists, registered and licensed practical nurses, emergency medical technicians, substance abuse treatment personnel, hospital administrators and other personnel involved in the examination, care or treatment of patients and they MUST report abuse to DCFS at 1-800-252-2873. My hope is for PP to be in compliance with the law.

    I am a mandated reporter. I am aware that at the previous abortion clinic in Aurora or the West Suburban abortion clinic, the personnel was not in compliance with state law or even aware of their mandated status. I became aware of an incident involving a minor crying for help and forced to have an abortion after being impregnated by her stepfather. I was not alone when I was given notice of this incident. I was in the company of a nurse. Because I am obliged to report, I called DCFS and made a report of the happening, however DCFS did not look into this case because I did not had the minor’s name. As per the medical worker and the OBGYN (abortionist) that performed the abortion, I don’t believe they were investigated or penalized as stated in the Illinois law. Per DCFS, unless you have the child’s name, DCFS would not investigate. So even when DCFS is responsible for ensuring that abortion clinics comply with the law, the chances of enforcing it is improbable and that is the reason that we need the reinforcement of the Parental Notification Act. As per Lisa Madigan’s statement, addressed to the City of Aurora, she is irrelevant because if a minor child is a victim of abuse, PP personnel have the obligation to report under Illinois Law. The abuse of the minor is of jurisdiction for the judicial branch. Now, I have not read the letter and Lisa Madigan may be attempting to deter Aurorans from passing a law that has been enacted in most states of the union but has been pending in the State of Illinois for many years. However the relevant item in here is that Parental Notification is a present concern in Aurora for the protection and wellbeing of minor children.

    October 24th, 2007 at 1:11 am
  21. Mary says:

    Let me add to Eric's comment for 10PM by Ald Lawrence…

    "We need to stop the blaming…we have to work with what we have…we have to move on…leave it to the building and zoming commitee to see if there are any wrong doings…we have to move on…"

    And THEN no further comments from the Mayor after that.

    Now I was not born yesterday. I said from the begining what I saw as developing "writings on the wall". Mark my words….ALD Lawrence is using ususal invalidating rhetoric I have heard before and then the Mayor not commenting further. These are clear signs that we cannot trust Ald Lawrence. We here have clear reason to begin to assume that the city has totally written us off. And to "leave it to the commitee" who has already intentionally overstighted ordinance violations!?

    I don't know about you, but I will not move on. That is the same as giving up and giving in. No way. There is no way that that commitee will rat on itself. I am diappointed and dismayed at your comments, Ald Lawrence. But not surprised. Your words are like any other politician. And I was begining to think that you were above that.

    October 24th, 2007 at 3:42 am
  22. Tim M. says:

    Hey Charles,

    It was Alderman Richard Irvin who stated at the end of the public commnents at the Sept. 11th meeting that there would be no limit imposed on the public comments when the investigation was completed. I do not recall the mayor making this statement nor commenting on it one way or the other that night. I remember it well because at the time that I heard it I questioned to the person next to me whether Alderman Irvin had the authority to make that happen or not and we guessed that he did not.

    Also, here's an excerpt from an email that I sent out to some folks after that meeting that was an overview of the meeting. It speaks directly to what you are talking about:

    "At the end of the meeting Alderman-at-large Irvin stated that when the investigation is completed and the report is made public that the public comment period of a subsequent city council meeting would not have a time limit imposed on it. I'm not sure if this is binding on the council or not. Probably not as motions can be raised and voted on so we shall see."

    October 24th, 2007 at 6:47 am
  23. Renee says:

    Says Ana "Abortion is legal. It was just as prevalent when it was illegal, but now it's safer than a coathanger."

    This is long, but very interesting. Read it.

    Recently, the Guttmacher Institute (a research wing of Planned Parenthood), released a study with some stats I thought sounded fishy (read the summary report here) Of course the media just spit the press release out as fact. Some of the statements include:

    * 48% of all abortions worldwide were unsafe
    * more than 97% of all unsafe abortions were in developing countries
    * There were 31 abortions for every 100 livebirths worldwide in 2003

    The interpretation they give of the numbers then said:

    Overall abortion rates are similar in the developing and developed world, but unsafe abortion is concentrated in developing countries. Ensuring that the need for contraception is met and that all abortions are safe will reduce maternal mortality substantially and protect maternal health.

    I wanted to really get behind the numbers, so I asked a friend, who is a Ph.D. statistician to look at the numbers with a critical eye. Here is what he sent me:

    This is like stitching a quilt from fish nets. Here is the main data that you need to know: The primary author works for and the article is published by the Guttmacher Institute. The Institute is named after an Ob/Gyn and former president of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Alan Guttmacher. Nearly a quarter of the citations for this article are from a division of the Guttmacher Institute.

    Aside from that, here is what I see (note that I defer to their definitions):

    -If an abortion takes place in a polity where induced abortion is illegal (or severely restricted), it is deemed as unsafe, even if done so by trained providers. Here is a noteworthy quote: "Moreover, illegal procedures are harmful even when they do not lead to these consequences [death or hospitalization], because they require women to take actions in violation of the law and often without the knowledge or support of their partners or family."

    -If complications arise from an abortion in areas where it is restricted, they are no doubt due to unsafe abortion procedures, so most post-abortion complication records are categorized as unsafe.

    -The data for 2003 is actually an amalgam of several years' worth of data. Trend estimates for 2003 were used when appropriate. If there was no information for 2003, a value from a previous year's estimate was used in its place.

    -The researchers "corrected" some data for under-reporting. The correction inflation was usually about 140%. The US correction factor was 105%; Bangladesh was 300%. Therefore, for countries where abortions are illegal, the total number of abortions was estimated, then inflated, and then all of these were considered unsafe.

    -Consequently, nearly all of the abortions in Africa and Latin America, which make up nearly a quarter of the total number of worldwide abortions, were deemed unsafe.

    -If less than 50,000 of the abortions were considered safe in a particular region, then all of the abortions in that region were considered unsafe. Curiously enough, Southern Africa nudged up to 100,000 safe abortions, thereby keeping Africa from being listed as 100% unsafe.

    -100% of the abortions in the region including China and North Korea are safe (implying forced=induced & safe).

    -100% of the abortions in Northern and Western Europe and North America were safe.

    -Oddly enough, when you estimate and then inflate the number of abortions in regions where they are illegal and unreported, you arrive at the fact that the incidence of abortions is no higher for polities that have unrestrictive abortion policies.

    -No margins of error were reported for these estimates, even when survey data was utilized.

    -Based on the information presented in this article, there is no way to reproduce the statistics; there is a tremendous amount of rounding error and the underlying raw data is essential unavailable given the "corrections."

    -I found an estimated 260 million live births in the world in 2003 based on numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau International Data Base (rather than the 205 million used as a basis for the results of this study). Assuming that number is correct and the number of worldwide induced abortions for that year estimated by this group is also correct, then the upper threshold for the worldwide number of abortions is not 20% but 14%. This does not factor in miscarriages, spontaneous abortions, and still births.

    (From this site.)

    October 24th, 2007 at 8:55 am
  24. Erin says:

    Anna Mynus-

    One google search on minor's emancipation in IL turned up this tidbit, from the "Separated Parenting Access Resource Center" (not from a group with any stake in abortion issues:


    While getting married constitutes an emancipation, getting pregnant and having a child does NOT constitute emancipation. The difference, reason the courts, is that in the former situation, there is an intent to substitute the parents' support for the new spouse's support, while in the latter situation, there is no intent to rid oneself of the support of the parents. In fact, in most of these cases, the pregnant child continues to live with the custodial parent and continues to depend on support from the custodial and/or non-custodial parent. In re Marriage of Clay, 670 P.2d 31 (Colo. Ct. app. 1983) (daughter not emancipated where she continued to live with her mother and depend on her for support); Doerrfeld v. Konz, 524 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (minor daughter in high-school, living with her mother, was not emancipated due to pregnancy); Hicks v. Fulton County Dept. of Family & Children Services, 155 Ga. App. 1, 270 S.W.2d 254 (1980) (pregnant minor still dependent on mother's Social Security benefits); In re George, 6 Kan. App.2d 336, 988 P.2d 251 (1999) (child who quit school on her 16th birthday and then had a baby was not emancipated; child still lives with her mother and depends on her for financial support); Town of Brunswick v. LaPrise, 262 A.2d 366 (Me. 1970) (father held liable for daughter's support; fact that she was pregnant could not relieve his responsibility); Randolph v. Randolph, 26 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1070 (Mo. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 1999) (17-year-old girl who moved out of parents' home after an argument, lived with boyfriend, quit school, worked at various jobs for six months, became pregnant, and then returned home was not emancipated); French v. French, 599 S.W.2d 40 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980) (pregnant daughter's receipt of AFDC benefits did not constitute new status inconsistent with continued control and support by daughter's parents); Wulff v. Wulff, 243 Neb. 616, 500 N.W.2d 845 (1993) (where daughter returned to her mother's home after she had a baby and broke up with her boyfriend, daughter was not emancipated); Bickford v. Bickford, 55 A.D.2d 719, 389 N.Y.S.2d 430 (3d Dep't 1976) (New York's Social Services Law mandates support for child until age 21 where the child is receiving public assistance and contains no exception for emancipation due to pregnancy); Thompson v. Thompson, 94 Misc. 2d 911, 405 N.Y.S.2d 974 (Fam. Ct. 1978) (pregnant daughter had not abandoned her mother's home and was thus not emancipated); see also Nuckols v. Nuckols, 12 Ohio App. 3d 94, 467 N.E.2d 259 (1983) (daughter who was pregnant was emancipated by her 18th birthday, not by her pregnancy).

    On the other hand, moving out of the parents' house and into an apartment, setting up housekeeping with a partner, and having a baby can be emancipation, because the totality of the circumstances shows an intent to be free of the parents' custody, control, and support."

    Hope the information is helpful. Is 30 states have upheld parental notification, then is seems to me it must be pretty legal and mainstream.


    October 24th, 2007 at 9:27 am
  25. Eric Scheidler says:

    Mary writes: "Mark my words. . . Ald Lawrence is using usual invalidating rhetoric I have heard before and then the Mayor not commenting further. These are clear signs that we cannot trust Ald Lawrence."

    Mary, I have to disagree with you here, emphatically. I'm convinced that Alderman Lawrence is a strong and reliable ally.

    Please bear in mind that Lawrence is not an orator. He's a regular guy, a business owner, who cared enough about his community to get into government.

    So maybe he didn't express himself with eloquence, but his point about the zoning board was simply that they're the only entity in government that has any more say over this matter. There's no point in appealing to the City Council to shut down Planned Parenthood—that ship has sailed.

    Nobody who sat in on the Government Operations meeting could have the slightest doubt about Lawrence's commitment—or Beykirch's or Irvin's for that matter. But all three of them realize that we need to keep focus and move forward.

    That does not mean—and I am 100% certain Lawrence does not think it means—learning to "live with" Planned Parenthood. It means facing the fact that PP is here now, and we have to look to other ways to fight them. That means the parental notice issue, the appeal to the zoning board (and any further litigation that follows) and, of course, our ongoing clinic witness.

    About the zoning board of appeals. First, a clarification: this is not a committee sat on by aldermen but a board of appointees that meets on occasion. To our knowledge, the zoning board has never addressed the Planned Parenthood approvals process. Neither has the zoning administrator.

    We have serious reasons to doubt the independence of the zoning officials, but right now the ball is in their court. We've made an appeal, and they need to respond to it. That does not mean we have to accept their response—and I don't believe Lawrence was saying we do. If they dismiss the appeal, the next step is state court. But that's the next step. The current step is awaiting the ZBA's response.

    That was Lawrence's point, and I agree with him, as do all the attorneys working on this.

    October 24th, 2007 at 10:26 am
  26. Mary says:


    I will pray that you are right. Government moves so slow and seems to be deliberate in that speed. I just think of the babies dying and Moms being wounded during in the interim. That thought tears me up. Plus us being duped by the Mayor. I cannot help but see everyone with an eye of caution.

    October 24th, 2007 at 11:00 am
  27. Anonymous says:

    Can anyone provide a better picture of Alex Arroyo than the one liste above? REALLY important!

    October 24th, 2007 at 11:19 am
  28. John says:

    Mary Says…

    "Government moves so slow and seems to be deliberate in that speed."

    That is becuase there is money to be made so why not drag their feet. Our govenrment is in the business of making money and so is PP. They do not see moral and ethical implications to their cash cow.

    I am under the firm belief that without total economic reform that PP and abortions are here to stay…

    The simple fact is that abortions make too much money.

    October 24th, 2007 at 11:25 am
  29. Charles says:

    Tim – Thanks for clearing that up. I know that Ald. Irvin has voted consistently that way. What I found more interesting – is that when Irvin stated this, no one from the council objected. While I did misquote the Mayor, I believe that the Mayor’s lack of objection to Irvin’s statements amounted to his agreement.

    October 24th, 2007 at 11:33 am
  30. NM says:

    Reference to Comment #17:

    Mary: 'Love your simple, bottom-line response.

    Anna Mynus: In case you are an abortion-protector who is not intimidated by LEARNING the truth, you will find the Black Wall at:

    October 24th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
  31. NM says:

    Reference to Comment #28:

    Correction: BlackMUN Wall
    Find it at website in Comment #28, left-hand side, click on Women Killed by Abortion.

    October 24th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
  32. NM says:

    Eric: …and perhaps Alayne continued sitting next to you
    to insure herself you wouldn't be shooting photos of her from that range! Certainly she could have moved to another seat, if indeed that was her purse saving the spot. (We, too, think she likes you.)

    October 24th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
  33. Jerry Nickels says:

    Re Ald. Lawrence's closing remarks: I listened very carefully and it seemed Alderman Lawrence was giving his best shot analysis of where we are at now. He did not suggest we give ground in any way, shape, or form to the forces that oppose us. I do not know what will be next but as the matter works its way through the council committees the next step (and our response) will become more clear.

    There is much yet to happen on the legal front. Legal counsel is working hard to bring together a solid case and in the meantime we must continue to pray in our homes, in our churches, and at the abortion fortress for an end to the scourge of abortion.

    We must also lend support to the various organizing efforts and financial appeals that are needed to sustain this noble cause. I was reminded the other day that it has only been two and a half months since the 40 day prayer vigil began. We have been through a lot in that short period of time. For perspective we need to remember what Judge Norgle said: "this is far from over." I take him at his word.

    October 24th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
  34. Erin says:

    The lead article in the Beacon today is about a group of female legislators urging women to get involved in politics.

    "Called Women's Voices Illinois, the effort will allow lawmakers to implement a plan or create policies on issues crucial to women. Health care, education and social services are of most concern to women in the area, legislators have been told in their stops. The more voices we have telling us what our needs are, the easier it will be to move us forward," Rep. Ruth Munson, R-Elgin, said Tuesday during an editorial board meeting with The Beacon News…Women are encouraged to contact their lawmakers directly or post comments at"

    OK, Ladies, I know what's important to me; let's let our "women's voices" be heard. We want Parental Notification enacted in Illinois!

    October 24th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
  35. Mike says:


    Whether your Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, you should go see the movie this weekend.

    The long anticipated movie "Bella" will be opening this weekend in many cities. Please make sure you see it this weekend. The plot is about two people whose lives are changed forever discover that sometimes it takes losing it all to finally appreciate the things that truly matter. Bella is a heartwarming love story that goes much deeper than romance. It is an unforgettable story that celebrates unborn life, family, relationships and our capacity for love in the face of the unexpected.

    For More…


    October 24th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
  36. Mark Rivera says:

    FYI, I have DVD's of Oct. 9th's city hall meeting(same as is airing on comcast 10 & 17 – soon on ACTV) available to anyone who wants them. I will be glad to send them out for $6. Please contact me at with any questions.

    Mark Rivera

    October 24th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
  37. Becca says:

    Does anyone know if contacting Lisa Madigan's office will expedite things? Can we contact anyone in Springfield? I just feel like if we can flood Springfield with calls and letters maybe that will give us some sort of jump start on all of this. I spoke last night and I feel so frustrated that the city officials aren't obligated to answer any of our questions. I would love to know where they really stand on all of this. Our presence is so important there. Don't give up attending the city council mettings everyone.. we need to let them know we aren't going away. I also think Rick Lawrence is awesome!! I don't apprecaite how others on the council treat him verbally… very disrespectful

    October 24th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
  38. Jane Celeste says:

    Dear Readers for Life! :-)

    You may all be interested in logging on to Michelle Malkin's website – scroll down the main page to box "Later entries" click on this to take you to the other lead stories

    Read ** 107 criminal counts against Planned Parenthood in Kansas**- There is also a good blog there titled **The Forgotten Victims of Planned Parenthood**


    October 24th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
  39. Jane Celeste says:

    Dear Readers-

    Here's an Eye Opener for those of you who missed Patricia Bainbridge's Conference last week- The "Super Hero for Choice" Video that planned parenthood put out! It's nasty! Talk about VIOLENT!!

    Log On!


    October 24th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
  40. Amy says:

    I just used the link that Jane Celeste put up. What is up with that! A couple of my older teens (18 and 16) came in just after I started it and laughed their heads off. They saw it as a funny slam on PP. They were surprised when I told them it was suppose to have come from PP themselves as a promotional video. Are you sure it isn't a spoof? My daughter wishes they would have left it on the PP site. Then anyone seeing it would know how "gross" they really are.

    October 24th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
  41. Mike says:


    You can hear about the upcoming movie on the Audio Archives on the following link.

    Just click on the link and then type in the word "Bella" in the second search engine!

    a Audio Archive Introduction to the movie BELLA.


    October 24th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
  42. Becca says:

    You have got to be kidding me!!!! That video is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen!! What kind of sick mind thinks up something like that? Lord Jesus come quickly!!!

    October 24th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
  43. Mike says:


    Here's another Audio Archive link to listen about the movie "Bella".

    Just click on the link and then type in the word "Bella" next to Title!

    a Another Audio Archive Link – Introduction to the movie BELLA.


    October 24th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
  44. Mary says:

    Does anyone known the contents of the memo from Lisa Madigan given to the GOC at their Tuesday evening meeting?

    October 25th, 2007 at 8:00 am
  45. Eric Scheidler says:

    About Stephanie Kifowit and the "coaching" by democrat strategist Alex Arroyo:

    I had a very cordial e-mail exchange with Alderman Stephanie Kifowit about the alleged "coaching" (thumbs up and thumbs down) by Alex Arroyo, chairman of Aurora Township Democrats.

    Stephanie assures me that she took no notice of any direction Arroyo may have been offering her.

    I was disappointed that Stephanie wouldn't budge on sending the non-binding resolution on to the Committee of the Whole, but I'm willing to lay all the blame on her rather than Arroyo. ;-)

    I don't know where Alderman Kifowit stands on the resolution or the ordinance—or on Planned Parenthood, for that matter—but I have always found her to be personable and willing to talk.

    I'm glad to know she's reading the FAPP blog!

    October 25th, 2007 at 10:08 am
  46. Square Zero » Blog Archive » Eric’s “Touch of Maple” Pecan Pie says:

    [...] been pretty busy lately, but things have slowed down enough that I managed to brew beer a couple of weeks [...]

    November 22nd, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Pregnant? Need help? Hurt by abortion? Call 1-800-848-LOVE, 24 hours.