Wednesday Open Thread: Illinois HB5615
Posted by Roger on Wednesday, March 5th, 2008
Are they "nuts"? The Reproductive Justice and Access Act nears the height of insanity.
The bill states "that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to reproductive decisions", yet for "pregnancy terminations", that same individual does not have a right to hold her "medical professional", aka the abortionist, responsible for any harm done during the abortion.
In Section 25, "Pregnancy terminations", it states: "a qualified medical professional is not liable for civil damages or subject to criminal penalty relating to a pregnancy termination performed in good faith".
Section 15, "Prohibition of interference and retaliation" states that the State or any governmental agency shall not "(3) deny or interfere with a pregnant woman's right to terminate a pregnancy: (i) prior to the viability of the fetus or (ii) when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant woman".
Why didn't they just say "… right to terminate a pregnancy anytime" instead of attempting to limit the scope? Historically, the "health" necessity means anytime.
Section 30. "Sexual health education." "All Illinois public schools shall offer medically accurate, age appropriate, comprehensive sexual health education."
All Illinois public schools must include grade schools too? Doesn't it? How does one offer "medically accurate" and "comprehensive" sex education to a 1st grader? To a 6th grader? Remember, not all "public schools" are for older children.
And WHO is going to provide this "comprehensive sexual health education"? What are their values and morals? Perhaps it is groups like Planned Parenthood?
Actually, doesn't most of this bill sound like it was forged from the offices of Planned Parenthood?
Let's see … (1) no limits to abortion, (2) no law suits against abortion providers, (3) comprehensive sex ed? Who would benefit the most from this bill? It's certainly not the "woman" they are touting.
Just to drive the point home …
Section 10. "Definitions" ensures that medical treatments that could possibly HELP a woman with giving birth are explicitly excluded.
"Pregnancy termination" or "termination of pregnancy" means any medical treatment intended to terminate a pregnancy. Pregnancy termination shall not include medical treatment conducted for the purpose of increasing the probability of the birth of a sustainable life.
Why is this extra clarification needed? It's called "Pregnancy termination". Could it be so because Planned Parenthood does not deliver babies or offer any prenatal care?
The Aurora Beacon News reported in their article Abortion bill creates new standoff in Legislature, "[t]he bill's supporters call it a work in progress that won't necessarily advance this year".
And while this may hopefully be so, it gives you an I a clearer insight into the minds and agenda of those that call themselves "pro-choice". Or is this just an insight into the minds and agenda's of businesses like Planned Parenthood?
God Bless,
Roger
This bill is very disturbing. It is a good time to notice who sponsored this bill and remember them the next time they are up for re-election. Our votes count.
I would like to remind everyone that we have a special election here in Illinois this Saturday, March 8. It won't stop this bill but it is important to the pro-life cause since Bill Foster is endorsed by Planned Parenthood.
For those who may think we should check our religion at the door here are some quotes from George Washington.
From Farewell Address
While these are direct quotes from George Washington you can find links and reference to his wittings as well as others at http://www.nccs.net.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Amy,
Have you read the entire bill? The above (not your comments) seem to be a lot of fear mongering. I won't put a link to the bill itself here as it seems anytime I post a link the comment gets held, however, you can do a Google search for HB5615 and get the actual bill in its entirety.
I think what you are missing about this bill is that it covers much more than abortion. Section 5 states: “It is the public policy of this State to ensure that all individuals have appropriate and necessary access to the full range of reproductive education, healthcare and services, including but not limited to PRENATAL CARE, ADOPTION……” Aren’t these things important? I was under the impression that one of the goals was to ensure that women had access to prenatal care and to adoption services. This bill provides for that!
Section 15 states that the State shall not “(2) deny or interfere with a pregnant woman’s right to bear a child;” or “(4) require any woman to terminate pregnancy without her consent.” This is not strictly abortion legislation. It provides for women who want to continue a pregnancy as well.
Section 20 states that: “…..the State shall ensure that individuals eligible for State medicaid assistance, or other State medical assistance, receive financial assistance for reproductive healthcare……” This means that prenatal care is available for PREGNANT women.
Section 25 states: “….a qualified medical professional is not liable for civil damages or subject to criminal penalty relating to a pregnancy termination performed in good faith, in accordance with the attending medical professional’s good faith clinical judgment and ACCEPTED STANDARD OF MEDICAL PRACTICE.” (Emphasis mine). This DOES NOT mean that a woman can’t sue for medical malpractice!!! If a doctor screws up a procedure, s/he CAN be taken to both criminal AND civil court.
Section 30 states: “All Illinois public schools shall offer medically accurate, age appropriate, comprehensive sexual health education. The Illinois State Board of Education shall promulgate and enforce regulations consistent with this provision.” This DOES NOT mean that Planned Parenthood will be teaching sex ed. It DOES NOT mean that sex ed will be taught in the first grade. It does mean that sex ed will be taught on an age appropriate basis. On an elementary school level, that could be how the body works (ex., explaining menstruation — something I wish I had known in 5th grade BEFORE I started menstruating).
March 5th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
The link to the full text of the bill is in the article above. Here it is again: Reproductive Justice and Access Act.
God Bless,
Roger
March 5th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Student,
Thanks for your post, although I don't think calling it "fear mongering" is very productive.
I look at the bill as a whole. Yes, I agree that there are parts of the bill that are laudable. But in total, the bill is geared towards providing more access (Sections 15, 25) and money (Section 20) for abortion (Section 25) and shutting down the provider's own conscience (Section 35).
If you look at our different views of this bill, it shows that it is in the interpretation of the bill that of importance too. Obviously we see it differently.
How will the courts see it? How will Planned Parenthood? Who is to say how it will be implemented or interpreted?
God Bless,
Roger
March 5th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Roger: "….and shutting down the provider's own conscience (Section 35)"
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I re-read Section 35 and there are out options for providers who are opposed to providing information. Can you ellaborate?
March 5th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Roger: "The link to the full text of the bill is in the article above."
You are correct — I missed it. That was clearly my error — you have my sincere apology!
***************
Roger: "The bill states "that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to reproductive decisions", yet for "pregnancy terminations", that same individual does not have a right to hold her "medical professional", aka the abortionist, responsible for any harm done during the abortion."
I'm sorry, but your "a/k/a" is nothing more than fear mongering. There is absolutely NOTHING in this statement (had you printed it in full) that would bar a woman from suing a doctor for malpractice. Your statement certainly, at a minimum, insinuates otherwise and that is simply untrue!
March 5th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
This is a pro-abort bill
March 5th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Student,
Section 35 - "… based on religion or personal conscience may refuse to provide such services only under the following conditions".
The bill states that the person with a conscience or religious reason not to provide the "services" must jump through 4 hoops (note the "and" just prior to #4). One of these hoops, #3, says that the person must "assist[s] the patient in obtaining such care".
In other words, if a person is seeking an abortion, and your conscience does not allow you to provide that "service", you must assist that person or refer that person to the very service you are objecting to. This is NOT an "opt out".
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
My "aka" calls the "medical professional" an "abortionist". This section of the bill, Section 25, titled "Pregnancy terminations" is all about abortion. A medical professional that performs abortion is called an abortionist. I don't see any "fear mongering" in that statement.
As for the inability to sue an abortionist, it is explicitly stated in Section 25, titled "Pregnancy terminations", and in NO other section of this bill, that the "medical professional is not liable for civil damages or subject to criminal penalty".
If it is so obvious that they CAN be sued, why is this provision even in the bill? Who is it protecting, the women seeking the service or the abortion provider?
As my wife said to me …. "any ordinary lay person would read that as banning lawsuits: why else put that language in a bill? Everyone knows if a doctor screws up he can be sued. This must mean or try to make people think they can't sue".
God Bless,
Roger
March 5th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Student, what do you do???
I will not beat around the bush.
Do you work as an operative for Planned Parenthood??
Are you a PR person for Planned Parenthood???
This bill ooozes Feminist and nanny state agenda. Thy type that PP lobby group hangs with, Naral, Now, Teachers Union, and Brillo Pad Rod. (sound painful and it is)
I do not ask these direct questions, because I think you are a troublemaker. I ask it because you seem to have an endless agenda to bring reproductive healthcare, ABORTION, to each and every person from conception to the Grave.
I respect your opinoin, but I don't agree with it.
This bill is another attempt to push the envelope to Universal Health Care.
"Everyone Deserves a Life" That's the battle cry for a breast cancer walkathon deal. That has humor to a pro lifer who battles a medical proceedure that contributes to the exponential increase of breast cancer in the past 35 years. Ask them? Go Ahead ask them? Does everyone deserve a life from conception?
I counted 3 Breast Cancer walkagigs and I don't think I have ever publically heard anything about Testicular Cancer.
I don't think it is time for new political parties, I think it is time for the Media to report instead of push an agenda, maybe then we could get primary winners that represent their party, not the whole nations representation for that party.
I have gone on for far to long ranting.
Sorry, been a while.
Happy March
March 6th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Dan the Methodist: "Student, what do you do???
I will not beat around the bush.
Do you work as an operative for Planned Parenthood??
Are you a PR person for Planned Parenthood???"
I am not employed in any way, shape or form by PP, NARAL or the teachers union and, if by Brillo Pad Rod you're referring to Blagovich (sp?), I can't stand him and think he should be booted out of office ASAP. I have done some volunteer work for PP, SIU/NIU, and the Unitarian Church. I was asked by NOW to form a local chapter, however, I find their views just as extreme and out of touch with reality as some of the ones I've seen expressed here.
I work in a law department and am 2/3 of the way finished with my second year of law school. Most of the work I do involves securing pensions and health benefits for the average worker when a company defaults on same.
If there's anything else you'd like to know, feel free to ask.
***********
Dan: "I do not ask these direct questions, because I think you are a troublemaker. I ask it because you seem to have an endless agenda to bring reproductive healthcare, ABORTION, to each and every person from conception to the Grave.
I respect your opinoin, but I don't agree with it.
This bill is another attempt to push the envelope to Universal Health Care."
I am very much in favor of universal healthcare. I've seen far too many people suffer because of lack of access to same. I've been sick the past few weeks (nothing serious, just a nasty case of bronchitis) and, even with my insurance which is top of the line, my Rx bill came to $28. Now, my insurance picks up 90% of the costs so had I not been covered, that medication would have cost me $280! I make a very good salary but, admittedly, spending that much on Rx would really hurt. What do people do who don't have such coverage?
Thank you for your other remarks. I am not here to cause trouble. I really would like to know how some people come to the beliefs they have. Talking to one another is the only way to come to an understanding and make some changes that I think many desire. Although I may disagree with you on some things, I certainly respect your opinion as well. You, in particular, have said some things that have caused me to think a bit more about my own ideas on this topic and, for that, I thank you.
As to breast cancer v. testicular cancer……I'm not sure what to tell you. I became aware of testicular cancer when Lance Armstrong announced he had it and, because of that, I made sure my boys knew about the disease and knew how to do a monthly self-check. I think men's health issues have been more on the front burner than women's health issues, but that appears to be changing. But, if you want to sponser a walk-a-thon for testicular cancer let me know, I'd be happy to walk with you. LOL
March 6th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Roger: "If it is so obvious that they CAN be sued, why is this provision even in the bill? Who is it protecting, the women seeking the service or the abortion provider?
As my wife said to me …. "any ordinary lay person would read that as banning lawsuits: why else put that language in a bill? Everyone knows if a doctor screws up he can be sued. This must mean or try to make people think they can't sue".
Legislation IS NOT written for the average "lay person." My guess, and it's only a guess, is that was put in because part of the PL agenda has been an attempt to get legislation on the books that would allow a woman to sue a doctor if she later changed her mind about the procedure. However, that is only my "guess."
There are lots of things written to "make people think they can't sue." Have you ever taken your family to Great America in Gurnee (or any other amusement park)? There are signs all over the place before you go in that say the park is not liable if you are hurt or injured in any way. From a legal liability perspective, they mean NOTHING. If you or a member of your family are ever hurt, see a lawyer. You can sue.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Student says: Legislation IS NOT written for the average "lay person."
That is a statement that only a lawyer could believe. Laws apply to society and should be (and can be) written in a way that the average citizen can understand them. Just because you get a law degree, that does not make you a member of some secret, cloistered world of the annoited for whom laws are written.
I read the section. I think it means that abortionists have a reasonable duty of care standard imposed upon them. If they perform the abortion in a competent manner, they are given protection from liability. I think if they perform them in an incompetent manner, they would not have immunity. Because negligence was actionable before enactment, it would be afterwards as well.
On the otherhand, what does this immunity add to the status quo? Isn't it superfluous? I guess the bill is written as protection against the possibility that Roe is overturned and municipalities ban abortion.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Brian,
I agree with you that laws "can and should be" written in a way that a lay person can read and understand them. I also agree with your interpretation as to the "reasonable duty of care standard imposed." However, I was responding to Roger's wife's view, which he said was the view of a lay person, and that interpretation was legally incorrect.
You also stated, "I guess the bill is written as protection against the possibility that Roe is overturned and municipalities ban abortion." I believe you are likely correct in your assessment.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
HB5616 is an extreme bill. It is authored by pro-abortion activists for the express purpose of making access to abortion a kind of "super right" in Illinois and to head off future restrictions on abortion should Roe v. Wade be overturned.
This bill commits the Illinois taxpayer to pay for abortions for medicaid clients. It proscribes actions on the part of any level of government in Illinois that would "deny or interfere" with a "woman's right to terminate a pregnancy" as unlawful, taking clear aim at parental notification ordinances, zoning statutes, and any other action on the part of a governmental or quasi-governmental body that could be construed as somehow limiting access. It burdens schools with even more sex ed curriculum requirements and expenditures. The bill prohibits the identification by name of abortion patients, thereby assuring that any man impregnating a minor will have the cover of anonymity when he needs a "fix" for his "problem." It overrides conscience clause rights of medical professionals in situations where employers "cannot accommodate the employee's objections without undue hardship."
A recent AP report from the Pew research center that measures the effectiveness of state governments found that Illinois is near the bottom of the 50 states. Only two states were worse. While the rest of Illinois spirals into bankruptcy and the highest taxes in the nation, if this bill passes the abortion industry will thrive and flourish.
If we can find a silver lining it is this: If this bill actually makes it to the floor, we will know who our friends are and pro-lifers will be energized going into the general election. Also, this bill helps to crystallize the true breadth and scope of what it will take to secure the rights of innocent unborn children. Firstly, it is obvious we cannot afford to sit out this election cycle and let pro-abortion candidates secure the presidency and nominate more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs (or even a Bill Clinton) to the Supreme Court. And finally it is becoming more clear by the day that overturning Roe v. Wade, though laudable and desireable, will not in itself be sufficient to secure rights for the unborn across the land. We should by all means continue to work towards that end, but in the end the law will have to finally recognize the personhood of the unborn and thereby secure their rights in law before this national nightmare and tragedy of legalized abortion is ended.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Jerry,
If you were to overturn Roe, at what point would you want legal personhood to be conveyed? Depending on when that is, it leads to a multitude of other questions.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Student,
I'm not aware of this any legislation attempt like this. Can you provide an example? And do you mean in Illinois?
Thanks and God Bless,
Roger
March 6th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Roger,
There hasn't been legislation to this point, but I think she's talking about pro-lifer's emphasis on post abortion stress syndrome. I think PASS is real (witness the recent suicide of the woman in England after the abortion of her twins). I think that there should be a mandatory warning about PASS for those who are considering abortion. PP and others would absolutely flip out about such a warning. Perhaps there have been efforts to make abortion providers liable for PASS if there has been no warning, although I am not aware of any (be a good idea to push for, though). Have a good night.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Student,
Thanks for putting up with my rant.
I hope I didn't offend.
Your relpy was well recieved.
Thanks
March 6th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Roger,
The legislation I was referring to was not Illinois. I think it was Kansas or Missouri, but am not sure. I'll see if I can find it in the next day or two and get back with you.
***************
Dan,
I didn't mind your "rant" at all — no offense taken whatsoever. I've always enjoyed talking with you.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Student:
Re post 15, legislation pertaining to the personhood issue (at the federal level) has been drafted. Check out the Life at Conception Act (H.R. 618).
For an excellent overview of the issue (The 14th Amendment and the Acquisition of Personhood, by Benjamin Horne) see this link: The 14th Amendment & the Acquisition of Personhood
Also, I know you did not specifically ask for this, but if anyone here wishes to read an in depth synthesis of the philosophical/theological/scriptural underpinnings of why the Church holds human life to be intrinsically holy and worthy of reverence from the moment of conception (as seen through the eyes of John Paul II) the document is available on-line by googleing "Evangelium Vitae."
{links added by Admin}
March 7th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Born Alive Infants Protection Act (VIDEO)
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/03/mad_world_of_ba.html#comments
——
This is a video everyone needs to see. Please pass it on.
Mike
March 8th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Student,
Sorry I just saw your post. Yes I read the entire bill 3 times and all the explanation that went with it on the states web site. I also noted who co-sponsored it.
Amy
March 8th, 2008 at 5:24 pm