 |
| An ad abortion rights-types will soon send us |
The issue being the termination of pregnancy and who, if anyone, has a right to make such a decision.
RAUNER
IS GOING to have to put himself firmly on the record on this issue, and he’s
going to have the entirety of Illinois’ electorate watching his every move.
If
he just goes ahead and signs into law the bill approved by the Illinois General
Assembly this spring, he’s going to get many of the social conservatives all
riled up – in that they’re the kind of people who long for a past era when
abortion could be considered a criminal act.
But
if he uses his veto power to kill the measure, he’ll get a large share of
Illinoisans outraged – largely the kind of people whom Rauner is hoping don’t
take his defeat in the upcoming 2018 election cycle as some sort of crusade to
be achieved by turning out to vote in strong numbers.
This
particular bill was one approved by an urban Democratic majority in both
chambers of the state Legislature of people concerned about social trends in
our society that might try to push for a time when abortion would no longer be
a constitutionally-protected idea as it has been since 1973.
BACK
IN THE 1970s when that happened, Illinois government officials approved
measures meant to bring Illinois law into compliance, while adding clauses
meant to imply that if the Supreme Court ever changed its mind, state law would
automatically revert back to its old status.
Some
legal experts argued that such language was actually too vague to be taken seriously.
But those people who strongly back the notion of abortion being a legal medical
procedure didn’t want to take any chances.
 |
| Should Catholic Vote message include an "(or else!)" |
They
pushed for changes to be included in measures meant to clarify when public
funds in the form of Medicaid can be used to cover the cost of a woman’s
terminating a pregnancy.
That
is the measure Rauner now has to decide upon. Backers in the General Assembly
tried delaying the legislative process until Monday, hoping they could avoid
sending him the bill until they could work out an agreement he would sign it.
BUT
NOW, IT seems Rauner is going to be put on the spot – and he has hinted that a
veto is a possibility.
But
if he does that, it will outrage one segment of our society. Signing it,
however, will also arouse the ire of those individuals who think they have a
right to meddle in whether a woman terminates her own pregnancy.
The
Catholic Vote group is calling the bill “electoral suicide,” while some
conservative activists are saying this bill is an “integrity test” for Rauner.
They say he will have broken their promises to him, and they just might have to
vote against his dreams for re-election.
But
the more urban segment of the state could wind up turning on him if he makes
those individuals happy. A new poll by the Normington, Petts & Associates
group that has 66 percent saying Chicago is on the “wrong” track also says more
people blame Rauner (only a 19 percent “favorable” rating) for that moreso than
any other government official.
THIS
COULD BECOME merely another reason for people to be upset enough with Rauner’s
gubernatorial term to want to vote for whichever Democrat manages to win the
primary next March.
Now
aside from the Capitol Fax newsletter in Springfield confirming that Rauner
received the bill on Monday, I don’t know how quickly he’ll want to act. This
may be a measure he’ll wait for as long as he can (60 days) before doing
something.
It
may even become a moment that makes him ponder why he was ever foolish enough
to want to be governor. Oh, the headaches!
Why
do I fear this will come up late in the day some Friday afternoon, or maybe in
the days leading up to the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. Hoping we’ll be too
pre-occupied with our family food fests to want to complain publicly.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment