SPRINGFIELD – Governor Rauner is not saying what he plans to do with HB 40. In April, his office assured social conservatives that he would veto a bill making abortions free in Illinois to expectant mothers on Medicaid and paid for by taxpayers. (See above photo and story HERE)
"Governor Rauner does not support HB 40 and will veto the bill if it reaches his desk," then-spokesperson Allie Bovis wrote in an email.
Things have evidently changed.
Abortion supporters such as Personal PAC's Terry Cosgrove say that even though the state House and Senate passed the measure back in May, they will not send it to the governor's desk unless they know for sure the governor will sign it into law.
Every day that move is delayed leaves less time for a potential GOP primary challenger to organize social conservatives to challenge the Republican governor, which may be why Governor Rauner is ignoring requests to confirm his position on HB 40.
Twenty or so pro-life lawmakers met with the governor earlier this year, saying if he wanted them to support his re-election, he would have to veto HB40.
HB 40 would taxpayer fund Illinois abortions and would attempt to exempt Illinois from federal law if a conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision.
At the request of State Rep. David McSweeney (R-Barrington), last Monday Illinois Review began asking the governor's office to confirm the commitment he made in April to veto HB 40. The news source followed up Tuesday, and waited to ask for the third time until the governor returned from his trip to Asia.
Illinois Review will report the office's reply as soon as it is received.
Dear Governor,Veto HB 40. We dont want anything from our money going to pay for abortions.
Huh. Usually conservatives are freaked out by the possibility of government dictating citizens health care options. Here you are demanding it.
The religious are being chased out of Illinois by immoral elected officials. They demand that religious give counsel about abortions. Religious are denied the ability to administer adoptions if they hold to marriage sanctity and now they will be required to pay for abortions for the poor.
How is that dictating health care options? It’s the non-religious telling the religious how they must ignore their faith tenets – and their financial welfare is used to do it.
No one is telling anyone how to manage their health care. Just don’t make the religious do what is against their belief systems. You’re tearing down the fragile basis of our democracy doing that.
In Oregon they didn’t stop with free abortions for those on Medicaid but mandated that ALL insurance sold in Oregon must include free abortions.
This just drives up the cost for insurance by adding additional “free” things that everyone has to pay for. My insurance jumped from $14,000 before the Affordable Care Act to $28,000 today in part because of all the “free ” mandates that I now have to pay for.
Once they get free abortions for Medicaid they won’t be satisfied until they are free for all insurance holders like in Oregon. This is just step one.
I know you believe you are an intellectual, but I am not sure your reading comprehension skills are adequate.
How does not wanting to pay for someone’s health care equate to dictating it?
You have taken leave of your senses.
Narc, abortion isn’t health care. It’s a homicide. Gov. Rauner has a tough decision. He knows that, if he signs the bill, he’ll lose the primary. If he vetoes it, that might help him win the primary and lose the general election.
So you’re saying that Medicare and insurance should stop covering FREE blood transfusions because Jehovahs Witnesses have a religious objection to them?
Of course abortion is health care. Ok, story time. Back around the time of the election, a fellow programmer that I follow on Twitter told his story, which I will paraphrase here.
He and his wife were pregnant. Now, this was a planned and expected pregnancy, so a happy one. Then they found out they were having twins, so it got even happier. Then, I think a good way through second trimester, they discovered that one of the fetuses had actually died. Now, at that point, what do you do? Continuing with the pregnancy means the very high chance of a third trimester miscarriage, which are *always* life threatening, as I understand it. You’re basically carrying around a lump of dead meat inside you for months, with I guess the likelihood it will get infected. Together, along with their doctors, they agonized over this decision and decided to terminate the pregnancy. I think now, they were able to get pregnant again and have a child..
So, yes, abortion is health care.