by Mark Angelides
Governor Bruce Rauner was already in a difficult position being a Republican Governor in a state that is massively blue, but his decision to sign into law HB40 which will expand public funding for abortion, including Medicaid recipients might just be political suicide.
Given that Rauner, back in April, promised that he would veto the bill, support from Conservatives is fast draining away from him. Conservative Republican state Rep. David McSweeney launched an immediate attack on the Governor, saying: “Bruce Rauner is a failed governor who continues to lie to the people of the state of Illinois. He told us on April 14 he would veto it, and obviously he broke his promise, just like he broke his promise to cut taxes.”
The new law means that more funding will be put into providing abortions including those who receive Medicaid or other state health insurance. Both Conservative rights groups and taxpayer rights groups are openly criticizing the decision. And, of course, groups like Planned Parenthood welcomed the bill with open arms.
Upon announcing that he had signed the bill, Governor Rauner said: “No woman should be forced to make a different decision than another woman would based purely on her income.” He continued, “I am personally pro-choice, I always have been. I made no qualms about that when I was elected governor. I have not and never will change my views. I personally believe that a woman must have the right to decide what goes on in her own body.”
But is his argument flawed? Surely women (and men) have to make decisions concerning their lives everyday based on their wealth. It seems that contraception is widely and freely available all across Illinois in the form of condoms (which are literally free at almost all health centers), so there is already a choice for the woman AND the man. There are, of course, cases of rape, in which pregnancy occurs, but HB40 is not for cases of rape…It is for cases of bad decision making.
And why is the responsibility of the man so overlooked in these debates? It is not only the woman who chooses to have unprotected sex, but also the male counterpart. Why are politicians so determined to divest individuals of their responsibilities not only to others but also to themselves? Is it because they want a “Nanny state” where they control every aspect of the individual’s life? Or is it just that they see themselves a sso superior to the average person, that they think they know better?
by Mark Angelides