Almost half of the entire Illinois House has
signed up to sponsor an anti-abortion bill this year.
The proposal is an exact replica of a federal
law that ostensibly protects infants who are “born
alive” during botched abortion procedures. Opponents say that
the bill is merely a backdoor attempt to ban almost all abortions,
but proponents point to the fact that both Hillary Clinton and Ted
Kennedy voted for it in the U.S. Senate.
The difference, say opponents, is that the
federal legislation didn’t trigger any criminal laws, whereas the state bill would
tap into a whole host of Illinois statutes:
“In determining the meaning of any
statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the
various administrative agencies of this State, the words
‘person,’ ‘human being,’
‘child,’ and ‘individual’ shall include
every infant member of the species Homo Sapiens who is born alive
at any stage of development.”
That’s a pretty broad definition, say
opponents, and would probably mean that many abortions would be
illegal.
House Speaker Michael Madigan killed the same
bill last year by stranding it in the Rules Committee after it had
passed the Senate. This year, Madigan, who is anti-abortion, has
said that he will allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote.
Madigan assigned the legislation to the House
Judiciary Committee, where at least eight of its 14 members are
co-sponsors.
And then something truly unprecedented
happened. Lobbyists for both sides, anti-abortion and pro-abortion
rights, sat down and worked out a tentative compromise.
The lobbyists had never even spoken to each
other before. “Compromise” was not a word in their
vocabularies. If you’re not with them on everything, then
you’re against them and are automatically branded an enemy.
But the huge popularity of the bill threatened
to steamroll the pro-abortion rights side and possibly enshrine
some seriously anti-abortion language in state law.
Rep. John Fritchey, D-Chicago, the
Judiciary Committee chairman, quickly saw the writing on the wall
and played a major role in coaxing the pro-abortion rights side to
the table.
And the anti-abortion side, encouraged by the
bill’s sponsor, Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Norris City, was
intrigued by the possibility of achieving a historic “agreed
bill” and maybe even a unanimous vote on an abortion issue.
And if they were sincerely interested in saving babies that are
“born alive” during abortions, a compromise narrowing
the scope to only that issue would be the right thing to do. They chose the compromise.
Not everyone from both sides agreed to the
talks, particularly some people on the fringe of the anti-abortion
movement. But Fritchey and Phelps worked hard to keep the
negotiations on track, and an agreement was reached last week.
There was only one hitch: The anti-abortion
side wanted an assurance that the legislation would be called in
the Senate after it passed the House. They didn’t want to
stick their necks out on an agreement with “the enemy”
only to see it die in the Senate. Such a disastrous result could
seriously harm their credibility with the anti-abortion movement.
A pro-choice emissary was sent to Senate
President Emil Jones, who reportedly told the lobbyist that he
would call the agreed bill for a floor vote after it passed the
House. But the anti-abortion advocates wanted one of their own to
hear the pledge, so a couple of anti-abortion Senate Democrats were
sent in to talk to Jones. The senate president was insulted that
his word wasn’t trusted (even though it was probably the word
of the pro-choice lobbyist that wasn’t completely trusted by
the nervous pro-lifers) and withdrew his pledge. Jones told his two
members that Madigan never committed to supporting a bill that was
still in the other chamber, nor would he.
Ironically, if the anti-abortion groups go
ahead and pass the bill in the House without the compromise
amendment, the pro-choice Jones may kill it in the Senate Rules
Committee and nothing will get done.
We’re in uncharted waters here, so
nobody really knows what will happen next. Usually lobbyists figure
out whom they can trust after years of dealing with the various
Statehouse players. But the two sides on this issue don’t
have that history with each other. And the longer this process sits
still, the more likely it is that the fringe elements will be able
to undermine the compromise.
This article appears in Mar 10-16, 2005.
