Abortion bill is hot potato for Gov. Rauner

Sept. 24--A bill that hasn't even made it to Gov. Bruce Rauner's desk yet could pose the biggest political problem for the governor so far.

The bill is House Bill 40, a measure that in part is intended to protect abortion rights in the state in the event the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision.

Proponents of the bill believe Rauner must sign the measure to live up to statements he made during his campaign for governor to uphold abortion rights in the state.

Opponents view it as a test of Rauner's conservative credentials and living up to a statement he made after the bill passed, promising to veto it.

For his part, Rauner isn't saying now what he plans to do with it.

"The bill has not been sent to my desk," Rauner said last week. "I am meeting with advocates and legislators on both sides, both who support the bill and who are against the bill and we are assessing."

Indeed, while the bill got final approval in the legislature in May, it has never been forwarded to Rauner's desk. It is being held in the Senate on a procedural move. The reason given was that Rauner had threatened to veto the bill and proponents wanted to give him time to reconsider his position.

The bill has two major provisions. One removes "trigger" language in current state law that says if Roe v. Wade is overturned, Illinois abortion law will revert to what it was before the ruling. That means abortions would be illegal except to save the life of the mother. The ACLU of Illinois said there are no accurate figures for the number of states that have similar laws.

The other major component provides that Medicaid and state employee health insurance can be used for abortion services. The Department of Healthcare and Family Services estimated the annual cost of the bill to the state at $1.8 million, although proponents have disputed that. The ACLU said 15 other states provide the kind of Medicaid coverage that's contained in the bill.

After the bill passed the House in April, Rauner's office issued a statement saying the governor "is committed to protecting women's reproductive rights under current Illinois law. However, recognizing the sharp divisions of opinion of taxpayer funding of abortion, he does not support HB40."

Colleen Connell, executive director of the ACLU of Illinois, said the public funding component is a crucial component of the bill. Medicaid should cover abortion, she said, and state employees should "have the right to have access to the health care they need regardless of their source of insurance."

Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, D-Chicago, the lead sponsor of the bill, said she's aware of the governor speaking with other proponents of the bill, but said the governor should already know what it entails.

"He should affix his signature to this," she said. "He's already had a lot of time to think about it."

Moreover, Feigenholtz said, when Rauner was running for governor, he filled out a questionnaire from the pro-choice Personal PAC about abortion rights.

"It was my understanding all along that Bruce Rauner was a pro-choice candidate for governor," Feigenholtz said. "He checked all of the right boxes. He led people to believe that he was pro-choice."

Paul Caprio, director of the pro-life Family-PAC, said there is no middle ground for Rauner on the bill when it comes to support from pro-life, pro-family voters. There is also the matter that the governor said this spring that he would veto it.

"This is make or break for the governor," Caprio said. "Ultimately, he will be evaluated on what he does. If he does not veto the legislation, in my opinion the governor's chances of re-election are zero."

That's probably also the chances for the bill if Rauner does issue a veto. While it passed both the House and Senate, it did not pass with veto proof majorities in either chamber.

The bill presents something of a no-win situation for Rauner, said Kent Redfield, retired political science professor at the University of Illinois-Springfield. If he signs the bill, Rauner will alienate pro-life voters in the state. If he vetoes it, he will be doing the same with pro-choice voters. And the timing of when the bill is sent to Rauner becomes an issue, he said.

"Do you send it to the governor now, so he has a problem before the primary, or do you hold onto it until after the primary and closer to the general election, where it can have an impact," he said.

Feigenholtz and Sen. Heather Steans, D-Chicago, the Senate sponsor of the bill, both said they want the bill signed into law and discounted the idea of using it to gain a political advantage over Rauner.

"I am not playing that game," Steans said. "We may ultimately just send, whether he vetoes it or not. I'd like to see it become law. It was truly my understanding he supported this."

-- Contact Doug Finke: doug.finke@sj-r.com, 788-1527, twitter.com/dougfinkesjr.

___

(c)2017 The State Journal-Register, Springfield, Ill.

Visit The State Journal-Register, Springfield, Ill. at www.sj-r.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.