NO ABORTION FUNDING IN THE BUDGET
Open Letter to the Illinois General Assembly
May 24th, 2018
On September 28, 2017, Governor Rauner signed into law House Bill 40, which authorizes the use of taxpayer funds for abortions through Medicaid and state employee health insurance. This new mandate is not eligible for reimbursement by the federal government, putting the entire cost on Illinois taxpayers.
House Bill 40 did not contain an appropriation; therefore, funding for elective abortions will come out of state Medicaid and health insurance funding.
No one knows how many more abortions there will be due to House Bill 40, but no matter the number, the principle is the same: our state tax dollars should not go to pay for abortion. You have the opportunity to ensure that no taxpayer money is used to end the life of any unborn child.
We are asking all members of the Illinois General Assembly to refuse to provide the means for House Bill 40 to accomplish its deadly consequences by including language in annual appropriations denying the use of tax dollars for elective abortions.
Due to our less-restrictive laws, in 2016 there was a 40 percent increase in the number of people coming to Illinois from out-of-state to undergo an abortion, forcing Illinois taxpayers not only to pay for abortions of Illinois citizens but of those from out-of-state. House Bill 40 will accelerate this trend.
Please work with us to protect taxpayers and unborn children.
Robert Gilligan, Executive Director
Catholic Conference of Illinois
Dawn Behnke, President
Illinois Federation For Right to Life
Eric Scheidler, Executive Director
Pro-Life Action League
Mary Kate Knorr, Executive Director
Ralph Rivera, Legislative Chairman
Illinois Right to Life Action
Bonnie Quirke, President
Lake County Right to Life
April 23, 2018
The ERA and Abortion - Congressman Henry Hyde saw the Connection
The following are excerpts from his testimony.
“And recent experience suggests that the ERA, if it is proposed and ratified without an explicit provision against its use as a proabortion device, will, in fact, be used to sweep away the minimal protection of unborn children that the courts currently allow, and also to mandate tax funding for abortions.”
“The Court’s holdings have denied the constitutional right to a Government-financed abortion on the ground that poor women who desire abortions are not within any of the so-called suspects classes against whom no law can discriminate without triggering strict scrutiny by the courts.”
“Strict scrutiny almost always results in the law being struck down as unconstitutional. If either sex or poverty had been designated by the Court as a suspect classification, then the Court would almost certainly have found a right to abortion funding.”
“Since 1970 the ERA advocates have emphasized that the amendment’s principal legal effect would be to make sex a suspect classification under the Constitution. The most important suspect classification at present is race. If sex discrimination were treated like race discrimination, Government refusal to fund abortions would be treated like a refusal to fund medical procedures that effect members of minority races.”
“Other laws regulating abortion would be treated similarly. Conscience clauses, for instance, which give doctors and nurses in State-supported institutions the right to refuse to participate in abortions, would be treated like laws giving State officials the right to deny services to blacks but not to whites.”
“Unless abortion-related cases are clearly and explicitly excluded from the scope of the ERA, this constitutional amendment making sex a suspect classification would provide the ACLU and other proabortion litigants with the argument they need to persuade the crucial Justice.”
“If the Federal ERA were ratified there would be no need for silence or evasion, so we would see all laws regulating abortion challenged vigorously on the argument that they are unconstitutional discriminations against women.”
“In the meantime, many of those that are committed both to abortion and the ERA will continue to avoid discussing the connection.”
“I can only explain the resistance to the insertion of clarifying language in the ERA as additional evidence that many of the proponents do intend to use it as a tool in the abortion struggle.”
“It would be especially tragic if legislators who do wish to minimize the killing of pre-born children were to give pro-abortion lawyers and pro-abortion judges a new and powerful tool with which to enhance and extend the abortion right, especially by mandating the use of tax funds to pay for abortions.”
(See Hon. Henry Hyde Statement in The Impact of the Equal Rights Amendment: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate, 98th Congress, May 26, 1983 pp 82-90; Emphasis added).
NOW DO YOU SEE THE ABORTION CONNECTION?
PLEASE DON’T MAKE A TRAGIC MISTAKE. DO NOT VOTE FOR THE ERA.
Click here for an important ACTION ALERT