Legislative Action                                                          

Exactly where the Illinois legislature stands on the always emotional issue of abortion is as unclear now as ever. The spring session generated lots of sound and fury over a mix of pro-choice and pro-life efforts but nothing that landed on the governor's desk.

The case of a parental notification measure that seemed destined for lawmaker approval exemplified this confusing scene. In mid-April, the House of Representatives passed House Bill 1300 on a non-party line vote. It would have required doctors to provide 48 hours' notice to one parent or legal guardian of patients under 18 before an abortion could be performed; failure to do so would have been considered a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in prison. The bill did not include a judicial bypass provision, which allows pregnant girls to seek permission from a judge to forego parental notification.

In the Senate, the judicial bypass provision was amended onto the bill at the insistence of Edgar before it was approved by the chamber 33-14. But contained in the same amendment was the concept's downfall: a provision allowing the attorney general or state's attorneys to bring civil actions against doctors who failed to provide proper notification. Physicians could have faced fines of $1,000 for a first offense and $5,000 for subsequent offenses.

It shouldn't have come as much of a surprise to anyone that such a stipulation would send the Illinois State Medical Society into a tizzy. Lobbying organizations generally don't take too kindly to legislation that opens up their members to fines and lawsuits.

Arm-twisting by the medical society — known for hefty campaign contributions to candidates for the state legislature — was credited with killing the revised measure when it was called again May 27 in the House for concurrence with the Senate amendment. Thirteen House members changed their original "yes" votes to "no" or "present;" the measure fell seven votes short of the 60 needed to pass.

"I did not like the punishments for doctors," said Rep. Douglas L. Hoeft (R-66, Elgin) when asked what spurred his change of heart from a "yes" vote on the original bill to "present." "I thought it turned into an anti-medical society bill. I wanted that bill to go into conference committee" — something that chief sponsor Terry R. Parke (R-53, Hoffman Estates) adamantly refused. "There's a presumption we have not compromised," Parke said. "It couldn't be further from the truth."

In floor debate on the amended measure, Parke angered several of his colleagues by promising a "no" vote would come back to haunt them at the ballot box. "I certainly hope you're not intimidated by the sponsor of this bill," Rep. Margaret Parcells (R-57, Northfield) told her colleagues as she voted against the amended bill, which was consistent with her vote on the original bill. "It's a bad thing to do ... threatening them like that. It's outrageous to say they won't compromise."

Two lawmakers changed their votes the other way: Rep. Vincent A. Persico (R-39, Glen Ellyn) changed his "present" vote to "yes" and Rep. Coy Pugh (D-10, Chicago) changed his "no" vote to "yes." "This is one of the toughest bills as a freshman legislator that I've had to deal with, but there comes a time when you have to vote who you are," said Pugh. "As a parent I'd like to know if my daughter's going to have an abortion."

Much of the most impassioned rhetoric, though, came from lawmakers lamenting the notion of criminalizing doctors — an unsurprising stance considering that the medical society's political action committee doled out nearly $700,000 in cash and in-kind contributions to political campaigns, many of them for the legislature, between July 1 and December 31, 1992, according to records at the State Board of Elections. And a study by Professors

Veto session calendar September 29 October 12, 13, 14 October 26, 27, 28

36/July 1993/Illinois Issues

Kent D. Redfield and Jack R. Van Der Slik of Sangamon State University found that the medical society was the third highest contributor to legislative leaders for the 1990 election cycle, with $131,000 in donations.

"Now on top of malpractice and civil suits we're going to allow state's attorneys to sue [doctors]?" said state Rep. Larry Wennlund (R-38, New Lenox), who changed his "yes" vote to "present." "I support the concept of parental notification but not the concept of driving doctors out of business."

If Illinois legislators are perceived as ambivalent on the whole abortion issue, they're probably just reflecting the attitudes of their constituents. Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 1989 ruling on the Webster case, allowing states to restrict abortion, Market Shares Corporation in Mount Prospect conducted a poll of Illinois voters on abortion [See Illinois Issues February 1990, page 28]. Its most definitive finding: that the majority of Illinois voters are neither pro-life nor pro-choice. Of the 700 voters polled, 54 percent took a middle-of-the-road position, favoring legalized abortion with restricted availability.

While many pundits have said polls indicate that citizens strongly favor laws calling for parental notification before minors undergo abortions, the issue becomes murky when questions arise such as who should be punished when violations occur and how teens from abusive or neglectful households can circumvent the requirements.

"In today's world, I just feel there has to be a broader base of who a girl can tell besides her parents," said freshman Rep. Brent Hassert (R-83, Lemont), who changed his vote on the issue from "yes" to "no." "And it's kind of naive to think a young girl who's scared to tell her parents she's pregnant is going to go to the local courthouse and figure out how to get judicial bypass, especially in those smaller counties where lots of people know each other and she has to explain what she needs to a bunch of people."

The unclear tone set by the legislature means a wide-open field for groups on all sides of the abortion issue. That means lots more debate — and more strenuous efforts from lobbyists and political action committees — in the near future. �

July 1993/Illinois Issues/37