Wednesday, October 04, 2006

No Words to Describe My Thoughts

(I've removed the graphic that I had with this post because I've decided that I'm not going to bring myself down to Jill's level of tactics.)

I am out of town and had no intention of posting for several days. But then something happened which I just couldn't let pass. Feel free to comment, but I'm not sure when I will be able to get the comments posted. I take the comments below very personally and am amazed that somebody would wear their ignorance so proudly on their sleeve. To call them extreme would be an insult to extremists.

I feel confident in saying that I have made a lot of effort, and had unprecedented success, in trying to work with the different sides on the abortion issue. No small feat. And I believe that all sides appreciated the efforts of myself and Rep. Brandon Phelps in negotiating the passage of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act last year.

It should be noted that even then, when groups such as Illinois Federation for Right to Life, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood reached an accord, Jill Stanek was on the sidelines trying to derail everything.

I announced legislation yesterday that I knew would be controversial, but was sincere, and strikes what I believe to be a reasonable common ground on the very contentious issue of parental notification.

Here is the bill

Here is the press release

And here is possibly the most absurd and offensive thing that I have heard uttered by somebody (I am printing it in its entirety so you can 'appreciate' this for what it's worth):

Fritchey promotes more clergy sex scandals

Just when we thought our minor girls were nearly safe, due to the IL Supreme Court's recent action to finalize the IL parental notification law, Democrat Rep. John Fritchey Monday introduced a parental notice bill in the IL House that would allow girls to notify clergy instead of parents before aborting.

John, what are you thinking? Aren't we just getting over clergy sex scandals in IL? And you want to provide them new safe harbor? You actually want to make it legal for girls to notify their clergy rapists rather than parents when they're pregnant - and then bypass the judicial bypass?

I know what John is thinking, actually. He is thinking he must do the bidding of the abortion industry to keep those endorsements and campaign donations coming in.

And the abortion industry is thinking it will maintain "clergy" on staff to rubber stamp minor abortions. ("I hope every Planned Parenthood affiliate in our organization may someday have clergy presence and staff chaplaincy." - Dr. Barbara Coeyman, chaplain at PP Texas Capital Region, September 2005.)

Fritchey's bill unconscionably promotes more child sex abuse by clergy. The bill itself is a scandal.

Addendum, 8:51 a.m.: BTW, Republican Rep. Rosemary Mulligan, who spoke at the press conference unveiling this ridiculous bill, once advocated aborting her own grandchildren during a committee meeting I attended. She's certainly no advocate for properly functioning families.

Incredible. Outrageous. And will not be forgotten.


At October 4, 2006 at 2:07 PM, Anonymous southernilrepub said...

out of line! Certainly a better way of stating her opposition...

At October 4, 2006 at 3:27 PM, Blogger Skeeter said...

Interesting reasoning:

According to Stanec, you can't notify a priest since some priests abuse minors, but you must notify a parent, despite the fact that some parents abuse minors.

You wonder if the lack of logic makes the slightest difference to her.

Not to digress, but does anyone know why Stanec is no longer on the Illinoize list of bloggers? Was it her choice, or Miller's?

At October 4, 2006 at 4:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

While the attack is out of line, its also completely unsubstantiated by reality. Abuse by clergy members tends to bring harm to young boys, not girls. I hate to continue for the sake of argument because it gives credence to the idea that you designed a bill to facilitate child abuse. One doesn't need to know you very well to understand how farsical & offensive that notion is. While your bill will certainly raise some eyebrows, it does address real concerns faced by many pregnant minors. Thank you for continuing to take a leadership role on this important, albeit devisive issue.

At October 4, 2006 at 5:32 PM, Blogger Rich Miller said...

I did not ask Jill to leave Illinoize.

At October 4, 2006 at 5:40 PM, Blogger steve schnorf said...

John, consider the source, and rest easy.

At October 4, 2006 at 5:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When did clergy start encompassing only Catholic priest!?! These are the clergy you walk about when mentioning sexual abuse of children and then mostly young boys. I believe that a priest would insist that the girl re-consider and may even call her parents the second she walked out of his office. Ms Stanek is far worst than an extremist.

At October 4, 2006 at 5:49 PM, Anonymous dan l said...

I tried to blog this story this morning, but the premise and conclusion of Jill's argument is so stupid that typing out any sort of blog entry would have dropped my IQ by at least 10 - no - no - 20 points.

God bless ya Fritchey. I'm in no danger of voting dem any time soon, but I sure as hell ain't one of them.

At October 4, 2006 at 5:53 PM, Blogger Hon. John Fritchey said...

Couple of things -

Thanks to the many folks who sent e-mails in support. While I am tempted to post some of them, I'm not going to engage in this type of exercise of attacking her personally.

At the core of the bill is the fact that for countless reasons, some girls, as much as they would like to, cannot go to their parents in this type of situation.

And I believe that a judicial bypass is intended to keep them from seeking an abortion, which they are legally entitled to, if that is their choice. I mean, think about it, if it wasn't intended to deter abortions, why on earth would Jill support it?

So I proposed letting a minor go to another adult family member or clergy member or medical professional to get advice and counseling as to ALL of her options, including adoption and prenatal care.

In my opinion, this rightfully puts the health of the girl over political agendas.

To argue that this promotes clergy sex abuse is ignorant and offensive.

I find it interesting that so many conservatives that argue for a greater role for the church in our society don't trust that same institution to counsel a young woman in a difficult situation.

At October 4, 2006 at 7:27 PM, Blogger Bill Baar said...

I find it interesting that so many conservatives that argue for a greater role for the church in our society don't trust that same institution to counsel a young woman in a difficult situation.

My ministe told me Illinois has pretty lose clergy licensure rules. Just about anyone can get licensed.

I support my Church but I'm anti-clerical in the sense clergy have a place and should stay there.

This is a bad law because the smart clergy will have sense to stay out of it, and it will be a less than smart sort who get involved.

I agree with Stanek and if I were on the Church Board and my minister undertook this my questions would be on what liability she would be putting on us....

I don't want my kids talking to clergy, psychologists, counselors, etc about health care, contraception, life in general, without my knowledge and permission.

To make an exception for abortion allowing this secret counsel strikes me as a bad idea.

At October 4, 2006 at 7:27 PM, Blogger So-Called Austin Mayor said...


Please please please allow comments to your Illinoize posts at the Illinoize site.

That said, I am a bit surprised that you thought Jill would be bound by either logic or decency -- I've never seen any evidence of respect for either.


At October 4, 2006 at 7:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ultimately we want a minor to get the appropriate guidance and care. This probably needs to be someone they know and trust. John, does your bill require that anyone the young girl notifies must see her through not only the emotional part of the procedure but the physical part also. Anyone sought out for guidance for this procedure should also make sure the young girl is physically fine after the procedure.

At October 4, 2006 at 8:25 PM, Anonymous Southern Illinois Friend said...

Rep. Fritchey this is a great bill. Again you show why you are one of Illinois finest leaders.

Jill is a nut case so don't pay any attention to her. Jill doesn't represent any sane thinking person in our great state.

Keep up the hard and good work.

At October 4, 2006 at 8:55 PM, Anonymous Pray-ree-dawg said...

Judge thee by thine enemies.

At October 4, 2006 at 11:08 PM, Anonymous Vasyl said...

In Jill's world, a young woman who is sexually abused and becomes pregnant would go back to the abuser to ask for permission to have an abortion.

Not to a parent, counselor, other clergy . . . no, the young woman's first course of action (according to Jill) is to talk to the abuser.

This legislation makes it easier for a teen to talk to an adult, get advice and counseling than other parental consent laws. Isn't this what we all want: to make certain some responsible adult is there to help the teen?

Btw, this legislation works in Maine. It makes far more sense than a highly restrictive law that relies on judicial bypass. Think about how that would work in Cook County. How much time do you think a judge will give to a young woman to help her make the right decision about her future?

Conversely, judicial bypass really won't be a confidential option in a lot of small counties with very light caseloads -- there are few secrets in small towns.

At October 5, 2006 at 7:34 AM, Anonymous Truthful James said...


I am disappointed and surprised that you would sponsor a bill which inserts between a parent and an unemancipated minor a third party -- ambiguously clergy, etc.

As you know, it is my belief that the family is the most efficient and effective unit of governance.
To whatever extent that the state through its law interposes itself or permits a third party such imposition, the role of the family is lessened.

Yes, there are dysfunctional families. Raising an unwanted granddaughter, putting the baby at term up for adoption, or permitting the abortion are decisions the family must make. No sane person believes that these are easy decisions, without stress to the family members. It is the family's obligation to make such decisions.

Nevertheless, breaching the family's authority, taking away their responsibilities in my view is not a viable option, if we are to maintain the family unit as the primary driver towrds interclass mobility -- the hallmark of our republic.

Yes, rape and incest (intrafamily rape and intrafamily consensual sexual relations) are crimes. In these cases it should be a legal requirement for any attending professional to report such crimes.

Are any of the commentators in this blog of the belief that a parent rapist when consulted could possibly want that unborn child to be carried to term and born as lifelong evidence of his crime -- a crime for which he will have been convicted?

I certainly concur that is cases of accused incest, a third party, probably court appointed should act as guardian of the child's interests.

Abortion is a topic where there are there are two sides, each with specific unswerving beliefs. Finding Solomons is exceedingly difficult. Jill Stanek will counsel one way; Planned Parenthood (a misnomer) will counsel the opposite. Each of the commentators has a strongly held point of view.

In Rich Miller's blog, I made the mistake of asking for data which reflected the number of 'rape and/or incest cases' which colorfully set the tone for an abortion debate. No anwer was available from any blogger. I leave that question for another time. Mine is a more simple one.

From whom, otherwise, is a child to be counseled and obtain unbiased advice?

At October 5, 2006 at 8:41 AM, Anonymous dan l said...


I posted a comment on Illinois Review saying something to the effect of:

"You're being illogical and your statements are entirely incorrect. That's funny coming from a member of the Park View Christian Church which has such a 'colorful' history, right?"

The post was deleted. Don't rip on the faux Christians.

At October 5, 2006 at 9:18 AM, Anonymous Confused said...

In response to BB's comments that he wouldn't want his child speaking to their minister about any topic without his knowledge, I'm a bit baffled. Isn't one of the functions of a minister/priest, etc. to provide guidance, be a confidante. And as for the counselors, they would be able to discuss all the options, the pros & cons, and the emotional & potential physical consequences with the girls seeing how they deal with these choices every day. To assume they're pushing an abortion agenda is ludacris. The bill gives minors alternatives that may result in a real discussion of how to handle an unwanted pregnancy and remove some of the very real fear associated with telling a parent.

At October 5, 2006 at 9:19 AM, Blogger Randall Sherman said...

Representative Fritchey, perhaps this is evidence as to why you keep winning elections while Stanec has to keep on giving concession speeches.

At October 5, 2006 at 10:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rep. Fritchey:

Just read this post and it is utterly unbelievable that Jill Stanek would write those comments. Her words are offensive on so many levels that they almost don't deserve a response.

While I am a pro-life Democrat, and I do disagree with you on this particular issue, I believe that you are sincere in your efforts -- on all issues in fact -- and aren't motivated by endorsements or campaign contributions. Anyone who knows you can attest to the fact that you don't wait to see which way the wind is blowing on a particular issue -- you are a leader, and one who speaks candidly and expresses your sincere views.

As I said, I don't agree with you on this issue -- but I appreciate that you are also talking about educating young women on child care and adoption. However, I just can't go along with there ever being a right time to end a life.

And if Jill Stanek really thinks she's helping the pro-life cause by spewing lies -- she's completely mistaken. And to say that your legislation is promoting abuse by the clergy is completely absurd. It's offensive to say that your bill does that -- and it's offensive to presuppose that all members of the clergy are abusers. Yes, there have been many priests who have been guilty of crimes -- but that doesn't mean that every clergy member is an abuser.

I do hope that there can be a full, open and respectful debate on the proposed legislation -- I know you can do that, Rep. Fritchey, but let's hope that the pro-life community will have abandoned Jill Stanek by then.

At October 5, 2006 at 11:52 PM, Blogger WWDMD said...

john... Stanec may the reason the bill may pass. let her keep talking

At October 7, 2006 at 8:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Commonsense is not so common."

At October 7, 2006 at 8:51 PM, Anonymous Concerned_Parent said...

Rep. Fritchey,

I can respect this initiative to the extent that there has been an actual finding of abuse or neglect toward someone in the household and the child would be in substantial harm by disclosing it, but I'm really challenged to support something that lets ANY child undergo ANY type of major surgery without parental consent. I think most parents would be MORTIFIED to learn of their child undergoing any type of surgery without their permission. Can you imagine YOUR reaction if one of your kids failed to tell YOU? Even for the most even-tempered Mom or Dad, there are very few who would just shrug it off and say "Oh, no biggie..." and be unphased about it.

Something to think about.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home