Fighting Forward: Behind the Bill to Expand Reproductive Health Access in Illinois

After years of being on the defensive against bills like the
Born Alive Infant Protection Act and against continuous state
of abstinence-only programming long after neighboring states abandoned
the programs, a coalition of pro-choice groups in Illinois worked together to
draft a comprehensive pro-active,
pro-choice piece of legislation in their state
. The legislation, which was
voted out of the state assembly’s House committee, never made it to a full
vote. But the work that went on behind the scenes suggests that this is the
beginning of a multi-year campaign to see this legislation passed in Illinois and and could lay
the groundwork for pro-choice legislation in other states.

At first glance, the legislation proposed in Illinois, called the
Reproductive Health and Access Act, looks like a Freedom of Choice Act, aimed at codifying Roe v. Wade in
state statute. The proposed legislation affirms that the state should not "deny
or interfere a pregnant woman’s right terminate a pregnancy" and would ensure state funding of abortion services, even while the Hyde Amendment remains in place. The legislation also ensures access to
contraception, as well as the right to refuse contraception (in response to histories of coercive and forced sterilization for women of color and women deemed unfit to reproduce).

Early members of the coalition, which has been spearheaded by Planned
Parenthood Illinois and Illinois ACLU, began
their work with meetings in Chicago and Springfield in the fall
of 2007, where they debated what the legislation should cover, how it should be
phrased, and how to get it passed. Following the 2008 election, they
conducted focus groups and polls into early
January. "It was that broad-ranging access that got early polling in the
60-70 percent across the board," said Lorie Chaiten, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Rights Project in
. "It was really the whole continuum of choices that people
supported very strongly."

But the proposed legislation doesn’t stop at access to contraception
and abortion. It goes on to demand that "all Illinois public schools shall
offer medically accurate, age appropriate, comprehensive sexual health
education" and that any provider conscience clause in the state be amended so
that a patient can still receive the full range of reproductive options
regardless of the provider’s personal or religious objections. The reason for
including this last component is that Illinois has a version of the conscience
clause on the books that was passed in 1977; in its most extreme reading, it
forbids employers from even asking employees if they plan to refuse service.
The law is for "people who want for there to be an absolute right for the
refusing physician or health care provider," Chaiten said. "So the HHS regs, in
some ways, bring federal law to where some people argue the Illinois law already is."

It was that last part that got the coalition into the most
trouble. The Catholic Church’s Cardinal George wrote a letter (PDF)
objecting to the bill, claiming that the passage of such legislation would
cause Catholic hospitals to close and Catholic doctors and nurses to flee the
state. Similar objections were raised when Illinois passed a requirement for emergency
rooms to provide information about emergency contraception to sexual assault
victims in 2002, said Terry Cosgrove, president and CEO of Personal PAC. Such dire
predictions turned out to be false.  But the opposition’s rhetoric worked best on legislators with close ties to the Catholic Church.

Some local Catholic Church leaders put up opposition to the
bill, even campaigning against it on Sunday mornings and gathering signatures
at church, but the opposition wasn’t universal. "Our steering committee for the
campaign includes a pro-choice nun," Chaiten said. "In fact, one of my
colleagues who has been out meeting with different organizations, met with a
coalition of pro-choice nuns. Not just pro-choice [but also] questioning
nuns walked through the legislation and talked through it."

The coalition, made up of community groups like Mujeres
Latinas en Acción, Black Women
for Reproductive Justice
, and the Chicago Abortion Fund, along with women’s
health care providers and the big reproductive rights groups, held a lobby day
that they considered a success. "More voices were included in this
discussion….diverse voices that served many different populations around the
city and state," said Gaylon Alcaraz, executive director of the Chicago
Abortion Fund, in an email. "Another positive that came out of this is because
of these diverse voices, legislators, the public and media had the opportunity
to hear from the ‘unusual suspects’ and not just Planned Parenthood. The
feedback we received from legislators was overwhelmingly positive. They
were happy to see women of color speaking out about reproductive health and
justice. They felt that Planned Parenthood shouldn’t always be at their
doors bringing the same message every year."

It’s a sentiment echoed by Planned Parenthood. "It was so
critical to these legislators and it was so important that they saw this whole
long list of organizational support it really made a difference to them.
Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, we have lobbyists down there everyday," said
Beth Kanter, senior vice president of external affairs at Planned Parenthood
Illinois. "What made a difference to these legislators was seeing
the activists down there and seeing the other organizations down there who
weren’t typically there. I think that that moved people."

The bill ended up gaining support from 32 co-sponsors, 20 of
which were female legislators. "So many groups did so much to push this issue
forward and get it on the radar screen," Kanter said. "For example, Mujeres
Latinas en Acción did a great job reaching out to a lot of the Latino
legislators. Toni Bond’s group, Black Women for Reproductive Justice, reached
out to all of the African-American members and sent a letter and
lobbied, which was so unbelievably helpful."

Even though the legislation didn’t come to a vote this
session, the coalition is continuing to work in the state and plan on
introducing the legislation again next year. "We’re going to keep fighting the
good fight on this," Kanter said. "We continue to have a hard fight ahead of us
but we’re committed to this bill’s passage because the women and men of the
state of Illinois
deserve a right to make choices about their reproductive health."

It’s a battle that will be along one. "One thing we really
have to focus on in the next nine months before we go into the next legislative
session is to try to really mobilize the support around the state," ACLU’s
Chaiten said. Cosgrove admits that there are still many roadblocks in
their path. "From my standpoint we need more pro-choice legislators. We need a
lot more education with people around the issues that we’re talking about." It
won’t be an easy battle, but if this coalition is successful in enacting
pro-choice legislation, it could be a model for other states to follow — instead
of working to deflect anti-choice legislation year after year.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

  • anna-clark

    Kay, I just wanted you to know that I always appreciate your RHRC articles. They’re very thoughtful and nuanced; I learn a great deal from them. As well, I seriously appreciate your focus on the Midwest–a realm too often relegated as niche territory in many progressive movements (a mis-framing that leads folks to be shocked, just shocked!, that Iowa would legalize gay marriage before, say, California).


    You do good work. Thanks for it.

  • invalid-0

    I appreciate the work you did documenting the history of the Reproductive Health and Access Act (RHAA) and the hard work of the coalition members working to move this landmark legislation forward. Since this appears to be the first published history of this effort, I would like to add some facts not included in your article to recognize the work of a group of women who were instrumental in getting the work on this bill started.

    Your article begins in fall of 2007. In the fall of 2006, the first draft of this legislation was written by the Reproductive Rights task force of the Illinois National Organization for Women. The task force was led by Lea Marcou (IL NOW Action VP) and included Susan Bramlet Lavin (legislative liaison), Dr, Gay Bruhn, Catherine Caporusso (atty), Bonnie Grabenhofer, Dr. Jean Peterman, Lori Post, Stacia Weiner, and Ruth Wyman (atty). It was called the Reproductive Privacy Act and was introduced in the General Assembly in 2007 by Representative Sara Feigenholtz. Despite support from the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, it stayed in committee that session.

    At the first meeting of the coalition in fall of 2007, IL NOW discussed the need for this type of legislation and shared a copy of the initial proposed text which included many of the same concepts as the RHAA. With input from the broad coalition that was assembled, the legislation was expanded and rewritten by Lori Chaiten (ACLU). IL NOW continues to be an active member of the coalition; lobbying, speaking, and gaining community support for this bill. We are confident that, through the strength and commitment of the coalition, this important legislation will be passed.

    Bonnie Grabenhofer
    President, Illinois National Organization for Women

  • invalid-0

    Your article doesn’t mention the following:

    1. The bill would have voided Illinois statute that mandates parental notification for pregnant girls under 18.

    3. The bill would have lifted any restriction on late-term abortion.

    4. The bill would have had taxpayers paying for abortions (even more so than they do already!)

    5. The bill would have allowed medical employers to discriminate against health workers opposted to participating in abortion.

    If you want it to pass, you will have to probably get rid of provisions 1. and 5 and then water down provisions 2, 3 and 4 substantially. If the legislation is re-introduced with those provisions included, the Catholic’s in Illinois will mobilize like you have never seen before.

    And – 86% of citizens favor common sense restrictions on abortion (parental consent or notification; late-term restrictions; public funding restrictions). Don’t you know that???

    (Catholic person who caused a lot of trouble for legislators in Illinois regarding HB 2354)

  • invalid-0

    Did you know that – under this legislation – it was deemed “developmentally appropriate” to teach 8-year-olds about masturbation??

    And you guys are pround of this bill?

    You must not be parents . . .


  • invalid-0

    HB 2354 also included an immunity provision which exempted abortion malpratice from the definition applied to all other medical malpractice. Sloppy abortionists who harm pregnant women would get off scot-free (even more often than they already do). Protect women’s rights? I don’t think so.

    Good luck getting this barbaric legislation passed. As Nora mentioned, people all over the state are informed, outraged and ready to fight it.

  • invalid-0

    Did you know that – under this legislation – it was deemed “developmentally appropriate” to teach 8-year-olds about masturbation??

    What is wrong with teaching young children about masturbation, and their bodies in general? I suppose you would rather they remain ignorant, and have “real” sex instead?

  • invalid-0

    As a lawyer who doesn’t like to pay malpractice premiums either, I wonder how I can get the civil immunity fairy to visit me too!! Maybe I just have to donate 1.2 million dollars to Illinois politicians (as Personal Pac did) so that they will do my bidding. On second thought, it might make more sense to just pay the premiums . . .

  • invalid-0

    You have kids? (I doubt it). You plan to teach them about masturbabtion when they are 8? If so, remind me not to send my kids to your house for a play date. Better yet, remind me to “opt out” of the public school system all together! Not all of us are so radical about promoting promoscuity. Some of us actually think our kids should be taught the real purpose of sexual urges and that they actually aren’t entitled to orgasms – self-induced or otherwise. How can we teach our kids better values if they are in classrooms surrounded by kids who were forced to learn how to masturbate at age 8?

    With so much info in this article about the purported “polling” that was done in preparation for launching this bill, why don’t you ask this question to 10,000 Illinois parents: “do you want your children to learn about bringing themselves to orgasm whent they are eight years old.”

    What do you think the results of such a poll would be???

  • invalid-0

    You plan to teach them about masturbabtion when they are 8?

    Yes. Possibly even sooner. I certainly hope your kids know all about their bodily functions….

    Not all of us are so radical about promoting promoscuity.

    On what planet does “promiscuity” include masturbation?

    Some of us actually think our kids should be taught the real purpose of sexual urges

    Including pro-choicers, thank you very much.

    and that they actually aren’t entitled to orgasms – self-induced or otherwise.

    Oh? So are they supposed to seek permission to have an orgasm from someone else? Do they have to fill out a form, or something? (“You are hereby granted clearance to experience one (1) orgasm…”)

    How can we teach our kids better values if they are in classrooms surrounded by kids who were forced to learn how to masturbate at age 8?

    It’ll be a lot easier to teach them how to delay getting into a sexual relationship if they can take care of the basic urges themselves, don’t you think?

  • invalid-0

    The civil immunity provision is really transparent. How is that pro-women? I can see why, as an industry, abortion providers want it. Somehow they have cloaked their economic self-interest under a pro-choice ideology and the movement bought it.

    There are some things that money cannot buy, but some votes in the IL legislature isn’t among them.

  • invalid-0

    Just wanted to mention that the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health has also been an integral part of this campaign, working with youth to lobby for the bill.