Whenever a legislator proposes a new law, supposedly, that new law is intended to solve some problem. But what problem does the law proposed by Anne Stava-Murray seek to solve in HB 4876? Her bill would expand the definition of child abuse to include a parent or other member of the household who:
“Denies the child access to necessary medical care, including, but not limited to:
- primary care services, as defined in Section 1.5 of the Consent by Minors to Health Care Services Act;
- abortion services, as defined in Section 1-10 of the Reproductive Health Act; or
- gender-affirming services, as defined in Section 1-10 of the Reproductive Health Act.”
Has there been a sudden surge of parents withholding necessary health care for their children, leading to their disability or death? Has the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services discovered this hole in the system to protect children? Have teachers and counselors and medical professionals identified this as a serious defect in the law?
Somehow, I don’t think so.
Why does Representative Stava-Murray want to define parents who object to certain medical procedures for their children as abusive? A clue is in the language of the law itself:
“Denies the child access to necessary medical care, including, but not limited to . . .
Apparently, she sees abortion services and gender-affirming care services as necessary for the well-being of children. But there seems to be a problem with the language Stava-Murray chose for her bill. The terms “abortion services” and “gender-affirming services” are NOT LISTED in Sec 1-10 of the Reproductive Health Act. See for yourself here.
Abortion is, but not abortion services. Not even “primary care services” is defined in Section 1-5 of that Act.
So what’s up with this mess of words? What is Stava-Murray really trying to accomplish? Is she just seeking attention by virtue signaling? Was her language selection simply inartful?
I don’t know. It’s doubtful she actually wrote the bill herself. Normally, staff of the legislative reference bureau listen to the legislator’s intent and convert that into proper legislative language. In this case the language seems wildly off the mark.
Of course, no matter how flawed the original language of this bill might be, that does not mean a future amendment won’t correct it.
We have to presume that Stava-Murray wants to make any parent who tries to block their child’s abortion or who tries to prevent their child from taking gender-affirming hormone therapy (in other words, chemical castration) or receiving gender-affirming surgery (that is, mutilation of their healthy sex organs) to be classified as a child abuser.
That would set the stage for the state to strip that parent of their parental rights.
What do her constituents think of this? Do they think the state and not them should have the primary say over their child’s health care? I wonder what the Monks at the Benet Academy, Stava-Murray’s alma mater, think of this? Do you suppose it was her Catholic education that led her to this position?
I doubt it.
Whatever her constituents think, whatever she learned in school or church, there is another issue at play here. Every legislator who takes office is required to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Illinois. In that regard, the U.S. Supreme Court has a long history of upholding parental rights, making it Stava-Murray’s duty to also uphold parental rights.
Maybe she knows this. One of the factors that negates a parent’s right to direct the upbringing and care of their children is child abuse. Redefine what child abuse means, and that clears the way for the state to take whatever action it wants.
Is this ok with you? Is it ok for our elected representatives to engage in Orwellian redefinitions to accomplish their ends? Is it ok to redefine good as evil and evil as good?
It appears that Stava-Murray has a very clear idea of what medical care is necessary for your children: that abortions for underage children are necessary medical interventions, that puberty blockers and irreversible sex neutering surgical procedures are essential medical procedures.
None of these medical procedures are, in fact, medically necessary. No reputable study supports that assertion. At best, the studies are inconclusive, making the principle of “least harm” the preferable option.
Most parents in this state and every state want the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. Yet we keep electing busybodies like Stava-Murray, who want to take control out of the hands of parents. In the case of this bill, she wants to redefine as abusive parents who disagree with her.
This bill needs to die, and Stava-Murray and her ilk need to be voted out of office.
Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative demanding that this godless usurpation of parental authority be quashed. Respectfully ask him/her to vote down this attempt to usurp parental rights. Ask your lawmaker to vote NO to HB 4876.
