House Bill 2495 – Illinois’ Reproductive Health Act

Illinois house bill 2495

Illinois is currently attempting to pass expansive changes to reproductive law (House Bill 2495) — considered to be more extreme than what New York recently passed.


Without delving into political talking points, there are several reasons for both Democrats and Republicans to be concerned:


The new law states that the unborn do “not have independent rights under the laws of this State.” With no rights prior to birth, the legislation repeals partial-birth abortion, which basically means that the unborn can be aborted while in the process (thus “partial”) of birth. Without even considering possible pain for the fetus, basic intuition seems to suggest that such late-term practices should not be commonly practiced — and it does not require much effort to imagine how such a practice could be abused and misused. (Note: If need be, you can research the practice for yourself, but I will not post grotesque photos, since we can think about this reasonably, without the need of frightening images.)


Additionally, nurse practioners would be allowed to perform abortions, which for most of us should raise health and safety concerns. With matters of life and death (for both the fetus and the mother), it seems like we would want stricter, not looser, laws on who should be involved. Thus, whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, hopefully we can all agree on the need to protect women.


Thirdly, under the proposed law, husbands are said to have no rights in the decision, as they are essentially reduced from fathers to biological donors. Of course, safety restraints could be put in place for harmful men, but this law does not do that. In short, it is important to embrace women’s rights, while not at the same time not removing husband’s rights. With careful thought and dialogue, we can value both women and men.


Maybe the main problem, however, is the law’s internal contradiction. The irony is that it is a felony for a person to kill an unborn child — except if that person is a parent. Of course, this reveals a double standard within the law. If the unborn do not have rights (meaning no life or personhood), then it seems nonsensical to call it a felony for one party and not another. The unborn either have rights or not; legislators cannot have it both ways.


Regardless of your political party, the law goes too far in expanding these practices. In order to protect all involved parties — the unborn from partial-birth abortions, women from dangerous practices, and husbands from losing parental rights — urge your state representatives not to pass House Bill 2495.


Find your rep. here:


[I won’t be able to moderate all comments, but replies that enflame others will be deleted.]

One Comment on “House Bill 2495 – Illinois’ Reproductive Health Act”

  1. The portion of fathers being excluded is concerning. This is because it took two people to make the child and it optimally may take two people to raise the child from those special positions as husband and wife; I’ll assume.

    The rights for women should not be where it hinders their partner.
    It shouldn’t be uneven either. But ethics should win.

    It makes me wonder what state we are in where the motive for these actions are self-centered.

    Ive heard, Oxytocin is a bonding chemical that a mother has when she bonds with a child and then what may motivate her to endure another painful experience of producing a child.

    Its not one i know but one ive heard.
    Also, I’ve heard of maybe similar bond that a father has with their first born when s/he emerges from the womb as it is small, near absolutely vulnerable and depend on caretakers to survive. It is a preciousness that exists as an entity of vulnerability vs. an entity of resposibility.

    For a selfish creature to possess this option; when an infant is to send it quickly a doom. To play with the process isselfish at best. I cannot say that there will not be reprocussions biologically for disturbing the regular processes.

    A mother so in touch with her own self that she denies the life of an infant is potentially irresponsible to handle the burden of the child.
    I think. Maybe that person might consider another way of preserving their reproduction for a more responsible time if possible.

    If the partially born child/infant/fetus CAN experience pain or some -to any- sensation, they deny their own right by comparison.
    For if we suggest that the parent, until birth, has the right for the child’s passage, humanity is taken hostage and birth is not a joy via pain, suffering and suvival but, a burdened and responsible privilege only for the willing.

    However, this is at what cost for this gated privilege for a child in this day in age with the mother’s choice in their own rights looming over them?

    It is, on both sides, a factor of survival; for if a child is not trained to live post-natal but, only chosen and therefore only controlled by life’s vices; consequentially,

    the life born/birthed may be lead in “control”* or choice to whatever enables them in this life; since the opposite of “choice” is encouraged by the parents for the child and therefore assumptions of “responsibility” are given to the child early. The child is therefore essentially fending for themselves and may grimly become the shell of a human but the heart of an animal. Gorging to every whim.
    Given the assumed style of parenting that may accompany this belief of “choice” might emerge from.

    I believe that the mother should indeed have rights herself but not to step out of sync with their partner unless said partner is out of the picture for nullifes it with abuse as you have mentioned.

    The issue of sexual assault typically emerges from this argument and eaxh case is unique. And given so, while i am urged to believe that the assaulter should be null of privilege, i am reminded of old testament law that forbadr such a person to be void of responsibility given it was possibly death or marriage; that being ethics aside. I think some measure and penalty should be given to the assaulter and possibly, the child be possibly given care. Apart from the action, the child is blameless. However, the conversation never gets to that point. Even the child themselves might feel regret emerging from the world in such an unloving fashion. Still, it is a tough situation of ethics that is squarely on the women /;and if such were the victim, the male themselves.

    I am worried that the male position is in failure that thus leads feminism to such heights it has been given. Maybe it is an selfish gain. Not sure.

    *Choice, by the same vein of being born by solely the mother’s choice, the idea of “choosing” is no longer imposed by the parent but given solely on the child in of the world.
    Its still irresponsible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *