Archives

This article can be viewed on Web Today at
http://www.888webtoday.com/zanoza328.html

Illinois Legislator Threatens "Born Alive" Legal Action

RFM NEWS EXCLUSIVE
Chicago, Illinois
1-708-388-0552
[email protected]

MOKENA, ILLINOIS, August 6, 2001 (RFM NEWS) RFM NEWS has learned state Rep.
Renee Kosel (R-Mokena) recently threatened Fran Eaton, the President of Eagle
Forum of Illinois, with legal action concerning the organization's
interpretation of Kosel's testimony in front of the House Judiciary Civil 1
Committee on May 9th. On that day, Kosel testified against the Born Alive
Infants Protection package of bills, SB 1093, 1094 and 1095. However, Kosel
is now asserting her sworn testimony was only against portions of the three
bills, though the public record does not reflect that fact.

The Eagle Forum publishes an end of session summary which reviews the voting
record of politicians on pro-family issues. Kosel is now claiming Eagle
Forum, in its most recent publication, intentionally misinterpreted her
testimony before the Judiciary Committee. The Born Alive Infants Protection
legislation was sponsored in the Senate by Patrick O'Malley (R-Palos Park)
and in the House of Representatives by Tom Johnson (R-West Chicago).

The record, however, shows Kosel did not equivocate in her testimony, given
during a hearing immediately before the House Judiciary I members voted
against allowing the bills out of committee. RFM NEWS has obtained the actual
transcript of both Kosel's statement to the committee and the discussion
between judiciary committee members, two of whom specifically stated that
they were basing their "no" votes at least in part on Kosel's impassioned
plea made during the hearing. SB 1093 failed by a vote of 7-5, SB 1094 failed
by a vote of 7-5, and SB 1095 failed by a vote of 5-6-present. Furthermore,
Chairman Dart, when reading the list of signed-in proponents and opponents on
all three bills stated, ". . . Opponents, oral testimony, Renee Kosel, State
Representative; Opponent, oral testimony, Mary Dixon, ACLU; Robert Kane,
Illinois State Medical Society; Howard Peters, Illinois Hospital Association."

Kosel has come under criticism from some who say her testimony should not
have been allowed due to her position on the Governing Council of Advocate
Christ Medical Center. Kosel has also come under fire from critics after RFM
NEWS reported an Advocate medical campus was being built in her district. The
Born Alive Infants Protection bills now being considered on the state and
federal levels were motivated after it was revealed an induced labor abortion
procedure, which many call "live-birth abortion" was being performed in at
least two of the hospitals under the control of Advocate Health Care Systems,
headquartered in Oak Brook, Illinois. Advocate supervises nine hospitals in
the Chicagoland area and it was a labor and delivery nurse, Jill Stanek,
working at one of its medical facilites, Advocate Christ Medical Center, who
first brought the controversial abortion procedure to national attention
nearly two years ago.

In a phone interview with RFM NEWS, Kosel said she would consider suing
anyone who said she testified against the bills, including RFM NEWS.

Fran Eaton would not give RFM NEWS a comment on the story, pending advice
from Eagle Forum's legal counsel. In a telephone interview with RFM NEWS,
John Schlafly, the staff lawyer for Eagle Forum, said a response to Ms.
Kosel's threat would be made within days.

* * * * * * * * * *
Testimony of state Rep. Renee Kosel before the Illinois House Judiciary Civil
I Committee on May 9, 2001.

Kosel testified, "Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen of the committee
and Mr. Chairman, uh, I do have another committee - I appreciate you allowing
me to go first.

I am here because of a very personal experience . . . and I have some
concerns that are based on a very personal experience from <Senate Bill>
1093. The problem with 1093 comes from the amendment, page 2, line 9 & 10,
line 18-21, and in those lines of that particular amendment, it says that
there shall . . . that the physician - the second physician that they are
requesting - shall provide medical care to the child. It is reinforced in the
next section.

That on its face sounds wonderful. It does not, however, allow, in my opinion
and the opinion of several other attorneys that I have talked to, the ability
for a parent who knows that their child has no chance of life to have a DNR -
a "Do Not Resuscitate" order.

When all hope is gone, and all that's left for dying is the ability of a
parent to make that dying . . . I recently held my daughter after she made
that decision . . . it was gut-wrenching. We cannot allow that privilege of
parents to be taken away through this legislation.

Christ Medical Center provides some of the best medical care for children
that is available in the world. Children are saved there that can be saved
nowhere else. But there comes a time when children can't be saved, and there
is nothing more tragic than having a child die.

Please do not allow a piece of legislation to go through that would prolong a
child's death. Thank you."

* * * * * * * * * *
Illinois House Judiciary 1 Committee Members Discussing the testimony of Rep.
Renee Kosel against the Born Alive Infants protection legislation:

Judiciary Civil I Committee member State Rep. Julie Hamos:"The final thing
I’d like to ask about or make a comment on that we haven’t really touched on
is exactly what that we started with today with Representative Kosel’s very
personal and emotional statement to us because as I read this one very
specific line, it says, that the second physician will be coming in who
‘shall assess the child’s viability and provide’ – and I would maintain
that any kind of statutory construction would say "shall provide" that second
physician "shall provide" medical care for the child. Isn’t that the intent
of the statement? So what we ideally have here it seems is a law that
substitutes the judgment of the second physician to that of the parent – the
mom – the mother and the parents and really imposes the will of the Illinois
General Assembly over the needs, wishes and really very tragic circumstances
in which these parents find themselves. Isn’t that the correct thinking of
this language?"

Note: Hamos voted NO on all three bills

Illinois Medical Society representative Robert Kane: "That’s our problem with
it. We believe the doctor should make the decision – the doctor and the
patient."

****************
Judiciary Civil I Committee member State Rep. Louis Lang: "I found
Representative Kosel’s comments much more important. Rep. Kosel said to us,
‘What do we do if there is a DNR order by the mother?’ If these bills pass
and there’s a DNR order by the mother, every doctor and every hospital that
follows this law will be violating the DNR order. I find it interesting that
we’re going to be bringing in a second physician that will be getting
priority over the mother’s decision and the decision of the attending
physician, sort of like as you lawyers refer to as a ‘forum shopping.’ We’re
going to keep bringing doctors in until we find the one we want. This is a
difficult situation, but it’s clear on the face of it to me that for these
reasons, and for the reasons Mary Dixon talked about regarding
unconstitutionality, that we don’t even have to go into the issue of whether
or not this is a pro-choice issue, a pro-life issue or an abortion issue,
it’s simply a constitutional issue. It’s poorly drafted legislation in my
opinion, restricts the rights of doctors and hospitals to do what they do
best which is to attend to the medical care of people under their care and I
will be voting ‘NO’ on all three of bills, Mr. Chairman."

Permission granted to publish or broadcast this article with attribution to
WebToday.

©2000 WebToday

Media Coverage 
St. George Pro-Life | Parkview Christian Church