Illinois House Floor Debate — October 27, 2021

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On… this is literal Cranky Co- Workers Day. There are no absences on the Republican side of the aisle."

"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Today, I rise for Resolution 528 to honor the life of Elizabeth Ann Weidner. At age of 12, Elizabeth was diagnosed with Stage 4, high-risk 10200061.docx 2  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 neuroblastoma. She battled this horrible disease with grace, determination, and strength for nearly six years, during which she touched so many lives, not only locally, but nationally as well. To raise money and awareness in the fight against childhood cancer, Elizabeth started Crowns Fight Cancer after being crowned Junior Miss Effingham County Fair with the motto, 'Just a Girl Changing the World One Rhinestone at a Time.' Elizabeth was kind, caring, loving, and passionate. A graceful young woman who inspired and influenced many. Elizabeth loved all things dance and could convey such emotion through her routines. They were really moving. She was a cheerleader and pomerette at her school, participated in theater, 4-H, FFA, winning a long list of awards along the way. So many awards, we need two days of Session to go through them all. She did not want her disease to define her. All too often, she would leave treatment and head straight to a basketball game or a dance competition and no one would know what she had just gone through. As an advocate for childhood cancer, she traveled to Washington, D.C. numerous times and was the national spokesman at many American Cancer Society events. Her calling was to be a pediatric nurse, to help other children in the hospital because she knew what they were going through. She knew how hard it was, and she wanted to be there to help them. It's difficult to put into words here today what Elizabeth means to her family, friends, and community. She is truly an inspiration, an example of what a person should do in life. Forgiving and understanding, selfless, even though she had great reason to be selfish. Sadly, Elizabeth passed away at 10200061.docx 3  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 her home in rural Dieterich on September 29, surrounded by her family who are with us here today. Her parents Matthew and Jennifer, brothers Ethan, Eric, and Evan. Country roads take me home. Fly high, E. We would ask this chamber to observe a moment of silence in honor of her memory."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Leader Flowers, Mary, my friend, it has been such an honor for me to serve with you in this chamber. I will tell you, I have learned a lot from you. And the day that you called me and asked me to join you on your biomarker legislation, it was an incredible honor for me. And I didn't take that lightly. I have the most incredible respect for you. And I know that you are the most passionate person, not only woman, but passionate person, perhaps, that I will ever meet. And I congratulate you on this award and hope that there are many, many more to come. God bless you."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry."

"I believe this has an immediate effective date. What's the vote requirement on this?"

"Okay. Can I… we're going to pause for that then?"

"Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"

"I see you. I can… I'm not as tall as you, but I got it. Real quick, Representative, what exactly… we don't even have an analysis on this Bill. What exactly does this Bill do?"

"So, there's no substantive change to any of the laws here?"

"I think you used the word clarification."

"I'm just trying to wake my side up here. But, yeah."

"Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your answers. Thank you."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No apologies required. It's… you're a busy man up there. A lot going on."

"Thank you. We're going to be voting on this Bill, and I certainly support it. But I just want to share some of the history behind this piece of legislation. We're soon going to be approaching the anniversary on the death of 38 veterans at the LaSalle Veterans Home. I would just like to read a couple notes I've got here. Thirty-six veterans passed due to COVID. On Veterans Day 2020, there were seven deaths reported. Just on that one day, on Veterans Day. These are men and women, primarily men, who had actually gone… served, possibly on a battle field or trained for combat, who had put their name on the lines to go to World War II to be a soldier or Marine, or a sailor, or an airman, or a corpsman in Korea or Vietnam, died in our nursing home. On the 14th of November, and another additional veteran died. 15 November, four more. 16 November, two more. By 17 November, 21 veterans had died at LaSalle Veterans Home, which equaled about 21 percent of the total population at the veterans' home at LaSalle. I know… and it 10200061.docx 16  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 goes on and on, losing one veteran a day, two veterans a day, all the way to the 2nd of March where we had lost 36 veterans just at LaSalle. I would like to read just a short bit of an Executive Order 2019-04. Executive Order. It says, 'Whereas, the State must ensure that all Illinois Veterans' Homes provide a safe, healthy environment where veterans and their spouses receive all necessary care.' Executive Order 2019- 04. Once again, continues on. 'Whereas, residents and their family members must be assured that the Veterans' Homes have in place and are carefully following policies, protocols and procedures that have been reviewed by health care experts and are designed to protect the health and safety of all residents.' Once again, continuing on with Executive Order 2019-04. 'Whereas, as part of protecting their health and safety, Illinois Veterans' Homes also must have in place and carefully following policies, protocols and procedures mandating appropriate and timely communication regarding health and safety issues with residents and their families, as well as with other State, federal and local agencies involved in ensuring high-quality care for residents of our Veterans' Homes.' That was Executive Order 2019. On May 9… on May 17, 2019, I have a report filed by the Illinois Depart… for the Illinois Department of Veterans' Affairs by Tetra Tech. Within that report, it states that several policies at the home were found to be in error. Policies amongst our different veterans' homes were not being followed. And that was due… is pointed out in this report that we did not have a senior home administrator. A senior home administrator is the one who's the glue for those policies. It also goes on to 10200061.docx 17  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 say that various infection control policies exist, but it's not clear how they are integrated. This was May 2019… in the year 2019 that report was placed… was put in place. And then we all know what happened in January of 2020 and into December of 2020, in March of 2020, and it continued on. From March of 2020, the VA home, and credit to their employees, were prepared to… for COVID, but in November, the COVID hit our nursing home in LaSalle. And it was tragic all the losses we had. But for those six, seven months, there was no continued training, no continued follow up, no guidance to how to prepare in case of that pandemic. Sure, standards were being checked by some, but still we lost veterans. The COVID came through the front door at the veterans' home in LaSalle. Many lost their lives, as I said, 21 percent by then. April 26, 2021, another report was filed. And we had several hearings. Leader Kifowit led several hearings, as we had hearings in Chicago. We had hearings with the Judicial Committee. We had hearings with several groups. And still, questions to our answers were not provided… or answers to our questions were not provided. May 21, 2019… or May 21, 2021, I sent a letter to the Governor, I sent a letter to IDPH, and I sent a letter to IDVA. IDVA has responded with many of my requests. But still today, there are unanswered questions of where the failures were at within the LaSalle Veterans Home. Why did we have veterans dying there? Many of those questions, as I've said, have gone unanswered. We've had several hearings and still no answers. But I've been asking for communications. I've been asking for emails. I've been asking for letters. I've been asking for documents. I've been asking for 10200061.docx 18  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 information that we, once again, could bring our committees together to review to try identify why so many veterans died. Not only at LaSalle, but of all of our nursing homes. It's a tragedy. I'm still waiting for answers. It's a tragedy that veterans died and now there are several families without a grandparent, a grandmother, aunt, uncles because of what happened and the failure to protect. One investigation reports that the wrong hand sanitizer was being used. Nine months to prepare, and still using the wrong sanitizer. So, with that, I support this legislation. I feel it goes… it may help us in future with providing an opportunity for people to make complaints because certainly… and I give credit to Director Prince. He… I've been to LaSalle Veterans Home with a couple Members. He's trying to do his job, but there's still too many unanswered questions that we need to get to the bottom of to figure out why our veterans died. So, thank you, Mr. Speaker."

"Thank you, Mr… thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Bill."

"I support this legislation, but I want to be clear that this legislation is not going to solve the problems that we've seen at the veterans' homes. Because no matter what we do in terms of legislation, it's irrelevant when the administration won't do their job to fill the positions. In April of 2021, the inspector general reported, on page 32, that Tony Kolbeck was serving as the acting director for the senior home administrator position. He wasn't qualified for that position. The inspect… the Illinois Inspector General 10200061.docx 19  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 who looked into what happened at LaSalle said it was critical that that position be filled because that's the policy making position, that's the critical oversight position, and that’s the position that we, by statute, had said needs to have somebody who has long-term care experience filling that role. The inspector general specifically tied the failure to fill that position. He pointed out the Governor had a candidate in 2019 who was recommended to him for that role. The Governor refused to accept the recommended candidate for that role. Why? We've asked, the Governor refuses to say. Even though the inspector general specifically said you need to have somebody in that role full-time. You need to put as much time and energy you can to getting that role filled with a permanent candidate. To this day, that role is being filled by an interim person who, to my knowledge, based on his stated resume, still does not fulfill the statutory requirements that we have for that job. The administration and the Governor, in particular, needs to explain why. After all of these dead veterans, after his own inspector general has said fill that position properly, still not done. If you want to take veterans' care seriously, do your job, Governor."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you to my colleagues who have brought this forward and put this out for everyone to know, especially the lack of responsibility by the state. But we also have a responsibility on the floor here as well, as we all hit 'yes' and support this Bill. But I just wanted to add something to that for another responsibility that we all have as human beings here as well. Chances are everybody in 10200061.docx 20  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 this room has a veteran that lives in their neighborhood, or a coworker, or somebody in the family. We have responsibilities to them too because we wouldn't be here, none of these actions would be taking place without our veterans and our current military. Take a minute, if you recognize a veteran, know a veteran next door, a coworker, someplace that you shop regularly, however it is, ask them if they're okay. Ask them how things are going. Start a conversation. Just because things look okay on the outside does not mean that they're okay on the inside. That's where it all starts. Just something I wanted to add into all of this picture. As we discuss responsibilities, we should all feel a responsibility to our veterans. Not just through the state. Not just on this floor. But in our neighborhoods, at our work, wherever it is we go, we owe them a gratitude and a thank you and a responsibility to make sure they're okay. Thank you."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Bill."

"I support this Bill. This is long overdue. As you know, my background is in health care. If this had happened in a facility that I owned, that my brother and I owned, that we ran, the State of Illinois would've been in there with a sledgehammer. This… we have let down our veterans. We have allowed this tragedy to happen because we weren't prepared, we didn't have the proper people in place. And we owe it… we owe it to the families of the veterans to get to the bottom 10200061.docx 21  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 of this, to hold the people responsible, and this Bill goes a long way to doing that. So, I urge an 'aye' vote."

"Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question of the Sponsor."

"Representative, I know the previous speaker kind of touched on it a little bit, but it was quick. Is there any opposition to this Bill?" Buckner: "There is… there is no opposition that I have on my analysis."

"And that's different than the underlying Act that passed earlier, correct?"

"The position of the city has changed? Is that… is that correct?"

"But not to this?"

"Very good. Thank you for your work on this."

"No."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"

"Representative, do you have at your fingertips what the vote count was on the original Bill?"

"I'm going to make your day. It was 109 to 0."

"Yep. Thank you."

"Yes."

"We are not caucusing."

"Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans request an immediate caucus."

"An hour."

"Yes. Yes."

"Yes."

"Yes."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"

"Leader Gabel, it's my understanding that Floor Amendment 3 that no individuals were able to file witness slips in connection with that. Do you know why that is?"

"Okay. So, just to be clear… so, when it comes to the over 50 thousand witness slips that were filed for Floor Amendment 2, because the Rules Committee sent this Floor Amendment #3 straight to the floor, that's the reason why nobody was able to file a witness slip, either in favor or in opposition, of your Floor Amendment #3. Is that correct?"

"All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I… vote on this Amendment because it is clearly not been properly vetted by people who have an interest in the outcome."

"Oh, no, it's not."

"No, it's not."

"No."

"No." 10200061.docx 36  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021

"Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"

"I just have a few, quick questions. What recourse does an individual if have they do not wish to take the COVID vaccine, if this is amended as you so deem fit?"

"So, you're saying they have Federal Laws. So, if I decide that I don't want to get the COVID-19 vaccination, if this is passed, I can go to the Federal Law and take that up for what? For a release, a disclosure? How does that process work?"

"And what's the time frame on something of that nature with the Federal Government in order to receive that exemption?"

"And what if they don't accept it and they point to the modifications of the Health Care Right to Conscience Act as you want to pass them?"

"So, we're here, in the State of Illinois, talking about the State of Illinois, talking about religious exemptions. I 10200061.docx 39  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 don't know what… how the process would be for the federal level. I look at the Health Care Right of Conscience for everybody in the State of Illinois and they're able to say, here it is. This is… this gives me the exemption. Why would I need to go to the federal level? I just… I don't understand that."

"I think we'd have a better chance of getting struck by lightning in a decent time frame than to hear back from the Federal Government whenever we have an exemption right here in front of us."

"But still, we're here in the State of Illinois. We're in Illinois, and we're talking about religious exemptions in the State of Illinois. But I'll go to the second question. If this is passed as you want it to be, can a school mandate vaccinations for school-age children as amended? Can… will a school be able to do that, just mandate vaccinations for children?"

"Well, I think it does because, as your Amendment reads, it's a violation related to COVID-19 requirements. It reads, lines 8, 9, and 10, 'It is not a violation of this Act for any person or public official to institute any mitigations they see fit.' I'll go to the Bill. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is absolutely…"

"…atrocious. This is unbelievable that we're considering this on the House Floor. This is not about the Health Care Right of Conscience. This is about the last 18 months of unilateral authority from the Governor. Now, he's asking us to remove the only opposition. The inspector general… or the Attorney General discussed the temporary restraining orders that are ongoing, everything going in the courts. They want to remove this so they can force vaccination on us. I ask for a 'no' vote. Thank you."

"Thank you. I'd ask first for a verification of the vote at the end, please."

"Thank you. Will the Sponsor yield?"

"Leader, what is the effective date of the Bill as amended?"

"I'm sorry."

"So, the Bill that you're running tonight has no effective date. So, it would be effective upon signing, immediately?"

"Okay. So, there's no stated date, but it does have an effective date. It's June 1 of 2022?"

"Okay. So, what we're voting on then tonight won't impact anyone concerning this Act until June 1, 2022, correct?"

"To the Bill. You know, it's interesting, we're talking about the intent of a legislation and what it was truly meant to say. And yet, I don't recall COVID-19 being around or being mentioned back in the 1970s when this was passed. But either way, this is about religious exemptions. You know, Article I of the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights… the First Amendment, I'm sorry. Not Article I. But the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' It's one of the basis for the founding of the nation. It's the very first provision in the Bill of Rights. Yet tonight, after 19 months from the start of the pandemic, we're going to address for 7 or 9 months in the future, when we may or may not still be having a problem, when maybe everyone's been vaccinated who can medically be vaccinated, we won't know, we're going to address whether or not someone should be able to exercise their religious beliefs that was so important to the founding fathers of our country that they put it in the first provision of the Bill of Rights. You know, it's amazing what we've seen since this pandemic has started in this state alone, not to mention the nation. We've had increases in suicides. We've had increases in domestic abuse cases. We've had increases in opioid overdoses. We've had our children struggling to learn in schools. And we've had a mental health crisis appear, probably to an extent previously unknown. But not once, not 10200061.docx 43  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 once did we, as a Legislature, come in and do anything to address those issues. We sat back as they unfolded, and we let them unfold without addressing how this state had dealt with the COVID crisis may have affected these very issues. But there was a way. I've had a Bill on file, but we didn't talk about it. But now, 19 months later, we're going to attack those who are holding their religious beliefs close to them. You may not believe they're telling the truth about it. The Governor may not. The employer may not. Whoever it is that's pushing this Bill so hard may not believe that they hold those beliefs that dear. But you don't know that. You don't know what's in their hearts. They aren't telling you what's in your heart. Why are we, as a Legislature, going to take that right away from them? To the prior speaker's…"

"Thank you. Be done in a minute. To the prior speaker's statement about keeping people safe. Just because someone holds a religious belief dear doesn't mean they don't want others to be safe. I'd say probably much to the contrary. And as someone who's lost family members in part as a result of the disease we're here addressing, I can tell you that they, I know, would want to make certain that we're upholding and allowing people to maintain their religious beliefs because they cherished the freedoms that this nation had. They were immigrants to this nation and became citizens. And now, we're looking to strip people of that right that they all held so dear. I ask to vote 'no'."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I remove my mask?"

"All right. Thank you. Will the Sponsor yield?"

"All right. Leader Gabel, because courts may not be familiar with our rules, do you dispute that for Amendment 2, which you said was the technical predecessor to Amendment 3, there were over 53,280 people who filed witness slips in opposition to your Bill?"

"All right. Now, Leader Gabel, one of the reasons you stated Illinois needs this legislation was to clarify existing law because people are using the Health Care Right of Conscience Act in a way that wasn't intended. But you do realize that with all of the various Amendments switches you've done here, you're actually muddying the legislative intent that will be applied to your legislation. Do you realize that?"

"Well, do you know how courts use the Amendment process when it comes to deciding what is in or what is not within a Bill for purposes of legislative intent?"

"Not against the background of Amendment 2. Well, we'll get to that. Now, you've said that the administration has indicated this Bill was needed to clarify legislative intent. But are you aware that the approach litigants have been taking in court recently is the same interpretation and meaning for 10200061.docx 45  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 this legislation that has been in place for well over a decade when it comes to this Act?"

"No, Ma'am. In fact, if you're… well, let me… let's try to get it this way. Are you changing the law or are you just changing, with this Bill, what you believe to be the legislative intent?"

"And that's it?"

"All right. So, when a court sees this legislation, the court gets to stick with all of the rights that a person had before this Bill? They're just going to know what they think the legislative intent was?"

"No, no, no. I'm saying about this Illinois Rights of Conscience Act. So, all we're doing is we're saying, hey, courts, here's a legislative intent you may want to take a look at if you care about legislative intent when you're applying this statute."

"All right. Well, you know what? That's irrelevant because are you aware that, in 2007, the federal courts…"

"…the federal courts specifically reviewed our Health Care Right of Conscience Act in Vandersand v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 2d 1052, Central District Illinois 2007 and concluded that the courts of Illinois do not need to resort to aids for construction of this Act, such as legislative history, when the language of a statute is clear. Were you aware of that?"

"I'm asking you if you're aware of that court case, Leader Gabel."

"All right. Well, are you aware that in that same case the court held that the language in our Health Care Right of Conscience Act was abundantly clear? And, 'that health care includes any phase of patient care, and specifically includes medication. The court has no need to resort to legislative history to understand the plain meaning of this text.' The court does not need to resort to legislative history to understand that the statute protects any person and that the plaintiff had stated a separate claim under State Law, separate and apart from the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as Federal Law claims. Were you aware of that?"

"Well, was… that's not… but that's not how the federal court interpreted it. The federal court… and so, was that misinformation by the federal court back in 2007 when the 10200061.docx 47  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 federal court wrote what I just quoted? Was it a bastardization of the law?"

"Okay. Let's talk about an Illinois Appellate Court 4th District decision right here in Sangamon County. Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Quinn. The court there explained that our Conscience Act was designed to bolster a person's exercise of their rights by, 'offering protections to those who seek not to act in the health care setting.' The court noted that this right not to act was a different kind of right, the right to refrain from acting as compared to instances where people want to act, such as when engaging affirmatively in religious activity under the Illinois Religious Freedom Act. Now, there again, Governor Quinn, much like Governor Pritzker today, argued that the statute was ambiguous. Asked the court to examine the legislative history to resolve that ambiguity. And the court, again, said no because, 'the statutory language itself, given it's plain and ordinary meaning, is the best indication of legislative intent.' And the court reiterated that when the statutory language is clear…"

"…we will…"

"…the court reiterated…"

"The court reiterated that, when the statutory language is clear, we will give it effect without resorting to other aids of construction. Do you know what that means, Leader Gabel?"

"All right. Do you know what the court said that means?"

"The court said that means the plain and ordinary meaning of our Right of Conscience Act is that you cannot discriminate against anyone, 'because of such person's conscience refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer, or participate in any way in any particular form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.'"

"You don't think… you don't think COVID is in a health care setting?"

"Well, Leader Gabel, here's the question. If that is settled law, why do you think this law requires clarification of the legislative intent?"

"It's not. The Morr… in fact, the Morr-Fitz v. Quinn decision continues and, again, I'll quote it. I'll leave out the citations. 'The Conscience Act, instead, states that personnel or entities may not be discriminated against or punished civilly or criminally if they make a conscience- based… conscience-based decision not to comply.' And the court continued that the Governor could not enforce his 10200061.docx 49  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 administrative rules against the plaintiff. So, let's turn to your Amendments and how and why they're taking away rights and making the legislative intent less, not more, clear. Now, one thing you want to have happen with this Bill is that you will want a court to look at this legislative history now, in 2021, when interpreting the Illinois Right of Conscience, right?"

"All right. But the courts have already said they think our existing statutory language is crystal clear. And they don't need to go behind the statute and look at any further legislative intent. True? That's what the prior court decisions have said."

"No, no, no. I'm talking about prior court decisions. They're done, the two that I just mentioned. Those are done, 2007."

"That's actually not true if you look at the crystal clear language of the statute, which already applies to private sector actors, employers in private settings. Not necessarily a health care employer. But let's assume that the court is going to actually look at the legislative intent for your Bill, SB1169. You agree that SB1169 was originally a Bill about making it easier for kids with IEPs to get access to career and technical education, right?" 10200061.docx 50  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021

"Do you know? You don't know. All right. Well, that's what it said. So, that had nothing to do with the Health Care Right of Conscience Act. Now, House Amendment 1 to SB1169 also had nothing to do with the Health Care Right of Conscience Act either, right? It was just a shell?"

"All right. So, the first time we actually saw any substance for the Health Care Right of Conscience Act was with Amendment #2, and now you've got Amendment #3. Let's talk about some of the differences in the language between Amendment 3 and Amendment 2 to SB1169. One of the first changes you made between Amendments 2 and 3 is that Amendment 3, page 2, lines 1 to 2. Do you have that?"

"All right. Now, the original language in Amendment 2 in a comparable position read, 'It is not a violation of this Act to enforce such measures or requirements, including by terminating employment or excluding individuals from a school, a place of employment, or public or private premises in response to noncompliance.' True?"

"All right. Now, in Amendment 3, you keep the language, 'It is not a violation of this Act to enforce such measures or requirements.' Yes?"

"All right. But what you did do was eliminate the language of, 'including by terminating employment or 10200061.docx 51  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 excluding individuals from a school, a place of employment, or public or private premises in response to noncompliance', right?"

"What was your intent when you took out the example of terminating employment?"

"And… okay. Explain that further. What feedback? So… so, now are you saying that…"

"…nobody can be… nobody can have their employment terminated in connection with any refusal in connection with any COVID-19 related issues?"

"Right. Under State Law? Do you know? Or is your staff member just trying to tell you. Maybe you should let her have the microphone."

"All right. Well, your original Amendment too, though, was being pretty transparent that your Bill would let an employer fire someone for not doing whatever that employer wanted with regard to COVID-19, right?"

"Okay. So, under… even with your Amendment 3, you think an employer can still fire someone for not doing whatever that employer wants in regards to COVID-19, right?" 10200061.docx 52  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021

"Right. And before your…"

"Right. And before your legislation, if an employer did that and an employee thought…"

"…you were going too far… or the employer was going too far, they could sue using this Act, the Right of Conscience Act, right?"

"You can't make that decision, Speaker. I object to that."

"It's abusive."

"Do you know the answer to that?"

"All right. And when it comes to…"

"…and when it comes to schools, you're also not being as transparent. Are you aware that a court can now say that because you took those provisions out from Amendment 2 to Amendment 3, then based on the feedback you said you got at committee, that those things are actually off the table? That, 10200061.docx 53  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 in fact, people can still continue to use this law to object to those things by saying those are still rights of conscience. You thought you were going to keep them in, now you're taking them out."

"No, no, no. You don't understand how State Laws are going to get applied and how the courts actually use legislative intent. Well, let me go to the Bill since the Speaker is prematurely cutting me off."

"I met a very nice lady as a pancake breakfast in my district. And when she and I talked, I asked her, 'Are you vaccinated?' She said, 'Yes.' 'So, do you think other people should get vaccinated?' She said, 'Yes.' I asked her, 'But do you think kids shouldn't be allowed to go to school unless they get vaccinated?' And her answer was, 'Oh, no.' I asked her, 'Do you think government should be forcing people to get vaccinated if they refuse or if it violates their right of conscience, or that their employer should be forcing that?' And she said, 'No.' She intuitively understood what over 53 thousand people and counting, who filled out witness slips against this Bill, are trying to tell the Governor and this Legislative Body, government is supposed to persuade, not force. Government is supposed to respect and protect our civil liberties, not disregard them. And that is because we are citizens, not subjects. If we're going to say that there are health care services that are so important that we need to mandate them, spit it out, say it plainly, and enact it into law using the regular legislative process. And then every 10200061.docx 54  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 single one of us can be accountable to the people back in our districts for the vote that we took. What we don't do is destroy the separation of powers, let an Executive Order or even an executive threat become the equivalent of the legislative process. And then take away the very remedy that the little guy, the powerless, the poor, the people have against government administrative and corporate overreach when it comes to medical rights of conscience. Let's also be clear that, in this state, this is an unprecedented effort to backdoor a vaccination mandate without any lines of accountability, including at the Legislature, and without any escape valve for religious liberty. Every other vaccine mandate we have in the State of Illinois is specific, limited, was passed by the Legislature after years of conclusive scientific proof of beneficial outcomes, and they all still allow for religious exemption or independent proof of immunity to satisfy the statute. You haven't even offered a reasonableness or scientific efficacy standard for what you're doing here. If you were being scientific, you'd be testing everyone. For example, converging congregate care facilities. Because according to the September 16, 2021 New England Journal of Medicine, vaccinated health care workers with breakthrough infections, even though they may have had mild symptoms, they had high viral loads and had prolonged viral shedding for up to 32 days after diagnosis. But the Governor is not saying that in the… even in his state facilities, he's not making those people test. So, so much for following science. This legislation is designed to lead to absurd results where you can let an employer or any person 10200061.docx 55  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 employed by any unit of government in the State of Illinois force a person to do things, even things your doctor thinks is medically contraindicated, wrong, or harmful. And tonight, your 'yes' vote means you've denied them a remedial claim. They get nothing in a court of law. That is contrary to the legislative intent of our Right of Conscience Act. I urge a 'no' vote."

"Thank you, Mr… Speaker Hoffman. Will the Sponsor yield?"

"All right. We had a very long question and answer in committee. I'm going to run through a few of these, and I'm going to hope to get through them fairly quickly. So, you're saying… are you trying to clarify the law or are you actually changing the law to add COVID?"

"No. No, no, no. This is my time. I asked you a question, please."

"It…"

"…it just gives a mandate. So, I'm going to go to the Bill 'cause obviously I'm not going to get to… get these questions answered."

"So, this specifically uses the term COVID because it's trying to scare people into thinking that without this we can't encourage vaccines. They're saying that this could require the flu shot. It could require HPV. It could require hepatitis vaccine. It could require the AIDS vaccine. Because they're saying this does not apply to the individual decision. This only applies to a doctor making the decision for you or a pharmacist making the decision for you. And I hope people on that side are listening a little bit. I understand you probably already made up your decisions, but think about this. We're talking about individual decisions. Okay? So, I kind of want to go back to clarify that this is not a clarification of the law because, back when this law originally went through, Phil Rock in the Senate said that an individual can refuse treatment and this Act does not take this away. So, I want you to go back and review that because Phil Rock specifically said that this does not take away that individual decision. In… in committee, the Governor's people focused on a business liability. They weren't worried about the individual decision, the individual freedom. They were worried about a liability of a business if they force their employees to do this and something bad happens. They were worried… more worried about the business or the State of Illinois, for instance, than they were about the individual decision to make an individual health care choice. Now, 10200061.docx 57  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 individuals have to be allowed to make their own health care decisions. They have to be given this opportunity. We have a vaccine that… I probably need a little more time. So…"

"Thank you, Representative Keicher. You're the best. So, individual decision. We have a vaccine that has been in the… on the market for what? Maybe a year. It was approved under emergency decision by the FDA under political pressure. And then the Pfizer, which there's an argument whether that was actually approved or if it was a new vaccine. So, in America, is the Pfizer vaccine even approved by the FDA? I don't believe it is. I think it's the (unintelligible), or whatever it is, vaccine. So, we are going to force somebody to take a vaccine that hasn't been around very long. And let me clarify this for everybody… and I know not a lot of people are listening, but I'm going to get pretty loud because nobody's listening. I want you to know… I want you to know that people have come into my office and said they get the flu shot every year. They get the flu shot every year, but they are concerned about this vaccine 'cause it hasn't been around for very long. Right? We are going to force people to make a decision between their livelihood, between taking care of their families, and taking care of their individual health. This is absolutely insane. These are not anti-vaxxers. Now, are there some people out there that are anti-vaxxers? Certainly there are. But there are individuals who have come into my office who have said, 'I get the flu shot every single year.' And you said they're stupid. Right? They're stupid to 10200061.docx 58  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 be worried about their own health care because they don't trust their government. Right? Government has made a lot of horrible decisions. Look past… look in the history of the United States. Have they ever forced people to take vaccines? Have they? Anybody? Yes, they have. Have they had adverse effect… results on those individuals? Yes, they have. You're forcing people to take a vaccine that they don't want to be forced to take. And I've gone to the… I have gone to the Governor's people and I have specifically said, 'Look, I will encourage my constituents to get this vaccine, but they have to be able to do it on their own timeline.' But your mandate is making them dig in their heels and say no. They have to be able to make this decision without being threatened. Right? Without being threatened with their livelihood. So, please, please think about individual decisions. I know you're worried about fear and all these things, but if you have the vaccine, you should be protected. We have to think about other people and their decisions. I know you want to force other people to do this, but I think they will. I think they will come along and I think they'll realize that the vaccine is safe. But they have to be allowed to do it in their own time. So, please, please, please allow these individuals to make this decision. And it shouldn't be the government's decision, first off. It should be an individual decision on what they do for their individual health care. With that, I want to encourage a 'no' vote, to vote for individual freedom, not for government mandates. Thank you."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Bill." 10200061.docx 59  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021

"I firmly believe that the COVID-19 virus is real. It is absolutely real. I personally am also convinced of the source of this virus, but my opinion on that is not important in this discussion. I also believe that this vaccine did not appear overnight. In fact, I know for a fact, having spoken with a Dr. Peter Hotez from Texas Christian that this vaccine has been in the works since the SARS outbreak of 2003. And the reason for that is because, when SARS outbreak appeared in 2003, many people were firmly convinced that the source of this outbreak would continue with other outbreaks and, in fact, they were right because now we have COVID-19. In a year or 2, or 10, we may have something else. And I pray that those same scientists that have been working on this since 2003 are working on another vaccine that will help us in the future. For myself, personally, I am fully vaccinated. I will also get a booster shot when it's appropriate time. But that is my choice. I have made that decision. Many of my constituents do not share my belief, and I respect them for that. We talk about misinformation. This is not misinformation. Let's give people credit for having individual rights and deciding what they think is right for their body. This is not how this Act was intended. Please vote 'no'."

"Thank you, Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield for a couple questions, please?"

"Thank you. Representative, is the point of your Bill to protect the people of Illinois?" 10200061.docx 60  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021

"For clarification, again, I think Representative Ugaste mentioned it, the effective date is June 1 of 2022. Is that correct?"

"How many votes is required of passage of this Bill with that effective date?"

"You don't know how many votes you need this evening?"

"Yes, thank you. How many votes would be required for the passage of this Bill if it was effective immediately?"

"Thank you. Speaker, to the Bill."

"If this Bill was truly about protecting the people of Illinois, we would be having an effective date immediately. We would not be waiting 7 months, 216 days from today, if this was really about protecting the people of Illinois. Vote 'no'."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"

"Leader Gabel, you and I had a discussion in committee yesterday. And I had asked you questions based on what one of the witnesses, Mr. Gilligan, had brought forth about the broadness of the language in this Bill. I want to just point out to you, again, that this message… or what's in the Bill specifically refers to, literally, any person or public 10200061.docx 61  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 official for any public or private association, agency, corporation, entity, institution, or employer to take any measures or impose any requirements, including, but not limited to, any measures or requirements that involve the provision of services by a physician or health care personnel, again not limited to that, intended to prevent the contraction or transmission of COVID-19. Why is this written so broadly?"

"Okay. Well, where in the Health Care Right of Conscience does it give us any definitions about the prevention of contraction or… the contraction or for transmission of COVID- 19?"

"That's in the beginning part of the Health Care Right of Conscience Act?"

"I'm sorry. I can't understand what you're saying because you have a mask on."

"Wow. That's amazing because I know doctors that disagree about how we could approach…"

"About how it could be contracted, how we could prevent transmission."

"I'm not a misinformation person. I know you know that, but I have had discussion with people that disagree, that are 10200061.docx 62  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 reasonable people, about what we could or should do. Other countries disagree with our approach."

"Other states disagree with our approach. We aren't absolutely perfect."

"I wish I could understand you more clearly."

"Well, I guess that could lead to the next part of my question. Since we're not putting any thresholds in here, anyone can interpret that any way they want to because we're not asking for medical personnel to be involved. Anyone can be making these decisions."

"Okay. Well, again, you put a 'not limited to' clause in here. So, everything that I said means that anyone can interpret this any which way that they so choose and not be subject to Health Care Right of Conscience, with respect to any definition that they choose of COVID-19 transmission or contraction and any way that that can be prevented by intention. I mean, this is really broad."

"Appreciate that. Thank you. Leader Gabel, we're going to move on because we had this discussion yesterday, and it's 10200061.docx 63  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 about the same as it is right now. I want to talk to you about… you said that many times, both yesterday and today, that if someone has an objection to the vaccine for whatever reason, they can still use the Federal Law that applies, correct?"

"It's a restriction of a right."

"Okay."

"Okay. Which also includes the patient, not just the provider. And we're talking about the patient in this case. The patient's choosing, for a reason of their own conscience, not to participate in a vaccine, correct?"

"That's what people are… the 50 thousand plus people who responded to your witness slips yesterday, that's their impression. That's their feeling about this."

"Not yours."

"Well, now I beg to differ. I really do. I guess my question was going to be, if Federal Law still applies, then what's the absolute need for this? Why is this so important?"

"So, because they have a conscience?" 10200061.docx 64  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021

"Is a vaccine not a form of health care?"

"Is a vaccine not a form of health care?"

"Employers and employees are not subject to health care? They don't get health… what are you saying?"

"That was… okay. Is there a section in the Health Care Right of Conscience Act that says that patients have a right to object to treatment?"

"I don't… I think that this is absolutely incorrect."

"Well, I'm going to read it to you here in a minute once we find it. So, you… to be crystal clear, you don't believe there's any part of the Health Care Right of Conscience Act that protects the patient? It is only meant to protect a health care provider?" 10200061.docx 65  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021

"Okay. Then please restate what you said because that's how you answered the question I asked."

"So, when I read this, it is the public policy of the State of Illinois to respect and protect the right of a conscience, of conscience, right of conscience, of all persons who refuse to obtain, receive, or accept, or are engaged in the… and arrangement for and payment of health care services. I believe that talks about a patient. They're refusing to obtain, receive, or accept treatment."

"Let's repeat the point here. Protect the right of conscience of all persons who refuse to obtain, receive, or accept. That's a patient issue. That's in the current Act."

"Really? What part of it is in there? 'Cause I'm looking at… 745 ILCS 70/2, blah, blah, blah, paragraph 2302. If you can point out to me where it says that in there, I'd be grateful. I don't see it."

"Well, I have some incredible news here. What we write in the Bill matters. Not what we say on the floor. That helps, but this is pretty clear. This is actually very clear that people expect a right. They have a right, right now. They have a right, and this Bill effectually changes that right when it comes to COVID-19. So, I'm going to move on here to the last thing I wanted to say. I asked you this yesterday, and I got no response. So, I'm going to ask it again. A young woman in my district went to her employer who was part of our government. She's a public servant. She's a young woman with a great future in front of her, beginning her career. She wants certainty about what she can expect from her job. We're telling her that she has to get vaccinated. She talks to her doctor. Her doctor says, well, I can't absolutely guarantee there'll be long-term side effects from the vaccine. So, she has a conscience issue. She wants to start a family. She wants to do other things in life, things that we can't absolutely guarantee. I wish we could. So, we're giving her, effectively, a choice 'cause we're taking this right, in effect, away. It's her choices. She can continue her employment and she can feed herself and her family or she has to take this vaccine. What am I supposed to tell her?"

"Okay, but…"

"You've got to read the whole Act. The Act has a right in it. I read it to you twice. It's a right, and you're negating that right with this Amendment to this Act. So, clearly, you don't have an answer for her question. Her 10200061.docx 67  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 question's valid. She's a public servant. She's not spreading misinformation. She's not an anti-vaxxer. She has a real concern. Her conscience is heavy. I want to support her. I want to support her right. I'm going to go to the Bill."

"Ladies and Gentlemen, our job here is to protect the public, to promote public safety, while we protect people's rights. This Health Care Right of Conscience is real, it exists today, and it protects patients. What we're doing today negates part of that. We're creating fear in our state unnecessarily. I want people to realize this has more unintended consequences based on how broadly this Bill is drafted and what its intent is. And I have true concerns about the fact that this is a clarification of existing law, which means that they're going to say we're going to pass it with 60 votes. It won't go into effect until June. But since it's a clarification, hey, you know what, that counts for right now. I have real concerns about this. Please vote 'no'."

"Mr. Speaker, to the Bill."

"We have continued to hear tonight from the Sponsor this is not about vaccine mandates. This is simply not true. We would not be here today discussing this Bill in this manner if that was not the case. I've had COVID. I've been fully vaccinated. When our community was looking for vaccinations, I reached out to the Governor's Office, coordinated with him and his administration, and we launched one of the largest 10200061.docx 68  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 mass vaccination sites in our area. Prioritizing educators and frontline workers and assuring that our community was safe. But you know, at that time, the vaccine was optional for these workers. They weren't being forced or mandated, and we were encouraging them and we're getting a lot of people out there. I've sat with frontline workers. You know, the people that we recently held in such high regard as heroes during the beginning of this pandemic. But now, we're willing to take their livelihoods away from them. It just doesn't make sense to me. They're pleading with me to stand up for them. Stand up for their individual medical decisions that they want to make for themselves and their families. Some of these people have used this law to save their livelihoods, to provide for their family. These are good, honest people trying to make a living while exercising the rights that they hold so dear under Illinois law. Mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, all people. You get my point. This Bill strips the rights that may afford them under the existing law. Let individuals make their own health care decisions without the threat of losing their livelihood, folks. I strongly urge you to vote 'no'."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"

"Thank you. I see you now. So, I've got a question and I… a scenario that many of us probably have received phone calls from our constituents in our areas, and I'd like to know what responses I can give these constituents. And it's about the rights. We all, most likely, have reactions. We, 10200061.docx 69  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 most likely, have constituents in our districts that have reactions to vaccines, or they have an immune system that's deficient and they cannot have a vaccine. What… how can they request an exemption. By putting… by closing these so-called loopholes… sometimes loopholes are good and protects some of these people…"

"…but what… what can I tell them?"

"So, thank you for that answer, but let's talk about that… let's talk about that teacher or that other employer who those rights have stripped away too. But…"

"Well, I don't know how many of you in your districts have had teachers and people quit their jobs because of the vaccine mandates, but several in my district have. Let's go back to my initial question. I just wanted to get that comment out there. So, the American Disabilities Act…"

"…will allow an exemption for those with an autoimmune deficiency. Is that what you're saying?"

"Does an employer have to take that? Are they… are they mandated to take that exemption?"

"Okay. So, we've got this on the record that I can show employers that I've been told that they can and should accept that?" 10200061.docx 70  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021

"Okay. Anybody need 45 seconds? Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to go to the Bill."

"Representative, you've said very plainly that the legislative intent for this Bill was to protect the right of conscience of providers in cases of abortion. You said that, and you've admitted that on the floor. Now, my colleague over here has also proven, by reading the statute, that this also applies to patients, not just providers. The cases that have been cited… decided using this law as justification for finding for the plaintiffs are subject to appeal. Do you agree with… well, I can't ask you that… are subject to appeal. And if what you're saying is that the intent of this Bill is plainly to protect the rights of conscience of those who provide abortion and contraceptive services, then these cases probably will be overturned on appeal based upon an examination of that very same legislative intent. So therefore, it undercuts the reason… that's one undercutting of the reason why we need this Bill to begin with. You also stated that now we're down to 60 votes. So, this Bill cannot go into effect until July 1 of 2022. If that's the case, why are we doing this instead of having a fresh Bill with its own Bill number under the exemptions code that we can put in there that deals specifically with COVID that could be enacted as early as January, if we come back here, put it through, ram it through the Senate, and then get the Governor to sign it? 10200061.docx 71  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 To me, that's a much more expedient way of handling what you consider to be the emergency that has to be done in this Bill. But the biggest problem I see… the biggest problem I see with this Bill is the fact that it sticks a camel's nose under the tent flap. If the right of conscience is as precious to you as you have indicated that it is, that that right of conscience is going to be protected throughout, regardless of whether COVID… and it's only because of COVID. What you're doing is you're sticking a camel's nose under the tent flap in the form of a precedent that, somewhere down the road, another reason could pop up for us to go into the right of conscience and find a way to erode, or prohibit, or restrict it. I think that what you're doing here is not so much trying to protect the health of… of the people of the State of Illinois as you are trying to further undercut the precious liberties that are embound up in the Right of Conscience Act. This is a special Act. This is a special Act. It's one that provides… whose underpinning is specifically based upon the right of conscience through religious and other deeply held beliefs. I think you're running a very big danger here of creating a precedent that someday may be used to permanently erode those precious gifts that we have from our founders and from God. You are creating a danger to a Bill that has a special place in our laws. You shouldn't be doing that. This Bill can be rectified in January. If there's still a problem with it, we can vote on it in January and we can move on. This is a Trojan horse. This is a Trojan horse. And I strongly urge a 'no' vote. Thank you."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"

"Representative, you claim that this is a loophole in the law. Is it your interpretation, the Governor's interpretation, that people are using a loophole in this law, the Right of Conscience Act?"

"You've said it before, this is a loophole. This is being used by individuals as a loophole, using a loophole in this law."

"Yes. So, if there's a question about this, shouldn't this be settled in the courts? Shouldn't… we have cases all over the State of Illinois challenging this law. Shouldn't the courts decide, is this a loophole? Is this the intent of the law? Or are you trying to circumvent these court cases, trying to protect the Governor's position on mandating vaccines?"

"It's your intent."

"But it wasn't the intent of the people that drafted this Bill, originally."

"Well, we've… it's been…" 10200061.docx 73  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021

"Well, Ma'am, maybe there's an unintended consequence back when they drafted and passed this Bill. Maybe there was something in this Bill that now we're faced with during this pandemic, that this unintended consequences that individuals could use this right of conscience to not be mandated to take a vaccine. And shouldn't this be left to the courts to decide?"

"No, you're trying to decide it here tonight."

"You're trying to… you're trying to force your version of what the intent of the original Bill was."

"Were you here when they drafted and did the original Bill?"

"Well, somebody was."

"But this is an initiative of the Governor. This is an initiative of the Governor to respond to the uprising, as he calls it, to the charlatans or whatever, that people that don't want… that don't want to take this vaccine, they have a health related, I guess, belief that they shouldn't take 10200061.docx 74  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 this vaccine. The Governor's not happy about it. He's not happy about being in court and he wants…"

"Thank you. Thank you very much. So, isn’t this a way to get around these court cases?"

"But isn't that what the courts are going to do, is to clarify the intent? The legal branch, the third branch of government that settles these disputes. Why aren't we letting them do their job and let the chips fall where they may? If this is such an emergency, if this is not what this Bill ever intended, why not let the courts settle this?"

"So, you're trying to influence the court's decision?"

"No. You're trying to pass a Bill to influence the decision of the Judicial Branch. You weren't here. We weren't here. This Bill was passed many, many years ago. And now, because of this, because of the court challenges and the interpretation of this Bill by so many people in this state, you want to change or impose your side's interpretation, 60 of you tonight, or however many, to change the interpretation of what this Bill is and circumvent the court."

"What… I'm sorry."

"Well, we haven't had COVID for 40 years."

"Yes."

"Yes, I do mind, but I will. To the Bill."

"This Bill is an attempt by the administration to circumvent the courts. We have many, many cases all around this state of people who have taken their right of conscience to a court to decide their fate. This is an end run around the Judicial Branch. We shouldn't be doing it. This isn't going to help things. It's not going to make anyone any safer. And all it's going to do is make people dig in their heels and be more resistant to taking this vaccine. And I urge a 'no' vote."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"

"Hey, Representative. I think I started the day when we took roll by saying today, October 27, is actually National Cranky Co-Worker Day. I think some of us are getting cranky here. But I wanted to clarify… clarify a couple of things you stated. I think you stated that the medical community is clear on these issues. Is that correct, earlier?"

"Yes."

"Okay. What does the CDC recommend on masking? I might know a little bit about masking, by the way. I get lots of emails on it. Some of them aren't too happy with me. But what does the CDC recommend on masking?"

"Ages two and up, right?"

"Okay. What does the World Health Organization recommend on masking?"

"No, they're not. It's 12 and up. Other countries, if you've had COVID, you get one shot. In our country, if you're 12, you get two shots. Other countries, for kids, they're doing one shot."

"Well, they're using Pfizer. They're using… some of them… but the point is pretty clear. We can simply go back to the masks that… the medical community is anything but clear on this issue. Let me ask you another question. Do you think a six year old is better served by getting COVID naturally, when they're much less at risk at it, as opposed to getting a vaccine and not getting the full immunity for it that might affect them for the rest of their life? How do you feel on that?"

"Right, and we're voting on this Bill. I'm going to go to the Bill. The medical community is anything but clear on this. This isn't about this Bill. There were 50 thousand witness slips filed because we haven't done our job for 20 month debating all these nuances. I talked about it in a press conference last week. My wife teaches a kindergartener that's forced to wear a mask that has autism, and it is not in the best interest for that child in that situation to be wearing that. But we have refused, for nearly two years, to do our jobs. Things aren't black and white, and people back home are hanging on to this Bill. They're hanging on to this Act because we're not acting. They can't come to us. You guys have to say the same thing. Well, it's the Governor's Executive Order. We're not debating it. That's what this is about. The people that are upset at school board meetings, the people that filed the witness slips, the people that are going into places that I wouldn't go would be less upset if their Legislators, the people whose office they can go into and talk to, were actually having very clear debate on these nuance situations. But we want to do a one-size-fits-all and this is the last hope they have. Let's not take the last hope that these people have and let's vote 'no' on this Bill. Thank you."

"No."

"No."

"Gong-Gershowitz. Oh, there she is. Okay. And… is Representative Ness present? There she is. Okay. All right, withdrawn."

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Sponsor yield?"

"Thank you. Representative, I know we've had a robust conversation about this is committee, but I actually had a question come up in between time that I haven't had the opportunity to ask. We did talk about the working group and the members on that, and you clarified with me that the youth 10200061.docx 83  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 who will be represented on that task force would be under 18. Is that correct?"

"Will they be required to get parental consent or notification to serve on that task force?"

"Would it be similar to a field trip? I'm told other state agencies that have children under 18 on their task forces require parental consent."

"Okay. I think it's probably important to know that clarified before the end of the debate, if you could. To the Bill, Mr. Speaker."

"Thank you. It's a long-standing principle in this Body, and in our society, and in this state that parents have the basic right to know what's happening in their minor child's life. In Illinois, there's a curfew. A law on the books that says, if you have a child, the child cannot be out past midnight without the parent's consent because we believe, in this state, that parents deserve to know where their children are, especially after midnight. That's consent, by the way, not notification. It's more strenuous than to receive an 10200061.docx 84  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 abortion if this Bill… without this Bill. We also have laws that you've heard about, you can't get a tattoo without consent. Can't get a piercing without consent. Can't have a Tylenol at school. We talk about health care. They can't go to their school nurse and get a Tylenol without consent of their parents. Can't go on a field trip. Can't be on a state task force without consent. In fact, this Body, just earlier this year, voted on House Bill 15, which was a good Bill. We all voted for it, 114 to 0. Twice. Voted for it the first time. Voted for it when it came back on Concurrence, unanimously. And the Sponsor of the Bill, succinctly, and I think very well, described the Bill as, 'Parental notification would be required if a child at school is harmed or does harm to another student. And they would be required to be notified within 24 hours.' And every single person in this Body affirmed that. This is a basic case, not of parental control, which has been talked about by some on the other side of this issue, for me. But it's about parents having the basic right to know what is going on in their minor child's life. It's so common sense. It's so common sense. We have a poll, which you've likely heard of, reputable polling firm. Not a push poll. Not some of these bogus things people do on campaigns. A legitimate poll says 72 percent of Illinoisans… a majority of those polled, by the way, self-identified as pro-choice. Seventy-two percent of those Illinoisans said that parents or guardians should be notified if a minor girl, who's their daughter, is seeking an abortion. This isn't a partisan issue. It's not. It's not even down the lines of traditional pro-life and pro-choice lines. This is a basic, 10200061.docx 85  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 basic commonsense way for parents to know what's going on in their minor daughter's life. In fact, it's so basic, I've got a list here. If you ask me what do these states have in common, Colorado, Delaware, Rhode Island, Virginia. You know what they all have in common? A few things. They all have a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic governor. And you know what they also have in common? Colorado, Delaware, Rhode Island, Virginia, along with 33 other states, require that a parent be notified or give consent before their minor daughter receives an abortion. Those aren't exactly these scary, crazy, Republican states that you guys like to talk about. That's how common sense this protection is. I'd also like to point out that parents obviously have a right to know when their child is undergoing a serious medical procedure. We talked about this briefly in committee. And I gave you the example, if my child broke their arm, needed to go get their arm set, I would want to know. And I would have the right to know. And it came up, one of the people testifying, a witness, offered that an abortion is so much more serious, so much different. To which I said, of course it is. Of course it is. A parent, obviously, if your child's having their tonsils taking out, setting a broken arm, ruptured appendix, of course the parent has the right to know what's happening. But an abortion has so much more an impact on a minor daughter's mental and physical health than a broken arm. If a parent deserves to know about a broken arm, then holy cow they deserve to know if their daughter's considering an abortion. And I also want to talk about the contention in committee that the only people who would oppose 10200061.docx 86  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 this Bill must want there to be no abortions. Which the poll we've already talked about proves that's not the case. But I'll tell you what, for parents who've been notified that their minor daughter is considering an abortion and they support it, they support that decision, I want them to know. I want them to be able to drive their daughter to the abortion clinic. I want them to be there to care for that daughter afterwards. I want them to know just as much as I want a parent to know who may be pro-life, who may vehemently disagree with that decision. But I still want them to support their daughter in that decision. I want them to be there for them. That's what this Bill requires, that the parents have the opportunity to know what's happening in their daughter's life. There's been a lot of conversation, especially in committee, about how broken the PNA is, the Parental Notification of Abortion. It's a very short Bill. I would hope that everybody in this chamber has read this by now. But I wanted to point out a few things because it seems to be that the major point of contention with this Bill is with the judicial bypass. And there's been a lot of misinformation about what is required of a judicial bypass. So, I want to read it. Exemptions, exemptions to parental notification. So, in all of these cases, parental notification is waived. If the minor is accompanied by a person entitled to notice, the parent takes them to the clinic, no need to notify. 'Notice is waived in writing by a person who is entitled to notice.' The parent writes a note, says you don't need to notify me, I already know. Good to go. 'The attending physician certifies that the patient's medical record and that medical emergency 10200061.docx 87  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 exist and there is insufficient time to provide the required notice.' This came up in committee today, that it could be that it's delayed so long through the bypass that they're unable to receive the abortion, or that it's an emergency. The plain text of the language says that's not the case. It would already be waived. 'The minor declares in writing that she is a victim of sexual abuse, neglect, physical abuse by an adult family member as defined in this Act. The attending physician must certify in the patient's medical record that he or she has received the written declaration of abuse or neglect.' And it goes on. So, for those who are experiencing the horrible, horrible situation that they have been abused, neglected, the whole list, they don't have to go through the judicial bypass and they don't have to notify their parents. And I'd like to add to that, they don’t ever have to notify their parents. The body that does the notification is the clinic. It's not the daughter. We don't force the daughter to call the mom and tell them. We don't. This isn't… what was described in committee as cruel. We're not being cruel. We're allowing parents basic knowledge of a serious medical procedure that their daughter is contemplating. And they don't have to tell their parents. It's the clinic that does it. I'd like to talk a bit about girls who aren't in this state. We obviously swear to uphold our State Constitution and serve our citizens of Illinois. But we have a much bigger responsibility in the Bill. Today, we heard from a clinic in the Metro East that said 50 percent of their minors come from out of state, most of which come from states with parental notification or parental consent. Meaning it's the will of 10200061.docx 88  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 those states that parents have basic rights to know. If this Bill passes, I can only expect that that number will increase from 50 percent. Meaning that the Bill you're voting on today will mean that parents states away, potentially, have no opportunity or right to know that their minor daughter has come to Illinois for an abortion. And when I talk about minor daughters, I want to put this into context. Before the RHA, we got reports on the age. And this might sound actually pretty extreme to say, but we have examples of 12-year-olds receiving abortions in Illinois. Twelve-year-olds. We're not talking about 17-year-olds, exclusively, who are months away from being 18. We're talking about middle schoolers, potentially. Parents of middle schoolers not having the right to know that their daughter is going through this. And not having the full knowledge to know what happens afterwards. Right? She has that procedure, something goes wrong, she's depressed. They have no context, no knowledge of why that's happening. So, today all I'm asking for you is to be consistent. Be consistent with the votes… after votes that you've taken that have allowed parents basic knowledge and involvement in their minor children's life. That's all. Because for as much as you want to write a big political statement about what you did to support women, voting for this is failing girls and it's failing good parents. We've seen a lot, a lot of hyperpartisan talk in this country about parents' rights recently. I… I acknowledge that. But there is nothing more basic than a parent and child relationship where the parent has the right to know what's happening. Not to 10200061.docx 89  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 control it, not to make the decision for the daughter, but to know. Please be consistent. Please vote 'no'."

"I first request verification."

"Thank you, Speaker. To the Bill." 10200061.docx 92  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021

"I rise today not just as a concerned father, but as an advocate who's spent years fighting the epidemic of sex trafficking. Most recently, my advocacy was spent working with an organization in our very state that operates the only, one single house, one single safe house for minors, children… I know we keep hearing women being thrown around. We're talking about children when it comes to this Bill. These children who have been rescued from sexual abuse, exploitation, and trafficking. They've housed and helped girls as young as just 10 years old. Ten years old. If you're not aware, the average age of entry for a victim of sex trafficking in the U.S. is between 12 and 14 years. But for many, that abuse started well before they became victims of trafficking. And after drug dealing, human trafficking is the fastest growing criminal enterprise in the world. And I guarantee you that this is happening and impacts every single community that is represented here on this floor today. This Bill that is being presented, if it were to pass, would further advance that criminal enterprise by emboldening the pimps, the traffickers, those who rape and sexually assault and exploit these children. Because of parental notification, there are girls here in this state whose loved ones have been able to locate them, rescue them from their traffickers, and bring them home so they can find hope in healing. This is not hyperbole. This is fact. This is fact. I have looked into the eyes of one of these girls. I've seen a pain that you cannot know. But I've also seen healing that was able to happen after her rescue. A rescue that happened because her parents were 10200061.docx 93  STATE OF ILLINOIS 102nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSCRIPTION DEBATE 61st Legislative Day 10/27/2021 notified. I ask you, today, to stand with this brave girl and all the other victims. Stand with these girls. It is our responsibility as Legislators to pass laws that protect our most vulnerable children and not put them at greater risk. If this passes, you will be allowing those who victimized and abused children, not just here in Illinois, but from all over the U.S. to walk their victims into a clinic, force them to have an abortion, hide the evidence of their crime, and continue this cycle of violence. Do not further empower those pimps, those traffickers, those who rape, sexually abuse, and exploit these children for their own personal and selfish gains. Vote 'no'."

"No."

"No."

"Forgive me. You know, being the freshman to make sure. Trying to get… get faces and names. Andrade. Okay."

"Ness. Oh, there…"

"Okay. It's the different angles. Yang Rohr. Oh, see, I'm being blocked. Stava-Murray."

"Stuart."

"Hirschauer."

"Vella and LaPointe. Oh, there you are. I withdraw."

"Yes."

"Yes."