PREFACE: I have been on the side of Right to Life for decades, and remember vividly the first time I had to take a public stance for the unborn.
And not from the safety of being behind a computer keyboard, supporting a pro-life candidate or being one of hundreds/thousands of Pro-Lifers at an organized march. But one-on-many in the face of Dallas County Reproductive Services, where Roe vs. Wade began.
That testimony is another story for another day.
When I see zealots attempt to hijack the unborn for their own political gain, it makes me very angry. Pro-life zealots are the kind of people who make ridiculous overzealous claims like only Catholics can be pro-life, as we saw earlier this year in the comments of McHenry County Blog which upset many, Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
Yesterday, State Representative Allen Skillicorn attempted a deflection and change-of-subject when his reelection campaign suffered another blow. His candidacy was rejected by the Northwest Herald editorial board, just as the Chicago Sun-Times and Daily Herald rejected it, and endorsed challenger Carolyn Schofield.
So Skillicorn pulled a 5-weeks old video recorded at the Dundee Township Republican Organization monthly meeting on February 5th, where Carolyn Schofield was asked if she is pro-life.
And in a classic verbal smash and grab, he took the nearly 6 minutes of video, and released only 36 seconds, leaving out very relevant facts on where Schofield is at on Right-to-Life.
With permission of Illinois Review, their coverage, published yesterday, is below. Afterward will be a couple of observations, and what is coming in Part II:
CRYSTAL LAKE – Carolyn Schofield, a GOP primary challenger to incumbent IL State Rep Allen Skillicorn (R-East Dundee), evaded a question from 66th District Republican voters, refusing to declare whether she holds pro-life or pro-choice views, according to a video taken during the discussion.
The question from a Dundee Township Republican was, “Do you consider yourself pro-life?”
“I don’t consider myself either, because I am more policy-driven,” Schofield said.
“You have to be one of the other,” another person said.
Schofield shrugged and said, “Because I can answer the question and it just depends on the person…I see people go in a room and they answer it one way and I say, ‘oh that’s me. I go in another room with another group of people and I say, ‘oh that’s me.’”
The video provided to Illinois Review (link to article and entire video at end of article):
State Rep. Allen Skillicorn said voters need to know Schofield’s position before voting next Tuesday in the 2020 Illinois Republican Party primary.
“Abortion is a big issue to voters, and they deserve to know where legislative candidates stand,” Skillicorn said. “Unfortunately, my opponent won’t commit to one position. She can’t have it both ways. The voters deserve to know where she stands on one of the most important issues of our time.”
Skillicorn noted he has been consistently pro-life.
“I have consistently voted pro-life and I am up front about my views on abortion, which are consistent with our Party’s platform,” Skillicorn said. “The flip flopping of my opponent should trouble every voter in the 66th District. If she cannot articulate her views on abortion, what else will she equivocate and flip-flop on? It should not be this difficult to tell voters if you are pro-life or not.”
Schofield’s challenge of Skillicorn is being promoted by the area’s Republican Senator Don DeWitte.
OBSERVATIONS: I am the first to say how Schofield attempted to answer the question as a roundtable discussion needs improvement. It’s difficult to follow within the context of what happened on February 5th during a question and answer session.
Schofield’s Right-to-Life stance will be dealt with in Part II.
Some facts that were omitted from the Illinois Review article, which appears to be from a Skillicorn press release:
- He omitted the date this exchange happened
- He released only a 36 second video of a nearly 6 minute exchange between Schofield and Dundee Republicans. He edited out the first 45 seconds and the final nearly 4 1/2 minutes where Schofield is clear:
- She opposed what the Democrats did in Springfield last year with the passage of the Reproductive Health Act as a “horrific decision that they [Democrats] made”
- Thinks the Reproductive Health Act should be repealed
- In favor of parental consent, and passionately backed it up concerning her daughter
- Passage of Reproductive Health Act was sad to see
- Wants to stop all abortions, including the 44,000 performed in Illinois last year
- Wants to stop state funding of abortions
- Wants to stop the root cause of abortions
- Would stand with the Pro-Life Movement
- His quotes were not from the event itself, as Skillicorn is a Dundee Township Republican committeeperson and was not in the room when Schofield spoke
One can understand Schofield not wanting to put a “label” on it.
And sometimes a voting record does not tell the full story. Good example, both Congressman Sean Casten and Congresswoman Lauren Underwood are clear they favor abortion-on-demand and want the Hyde Amendment repealed.
Yet both Casten and Underwood voted for the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funds being used for abortions with exception of rape, incest and threat to the mother, last year not once, but twice.
And many Pro-Life members of Congress voted against the Hyde Amendment twice last year.
As stated above, Part II will be published which will include where Schofield really stands on Right-to-Life, which is consistent to the points she made at the February 5th Dundee Township Republicans’ meeting.
Which Skillicorn conveniently left out in the video he released yesterday.
Classic verbal smash and grab.
Links:
- Illinois Review article with embedded video: https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2020/03/gop-66th-district-il-house-candidate-refuses-to-identify-as-pro-life.html
- Full video of Schofield appearance on February 5, cued to when the Right-to-Life question asked: https://youtu.be/6mlNa-T-8fU?t=788
I don’t live in the district and don’t have a dog in the fight but if you watch the video, edited or not, you can only come away with the impression that Schofield has an IQ of seven.
She’s an idiot that can’t express a thought.
It’s like she was speaking to her friends at a slumber party.
She would be the perfect representative for the district.
Why is this blog shilling for RINO Schofield and her puppeteer husband.
This blog is doing no “shilling” for anyone.
Just insuring the truth gets out to voters so voters can make up their own minds.
I have to only laugh at the comments on this post!
First of all Chase, you do know that everyone with an IQ of 7 gets an engineering degree from the University of Illinois right?
I bet you have one too!
Since you are so much smarter than Carolyn why don’t you ask her to meet you to have coffee and talk to her for yourself?
You realize that Allen has a high school diploma don’t you?
Wonder what his IQ must be?
At least a 2 or 3 if we use your scale!
Your comments are very mature and productive by the way!
You clearly sound like a very stable genius!
Now Trexler, you obviously don’t know Carolyn’s husband at all!
He is also an engineer and has no interest in politics other then to be supportive of his wife.
I am not sure why spouses would be brought into this at all other then small minded thinkers!
I am sure going after Allen’s wife would be like taking candy from a baby if anyone wanted to make that fair game!
If you want to keep that up then tell your buddy Allen to get his wife ready for what will be coming out about her!
Of course anyone reading this blog already knows who they are voting for at this point and it is obvious that Allen knows his days of free loading off of the state is coming to an end!
Allen is an agitator not a representative of the majority of people.
He knows people in Springfield think he is a moron and that is being kind!
People don’t want to work with him because he doesn’t know how to get along with people unless they share his extreme views.
He is a small minded man which comes from his lack of education and the fact that he hasn’t left Dundee, Illinois!
It is a big world out there with many different types of people and when you are elected to represent the people it is all of the people in your district not just the ones that think like you!
Allen has convinced himself he is successful and if you look at his Facebook page you also might believe this.
Why?
Because he admits to controlling what is post which means deleting anything negative about himself!
That’s a strong leader isn’t it?
He doesn’t want his feelings hurt so instead of looking at reality he just hits delete.
The reality is that if Carolyn does not win the 66th district will be won by a Democrat because Allen is hated that much!
For all of the people name calling and making unproductive comments I would say this, if you are even in the 66th district why not call Carolyn up personally and meet with her?
Making decision about a person based on edited content by a guy who is desperate to keep the only job he will ever get with his high school diploma is not very responsible.
To in the middle: please post Carolyn’s curriculum vitae including her engineering degree from U of I. Her contribution on the County Board is zero.
Her lack of leadership in chairing a committee for Township input
a few years ago was a prime example of her failures.
Her degree only shows that she is educated way beyond her intelligence.
And your ability to use logic is clearly lacking.
If you were able to control the ability to read you would have seen that I wrote I have no dog in the fight.
I said nothing about Skillicorn.
His intelligence (or lack thereof as the case may be) is independent of the idiot Schofield.
Here’s more detail on the bills in the 116th Congress which enable the reenactment of the Hyde Amendment.
http://www.mchenrycountyblog.com/2020/01/07/il-06-calling-for-repeal-of-hyde-amendment-sean-casten-voted-for-it-twice
mchenrycountyblog.com/2019/07/12/underwood-ranked-most-liberal-in-congress
To remain in effect, the Hyde Amendment must be reenacted annually.
The reenactment typically occurs in a bill(s) that are not limited to abortions.
An example would be an appropriations bill that authorizes spending for many departments in the Federal government, which was the case with HR 2740
HR 2740 passed the House and is currently in the Senate.
congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2740
All of the Skillicorn supporters are coming out to roost!
Get the tissues ready because Lying Allen is going down hard and him and his supporters all know it.
RobinB. Obviously you are not familiar with Carolyn’s accomplishments on the County Board or after. She has been asked to chair a number of committees. She was appointed to represent McHenry County at CMAP which is very important and huge. If there is any doubt about her Engineering Degree, call University of Illinois and verify. She has nothing to hide.
Chase, how do you get an Engineering Degree way beyond your intelligence? How about your intelligence for making such a statement.!
From what I can see, it’s the same ole crabby, unhappy people making statements on this blog.
Mark, most of your 2:38PM post is correct.
Yes, the Hyde Amendment must be reenacted annually as it has been for the past 43 years.
You are correct, it is through the Appropriations process, which the House Democrats initially completed last July, including H.R. 2740 in June, which was the initial House Appropriations legislation passed with the Hyde Amendment.
When the fiscal year ran out on September 30, Congress passed the first of two “continuing resolutions” to fund the government in Fiscal Year 2020, which began October 1st.
In behind the scenes negotiations, House, Senate and the Administration leadership combined the 10-12 Appropriations bills the House had passed into two bills, H.R. 1158 and H.R. 1865.
Concurrently, a House-Senate Conference Committee resolved differences in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as both the House and Senate passed their own versions of NDAA in July.
The Hyde Amendment language was part of H.R. 1865, which is the non-defense/Homeland Security omnibus Appropriations legislation that was agreed to in December.
Both H.R. 1158 and H.R. 1865 are the “2300 pages” of spending many have referred to since the passage of the two bills, House on 12/17, and Senate a day or two after. President Trump signed the two spending bills into law on December 20, which was the day the 2nd continuing resolution expired.
Also in early December, the House-Senate Conference Committee finished the final version of NDAA, which was passed under the Senate bill number. That was signed into law on December 20 as well.
A couple of the date references may be a bit hazy, as I’m going totally from memory, but to your point, H.R. 2740 will stay as is as “…passed the House…”, since it was part of H.R. 1865, which passed both houses of Congress and signed into law on December 20.
As for the House Democrats decision not to fight the Hyde Amendment this year, that decision was made in mid June by Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer. It was around the same time the proposed congressional pay increase was withdrawn after many members, including vulnerable House freshmen Democrats, told leadership they wanted no part of voting themselves a pay raise.
Locally, Casten was for the pay raise, and Underwood made no public statement for or against.
Back to the Hyde Amendment, both Casten and Underwood obeyed the House Democratic leadership and voted for the two different bills last year with Hyde Amendment language.
THE ENGENEERING DEGREE WAS IN LANDSCAPING.
She was NOT building bridges.
Sara, it was environmental engineering.
Just slightly different then landscaping.
You are correct she wasn’t building bridges, that is usually done by construction workers. 😉
I am not sure what your point is.
Carolyn has a REAL college degree in engineering from a top university.
What could you possibly say about that?
Oh Gee, if only she were uneducated like Allen!
I have Allen’s resume which says he has an Associates Degree and just like most of what he says that was a LIE!
He has a high school diploma!
He never even finished a two year degree but he lied about the fact that he did.
He said he was an entrepreneur and had a car rental business.
Sure he did!
His rental business consisted of renting out his Prius!
That’s a good one isn’t!
Kind of just makes you feel sorry for his wife!
Wonder what lies he told her to get her to marry him?
I heard she is even voting for Schofield!
So, even if she had an engineering degree in landscaping from U of I that is still a pretty impressive credential no matter who you ask!
Wow, these Schofield nuts are really coming out of the woodwork.
She gets recorded sounding like a complete ditz and they have to give us her resume as if that refutes the fact that she sounds like an idiot when she opens her mouth.
Again, her stupidity is completely independent of Skillicorn.
She is an idiot all on her own.
In this article John Lopez mentions that the 2019 legislation which reenacted Hyde Amendment also contains funding for Planned Parenthood.
http://mchenrycountyblog.com/2019/12/26/u-s-senate-il-06-il-14-ted-cruz-blasts-fy2020-appropriations-legislation/#comment-528091
+++++++++
The Hyde Amendment limits Federal funding of abortions to cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.
The abortions performed by Planned Parenthood are not Federally funded.
In addition to abortions, Planned Parenthood provides contraceptive, std, cancer related, and other services.
+++++++++++
House Resolution 1865 (HR 1865), which contains the Hyde Amendment, was signed into law as Public Law 116-94 on December 20, 2019.
congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1865
National Right to Life
The complete text of the current Hyde Amendment
September 15, 2009
(That date is incorrect. As indicated in the previous comment, HR 1865 was signed into law as Public Law 116-94 on December 20, 2019).
Public Law 116-94
H.R. 1865, Division A, Title V, General Provisions
Sec. 506. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.
(b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
(c) The term “health benefits coverage” means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
Sec. 507. (a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion—
(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.
(b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or private person of State, local, or private funds (other than a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds).
(c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as restricting the ability of any managed care provider from offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage with State funds (other than a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds).
(d) (1) None of the funds made available in this Act may be made available to a Federal agency or program, or to a State or local government, if such agency, program, or government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
(2) In this subsection, the term “health care entity” includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
http://www.nrlc.org/federal/ahc/hydeamendmenttext
116th US Congress
Enrolled text of HR 1865
Here is the link to the text of HR 1865 that was signed into law by President Trump on December 20, 2019:
http://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr1865/BILLS-116hr1865enr.pdf
congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1865/text
The Hyde Amendment reenactment is on pdf pages 73 and 74 of the 715 page appropriations (spending) bill.
The preceding comment on 03/16/2020 at 2:53 pm contains the text of HR 1865.
In passing HR 1865, the 116th US Congress employed a trick also used in the Illinois General Assembly (ILGA).
The Congress replaced the entire text HR 1865 and shortly thereafter passed it out of both the House and Senate.
Here’s a summary of what happened.
HR 1865 was introduced in the House on March 25, 2019 as an 8 page bill titled the “National Law Enforcement Museum Commemorative Coin Act.”
HR 1865 remained the National Law Enforcement Museum Commemorative Coin Act, with some slight amendments, until December 17, 2019.
On December 17, 2019 at about 12:13pm the House erased the text of the National Law Enforcement Museum Commemorative Coin Act, and replaced it with the “Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020.”
HR 1865 passed out of the House at 2:07pm on December 17, 2019.
On December 19, 2019 in a series of 3 votes from 11:03am – 12:48pm, HR 1865 passed out of the Senate.
++++++++++++++++++
The December 17, 2019 engrossed House amendment of HR 1865 is 1,770 pages.
congress.gov/116/bills/hr1865/BILLS-116hr1865eah.pdf
The same text in different syntax, the enrolled version, is 715 pages.
congress.gov/116/bills/hr1865/BILLS-116hr1865enr.pdf
+++++++++++++++++
HR 1865 was signed into law as PL 116-94 on December 20, 2019.
The Hyde Amendment reenactment takes the equivalent of 1 of 715 pages in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PL 116-94 is an Act making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.
Here is a synopsis of PL 116-94:
This bill provides FY2020 appropriations for several federal departments and agencies.
It includes 8 of the 12 regular FY2020 appropriations bills:
– the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020;
– the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020;
– the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020;
– the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020;
– the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2020;
– the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020;
– the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2020; and
– the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020.
In addition to providing appropriations, the bill includes legislation that extends several expiring programs and addresses a wide range of policy issues throughout the federal government.
http://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1865
Here is the language from the blog article about members of Congress voting contrary to their stated abortion position.
+++++++++++++
“And sometimes a voting record does not tell the full story.
Good example, both Congressman Sean Casten and Congresswoman Lauren Underwood are clear they favor abortion-on-demand and want the Hyde Amendment repealed.
Yet both Casten and Underwood voted for the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funds being used for abortions with exception of rape, incest and threat to the mother, last year not once, but twice.
And many Pro-Life members of Congress voted against the Hyde Amendment twice last year.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why would a member of Congress vote contrary to their stated abortion position?
One explanation is the scope of the bill.
The majority of HR 1865 had nothing to do with abortion.
The abortion language was 1/10th of 1% of a huge appropriations (spending) bill that extended several expiring programs and addressed a wide range of policy issues that have nothing to do with abortion.
In such a bill, many (all?) members of Congress vote contrary to their position on one or more issues.
Sean Casten, Lauren Underwood, and other Congressmen and women favoring fewer limitations to Federal government funded abortions did not have enough votes to let the Hyde Amendment expire.
Thus rather than severely reducing spending on various programs they favor to fight a battle they cannot win at this time, US Representatives Casten and Underwood voted for the huge bill (HR 1865).