We will have to decide on Election Day whether to enshrine collective bargaining in the state constitution and sign over control of the state to our unions. A November 8 ballot measure known as Amendment 1 is also known as the Workersâ Rights Amendment and would amend the state constitution to block the legislature from promulgating right-to-work laws in the future. I call it the pension clause on steroids. Our unions which already have a powerful grip over its workforce, obviously supports the measure. However, we must vote NO on Amendment 1 because a YES vote means we would hand the unions more power and will make it more expensive for businesses to operate in the state and could mean that companies will move their operations, and jobs, out of the Land of Lincoln. A YES vote also would cause property taxes to increase for everyone by more than $2,100 over four years. Already, $75 billion in pension debt held by local governments is the main driver of our rising property tax burden. But Amendment 1 would give government unions more extreme powers to make demands on taxpayers than have existed in any state in U.S. history, meaning property taxes could be significantly higher than $6,400 for the average family by 2026. Businesses would suffer even more. A YES vote could lock in $1.8 billion in commercial property tax by 2026. At 4.5 percent we have the worst unemployment rate in the entire country because of Governor Pritzkerâs inaction in large part due to property taxes. Another reason to vote NO is because government unions will point to their contracts that will prevent consolidation of the number of local governments. Illinois governments are funded largely through property taxes and the bloat of governments is one of the reasons. Most states have 2 layers of local government. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Illinois state homeowners live under three and some live under 16 local governments. Vote NO on Amendment 1 on November 8.
Martin Lulofs
Huntley resident
In the October 6-19 My Sun Day News, on page 8, Herm Faubl states that âReproductive Health Care is a synonym for abortion accessâ. I disagree.
I am a 67-year-old woman who was able to take control of my body and my choices concerning reproduction in my college years when I fell in love with the wonderful man that I am still married to today!
Back then I visited my local Planned Parenthood and received educational materials, my first breast exam to screen for breast cancer, my first PAP smear to screen for cervical cancer, and a general physical for overall health. Then I was prescribed birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy until the time my husband and I decided to start a family. I never needed an abortion thanks to the help and education I received at that time. However, if I had wanted an abortion, I was comforted to know that it would be a legal and safe procedure.
Planned Parenthood is all about Preventing Unwanted Pregnancy! No child should be born to a woman who doesnât want it. Pregnancy and parenthood are difficult enough for a woman who makes that choice, but to be forced to endure this without having a choice is cruel to the woman and the baby.
Sadly there are cases where an abortion is sought even though the pregnancy is planned and the baby is very much wanted. This can happen when a fetus does not develop properly and the mother decides to terminate the pregnancy rather than have the child die at birth, or be in a persistent vegetative state for the rest of its life. There is also the possibility of a fetus dying inside the uterus making abortion necessary to save the motherâs life. The term abortion is still used for this procedure, even though the fetus has already died. I nearly lost a friend years ago because her husband would not allow her to âabortâ her 5-month-old decaying fetus which was causing sepsis. She had to leave him to get the lifesaving health care she needed. Even if a woman chooses to abort her fetus simply because she is not ready to be a mother, she will receive excellent care and education through Planned Parenthood to prevent a future unplanned pregnancy. If abortion is not safe or legal, she will probably resort to the unsafe illegal methods which can maim or kill the woman. This is definitely not a Pro-Life option!
I think âPro-Lifeâ is a very misleading slogan. Talk about âtwisting the language.â Pro-Lifers seem to only care about a fetus until it pops out of the motherâs uterus. Pro-lifers should support childcare facilities so mothers can earn a paycheck, early childhood education so that child can get a good head start, gun control measures so the children donât have to fear being shot while attending classes, basic health care for families of limited means and low-income housing so they can have a roof over their heads. Pro-Lifers should support clean energy so there will be a healthy environment for our children to inherit. I donât see Pro-Lifers making these choices.
Jennifer Galloway
Huntley Resident
Thank you, Geri Levine, for giving specific examples of reproductive health care. My earlier letter suggested the doctor monitoring her status would intervene with the appropriate reproductive health care … presumably for one of the potential pregnancy problems you mention. I donât know why your misdirected attempt at rebuttal mentions that I do not understand women. I donât deny you are correct in saying this, but what does that have to do with the discussion about facts. Your letter actually supports my earlier one in describing what real reproductive health care is. In case you think I am avoiding one particular issue, I wonât. If an abortion is required to save the motherâs life or physical health, then have it done. After all, if she dies the baby will die also.
However, my point still stands. Demonstrators carrying signs demanding reproductive health care are not demanding care in case of thrombolytic embolisms, cardiomyopathy, et al. They are demanding the right to choose (an abortion).
Herm Faubl
Huntley Resident
What does it mean to vote Republican in the upcoming election? Until recently both political parties were largely steered by leaders who genuinely wanted the best for people of this country, even if they differed over national priorities. That is no longer true. The Republican party is not the party it was. Instead, it has been commandeered by extremists and zealots, with many unhinged amoral bosses at the helm. This is now a party which no longer puts the country or constitution or truth first, one that endorses lies, and with many openly admitting that they will not recognize the winner of an election if it isnât them.
Itâs time to take a good, hard look at the direction these supposed âleadersâ are trying to move the country – a future where the right to vote is no longer guaranteed; the environment is no longer protected; Dark Money and conspiracy theories dictate; and laws no longer matter.
Ask yourself if this is the kind of country you want to live in. This isnât about one party winning and another party losing. Itâs about good people recognizing deceit and corruption and voting to make the changes we need for America, the planet and for humanity.
Joan Davis
Huntley resident
This is to extend a big THANK YOU to Larry Casey for his letter in the Oct. 20 edition addressing the misinformation regarding abortion being a constitutionally protected right. Being constantly inundated with ads and opinions about the abortion issue, I found his letter to be a refreshing source of sanity. As we all know, the information we see or hear on the internet, television, social media, newspapers, and other printed material is not always true and factual.
This election is about so much more than abortion â inflation, soaring costs of living, rising taxes, health care, gun control, and whatever else might personally affect you. All these issues must be considered as you exercise your right to vote. An informed voter is an asset to our country.
As a side note â wouldnât it be uplifting if all political ads were only allowed to focus on the candidate the ad was endorsing rather than bashing the other candidate? I could then refrain from hitting the mute button on my remote control!
Rebecca Ogan
Huntley resident
I write to thank readers Joan Davis and Victor Darst for taking the time to read and comment on my response several weeks ago to T. R. Kerthâs prior piece making arguments in support of abortion, gun control, and alternative sex education for grade schoolers by using examples at the extreme, but Ms. Davis accuses me of positions I never took and Mr. Darst fails to refute my sole point that he attacked.
Although I have my own views on abortion – as Ms. Davis and most people do – I said nothing either for or against it, merely pointing out instead the irrefutable fact that aborted fetuses are not the only source of viable human stem cells. And while polls show that most Americans agree that abortion should be permitted in at least certain circumstances, those same polls show that a majority of Americans – including a majority of American women – also support at least some restrictions on abortion, especially somewhere after the range of twelve to twenty weeks from conception.
Nor did I accuse kindergarten through third grade teachers of teaching other peopleâs children how to have (or not have) sex. I simply pointed out that Mr. Kerthâs (and othersâ) characterization of the Florida legislation prohibiting such things as a âdonât say gayâ bill is misleading.
Concerning gun control, depending on how one slices the data, somewhere between 0.1% and 0.5% of firearm deaths in the U.S. involve âmass shootingsâ (generally defined as involving four or more persons being shot) using a weapon of any kind, much less so-called âassault weapons,â so they are indeed statistically exceedingly rare.
But even some of the more headline-grabbing tragedies – such as those at Virginia Tech; in Killeen, Texas; and at the San Ysidro MacDonaldâs – involved primarily handguns (the San Ysidro shooter also had a five-round shotgun), not so-called âassault weapons.â Mr. Darst may dismiss these hard facts as âNRA talking pointsâ but they are also, as Al Gore might say, inconvenient truths.
As for exactly what does or does not constitute an âassault weapon,â Mr. Darst never answers the question. Some decades ago, an undergraduate at a prestigious East Coast school infamously assaulted his girlfriend in her sleep with a claw hammer and beat her to death with it; would that make a hammer an âassault weaponâ? (In that case yes, but should we then make it illegal to own hammers?) Like Ms. Davis, I often find T. R. Kerthâs âView From Planet Kerthâ to be witty and engaging, which is why I read him regularly and chose in this case to engage by responding. And like Mr. Kerth, Ms. Davis and Mr. Darst are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.
Again, I thank them both for being willing to engage publicly on these issues.
David Applegate
Huntley resident
