by Charlie Johnston
Four years ago I engaged in a too-vigorous debate over the pro-life language of the 2004 Illinois Republican Platform on the now defunct Illinois Leader. I got in a very heated argument, primarily with Jill Stanek and Fran Eaton, about the bona fides of the language. I regret having allowed things to get so heated.
I have come to believe Eaton is one of the best, but least heralded reporters in the state. Long before Sean Hannity had the story about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s radicalism, Fran Eaton had it dead to rights. She examined and dismissed the errant smears that Barack Obama was secretly a Jihadist, but was saying over a year ago that Obama had a very serious problem with his church – and described just what that problem was. The Illinois media utterly ignored her. Shame on them.
As for Stanek, she writes a marvelously insightful regular pro-life column. We have spoken several times since the dispute and I am glad such a committed pro-life activist continues to keep up the good fight.
That being said, I continue to believe that the human rights language 12th Dist. Platform Committee Member Joe Behnken of O’Fallon is proposing for this year (as found on Illinois Review HERE) will dramatically water down the pro-life character of the Illinois Republican Party Platform. . .
Behnken’s language supports the overturn of Roe v. Wade, returning the issue of abortion to each of the 50 states. In a state like Illinois, that is little protection. The 2004 Platform committed the party “to protect the fundamental right to life and dignity of every human life including the lives of unborn children” in its introduction. After defining the unborn as persons, the platform went on to declare that “The right to life is of such primacy that no government entity nor any person shall be allowed to take another’s life without due process of law…” in the section on the individual.
The primary author of the 2004 platform was then-state party co-chairman Steve McGlynn of Belleville, who was also chairman of the platform committee. I know this because McGlynn is one of my closest friends. Long before the convention was held we spoke about how to get past the usual arguments and put together a solidly pro-life platform. He came up with the idea of eliminating the usual section devoted to pro-life and instead imbuing the platform with a pro-life view from the start and defining the unborn as a human person entitled to all the protections of the constitution throughout the document. I thought it was a marvelous stroke and encouraged him to do just that.
In the weeks before the convention we discussed various phrases and language frequently, but it was McGlynn who did the writing. When he came up with the full draft I was delighted. It was one of those times when I wished I could claim authorship rather than having just acted as a sounding board. I regarded it then – and regard it now – as the most comprehensively pro-life platform in the nation. The only other that comes close is Texas.
Behnken’s language would leave unborn children to the mercy of state legislators. McGlynn’s language declares them persons entitled to full Constitutional protection. Behnken’s language would deny taxpayer funding of abortion. McGlynn’s language denies all funding of abortion, public or private.
I would not for the world set off the sort of bitter debate among pro-lifers that we had on the old Leader Boards four years ago. Everyone involved is legitimately and passionately pro-life – as is Behnken. But it saddens me that, after four years, so many of my friends can still not see what Steve McGlynn accomplished in his little masterpiece.
The traditional language, the language Behnken wants to re-instate, establishes what minimal protections we will offer to the unborn, this century’s equivalent of slaves. McGlynn’s language declared them to be slaves no more, but persons under the Constitution entitled not to minimal protection, but the same protection as every other citizen in the land. It was as bold a leap in our day as the Emancipation Proclamation was in the 19th Century.
