The Aurora Buildings, Grounds and Infrastructure Committee (BGI Committee) lacked the grounds and government structure to create a nonbinding resolution on medical care, but the aldermen running it decided to try anyway. Their haste was likely motivated by the members’ desire to champion parental notification laws which play to their base, protesters against the Planned Parenthood Clinic that recently opened. But just as the BGI Committee lacks jurisdiction over legislative matters, Aurora government lacks jurisdiction to regulate medicine.
In other words, the City of Aurora cannot pass binding parental notification laws.
The Government Operations Committee is already dealing with the issue, since a nonbinding resolution on medical care falls under their purview. As for the Aurora Buildings, Grounds and Infrastructure Committee, perhaps its members can resolve to focus on “all matters pertaining to city-owned buildings and grounds, the environment, sanitation, solid waste, flooding, water treatment and distribution and storm and sanitary sewers.” It may not (always) involve highly charged issues like parental notification, but it is necessary work nonetheless, and their efforts when passed by the city council have the added advantage of the binding force of law. In other words, it’s an area where the BGI Committee can move beyond symbolism and do concrete work.
[The Beacon News and the Daily Herald provided the background for this - with the quote about BGI’s jurisdiction coming from the Beacon News.]
Comments 5
Hiram, we’ve taken a position on this, but just a couple clarifications for everyone. There are two issues. A parental notification ORDINANCE and a parental notification RESOLUTION.
Our “solution” for the dueling committees are that the ordinance go through the Government Operations Cmte and the non-binding resolution go through the BGI committee, BUT technically, both can go straight to the Commitee-of-the-Whole in a special meeting that can be called at any time by three (3) aldermen.
In other words, all this stuff about which committee is just a temporary issue, at least for the resolution. It will end up in the full committee-of-the-whole.
Last, but not least, it might be important to know there are pro-choice supporters not only supportive of the ordinance, but who helped with it. We don’t view it as a pro-life vs. pro-choice issue, even though we understand that is how some might take it.
Hope that helps
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 7:36 am ¶Hi Openline,
Thanks for the comment!
I’m in ‘off and running’ mode right now, but I do appreciate your distinction between the Ordinance and Resolution - it’s an important one. I’ll chime in again after I’ve taken a look at what you’ve written, but my quick take right now is that the BGI Committee still has no proper business with this issue at all. Your final paragraph is noted, and in saying what I did I wasn’t make a pro- or con- issue of things - and I recognize that this issue isn’t necessarily the same as people’s other views on abortion.
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 5:39 pm ¶Update - the BGI committee deferred to the GO committee, extending an olive branch and compromise.
They sent the resolution to GO with the request there is a special meeting for this issue sooner so it can be discussed by the full city council.
We hope the GO committee reciprocates and we can be happy again
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 7:55 pm ¶Yes. If they like the idea of dismemberment and killing of innocent babies by hacks, then I guess they would. I can’t figure this out? The talk is ” don’t kill people in the Iraq”, but it’s ok to kill a baby? I think we should not play God!
-Robert Jones
Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 10:01 pm ¶http://www.democratsforlife.org
The key once again is to regulate these places since it is legal at this point. I will work on this and ask others to do so.
ROBERT JONES
Posted 28 Oct 2007 at 3:52 pm ¶Post a Comment