Whenever abortion comes up in a political context, pro-choice advocates highlight pro-life candidates' refusal to support a "rape and incest exception" to any proposed ban on, or regulation of, abortion. The 2016 presidential campaign is no exception. Recently CNN anchor Dana Bash handed the hot potato to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Huckabee's response: "A 10-year-old girl being raped is horrible. But does it solve a problem by taking the life of an innocent child? And that's really the issue."

Pro-choice publications predictably erupted, painting Huckabee as cold-hearted for his position. But that position flows inexorably from the logic of his larger pro-life stance, and is in fact a libertarian argument.

Notice that I said "a" libertarian argument, not "the" libertarian argument.

I think on August 19 a new and brief window of opportunity opened that might finally help wrap up this long and drawn-out state-legislative overtime session.

But that window will only be open for 15 calendar days - the time the state Constitution gives each legislative chamber to vote on a veto override.

Allow me to explain.

I spoke with some Rauner folks last week and, man, are they ever on the warpath about the Senate's August 19 override of the governor's veto of the AFSCME bill - legislation that would prevent a strike by or lockout of state workers and would instead require binding arbitration after an impasse is reached. The House has 15 days from that date to take its own action.

Even though AFSCME has never invoked its binding-arbitration power with state corrections officers (who cannot strike by law), the governor and his people clearly see this bill as an intrusion on executive-branch powers.

Editor's note: While the following blog posting from Washington attorney Scott Stafne (born and raised in Bettendorf, and online at ScottStafne.com) concerns Washington state jurisdiction, it is still highly instructive for all of us on how the courts contribute to foreclosure inequities, resulting in the destruction of not only the middle class but of property rights under our Constitution.

In Washington state, there are thousands of families having their homes fraudulently foreclosed on, most without due process from the courts - which are tasked with protecting due process under the state and federal constitutions. Recently an appeals judge in Washington ruled in favor of bypassing due process, further enabling nonjudicial foreclosures.

Nonjudicial foreclosures allow a lender to foreclose on a property without a court proceeding. The only way for an owner to fight this type of foreclosure is to file a lawsuit. Often, nonjudicial foreclosures occur without the participation, or even knowledge, of the owners(s). Only 32 states permit nonjudicial foreclosures. While Iowa and Illinois are not among them, Iowa has a provision known as "alternative nonjudicial foreclosure," which permits the owner(s) to request a nonjudicial foreclosure to avoid court (RCReader.com/y/foreclosure1).

It is important to understand these remedies that exist for lenders and how they impact property owners' rights, because legislators could eventually allow their use without us (Iowans and Illinoisans) knowing, especially if we are not paying attention. Most mortgages contain language that provides mortgagees' consent to these remedies, but sadly most buyers are clueless about what they are actually agreeing to.

The absurd facade of this long-running state-government impasse might best be summed up with two brief statements.

(1) Governor Bruce Rauner to Democrats: Just support my plans to eviscerate organized labor and I'll give you the rare privilege of voting to raise everybody's income taxes.

(2) Democrats to Rauner: Just accept our piddly little workers' compensation reforms and we'll let you put all Republican legislators on an income-tax-hike bill, which you can then, of course, gleefully sign into law.

Those two statements bring to mind a long-ago description of the play Waiting for Godot. It was, the reviewer wrote, a play in which "nothing happens, twice."

Ain't that the truth. Neither of these things will ever happen.

I have heard some portray this standoff as something like a religious war, in which each side is so wedded to their own core belief structures - particularly when it comes to labor unions (Rauner against, Democrats for) - that all rapprochement is impossible.

But as hard-line as the summer has most certainly appeared, I am increasingly convinced that this overtime session isn't quite as simple as either of those comparisons.

Upon reading your article "What Next for the Blues Fest?", here are my thoughts:

First, in the early years, the Blues Fest mainly booked local and area acts. Many good musicians rehearsed for hours to give excellent performances for very small compensation. There was no admission at the gate, the festival bands pleased the crowds, and, thanks to selfless musicians and organizers such as Jason Stuart (now of Cobalt Blue), the thrill was definitely there.

Then the fest grew, and many more-expensive national acts were booked, thus replacing most of the local acts. At some point, a local band pretty much had to win an Iowa Blues Challenge to be accepted as a Blues Fest act. Most of the good performance times (later in the day) were given to the national acts. Featuring more local blues musicians and bands would definitely be in alignment with the Mississippi Valley Blues Society's charter of fostering education and keeping the blues alive. So why not book more local acts, but pay them better for their efforts and support?

It is never wise to spend more than you are bringing in. So why not scale back? Make the fest a day shorter until it builds. Many excellent and supportive local musicians that have been edged out of the festival could be resentful. It may not be easy to win back their support and participation, but it's worth a try. Let's begin by hiring and even honoring local musicians such as Jason Stuart who helped build the Mississippi Valley Blues Fest.

Every article I've read concentrates on the negative effects of weather, flooding, and lax fundraising. Yes, these are important, but as restructuring of the fest occurs, others factors need to be considered.

The thrill may be gone, but just for now.

Larry Huntley
Local Blues Fest participant and fan of the blues

There are those who believe strongly that one side or the other is "winning" our latest and perhaps greatest Illinois Statehouse impasse.

I think it's too early to judge, and frankly I think everyone is going to end up losing here anyway.

As you know, the governor has refused to negotiate a budget until the Democrats accede to his demands to essentially neuter the power of labor unions. The Democrats won't ever sign on to his more radical proposals, including forbidding school teachers from negotiating their own salaries.

Many who think Governor Bruce Rauner is winning point to the fact that about 80 percent of the General Revenue Fund's budget is being spent under court order or signed legislation.

State-employee wages and pensions, Medicaid-reliant hospitals in Cook County, part of the state child-care program, debt service, transfers to local governments, and human-service programs tied to federal consent decrees are all being funded. In addition, Rauner signed the K-12 budget, so schools are being paid on time.

In addition, the House is expected as I write this to pass legislation appropriating about $5 billion in federal pass-through money.

So Rauner has managed to avoid wearing the jacket for any devastating consequences of a state shutdown because there hasn't really been a shutdown.

But there are plenty of crises to come.

If there were any doubt before last week, there's zero uncertainty now: Governor Bruce Rauner won't allow anyone else to interfere with his dominance of the Illinois Republican Party.

When the party was out of power for 12 years, several independent actors were always trying to influence elections from behind the scenes, elbowing people out, putting people in. This is a diverse state, and the party has numerous factions, both economic and social. All of those factions have de facto leaders.

One of those independent actors has been Ron Gidwitz, a moderate, wealthy business executive and one-time gubernatorial candidate with a network that includes lots of his rich friends. He ran the moneyed wing of the party.

Gidwitz used his and his friends' money to boost candidates who were to his liking. He backed Senator Kirk Dillard for governor in 2010, for instance, then switched his allegiance to Bruce Rauner four years later. That move did more to hurt Dillard than it did to help the mainly self-funding Rauner, because it totally dried up Dillard's money, leaving him unable to effectively compete until organized labor finally entered the race on his behalf.

After months of public silence, Gidwitz re-emerged last week. Sources say he has been bad-mouthing U.S. Senator Mark Kirk behind the scenes for quite a while. A recent Michael Sneed item in the Chicago Sun-Times about an anonymous top Republican who wanted Kirk to step down from the Senate was widely pinned on him.

Last week, Governor Bruce Rauner declared to reporters that if it weren't for House Speaker Michael Madigan, the budget impasse would've been resolved.

And perhaps if the sky were green, then grass would be blue.

For starters, what the governor said is dubious. In the absence of Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton and his liberal Democratic caucus wouldn't have gone along with the harshly anti-union aspects of Rauner's "Turnaround Agenda" in exchange for a budget deal and tax hike, as the governor is demanding.

House Speaker Michael Madigan told reporters earlier this month that he'd had a "frank discussion" with Governor Bruce Rauner, "and I gave him good, solid advice."

Word is that advice had two parts.

First, the governor needs to find a way to get himself out of this long overtime-session, no-state-budget mess.

Second, if the governor thinks he can get himself out of this mess by somehow breaking the speaker's will, he's mistaken.

But the governor isn't giving up. In fact, he's doubled down.

Laura and Marvin Horne are raisin farmers. Early one morning in 2002, a truck appeared at their business, and the drivers demanded a whopping 47 percent of their raisin crop. The truck was sent by the federal government, and those demanding the Hornes' raisin crop claimed to be operating under a "marketing order" first put in place in 1937 as part of President Franklin Roosevelt's effort to shore up agricultural prices. Amazingly, this antiquated scheme lasted for more than 65 years - well past the agricultural crisis of the Great Depression.

By 2002, the Hornes had endured enough of these raisin grabs. They refused to turn over nearly half of their crop. The federal government assessed a fine of $480,000 for the missing raisins and another $200,000 in civil penalties against the Hornes. The Hornes fought the government through the courts and finally landed in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Pages