I got a letter from Personal PAC with this same information in the mail. They included a copy of the Voters' Guide from Illinois Citizens for Life that is referenced in the email. Froelich does indeed get their highest rating. His presumed Republic opponent in the general election, Schaumburg Library Board  President Anita Forte-Scott, is rated "U" for "Unknown: Did not answer or complete survey." 

Meanwhile, the ICL survey rates Fred Crespo, Democratic Rep. in the 44th district, with "X" for "does not have a Pro-Life position, but we do not have enough information to enable ICL to give a number rating." Indeed, only one abortion-related issue came up in the General Assembly last year: the modifed parental notification law (endorsed by Planned Parenthood among other pro-choice groups), and Crespo voted in favor of it. However, he describes his personal views as pro-life. We'll have to watch him closely on this issue. Also, Crespo's opponent in the fall, Republican Peggy Brothman, is rated "U" for "Unknown." She previously served on a school board and probably has no public record on the abortion issue. This should make for an interesting question in the fall election forums!

Returning to the subject of how Democratic (big D) Froelich is, he was on the other hand endorsed by the Sierra Club over his primary opponent for his supposedly pro-environmental positions. Just goes to show you how at least in Illinois, the party label tells you where a candidate's campaign money is coming from, but not necessarily his or her views.

. . "Organizations that support Froehlich also oppose the Equal Rights Amendment, oppose funding for Planned Parenthood, and oppose outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation. While these are not Personal PAC’s issues, Froehlich does have a public record on a variety of issues that are more in line with his right-wing supporters. Why would they endorse him and give him their 100% approval rating if that were not the case?

In Froehlich’s email, he does not dispute his right-wing position on abortion---that he wants to see the procedure criminalized or that he supports Constitutional Amendments to ban abortion. He simply says “I am pro-life.” For the hundreds of thousands of women who die every year from illegal abortions in other places (the world Paul Froehlich would have us live in), that simple statement rings quite hollow. He may want to explain that quaint “pro-life” position to the orphans that are left without a mother when a poor woman dies from an illegal abortion.

In his email, Froehlich tries to parse his opposition to stem cell research and the morning after pill or Plan B with the same exact language that George Bush and the right-wingers use when backed into the corner of public disgust with their opposition to both. It’s almost as if he called the White House and asked Bush for the talking points on stem cell research and Plan B. Froehlich’s answers are near quotes from the right-wing playbook on how to hide your real positions. Remember Bush finally saying he wasn’t opposed to stem cell research after all, he just didn’t want tax dollars going toward it? Now Paul Froehlich says that’s his position too! On Plan B, Froehlich now pulls the same bait and switch. Despite the fact that other developed countries in the world have had nonprescription Plan B (a double dose of birth control pills) available for years with no reports of harm, the Bush administration did everything in its power to keep it from American women for as long as possible. Bush just wasn’t sure it was safe enough for American women so he stacked the FDA advisory panel with right-wing ideologues who put politics and religion over science and then repackaged it as concern for safety. Now Paul Froehlich is doing the same thing with his newfound position on Plan B.

If Paul Froehlich is so concerned about the safety of women, he needs to look at the “safety” of illegal abortion.

I’ve never met Paul Froehlich and I have absolutely nothing against him personally. He’s just plain wrong, very wrong, on many critical issues vital to a free and democratic society. He’s wrong for the people of Illinois and he’s wrong for Democrats. Your vote or support for Paul Froehlich will come back to haunt us down the road. We simply don’t need right-wing Democrats winning elections in Illinois. Please keep this in mind when voting on February 5th.

I sincerely appreciate your time and consideration of my concern for the future of Illinois. With Roe v. Wade hanging by a mere thread, we cannot risk the U.S. Supreme Court returning the abortion decision (and so many other decisions) to the 50 state legislatures and not having enough Representatives who will vote against criminalizing abortion in Illiniois.

Terry Cosgrove
President & CEO
Personal PAC
203 N. Wabash #310
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-422-0005

Needs one more term to qualify for full retirement privileges!!

As Schaumburg Township Democratic committeeman for 10 years (1990 through 2000), I worked many elections to give the voter a choice in a two-party system.
I thought I had seen some strange things over the years.
Paul Froehlich changing parties from elected Schaumburg Township Republican Committeeman and Republican State Representative of the 56th District to a Democrat?
I was shocked to say the least.
Republican Paul Froehlich saw his friend and fellow Republican Terry Parke, state representative, defeated two years ago by a Democrat.
Republican Paul Froehlich did not see the light and change parties.
Republican Paul Froehlich feared he would be defeated this election cycle by a Democrat and decided to change parties to save his pension.
That's right.
He only needs one more term to qualify for full retirement privileges which you, the citizen of Schaumburg Township and the state of Illinois, would be paying for.
I say to all the voters of District 56, please vote to send Paul Froehlich home and not to the State House.

Michael J. Schaefer
Hoffman Estates
Letter to the Daily Herald Editor