illinoisIn the last of two decisions by the Supreme Legislature – the Supreme Court of the United States – the court on its final day of the session decided in another 5-4 decision that a mother does not have to join a union to care for her son.

Though the ruling was a limited ruling, the court got it right.

In Harris et al. v. Quinn, Governor of Illinois, et al., Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion for the conservative block of the court.

Alito wrote, “If we accepted Illinois’ argument, we would approve an unprecedented violation of the bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”

The case arose when Illinois Governor Pat Quinn took a page from the Obama government-by-executive-fiat play book and decided that “I, myself, and me” constitute the government.

Quinn forced home healthcare workers to join the SEIU, Service Employees International Union, and pay union dues for speech and representation that many of them don’t want.

Pam Harris from Winthrop Harbor, IL, was one of them.

Harris said she does not like to rock the boat and is not anti-union.

However, she also said that she had to stand up and stop confiscation of public funds intended to provide for her son’s genetic disorder.

Harris receives $1300 dollars a month from Medicaid to provide round-the-clock care for her 25 year old son Josh who suffers from Rubinstein-Taybi Syndrome. It leaves him mentally and physically disabled.

The ruling was a great victory for a mom who had to take her fight for freedom of speech and freedom of association against one of the nation’s most powerful unions all the way to the Supreme Court.

Harris was the lead plaintiff in the landmark Harris v. Quinn case, in which the high court ruled people who care for loved ones in their home can’t be compelled to join the SEIU – the Service Employees International Union.

No one should be forced to pay a third party master for services that they do not want.

It is an offense against the very notion of liberty.

The ruling does not in any way cripple the ability of any union to organize and offer services to those who might desire them.

The ruling does cripple the ability of the SEIU to force its unwanted services and representation upon unwilling families.

Clearly, the ruling limits the ability of the SEIU to extend their tentacles of forced representation upon the poor and most vulnerable.

Unions are certainly – and should be – free to offer their help to those who want to join.

A good union does not need the force of government or executive orders to organize.

According to Harris, “It means no third party intrusion, it means that there’s not going to be a union contract inserted between my son and I, there’s not going to be union rules and regulations dictating how I can provide the care that Josh needs,” she said.

“We feed him, help him wash his face, shave him, brush his teeth,” she said.

Harris estimated that the unions were taking about $90 dollars a month from her $1300 dollar subsidy from Medicaid for services she did not want.

The governor’s tyrannical executive order essentially turned the Harris home into a union shop.

Your American Patriot Daily believes that Pam Harris does not need to be a union shop to care for her son. We hope you do too.