Here we go again. Big business and big money are threatening the state with loss of jobs and revenue if we don’t give them everything they demand.
We’ve seen our sports teams demand multibillion-dollar stadiums, and big corporations are continually demanding lower taxes and ever less regulation and public oversight.
Now it’s data centers, which demand free rein over our personal data all while they deplete our water and consume enormous quantities of electricity, forcing homeowners to foot the skyrocketing bill. All for a bet on artificial intelligence.
Let’s face it. AI is still a bet. Some economists expect the markets to crash from the runup in AI investments while some are simply cheerleading the irrational exuberance, much like they did with the dot-com bubble.
If AI is the future, maybe we should be a bit more circumspect in marching forward. I’m certain the AI future has some landmines we haven’t thought about ahead of us.
Besides, when corporate lobbyists start threatening states to change laws that protect the people and give carte blanche to those who can’t really tell us where they are taking us, it’s time to tap the brakes on them.
I remember the saying from the 1970s: ”Speed kills.”
— Harry Hofherr, North Barrington
Consequences and AI
A growing number of people are turning to artificial intelligence systems for communications advice, relying on them for routine workplace messaging and moments of public controversy. Those choices fall squarely within the realm of public relations, which is the work of managing reputation, stakeholder trust and institutional risk. There is a misunderstanding of public relations and the limits of AI.
Public relations is not writing alone or marketing copy dressed up as strategy. In practice, effective communications require careful judgment about timing, audience, power dynamics and consequences before a single sentence is released. Those judgments determine whether a message builds credibility or creates exposure.
Large language models are adept at producing fluent language. That fluency can sound authoritative, even though AI is not assessing context or consequence. It refines the thinking it receives and presents it in polished form. When the strategy is weak or the prompt given AI reflects inexperience, the output delivers the same flaws — in more persuasive language. AI amplifies the judgment behind the prompt.
I have seen AI-generated crisis advice presented in polished, decisive language that encouraged organizations to emphasize the most sensitive aspects of a controversy rather than defuse them. In the same materials, the guidance recommended contradictory steps that left the narrative to others. I have also seen AI-generated policy analyses presented as research-driven work despite lacking original research. If such guidance circulates as expert judgment, those relying on it may be held to standards they are not prepared to meet.
Communications errors rarely disappear. Once a statement goes public, it drives coverage, fuels internal unrest and forces leadership into reactive mode. Time that should be spent advancing the work gets diverted to managing fallout.
AI does not bear responsibility for outcomes. It produces language, but the decision to use that language belongs to people, and accountability follows that decision. Used thoughtfully, it can help organize ideas, draft early language and support internal collaboration, but final decisions must remain with the people who understand the stakes.
Public relations depends on judgment exercised under scrutiny. When trust is on the line, speed without accountability creates lasting consequences. Repairing the damage often costs more than careful review at the outset.
— Ryan Arnold, public relations strategist, Chicago
Abortion referral mandate
Illinois has until Friday to answer for a law that violates the conscience rights of physicians and pregnancy centers across the state or risk losing federal health care funding. That is not a hypothetical. It is an ultimatum from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the clock is running out.
HHS’ Office for Civil Rights issued a finding that Illinois’ abortion referral mandate — which forces physicians who object to abortion and pregnancy centers to provide women with information on abortion providers, even when doing so violates their deeply held religious beliefs — conflicts with federal law.
Specifically, HHS concluded that it violates the Weldon and Coats-Snowe Amendments, which for many years have prohibited states that receive federal funds from coercing health care professionals and organizations to facilitate or refer for abortion. Thomas More Society filed the complaint on behalf of pregnancy centers and physicians who cannot in good conscience comply.
Consider what this mandate demands in practice. Pasha Bohlen, a nurse who has spent over 17 years counseling women at Pregnancy Aid South Suburbs, has witnessed firsthand the moments that change lives: a mother seeing her child’s heartbeat for the first time or a young woman choosing life after learning what resources are available to her.
Under Illinois’ referral mandate, Bohlen could be forced to hand the very women she serves a referral to an abortion provider. But for Bohlen and hundreds of professionals like her, referral is not a neutral act; it is direct participation in what they believe to be a grave moral wrong.
This is not the only time Illinois has tried to conscript professionals who object to abortion into the service of its own abortion agenda. Last April, a federal court struck down the state’s effort to force pregnancy centers like Bohlen’s to recite the so-called benefits of abortion to their patients.
Yet even as a judge blocked this compelled-speech scheme, the abortion referral mandate was left intact, creating an unresolved constitutional conflict. We are now challenging it on appeal before the Seventh Circuit.
While Illinois’ elected officials are entitled to their own views on abortion, they are not entitled to trample the conscience rights of religious and anti-abortion Illinoisans.
Illinois has an opportunity to correct course by responding before Friday and agreeing to respect the conscience rights of health care professionals and life-affirming pregnancy centers.
— Thomas Olp, executive vice president, Thomas More Society
Protecting residents’ health
Gov. JB Pritzker recently took two actions that can keep Illinoisans healthier. As reported in the Tribune, Illinois has joined the World Health Organization network. The president had withdrawn the country from the world’s leading health organization. Joining the network provides Illinois a portal to understand global health care outbreaks and emergencies.
Second, the Illinois Rewilding Law is the first step toward protecting wetlands in our state that can prevent flooding, ensure healthier water quality and improve access for native species. This is critical as the federal government has gutted the Clean Water Act.
Thank you to the governor for doing all he can to protect Illinois residents, species and our visitors.
— Howard Prager, Vernon Hills
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
