Within hours of Justice Kennedy announcing his imminent retirement, voices on the left began announcing the imminent overturning of Roe v. Wade.

David Cole, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said, “If Donald Trump, who has promised to overturn Roe v. Wade, picks someone who is anti-choice, the future of Roe v. Wade is very much in question.”

More emphatically, Slate magazine ran a story with the headline, “The End of Roe,” declaring, “Anthony Kennedy’s retirement ensures the Supreme Court will allow states to outlaw abortion.”

And CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin tweeted, “Anthony Kennedy is retiring. Abortion will be illegal in twenty states in 18 months. #SCOTUS.”

During his appearance on CNN, he added that there was “just no doubt” that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, stating, “Roe v. Wade is doomed. It is gone because Donald Trump won the election and because he’s going to have the chance to appoint two Supreme Court justices.”

As stated succinctly in a tweet from Planned Parenthood Action, “With Kennedy retiring, the right to access abortion in this country is on the line. #SaveSCOTUS.”

May all these fears and warnings prove true! May we see Roe v. Wade overturned speedily, in our time. And may the many women who struggle with their pregnancies find new hope and learn that there are better alternatives than abortion.

Of course, it is too early to proclaim the end of Roe v. Wade. And for more than 55 million babies who have already lost their lives, this is too little, too late.

But, based on his performance to date, it is highly likely, if not almost certain, that President Trump will nominate a solid, pro-life justice. And it is then very likely that Roe v. Wade would be overturned in the years ahead.

This would be beyond historic. It would be unprecedented. It would mark the first time that the court made a radical, anti-life turn only to reverse course decades later. And it would mark a major turning point in the cultural life of our nation, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade seemed like an impossible dream for years.

Although I was almost entirely unaware of the battle for life in 1973 (I was 18 at the time and I don’t remember hearing a word about abortion in my church), older colleagues have told me how bleak things appeared at that time. They have even related that pro-lifers were more despised back than those who hold to traditional family values are today. That’s saying something!

Back in 1973, after the Roe v. Wade ruling, pro-life forces were in disarray. Yet, Nina Martin reported in the New Republic in 2014, they quickly mounted “a push for a constitutional amendment affirming that life begins at conception.”  But, she explains, “that first effort fizzled, and it’s only in recent years that a new wave of pro-life activists—many of them born after Roe and educated in fundamentalist Christian settings—have once again seized on personhood as a way not just of weakening Roe, but of overturning it. In state after state, they have been pushing to have their beliefs enshrined in policy.”

So, according to Martin, a lot of the recent success in opposing Roe v. Wade is due to the efforts of conservative Christians born after 1973. In other words, they were born after abortion on demand was considered a settled issue in America. After the battle for the unborn was apparently lost. After our side was told to throw in the towel.

But that was not the end of the story. As Austin Ruse noted, “Social conservatives point out that the number of young people opposed to abortion used to be equally bleak among the young but is now trending their way.”

What makes Ruse’s point especially poignant is that he made this comment in a short article documenting the rising acceptance of same-sex relationships among young Republicans. In light of that, he suggested that, “All this leaves open the possibility that Republican opposition to same-sex marriage may fade with time.”

That’s exactly what was expected with regard to the battle for life in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade. The die has been cast. The verdict has been rendered. The older, conservative opposition will soon die out. As for the generations that follow, abortion on demand will be the law of the land, unopposed and largely, if not universally, embraced.

And this, of course, is what we are told unceasingly with regard to same-sex “marriage,” almost word for word. Why couldn’t we see a cultural reversal there as well?

Today, we stand on the precipice of undoing the monstrous injustice of Roe v. Wade. Who’s to say we won’t live to see the reversal of Obgergefell vs. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court’s overreaching decision to redefine marriage?

It is for good reason that CNN is already writing about, “What Anthony Kennedy’s retirement means for abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action and the future of the Supreme Court.”

And Vox opines that “a Court without Kennedy is substantially more likely to: Overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states (and maybe the federal government too) to ban most or all abortions. . . . Rule in favor of religious challenges to anti-discrimination law, and perhaps, in an extreme case, reverse some past Supreme Court rulings on gay rights.”

All this sounds totally within reach today. And it could hinge on the next appointee to the Court. Let’s pray for God’s mercy on our nation, for the continuing turning of hearts towards life, and for righteous justices to adjudicate in our courts.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

In case you haven’t heard, Walgreens has revised its restroom-usage policy for patrons at the request of the ACLU of Southern California. No longer will restrooms correspond to objective, immutable biological sex. From now on, restroom usage will correspond to the subjective, internal, deeply held feelings of patrons about their maleness and/or femaleness. As I’ve written multiple times, we’re moving to a revolutionary cultural place in which there will be co-ed private spaces everywhere, which means no private spaces anywhere.

The “butch”-appearing lesbian at the center of the Walgreens kerfuffle tried to use the women’s restroom, but apparently due to her masculine appearance (though she is not “transgender”), she was–suprise, surprise–mistaken for a man and told she couldn’t use the women’s restroom.

Because she “had to go,” she “used a stall in the men’s restroom” while “men used the urinals next to” her. Here’s the most interesting part of the story: She said, “This… was very humiliating for me and I felt uncomfortable.”

Did you hear that? She felt humiliated and uncomfortable by having to share a restroom with persons of the opposite sex. And she was in a stall.

It’s regrettable that this happened to her, but this is a cultural mess of the Left’s making. It’s the logical consequence of the nonsensical and anarchical sexuality ideology they have foisted on America.

When it comes to sex-segregated spaces, we can no longer rely on appearances or the honesty and decency of strangers. Even 10 years ago, “butch” women would have been able to use women’s private spaces. People would simply have trusted that the masculine-appearing person in the women’s restroom was a “butch” woman—not a man. But no longer. Trust and decency are gone. Now Walgreens has changed its policy, so many more men and women will be humiliated and uncomfortable by being forced to share restrooms with opposite-sex persons.

Good job Walgreens. You and Meehan have just made the experience of humiliation and discomfort universal.

The video above features the justifiably humiliated Jessie Meehan (For those who may not think Meehan looks masculine because she’s wearing makeup, please note this is a promotional photo taken by the ACLU of Southern California. We have no idea exactly how she appeared at Walgreens. Moreover, some men now wear makeup.)

Remember Meehan’s words about feeling humiliated and uncomfortable when your children’s schools try to force your daughters and sons to share private spaces with opposite-sex persons.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to Walgreens’ corporate executives to express civilly your objections to their new policy to allow men and women to use opposite-sex restroom facilities in all stores. You may want to point out that biological sex is objective and immutable, whereas “gender identity” is neither. And ask them why they believe men who “identify” as women should not have to use restrooms with those whose “gender identity” they don’t share, but women should have to use restrooms with those whose sex they don’t share.

You can also send a Tweet directly to them @Walgreens.

Please note: 2ndVote.com ranks Walgreens at a deplorable 1.6 in support of liberal causes.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/The-Walgreens-Kerfuffle.mp3

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

As a Wikipedia editor, I’ve made many edits and updates over the years to the American Civil Rights Union’s Wikipedia page without interference.

So, imagine my shock when I was alerted this past Monday that someone had made the page revert to a very old version with content deleted and outright errors inserted. I went online and corrected a couple of things, but my corrections were instantly undone. Then, it got worse.

On Wednesday, another editor removed a lion’s share of the content describing the ACRU’s activities and issues. Gone were entire sections on election law, environmental regulation, gun laws and religious freedom.

Some of the worst damage was done to the personnel section. Judge Robert Bork, who died in December 2012, was updated as a current ACRU Policy Board member. So was James Q. Wilson, the celebrated political scientist who died in March 2012.

On Friday, another editor restored the severely outdated issue sections but left the personnel errors. Earlier, an editor “nominated” the entire ACRU page for “deletion.”

What might seem at first like a trivial nuisance is indicative of the power those hostile to liberty have over those who defend it. To a new generation, Wikipedia is Britannica, but without factual safeguards.

Virtually all of the updates I added over several years were deleted. According to the site history, the revisions by several “editors” began this past April and continued right up through this week.

When I contacted a Wiki administrator who was listed as one of the revisers, I was told that because of my ties to the group (I am an ACRU Senior Fellow) I have a conflict of interest and could not fix anything myself. Instead, I should review a complicated procedure for suggesting edits, which may or may not be made. My request to restore my previous edits in order to correct the many errors was flatly denied.

This is very serious business. It amounts to sabotage.  When people want to learn about an organization or person, they often go straight to Wikipedia. While it’s bad form to cite Wikipedia as a sole source, it’s an excellent starting point for research on any topic. Millions of people access it daily, making it one of the top six websites in the world.

If viewers see an absurdly outdated, sloppy page, it could deeply affect an organization’s ability to get out its message. Frustrated by the intransigence, I looked up Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policy, which is murky and geared toward preventing hostile edits that are defamatory or false, or self-serving inaccuracies, not edits of an entirely factual nature, such as listing current personnel or programs.

One of Wikipedia’s cardinal rules is: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it (boldface in original).”  In the essay, “Wikipedia: Ignoring all rules – a beginner’s guide,” it states, “Perhaps the spirit of the rule could be said in an even better way: Use your common sense over anything else.”

Common sense tells me that fixing blatant errors is something that Wikipedia should appreciate.

There is no guarantee that certain administrators will even make suggested edits if they have an ideological axe to grind, as indicated by many of the changes and deletions to the ACRU page even before the big purge.

The editing history reveals these:  “Environmental and property-rights litigation: rename to ‘Environmental regulation’”… “Second Amendment and gun litigation: rename to ‘Gun control.’”

What’s wrong with the previous entries? Ah, one mentions property rights, and the other cites the Second Amendment. The progressive Left prefers they not be mentioned, or even known to younger Americans.

The question is: After years of being left alone, why did the ACRU page suddenly come under such attack? And, have Wikipedia editors subjected other pages of nonprofit groups to this kind of micromanagement? This is beginning to smack of the Obama IRS’s targeting of the tea parties.

Could this have something to do with the fact that the ACRU has been fighting vote fraud by forcing counties to clean up their inaccurate voter rolls and has a case pending in federal district court against high-profile Broward County, Florida?

The malicious trashing of the ACRU’s Wikipedia page is not unlike the damage done to Christian charities by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s false designation of them as “hate groups,” which the charity index GuideStar affixed to these groups’ entries. One of them, D. James Kennedy Ministries, is suing the SPLC for defamation. Good for them.

In May 2016, a report by the website Gizmodo accused Facebook editors of intentionally suppressing articles with conservative content, a practice long suspected by many conservative activists.

Last Monday, PragerU, a nonprofit educational website run by conservative talk show host Dennis Prager, filed a lawsuit accusing Google and its subsidiary YouTube of censoring more than 30 of its videos as “inappropriate.”

As fewer and fewer companies control the flow of information, we must be increasingly vigilant for attempts to silence conservative voices.

Wikipedia is supposed to be “self-correcting.” Let it be so.

Article originally posted at Townhall.com.

For those who weren’t politically active in the 70’s or never got around to learning the specifics about the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), here is a thumbnail sketch of the purpose and danger of the ERA.

This proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment is deceptively named. Men and women already have equal standing and equal protection before the law and possess God-given rights which are delineated in the Bill of Rights.

If the goal is to ensure equal opportunity, then the path is not the broad and ambiguously written ERA. Even supporters of the ERA cannot answer questions about its full impact on existing legal protections for women (and children) in state and federal statutes.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote Sex Bias in the U.S. Code when she was with the ACLU. In her book, she admitted that at least 800 federal laws would likely be struck down – laws aimed at protecting women.

Are men and women different? Over the course of centuries, common sense and science have detailed the physical and mental differences that are biologically based. The push today by Leftists to pretend these obvious differences don’t exist is not a new phenomenon — and the ERA was once such an effort that ended in failure in the 1970s.

The Equal Rights Amendment says: 

“Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or any State on account of sex.“ (Emphasis added.)

The Equal Rights Amendment is a poorly worded amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restrict all laws and practices that make any distinctions based on gender or “on account of sex.” Under the ERA men and women could not be treated differently, even if the different treatment is due to physical differences.

The ERA is centrally about abortion.

Since abortion is unique to women, any attempt to restrict a woman’s access to abortion would be seen, under the rules of the ERA, as a form of sex discrimination. As a result, abortion restrictions would be overturned.

In addition, since medical procedures unique to men are funded by Medicaid (such as circumcision and prostatectomies), then abortion which is unique to women, must also receive Medicaid funding under ERA requirements.

Pro-abortion groups, including Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund have all submitted legal briefs stating that the ERA supports abortion rights.

Using this same ‘sex discrimination’ logic, legal scholars have reasoned that the ERA would do the following:

• Eliminate all abortion restrictions including the federal partial birth abortion ban, third trimester abortions, and parental notification of minors seeking abortions.

• End conscience clauses for nurses, doctors and hospitals who do not want to facilitate abortions in any way.

• Threaten tax exemptions of private religious schools that do not believe abortion is moral and that discourage it when teaching students.

• ERA would also provide a new basis for abortion rights in the U.S. Constitution. Roe v. Wade is founded on an unwritten “right to privacy” assumption that is vulnerable in legal challenges. The ERA would insert a written, defined right based on sex discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, and thus provide a strong legal basis for overturning all abortion restrictions.

Americans need to become informed on this issue and seek to help educate others on the consequences of the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. Then they must make sure their state representatives and state senators know both the dangers of the ERA and their opposition to it.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email to your lawmakers, urging them to protect women’s rights by opposing the Equal Rights Amendment.

The Illinois Family Institute has posted important articles outlining what the ERA is all about – examples can be found here, here, here, and here.

State lawmakers will be back in Springfield for the veto session November 7-9, and this legislation may come up for a vote during that time.  PLEASE speak out today!

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) announced Wednesday that it will start admitting girls to its Cub Scouts program, and eventually will create a parallel program that allows older girls to rise to the level of Eagle Scout.

In a statement, the BSA said its decision was in line with its “core values” and was driven by changes in the American family and busy parents desiring a Scouts-like program for their daughters.

“Starting in the 2018 program year, families can choose to sign up their sons and daughters for Cub Scouts,” the statement said. “Existing packs may choose to establish a new girl pack, establish a pack that consists of girl dens and boy dens or remain an all-boy pack. Cub Scout dens will be single-gender — all boys or all girls.”

It continues: “Using the same curriculum as the Boy Scouts program, the organization will also deliver a program for older girls, which will be announced in 2018 and projected to be available in 2019, that will enable them to earn the Eagle Scout rank. This unique approach allows the organization to maintain the integrity of the single gender model while also meeting the needs of today’s families.”

‘Zir Scouts’ next?

Conservative critics like Christian talk show host Janet Mefferd pounced on the BSA’s gender-neutral decision.

“When you have the Boy Scouts accepting girls (and gender-confused girls who think they’re boys), then the next logical step is for the Girl Scouts to accept boys. What does gender even mean anymore? You might as well join forces and become the ‘Zir Scouts’,” Mefferd told LifeSiteNews.

(“Zir” and “Ze” is a genderless pronoun created by “transgender” activists to replace “her” or “his,” and “he” or “she.” Another variation spells it as “Xir.”)

Conservative activist and Eagle Scout Charlie Kirk, founder and executive director of Turning Point USA, tweeted in response to the BSA announcement:

I am an Eagle Scout

Only boys should be in Boy Scouts

Only girls should be in Girl Scouts

Don’t change things that work

The BSA — whose membership is declining — said its “historic decision comes after years of receiving requests from families and girls, the organization evaluated the results of numerous research efforts, gaining input from current members and leaders, as well as parents and girls who’ve never been involved in Scouting – to understand how to offer families an important additional choice in meeting the character development needs of all their children.”

Randall Stephenson, the BSA’s national board chairman, was effusive about the new girls policy: “The BSA’s record of producing leaders with high character and integrity is amazing,” he said in the BSA release. “I’ve seen nothing that develops leadership skills and discipline like this organization. It is time to make these outstanding leadership development programs available to girls.”

The ATT CEO has presided over some liberal social changes in the Scouts organization that have outraged many former Scouts and pro-family, faith-based advocates like Franklin Graham, who has urged Christians to pull their sons out of the Scouts.

Beginning in 2013, the Boy Scouts moved to end their “morally straight” policy of excluding homosexual boy members, a policy that they had successfully defended in court going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000. Then in 2015 the BSA decided to allow to adult homosexual men as leaders, despite the BSA’s history of adult male scoutmasters homosexually molesting boys in their care — the extent of which has still not been revealed to the public.

Earlier this year, the BSA waded into transgender controversies by saying it will allow severely gender-confused, biological girls (who identify as “boys” and want to live as “males”) to become Boy Scouts.

The Scouts’ politically correct moves appear to be taking a toll on membership, as new groups like the Christian-based Trail Life USA have been formed in response to the BSA’s liberal shift, while major church bodies like the Mormon Church have pulled away from the BSA. Perhaps this explains the opening to girls. The New York Post reports on the BSA’s plummeting numbers:

“Current participation in the Boy Scouts, which was founded in 1910, is down from 2.6 million in 2013 and more than 4 million in earlier years. The announcement comes as the organization and other youth service groups have seen dips in membership. The Girl Scouts, meanwhile, reported 1,566,671 youth members as of March, down from just over 2 million in 2014.”

“Just when you thought the Scout leadership could not be any more clueless about the actual purpose of the organization – raising boys to become responsible, masculine men – they come up with this,” said Robert Knight, a senior fellow with the American Civil Rights Union and an Eagle Scout.

“This is organizational vandalism and another sign that the current Scout executives care more about what the clinically insane Left and their media allies think than what is best for boys.  The only good to come out of this will be a further exodus toward Trail Life USA, the genuine heirs to the Boy Scout legacy.”

This article was originally posted at LifeSiteNews.com

At a forum at the College of William & Mary on Sept. 27, the ACLU got a sample of what conservatives have been experiencing on campuses for years.

As Claire Gastanaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, began speaking to a small audience, a group of demonstrators marched in with a large banner that said, “Blood on Your Hands.” They lined up in front of the stage, holding placards.

Apparently clueless about what was about to transpire, Ms. Gastaaga said, “Good. I like this. Good.”

She went on to say that she was going to inform the students about their right of protest, “which this illustrates very well.”

No, it didn’t. The students shut her down. They began loudly chanting inane slogans, including “ACLU, you protect Hitler, too!” and “ACLU, free speech for who?” and “The oppressed are not impressed!” The ACLU is also apparently guilty of perpetuating a system of “white supremacy” for not defending jackboot tactics like those seen at Berkeley and Middlebury College against conservative speakers.

What was supposed to be a #blacklivesmatter event was populated almost entirely by white students, presumably many from the W&M’s tony Williamsburg campus. Oppressed, they are not, unless you count the unbearable minutes when they can’t find a parking space for their Audis or Beamers.

For a taste of what Ms. Gastanaga endured for more than an hour and a half, you can see a brief video by an American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) team that filmed the event. It’s strangely satisfying. (See below)

Since the French Revolution, when it was famously observed that “revolutions devour their own,” the progressive left always seems surprised when the forces they have unleashed turn on them. Think back to the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, when old-line liberals like Vice President Hubert Humphrey were stunned by the street violence of the extreme left.

More recently, U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had that deer-in-the-headlights look when the antifa crowd, like the Occupy movement a few years ago, turned utterly violent. To her credit, she finally denounced their tactics.

In a more serious venue than campus playpens, the ACLU had another sobering experience this past week. During arguments on Tuesday in Gill v. Whitford, several U.S. Supreme Court justices indicated a reluctance to plunge into what Felix Frankfurter in 1946 called the “political thicket,” which is where the ACLU wants them to go. It’s part of the ACLU’s vision to do away with the state and local powers that still hamstring the federal government’s relentless growth.

A split federal panel had invalidated Wisconsin’s redistricting plan for its state legislature, calling it an unconstitutional gerrymander because the Republican-controlled legislature had drawn districts favoring the Republican Party.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing essentially that legislatures, being composed of politicians, should not have the authority to create voting districts. It’s time to change the rules of the game since the vast majority of state legislatures are now controlled by Republicans.

The ACLU had no such problem when Maryland’s Democratic legislators in 2011 drew a bizarre district that meandered from the conservative Western part of the state to liberal Montgomery County. This was intended to unseat outspoken conservative Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. It worked. Mr. Bartlett had won the 6th district by 28 points in 2010, but lost his seat by 21 points to Democrat John Delaney in 2012.

In progressive California, the politically-drawn district maps are so squiggly that they resemble Rorschach blots. But any court-ordered “solution” for redistricting would be an ongoing nightmare, with unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in control.

Who would appoint the “non-political” panels? How would they determine exactly how many voters of either party or no party should be included in each district? Would distinct communities be split for numerical balancing? Would they do this after every election? How much politics is too much politics? Apart from the difficulties, the whole thing would be unconstitutional.

On August 4, the American Civil Rights Union submitted an amicus brief in Gill, noting that the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine the “Times, Places, or Manner” of holding federal elections but leaves to the states the power to determine who votes. Therefore, establishing districts comprising voters is a state function, not a federal one.

Since the 1960s, the courts have variously waded into the issue, solidifying the principle that there is no place for racial bias in districting, but avoiding a sweeping “solution” to political gerrymandering.

On May 22, in a dissent in Cooper v. Harris, Justice Samuel Alito alluded to Frankfurter’s famous statement and warned against making federal courts “weapons of political warfare,” which would “invite the losers in the redistricting process to seek to obtain in court what they could not achieve in the political arena.”

Speaking of losers, as the ACLU ramps up its campaign against voter ID laws, traditional districting methods and other obstacles to its goal of fundamentally transforming America, its unruly children will be out in the streets in black masks, trying to intimidate anyone who disagrees with them.

When the ACLU itself comes under attack for not joining the mob, it’s a sign that the revolution has begun nibbling on its own.

The ACLU is lending its full support to the reintroduction of the “Do No Harm Act” to make sure that religious freedom guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) doesn’t allow Christians and others of faith to deny services to homosexuals and transgenders. Passage of the Do No Harm Act, says the ACLU, will “prevent discrimination under the guise of religious liberty.”

But Matt Barber, founder of Barbwire.com and a constitutional attorney, says the ACLU is really fighting to create a license to discriminate against Christians.

“They presume with no real logic or history in law or any constitutional support that – as Chai Feldblum, President Obama’s appointment to the EEOC, once said – When religious liberty comes into conflict with so-called ‘gay rights’, gays win, Christians lose,” Barber says, paraphrasing Feldblum’s original remark.

He adds that nothing can be further from the truth. As he explains, the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to the free exercise of religion.

“The ACLU wants enumerated civil rights for these new-fangled gay rights, but these are not rights; they are gay wrongs,” Barber tells OneNewsNow. “These are behaviors and temptations that the Founding Fathers called a crime against nature.”

Barber concludes that imagining the Constitution supports “gay rights” is mind-boggling.

The Do No Harm Act to amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was reintroduced to Congress on July 13, 2017, by Democratic Congressmen Joe Kennedy (Massachusetts) and Bobby Scott (Virginia).

This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com

Yesterday, Larry Yellen of Fox News 32 Chicago sought a comment from IFI for a segment he was doing on Trump’s “transgender” tweet.

Here are the comments that were included in Yellen’s segment from opponents of Trump’s ban on gender-dysphoric men and women serving in the military:

• From “Danielle” Love, a cross-dressing man who works at the “LGBTQ” Center on Halsted: “It’s disheartening to the say the least. I think that transgenders of all kinds are just as equally able to provide for our country just as anyone else would be.” (30 words)

• From “Vanessa” Sheridan, a cross-dressing man who works as the director of transgender relations at the Center on Halsted: “That’s a shame. It keeps people from moving forward with their lives, from being the full contributors that they might otherwise be.” (22 words)

• Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, bristling melodramatically with unrighteous indignation: “I cannot think of a thing that is more abhorrent on the 69-year anniversary of President Truman integrating the Armed Forces racially.” (22 words)

• Senator Tammy Duckworth: “I didn’t care about the gender identity of the soldiers who were risking their lives to save me. I only cared that they were American troops and that they were there to rescue me.” (34 words)

• Colonel “Jennifer” Pritzker, the cross-dressing brother of gubernatorial candidate Jay Pritzker. Yellen reported this about Jennifer Pritzker: “While she’s [sic] a long time Republican, she [sic] has reached out to the president to express her [sic] disappointment.” (17 words)

• Ed Yohnka, ACLU Chicago spokesperson: “This is really beneath what we want America to be and certainly what we want our military to be.” (19 words)

IFI sent this statement to Yellen:

Gender dysphoric men and women who wish they were the opposite sex seek to force all citizens to pretend that subjective, internal feelings about one’s sex are more important than objective, immutable biological sex. They seek to force all of society to treat them as if they are the sex they are not. They also seek to serve openly in the military, which means impersonating and being housed with persons whose sex they do not share. That is a violation of the rights of the men and women who serve every American and every non-citizen who lives in this once-great nation. It’s outrageous that the military stood poised to force men and women who are willing to sacrifice their lives for us to suffer the indignity of showering and toileting with persons of the opposite sex.

Never in the course of human history has a society denied the reality, immutability, and meaning of the sexual binary. Subjective feelings do not trump reality. No matter how Americans feel about President Trump, his tweets, or his positions on other issues, the position he expressed this morning is something for which all Americans who care about the military should be thankful.

This is what Yellen’s segment included from IFI’s statement:

“All Americans who care about the military should be thankful.” (10 words)

144 words from “progressives,” 10 words from conservatives.

So much for fair and balanced.

IFI did not expect our entire statement to be included but maybe two sentences, one of which would have addressed the substantive privacy issue. And perhaps if IFI were to be the only conservative voice included in the segment, Fox could have included even four sentences, which would still have been only half the number of words allotted to “progressive” voices.

Here are some thoughts about the comments made by “progressives” in Yellen’s segment:

• Is it the responsibility of the military to help soldiers ‘move forward’ with their lives as Sheridan claims? And what precisely does ‘moving forward’ mean?

• Since the faux-enraged Emanuel clearly believes that pretending to be the opposite sex is analogous to race, perhaps he could enlighten everyone as to what specific ways these two conditions correspond.

• If I were lying bleeding on a battlefield, I, like Duckworth, wouldn’t care about the gender identity or anything else about those risking their lives to save me. I wouldn’t care if they were anemic, or had orthodontic braces, gout, polydactyly (an extra finger), irregular menstrual cycles, or undescended testicles, all of which are conditions that preclude military service. If I were bleeding to death on a battlefield, I wouldn’t care if the person rescuing me were an infantilist, frotteurist, voyeur, or kleptomaniac. But does the military assess fitness for service based on what criteria matter to those being rescued from imminent death? If that is how fitness should be determined than there would be virtually no criteria.

• What is beneath America and beneath the military is adopting the reality-denying view that objective, immutable biological sex has no intrinsic meaning or value, particularly with regard to modesty and privacy.

• What is beneath America and the military is forcing men and women to share barracks, restrooms, and showers with persons of the opposite sex.

• What is beneath America and the military is coercing Americans to pretend to believe that subjective, internal feelings about one’s biological sex determine maleness and femaleness.

• What is beneath America and the military is facilitating the rejection and mutilation of healthy bodies and compelling Americans to bear false witness in the service of disorders of the mind, heart, and will.

• Either the objective, immutable sex of humans matters or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t matter, then all sex-segregated spaces, contexts, and activities should be eradicated. Everything should be co-ed for everyone everywhere. If objective, immutable biological sex has no intrinsic and profound meaning, then there should exist no public recognition and accommodation of sex differences. No single-sex restrooms; locker rooms; dressing rooms; shelters; semi-private hospital rooms; nursing home rooms; athletic teams; or prisons. No more single-sex military barracks, restrooms, or showers. And this would constitute being on the most perverse side of history–a side of history no civilization has ever before witnessed.

Many years ago, I witnessed what happens when people who prevent others from speaking are not dealt with promptly.

During a “Firing Line” taping with William F. Buckley at Bard College in New York State on the topic of “Resolved: The ACLU is full of baloney” (the short answer is “yes”), two female activists stood up and started chanting “women of color have no voice.”

The moderator, a well-known liberal (well, okay, it was Michael Kinsley, who did an otherwise fine job), asked them politely to stop so the debate could continue, but the protesters refused.  At this point, he could have motioned to the campus cops to remove them, but instead let them go on ad nauseum.  I leaned over and whispered to then-ACLU President Nadine Strossen, “Nadine, do something. They’re your children.”  I meant her ideological offspring, of course.  And she did try to reason with them, to no avail.

Unlike some recent incidents, the debate finally went on after Mr. Kinsley gave in to the protesters’ tantrum, let them read a list of nonsensical leftwing ultimatums, and Bard’s president agreed to leave the team he was on in the debate.

I’m not sure how much of this made the eventual PBS broadcast, but it showed the folly of giving in to the heckler’s veto.  That’s when, in the name of free speech, someone silences someone else.  Courts have made it clear that the heckler’s veto is not protected speech under the First Amendment, no more than falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

Since President Trump’s election, the Left has been in full heckler’s veto mode, egged on by the same progressives who cheered the violent Occupy mobs in 2011 and 2012 and the goons disrupting the Trump rallies last year.

[Recently], protesters threated violence against Republican Party participants in the 82^nd Avenue of Roses Parade in Portland, Oregon, and managed to get the event canceled.   An anonymous email promised that “two hundred or more people” would “rush into the parade into the middle and drag and push those people out…. police cannot stop us from shutting down roads so please consider your decision wisely.”

Then, amid threats of violence, conservative author Ann Coulter was forced to cancel her speech at the University of California, Berkeley.  In February, the campus had suffered $100,000 in property damage when black-clad leftist rioters stopped iconoclast Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking.

In March, political scientist Charles Murray was forced to change venues at Middlebury College in Vermont during a mob attack in which a female professor was injured.  Middlebury itself may be failing to teach about constitutional rights, if a letter signed by 450 alumni prior to Murray’s appearance is any indication:  “This is not an issue of freedom of speech.  In this case we find the principle does not apply.”

Well, okay then. Disagree with us and you lose your rights.

In early April, hundreds of activists blocked an auditorium at Claremont McKenna College in California to prevent author Heather MacDonald from speaking.  Ms. MacDonald’s analysis of crime statistics blows away the media narrative about racist cops spun by the Black Lives Matter movement.  No wonder they wanted her silenced.

For the Left, the issues themselves matter less than a show of force.  As author Angelo M. Codevilla has observed, “The point of PC [political correctness] is not and has never been merely about any of the items that it imposes, but about the imposition itself.”

In “State and Revolution” (1918), Vladimir Lenin wrote:

“The replacement of the bourgeois (middle class) by the proletariat state is impossible without a violent revolution … it is still necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie and crush its resistance.”

Even if none of this involves something you hold dear, the mobs will get around to you if you’re out of step.  A byproduct is the chilling effect it has had on discourse in general.

I recall when liberals and conservatives could agree to disagree during, say, a party, and leave as friends, or at least not as enemies.  But when’s the last time you went to an eclectic gathering and heard genuine views exchanged?  Nobody dares anymore.  The Left’s scorched-earth tactics have poisoned the well.

In Massachusetts, an editorial at The Wellesley News on April 12 openly advocated attacking anyone who fails to bow to leftwing orthodoxy.  Their definition of what will not be allowed includes “racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech.  Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech.”

The good little Maoists (who are punctuation-challenged) went on to declare, “if people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted.” Later, they denied that this meant engaging in violence.

Incidentally, Hillary Clinton’s alma mater charges about $63,300 annually for tuition, room and board.  Apparently, that buys the finest brainwashing against the bourgeoisie that a campus can conjure.

This article was originally posted at Townhall.com

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia sued the Gloucester County School Board in Virginia over its policy that protects students’ privacy and safety by reserving restrooms and locker rooms for members of the same biological sex, while providing an alternative private facility for students uncomfortable using a facility that corresponds with their sex. The ACLU asserted inaccurately that the school board violated Title IX, a federal law, and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause when the district declined to allow a female student to use the boys’ restrooms. Title IX specifically authorizes schools to have single-sex restrooms and locker rooms.

Kerri Kupec, Legal Counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the student privacy policy of the Gloucester County Public Schools.

Attorney Kupec reacted to a similar brief filed in this case (Gloucester County School Board v. G.G.) by 53 companies who explain that they are in favor of allowing students of the opposite sex into each other’s locker rooms, shower facilities, and restrooms in public schools:

Big business shouldn’t be advocating for boys to share the girls’ locker rooms and showers—and vice versa—in our public schools, and yet that’s precisely what these 53 companies are doing. What they should be supporting is the bodily privacy and dignity of all students, instead of simply disregarding the rights and reasonable concerns of many students and parents.

These companies say in their brief that they ‘recognize that employees cannot work as effectively when they are worried about how their children are being treated at school,’ but the companies are completely unconcerned about the dad who knows his daughter has to change for gym with a boy in her locker room. Worse, the companies would characterize that dad as having a ‘lack of any reasoned justification’ for his concerns, as the brief puts it, or as having a lower ‘level of enlightenment,’ as some activists have revealingly stated.

The first duty of school districts is to protect the bodily privacy rights of all of the students who attend their schools and to respect the rights of parents who understandably don’t want their children exposed in intimate changing areas.”

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.

There is only one thing more appalling than the Washington Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling against religious liberty [on Thursday]. It is the silence of Christian leaders across America, leaders who choose convenience over confrontation, leaders who would rather be popular than prophetic, leaders who prefer the favor of people over the favor of the God. Shame on these silent leaders. Today is a day to stand.

There are, of course, the handful of expected Christian voices protesting the court’s outrageous decision, as these justices ruled unanimously against florist Barronelle Stutzman, claiming that she discriminated against a longtime gay customer (named Robert Ingersoll) when she told him she couldn’t make the floral arrangement for his upcoming gay “wedding,” despite the fact that she had served him for years and despite her recommending three other florists who could do the arrangements for his wedding.

Instead, the court ruled that this 72-year-old grandmother who had employed gay workers and served gay customers for years, was required by law to participate in a gay wedding, even though this constituted a direct violation of her religious beliefs – beliefs which have been consistent and almost universally held among Christians for the last 2,000 years.

Not only so, but the court upheld the attack on her personal assets as well – her house, her savings, her retirement funds – by requiring her “to pay the attorneys’ fees that the ACLU racked up in suing her,” fees which could reach as high as one million dollars.

Previously, when Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, an aggressive liberal who brought the suit against Barronelle, “announced he would accept $2,000 in penalties, $1 in fees and costs, plus an agreement not to discriminate in the future and to end further litigation,” Barronelle rejected the proposed settlement.

She explained, “Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us ‘freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.’ I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.”

She continued, “I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process.”

Today, on my radio show, shortly after the ruling was announced and with the full weight of the state’s ruling hanging over her head, she told me would do the same thing again (stating that when God changes His Word, she will change her mind), also stating without the slightest trace of bitterness that she would gladly serve Robert Ingersoll should he come into her store today.

Friends, what are we witnessing today is a breathtaking abuse of power, an extreme overreach by the government, a shocking example of LGBT activism out of control, yet over the next 7 days, church services will come and go without a word being spoken, and over the next 48 hours, the Christian blogosphere will remain relatively quiet. How can this be?

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, courageous Christian leader Basilea Schlink rebuked the silence of Christians immediately after Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass (November 9, 1938), when the Nazis set synagogues on fire and vandalized Jewish places of business, also killing and beating some Jewish victims as well. And while I am not comparing gay activists and their allies to Nazis and I am not comparing the Washington court’s ruling to Kristallnacht, I am comparing the silence of Christians then and now.

Please stop and read these words carefully.

Schlink wrote, “We are personally to blame. We all have to admit that if we, the entire Christian community, had stood up as one man and if, after the burning of the synagogues, we had gone out on the streets and voiced our disapproval, rung the church bells, and somehow boycotted the actions of the S.S., the Devil’s vassals would probably not have been at such liberty to pursue their evil schemes. But we lacked the ardor of love – love that is never passive, love that cannot bear it when its fellowmen are in misery, particularly when they are subjected to such appalling treatment and tortured to death. Indeed, if we had loved God, we would not have endured seeing those houses of God set ablaze; and holy, divine wrath would have filled our souls. . . . Oh, that we as Germans and as Christians would stand aghast and cry out ever anew, ‘What have we done!’ At every further evidence of our guilt may we repeat the cry.” (From her book Israel, My Chosen People: A German Confession Before God and the Jews.)

What adds to the tragic irony of the moment is that in recent weeks, designers have said they will no longer work with Melania Trump and stores have dropped Ivanka Trump product lines, not because of deeply held religious beliefs, which are explicitly protected by the First Amendment, but because of political differences. And these companies and individuals are being praised by liberal Americans for standing on their convictions. But when a Christian florist politely declines a gay couple’s request to design the floral arrangements for their “wedding” ceremony, she is taken to court and threatened with the loss of her business and all her personal assets.

Where is the righteous Christian indignation? And where are the bleeding-heart liberals who claim to care about the persecuted underdog? (Remember: The ACLU with its massive resources is leading the charge against Barronelle.)

I can respect Christian leaders who try to stay out of the culture wars because they don’t want to drive their LGBT neighbors and friends away from the gospel – as long as they speak up at times like this, when our fundamental liberties are being trashed and when a gracious Christian grandmother is being savaged by the state. But should they remain silent at a time like this, the next time they raise their voices on behalf of the LGBT community (and against the conservative evangelicals they so frequently attack) they will be shouting one message to the world: “I am a hypocritical coward!”

Let me urge you, then, to do three things: 1) share this article with others to help spread the word; 2) make a statement about this gross injustice however you can (on social media; to your family; from your pulpit – I’m urging every pastor reading this column to say something to your flock the next opportunity you have); 3) go to this website to stand with Barronelle and her team; 4) pray for God to awaken the Church of America.

Will you take a stand today?

The Ohio legislature has sent a bill to Governor John Kasich that will legally protect unborn babies from abortion once a heartbeat can be detected.  The law makes it a fifth-degree felony to abort an unborn human without checking for a heartbeat or aborting after the baby’s heartbeat can be detected.  It also opens the door to civil lawsuits and disciplinary action.

The heartbeat is present at around 3 weeks and 3 days, but usually can’t be detected until 4 to 6 weeks.  The bill also provides an exception to allow an abortion when it is necessary to save the mother’s life.

If Governor Kasich doesn’t veto the bill by December 16th, it automatically becomes law.  He also has the option to veto a portion of the bill (line-item veto).  The state legislature could override a potential veto, but that requires a three-fifths vote.  They are likely to override it in the Ohio Senate since the original vote was 21 to 10, but it’s less likely to be overridden in the Ohio House since that vote was 56 to 39.

Take ACTION:  Call Gov. Kasich’s office at (614) 466-3555 to leave a message encouraging this one time presidential candidate to stand for the right to life and sign the “Heartbeat Bill” into law.  You can also click HERE to send a message to Gov. Kasich via his website.

Background  

The ACLU has already threatened to sue the state of Ohio if this bill becomes law.  It’s very likely that the lower courts will find it unconstitutional because of Roe v Wade and subsequent cases.  Tragically, the current U.S. Supreme Court would agree and  Ohio would be forced to pay the legal fees of the attorneys that sued.  If Ohio tried to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court and enforce the heartbeat bill anyway, the Federal Government would force the state to comply.

Ultimately, the real problem is the current U.S. Supreme Court.

The five pro-choice Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court will not allow “we the people” to govern ourselves when it comes to abortion.  Five pro-choice Justices continue to impose their personal opinions about abortion on 320 million Americans instead of allowing the ordinary democratic process to create the law that the people want.

These Justices hide behind stare decisis (upholding prior decisions), dubious interpretative approaches including substantive due process and what they call looking to the shadows of the U.S. Constitution. However, prior decisions have been changed numerous times and because they are so controversial, they harm the U.S. Supreme Court by politicizing the nomination and confirmation processes.  Meanwhile, it’s well established that no provision of the U.S. Constitution was ever adopted or ratified with the intention of creating a legal “right to abortion” nor were they adopted or ratified with the intent to prohibit the people from protecting the unborn from abortion.

Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court has five pro-choice Justices (Ginsberg, Kennedy, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor) and three pro-life Justices (Thomas, Alito, and Roberts).  There is one vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court left by the late Justice Scalia.  President-elect Trump has stated repeatedly that he will nominate a pro-life Justice once he is in office in January 2017.  The Republican U.S. Senate will likely fast-track the confirmation of that Justice.  However, the U.S. Supreme Court will still be split five pro-choice Justices to four pro-life Justices.  We will need one of the pro-choice Justices to leave the Court while Trump is President and the U.S. Senate is Republican if we want to move the U.S. Supreme Court away from abortion and toward life.

The three oldest Justices are pro-choice.  They are Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Breyer.  If one of them leaves the U.S. Supreme Court and that position is filled with a pro-life Justice, we could see Roe overturned in our lifetime.  Bills like this one in Ohio that protect babies with detectable heartbeats can finally be a reality.  It will be a true victory for the value of human life and for our democratic process.

Pro-lifers are hopeful that Gov. Kasich will sign this “Heartbeat Bill” into law.  It’s the right thing to do.  Meanwhile, another bill is available for him to sign that protects the unborn from abortion after 20 weeks.

Nevertheless, the real fight is with these five pro-choice Justices. They stand in the way of democracy.  They stand in the way of basic human rights for all humans (born & unborn).  They stand in the way of true human progress.

Join IFI at our Feb. 18th Worldview Conference

We are excited about our third annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Frank Turek on Sat., Feb. 18, 2017 in Barrington. Dr. Turek is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture:

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

In 1929, Josef Stalin signed a law that dealt a devastating blow to religious freedom in Russia. For most of a century, Russian Christians suffered enormous persecutions for their faith. Some estimates suggest that as many as 20,000,000 Christians may have been martyred in prison camps in the 20^th century for holding to their faith. One historian stated that over 85,000 Russian Orthodox Priests were shot in 1937 alone.

Communism, despite its slogans of equality and social utopia, has never come through on its promises. Stalin’s draconian measures were reaffirmed by Leonid Brezhnev’s updated legislation in 1975. A remnant of faithful underground churches remained active, but experienced severe opposition and punishment.

On November 9, 1989, the unbelievable happened. Two years after Ronald Reagan’s famous, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” speech, the Berlin Wall, separating East and West Germany came down. A new policy of reform and religious liberty was proclaimed in the Soviet Union. And indeed, changes began to happen.

In October of 1990, President Mikhail Gorbachev and RSFSR’s Boris Yeltsin (then chairman of the Russian parliament or Supreme Soviet), both introduced new legislation allowing for an opening of religious freedom and liberty of conscience.

Soon, Christian ministries from the West poured into Russia with evangelism and Christian discipleship tools. We must not be deceived, however, into thinking that everything was rosy. During the Clinton administration, a mass immigration occurred as Christians from Russia poured into the United States seeking asylum for religious persecution.

The KGB was still deeply entrenched in positions of power in Russia. They were just subtler and covert. But nonetheless, an unprecedented access to religious materials and Western media became available, and it seemed the door of communism would never close again on the former USSR.

The Noose is Tightened Again

In 1997, a new law was passed governing religion in Russia, but it gave no definition or description of how religious expression and promotion could be administered. Some local regions had laws restricting open expression, but most areas have been relatively open and unharassed.

However, on July 6, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a controversial anti-terrorism law that infringes on many human rights, including religious freedom. It restricts proselytizing of religion in Russia, and imposes heavy fines for violators. The new law applies to all religious groups except for the Russian Orthodox Church (which many religious groups claim has been under the thumb of the Russian government for many decades).

Under the new law, any promotion of Christian faith, outside of an officially recognized church building, would be considered subversive, and would be faced with a fine of up to $780 for an individual, or $15,000 for an organization. It has been reported that this may apply even to evangelizing in homes or over the internet. Foreign missionaries who violate the ordinance would be deported. According to Christianity Today, “The ‘Yarovaya package,’ requires missionaries to have permits, makes house churches illegal,” among other restrictions.

Placing restrictions on religion by means of amendments to a terrorism bill was a clever move on Putin’s part. Who would want to be seen as standing up for terrorism? And, I’m sure it has been argued, religion, after all, has been the driving force between much of global terrorism. Although this measure has been condemned by religious leaders around the world, it is almost certain that Putin and his henchmen will remain deaf to their concerns.

Coming to America?

For the past half century there has been, in America, an increasing push to privatize religion. The courts have reaffirmed the desires of the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, American Atheists, and others, to see all vestiges of public expressions of faith eradicated. What you want to believe in your own personal little heart about God, or the tooth fairy, or whatever you want to call Him or it, is between you and your god. But don’t bring it into the public square.

Systematically, Bible distribution in schools, public displays of the Ten Commandments, nativity scenes on public property, and public prayers in Jesus’ name are all being removed by a left-leaning, black-robed oligarchy.

The New Tolerance

It goes beyond mere privatization, however. Now, there is even a desire to move into the realm of regulating moral conscience. Atheist leader, Richard Dawkins, has suggested that it is child abuse to teach your children to believe the tenets of Christianity as being objectively true.

Many evangelical leaders in America have predicted the coming of religious persecution in America. In his 2014 inauguration speech as President of the National Religious Broadcaster’s convention, Jerry Johnson predicted a move against freedom of speech in Christian broadcasting, on the basis of supposed, “Hate Speech” legislation.

At a national homeschooling leadership conference in Chicago in 2010, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, former pastor of the historic Moody Church in Chicago told the audience they should encourage Christian homeschooling parents they serve to teach their children about the history of religious persecution as a part of their education. Dr. Lutzer has authored a book entitled “When a Nation Forgets God: 7 Lessons We Must Learn from Nazi Germany.” Author and radio host Eric Metaxas describes the book this way: “It clearly and powerfully explains what the parallels are between Germany’s fall from grace and the beginning of our own fall.”

Christian leaders like Dr. Albert Mohler, Russell Moore and others, and even former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scailia have suggested the possible threat to religious liberty posed by the SCOTUS’ decision on same-sex marriage. What happens if a Christian college or seminary is required by law to allow same-sex dating on campus?

We’ve already seen nationally televised court cases regarding Christians who have refused to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples, or Christian county clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The fact is, it is not enough for atheists, homosexuals, socialists and cultural leftists to have their own freedom and equality to believe whatever they believe (a freedom which most Christians fully support). No, they want to ensure that Christians are not permitted to live out their own faith and convictions without retribution. This is the legacy of the New Tolerance movement. The doors of religious liberty are closing once again in Russia, after a brief twenty-six year limited window. Are the doors of our four-hundred year window of liberty closing? Frankly, that answer will be determined by what this generation of Christians in America does in the next ten years.

On Wednesday afternoon, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit in federal court against School District 211 and the Department of Education (DOE) on behalf of 51 district families who rightly claim that the district and the Department of Education “trample students’ privacy” rights and create an “intimidating and hostile environment” for girls who are being forced to share the girls locker room and restrooms with a boy who wishes he were a girl.

The lawsuit claims that the DOE’s reinterpretation of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, is unlawful. The DOE through its Office for Civil Rights claims that the word “sex” in Title IX actually includes “gender identity” and “gender expression,” thereby prohibiting schools from maintaining separate restrooms and locker rooms for boys and girls.

There’s only one wee little problem with that fanciful interpretation. Title IX specifically states the following:

[T]itle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972…is designed to eliminate (with certain exceptions) discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program….A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex. [emphasis added]

For those who may not remember, several months ago the ACLU represented a gender-dysphoric boy in District 211 who was seeking the right to use the girls locker room and restrooms. Actually, he was seeking the right to unrestricted access to the girls locker room and restrooms. Though he and the ACLU lost the right—for now—to unrestricted access, he won the right to use the girls restrooms and locker room, which has been fitted with a privacy changing area.

While this boy—and he is a boy—demands the right to change clothes and go to the bathroom with only girls, he seeks to deny actual girls the right to change clothes and go to the bathroom with only girls.

According to the Chicago Tribune, ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka waxed indignant over opposition to a boy in the girls locker room and restrooms and to the conventional and proper use of pronouns to denote objective, immutable sex:

Ed Yohnka…called the lawsuit a “sad development by groups opposed to fair and humane treatment of all students, including those who are transgender.”

He also bristled at the lawsuit’s repeated reference to the transgender student as “he.”

“It’s pretty offensive that they don’t even fundamentally acknowledge that our client is a girl,” Yohnka said.

I regret being so graphic, but Yohnka’s idiotic statement makes it necessary: Girls don’t have penises.

The Left takes umbrage if anyone dares to dissent from their doctrinaire notions about sex and grammar. Tyrannical Leftists demand that biological males who wish they were female be treated as if they are in reality female—even in womens showers. The Left demands that everyone join them in their delusional charade.

District 211 superintendent Daniel Cates said “students have shown acceptance, support and respect of each other,” evidently meaning that students don’t object to sharing restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex students. If true, is that a good thing? Has the culture successfully indoctrinated all our young people with the lie that acceptance and respect of those who suffer from gender dysphoria require sharing restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex persons? Doubtful.

Should the delight of teens in sharing restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex students determine policy? If physical embodiment matters and if modesty is a virtue derived from physical embodiment, shouldn’t schools create policies that reinforce those truths?

And does anyone believe that in this cultural climate, teens who don’t want to share restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex peers would feel comfortable admitting it? Or to use Leftist jargon, does anyone believe it is “safe” for students to express opposition to sharing restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex peers?

The issue of objectively male students using girls private facilities is not solely about the risk of assault—though that risk exists. The central issue concerns the meaning of physical embodiment as male or female, particularly as it pertains to modesty and privacy.

Virtually everyone—including gender-dysphoric persons and homosexuals—acknowledges that men and women are substantively and significantly different. When homosexuals claim they are attracted only to persons of the same sex, they are implicitly and necessarily saying men and women are different, and those differences include bodily differences.

When gender-dysphoric persons who wish they were the opposite sex say they don’t want to use restrooms or locker rooms with persons of their same sex, they are saying there are fundamental and significant differences between men and women. Further, they are necessarily saying that their desire to use opposite-sex restrooms is based on objective bodily differences. They are demanding privacy based on objective sex differences while denying that privacy to others.

Questions Leftists must answer:

• Why are sex differences meaningful for those who have gender dysphoria but not for those who don’t?

• Do the desire for privacy and feelings of modesty derive from objective sex differences or from desires about one’s sex?

• If gender-dysphoric persons are allowed to use restrooms with only those whose “gender identity” they share, why shouldn’t non-gender-dysphoric persons be allowed to use restrooms with only those whose sex they share?

• If there is a mismatch between a person’s sex and their feelings about their sex, why would anyone assume the problem is with the healthy, normally functioning body and not the mind?

How refreshing and encouraging it is to see parents boldly challenging the incoherent and indecent actions of “progressives” in government schools. Please pray for these families and the success of their lawsuit.

Initial press reports suggested that the case against the Christian owner of the Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast in Paxton, Illinois, Jim Walder, was settled. The Illinois Human Rights Commission has clarified that administrative law judge Michael R. Robinson’s decision that Jim Walder should pay an $80,000 fine and be required to offer his facility to a homosexual couple to celebrate their civil union can be appealed by filing “exceptions.”

Either party to the suit has 30 days to file exceptions. If they file exceptions, the case goes before a panel. If no exceptions are filed, the recommendations made by Robinson will take effect.

Here is what Robinson has ordered:

• Pay $15,000 each to Todd and Mark Wathen as compensation for their emotional distress arising out of the issue.
• Cease and desist from violating the Human Rights Act by denying same-sex couples access to its facilities and services for marriages and civil unions.
• Offer the Wathens access to the facility, within one year, for an event celebrating their civil union.
• Pay the Wathens’ attorneys $50,000 in fees and $1,218 in costs.

Ubiquitous ACLU attorney John Knight has erroneously stated that  “For the first time, the Human Rights Commission has made clear that owners of businesses serving the public in Illinois cannot pick and choose who [sic] to serve based on their personal religious views.” “Progressives” can’t seem to get it through their dogma-drenched minds that Christians in wedding-related businesses are not deciding whom to serve. They are deciding which kinds of events to serve, facilitate, and profit from. 

Attorney Betty Tsamis, who represents the Wathens, made a similar claim but got dangerously close to inadvertently acknowledging the truth: “It would have been shameful to reverse this history simply because some business owners object to the legal protections afforded same-sex relationships.” Tsamis veered slightly off-message by focusing on “same-sex” (i.e., homerotic) relationships rather than persons. Her slip suggests the truth that it is a type of volitional activity and ceremonies that solemnize and celebrate it that many people of faith, including Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and orthodox Christians, cannot in good conscience serve. 

While the Left continues to add conditions (all sexual in nature and behaviorally constituted) to anti-discrimination policies and laws, they are bit by bit removing religion.

It is imperative that we speak out against this unjust erosion of religious liberty. The First Amendment guarantees the right to the “free exercise” of religion, intrinsic to which is the right to act upon beliefs regarding the morality of activities and behaviors. 

Take Action: Click HERE to send an unequivocal and respectful message to Kevin Chambers, the executive director of the Illinois Human Rights Commission, and Gov. Bruce Rauner to express your strong opposition to Judge Robinson’s decision.

Follow IFI on Social Media!

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI