Lambda Legal in cahoots with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois are suing the Cook County Clerk for purportedly violating the Constitution of Illinois when Cook County refused to issue marriage licenses to men who sought to marry men and women who sought to marry women. To make matters worse, these ethically challenged Illinois leaders have all expressed support for the lawsuit: Governor Patrick Quinn, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, and Cook County Clerk David Orr.

Lambda Legal is a homosexual legal organization hell-bent on using the judicial system to bypass the will of the people in order to impose its subversive sexuality theories on the entire country. This is the organization that shoved same-sex marriage down the throats of Iowans, which, not incidentally, brought the electoral defeat of those judges who threw their lots in with Lambda Legal.

Like the Iowa judges, Lisa Madigan and Anita Alvarez have crossed over to the dark side by abandoning all ethical and professional commitments to uphold and defend Illinois laws. Illinois’ Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act defines marriage as a legal relationship between one man and one woman. It was amended in 1996 to prohibit marriage between two people of the same sex. Even Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor expressed shock over Anita Alvarez’ refusal to defend a duly enacted law, saying, “’I’ve never encountered this before.’”

Why should homosexuals be permitted to redefine marriage while other groups may not?

Lambda Legal and the ACLU hold the bizarre belief that there is a constitutional right for homosexuals to demand that the most fundamental constitutive element of marriage — sexual complementarity — be jettisoned.  It is, however, no more unethically discriminatory for the government to retain sexual complementarity in its legal definition of marriage than it is to limit marriage to two people, which effectively prohibits polyamorists from accessing marriage. I wonder if Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Illinois believe that laws limiting marriage to two people are unconstitutional because such laws will prevent three loving people in a polyamorous union from marrying.  And do they believe that laws prohibiting close blood relatives from marrying are unconstitutional because such laws will prevent a brother from marrying a male sibling with whom he is in love and hopes to raise children?  

Do governments construct marriage?

The government does not construct marriage out of whole cloth. Marriage has an inherent nature and purpose that societies and their governments merely recognize. Our government recognizes, regulates, and promotes a type of relationship that exists and best serves the needs of children.

Marriage is a particular type of relationship that has existed for the entire history of mankind and across all cultures. Men and women come together to form a union that is not merely emotional, but sexual and biological, which means it has a natural biological end (i.e., it is a procreative type of union, whether or not children result). Recognizing, regulating, and promoting this particular type of union is a legitimate interest of government. The government has no vested interest in “affirming love” through law. If marriage were centrally or solely about love and sexual desire and had no connection to either gender or procreation, there would be no reason for the government to be involved and no reason to prohibit incestuous or plural marriages.

Are laws banning same-sex “marriage” analogous to laws banning interracial marriage?

According to the Chicago Tribune, David Orr said that “he believes the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is akin to laws that once banned mixed-race couples from marrying.” But that assertion requires evidence that homosexuality is by nature akin to race, something that David Orr was apparently not asked to provide.

Here are some critical differences between race and homosexuality: Race is 100 percent heritable, in all cases immutable, and has no behavioral implications that are legitimate objects of moral assessment. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not 100 percent heritable, is in some cases mutable, and is constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts that are legitimate objects of moral assessment.

There are other reasons that laws banning same-sex marriage are utterly different from laws banning interracial marriage, including the following:

• Race is irrelevant to the inherent nature and purpose of marriage and to the government’s sole interest in marriage: procreative potential.
• Anti-miscegenation laws were based on a flawed understanding of human nature. As Dennis Prager explains, anti-miscegenation laws were based on the false notion that people of different races had different natures: “There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational.”  Marriage laws that recognize that marriage is a sexually complementary union are based on the true belief that men and women are by nature different.
• Finally, anti-miscegenation laws were based on who the person is, whereas laws prohibiting marriages between people of the same sex are based on actions.  Thomas Sowell, who happens to be black, explains, “The argument that current marriage laws ‘discriminate’ against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior. All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior.” A black man who wants to marry a white woman is seeking to do the same action that a white man who wants to marry a white woman seeks to do. A law that prohibits an interracial marriage is wrong because it is based on who the person is, not on what he seeks to do. But, if a man wants to marry a man, he is seeking to do an entirely different action from that which a man who wants to marry a woman seeks to do. A law that prohibits homosexual marriage is legitimate because it is based not on who the person is but rather on what he seeks to do. Any man may engage in the act of marrying a woman (if she is of age and not closely related by blood).

Conclusion

Homosexual men claim they are attracted only to men. Homosexual women claim they are attracted only to women. Both sets of claims point to the truth that men and women are by nature different. If men and women are by nature substantively different, then unions composed of two people of the same sex must necessarily be substantively different from sexually complementary unions. It is perfectly legitimate for the government to treat different things differently.

Men and women who choose to make their unchosen same-sex attraction central to their identity are not prohibited from participating in the institution of marriage. They choose not to participate in it.  The starting point for homosexual activists in their analysis of the issue of redefining marriage is not the Constitution, the law, or deep thinking about the sources of morality. No, their analysis starts with their own sexual feelings. From there, like the Sophists of old, they concoct specious “reasons’ to persuade the public that gender and procreative potential are irrelevant to marriage.

The ignorance of homosexuality-affirming activists like Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor is exceeded only by their hubris. We hope and pray that the efforts of the Thomas More Society and the Illinois Family Institute, which have stepped in to do what Madigan and Alvarez should be doing, will prevail over ignorance and self-righteous hubris.

IFI readers, please, whether you have children in schools or not, take seriously the assault on the minds and consciences of students, and take action against the newly amended and completely unnecessary anti-bullying bill: HB 5290.

IFI has requested that a provision be added that would guarantee students and school employees the right to opt out of any programs or activities that promote ideas that conflict with their personal or religious beliefs. If such a provision were added, IFI has agreed to adopt a neutral position on the bill, but so far the bill’s sponsors and the ACLU have steadfastly refused to add an opt-out provision.

It has already passed in the House. Please contact your state senator and ask him or her to oppose the bill unless this opt-out provision is included:

No student or school employee will be required to attend or participate in any anti-bullying program, activity, or assembly that infringes upon free expression or contradicts personal or religious beliefs.

Listening to the audio of the House floor debate on HB 5290 was an illuminating and frustrating experience. Here are some of the illuminating and frustrating excerpts from that debate in which the bill’s chief sponsor, State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) was questioned:

Rep. Mike Bost (R-Murphysboro):

If someone has a different belief than you and they explain that belief and express their belief, and express it in a hard way, but doesn’t put a hand on the person, could that be considered bullying?

Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago):

I don’t believe it does. This would have to rise to the level of harassment and torment.

Rep. Bost:

But what is torment to you and harassment might not be torment to me and harassment.

Rep. Cassidy:

A single statement, I don’t think, can be reasonably predicted to have the following outcome. There is no reasonable person under any standard of law that would say one statement, one single statement that “I disagree with you” would put me at fear of physical harm. So, I don’t believe that your situation would rise to that level. Bullying is about behavior, not belief.

What Cassidy “thinks” and “believes” about how this law would be applied in schools is hardly reassuring.

In addition, she is either ignorant of the text of the existing law or deceitful. The law passed in 2010 does not define bullying as only “harassment,” “torment,” or being in “fear of physical harm” as Cassidy implies in her response to Bost. The law defines bullying as any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act or conduct, including communications made in writing or electronically that can be reasonably expected to place the student in fear of their person or property, cause a substantial detrimental effect to their physical or mental health, or substantially interfere with their academic performance or ability to participate in school activities.  

Since the law does not state — as it should — that bullying acts must be severe and pervasive, a single act, including a verbal act, could be construed as constituting bullying. In addition, a single verbal act that is expected to interfere with academic performance or a student’s ability to participate in school activities could be construed as bullying even if it does not constitute harassment or torment, or “put a student in fear of physical harm.”

It should have been obvious to Cassidy that Bost was not asking if students would be permitted to say literally, “I disagree with you.” He was asking if a student who expresses ideas or beliefs that another student finds offensive could be accused of bullying.

For example, if a student were to say in a classroom discussion or to her friends in the cafeteria, “Homosexual acts are perverted,” or “Gays shouldn’t be allowed to adopt,” or “When men have sex with men, they degrade themselves,” could she be accused of bullying? Could someone claim that those verbal acts caused a “detrimental effect to his mental health”?

Bost’s questioning continued:

Rep. Bost:

What does your bill add to this [existing anti-bullying] law?

Rep. Cassidy:

The underlying [existing] law required that school districts adopt policy on bullying. We have not had compliance statewide and many of the schools have very minimal policies…This [bill] defines what a policy on bullying would look like….There are 3 school districts with no policy at all and over 20 with inadequate policies—one-line policies at best.”

According to Cassidy, 20 schools have “inadequate” bullying policy, but the law passed in 2010 does not mandate any particular policy formulation, so perhaps the very liberal Task Force and Cassidy may not view the policies of these 20 unnamed school districts as adequate, but as long as they have even a one-sentence policy, they’re in compliance with the law. Moreover, no one provided any evidence that these schools’ bullying policies have been problematic. To reiterate, there are about 879 public school districts in Illinois and dozens more non-public, non-sectarian schools to which existing law applies. Of those, only 3 districts, according to Cassidy, have not complied with the law.

State Representative Dennis Reboletti (R-Elmhurst) suggested that the Illinois State Board of Education(ISBE) should be working with the districts that have no policy, rather than passing yet another law. He suggested that the judgment of “inadequacy” seems subjective and the decisions regarding “adequacy” are best left to communities and their elected school boards.

Bost’s question about what HB 5290 adds to current existing law is critical. Despite Cassidy’s obfuscation to the contrary, HB 5290 adds nothing. No school is required to adopt any of HB 5290’s recommendations.

Furthermore, a comparison of the recommendations that HB 5290 makes to the recommendations that the Task Force made and posted  on the ISBE website over a year ago reveals that they’re virtually identical.

State Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie) asked Cassidy if the State Board of Education has made “an effort with those 23 school districts to resolve those issues [no or inadequate bullying policy]. Cassidy responded awkwardly in the passive voice: “The desire was to have a more fully defined guideline.”

First, as already discussed, the guidelines in HB 5290 are not more fully defined. They are the same as the guidelines provided by the Task Force.

Second, who precisely is the person or persons whose identity Cassidy craftily concealed by using the passive voice. Who exactly desired “to have a more fully defined guideline for the school districts”? Suspicious minds would guess that the desirers were Cassidy; the homosexual activist groups Equality Illinois and the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance; and the ACLU of Illinois.

Cassidy claimed during the floor debate that she “hears very often from parents,” presumably about bullying issues. How many parents over the past year since the Task Force published their bullying policy recommendations have contacted Cassidy? Did Cassidy verify their stories with their school districts? Did the parents who contacted Cassidy identify their school’s bullying policy as the problem? Did Cassidy ascertain whether these parents live in one of the 23 districts that purportedly have no or inadequate bullying policy? Did Cassidy ask these parents if they had addressed the issue with their principals, superintendents, and school boards? Did Cassidy point these parents to the Task Force’s non-mandatory recommendations, which HB 5290’s non-mandatory recommendations merely restate?

The fact that HB 5290’s recommendations are virtually identical to the Task Force’s recommendations raises a few issues:

• If HB 5290 proposes nothing new, why waste time creating and debating it?
• If HB 5290 mandates nothing, how is it different from a resolution?
• The Illinois State Bullying Prevention Task Force has already issued and posted its recommendations in a 106-page document (about which I have written). Since the Task Force has already issued its recommendations, why are multiple homosexual activist organizations pushing for the passage of HB 5290 if not to establish a beachhead from which to launch their next attack on local control?  The next step will be to make all of their non-mandatory “recommendations” mandatory. The next step will require students and school personnel to attend indoctrination sessions—I mean, “programming” and “training”—that will promote “progressive” views on homosexuality, gender confusion, and cross-dressing.
• If any administrators have contacted Cassidy or other lawmakers requesting further guidance, did the lawmakers direct them to the Task Force’s recommendations, which are posted on the Illinois State Board of Education’s website and are essentially identical to HB 5290?

Imagine we’re playing the childhood game of “Red Light, Green Light.” Homosexual activists and their ideological allies see conservatives with their backs turned away from the game and know they have the green light. Some will career wildly toward their goal of total societal transformation, while others take baby steps, hoping no one will notice until it’s too late.  

Don’t be fooled again. HB 5290 is not about bullying prevention. If we’re going to allow this unnecessary, partisan bill to pass, at least make sure it includes an opt-out for students and school employees. 

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to contact your senator and urge him/her to oppose this unnecessary bullying bill.

On Friday April, 12, 2019 the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is once again exploiting public schools to promote homosexuality and gender confusion as moral and normative through the political protest called the Day of Silence.

A coalition of pro-family groups is urging parents to keep their children home from school on the “Day of Silence,” if your school is allowing students to refuse to speak in class.

GLSEN’s Day of Silence, which began on college campuses and has now infiltrated even middle schools, exploits anti-bullying sentiment to undermine the belief that homosexual acts are immoral.

GLSEN shamelessly exploits teen suicide in order to create a climate of hysteria which they then use to falsely impute culpability for teen suicide to conservative moral beliefs.

GLSEN’s end game is the eradication of conservative moral beliefs and the creation of a social and political climate in which it is impossible to express them. Their cultural vehicle of choice for this radical social experiment is public education. What a strategic coup for homosexualists: use our money to capture the hearts and minds of our children.

Efforts to exploit public education for the purpose of eradicating conservative moral beliefs are dramatically increasing every year. Homosexual activists and their allies are aggressively targeting younger and younger children through “anti-bullying” laws, policies, and curricula; through the effort to nationalize “comprehensive sex ed”; through laws mandating positive portrayals of homosexuality and gender deviance in curricula; and through events like the Day of Silence, National Coming Out Day, Ally Week, Transgender Day of Remembrance; and Spirit Week.

And conservatives do virtually nothing. Our complacence makes us complicit in the damage done to our children and our culture.

Moreover, we teach our children by example to be cowardly conformists. It’s time to resist and there’s no easier way to resist than to call your children out of school on the Day of Silence.

Parents and Guardians: Call your children’s middle and high schools and ask if students and/or teachers will be permitted to refuse to speak during class on Friday, April 12, 2019. If your administration allows students and/or teachers to refuse to speak during class, call your child out of school. Every student absence costs school districts money.

When administrators refuse to listen to reason and when they allow the classroom to be exploited for political purposes, parents must take action. If they don’t, the politicization of the classroom and curricula will increase.

If your administrator tells you that they do not permit students or teachers to refuse to speak in class, ask him or her how that is communicated to faculty and students and how it is enforced.

The ACLU has issued this statement to students regarding silence in class:

“You DO have a right to participate in Day of Silence and other expressions of your opinion at a public school during non-instructional time: the breaks between classes, before and after the school day, lunchtime, and any other free times during your day. You do NOT have a right to remain silent during class time if a teacher asks you to speak.”

The idea that homosexual acts are moral, good, or normative is not a fact. It is an unproven, non-factual, controversial moral belief. As such, no government employee or publicly subsidized institution has the ethical right to teach it to children implicitly or explicitly. It is entirely possible for schools to work toward the important goal of eradicating bullying without affirming homosexuality or gender confusion.

It is unconscionable that conservative parents remain silent, acquiescent, fearful non-participants in our public schools while homosexuals and their ideological allies engage continuously in vociferous, vigorous, and bold action.

Conservatives need to start acting and speaking as if we think our moral beliefs are objectively true. Conservative teachers need to create activities that require students to speak on the Day of Silence, and conservative parents need to teach their children by example to take a stand for truth.

Please call your children out of school if your administration permits students to refuse to speak on the Day of Silence.

For further information, including parental instructions and a sample calling out letter, visit http://www.doswalkout.net/

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and Protect Families Protect Choices filed an appeal on Monday, challenging a ruling from the Colorado Secretary of State Title Board in favor of Personhood Colorado (case: 12SA10). The 2-1 decision from the board allows a proposed state constitutional amendment, applying the right to life equally to human beings of every age, to proceed to petition.

Colorado voters overwhelming defeated two similar personhood amendments in the 2008 and 2010 elections, rejecting the measures by 3-to-1 margins both times.

“This appeal is a frivolous attempt to put the brakes on our right to petition on behalf of the preborn,” said Personhood Colorado Director Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D. “The Court has previously ruled that guaranteeing the rights of a class of human being is a single issue, and we expect a similar ruling this year.”

The Colorado Secretary of State’s Title Board voted in December 2011 allowing Personhood Colorado’s proposed personhood amendment to proceed. In a 3-0 decision, the board dismissed a challenge filed by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. This is the third such challenge filed by the pro-abortion coalition in an attempt to block a Colorado personhood measure based on the requirement that ballot initiatives be limited in scope to a single subject. The decision is the third straight victory for the Colorado right to life advocates.

In 2008, Planned Parenthood filed suit in an attempt to stop a personhood measure from reaching the ballot (case: 07SA245). The Court dismissed its assertion that the amendment violated the single subject rule which limits citizen-led initiatives to a single issue.

“The charges of single subject violation and vagueness are absurd,” continued Garcia Jones. “Colorado personhood amendments have previously defined constitutional rights as applying to every human being from the moment our lives begin. This proposal does the same thing, and also clears up any ambiguity of what that would entail as applied.”

Personhood Colorado submitted new language for 2012 reading. The new proposal lists the effects of its enactment including that only methods of birth control and assisted reproduction that kill a person will be affected.

“In order to affirm basic human dignity, be it resolved that the right to life in this constitution applies equally to all innocent persons.” The amendment defines “person” as applying “to every human being regardless of the method of creation” and “human being” as “a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development.”

The amendment also details that “spontaneous miscarriages shall not be affected by this section” and “medical treatment for life threatening physical conditions intended to preserve life shall not be affected by this section.” Medical treatment is defined as including, but not limited to “treatment for cancer, ectopic and molar pregnancy, twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, and placenta previa.”

Colorado Right to Life will host a march Saturday, January 21 to launch “Round Three” of the 2012 Colorado Right to Life amendment, Colorado’s third attempt to protect the unborn.

By Karla Dial, World Magazine

American Civil Liberties Union was in federal court in October to argue that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must never again contract with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) – unless the religious organization checks its faith at the door and changes its policies.

The organization has contracted with HHS since 2006 in its work with sex trafficking victims. However, the government canceled the contract earlier this month, saying it gives “strong preference” to groups willing to make referrals “for the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care.”

The ACLU noted in a press release that USCCB prohibits subcontractors “from using any federal funds to provide or refer for contraception, condoms and abortion care solely because of USCCB’s religious beliefs.” Even though the contract has already been dropped this year, “the ACLU seeks a judgment to ensure that taxpayer dollars are never misused to impose religious restrictions on vulnerable trafficking victims that receive U.S. aid.”

However, longstanding federal law already prevents the government from discriminating against faith-based groups who don’t want to use taxpayer dollars to support abortion. Legislation currently pending in Congress would strengthen that language, and give groups that feel the government has discriminated against them a method to seek justice.

The ACLU finds itself in the midst of another controversial legal battle, this time in Missouri where they are suing a school district to allow K-12 students to access GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender) websites. The ACLU’s Eastern Missouri chapter wrote to the school district in May telling it to stop using the sexuality blocker on its filtering software. But doing so would likely put the school in violation of the federal Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which requires public schools and libraries to protect children from harmful web content as a condition of receiving federal funding. The heros at the Alliance Defense Fund are taking up the school district’s case.

What’s disturbing about the ACLU’s demand is that it goes beyond the usual lines about tolerance and nondiscrimination to demand that the district stop filtering sexually graphic content. What about GLBT websites do kids need to be seeing if their content won’t pass a sexuality filter? The school’s policy is not discriminatory; children should be protected from all illegal pornography — especially when it is distributed on taxpayer funded computers — regardless of its sexual orientation. The federal government recognized this with CIPA.

The reason school’s Internet filters block GLBT websites isn’t because of the so-called “identity” of the people who run them, but that the sites contain inappropriate and sexually graphic material.

The ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Allison Cowett and Hope Clinic for Women Ltd. to stop Illinois’ parental notification law from taking effect on Nov. 3, 2009. This law requires that minor girls under the age of 18 notify their parents prior to an abortion and wait 48 hours. Note that this is merely a parentalnotification law– not a parental consent law. In addition, Illinois, like all 34 other states that have parental notification laws, has a judicial bypass option available to girls. In addition, girls can bypass parental notification in an emergency situation or if they are willing to declare in writing that they were raped.

According to a Chicago Tribune article, Dr. Allison Cowett and the Hope Clinic claim that “the notification law would harm minors by preventing them from obtaining safe abortions or force them to carry their pregnancies to term.” This is an ironic claim coming from a clinic that is being sued for a botched abortion that left a now 20-year-old woman sterile. According to LifeNews.com, “Antoinette Blanton, who is 20, filed a $50,000 against the abortion center saying the failed March 2006 abortion caused her to be sterile. According to the lawsuit, abortion practitioner Allen S. Palmer, of Bridgeton, failed to remove the entire unborn child during the abortion procedure.” 

Dr. Cowett, a committed pro-abortion advocate, and the Hope Clinic further claim that “Others (minor girls) will be beaten or thrown out of their homes when their parents learn of their pregnancy and planned abortion.” But the judicial bypass option is available to any girl who fears such a response. It hardly seems fair to deny all loving, compassionate parents a right to help their daughters make a decision regarding major surgery that carries both serious physical risks and potentially long-term emotional consequences because some girls may choose not to avail themselves of the judicial bypass option.

Dr. Cowett is an assistant professor of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Illinois College of Medicine in Chicago and director of the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Center of Reproductive Health. Her research “focuses on abortion in the 2nd trimester, factors affecting women’s contraceptive choices, and access to family planning services.” According to her biography, she is “active in community-wide efforts to forward a legislative agenda that champion’s women’s reproductive freedom.” Apparently, she wants to champion teenage girl’s right to kill even younger pre-born girls through both legislative and judicial means.

And she’s willing to forge an unholy alliance with a clinic that has long been criticized by pro-life warriors for myriad offenses against humanity and sound medical practice. Retired ob-gyn nurse Angela Michael and her husband Daniel have been struggling mightily for seventeen long years to expose the nefarious deeds of the grossly misnamed “Hope” Clinic. According to Mrs. Michael, approximately 80 percent of abortions come from across state lines which suggests that most of the abortions are performed on minor girls. Illinois has long been the Midwest’s abortion mecca for underage girls, since all of the surrounding states have parental notification laws. The Hope Clinic is just a hop, skip, and short car ride from Missouri where underage girls would need to notify their parents prior to procuring an abortion. To learn more about the Hope Clinic, peruse Angela and Daniel Michael’s website Small Victories Ministries.

At least as troubling is that Hope Clinic performs the utterly barbaric practice of late-term abortions. Dr. Yogendra Shah is the George Tiller of Hope Clinic. According to the Thomas More Society in Chicago “Shah is perhaps the Midwest’s most wicked abortionist. He’s the notorious serial killer who once clogged the municipal sewer system with the arms, legs, rib cages, and heads of aborted babies. Municipal officials were shocked. They traced the body parts to Shah’s ghastly abortion mill, the so-called “Hope Clinic for Women” in Granite City, Illinois . . . he kills about 10,000 babies a year. No wonder he can afford an expensive watch and a Mercedes and a Lexus.” This is the same man who “tried to run Daniel over. . .And then. . . glared at Angela. . . and shouted, ‘Die, Angela, Die!'”

One can’t help but wonder if the chief concern of doctors at Hope Clinic is really the health and safety of underage girls. Someone needs to look into how much money teen abortions generate for the Hope Clinic. 

And we all need to pray fervently for two things: first, that the ACLU, Dr. Allison Cowett, and Hope Clinic lose their lawsuit, and second, that the Hope abattoir closes its blood-stained doors forever.