Since the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade was overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, leftists have been roiling in rage at the thought that states are now free to enact the will of their voters with regard to killing humans in the womb. In his concurrence, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued that three other Supreme Court cases should be revisited in that they too lacked constitutional grounding—an argument made also by the esteemed Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork.

One of the decisions Thomas believes should be revisited is the Obergefell decision that imposed same-sex “marriage” on the entire country, robbing states—that is, the people—of their right to decide if intrinsically non-marital relationships should be legally recognized as marriages.

And so, leftists, livid at the prospect of states one day being free to enact marriage laws in accordance with the will of their voters, are trying to take that right away preemptively through federal legislation.

On July 19, 2022 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the absurdly named “Respect for Marriage Act” (H.R. 8404)—a bill that doesn’t merely disrespect marriage; it is hostile to marriage. The bill, which would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), next goes to the U.S. Senate.

On September 15, seven weeks before the mid-term elections, the Senate announced plans to delay a vote on the controversial bill until after the elections. According to CBS news, “GOP negotiators” who are “involved in the talks over a bipartisan plan” believe this will help increase Republican support.

Who are these GOP Senators? They are RINO Susan Collins, Rob Portman who began supporting all things homosexual after his son announced his sexual attraction to men, and Thom Tillis, who the day after the House passed H.R. 8404 announced he would “probably” support it when it comes to the Senate for a vote. I think this “bipartisan collaboration” is bipartisan in name only.

DOMA, which was passed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, explicitly defines marriage:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,
and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is
a husband or a wife. (emphasis added) 

Forty-seven Republicans voted for the dis-Respect for Marriage Act, including Adam Kinzinger, Rodney Davis, Liz Cheney, Tom Emmer (chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee), Darrell Issa, Elise Stefanik (U.S. House Republican Conference chair), Lee Zeldin (who was recently defeated in the New York race for U.S. Senate), and Florida Representatives Michael Waltz and Brian Mast.

Any Republican who doesn’t understand the essential role of the nuclear family—that is, mother, father, and children—to the health and future of any society doesn’t deserve to serve in government. The same applies to any Republican who votes for a bill that robs states of the right to pass laws regulating marriage.

DOMA, which all U.S. House Democrats and 47 “Republicans” oppose, defines marriage in federal law “as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex.” In contrast, the dis-Respect for Marriage Act recognizes in federal law “any marriage that is valid under state law.”

Again, while DOMA has a provision requiring states to recognize marriages from other states, that provision specifically limits the type of marriages that must be recognized to those composed of two people. No such limit is placed on the federal government in the dis-Respect for Marriage Act.

This means that once Utah, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, or any other nutty state recognizes plural/poly unions as marriages, the federal government will be forced to recognize plural/poly unions as marriages. And once the federal government recognizes plural/poly unions as legal marriages, all states will be forced to recognize those marriages as well.

While some naïve or gullible voters view the absence of language defining marriage as the union of two people in the dis-Respect for Marriage Act as an oversight, others see it correctly as intentional—an interim step to the compulsory legal recognition of plural/poly unions from sea to darkening sea.

Take ACTION: H.R. 8404 may be taken up in the U.S. Senate soon. Please take a moment to urge our two U.S. Senators to vote to protect the Defense of Marriage Act by voting NO to H.R. 8404. Remind them, “The government has no interest in inherently non-reproductive types of relationships. The government has no more vested interest in recognizing and regulating inherently non-reproductive erotic relationships than it does in platonic friendships.”

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin
https://www.durbin.senate.gov/contact/email
Phone: (202) 224-2152

U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth
https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/connect/email-tammy
Phone: (202) 224-2854

Please send a message and then follow up with a phone call this week.

As of this writing, 85 national and state organizations—including the Illinois Family Institute (IFI)—have signed a letter written by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and sent to U. S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell denouncing the ironically named “Respect for Marriage Act” (H.R. 8404)” and urging him and U.S. Senate colleagues to reject it.

H.R. 8404, which repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, is an attack on the religious liberty of people of faith and will inevitably lead to a further degradation of marriage and the nuclear family. America will not be able to survive further degradation of liberty, marriage, and the nuclear family.

The bill has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives aided and abetted by 47 GOP turncoats who are either too cowardly or too ignorant to oppose the Dis-Respect for Marriage Act. Those U.S. House turncoats include Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, Rodney Davis, Tom Emmer (chair of National Republican Congressional Committee), Darrell Issa, Elise Stefanik (U.S. House Republican Conference chair), and Lee Zeldin (New York gubernatorial candidate).

In the U.S. Senate, H.R. 8404 will need 10 GOP turncoats, and U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)—always a reliable turncoat—has said, “I think we’re very close.”

As IFI has historically warned, citizens must pay more attention to how the language of a proposed law could be interpreted and applied than how the bill’s sponsors claim it will be applied. For example, H. R. 8404’s supporters claim that the Dis-Respect for Marriage Act will merely codify federal protections for existing same-sex marriages in the event that the right to define marriage (rightfully) returns to the states.

Turncoat Collins deceitfully claims that “this bill is very straightforward. … All it does is put into federal law the protection for the million same-sex marriages that are out there today.”

Well, that is decidedly not all that the Dis-Respect for Marriage Act will do if it becomes law.

As I recently wrote,

[T]he Disrespect for Marriage Act recognizes in federal law “any marriage that is valid under state law.”

This means that once Utah, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, or any other nutty state recognizes plural unions as marriages, the federal government will be forced to recognize plural unions as marriages.

While there is a provision requiring states to recognize marriages from other states, that provision specifically limits the type of marriages that must be recognized to those composed of two people. No such limit is placed on the federal government in the Disrespect for Marriage Act.

The Dis-Respect for Marriage Act requires the federal government to recognize any type of union legally recognized as a “marriage” in any state, and if leftists can redefine “woman” to include men, imagine the bizarre ways they will redefine “marriage.”

If one state were to recognize plural relationships, incestuous relationships, platonic friendships, or adult-minor relationships as legal “marriages,” the federal government would be required to do so also.

Further, the Dis-Respect for Marriage Act states the following:

No person acting under color of State law may deny full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex … of those individuals; or a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex … of those individuals.

ADF explains that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the term “under color of State law” “might apply where an organization participates in a joint activity with a state, is performing a function traditionally performed by the government, or when its operations are entwined with government policies.”

ADF clarifies how leftists will use the Dis-Respect for Marriage Act to erode the liberty of people of faith and faith-based organizations:

• “Faith-based foster care providers who are alleged to be performing a state function through child placement services” could be sued if they adhere to their belief that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman.

• “Religious social service organizations that are heavily funded by and work jointly with the government to serve their communities” could be sued if they adhere to their belief that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman.

• “[R]eligious organizations and businesses that provide services under contract with the government” could be sued if they adhere to their belief that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman.

• “The Internal Revenue Service could rely on this congressional declaration requiring full recognition of same-sex marriage to strip 501(c)(3) organizations [like IFI] of their tax-exempt status if they continue to adhere to their belief that marriage is only between one man and one woman.”

The passage of the corrosive H.R. 8404 would be a disaster for children, families, religious liberty, and the nation. The arc of the moral universe in America is being bent backwards toward evil, and the only political party that has been standing for truth is bending too.

Take ACTION: H.R. 8404 may be taken up in the U.S. Senate soon**. Please take a moment to speak out to our two U.S. Senators to urge them to vote to protect the Defense of Marriage Act and vote NO to H.R. 8404. Remind them, “The government has no interest in inherently non-reproductive types of relationships. The government has no more interest in inherently non-reproductive erotic relationships than it does in platonic friendships.”

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin
https://www.durbin.senate.gov/contact/email
Phone: (202) 224-2152

U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth
https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/connect/email-tammy
Phone: (202) 224-2854

Please send a message and then follow up with a phone.

**UPDATE: According to various news sources, the U.S. Senate vote on H.R. 8404 has been pushed back to September.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Letter-to-Leader-McConnell-on-marriage.mp3

Read More:

Disney Signs Open Letter Supporting Respect for Marriage Act (Yahoo News)

Same-Sex Marriage Bill Aims ‘to Crush Anyone Who Opposes Belief in Gay Marriage’ (The Washington Stand)

Susan Collins Signals Manchin-Schumer Deal Could Thwart Gay Marriage Bill (MSN)

Respect for Marriage Act Will Usher In ‘New Era of Oppression’ for Christians (The Washington Stand)

Since the unconstitutional Roe was overturned, leftists have been roiling in rage at the thought that states are now free to enact the will of the people with regard to killing humans in the womb. In his concurrence, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued that three other Supreme Court cases should be revisited in that they too lacked constitutional grounding—an argument made also by the esteemed Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork.

One of the decisions Thomas believes should be revisited is the Obergefell decision that imposed same-sex “marriage” on the entire country, robbing states—that is, the people—of their right to decide if intrinsically non-marital relationships should be legally recognized as marriages. And so, leftists livid at the prospect of diverse states one day being free to enact marriage laws in accordance with the will of the people, are trying to take that right away preemptively through federal legislation.

This week the U.S. House of Representatives passed the laughably named “Respect for Marriage Act” (H.R. 8404)—a bill that doesn’t merely disrespect marriage; it is hostile to marriage. The bill, which would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, now goes to the U.S. Senate.

Forty-seven Republicans voted for it, including Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, Rodney Davis, Tom Emmer (chair of National Republican Congressional Committee), Darrell Issa, Elise Stefanik (U.S. House Republican Conference chair), and Lee Zeldin. Any Republican who doesn’t understand the essential role of the nuclear family—that is, mother, father, and children—to the health and future of any society doesn’t deserve to serve in government.

The Defense of Marriage Act—which all U.S. House Democrats and 47 “Republicans” detest—defines marriage in federal law “as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex.” In contrast, the Disrespect for Marriage Act recognizes in federal law “any marriage that is valid under state law.”

Note that this means that once Utah, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, or any other nutty state recognizes plural unions as marriages, the federal government will be forced to recognize plural unions as marriages.

While there is a provision requiring states to recognize marriages from other states, that provision specifically limits the type of marriages that must be recognized to those composed of two people. No such limit is placed on the federal government in the Disrespect for Marriage Act.

While some naïfs among us may view this as an oversight, others see it as intentional—an interim step to the legal recognition of plural unions from sea to darkening sea.

Marriage is something. It has a nature. And words have meanings.

As I wrote four years ago, let’s try a little thought experiment. Let’s imagine that now, after legally recognizing intrinsically non-marital same-sex unions as “marriages,” society notices that there remains a unique type of relationship that is identified by the following features: it is composed of two people of major age who are not closely related by blood, are of opposite sexes, and engage in the only kind of sexual act that is naturally procreative. We decide that as language-users there must be a term to identify this particular, commonplace, and cross-cultural type of relationship. Let’s call it “huwelijk.”

In this thought experiment in which the term “marriage” would denote the union of two people of the same sex and “huwelijk” would denote the union of two people of opposite sexes—both of which provide the same legal protections, benefits, and obligations—does anyone believe that homosexuals would accept such a distinction?

Homosexuals would not accept such a linguistic distinction. They would not accept it even if they enjoyed all the practical benefits society historically accorded to sexually complementary couples and even if their unions were legally recognized as marriages.

Homosexuals would not tolerate such a legal distinction because their tyrannical quest for universal approval of homoerotic relationships cannot be achieved unless they obliterate all distinctions—including linguistic distinctions—between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions. Homosexuals—whose unions are naturally sterile—would not tolerate any term that signifies the naturally procreative union between one man and one woman.

Severing marriage from both biological sex and reproductive potential renders marriage irrelevant as a public institution. The most salient aspects of marriage as an institution sanctioned by the government are not subjective feelings of affection and sexual attraction. The government has no vested interest in the private subjective feelings of marriage partners.

The government has a vested interest in the public good. What serves the public good is the welfare of future generations. And what best serves future generations is providing for the needs and protecting the rights of children, which includes their right to be raised by a mother and father, preferably their own biological parents.

If marriage were solely a private institution concerned only with emotional attachments and sexual desire, as homosexuals claim it is, then there would be no reason for the government to be involved. There would be no more justification for government regulation of marriage than there is for government regulation of platonic friendships. And there would be no legitimate reason to prohibit plural marriages.

If the claim of homosexuals that marriage has no intrinsic, necessary, and rational connection to the biological sex of partners or to reproductive potential are true, then there remains no rational basis for the belief that marriage has anything to do with romantic or erotic feelings.

Why is marriage any longer conceived of as a romantic and erotic union? If marriage is severed from biological sex and from reproductive potential and if love is love, then why can’t a loving platonic relationship between three BFF’s be recognized as a marriage? Why can’t the platonic relationship between a 40-year-old soccer coach and his 13-year-old soccer star be deemed a marriage? If “progressives” can jettison the single most enduring and cross-cultural feature of marriage—sexual differentiation—then on what basis can they conceptually retain any other feature, including the notion that marriage is a romantic/erotic union? While eroticism may be important to intimate partners, of what relevance is naturally sterile erotic activity to the government’s interest in marriage as now construed?

When Leftists assert that “love is love,” they really mean that the moral status of erotic activity between two men or two women is no different from the moral status of sexual activity between a man and a woman. If the claim that “love is love,” is true, then there is no rational basis for thinking that there exist types of relationships in which eroticism has no legitimate place. If that’s the case, then why isn’t it morally permissible for all types of relationships to include erotic activity? If all loving relationships are identical (i.e., “love is love”), then why can’t all loving relationships include erotic activity? And if love is love, and marriage has no intrinsic nature, then it’s anything. And if it’s anything, it’s nothing.

If, however, there are different forms of love, some of which ought not include erotic activity, how do leftists determine when love ought not be eroticized?

Marriage is in tatters, but leftists want those tatters torched. Next up from “progressive” pyros: “eliminating the binary”—of marriage. Polyamorists are on the move. “Progressives” just love the smell of napalm all day long.

Take ACTION: H.R. 8404 may be taken up in the U.S. Senate soon**. Please take a moment to speak out to our two U.S. Senators to ask them to vote to protect the Defense of Marriage Act and vote NO to H.R. 8404. Remind them, “The government has no interest in inherently non-reproductive types of relationships. The government has no more interest in inherently non-reproductive erotic relationships than it does in platonic friendships.”

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin
https://www.durbin.senate.gov/contact/email
Phone: (202) 224-2152

U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth
https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/connect/email-tammy
Phone: (202) 224-2854

Please send a message and then follow up with a phone call early next week.

**UPDATE: According to various news sources, the U.S. Senate vote on H.R. 8404 has been pushed back to September.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Unprincipled-Republicans-Vote-for-the-Disrespect-for-Marriage-Act.mp3

The growth of the federal government’s power over the last two years is problematic. Increasingly, lawmakers are using the pandemic as an excuse to control every aspect of citizens’ lives. It now seems that they want to further control and access the health records of their citizens. The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 550, the Immunization Infrastructure Modernization Act of 2021, on November 30, 2021. The bill, sponsored by U.S. Representative Ann Kuster (D-NH), is a complex idea that will create a network of computers and databases capable of further tracking immunization for the local, state, and federal governments. It had 14 cosponsors — 10 Democrats, including Illinois’ Lauren Underwood, and 4 Republicans. 

The tracking of vaccines is not new to the United States. The Immunization Information System (IIS) was created in 1997 and operated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). According to the CDC, the database is confidential, and that it monitors “populations-based” immunizations. In other words, as the IIS is currently structured, the CDC can only access information from Public Health Departments and clinicians to determine how many vaccines they have distributed, not who they have vaccinated. This information is typically used to analyze the distribution rate of vaccines. For example, the CDC can determine how many children were vaccinated against chickenpox in a given year, but they cannot determine which child was or was not vaccinated.

Citizens and some conservative lawmakers all voiced concerns that H.R. 550 will track individuals more closely and possibly lead to a database of vaccinated individuals. The bill allocates $400 million to create what has been called “improvements” to the IIS, making enforcement and implementation of vaccine mandates easier. The so-called improvements would include: 

• grants awarded to local and state public health departments and other agencies to expand information systems

• support for “real-time immunization record data exchange and reporting, to support rapid identification of immunization coverage gaps”

• “implementation of policies that facilitate complete population-level capture” (meaning everyone is added to the database)

• increase of computers and data servers available to public health departments and the CDC and to maintain those systems on an ongoing basis

• increases the authority of the CDC and public health departments

These are just a few of the policies that the bill would establish. Supporters of the bill, including U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), argue that the legislation restricts the amount of funding and provides greater privacy for health information. Crenshaw stated, “And so there was a Republican-led effort for this exact provision, to decrease the funding for it and ensure that if states take that money they have to make the data anonymous and only collect it at the population level so you can’t be tracked.” Representative Crenshaw fails to see the implications of creating a database that can track populations so precisely that it captures an entire population, say a county, and their vaccination rate in real-time. This tracking would indicate which cities or counties were the most resistant to vaccination and potentially lead to aggressive injunctions specified towards that population.

Another major problem with this bill is that although it does not create a direct database, it funds the creation of the needed technology to store such a database. Once this technological system is in place, it is a short jump for legislators to create a new bill that would implement a vaccine database using the pre-existing IIS computer database system.

The bill was most widely supported by the Democratic members of the U.S. House, with 214 voting yes and none voting no. Unfortunately, 80 Republicans also voted yes. In Illinois, three Republicans sided with the Democrats on the bill, including U.S. Representative Rodney Davis (R-Taylorville), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ottawa), and Darin LaHood (R-Peoria).

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to ask that they vote no on the Immunization Infrastructure Modernization Act of 2021. During the pandemic and subsequent fearmongering, we cannot lose sight of the freedoms that we should all hold so dear. It is up to each individual and their doctor to determine the best course of treatment, not federal bureaucrats. Surveillance from our government is intrusive and dangerous as it leads to further governmental control in our lives. 

You can also sign a petition with the non-profit organization Stand for Health Freedom, HERE. 

Continue to pray for those individuals who have been tragically affected by this pandemic. Also, pray for our leaders, country, and freedom as we struggle through these dark days.

On September 23rd, 135 weak-kneed Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives joined the ranks of progressive Democrats when they voted to put our young women in potentially serious harm’s way. The overall vote was 316 to 113 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022.

This bill includes language to require young women to register for Selective Service. Just like young men when they turn 18, and in a time of national emergency, women would be drafted into the military for the first time in our nation’s history. Of course, the National Defense Authorization Act is considered critical legislation which authorizes the funding of our military.

We are shocked and dismayed to report that Illinois Republicans Mike Bost (Murphysboro), Rodney Davis (Taylorville), Adam Kinzinger (Channahon), and Darren LaHood (Peoria) voted for this legislation with this liberal provision attached.

On September 27^th, a U.S. Senate committee approved the measure and it’s now on its way to a vote in the U.S. Senate, which is split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats. The deciding vote would be cast by Vice President Kamal Harris in the event of a tie.

The National Commission on Military, National, & Public Service was created in 2017 to study the moral, legal, and practical arguments of women in the draft. In 2020, they came out in favor of requiring women to register for Selective Service.

“The Commission concluded that the time is right to extend Selective Service System registration to include men and women, between the ages of 18 and 26. This is a necessary and fair step, making it possible to draw on the talent of a unified Nation in a time of national emergency,” the report stated.

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) is strongly opposed to the measure and tweeted,

“American women have heroically served in and alongside our fighting forces since our nation’s founding. It’s one thing to allow American women to choose this service, but it’s quite another to force it upon our daughters, sisters, and wives. Missourians feel strongly that compelling women to fight our wars is wrong and so do I.”

In a 2020 candidate forum put on by the Military Officers Association of American, then-candidate Joe Biden said,

“The United States does not need a larger military, and we don’t need a draft at this time…I would, however, ensure that women are also eligible to register for the Selective Service System so that men and women are treated equally in the event of future conflicts.”

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, the U.S. Senate Republican Leader. Urge him to filibuster or block the National Defense Authorization Act until they strip out this foolish social engineering provision. You may want to remind Leader McConnell that God has made male and female equal in value and worth, but very different in form and function. To ignore this fact is absurd. 

Women have the ability to enroll in the military already, yet is intolerable for our federal government to mandate that women be drafted in case of national emergency.

You can call Leader McConnell’s office to urge him to do the right thing too. His Washington D.C. number is (202) 224-2541 and his district phone number is (502) 582-6304.

On Thursday afternoon (2/25/2021), the U.S. House of Representatives voted 224 to 206 to pass the so-called “Equality Act” (H.R. 5), which would enshrine “sexual orientation” (i.e., homosexuality) and “gender identity” (i.e., cross-sex identification) as legally protected classes in a myriad of federal laws. The vote fell along party lines, with only three Republicans (U.S. Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, John Katko of New York, and Tom Reed of New York) voting with the Democratic majority, and two Republicans not voting.

Illinois’ congressional delegation voted as expected. Republicans Mike Bost, Rodney Davis, Adam Kinzinger, Daren LaHood, and Mary Miller voted against H.R. 5.

Democrats Cheri Bustos, Sean Casten, Danny Davis, Bill Foster, Chuy Garcia, Robin Kelly, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Marie Newman, Mike Quigley, Bobby Rush, Jan Schakowsky, Brad Schneider, and Lauren Underwood voted in favor of H.R. 5.

Take ACTION:  The measure now proceeds to the U.S. Senate where the potential outcome remains uncertain. Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

To be clear, H.R. 5 would remove significant rights and opportunities from many in our communities:

• People of faith who live and work consistently with their religious beliefs on marriage and human sexuality would be harmed. This includes medical professionals forced to participate in “gender transition” efforts, counselors banned from helping their clients, and religious employers (like Christian schools) forced to hire those who do not share their mission. The bill specifically takes away the religious protections we currently have under federal law.

• Women and girls would be forced to compete in athletics on an unfair playing field with biological males.

• School children and adults would have their privacy rights infringed upon by allowing sex-specific facilities (locker rooms, showers, bathrooms) to be used by the opposite biological sex.

• Women’s shelters would be forced to admit biological men.

• Adoption agencies and other non-profit charities would be subjected to government shutdown and discrimination lawsuits for continuing to follow their mission.

• Free speech would be censored by compelling policies for preferred pronoun use.

We believe every human being is created in the image and likeness of Almighty God, and therefore deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Using the heavy hand of government, however, to force good people to deny biological realities and to compromise their religious convictions is not the answer.

Speak up now before it is too late.

To understand more about the widespread harms the passage of H.R. 5 would have on our nation, see IFI recent Action Alert and the host of helpful resources from our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom.

Read more:

U.S. House passes pro-abortion ‘Equality Act’ to write transgenderism into civil rights law (LifeSiteNews.com)

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts! Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

*Updated to include Joe Biden’s Friday comparison of Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley to Nazi Joseph Goebbels.

Another tempest is brewing in the Land of the Lost, formerly known as the Land of Lincoln. It all began when, in a speech to Moms for America, newly elected U.S. Representative Mary Miller quoted Hitler’s infamous assertion from Mein Kampf about the indoctrination of children. Miller said,

If we win a few elections, we’re still going to be losing unless we win the hearts and minds of our children. This is the battle. Hitler was right on one thing. He said, “Whoever has the youth has the future.”

The political world came unhinged.

In a D.C. minute, Illinois’ foolish Democrats (I know, I know, redundant) U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth and U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky—both on the wrong side of, well, everything—with unsheathed claws, pounced, calling for Miller’s resignation.

I forget, did Duckworth and Schakowsky call for the resignation of colleague Jim Clyburn when he first compared Donald Trump to Hitler in March 2019? Did they call for Clyburn’s resignation in March 2020 when for the second time he compared President Trump to Hitler and then for good measure compared Trump supporters to Germans under Hitler’s reign, saying this:

I used to wonder: How did the people of Germany allow Hitler to exist? But with each passing day, I’m beginning to understand how.

*Have Duckworth and Schakowsky yet called for unifier Joe Biden to resign as president for his despicable comparison on Friday, January 8 of Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley to Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels?

Did Duckworth and Schakowsky call for the resignation of Michigan Democrat, U.S. Representative Brenda Lawrence when in September 2020, she compared Trump to Hitler and his supporters to supporters of Hitler?

Did Duckworth and Schakowsky call for the resignation of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when she called border detention facilities that Obama used to separate children from parents “concentration camps”?

In February 2020, did Duckworth and Schakowsky urge the firing of the history teacher in a government-subsidized school in Maryland “who showed a picture of Trump above pictures of a Nazi swastika and a flag of the Soviet Union” with captions that said ‘wants to round up a group of people and build a giant wall’ and ‘oh, THAT is why it sounds so familiar!’”

Lynn Sweet, longtime writer for the lying leftist rag the Chicago Sun-Times oddly and falsely described Miller’s comment as “praise of Hitler,” when all decent, fair, non-bigots understood Miller’s comment as criticism of Hitler and anyone else who seeks to inculcate children with evil ideas, as all tyrants do.

With his chest puffed up with the air of the self-righteous, busy beaver U.S. Representative from Illinois, Adam Kinzinger—a self-identifying Republican who is always eager to condemn conservatives—jumped aboard the smite Miller bandwagon, saying, “I outright condemn this garbage.” Yeah, that took courage.

Setting aside Godwin’s over-used law, I think it’s time for the faux-outrage from politicians about comparisons to Hitler or Nazism to stop. Both sides use such comparisons. Some comparisons are more apt than others. For example, the comparison of the Democrat view that defective humans are legitimate targets for government-sanctioned extermination to the Nazi view of “life unworthy of life” seems apt.

I’m climbing in bed with a strange fellow for a moment, the very liberal Michael Hiltzik, writer for the LA Times who in a July 2019 commentary challenged the leaders of the U.S. Holocaust Museum’s “unequivocal rejection” of any and all “efforts to create analogies between the Holocaust and other events, whether historical or contemporary.”

While I disagree with Hiltzik’s apparent motive—that is, his desire for “progressives” to be free to compare Trump to Hitler—I agree with the view that the use of Holocaust analogies is not intrinsically sinful or off-limits.

Hiltzik explains his dissent from the Holocaust Museum’s absolute prohibition of the use of Holocaust analogies:

[T]he Holocaust Museum’s view of its mission as communicating the “history” of the Holocaust seems crabbed and narrow. Its real mission is to communicate the lesson that, unique as the Holocaust was in scale, the evil that brought it about lurks in the psyche of humans in groups, and may not be visible from the outset.

He goes on to cite Yale Holocaust historian Timothy Snyder who argues,

A monopoly on historical interpretation, claimed by a single institution, is a mark of authoritarianism … one of the dangers of placing a taboo on analogies … ensures that we never learn what we need to know.

Doesn’t that reflect the oft-cited view of philosopher George Santayana who famously warned, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”? Don’t we teach the evil events in history in part so that we recognize the shadows of those past events in current events? When we recognize those shadows—those contours—are we not to speak of them?

Don’t be naïve or gullible. Politicians don’t really take offense at the use of Nazi analogies. Political animals without principles—particularly animals who don’t believe in objective moral truth or the source of such truth—lack even a grounding for moral outrage. Like everything else within their grasp, their faux-outrage is a political tool for influencing people and winning power. Faux-outrage—fauxrage—emanates from whichever political side is being gored by the analogy.

Don’t fall for it. Don’t be intimidated by it. It’s a tall tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Freshman Rep. Mary Miller, a Christian, mother of seven, grandmother of 17, and farmer, under withering and indefensible attacks from around the country and next to no support from colleagues, has issued a gracious and humble apology for an alleged sin she did not commit:

Earlier this week, I spoke to a group of mothers about the importance of faith and guarding our youth from destructive influences. I sincerely apologize for any harm my words caused and regret using a reference to one of the most evil dictators in history to illustrate the dangers that outside influences can have on our youth. This dark history should never be repeated and parents should be proactive to instill what is good, true, right, and noble into their children’s hearts and minds. While some are trying to intentionally twist my words to mean something antithetical to my beliefs, let me be clear: I’m passionately pro-Israel and I will always be a strong advocate and ally of the Jewish community. I’ve been in discussion with Jewish leaders across the country and am grateful to them for their kindness and forthrightness.

Oh, btw, Hitler—the evil monster—was right on one thing: Whoever has the youth, has the future. As Christians seek to train up their children in the way they should go, they would do well to remember that supremely evil men understand the long-term effects of indoctrinating children. Hitler was not the first, nor will he be the last evil monster to pursue our youth. There are other monsters prowling around, seeking whom they will devour.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MaryMiller.mp3

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you.

The SAFE Banking Act is a federal bill that would give the “medical” and recreational marijuana industries (and cartels) access to banking privileges, such as checking and savings accounts, credit lines and loans, enabling and legitimizing what has been an all cash trade to make real estate deals, payroll, insurance and operating costs much easier.

Furthermore, this could foreseeably grant them a listing in the stock exchanges, which would give them an opportunity to raise a great deal of money, ultimately helping these havoc-producing, soul-destroying companies to open more retail businesses, purchase more land to grow the drug, and expand into more markets.

The bill has passed in the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 321-103, despite the fact that marijuana is classified as an illegal Schedule 1 Drug “with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

Sixteen of the 18 members of the Illinois Congressional Delegation voted “yea,” including U.S. Representatives: Bobby Rush (D-1^st Dist.), Robin Kelly (D-2^nd Dist.), Daniel Lipinski (D-3^rd Dist.), Jesus Garcia (D-4^th Dist.), Mike Quigley (5^th Dist.), Sean Casten (D-6^th Dist.), Danny Davis (D-7^th Dist.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-8^th Dist.), Jan Schakowsky (D-9^th Dist.), Brad Schneider (D-10^th Dist.), Bill Foster (D-11^th Dist.), Mike Bost (R-12^th Dist.), Rodney David (R-13^th Dist.), Lauren Underwood (D-14^th Dist.), Adam Kinzinger (R-16^th Dist.) and Cheri Bustos (D-17^th Dist.).

The SAFE Banking Act would effectively neuter federal law to empower and facilitate the marijuana industry.  “We have patients and other consumers looking to order and pay online, whether it is for pickup or delivery,” says Dina Rollman, senior vice president for regulatory and government affairs at Green Thumb Industries. “With cannabis businesses being deemed essential in so many states during the COVID-19 crisis, the need for the SAFE Banking Act is greater than ever.” (Source: “With crisis, cannabis firms see a shot to get banking relief” Crain’s Chicago Business, 5/1/20) 

U.S. Representative Ed Perlmutter (D-Colorado) is anxious to help the marijuana industry. He plans to include the SAFE Banking Act in upcoming COVID-relief legislation, another stimulus bill. In addition to assisting the marijuana industry to have access to banks, he co-sponsored a bill that would provide federal coronavirus aid to marijuana businesses.

According to Crain’s Chicago Business, unlike many other industries during the pandemic, the marijuana industry is growing substantially.

John Sullivan, an executive vice president at Chicago-based Cresco Labs, a large marijuana company, said, “I think cannabis can make the case for being a huge driver of the recovery, increasing state and federal tax revenues. More people will get interested in this industry and what it can do.”

We have seen what it can do to families and communities in Colorado, Washington and California. The consequences are enormous.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact your federal officials: President Donald Trump, U.S. Senators Dick Dubin, Tammy Duckworth, and your U.S. Representative. Ask them to uphold and enforce federal law against the marijuana industry. Ask them to vote AGAINST the “SAFE Banking Act.”

Note: While the bill has passed in the U.S. House, it is uncertain if the U.S. Senate will vote on it at this time. If not, it could potentially be back in the House for another vote in the future. Above is the list of how your congressman voted. Please include reference to their vote in your email. Ask them to oppose it if it returns to the U.S. House.

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

We are pleased to report that Illinois Family Institute, along with Samaritan’s Purse, The Family Foundation (Virginia) and the National Legal Foundation, filed an amicus brief (aka friend-of-the-court brief) this week to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the case of June Medical Service, LLC v. Gee. The brief supports a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the clinic.

The law was passed in Louisiana in 2014. After being blocked by a lower court, the law was upheld by the 5th Circuit. The law is now on appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our brief contends that the Court should uphold the Louisiana law because the Court has previously upheld the right for states not to facilitate abortion, arguing:

In Harris v. McRae, this Court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal funds being used for payment of elective abortions. And in Williams v. Zbaraz, this Court rejected a challenge to a State law that prohibited public funds from being used for any abortions except to save the life of the mother. Then, in 1989, this Court found constitutional a similar Missouri law in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that prohibited the use of public funds, employees, and facilities to provide abortions. The Court reiterated that such prohibitions place no governmental obstacle in the path of a woman who wants to have an abortion.

Earlier this week, more than 200 members of Congress signed a different amicus brief urging SCOTUS to uphold that same Louisiana abortion law. Democrat Dan Lipinski joined his Republican colleagues from Illinois in signing on to the brief: Mike Bost, Rodney Davis, Adam Kinzinger, Darin LaHood, and John Shimkus.

Oral argument in June Medical Service, LLC v. Gee is currently scheduled for March 4, 2020.

You can read the entire brief filed by IFI et al. HERE.

You might wonder why Illinois Family Institute has joined with the above- named co-filers regarding a Louisiana law (Louisiana Act 620) that is on appeal before the SCOTUS. Don’t we have more than enough on our plate right here in Illinois without becoming involved in legal issues in other states?

Quite simply, there is too much at stake to not be involved. The law on the books in Louisiana has already withstood a previous challenge and was upheld by the 5^th Circuit Court.

Now the petitioner has been granted a hearing by SCOTUS. If the highest court in our land was to rule in favor of this petitioner, the legal doctrine of stare decisis – precedent — would be established. Then, that precedent could be cited in other court cases across the nation where petitioners are determined to abolish existing, legally-enacted, pro-life legislation.

We encourage you to read the brief in its entirety in order to understand the facts of the case at hand, the compelling reasons why the Louisiana law should be upheld, and the erroneous analysis and misrepresented “precedent” on which the petitioner has based the appeal. While this case deals with abortion legislation, a decision by the Supreme Court in favor of the petitioner could have implications for issues that extend beyond the scope of abortion access.

Please keep this case, the pro-life attorneys arguing this case and SCOTUS Justices in your prayers!

For more information, contact Illinois Family Institute at contactus@illinoisfamily.org, or (708) 781-9328.

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

Great news from the congressional front!

In light of the possibility that Governor Bruce Rauner may renege on his commitment to veto HB 40—the bill that would require taxpayer-funding of abortions through Medicaid and state employee insurance plans through the entire 9 months of pregnancies—and the moral gravity of such an obscene (and costly) requirement, Illinois Family Institute Executive Director David Smith sent a letter to Illinois’ Republican congressmen requesting their help in persuading Governor Rauner to veto HB 40.

Earlier today, U.S. Congressmen Peter Roskam, John Shimkus, Randy Hultgren, Adam Kinzinger, Rodney Davis, Mike Bost, and Darin LaHood sent a letter to Governor Rauner urging him to do just that:

Dear Governor Rauner:

We are writing to convey our deepest concern about House Bill 40 which has been sent to your desk.

This bill would require taxpayers to subsidize abortions for those covered by Medicaid and for those covered by state employee health insurance through the full nine months of pregnancy. This includes painful late-term abortions, even past the point at which some children could survive outside the womb if given appropriate care.  Under HB 40, there is no cap on the number of abortions that could be covered under Medicaid and no cap on the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on these procedures.  Current estimates of cost to the State range from$1.8 million to $21 million.  While Illinois faces a financial crisis, it is unwise to place such a burden on the taxpayers.

Illinois state policy has been consistent with federal protections such as the Hyde Amendment which prohibits federal funding for abortion. The Hyde Amendment saves lives – at least 2 million people are alive today thanks to 40 years of Hyde Amendment protections.  This bill is an egregious step away from those protections by requiring public funding for abortions, which will surely result in more lives lost to the tragedy of abortion.

As you have said yourself, this bill wrongfully requires taxpayers to participate in funding abortions. While the political pressure may feel extreme, we respectfully ask you to focus on the underlying issue and not waiver on your commitment to protect taxpayers as well as the most vulnerable members of our community.  We ask you to veto this harmful legislation.

David Smith emphasizes the significance of this letter, particularly in conjunction with the unanimity of opposition to HB 40 among state lawmakers:

This letter to Gov. Rauner is vitally important. The entire Illinois House Republican Caucus and Illinois Senate Republican Caucus are uniformly opposed to HB 40. Now the Illinois Republican Congressional Delegation has weighed in opposing this legislation. I can only hope and pray that this puts tremendous pressure on our Republican Governor to veto this legislation.

I hope and pray other pro-life elected leaders will also speak out. We may not be able to overturn Roe v. Wade yet, but if enough conservatives speak out and overwhelm the governor’s office, we just might protect thousands of babies from the horror of abortion in Illinois.

Though there is a legal right for women to have their offspring killed, such a “right” does not confer on the public an obligation to pay for the deaths of these tiny human beings. In addition, aiding and abetting women in killing their own children is neither just, nor merciful, nor morally defensible.

The dismissively called “social issues” are fundamental cultural issues and crucibles that determine the moral worthiness of a society. Illinois Republican lawmakers deserve our thanks for their support for the lives of humans in the womb.

Will Republican Governor Rauner stand with pro-life, small government lawmakers in Congress and the General Assembly or will he stand with pro-abortion, big government Leftists?

Take ACTION: Click Here to email Governor Bruce Rauner. Urge him to keep his pledge to veto HB 40. Also, please continue to call the governor’s public comment line every day until this is resolved: (217) 782-0244 and (312) 814-2121. 

You can also send Gov. Rauner a message via Twitter: @GovRauner

Read Congressman Peter Roskam’s press release on this issue HERE.

Listen to Laurie read this article in this podcast:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-Illinois-GOP-Congressional-Caucus-Responds-to-HB-40.mp3

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

Every year in America, more than 18,000 perfectly healthy babies – developed enough to feel pain and, in many cases, survive outside the womb – are brutally killed in their mother’s wombs.

Eighteen thousand. 

Can you imagine the public outrage if 18,000 babies died every year from faulty baby formula or substandard infant car seats? Liability lawsuits would flood the court systems and manufacturing companies would shutdown in bankruptcy and disgrace.

These particular 18,000 babies have been growing for 20 weeks or more in their mother’s bodies.

“These are innocent and defenseless children who can not only feel pain, but who can survive outside of the womb in most cases, and who are torturously killed without even basic anesthesia. Many of them cry and scream as they die, but because it is amniotic fluid going over their vocal cords instead of air, we don’t hear them, ” U.S. Representative Trent Franks of Arizona told LifeSite News this week.

Eighteen thousand innocent babies.

Next Wednesday, 42 years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs Wade decision legalizing abortions for any reason up to the moment of birth, Franks and U.S. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) will ask their Congressional colleagues in the U.S. House to vote on H.R. 36 – a federal measure to protect those 18,000 innocents from painful, violent deaths.

Franks and Blackburn expect to be joined by nearly 180 other House members who will co-sponsor the measure.

Five Illinois Congressmen have signed on thus far as co-sponsors, four Republicans: Randy Hultgren (Geneva), Peter Roskam (Barrington), Aaron Schock (Peoria) and John Shimkus (Effingham) and one Democrat: Dan Lipinski (Chicago).

Three Republican House members have yet to commit on the bill: Adam Kinzinger (Rockford) and newbies Mike Bost (Murphysboro) and Bob Dold (Mundelein).  Historically the remaining Democratic members of Illinois’ delegation have supported abortion advocates’ position.

Abortion defenders are holding the line against any restrictions whatsoever.  They deny the medical studies showing 20 week old preborn babies can feel pain.

“The studies are pretty clear — at 20 weeks, there is no indication that nerves are developed. Abortion is really rare past 20 weeks and is incurred because of a set of complex circumstances,” Jamila Perritt, MD, medical director of Planned Parenthood of Metro Washington, D.C., said at a press conference this week.

In response, numerous brain and nerve activity experts cite the need for prenatal surgeons to anesthetize their patients during in utero surgical procedures.

“To experience pain an intact system of pain transmission from the peripheral receptor to the cerebral cortex must be available. Peripheral receptors develop from the seventh gestational week,” Marc Van de Velde and Frederik De Buck wrote in, “Fetal and Maternal Analgesia/Anesthesia for Fetal Procedures”:

From 20 weeks’ gestation peripheral receptors are present on the whole body. From 13 weeks’ gestation the afferent system located in the substantia gelatinosa of the dorsal horn of the spinal cord starts developing. Development of afferent fibers connecting peripheral receptors with the dorsal horn starts at 8 weeks’ gestation. Spinothalamic connections start to develop from 14 weeks’ and are complete at 20 weeks’ gestation, whilst thalamocortical connections are present from 17 weeks’ and completely developed at 26–30 weeks’ gestation. From 16 weeks’ gestation pain transmission from a peripheral receptor to the cortex is possible and completely developed from 26 weeks’ gestation.

Numerous other doctors have filled in about prenatal infants’ pain capability and made their testimony available at www.doctorsonfetalpain.com.

Medical science is convincing the American public that preborn babies can indeed feel pain. In a March 2013 survey by The Polling Company, 64 percent of 1003 registered voters said they would support a law such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks — when an unborn baby can feel pain — unless the life of the mother is in danger. Less than a third opposed such legislation.

It’s very likely Franks and Blackburn’s H.R. 36 will pass the U.S. House as the nation remembers the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs Wade decision.  It could also pass the U.S. Senate in the days after.

However, Congress.gov says the measure has less than a five percent chance to be implemented because it’s unlikely President Barack Obama, who hailed the practice of Partial Birth Abortion, would ever sign abortion restrictions into law.

And what about the chances of overriding an Obama veto?

“I’m told there is no way there are 60 votes to override a veto in the Senate,” said nationally-popular prolife blogger Jill Stanek.

So why try to so hard pass legislation that won’t become law?

“We just keep pushing, educating, making a big deal out of the humanity of preborn babies and pain,” Stanek said. “This will be similar to when [former President Bill] Clinton vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban twice.”

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban was finally signed into law by President George W. Bush November 5, 2003 – nearly eight years after the first version was introduced.

H.R. 36 prohibits an abortion from being performed if the pain-capable child is 20 weeks or more, except when a mother’s life is endangered, or the pregnancy is the result of reported rape or incest.

How can anyone oppose saving those 18,000 innocent babies’ lives and protecting them from potential inhumane pain and suffering?

On the other hand, perhaps we should ask ourselves how we could ever explain to future generations how we didn’t even try.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative asking them to support H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Or call the Capitol Switchboard to ask to be connected to your U.S. Representative’s office: 202-224-3121.

If you live outside of Illinois, Click HERE to send an email through the National Right To Life Committee’s web site.

The Truth Project

First Annual IFI Worldview Conference
featuring Dr. Del Tackett
April 10-11, 2015

CLICK HERE for Details

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently issued a report revealing that 1,036 plans in Obamacare (also known as the Affordable Care Act) health insurance exchanges are paying for elective abortions.  In other words, U.S. taxpayers are paying for surgical and chemical abortions under Obamacare.

The audit found that in five states all health insurance exchange plans included elective abortion coverage.  In another eight states, 95 to 100 percent of the plans paid for elective abortions.

President Barack Obama had  promised that no federal dollars would be used to underwrite abortion coverage.  He even issued an executive order to that effect to mollify opposition from within his own political party.

Yet the GAO report verifies what knowledgeable observers knew at the time.  The President’s executive order had no legal effect, because it conflicted with the law’s own provisions, which clearly authorized federal subsidies (called “affordability credits”) for abortion coverage.

The GAO audit also revealed that insurers are uniformly failing to collect an abortion surcharge that was required in every health insurance plan that included abortion coverage.  Under that provision, individuals were to be assessed a separate fee of $1 per month for abortion “services,” regardless of the age, gender, or ability to conceive of the insured.

U.S. Representative Randy Hultgren, a pro-life Republican from Illinois, reacted to this report by urging full transparency from the President and for the U.S. Senate to pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 7) which ensures the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal tax dollars from paying for abortions, is implemented across the federal government.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed this legislation, which was introduced by U.S. Representative Christopher Smith (R-NJ).

H.R. 7 is co-sponsored by Illinois U.S. Representatives Rodney Davis (R-Champaign), Randy Hultgren (R-Geneva), Daniel Lipinski (D-Chicago), John Shimkus (R-Danville), Aaron Schock (R-Peoria), Peter Roskam (R-Wheaton), and Adam Kinzinger (R-Rockford).

This bill is currently before the U.S. Senate, where U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is unlikely to take it up for debate.

U.S. Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) says that Americans should be outraged.  “Many of us argued at the time Obamacare passed that it would funnel taxpayer dollars to elective abortions.  This independent report validates our claims and proves that yet another Obamacare promise has been broken.”

Casey Mattox, Senior Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), charges that the architects of Obamacare built a “purposely deceptive accounting scheme” into the Affordable Care Act.

“We were told we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it.  Now we know what exactly is in it:  corporate welfare for the Administration’s abortion industry cronies.”

Read more:  GAO Report Confirms Obamacare Subsidizes Abortion

The Illinois Family Institute is completely dependent on the voluntary contributions of individuals just like you. 

Please consider supporting our work and ministry in the public square.