Why are so many public schools in Illinois keeping so many secrets from the public? Last August, Christopher Rufo disclosed that Lurie’s Children’s Hospital, unbeknownst to parents or the general public, was collaborating with Chicago area schools to promote “radical gender theory, trans activism, and sexually explicit materials in at least four Chicago-area public school systems: District 75, District 120, District 181, and District 204.” Three of these school districts are elementary districts and one is a high school district.

We don’t know how many other school districts receive training from Lurie. But we have learned of at least one other, Palatine School District 15, another elementary school district. In January, Dawn Ravine, Lurie’s Sexuality Education Program Coordinator reportedly provided training to the District’s P.E./Health teachers during a planned institute day.

When parents learned of this training that was provided to the teachers, it came as a surprise since the District had voted to reject the National Sex Ed Standards. Why are the teachers being taught about subjects that were part of those standards, the parents asked? The District 15 school board did nothing to resolve the confusion. Instead of explaining the purpose of the training, the board Chair attacked the critics as liars at the most recent board meeting last week.

Does the school board even know why the training was held?

It appears that this training first exposed by Rufo has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the National Sex Ed Standards will be implemented by any specific district. Instead, it appears to be the result of guidance directed by the Illinois State Board of Education found here.

Several acts and suggested policies were developed after Governor JB Pritzker issued an executive order in 2019 to create a task force to investigate and report on creating affirming and inclusive schools to welcome, support and affirm transgender, non-binary and gender non-conforming children and adolescents.  The Task Force issued its report in January, 2020.

It doesn’t look like there was a single conservative, or even a liberal with a differing view, on the Task Force. The ACLU was represented, but neither ADF nor the Thomas More Society were anywhere to be seen. There were several students on the Task Force, but no former students who had de-transitioned. The Task Force sought the views and advice of the Trevor Project, but not the position of the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine. Do you suppose the Governor decided what the report would say before it was written?

The laws, regulations and suggested policies under Pritzker’s administration fully embrace the view that children suffering from gender dysphoria should be affirmed, that children should be allowed to “transition” without parental knowledge or involvement, that trans girls should be allowed to use the same facilities as biological girls and that they be allowed to play on girls teams.

Under Governor Pritzker’s guidance, the Illinois State Board of Education has set up a network of laws, regulations and suggested policies that seemingly tie the hands of local school boards. Ideologically, the board administrators and elected board members in Illinois schools mostly are not inclined to push back against the ISBE. If a majority of the board were so inclined, they likely would get advice from the board lawyers that the schools have to go along with what the state wants. Besides, they would be (and have been) told, suing the state over any issue would be very costly and not good stewardship of public tax funds.

Lost in the discussion is consideration for what is best for the children and what parents want.

Parents are not powerless, however. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that parents have a right to control what their children are taught. Given the current state of education in Illinois, it might be best for parents to home school their children or to send them to a private faith-based school that focuses on STEM subjects and English. If enough children are pulled out of school, it might prompt a more child and parent friendly environment.

If home schooling or sending children to a sane private school is not possible, the only thing that can be done is for parents to opt their children out of everything they don’t like—sex ed, SEL, counseling by any member of the school staff or any contractor, instruction on any subject other than math, science, biology, engineering, technology, English, or other subject the parents might approve. At the very least, though, parents will have to closely monitor what their children are taught in those classes–what textbooks, websites, videos, research projects, etc.

Illinois government, the ISBE, local boards along with the lawyers and administrators they hire, the teachers’ unions, and activist teachers have proven themselves to be completely secretive and untrustworthy. Inaction and inattention have brought us to this point. The result is we get exactly the government we deserve and there is nobody out there to fix it for us.

Unless parents get involved like they did in Virginia, nothing is going to change.

You knew it had to happen sooner or later. It’s bad enough that biological males are beating biological females in races, both in high school and college. It’s bad enough when biological males are beating biological females in weightlifting contests, setting new world records in the process. But it’s even worse when the men are injuring the women in full contact sports.

That’s exactly what could be happening now in female rugby games, and the insanity needs to stop before someone gets seriously injured.

This is not just unfair. It is dangerous.

A September 28 story in the UK’s The Times announced that, “Too strong trans players in women’s rugby are driving referees away.”

Then, quite remarkably, the story reported this. (And remember, this is The Times, not The Onion. No satire here!)

“Rugby referees are quitting the women’s amateur game because they fear rules allowing transgender women to play will lead to serious injuries.

“Referees say they have been warned not to challenge bearded or heavily muscled players appearing for women’s teams.”

How about reading this last sentence again slowly and out loud, digesting every word? Am I the only one who wants to scream at the top of my lungs, “Has the whole world gone totally crazy?!”

Under the condition of anonymity, one referee told the Times,

“Being forced to prioritize hurt feelings over broken bones exposes me to personal litigation from female players who have been damaged by players who are biologically male. This is driving female players and referees out of the game.”

And if you dare raise a question about the testosterone level of the bearded player (a lower testosterone level is required), you are branded a bigot.

Interestingly, just last month, a new study out of Sweden revealed that, “Biological males who identify as transgender women are likely to retain strength advantages over biological females, even after undergoing 12 months of hormone therapy.”

Well, what do you know!

“The researchers who carried out the study found that biological males who underwent 12 months of hormone therapy lost muscle mass in their legs, but still retained leg strength.”

And that’s why, earlier this year, a British Olympian criticized Olympic rules that would allow biological males to compete against biological females.

According to medal-winner Sharron Davies, “‘quite a lot’ of female athletes . . . are afraid to publicly share their concerns about biological males who identify as transgender women competing in women’s sports.”

This is grossly unfair and it really must stop.

Earlier this year, in Australia, “Hannah” Mouncey, “formerly known as Callum and a member of the Australian men’s handball team in 2016,” withdrew his nomination “from the draft for the Australian Football League’s professional women’s competition and accused the league of blocking her [sic] from playing in the top flight.”

I would hope that the league would block his efforts to play along with the women. Does it take a rocket scientist to figure this out?

Now, in the States, all this is coming to a head in the form of a case just heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. As explained by the ADF,

“The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit over the discharge of an employee who refused to comply with a Michigan funeral home’s sex-specific dress code, which requires employees to dress in a manner sensitive to grieving family members and friends. The EEOC attempted to force the business to allow a biologically male employee to wear a female uniform while interacting with the public.”

At question is the meaning of the word “sex” under federal law. Does it refer to biology, as it was originally intended to, or does it include perceived gender identity?

In her op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, titled, “Justice Ginsburg, a Woman Isn’t a ‘Demiboy’,” Ashley E. McGuire wrote,

“The problem with diluting the meaning of sex is more than rhetorical. It weakens the legal status of the sex that laws such as Title VII and Title IX are designed to protect. Women’s rights hinge on our clearly defined status as women. We have endured centuries of discrimination because of our sex. In seeking to strip the term ‘sex’ of legal meaning, gender-identity advocates would turn the clock back 55 years for women.”

Indeed, the radical transgender movement, which seeks to impose itself on society as a whole, threatens women’s rights on many fronts, not to mention challenges the very meaning of female.

If we care about the rights of our daughters, our wives, and our mothers, we need to push back against this radical activism. And we need to hope and pray that the U.S. Supreme Court justices make a strong, definitive, and correct ruling.

This, of course, does not mean that we mock the very real pain experienced by those who identify as transgender. But it does mean that we say to everyone involved, “Perceptions do not trump reality and biology is not bigotry. The ultimate goal is to find wholeness from the inside out.”

For my part, I look forward to the day when I no longer have to add the word “biological” before “female” or “male” to make myself clear.

And, as if we need one more sobering word, a new report speaks of a “tidal wave” of young people who now regret transitioning to the opposite sex. One of them is Charlie Evans, now 28, was born female but lived as a male for 10 years.

Evans said, “I’m in communication with 19 and 20-year-olds who have had full gender reassignment surgery who wish they hadn’t, and their dysphoria hasn’t been relieved, they don’t feel better for it.”

That is even more dangerous than a female rugby player getting injured by a bigger, stronger male.

When we will wake up and put a stop to this social madness?

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.com.

Written by Michael Foust

The U.S. Supreme Court handed religious liberty advocates a victory Monday when it vacated a lower court’s opinion that had ordered a Christian baker to design a cake for a same-sex wedding.

At issue was a ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals that upheld a state decision forcing Aaron and Melissa Klein to pay a $135,000 penalty after they refused to design a cake celebrating a wedding for a lesbian couple. The Kleins eventually closed their business, known as “Sweet Cakes by Melissa.”

The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday issued a one-paragraph order vacating the judgment and sending it back down to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of Oregon for further consideration in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n,” the unsigned order read.

Masterpiece was a 2018 ruling in which the Supreme Court sided with a Colorado baker who refused to design a wedding cake for a gay couple. Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy ruled the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated hostility toward religion when it ordered bakery owner Jack Phillips to design the cake.

The Kleins are represented by First Liberty Institute.

“This is a victory for Aaron and Melissa Klein and for religious liberty for all Americans,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty. “The Constitution protects speech, popular or not, from condemnation by the government. The message from the Court is clear, government hostility toward religious Americans will not be tolerated.”

First Liberty had hoped the Supreme Court would hear oral arguments and expand on its Masterpiece decision. The high court, though, punted on that decision.

First Liberty filed suit after the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) ruled the Kleins had violated a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The BOLI also handed down a $135,000 penalty. The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled against the Kleins, and the Oregon Supreme Court declined to take the case.

“The State of Oregon drove Melissa and Aaron Klein out of the custom-cake business and hit them with a $135,000 penalty, because the Kleins could not in good conscience employ their artistic talents to express a message celebrating a same-sex wedding ritual,” First Liberty’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court read.

The Kleins “opened and operated” their baker as an expression of their Christian faith,” the petition said. Further, they believe “God instituted marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

They served all customers “regardless of sexual orientation.” They even had sold a cake to one of the lesbian complainants in the case for her mother’s marriage to a man. But they could not, the petition said, create a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding.

“The Kleins created these cakes, in part, because they wanted to celebrate weddings between one man and one woman,” the petition said. “The Kleins do not believe that other types of interpersonal unions are marriages, and they believe it is sinful to celebrate them as such.”

The state’s order violated the First Amendment, the First Liberty petition argued.

“Unless this Court enforces the First Amendment,” the petition said, “similar cases will continue to arise, as creative entrepreneurs are compelled, under the guise of public accommodations statutes, to participate in same-sex marriage rituals that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, or – as the Kleins did – to sacrifice their livelihood.”

The Thomas More Society, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Cato Institute were among the groups that asked the Supreme Court to side with the Kleins. The attorneys general for 11 states also issued a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Kleins. Those states were Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia.

This article originally posted on ChristianHeadlines.com

A federal appeals court has ruled that the State of New York may prohibit the issuance of “Choose Life” license plates.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decided that plates with the message “Choose Life” could be considered “patently offensive.”

A pro-adoption group called the Children First Foundation had applied to the New York Division of Motor Vehicles for approval of a specialty license plate with the “Choose Life” message.

Like similar plates in other states including Illinois, the design of the plate includes a drawing of the faces of a boy and a girl in front of a yellow sun.

New York motor vehicle officials denied the application, saying that they wished “to avoid any appearance of governmental support for either side in the divisive national abortion debate.”

The Department also invoked a policy that allows it to deny plates that are “patently offensive” in their content.  Such regulations are usually established to prohibit messages that are obscene or pornographic.

The State also claimed their action was necessary to prevent road rage.  Officials stated they “will not place an instrument on public roadways which may engender violent discourse among drivers.”

The 2nd Circuit panel has now upheld that decision in a 2-1 ruling.  Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote in her decision that many residents of New York were likely to find the pro-life message “patently offensive.”

Judge Pooler also stated in her opinion that residents of New York who wanted to communicate their pro-life sentiments were free to affix a bumper sticker to their vehicle.

Judge Debra Ann Livingston dissented from the ruling.  She argued that the federal court was granting Department of Motor Vehicles officials the authority to suppress any viewpoints they don’t like.

Jeremy Tedesco, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, decried the court’s ruling.  “The state doesn’t have the authority to target [these] specialty license plates for censorship based on their life-affirming viewpoint.”

“Pro-adoption organizations should have the same speech rights as any other organization,” Tedesco continued.  “The circuit court has denied free speech in favor of government censorship.”

You can learn more about the legal efforts to authorize a “Choose Life” license plate in our state by visiting this website: Illinois Choose Life

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a brief Wednesday that responds to the Obama administration’s defense of its abortion pill mandate in one of two major legal challenges the U.S. Supreme Court will hear on March 25. Alliance Defending Freedom and allied attorneys represent the Hahns, a Pennsylvania Mennonite Christian family, and their woodworking business in one of those cases, Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius.

The mandate forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy financial penalties if the mandate’s requirements aren’t met.

“In America, we tolerate a diversity of opinions and beliefs; we don’t try to separate what people do from what they believe,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel David Cortman. “The Constitution guarantees the highest form of respect to the Hahns’ freedom. The government must prove why disregarding that freedom is somehow justified.”

According to the Alliance Defending Freedom reply brief, “the government contends that [the Hahns] harm the ‘freedom’ of third parties simply by not buying them abortifacients…. But that turns ordinary notions of liberty upside down. Citizens are already free to buy birth control for themselves and the government often subsidizes those purchases. Yet in the government’s view that is not enough. For the government, coercion is the new ‘freedom.’”

“Americans must be free to exercise their constitutionally protected liberties without punishment,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “That at least includes freedom from government attempts to force them to pay for other people’s abortion pills.”

In January, numerous third parties filed briefs in both Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius and The Becket Fund’s Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius case, which also challenges the mandate. The briefs filed in support of Conestoga Wood Specialties and Hobby Lobby outnumbered the briefs filed in favor of the Obama administration by nearly three to one.

The Hahns asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled 2-1 against them. The decision conflicts with most other circuits and with the vast majority of rulings on the mandate so far. According to a dissent that Circuit Judge Kent Jordan wrote in that case, the mandate could cost the Hahns $95,000 per day if they don’t agree to live contrary to their Christian convictions.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are lead counsel in the case together with co-counsel Randall Wenger of the Independence Law Center and Charles Proctor III of the Pennsylvania firm Proctor, Lindsay & Dixon. They are two of nearly 2,300 attorneys allied with Alliance Defending Freedom.

Written by Laurie Higgins and David E. Smith

The Senate Executive Committee decided to override Illinois history this afternoon by approving SB 10 which redefines marriage to include two individuals of the same sex. The bill passed out of committee by a 9-5 vote along party lines. 

The bill now moves to the full Illinois Senate for its consideration, with a possible vote coming on Valentine’s Day (February 14th).  If it were to pass the Illinois Senate, it would move to the Illinois House for a committee hearing.  This makes the February 20th Defend Marriage Lobby Day more important than ever.  This planned lobby day couldn’t come at a better time. We have a very good chance of stopping this bill in the Illinois House IF we show up and speak out!  (Read more HERE.) 

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet sent an email or a fax to your state lawmakers, please do it now!  Click HERE to let them know what you think.

In response to the Illinois Senate’s action, IFI Executive Director David Smith pointed out: 

The state does not have the moral authority to redefine what all societies have understood marriage to be: a comprehensive union of one man and one woman. The government merely recognizes and regulates marriage, and it does so because it has a compelling interest in the health, welfare, and inherent rights of children—the next generation. 

ADF Legal Counsel Joe La Rue (pictured above), who testified in the committee hearing, had this to say about today’s committee recommendation: 

The bill to redefine marriage provides inadequate safeguards for religious liberty. It leaves churches and religious organizations at the whim and mercy of the courts who will have to interpret the marriage redefinition law and how it interacts with Illinois’ public accommodation and employment non-discrimination laws.

Simply put, this bill does not protect churches and religious organizations from having to rent their facilities to same-sex couples for wedding ceremonies, even when doing so violates the church’s religious beliefs. Nor does the bill protect churches and religious organizations from being forced to hire employees from same-sex marriages. The bill also provides no protection for individuals, like wedding photographers, who object to same-sex marriages but may be asked because of their business to participate in same-sex ceremonies.

This law does not protect religious freedom as it claims. Rather, it promotes religious intolerance, bigotry and discrimination.

(Read the entire ADF legal memo on SB 10 HERE.) 

Marriage has an inherent nature that the government merely recognizes and regulates. The government does not create marriage. The sole reason that justifies government involvement in marriage is that conjugal unions are the type of unions that produce children. Some argue that homosexual couples are raising children, so they too should be permitted to marry. But it is not merely the presence of children that creates marriage. If it did, then two aunts who were raising children together should be permitted to marry.  

In his annual Mother’s Day and Father’s Day proclamations, President Barack Obama has affirmed the essential roles that both mothers and fathers have in the lives of their children. This political agenda necessarily denies that these roles are essential. 

Neither SB 10 nor its sponsors have addressed the question of whether children have any inherent rights to know and be raised by their biological parents. 

The revisionist view of marriage, which is reflected in this radical proposal, argues that the sole necessary feature of marriage is the presence of feelings of romantic love and that marriage has no inherent connection to sexual complementarity or reproductive potential. If that view is true, then there is no rational justification for prohibiting plural or incestuous same-sex unions. 

As Illinois Family Institute’s cultural analyst Laurie Higgins explains, “The state has no vested interest in recognizing the love two people have for each other. The state has no more interest in recognizing the love two men or two women in sexual relationships have for each other than it does in recognizing the love two platonic friends have for each other.” 

Further, the legalization of same-sex “marriage” will undermine religious liberty as even homosexual legal scholars have affirmed. We have already witnessed the loss of religious liberty that is the logical outcome of government recognition of same-sex unions. Immediately following the passage of the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, Catholic Charities and the Evangelical Child and Family Agency lost their right to have their child placement policies reflect their religious beliefs, and a Christian business owner was sued for refusing to rent his bed and breakfast to a homosexual couple for their civil union ceremony. 

When the traditional views of marriage are deemed discriminatory, the religious liberty of those who hold them will be diminished. 

ADF letter supports board’s decision to listen to concerns of community