The euphemistically titled “Youth Health and Safety Act” (HB 370) has passed both the Illinois House and Senate. Leftists who believe it takes a village to strip parents of their natural rights and strip preborn humans of their right to live are close to fulfilling their promise to make Illinois America’s bloodiest killing field.  HB 370 will repeal the Parental Notice of Abortion Act passed in 1995, which requires parents of pregnant minor girls to be notified at least 48 hours before girls can have their babies killed.

In yet another repugnant floor debate in Springfield, State Representative Anna Moeller (D-Elgin) asserted without proving that there is a “fundamental principle that everyone has the right to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions without interference.”

Translated, she means there exists an unfettered right for pregnant underage girls to have their babies slaughtered without their parents being notified. Let’s remember, girls as young as eight can become pregnant.

As you read through some of the statements made by Moeller, State Rep. Daniel Didech (D-Buffalo Grove), and State Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), take note of what they say about the human in the womb that they are so eager to have slaughtered (hint: they say nothing).

Moeller describes the Parental Notice of Abortion Act as the “dangerous Forced Notification Law that has been in place in Illinois since 1995 but has only been enforced since 2013.” She didn’t, however, mention why it has only been enforced since 2013. The reason is that child slaughter advocates threw legal roadblock after roadblock in its way.

Moeller and Cassidy faux-fretted about children in abusive homes. But their faux-fretting required rationalizing why the “judicial bypass of notification,” which was designed to protect such children, is inadequate. This is the rationalization Didech concocted:

Right now, we force those girls to navigate a complex judicial bureaucracy, maybe hire a lawyer and convince a judge that she is telling the truth that forcing her to involve her parents will put her in danger. I think we should handle it differently. I think when a girl tells us that she’s in danger, we should just believe her.

Didech is alluding to the “judicial bypass of notification” for girls who may come from abusive homes. But, rather than forcing girls to “navigate a complex judicial bureaucracy” and “maybe” forcing her to hire a lawyer, the ACLU makes it easy-peasy and free for girls to obtain a judicial bypass/waiver via its Illinois Judicial Bypass Coordination Project.

I can’t help but wonder how many teens Didech has been around when he says, “when a girl tells us that she’s in danger, we should just believe her.” First, that’s why we have a judicial bypass. Second, someone should tell Didech that many teens lie—a lot.

Here’s something else little discussed by human slaughter cheerleaders. The Parental Notice of Abortion Act allows both the judicial bypass and an exception to the bypass:

Notice shall not be required under this Act if the minor declares in writing that she is a victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse by an adult family member as defined in this Act. The attending physician must certify in the patient’s medical record that he or she has received the written declaration of abuse or neglect.

Didech also prophesied:

Before the PNA, over 85% of girls involved their parents, right now over 85% of girls are involving their parents, and after we repeal the PNA over 85% of girls will still involve their parents.  

How does Didech know with such certainty that after the repeal of the PNA “over 85% of girls will still involve their parents?”

Here’s the doozy of a statement about the process of obtaining a judicial bypass that Moeller made:

Since then, over 500 young women have been forced to endure a traumatizing judicial bypass process in order to access reproductive healthcare in Illinois. And we know that that that process creates an unfair and dangerous burden on these young women.

What exactly does Moeller mean by “traumatized,” and what is her evidence that over 500 young women were “traumatized” by the process?

What is “unfair” about providing girls from abusive homes the option of obtaining a judicial bypass? Is it “unfair” because girls from non-abusive homes are able to tell their parents? If that’s what Moeller means, then is it “unfair” or unfortunate that some children have dysfunctional families? Maybe Moeller doesn’t know the meaning of “fair.”

The judicial bypass is a just and compassionate means to protect minor girls from potential abuse in the home and from being abused by men outside the home. As State Rep. Chris Bos (R-Lake Zurich), who opposes the repeal of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act said,

If this passes, you will be allowing those who victimize and abuse children, not just here in Illinois, but from all over the US to walk their victims into a clinic, force them to have an abortion, hide the evidence of their crime and continue the cycle of violence. Do not further empower those pimps, those traffickers, those who rape sexually abused and exploit these children for their own personal and selfish gains.

Moeller made this patently false claim:

We support the most vulnerable in our state.

Is a 16-year-old girl for whom the ACLU will provide free judicial bypass services more vulnerable than the human in the womb whom the teen wants killed? Or is Moeller implying that the product of conception between two humans is not a human?

Cheerleader Cassidy reminded everyone of the unseemly late-night debate on Memorial Day weekend two years ago, when she was instrumental in passing Illinois’ Baby Snuff Bill that legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any or no reason:

I stood here in May of 2019 and had a lengthy debate, not unlike this, in which we described building a firewall around Illinois to protect reproductive healthcare and to protect access to this care. But that firewall has a gaping hole in it and it’s a gaping hole that puts our most vulnerable people, the folks that we are most charged with protecting, it puts them in danger. We have to plug that hole today by repealing PNA.

Cassidy’s word choices are curious. A firewall is a means to stop the spread of something bad. In Cassidy’s warped world, wholly unrestricted access to abortion for all minor girls is the good that her firewall protects. Anything that may influence or prevent a minor girl from killing her own child is the bad thing against which Cassidy wants to construct an impenetrable firewall. Nothing that may lead a child to choose life for her baby must be permitted in Cassidy’s dystopia.

A loophole is a means to avoid an obligation. Cassidy views parental notification as a “loophole”—a way for parents to evade their obligation to allow their daughter absolute autonomy to decide whether her child lives or dies.

For a moment, Cassidy inadvertently argued the conservative position:

Heard lots of folks over there talking about all of the things that you can’t do without contacting a parent, piercings and whatnot that, frankly, trivialize what we’re talking about here.

Cassidy didn’t seem to notice that when she claimed that comparing ear-piercing to abortion “trivializes” abortion, she was making the conservative argument. If an abortion—i.e., the intentional killing of a living human—is far more significant than getting ears pierced, and minors need a parent’s permission for an ear-piercing, then shouldn’t they be required to notify their parents before hiring a “doctor” to kill their offspring?

Kelly continues with her irrational argument–one made by Moeller as well:

[N]obody over there [on the right side of the aisle] wants to talk about the things you can do without contacting a parent. You can get pregnant, you can stay pregnant, you can give birth, you can have a C-section, you can give a child up for adoption, all without ever having anybody call your parent. Yep, minors are able to do all those things without parental notification, so let’s spend a moment thinking about those other things.

Yes, let’s do.

Getting pregnant: True, teens are able to “get pregnant” without parental notification, but if they’re 16 or younger, having sex is illegal in Illinois. Why is it illegal? Because adults have determined that minors are not mature enough to give consent for sex. If they’re not mature enough to give consent for sex, are they mature enough to decide whether they have the right to have another more vulnerable human—their own child—killed?

Staying pregnant: Absolutely. A minor girl can choose to “stay pregnant.” In other words, no one can legally force a human to have another human killed. That’s wildly different from allowing a minor daughter to undergo a surgical procedure that kills her child without her parents’ knowledge and counsel.

Giving birth or having a C-Section: These references are so idiotic they don’t deserve a response, but here goes. First, while continuing a pregnancy is volitional, giving birth is a non-volitional process. There are no points of correspondence between choosing to end the life of another human (aka abortion) and giving birth. Same goes with regard to C-sections. Obstetricians decide whether a C-section is necessary mode of delivery.

Finally, adoptions: A minor girl can and should be able to make the decision as to whether she will keep and raise her baby or relinquish her baby to the care of others, because this decision does not involve killing her child.  The state does not have the right to decide whether a mother must raise her child. The state does, however, have the right to decide when killing other humans is justified. And it most certainly does have the right to decide which medical interventions children may access without parental consent.

Ironic fact: In Illinois drug use during pregnancy is considered child abuse under the law. So, Illinois lawmakers believe drug use during pregnancy constitutes abuse of a child, but killing that child is a moral good.

Cassidy accuses those who believe good parents of  minor girls should be notified before their daughters undergo an abortion of being liars:

[T]o say that this is not about abortion, that this is some high-minded protection idea for y’all, is a flat out lie. It is a complete lie. It is a fiction.

Well, I’ll borrow Cassidy’s rhetoric. To say that the repeal of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act is about “healthcare,” that this is some high-minded protection of children’s “health” and “safety” is a flat out lie. It is a complete lie. It is a fiction. This repeal is about the legal “right” of some humans to order the killings of weaker, less developed, more vulnerable, or differently abled others.

Watch this video of a woman who was raped at 11, trafficked at 15, and forced to have abortions by her traffickers. See what she has to say about the Parental Notice of Abortion Act:

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Fatuous-Floor-Debate-on-Parental-Notice-of-Abortion-Act.mp3

During the spring General Assembly’s legislative session, Democrat state lawmakers introduced the Repeal the Parental Notice of Abortion Act (HB 1797 and SB 2190). Parents for the Protection of Girls hosted a press conference in opposition to the bill which featured powerful testimony from Laura Lederer, an attorney who’s studied human trafficking for more than 20 years, and Dr. Brook Bello, a pastoral clinical counselor and human trafficking survivor.

The bill would repeal current state law requiring young women under the age of 18 seeking an abortion to notify a parent, legal guardian, or grandparent at least 48 hours prior to the procedure taking place. It was introduced into the Illinois State Senate by Elgie Sims (D-Chicago), and into the Illinois House by Anna Moeller (D-Elgin) with elected House Speaker Emanuel Chris Welch serving as one of the bill’s main co-sponsors.

In Illinois, the The Catholic News Agency reported about 1,000 minors undergo an abortion annually. 

Study makes connections

Laura J. Lederer is the co-author of “The Health Consequences of Sex Trafficking and Their Implications for Identifying Victims in Healthcare Facilities.” The study proves a direct connection between human trafficking, health care providers, and abortion. During the press conference, she laid out key findings from the study that show “because of physical and emotionally abusive situations trafficking victims often seek healthcare providers for abortions, treatments of injuries, or birth control, among other health issues. These encounters with healthcare providers offer a life-saving opportunity for trafficking victims since they are alone with a trained authority who can contact family members or law enforcement on their behalf.”

She shared that 88 percent of the survivors had contact with some kind of healthcare provider while they were being trafficked. Sixty-three percent reported being taken to a hospital emergency room and 57 percent went to a neighborhood or women’s clinic.

According to the study, 71 percent of survivors became pregnant at least once while being trafficked. Twenty-one percent said they became pregnant five times or more, and 55 percent reported having at least one abortion. Thirty percent of trafficking survivors who become pregnant reported undergoing multiple abortions.

Of the women who had abortions, 68 percent were performed at a clinic, 16 percent at hospital, and 14 percent were performed by “other.” Over half of the survivors who had abortions reported they were forced to do so by their trafficker. According to Lederer, some were “beaten around their stomachs or womb” when their traffickers knew they were pregnant.

The bill has the support of the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and Planned Parenthood who claim the judicial bypass process is too tedious and harmful to minorities who may view the process as oppressive. Opponents of the bill have expressed concern that a repeal would offer protection to child molesters, rapists, and human traffickers in Illinois and surrounding states.

Lederer noted that abortion is a polarizing issue, but parental notice should be one both sides of the issue could stand behind. She shared, “Abortion and sex trafficking transcends the usual political boundaries of the abortion debate since it violates both the pro-life belief that abortion takes an innocent life and also the pro-choice ideal of a woman’s freedom to make her own reproductive choices.”

Summing up her report, Lederer expressed sentiments that would seem to outweigh concerns opponents of the Parental Notice Act have expressed, “Illinois’ current law on parental notification of abortion offers a key opportunity to recognize a trafficking victim and to free her from a lifetime of slavery.”

Survivor speaks

Dr. Brook Bello, who was raped at the age of 11, trafficked at 15, and forced to undergo multiple abortions by her trafficker, confirmed Lederer’s statements about parental notification. During the press conference, she shared, “Had my parents been notified, my mother would have been notified what city I was near.” She further implied law enforcement could have been notified and she may have been rescued sooner.

After Bello was rescued, she was plagued by women’s health problems, including fertility issues. She shared how her doctor lamented that she had been slow to speak with him about her past due to the trauma of being trafficked. He told her had he known earlier, “we could have effectively dealt with all of the scar tissue, with all of the issues, and you could have been able to have had children.”

Bello is the founder of More Too Life, an anti-trafficking organization dedicated to mentoring survivors and providing training to recognize and combat human trafficking. Additionally, she’s an author, actress, pastoral counselor, wife, and the recipient of Lifetime Achievement Award from former President Barrack Obama. Having accomplished so much, she shared, “All I ever wanted was to be loved, to be married, to have three children. They’re [her children] in heaven.”

After recounting her traumatic past, she asked, “Why wouldn’t someone, unless it’s an emancipated youth, give that opportunity for that person’s parents to be notified?”

Speaking passionately Bello said, “I ask the public; I ask the Illinois legislators: ‘Why would you want a child to keep something secret that is going to affect her for the rest of her life?’”

She implored, “I beg of you, Illinois. I plead, Illinois, to not reverse, to please notify parents… Give them a safe place to fall and notify parents.”

The current Parental Notice law was passed in 1995 but wasn’t implemented until 2013 after a lengthy series of court battles. In addition to Illinois, 37 other states have some form of a parental notification law.

According to a survey of 600 Illinois registered voters taken March 7-10 by The Tarrance Group, 72 percent of Illinoisans agree or strongly agree that if a minor were seeking an abortion “the law should require her parent or guardian to be notified before the procedure.” Current law does not require minors to obtain an adult’s permission to undergo an abortion procedure, only notification.

When those surveyed were asked, “If a minor is seeking an abortion, do you believe a parent or guardian should be notified?” Just 22 percent replied “no” or “strongly no.”

Take Action: Click HERE to contact your state lawmakers. Let them know that gutting or repealing the Parental Notice of Abortion Act will subvert families and create an environment to protect their minor daughters’ abusers. Ask them to oppose any and all efforts to repeal or amend the law and, instead, uphold parental rights.

Ask your pastor to share this bulletin insert with your congregation.  The body of Christ and people of faith must be notified of this effort and encouraged to speak out now.

Bulletin Insert

Read more:

Man Raped 12-Year-Old 500 Times Resulting in 7 Abortions, Abortion Clinics Never Reported the Crime

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

Written by Penny Pullen

It’s hard to believe that our lawmakers in Springfield would be in favor of cutting parents out of the life of their daughters at a time when they most need their parent’s counsel. But that is just what a group of legislators – one of whom is the Speaker of the Illinois House – are proposing in HB 1797 and SB 2190 in the Illinois Senate.

The bill would repeal the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995, a law which took a bipartisan group of legislators years to enact because of powerful resistance from the abortion lobby. Finally, in 2013, the law was enforced and since then has saved thousands of unborn children from the horrors of abortion.

The abortion lobby’s chief goal for 2021 is to dispose of Illinois’ essential Parental Notice law, having already achieved elimination of such sensible laws as the ban on partial-birth abortion, which protected late-term developing babies from a gruesome and painful surgical abortion.

This proposal is so radical, even many voters who call themselves “pro-choice” are disturbed by the idea of cutting parents out of one of the most challenging times a minor girl might be facing.

Constituents must insist their state lawmakers oppose HB 1797 and SB 2190, or any other slick attempt to repeal Illinois’ Parental Notice of Abortion Act.

Please, for our the sake of our daughters and for the next generation, contact them today. And pass this message along to friends, to encourage them to weigh in as well.

Bulletin Insert: Ask your pastor to share this bulletin insert with your congregation.  The body of Christ and people of faith must be notified of this effort and encouraged to speak out now.

Bulletin Insert

Take Action: Click HERE to contact your state lawmakers. Let them know that gutting or repealing the Parental Notice of Abortion Act is unacceptable. Ask them to oppose any and all efforts to repeal or amend the law and, instead, uphold parental rights.

More Action: Look up your state representative at Officials Finder. Or, if you know his/her name, you can ask to be connected to his/her office through the State Capitol switchboard at (217) 782-2000.

Instructions to File a Witness Slip to Oppose HB 1797. Click HERE.

Section I. Enter your name, address, city and zip code. You can leave Firm/Business and Title blank. If it won’t allow you to leave them black, enter self.

Section II. Leave it blank if you are not representing a group, etc., or enter self.

Section III. Check that you are an Opponent.

Section IV. Unless you are filing a written statement, select Record of Appearance Only.

Agree to the terms of agreement by checking the box.

Click Create (Slip).

We would also ask you to please share this short video clip on social media:

Penny Pullen is president of Life Advocacy Resource Project and a nationally recognized advocate for Life. She served 16 years in the Illinois House, where she was chief spokesman for the right to life, for home-based education and generally, for pro-family policies. 

For 14 years, Penny served on the board of the American Legislative Exchange Council and served throughout its duration on the board of Project Reality, the abstinence-centered education pioneer. She has also served as president of Eagle Forum of Illinois and of two local Republican women’s clubs, one of which she founded. Immediately after leaving public office, she launched the Illinois Family Institute, serving 18 months as our first executive director.

On August 15, I wasted a half hour of my day by agreeing to be interviewed by Chicago Tribune reporter Hannah Leone for an article she was writing on the “LGBTQ” school indoctrination bill that Governor J.B. Pritzker recently signed into law and which takes effect July 1, 2020. Before I talk about her article, I should explain more about the interview.

Leone asked what my primary concern is with the law, which is a difficult question because there are so many problems with it. I responded that my primary concern is that our culture-makers—including the Tribune, lawmakers, and “educators”—never discuss the arguable presuppositions on which this law depends, and which “progressives” simply assume are inarguably true.

Those presuppositions are that homosexuality and cross-sex identification are ontologically analogous to race and, therefore, the actions that emerge from homosexual feelings and the desire to be the opposite sex are morally benign or good. I told her that if “progressives” are asked to identify the specific points of correspondence between homosexuality or cross-sex identification per se and race per se, they come up empty.

I further said that “IFI supports the teaching of historically significant cultural contributions. We object, however, to teachers identifying the sexual predilections of historically significant cultural contributors and to basing the selection of cultural contributions on the sexual predilections of cultural contributors.”

She then asked me,

What about movements/milestones like the stonewall riots, HIV/AIDS epidemic, don’t ask/don’t tell, and legalization of same-sex marriage?

I responded,

Because of the complex and controversial nature of these cultural events, they should not be presented in elementary school at all. In middle and high school, they should be presented only if teachers are willing to spend equal time exploring fairly, neutrally, and comprehensively both sides of debates regarding whether these movements have served the culture in positive ways or corrupted culture. Such presentations must include discussions of foundational presuppositions. If teachers are unwilling to present the best resources on both sides of the debate or unwilling or unable to discuss neutrally foundational presuppositions, then they have a pedagogical obligation not to introduce the topics. If they present only affirming views of these movements, they transform education into indoctrination. If they believe reading criticism of these movements will make some students too uncomfortable, they should avoid the topics. If they believe students are too young to understand the foundational presuppositions, then the topics are age-inappropriate. I would argue that most public school teachers are intellectually ill-equipped to address the foundational presuppositions, which are critical to the entire project mandated by this law.”

I also addressed the reason we don’t see leftists fighting for the roles and contributions of polyamorists and zoophiles to be taught to children and teens, which is that lawmakers and “educators” understand that teaching about their roles and contributions would contribute to normalizing polyamory and zoophilia, which they don’t want to do because they’ve concluded polyamory and zoophilia are immoral. And there you have it: Lawmakers and “educators” are imposing their moral beliefs about homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation on Illinois children.

Leone initially told me her article would be published sometime the following week. When it wasn’t, I asked her when it would be coming out. On Monday night, Sept.2, she told me it would be out Tuesday and told me this:

We had a limited amount of space to work with and your interview did not get included, but your perspective still helped inform the article, so thanks for your time anyway.

Then Monday, I read her front-page, lengthy, 2,136-word article. For perspective, the average newspaper article is between 600-1,500 words.

Here are just some of the nuggets of Fool’s Gold in Leone’s biased advocacy masquerading as a news story:

1. The Inclusive Curriculum Law, signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Aug. 9, mandates that by the time students finish eighth grade, public schools must teach them about contributions to state and U.S. history made by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Note that the law mandates that indoctrination must begin before eighth grade. And it must include contributions to state history made by homosexuals and opposite-sex impersonators, which tells you that the contributions chosen will not be based on historical or cultural significance but on the sexual predilections of contributors.

2. “This law will give more young people the opportunity to see themselves in those who came before us and recognize they are not alone,” [Chicago mayor] Lightfoot said in a statement to the Tribune.

What about the young people who experience other types of powerful, unchosen, seemingly intractable subjective, internal desires that they choose to act upon? What if they or their many parents identify as polyamorous? What if they identify as kinksters or zoophiles? Should people from those marginalized communities have an opportunity to see themselves in those who came before them and recognize they are not alone?

When I pose this question to “progressives,” they get all judgy-judgy, huffing indignantly that it’s offensive to compare homosexuality or opposite-sex impersonation to zoophilia or any other sexual identity they view as disordered or immoral. Their indignation reveals that the Leftists who run the Springfield swamp and public schools have, indeed, arrived at ontological and moral conclusions about homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation and treat them as indisputable facts. And now they’re imposing their subjective beliefs on all Illinois families who have the misfortune of not having a choice on where their children are educated.

President of the Illinois Association of Regional Superintendents of Schools, Mark Klaisner (who carries around a bit of baggage), who is “Helping compile resources for schools to draw from,” whines about the possibility that the “vagueness” of the law will result in schools not indoctrinating enough:

3. Being that vague could mean a simple unit or a few lessons at one grade level in the school, which I think is insufficient.

Can’t have positive portrayals of what many view as sexual perversion be foisted on other people’s children for a mere unit. That’s not nearly enough time for propaganda to take effect.

Imagine an “educator” saying, “a simple unit or a few lessons about polyamory or Genetic Sexual Attraction at one grade level is insufficient.”

Even more troubling is feckless Klaisner’s view on the appropriate age at which to introduce children to ideas about homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation:

4. For younger students, it may make sense to introduce names and fewer details, and wait until around third grade to mention someone identified as gay or transgender. (emphasis added)

Third grade—an age at which children are wholly incapable of understanding the conservative and “progressive” foundational assumptions about homosexuality and opposite-sex identification—is the age by which Klaisner wants these topics introduced.

Michelle Vallet, mother of a daughter who “identifies” as (which in plain language means pretends to be) a boy, disagrees with Klaisner:

5. Vallet said she doesn’t think it’s ever too early to bring up [these topics]…. Normalizing these identities early is key.

There you have it in plain, unguarded English. The goal of Leftists is to use curricula, taxpayer money, and captive audiences to normalize abnormal, disordered sexuality.

Leone writes that one of the law’s sponsors, State Representative Anna Moeller (D-Elgin), is not yet satisfied:

6. [T]hough passing the law reflects an advancement in civil rights, more still needs to be done, Moeller said.

Then Moeller trots out the tired and absurd comparison of homosexuality and opposite-sex identification to race:

In the way schools have become required to teach about African Americans, Latinos, women and other marginalized communities, now they’ll be required to include… some discussion of LGBT.

Moeller doesn’t explain in what specific ways homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation per se are like race or biological sex per se. Nor does she say whether she ultimately wants schools to be required to discuss all “marginalized communities” or just the ones whose volitional acts she deems morally acceptable.

Like Moeller, Garcia High School biology teacher Bryan Meeker has disturbing hopes for students:

7. Meeker said he’d also love to see students in English classes reading works by Harvey Milk, a San Francisco politician and one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States before his assassination in 1978.

Yikes! A high school teacher wants the works of an ephebophile (i.e., an adult who is sexually attracted to teens) to be taught in government schools in order to change the perception of teens toward homosexuality? Harvey Milk was a “short-tempered demagogue” and ephebophile who exploited multiple suffering teen boys for his own sexual gratification. And he was not a martyr for the cause of “equality.” He was murdered for “petty” political reasons by a supporter of “gay rights.” Milk was also a friend and promoter of cult leader Jim Jones. Are schools now going to teach positively about the “roles and contributions” of ephebophiles and murderous cult leaders?

Perhaps high school teachers should teach Cult City: Jim Jones, Harvey Milk, and 10 Days That Shook San Francisco. And English teachers who teach The Laramie Project should include as a companion piece The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard written by homosexual journalist Stephen Jimenez.

The only “opponent” of the law Leone cited in her article was retiring State Representative Margo McDermed (R-Mokena) who voted against the “LGBTQ” school indoctrination bill but only for fiscal reasons:

8. “It’s not … that it’s not a good cause…. I vote against mandates no matter how worthy the topic may be, and of course this is a worthy topic.”

With Republican friends like this, conservatives definitely don’t need enemies.

Leone reveals her bias when she refers to “milestones such as marriage equality.” “Marriage equality” is a Leftist term. Conservatives would refer to “marriage redefinition.” Defining marriage in law as the union of two people of opposite sexes is no more evidence of inequality than is defining marriage in law as the union of only two persons or of only persons not closely related by blood, definitions which exclude plural and incestuous marriage.

Experience both in my current job and my former job in the writing center at Deerfield High School has taught me that many—perhaps most—”progressives” violate with regularity their purported commitments to tolerance, respect for diversity, inclusivity, and critical thinking. They substitute epithet-hurling for argumentation and evidence, and they censor dissenting views. As everyone knows, this is most common when it comes to issues involving homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation. What is remarkable and troubling is that the hatred of progressives is virulent and directed at those who hold theologically orthodox views, including those who are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Orthodox Jews.

My views on these issues are historical, mainstream theologically orthodox views. They are not fringe positions. I’m just willing to express them publicly. And why do so few Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestants express their views as boldly and publicly as I do (and as progressives express theirs)? They recoil from being falsely called “haters” or losing their jobs. Toxic progressivism has led to religious discrimination of a kind never seen in America, and it’s getting worse.

It’s also remarkable and troubling that the Chicago Tribune seems so incurious about these topics. There are brilliant men and women writing about these issues eloquently, intelligently, and piquantly. I suspect most Trib writers and editors (and public school teachers and Springfield swampsters) haven’t heard of them, haven’t read their material, and don’t have any interest in interviewing them for articles, book talks, or festivals.

Perhaps the Trib’s incuriosity is bolstered by the bias evidenced by news reporters like Hannah Leone who must have thought I just tumbled off the proverbial turnip truck. She seemed to think I would believe that in a front-page, 2,100-word article, she had insufficient space to include anything from our interview or any comment from any other conservative opponent.

I’m not sure how my “perspective helped inform the article” as Leone claimed it did unless she’s referring to this one sentence about opposing positions: “But some detractors see the state forcing local districts to promote an agenda conflicts with their personal or religious beliefs.” If so, wow.

Word to presumptuous lawmakers and propagandists who identify as educators and journalists: It is not the role of government-employed teachers to make students feel good about their subjective sexual feelings—not even those sexualities that Leftists have deemed the darling identities ‘o’ the day.

Word to conservative parents: GET OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS!

Word to churches: Help parents get their children out.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Toxic-Schools.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Last week ten lawmakers from the Jewish Caucus in Springfield sponsored a resolution condemning Illinois Family Action (IFA) and Illinois Family Institute (IFI) for engaging in what they call “hate speech,” because IFA compared the abortion holocaust to the Jewish Holocaust. Titled “Illinois Family Action-Hate Speech” (HJR 55), the resolution uses subjective hyperbole, disreputable sources and unreasonable inferences that make the alleged offense seem overtly sinister.

If you want an exhaustive, well-argued refutation of the resolution, read “Left-Wing Partisans File Stunning Resolution Against Illinois Family.” HJR 55 is stunning for all the reasons that author Laurie Higgins identifies but also because of its glaring omission: any mention of abortion, the topic of the article that started it all.

There are always hazards when invoking the Holocaust, not least of which is overstating the parallel to a current situation. But that’s not the case here. It is indisputable that the Nazis dehumanized an entire class of human beings defined solely by their ethnoreligious heritage, then rounded them up and shipped them off to be exterminated with lethal efficiency in death camps across Europe.

It’s also indisputable that abortion providers—most notably Planned Parenthood—are also in the extermination business. They and their enablers—most notably regressive Democrats, who increasingly champion infanticide—have dehumanized an entire class of human beings defined solely by their stage of development in situ.

One significant difference between the Jewish Holocaust and our modern holocaust is that abortion clinics don’t have to round up babies and send them to a centralized abortion mill. Instead, Planned Parenthood has conveniently dotted the country with more than 600 of their own little death camps for easy access. It’s the children’s own mothers who—whether they gleefully “shout their abortion” or enter a clinic in desperation—play the role of Hitler’s Schutzstaffel.

The parallels between the two holocausts, made so often as to be in danger of becoming cliché, are strong and obvious—except to the willfully blind.

So why the extraordinary step of a resolution in the Illinois House condemning the comparison? Just this: by making the comparison, Illinois Family conferred personhood on the pro-choicers’ blob of tissue. IFI re-humanized them. The resolution’s assertion that IFI is “recklessly comparing those who disagree with their extreme agenda to Nazis” can only be true if babies aren’t human.

The resolution is a naked halogen bulb blinding observers to their real objective, which is to intimidate and shame IFI into submission. Accusations of unspecified threats, anti-Semitism, “hate speech,” “bigotry,” “homophobia” and “extreme rhetoric” are followed by a call for “a formal investigation” into such speech and asking the Secretary of State to suspend IFI’s lobbying credentials.

One of the resolution’s co-sponsors, State Representative Jonathan Carroll (D-Northbrook), took to Twitter to express his outrage. “This is hate speech and I demand a retraction. Comparing Democrats to Nazis to to [sic] promote your agenda is disgraceful.” He was later quoted as saying, “We call on the Illinois State Police to do a full investigation of these incidents.”

To summarize: the all-Democrat Jewish Caucus of the Illinois House of Representatives has circled the wagons and called for reinforcements because they don’t like a commonly-used analogy comparing the killing of 61,000,000 babies (and counting) to the killing of 6,000,000 Jews—and allegedly fear that they will now be the victims of violence. To address the threat, they are summoning the power of the state to crush IFI.

How very Hitler-esque.

Meanwhile, the State of Illinois is circling the drain. We are the least fiscally solvent state, but pay the highest state and local taxes in the country; we are the third most corrupt state in the nation and boast the worst-in-nation pension crisis; we’re unlikely to successfully weather a recession, we have one of the worst home foreclosure rates in the nation, and we lead the country in number of residents fleeing the state.

If regressives get their way, they’ll also bestow on Illinois the distinction of having the most radical abortion laws in the land. (We’re number one! We’re number one!)

Instead of wasting their time and taxpayer money weaponizing the state to kick around a tiny pro-family organization that enjoys First Amendment protections, how about getting busy fixing the national embarrassment that the land of Lincoln has become?

Instead of indoctrinating five freshman legislators on the finer points of virtue signaling (“Hate has no home here,” right, Rep. Sara Feigenholtz?), how about challenging Jonathan Carroll, Daniel Didech, Jennifer Gong-Gershowitz, Yehiel Kalish, Karina Villa, Anna Moeller and Bob Morgan to balance a budget by reining in spending? Instead of demonstrating knee jerk outrage, how about demanding an investigation into how the most corrupt big city in the nation let Jussie “O.J.” Smollett skate after slandering half the country’s citizens and lying about it?

Regressives and their junior commies in the Illinois House have more pressing issues to deal with than some petty disagreement about whether legal abortion is like the Jewish Holocaust or not. Judging by the March 20 turnout to protest the proposed abortion legislation that “overtaxed Capitol security,” there are a lot of people who agree that it is.

The Hebrew prophet Isaiah wrote, “Woe to those who call good evil and evil good, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20). Jewish legislators should understand better than anyone the evil of taking innocent life. Rescind the resolution and do what you were elected to do: rescue Illinois.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact your state senator and representative to ask them to reject this dangerous resolution. Ask them to vote down HJR 55 and the unprecedented and tyrannical action being taken by extreme partisans in the Illinois General Assembly.

Read more:

Left-Wing Partisans File Stunning Resolution Against Illinois Family (Laurie Higgins)

Truth and Love or Hate? (Rev. Calvin Lindstrom)

SPOTLIGHT: Illinois’ Abortion Holocaust (Podcast)

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

How did they vote?

This afternoon, the Illinois House of Representatives voted 60-42 to pass HB 246, which will mandate that all students in K-12 public schools be taught about the “roles and contributions” of homosexuals and opposite-sex impersonators and that textbooks purchased include discussions of the roles and contributions of homosexuals and opposite-sex impersonators.

Click HERE to see how your state representative voted on this legislation, or look at the graphic below. The chief sponsor of this legislation in the Illinois House is State Representative Anna Moeller (D-Chicago).

It is interesting to note that in the Illinois House, 44 Republicans and 14 Democrats did not vote for this LGBT indoctrination scheme. On the pro-family side, the only lawmaker to speak against the passage of this unfunded mandate to indoctrinate your children was Tom Morrison (R-Palatine).

This legislation now moves to the Illinois Senate where it is has a good chance of passing unless there is a  tsunami of opposition from Christians across Illinois. Governor J.B. Pritzker is also expected to sign this legislation into law. Thanks for nothing to the 60 feckless state representatives who demonstrated again why Illinois is such a sorry state.

Take ACTION: Send a message to your state senator and to Gov. Pritzker to let them know that a good many Illinois voters oppose this effort to politicize curricula in order to advance biased beliefs about sexuality to children in our tax-funded government schools.

**UPDATE: This legislative mandate passed the Illinois House by a vote of 60-42 on March 13, 2019 and then in the Illinois Senate by a vote of 37-17 on May 23, 2019. It was sent to Governor Pritzker’s desk on June 21st. He is expected to sign it into law. Read more about the 2019 Spring Session HERE.

The official Illinois House roll call of this vote:

IFI Worldview Conference

This Saturday, the Illinois Family Institute will be hosting our annual Worldview Conference. This year, we will focus on the “transgender” revolution. We will hear from Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians; Walt Heyer, former “transgender” and contributor to Public Discourse; Denise Schick, Founder and Director of Help 4 Families, and daughter of a man who “identified” as a woman; and Doug Wilson, who is a Senior Fellow of Theology at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, and pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho .

The Transgender Ideology:
What Is It? Where Will It Lead? What is the Church’s Role?
Click here for more information.

“Train up a child in the way he should go;
even when he is old he will not depart from it.”
(Proverbs 22:6)

“Progressives,” also known as cultural regressives, have long had their sights on the hearts, minds, and bodies of other people’s children. Now that they control Big Government schools, regressives can control the ideas to which children are exposed. And boy, oh, boy are regressive Illinois lawmakers going for broke—morally speaking. They’ve already achieved fiscal bankruptcy.

Regressives in the ethical swamp known as Springfield are stampeding forward to impose the “LGBT” indoctrination bill regardless of whether it makes Orthodox Jewish, Muslim, theologically orthodox Christian, or secular conservative kids feel “unsafe” or whether it deeply offends those children’s parents. To heck with inclusivity. It’s the leftist low way or the highway.

If passed, this bill (HB 246)—which was created by three homosexual activist organizations—will require all students in k-12 public schools to be taught about the “roles and contributions” of homosexuals and opposite-sex impersonators and that textbooks purchased include discussions of the roles and contributions of homosexuals and opposite-sex impersonators. A quick, thoughtless skim of the bill might lead someone to think it’s innocuous. Critical analysis and deeper reflection—not the strengths of Springfield swamp creatures—expose the noxiousness of the bill.

The notion that homosexuality is the ontological flipside of and morally equivalent to heterosexuality is an arguable, leftist assumption—not an inarguable, objective fact. Others believe homosexuality represents a disordering of the sex drive. Government schools—supported by the hard-earned money of all taxpayers—have no ethical or pedagogical obligation or right to base curricular decisions on arguable, controversial assumptions—not even assumptions leftists really, really, really believe are true.

In order to teach all children in grades k-12 about the roles and contributions of homosexuals and cross-dressers, lawmakers and school leaders must have first determined that there is nothing morally questionable about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation. To prove that’s the case, ask yourselves if Illinois lawmakers would pass a bill that requires schools to teach about the roles and contributions of polyamorists, polygamists, kin-lovers, or zoophiles.

We all know they wouldn’t. If there were a polyamorist, kin-lover, or zoophile who had contributed something monumentally significant—so significant that it must be discussed—educators would talk about the contribution, while remaining mum about the contributor’s sexual peccadillo. If the peccadillo were brought up, teachers  certainly wouldn’t describe it positively.

Why not? Surely, there are some kids who experience unchosen, powerful, and persistent sexual attraction for multiple people at the same time, or for a relative, or for animals. Why wouldn’t lawmakers require that the contributions of polyamorists, kin-lovers, and zoophiles be taught and that their sexual proclivities/identities be positively affirmed? Is the reason that they’re judgmental, puritanical, non-inclusive, intolerant, or hateful bigots?

Homosexual and “trans” activists reading this are likely to be at this very moment consumed by anger that derives from the kind of “judgmentalism,” “intolerance,” “hatred,” and “bigotry” of which they constantly accuse conservatives. Leftists become apoplectic when homosexuality and cross-sex identification are compared to the “sexual minorities” of polyamory, kin-loving, and zoophilia—”sexual minorities” that they view as morally offensive. Leftists are unwilling to grant to others the right to object to positive teaching about homosexuality and cross-sex identification on the same grounds that they—leftists—object to positive teaching about polyamory, polygamy, consensual incest, or zoophilia.

To be clear, I believe nonconsensual incest between adults and children and bestiality are more grievous moral errors than homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation, but I believe homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation are far more grievous moral errors than polyamory, which public schools would not present positively to students—at least not yet.

Schools have long taught about the contributions of important historical figures who experienced homoerotic attraction, people like Oscar Wilde, Lorraine Hansberry, James Baldwin, and Sally Ride, so why do Springfield swampsters want this bill? The reason is that their central concern is not that contributions be taught but that the sexual predilections of cultural contributors be explicitly taught. And what would be the reason for that?

Leftists will say this bill is needed in order to provide role models for students who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. Equality Illinois, one of the homosexual activist groups that created this odious bill, says that an “LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum can have a positive effect on students’ self-image and make their peers more accepting.”

First, is improving self-images and promoting acceptance of homosexuality and the “trans” ideology the task of government employees charged with educating other people’s children?

Second, why aren’t “progressives” pushing a bill that would require curricula to teach about the roles and contributions of polyamorists, polygamists, kin-lovers, and zoophiles? To be consistent , shouldn’t they want curricula to positively affect the self-images of students who so identify? Shouldn’t they want peers of those students to be more accepting?

Now we’re getting to the dark heart of the matter. Leftists aren’t concerned centrally or solely with acceptance of persons. They’re centrally concerned with fostering approval of particular sex-related behaviors—not all sex-related behaviors—just the ones they have concluded are moral.

They want to use cultural contributions as a means to transform the feelings and moral beliefs of students about homosexuality and cross-sex identification. Homosexual and “trans” activists know that if positive contributions are associated with homosexuality or cross-sex impersonation, the good feelings students have about contributions will transfer to homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation.

Since the goal of these propagandists is not to ensure that children learn about the most important contributions in literature, science, and math but, rather, that curricula be used to transform feelings and beliefs about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation, curricula will elevate lesser contributions of homosexuals and cross-dressers to the exclusion of more significant contributions by heterosexuals.

Leftists use public money and public schools to promote arguable assumptions as if they’re unassailable, objective truths, and they censor with shameless arrogance all assumptions they reject. They rationalize their censorship by declaring that if children were to study the ideas Leftists don’t like, some would feel “unsafe,” by which they mean uncomfortable. Oddly, they’re willing to expose other children to ideas that make them feel “unsafe.”

Christian parents need to think seriously about whether their children can be properly trained up in the way they should go by adults who believe homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality; who believe marriage has nothing to do with sexual differentiation; and who don’t believe that the differences between boys and girls are profound, meaningful, and must be respected.

Churches need to think seriously about how they can facilitate the exit of Christian children from government schools hell-bent on destroying their hearts, minds, and bodies.

Springfield swamp creatures want to infect all Illinois children with a diseased sexuality ideology via indoctrination centers identified as schools. Cunning, perhaps even demonic, wouldn’t you say, to get parents to pay for the blighted indoctrination of their own children?

“I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.” 3 John 1:4

Please, fight this bill, and while you’re doing that, plan an escape route for your children from government schools.

Take ACTION: Send a message to your state representative to ask him/her to reject this effort to politicize curricula in order to advance biased beliefs about sexuality to children in government schools.

**UPDATE: This legislative mandate passed the Illinois House by a vote of 60-42 on March 13, 2019 and then in the Illinois Senate by a vote of 37-17 on May 23, 2019. It was sent to Governor Pritzker’s desk on June 21st. He is expected to sign it into law. Read more about the 2019 Spring Session HERE.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/HB246.mp3

IFI Worldview Conference

On Saturday, March 16, 2019, the Illinois Family Institute will be hosting our annual Worldview Conference. This coming year, we will focus on the “transgender” revolution. We already have commitments from Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians; Walt Heyer, former “transgender” and contributor to Public Discourse; Denise Schick, Founder and Director of Help 4 Families, and daughter of a man who “identified” as a woman; and Doug Wilson, who is a Senior Fellow of Theology at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, and pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho .

The Transgender Ideology:
What Is It? Where Will It Lead? What is the Church’s Role?
Click here for more information.

Our “progressive” Springfield swampsters have found another way to waste the money of taxpayers and the time of bureaucrats in bankrupt, debt-ridden Illinois: A bill to create the “Illinois Women & Girls Council” has been sponsored in the Illinois House (HB 5544) by none other than Anna Moeller (D-Elgin), the sponsor of the school sexuality-indoctrination bill. The Women & Girls Council bill is flying through the Illinois House and Senate aided and abetted by even Republicans.

This council will “advise the Governor and the General Assembly” on everything the bill’s sponsors can think of pertaining to women and girls, including—”but not limited to”—the following (take a deep breath):

• cultivating “civic participation”

• ending the effectively non-existent “gender pay gap”

• ending “discrimination in professional and academic opportunities”

• “promoting resources and opportunities for academic and professional growth”

• ensuring “legal protections and recourse” in cases of sexual harassment

• preventing “domestic violence”

• providing “proper standards of healthcare” for women with a particular focus on “demographics”

• increasing “access to reproductive healthcare”

• increasing access to healthcare and employment for men who pretend to be women

• building relationships with and disseminating (misleading) information to “State agencies and commissions” in furtherance of these breathtakingly expansive goals

• paying extra attention to skin color in, well, everything

Whew.

If there’s a problem, “progressives” see an opportunity to pick your pocket.

Here are some reasons this bill should have been opposed:

1.) The council is unnecessary, will waste the money of taxpayers and the time of lawmakers, and will inevitably result in the expansion of an already gargantuan government.

2.) The inclusion of objectively male persons (i.e., biological males who identify as women) undermines the entire purpose of the council and contributes to the eradication of public recognition of sex differences. This council will seek to increase access to healthcare and employment for men who pretend to be women, which means more government money for chemical sterilization and surgical mutilation, and more discrimination against those who don’t want to hire men who cross-dress.

3.) The council will seek to “increase access to reproductive healthcare,” which means more money for and fewer restrictions on abortion.

4.) The council, which favors women over men, is antithetical to the spirit of the ERA which says that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

5.) One of the findings in the bill falsely claims that “Illinois women earn 80 cents on the dollar compared with similarly employed men.” Research shows that “Childless women have earnings that are quite similar to men’s salaries.” In other words, women who choose not to have children—which interrupts employment—earn the same as men whose employment is not interrupted (i.e., “similarly employed men.”)

6.) One of the findings used to justify this council is the female lung cancer mortality rates per 100,000 in the years 2011-2013. Interestingly, the CDC reports that in 2014 (the most recent statistics available), “155,526 people in the United States died from lung cancer, including 84,859 men and 70,667 women.” Another article says that “[l]ung cancer kills nearly two and a half times as many men as women.”

7.) The bill’s sponsors also cited the breast cancer mortality rate for women (20.9 per 100,000) as a rationale for this council. Compare that to prostate and testicular cancer mortality rates for men cited in a 2016 study by the National Institutes of Health: 21.4 per 100,000 for prostate cancer and .25 for testicular cancer. Combined, the prostate and testicular mortality rate for men is 21.65, exceeding the breast cancer mortality rate for women.

Additional facts not included:

• White males accounted for 7 out of 10 suicides in 2016.

• Incarceration rates per 100,000 are 126 for women and 1,352 for men.

• According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Men are more likely than women to use almost all types of illicit drugs, and illicit drug use is more likely to result in emergency department visits or overdose deaths for men than for women.”

• “[A]lmost twice as many men as women suffer a heart attack each year (110,000 men, compared to 65,000 women).”

• Men are 1.5 times more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease than women.

• “[B]oys have a one-in-52 chance of developing autism spectrum disorders (ASD), compared to a one-in-252 risk for girls.”

• “Men are far more likely to die from malignant melanoma—the most serious type of skin cancer—compared to women.”

• “In 2015… 72.5 percent of females who had recently graduated high school were enrolled in a two-year or four-year college, compared to 65.8 percent of men.”

• In the fall of 2017, women comprised “more than 56 percent of students on campuses nationwide, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

• “Almost 80 per cent of students majoring in the fields of healthcare, public administration, psychology and education, which comprise one-quarter of all degrees, are female.”

• According to the National Girls’ Collaborative Project:
  • Female students’ achievement in mathematics and science is on par with their male peers 
  • Women earned 57.3% of bachelor’s degrees in all fields in 2013 and 50.3% of science and engineering bachelor’s degrees.

Before Leftists go all half-cocked about this article’s title, let me be clear: The dumb stuff to which the title refers is not domestic violence, breast cancer, or lung cancer. The dumb stuff is the bloated bill itself, stuffed with facts (or pseudo-facts and references to pseudo-women). Apparently, just listing stuff about women is sufficient rationale for the creation of a council. It’s annoying that swampsters even took work-time to create dumb stuff like this bill.

This proposal has already passed the Illinois House on April 24th by a vote of 64 to 24. It now moves to the Illinois Senate.

And why did 4 Republicans vote for it and 25 of their colleagues abstain from taking a position against it? These 4 Republicans and many of their 25 colleagues refused to oppose this unnecessary bill because they feared that come re-election time, opposition would be used to accuse them falsely of being against women. Principle yields to politics—again.

If Illinois swampsters are determined to create an advisory council, maybe it should be a Men & Boys Council to combat the relentless war on biological males.

But, how about Springfield swampsters instead focus their gimlet eyes on digging the good people who pay their ample salaries out of the financial grave in which the swampsters have buried them.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact your state senator to express your opposition to this unnecessary and ill-conceived bill.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/More-Dumb-Stuff-From-Springfield-Swampsters.mp3

While conservatives squeak “uncle” about the “social issues” from the dark recesses of their homes and churches where they hide, the jackbooted Left marches boldly forward obsessed with making the “social issues” the central plank of everything. They’re especially obsessed with transforming the hearts and minds of other people’s children using taxpayer-funded government schools in which they have an audience of cultural captives.

The newest brazen effort to exploit public money in the service of propagandizing Illinois children is a creation of Equality Illinois and the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, two of Illinois’ dubious “LGBTQQAP” activist organizations, and their most reliable allies in Springfield, State Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago) and State Representative Anna Moeller (D-Elgin) who have sponsored SB 3249 and HB 5596 respectively.

If passed, this “Inclusive Curriculum” bill will require that any “book or book substitute that will be used as a text or text substitute” include the “role and contributions” of homosexuals and of men and women who adopt opposite-sex personas (also known deceptively as “transgender”). In other words, all materials used in schools must address the roles and contributions of people who define themselves by their disordered sexual desires.

In addition, this bill will require that “the teaching of history of the United States in public schools shall include a study of the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the history of this country and this State.”

But, wait, the activist sponsors aren’t done:

This instruction shall be designed to teach that LGBT individuals have a rich history and have made substantial and valuable contributions to society, including government, arts, sciences, mathematics, sports, education, and in the economic, cultural, and political development of society. The instruction shall teach about the rich advocacy among the LGBT community and the LGBT community’s allies to be treated equally. Instruction shall reinforce that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression [i.e., cross-dressing], have a right to be treated with civil, legal and human rights, and as full human beings above all else.

When possible, adults, including school district employees who openly identify as LGBT and other openly LGBT adults in the community that the school district may decide to consult with, should be involved in the development and delivery of this instruction at the discretion of the LGBT individuals.

This bill applies to kindergarten through 12^th grade. You read that right. Leftists seek to mandate that five-year-olds be exposed to positive portrayals of perverse sexuality, and they want this exposure to be reinforced every year for the next 13 formative years.

Don’t be deceived by the language of “civil rights,” “legal rights,” or “human rights.” Neither homosexuals nor “trans”-identifiers are being denied any civil, legal, or human rights. To be clear, men and boys have no civil, legal, or human right to use women’s or girls’ private spaces, and women and girls have no civil, legal, or human right to use men’s or boys’ private spaces.

Equally deceptive is the reference to “full human beings.” “LGBT” activists relentlessly assert that disapproval of homosexuality or opposite-sex impersonation constitutes treating those who identify as homosexual or “trans” as less than full human beings. This language and this bill are intended to use cultural accomplishments to transform children’s view of homosexuality and biological-sex rejection and to silence dissent.

This bill’s advocates seek to use cultural achievements to suggest without stating that homosexuality and biological sex-rejection are good because people who affirm homosexual or “trans” identities did great things. The strategy employs a kind of false syllogism that goes something like this:

Sally Ride was a physicist, astronaut, and the first American woman in space.

Sally Ride was a lesbian.

Therefore, homosexuality is good.

Rational people who have developed the ability to think properly about morality will not be duped by this propaganda technique. Mature people who have been trained to think rationally about morality recognize that people can be kind, creative, brilliant, funny, and/or generous and yet at the same time experience disordered feelings and engage in immoral acts.

The problem is that children, teens, and even many adults have a poorly developed moral compass. Children and teens are especially predisposed to thinking that those they love or admire are perfect in every way.

Can those who choose to place their unchosen same-sex attraction at the center of their identity do great things? Of course they can. And so too can people who experience other disordered desires and engage in other types of immoral acts. But subjective sexual feelings and the volitional acts impelled by those feelings have nothing to do with their great achievements. So, why mention them?

Leftists seek to associate homosexuality and opposite-sex impersonation with achievement in order to transfer the positive feelings people have about achievements to homosexuality and gender confusion. Leftists want to inculcate young minds and hearts with arguable propositions without actually having to make an argument with evidence and without allowing dissenting arguments to be made. The Left treats their arguable assumptions about the morality of homosexuality and biological-sex rejection as if they were unassailable objective moral truths. And they’re counting on no one noticing or addressing what they’re sneakily doing.

An NPR reporter asked me how I would respond to a homosexual teen who complains that he’s not seeing himself represented in curricula. I responded that I would ask the teen what he thinks should be done about a polyamorous student who complains that he doesn’t see himself  represented in curricula, or the girl who’s in love with her brother (remember, love is love, and who are we to judge) and doesn’t see herself represented in curricula, or the girl who embraces promiscuity as central to her identity and complains that she doesn’t see herself represented in curricula.

Lawmakers, administrators, and school board members would never allow teachers to present to students resources that include the role and contributions of polyamorists, sibling-lovers, or promiscuous persons. Or rather, they wouldn’t allow teachers to identify the polyamorous predilections, incestuous identities, or promiscuous propensities of men and women whose achievements are shared with students. And why not?

Because—at least for now—lawmakers, administrators, and school board members believe polyamory, consensual incest, and promiscuity are immoral and unhealthy. And therein lies the problem: Many people—including Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox—believe that homosexual activity and opposite-sex impersonation are equally immoral. Public schools—which are funded by all taxpayers and serve a diverse population—have no business treating homosexuality or opposite-sex impersonation as if it were objectively and inarguably moral.

Furthermore, this bill puts homosexuals–both inside and outside schools–in charge of curricula, and it requires that “LGBT” activism be taught. Obviously, such activism is to be taught positively. Schools are expected to teach about “LGBT” activism as they would teach about the Civil Rights Movement. But it’s not like the Civil Rights Movement because homosexuality per se is not analogous to race per se.

If this indoctrination bill is passed, “agents of change” (formerly known as teachers) will base their text selections not on the quality of a text but, rather, on whether it was written by a homosexual or by someone who adopted an opposite-sex persona or on how it depicts homosexuality and the “trans” ideology. Curricula will become–even more than it is already–a political tool.

If this bill is passed by the Illinois Senate and House and lands on “No-Social-Agenda” Rauner’s desk, is there any doubt that he will sign the bill into law? Remember, he just attended a swanky fundraising soiree hosted by Equality Illinois (which, by the way, was honoring Planned Parenthood). “No-Social-Agenda” Rauner spoke at and donated $15,000 to Equality Illinois to help it in its effort to eradicate moral truth about sexuality from the public square.

Former intelligence analyst and senior contributor at The Federalist, Stella Morabito, warns about the harms done to children through the kind of politicized curricula that Equality Illinois, Steans, and Moeller are pushing:

Identity politics and leftist politicization in the schools is pervasive these days…. Radical education reform has gutted school curricula of meaningful content, replacing it with identity politics, fads, and political activism.

…

The highly politicized nature of today’s public schools serves to draw virtual targets on the backs of students whose beliefs don’t align with its own. A bully is free to target with the taunt “bigot” any child who comes from a traditional Christian home, and the curricula will back them up.  

While conservatives are badgered relentlessly to shut up about the “social issues,” Leftists rub their hands in glee. Unrestrained by anyone in their own party and with conservative obstacles largely removed, “LGBTQQAP” activists and their Leftist toadies advance their perverse positions on the “social issues.”

So, fight this bill, and while you’re doing that, plan an escape route for your children from government schools.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to both your state representative and state senator to ask them to reject this effort to politicize curricula in order to advance biased beliefs about sexuality to children in government schools.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Wait-Till-You-See-What-LGBTQQAP-Activists-Have-Planned-for-IL-Schools.mp3

RESCHEDULED: IFI Worldview Conference May 5th

We have rescheduled our annual Worldview Conference featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet for Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

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

Click HERE to learn more or to register!