In a stunning display of ignorance, the Illinois State Senate just voted 43-12 in favor of the resolution to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment. What makes this vote even more enraging is that Republicans Pam Althoff (R-Crystal Lake), Jason Barickman (R-Pontiac), John Curran (R-Lemont), Mike Connelly (R-Wheaton), Karen McConnaughay (R-West Dundee), Chris Nybo (R-Hinsdale), Sue Rezin (R-Morris), and Tom Rooney (R-Palatine) voted with Democrats on this partisan resolution. (Updated at 7:30 pm)

According to Illinois Review, McConnaughay made this remarkably foolish and dishonest statement in defense of her traitorous vote:

The intention of the Illinois Senate Women’s Caucus is to advance legislation that supports, empowers and protects women of all aspects of life, and that’s exactly what we are doing today. Today, we are here together, Republican and Democratic women, to demonstrate our support of the Equal Rights Amendment, which ensures equality for all women…. This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s an issue that affects every single woman in this country. By coming together, we have a chance to make an impact at a national level for women all across the nation.”

Yes, nothing says non-partisan quite like a Constitutional amendment that will mandate taxpayer-funding of abortion, that will eradicate all abortion restrictions, that will end public recognition of sex differences in private spaces, and that will require women to register with the Selective Service.

Has McConnaughay read the ERA? It says nothing about women. So, where does she get the impression that the ERA will support, empower, and protect women? Of which specific rights does she believe women are deprived?

In a recent, almost-comical article on the ERA by Jennifer Camille Lee titled “Why does a hate group want to derail the ERA in Illinois,”  Lee provides ample justification for public mistrust of the leftwing press. Before getting to the ropy meat of her “argument” about the ERA, let’s peek at just one of her false claims.

Lee identifies Nancy Thorner as “a member of IFI.” Ms. Thorner is not now nor ever has been an employee of or writer for IFI.

After erroneously identifying Thorner as an IFI member, Lee paraphrases arguments Thorner made in pieces appearing in The Madison Record and Illinois Review after which Lee says, “any Illinois citizen or legislator who uses their [meaning IFI’s] arguments against the ERA is dealing in false facts and illogical arguments from a group that purposefully pushes a hateful agenda.”

To summarize, Lee uses arguments made by someone who is not an IFI employee and published in outlets wholly unrelated to IFI to suggest that no citizen or legislator should listen to IFI’s actual arguments about the ERA.

So, let’s carefully examine Lee’s arguments—you know, assertions with evidence—and her refutation of IFI’s  arguments. Oh wait, she didn’t have any arguments and she didn’t refute anything written by any IFI member. Well, what the heck, just for fun let’s look at her rhetoric.

Lee says that Thorner wrote a “scare piece” in The Madison Record. Since Lee provided no link, title or citation, I rooted around and found a recent letter to the editor by Thorner, which I assume is the “scare piece” to which Lee is referring. Lee claimed that Thorner said, “passing the ERA will create a gender-free society where it won’t be natural for women to be homemakers any longer.”

Thorner quoted from a document written about the ERA by constitutional attorney and fierce ERA-opponent Phyllis Schlafly in which Schlafly said this:

 Women’s Lib advocates do not want it to be considered any more natural for a woman to be a Homemaker than for a man to be a House-husband.

Who would disagree with that? Second-wave feminists inarguably sought to efface distinctions between men and women—well, except when they were claiming that women were far superior to men.

Lee repeatedly refers “readers back to the actual wording” 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.” Perhaps Lee didn’t notice that, while the ERA says precisely nothing about women, it does, indeed, guarantee a “gender-free society” if by gender, Lee means biological sex. You never can tell what those tricksy Leftists mean since they’re very busy redefining terms. It’s inarguable that the ERA makes it illegal to make distinctions based on sex. That’s the whole point and language of the ERA. Ergo, the ERA guarantees a “gender free society.”

Lee says that in a piece published by Illinois Review, “Ms. Thorner writes that women and all our unborn children will be irreparably harmed by the ERA.”

Evidently, Lee hasn’t read very broadly or deeply about the connection between the ERA and abortion. A court case in New Mexico, which has the equivalent of a state ERA, reveals the legal reasoning that justifies taxpayer-funding of abortion under the ERA:

The unanimous court held that a state ban on tax-funded abortions “undoubtedly singles out for less favorable treatment a gender-linked condition that is unique to women.

Taxpayer-funding of abortion—itself a grievous moral offense—will increase the number of abortions.

Moreover, as Elise Bouc, state chairman of STOP ERA Illinois has written, abortion restrictions will be overturned by the ERA, which explains why pro-abortion/anti-child organizations are fighting like the devil to get it passed:

Since abortion is unique to women, any attempt to restrict a woman’s access to abortion is seen, under the rules of the ERA, as a form of sex discrimination – because women are being singled out for a characteristic that is unique to them, and they are being treated differently based on that physical characteristic (in this case- the ability to become pregnant). Therefore any abortion restrictions would be overturned by the ERA…. In addition, since medical procedures unique to men are funded by Medicaid (such as circumcision and prostatectomies), then abortion which is unique to women, must also receive Medicaid funding under ERA requirements.

While Lee may consider the extermination of humans in the womb harmless, others beg to differ. There is no greater act of “irreparable harm” perpetrated against unborn children than killing them.

The ERA will inflict yet more damage. It will be used to grant unrestricted access to opposite-sex spaces and activities to persons who pretend to be the sex they are not. Single-sex restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, shelters, semi-private hospital rooms, nursing home rooms, dormitories, colleges, athletic teams, fraternities, sororities, clubs, and organizations would become co-ed or risk federal lawsuits. Even mother-daughter/father-son/father-daughter events at public schools would be eliminated.

The ERA would be used to force women to register for the Selective Service, and if the day should ever come when the draft is reinstated, to be drafted.

It would give enormous new powers to the federal government that now belong to the states. Section II of the ERA states that “The Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.” The ERA would give Congress the power to legislate on all those areas of law which include traditional differences of treatment on account of sex: marriage, property laws, divorce and alimony, child custody, adoptions, prison regulations, and insurance. For example, the Social Security System pays full-time homemaker “wives” 50 percent of their husband’s benefits over and above the check he receives. Upon their husbands’ deaths, widows receive the full benefits that their husbands had been receiving.  (The law also gives this benefit to a dependent husband, but nearly all dependent spouses are women.)

Lee believes that opposition to these changes–changes which harm women and children–is irrational. She also believes that IFI “may be entitled to an opinion, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts, and the fact is all the ERA does is grant equal protection to women under the U.S. Constitution.”

Like Lee, I will point readers and lawmakers back to the text of the ERA, which says nothing about women. It says everything, however, that lawmakers needed to know, which is that the ERA will eliminate recognition in laws, policies, and practices of the very real differences between men and women. And the victims will be primarily women and children.

This bill now moves to the Illinois House for consideration.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to email your state representative to urge him/her to oppose the ERA (SJRCA 4).

Here is the Illinois Senate roll call on the ERA:

Read more:  Please oppose ERA (SJRCA-4): It strengthens abortion rights

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ERA-Passes-Illinois-Senate_01.mp3

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

Written by David E. Smith and Laurie Higgins

How did they vote?

Yesterday afternoon, the Illinois Senate voted 34-19-1 to pass HB 217, a bill that will censor professional therapists who want to help children who suffer from unchosen, unwanted same-sex attraction. Republican State Senators Christine Radogno (Lemont) and Chris Nybo (Hinsdale) voted with the majority of Democrats to pass this tyrannical legislation. Five state senators did not vote, while State Senator Bill Haine (D-Alton) voted present — which is as good as a “no” vote.

This bill was introduced by LBGTQ activist and State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), and sponsored in the Illinois Senate by Senators Daniel Biss (D-Chicago), Andy Manar (D-Bunker Hill), Iris Martinez (D-Chicago), Toi Hutchinson (D-Chicago Heights), Don Harmon (D-Oak Park), Michael Noland (D-Elgin), David Koehler (D-Peoria), Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge), William Delgado (D-Chicago), Martin Sandoval (D-Chicago), Heather Steans (D-Chicago), and Emil Jones III (D-Chicago).

Click HERE to see how your state representative voted on this legislation, or look at the graphic below. (Look up your state senator HERE.)

The bill now moves to Governor Bruce Rauner. While he campaigned as a “no social issues” candidate in 2014, he now has to face the reality that the Illinois General Assembly is filled with politicians who want to advance radical legislation dealing with social issues–many of whom want to champion a far left social agenda agenda. Gov. Rauner will now be compelled to reveal his position on this highly divisive and controversial “social” issue.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to Governor Bruce Rauner’s office, asking him to allow licensed and professional therapists to do their job.  Urge him to veto HB 217.

Background

It is stunning to realize that legislation suppressing the speech of professional therapists would get this much support. Thankfully, the bill received robust deliberation and criticism on the floor during debate yesterday. State Senators Kyle McCarter (R-Vandalia), Dale Righter (R-Mattoon), Jim Oberweis (R-Aurora), Tim Bivins (R-Dixon) and freshman Neil Anderson (R-Moline) did a great job questioning the sponsor of the bill and/or speaking against HB 217.

IFI is grateful for the moral fortitude displayed by the members of the Illinois Senate who vocally opposed this unwarranted, unethical, and poorly written legislation.

It is important to note, HB 217 makes no distinction between coercive aversion therapy and “talk therapies” that would allow minors a measure of autonomy in constructing an identity that does not affirm unchosen, unwanted same-sex attraction.

The bill’s sponsors never addressed whether minors whose same-sex attraction or “sexual orientation” confusion may be the result of sexual molestation will be able to receive counseling to address the potential connection between molestation and same-sex attraction.

The bill’s supporters never explained why gender-confused minors should be able to access medical help in rejecting their unchosen, unwanted physical embodiment but those who experience same-sex attraction should be prohibited from accessing medical help in rejecting their unchosen, unwanted same-sex attraction.

Those who voted in favor of this bill ignored the urgent warnings of scientists who argued in an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune and LA Times that there is insufficient evidence to justify the passage of bans on reparative therapy for gender dysphoric minors. (Read more HERE.)

The bill’s supporters never addressed the galling way the bill was passed in the house, when the acting speaker allowed less than 5 seconds of time for floor debate before he called for a vote.

This bill is not a reasoned attempt to protect children. It’s a political maneuver that serves the strategic interests and profoundly selfish desires of adults committed to perverse activity and delusional thoughts. Once again, corrosive Illinois political chicanery in the service of some privileged coterie comes before wisdom, truth, knowledge, and even the needs and rights of hurting children.

While “progressive” Americans view the desire of those who suffer from Body Integrity Identity Disorder to amputate healthy limbs as barbaric, they ignorantly view the desire of those who suffer from Gender Identity Disorder to amputate healthy breasts and penises as sound medical practice. What a stupid, barbarous culture we’re becoming. Maybe when the lawsuits against doctors who facilitate barbarism, mutilating bodies and rendering young men and women sterile, start arriving on our crumbling cultural doorstep, this madness will stop. Too bad so many young people will have to suffer before that happens.

Please pray that Gov. Rauner does the right thing, and rejects this terrible policy.

In a stunning, counter-cultural op-ed appearing in the LA Times and Chicago Tribune, Dr. Eric Vilain, professor of pediatrics and human genetics at UCLA and director of the Center for Gender-Based Biology, and J. Michael Bailey, psychology professor at Northwestern University, warn lawmakers against banning “conversion” therapy for minors who experience gender dysphoria. They argue that attempts by lawmakers to ban “all therapists from helping families trying to alleviate children’s gender dysphoria would be premature, a triumph of ideology over science.”

Further, they take particular aim at President Barack Obama’s public support for “conversion” therapy bans, urging him to “set a better example by pausing at the limits of our knowledge and encouraging scientists to collect the data we need.” They warned that until such knowledge is available, “let’s be careful about telling the well-meaning parents of gender-dysphoric children what to do.”

If Illinois lawmakers—never known for humility about their own knowledge—truly care about children, they will heed the words of these scientists. Illinois state senators should vote “no” on the “conversion” therapy ban (HB 217).

Here is an extended excerpt from Vilain and Bailey’s compelling op-ed (emphasis added):

Since the age of 2, he has been a very different kind of boy. He enjoys wearing his mother’s shoes and his sister’s dresses. He likes to play with girls and hates playing with boys, who are too rough.

Now 5, he has told you that he wants to be a girl. In fact, he insists that he is a girl. Your son isn’t just feminine; he is unhappy being a boy. He has gender dysphoria.

You love him and you want him to be happy. But you’re worried. Some older kids have started to tease him, and some parents have expressed disapproval.

It seems you have two choices. You could insist that he is a boy and try to put an end to behaviors such as cross-dressing and saying that he is a girl. The alternative is to let him be a girl: grow long hair, choose a new name, dress as he (or “she”) pleases, and when it is time, obtain the necessary hormones and surgeries for a female body.

As scientists who study gender and sexuality.…[w]e do know a lot about such boys. This includes some important facts rarely mentioned in the discussion about how they should be raised. We suspect this is because those facts are inconvenient to the narratives that have come to predominate.

Perhaps the most influential account is that gender dysphoric children have the minds and brains of the other sex, adult transgenderism is inevitable, and early transition to the other sex is the only humane option.

But this narrative is clearly wrong in one respect. Gender dysphoric children have not usually become transgender adults. For example, the large majority of gender dysphoric boys studied so far have become young men content to remain male. More than 80% adjusted by adolescence.

Granted, the available research was conducted at a time when parents almost always encouraged their gender dysphoric children to accept their birth sex…

The little data we have indicate that parental acquiescence leads to persistence.

As more and more parents let their gender dysphoric boys live as girls, the percentage of persisters may increase dramatically.

But, again, we don’t yet know whether it’s better to encourage adjustment or persistence.

(We have focused on gender dysphoric boys because their parents have contacted us much more often than parents of similar girls. Moreover, many fewer gender dysphoric girls have been studied scientifically. The same basic facts appear to be true for both sexes, however.)

Let’s take a look at the likely life trajectories of two imagined gender dysphoric boys: David, whose parents insist he stay David, and Max, whose parents allow him to become a girl, changing his name to Maxine.

In the short run, David will experience more psychological pain than Maxine. Adjustment to being a boy necessarily means accepting that he can’t be a girl, something he desperately wants. Still, most gender dysphoric boys have managed the mental transition.

In the long run, Maxine will need serious medical interventions. In late childhood she will need hormones to block puberty; she will then take estrogen for the rest of her life. Eventually, she may want genital surgery. Although this surgery is usually satisfactory, side effects requiring additional surgery are not uncommon.

Each way has obvious advantages and disadvantages. We would prefer to save David the greater pain he will endure during childhood. And we would prefer to save Maxine the serious medical interventions and possible side effects.

…Some professionals who do [conversion therapy to help pre-adolescent children overcome gender dysphoria] have no moral issue with transgenderism but are trying to help children avoid later medical stress. That is a reasonable goal….

The Illinois House of Representatives passed Illinois’ “conversion” therapy ban last week in a shameful display of arrogance and cowardice that epitomizes why Americans hold their elected representatives in disdain.

First, acting as speaker of the house, state representative Lou Lang (D-Skokie)—you know, the 27-year veteran lawmaker whose pockets are lined with filthy lucre from the gaming and marijuana industries—abruptly closed floor debate and called HB 217 for a vote just seconds after the bill’s sponsor, lesbian Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), offered her appeal for the bill’s passage.

Second, the only Republican who even attempted to make a comment was Tom Morrison (R-Palatine) who was arrogantly ignored by Lou Lang despite several appeals.

Do Illinois “progressives” not feel even a twinge in their shrinking vestigial consciences that this dubious bill was passed in the House through such ethically icky tactics?

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator. Urge him/her to vote against HB 217.  (If you have already sent an email to your state representative, please now send an email to your state senator.)

HB 217 was heard in the Senate Executive Committee last night.  As expected, the bill passed by a vote of  11-4, with Senator Mattie Hunter (D-Chicago) voting present.  Senators Christine Radogno (R-Lemont) and Chris Nybo (R-Hinsdale) voted in favor of this terrible bill.  It now moves to the Senate floor where a vote may come as early as Friday.  Please speak out TODAY!

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.

How did they vote?

This afternoon, the Illinois Senate voted 34 to 19 to pass SB 1564 — the onerous re-write of the Healthcare Right of Conscience Act.  This bill broadly defines “health care,” “health care personnel,” and “health care facility.” SB 1564 will force health care personnel to violate their consciences in regard to morally dubious medical procedures such as abortion, sterilization, and certain end-of-life care. Pro-life lobbyists are deeply concerned that even Crisis Pregnancy Centers that offer pregnancy tests would be subjected to unsavory duties under the law (e.g. abortion referrals).

According to the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, ninety-five (95) percent of physicians in a national poll agreed with this statement: “I would rather stop practicing medicine altogether then be forced to violate my conscience.”

Click HERE to see how your state senator voted on this legislation, or look at the graphic below.  State Senators Kyle McCarter (R-Vandalia), Jason Barickman (R-Bloomington), Dale Rigther (R-Mattoon), and Bill Haine (D-Alton) spoke against the bill.  Unfortunately, Republican leader Christine Radogno and Senator Chris Nybo (R-Hinsdale) voted in favor of the bill.  Sen. Nybo also spoke if favor of SB 1564 on the floor.

The bill now moves to the Illinois House.  We can stop this bill — but only with your help, calls and prayers!

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state representative. Ask him/her to uphold Rights of Conscience for medical personnel, and vote NO to SB 1564.  (If you have already sent an email to your state senator, please send an email to your state representative.)

Please also call your state representative during normal business hours.  The Capitol switchboard number is (217) 782-2000.