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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• increases the authority of the CDC and public health departments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File this story in your now-bulging “Don’t Say You Weren’t Warned” folder.

Just three weeks ago, on September 19, 2019, the U.S. House Ways and Means Oversight subcommittee—chaired by John Lewis (D-GA) and composed of 7 Democrats and 4 Republicans—held a hearing portentously titled, “HOW THE TAX CODE SUBSIDIZES HATE.” Since conservative beliefs on sexuality are deemed “hateful” by regressives, such a subcommittee hearing should raise the alarm antennas of conservatives and libertarians concerned about assaults on the First Amendment by “progressive” thought police who roam the halls of Congress and the nooks, crannies, and interstices of social media.

What should also trouble them is that 3 of the 7 Democrats specifically mentioned or alluded to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as their source for identifying “hate groups.” (Full, shameless, and cheerful disclosure: the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) has been erroneously listed on the scandal-pocked SPLC’s “hate groups” list since shortly after I began writing for IFI in 2008.) Less than two hours after the beginning of the hearing, the Oversight subcommittee tweeted this:

“[H]omosexuality is a poor and dangerous choice, and has been proven to lead to a litany of health hazards to not only the individuals but also society as a whole,” The American Family Association, Tax Exempt Hate Group.

The first of the five witnesses to testify was busy-beaver homosexual activist Brandon Wolf, a “nationally-recognized advocate for LGBTQ issues” and  “Central Florida Development Officer and Media Relations Manager” for Equality Florida who survived the horrific Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida and said this:

[I]f you are not using everything at your disposal to snuff hate out, then you’re simply not doing enough. The time is now for us to fight harder, lead more courageously, and use everything we have to put an end to this cancer that is ravaging our communities…. Rather than use every tool at our disposal to combat hatred, we have chosen to subsidize it, embolden it…. Inaction in the face of hatred has consequences, and it’s high time that this Congress do something to protect those of us in the line of fire.

Wolf was urging Congress to use the IRS as a weapon to mow down moral views about homosexuality he hates and was doing so by deceitfully exploiting a tragedy that evidence suggests had nothing to do with “anti-gay” sentiment.

Journalist, constitutional lawyer, and (homosexual) co-founder of The Intercept Glenn Greenwald and co-author Murtaza Hussain published an article 18 months ago examining in detail the evidence for Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen’s motives:

Mateen went to Pulse only after having scouted other venues that night that were wholly unrelated to the LGBT community, only to find that they were too defended by armed guards and police, and ultimately chose Pulse only after a generic Google search for “Orlando nightclubs” — not “gay clubs” — produced Pulse as the first search result.

Several journalists closely covering the Mateen investigation have, for some time now, noted the complete absence of any evidence suggesting that Mateen knew that Pulse was a gay club or that targeting the LGBT community was part of his motive. 

…

By repeatedly emphasizing this anti-gay motive, U.S. media reports had the effect, if not the intent, of obscuring what appears to have been Mateen’s overriding, arguably exclusive motive: a desire for retribution and deterrence toward U.S. violence in Muslim countries.

…

Despite this mountain of evidence that strongly negates the original media-disseminated themes about Mateen’s life and his likely motive in targeting Pulse, the early myths remain lodged in the public mind and even in contemporary news reports. In part that’s because much of the evidence has remained under seal, in part because subsequent media debunking received a tiny fraction of the attention of the early, aggressively hyped inflammatory theories, and in part because there has been no political advantage to challenging the politically moving and useful narrative that the attack on Pulse was a hate crime against gay people.

Does anyone really believe full-time homosexual activist Wolf is unaware of this evidence?

Fortunately, one of the Republican members present at the hearing was Illinois’ own Darin Lahood (R-Peoria) who challenged references to the anti-Christian hate group, the SPLC:

[T]he IRS should not be used as a political tool to discriminate against organizations that differ in viewpoints…. We cannot use political disagreement as a metric to define hate speech or a hate group. This type of labeling can and has led to violent acts. I know my colleague just referenced the Southern Poverty Law Center. In 2012, an armed man named Floyd Lee Corkins walked into the Family Research Council Washington headquarters with the intent to shoot and kill as many of its employees as possible. He was apprehended, but not before wounding the non-profit’s business manager. Mr. Corkins later told the FBI that he had seen the nonprofit group listed as an anti-gay hate group on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website.

Also testifying was UCLA law professor, the libertarian-esque Eugene Volokh who argued that with only very narrow exceptions, all speech is protected by the First Amendment:

The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that tax exemptions can’t be denied based on the viewpoint that a group communicates…. The Court has also made equally clear that excluding speech that manifests or promotes “hate” is forbidden viewpoint discrimination…. The law may treat groups differently based on their actions, but not based on the views they express…. Groups may be denied tax exemptions for deliberately engaging in speech that falls within one of the few narrow exceptions to the First Amendment, such as true threats of criminal attack, or incitement intended to and likely to cause imminent criminal conduct. But “hate speech” writ large doesn’t fall within any such exceptions.

Our First Amendment rights will not long stand against the sexual appetites of the deviant who run amok among us. Neither our constitutionally protected religious free exercise rights, nor our speech rights, nor our assembly rights will be protected now that they have been subordinated to subjective and disordered sexual desires. And neither will our intrinsic privacy rights remain protected. Cultural critics warned about the dangers posed to this once-great Republic by 1. allowing the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to Guinea-worm their way into anti-discrimination policies and laws, and 2. the Obergefelle U.S. Supreme Court decision, which has been interpreted as legalizing same-sex marriage everywhere in the United States. But conservatives largely dismissed such warnings out of either a failure to think deeply about the implications of these changes or cowardice or both.

Leftists are turning—not turning right—turning against the U.S. Constitution, and slowly they’re coming, step by step, straight for the First Amendment.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative to ask him/her to reject the SPLC’s definition of “hate groups,” which includes conservative and faith-based groups, such as IFI and AFA. Traditional Judeo-Christian teaching about human sexuality is neither “hateful” nor “vile.” Ask them to stand up for the First Amendment and protect religious liberty and speech rights by rejecting this effort to penalize so-called “hate” speech.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Slowly-Leftists-Turn-Step-By-Step.mp3

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

-and, please-

With a vote of 237 to 189, the U.S. House voted yesterday to pass H.R. 36, the 20-week ban on abortion.  The official title of this important legislation is the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” which restricts most abortions after 20 weeks of gestation, with limited exceptions.  It also specifies that any baby born alive in the process of an abortion should be given the same care as a baby born prematurely.

This federal legislation was sponsored by U.S. Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ), and cosponsored by 182 other lawmakers, including the following Illinois Congressmen: Mike Bost (R-Carbondale), Peter Roskam (R-Wheaton), John Shimkus (R-Collinsville), Daniel Lipinski (D-Chicago), Randy Hultgren (R-McHenry), Rodney Davis (R-Decatur), and Darin LaHood (R-Peoria).  See roll call vote for the Illinois Congressional delegation below.

This legislation now moves to the U.S. Senate for consideration.

We are proud to see that our pro-life leaders in Congress are advancing this commonsense legislation in order to protect the life and dignity of some of the victims of abortion. Regardless of party affiliation, every member of Congress should recognize the scientific research which demonstrates that pre-born babies can feel pain beginning at 20 weeks gestation.  We must pray that the members of the U.S. Senate, including Illinois Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, will put their partisan allegiances aside and act in the best interest of our pre-born neighbors and their mothers.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators to ask them to support H.R. 36, the 20-week abortion ban, also known as the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.”  President Trump’s Administration has made it clear that he intends to sign it, if and when it reaches his desk.

H.R. 36 is a step in the right direction when it comes to affirming the dignity, sanctity and value of every human life, from conception to natural death.

How Did They Vote on H.R. 36:

Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D)—NAY
1st Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-4372
District Phone: 773-779-2400
Webform

Rep. Robin Kelly (D)—NAY
2nd Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-0773
District Phone: 773-321-2001
Webform

Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D)—YEA
3rd Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-5701
District Phone: 773-948-6223
Webform

Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D)—NAY
4th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-8203
District Phone: 773-342-0774
Webform

Rep. Mike Quigley (D)—NAY
5th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-4061
District Phone: 773-267-5926
Webform

Rep. Peter Roskam (R)—YEA
6th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-4561
District Phone: 630-232-0006
Webform

Rep. Danny K. Davis (D)—NAY
7th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-5006
District Phone: 773-533-7520
Webform

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D)—NAY
8th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-3711
District Phone: 847-413-1959
Webform

Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky (D)—NAY
9th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-2111
District Phone: 773-506-7100
Webform

Rep. Bradley Schneider (D)—NAY
10th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-4835
District Phone: 847-383-4870
Webform

Rep. Bill Foster (D)—NAY
11th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-3515
District Phone: 815-280-5876
Webform

Rep. Mike Bost (R)—YEA
12th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-5661
District Phone: 618-457-5787
Webform

Rep. Rodney Davis (R)—YEA
13th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-2371
District Phone: 217-791-6224
Webform

Rep. Randy Hultgren (R)—YEA
14th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-2976
District Phone: 630-584-2734
Webform

Rep. John Shimkus (R)—YEA
15th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-5271
District Phone: 217-347-7947
Webform

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R)—YEA
16th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-3635
District Phone: 815-708-8032
Webform

Rep. Cheri Bustos (D)—NAY
17th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-5905
District Phone: 309-966-1813
Webform

Rep. Darin LaHood (R)—YEA
18th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-6201
District Phone: 309-671-7027
Webform

Please subscribe to the IFI YouTube Channel to get timely
video reports & other special presentations!

Great news from the congressional front!

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

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

Dear Governor Rauner:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to Laurie read this article in this podcast:

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

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

Thousands gathered at Federal Plaza in Chicago on Sunday, January 15, 2017 to stand for LIFE!  Pro-life speakers at the march included Pat McCaskey of the Chicago Bears, three representatives from Congress, an abortion survivor, religious leaders, and pro-life students!  We got news coverage on Chicago’s WGN TV News and local CBS TV News!  More news coverage is likely to follow.

Overcoming Pro-choice Protesters

There was a pro-choice protest of the march, but pro-life marchers FAR outnumbered them!  The march officially started at 2 pm, but the protesters scheduled their protest to start at 1 pm to deceptively make it appear that they had more people. My friends in the pro-life groups LIVE PRO LIFE and Chicago Pro-life Future made sure we had a good presence at 1 pm to offset the small pro-choice protest.  We faced the pro-choice protest with fun pro-life chants and a line of professionally made signs!  Then, we put up a three sided sign that is 12 feet tall and ten feet wide with the same message.  We call it the “triangle.”

Cautiously Optimistic Signs For Future Activism

With the election of Donald Trump and the hope of pro-life changes that will bring, the pro-life movement is watching to see if there will be a change in engagement for pro-life or pro-choice activism.  Will pro-life and/or pro-choice activism get a boost?  March for Life Chicago was the first major test.  So far, it looks like both sides are getting a boost.  Pro-life people are excited that change is possible and we want to be engaged to help push ahead to a brighter future!  The official estimate for the pro-life side is 6,000!  Pro-choice people are upset that the law may be moving away from abortion and towards life.  They want to continue the status quo of a lack of legal protection for unborn humans, resulting in over 1 million humans aborted each year in the US.  We still outnumbered them, but we will need to be diligent in 2017 to keep the activism advantage that has been critical to moving our country in a pro-life direction.

Encouraging & Powerful Speakers

Gianna Jessen survived a saline abortion and was born in an abortion clinic!  She gave a powerful testimony of the power of her faith in living with cerebral palsy which was caused by the attempt on her life by the abortion doctor.  She’s forgiven her birth mother and boldly proclaims her faith and the stands up to the injustice of abortion, proclaiming unashamedly that abortion cannot be a woman’s rights, because her rights were not recognized when the abortion doctor was trying to take her life.

U.S. Representatives Dan Lipinski (D-Chicago), Peter Roskam (R-Wheaton) and Darin LaHood (R-Peoria) were bold and clear in standing up for life, declaring their commitment to defund Planned Parenthood, marching toward overturning Roe, and passing life-affirming legislation!  Pro-life Democrat Dan Lipinski highlighted that abortion should not be treated as a partisan issue and religious views shouldn’t separate people on it either because all humans deserve legal protection.  Instead of allowing abortion to divide people, we should all be united with the shared purpose of defending human life, especially the weak and vulnerable.

Brianna Todd shared her courage in choosing life for her unborn son and finding help at Aid for Women, a pro-life pregnancy resource center.

Fun & Young!

The march was packed full of energetic youth! They danced, they sang, and they jumped for joy!  There was a drum line, there were cheers, and there was the fun laughter and drive that youth brings.  It was a block party for LIFE that invaded the abortion culture that infects too much of Chicago.  It was nothing short of epic.

Pro-life Activists (left to right) Babette Holder, Jan Shaw, Dave Smith and Stephanie Trussell.

Blue, blue California is not just an entity unto itself. As many have opined, as goes California, so goes the nation.

In their arrogance–or is it “pride”–California’s Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) has  defied “the Hyde/Weldon amendments approved by the U.S. Congresses and leaders of both parties every year since 2004 by mandating “coverage of all elective abortions in all health plans under its jurisdiction.”

The Hyde Amendment (original amendment passed 9/30/76) “is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortion unless the pregnancy arises from incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother.”

The Weldon Amendment (2009) stated:

(d)(1) None of the funds made available in this Act may be made available to a Federal agency or program, or to a State or local government, if such agency, program, or government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

(2) In this subsection, the term “health care entity” includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.

In spite of Hyde/Weldon Amendments allowing for the rights of conscience, California’s DMHC deems itself omnipotent, and in 2014 began bulldozing any and all conscientious objections, forcing all health plans to cover abortions, including late term abortion.

Religious entities in California lodged a complaint, an objection with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the governing body for conscience laws. But on June 21, 2016, HHS ruled that California may continue forcing all health plans to cover all elective abortions.

This willful defiance of Hyde/Weldon sets a dangerous precedent, and other states (e.g., Washington and New York) are poised to follow. Don’t be deceived: Abortion would only be the first wicked act forced on people of faith and conscience. Euthanasia and other reprehensible acts would most likely follow.

In a counter move to stop the willfully immoral rulings of California’s DMHC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, legislation has been sponsored by U.S. Senator James Lankford (R-OK), S. 2927, and by U.S. Representative John Fleming (R-LA), H.R. 4828. Co-sponsors of this bill, titled The Conscience Protection Act of 2016, include four Illinois federal lawmakers: Randy Hultgren (R-Geneva), Dan Lipinski (D-Chicago), Darin LaHood (R-Peoria), and Peter Roskam (R-Wheaton).

The bill, The Conscience Protection Act of 2016, begins with a portentous quote from a Founding Father:

Thomas Jefferson stated a conviction common to our Nation’s founders when he declared in 1809 that “[n]o provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority”.

Members of the full U.S. House have repeatedly demanded answers from HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell for her acquiescence concerning California’s defiant mandates. It would seem Secretary Burwell feels she and California are above federal law, and certainly she cares not a whit about God’s laws.

The Conscience Protection Act of 2016, which is the remedy that will constrain arrogant legislators, makes clear its intent:

To prevent governmental discrimination against providers of health services who decline involvement in abortion, and for other purposes.

Now what’s needed is swift action on the part of citizens who revere life and abhor California’s despotic actions.

As noted at Human Life Action:

Even if you have responded to a previous alert, please contact your representatives again and urge them to support this bill. Read the Bishops’ news release here and a fact sheet on the ruling here.

Take ACTION: Contact your U.S. Representative to urge him/her to sponsor and pass H.R. 4828, The Conscience Protection Act of 2016, to defend the conscience rights of those who wish not to be involved in supporting abortion. You can also call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Passing this law is even more urgent with the recent decision by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to allow the state of California to continue forcing health plans to cover elective abortions. This bill is needed now to stop further discrimination against all people who respect unborn human life. It is wrong for government to force Americans to violate their deeply held convictions on respect for human life.

California and HHS reaffirm why President John Adams declared:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Let your voice be heard loudly and often. It’s up to moral people of faith to stop this hastening of the “slouching toward Gomorrah.”

Please re-post the link to this alert on your Facebook page or other social media platforms.

The race for the 18th Congressional will be held on September 10th.  Republican Darin LaHood and Democrat Rob Mellon are the two nominees running against each another in this special election to replace the seat once held by Aaron Schock, who resigned in March. Schock is involved in a federal investigation for criminal campaign spending.

Last night the two candidates vying for this vacant seat debated some of the issues.  Moderators included State Journal-Register political writer Bernard Schoenburg, WMAY news director Jim Leach and Peoria Journal Star political writer Chris Kaergard.  You can watch the full one hour debate on YouTube HERE.

For a printable version of the IFI Special 18th Congressional Election Voter Guide, CLICK HERE.

Because this is a special election, turnout will be very low.  Some are expecting turnout to be less than 10 percent of voters.  That means your vote is more important than ever!

If you think you may not be able to vote on Tuesday, September 10th for this special election, you can take advantage of early voting.  Visit your county clerk’s web site below to find the early voting locations in your area.

You can also vote by mail (absentee ballot) through Sept 7th. You’ll want to call or visit your county clerk’s web site for the details on how to obtain an absentee ballot and when they must be postmarked.

Finally, the last day to vote in person is only at the county clerk’s office on Monday, Sept. 9th.

For more information about absentee and early voting, please contact your county clerk, listed below:

ADAMS COUNTY — (217) 277-2150
countyclerk@co.adams.il.us

BROWN COUNTY — (217) 773-3421
jlham1009@hotmail.com

CASS COUNTY — (217) 452-7217
cassclerk@casscomm.com

HANCOCK COUNTY — (217) 357-3911
hancockcovoters@hotmail.com

LOGAN COUNTY — (217) 732–4148
elections@co.logan.il.us

MARSHALL COUNTY — (309) 246-6325
mweber@marshallcountyillinois.com

MASON COUNTY — (309) 543-6661
countyclerk@masoncountyil.org

McCLEAN COUNTY — (309) 888-5190
kathy.michael@mcleancountyil.gov

McDONOUGH COUNTY — (309) 833-2474
gdejaynes@mcdonoughcountyclerk.org

MENARD COUNTY — (217) 632-3201
pduncheon@co.menard.il.us

MORGAN COUNTY — (217) 243-8581
jwaggener@morgancounty-il.com

PEORIA COUNTY — (309) 494-8683
tbride@peoriacounty.org

PIKE COUNTY — (217) 285-6812
donnieapps@adams.net

SANGAMON COUNTY — (217) 753-8683
sancoele@co.sangamon.il.us

SCHUYLER COUNTY — (217) 322-4734
clerk85@schuylercounty.org

SCOTT COUNTY — (217) 742-3178
scottcoclerk@frontier.com

STARK COUNTY — (309) 286-5911
starkcoclerk@starkco.illinois.gov

TAZEWELL COUNTY — (309) 477-2267
mhartley@tazewell.com

WOODFORD COUNTY — (309) 467-2822
cntyclk@woodford-county.org

Please support IFI as we fight for liberty & work to advance the truth
about the sanctity of life & importance of marriage in our culture!

Video gambling out of control, says one lawmaker

Written by Patrick Yeagle

You can find them in gas stations, golf courses, restaurants, liquor stores and even a TV repair shop. More than 19,000 video gambling machines had spread across the state by the end of 2014, turning thousands of businesses and other establishments into what one lawmaker calls “mini casinos.” Now, he’s trying to curb the trend.

State Senator Darin LaHood, R-Dunlap, wants to place new limits on which establishments can have video gambling machines in Illinois. Although existing gambling parlors would initially be grandfathered in, his bill would likely eliminate many of them when it comes time to renew their licenses.

Illinois legalized video gambling machines in 2009, and the first regulated machines began operating in 2012. Prior to that, such machines were only legal if there was no payout, meaning many establishments would simply pay out under the table.

Although he’s not opposed to video gambling in general, LaHood says the proliferation of machines goes beyond what the legislature intended.

“I wasn’t here in 2009 when the original law was passed, but my understanding was that it was to specifically help bars and restaurants,” LaHood said. “Fast forward to floral shops, liquor stores, laundromats; I don’t think anybody anticipated that you’d have the proliferation of video gambling machines in all these places outside bars and restaurants.”

On average during 2014, the Illinois Gaming Board approved 134 new establishments for video gambling machines each month. At the end of last year, 4,675 establishments across the state had a total of 19,182 video gambling machines. Statewide, gamblers put more than $2.4 billion into the machines in 2014 and lost almost $659.5 million. For every dollar put into video gambling machines in Illinois during 2014, gamblers received about 73 cents back on average.

Springfield in particular is a hotspot for video gambling. The city’s downtown alone hosts 21 establishments with video gambling machines. Citywide, 150 establishments host the machines, at which gamblers spent more than $8 million in January 2015 alone. During the previous year, gamblers put more than $82 million into the machines in Springfield, netting the city almost $1.2 million in revenue. The amount of money lost by gamblers in Springfield during 2014 totaled more than $21.7 million. In January 2015 alone, Springfield gamblers lost more than $2.1 million to the machines.

In May 2014, the Springfield City Council approved an ordinance requiring that an establishment seeking video gambling machines show that at least 60 percent of their revenue comes from the sale of food or beverages. Existing video gaming establishments were grandfathered in, but new or renewing applicants will have to meet the threshold.

LaHood’s bill would require an establishment seeking a license for video gambling machines to show that 80 percent of revenues for the previous two years came from the sale of food or beverages. Applicants seeking a license renewal would have to show 50 percent of revenue came from food or drinks in the previous year. 

Licensees would have to hide video gambling machines from the view of children and post signs indicating that no one under age 21 – the existing age limit – may use the machines. They would only be allowed to operate during an establishment’s normal business hours. 

Henry Baird, owner of Pennies Place in Jerome, says he doesn’t see the problem with video gambling machines becoming common. His one-room parlor, nestled between his package shipping business and his TV repair shop, likely wouldn’t meet the revenue threshold under LaHood’s bill because the food and drinks he offers customers are free.

Baird sees video gambling as mere entertainment, and he says most of his customers come with a certain amount of money they expect to lose. 

“Everyone has a vice,” he said. “Some people choose to spend their money drinking in a bar.”

Currently, problem gamblers can have themselves placed on a state list barring them from casinos, but the list doesn’t apply to video gambling machines. The same goes for the state list excluding people who ran illegal gambling operations, cheated at casinos or committed other acts barring them from casinos. Under LaHood’s bill, anyone on either list wouldn’t be allowed at a video gambling location.

Baird says he actually supports that provision.

“If someone is on one of those lists,” he said, “they probably shouldn’t be gambling.” 

This article was originally posted at the IllinoisTimes.com website.

How did they vote?

On Friday, May 17th, the bill to legalize marijuana as “medicine” was debated on the Illinois Senate floor and then passed by a vote of 35-21.  This 200+ bill (HB 1) was sponsored by State Senator William Haine (D-Alton), and co-sponsored by Senators Linda Holmes (D-Aurora), Iris Martinez (D-Chicago), and William Delgado (D-Chicago).  

During debate, Senator Kyle McCarter (R-Vandalia) shared a heart-breaking story about the loss of his own child as a result of marijuana as a gateway drug.  Senator Mattie Hunter (D-Chicago), a certified drug and alcohol counselor, also spoke emphatically against the bill.  Senators Tim Bivins (R-Dixon), Darin LaHood (R-Peoria) and Jason Barickman (R-Blomington) also spoke in opposition to this proposal.

Democrats voting against the bill include Senators Bill Cunningham (Chicago), Mattie Hunter (Chicago), Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant (Plainfield), Gary Forby (Benton), Napoleon Harris (Harvey) and Julie Morrison (Deerfield).

Republicans voting for the bill include Senators Dave Syverson (Rockford), Pam Althoff (Crystal Lake) and Jim Oberweis (North Aurora).

See how your state senator voted HERE and how your state representative voted HERE.

This bill will now be sent to Governor Patrick Quinn .  According to various reports, Gov. Quinn is “is keeping an open mind about the issue.”  

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your Gov. Quinn today to ask him to veto HB 1.  You can call also call the Governor’s office to articulate your objections to having this bill signed into law.  The toll-free number to Gov. Quinn’s off is Call 800-642-3112.  Please do this today!  

Legitimizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes will encourage and increase destructive behavior, especially among young people. Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug in the United States. Research has found that adolescent and teen drug use rises as the perception of harm diminishes.

Click HERE to download the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) White Paper on State-Level Proposals to Legalize Marijuana.

Contact Governor Quinn now!

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.