State Representative Tom Morrison (R-Palatine) introduced the bi-partisan Pupil Physical Privacy Act (HB 4474), which if passed would require the following:

[A] school board to designate each pupil restroom, changing room, or overnight facility accessible by multiple pupils simultaneously, whether located in a public school building or located in a facility utilized by the school for a school-sponsored activity, for the exclusive use of pupils of only one sex. Defines “sex” as the physical condition of being male or female, as determined by an individual’s chromosomes and identified at birth by that individual’s anatomy. 

Signing on as co-sponsors are John D. Anthony (R-Morris), Mark Batinick (R-Plainfield), John M. Cabello (R-Loves Park), C.D. Davidsmeyer (R-Jacksonville), Mary E. Flowers (D-Chicago), Jeanne M. Ives (R-Wheaton), Dwight Kay (R-Glen Carbon), Sherry L. Jesiel (R-Gurnee), Bill Mitchell (R-Decatur), Reginald Phillips (R-Charleston), David Reis (R-Olney), Barbara Wheeler (R-Crystal Lake), and Keith Wheeler (R-North Aurora). Who knew Illinois had this many wise and courageous leaders willing to endure the deceitful epithets hurled at anyone who dares to dissent from the foolish views espoused by “progressives”?

If we lived in a rational society committed to sexual sanity, such a bill would be wholly unnecessary, and anyone who sponsored such a bill would be thought of as daft. But we don’t, and therefore the bill is necessary. These lawmakers deserve many thanks for their courage and wisdom.

Of course, there already exists a federal law that specifically states that schools have the right to maintain sex-separated restrooms and locker rooms, but “progressives” never let little things like laws (or common sense, rationality, or decency) get in the way of advocacy for their sexual delusions:

[T]itle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972…is designed to eliminate (with certain exceptions) discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program….A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.

District 211, the largest high school district in Illinois now facilitates confusion and undermines modesty by allowing gender-dysphoric students—that is, students who wish they were the opposite sex—to use opposite sex restrooms and locker rooms. Those students who rightly don’t want to use restrooms and locker rooms with students of the opposite sex risk being called hateful and ignorant if they express their feelings. And they most assuredly can’t expect policy to reflect their feelings and beliefs.

District administrators absurdly describe this policy as “upholding dignity,” when in reality, allowing students to use opposite-sex locker restrooms denies the dignity of gender-dysphoric students as well as those students whose privacy they’re invading. What the district is really doing is upholding the disordered feelings and perverse ideology of Leftists.

Out of compassion for students who suffer from gender dysphoria, HB 4474 provides for a rational accommodation of their desire not to use restrooms corresponding to their sex, while still respecting essential and immutable sex differences:

[HB 4474] Authorizes a school board to provide reasonable accommodations to a pupil to use a single-occupancy restroom or changing room or the regulated use of a faculty restroom or changing room if the pupil is an adult or an emancipated minor, or the parent or guardian of a minor pupil submits to school officials, in writing, a request to receive such accommodations and the pupil is a member of the male sex but does not identify as a member of the male sex or the pupil is a member of the female sex but does not identify as a member of the female sex

Parents and students who know truth

There are a remnant of wise and courageous parents and students whose minds remain unclouded by the toxic ideological stew that poisons our anti-culture. They know that physical embodiment is not only immutable but also good and that the natural modesty that derives from physical embodiment should be both respected and cultivated.

They know that students should be neither ordered, nor asked, nor permitted to use restrooms and locker rooms with those whose sex they don’t share.

They know that restroom stalls within restrooms and private changing cubicles within locker rooms do not provide sufficient privacy to separate properly boys from girls or women from men.

They know that objective biological sex is more meaningful and important than feelings about one’s objective biological sex.

To these parents and students, it makes no difference if the boy who seeks to use the girls’ restrooms and locker room likes his penis or loathes it. A boy does not belong in a girls’ restroom (and vice versa).

Gender Identity Disorder and Amputee Identity Disorder

What no school administrator or gender-dysphoric person has proved is that the mismatch between the sex of gender-dysphoric persons and their desires about their sex is a disorder of their healthy, properly functioning bodies rather than their minds. And how precisely is their discomfort with their bodies different from the discomfort of those with Amputee Identity Disorder (also known as Body Integrity Identity Disorder [BIID])?

Those with BIID identify with amputees. They believe they should have been born with missing limbs, and they have a persistent desire to have a limb or limbs amputated in order to achieve consonance between their feelings and their bodies. Because the medical establishment will not amputate healthy limbs, sometimes those with BIID will deliberately harm healthy limbs in order to force an amputation. Society and the medical establishment view this as a disorder of the mind—not the body. What rational sense does it make to view as barbaric the amputation of a healthy arm but therapeutic to amputate a healthy penis? Will schools allow those with BIID access to accommodations designed and intended for those without legs—an accommodation, by the way, that does not deny the privacy, feelings, or beliefs of others?

Remember, the Left says there are no behaviors, thoughts, or feelings that are intrinsically male or female. They believe all human phenomena are arbitrarily deemed male or female. Preferences in toys, activities, and colors are neither inherently or objectively male nor female. Ways of thinking and feeling are neither male nor female. So, all that exists immutably and objectively as male or female is biological sex. Gender-dysphoric persons cannot in reality have a male or female “identity” because there exists no such thing. Gender-dysphoric persons can’t have a male or female identity because male and female “identities” are merely arbitrary, phantasmic social constructions. The only true thing that can be said about gender-dysphoric persons with regard to maleness and femaleness is that they desire to change the one thing they cannot: their sex. Restrooms and locker rooms correspond to sex.

 “Transgender” restroom/locker room policies inculcate

Defenders of feckless, unethical, and irrational “transgender” restroom and locker room practices and policies dismiss the concerns of their opponents by claiming that most students don’t fully undress in locker rooms, or that normal students don’t mind undressing in front of gender-dysphoric students, or that there aren’t many gender-dysphoric students asking to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms. But none of those arguments are sound or persuasive. Policies that maintain sex-separated areas for students to engage in personal activities pertaining to physical embodiment not only protect the privacy, safety, and modesty of students but also teach important ideas about the immutability, meaning, and goodness of objective sex.

Conversely, policies and practices that allow boys (who will always be boys) and girls (who will always be girls) to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms teach controversial, subversive Leftist assumptions about objective biological sex, cross-dressing, modesty, compassion, and bigotry.

“Transgender” activists= 21^st Century alchemists

Like medieval alchemists, Leftists demand that all of society believe or pretend to believe that men can be transformed into women. Even some conservatives will argue foolishly that it would be acceptable for students to use opposite-sex facilities if they’ve had their penises or breasts amputated. It shouldn’t need to be said, but here goes: Men do not become women if their penises are amputated, and women do not become men if their breasts are amputated. Taking cross-sex hormones doesn’t change people into the opposite sex either. While elective amputations of healthy arms or legs actually do transform those with BIID into amputees, all that surgery and cross-sex hormones accomplish for gender-dysphoric persons is create elaborate and deceptive anatomical costumes—oh, and render them sterile.

What is coming

For now, school districts are willing to accommodate the Neanderthaloid beliefs of parents and students who know truth—I repeat, for now. The ultimate goal of “LGBTQQAP” activists and their allies, however, is to compel society to accept their subjective belief that objective biological sex is ultimately irrelevant—a meaningless, arbitrary anatomical trifle, like a birthmark or wart. To them, objective sex is meaningful only if one chooses to affirm it as meaningful. The subjective self determines the meaning and value of all phenomena. Therefore, in this brave new world, all restrooms, dressing rooms, and locker rooms will be co-ed/sex-neutral. There will remain no place in schools or public places for separation by sex.

This effort to subvert the cultural understanding of maleness and femaleness through government schools, rhetoric, law, and courts is as revolutionary and destructive as any issue in contemporary America. Americans should be at school board meetings in droves and preparing themselves for civil disobedience.

Take ACTION:

1.)  Many elementary, middle, and high schools are quietly implementing these practices with no parental notification or input. Parents: Contact your administrations and ask if they are permitting or would permit gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and/or locker rooms. Further, tell your administration that under no circumstance will your child be permitted to use a restroom or locker room that students of the opposite sex are permitted to use.

2.)  If your state representative is a co-sponsor of HB 4474, contact him or her to offer your thanks.

3.)  If your state representative is not yet a co-sponsor of HB 4474, click HERE to urge him or her to sign on.

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would” (Alice in Wonderland).

Worldview Conference with Dr. Wayne Grudem
We are very excited about our second annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Wayne Grudem on Saturday, February 20, 2016 in Barrington.

Click HERE to register today!

In the morning sessions, Dr. Grudem will speak on how biblical values provide the only effective solution to world poverty and about the moral advantages of a free-market economic system. In the afternoon, Dr. Grudem will address why Christians—and especially pastors—should influence government for good as well as tackle the moral and spiritual issues in the 2016 election.

We look forward to this worldview-training and pray it will be a blessing to you.

Click HERE for a flyer.

As a result of three videos from the Center for Medical Progress that have exposed the dark, sickening underbelly of Planned Parenthood, 31 Republicans and 1 Democrat have filed a resolution (HR 671) urging “the Illinois Department of Public Health, the Illinois Executive Inspector General, the Illinois Attorney General, and the Illinois Depart of Revenue to investigate Planned Parenthood’s procedures for abortions, obtaining informed consent, and sale of donation of human fetal tissues across the state.”

Moreover, the resolution urges these same government bodies to “investigate which organizations across the state are involved in purchasing or accepting human tissue from Planned Parenthood.”

The chief sponsor of the bill is one of Illinois’ finest and most courageous lawmakers, Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton), who explained to IFI her reasons for pursuing this resolution:

Recent videos reveal the callous way Planned Parenthood treats human life and the women about whom it purports to care. I ask my colleagues in the General Assembly  who are concerned about the rule of law, women’s health, or human decency, to support state investigations into Planned Parenthood in Illinois. Planned Parenthood facilities in Illinois are intentionally unlicensed through a legal loophole, have not been inspected in 15 years, and have put women at risk. In one of the videos from the Center for Medical Progress, Cook County’s Stroger Hospital was suggested as a place to obtain baby parts. Taxpayers need verifiable assurances through the investigative authorities of the state to ensure no federal or state laws are being subverted and especially to ensure that women are not at being put at risk from abortionists who use more invasive surgical procedures in order to increase profits. 

So far, Representative Ives has been joined by the following co-sponsors:

Patricia R. Bellock (R-Westmont), Barbara Wheeler (R-Crystal Lake), Mark Batinick (R-Plainfield), Thomas Morrison (R-Palatine), Margo McDermed (R-Mokena), Terri Bryant (R-Mount Vernon), Keith Wheeler (R-North Aurora), Robert Pritchard (R-Sycamore), David Reis (R-Olney), John Cavaletto (R-Salem), Brian Stewart (R-Freeport), Tom Demmer (R-Rochelle), Reginald Phillips (R-Charleston), Randy Frese (R-Quincy), Donald Moffitt (R-Galesburg), Ron Sandack (R-Downers Grove), Dwight Kay (R-Glen Carbon), Charles Meier (R-Highland), Joe Sosnowski (R-Rockford), David Harris (R-Arlington Heights), David McSweeney (R-Cary), Steven Andersson (R-Geneva), Tim Butler (R-Springfield), Dan Brady (R-Normal), Norine Hammond (R-Macomb), John Cabello (R-Loves Park), Ed Sullivan (R-Mundelein), Adam Brown (R-Champaign), C.D. Davidsmeyer (R-Jacksonville), Jerry Costello II (D-Red Bud)*, Grant Wehrli (R-Naperville) and Sheri Jesiel (R-Gurnee).

Please take a moment to thank these men and women for their effort to ascertain the truth about the activities of Planned Parenthood, an organization that has long demonstrated its abhorrent lack of ethics through its eager willingness to crush and dismember babies in the womb.

And if you do not see your representative on this list, you know what to do.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to urge your state representative to sponsor and pass this resolution.

**An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified State Representative Jerry Costello as a Republican. IFI regrets the error.**

Join us at our annual banquet and our two special guests: Prof. Anthony Esolen and Pastor Doug Wilson!   They will offer their witness and wisdom, helping us all become better equipped to shape our culture in God-honoring ways.  Your attendance and support is essential to our success!

Illinois Family Institute
Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet

Friday, September 18 , 2015
The Stongate – Hoffman Estates, IL

Secure your tickets now – click here or call (708) 781-9328.

IFI is working with other Illinois pro-life groups in advocating for an important pro-life bill sponsored by State Representative Barbara Wheeler (R-Crystal Lake).  If passed, HB 2701 would require abortion providers to simply offer an ultrasound picture to women considering abortion.  The choice of whether or not to view the ultrasound picture is still hers.  Research has proven that between 80 and 90 percent of “abortion minded” women who see images of their unborn children choose life.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state representative to ask him/her to support HB 2701.  Informed consent for women in a crisis pregnancy is vital.  HB 2701 is a reasonable reform to offer Illinois women true choice.

This legislation already has fourteen co-sponsors:  Representatives Jerry Costello (D- Red Bud), Terri Bryant (R-Mt. Vernon), Sue Scherer (D-Decatur), Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton), Ron Sandack (R-Downers Grove), Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg), Peter Breen (R-Lombard), Joe Sosnowski (R-Rockford), Patricia Bellock (R-Westmont), David McSweeny (R-Cary), Daniel Beiser (D-Alton), David Reis (R-Olney), Grant Wehrli (R-Naperville), and Michael Unes (R-Pekin).

Background

The backers of commercialized abortion like to say their guiding principle is “choice,” but women considering abortion are truly not in a position to make an informed choice without having sufficient, objective information.  Such complete and accurate information on the reality and status of her pregnancy and of the unborn child she is carrying is essential to her psychological and physical well-being and to her free exercise of autonomy.

We are living in the 21st century, with medical technology which offers pregnant mothers the opportunity for such information via ultrasonography.  Yet few if any abortion doctors offer ultrasound imaging to their patients. That is the reason HB 2701 is a needed and compassionate approach to informed consent.

Of course, the bill also offers a measure of protection for the unborn child.

An exception is provided where a medical emergency would necessitate skipping this stage in the informed consent process.

We commend the bi-partisan group of state representatives for their sponsorship of this common sense piece of legislation.

Please contact your state representative today to encourage him/her to support HB 2701.

You make our work for pro-family values possible – Donate today!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, IL  60188

How did they vote?

On Tuesday afternoon, the Illinois House of Representatives recklessly voted 61-54 in favor of genderless marriage (SB 10) with 2 representatives voting present and 1 not voting.
 
The debate raged for over two hours with SB 10 with supporters of the bill filling the time with a constant stream of emotion, personal testimony, and accusations of discrimination. Those who spoke out in favor of natural marriage included State Representatives Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton), David Reis (R-Olney), Rep. Dwight Kay (R-Edwardsville), Tom Morrison (R-Palatine), Mary Flowers (D-Chicago), and David Harris (R-Mount Prospect).
 
Former House minority leader Rep. Tom Cross joined two other Republicans, Ron Sandack (R-Downers Grove) and Ed Sullivan (R-Mundelein)  in breaking with the party platform and supporting this radical liberal bill.
 
Responding to the many references to the Civil Rights movement, Rep. Flowers stated, “When I was discriminated against, it is not because of who I love, but because of the color of my skin…Homosexuality has nothing to do with race.” Flowers continued, “Even if the legal definition of marriage was changed, those two people will never be married in God’s eyes.”
 
Rep. Kay declared, “I’ve heard nothing today about the Scriptures. The only thing I’ve heard is about human rights. So I guess we’ve backed away from our heritage in this nation which we seem to do quite regularly for the expediency of what we wish to do at the moment. And ladies and gentlemen, that’s pride. That’s a belief that you’re better than the very foundation…which we find in the Scriptures.”
 
The vote came less than two weeks after an estimated 4,000 people descended upon Springfield supporting the definition of marriage as being between one man and woman on October 23rd.

SB 10 will go to the desk of Governor Pat Quinn who has publicly expressed his eagerness to sign the bill.
 
How Did Your Representative Vote?

CLICK HERE for the roll call.

 

To see the full video or separate segments of the debate, CLICK HERE.

All Illinoisans should be troubled that our lawmakers vote for bills without demanding any evidence proving that the bills will solve the problems that the bills’ sponsors cite as the reasons the bills are needed.

Case in point: last week’s passage of the “comprehensive” sex ed bill (HB 2675) in the Illinois House of Representatives, which followed embarrassing performances by “progressive” lawmakers that wouldn’t pass muster in high school mock legislative assemblies.

State Representative Camille Lilly (D-Chicago) sponsored HB 2675, citing the problems of unwed pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among teens as the reasons comprehensive sex ed is necessary, but never provided conclusive evidence that comprehensive sex ed would solve those problems or that abstinence education—which is type of curricula that “progressives” detest—is the cause of the problems.

This bill compels every school district that teaches about sexuality to use “comprehensive” sex ed curricula even though every school district in Illinois already has that right. In fact, 60 percent of school districts in Illinois already use “comprehensive” sex ed.

Why would lawmakers mandate that all school districts use the type of curricula that most districts already use and is apparently failing? Why rob school districts of the right and freedom to choose abstinence-based curricula, which by the way, are medically accurate, unless there is rock solid proof that comprehensive sex ed is more effective at reducing the rates of teen pregnancy and STIs. Why rob school districts of the right and freedom to use the type of curricula that the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce just last summer recommended?

I listened to the entire floor debate on this legislation. Let’s look at what passes for logic and evidence in Springfield and what our lawmakers find intellectually persuasive:

State Representative Kathleen Willis (D-Northlake) — a supporter of the bill — suggested that this bill is necessary in order that “young children” will not “find out their sex education on the playgrounds or from their friends?” Rep. Willis offers the peculiar proposition that there are only two possibilities: comprehensive sex ed or playground sex ed. There is, however, another alternative: medically accurate abstinence education.

The strangest exchange during the debate took place between Rep. Lilly and Rep. David Reis (R-Olney). Perhaps someone can make sense of Lilly’s nearly incomprehensible responses:

Reis: “What exactly is ‘age-appropriate’ curriculum?”

Lilly: “Age-appropriate basically deals with providing information at the age at which the youth is prepared to receive.”

Reis: “And who determines that?”

Lilly: “The schools, they determine the curriculums.”

Reis: So, the State Board of Education won’t be mandating a certain curriculum at a certain time with your bill.”

Lilly: It’s a local school decision made by local officials of the school system.

Rice: “You say that it’s not a mandate to teach a particular curriculum, but it is a mandate…that they [schools] have to teach something. Is that correct?”

Lilly: “This bill is not a mandate.

Reis: “It’s not a mandate to teach a particular curriculum, but it is a mandate that they have to teach something. Is that not correct?”

Lilly: “No, it is not.”

Reis: “Are you sure?”

Lilly: “I am positive.”

Reis: “If that’s the case, why do you need your bill?”

Lilly: “Currently, the schools already have comprehensive sex education on the books. This bill brings clarification and definition to the existing code.”

Reis: “But if each school district has their own control over their own curriculum, and what they do, and whether or not they choose to do this, why do you need your bill? Your bill is a mandate that they [schools] have to teach something.”

Lilly: “This bill brings a standard of comprehensive sex education throughout the state—comprehensive, basic standard of sex education within the public school system.”

Reis: “So, now you’re saying there is a basic curriculum that needs to be adhered to, and then if the local school system wants to teach more of that they can?”

Lilly: “No, each school has the opportunity to decide whether they would want to offer sex education to their schools. That decision is made by the local school professionals and officers.

Supporters of the bill, either confused themselves or trying to confuse others, repeat ad nauseum that this bill allows schools to choose their own curriculum. What they don’t clearly explain is that schools may choose their own curriculum as long as it’s a “comprehensive sex ed” curriculum. School districts may choose not to offer sex ed, but if they offer it—as most do—this bill robs them of the right and freedom to choose an abstinence-based curriculum. (Don’t be deceived by the adjective “comprehensive.” Comprehensive sex ed simply means it includes whatever “progressives” view as important. Click here to get an overview of what “comprehensive sex educators” view as complete and age-appropriate.)

State Representative Robyn Gabel (D-Evanston) then asked if this bill “would provide instruction on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of…sexually transmitted diseases.” Perhaps Gabel would be surprised to learn no form of contraception prevents sexually transmitted diseases, and some forms of contraception don’t even reduce the risk of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease.

Gabel also asked, “Isn’t it true that numerous studies show that comprehensive sexual health education that stress abstinence as well as provides information on prevention results in positive health outcomes for teens and young adults?” Neither Gabel nor Lilly, however, cited these “numerous studies.”

Rep. Gabel went on to share an irrelevant but illuminating tidbit of parenting advice from her own life. When her daughter was a “preteen,” Gabel bought her the feminist sexuality bible Our Bodies, Ourselves, infamous for the inclusion of age-inappropriate material wholly unrelated to reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. To read an excerpt from this book that Gabel thinks is age-appropriate for an 11 or 12 year-old, click HERE.

Rep. Gabel further shared this: “I would see my daughter’s friends just reading through this book, and her friends had no other place to go. They would call her on the phone. They would come over to the house to read the book.”

Does Gabel know for a fact that her daughters’ friends had no other place to go for essential sexual health information? Does she know for a fact that the parents of her daughters’ friends did not share essential sexual health information with their children? Could it be that the information in Our Bodies, Ourselves that her daughters’ friends found so compelling were ideas that were not essential to sexual health, or that it was information their parents would have found age-inappropriate? If her daughters’ friends were not getting the information presented in Our Bodies, Ourselves from their parents, was it Gabel’s right to present it to these young girls?

This anecdote epitomizes the arrogance of “progressives” who believe that children belong to the “collective” and who are so certain that their beliefs and values are the only correct ones that they are willing to usurp and circumvent the rights of other parents.

While sexuality amoralists like Lilly and Gabel wax concerned about the high rates of teen pregnancy and STIs, they intentionally omit discussions of the central reasons “progressives” push for comprehensive sex ed. They push for it because “progressives” have virtually no moral boundaries when it comes to sexuality, including the early sexualization of children and the affirmation of homosexuality and gender confusion as normative. While there is no conclusive research proving that comprehensive sex ed is consistently more effective than abstinence education at reducing rates of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, it is indisputable that comprehensive sex ed is much more effective in advancing Leftwing beliefs about early and deviant sexual activity.

If you’re ambivalent about the value of this bill, perhaps this exhortation from State Representative Chris Welch (D-Westchester) will convince you: “This bill is keepin’ it real….These kids are having sex….It is important that we make sure that they do it properly and safely and that we can make sure the public health is maintained.” In the service of keepin’ it real, I’d like to suggest that “proper teen sex” is oxymoronic, perhaps even moronic.

State Representative Christian Mitchell (D-Chicago) prophesied with absolute certainty that the passage of this bill is the “fiscally responsible thing to do. We’re going to avoid spending money on the treatment of STDs. We’re going to avoid additional money on social services for unwanted children.” Apparently, Rep. Mitchell’s presumptuous proclamation is as good as actual evidence to those who voted for the bill.

State Representative Elaine Nekritz (D-Buffalo Grove) disingenuously expressed her deep concerns about the floor debates: “I find it troubling that we’re debating whether medically accurate, age-appropriate information is appropriate.” Any thinking and fair person knows that opponents of the bill have no problem with medically accurate information being presented to students. Opponents of this bill are concerned about the “age-appropriate” part. What the creators of typical comprehensive sex ed curricula view as “age-appropriate” is viewed by others as wildly inappropriate.

Rep. Nekritz then told a secondhand story about a teenage girl who found herself pregnant despite never having had intercourse. That is the “evidence” Nekritz believes is sufficient to justify a bill that prevents schools from using abstinence education. Did Nekritz bother to inquire about whether this young girl had received any kind of sex education and if so, what kind?

Rep. Lilly cited one CDC study but didn’t identify the study, so it’s difficult to fact-check. Lilly claimed that a CDC analysis found that “comprehensive sex ed is more effective than abstinence only.” According to the Washington Post, one 2009 CDC study found that “there is insufficient evidence to know whether programs that focus on encouraging teens to remain sexually abstinent until marriage are effective.” A 2012 CDC study of comprehensive sex ed and abstinence education concludes  that “No conclusions could be drawn on the effectiveness of group-based abstinence education.” And a 2012 criticism of the 2012 CDC analysis is found here.

In addition there is research demonstrating the efficacy of abstinence ed (here and here.)

It’s astonishing that lawmakers, many of whom are attorneys who should understand the importance of evidence, feel no compunction about voting for a bill following such a stupid floor “debate.” Since research is inconclusive at best, it seems utterly unwarranted to prohibit school districts from using abstinence-based curricula if that’s what they want to use.

To summarize, this bill will rob school districts of the right to choose the type (i.e., comprehensive vs. abstinence) of curriculum that the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce recommendedjust last year. And it will rob school districts of the right and freedom to choose the type of curriculum that myriad studies have demonstrated is at least as effective if not more effective than “comprehensive” sex ed curricula are at reducing the rate of teen pregnancies and STIs. Unbelievable.

This bill is now in the Illinois Senate.  Let’s hope the Senate floor debate proves more substantive than the fatuous House debate.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator today to ask him/her to vote NO to HB 2675.

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

This week, a bipartisan group of 11 members of the Illinois General Assembly filed an amicus curiae brief defending the constitutionality of Illinois law defining marriage as the union of a husband and a wife. Led by Senator Kirk Dillard (R-Westmont) and Senator Bill Haine (D-Alton), the legislators’ brief supports a motion to dismiss the ACLU and Lambda Legal lawsuits filed by Thomas More Society attorneys, on behalf of downstate county clerks who were allowed into the case to defend the law.

“We welcome the bipartisan support for Illinois’ marriage law offered by this respected group of legislators,” said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel for the Thomas More Society. “They rightly point out that under our constitutional system, the issue of how the government treats domestic relationships is reserved to the General Assembly.”

The legislators assert that the judicial branch should not rewrite the state’s marriage laws, stating that “to do so would be to place the court in a position of acting as a super-legislature, nullifying laws it does not like. That is not our proper role in a democratic society.” They also claim that such action would, “Dramatically interfere with the constitutional guarantee of separation of powers by which the general assembly is empowered to make public policy….”

The legislators also cite several sociological arguments stating that “… the marriage structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents ….” The legislators also supported the religious liberty concerns raised by the amicus brief of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, also filed this week, indicating that “of great concern to us is hostility that may be shown to Illinois’ religious minorities” who oppose same-sex marriage.

The amicus curiae brief is available HERE.

The proposed amici curiae, Senator Kirk Dillard, Senator William Haine, Senator Matt Murphy (R-Palatine), Senator Darrin LaHood (R-Peoria), Senator Bill Brady (R-Bloomington), Representative David Reis (R-Olney), Representative Joseph Lyons (D-Chicago), Representative Michael Connelly (R-Naperville), Representative Richard Morthland (R-Moline), Representative Patti Bellock (R-Westmont), and Representative Paul Evans (R-Highland), all of the Illinois General Assembly, are represented by retired Cook County Chancery Court Judge, Robert V. Boharic.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to contact your state representatives and state senators, urging them to support HJR 95 and its call for an amendment to the Illinois Constitution that clearly defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. 

Two Illinois state lawmakers are pushing back against an ACLU lawsuit seeking to overturn the Illinois’ 1996 marriage law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Defying Michael J. Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, State Reps. Tom Morrison (R-Palatine) and David Reis (R-Olney) have introduced House Joint Resolution 95 (HJR 95) in the Illinois House, which would allow Illinois voters to vote in the 2014 Illinois General Election on defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman in our state constitution.

(Note: A constitutional marriage amendment has been introduced in every General Assembly since 2003 but has never been given even a hearing.)

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is on record in support of redefining marriage as well as in support of the ACLU lawsuit intended to circumvent the will of the people to accomplish that goal. 

Rep. Reis is “calling upon Lisa Madigan to recuse herself and the resources of her taxpayer-funded state office from supporting two lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of Illinois’ gay marriage ban.”

“‘As Attorney General, it is her office’s duty to support the Illinois Constitution. Statutorily, it has been long established in Illinois that marriage is between a man and a woman,’ Rep. Reis said. ‘Madigan’s use of scarce taxpayer resources is an injustice to the oath of office she swore to uphold.’” 

“Attorney General Madigan stated her office would not defend the state’s marriage definition by law, saying her office will ‘present the court with arguments that explain why the challenged statutory provisions do not satisfy the guarantee of equality under the Illinois Constitution.’”

“‘Rather than questioning the constitutionality of a longstanding law in Illinois, the Attorney General’s office should be focused on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act implemented by the Obama administration,’ Reis stated. ‘Instead of standing with the twenty-six states across America who are challenging the constitutionality of Obama Care, Madigan has chosen to use taxpayer dollars to legalize same-sex marriage.’”

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to contact your state representatives and state senators, urging them to support HJR 95 and its call for an amendment to the Illinois Constitution that clearly defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. 

“If we don’t, this issue might very well get decided in the courts,” said Reis. 

Similar lawsuits have been filed in states like Massachusetts and in Iowa which resulted in their state supreme court legalizing the redefinition of marriage.

***Update:  State Representatives Paul Evans (R-Highland), Dwight Kay (R-Edwardsville), Jil Tracy (R-Quincy), Wayne Rosenthal (R-Litchfield), Mike Bost (R-Carbondale ), Adam Brown (R-Decatur), Brad Halbrook (R-Effingham), and Patricia Bellock (R-Westmont ) are now co-sponsoring this important resolution.

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL 60188.

Contact Your State Rep. Today!!

Late last week, the Chicago Tribune and other media outlets reported that in a sit-down with the editorial board of the Daily Herald, Gov. Pat Quinn (D) was asked if civil unions could be a reality in the state by Christmas.

Quinn’s answer as reported by the Herald:

“The votes are there, I believe,” Quinn said. “In the Senate for sure, and definitely I think we can do it in the House.”

He called himself a “strong advocate of civil unions…”

“I think we can pass it this year. I would like to see it voted on earlier,” Quinn said.

Take ACTION: Contact your state representative to preserve natural marriage in Illinois!  Call the Capitol switchboard at 217-782-2000 and ask your representative to please vote ‘NO’ on SB 1716 and, instead, pass a constitutional amendment to preserve marriage and its unique benefits for one man and one woman. (Be assured, legislators take very seriously the calls, letters and emails they receive.)

The only difference between marriage and “civil unions” is in name. The rights and privileges would be the same.

Background

We must point out that victories by pro-family candidates on November 2, 2010 do not take effect until January 2011, which means that defeated and retired lawmakers (aka lame ducks) will return to the legislature in mid-November and again in early January to wrap up unfinished business. This is when things can get very interesting. Lame duck lawmakers have nothing to lose politically, and may surprise constituents in how they cast their votes.

Current state lawmakers are scheduled to return to Springfield November 16-18 and November 29 – December 1.

SB 1716 would create homosexual “civil unions” in our state. This anti-family legislation passed the House Youth and Family Committee on March 5, 2009 and is now on 3rd Reading — the last step before a vote.

IT IS VITAL THAT WE MAKE OUR WILL KNOWN TO STATE LEGISLATORS. If our legislators give all the rights and benefits of marriage to homosexual partners (through civil unions), the next step will be to allow gay “marriage.”

Civil unions, same-sex “marriages,” and domestic partnerships will destroy marriage as we know it. When governments offer sex-partner benefits, they are essentially endorsing the behavior. These government-sanctioned sex-partner benefits will take us one short step away from legalizing “marriage” between two people of the same sex. Marriage by any other name is still marriage.

Those who want to redefine marriage often insist that the only necessary qualification for marriage is “love.” Under that rationale, there can logically be no boundaries as to what constitutes marriage. Any combination or number of consenting individuals must ultimately gain the same legal and societal sanction as traditional marriage. While love is vital, it is not the definitive element of marriage, and love is certainly not the concern of government. We love many people we do not marry.

Natural marriage and family must not be undermined. The data are clear and irrefutable — children do best in stable, healthy homes with both a mom and dad. Illinois’ children deserve the ideal environment and must have healthy examples. Today, with millions of fatherless children, it is callous and irresponsible to make matters worse by redefining the most basic institution of marriage to suit the desires of a few selfish adults.

We have an opportunity to stop this bill that would establish counterfeit marriage. We must preserve one-man, one-woman marriage as the highest social good for society and for our children by urging our legislature to vote against SB 1716 and to support the passage of HJRCA 2 — an amendment preserving marriage and banning all counterfeits — introduced by State Representative David Reis (R-Olney).

Please call your state representative now. We cannot afford to let this bill get to Governor Patrick Quinn’s desk, as he is on record in support of it.

Bottom line: People should not be granted special legal protection and benefits based on their sexual preferences and voluntary behaviors. Moreover, homosexual “marriage” is not a civil right.