Protect Children & Taxpayers From Radical Gender Ideology

On May 15, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) introduced two bills to the U.S. Senate—one that would prohibit federal funds from supporting gender transition procedures, and another that would altogether ban such procedures on minors.

These bills are so radical in light of contemporary opinion, yet so simple and straightforward in achieving their goals, that when I read their respective texts, I was awed that the U.S. Senate still contains the type of statesman who will stand for the truth in this way.

And Marshall isn’t alone; co-sponsoring one or both of these bills are U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Mike Braun (R-IN), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Steve Daines (R-MT), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Mike Lee (R-UT), Markwayne Mulllin (R-OK), James Risch (R-ID), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Roger Wicker (R-MS), and Josh Hawley (R-MO).

On the one hand, the End Taxpayer Funding of Gender Experimentation Act of 2023 (S. 1595) would prohibit several of the current ways that federal dollars can fund gender transition procedures. Under this bill’s provisions, federal funds may not directly fund gender transition therapy or surgery. Neither may they be shuttled into health care plans that include such practices in their coverage.

Further still, no health care service that is furnished by a physician employed by the federal government or even furnished in a facility owned by the federal government may provide gender transition procedures.

The bill does clarify that non-federal health care providers would be free to provide such treatment, and that customers would still be free to seek out separate (non-federal) plans that cover such treatment should they want it. Yet, the federal government must stay out of it.

On the other hand, the Protecting Children From Experimentation Act of 2023 (S. 1597) takes it a step further when dealing with minors; it would ban gender transition procedures for minors in almost all cases—excepting rare medical situations. Under its provisions, any physical or mental healthcare professional would be fined (or face up to five years in prison) for performing or even referring a gender transition procedure.

The bill makes sure to clarify that minors may not be prosecuted for receiving such treatment; however, recipients of the treatment are allowed to bring civil action for relief against the physician who performed it.

Marshall and his colleagues’ stand for the truth deserves three whole-hearted cheers. They are daring to suggest that physicians performing supposedly “essential” gender transition care should be imprisoned! While it seems harsh, it is not any less harsh than the “care” they are purporting to provide—nothing less than a 21st-century version of the self-mutilation practiced in pagan rites for millennia, an abomination which defiles God’s created order bestowed to each one of us since our conception.

Now, it’s one thing to sit back and cheer for U.S. Senators who are willing to take stands like this, drawing clear lines between black and white in a world filled with multitudinous shades of grey. But politics is not a spectator sport. “The people” are more than just the hypothetical but fictitious “12th man” on the football team. “The people” send the players onto the field, tell them how to play, and recall them when they don’t do their jobs right.

Many of Marshall’s colleagues are assuredly shocked at his audacious proposal. But it’s audacious when viewed from a worldview that presupposes society has already settled the question—or at least the toleration—of gender transition procedures.

Thankfully, U.S. Representative Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) has introduced the same legislation in the U.S. House (H.R. 3328 and H.R. 3329), which has 40 co-sponsors, including U.S. Representatives Mike Bost and Mary Miller from southern Illinois.

If we all called or emailed our representatives right now and let them know that we—their very own constituents—agree with Marshall’s stand for the truth, the excuses to dismiss his position as audacious and radical, will start disappearing. Let them know that you sent them on to the field to represent you, and you will not tolerate government support of lies.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth and your local U.S. Representative to ask them to support or even co-sponsor these two bills. Impressionable children should not be making life-altering, body-mutilating decisions about their sexuality and adults should not be pushing woke sexual anarchy either.

U.S. Representative LaMalfa rightly points out in his press release,

let kids be kids and wait until adulthood to make a choice they likely wish they hadn’t as a child. Adults and the medical field shouldn’t be allowed to coerce this “woke” agenda onto them when they should be their protectors. Adults need to realize that their coercion is abuse, and should face appropriate consequences.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has identified a true major crisis in America, and then suggested the most absurd solution. In a recent speech, Schumer said:

“Now more than ever we’re short of workers.”

This statement is true. Why is that?

First, we need to consider that Progressives have cultivated in Generation Z (youth born from approximately 1997-2012) an entitlement mentality. Gen Z is more likely than any previous generation to believe it is the responsibility of government to take care of them and meet their needs from cradle to grave. They have had access to many socialist-leaning policies that have de-incentivized them to work. Others have found ways to develop a lifestyle as a perpetual student, thus delaying getting an actual job. Many have found they make more money from the government by not working rather than working.

But there is another problem Schumer also correctly identified:

“We have a population that is not reproducing on its own with the same level that it used to.”

Schumer’s Solution? (Imagine All the People)

“The only way we’re going to have a great future in America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants—the DREAMers and all of them—because our ultimate goal is to help the DREAMers—but get a path to citizenship for all 11 million, or however many undocumented, there are here.”

Who Are the DREAMers?

Allow me to give a quick definition of “DREAMers.” “The DREAM Act” was a bill presented in 2001 by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). It never gained traction, even though it popped up in Congress several times (never being approved). The goal was to create a law that allowed anyone who arrived in America under the age of sixteen (and had been a resident for five years or more as well as a few other criteria), to obtain legal citizenship. The bill went nowhere until Barack Obama created an executive order, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals act (DACA), making the concepts contained in The DREAM Act an informal policy in 2012. Many have argued that this executive order was unconstitutional.

The Crisis of Declining Birth

In a previous article for IFI in 2018, I wrote about the “New Demographic Winter,” coming economically to America. I discussed the history of the over-population myth and the perils that occur when a national fertility rate dips below 2.1 births per (hopefully married!) woman. According to the World Economic Forum in 2021: “The United States has seen a 50% decline in birth rates between 1950 and 2021, from 25 births per 1,000 people to 12.” More specifically, in May of 2021, America reached a record low of 55.8 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age.

Why Fewer Babies?

There are many reasons for this phenomenon.

First, having children is strongly discouraged in our culture as women are told they are “wasting their education” if they do have children. More women than ever are obtaining college degrees, and they are taught that having children means they are throwing away everything they invested their time and money in achieving.

Second, in 1950 women were having babies at 20 years of age. Today, many women are delaying marriage, and thus childbearing, until their early 30s (shortening their birthing years).

Third, contraceptives have been nearly universally utilized, for even married women, making it easier for them to avoid pregnancy.

Fourth, government-created inflation has created a scenario where many couples feel they simply can’t afford to have children (especially considering the massive college debt many bring into their marriage). Parents are told by the media that a family will spend on average $233,610 per child before they are 18 years old. This scares many off from the idea of having more than one or two children.

Fifth, Progressives have championed the growth of homosexual relationships that, of course, cannot produce children.

There are other factors, of course, but the one that is completely ignored by Schumer and the media is the most troubling.

Mass Genocide of the Unborn

Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, over 60,000,000 babies have been brutally murdered in their mothers’ wombs.  Most of these babies, had they lived, would be working in today’s economy. Whose party has been the champion of this horrendous policy? Schumer’s democratic party of course. They created the very problem they now lament. However, rather than turning to the natural solution of encouraging men and women to marry and have their own children, Schumer has turned to a “solution” that is also fraught with problems that we will experience down the road.

Mass Amnesty

Schumer wants to make 11,000,000 illegal immigrants (or however many there are) naturalized citizens. America has always been a nation that welcomes immigrants. Both Republicans and Democrats want there to be legal pathways for people from other countries to come to America and create a new home.

Even the Trump administration suggested policies that would find a pathway of citizenship for those who were brought to America by their parents as children. No one is advocating for being unsympathetic to the plight of young children, or to those who were moved here through no choice of their own. The Democrats like to highlight undocumented children, because we are all sympathetic to their plight, but they are only a small fraction of the millions Schumer is suggesting we admit to citizenship.

If a child is deported along with his or her parents, the Democrats say we are uncaring. But let’s suppose we allow the DREAMer children to stay in the country, but deport their illegal parents. What kind of life is that for a child? What child wants to be separated from his or her parents? That’s way more cruel than deporting the entire family. Not to mention children left alone in this country will likely be raise by the government, costing tax-payers billions of dollars for their care. So Democrats say we should just let the whole family stay.

The problem is, mass amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, coupled with no strategic border control, will only entice millions more to flood across the border illegally, using resources that should belong to American citizens.

A mass integration of millions of undocumented aliens does not allow for the careful analysis and background checks necessary to ensure that we are not white-listing millions of people with criminal records from other countries who have been hiding here within our borders. We know many have come to America smuggling drugs, contraband or even participating in human trafficking. These are not the kinds of citizens America needs.

At a time when our health care system and many government agencies are already overwhelmed, and when current housing is in short supply, documenting that many illegal immigrants will make the cost of living for current citizens skyrocket, and will make resources scarcer. This isn’t true with babies because they aren’t all born on the same day. For current citizens who have been trying to find work, this will make their search more difficult.

It is generally agreed that the primary goal of Democrats in promoting this kind of legislation is to buy votes from these illegals who will feel obligated to vote for the party who welcomed them in, even though they didn’t go through proper legal channels. This is part of the Democrats’ strategy, along with election redistricting, relaxing voting requirements and other such initiatives to wrest future national elections away from the Republican party for good.

Immigration Reform

In the end, we definitely need a much more efficient immigration process that allows for a faster legal documentation for law-abiding applicants to become a part of our American way of life. Our current bureaucracy is terribly inefficient (as is the process of parents seeking to adopt needy children through foreign and domestic adoption). We can achieve our goals of a safe and diverse population through a balanced, common-sense approach to both reasonable immigration and encouraging domestic birth.

The one thing we should not continue to do is to kill off our own offspring and try to compensate for it by throwing our borders open to any criminal who wants to invade our country without going through proper screening and vetting.

A question that’s been roiling the Catholic Church for years is whether Nancy Pelosi and Dick Durbin and other Catholic politicians should be denied Communion since they support the legalized killing of children in the womb.

In 2004, then-Fr. Kevin Vann (now Bishop Vann of Orange, CA) publicly advised U.S. Senator Durbin not to present himself for Communion at his home church in Springfield due to his stance on abortion. But mostly the Church has wrestled with this question through the decades. Many wonder why there is any reluctance to deny Communion to Catholics who endorse views contrary to those of the Church.

Opponents of the denial of Communion argue that since we’re all sinners, if we deny Communion to some politicians on this issue, then we must deny Communion to others in the pews who are engaged in serious sin. That, in turn, would mean that few would be receiving Communion, which is at the heart of Mass for Catholics.

But now action has been taken by Nancy Pelosi’s archbishop, Salvatore Cordileone, in San Francisco to deny her Communion, and the floodgates of opinion have opened. The action was immediately praised by other bishops and panned by celebrities.

First, let’s get the easy stuff out of the way. Celebrity Whoopi Goldberg, who identifies as Catholic, proclaims on TV to the archbishop: “It’s not your job!” Except that it is Archbishop Cordileone’s job. In fact, it’s at the very heart of the “job description” for a bishop or priest. They are called to tend their flock and help people live righteously, part of which is administering or withholding the Eucharist.

Second, politicians and leaders have a special responsibility that most of us don’t have.[1] As leaders of civil government, they regularly determine life-and-death issues, chief among which is abortion—the direct killing of innocent unborn children.

Now on to the nitty-gritty of Catholic Church teaching.

The way it’s supposed to work is that the priest of the church that Nancy Pelosi attends is in charge of ministering to her. Just like any other parishioner, the local priest is her shepherd. He talks to her, hears her confessions, counsels her, and administers the sacraments to her. He gets to know the real Nancy, who is created in the image and likeness of Almighty God, all for the purpose of helping her grow in holiness.

For decades, her priest (and his boss, the archbishop) have undoubtedly held many private conversations with Pelosi. Many attempts to get her to renounce killing the unborn were surely made. Indeed, Nancy says so herself. But she says she “disagrees” with the Church on this and other key issues.

So, what is an archbishop to do? He is to do exactly what Archbishop Cordileone did. Privately counsel one of his flock on a major sin. Counsel her to confess and ask for forgiveness. And urge her not to sin again. If she refuses, the priest cannot in good conscience administer the sacrament of Communion.

Catholic leaders like Pelosi and Durbin will often say that Catholic teaching provides that one’s “right of conscience” is sacred. That is true. But using that as an excuse to support abortion or gay “marriage” or any other serious sin makes a mockery of the teaching. The teaching does not give carte blanche to reject Catholic doctrine.

Catholic teaching says that a “well-formed conscience is upright and truthful” and also that a well-formed conscience can never contradict the objective moral truth contained in Sacred Scripture or taught by the Magisterium of the Church.

Public discussions of the Catholic Church’s respect for conscience often include a grave misunderstanding of how the Catholic Church views conscience. Conscience is “the sense of right and wrong, but also the obligations that follow from our understanding of what is right and wrong.”

Further, conscience must be properly formed by Scripture and the historical teachings of the Catholic Church. Catholic apologist Tom Nash writes,

[A] Catholic is obligated to form his conscience particularly with the teachings of the Church (CCC 1785) and including these basic moral rules:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it
• The Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
• Charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble”

Choosing abortion clearly violates all three rules. Thus, one can never have a truly certain conscience and choose abortion. … In addition, as Vatican II makes clear, conscience does not give individual Catholics arbitrary veto power over any and all Church teachings they don’t like. Rather, in evaluating decisions in their conscience, Catholics are faced with an objective, divinely given law (see Romans 2:14-16) they must obey, not one they can override or rewrite.

The archbishop obviously doesn’t believe Nancy is submitting to God. As Nancy Pelosi said, “They say to me, ‘Nancy Pelosi thinks she knows more about having babies than the pope.’ Yes I do. Are you stupid?”

The Catholic Church believes that its priests, bishops, archbishops, and cardinals, are established on Earth for the purpose of guiding and helping people grow in holiness. Like most clergy, Archbishop Cordileone is keenly aware of his role in trying to get Nancy Pelosi, and others in his care, to accept God’s Word. Let us pray for them all.

Have you heard? Abortion cheerleaders were at it again! Earlier this week they attempted to overturn state legislative abortion restrictions. Their weapon? The so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act” (H.R. 3755) – led by U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and U.S. Representative Judy Chu (D-CA). The proposal passed the U.S. House by a vote of 218-211 on September 24, 2021. It was taken up by the U.S. Senate on Monday, February 28, 2022 where cloture was opposed by all Republicans and one Democrat: U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV). The motion failed by a vote of 46-48.

In spite of progress we have made since 2019 to reverse abortion on demand with the passage of heartbeat bills in Ohio, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Texas (the Guttmacher Institute predicts up to 25 more states may ban abortions if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade), this bill had the potential to quash it all. It’s dastardly features included overturning:

• Waiting periods before an abortion
• Limits that abortions be performed by licensed physicians
• Requirements to provide information about their unborn child to those seeking an abortion
• Requirement to provide alternative to abortion to those seeking abortion
• Federal limits on taxpayer funding of abortion

And while all of the above are heartbreaking, there’s more! It would also have banned:

• Laws allowing medical professionals to opt-out of providing abortions (Conscience protection)
• Laws that prohibit abortion after 20 weeks when an unborn child is capable of feeling pain
• Laws that prohibit using abortion as a method of sex selection and abortions done based on a diagnosis of Down’s Syndrome
• Parental consent or notification for minors seeking an abortion

And the power of this bill can hardly be overstated. It carried with it the potential to make all elective abortions inevitable and protected by federal law. Stomping all over the 10th Amendment, it would have become the weapon against which individual states became powerless to establish their own true protection for the mother and the unborn. True protection for a woman’s health, or anyone’s for that matter, assumes a respect for life and help in a time of need.

A blessing in disguise of the states’ right to prohibit abortion is the inconvenience inherent in this right for those seeking abortion. In some cases, this inconvenience can work in the mother and her baby’s favor. Finding out about an unplanned pregnancy can, admittedly, be unsettling causing some to rush to a solution that is not a solution at all. When an abortion is not easily and immediately obtained, the time to reflect can allow the mother to realize the actual blessings associated with the pregnancy. The blessings of not only carrying a life but allowing those in your family and community the opportunity to come alongside and support you.

However, not all can see the blessing of states’ ban on abortion. The CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Adrienne Mansanares, recently bemoaned this in an interview with the Las Vegas Sun. She finds the “inconvenience” of having to travel to another state, facing fatigue from such travel, and finding childcare for other children while the “procedure” is performed a “heavy burden”. She also considers it a heavy burden on the states where the abortions are sought, “So that really puts a burden on the public health system of those states where reproductive health care is accessible and legal” as these states pick up the slack.

Which brings our thoughts to the irony of this bill’s name- -Women’s Health Protection. Not only is there nothing protective, for the mother or the baby, in assisting a woman to murder her unborn child. Neither is it healthcare.

​​According to experts, they are not safer than childbirth and women do not need them to be healthy. Nor do they suffer when they do not have easy access to abortion. Researchers (abortion activities) at the University of California San Francisco found that after 5 years, 96 percent of women who were denied abortions were glad they had not had one. The moral of the story, easy access to abortion, rather than being health care, is a disservice to women.

Praise the Lord! H.R. 3755 was stopped!

How did your U.S. Senator vote? If they opposed the bill, thank them. If they supported the bill, let them know your thoughts. Both U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth voted to end debate on this legislation. Contact your U.S. Senator using this link.

To view a longer analysis via the National Right to Life scorecard use this link.

Read more:

Manchin Sides With GOP to Kill Dems’ Radical Pro-Abortion Bill (AFN)

U.S. Senate Democrats Fail to Federally Enshrine Abortion on Demand Until Birth (FRC)

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.

Leftists seek to destroy every created thing that emerges from, depends on, or reflects the real and foundational distinctions between males and females. Eradicating all distinctions between males and females entails socially constructing a false understanding of marriage. It entails distorting the public understanding of the purposes for and boundaries of sex and reproduction. It entails transforming the public understanding of the needs and rights of children. And it entails a wholesale assault on all sex-associated phenomena, including clothing, hairstyles, grammar, private space usage (e.g., bathrooms, locker rooms, dorm rooms, nursing home rooms, and prison cells), sports, and even human bodies.

What accounts for the zealous, quixotic mission to eradicate all distinctions between male and female—a mission that began in earnest in the 1960’s? Ultimately, this is a rebellion against God who created us male and female, who identifies himself as Father—not mother—and whose incarnate child was a son—not a daughter. The scope and enormity of this cultural and spiritual revolution could only be inspired by the father of lies, aided and abetted, of course, by fallen humans.

Indulgent self-regard has supplanted unselfish concern for the common good. Appetitive pleasure has been recast as “authenticity,” thereby granting hedonism a patina of nobility. While leftists claim it takes a village to raise a child, they live in a solipsistic world in which nothing outside the self matters—well, unless the “self” is conservative in orientation. Then, no degree of “authenticity” matters.

The tragic consequences of this rebellion against God are evident all around us in the form of broken, dysfunctional families; high rates of premarital sex; kink; porn use; STI’s; promiscuity; abortion until birth; child abuse; social acceptance of homosexuality; explosive growth of cross-sex impersonation; drag queen story hours; and the promotion of sexual deviance in public schools. And yet, increasing numbers of Republicans, the party that has historically stood for policies consonant with truth about sexuality, are abandoning such commitments.

How many Republicans now affirm the legal recognition of non-marital unions as “marriages”? How many Republicans now say that motherless and fatherless children should be placed with homosexual couples to be raised without either mothers or fathers? How many cowardly and/or ignorant Republicans turn and run from these “social” issues, not realizing that everyone can see the neon yellow stripe covering their backs.

Word to those Republicans: the social issues are far more critical to the survival and health of America than are tax rates and business regulations. Only fools think otherwise.

As a party, however, Democrats are even further lost. Democrats gloat about being the saviors of women, all the while facilitating damage to and destruction of girls’ bodies and spirits. The blood of half a million baby girls killed in their mothers’ wombs every year drips from Democrats’ hands. Without the sexual revolution that taught girls that being as sexually “liberated” as males was something to embrace, there wouldn’t be a million abortions annually.

The blood from the severed breasts of teen girls and young women who have been deceived into thinking that they are men and that double mastectomies will resolve their gender dysphoria drips from the grimy fingers of Democrats. This “gender-affirming” practice matches or exceeds in barbarity “female genital mutilation,” a practice Democrats claim to abhor.

And with few exceptions, Democrats support the eradication of athletic opportunities for and achievements of girls and women by allowing biological men—also known as “men”—who pretend to be women to participate in girls’ and women’s athletics.

We recently saw a strapping Division I male swimmer who, after his junior year on the men’s team, decided he was a woman swimmer. He switched teams and destroyed multiple women’s records. He ruined the swim meet for both his female teammates and their opponents. Girls who likely started swimming at eight-years-old and endured daily four-hour workouts year-round from middle school on, have had their records demolished—by a man.

And his teammates are not free to express their authentic feelings about this travesty of inequity because the “trans” cult and its collaborators have created a culture in which only their speech is cost-free.

No, Democrats are neither feminists nor saviors of women. They’re callous, ignorant, fearful, selfish misogynists.

Someone should ask Illinois U.S. Senators Tammy Duckworth and Tricky Dick Durbin a few questions:

• What is a woman–specifically?

• Does a man cease to be a man if he wishes he were or thinks he is a woman?

• Why was Title IX created?

• Is it fair, just, or equitable for girls and women to have to compete against biological males in sports?

• Why should objective, immutable biological sex be subordinate to subjective, internal feelings about one’s maleness or femaleness in sports, which is centrally concerned with objective, immutable physical embodiment?

This insalubrious, anti-science, anti-God rebellion is not nearly over. The assault on truth will come to the church because the Bible is the source of all truth. Speaking, writing, or preaching the truth on God’s created order vis a vis biological sex and sex-based roles, and his prescriptions and proscriptions for sexual acts will be redefined as “hate speech.” Leftists will then attempt to ban such “hate speech,” or what Christians call expositions of truth. Being a Christian will be far costlier tomorrow if we are cowardly today.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Are-Progressives-Allies-of-Women-or-Misogynists.mp3

Nothing exposes the ignorance and evil of “progressivism” quite like discussions of the rights of the most vulnerable among us.

Nothing exposes the hollowness of leftist claims to care about social justice, the poor, and the weak like their eagerness to keep the slaughter of humans in the womb legal.

Nothing exposes the loathing of leftists for those deemed “other” by the powerful than their seething rage at the possibility they may lose the right to kill those they “other.” Leftists view humans with defects and humans created by the criminal acts of their fathers as undeserving of existence. Leftist “othering” of imperfect humans and humans conceived through evil acts is so extreme that they shriek apoplectically at the claim that even these tiny, innocent humans are part of the human family.

Adam Serwer writing for the Atlantic described the possibility of Roe being overturned as “stripping half the country’s population of a fundamental constitutional right.” He didn’t expend a single word to try to prove that killing one’s unborn baby is a constitutional right. He didn’t point to where that purported right is found in the Constitution. He didn’t refute the numerous claims from liberal constitutional scholars who assert that no such right can be found in the Constitution.

(As an aside, hasn’t Serwer heard the news from feminists that men are not entitled to speak on the issue of abortion—not even when their own children are being killed?)

In America Magazine, Illinois’ morally repugnant and theologically ignorant U.S. Senator Dick Durbin whined like a narcissistic teen that “it is fundamentally unfair” that he is denied Communion in the Springfield diocese, a decision that he calls “not a happy experience.”

He also believes this about Communion:

I think the standard for receiving Communion is a well-formed conscience, and where you come down as a result of that. And that is personal to the individual standing at the rail. … In the end it is a personal decision to stand at that rail, and I think with very few exceptions, Communion is offered to anybody if the person believes that they are worthy of it.

Really? The Catholic Church has an obligation to serve the Lord’s Supper to anyone who finds himself or herself “worthy of it”? And that obligation applies even to Catholics who intentionally use their voices and power to promote sin as good in direct violation of Catholic teaching?

Clearly, Durbin thinks he’s worthy of Communion despite the fact that he supports the legal right to slaughter humans in the womb from conception to birth for any or no reason.

Durbin goes on to point out what he views as hypocrisy by Catholic leaders:

[H]ere we have Trump in the closing days of his presidency executing more people on federal death row than any time in modern memory, just right and left, and we couldn’t stop it, the courts couldn’t stop it. …  And to think that these same Catholic leaders didn’t express horror at that outcome, or at least as much as they should have from my point of view, is troubling.

Point of clarification from America Magazine:

[The Trump administration carried out 13 executions over its last seven months in office—five in its last month. …]

In Durbin’s moral blindness, he believes that thirteen executions of adults found guilty of serious crimes warrant expressions of horror from Catholic leaders. He believes five executions of criminals in one month are horrific. Meanwhile, 1,700 abortions per day in the United States warrant approval and legal sanction—in Durbin’s view. That is 1,700 innocent human lives snuffed out every day because their mothers don’t want them to live.

No worries though because Durbin assures his constituents that his faith “means a lot to me”:

My faith has been a big part of my life and I’ve thought about it a lot because I have been forced to.

Apparently, thinking “a lot” about his faith is about all Durbin’s done with it. And apparently, all that thinking was done under duress. No voluntary thinking about his faith. No siree.

In service of proving themselves singularly committed to compassion for the weak and oppressed, leftists are fond of redefining and revising. So, here’s an idea on how Planned Parenthood and other cheerleaders for calculated carnage should revise the conclusion of Emma Lazarus’ famous poem “The New Colossus” to suit their mission:

Give me your flawed, your poor
Your parasites with no right to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Bring your unwanted, tempest-tost to me,
I lift the lamp beside the cold steel door.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Fools-and-Hypocrites-Defend-Abortion.mp3

The crisis along the U.S.-Mexican  border continues with little effort from the Biden administration to stop the flood. In September, Del Rio, Texas, was nearly overrun when 30,000 illegal immigrants poured over the border into the town. This action meant illegal immigrants almost outnumbered actual citizens and, as a result, Del Rio’s public areas and living conditions deteriorated noticeably.

In 2021, approximately 1.7 million illegal immigrants have been arrested along our border. However, our federal government has done little to pro-actively intervene or address the primary issues that cause immigrants to leave their country. President Joe Biden met with Mexico’s President André Manuel López Obrador on November 18th. The two only briefly discussed the border. Obrador has stated that the U.S. should grant amnesty to the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and did not promise any help in stemming the tide of illegal crossings.

While the problems incurred along the border are overwhelming, the individuals coming here are far too often the victims. According to Pew Research, we have seen the highest levels of illegal crossings this year compared to the last several decades. However, despite the high level of crossings, the number of individuals crossing is down. This decrease is because an estimated 27% of individuals make multiple crossings across the border. One explanation for multiple crossings is that some illegal immigrants are caught, returned to their country of their origin, and then make other attempts to cross. Another explanation is that coyotes, the colloquial term for smugglers, are going back and forth smuggling victims of human trafficking across the border.

Kevin Lilly, Chairman of the Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission, has closely followed the tragedy of human trafficking at the border. In an interview with Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson, Lilly claimed that 60% of Latin American children crossing the US-Mexican border are victims of trafficking. Approximately 80,000 children are currently being trafficked in the state of Texas alone. The crisis along the border is further facilitating and funding the $200 billion industry of human trafficking.

President Biden’s response to the border crisis and human trafficking has been a complete debacle. The administration’s policy requires U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to release families and unaccompanied minors 72 hours after being detained. Agents then serve them a notice to report to court for a hearing. Most immigrants do not comply with the notice to return, and minors and vulnerable adults are often quickly sold to traffickers.

The lack of intervention by the Biden administration means officials in border states are left on their own to manage the immigrant problem. Governor Greg Abbott (R-Texas) declared disaster areas in 47 Texas counties and deployed the National Guard to assist with border patrol and with the growing humanitarian crisis. Texas will likely see even more problems as a caravan of 2,000 migrants are currently making their way from Central American and Haiti to the US-Mexican border.

Recently, after discovering that the federal government was secretly flying illegal immigrants to Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis (R) stated, “If they’re going to come here, we’ll provide buses. I will send them to Delaware and do that. If he’s [Biden] not going to support the border being secured, then he should be able to have everyone there.” DeSantis has also filed suit against the Biden administration for continuing the catch and release program.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also responded to the problem with the introduction of S. 3002, the Stop the Surge Act of 2021. The Committee on the Judiciary is reviewing the act which was introduced to Congress on October 19th. This bill would establish twelve new ports of entry that Homeland Security would maintain. Any illegal immigrant detained at our border would be sent to one of the twelve ports and processed to determine if they were qualified for entry or deportation. Additionally, the act would eliminate temporary asylum and the catch and release program. As proposed by U.S. Senator Cruz, the bill would help tighten border control and perhaps prevent traffickers from using the open border to victimize vulnerable children and adults.

To stop the inhumane treatment of illegal immigrants and the human trafficking at our borders, we must stop the influx of migrants. This crisis will only end if we tighten border control and make it clear to all individuals that there is an established, legal process for immigrating to our country. The federal government should not automatically grant amnesty if they are serious about stopping the tide of migrants breaching our border. If you believe the border crisis is a humanitarian disaster, do not hesitate to get in touch with your Congressional representatives and demand that the Stop the Surge Act 2021 be moved to the U.S. Senate floor for a vote.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth plus your own U.S. Representatives and voice your concerns regarding the border crisis and express your support for S. 3002, the Stop the Surge Act.

Ask them to secure our national borders! You can also call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to speak to your federal lawmaker by name. If the staff doesn’t pick up, be sure to leave your name, phone number, and your message that you want S. 3002 passed, the border secure, women and children protected and the border wall finished immediately. Please ask your friends to do the same!

More ACTION: If you suspect someone you know is a victim of human trafficking, whether an immigrant or a legal citizen, don’t hesitate to call the National Human Trafficking Resource Center hotline at: (888) 373-7888.

Learn MORE:

[VIDEO] Texas mother, daughter killed as human smuggler crashes into them (Tucker Carlson)

Last Friday, by a vote of 218 to 211, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a radical pro-abortion bill that would essentially codify Roe v. Wade. The so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021” (H.R. 3755) would create an absolute right to abortion in federal law, superseding all state laws. The vote fell along party lines, with only one Democrat—U.S. Representatives Henry Cuellar (D-TX)—voting against the bill.

The dangers of this extreme pro-abortion bill cannot be overstated. Contrary to its name, this bill endangers women in innumerable ways. It removes countless state restrictions and limits on abortion, allowing for abortion up to the point of birth so long as one “health care provider” determines that the “continuation of pregnancy would pose a risk” to the mother’s life or “health.” The definition of “health care provider” in the bill is extremely broad and includes certified nurse-midwives, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

Moreover, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Doe v. Bolton, a companion case to Roe, “health” in the context of abortion is extremely broad and can include physical, emotional, psychological, and familial conditions, including the woman’s age.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to ask them to oppose H.R. 3755 should it come up for a vote.

Co-sponsors of H.R. 3755 from Illinois include: U.S. Representatives Robin Kelly (D-Chicago), Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston), Bobby Rush (D-Chicago), Sean Casten (D-Wheaton), Danny Davis (D-Chicago), Bill Foster (D-Joliet), Chuy Garcia (D-Chicago), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Schaumburg), Marie Newman (D-Chicago), Brad Schneider (D-Lincolshire), Lauren Underwood (D-Crystal Lake), Mike Quigley (D-Oak Park) and Cheri Bustos (D-Moline).

Background

The Women’s Health Protection Act would strike down state level pro-life protections and prevent state legislatures from taking action regarding abortion. Such an example is Illinois’ Parental Notice of Abortion law.  The bill also targets funding for abortions by removing pro-life protections such as the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal taxpayer dollars from supporting abortion, and the Weldon Amendment, which prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to discriminate on the basis of a health care entity’s refusal to provide, pay for, or refer women for abortion.

Thankfully, as the National Review reported, the bill is unlikely to receive the necessary votes to pass the U.S. Senate. The Senate is currently made up of 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents, and 60 votes are required to end a filibuster. Even some “pro-choice” Republican senators have expressed hesitation about the bill, such as U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), who commented that “parts of the bill are too ‘extreme’ for her,” and that “the bill would ‘severely weaken’ conscience rights by denying protections afforded by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

We think it’s important to make sure that not only our two U.S. Senators know what we think about this legislation, though they be pro-choice, but we also want to put on notice the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell.

Moreover, IFI urges you to pray for all of our federal lawmakers and then speak out to condemn the wickedness of abortion and those sponsoring the so-called “Woman’s Health Protection Act.”

The United States was legally founded upon the principle of limited government, under which at the time of the founding, the federal government mandating specific medical treatment to individual citizens would never have been tolerated.

Yet, on September 9^th, Joe Biden issued an executive order [1] that “[e]ach agency shall implement, a program” to “require COVID-19 vaccination for all of its Federal employees.”

Current COVID vaccinations have been rushed to market (the first “full” FDA approval of a COVID vaccine was just weeks ago [2]), with apparently substantial shortcuts such as the overlooking of thousands of adverse events including death [3].

While for political purposes, Biden puffs the universality of his vaccine mandate, his staff has recognized [4], and technically complied with legal limits on his power to do so.

In order to make the order sound as broad as possible, the words “each agency” were used, but understanding that the Executive Branch has no authority over the Legislative or Judicial branches (or businesses and individuals not employed by the Executive Branch), they hide the limitation in a definition:

“Sec. 3.  Definitions.  For the purposes of this order:

     (a)  The term “agency” means an Executive agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105”

In typical contract legalese, Biden’s legal staff has also quietly made a disclaimer that such programs be only, “to the extent consistent with applicable law,” which would include the requirement to accommodate a sincerely held religious belief (see “Resources To Fight Tyrannical Vaccine Mandates”).

Interestingly, Biden is the lone wolf in the federal government, as neither the United States Congress, nor the federal Judiciary has yet seen fit to follow suit. Perhaps they understand that the recovery rate for this pandemic is well over 98 percent, and would prefer to avoid the risks of taking the vaccine themselves.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to the offices of the President, U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth and your U.S. Representative to demand that elected officials recognize that American citizens have Constitutionally protected liberties that the Executive Branch cannot usurp.

Moreover, you may want to ask them to stop mandating unproven medical treatments and allow citizens to consult with their own private physicians to decide what course of preventative treatment is best.

IFI supports an individual’s civil right to choose,
as an American, to vaccinate or not.

More ACTION: Please pray for the governing authorities, that they shall follow our law and the law of the Creator upon which it was founded, in all of their actions.

Read more:

Leftist Authoritarians Push Their Values By Any Means Necessary (IFA)

Vaccine Mandate Sticks It To Freedom (Tony Perkins)

The Revolution Will Be Bureaucratized (The Federalist)

Biden’s Divisive COVID-19 Vaccination Plan Favors Coercion Over Persuasion (The Daily Signal)

Footnotes:
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/09/09/executive-order-on-requiring-coronavirus-disease-2019-vaccination-for-federal-employees/

[2] https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine

[3] By contrast, in 1982 Eli Lilly recalled the popular and effective drug, Oraflex, a drug for the pain and inflammation of arthritis based upon 61 deaths in Britain and 11 deaths in the U.S.  As of September 9, 3,867 (of 9,470, or 40%) adverse event reports had been filed with the FDA for deaths of those receiving the single approved vaccination (Pfizer).   https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html 

[4] Unlike the Pritzker administration whose unlawful attempts through “executive orders” to extend his power over private individuals have recently become well-known, and well-challenged by Illinoisans.

I (and likely millions of other Americans) were surprised to learn from the racism sleuths among us that Georgia recently enacted a Jim Crow voter suppression law the likes of which America has never seen. In light of that disturbing revelation, I wondered if there were any other states with such laws and was even more surprised to discover that from sea to shining sea, America is riddled with Jim Crow laws. There are so many Jim Crow voter suppression laws in so many states that I don’t have time to list them all, so I’ll just highlight a few.

According to the New York Post, Chuck Schumer may have some ‘splainin’ to do:

the Empire State still makes it harder to vote than does the state [Georgia] that’s drawing the boycotts. New York offers eight fewer days of early voting and requires a valid excuse to vote absentee.

Yes, Georgia will now ask for a valid ID to vote absentee, but lets you out of the requirement if you attest that you don’t have one.

New York even has a ban similar to Georgia’s new prohibition on the distribution of food and drink in voting lines that President Joe Biden labeled “Jim Crow in the 21st century.” …

Those “mobile ballot drop-off” vans that Georgia just restricted? New York doesn’t allow them at all.

It’s not only New York that attempts to suppress the black vote by requiring an excuse to vote absentee. Delaware, Connecticut, and New Hampshire also require such excuses.

Georgia’s new law expands existing early voting requirements. The “new law …  adds a mandatory weekend day for early voting, requiring two Saturdays of early voting. The old law required one.” To be truly fair, early voting should be expanded another few months. But Delaware hasn’t begun offering any early voting days. Those won’t start until next year. Maybe Delaware voters had to wait for vote-suppressor Joe Biden to leave the state before getting rid of that Jim Crow relic.

It’s weird that Biden and Schumer were elected year after year while remaining silent on their states’ voter suppression laws. I thought silence was violence.

Oh, but there’s still more voter suppression hiding in plain sight, like the fact that photo IDs are also required at polling places in Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

Georgia’s law makes some changes to the number and location of ballot drop boxes—drop boxes that were added in 2020 because of the pandemic. If you’re alarmed by that, you won’t believe what else I learned. Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia provide no ballot drop boxes. Who knew New Hampshire has been suppressing the black vote?

We all know what needs to happen now. Every professional sports event scheduled in these states must be canceled.

After ruminating about and researching the prevalence of racist voter suppression laws, I began wondering what other forms of racist suppression I may not have noticed while traipsing about America draped in my white privilege. Well, those who oppose Jim Crow photo ID laws better be sitting down for this next bit of shocking news I discovered about America.

America has flying suppression laws, driving suppression laws, car rental/purchase suppression laws, welfare access suppression laws, alcohol purchase suppression laws, medical care access suppression laws, bank account access suppression laws, food stamps access suppression laws, house purchase and house rental suppression laws, apartment rental suppression laws, marriage suppression laws, pet adoption suppression laws, hotel/motel access suppression laws, cell phone purchase suppression laws, blood donation suppression laws, gun purchase suppression laws, and hunting/fishing license suppression laws.

Who wants to live in a country like that? Not me. So, I went on a search for countries without racist suppression laws and much to my dismay, I learned there are very few places in the world devoid of racism.

Here are just a few of the racist countries that prohibit mail-in voting: Albania, Armenia, Belgium, Belarus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden.

Here are a few of the racist countries that ban early voting: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and United Kingdom.

Here are a few of the racist countries that ban ballot collecting (i.e., proxy voting, “ballot harvesting”): Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungry, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Portugal, and Spain.

All the coolest countries are racist!

In my research, however, I came across some confusing information.

First, I read something by Hans von Spakovsky which threw an ideological monkey wrench into the “Georgia Is a Hotbed of Racism” narrative:

Georgia provides a free photo ID to anyone who doesn’t already have one. …

Section 25 of the bill doesn’t even require voters to provide a photocopy of their ID. Instead, the voter can simply write “the number of his or her Georgia driver’s license or identification card” on the application for the absentee ballot.

Moreover, if the voter doesn’t have such a Georgia ID card, she can “provide a copy of a form of identification listed” in another code section of Georgia law (§ 21-2-417(c)). And what does that code section say? That you can satisfy the ID requirement with a “copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of such elector.”

Now where do you think the Georgia legislature got that language? They got it from federal law, the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Section 303(b) of this law (codified at 52 U.S.C. § 21083) requires an individual who registered to vote by mail and who is voting for the first time in a federal election (whether in person or by mail)  to instead provide “a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that show the name and address of the voter” if he doesn’t have a “current and valid photo identification.”

The language on voter IDs for absentee ballots in the new Georgia law is thus identical to the language in federal law, promulgated through the Help America Vote Act. And guess who voted to approve this federal law in 2002? Why, then-Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware. In fact, the vote was 92 to 2, and included in the “yes” votes were Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.; and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Were they all imposing “Jim Crow” on American voters? I don’t seem to recall the Major League Baseball Players Association boycotting any of the states of these senators—or any of the other senators who voted in favor of the Help America Vote Act. Or boycotting their own stadiums, which require IDs to pick up will call tickets.

Then I read something even weirder than the U.S. Senate re-elections after re-elections after re-elections of racist vote-suppressors Biden and Schumer. I read that Missouri, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas rank in the top ten states for black voter turnout despite their voter suppression laws. Black voter turnout in North Carolina is virtually tied with that of New York and beats black turnout in California by a smidge.

A study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research and published in 2019 found that voter ID requirements have virtually no effect on voter turnout:

For all the heated debates around strict voter ID laws, our analysis of their effects obtains mostly null results. First, the fears that strict ID requirements would disenfranchise disadvantaged populations have not materialized. Using the largest individual-level dataset ever assembled to study voter participation, we do not find any negative effect on overall turnout and registration rates or on any group defined by race, age, gender, or party affiliation.

Confusing? A bit, but oh, well, I’m with President Biden who once said, “We choose truth over facts.”

I did learn that one news report about the Georgia law was wrong, and this will be a huge relief to many. For those people of color and colorless people who regularly lose consciousness from thirst or starvation while waiting in line to vote, just pack up all your care and woe. Georgia will feed you.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/States-with-Racist-Jim-Crow-Voter-Suppression-Laws.mp3

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

How can someone as foolish and manipulative as U.S. Representative Marie Newman get elected to Congress? Oh, yeah, she ran in Illinois, the land that once gave the nation Abe Lincoln but now saddles the nation with Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth, Jan Schakowsky, Sean Casten, and Brad Schneider.

On March 17 Newman, the anti-life, self-identifying Catholic, spoke in a U.S. Senate hearing in support of the execrable Equality Act, which has nothing to do with Equality and everything to do with advancing an alchemical superstition about the alleged ability of humans to become the opposite sex through desire, cross-dressing, hormone-doping, and mutilating cosmetic surgery.

She did what “progressives” do best. Rather than make a cogent, rational argument based on reason and evidence, she instead tried to manipulate feelings through a personal “narrative.” She told the sad tale of her troubled teenage son who now pretends to be a woman. Unfortunately, since she chose to exploit her son’s problems on the national stage in order to pass legislation that will affect the entire nation, others have a right to respond.

Newman began her exploitative sermonette by making this remarkable claim, the ramifications of which she clearly has not thought through:

The most important thing in life is to be authentic. I think we all understand that. … Imagine if I asked any of you … on the committee today to simply try being someone you absolutely are not … To try to be something that you are not every day is very difficult. Do this for a week, a month, a year and I guarantee you will feel deep depression, great anxiety, and yes, even suicidal.

Newman neglected to define “authentic.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “authentic” as “conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, and belief.” As such, a man seeking to pass as a woman is the antithesis of authenticity.

Perhaps Newman believes an “authentic” life means living in accordance with deeply held beliefs. If so, then she should understand that for theologically orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims living an authentic life precludes treating humans as if they are the sex they are not. In other words, the Equality Act would compel many Americans to live inauthentic lives. It would compel them to participate in a destructive lie.

From the context, however, it appears Newman links authenticity to living a life of bondage to unchosen, powerful, and persistent desires, no matter how disordered, irrational, or delusional. To Newman being “authentic” appears to refer to yielding to desires that impel artificially induced cessation of natural biological processes and surgical mutilation of healthy, properly functioning parts of sexual anatomy.

Applying consistently Newman’s definition of an “authentic” life would mean that those who experience an unchosen, powerful, and persistent desire to be an amputee (i.e., those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder) should be treated as if they are amputees even if they are equipped with fully functioning, healthy limbs.

And those who experience unchosen, powerful, persistent sexual attraction to children should not be prohibited from acting on those desires, for trying to be someone they are not will—Newman guarantees—result in deep depression, great anxiety, and suicidal ideation.

If trying to be “someone you absolutely are not” is life’s greatest evil, should prideful, vain people stop trying to be modest and humble? Should greedy, selfish, narcissistic people stop trying to be generous, unselfish, and empathetic? Should slothful people stop trying to be industrious? Should people consumed by lust yield to their insatiable appetite for pornography and prostitutes?

Newman arrogantly presumed that everyone on the committee understands that “the most important thing in life is to be authentic”—as she understands authenticity. Perhaps, however, some on this U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee—for example, Marsha Blackburn, Vicki Hartzler, or James Lankford—believe an authentic life means living in a way that corresponds to material reality or to Scripture. To many people, living an authentic life requires denying their desires daily.

Continuing in her presumption about what everyone knows, Newman said,

[W]e already have freedom of religion in our Constitution, and this act does not discriminate against religion, as we all know.

Actually, lawmakers in thrall to the “trans” cult stripped the Equality Act of religious protections, and numerous legal scholars have warned that the passage of the Equality Act poses the most significant threat to constitutional protections of the free exercise of religion ever in America’s history. Newman is either outright lying or indefensibly ignorant.

Mary Hasson, graduate of Notre Dame Law School and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., testified at this same hearing. She made clear what Newman tried to obscure:

The Equality Act threatens serious harm to religious believers and religious organizations, stripping away crucial protections afforded under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—a law enacted in 1993 with overwhelming, bipartisan support. The Equality Act attacks First Amendment rights as well, inserting language that attempts to tip the scales against believers if they assert claims under the First Amendment or Equal Protection.

The Equality Act reaches far beyond Bostock (which pertained to workplace discrimination) by expanding “public accommodations” to permit discrimination claims wherever Americans “gather,” even virtually. The result? Churches, synagogues, temples, faith-based schools, soup kitchens, and shelters for battered women will be subject to government coercion pressuring them to compromise their religious beliefs or risk endless litigation.

Recipients of federal funds, including houses of worship, religious schools and other faith-based organizations are litigation targets under the Equality Act as well—even for something as simple as maintaining sex-segregated bathrooms. This means a Muslim food bank, Catholic homeless shelter, or Christian center for female survivors of domestic violence will be punished for doing good while following their religious teachings.

Similarly, any private school that enrolls students who receive Pell grants or who participate in school lunch programs are subject to the Equality Act’s sex discrimination provisions. Urban Catholic schools, for example, which provide life-changing education to low-income children would face an untenable choice: violate their deeply held religious beliefs about human nature, sexual difference, and marriage or close their doors to students who rely on federal help. Adoption and foster care programs run by religious believers who desire to serve the most vulnerable are also at risk.

Newman sneakily perpetuated the lie that minor children who experience gender dysphoria will commit suicide unless they “transition”—a euphemism for pretending to be the opposite sex. No one can “transition” from one sex to the other. Newman said,

More than five years ago, before she [sic] had transitioned, my daughter [sic], at just 14 years old had experienced deep depression and anxiety. Unable to identify the cause of her [sic] pain, she [sic] told her [sic] parents that the only two solutions she [sic] felt would solve it was either suicide or running away.

Newman’s son may have felt despair—he may have felt the only solutions were suicide or running away—but his feelings do not mean he was born in the wrong body. Many teens feel despair for many reasons. And now it’s becoming increasingly difficult for teens to access counseling that can help them uncover those reasons.

In addition, there is much mis- and dis- information about suicide and gender dysphoric children circulated eagerly by the “trans”-cult and its ideological allies—misinformation/disinformation that has been dispelled by medical experts who lack the cultural imprimatur and reach of “trans”-cultists. Newman and other members of Congress might do less societal harm if they would read more widely.

It appears Newman may have gotten her son tangled up in one of the many “therapeutic” programs that are, in reality, profiteering “trans”-advocacy programs staffed with activists who couldn’t identify mental health if it slapped them upside their indoctrinated noggins:

[W]e enrolled in a local day therapy program. One night after her [sic] program, my daughter [sic] perked up in her [sic] chair at the dinner table, excited to share some news. She [sic] told us she [sic] had figured it out. “Mom, I’m not a boy. I’m a girl, and my name is Evie Newman.” Everything had clicked at that moment. She [sic] had been pretending to be something she wasn’t. She [sic] wasn’t being authentic, and as we all know, it is the hardest thing in the world to pretend every day. It was the happiest day of our lives.

Newman’s son was not pretending to be a boy prior to the night he made his sudden perky announcement. He always was a boy and remains in perpetuity a boy.

Newman argues that the Equality Act will merely afford her son “civil rights” of which he is currently deprived:

Signing the Equality Act into law. … will ensure that Americans like my daughter [sic] are afforded the same civil rights already extended to every other American across the nation. … We’re not asking for anything special or different, equality and nothing more. No American should have to live a lie.

Baloney. Is Newman arguing that her son is currently denied the right to vote, assemble, speak, exercise his religion freely, own a gun, petition the government, or get a fair trial?

The irony is rich in her claim that “No American should have to live a lie” as she argues for a bill that will compel all Americans to live the lie she and her family are choosing to live.

Demanding that a condition constituted by desire and volitional acts that many view as immoral be treated like objective conditions with no behavioral features like, for example, race or biological sex is, indeed, asking for something special and different.

The irony continues in her statement about religion and sports:

I encourage all of you to not weaponize religion and not weaponize red herrings about sports.

Newman absurdly described the desire of theologically orthodox Christians to live authentic Christian lives when they refuse to affirm a deceit as “weaponizing religion.” And she described the desire of authentic girls not to be forced to compete athletically against biological males who impersonate females as a “weaponized red herring.” In Newman’s view, only the affirmation of “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices can be authentic.

Nearing the end of her Oprah-esque testimony, she almost spoke some sense. She began,

Truth is real and should be a part of this [Equality] act.

Then she had to go and ruin it by making yet another patently false claim:

And it is.

Nope, there is no truth about sex, civil rights, or equality in the Equality Act.

It’s astonishing that the most powerful nation in the world has leaders whose ethical philosophy hasn’t advanced beyond that of a heathen adolescent.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/IL-Congressional-Rep.-Newman-s-Dumb-Plea-for-Equality-Act.mp3

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

Jan Schakowsky, the U.S. Representative from Evanston, Illinois, diminutive in intellectual and moral stature, has sponsored a bill to repeal the Helms Act. Her bill, H.R.1670, is titled “Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act,” and if passed, would open the floodgates of American money to fund abortions overseas.

According to the liberal Guttmacher Institute, the repeal of the Helms Act will result in Americans funding the slaughter of 19 million babies every year, mostly black and brown babies. And Schakowsky has the audacity of a lifelong politician whose conscience has shriveled up to call the Helms Amendment “racist.”  Just think about that: a privileged white woman is calling her bill that will fund the slaughter of 19 million black and brown babies every year an anti-racist bill.

Schakowsky and her collaborators emphasize the health risks for mothers in third world countries, which we know is just a sham. We already know the health of humans doesn’t concern them because the sponsors of this bill support abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any or no reason.

Moreover, the ethical solution to maternal mortality risks, or the general health risks that accompany life in third world countries, or poverty is not a grotesque proposal to fund the slaughter of humans while in the womb. Word to Schakowsky, even poor people are created in the image and likeness of God and have a right to live—including poor black and brown people.

In 2015, Schakowsky exposed her intellectual and moral deficits–again–saying,

There’s nothing very pretty about any kind of medical procedure. Frankly, a conversation about exactly what happened in heart surgery would probably make people squeamish as well.

The reason all decent people recoil from images of aborted humans is not that the photos lack prettiness or even that they’re bloody. The reason tiny, severed human arms and legs make people squeamish is that they’re severed human arms and legs.

Some reminders for Schakowsky and her unwomanly original co-sponsors Diana DeGette (D-CO), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Jackie Speier (D-CA), and Norma Torres (D-CA):

• The product of conception between two humans is inarguably a human.
• Killing innocent humans is not health care.
• Having the slaughter of one’s offspring paid for by others is not a “right.”
• Black and brown babies are no less valuable than white babies.
• Babies born into poverty are no less valuable than babies born into wealth.

Schakowsky is the second wife to her second husband, Robert (Bob) Creamer, a Saul Alinsky-trained community organizer, which should tell you everything you need to know about their ability to create communities conducive to human flourishing.

Creamer served time in prison for tax violations and bank fraud committed when he ran the Illinois Public Action Fund on whose board sat Jan Schakowsky. During his trial, other shady Illinois characters sent letters of support for Creamer, including the morally vacuous Dick Durbin, racism profiteer “Rev.” Jesse Jackson, and Barack Obama’s accomplice David Axelrod.

More recently Creamer was the subject of a Project Veritas exposé that revealed his involvement in Clinton campaign/DNC-coordinated schemes to sabotage the 2016 presidential election by hiring people—including mentally ill and homeless people—to agitate at Trump rallies in order to elicit reactions that the press could use to criticize Trump.

If the wealthy Schakowsky wants to kill black and brown babies in foreign countries, she, her corrupt husband, and their political cronies should use their own filthy lucre to do it.

Using the language of “rights,” feticide-defenders like Schakowsky are appealing to the respect Americans have for “negative rights”—also known as liberties—(e.g., the right to vote, assemble, exercise one’s religion, and speak freely), which are not accompanied by any obligation for others to subsidize them.

What feticide-defenders are really suggesting—without explicitly saying—is that women have a “positive right” (i.e., an entitlement) to abortion, which imposes a duty on others to subsidize it.

Abortion, however, is not an entitlement, and society has no obligation to pay for women to get them. Neither wanting something; nor really, really wanting something; nor experiencing suffering from not obtaining this desperately desired thing means the public has an obligation to provide it.

No matter how many times feticide-defenders call the killing of incipient human life “health care,” it’s not. Killing human fetuses is neither health care nor reproduction. It’s death facilitation and anti-reproduction. If leftists want to help poor women in other countries kill their offspring, leftists have the choice and negative right to do so.

In a 1991 article titled “Abortion and the Discreet Domesticity of Evil,” Father Paul Mankowski wrote,

[T]he language of the “reproductive health center” … is deliberately designed to obscure reality; it allow us to pretend that nothing disruptive is happening inside these sinister, functional buildings. … The language doesn’t really deceive, but it somehow gives permission to those who want to keep up the charade, to make-believe that the incinerators are only burning garage, to make-believe that the people in white coats are in the business of healing, not killing.

Our task, Father Mankowski argued, is to “call a spade a spade”:

To give things their proper names. To replace euphemism with the stark truth. To speak about what goes on inside those brick walls. To call evil evil—no matter how foolish or awkward it makes us appear, no matter how chilly or furious our fellow citizens become. And, above all, to work with every resource at our disposal to hinder, frustrate, and bring to a standstill the engines of human destruction.

Like Planned Parenthood which targets babies of color for profit, Schakowsky and her co-conspirators should rename her bill the “Killing Babies of Color Everywhere Act.” That way at least everyone everywhere will know what the bill is really about.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative to ask him/her to vote against H.R.1670. Despite what “progressives” claim, abortion is not health care. Abortion is the intentional destruction of an innocent pre-born human being.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Schakowsky-Wants-Americans-to-Fund-the-Killing-of-Babies-of-Color-Everywhere.mp3

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

Because the “Equality” Act will erase the category of human formerly known as “women,” it has managed to do the seemingly impossible. It has united conservatives and liberals. While Democrat supporters of the Equality Act, including President Biden, have exacerbated political division, conservatives, feminists, and homosexuals are uniting to defeat this bill, which they recognize as a threat to girls and women.

Earlier this week Tucker Carlson interviewed feminist attorney Kara Dansky, chair of the Committee on Law and Legislation for the Women’s Human Rights Campaign, board member of the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), and former senior counsel with the ACLU on the Equality Act. She rightly describes the increasing erasure of women as an “emergency” with many unforeseen consequences that will affect the “rights, privacy, and safety of women and girls.” She warns that the Equality Act, which will “redefine the word ‘sex” to include the nebulous, ill-defined, un-understood, made-up lie that is “gender-identity,” makes a national conversation about these serious consequences imperative.

IFI recommends taking 4 ½ minutes to watch and/or listen to this video interview with Ms. Dansky.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

Let’s join USA Today and Fox News for a short, illuminating stroll down memory lane:

2001: Following the Bush vs. Gore election in 2000, “Members of the Congressional House Black Caucus spent 20 minutes objecting as they sought to block Florida’s 25 electoral votes” from being certified for George Bush.

2005: “In the joint meeting of Congress to certify Bush’s win over Democrat John Kerry, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, received a Senate signature to object to the electoral votes from Ohio. It came from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. The two Democrats raised concerns about voting irregularities.” (emphasis added)

At that time, Illinois’ corrupt senator Dick Durbin said,

Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate. I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States.

And Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) issued a statement saying,

I believe that Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) have performed a very valuable public service in bringing this debate before the Congress. As Americans, we should all be troubled by reports of voting problems in many parts of the country.

But that was then, and this is now, and now Durbin describes Senator Josh Hawley’s similar effort as “The political equivalent of barking at the moon. This won’t be taken seriously, nor should it be.”

Van Hollen harrumphed faux-indignantly,

Sen. Hawley’s actions are grossly irresponsible. He’s attempting to undermine our democratic process, fuel Trump’s lies about voter fraud, and delay the certification of Biden’s win.

While Van Hollen described the efforts of Boxer and Tubb Jones as a “very valuable public service,” he calls Hawley’s efforts a “reckless stunt.”

Please take special note that Durbin, Van Hollen, and many other leftists and some RINOs are focusing their laser beams of destruction on Hawley even though other Republicans in Congress objected to the vote-certification process. Is that just because Hawley was going to be the central spokesperson articulating the constitutional issue raised by peculiar electoral mischief that took place in Pennsylvania—an issue that mild-mannered, non-insurrectionist Byron York described as “a fundamental issue that is important to all 50 states”?

Or could it have something to do with Hawley’s singular and bold attack on the outrageous Big Tech monopolies and on social media tyrants’ Section 230 protections?  According to CNBC “About 98% of political contributions from internet companies this cycle went to Democrats,” and that 98% constitutes millions of persuasive dollars.

2017: Following the 2016 win by Trump, “Half a dozen Democratic House members raised formal objections to the Electoral College vote count. … The objections were based on Russian election interference, allegations of voter suppression or what Democrats considered to be illegal votes cast by Republican members of the Electoral College.”

Now, when Senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz pursue the same constitutional procedure that Democrats have pursued three times, Congress-despots call for their expulsion from Congress, and the House Homeland Security Committee Chair, U.S. Representative Bennie Thompson, suggests they might be placed on the no-fly list once reserved for terrorists.

Democrats who unjustifiably whine that Hawley and Cruz were trying to subvert the electoral process have been weirdly silent about Twitter’s effective effort to subvert the electoral process by censoring the Hunter Biden/Joe Biden/China collusion story. And these hypocritical Democrats say nothing about Facebook’s and Google’s wildly successful algorithmic efforts to subvert the electoral process.

AOC and other leftist members of Congress have been demanding Silicon Valley autocrats get rid of the chief threat to “progressive” political hegemony by cancelling the upstart Parler, which serves as the neutral platform that Twitter and Facebook falsely claim to be.

Leftists in Congress argued that Parler had to be silenced because of the role it played in the Capitol attack. But liberal journalist Glenn Greenwald discovered that Twitter, Facebook, and Google-owned YouTube played a far more significant role in promoting the riot. To date, no member of Congress has demanded they be shut down. Greenwald writes,

The Capitol breach was planned far more on Facebook and YouTube. As Recode reported, while some protesters participated in both Parler and Gab, many of the calls to attend the Capitol were from YouTube videos, while many of the key planners “have continued to use mainstream platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.” …

So why did Democratic politicians and journalists focus on Parler rather than Facebook and YouTube? Why did Amazon, Google and Apple make a flamboyant showing of removing Parler from the internet while leaving much larger platforms with far more extremism and advocacy of violence flowing on a daily basis?

In part it is because these Silicon Valley giants — Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple — donate enormous sums of money to the Democratic Party and their leaders, so of course Democrats will cheer them rather than call for punishment or their removal from the internet. Part of it is because Parler is an upstart, a much easier target to try to destroy than Facebook or Google. And in part it is because the Democrats are about to control the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress, leaving Silicon Valley giants eager to please them by silencing their adversaries.

Smelling the conservative chum in the water, corporate America has joined the congressional and Big Tech lefties’ feeding frenzy, cutting off all donations to any of the 147 Republican Congresspersons who contested the certification of election results. Here’s the list—so far—of the companies with conservative blood dripping from their lips:

Airbnb, Amazon, American Express, AT&T, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Comcast, Commerce Bank, Dow Chemical, Marriott, Mastercard, and Verizon.

They’re shutting down donations to any Republican who opposed certification—even if those Republicans did what Democrats have done in prior elections and even with no evidence that they supported, endorsed, or incited either violence or an insurrection.

The Walt Disney Corporation, Ben & Jerry’s, Coca Cola, and JP Morgan rightly issued statements of condemnation of the Capitol building assault. I’ve been searching the Internet far and wide, but I can’t find similar statements from corporate America during or following the lawless BLM riots that caused billions of dollars of damage and included destruction of federal property, harassment of members of Congress, direct assaults on police officers and police precincts, and the looting and arson of scores of businesses.

Oh wait, I remember now.  Corporate America issued statements of support for those riots and donated money to BLM.

Well, surely corporate behemoths issued condemnatory statements following these shocking words from Senator Chuck Schumer at a pro-human slaughter protest in October 2018:

I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Sounds kind of like trying to subvert a judicial process. Has Hawley ever said anything even close to that?

Did corporate behemoths condemn Democrat U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal, who was arrested in June 2018 along with 630 other protesters at an illegal occupation of the Hart Senate Office Building? Thankfully, this lawlessness was led by women who are generally less likely to commit acts of violence—well, except for female BLM rioters who were recorded beating people up in the street riots of 2020.

Dishonest leftists argue ad nauseum that 1. private companies are entitled to make whatever decisions they want based on their corporate “principles,” 2. that the First Amendment doesn’t protect citizens from the consequences of their speech, and 3. that serfs customers who don’t like their corporate tyranny are “free” to take their business elsewhere.

The first point should be true and uncontroversial, but now the overriding operating principle of our soulless corporate behemoths that are vacuuming up America’s freedoms is a firm commitment to use their vast nearly unchecked power to impose destructive leftist ideologies everywhere.

Moreover, leftists don’t apply the principle of business freedom consistently. Leftists don’t really believe all businesses should be free to make business decisions in line with their principles.  Rather, leftists believe that businesses have the right to conduct business in line with their ethics as long as those ethics are pre-approved by leftists.

So, for example, teeny tiny Christian-owned businesses enjoy considerably less freedom than, say, the colossal Amazon. A Christian calligrapher is not permitted to refuse to make wedding invitations for a same-sex faux wedding based on her belief that homosexual acts and relationships are abhorrent to the God she serves.

The second point regarding consequences is completely true. Speaking freely does not guarantee freedom from consequences, and leftists are making sure those consequences include the inability to work in America or exercise one’s religion freely.

In a society controlled by corporate and Big Tech monopolies, only leftists are free to speak without fear of consequences. Conservatives face dire consequences for saying the very same things “progressives” say without fear of any consequences. Democrats can object to election certification, and they’re celebrated. Republicans object and they are accused of being insurrectionists, threatened with expulsion, and put on no-fly lists. Talk about a banana republic.

The third claim that conservatives are “free to take their business elsewhere” is false or will be soon if Americans don’t rise up in opposition to the tyranny of unelected corporate monopolists and Big Tech Overlords. If all corporate and Big Tech tyrants adopt the same unprincipled policies, conservative Americans will be unable to work, feed their families, exercise their religion, assemble, or speak in the public square.

If you know any honest leftists, ask them if they believe corporate behemoths should be free to fire or refuse to hire Americans who publicly say this election was unfair.

Ask them if they believe corporate behemoths should be free to fire or refuse to hire anyone who has publicly said homosexual acts are immoral and marriage is intrinsically sexually differentiated.

Ask them if they believe corporate behemoths should be free to fire or refuse to hire Americans who have publicly said persons born with healthy and properly functioning male anatomy are not and never can be women and don’t belong in women’s private spaces or sports.

What recourse do conservative, Constitution-respecting Republicans have left for fighting the dangerous collusion of Congress, corporate behemoths, and Big Tech monopolies to eradicate the First Amendment if the right to assemble and speak are in effect cancelled without even a public debate or vote?

See you in Siberia, my dissident friends.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

Please consider a gift to the Illinois Family Institute.
As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

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