In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, little if anything has changed concerning abortion in Illinois. You would think radical pro-abortion activists and legislators would be satisfied to know the status quo remains, but sadly, you would be wrong. Even though Illinois’ abortion law is one of the most liberal in the nation, pro-abortion forces are not content with unfettered access to abortion, and they are now coming after crucial pregnancy resource centers (PRCs).

Last week, SB 1909 passed the Illinois Senate on a partisan roll call vote (36 to 19) and has arrived at the Illinois House for their consideration. The so-called Deceptive Practices of Limited Services Pregnancy Centers Act amends the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, giving the Illinois Attorney General, who is militantly pro-abortion, the ability to fine PRCs for any perceived fraud or misleading statements.

So, what constitutes an instance of fraud or a misleading statement? Based on the Executive Committee hearing testimony by State Senator Celina Villanueva (D-Chicago), it depends entirely on the interpretation of the AG’s office. The so-called “testimonies” shared in support of the amendment were in no way substantiated, with one coming from Planned Parenthood Action and the other–get this–from the AG’s office. It’s a textbook conflict of interest, and yet no one seems to think this is problematic.

Now, a senate committee meeting is not a trial in which evidence is expected to be produced, but you would think that the obvious bias and lack of proof on the side of the bill’s proponents would raise some red flags. But apparently, the consciences of pro-abortion Illinois legislators are seared. Even a clear assault on religious liberty and free speech is no problem to them where their pet issues are concerned.

In addition to the shaky-at-best reasoning behind this new legislation, it was brought up multiple times in the hearing that this bill is not necessary, as the current Consumer Fraud Act more than covers the examples Villanueva and others gave. If a PRC is acting unlawfully, they are already subject to the law currently on the books. When pressed, the Deputy Attorney General for Policy at the AG’s office said over and over that infractions would be evaluated on a “case-by-case” basis. In other words, it’s subject to the whims of the AG, not the objective standards set out by the law. But then this isn’t about using the law correctly. It’s about punishing and potentially fining out of business these critical, often faith-based, centers for any reason.

Unsurprisingly, proponents cast “limited services pregnancy centers” as preying upon women, set against Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses as compassionate providers of healthcare. Among the accusations they brought against PRCs is that they delay or under-deliver healthcare for pregnant women through vague language or outright lies about their pregnancies. But as Serena Dye, regional executive director of Hope Life Center, testified, “The wording in this bill reminds me of my personal experience at abortion facilities, not pregnancy help centers.”

Although the eventual outcome of the hearing was evident from the start, it was heartening to hear from both Dye and Kristi Hofferber, a pro-life speaker and executive director of A Beacon of Light. Both women know personally the harm done by the abortion business. They spoke boldly, detailing the compassionate and crucial work done by their respective organizations and drawing attention to the damage this bill will do if signed into law.

Another bright spot was the dogged questioning of State Senator Neil Anderson (R-Andalusia), who pointed out the inconsistencies and clear animus embedded in SB 1909, over the protests of other members of the committee. With Democrats in the majority, however, the bill passed out of committee along party lines and went on to do the same in the Senate. The same will likely happen in the House, and then it will go on to the Governor’s desk, where it will no doubt be signed into law.

Watch the Senate Committee Hearing HERE.

So, what next? This bill spells disaster for one of the last places where vulnerable moms in Illinois (and beyond, thanks to burgeoning abortion tourism coming from surrounding states) stand a chance of hearing the whole story about what their pregnancy could mean for them, and of course, where their innocent, unborn children can be saved. First, we must pray for God’s mercy and that more and more believers will be stirred to stand for life in their homes, churches, and communities. Second, we must pray for and support pro-life PRCs. Third, we must pray for and support pro-life, pro-freedom organizations that can use the law to bring attention to this unconstitutional, government-sanctioned witch hunt.

The Thomas More Society, a pro-life law firm headquartered in Chicago, has already gone on record that if this bill is signed into law, they will bring a lawsuit against it. Peter Breen, a former Illinois state legislator and the Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society stated, “Senate Bill 1909 is a radical attempt to silence and chill the speech of pro-life advocates in Illinois. The bill is presented as a ‘consumer protection’ measure, but its purpose is to protect abortion clinics from competition…” He went on to say, “This bill is flagrantly unconstitutional, and if it becomes law, we will immediately file suit to protect pro-life organizations’ right to free speech.”

Democrats in Illinois have long stood for ever-increasing abortion access. SB 1909 demonstrates, in no uncertain terms, their desire to eliminate all options but abortion for women facing an unplanned pregnancy. We know God will not allow evil to continue forever, but today, we lament and cry out to Him for justice for those who have no voice.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative asking him/her to leave PRCs alone by voting against SB 1909. Point out that pregnancy care centers do not engage in “deceptive practices” but rather vital life-giving work. The people at these centers minister to needy, vulnerable women and children and are supported by people of faith across the state who want to be a blessing.

Read more:

How A Pregnancy Center Saved Me From Homelessness, Addiction, And Despair
(The Federalist)

Pregnancy Resource Centers Must Be Ready for a Post-Roe America
(National Review)

The Critical Pro-Life Work of Pregnancy Resource Centers
(ERLC)

With more and more states in the region and beyond moving to protect the lives of unborn babies or at least restrict the mass killing, abortionists in Illinois are busier than ever, according to the abortion industry in the state and news reports about the gruesome phenomenon.

The Associated Press, a far-left pro-abortion propaganda service masquerading as an objective news agency, reported last week that hundreds of women were being lured to Southern Illinois each week to kill their pre-born children. Many more are expected.

The pregnant women are coming from almost a dozen states where authorities started reining in the unchecked slaughter after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. In fact, even before the Dobbs decision, the flow of victims into Illinois was growing as states like Texas cracked down.

Abortionists in Illinois can hardly keep up, they told reporters.

“With every piece of litigation, with every new constitutional amendment, with every new abortion restriction in a state that has some access, we are on this teeter-totter of, ‘what can we do here to make more space for the people who are going to be fleeing their home state?’” abortion “doctor” Colleen McNicholas with Fairview Heights’ Planned Parenthood was quoted as saying by the AP.

According to news reports, the waitlist at the Southern Illinois abortion operation has gone from two days to three weeks in recent months, even as staffers now do 10-hour shifts and work Saturdays. Now the leadership is talking about keeping the doors open on Sunday, too.

More than 10,000 pre-born babies are forecast to be killed there just this year. Meanwhile, the abortionists have turned an RV into a mobile baby-killing center that travels around the inner perimeter of the state perpetrating abortions.

Other local abortionists are seeing similar surges as multiple new “abortuaries” open their doors across Southern Illinois. Two opened in Carbondale late last year, the AP reported.

“Any additional decision [to restrict abortion by nearby states] has the potential to really change demand again,” abortionist McNicholas continued, as if killing babies were just like any other good or service to be provided in the marketplace. “It’s like crisis management every day of the year.”

Florida, despite GOP super-majorities in both houses of the legislature, has also become a Mecca for women from other states in the region seeking abortions. As in Illinois, the number of unborn babies killed in the Sunshine State has surged dramatically as other Southern states moved against the carnage.

However, legislation being considered by Florida lawmakers and a proposed constitutional amendment may shut that option down, too. That would increase the numbers even further in Illinois, which has some of the most radical and permissive abortion laws in the entire world.

In recent years, Planned Parenthood has been forced to acknowledge the grotesque racism and white supremacy of its brutal founder, Margaret Sanger. Among other evils, Sanger was a leading advocate of eugenics, deliberately targeting minorities and others she deemed unfit. That stench of that legacy looms large.

One key purpose of the AP article touting the surge in abortions in Illinois was obviously to mock those seeking to protect the unborn in other states. A childish taunt, the AP “reporter” and the abortion industry were letting readers know the slaughter will continue regardless of what other states do.

However, it cannot continue forever. As America’s founding documents make clear, God endowed all people with the right to life, and government exists primarily to protect that and other rights. As the Bible makes clear, too, the purpose of government is to punish evil, and God clearly defines murder as such.

Some of the nation’s most prominent legal minds have pointed out that governments — even in states like Illinois — have a constitutional obligation to protect the right to life of all people, including pre-born people. There can be no “state right” to allow abortion or any other murders, much less to subsidize it with public money.

In the meantime, though, state and local authorities in Illinois and beyond can and should start exploring options to rein in the savagery taking place under color of law. Nobody would tolerate it if Illinois legalized the killing of post-birth children and lured people to the state to carry out the grisly task. This cannot be tolerated either.

With more than 60 million babies massacred over the last 50 years, Illinois and the nation must deal urgently with these ongoing atrocities. Someday, civilized people will almost certainly look back at this much as Americans today look back on the slave trade or National Socialist (Nazi) concentration camps.

The time to stop this evil is now.

By definition, obstetric and other perinatal care providers always have two patients: a mother and her unborn baby. Both parties are considered equal in value and worthy of the full attention and effort of the provider, and in no case are they viewed as set against one another. Foundationally, obstetricians and midwives are trained to ensure the health and flourishing of both mother and child.

But as the pro-abortion lobby in Illinois has grown bolder and more desperate, especially considering last year’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, there is now an expectation that a growing number of perinatal healthcare providers should be permitted to destroy the very lives they have been trained to guard.

Among other amendments to current state law that endanger the health and safety of preborn babies, HB 3 and HB 1046, both sponsored by pro-abortion Representative Mary Flowers (D-Chicago), seek to expand the list of providers who may perform abortions in Illinois to include—if you can believe it—midwives.

It’s hard enough to believe that some physicians, who take an oath to “first, do no harm,” perform abortions and, in a growing number of states, participate in physician-assisted suicide, but it simply boggles the mind to consider midwives joining in the practice of ending preborn lives. Midwifery is an ancient field; one whose history long precedes the quite recent shift of birthing to hospital wards, in the care of labor and delivery nurses and obstetricians. Midwives are even referenced in the book of Exodus as playing a crucial role in SAVING the lives of God’s people when Pharaoh sought to kill their sons. Under no circumstance have they historically provided abortions. As of right now, Illinois state law prohibits them from performing the barbaric procedures. But that prohibition is now in doubt, thanks to State Representative Flowers and the pro-abortion lobby who fully endorse her work.

The other provisions in these bills are also deeply concerning. For example, in response to growing demand from those who travel to Illinois for abortions in a post-Roe era, these bills would make possible the “co-location” of abortion and birth services in government-funded birth centers. Can you imagine? Depending on which door a mother walks through, her preborn baby may receive care or be killed. It’s even likely the same doctors and midwives would provide both “services.” Does the cognitive dissonance ever become deafening for these men and women? Are their consciences so seared that they can no longer see that they are living in a fatal contradiction?

Another provision removes automatic protections for preborn babies who are born with symptoms and testing that reveals the mother abused illegal drugs and/or alcohol during pregnancy. Until now, the presence of a controlled substance in a baby’s blood, urine, or meconium (first bowel movement) would automatically define the child as “neglected,” allowing for child protective services to step in and, in some cases, remove the child for his or her protection. If passed, this bill will make it so that those protections are only available if a law enforcement agency has a warrant. It’s difficult to imagine how or when this would be enforced in such a pro-abortion environment.

If enacted, these laws would represent the worst delinquency of responsibility by a government body. If there is no recourse for the innocent victim of someone else’s destructive choices, our laws cannot be called just. This is the rare case in which pro-abortion forces are being consistent: they do not view a preborn baby as human; therefore, he is not deserving of justice for something done to him before he is born.

Rep. Flowers’ radical, woke ideology is evident in numerous other parts of the text, from dehumanizing preborn babies by replacing the word “baby” with “newborn,” to scrubbing biological reality by replacing the word “woman” with “parent.” The majority of what is contained in these two bills is fatal to the most vulnerable among us, and yet it is shrouded in terms like “dignity,” “liberty,” and “justice.” While Rep. Flowers and her supporters claim they wish to advance these lofty values, none of them will be available to the precious human lives that will be ended or permanently impaired if these fatally flawed bills are signed into law.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact your local state representative and urge him or her to vote against HB 3* and HB 1046* when they come up for a vote on the Illinois House floor. Ask them to acknowledge and protect the sanctity of preborn life, as well as the integrity of those who are trained to deliver these precious babies! (See footnotes below for more information!)

More ACTION: Click HERE to fill out a witness slip in opposition to HB 1046. The Illinois House Public Health Committee has a 9 AM hearing set for Thursday, March 2nd.

-Fill out your name, address, email and phone number. Leave everything else blank or put self.
-Highlight “Opponent” and “Record of Appearance Only.”
-Check Terms of Agreement and click Create Slip.

*HB 1046 would:

1. Require the Dept. of Public Health to establish “reproductive health clinics” across the state at nonprofit and public medical facilities that will perform abortions, among other services.
2. Allow mid-wives to perform abortions.
3. Eliminates “neglected child” designation if controlled substances found in newborn baby’s system.
4. Provides no disclosure at all to any governmental unit of any medical tests, including if a newborn child has drugs in their system from the mom. 
5. Provides for the mother and newborn child to receive medical care based on World Health Organization guidelines and not “generally accepted medical standards.”
6. Makes provisions regarding birth certificates for stillborn babies. 

*HB 3 (as amended) would: 

1. Provide no disclosure at all to any governmental unit of any medical tests of mom or newborn, including if a newborn child has drugs in their system from the mom.  
2. Changes pronouns to gender-neutral (example: “her and her infant” is replaced with “the patient and the patient’s newborn”).
3. Provide specified rights for patients that would be posted at various healthcare facilities, community centers, and daycare centers statewide.
4. Provide for the mother and newborn child to receive medical care based on World Health Organization guidelines and not “generally accepted medical standards.”
5. Make provisions regarding birth certificates for stillborn babies.

The Illinois Family Institute is issuing this public statement to urge Governor J.B. Pritzker and Attorney General Kwame Raoul to prepare to ensure the safety of churches and pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) in Illinois.

David E. Smith, the executive director of the statewide pro-life, pro-family organization, notes that vandalism, arson, threats of violence, and interruption of church services have been escalating since the leak of Justice Samuel Alito‘s draft opinion on abortion.

“We cannot afford to ignore the threats of violence and harassment to achieve political ends,” said Smith. “It is wise to anticipate more violent reactions from fringe pro-abortion activists if and when the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision in the Dobbs case.”

The arrest of a California man who was reportedly armed with a gun and knife near Justice Brett Kavanaugh‘s house in Maryland is alarming. Federal law enforcement officials have charged him with attempted murder.

Recently, both CompassCare Pregnancy Services in Buffalo, New York and the headquarters for Wisconsin Family Action were firebombed. In Asheville, North Carolina, a business that provides counseling for pregnant women was vandalized. Earlier this week, in New York City, pro-life advocates participating in a monthly event called “Witness for Life” were mobbed.

Mr. Smith points out that while abortion facilities in Chicago have bubble zones to protect the safety of abortion workers and clients, no such protection exists for pregnancy care centers and churches. During this turbulent time, the state of Illinois must give them equal protection under the law.

“Governor Pritzker and Attorney General Raoul should make it clear that violence and intimidation will not be tolerated in Illinois,” urges Smith. “Moreover, law enforcement agencies across the state must be put on high alert, visibly present in their patrols in an effort to dissuade violence.”

IFI implores Governor Pritzker and Attorney General Raoul to speak out in advance of the ruling to urge peace and calm.

We call every elected official in Illinois, no matter their view on the Dobbs decision, to speak out in opposition to any response that includes violence and intimidation.

Mr. Smith contends that any attack on a church or pregnancy care center should be considered an anti-religious hate crime and the perpetrators should be charged accordingly.

With the U.S. Supreme Court announcing it will be issuing opinions starting this week, we may have a final decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health – the case that should overturn Roe v. Wade. Should this occur, and after nearly 50 years of bloodshed of the innocent and unborn, rejoicing will abound!

Not to dump buckets of cold water on our rejoicing, but the reality for constituents in Illinois is this will be the time to “not be weary in well-doing,” but to soldier on and turn our attention more than ever to being vocal, educating those around us, and applying pressure to our elected representatives.

The timing couldn’t be more perfect either– as dozens of our legislative representatives are running for re-election, and may be more inclined to listen to their constituents’ concerns. What’s more, with a bit of courageous boldness on our part, our quasi pro-life friends and neighbors who, rather than select a candidate based on a “single-issue,” might be persuaded that this “single-issue” is THE issue forming the basis of our society. This truth could also motivate the otherwise “too busy to vote” crowd to get out and cast a ballot.

As we have these conversations, it’s helpful to be reminded of what makes a good legislature: lawmaking coupled with a balancing of power and representing one’s constituents–most important in a representative republic! So, what DO the voters of Illinois want from their lawmakers?

Given the fact that Illinois has recently passed radical pro-abortion legislation such as taxpayer funding [2018] and removed all abortion restrictions including parental notification [2021], our legislature has clearly not represented the majority viewpoint of Illinois voters on these issues.

A statewide poll of Illinois voters in March of 2021 commissioned by One Nation Under God Foundation and Illinois Family Institute, conducted by the Tarrance Group, helps to answer the question of what “we the people of Illinois” want in terms of these issues.

Here are a few of the key responses to the survey:

If a minor under the age of 18 is seeking an abortion, do you think the law should require her parent or guardian to be notified before the procedure? Overall 72% voted “yes.

56%        Yes (strongly)
16%        Yes
22%        No
6%          Undecided

Would you say that the government is taking away too many rights from parents and preventing parents from raising children in an appropriate way?

67%        Yes
28%        No
5%          Undecided                 

Taxpayer funding of abortion.  We did not poll this question, however, other Illinois polls place opposition to taxpayer funding at around 65%.

It’s  easy to feel alone in the crowd, isn’t it? You’re one small voice in the community, right? Actually, these statistics indicate nothing could be further from the truth! An overwhelming majority of Illinois voters are on the side of life, parental rights, and family.

This fact was driven home last night as I sat in a Precinct Committeeman training meeting. A roomful of Illinoisans, most of whom had never met before, found camaraderie over these issues that are affecting our state. Finding others that are like-minded helped to fan the flame of my courage to get vocal in a bold and courageous way.

We rejoice in the likelihood of the overturning of Roe v. Wade so that the abortion issue can be returned to where it belongs – the states. It is a victory to be celebrated for sure. It will be a gift from above, but in Illinois, it might be a temporary gift if we don’t get busy in “well-doing.”

Get equipped!

-Click here to access the 2022 Primary Election Voter Resources.

-Click here to read about the connection between Common Law, Abortion, and Nuremberg. It might be a good talking point with your neighbors as you seek to inform.

Following the unprecedented leak of the entire U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion on the controversial abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, morally and emotionally unhinged, pro-human slaughter women and their collaborators became apoplectic. Next, U.S. Senate leftists terrified at the possibility that diverse citizens in diverse states will pass diverse laws to protect prenatal humans began clamoring for the elimination of the filibuster, so they—Senate leftists—can codify human slaughter in federal law. So much for diversity and federalism.

The self-identifying Catholic Joe Biden said, “If the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose [to have her offspring offed]. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice [i.e., pro-human slaughter] officials this November.” And yet, Biden is unwilling to wait to see who voters choose or what state levels of government will do. Leftists like Biden don’t care what the great unwashed masses want. Nor do they care what the Constitution says. Leftists want to impose their will, ideology, and desires by any unethical and unconstitutional means they can dream up.

Biden is justified in fearing that states may pass laws to protect incipient lives. In contrast to the leftist claim that most Americans support Roe v. Wade, recent Rasmussen polling shows that most Americans would like to see it overturned:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters would approve of a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade …. Forty-five percent (45%) would disapprove of overturning Roe v. Wade ….

…

In his draft opinion, Justice Alito declared that the Roe v. Wade decision “was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.” Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters agree with Justice Alito’s statement…. Forty-six percent (46%) disagree with Alito.

Biden and his U.S. Senate co-conspirators want to rob citizens and states of the right to decide whether humans in the womb can be killed by more powerful humans (i.e., oppressors). According to the website “Equal Access to Abortion Everywhere,” the federal law Biden frantically seeks to pass before Dobbs is decided and before Americans can exercise their right to govern themselves would,

eliminate all existing state restrictions including “six-week bans, 20-week bans, mandatory ultrasounds … counseling, waiting periods, and requirements that providers obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals.

Abortion without restrictions would be legal in every state throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy for any or no reason if the Women’s Health Protection Act is passed.

In attempting to rationalize the censorship of conservative ideas, “diversity”- and “tolerance”-loving leftists have claimed society has no obligation to tolerate conservative speech on topics related to sexuality because such speech may lead to violence. This raises a thorny question for leftists: Should society tolerate bloodthirsty banshees shrieking in the streets about their right to destroy the bodies of their offspring and threatening the lives of those who oppose human slaughter? Might such banshee speech lead to violence?

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Neil Gorsuch have had their homes and lives targeted.

Lacie Wooten-Holway, an unneighborly neighbor of Brett Kavanaugh revealed his home address and organized a protest in front of his home, declaring that “We’re about to get doomsday … so I’m not going to be civil to that man at all.”

A Molotov cocktail set ablaze the office of a conservative public policy organization in Wisconsin and graffitied it with the threat, “If abortions aren’t safe, then neither are you.” Sounds like a threat of violence to me.

A Catholic church in Fort Collins, Colorado was spraypainted with the words “My body my choice” and the symbol for anarchism.

Three churches in Texas were vandalized.

In an interview with Salon magazine, an anonymous representative of the anti-life group Ruth Sent Us said “that some members of the network have privately discussed not just disrupting Mass but burning the Eucharist.” Might that lead to violence?

Clearly banshee speech may lead to violence, and yet as of this writing, neither the Biden administration nor the DOJ has condemned the doxing of six U.S. Supreme Court Justices, the illegal efforts to influence the decision of these justices, the torching of conservative non-profit organizations, or the protests in front of Supreme Court Justices private homes.

Instead (and as usual), Biden finds this a good time to blame the “Maga crowd”:

What are the next things that are going to be attacked? Because this Maga crowd is really the most extreme political organization that exists in American history.

This is about a lot more than abortion… What happens if you have a state change the law, saying that children who are LGBTQ can’t be in classrooms with other children? Is that legit?

Biden’s claim is either a bizarre non sequitur or a wildly fallacious slippery slope argument with no causal or logical link between a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the Dobbs case and an absurd hypothetical state law banning “LGBTQ” students from the classroom.

Is the “Maga crowd” an organization? Who’s in it? Everyone who voted for Trump? Are all the Americans who voted for Trump members of a political organization more extreme than BLM, Antifa, the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, Black Panthers, or eco-terrorist organizations?

Perhaps the cognitively impaired Biden isn’t aware that many liberal legal scholars who support abortion argue that nowhere in the text or history of the Constitution can a right to abortion be found, and hence, Roe v. Wade was an atrocious decision.

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) made an equally bizarre statement:

This is 50 years of rights in a leaked opinion where Justice Alito is literally not just taking us back to the 1950s, he’s taking us back to 1850s. He actually cites the fact that abortion was criminalized back when the 14th Amendment was adopted.

If Klobuchar thinks 49 years imparts immunity from being overturned to a lousy U.S. Supreme Court decision, then she must still be enraged about the de facto overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson, which stood legally unmolested for 58 years.

Klobuchar’s disdain for Alito “taking us back to the 1850s” is perplexing. One would expect a member of the U.S. Senate to have deep respect for much that was written in the 1800s and even the 1700s.

California Governor Gavin Newsom tripped all over leftist “logic” when talking about the draft opinion:

If men could get pregnant, this wouldn’t even be a conversation.

That’s both embarrassingly cliché and politically un-woke. Surely, the good leftist Newsom has heard the news from the world of pseudo-science: Men can get pregnant. Or maybe he has heard the news, but he’s caught in the sticky, tangled web of ideological mayhem that leftists have woven to deceive.

For decades, unhinged women committed to child sacrifice have tried to claim that humans in the womb were just clumps of cells or tumor-like masses. When that nonsensical claim failed, they admitted that, sure, the product of conception between two humans is a human but it’s not fully developed, or it’s imperfect, or it will suffer, or it’s parasitic, or it’s father is a criminal, or it’s mother is poor, or it’s mother doesn’t want it, or it’s mother is not ready to care for it. If those arguments were applied consistently to all humans, we would have a murderous society unsafe for every human.

So, then came the next lie: Morally unhinged women proclaimed that sure, womb-dwellers are human, but they’re not persons. But why, inquiring minds wanted to know, are these humans with human DNA, many of whose human body parts are sold to scientists to find cures for human diseases, not persons?

Philosopher Francis Beckwith offers a definition of personhood that abortion cheerleaders will definitely not like:

[W]hat is crucial morally is the being of a person, not his or her functioning. A human person does not come into existence when human function arises, but rather, a human person is an entity who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, whether or not those functions are ever attained. And since the unborn human being has this natural inherent capacity from the moment it comes into existence, she is a person as long as she exists.

…

A human person who lacks the ability to think rationally (either because she is too young or she suffers from a disability) is still a human person because of her nature. Consequently, it makes sense to speak of a human being’s lack if and only if she is an actual person.

Questions of personhood and unalienable rights are metaphysical questions on which there will never be agreement. Rational, reasonable, compassionate people argue that if we can’t agree on something as momentous as when life begins or when a human becomes a person deserving of the right not to be murdered, the prudent and ethical response would be to err on the side of not killing humans that may, indeed, be persons.

But liberals are not concerned about the injustice of killing human fetuses. Liberal concerns are directed toward the self.

Nathanael Blake, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, illuminates the self-serving political philosophy of the secular left:

The liberal project seeks to provide, to the extent possible, freedom from unchosen constraints, duties, and loyalties in life.

This is why liberalism naturally favors a broad welfare state. The purpose of this welfare state is both to protect those who are dependent, and to protect those who do not want to be depended on.

Thus, liberalism professionalizes care from childhood to old age. The animating vision is a society in which everyone is taken care of, but no one has a private obligation to care for anyone else; no one has to sacrifice ambition, career, or personal freedom to care for children or parents or a sick relative.

But this liberal ideal is unrealizable with children, especially those in utero. …

This is why liberals are complaining about “forced birth” — they really are horrified at the idea of an unchosen obligation to care for another person. … Liberalism cannot tolerate that sort of involuntary duty, and so it requires the opt-out of abortion on demand.

Thus, a political philosophy that begins by claiming to protect the weak and dependent, and to liberate us from the unfairness of the givenness of life, ends by asserting an absolute right to take the lives of the weak and dependent — precisely because they are dependent.

Human life developing in the womb can offer nothing but need; to respond to that need with violence is to assail human dependence in its purest form. This bloodshed lays bare how liberalism has become a revolt against our humanity.

It’s also a revolt against God, which explains why leftists who want the freedom to sacrifice their children target Christianity. Jesus teaches us to deny ourselves and take up our crosses daily. He teaches that “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” He teaches that God is the Author of life who creates the inmost being of children in their mothers’ wombs. And he teaches that every life unjustly snuffed out by fallen humans was fearfully and wonderfully made by God.

Take ACTION: Sponsored by left-wing U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal [D-CT], the Women’s Health Protection Act (S. 4132) would nullify any existing state pro-life laws protecting the life of the unborn, if signed into law. Both U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth are co-sponsors of this radical bill which would also force doctors and healthcare workers to violate their consciences. Click HERE to let them know that this legislation is absolutely unacceptable and offensive to you. Urge them to protect innocent pre-born human life.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Schemes-of-Fallen-Humans-to-Destroy-Life.mp3

Read more:

Fact Sheet by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Democrats’ National Abortion Bill Replaces Word ‘Woman’ With ‘Person’ (The Daily Signal)

Following the unprecedented leak of the entire U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion on the controversial abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, morally and emotionally unhinged, pro-human slaughter women and their collaborators became apoplectic. Next, U.S. Senate leftists terrified at the possibility that diverse citizens in diverse states will pass diverse laws to protect prenatal humans began clamoring for the elimination of the filibuster, so they—Senate leftists—can codify human slaughter in federal law. So much for diversity and federalism.

Read more…

A nationwide group of state legislators and attorneys have crafted an amicus (friend of the court) legal brief in support of the State of Mississippi in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, seeking to overturn the unlawful Roe v. Wade decision.

The Mississippi law being challenged, with a few exceptions, prohibits abortions within the State, including even the first 15 weeks of pregnancy, when modern medicine is still incapable of supporting life outside the womb.

The U.S. Supreme Court, on May 17^th, granted a hearing on the following question raised by Dobbs: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

Of course, we know the truth that no prohibitions on elective abortion are unconstitutional. [1]

This brief contains three great strengths:

• It represents the group who has truly suffered the greatest harm: the States and the People, whose right to justly govern, reserved to them in the 10^th Amendment, has been taken by the Federal Government’s egregious Roe v. Wade decision,

• It represents the opinion of a statistical majority of U.S. citizens and legislators, and

• It affords legislators in the political minority in their own States, such as Illinois, a voice equal to, or possibly greater than, all legislators throughout the nation.

Republican lawmakers in Illinois are severely outnumbered (a “super-minority”) in both the Illinois House (45/118) and Illinois Senate (18/59), and are therefore typically unable to advance (or stop) meaningful (or harmful) legislation.  As friends of the Court, they can now have the same voice as all other legislators.

There are currently 7,383 [2] state legislators in the United States, duly elected by a majority of 168.31 million U.S. voters [3], of whom 3,977 (or 54%) are members of the pro-life, Republican Party, and have been invited to join the brief.

What did Roe really do?  It announced a new right, which removed Legislators’ (and thereby, the People’s) ability to protect unwanted humans from being murdered.

As stated in the brief, “State legislatures exist to protect the health and welfare of their States’ respective citizens.  This includes the creation of standards and regulations that protect the most vulnerable in society.  However, as demonstrated by the Fifth Circuit’s decision below, flawed precedent [4] interferes with this constitutionally delegated duty.”

“Substantive Due Process”: The Court’s Tool of Federal Tyranny Against the States.

Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. ~Judges 17:6

Substantive Due Process is the underlying legal concept used in Roe and others to justify the Court’s remaking of the U.S. Constitution to its own liking.

This logically inconsistent concept was invented in law school textbooks in the 1930s and not embraced by the U.S. Supreme Court prior to 1952 [5].

Of course, ordinary citizens and their children, possessing even the most basic grasp of logic, understand by the redundant term “procedural due process,” (Show me a “process” that isn’t “procedural,” and I’ll show you a bridge that is for sale.) that “substantive due process” is merely a cleverly-worded legal oxymoron which enables judges to justify making the law themselves (i.e., Positive Law, or law made by custom or convention, which can be changed as desired by those in power).

Substantive Due Process, as demonstrated by cases such as Roe, opens a wide door for an unelected committee of nine Ivy League lawyers to selectively remove virtually any topic from the political process (i.e., the States and the People) that it, in its great moral wisdom, sees fit.

From the beginning, the Rule of Law in the United States has been “Natural Law,” or existing law that applies consistently to everyone; certain unalienable rights, endowed to all mankind by their Creator (i.e., Jehovah of the Bible).

The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord;
He turns it wherever He will. ~Proverbs 21:1

Please pray fervently that God would:

1. Continue to strengthen the resolve of the two Justices (Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) who have unwaveringly upheld their oath to support and defend the Constitutional Rule of Law,

2. Give great courage to four Justices (Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts) to understand that it is their duty to finally overturn this unlawful decision, and

3. Forcibly turn the hearts of the three Justices (Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor) whose previous positions have contributed to the tyrannous legalized murder of tens of millions.

Footnotes

[1]In the 105 years between the ratification of the 14^th Amendment in 1868 and Roe’s 1973 judicial fiat that it was unconstitutional, 46 states prohibited abortion, either entirely or with exceptions.  Illinois passed the 2^nd such law in 1833.  During the 1866-1868 legislative sessions, several states passed criminal abortion laws while the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was circulating among them.  No one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. “That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as ‘due process of law’ or ‘equal protection of the laws’—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification.” – Antonin Scalia, dissenting from Obergefell v. Hodges (2015, creating a right to same-sex “marriage”).

[2]https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/partisan-composition.aspx

[3]https://www.statista.com/statistics/273743/number-of-registered-voters-in-the-united-states/

[4]I.e., Roe v. Wade.

[5]https://humandefense.com/criminal-abortion-before-the-fourteenth-amendment/