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)

Recently, America’s foolish president issued a foolish Transgender Day of Visibility Proclamation in which he pledged support for a bill that will jeopardize First Amendment religious free exercise and speech protections for conservative Americans. In his Proclamation, Biden also called for all Americans to adopt his controversial beliefs on cross-sex impersonation. Once again Biden—the self-identifying unity president—has intensified division.

Ordinary Americans—as opposed to those who make millions by selling political influence—fret about how they will pay for groceries and gas. They worry about fentanyl and criminals pouring over the southern border and about illegal immigrants being dumped by the government in their cities in the dark of night.

What keeps Joe Biden awake in the afternoon? Does he worry about the 56,000 synthetic opioid—mostly fentanyl—deaths in 2020? Or about the 900,000 humans killed in the womb annually? Do the 21,000 murders in 2020 cause him sleepless afternoons? Not so much. It appears from his Proclamation that what troubles Biden is what he calls “the epidemic of violence” against cross-dressers. That would be about 50 people killed in 2021, many of whom were victims of domestic violence—not anti-“trans” hate crimes. While every murder is a tragedy, 50 deaths does not an epidemic of violence make.

The name “Transgender Day of Visibility,” is intended to convey the fiction that on all other days, cross-sex impersonators are invisible. This, my friends, is what is called “gaslighting.” As Chastity “Chaz” Bono, Jaron Bloshinksy (“Jazz Jennings”), Roderick “LaVerne” Cox, Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner, Richard “Rachel” Levine, Bradley “Chelsea” Manning, Ellen “Elliot” Page, Gavin “Laurel” Hubbard, William “Lia” Thomas, Larry “Lana” Wachowski, Andy “Lilly” Wachowski, and scores of drag queens and teens masquerade as the sex they aren’t, invading bathrooms where they don’t belong, leftists claim “transgender” persons are invisible.

In his Royal Proclamation last week, Biden declared his enthusiastic support for the ruinous anti-constitutional Equality Act. The Equality Act has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with advancing the alchemical superstition about the alleged ability of humans to become the opposite sex through desire, cross-dressing, hormone-doping, and mutilating cosmetic surgery.

In order to accomplish the end goal of eradicating all public recognition of sex differences, “trans”-cultists must eradicate the ability of free people to speak freely their beliefs about “gender” and sex.

Lawmakers in thrall to or terrified by the “trans”-cult stripped the Equality Act of religious protections. 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.

Mary Hasson, graduate of Notre Dame Law School and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., testified about this threat at a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing:

The Equality Act threatens serious harm to religious believers and religious organizations. … 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 … expand[s] “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.

Biden said one true thing in his Royal Proclamation. He said that those who identify as “transgender” are “made in the image of God and deserving of dignity, respect, and support.” Every human is created in the image of God, but that image is marred by our sinful desires and acts. Humans deserve respect by virtue of being humans—despite the sinful things we desire and do.

One’s dignity—the state or quality of being worthy of honor—is undermined by sinful acts like cross-dressing and mutilating one’s God-created, healthy body.

“Trans”-identifying persons do deserve support, but life and truth-affirming support should never include participating in a delusion or facilitating artificially induced cessation of natural biological processes and surgical mutilation of healthy, properly functioning parts of sexual anatomy.

When promoting false beliefs about “gender identity,” the left talks a lot about “authenticity” without providing their definition—or redefinition—of the term. 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, and celebrating cross-sex-passing robs men and women of dignity.

Leftists have also redefined “identity.” Homosexual activists first transformed the concept of “identity,” and then seeing how effective a propaganda tool the revised concept of identity was, cross-sex impersonators culturally appropriated it.

Homo-activists sought to recast identity as something intrinsically inviolable, immutable, and good. They sought to refashion identity in such a way as to make it culturally taboo to make judgments about any constituent feature of identity. They re-imagined identity in such a way as to move homoeroticism from the category of phenomena about which humans can legitimately make moral distinctions to one about which society is forbidden to make judgments.

Identity in its former incarnation was merely a way of describing someone. Identity when applied to individual persons denoted the aggregate of phenomena constituting, associated with, experienced and affirmed by individuals. Identity was “the set of behavioral and personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group.”

Identity was not conceived as some intrinsically moral thing, because identity could refer to either objective, non-behavioral, morally neutral conditions (e.g., height or skin color) or to subjective feelings, beliefs, and volitional acts that could be good or bad, right or wrong. Prior to the new and subversive conceptualization of identity, there existed no absolute cultural prohibition of judging the diverse elements that constitute identity.

By conflating all the phenomena that can constitute identity, “progressives” demanded that society should no more make judgments about feelings and volitional acts than they should about skin color.

In short, this is what “progressives” think about identity (except when it comes to those whose identity is found in Christ):

• All phenomena that make up identity are off-limits to moral judgment.
• Cross-sex impersonation is part of identity.
• Therefore, cross-sex impersonation is immune from moral judgment.

But if all conditions constituted by powerful, persistent, unchosen desires and the behaviors impelled by such feelings are part of this new and culturally destructive understanding of identity and, therefore, immune from moral judgment, then zoophilila/bestiality, “minor-attraction,” “Genetic Sexual Attraction,” and polyamory/promiscuity are immune from moral judgment.

Biden announced that “We celebrate the activism and determination that have fueled the fight for transgender equality.” Presumably, he is using the royal “we” since not all Americans celebrate “trans” activism, which is destroying all respect for and public recognition of sex differences. No more biologically based clubs for boys and girls, no more single sex bathrooms, no more girls’ sports.

Equality means to treat like things alike. As such, “trans”-cultists and their collaborators like Biden are promoting anti-equality. They are demanding that unlike things—that is men and women—be treated as if they’re alike in every context, including contexts in which sex differences matter.

When Biden refers to the “discrimination that the transgender community continues to face across our Nation and around the world,” he is using the word “discrimination” to describe moral beliefs about cross-dressing and mutilating cosmetic procedures with which he disagrees. If moral disapproval of ideas or volitional acts constitutes discrimination, then Biden’s disapproval of the beliefs of Christians on “gender” and sex as well as the acts impelled by those beliefs constitutes discrimination.

Applying consistently leftist redefinitions of authenticity, identity, and discrimination would mean that no one could express disapproval of any beliefs, desires, or volitional acts. These redefinitions pave the broad way to moral anarchy.

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/2022/04/Biden-the-Unity-President-Divides-Again.mp3

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!

Democrat state lawmakers introduced the Repeal the Parental Notice of Abortion Act (HB 1797 and SB 2190) in the Illinois General Assembly’s spring legislative session. The bill would repeal the current law and allow minor females to obtain abortions without a parent’s or guardian’s knowledge. The group, Parents for the Protection of Girls, recently held a press conference announcing their strong opposition to the repeal.

SB 2190 was introduced by Sen. Elgie Sims (D-Chicago) and HB 1797 by Rep. Anna Moeller (D-Elgin). Newly elected House Speaker Emanuel Chris Welch is one of the bill’s chief co-sponsors. A similar bill was introduced in 2019 and failed.

The Parental Notice of Abortion Law was passed in 1995 but wasn’t implemented until 2013 after lengthy court battles. Thirty-seven other states have some form of a parental notification law.

The law they want to repeal requires young women under the age of 18 seeking an abortion to notify a parent, legal guardian, or grandparent at least 48 hours prior to the abortion. It does not require consent. If for some reason the minor is unable to contact an adult family member, a judicial bypass may be sought. According to a report from The Catholic News Agency, about 1,000 minors in Illinois undergo an abortion each year.

Mary FioRito, of Parents for the Protection of Girls, presented the results of a recent public opinion poll at the start of the press conference. FioRito is an attorney and a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the deNicola Center for Ethics and Culture. She is also the mother of three teenage girls.

The poll was conducted March 7th-10th of 2021 with 600 registered voters in Illinois by The Tarrance Group. FioRio said the poll found “nearly three-quarters [of Illinoisans] are opposed to repealing the Parental Notice Law.” According to those polled, 72% of overall respondents support the current parental notification requirement. When those surveyed were asked, “’If a minor is seeking an abortion, do you believe a parent or guardian should be notified?,’  she noted only 22% said ‘no’ or ‘strongly no’ to that question.”

In addition, FioRito said the poll found “52% of liberal democrats and pro-choice voters support the parental notification law” with “one-third of the electorate that self-identified as pro-choice” supporting the current law.

A Father and Pastor Speaks Out

Jon Jones, the father of a teenage girl and a worship pastor at Christian Life Center, a multi-cultural, non-denominational church, with campuses in the Chicago suburbs of Tinley Park and Blue Island, spoke for families and the effect a repeal could have on them. Jones stated, “I love my daughter and care very deeply about what goes on in her life. If she were to get pregnant and were to consider an abortion, I would want to know so my wife and I could help her deal with the unexpected situation.”

Jones, an African American, noted the Tarrance opinion poll showed, “Seventy-six percent of minority men and 74% of minority of women support this [current] law. So, it’s clear this law has the support of many across our state and it should not be repealed.”

Jones called parental notification a matter of “common sense” and “supportive of the family, which is the bedrock of society.”

He appealed to legislators to see the seemingly contradictory message a repeal would send. “When our state laws ensure children can’t make their own decisions for accessing tanning beds, tattoos, tobacco use,” Jones said, “it seems unfathomable that the law would allow minors to access abortion without any adult guidance. We know the potential severe physical and emotional consequences associated with abortion.”

The groups pushing for the repeal of Parental Notice are the usual suspects: the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and Planned Parenthood. They claim minor girls may be prevented from having an abortion if their parents find out. They also claim that minorities may fear the judicial bypass process due to racial prejudice if parents are not available. While opponents of the bill have expressed grave concerns that a repeal would protect child molesters, rapists, and human traffickers in Illinois and surrounding states, both bills have actually picked up several additional co-sponsors.

Not all minors come from homes with loving parents as some critics of the present law point out. However, Jones said, “I understand not every child comes from a home like ours and the needs of that child must be met as they are in this law with the provided exemptions to notifications. It is also important to weigh the needs of loving families and ensure the government not do more to denigrate them.”

In a March 16th letter opposing the repeal, Catholic Bishops of Illinois alluded to the same arguments from supporters of the appeal as Jones, saying, “It is unfortunately true that not all young people come from loving homes.” They also noted the judicial bypass process can be “emotionally difficult.”

“However, such difficulty must be weighed against the harm done when our laws effectively undermine family life by separating children from the care of parents who love them the most,” said their letter. “The state should do everything to support families, not destabilize them.”

The bishops also expressed the concerns of those who oppose the repeal. “If a minor girl can be taken by any adult man to an abortion clinic in the hopes of erasing the evidence of his abuse, what protection exists outside of the girl’s parent or guardian being informed? Why would we want to create such a dangerous environment?”

HB 1797 has passed through the Illinois House of Representatives’ Human Services Committee and is awaiting debate and a vote in the House.

Take Action: Click HERE to contact your state lawmakers. Let them know that gutting or repealing the Parental Notice of Abortion Act will subvert families and create an environment to protect their minor daughters’ abusers. Ask them to oppose any and all efforts to repeal or amend the law and, instead, uphold parental rights.

Ask your pastor to share this bulletin insert with your congregation.  The body of Christ and people of faith must be notified of this effort and encouraged to speak out now.

Bulletin Insert

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!