IFI is asking for help from supporters in moving forward an important lawsuit against the state of Illinois. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in California (NIFLA v. Becerra) and with the encouragement of IFI and others, Mauck & Baker, a Chicago-based law firm committed to protecting religious liberty, is considering a lawsuit against the Illinois law that bans counseling for children and teens who experience unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria.

Background

The plaintiffs in the NIFLA case (i.e., pro-life crisis pregnancy centers) sued the state of California, which had passed the FACT Act requiring all crisis pregnancy centers in defiance of their beliefs to “notify women that California provides free or low-cost services, including abortions, and give them a phone number to call.” The pregnancy centers sued the state, lost, and then appealed that decision to the radical 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against the pregnancy centers, claiming the state has the right to regulate “professional speech.” The NIFLA plaintiffs appealed the 9^th Circuit Court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the pregnancy centers. Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority said,

Some Courts of Appeals have recognized “professional speech” as a separate category of speech that is subject to different rules…. But this Court has never recognized “professional speech” as a separate category of speech subject to different rules. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by professionals. 

The appellate court decisions to which Justice Thomas referred included two cases (Pickup v. Brown and King v. Governors of New Jersey) in which state laws banning “sexual orientation change efforts” were challenged.

Lawsuit against Illinois

The argument made by Justice Thomas provides a strong legal rationale for challenging the bill Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law in 2015 banning counseling for minors who experience unwanted same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, euphemistically named the “Youth Mental Health Protection Act.” This law was based on the false assumptions that “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (i.e., subjective, internal feelings about one’s objective, immutable biological sex) are fixed and unchangeable—assumptions that are disputed even by many in the “LGBTQ” community.

Mauck & Baker believes this law violates the speech rights of mental health professionals in Illinois and is considering a lawsuit to restore to mental health providers their full complement of First Amendment protections. And that’s where IFI supporters come in.

We need plaintiffs, and they need financial and prayer support. If you know any mental health providers who have been unable to counsel minors with unwanted same- sex attraction or gender dysphoria due to Illinois’ unconstitutional, anti-autonomy, anti-choice law, please have them contact Mauck & Baker by calling (312) 726-1243 or by via email HERE. Please share with them that plaintiffs will remain anonymous. The promise of anonymity is desirable because of the vindictiveness of the powerful and oppressive “LGBTQ” community.

The plaintiffs also need funding for attorney fees and expert testimony about the harms inflicted by such unconstitutional bans. This is a critically important lawsuit, which we hope will serve as a model for states, cities, and counties with similar unconstitutional laws (i.e., New Jersey, California, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Nevada, Washington, Hawaii, Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, 40 cities, and 2 counties). Click HERE to DONATE to this important cause.

There are parents across the state in desperate need of proper counseling for their children who suffer from sexual confusion, sometimes caused by sexual abuse. This need is growing because of the pervasive promulgation of the false and destructive “LGBTQ” ideology that has eradicated the stigma associated with immoral sexual acts, poisoned the minds of children with perverse images, lured children into all manner of sexual experimentation, and provided a distorted lens though which children are misinterpreting normal human experiences. Compassionate people who care about the suffering of others—especially children—and who care about truth, must help these parents and children get the care they need.

Please help IFI, Mauck & Baker, professionals who want to counsel, and children and teens who want and need compassionate and sound counseling.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Lawsuit-Against-State-of-Illinois-Unconstitutional-Ban-on-Counseling-for-Minors.mp3

As a result of the passage of the deceptively named “Youth Mental Health Protection Act,” the law firm of Mauck & Baker is today filing a federal lawsuit against the state of Illinois on behalf of a group of Illinois pastors alleging that the Act “unconstitutionally restricts a young person’s right to make personal choices regarding his or her own choice of sexual identity, as well as the pastors’ right to free speech and the exercise of religion.” The suit seeks “a Declaratory Judgment from the court stating that the law should not apply to pastoral counseling.”

Read the Mauck & Baker federal complaint HERE.

The Act, commonly called the “conversion therapy ban” but more properly called the anti-autonomy Act or the anti-identity-choice Act, prohibits professional mental health providers from helping minors who desire counseling for unwanted, unchosen homoerotic attraction. So, while leftists believe minors should be able to access medical help in a futile quest to reject their unwanted sex, these same leftists pass laws prohibiting minors from accessing help in constructing an identity that doesn’t include the affirmation of unwanted homoerotic feelings.

The anti-autonomy Act includes a host of other problems including the following:

• The Act prohibits “any practices or treatments that seek to….reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings towards individuals of the same sex.” The hubris of homosexual activists and liberal lawmakers knows no bounds. They passed a law to prohibit teenagers from pursuing ways of reducing unwanted homoerotic feelings.

• The Act makes no distinction between coercive aversion therapies and talk therapies.

• It makes no distinction between involuntary counseling and voluntary counseling desired by minors.

• It fails to address whether, for example, a 14-year-old who experiences homoerotic feelings and admits to having been sexually molested would be allowed to explore the connection between sexual molestation and homoerotic feelings with a mental health provider?

• The Act states that “No person or entity may, in the conduct of any trade or commerce use or employ any…conversion therapy services in a manner that represents homosexuality as a…” In other words, it is now illegal to present homosexuality truthfully.

• The Act presumes without evidence that all counseling efforts to help minors who reject their unwanted, unchosen “sexual orientation” are damaging. It is indefensible to ban counseling efforts for which there is no conclusive evidence of harm.

• The Act applies to licensed psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, professional counselors and clinical professional counselors, as well as anyone assisting any licensed professionals.

It is encouraging to see pastors take a public stand for unpopular biblical truths and against oppressive, politically driven laws that violate constitutionally protected liberty. We see such courage among church leaders too seldom.

Click HERE to read more.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachman!

Please register today, before the early bird special expires…

Mauck & Baker is a well-respected Chicago law firm committed to protecting religious liberty through the application of biblical principles. In the service of this commitment, they have issued a statement regarding Republican Governor Bruce Rauner’s deeply troubling abandonment of conservative principles through his enactment of a controversial, anti-autonomy law that prohibits mental health professionals from helping minors who seek assistance in resisting unwanted, unchosen same-sex attraction, rejecting a “gay” identity, and/or accepting their physical embodiment:

Rauner Signs Bill Restricting Sexual Orientation Counseling for Minors

(Chicago, Illinois) Late last Friday, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law the deceptively titled “Youth Mental Health Protection Act,” becoming one of only three states to make it illegal to counsel minors on how to cope with or overcome unwanted same-sex attraction. The Act further provides that “no person or entity may, in the conduct of any trade or comer… represent homosexuality as a mental disease, disorder, or illness.”

The law is written broadly enough to put at risk not only licensed counselors but also pastors and others  who are in “commerce” (compensated for counseling) and refer to homosexuality as an illness or “disorder” (i.e. sin) to any counselee, minor or adult, with the purpose of helping the counselee be free from same-sex attractions. Those who continue to provide such counseling and care will face disciplinary actions by the state and are subject to suit under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Attorney John Mauck, partner at the law firm Mauck & Baker responded, “According to Scripture, it is possible for all of us who have sinful tendencies and compulsions to change and become holy in God’s sight. The Apostle Paul indicates this is also true for those involved in homosexual conduct. In 1 Corinthians 6:11, speaking of ‘homosexual offenders’ and others, Paul writes, ‘such were some of you.’”

Licensed counselors, minors who struggle with same-sex attraction, or pastors, are encouraged to contact Mauck & Baker to discuss their civil rights and join with others interested in challenging the law. Also, the full length documentary, “Such Were Some of You” from Pure Passion Media is a valuable resource for testimonies of ex-gays and how Jesus helped them leave the gay lifestyle. To purchase the DVD for $15, call (312) 726-1243 or email info@mauckbaker.com.

Governor Bruce Rauner lied—or perhaps more precisely his wife, helpmeet, and mouthpiece, Diana Rauner, lied for him.

In a campaign ad, Mrs. Rauner stated with a Cheshire grin and a long nose that “Bruce doesn’t have a social agenda.”

Oh really…

Just this afternoon following the day during which we had to hear more about Planned Parenthood’s bloody baby-breaking business—which Ms. Rauner heartily supports—Governor “No-Social-Agenda” signed into law the anti-autonomy “Youth Mental Health Act,” deceitfully called the “conversion therapy ban” by radical LGBTQQIP activists. HB 217 will now become law.

Now minors who experience same-sex attraction as a result of sexual molestation will be prohibited from receiving counseling that may help them reject an unwanted, unchosen “gay identity.”

And minors who experience gender dysphoria will be prohibited from receiving counseling to help them accept as good their physical embodiment and to affirm a “gender identity” consonant with their objective, immutable biological sex. Even liberal sexuality and gender scientists Dr. Eric Vilain and Dr. J. Michael Bailey expressed their opposition to bans on so-called “conversion therapies” for gender dysphoric minors. I guess the powerful Wizard of Springfield knows something these experts don’t.

Or…he has a social agenda, and one that’s as colorful as Obama’s rainbow-dipped D.C. home.

If you still doubt Rauner’s social agenda, please note that he could have done nothing and the bill would have become law anyway.

Alternatively, he could have used his “amendatory veto power,” which only a few governors have and which he used recently with the marijuana law. Socially quiescent Bruce could have used this power to request the following changes which we sent him several days ago:

1.) Request that the bill be amended to prohibit only coercive aversion therapies.

2.) Request that the bill be amended to define specifically what constitutes aversion therapy.

3.) Request that a specific exemption be added to allow counselors to discuss the connection between childhood molestation and sexual orientation confusion and/or same-sex attraction. The liberal American Psychological Association admits the following:

Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….

Even homosexual counselors acknowledge that childhood molestation can result in “sexual orientation” confusion. Minors who have been sexually molested have a right to explore the link between their molestation and subsequent same-sex attraction.

4.) Request that the bill be amended to exclude gender dysphoria, “gender identity,” and “gender expression” from this bill. We have a very unusual definitional construct in Illinois law. The Illinois Human Rights Act specifically includes “gender identity” and “gender expression” under the rubric of “sexual orientation.” Because of this unusual legal definition, this bill would effectively ban any therapeutic modalities in which counselors help gender dysphoric minors accept their physical embodiment (i.e., their objective biological sex). Well-respected, liberal gender/sexuality scientists oppose bans on “conversion therapy” for gender dysphoric minors.

5.)Request that the bill be amended to permit minors who voluntarily seek counseling to help them construct an identity that does not affirm same-sex attraction to be able to access such counseling. Since gender dysphoric minors are permitted access to medical help in voluntarily rejecting their unwanted, unchosen physical embodiment, other minors should be able to access medical help in voluntarily rejecting their unwanted, unchosen same-sex attraction.

Governor Rauner could have done nothing or he could have used his amendatory veto power to request reasonable changes, but he didn’t because he has a pernicious social agenda that will undermine human flourishing.

Oh well, I guess in the big picture, what really matters are not the rights and welfare of minors and those who love them most. What really matters is that adult LGBTQQIP activists are sated and pensions are funded.

Illinois Family Institute
Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet

Friday, September 18 , 2015
The Stonegate Banquet & Conference Center (Map)
Click HERE for a banquet flyer.

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

Program advertisements & banquet sponsorships available.

The politically expedient title of the anti-autonomy, anti-choice bill (HB 217) sitting on Governor Bruce Rauner’s desk points to its nebulous, overbroad, and deceitful content. It’s titled the “Youth Mental Health Protection Act.” I mean, who isn’t for “youth mental health.”

Among Illinois’ sexuality dogmatists, like lesbian activist Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), who never miss an opportunity to exploit minors for their selfish political ends, the bill is informally called the “conversion therapy prohibition act.” It’s a deceitful colloquial title intended to connote religiosity and compulsory therapies and to conceal that some therapeutic protocols are neither religious nor coercive.

Not only is the bill overbroad and nebulous but also the bill’s sponsors failed to provide any conclusive evidence-based research to defend its overbroad goals.

This onerous bill embodies numerous intellectual failures and reveals the ethical failures of its sponsors:

• This bill ignores the fact that the liberal American Psychological Association admits that “Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….” If social and cultural influences can affect “sexual orientation,” isn’t it possible that childhood molestation may influence it? Even homosexual counselors acknowledge that childhood molestation can result in “sexual orientation” confusion. Would this bill permit therapists to discuss with their minor clients the possible connection between molestation and same-sex attraction?

• While gender dysphoric minors are permitted to access medical help in rejecting their unwanted, unchosen physical embodiment, this bill would legally prohibit other minors from accessing medical help in rejecting their unwanted same-sex attraction. Such a prohibition constitutes not only indefensible inconsistency but also egregious governmental interference with minors’ autonomy. Surely if gender dysphoric minors are permitted to get medical help in aligning their bodies with their desires, other minors should be permitted to get medical help in aligning their sexual orientation with their desires.

• The bill makes no distinction between coercive aversion therapies and talk therapies.

• This bill makes no distinction between involuntary counseling and voluntary counseling desired by minors.

• There is a difference between eradication of desires and not affirming desires. This bill makes no allowance for minors who may want help in constructing an identity that does not include the affirmation of their unwanted, unchosen same-sex attraction.

• This bill fails to acknowledge that numerous homosexual scholars assert that sexual orientation is fluid and, therefore, can and does change.

• The bill relies on the American Psychological Association’s (APA) 2009 “Task Force Report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation,” which has been challenged for a number of reasons, including the fact that the task force was composed of only six people, all of whom were homosexuality-affirming activists and/or homosexual themselves.

• Many Illinoisans do not realize that the Illinois Human Rights Act defines “sexual orientation” as inclusive of “gender identity” and “gender expression.” Therefore, because of this unusual legal definition, if passed this bill would prohibit counseling to help gender-confused minors accept their objective biological sex. This bill makes no reference to the two liberal sexuality/gender scientists, Dr. Eric Vilain and Michael Bailey, who argue that lawmakers should not ban counseling efforts that help gender dysphoric minors accept their physical embodiment.

For these reasons, IFI is urging Governor Rauner to veto the bill.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to Governor Rauner’s office, asking him to allow licensed and professional therapists to do their job. Urge him to veto HB 217.

You can also call the governor’s office in Springfield at (217) 782-0244 or in Chicago at (312) 814-2121.

Illinois Family Institute
Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet

Friday, September 18 , 2015
The Stonegate Banquet & Conference Center (Map)
Click HERE for a banquet flyer.

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

Program advertisements & banquet sponsorships available!

Written by David E. Smith and Laurie Higgins

How did they vote?

Yesterday afternoon, the Illinois Senate voted 34-19-1 to pass HB 217, a bill that will censor professional therapists who want to help children who suffer from unchosen, unwanted same-sex attraction. Republican State Senators Christine Radogno (Lemont) and Chris Nybo (Hinsdale) voted with the majority of Democrats to pass this tyrannical legislation. Five state senators did not vote, while State Senator Bill Haine (D-Alton) voted present — which is as good as a “no” vote.

This bill was introduced by LBGTQ activist and State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), and sponsored in the Illinois Senate by Senators Daniel Biss (D-Chicago), Andy Manar (D-Bunker Hill), Iris Martinez (D-Chicago), Toi Hutchinson (D-Chicago Heights), Don Harmon (D-Oak Park), Michael Noland (D-Elgin), David Koehler (D-Peoria), Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge), William Delgado (D-Chicago), Martin Sandoval (D-Chicago), Heather Steans (D-Chicago), and Emil Jones III (D-Chicago).

Click HERE to see how your state representative voted on this legislation, or look at the graphic below. (Look up your state senator HERE.)

The bill now moves to Governor Bruce Rauner. While he campaigned as a “no social issues” candidate in 2014, he now has to face the reality that the Illinois General Assembly is filled with politicians who want to advance radical legislation dealing with social issues–many of whom want to champion a far left social agenda agenda. Gov. Rauner will now be compelled to reveal his position on this highly divisive and controversial “social” issue.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to Governor Bruce Rauner’s office, asking him to allow licensed and professional therapists to do their job.  Urge him to veto HB 217.

Background

It is stunning to realize that legislation suppressing the speech of professional therapists would get this much support. Thankfully, the bill received robust deliberation and criticism on the floor during debate yesterday. State Senators Kyle McCarter (R-Vandalia), Dale Righter (R-Mattoon), Jim Oberweis (R-Aurora), Tim Bivins (R-Dixon) and freshman Neil Anderson (R-Moline) did a great job questioning the sponsor of the bill and/or speaking against HB 217.

IFI is grateful for the moral fortitude displayed by the members of the Illinois Senate who vocally opposed this unwarranted, unethical, and poorly written legislation.

It is important to note, HB 217 makes no distinction between coercive aversion therapy and “talk therapies” that would allow minors a measure of autonomy in constructing an identity that does not affirm unchosen, unwanted same-sex attraction.

The bill’s sponsors never addressed whether minors whose same-sex attraction or “sexual orientation” confusion may be the result of sexual molestation will be able to receive counseling to address the potential connection between molestation and same-sex attraction.

The bill’s supporters never explained why gender-confused minors should be able to access medical help in rejecting their unchosen, unwanted physical embodiment but those who experience same-sex attraction should be prohibited from accessing medical help in rejecting their unchosen, unwanted same-sex attraction.

Those who voted in favor of this bill ignored the urgent warnings of scientists who argued in an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune and LA Times that there is insufficient evidence to justify the passage of bans on reparative therapy for gender dysphoric minors. (Read more HERE.)

The bill’s supporters never addressed the galling way the bill was passed in the house, when the acting speaker allowed less than 5 seconds of time for floor debate before he called for a vote.

This bill is not a reasoned attempt to protect children. It’s a political maneuver that serves the strategic interests and profoundly selfish desires of adults committed to perverse activity and delusional thoughts. Once again, corrosive Illinois political chicanery in the service of some privileged coterie comes before wisdom, truth, knowledge, and even the needs and rights of hurting children.

While “progressive” Americans view the desire of those who suffer from Body Integrity Identity Disorder to amputate healthy limbs as barbaric, they ignorantly view the desire of those who suffer from Gender Identity Disorder to amputate healthy breasts and penises as sound medical practice. What a stupid, barbarous culture we’re becoming. Maybe when the lawsuits against doctors who facilitate barbarism, mutilating bodies and rendering young men and women sterile, start arriving on our crumbling cultural doorstep, this madness will stop. Too bad so many young people will have to suffer before that happens.

Please pray that Gov. Rauner does the right thing, and rejects this terrible policy.

In a stunning, counter-cultural op-ed appearing in the LA Times and Chicago Tribune, Dr. Eric Vilain, professor of pediatrics and human genetics at UCLA and director of the Center for Gender-Based Biology, and J. Michael Bailey, psychology professor at Northwestern University, warn lawmakers against banning “conversion” therapy for minors who experience gender dysphoria. They argue that attempts by lawmakers to ban “all therapists from helping families trying to alleviate children’s gender dysphoria would be premature, a triumph of ideology over science.”

Further, they take particular aim at President Barack Obama’s public support for “conversion” therapy bans, urging him to “set a better example by pausing at the limits of our knowledge and encouraging scientists to collect the data we need.” They warned that until such knowledge is available, “let’s be careful about telling the well-meaning parents of gender-dysphoric children what to do.”

If Illinois lawmakers—never known for humility about their own knowledge—truly care about children, they will heed the words of these scientists. Illinois state senators should vote “no” on the “conversion” therapy ban (HB 217).

Here is an extended excerpt from Vilain and Bailey’s compelling op-ed (emphasis added):

Since the age of 2, he has been a very different kind of boy. He enjoys wearing his mother’s shoes and his sister’s dresses. He likes to play with girls and hates playing with boys, who are too rough.

Now 5, he has told you that he wants to be a girl. In fact, he insists that he is a girl. Your son isn’t just feminine; he is unhappy being a boy. He has gender dysphoria.

You love him and you want him to be happy. But you’re worried. Some older kids have started to tease him, and some parents have expressed disapproval.

It seems you have two choices. You could insist that he is a boy and try to put an end to behaviors such as cross-dressing and saying that he is a girl. The alternative is to let him be a girl: grow long hair, choose a new name, dress as he (or “she”) pleases, and when it is time, obtain the necessary hormones and surgeries for a female body.

As scientists who study gender and sexuality.…[w]e do know a lot about such boys. This includes some important facts rarely mentioned in the discussion about how they should be raised. We suspect this is because those facts are inconvenient to the narratives that have come to predominate.

Perhaps the most influential account is that gender dysphoric children have the minds and brains of the other sex, adult transgenderism is inevitable, and early transition to the other sex is the only humane option.

But this narrative is clearly wrong in one respect. Gender dysphoric children have not usually become transgender adults. For example, the large majority of gender dysphoric boys studied so far have become young men content to remain male. More than 80% adjusted by adolescence.

Granted, the available research was conducted at a time when parents almost always encouraged their gender dysphoric children to accept their birth sex…

The little data we have indicate that parental acquiescence leads to persistence.

As more and more parents let their gender dysphoric boys live as girls, the percentage of persisters may increase dramatically.

But, again, we don’t yet know whether it’s better to encourage adjustment or persistence.

(We have focused on gender dysphoric boys because their parents have contacted us much more often than parents of similar girls. Moreover, many fewer gender dysphoric girls have been studied scientifically. The same basic facts appear to be true for both sexes, however.)

Let’s take a look at the likely life trajectories of two imagined gender dysphoric boys: David, whose parents insist he stay David, and Max, whose parents allow him to become a girl, changing his name to Maxine.

In the short run, David will experience more psychological pain than Maxine. Adjustment to being a boy necessarily means accepting that he can’t be a girl, something he desperately wants. Still, most gender dysphoric boys have managed the mental transition.

In the long run, Maxine will need serious medical interventions. In late childhood she will need hormones to block puberty; she will then take estrogen for the rest of her life. Eventually, she may want genital surgery. Although this surgery is usually satisfactory, side effects requiring additional surgery are not uncommon.

Each way has obvious advantages and disadvantages. We would prefer to save David the greater pain he will endure during childhood. And we would prefer to save Maxine the serious medical interventions and possible side effects.

…Some professionals who do [conversion therapy to help pre-adolescent children overcome gender dysphoria] have no moral issue with transgenderism but are trying to help children avoid later medical stress. That is a reasonable goal….

The Illinois House of Representatives passed Illinois’ “conversion” therapy ban last week in a shameful display of arrogance and cowardice that epitomizes why Americans hold their elected representatives in disdain.

First, acting as speaker of the house, state representative Lou Lang (D-Skokie)—you know, the 27-year veteran lawmaker whose pockets are lined with filthy lucre from the gaming and marijuana industries—abruptly closed floor debate and called HB 217 for a vote just seconds after the bill’s sponsor, lesbian Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), offered her appeal for the bill’s passage.

Second, the only Republican who even attempted to make a comment was Tom Morrison (R-Palatine) who was arrogantly ignored by Lou Lang despite several appeals.

Do Illinois “progressives” not feel even a twinge in their shrinking vestigial consciences that this dubious bill was passed in the House through such ethically icky tactics?

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator. Urge him/her to vote against HB 217.  (If you have already sent an email to your state representative, please now send an email to your state senator.)

HB 217 was heard in the Senate Executive Committee last night.  As expected, the bill passed by a vote of  11-4, with Senator Mattie Hunter (D-Chicago) voting present.  Senators Christine Radogno (R-Lemont) and Chris Nybo (R-Hinsdale) voted in favor of this terrible bill.  It now moves to the Senate floor where a vote may come as early as Friday.  Please speak out TODAY!

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.

How did they vote?

Yesterday afternoon in an appalling disregard for children’s mental health, parental rights and religious liberty, the Illinois House voted 68 to 43 to pass HB 217, a bill to ban reparative therapy for children who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction disorder.  This bill was introduced by LBGTQ activist and State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago). The bill received eight more votes than the sixty needed to pass!

Click HERE to see how your state representative voted on this legislation, or look at the graphic below. (Look up your state representative HERE.)

This is an unmitigated disaster for children and families! It is a shame that not one conservative lawmaker challenged this proposal during floor debate.  Not one lawmaker defended children and free speech from the tyranny of Leftists who demand we act, speak and think according to the dictates of their beliefs. Not one lawmaker reminded their colleagues that by diminishing the right to live out our faith, they are establishing the religion of secularism which the First Amendment decisively prohibits.

While a number of representatives were excused from session that afternoon, it is disappointing to report that seven Republicans sided with this pro-homosexual, anti-parental rights, anti-religious liberty legislation, including:  State Representatives Dan Brady (Normal), Tim Butler (Springfield), Michael McAuliffe (Chicago), Bob Pritchard (Sycamore), Deputy “Leader” David Leitch (Peoria), and Assistant Republican “Leader” Ed Sullivan (Mundelein), who also voted to pass same-sex “marriage” in November 2013. Even Republican Minority “Leader” Jim Durkin (Burr Ridge) voted to further the devastation of families who have members struggling with the issue of unwanted same-sex attraction.

However, a number of Democrats did not support this radical agenda, including State Representatives Kate Cloonen (Kankakee), Jerry Costello (Red Bud), Anthony DeLuca (Chicago Heights), Brandon Phelps (Harrisburg), Larry Walsh Jr. (Joliet) and even Assistant Majority Leader John Bradley (Marion).

IFI is grateful for the moral clarity displayed by these and other members of the Illinois House of Representatives who opposed HB 217.

The bill now moves to the Illinois Senate, the more liberal chamber. Unless an outpouring of prayers, along with many visits and calls are made to senators’ local district offices, this bill will likely become law.

We are seeing an unprecedented attack on Illinois families, parental rights and religious liberty by the people who are repeatedly elected back into their positions of authority. Are you registered to vote? Do you vote?

If people of faith do not step out of their comfort zone and speak loudly and publicly; at the very least with their vote, we are assuredly leaving a legacy of tyranny and evil for our children and grandchildren.

Will you please spread the word to everyone that you know in Illinois to pray, visit, and make calls to their state senator? You can look up their address and phone number HERE.  Also,send them an email. Simply click on the link below to send your email. Note: you must be registered with your name and address to send an email to your specific senator.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator. Urge him/her to vote against HB 217.  (If you have already sent an email to your state representative, please now send an email to your state senator.)

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.

Homosexual activists, intent on using every cultural institution—including public schools, the courts, and legislatures—to advance their non-factual beliefs, have been successful in their efforts in large measure because they have lied to Americans. How have they lied to Americans? Let us enumerate just a few of the ways:

• They have said that moral disapproval of homoerotic activity and relationships constitutes hatred of same-sex attracted persons.

• They have said that those who experience homoerotic attraction are “born that way,” meaning that homoerotic attraction is 100 percent heritable, like skin color.

• They have said that homoerotic attraction is in all cases immutable, like skin color.

• They have said that because same-sex attraction is 100 percent heritable in and in all cases immutable, it must be affirmed as central to identity in order for those who experience it to be happy.

• They have said that because a homosexual “orientation” is 100 percent heritable and in all cases immutable, any efforts to help same-sex attracted persons change their “orientation,” diminish same-sex attraction, or construct an identity that doesn’t include affirming same-sex attraction, activity, or relationships are cruel, harmful, and futile.

What’s remarkable about these claims is not just that they are patently false but that they are rejected by “LGBTQ” academicians.

The Conversion Therapy Prohibition Act (HB 217 and SB 111) sponsored by lesbian activist State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) and State Senator Daniel Biss (D-Skokie) relies on gullible acceptance of these beliefs. When considering Cassidy’s ill-conceived anti-identity-choice bill, lawmakers should take into account the following comments that our anti-intellectual mainstream press commonly overlooks. These are not outlier views but commonly held views among scholars, including homosexual scholars and devotees of Queer Theory.

Author, feminist scholar, social critic, and lesbian Camille Paglia writes this in her book Vamps & Tramps:

Responsible scholarship is impossible when rational discourse is being policed by storm troopers . . . who have the absolutism of all fanatics.

…

Is gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? The difficulties in changing sexual orientation do not spring from its genetic innateness. Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, once the sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition….

…[H]elping gays learn how to function heterosexually if they so wish, is a perfectly worthy aim. We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pausing at the prepubescent stage when children anxiously band together by gender.

John D’Emilio, homosexual professor of history and of women’s and gender studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago explained in an interview what many—perhaps most—homosexual academicians think about homoerotic attraction and biological determinism:

What’s most amazing to me about the “born gay” phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible…. queer theory asks us…to be skeptical of seeing both gender and sexuality as fixed categories. Who can argue with that?

In a post on the website Social (In)Queery, Jane Ward, who admits to being voluntarily homosexual, disputes the entire pseudo-intellectual edifice upon which Cassidy has built her teetering bill:

But the fact that the “born this way” hypothesis has resulted in greater political returns for gay and lesbian people doesn’t have anything to do with whether it is true.  Maybe, as gay people, we want to get together and pretend it is true because it is politically strategic….But still, it wouldn’t make the idea true.

…

People like to cite “the overwhelming scientific evidence” that sexual orientation is biological in nature.  But show me a study that claims to have proven this, and I will show you a flawed research design.

…

People like to use the failure of “gay conversion” therapies as evidence that homosexuality is innate.  First of all, these conversions do not always fail….the point is that we can and do change.  For instance, in high school and early in college, my sexual desires were deeply bound up with sexism.  I wanted to be a hot girl, and I wanted powerful men to desire me. I was as authentically heterosexual as any woman I knew.  But later, several years into my exploration of feminist politics, what I once found desirable (heterosexuality and sexism) became utterly unappealing. I became critical of homophobia and sexism in ways that allowed these forces far less power to determine the shape of my desires.  If this had not happened, no doubt I’d be married to a man….But instead, I was drawn to queerness for various political and emotional reasons, and from my vantage point today, I believe it to be one of the best desires I ever cultivated. [emphasis added]

Trudy Ring, writer for the homosexual magazine The Advocate  openly admits the flawed nature of the central argument that homosexual activists have used to insist on special treatment based on their mutable erotic desires and volitional erotic activity—something which other groups similarly constituted do not enjoy:

For years, much of the case for LGBT rights has been based on the argument that sexual orientation is fixed and immutable…..

But an increasing body of social science research posits that a sizable number of people experience some degree of fluidity in their sexual and romantic attractions: being drawn to the same gender at one point in their life, the opposite gender at another.

David Benkof explores the common view of homosexual scholars that the notion of an immutable “gay identity” is false and a-historical, a social construct of the last 150 years:

Are gays indeed born that way? The question has immense political, social, and cultural repercussions. For example, some of the debate over applying the Constitution’s equal protection clause to gays and lesbians focuses on whether gayness is an inborn characteristic….

Thus, if it’s proven sexual orientations are not innate, much of the scaffolding upon which today’s LGBT movement has been built would begin to crumble.

…

According to the experts on homosexuality across centuries and continents, being gay is a relatively recent social construction. Few scholars with advanced degrees in anthropology or history who concentrate on homosexuality believe gays have existed in any cultures before or outside ours, much less in all cultures. These professors work closely with an ever-growing body of knowledge that directly contradicts “born that way” ideology.

Journalists trumpet every biological study that even hints that gayness and straightness might be hard-wired, but they show little interest in the abundant social-science research showing that sexual orientation cannot be innate….

[H]istorian Dr. Martin Duberman, founder of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, said “no good scientific work establishes that people are born gay or straight.” And cultural anthropologist Dr. Esther Newton (University of Michigan) called one study linking sexual orientation to biological traits ludicrous: “Any anthropologist who has looked cross-culturally (knows) it’s impossible that that’s true, because sexuality is structured in such different ways in different cultures.”

…

Gay and lesbian historians aren’t just claiming that before the 19th century nobody was called “gay.” They’re saying nobody was gay (or straight). While various societies had different ways of thinking about and expressing gender, love, and desire, homosexuality was generally something one could do, not something one could be.

Nicholas Cummings, a former president of the American Psychological Association, shared his experiences in a USA Today column:

When I was chief psychologist for Kaiser Permanente from 1959 to 1979, San Francisco’s gay and lesbian population burgeoned. I personally saw more than 2,000 patients with same-sex attraction, and my staff saw thousands more. We worked hard to develop approaches to meeting the needs of these patients.

…With clinical experience, my staff and I learned to assess the probability of change in those who wished to become heterosexual.

…Of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful.

…

Since then, the role of psychotherapy in sexual orientation change efforts has been politicized. Gay and lesbian rights activists appear to be convincing the public that homosexuality is one identical inherited characteristic. To my dismay, some in the organized mental health community seem to agree, including the American Psychological Association, though I don’t believe that view is supported by scientific evidence.

Gays and lesbians have the right to be affirmed in their homosexuality. That’s why, as a member of the APA Council of Representatives in 1975, I sponsored the resolution by which the APA stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and, in 1976, the resolution, which passed the council unanimously, that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against in the workplace.

But contending that all same-sex attraction is immutable is a distortion of reality. Attempting to characterize all sexual reorientation therapy as “unethical” violates patient choice and gives an outside party a veto over patients’ goals for their own treatment. A political agenda shouldn’t prevent gays and lesbians who desire to change from making their own decisions.

Whatever the situation at an individual clinic, accusing professionals from across the country who provide treatment for fully informed persons seeking to change their sexual orientation of perpetrating a fraud serves only to stigmatize the professional and shame the patient.

Lisa Diamond, lesbian professor of psychology and gender at the University of Utah believes that both men and women experience sexual fluidity. Sexual fluidity means a change in “sexual orientation” from being sexually and romantically attracted to persons of one’s same sex to being attracted to persons of the opposite sex or vice versa.

While Diamond believes that “sexual orientation” can and does change, she bristles at any suggestion that humans may have any capacity to participate in their own “sexual orientation” change. Oddly, however, she also argues that “‘Either we are a society that protects people’s rights to sexual expression…or we’re not.’” Does protecting “people’s rights to sexual expression” include protecting minors’ “rights to sexual expression”? If so, wouldn’t Kelly Cassidy’s bill violate the rights of those teens who desire help from mental health providers in constructing a sexual identity that does not affirm unchosen and unwanted same-sex attraction?

Dr. Howard Fradkin, homosexual psychologist who treats adult victims of childhood molestation, stated on The Oprah Show that childhood molestation can result in “sexual orientation confusion.”

Even the American Psychological Association was forced to admit this about the hypothetical causes of “sexual orientation”:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…

When groups as disparate as homosexual scholars and conservatives agree that same-sex attraction is not biologically determined; that it can and does change; that environmental factors—including molestation—can contribute to the development of same-sex attraction; and that in some cases “conversion therapies” do work, it would be intellectually and ethically indefensible to use the law to ban forms of counseling that some homosexual activists don’t like.

The central motivation of this sloppily written, politically driven, dishonest bill is not to help children, but to advance the pernicious goal of mainstreaming Leftist beliefs about homosexuality even if that means undermining autonomy and liberty for families and mental health providers, and harming children and teens.

Stephen Black of the Restored Hope Network changed his sexual orientation as a young man and believes others should have the right to do the same. Not so for the all-knowing legislators in Springfield who are currently looking to pass HB 217 that will ban conversion therapy for minors. See video below:

TAKE ACTION: CLICK HERE to contact your State Representative and urge them to protect the rights of minors to seek help for their unwanted attractions. Urge a “No” vote on HB 217.

The Illinois Family Institute is completely dependent on the voluntary contributions of individuals just like you.  Without you, we would be unable to fight the radical agenda being pushed by the godless Left.

Please consider chipping in $15 or $25 to help our work to stand boldly in the public square.

Lesbian activist State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) is trying to rush out of committee her ill-conceived, poorly written mess of a bill that would prohibit any counseling efforts that may help minors construct an identity that does not include affirmation of unwanted same-sex attraction. Perhaps these minors should be considered a “sexual minority.”

Cassidy’s bill is titled the “Conversion Therapy Prohibition Act,” but oddly this bill fails to define precisely what is prohibited, which matters not to Cassidy and her legislative accomplices. Just get the bill passed in a New York minute, and then let likeminded ideologues from homosexuality-affirming law firms and in the courts will sue the pants off any mental health providers who say anything homosexual activists don’t like.

The Left has relied heavily on dubious tactics for transforming cultural views of homoerotic activity and relationships. These tactics include hurling epithets at anyone who holds moral views they don’t like; using the false analogy that compares homoerotic desire and activity to behaviorally neutral skin color; conflating forms of love (i.e., erotic and platonic); censoring resources they don’t like in public schools; deceitfully manipulating already politicized and unstable social “science” research; and cherry-picking “narratives” that promote only their beliefs about sexuality.

In addition to the criticisms of this preposterous bill that I outlined in my first article, there are other aspects of this issue on which lawmakers should ruminate. For example, on the website Public Discourse, happily married mother of two, Jean Lloyd, PhD., tells the story of her own gender confusion and same-sex attraction when she was a teen. Further, she outlines with painful clarity what the trajectory of her life might have been if “conversion therapy” bans had been in place in 1985:

Teens struggling with their sexual identity may seem to have more options than they did in the 1980s—but one important option is increasingly denied to them.

I came across a photo the other day of a fifteen-year-old girl dressed in a tuxedo, complete with red bow tie and tails, standing in front of a Christmas tree. She was heading for her high school’s Christmas dance, and her parents had taken pictures beforehand.

Why the tux? She had recently heard of a “gender bending” prom at a nearby school, one where all the girls had worn tuxes along with their dates. She was immediately drawn to the idea. However, at her school, she was the only one in on the twist. In the photo, she is attempting to look cool and smug, but her eyes betray sadness. The sexual identity struggles and confusion that had been quietly welling up within her since middle school were finally emerging for all to see.

The photo is from many years ago. I know because I am the girl in the picture. As I think back to that night, I can’t help but wonder how that girl’s life—my life—would have been different if the dance had taken place in 2015 instead of 1985.

I can’t help imagining the scenario that teenagers struggling with their sexuality face today…

2015: The Girl in the Tuxedo Goes to the Dance

After the pictures at home are taken, it’s time to head to the dance. Once she arrives, the girl in the tuxedo attracts attention for her bold choice to subvert gender stereotypes through her choice of attire. Members of her high school’s LGBTQ-Straight Alliance applaud her. Later, when she opens up about the confusion she’s been wrestling with surrounding her feelings toward other girls and her own identity, the “Q” (for “Questioning”) component of such clubs is happy to welcome her and inform her about gay sex and identity.

If she resists embracing a lesbian identity, she is encouraged to come out of denial and accept herself for who she is. If she seeks counseling, her therapist hews to a strict, professionally mandated protocol to affirm and validate her identity as homosexual. The counselor tells her that being lesbian is an unchangeable and good part of who she is, even though the girl is experiencing significant distress over the intense emotional and physical draw she feels toward other girls and women.

While she is in therapy, if she mentions wishing to resist these attractions and wonders whether she might develop heterosexually—or at least not identify as gay—it is considered unethical for the counselor to discuss this possibility with her. In some states, such as California and New Jersey, it is even against the law.

If she speaks of her religion and says there are faith convictions at stake that matter deeply to her, the therapist tries to help her overcome her “homophobic” values and free her from the “false consciousness” and oppression to which she is clearly subject.

And if she finally discusses the still unrevealed secret of sexual abuse—the fifty-year-old uncle and the summer six years ago? Exploring its possible connection with her same-sex attraction is forbidden. Any such discussion or treatment must still affirm her same-sex orientation and disassociate the abuse from her sexual development. She is, after all, only fifteen, and must be protected from dangerous ideas that might depress her further and chip away at her fragile self-esteem.

Through social and therapeutic efforts, our fifteen-year-old’s same-sex attractions are reified as central to her very being and personhood. Alleviating her distress about them and encouraging her to accept herself as lesbian is the only option presented to her. She may even be told that she was “born this way,” evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Since she wore the tux to the dance and is seeking a more masculine gender expression, a discussion of possible transgenderism is in order. If she is interested or agrees, a conversation about public restrooms and her right to privilege her “inner sense of gender” may be needed. With her consent, her therapist is legally permitted and professionally encouraged to help her begin socially transitioning from female to male. Eventual sex reassignment surgery is an option, depending on insurance coverage and personal resources.

Now there is no therapeutic imperative to help her accept herself as she is because she was “born this way,” as there would be regarding her same-sex attraction. For biological sex is not sacrosanct, as inner sensibilities or attractions are (faith or moral sensibilities excepted, of course). The subjective trumps the objective.

In 2015, sexual orientation redirection efforts are precluded from discussion, even if she explicitly asks for them. However, if she senses she is transgender, her right to redirection must be honored. If she wishes, she can quickly begin the process of “transitioning” to become a male. This path will involve intensive gender re-socialization, hormone therapy, and if she wants, irreversible amputative and reconstructive surgeries. This is and arduous and painful journey, with many risks and harms, irremediable loss and regret among them. But it is considered worth these risks and pain. She is, after all, only fifteen, and it would be unfair at such an age to limit the horizon of her possible identity paths and the options available to her.

All except one option, that is.

Should she one day desire children—as a lifestyle choice—they can be obtained through adoption or third-party reproduction. Whether the child ever has another social parent is up to her. It’s her child, after all.

And at long last, she—become he—will have what she wanted. Or, if not exactly what she wanted, at least what those initial counselors, affirmations, and “freedoms” had left open to her younger self, in flagrant disregard of the long-term possibilities and options they had foreclosed.

1985: The Girl in the Tuxedo Begins a Journey

I was that fifteen-year-old girl in the tuxedo, but my experience was very different from the one promoted by the social values of 2015. What ensued thereafter was a long and sometimes arduous and painful journey of becoming, working out my sexual identity from the cauldron of confusion that surrounded my development.

I have written a little about this journey, wherein I embraced and then renounced an active lesbian life to follow the God who made me and called me by name into His love. I began to trust the One who knew the truth of my identity more than I did, who wrote His image into my being and body as female, and who designed sexuality and set boundaries upon it for my good. I spent well over a decade as a celibate single person. During this time, I felt a wholeness in body, a growing wholeness in my soul, and a greater peace than I could ever have imagined at the age of fifteen. This was more than enough transformation for me, and I was deeply content. However, fifteen years after my tuxedo debut, to my utter surprise, a flicker of heterosexual desire emerged. As I approached forty, I certainly never dreamed I would marry. But now, as I write, I struggle to finish because my youngest child is tugging at my arm. My beloved husband, my children’s father, will soon be home from work.

How grateful I am that the photograph is from 1985, not 2015.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Cassidy’s bill is its inconsistency with other claims of the Left. While homosexuality and gender-confusion advocates believe that minors should be able to access medical assistance to help them change their unwanted gender—which, of course, is biologically determined (i.e., they were “born that way”)—these same activists believe minors should be prohibited by law from accessing medical help to change their unwanted “sexual orientation”—for which there is no proof of biological causation. Stunning hypocrisy.

Jean Lloyd’s story exposes the politically-infused narrow-mindedness, callousness, and restriction of liberties of Cassidy’s ambiguous, hypocritical “Conversion Therapy Prohibition Act.” Those lawmakers inclined toward the path of least political resistance ought to spend time researching and thinking deeply on this issue. They should ask themselves what if Jean Lloyd had been their daughter? Nothing less than the welfare and rights of children, teens, and the parents who love them most deeply are at stake.

TAKE ACTION: CLICK HERE to contact your State Representative and urge them to protect the rights of minors to seek help for their unwanted attractions. Urge a “No” vote on HB 217.