Governor J.B. Pritzker recently issued Executive Order 2021-20 Covid-19 Executive Order No 87, a mandate to mask while indoors. This mandate went into effect on August 30, 2021. Not stopping at masking, he also ordered that all school personnel for K-12 be vaccinated or tested weekly. In section 6 subsection b, the governor states that either the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) or Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) may require testing more often than is currently designated by the executive order for both staff and students. The state intends to use the ISBE to enforce its mandates on schools.

As if this forced masking and aggressive testing is not enough, State Representative Edgar Gonzalez, Jr. (D-Chicago) has introduced a bill that goes further toward controlling private education. If passed, HB 4135 will allow the ISBE to revoke state recognition of any school, public or private that does not follow orders from the Public Health Department or emergency health orders issued by the governor.

This bill will also prevent school boards from passing resolutions that go against the IDPH or executive orders and will require schools to investigate all complaints of non-compliance.

Finally, it will give the Illinois State Superintendent of Education the authority to require a non-compliant school to go to remote learning.    

The leftist ISBE is attempting to interfere with private schools already. They are threatening the accreditation of private schools even though a legislative committee has not yet reviewed the proposed HB 4135. Recently, the ISBE contacted Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights regarding the mask mandate. The school — which has experienced explosive growth since last year — had determined each family should decide whether or not to have their child wear a mask. Policies developed resulted in success in mitigating the risk in the previous school year while allowing parents and students the freedom of choice. Regardless of the school’s previous success, the ISBE is penalizing the school over the mask policy.

State Superintendent of Education Dr. Carmen I. Ayala wrote that the ISBE was immediately rescinding Christian Liberty Academy’s state recognition as a nonpublic school due to not complying with mask mandates. The revocation of their state recognition means the school can no longer participate in Illinois High School Association (IHSA) or Illinois Elementary School Association (IESA) regulated sports. They and their families will also no longer be able to participate in Invest in Kids Tax Act scholarship program, a tax incentive that allows individuals and businesses to receive a 75 percent tax income credit for donations of scholarships to students in need. It seems that the ISBE is the militant arm of the state to control private education.

Take ACTION: There must be a two-fold response to this injustice. First, the schools currently accredited by the state must unite to legally fight the cancelation of accreditation. Voters can assist this fight by demanding that our legislature votes no on HB 4135. Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to ask him/her to vote against HB 4135.

The second response is to “come out from them and be separate,” as directed in 2 Corinthians 6:17. Conservative Christians eventually will not be able to depend on government oversight of education. We must find ways towards certification without the ISBE’s control. Various independent accrediting associations can provide a school with the necessary accreditation without the state’s interference.

Parents and churches should strive to fund alternative private education, as well as encourage their private schools to reject government accreditation. Private schools can come out from under the oppressive shadow of the ISBE, but we, the community, must be ready to support their efforts in every way. If you are concerned about HB 4135 and the unfair interference of the ISBE, please get in touch with your state legislators.

Written by Austin Scott Davies

Late last week, Illinois Circuit Court Judge Michael McHaney of Clay County ruled in a lawsuit that “all citizens of Illinois” are free from Governor J.B. Pritzker‘s tyrannical orders. This comes after arguably unethical tactics by the Illinois Attorney General to delay the case by trying to remove it to federal court, and the United States Department of Justice filing a Statement of Interest in the case in support of the lawsuit.

State Representative Darren Bailey (R-Louisville) prevailed in his Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts II and III of his lawsuit against Governor Pritzker on April 23, 2020. The judge granted the declaratory relief requested in those counts and ordered a final judgment on the merits against Pritzker.

The judge ruled that by law Gov. Pritzker’s emergency powers lapsed 30 days after he declared COVID-19 a disaster and that all of his orders after April 8, 2020 that relate to the COVID-19 “disaster” are void ab initio. That’s Latin for void when they were created. Pritzker had no authority to issue orders after April 8, and legally, all orders issued after that date never existed. The Emergency Management Agency Act, which Gov. Pritzker claimed gave him authority to issue perpetual decrees shuttering businesses and churches and authority to suspend countless civil liberties, states clearly that a governor only has certain emergency powers that can be exercised for no more than 30 days following the declaration of a disaster.

The court went on to rule that there is no authority in the Constitution for Pritzker to have ever ordered the restriction of people’s movement or to have ever ordered the forcible closure of any business.

The judge made clear that in Illinois only the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and local health departments have the authority to restrict movement or close a business. To restrict movement or close a business, IDPH and local health departments must act within the constraints of existing law to take each individual person or business to court and overcome an incredibly high burden of proof. If the department is merely trying to prevent the spread of a virus or isolate a person that’s not already sick, that burden of proof is nearly insurmountable.

Specifically, Section 2 of the IDPH Act (20 ILCS 2305) allows the IDPH and local health authorities to order quarantine and isolation and to close places to prevent the probable spread of a dangerous or infectious disease. However, these agencies cannot make such orders without a prior court order, or consent by the person or persons effected.

The only exception to this is if, in the “reasonable judgment of the agency” issuing the order, “immediate action is required to protect the public from a dangerously contagious or infectious disease.” In that event, they can make such orders on a temporary basis, lasting no longer than 48 hours.

If a department of health issues such an order, they are still required to either obtain your consent or a court order within 48 hours of doing so, unless the courts are unavailable or circumstances make it impossible to obtain a court order. Then, the orders can only stay in place until the agency can obtain the court order through reasonable means.

The courts, however, are not closed, and some county courts have even made new local rules making it clear that they are open for these types of cases. To obtain an order to quarantine, isolate, or close a place or business, the health department must prove to a court “by clear and convincing evidence . . . that the public’s health and welfare are significantly endangered by a person or group of persons that has, that is suspected of having, that has been exposed to, or that is reasonably believed to have been exposed to a dangerously contagious or infectious disease including non-compliant tuberculosis patients or by a place where there is a significant amount of activity likely to spread a dangerously contagious or infectious disease. The Department must also prove that all other reasonable means of correcting the problem have been exhausted and no less restrictive alternative exists.”

At such hearing, you have a right to be represented by an attorney of your choosing, or if you are “indigent,” the court will appoint counsel to represent you. The burden is on the government to prove why you should close, isolate, or be quarantined. You do not have to prove why you should keep your business open or move about without restrictions.

At the behest of Gov. Pritzker and prior to this ruling, the IDPH has come out with “guidelines” that are phrased as orders that require certain measures of quarantine, partial business closure, and isolation such as “social” physical distancing. None of these “guidelines” or orders are enforceable unless you consent to them, or a health department complies with the due process protections described above and obtains a court order.

Shortly after this ruling, Gov. Pritzker and mainstream “news” media led a disinformation campaign to deceive Illinoisans by suggesting that “Phase 4” is still in full effect because Gov. Pritzker prevailed in other lawsuits regarding these onerous orders. While it is true that some courts have ruled against other plaintiffs that have filed lawsuits against Gov. Pritzker that are related to his orders, none have made any ruling inconsistent with the ruling in State Rep. Darren Bailey’s lawsuit. The other lawsuits referenced by Pritzker and his cohorts made different legal claims against Pritzker, were not representative actions, and in no way limit or constrain Judge McHaney’s ruling that all citizens of Illinois are free from Pritzker’s unlawful orders. This ruling applies to the entire state of Illinois and not just Clay County in the Circuit Court where it was made.

What is really telling is that only Pritzker and his cohorts are engaging in the campaign of disinformation, continuing to try to compel compliance to his void orders by intimidation. The Illinois Attorney General’s Office will not comment or respond to questions regarding the ruling.

Since the relief granted was declaratory relief, or relief which declares the parties rights under law—the parties here being Gov. Pritzker and all citizens of Illinois—the remedy of contempt of court is not available to punish Gov. Pritzker for disregarding this ruling. Unlike an injunction, a declaratory judgment does not order a party to do something or refrain from doing something. The judgment in this case is, however, valuable, in that not only does it invalidate Gov. Pritzker’s orders, but it can also be used by any citizen of Illinois to sue Pritzker and other public officials that have unlawfully deprived them of their civil rights, and any that would continue to unlawfully deprive them of their civil rights in clear violation of this judgment and under color of law.

Pritzker has even reportedly claimed that the ruling was not a final judgment on the merits, yet the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, which represents Gov. Pritzker, stated their intent to file an appeal seeking to overturn the judgment. If the ruling was not a final judgment on the merits, it could not be appealed. Unless this judgment is appealed and overturned by an appellate court, any order made by Pritzker that purported to restrict people’s movement, forcibly close any business, and any order related to COVID-19 that he made after April 8, has indeed been declared void and no longer exists anywhere in the State of Illinois.

More:

Click HERE to listen to a 10 minute interview of attorney Thomas DeVore by WMAY radio host Greg Bishop for a clarification on what the Judge Michael McHaney means.

Austin Scott Davies is an attorney and founder of Midwest Legal Care , former prosecutor, and an active member of the Winnebago County Republican Party. He is also a board member for Concerned Citizens for America, a local chapter of Illinois Family Institute.

The information contained in this article is not legal advice and is for general information purposes only. Do not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information. Readers should contact an attorney to obtain advice with respect to any legal matter.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

Cites Illinois Governor Executive Order as Constitutionally Unenforceable

A suit to enjoin the Grundy County State’s Attorney and Sheriff from enforcing Governor JB Pritzker’s worship restrictions has been filed by a local church. The continuing worship restrictions are contained in Pritzker’s Executive Order 2020-32.  The new “guidance” issued May 28 by the Illinois Department of Public Health provided “direction” for safely conducting services. The guidance however did not overturn the limitations contained in the executive order of April 30, 2020.  While EO 2020-32 remains in place, all houses of worship remain in legal jeopardy.

Pastor Richard Gionvennatti, of Standing in the Word Ministries, is seeking court protection to ensure that all citizens’ constitutional rights are affirmed without question and that religious liberties are not ever again infringed by egregious government overreach.

The seven-count lawsuit filed on Thursday, May 28, indicates Illinois Governor Pritzker was acting without legal authority in issuing any Corona Virus Executive Orders beyond 30 days without legislative approval and defied the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois State Constitution, and state statutes.

The pastor and congregation are represented by Attorney David Shestokas. He stated, “The Bill of Rights has no emergency exceptions. Although the governor has issued orders, the constitutionally independent Sheriffs and State’s Attorneys are tasked with enforcement. Court injunctions against enforcing Pritzker’s illegal orders are an appropriate remedy in protecting our freedoms.”

Pastor Giovennatti’s lawsuit seeks to permanently prohibit the sheriff and state’s attorney from enforcing the unlawful Executive Orders and any subsequent order issued with substantively the same restrictions upon the constitutional rights of Free Exercise of religious worship, Free Speech, and Freedom to Assemble.

As a board member of the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) and a pastor, Gionvennatti is passionate representing living within the Constitution. “The church is the source of holding the nation accountable. Churches need to assemble. As our nation’s heart and soul, we must and will be diligent and vigilantly stay the course until freedoms are restored and the unconstitutional edict is eradicated,” he said.

The statewide IFI and its Executive Director David E. Smith, vigorously support the efforts and strategy of the lawsuit. “We would like to secure a judicial ruling striking down this tyrannical precedent so that the state of Illinois may never have to experience this again. It doesn’t take much foresight to realize how similar future orders could be mandated (and extended) in the name of safety,” Mr. Smith said.

For full text of Complaint:

Standing in the Word v. State’s Attorney and Sheriff  2020CH23

Written by Austin Scott Davies

On March 9, 2020, Governor J.B. Pritzker declared every county in Illinois a disaster area. The Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act (20 ILCS 3305/7) allows the governor to proclaim a disaster exists by which he can give himself authority under the Act to exercise certain emergency powers.

The most noteworthy of the powers he has exercised is the power to control the movement of persons within a disaster area and the power to control and restrict the use, sale, or distribution of goods and services.

The governor is constrained by the Act to exercise the emergency powers for a period that is not to exceed 30 days following the proclamation of a disaster. Under the Act, the governor’s emergency powers have expired.

The federal and Illinois’ constitutions also limit the governor’s power through their due process and equal protection clauses. The Bill of Rights, found in both constitutions, restrain the government from violating our rights. However, the government is allowed to burden our rights under certain circumstances.

If a fundamental right is burdened by the government, for example the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, or movement, some questions asked by courts to determine whether the government’s act is constitutional are whether the act substantially burdened the fundamental right, whether the act furthered a compelling government interest, and whether the government used the least restrictive means possible to pursue that interest. This analysis is called strict scrutiny.

If a non-fundamental right is burdened, courts use the rational basis analysis. Judicial precedent deems economic and business rights to be included as non-fundamental. In determining whether a government act is constitutional here, courts determine whether an act is rationally related to a legitimate government objective. Both strict scrutiny and rational basis analysis are also used for equal protection analysis, when the government applies laws differently based on classifications it creates.

Both fundamental and non-fundamental rights have been burdened by the governor’s orders, and businesses and activities have been classified as “essential” or “non-essential.” In particular, by Order 2020-10, which chose certain businesses that had to close and certain activities that people were no longer allowed to engage in. This “stay-at-home” order shuttered thousands of businesses and restricted fundamental liberties of people in Illinois.

Is prohibiting church services and gatherings of over a certain number of people but allowing people to buy recreational cannabis and liquor–even if “social-distancing” is practiced during each activity–the least restrictive means to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 (also known as the disease “COVID-19”)? Are these classifications rationally related to preventing the spread of the virus? What does shutting down schools have to do with protecting the elderly and immuno-compromised who are most at risk for hospitalization? These questions are beginning to be asked across the nation by litigants, courts, and legislatures. Some doctors believe that isolation and “social distancing” should only be practiced by those most at risk, and that “social-distancing” and isolation will in the long term lead to more death than if we built up herd immunity quicker among the healthy while giving the option to those at risk to choose to social-distance and stay home.

Courts will also be asked to decide whether the government can lawfully arrest or fine people for violating the governor’s orders. In short, no, the government cannot arrest you merely for violating the governor’s orders. Unlike some states, Illinois’ Emergency Management Act does not provide any penalties for violations, so for the executive branch to impose a penalty for a violation would be a violation of procedural due process, which prohibits enforcement of penalties that are vague or, as in this case, non-existent. Even if the governor issued an order specifying a penalty, it would still be unenforceable. In our tripartite, constitutional republic, only the legislature can make law. If the governor purported to create a penalty by order, and that is not present in the statute, that part of his order would be void.

Local municipalities have passed ordinances that provide for penalties if the governor’s order is violated. Some of these ordinances may be lawful while others may not be. For example, Chicago’s Department of Public Health issued an order that requires sick people not to leave their homes except for certain essential activities. The order references Chicago ordinance 2-112-340 for enforcement of its order, which provides that anyone violating an order by the Illinois Department of Public Health or Board of Health can be fined between $100-$500 dollars. The Chicago Department of Public Health gets its authority from the Illinois Administrative Code, which allows for the Illinois Department of Public Health to delegate its authority to to local health authorities. Therefore, the Chicago Department, like the Illinois Department of Public Health, is constrained in its actions by the Illinois Department of Health Act (20 ILCS 2305).

Section 2 of this Act allows the Illinois Department of Public Health, and local health authorities, to order quarantine, isolation, and closure of places to prevent the probable spread of a dangerous or infectious disease. However, these agencies cannot make such orders without a prior court order, or consent by the person or persons effected. The only exception to this is if, in the reasonable judgment of the agency issuing the order, exigent circumstances exist that require immediate action to protect the public, they can make such orders. The agency issuing the order is still required either obtain consent or court order within 48 hours of doing so, unless the courts are unavailable or circumstances make it impossible to obtain a court order. Then, the orders can only stay in place until the agency can obtain the court order through reasonable means.

Illinois’ courts may require video and telephonic hearings at this time, but they are not closed. There have been no reports that the Chicago Department of Health has obtained a court order authorizing the quarantine or isolation of anyone. For this reason, if Chicago law enforcement does issue any fines pursuant to the ordinance, it may be possible to have the fines dismissed. It is also possible that law enforcement would charge you with a Class A misdemeanor for violating an order of a health department agency, found in the act at 20 ILCS 2305/8.1, which may be defended on the same grounds. A Class A misdemeanor carries with it up to 364 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.

Threat of criminal penalty has also been made by the governor. When pressed what punishment people could face for violating his order, Gov. Pritzker stated that the police could get a court order or charge people with reckless conduct. Reckless conduct (720 ILCS 5/12-5) is conduct that is performed recklessly and that endangers the safety of another person and is a Class A misdemeanor. The government would have a hard time proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are not under court-ordered quarantine, if you go in public while practicing “social-distancing” and wearing a mask, even while sick, your actions may not be reckless or endangering anyone else. If you are not sick, even if you are not practicing “social-distancing” or wearing a mask, it is hard to imagine the government proving that you endangered another person. It would likely have to be proven that the government knew you were positive for the virus before they arrested you for going into public and that you were reckless by not practicing social-distancing or wearing a mask.

Illinoisans may have another right regarding the pandemic. That is the right to just compensation for a government “taking.” The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that the government will not take anyone’s property without just compensation. This Amendment is incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The same clause can be found in Section 15 of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution. U.S. Supreme Court precedent states that one method for the government to take something is to deny it all economically viable use.

Many businesses have been denied all economic viability. Such a large scale taking and compensation is unprecedented, but it does appear that there is a justifiable argument for relief.

The Illinois General Assembly may be back in session sometime next month. Whether they act to check the governor’s power remains to be seen, but it is not likely since both branches are controlled by the same political party. As more Illinoisans struggle under the governor’s orders and local ordinances, more lawsuits will be filed, and the courts may be the only arbiter of the extent of the government’s power during this pandemic.

Austin Scott Davies is an attorney, former prosecutor, and an active member of the Winnebago County Republican Party. He is also a board member for Concerned Citizens for America, a local chapter of Illinois Family Institute.

The information contained in this article is not legal advice and is for general information purposes only. Do not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information. Readers should contact an attorney to obtain advice with respect to any legal matter.

Late last week we sent an email alert about a dangerous Illinois House bill (HB 4870) mandating that ALL 6th grade students in Illinois receive the unnecessary and highly controversial HPV vaccine – both boys and girls. Politicians have no business mandating medical treatment for all children to prevent a disease that’s contracted solely through sexual activity. Parents should be outraged! But it gets worse.

On Friday the other shoe dropped, as Illinois Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago) introduced SB 3668, which repeals all religious and medical exemptions for school immunizations and authorizes minor students, 14 years of age or older, to be vaccinated without parental consent. It also eliminates protections for parents who adopt children. From the synopsis of the bill, parents who do not immunize their children could be considered neglectful or abusive:

Removes language providing that the [Communicable Disease Prevention Act] does not apply if a parent or guardian of a child objects to immunization of his or her child for conflicting with his or her religious tenets or practices.

…

Removes language providing that a child shall not be considered neglected or abused for the sole reason that specified persons failed to vaccinate, delayed vaccination, or refused vaccination for the child due to a waiver on religious grounds.

The Illinois Department of Public Health lists 12 vaccine requirements for “Entering a Child Care Facility or School in Illinois, Fall 2019“: Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus, Polio, Measles, Rubella, Mumps, Haemophilus influenzae type b, Pneumococcal Conjugate, Hepatitis B, Varicella and Meningococcal Conjugate.

We cannot cede more authority to the state over the lives of our children and families, and we cannot remain silent in the face of these overt attacks on parental rights and religious liberty. This is not an issue for politicians! This is a decision that should be made by parents and their pediatricians.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your Illinois state lawmakers (House and Senate) to ask them to reject SB 3668 and HB 4870. Ask them to uphold parental rights and the right to freely exercise our federal and state religious civil rights. In addition to sending this email message, please also call the offices of both your state representative and state senator and leave a message stating your opposition to both of these bills.  Look up their phone numbers HERE.

It is interesting to note: according to a Pew Research article, all states except Mississippi, California, Minnesota, West Virginia, Maine and New York allow parents religious exemptions for vaccinations. Illinois must fight to not become the seventh state to severely diminish parental and religious liberties.

IFI is hosting our annual Worldview Conference on March 7th at the Village Church of Barrington. This year’s conference is titled “Thinking Biblically About Our Corrosive Culture” and features Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Rob Gagnon. For more information, please click HERE for a flyer or click the button below to register for the conference.

“[F]or Precious Brady Davis,
getting her husband pregnant meant going off hormones.”

How’s that for a head-scratcher of a quote—a quote that actually appears on the no-longer reputable NBC 5 Chicago “news” website  in a story about two “trans”-cultists who are married and recently had a baby. The pretend-wife is “Precious” Brady Davis,” a biological man who pretends to be a woman. The pretend-husband is “Myles” Brady Davis, a biological woman who pretends to be a man. Myles-the-real-mother is the director of communications and press secretary for Illinois’ premier “LGBTQ” propaganda organization, Equality Illinois. This woman really knows how to spread propaganda.

The “trans power couple” are in the news again, and again they’re in the news for pernicious reasons. When Myles was 20 weeks pregnant, she learned that she would be listed as the baby’s mother on the birth certificate, because she is, well, the mother.

As “trans”-cultists and propagandists so often do, Myles contacted an attorney with Lambda Legal who contacted the Illinois Department of Public Health, which immediately cried uncle … or aunt … or something. Suffice to say, the state caved to the “trans”-cultists.

The birth certificate will now identify the mother—the biological woman who gestated and birthed the baby girl—as the “father” and will identify the father—the biological man whose sperm united with Myles’ egg and then implanted in Myles’ womb—as the “mother.”

According to the Chicago Tribune, Myles-the-real-mother “never even thought the birth certificate would have to misgender us.” Yeah, riiight. She never thought a legal document would include the objective fact that she is the mother.

The Tribune writer, Nara Schoenberg, evidently a propagandist for the “trans” cult who identifies as a news reporter, described the possible identification on the birth certificate of the biological father as the father as making “matters worse.”

Propagandist Schoenberg also wrote this nonsensical sentence:

To have biological children, they had to go off their gender-reinforcing hormones.

Schoenberg needs to take classes in both biology and leftist sexuality ideology. Does she know what hormones are? Does she know what “gender” is in the “trans” world she seeks to suck up to? Gender—according to “progressives”—is the aggregate of arbitrary, socially constructed conventions associated with maleness or femaleness. Hormones are chemical substances produced in the body that control and regulate the activity of certain cells or organs. Hormones can’t and don’t reinforce “gender.”

The website Mommyish—which claims to “take parenting seriously”—has an article about the self-glorifying, “trans”-cultist power couple titled “Trans Couple’s God-Like Pregnancy Photos Defy Stereotypes” which includes this photo from Myles-the-real-mother’s Instagram account:

A better title would be “Trans Couple’s Frankenstein-Like Photos Defy God.”

Word to Mommyish, while Myles’ cross-dressing and cross-sex hormone-doping is clearly an effort to conceal her sex (or as Mommyish calls it, “defy stereotype”), the photo of a mother heavy with child is the anti-thesis of a “stereotype.”

“Trans”-cultists use the fact that language changes over time to try to compel others to use their redefinitions of words and the neologisms they invent to advance their strange, science-denying, metaphysical ideology. Now they want to redefine the words “mother” and “father.” They no longer want those terms to be linked to biological sex. Instead, they want “mother” to denote humans who wish they were women and “father” to denote humans who wish they were men.

Well then, why not redefine the word “teenager”? Henceforth, it will no longer denote a human whose objective age is between 13-19 but, instead, denote humans who feel like, wish they were, or identify as teens?

What about “Latinx,” the neologism that refers to “people of Latin American cultural or ethnic identity in the United States”? Why not redefine “Latinx” to denote anyone who wishes they were or self-identifies as a person of Latin American cultural or ethnic identity—including those whose Puritan ancestors came over on the Mayflower?

While we’re thinking about language, let’s remember what George Orwell said about the abuses of language for oppressive political ends (i.e., Newspeak), which points to the importance of resistance to such abuses:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all… a heretical thought… should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever….

[T]he special function of certain Newspeak words… was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them….

[W]ords which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them. (emphasis added)

So, “trans”-cultists have struck another blow against science and reality. Illinois birth certificates will no longer “misgender” “trans”-cultists. They will now mis-sex them. (As an aside, the long-ridiculed flat-earthers must be so jealous.)

Some of us remember the good old days when teachers asked elementary school children to scour the newspaper for current events. If we want children to learn about reality, teachers better not ask them to do that anymore.

It’s remarkable that seemingly rational, sane people in academia, the professional medical and mental health communities, the arts, faith communities, and the press pretend to believe the emperor in a gown is an empress. We should no longer be baffled by the ignorant and destructive ideas people believed or, because of their cowardice, pretended to believe in days gone by.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Chicago-Trans-Power-Couple-Birth-New-Birth-Certificates.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

As you know, IFI is very concerned about the move by certain state lawmakers to legalize “recreational” marijuana in Illinois. In 2014, so-called “medical” marijuana became legal in the Land of Lincoln. Over the past four years, state lawmakers and bureaucrats at the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) have dramatically expanded the qualifying medical conditions. Today, anyone determined to use pot can easily apply for and receive a medical cannabis registry identification card.

According to IDPH’s July Update, there are currently over 39,800 qualified users in the state’s “medical” marijuana registry and there are 55 authorized dispensaries statewide.

In July 2016, Illinois state lawmakers passed legislation to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana (under 10 grams) to a $100–200 fine. In addition, records are expunged twice a year.

But these actions are evidently not enough for some lawmakers and for pro-marijuana activists like George Soros. It seems that to satisfy these enthusiasts, the floodgates must fly open and the right to pursue addiction, vice and intoxication must be made readily available for anyone over the age of twenty-one. (Yet in Colorado, the evidence suggests that teen use has grown dramatically.)

Proponents will argue that there is big money to be made from taxing “recreational” marijuana. What they won’t tell you is that the tiny tax revenue stream from marijuana sales is dwarfed by the enormous social service costs incurred due to addictions, unemployment, mental illness and homelessness, as well as the increase in highway accidents, emergency room visits, and additional burdens on law enforcement. Then there are the costs to regulate this problematic industry.

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation about today’s high potency marijuana. We cannot emphasis enough how important it is to become fully informed about the consequences of this insidious agenda to legalize pot in our state. While the video below was created by DrugFree Idaho, Inc., the information and revelations therein are germane to any state considering “recreational” use laws.

Please watch this video to learn what the media won’t tell you, and the proponents don’t want you to know:

Chronic State from DrugFree Idaho, Inc. on Vimeo.

It is also important to note that the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes the psychiatric illness now known as Cannabis Use Disorder. Symptoms include:

• disruptions in functioning due to cannabis use,
• development of tolerance and the subsequent need for higher doses,
• cravings for cannabis, and
• development of withdrawal symptoms, such as the inability to sleep, restlessness, nervousness, anger, or depression within a week of ceasing heavy use.

Make no mistake, this reckless public policy will create significant problems for families, businesses, and communities throughout Illinois.  Marijuana use leads to greater cognitive deficits, lower IQs, loss of fine motor skills, immune system suppression, apathy, drowsiness, lack of motivation, sensory distortion, mental illness and anxiety.  Absenteeism and dropping out of school are common behaviors in marijuana users who start at a young age and continue to use regularly. Legalizing “recreational” marijuana will certainly encourage its use and complications.

Socialist George Soros and his drug legalization allies in the Illinois General Assembly are pushing an agenda that would result in more Americans being doped up, dumbed-down, distracted, disabled and dependent on marijuana and big government. If we truly care about our neighbor’s well-being, if we truly care about the next generation, we cannot afford to remain silent on this issue.

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation about today’s high potency marijuana. Overdose rates have increased in states that have legalized such as Colorado, which legalized ‘recreational” marijuana in 2014.  As a result of legalization, they’ve also seen significant increases in youth pot use, homelessness, and workers failing drug tests. That and the alarming number of hospitalizations and even deaths, plus car accident fatalities are on the rise from those driving under the influence of marijuana should give us pause about this policy. But what should cause parents to flood lawmaker’s offices with urgent pleas to oppose legalization is this destructive consequence of marijuana use.

Learn more:

IFI Resource Page on Marijuana

Video Presentation by Colorado Expert Jo McGuire

Illinois Police Chief Issues a Warning on Legalized Marijuana

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Twelve year old Kristin had a secret she wanted to keep from her parents. They just wouldn’t understand if she told them about what she and a 17 year-old neighbor had been doing before their parents got home from work. 

But Kristin remembered her health teacher talking about things to watch out for after fooling around – and she feared she was in trouble. 

“I think Ms. Wilson called them ‘genital warts,’ or something gross like that,” Kristin thought after discovering some unusual bumps in her private area. “I wonder if that’s what I’ve got.” 

When she got off the bus that morning, Kristin headed to the school clinic, where the school nurse advised her what she should do. She could get the treatment and advice she needed, and she could also get the first of three shots that would be a protection against cancer from contacting HPV. 

And she could do it all without her parents ever finding out. 

While Kristin’s story sounds like a far-fetched horror story for parents, the whole scenario is realistic and is perfectly legal in Illinois. 

In 1995, the Illinois legislature set into effect a public policy that says “A minor 12 years of age or older who may have come into contact with any STI may give consent to the furnishing of medical care or counseling related to the diagnosis or treatment of an STI.” [410 ILCS 210/4] 

In June 2013, the Illinois General Assembly’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) added three words after “treatment,” – “or vaccination against.” 

Minors in Illinois are now giving consent for vaccinations protecting themselves against four types of human papillomavirus (HPV) and against Hepatitis B.  HPV is a virus transmitted only through direct sexual contact, while Hepatitis B, according to a FAQ page on the Center for Disease Control’s website, “is most commonly spread through sexual contact and accounts for nearly two-thirds of acute Hepatitis B cases.”   Hepatitis B is also spread by blood and other body fluids.

This expanded public policy involving the treatment of minors’ sexually-transmitted infections (STI) is contradictory and deceptive.    

For example, if a 12 year-old like Kristin fears she may have been exposed to an STI, a crime has been committed. Illinois law places the age of consent at age 17. Any sexual activity with a child 12 yea- old  (or younger) through the last day of being 16 is a felony in Illinois. 

Also, mandated reporters like school clinic nurses and medical personnel are normally required to report suspected criminal activity, but are allowed to treat, counsel and vaccinate without parental consent Illinois minors concerned they may have come into contact with an STI. 

Gardasil can be harmful. Over 30,000 adverse reactions have been reported to the federal government’s reporting system after being vaccinated by the Merck Company’s  HPV vaccine. At least 140 Americans have died and over 900 have been disabled after getting the Gardasil series. 

Japan’s parliament recently lifted their country’s Gardasil mandate after teenage girls in wheelchairs testified how the vaccine had permanently detrimental effects. The country of Australia is considering following Japan’s lead. 

Experts say 12 year-olds are unable to make informed consent medical decisions. 

“Informed consent is the only humane way to administer vaccinations to anyone,” Barbara Loe Fisher, the president of the National Vaccination Information Center said. 

“Twelve year-olds are not mature enough to object morally or ethically and are unable to be responsible for any negative reactions,” she said. “This policy is stunning, and very dangerous.” 

Illinois parents should be made aware that their children can be getting secret STD vaccinations, Fisher said. 

But no one in the state is taking that responsibility on. 

Schools are not informing parents about the rights their children have to make medical decisions concerning sexually-transmitted infections. 

The state is not informing parents. Indeed, the Illinois Department of Public Health spokesperson was adamant when she said, “It isn’t our job to tell parents about this.” 

So, if it’s not the school’s nor the state’s job, the weight of telling parents what their children may be doing falls back on the very kids that are doing it, like 12 year old Kristin. 

Perhaps Illinois parents learning about their state’s anti-parent policy should take on the task by telling other parents what’s going on – and then talk to their lawmakers.

Read more at IllinoisReview.com.

Three Important Upcoming Events:

–>  September 14th – IFI’s 3rd Annual Fun. Run. Walk in Joliet 
(Click HERE for more info)

–> October 1st — Open Debate on Homosexual “Marriage” sponsored by the Chicago Tribune
(Click HERE for more info)

–> October 23rd — IFI’s Defend Marriage Lobby Day in Springfield  
(Click HERE for more info)

With the shutting of a Rockford, Illinois, abortuary that hadn’t been inspected in more than a decade, the Illinois Department of Public Health is “quietly” looking into other clinics. So far, one closed shop before it was even inspected.

Dimensions Medical Center, an abortion facility in Des Plaines, was one of seven under the same owner, Vinod Goyal. It abruptly closed for business before the state inspectors even showed up to the facility, which had not been inspected since 2001. Pro-life Action League sought and received information on it through a Freedom of Information Act request following reports of Kermit Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” in Philadelphia in early 2011. Spokesman John Jansen tells OneNewsNow one of the recorded problems at the clinic.

“We know that there was a non-functioning emergency generator, which is absolutely appalling,” he reports. “We have no idea how long this was non-functioning. I mean, it could have been months, could’ve been years for all we know.” That could pose obvious danger for anyone in surgery under anesthesia, he explains.

“We also know from the documentation that he submitted to the state that there were significant problems with the sewer system; this place was prone to flooding from the septic system,” Jansen notes. “The place was a dump. I mean, it’s pretty clear that this place was not a safe facility. It was not a sanitary facility.”

Even so, abortions were being done there on a regular basis. Shutting down prior to inspections helped the owner avoid paying fines. But the pro-lifer is pleased that the state is increasing its inspections because it means unsafe abortion clinics are closing down. However, Jansen points out that because of state law, none of the Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in Illinois are required to undergo inspections at all. 

Meanwhile, state health officials in Alabama have shut down a Birmingham abortion clinic that local pro-lifers filed a complaint against earlier this year. (Listen to audio report) On January 21, two women were rushed by ambulance from the New Woman All Women clinic to hospitals after abortions. So, Charismatic Episcopal Church for Life called for an inspection, which was done.

“[In] the 76-page report that was pretty much based on the investigation that the health department did concerning these two injuries … they ended up finding numerous deficiencies with this clinic,” spokesman Terry Gensemer reports.

For example, repeat violations were found during previous inspections, and one infraction involved the administration of medications resulting in the hospitalization of at least three women. Also, inexperienced employees with no documentation of training were working at the clinic, and some of the equipment’s inspections were out of date.

“There were signed documents saying that the registered nurse supervisor, who is supposed to be supervising the other nurses, signed the sheet saying that she was there at the clinic, which was a falsified document,” the pro-lifer details. “The health department takes those things very seriously.” Also, doctor notations on reports were illegible. 

Following the January 21st incident, the clinic let pro-lifers know that Ivan Diamond, a prominent OB/GYN from Atlanta who had been “sneaking” over to Birmingham to perform abortions, would no longer be terminating pregnancies in Alabama (see earlier story).

The state has ordered the clinic to surrender its license by May 18th.