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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

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

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

Allowing just three states to impose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution
that even proponents admitted died in 1982 is a moral fraud and a constitutional farce.

Written by Robert G. Marshall

Proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) want to create a constitutional Frankenstein by breathing life into its corpse some 36 years after its ratification was defeated, in large part thanks to Phyllis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum.

The ERA Congress sent to the states in 1972 stated: “Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

This simplistic language hid a radical progressive social agenda. Amendments were rejected to exempt women from frontline ground combat duty, to require husbands to support their children, to keep certain sexual assaults as crimes, to neutralize ERA’s effect on abortion, to exempt private schools from the ERA, to protect tax-exempt status of churches that have male-only clergy, to permit different insurance rates for men and women, and to deny men access to women’s private facilities and vice versa.

In 1972 Congress imposed a seven-year limit for states to ratify the ERA, as it established for all but two constitutional amendments since 1918. But when the amendment stalled in 1977 with the support of 35 states — three states short of the three-fourths needed for ratification — ERA advocates lobbied Congress to extend ratification seven more years.

Major ERA proponents said the amendment would die without an “extension.”

• National Organization of Women President Eleanor Smeal said, “We believe the life of the equal rights amendment is indeed in peril.”
• Marjorie Bell, American Association of University Women President noted: “Failure to extend now the time limit for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment would terminate … what Congress initiated six years ago.”
• Barbara Jordan said if the extension failed, “… the time will have expired for that resolution and I do not feel that would be a viable issue for consideration by the Congress because the resolution would, for all intents and purposes, be dead.”
• Then Professor, now Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said that if the original ratification time passes, “and Congress says nothing, it is unlikely that a State, given no green light by the national legislature, would nonetheless come forward and ratify.”
• President Jimmy Carter wrote to Judiciary Chairman Peter Rodino in July 1978, “I am hopeful that ERA will be ratified before the present deadline expires.”

Congress eventually extended the ratification deadline to June 30, 1982. (The Baltimore Sun, The Washington Post, The New York Times and The New Republic all supported the ERA, but opposed the time extension.)

The ERA extension resolution did not recognize withdrawal of previous ERA ratifications from Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, and South Dakota even though North Dakota’s rescission of the Presidential Disability Amendment was recognized in 1967 by the U.S. Secretary of State, who then tallied records.

Even with the unprecedented extension, the ERA fell three states short of the 38 needed for ratification. ERA advocates recognized their 1982 loss and re-introduced the amendment to Congress in 1983, but failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed for it to pass the U.S. House of Representatives.

ERA proponents now claim they need only add three more states to the original 35 which ratified by 1982 (ignoring the five states rescinding approval), to reach the 38 states required to add the ERA to “their” Constitution!

Their novel claim derives from the adoption of the 27^th Amendment limiting congressional pay increases from taking place without an intervening election. This amendment passed Congress in 1789 without a ratification deadline. When 38 states finally approved it in 1992 — more than 200 years later — Congress declared it part of the Constitution, ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1921 finding that Congress could require contemporaneous approval of amendments.

Democratic Rep. Don Edwards, who supported the ERA extension and the Pay Amendment noted, “It should be clear that this [Pay Amendment] is an exception, not a precedent.”

Liberals are counting the actions by Nevada’s legislature (2017), and Illinois’ legislature (2018) allegedly ratifying the non-pending ERA as two of the three states they contend will bring them to the 38 state requirement.

Congressional joint resolutions from Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) proclaim that whenever 38 states “ratify” the version of the ERA submitted to the states on March 22, 1972, the ERA will be added to the Constitution. The resolutions do not mention the failed ERA time extension. Speier’s resolution has 165 cosponsors and Cardin’s has 36 cosponsors.

Cardin tweeted approval of the Illinois vote. “Most Americans are shocked to find out that the U.S. Constitution still lacks a provision ensuring gender equality. … We need just ONE more state to ratify and we need Congress to do its part by passing S. J. Res. 5, which would immediately remove the arbitrary and unnecessary deadline for states to ratify the #ERA.”

The words “Gender Equality,” mentioned in Cardin’s Tweet are not in the 1972 ERA, but hint at what liberals hope to achieve under their bogus ERA scheme. Opposition to “making women part of the Constitution” will invite the label of “bigot” or “hater.”

If one more state “votes” for the ERA, progressives are set to pressure Congress to declare the ERA approved. Possibly the Archivist of the United States, who initially certified the Pay Amendment before Congress did, will relieve Congress of its role.  This would duck the ruling in Idaho vs. Freeman (1981), in which a federal district court ruled states could rescind approvals and Congress could not extend the ratification time.

“Approval” of the ERA will legitimize other amendments still “floating around,” including one that increases the House of Representatives from 435 Congressmen to 6,400 (one for every 50,000 persons). Allowing just three states to impose a dead ERA on the Constitution, when even proponents admitted it died in 1982 is a moral fraud and a constitutional farce.

The passion of Leftists’ for their Utopia must be met with forthrightness from conservatives for constitutional government.  Find out today if your congressman and senators would affirm that only three states need to approve the ERA. If so, vote them out of office in November.

This article was originally published at The Federalist.

Beware of the schoolyard – jihad, not so much

When I was a kid, I got bullied fairly frequently because I was short. So my parents enrolled me in a judo class. After a few unexpected flips in the hallways, the bullies left me alone. Confronting bullies helps build character.

There are times, of course, when judo won’t work and the best strategy is to avoid the jerks or sic a teacher or principal on them. Almost everybody has a story. But now, bullying has become a federal issue.

Rep. Jackie Speier is on a crusade to use the U.S. government to stamp out bullying in America. The Northern California Democrat wants to deny federal funds to schools that won’t keep a tally of bullying incidents against special-needs children. In other words, the federal government is going to whip local schools into line using its vast fiscal powers. It’s a politically correct form of bullying. To oppose this abuse of power implies you actually want these poor kids to be harassed.

I’m not sure where the Constitution legitimates such a sweeping directive, but it’s probably in one of the penumbras emanating from the Preamble’s General Welfare Clause. Once you create giant Washington bureaucracies, you can use the clause to justify almost anything – from forcing poison light bulbs down our throats to dictating schoolyard behavior.

Every so often, this power is put to good purpose, as when Sen. Jesse Helms used a similar threat to prevent schools from kicking out the Boy Scouts. But he was defending the Scouts’ constitutional rights, not creating a vehicle for social engineering. The real solution is to get rid of the oxymoronic Department of Education, not to empower this Jimmy Carter creation in hopes of advancing conservative ideals. It creates too many bullies.

Ms. Speier’s new school-bullying idea mirrors President Obama’s recent interest in the subject. On March 10, he held an “anti-bullying” conference at the White House. Besides “safe schools czar” Kevin Jennings, invitees included anti-Christian homosexual activist Dan Savage, who attained some fame in 2000 for claiming to have licked the doorknobs of pro-family Republican candidate Gary Bauer’s office in hopes of giving Mr. Bauer the flu. Now that’s the kind of participant we should have at every anti-bullying conference, if only as a role model.

As Illinois Family Institute writer Laurie Higgins relates, “Savage said the conference was ‘of tremendous symbolic importance’ but also complained, ‘What was never addressed is when the parents are the bullies.'”

Coming next: federal mandates for “parent education”?

The government, under the auspices of three federal agencies, has created a website dedicated to ending bullying. Paraphrasing Mrs. Higgins, here’s the site’s underlying philosophy: 1) Homosexual behavior is equivalent to race, 2) any kind of sex is morally positive, and 3) expressing any conservative moral beliefs leads to bullying. What a neat formula for suppressing dissent.

Speaking of bullying, Ms. Speier was in rare form along with other Democrats on March 10 at Rep. Peter King’s Homeland Security Committee’s hearing on radicalization of U.S. Muslims.

She rebuked the committee for focusing on Islamic terror instead of expanding it to “Christian” terrorist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan or the violent anti-abortion group Army of God, and she assailed some witnesses.

Melvin Bledsoe, whose son Carlos was recruited into Islam and has been charged with murdering one soldier and wounding another on June 1, 2009, at a U.S. military recruiting center in Arkansas, was having none of it. He shot back:

“I’m wondering how did [the lawmakers] get on the commission to speak about some of the things they’re speaking about.” As for radical Muslims, he added, “We’re worried about stepping on their toes, and they’re talking about stamping us out.”

The day before the hearing, Ms. Speier laid into Mr. King, calling him a racist.

“This is one member’s bias that he is now putting forth as the policy of this country, and there are going to be many of us who will shout out and call him out on abusing his role as chair and abusing the Congress of the United States for whatever his personal bias is,” Ms. Speier told the San Francisco Chronicle. “To pinpoint Muslims as if they’re the only category – it’s wrong, it’s discriminatory, it’s racist and inappropriate.”

Then she delivered this non sequitur: “Hearings aren’t supposed to be judged before they’re held. They’re supposed to be illuminating.”

Say what? Well, as an editor friend of mine often said, “Why does everything have to make sense?”

Given Ms. Speier’s fiery demeanor toward anyone who conveys the idea that radical Islam is more of a threat than, say, a Baptist ladies knitting club, it’s no wonder Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy D. Baca almost fell over himself praising Islam as a religion of peace and unloading nuggets like this:

“The Muslim community is no less or no more important than others, as no one can predict with complete accuracy who and what will pose the next threat against our nation.”

As I said, watch out for those ladies and their knitting needles. OK, that’s not fair. Ms. Speier and Sheriff Baca were talking about groups that actually commit violence. But given the threat we face, the moral equivalence is still stunning.

Another witness Ms. Speier bullied was moderate Muslim Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, chairman of the American Islamic Forum, who at considerable personal risk warned the committee that most Americans are unaware of the extent of homegrown Muslim extremism.

Ms. Speier questioned Dr. Jasser’s right to speak for Muslims and noted that although she attended a Catholic church every Sunday, she herself would not be qualified to address the church’s pedophile priest scandal. Yes, she said that. You can’t make this stuff up. Liberals will outdo your wildest stereotypes.

In the space of a few minutes, Ms. Speier trashed her own church, assailed brave witnesses and committed moral equivalence by invoking “Christian” terrorism as if it were as big a threat to America as the ongoing jihad.

She probably means well. Bullies are bad business. And perhaps she is well-qualified to take on the school bullying issue. It takes one – well, you know the rest.