In the latest example of pro-abortion doublespeak, U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) stated that a proposed bill requiring hospital care for babies who survive abortion is “dangerous.”

Seriously?! Mandating hospital care could be dangerous for the baby?

And should we be skeptical of Rep. Nadler’s genuine concern for this baby, since he would have fully supported the mother’s attempt to abort this same child?

To quote Nadler directly,

“The problem with this bill is that it endangers some infants by stating that that infant must immediately be brought to the hospital.” He added, “It directs and mandates certain medical care, which may not be appropriate, which maybe [sic] endanger the life of an infant in certain circumstances.”

Rep. Nadler was referring to the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 26) proposed by Rep. Ann Wagner on January 9. As posted on the Congress.gov website, “This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.”

So, in the event that the baby, targeted for termination in the womb, somehow survives the abortion procedure, the health care provider who is present must give that baby the exact same care that would be given “to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

And, assuming that the abortion took place in an abortion clinic rather than a hospital, that health care practitioner must “ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital.”

That is the very least that should be done for this little survivor, and one would think that every adult with a beating heart would agree that this bill should become law.

As for how many babies actually survive abortion attempts, according to the Abortion Survivors website, “17,855 babies have survived abortion since 1973.” (Assuming that this number relies on actual reports, this might be a very low number.)

Yet not only did Rep. Nadler, together with all but two of his Democratic colleagues, vote against this bill, he actually branded it “dangerous.” Yes, said Nadler, it is not that this bill adds any protections to this infant (which Nadler has claimed have long been in place). Rather, it is that the bill “endangers” the baby by mandating that the child be brought to a hospital, since this may not be the best medical option.

Seconding this opinion was U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Chicago) who opined that the bill “could create more harm” for the baby since it “requires immediately taking a struggling baby to a hospital.” That hospital, she explained, “could be hours away and could be detrimental to the life of that baby. This is nothing more than part of the effort to make abortion illegal nationally in this country. I object, and I urge a no vote.”

As for Nadler, he raised the same argument back in 2018 when a similar bill was proposed, claiming that,

“Despite what its supporters would have us believe, this legislation would do nothing to enhance protections, or the quality of health care, if an infant is born after an attempted abortion. What it would do, however, is directly interfere with a doctor’s medical judgement and dictate a medical standard of care that may not be appropriate in all circumstances, which could, in fact, put infants’ lives at greater risk.”

So, Nadler’s big concern as a strong pro-abortion advocate is protecting the well-being of the baby. Really?

He also claimed that,

“It has always been the law that health care providers cannot deliberately harm newborn infants, and that they must exercise reasonable care in their treatment of such infants. . . .

“In opposing this bill, I do not oppose, in any way, proper medical treatment for newborn infants, whatever the circumstances of their birth. But determining the proper treatment is for medical professionals to decide, not politicians in Congress.”

He added,

“When I supported the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002, my reasoning, and the reasoning of my pro-choice colleagues, was simple: killing an infant who was born alive, either by an act of omission or commission, is infanticide. It was, is, and always should be, against the law, and we saw no harm in reaffirming that fact. That law passed Congress with bipartisan support precisely because it was harmless – even if it was also useless since it did not change the pre-existing law in any way. The bill specifically just reiterated existing law in florid language and did nothing to interfere with doctors’ medical judgment or cause needless harm.” 

But it is not that simple. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) stated in 2021 that,

“Current federal law does not adequately protect a born child who survives an abortion. In the 116th Congress, the legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 248 to 177.”

And, in a private communication, pro-life leader Rev. Patrick Mahoney noted that

“there is something called the abortion survivors network in which many children were born alive from late term abortions and doctors didn’t attempt to save their lives.”

He added that the reason the proposed bill requires that the baby be brought to the hospital is that “doctors would leave the children without any emergency medical care and they would die a ‘natural death.’”

Under the current bill, doctors would be required to provide whatever medical care was necessary to try to save the infant’s life.

As for the real possibility of infanticide being practiced, let’s remember that in 2019 Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam infamously said that in certain cases,

“If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother.”

So, keep that infant comfortable while the family discusses whether to let it live or not.

No wonder the outcry was so great.

Even the left-leaning Snopes.com could only find the claim that Northam said he would “execute a baby after birth” to be “Mostly False.” That is saying a lot.

Not only so, but recent bills would allow for infanticide, such as Maryland’s Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act (House Bill 626/Senate Bill 669), which was defeated. In California, the ACLJ reported that, “On September 27, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed what amounts to a perinatal infanticide bill, AB 2223 (along with 12 other pro-abortion bills).”

So, for a number of reasons, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is genuinely needed, and it is unconscionable that anyone would vote against it, especially someone claiming to care for the wellbeing of the infant.

Even more ironic, tragically so, is the fact that Reps. Nadler and Schakowsky and their Democratic colleagues have argued passionately for a mother’s right to kill that same baby in the womb, even if it was at a viable age for birth.

It would be better if they simply stated what we all know (and what others have often stated elsewhere). Those who oppose bills like the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act do so because they believe the bill is designed to undercut a woman’s “right” to abortion, and they will protect that “right” at almost all costs.

Their expressed concern for the wellbeing of the baby who survives an abortion is beyond cynical.

It is doublespeak in the extreme, putting pro-abortion phrases like “reproductive rights” to shame.

Let us expose it loudly and clearly.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Why has Illinois become a stinking bog of degradation, violence, and fiscal collapse? It’s because we have scores of “leaders,” and activists who are as unable to distinguish right from wrong as they are unable to distinguish men from women. One of those activists is Oren Jacobson, devoted advocate for the slaughter of preborn humans, founder of Men4Choice, board member of pro-human slaughter Personal PAC, self-identifying “thought leader,” and self-promoter extraordinaire who recently said,

Everything we’re doing is focused on getting what are really millions of men—who in theory are pro-choice but are completely passive when it comes to their voice and their energy and their time in the fight for abortion rights and abortion access—to get off the sidelines and step in the fight as allies.

And here I thought men were supposed to shut up about abortion.

In an interview on MSNBC with Zerlina Maxwell after the U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked, Jacobson emoted,

I want to say one thing to … all the women watching, everybody who can get pregnant, how deeply sorry I am that we’re in this moment. I’m feeling very emotional about that.

He had to add that last statement in case everybody who can get pregnant didn’t notice his phony voice-cracking indicating he was about to fake-cry. Jacobson wants everybody who can get pregnant to know he has Deep Feelings about the possibility that pregnant women—and men—may not be legally allowed to slaughter their offspring. Nuttin’ means nuttin’ without Deep Feelings.

And boy, oh, boy does the emotive Jacobson have Deep Feelings—deep feelings and a vivid imagination. The mere thought of women not being free to slaughter their unborn leads Jacobson to imagine a horrific dystopian handmaid’s tale where rapists roam free and women’s very humanity is denied:

If this is, in fact, the ruling that the Court will hand down, that in at least 13 states right away and most likely in 25 0r 26 states pretty quickly, a rapist will have more rights than a woman in those states. And it is beyond horrifying to imagine a future in which your humanity, your dignity, your ability to control your life is valued less than a rapist.

What precisely are the “rights” rapists will have that women will not in states that acknowledge the humanity of unborn humans? And how are the humanity and dignity of women diminished by recognizing the humanity and dignity of their offspring and protecting their right not to be exterminated?

I’m not exactly sure what the self-identifying “thought leader” Jacobson means when he says that restricting or banning human slaughter means women’s humanity, dignity, and ability to control their lives are “valued less than a rapist.” Rape is illegal, and if caught, rapists are arrested and punished.

Maybe he’s referring to opposition to abortion in cases of rape. Many people who believe in the sanctity, humanity, and dignity of all human life believe that humans created through criminal acts should not be punished for the crimes of their fathers. Such a belief does not constitute either a devaluation of women or an elevated valuation of rapists.

Rather than feeling horrified that 64 million humans have been slaughtered since 1973 because they were imperfect, inconvenient, or unwanted by their mothers, Jacobson is horrified that the killings may stop.

Jacobson sidestepped an awkward question from interviewer Maxwell who said the quiet part out loud, tacitly admitting that men and women use human slaughter as a means of contraception:

One of the things I think we need to talk about … is how men benefit from abortion. … There are men who would not be CEOs but for access to contraception. Tell us how men benefit.

Jacobson was politically canny and cunning enough to avoid responding to that question. Instead, he launched into an autonomy answer that—again—ignores the person with the most at stake and no voice whatsoever:

I want every pro-choice male to step into this out of an obligation to stand up for the freedoms to those most directly impacted. … You deserve the right, within the context of a healthy relationship, to make decisions with your partner that are in the best interest of your family. … In my own personal life, when we have had moments in planning our family … at no point did I give a rip what Ted Cruz, Greg Abbott, Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump, Mike Pence, or any other of these anti-abortion men with power across the country thought about what my wife and I should do. And that is why, to me … this isn’t just a woman’s issue.

When considering whether the “product” of conception between two humans is a human; whether that “product” has humanity, dignity, and value; whether the “product’s” body is her mother’s body; and whether a more developed human should be able to kill the “product,” I don’t give a rip what Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, J.B. Pritzker, Jared Polis, Jan Schakowsky, Gavin Newsom, Oren Jacobson, or any other pro-human slaughter men and women with power who refuse to recognize that abortion involves two human bodies thinks.

And that’s why this isn’t just a woman’s issue.

Jacobson continues with his dissembling and evasion:

The simple reality is that the men in America who oppose abortion, who are using their privilege and their power, are not shy, and they are not quiet. So, the question isn’t why shouldn’t men get loud. It’s why haven’t we been getting louder sooner.

Surely, Jacobson knows that men who support the legal right of women to off their offspring have been “using their privilege and power” to rob the unborn of their right to live. In fact, it was seven men, six of whom were white, who in a raw exercise of their power and privilege denied the humanity, dignity, and right to life of preborn humans in Roe v. Wade.

And surely, Jacobson knows why men haven’t “been getting louder sooner.” The reason is that feminist harpies have been shrieking for years that men have no right to speak on abortion—despite the fact that the babies killed have fathers too.

But I agree with Jacobson. Men should get involved. Men should donate to pro-life crisis pregnancy centers and advocacy organizations.

Men, who should be the protectors of and providers for women and children, should march shoulder-to-shoulder with women in pro-life marches. Men should listen to the voices of women who were pressured to have their sons and daughters killed, who live with bone-deep grief and regret, and who are angry that their country tolerates the slaughter of thousands of babies every year.

And to quote Jacobson,

Men, your job is to carry the voices of those women to your peers and buddies, to call them, text them, post on social media about this, to start lifting up those voices and owning this conversation amongst your friends.

The very lives of humans depend on the voices of men and women who know truth.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Jacobson-Another-Foolish-Illinois-Activist.mp3

Last Friday, by a vote of 218 to 211, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a radical pro-abortion bill that would essentially codify Roe v. Wade. The so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021” (H.R. 3755) would create an absolute right to abortion in federal law, superseding all state laws. The vote fell along party lines, with only one Democrat—U.S. Representatives Henry Cuellar (D-TX)—voting against the bill.

The dangers of this extreme pro-abortion bill cannot be overstated. Contrary to its name, this bill endangers women in innumerable ways. It removes countless state restrictions and limits on abortion, allowing for abortion up to the point of birth so long as one “health care provider” determines that the “continuation of pregnancy would pose a risk” to the mother’s life or “health.” The definition of “health care provider” in the bill is extremely broad and includes certified nurse-midwives, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

Moreover, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Doe v. Bolton, a companion case to Roe, “health” in the context of abortion is extremely broad and can include physical, emotional, psychological, and familial conditions, including the woman’s age.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to ask them to oppose H.R. 3755 should it come up for a vote.

Co-sponsors of H.R. 3755 from Illinois include: U.S. Representatives Robin Kelly (D-Chicago), Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston), Bobby Rush (D-Chicago), Sean Casten (D-Wheaton), Danny Davis (D-Chicago), Bill Foster (D-Joliet), Chuy Garcia (D-Chicago), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Schaumburg), Marie Newman (D-Chicago), Brad Schneider (D-Lincolshire), Lauren Underwood (D-Crystal Lake), Mike Quigley (D-Oak Park) and Cheri Bustos (D-Moline).

Background

The Women’s Health Protection Act would strike down state level pro-life protections and prevent state legislatures from taking action regarding abortion. Such an example is Illinois’ Parental Notice of Abortion law.  The bill also targets funding for abortions by removing pro-life protections such as the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal taxpayer dollars from supporting abortion, and the Weldon Amendment, which prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to discriminate on the basis of a health care entity’s refusal to provide, pay for, or refer women for abortion.

Thankfully, as the National Review reported, the bill is unlikely to receive the necessary votes to pass the U.S. Senate. The Senate is currently made up of 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents, and 60 votes are required to end a filibuster. Even some “pro-choice” Republican senators have expressed hesitation about the bill, such as U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), who commented that “parts of the bill are too ‘extreme’ for her,” and that “the bill would ‘severely weaken’ conscience rights by denying protections afforded by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

We think it’s important to make sure that not only our two U.S. Senators know what we think about this legislation, though they be pro-choice, but we also want to put on notice the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell.

Moreover, IFI urges you to pray for all of our federal lawmakers and then speak out to condemn the wickedness of abortion and those sponsoring the so-called “Woman’s Health Protection Act.”

How can someone as foolish and manipulative as U.S. Representative Marie Newman get elected to Congress? Oh, yeah, she ran in Illinois, the land that once gave the nation Abe Lincoln but now saddles the nation with Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth, Jan Schakowsky, Sean Casten, and Brad Schneider.

On March 17 Newman, the anti-life, self-identifying Catholic, spoke in a U.S. Senate hearing in support of the execrable Equality Act, which has nothing to do with Equality and everything to do with advancing an alchemical superstition about the alleged ability of humans to become the opposite sex through desire, cross-dressing, hormone-doping, and mutilating cosmetic surgery.

She did what “progressives” do best. Rather than make a cogent, rational argument based on reason and evidence, she instead tried to manipulate feelings through a personal “narrative.” She told the sad tale of her troubled teenage son who now pretends to be a woman. Unfortunately, since she chose to exploit her son’s problems on the national stage in order to pass legislation that will affect the entire nation, others have a right to respond.

Newman began her exploitative sermonette by making this remarkable claim, the ramifications of which she clearly has not thought through:

The most important thing in life is to be authentic. I think we all understand that. … Imagine if I asked any of you … on the committee today to simply try being someone you absolutely are not … To try to be something that you are not every day is very difficult. Do this for a week, a month, a year and I guarantee you will feel deep depression, great anxiety, and yes, even suicidal.

Newman neglected to define “authentic.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “authentic” as “conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, and belief.” As such, a man seeking to pass as a woman is the antithesis of authenticity.

Perhaps Newman believes an “authentic” life means living in accordance with deeply held beliefs. If so, then she should understand that for theologically orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims living an authentic life precludes treating humans as if they are the sex they are not. In other words, the Equality Act would compel many Americans to live inauthentic lives. It would compel them to participate in a destructive lie.

From the context, however, it appears Newman links authenticity to living a life of bondage to unchosen, powerful, and persistent desires, no matter how disordered, irrational, or delusional. To Newman being “authentic” appears to refer to yielding to desires that impel artificially induced cessation of natural biological processes and surgical mutilation of healthy, properly functioning parts of sexual anatomy.

Applying consistently Newman’s definition of an “authentic” life would mean that those who experience an unchosen, powerful, and persistent desire to be an amputee (i.e., those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder) should be treated as if they are amputees even if they are equipped with fully functioning, healthy limbs.

And those who experience unchosen, powerful, persistent sexual attraction to children should not be prohibited from acting on those desires, for trying to be someone they are not will—Newman guarantees—result in deep depression, great anxiety, and suicidal ideation.

If trying to be “someone you absolutely are not” is life’s greatest evil, should prideful, vain people stop trying to be modest and humble? Should greedy, selfish, narcissistic people stop trying to be generous, unselfish, and empathetic? Should slothful people stop trying to be industrious? Should people consumed by lust yield to their insatiable appetite for pornography and prostitutes?

Newman arrogantly presumed that everyone on the committee understands that “the most important thing in life is to be authentic”—as she understands authenticity. Perhaps, however, some on this U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee—for example, Marsha Blackburn, Vicki Hartzler, or James Lankford—believe an authentic life means living in a way that corresponds to material reality or to Scripture. To many people, living an authentic life requires denying their desires daily.

Continuing in her presumption about what everyone knows, Newman said,

[W]e already have freedom of religion in our Constitution, and this act does not discriminate against religion, as we all know.

Actually, lawmakers in thrall to the “trans” cult stripped the Equality Act of religious protections, and numerous legal scholars have warned that the passage of the Equality Act poses the most significant threat to constitutional protections of the free exercise of religion ever in America’s history. Newman is either outright lying or indefensibly ignorant.

Mary Hasson, graduate of Notre Dame Law School and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., testified at this same hearing. She made clear what Newman tried to obscure:

The Equality Act threatens serious harm to religious believers and religious organizations, stripping away crucial protections afforded under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—a law enacted in 1993 with overwhelming, bipartisan support. The Equality Act attacks First Amendment rights as well, inserting language that attempts to tip the scales against believers if they assert claims under the First Amendment or Equal Protection.

The Equality Act reaches far beyond Bostock (which pertained to workplace discrimination) by expanding “public accommodations” to permit discrimination claims wherever Americans “gather,” even virtually. The result? Churches, synagogues, temples, faith-based schools, soup kitchens, and shelters for battered women will be subject to government coercion pressuring them to compromise their religious beliefs or risk endless litigation.

Recipients of federal funds, including houses of worship, religious schools and other faith-based organizations are litigation targets under the Equality Act as well—even for something as simple as maintaining sex-segregated bathrooms. This means a Muslim food bank, Catholic homeless shelter, or Christian center for female survivors of domestic violence will be punished for doing good while following their religious teachings.

Similarly, any private school that enrolls students who receive Pell grants or who participate in school lunch programs are subject to the Equality Act’s sex discrimination provisions. Urban Catholic schools, for example, which provide life-changing education to low-income children would face an untenable choice: violate their deeply held religious beliefs about human nature, sexual difference, and marriage or close their doors to students who rely on federal help. Adoption and foster care programs run by religious believers who desire to serve the most vulnerable are also at risk.

Newman sneakily perpetuated the lie that minor children who experience gender dysphoria will commit suicide unless they “transition”—a euphemism for pretending to be the opposite sex. No one can “transition” from one sex to the other. Newman said,

More than five years ago, before she [sic] had transitioned, my daughter [sic], at just 14 years old had experienced deep depression and anxiety. Unable to identify the cause of her [sic] pain, she [sic] told her [sic] parents that the only two solutions she [sic] felt would solve it was either suicide or running away.

Newman’s son may have felt despair—he may have felt the only solutions were suicide or running away—but his feelings do not mean he was born in the wrong body. Many teens feel despair for many reasons. And now it’s becoming increasingly difficult for teens to access counseling that can help them uncover those reasons.

In addition, there is much mis- and dis- information about suicide and gender dysphoric children circulated eagerly by the “trans”-cult and its ideological allies—misinformation/disinformation that has been dispelled by medical experts who lack the cultural imprimatur and reach of “trans”-cultists. Newman and other members of Congress might do less societal harm if they would read more widely.

It appears Newman may have gotten her son tangled up in one of the many “therapeutic” programs that are, in reality, profiteering “trans”-advocacy programs staffed with activists who couldn’t identify mental health if it slapped them upside their indoctrinated noggins:

[W]e enrolled in a local day therapy program. One night after her [sic] program, my daughter [sic] perked up in her [sic] chair at the dinner table, excited to share some news. She [sic] told us she [sic] had figured it out. “Mom, I’m not a boy. I’m a girl, and my name is Evie Newman.” Everything had clicked at that moment. She [sic] had been pretending to be something she wasn’t. She [sic] wasn’t being authentic, and as we all know, it is the hardest thing in the world to pretend every day. It was the happiest day of our lives.

Newman’s son was not pretending to be a boy prior to the night he made his sudden perky announcement. He always was a boy and remains in perpetuity a boy.

Newman argues that the Equality Act will merely afford her son “civil rights” of which he is currently deprived:

Signing the Equality Act into law. … will ensure that Americans like my daughter [sic] are afforded the same civil rights already extended to every other American across the nation. … We’re not asking for anything special or different, equality and nothing more. No American should have to live a lie.

Baloney. Is Newman arguing that her son is currently denied the right to vote, assemble, speak, exercise his religion freely, own a gun, petition the government, or get a fair trial?

The irony is rich in her claim that “No American should have to live a lie” as she argues for a bill that will compel all Americans to live the lie she and her family are choosing to live.

Demanding that a condition constituted by desire and volitional acts that many view as immoral be treated like objective conditions with no behavioral features like, for example, race or biological sex is, indeed, asking for something special and different.

The irony continues in her statement about religion and sports:

I encourage all of you to not weaponize religion and not weaponize red herrings about sports.

Newman absurdly described the desire of theologically orthodox Christians to live authentic Christian lives when they refuse to affirm a deceit as “weaponizing religion.” And she described the desire of authentic girls not to be forced to compete athletically against biological males who impersonate females as a “weaponized red herring.” In Newman’s view, only the affirmation of “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices can be authentic.

Nearing the end of her Oprah-esque testimony, she almost spoke some sense. She began,

Truth is real and should be a part of this [Equality] act.

Then she had to go and ruin it by making yet another patently false claim:

And it is.

Nope, there is no truth about sex, civil rights, or equality in the Equality Act.

It’s astonishing that the most powerful nation in the world has leaders whose ethical philosophy hasn’t advanced beyond that of a heathen adolescent.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/IL-Congressional-Rep.-Newman-s-Dumb-Plea-for-Equality-Act.mp3

Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  

Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!

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!

On Thursday afternoon (2/25/2021), the U.S. House of Representatives voted 224 to 206 to pass the so-called “Equality Act” (H.R. 5), which would enshrine “sexual orientation” (i.e., homosexuality) and “gender identity” (i.e., cross-sex identification) as legally protected classes in a myriad of federal laws. The vote fell along party lines, with only three Republicans (U.S. Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, John Katko of New York, and Tom Reed of New York) voting with the Democratic majority, and two Republicans not voting.

Illinois’ congressional delegation voted as expected. Republicans Mike Bost, Rodney Davis, Adam Kinzinger, Daren LaHood, and Mary Miller voted against H.R. 5.

Democrats Cheri Bustos, Sean Casten, Danny Davis, Bill Foster, Chuy Garcia, Robin Kelly, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Marie Newman, Mike Quigley, Bobby Rush, Jan Schakowsky, Brad Schneider, and Lauren Underwood voted in favor of H.R. 5.

Take ACTION:  The measure now proceeds to the U.S. Senate where the potential outcome remains uncertain. Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

To be clear, H.R. 5 would remove significant rights and opportunities from many in our communities:

• People of faith who live and work consistently with their religious beliefs on marriage and human sexuality would be harmed. This includes medical professionals forced to participate in “gender transition” efforts, counselors banned from helping their clients, and religious employers (like Christian schools) forced to hire those who do not share their mission. The bill specifically takes away the religious protections we currently have under federal law.

• Women and girls would be forced to compete in athletics on an unfair playing field with biological males.

• School children and adults would have their privacy rights infringed upon by allowing sex-specific facilities (locker rooms, showers, bathrooms) to be used by the opposite biological sex.

• Women’s shelters would be forced to admit biological men.

• Adoption agencies and other non-profit charities would be subjected to government shutdown and discrimination lawsuits for continuing to follow their mission.

• Free speech would be censored by compelling policies for preferred pronoun use.

We believe every human being is created in the image and likeness of Almighty God, and therefore deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Using the heavy hand of government, however, to force good people to deny biological realities and to compromise their religious convictions is not the answer.

Speak up now before it is too late.

To understand more about the widespread harms the passage of H.R. 5 would have on our nation, see IFI recent Action Alert and the host of helpful resources from our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom.

Read more:

U.S. House passes pro-abortion ‘Equality Act’ to write transgenderism into civil rights law (LifeSiteNews.com)

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts! Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

*Updated to include Joe Biden’s Friday comparison of Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley to Nazi Joseph Goebbels.

Another tempest is brewing in the Land of the Lost, formerly known as the Land of Lincoln. It all began when, in a speech to Moms for America, newly elected U.S. Representative Mary Miller quoted Hitler’s infamous assertion from Mein Kampf about the indoctrination of children. Miller said,

If we win a few elections, we’re still going to be losing unless we win the hearts and minds of our children. This is the battle. Hitler was right on one thing. He said, “Whoever has the youth has the future.”

The political world came unhinged.

In a D.C. minute, Illinois’ foolish Democrats (I know, I know, redundant) U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth and U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky—both on the wrong side of, well, everything—with unsheathed claws, pounced, calling for Miller’s resignation.

I forget, did Duckworth and Schakowsky call for the resignation of colleague Jim Clyburn when he first compared Donald Trump to Hitler in March 2019? Did they call for Clyburn’s resignation in March 2020 when for the second time he compared President Trump to Hitler and then for good measure compared Trump supporters to Germans under Hitler’s reign, saying this:

I used to wonder: How did the people of Germany allow Hitler to exist? But with each passing day, I’m beginning to understand how.

*Have Duckworth and Schakowsky yet called for unifier Joe Biden to resign as president for his despicable comparison on Friday, January 8 of Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley to Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels?

Did Duckworth and Schakowsky call for the resignation of Michigan Democrat, U.S. Representative Brenda Lawrence when in September 2020, she compared Trump to Hitler and his supporters to supporters of Hitler?

Did Duckworth and Schakowsky call for the resignation of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when she called border detention facilities that Obama used to separate children from parents “concentration camps”?

In February 2020, did Duckworth and Schakowsky urge the firing of the history teacher in a government-subsidized school in Maryland “who showed a picture of Trump above pictures of a Nazi swastika and a flag of the Soviet Union” with captions that said ‘wants to round up a group of people and build a giant wall’ and ‘oh, THAT is why it sounds so familiar!’”

Lynn Sweet, longtime writer for the lying leftist rag the Chicago Sun-Times oddly and falsely described Miller’s comment as “praise of Hitler,” when all decent, fair, non-bigots understood Miller’s comment as criticism of Hitler and anyone else who seeks to inculcate children with evil ideas, as all tyrants do.

With his chest puffed up with the air of the self-righteous, busy beaver U.S. Representative from Illinois, Adam Kinzinger—a self-identifying Republican who is always eager to condemn conservatives—jumped aboard the smite Miller bandwagon, saying, “I outright condemn this garbage.” Yeah, that took courage.

Setting aside Godwin’s over-used law, I think it’s time for the faux-outrage from politicians about comparisons to Hitler or Nazism to stop. Both sides use such comparisons. Some comparisons are more apt than others. For example, the comparison of the Democrat view that defective humans are legitimate targets for government-sanctioned extermination to the Nazi view of “life unworthy of life” seems apt.

I’m climbing in bed with a strange fellow for a moment, the very liberal Michael Hiltzik, writer for the LA Times who in a July 2019 commentary challenged the leaders of the U.S. Holocaust Museum’s “unequivocal rejection” of any and all “efforts to create analogies between the Holocaust and other events, whether historical or contemporary.”

While I disagree with Hiltzik’s apparent motive—that is, his desire for “progressives” to be free to compare Trump to Hitler—I agree with the view that the use of Holocaust analogies is not intrinsically sinful or off-limits.

Hiltzik explains his dissent from the Holocaust Museum’s absolute prohibition of the use of Holocaust analogies:

[T]he Holocaust Museum’s view of its mission as communicating the “history” of the Holocaust seems crabbed and narrow. Its real mission is to communicate the lesson that, unique as the Holocaust was in scale, the evil that brought it about lurks in the psyche of humans in groups, and may not be visible from the outset.

He goes on to cite Yale Holocaust historian Timothy Snyder who argues,

A monopoly on historical interpretation, claimed by a single institution, is a mark of authoritarianism … one of the dangers of placing a taboo on analogies … ensures that we never learn what we need to know.

Doesn’t that reflect the oft-cited view of philosopher George Santayana who famously warned, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”? Don’t we teach the evil events in history in part so that we recognize the shadows of those past events in current events? When we recognize those shadows—those contours—are we not to speak of them?

Don’t be naïve or gullible. Politicians don’t really take offense at the use of Nazi analogies. Political animals without principles—particularly animals who don’t believe in objective moral truth or the source of such truth—lack even a grounding for moral outrage. Like everything else within their grasp, their faux-outrage is a political tool for influencing people and winning power. Faux-outrage—fauxrage—emanates from whichever political side is being gored by the analogy.

Don’t fall for it. Don’t be intimidated by it. It’s a tall tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Freshman Rep. Mary Miller, a Christian, mother of seven, grandmother of 17, and farmer, under withering and indefensible attacks from around the country and next to no support from colleagues, has issued a gracious and humble apology for an alleged sin she did not commit:

Earlier this week, I spoke to a group of mothers about the importance of faith and guarding our youth from destructive influences. I sincerely apologize for any harm my words caused and regret using a reference to one of the most evil dictators in history to illustrate the dangers that outside influences can have on our youth. This dark history should never be repeated and parents should be proactive to instill what is good, true, right, and noble into their children’s hearts and minds. While some are trying to intentionally twist my words to mean something antithetical to my beliefs, let me be clear: I’m passionately pro-Israel and I will always be a strong advocate and ally of the Jewish community. I’ve been in discussion with Jewish leaders across the country and am grateful to them for their kindness and forthrightness.

Oh, btw, Hitler—the evil monster—was right on one thing: Whoever has the youth, has the future. As Christians seek to train up their children in the way they should go, they would do well to remember that supremely evil men understand the long-term effects of indoctrinating children. Hitler was not the first, nor will he be the last evil monster to pursue our youth. There are other monsters prowling around, seeking whom they will devour.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MaryMiller.mp3

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you.

The U.S. House passed a bill last week that would remove marijuana from the federal schedule of controlled substances and eliminate federal criminal penalties for anyone who manufactures, distributes, or possesses marijuana. This is the first time in our nation’s history that a chamber of the U.S. Congress has voted on decriminalizing marijuana on the federal level.

Illinois Congressional members voting for this proposal include: Bobby Rush (D-Chicago), Robin Kelly (D-Chicago), Jesus Garcia (D-Chicago), Mike Quigley (D-Chicago), Sean Casten (D-Wheaton), Danny Davis (D-Chicago), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Lake Zurich), Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston), Bill Foster (D-Aurora), and Lauren Underwood (D-Woodstock).

The bill, known as the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2019 or “MORE Act,” proposes “to decriminalize and de-schedule cannabis, to provide for reinvestment in certain persons adversely impacted by the War on Drugs, to provide for expungement of certain cannabis offenses, and for other purposes.” In addition, the Act would create a trust fund, funded by a tax on cannabis products, that is intended to help those affected by the “War on Drugs.” This move in Congress comes after recent votes by some states to decriminalize or legalize marijuana, but is not expected to pass the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate.

TAKE ACTION: Please click HERE to contact U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose this dangerous bill that will trap more people, including adolescents, in the prison of drug addiction. ​​​​​​​Please ask your federal lawmaker to vote NO to H.R. 3884.

Today’s Marijuana Is Far More Potent

The pot smoked today is a very different drug than that smoked by preceding generations. In the 1960s and 1970s, THC content was around 2-3 percent. According to researchers at the University of Mississippi, the average THC content of illicit marijuana seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) increased from 4 percent in 1995 to 12 percent in 2014. A 2015 study found legal marijuana in Colorado with THC content up to 30 percent. And 2018 testimony reveals THC concentrations as high as 65 percent in Washington State. (See graphic.)

We’re dealing with a drug that has been modified to be far more potent than it was in the past. Because of that, it is presenting unprecedented problems. States that have legalized recreational use of marijuana are serving as unfortunate testing grounds and revealing frightening physical, psychological and social effects, especially with more frequent use and at higher-than-ever THC levels.

Marijuana and Health

A European study released in March 2019 in the psychiatry journal The Lancet Psychiatry found an even more alarming link: “People who smoked marijuana on a daily basis were three times more likely to be diagnosed with psychosis compared with people who never used the drug. For those who used high-potency marijuana daily, the risk jumped to nearly five times.” 

In addition, a National Academy of Sciences report found:

• “Cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses; the higher the use, the greater the risk. 
• Heavy cannabis users are more likely to report thoughts of suicide than non-users.
• Regular cannabis use is likely to increase the risk for developing social anxiety disorder.
• For individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorders, near daily cannabis use may be linked to greater symptoms of bipolar disorder than non-users.”

Dangers for Youth and Children

Teenagers who become weekly marijuana users by age 18 have a 37 percent higher chance of depression as adults. Researchers in Australia found that, among teens in Australia and New Zealand, those who became daily cannabis users before age 17 were seven times as likely to commit suicide, eight times as likely to use other drugs in their 20s, and 60 percent less likely to finish high school. More research is needed to consider pre-existing conditions and the effects of marijuana combined with alcohol. 

Federal decriminalization is just a stepping stone to full legalization. This will only lead to more users, more addicts, more employee candidates failing drug tests, more intoxicated drivers, more work place accidents, more disabilities, more homeless, more mental illness and more dependents on social welfare. Marijuana use among people 25 and under will increase dramatically — those whose brains are still developing and whose brains are most susceptible to the harms of marijuana use.

Illinois state lawmakers have already set a terrible example for our children and grandchildren by legalizing so-called “recreational marijuana” in Illinois. Federal lawmakers should not follow their poor example of failing to protect the citizenry. For the sake of our neighbors in the 39 states that have not legalized recreational marijuana use, we must speak out.

Learn more at Resources on the Truth and Consequences of Marijuana

We are committed to upholding truth while resisting and opposing the rising wave of delusional thinking and tyrannical laws/mandates that have afflicted our state and nation. IFI will continue to provide our supporters with timely alerts, video reports, podcasts, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences, and thought-provoking commentaries—content that is increasingly hard to find.

We encourage you to join us in our efforts. Your support will help us to continue our vital work in 2021. A vigorous defense of biblical truth is needed more than ever in Illinois. 

Written by Ruth Moreno

On November 12,U.S. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) held a joint press conference calling for the passage of the Heroes Act. The U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and White House have been dealing with this far-left bill for months, but Schumer claims that the results from the 2020 election prove the necessity of passing the Heroes Act as a “starting point” on a new round of coronavirus relief legislation. [Recently] on “Washington Watch,” FRC President Tony Perkins spoke with House minority whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) to discuss the Heroes Act and the Democrats’ latest attempt to push it through Congress.

Though formally titled the “Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act,” the $2-$3 trillion Heroes Act is much more than a relief package. It bails out mismanaged Democrat-led cities and states on the taxpayer’s dime, making Americans pay for the incompetence and overreach of Democratic leadership.

Worse, the Heroes Act applies “nondiscrimination” provisions which redefine the term “sex” to include “sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” In service of the Left’s radical social agenda, this redefinition undermines both pro-life values and broader pro-family values. It also precludes the exemption of religious organizations and private schools from qualifying for the relief the bill provides.

This, as Whip Scalise pointed out, comes in the midst of a time when many public schools are refusing to even teach students in the classroom.

“If somebody is going to take your money but not educate your child safely in person when other school systems are willing to, then parents ought to be able to go to those places that will safely educate their child while taking the money,” Scalise said.

As he observed, the Heroes Act would also release “untold thousands” of criminals from prison. The number of criminals that would be released is truly unknown, because the bill does not explain exactly to whom it would apply.

Also woven into the Heroes Act is the full text of the Safe Banking Act, which grants the marijuana industry direct access to banking services. Under the Controlled Substances Act, this is currently prohibited.

One must wonder, as Tony asked Whip Scalise, what any of this has to do with the coronavirus.

“There are bills that would get huge bipartisan votes that would just renew paycheck protection program loans for small businesses,” Scalise said, adding that “There are millions of families that don’t want to be unemployed and their businesses are about to go under. You could save those jobs. That’s where our focus ought to be.”

Instead, Democrats are pushing partisan legislation under the guise that it’s what the American people want. Despite what Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi may say, the still-disputed 2020 elections were not a “mandate” for the passage of the Heroes Act.

According to exit polls reported by the New York Times, 35 percent of American voters said their top political priority was the economy. Twenty percent of voters said it was racial inequality, followed by the coronavirus pandemic at 17 percent.

Seventeen percent is not a mandate. Americans want coronavirus legislation and relief, but it should not come at the expense of other important issues. And though the presidential race and certain Senate races are still lacking a clear winner, Republicans’ 10-seat gain in the House of Representatives proves that Americans are certainly not onboard with the Democrat’s radical agenda being pushed by Pelosi. Democrats spent enormous sums of money trying to flip House seats blue, but in states like Florida and Texas, the electorate came out in defense of common sense and traditional American values. Adding to this, Republicans will most likely hold on to the Senate, and even picked up gains in state legislatures around the country. When races are examined around the country, at all levels, the voters actually delivered a mandate for a conservative agenda — not the Heroes Act!

The 1,800-page long Heroes Act stands against just about every traditional American value imaginable. In addition to legislating bailouts, freed criminals, marijuana banking, and a complete redefinition of the family, the Heroes Act also includes Planned Parenthood loans, taxpayer-funded abortion, cash for illegal immigrants, and even election-altering provisions (the Heroes Act guts voter ID laws and other state measures which protect the integrity of elections). The bill also includes anti-free speech “hate crimes” provisions.

Indeed, after the 2020 elections, Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi should know better than to force upon Americans something as radical as the Heroes Act.

Take ACTION: The Heroes Act has already passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and is pending in the U.S. Senate. Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to ask them to vote against this radical $3 trillion dollar boondoggle.

Roll Call: Twelve members of the Illinois Congressional delegation voted in favor of the Heroes Act. They are as follows: Cheri Bustos, Sean Casten, Danny Davis, Bill Foster, Jesus Garcia, Robin Kelly, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Mike Quigley, Bobby Rush, Jan Schakowsky, Brad Schneider and Lauren Underwood.

This article was originally published at FRC.org.

H.R.3884, sponsored by U.S. Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and S.2227, sponsored by U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), will decriminalize high potency marijuana by removing it from the Controlled Substance Act plus expunge criminal histories related to marijuana. The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act is expected to be called for a vote during the week of Sept. 21st.

One hundred twelve (112) elected officials in Congress have co-sponsored H.R.3884 and the numbers are steadily increasing. Among those include Illinois Representatives Jan Schakowsky, Bobby Rush, Chuy Garcia, Danny Davis, Robin Kelly, and Bill Foster.

Marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug. This means that it has a high potential for abuse and it lacks accepted safety for use even under medical supervision. The goal of the Controlled Substance Act is to limit addiction, abuse, physical and mental harm, and trafficking by illegal means.

Some things we know about marijuana:

The higher the potency, the higher the harm.

In the 60s-90s, a joint contained roughly 1-3 mg of THC, the component that makes a person high. Today’s hybrid contains upwards of 20 mg.

Concentrates and edibles vary in potency. Some products contain 500 mg of THC. That’s a lot of THC.  A “serving size” is considered 10 mg.

Emergency Rooms in legal states are seeing an increase in patients with acute psychotic symptoms because of the high potency of THC.

Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome, otherwise known as scromitting – a combination of screaming and vomiting from heavy use of marijuana – is becoming commonplace in ER’s in legal states.

Adolescents regularly using high potency marijuana can lose up to 8 IQ points.

Side effects can include: hallucinations, delusions, impaired motor skills, decreased memory and cognition, lethargy, tachycardia, anxiety, schizophrenic symptoms.

States with legal marijuana are seeing marijuana-related traffic fatalities increase.

States with legal marijuana are seeing an increased in black market criminality.

For every dollar gained in tax revenue, Coloradans spend approximately $4.50 to mitigate the effects of legalization.

Take ACTION – Click HERE to email your U.S. Representative today and urge him/her to oppose H.R.3884, the MORE Act. Increasing the flow of drugs into our communities will only bring negative consequences.

We take very seriously the trust you place in Illinois Family Institute when you send a gift.
We understand that we are accountable before you and God to honor your trust. 

IFI is supported by voluntary donations from good people like you.

The SAFE Banking Act is a federal bill that would give the “medical” and recreational marijuana industries (and cartels) access to banking privileges, such as checking and savings accounts, credit lines and loans, enabling and legitimizing what has been an all cash trade to make real estate deals, payroll, insurance and operating costs much easier.

Furthermore, this could foreseeably grant them a listing in the stock exchanges, which would give them an opportunity to raise a great deal of money, ultimately helping these havoc-producing, soul-destroying companies to open more retail businesses, purchase more land to grow the drug, and expand into more markets.

The bill has passed in the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 321-103, despite the fact that marijuana is classified as an illegal Schedule 1 Drug “with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

Sixteen of the 18 members of the Illinois Congressional Delegation voted “yea,” including U.S. Representatives: Bobby Rush (D-1^st Dist.), Robin Kelly (D-2^nd Dist.), Daniel Lipinski (D-3^rd Dist.), Jesus Garcia (D-4^th Dist.), Mike Quigley (5^th Dist.), Sean Casten (D-6^th Dist.), Danny Davis (D-7^th Dist.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-8^th Dist.), Jan Schakowsky (D-9^th Dist.), Brad Schneider (D-10^th Dist.), Bill Foster (D-11^th Dist.), Mike Bost (R-12^th Dist.), Rodney David (R-13^th Dist.), Lauren Underwood (D-14^th Dist.), Adam Kinzinger (R-16^th Dist.) and Cheri Bustos (D-17^th Dist.).

The SAFE Banking Act would effectively neuter federal law to empower and facilitate the marijuana industry.  “We have patients and other consumers looking to order and pay online, whether it is for pickup or delivery,” says Dina Rollman, senior vice president for regulatory and government affairs at Green Thumb Industries. “With cannabis businesses being deemed essential in so many states during the COVID-19 crisis, the need for the SAFE Banking Act is greater than ever.” (Source: “With crisis, cannabis firms see a shot to get banking relief” Crain’s Chicago Business, 5/1/20) 

U.S. Representative Ed Perlmutter (D-Colorado) is anxious to help the marijuana industry. He plans to include the SAFE Banking Act in upcoming COVID-relief legislation, another stimulus bill. In addition to assisting the marijuana industry to have access to banks, he co-sponsored a bill that would provide federal coronavirus aid to marijuana businesses.

According to Crain’s Chicago Business, unlike many other industries during the pandemic, the marijuana industry is growing substantially.

John Sullivan, an executive vice president at Chicago-based Cresco Labs, a large marijuana company, said, “I think cannabis can make the case for being a huge driver of the recovery, increasing state and federal tax revenues. More people will get interested in this industry and what it can do.”

We have seen what it can do to families and communities in Colorado, Washington and California. The consequences are enormous.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact your federal officials: President Donald Trump, U.S. Senators Dick Dubin, Tammy Duckworth, and your U.S. Representative. Ask them to uphold and enforce federal law against the marijuana industry. Ask them to vote AGAINST the “SAFE Banking Act.”

Note: While the bill has passed in the U.S. House, it is uncertain if the U.S. Senate will vote on it at this time. If not, it could potentially be back in the House for another vote in the future. Above is the list of how your congressman voted. Please include reference to their vote in your email. Ask them to oppose it if it returns to the U.S. House.

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

Despite the bitter cold and snow that characterizes this time of year, we always manage to find ways that warm our hearts. Lately all you have to do is look at the gas prices.

According to the AAA, gasoline prices are starting to increase after dropping to the lowest levels since 2009.  Today, the national average now sitting at $2.11 (as of 2/04/15).  The lower cost for gasoline has placed an additional $14 billion of disposable income in consumer’s hands. Yes, there is joy to be found amidst the cold—that is until the politicians take notice.

Jumping at the first opportunity, top Congressional lawmakers in Washington D.C. are now proposing a raise of the federal fuel tax. Currently, the tax stands at 18.4 cents per gallon, as it has been since 1994.

Ironically, such calls are now being heard from the Republican Party, a group that just promised to cut taxes and spending this past election.

U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the new chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said, “I just think that option is there, it’s clearly one of the options.”  Other top ranking U.S. Senate Republicans such as U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and U.S. Senator John Thune (R-SD) have also expressed interest.

Leading Democrats, including U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), have been waiting for the right opportunity. Pelosi stated at a recent press conference, “If there’s ever going to be an opportunity to raise the gas tax, the time when gas prices are so low—oil prices are so low—is the time to do it.”

U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) has proposed H.R. 680 — a bill that would raise the gasoline tax from the current rate of 18.4 cents a gallon to 33.4 cents a gallon.  This legislation would phase in the 15 cent increase to the gas tax over a period of three years and then the tax would rise with inflation.  Illinois’ U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston) is one of two dozen federal lawmakers co-sponsoring this gasoline tax.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Trucking Association and AAA are also actively supporting this legislation.

Federal legislators say that the increase in revenue will go to the Highway Trust Fund for the purpose of rebuilding crumbling roadways and bridges, though there are also considerations for more funding for public transportation systems and even additional subsidies for oil companies.

To be fair, a tax on gasoline for the funding of infrastructure is in principle, a positive policy. Those who use the roads the most should pay a larger share of the upkeep cost. However, the economy is still in a fragile state, unemployment is slowly inching down, there are no signs of serious cuts in government spending, and the voters have just sent a strong message this past November that the tax and spend policies must stop.

Furthermore, the U.S. Congress has exerted little effort in ensuring that the current funds are properly spent. As the Heritage Foundation has pointed out, the Highway Trust Fund spends around 25 percent of its budget on ventures outside of that jurisdiction such as subways, streetcars, buses, bicycle and nature paths, and landscaping—all at the expense of road and bridge projects.

Just because gas prices are currently low, there’s no guarantee that they will continue as such.  This definitely does not warrant yet another tax increase on American families.

TAKE ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Illinois’ U.S. Senators Durbin and Kirk as well as your own U.S. Representative.  Tell them to stop any attempt to increase the gasoline tax.  Let them know that working families cannot afford to give the government more of our hard-earned money on a daily necessity such as gas.

Much to the chagrin of Bible-believing Americans, President Barack Obama officially proclaimed June “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month” month.

In Chicago, as in many other big cities in America, pandering politicians and so-called “news” organizations quickly line up to show their approval and support for those who identify themselves by their sexual behavior. Specifically, they march in Chicago’s “Gay Pride” Parade. This year, the parade is scheduled for Sunday, June 27 at noon in the Lakeview neighborhood.

Please note the public officials and the government agencies that are participating in this event: each entry costs taxpayers $175 plus the costs of the float and displays.

Aside from the celebration of perverse sexual behavior and the blatant disregard for obscenity and decency laws, the most disturbing aspect of this yearly event is the presence of children, both as participants and spectators. This year, the Chicago Pride Parade lineup includes not one, but two Chicago Elementary Schools.

In the past, adults have attempted to shield children from accidental exposure to immoral behavior: things their minds are too young to comprehend. Protecting their innocence was a priority. But now adults are purposely exposing children to degenerate conduct and celebrations of sexual perversity.

Don’t expect Chicago’s media to blow the whistle. No, they will be too busy dancing on their official floats in the parade. The dominate media in Chicago (and elsewhere) have given up on the idea of neutrality when it comes to issues as important and contentious as homosexuality, the meaning of family and marriage, and traditional religion. They have taken the side of homosexual activists and will not dare to challenge parade organizers in fear of being called intolerant, or worse, a bigot.

The media has intentionally discarded any notion of journalistic integrity when it comes to the divisive issue of homosexuality and counterfeit marriage and have, in turn, become fierce advocates.

Here is the list of those participating in the 2010 Gay “Pride” Parade:

Politicians and Political Groups

U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley
U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky

Gov. Patrick Quinn/staff
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan
State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (Candidate for U.S. Senate)

State Sen. President John Cullerton
State Sen. Jeff Schoenberg
State Sen. Heather Steans
State Sen. Harry Osterman

State Rep. Sara Feigenholtz
State Rep. Greg Harris
State Rep. Deborah Mell
State Rep. David Miller (Candidate for Illinois Treasurer)

Mayor Richard Daley’s Advisory Council on LGBT Issues
Mayors Bicycle Ambassadors
Chicago Alderman Tom Tunney
Chicago Alderman Scott Waguespack
Chicago Alderman Helen Shiller
Chicago Alderman Toni Preckwinkle (Candidate for Cook County Pres.)
Chicago Alderman Joe Moore
Chicago Alderman Roberto Maldonado
Chicago City Treasurer Stephanie Neely

Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart
Cook County Clerk Dorothy Brown
Cook County Recorder of Deeds Eugene Moore
Cook County Democrats
43rd Ward Democratic Committeeman Michele Smith

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

Alliance of Illinois Judges

Candidate Joel Pollak (9th Congressional Dist.)
Candidate Scott Lee Cohen (Independent for Governor)
Candidate Ann Williams (11th Dist. State Rep.)
Candidate Robyn Gabel (18th Dist. State Rep.)
Candidate Don Nowotny (Alderman of Chicago’s 46th Ward)
Candidate James Cappleman (Alderman of Chicago’s 46th Ward)

Illinois State Bar Association
Illinois Green Party
ACLU of Illinois
Log Cabin Republicans
Planned Parenthood

Government Agencies

Chicago Police Superintendent Jody P. Weis
Chicago Commission/Human Relations
Nettelhorst School (Chicago Public Elementary School)
Chicago Waldorf School (Chicago Private Elementary School)
Chicago Public Library
Oak Park Pub. Library
Gerber Hart Library (Chicago Public Library)
CTA
Chicago Dept. Public Health
Amtrak
Illinois Lottery
Anti Cruelty Society

Sports Organizations

Chicago Cubs
Chicago Force Football

Media

Chicago Public Radio
ABC7 Chicago
WLEY-FM
WGN-TV
KISS-FM
WGN-AM
WXRT
JACK-FM
WCPT
WLIT-93.9
WCIU-TV
WBBM-FM/B96
Chicago Tribune’s RedEye Newspaper
Chicago Grab Magazine

Local Businesses

ComEd
BMW Sherreville
Grossinger Auto Group
Cricket Communications
Old Town School of Folk Music
Royal Service Realty
Threadless.com
Fields Infinity
Paninos Cafe
Bill Jacobs Volkswagen
Fletcher Jones Volkswagen
Windy City Movers
New Town Alano
Saugatuck
Chicago OUtfit
Advocate Illinois Masonic Hospital
Alcala’s Western Wear
Mi Tierra Mexicana
Greenhouse Theater
Yoga Now
Nuns for Fun/Late Nite Catechism
Northside Toyota
Club Escape
Horizon Hospice
Campit Outdoor Resort
Chicago Apartment Finders
Brown Elephant
Chi-Town Squares
Standard Bank
John Baethke Plumbing
Maneuvers
Molitor Financial Group
Pretty Boy Enterprises
Animal Ark Vet Clinic
Fusion Radio Chicago
Evanston Subaru
Core Center
Le Passage
Pivot Point Academy
Broadway in Chicago
Sidetrack Nightclub
Barely Standing Rock Band
Hydrate Nightclub
Baton Show Lounge
Williams Inn
Jeffrey Pub
Miss Foozie
Resnick Auto
Robert Jeffrey Hair Salon
Folia Brasil
Lakeview East Chamber of Commerce
Chicago Smelts
Hunters Nightclub
Club Krave
Pop Goes the Gio
Chicago History Museum
Looking Glass Theatre
Bailiwick Theatre
Velvet Rope
Berlin Bar
PDQ Construction
After Dark
Marbles Brain Store

Corporations

United Way
Chipotle Mexican Grill
Holiday Inn Express
Orbits
Northrop Grumman
Google
MB Financial
Restoration Salon
Office Max
Astellas Pharma
Domicile Furniture
Chase Bank
Sears Holding
Bank of America
I-Go Car Share
Exelon Corp.
Frito-Lay
PepsiCo
LA Tan
Blue Cross/Blue Shield
Caribou Coffee
Miller Lite
Sara Lee
KPMG
Wrigley Co.

Pro-gay Organizations

Anti-Defamation League
Civil Rights Agenda
Ride for AIDS
Tree House Humane Society
Fillipino Pride
Just Married
GayMatchChicago.com
Active Transportation Alliance
Ram/Leather/Cupid/Banana
Chicago Gender Society
New Town Alano Club
Spin Nightclub
Gay Liberation Network
Lambda Legal
Windy City Black LGBT Pride
Dignity Chicago
Human Rights Campaign
PFLAG
Dykes on Bikes
Equality Illinois
Chicago NOW

Schools & Professional Organizations

University of Illinois
University of Illinois at Chicago
Illinois Bar Association
Indiana University GLBT Alumni
Unite Here
Chicago Boyz (University of Chicago)
Harrington College
Hoosier Honeys
Indiana University GLBT Alumni
Columbia College
ROTC Chicago
Roosevelt University
SEIU Council
Beta Gamma
Dartmouth Club
Harrington College

Religious Organizations

Chicago Theological Seminary
St. James Cathedral
Holy Convenant United Methodist Church
Countryside Unitarian Universalists
Chicago Coalition of Welcoming Churches
Congregation Or Chadash
Bodhi Spiritual Center
Night Ministry

Misc. 

Technosexual
TransAction
Mercy for Animals
Gay McHenry
Chicago Spirit Brigade
Howard Brown Health Center
Yelp.com
Asians & Friends Chicago
Windy City Cowboys
Chicago Prime Timers
Puerto Rican Cultural Center/VIDA SIDA
Howard Area Community Center
Join the Impact
Center on Halsted
Chicago Gay Hockey
Jane Addams Hull House