On May 2, the town of Danville, Illinois became what some have called a “sanctuary city for the unborn.” After Planned Parenthood staff announced plans to open an abortion clinic in the town, the city council reacted by narrowly passing an ordinance (8-7), citing a section of federal law that forbids the mailing of abortion paraphernalia.

Danville’s recent ordinance does not quite make it a “sanctuary city”—at least not in the same sense that Seattle is a “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants on the run from federal immigration officials. Danville’s ordinance is actually a reverse “sanctuary” provision that enforces federal authority in the township, in the face of state law. And herein lies the convoluted back-and-forth of legal argumentation, as both the pro-life and the pro-choice movements have exposited the law to support their side.

The pro-life ordinance makes a clear-cut appeal to the U.S. Constitution, citing Article VI which makes all federal laws the “supreme Law of the Land.” The ordinance further references a section of federal law, U.S.C. §§ 1461–62, which prohibits using the mail system to deliver abortion paraphernalia. Thus, the ordinance explains, since 1) the Danville City Council is “bound by oath to support and defend the Constitution,” 2) the Constitution makes federal law the supreme law of the land, and 3) federal law prohibits mailing abortifacients, therefore Danville is upholding the Constitution in passing this restriction.

The pro-abortion-rights side is not backing down easily, however. According to Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Danville’s new rule violates Illinois state law. The state’s Reproductive Health Act prohibits local governments from restricting abortion rights tighter than the state law does, so he claims that Danville simply lacks the legal authority to pass such a regulation.

This article is not intended to endorse or refute either legal argument. Either way it turns out in court, the pro-life movement can still learn a valuable lesson from the Danville controversy.

Roe didn’t get rid of abortion—it made the national discussion that much more tangled.

Pro-lifers cheered as Dobbs struck down the blanket national ruling which said “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.” Immediately, state governors and legislators went to work to pass pro-life or pro-abortion laws, depending on the state.

I’m sure some of us, cheering for Dobbs, were tempted to view ourselves as the reasonable states-rights defenders, in opposition to those big, bad authoritarian federal mandates and rulings. But being “pro-states-rights” really only truly works for the pro-life cause when the state you live in is already pro-life. In states like Illinois, being “pro-states-rights” actually seems to be more like being “pro-choice,” at least in the Danville case.

So states’ rights is not our savior, if it ever was. Don’t get me wrong—it’s a worthy principle, enshrined in our nation’s founding, and one that works well for our side in many places, especially right when the Dobbs ruling came down and various states started banning abortion right and left. But those states only did so because they were already pro-life. The cultural and political groundwork was already in place. In states where these prerequisites are not already in place, “states rights” is just a further justification to keep and expand the abortion restrictions they believe in.

Dobbs was not the end of the pro-life fight. It just moved the battle to a different battlefield, one that is currently focused more on individual skirmishes in particular states than mass movements of troops on the national stage. The dispute over Danville’s ordinance shows us much more clearly how important the local cultural battle is. Overturning U.S. Supreme Court precedent is a major step, but it was only the first step.

Influencing culture and educating the populace who will in turn vote for next year’s lawmakers is the way to ensure the breakthrough we won with Dobbs will actually bring pro-life wins to our states’ laws.

When it comes to the abortion debate, our local neighborhoods are now the new Supreme Court chamber.

Attorneys general of 23 states have filed two amicus briefs in support of a lawsuit seeking the withdrawal of FDA approval of the drugs mifepristone (RU-486) and misoprostol for use in chemical abortions. Unfortunately, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul is not one of them. Success in this suit could make chemical abortion illegal even in states where abortion access remains legal.

Our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom filed the original suit in November 2022 and represent over 30,000 medical professionals from four national medical associations, and several more independent doctors. ADF argues that because the FDA has never tested the drug on the pediatric population, there is no science backing its safety for use in young women.

Dr. Christina Francis, the CEO-Elect of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and a party in the suit, stated in an interview that Mifepristone is not only untested, but dangerous. She reports that 1 in 5 women have serious complications following chemical abortions including hemorrhage, life-threatening infection and fertility issues.

The AGs Arguments Against Mifepristone

In their brief, the attorneys general argue in part that the FDA’s approval of mifepristone for abortion has two legal flaws. The first is that it defies the agency’s own regulations since the section the FDA first approved the drug under, Subpart H, “does not permit the agency to greenlight elective abortions on a wide scale.”

The second is that allowing abortion medication to be sent via the mail is in direct contrast to a federal law that prohibits “using the mail to send or receive abortion-inducing drugs such as mifepristone.” They go on to state, “The FDA and the Administration as a whole have no intention to respect the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or the democratic process when it comes to abortion.”

The lawsuit is asking the court to revoke the FDA’s approval of mifepristone completely. If this does not happen, they are asking that laws and regulations be followed at all stages in regard to reviewing, approving, prescribing, dispensing, and administering chemical abortion drugs. If the judge doesn’t rule against mifepristone entirely, the lawsuit asks that current laws and regulations be followed in regard to these chemicals.

Where The Case Stands

The State of Missouri filed its own brief on Friday, February 10th, while Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch filed a brief on behalf of her state as well as Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.

The U.S. Justice Department argued in its court filing this lawsuit “is extraordinary and unprecedented.” The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas will hear the case first.  After this, an appeal would likely go to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and if a ruling in that court were to be appealed, it could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here in Illinois

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul has made it clear that his office will not support efforts to restrict abortion or abortion-inducing drugs in our state.

Based on data from 2020 when there were 46,243 abortions reported in the state, and according to the Illinois Right to Life, “1,180 abortions were performed on minors and 88 were performed on girls younger than 15 years-old.”

Planned Parenthood’s own Guttmacher Institute released a report admitting that chemical abortions accounted for the majority of all abortions in the U.S.. According to this report, in 2020, abortion pills accounted for 54 percent of all U.S. abortions, an increase from 44 percent in 2019.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute reports that the percentage of chemical abortions in Illinois as of 2020 was 19.2 percent and trending higher. If this lawsuit results in the revocation of the approval of mifepristone, many lives will be saved. (20 percent of 46k abortions is 9,200.)

The Illinois Family Institute is issuing this public statement to urge Governor J.B. Pritzker and Attorney General Kwame Raoul to prepare to ensure the safety of churches and pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) in Illinois.

David E. Smith, the executive director of the statewide pro-life, pro-family organization, notes that vandalism, arson, threats of violence, and interruption of church services have been escalating since the leak of Justice Samuel Alito‘s draft opinion on abortion.

“We cannot afford to ignore the threats of violence and harassment to achieve political ends,” said Smith. “It is wise to anticipate more violent reactions from fringe pro-abortion activists if and when the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision in the Dobbs case.”

The arrest of a California man who was reportedly armed with a gun and knife near Justice Brett Kavanaugh‘s house in Maryland is alarming. Federal law enforcement officials have charged him with attempted murder.

Recently, both CompassCare Pregnancy Services in Buffalo, New York and the headquarters for Wisconsin Family Action were firebombed. In Asheville, North Carolina, a business that provides counseling for pregnant women was vandalized. Earlier this week, in New York City, pro-life advocates participating in a monthly event called “Witness for Life” were mobbed.

Mr. Smith points out that while abortion facilities in Chicago have bubble zones to protect the safety of abortion workers and clients, no such protection exists for pregnancy care centers and churches. During this turbulent time, the state of Illinois must give them equal protection under the law.

“Governor Pritzker and Attorney General Raoul should make it clear that violence and intimidation will not be tolerated in Illinois,” urges Smith. “Moreover, law enforcement agencies across the state must be put on high alert, visibly present in their patrols in an effort to dissuade violence.”

IFI implores Governor Pritzker and Attorney General Raoul to speak out in advance of the ruling to urge peace and calm.

We call every elected official in Illinois, no matter their view on the Dobbs decision, to speak out in opposition to any response that includes violence and intimidation.

Mr. Smith contends that any attack on a church or pregnancy care center should be considered an anti-religious hate crime and the perpetrators should be charged accordingly.

Written by Patience Griswold

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul recently joined 18 other attorneys general in asking a federal court to remove religious freedom protections for colleges and universities. In an amicus brief filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, the attorneys general urge the court to rule against Christian colleges and universities in the case Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education. The lawsuit is seeking to strip religious colleges and universities of funding for holding to Biblical beliefs on marriage and sexuality.

As Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, put it, this lawsuit “is a deliberate effort by a major means of coercion to bring an end to institutions of Christian conviction, that operate as colleges and universities and seminaries.”

Although the case focuses on Christian colleges and universities, initially, the only defendant in the case was the Department of Education. By suing the Department of Education, the lawsuit would have been able to target religious institutions without giving them an opportunity to speak in their own defense. This was especially concerning given the federal government’s reluctance to come to the defense of religious freedom.

In June, the Department of Justice initially promised to defend the religious freedom of the schools in question but quickly walked that back when LGBT activists complained. Within 24-hours, the Department of Justice amended their filing to say that they would offer an “adequate” defense of religious freedom, in contrast with their earlier statement promising a “vigorous” defense. It also removed its initial statement that the Department of Education and religious colleges and universities “share the same ultimate objective, … namely, to uphold the Religious Exemption as it is currently applied.” Given the Justice Department’s unwillingness to commit to meaningful religious freedom protections, the importance of allowing the schools to step in and come to their own defense was clear.

Thankfully, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, as well as three Christian colleges represented by Alliance Defending Freedom have been allowed to intervene and will be representing the concerns of religious colleges and universities in the case.

As defenders of religious freedom have stepped up to protect the right of Christian schools to practice and teach in accordance with their beliefs, those who would like to see strict limits placed on religious freedom have also intervened. 19 state attorneys general, including Illinois Attorney General Kwame Rauol filed a brief urging the court to remove religious freedom protections, arguing that a 2020 rule clarifying the religious freedom protection in place for colleges and universities is too expansive because it includes protections for religious practices, as well as beliefs.

For religious freedom to truly exist, there must be freedom not simply to believe something, but to live and act in accordance with those beliefs. That includes the freedom of religious people to establish educational institutions that teach and practice in accordance with their beliefs. Raoul and the other attorneys general filing this brief have a thin view of religious freedom that offers very little real protection to people of faith who want to live out what they believe.

Religious organizations have a right to maintain policies and teach in a manner that is consistent with their beliefs, and students have a right to pursue a religious education. If successful, this lawsuit would threaten that by forcing any college or seminary that accepts tuition grants, student loans, or any other federal financial assistance to embrace the LGBT agenda, regardless of their religious beliefs.

It is not pro-religious freedom to force religious beliefs to the margins of society and insist that people and organizations have a right to believe certain things only if they keep quiet and do not allow their beliefs to turn into practice. By joining this amicus brief, Rauol is pitting himself against the religious freedoms of Illinoisans and Americans.

A similar article was originally published by Minnesota Family Council.

We are displeased to report that this week our state lawmakers passed a 700+ page police “reform” bill. This piece of legislation was passed in the final hours of the lame duck session of the 101st General Assembly. The proposal was approved by the Illinois Senate just before 5:00 a.m. Tuesday with a vote of 32-23, and approved by the Illinois House with a 60-50  vote the next day, just an hour before the inauguration of the new 102nd General Assembly.

According to an article in The Daily Journal, state lawmakers failed to work with law enforcement officials to create this “reform” legislation. Kankakee County Sheriff Mike Downey said,

I’m not disappointed that the bill passed. … I am disappointed that no one brought law enforcement to the table when creating this bill. Working together is important. It helps you succeed in improving things.

James R. Black, President of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police issued a statement saying,

[W]e are extremely disappointed by the process, the lack of discussion and collaboration with members of law enforcement by our law makers, and the ultimate voting outcome in the Illinois General Assembly. … Earlier language in this bill would have destroyed our profession. While some of that language was stricken, there are still some provisions in this bill that will make our communities less safe.

Some of those provisions in this bill, which now goes to Gov. J.B. Pritzker, include the following:

• Anonymous complaints against police officers would be permitted. Accusers will no longer be required to sign a sworn affidavit. (Will this provision be challenged as violating a police officer’s 6th Amendment civil right to confront his or her accusers?)

• Body cameras would be required for all police officers by 2025.  This would  be an unfunded mandate by Springfield.

• Cash bail bonds would be replaced by 2023 with a pretrial release system developed by Illinois courts. This would allow many criminal suspects back on the streets immediately.

• A task force on “Constitutional Rights and Remedies” would be created to address qualified immunity.

• Detainees would be allowed to make three phone calls within three hours of being taken into police custody.

The Chicago Sun-Times also points out that the “bill requires police officers to be licensed by the state, an idea that was championed by state Attorney General Kwame Raoul.” This is part of the provision that requires ongoing education and training requirements, with no money to pay for the costs–that is, another unfunded mandate–and no assurances the courses will be offered.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Governor J.B. Pritzker to ask him to veto the Criminal Justice Omnibus bill, HB 3653.

You can also call the governor’s office at (217) 782-6831 to voice your opinion. This legislation would negatively affect our families, our communities, and especially the heroes who work tirelessly in law enforcement.

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