Live Action: 1st Trimester Chemical Abortion

It’s incredibly awkward when you’re in an important worldview conversation with a friend, and you don’t know what to say. You can’t figure out the right facts or convincing words to combat their argument, and worse, the conversation ends with you questioning your own beliefs.

First Peter 3:15 says “…always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” Though this verse is speaking about sharing the gospel, the principle – always being prepared to make a defense with gentleness and respect – applies to anything we believe.

The Sanctity of Life is one area in which it’s especially important to be prepared. This video about the abortion pill from Live Action is a good starting place to build practical knowledge for your next conversation. Check it out and share the video!

A Challenge to Pro-Life Voters

For many Christian conservatives, the number one voting issue is abortion. Under no circumstances will we vote for a “pro-choice” candidate, no matter how good that candidate’s other policies may be. Conversely, we will vote for a strong pro-life candidate even if that candidate does not line up with some of our other ideals. After all, we reason, what is more important than the shedding of innocent blood, especially the blood of babies in their mothers’ wombs?

And while it is true that having an abortion is not exactly the same as burning a baby on the altar of the god Molech, as the ancient Israelites used to do, it is certainly high on the list of things that God hates. For good reason are we grieved and outraged over it.

That is one reason why so many of us voted for President Trump. And that is one reason why so many of us voted against Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden (and Kamala Harris). Abortion. That one word says it all.

But that leads to an important question. Other than voting for pro-life candidates every two (or four) years, what else are we doing to save babies’ lives? Other than expressing our moral outrage in tweets or comments, what practical difference are we making? If this is such a grave evil in God’s sight and if we are so burdened by it, what are we doing the rest of the year?

I remember speaking at a pro-life rally in Charlotte, North Carolina in conjunction with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. There was a fairly small crowd present, which only highlighted the degree of apathy in the Church on the subject. In fact, one might say that our degree of passion when it comes to voting against abortion is in inverse proportion to our degree of action when it comes to actually working for the pro-life cause outside of the voting booth.

But as I spoke at the small rally, rather than having a holier-than-thou feeling, I was struck with the opposite emotion, saying to those gathered, “For many of us, attending this rally once a year is the only thing we will actually do to save the lives of the unborn.” Most of us could hardly pat ourselves on the back.

To be sure, there have been countless thousands of pro-life workers who have given themselves to the cause for decades. They have endured ridicule and scorn. They have been arrested and attacked. And yet week in, week out, standing in front of abortion clinics, they have lovingly offered women (and men) a better way. “Choose life,” they have pleaded, with passion, regardless of the opposition they have received.

Others have served faithfully in pro-life clinics, offering alternatives to abortion and affirming the humanity of the child in the womb. Others have worked on the legal front, while others have lobbied politically. Still others have given themselves to prayer and fasting, spending many a sleepless night praying for the unborn and for the emergence of a culture of life.

Here in Charlotte, a powerful pro-life movement, called Love Life, was birthed by some Christian businessmen deeply burdened by the shedding of innocent blood. It quickly moved to other cities in North Carolina and has now been duplicated in other states and countries. As a result, many hundreds of babies are being saved and many families being formed.

But the truth be told, as dogmatic as we are when it comes to voting pro-life (and I’m with you in terms of taking that stand) most of us are often just as apathetic when it comes to actually doing something to save the lives of the unborn.

Does that not smack of hypocrisy? Does that not speak of superficiality? If we really are so burdened, why so little action? If this sin really is so ugly in God’s sight, why do we do so little to stop it outside of our periodic votes? If these unborn children are so precious and innocent, why do we hardly lift a finger to save their lives?

A recurring theme of the Bible is that talk is cheap and that actions speak louder than words. Or, to paraphrase the words of Jacob (James), “If you have so much conviction, show it to me by your deeds” (see James 2:18).

Our voting is certainly important, and there are many legislative victories being won even as we continue to fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. (See here for a grudging acknowledgment of this in Time Magazine.)

But if we really care as much as we claim to care about the unborn, and if abortion is as serious an issue as we claim that it is when we go to vote, then surely, for most of us, there is far more we can do to be pro-life.

Let us turn our passion into action and let us put feet to our conviction. Lives are hanging in the balance, and you and I can be the difference between life and death. Literally.

This article was originally posted at AskDrBrown.org

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.

40 Days for Life Fall 2020

Join other pro-life prayer warriors in the annual 40 Days For Life campaign to pray and fast to end abortion! This year’s Fall vigil begins on September 23rd and ends 40 days later on November 1.

Through peaceful prayer vigils and community outreach, 40 Days for Life has inspired 1,000,000 people to join at locations across the nation.

With God’s blessing, here are the results of 25 coordinated campaigns:

16,742 babies saved from abortion

196 abortion workers left their jobs

104 abortion centers closed

Find a vigil location near you HERE, or join one of these Illinois locations:

Aurora Planned Parenthood
3051 E New York St. in Aurora, IL
Parking available st south side of Waterleaf Women’s Clinic and Auto Zone.
For more information, contact Catherine (224) 999-3701.

Decatur Planned Parenthood
3021 N. Oakland in decatur, IL
For more information, contact james.comerford@hshs.org

Flossmoor Planned Parenthood
19831 S. Governors Hwy. in Flossmoor, IL
For more information, contact karenforlife@yahoo.com

Granite City Hope Clinic
1602 21st St. in Granite City, IL
For more information, contact info@40daysgc.com

Springfield Planned Parenthood
601 N. Bruns Ln. in Springfield, IL
For more information, contact info@springfieldrtl.org

Jared Kushner: Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing Hovering Too Near Trump

In an alarming May 24, 2020 article titled “Scoop: Inside the Secret Talks to Overhaul the GOP Platform,” published by Axios, political reporter Jonathan Swan exposed the behind-the-scenes efforts of the socially liberal son-in-law of President Trump, Jared Kushner, to change the GOP platform so that it reflects Democrat views. While the radical overhaul of the GOP platform—and, therefore, the GOP—is the brainless-child of Kushner, the nitty gritty of the subversive project has been assigned to Bill Stepien, second in command for Trump’s re-election campaign, just under Brad Parscale.

According to Swan, Kushner has been working on this secret “radical overhaul” of the GOP platform with Trump’s campaign officials for the past six months. This radical overhaul includes reducing the size of the platform from 58 pages to 1 page, a perhaps Herculean task but otherwise untroubling. Who doesn’t like brevity?

No, it’s not Kushner’s desire to reduce the platform’s size that should concern conservatives. It’s what he seeks to eliminate that should raise the antennae and hackles of conservatives. I bet those with culturally sensitive antennae have already guessed what socially “progressive” Kushner wants to jettison.

But before we get to that, let’s take a moment to reflect on another subversive project of Kushner’s: criminal justice reform. Daniel Horowitz more accurately refers to it as “federal jailbreak legislation,” and he places Kushner at the center of the effort to set criminals loose in our communities. Remember Kushner’s role in this as you watch thugs loot and burn down American cities.

Swan reports that in a December 2019 meeting, Kushner told his band of revolutionaries—that is, both “senior White House and campaign staff”—that “more of their policies should be drawing people to the party, so they ought to eliminate alienating language.” So far, so good. The GOP should aim for non-alienating language in its platform.

Ah, but there’s the rub. Kushner doesn’t mean profane, obscene, harsh, boorish, or hateful language. He means language that expresses principles, values, beliefs, or assumptions regarding sexuality that “progressive” Americans hate.

Swan makes clear Kushner’s intent:

As an example of language that would alienate voters, Kushner said that he didn’t want to see anything about “gay conversion therapy” in the 2020 Republican platform. The 2016 Republican platform did not explicitly mention gay conversion therapy, but it included this line: “We support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children.” Gay Republicans were furious because they viewed it, accurately, as a coded endorsement for the widely condemned practice that’s rejected by major medical associations and whose use on minors is banned in many states and some other countries.

Can’t have any “language” that infuriates “gay Republicans” now, can we. According to Kushner, their fury dictates Republican policy.

Space does not permit a discussion here of what is either ignorantly or deceitfully identified as “gay conversion therapy” in order to ban all forms of counseling to help those who experience unchosen, unwanted homoerotic attraction. That will have to wait for another day.

What’s most important to note is that Kushner wants to eliminate language that supports the right of parents to decide what kind of therapy or treatment their same-sex attracted or gender-dysphoric children receive. This should trouble every parent who believes they—not the state or leftist-controlled medical and mental health organizations that have abandoned both common sense and science—know what’s best for their own children.

Let’s hope the presumptuous, unelected Kushner doesn’t pursue a secret project to eliminate other “alienating language,” because there is a boatload of alienating language in the GOP platform.

You know what else alienates and infuriates homosexual RINOs? This language in the GOP platform really chaps their hide:

Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a ‘judicial Putsch.’

You know what alienates Americans who cheer abortion? They’re alienated by this language from the GOP platform:

we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. … We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare.

You know what alienates those who believe the U.S. Constitution is an infinitely flexible document with no fixed meaning or who think it’s hopelessly outdated? This language in the GOP Platform alienates them:

the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant.

You know what alienates those who support “progressive” judicial activism? This language in the GOP platform alienates them:

A critical threat to our country’s constitutional order is an activist judiciary that usurps powers properly reserved to the people through other branches of government. Only a Republican president will appoint judges who respect the rule of law expressed within the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including the inalienable right to life and the laws of nature and nature’s God.

You know what alienates Americans who think the world is ending in 12 years? They’re alienated by this language in the GOP platform:

The Democratic Party’s campaign to smother the U.S. energy industry takes many forms, but the permitting process may be its most damaging weapon. … We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower.

You know what alienates those who want universal healthcare? They’re alienated by this language in the GOP platform:

Any honest agenda for improving healthcare must start with repeal of the dishonestly named Affordable Care Act of 2010: Obamacare.

You know what alienates those who favor open borders? They’re alienated by this language in the GOP platform:

Illegal immigration endangers everyone, exploits the taxpayers, and insults all who aspire to enter America legally. We oppose any form of amnesty for those who, by breaking the law, have disadvantaged those who have obeyed it.

Kushner doesn’t really seek to “eliminate alienating language.” He seeks to eliminate language that reflects assumptions, beliefs, values, and principles that he opposes. If he agrees with the assumptions, beliefs, values, and principles reflected in the GOP platform, he’s A-OK with “alienating language.”

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact the Republican National Committee to urge them to protect the 2016 GOP platform from liberal activists. There is no need to radically redevelop the GOP platform. Keeping the strong planks for the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage and family are nonnegotiable.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Jared-Kushner-The-Wolf-in-Sheeps-Clothing-Hovering-Too-Near-Trump.mp3

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.

Being a Voice for the Unborn

March for Life Chicago 2020

Plan to march with us through the streets of Chicago once again!

Saturday, January 11th, 2020

– Plan a bus trip to the March! We have changed the day of the March to a Saturday to accommodate more groups traveling from across the Midwest. Register your group here!

– Display a March for Life Table at your Church or organization during October’s Respect Life Month! We would be happy to send you promotional materials. Facebook Message us!

– Become a sponsor of the March. Visit our website for sponsorship levels and benefits. If we hear back from you by August 15th, your organization’s logo could be on our official MFLC flier that will be distributed to all our supporters.

To become a sponsor, please send a check to:

March for Life Chicago
6160 N. Cicero Ave. Ste. 600
Chicago, IL 60646

We mark with deep sadness the great tragedy of the legalization of abortion in the United States along with the devastating social, moral, and legal consequences that have followed. Our vision is that, marching together in hope, we call upon religious, civic, and community leaders to renew every effort to build a nation that affirms the authentic dignity of women and men, the gift of children, and a culture dedicated to protecting life at every stage of development in law and love.

Our purpose is to provide an annual public event composed of people from diverse ethnic, social, and religious backgrounds dedicated to defending and protecting all human life.

“The fight for the right to life is not the cause of a special few, but the cause of every man,
woman and child who cares not only about his or her own family,
but the whole family of man.” ~Dr. Mildred Jefferson, Pro-Life Activist & Heroine

Stonestreet: The Beautiful Biblical Vision of the Human Person

“All men are created equal” and “man is created in the image of God”—these two statements are arguably some of the most important concepts in American history and in Christianity, respectively. But what do they have to do with each other, and more importantly, what do they really mean?

John Stonestreet, President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, addresses these questions and more in his lecture on the Imago Dei, delivered at the 2019 Illinois Family Institute Worldview Conference. Expounding on such themes as “what does it mean to be human?” and “how do we become good people?,” Stonestreet demonstrates how those questions inform our culture today, before answering them in an overview of the grand, sweeping narrative of Scripture and ending in the beautiful hope of our redemption in Jesus Christ.

Please watch and share this video (1 of 5) with your family. This presentation is a great opportunity for group study and discussion.

You can watch this presentation on the IFI YouTube channel, and find the other worldview sessions here.

Background

John Stonestreet serves as president of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He’s a sought-after author and speaker on areas of faith and culture, theology, worldview, education and apologetics. John is the daily voice of BreakPoint, the nationally syndicated commentary on the culture founded by the late Chuck Colson.

Before coming to the Colson Center in 2010, John served in various leadership capacities with Summit Ministries and was on the biblical studies faculty at Bryan College (TN). John has co-authored four books: A Practical Guide to Culture, Restoring All Things, Same-Sex Marriage, and Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview. John holds degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (IL) and Bryan College (TN). He and his wife, Sarah, have four children and live in Colorado Springs, CO.

You can follow him on Twitter @jbstonestreet.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

No Me Hablen Acerca de Compasión…

Escrito por Abigal Ruth

Legisladores pro-aborto escuchenme ahora. No me hablen de compasión, ya no. No quiero escuchar de familias separadas en las fronteras, tasas de suicidio en la comunidad LGBT, la difícil situación de las personas sin hogar o de los osos polares sobre los flujos de hielo derretidos, ya no, no de ustedes. Su compasión es falsa, ustedes quien defienden el desmembramiento de bebés vivos en el vientre.

Legisladores pro-aborto escuchenme ahora. No me hablen de derechos civiles, ya no. No quiero escuchar sobre el racismo institucionalizado, las reparaciones, la justicia social o el privilegio blanco. Voy a cerrar mis oídos a sus quejas sobre la “discriminación”. Su preocupación por los derechos civiles es falsa: ustedes que apoyan a los mataderos por medio del aborto ubicados estratégicamente en vecindarios de minorías de bajos ingresos.

Legisladores pro-aborto escuchenme ahora. No me hablen de justicia, ya no. No se me ha escapado que no hay votos para los todavia no nacidos. Su pasión por la justicia es falsa: ustedes que apoyan la matanza de las únicas personas en los Estados Unidos que realmente no tienen voz ni poder.

Legisladores pro-aborto escuchenme ahora. No me hablen de codicia, ya no. Su desprecio por la codicia es falso: ustedes que llenan sus fondos de campaña con dinero de sangre de la corporación de Planned Parenthood y no tienen uso para los seres humanos que no pueden agregar a sus cofres de guerra.

Legisladores pro-aborto escuchenme ahora. No me hablen de desigualdad, ya no. Su preocupación por la desigualdad es falsa cuando un tercio de todos los bebés negros nunca salen de la matriz y ustedes pelean por el derecho de tratar a los seres humanos vivos como si fueran propiedad.

Legisladores pro-aborto escuchenme ahora. No me darán lecciónes, ni usted ni ningunas otra personas que apoyen el aborto electivo; ya no. He terminado. Mientras continúen apoyando esta terrible injusticia bárbara, no puedo tomarles en serio. Su superioridad moral es falsa. Carecen de la credibilidad moral para sermonear a alguien sobre cualquier cosa

Legisladores pro-aborto escuchenme ahora. Tengo cuatro palabras para ustedes del capítulo 23 de Mateo. Hagan de ellas lo que ustedes quieran:

Ay de vosotros, hipócritas.

America Is Split Right Down the Middle on Abortion, Poll Shows

Written by Grace Carr

Americans are split evenly down the middle on whether abortion should remain legal, a Gallup poll published Monday reveals.

Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs poll shows that 48 percent of Americans identify as pro-choice while 48 percent identify as pro-life. While roughly half of Americans are pro-choice, more Americans believe that aborting unborn babies is morally wrong than morally acceptable, the poll shows.

Forty-eight to 43 percent of Americans find abortion morally wrong, according to Gallup’s poll. Since Gallup began conducting polls on abortion in the 1990s, the percentage of Americans who find abortion to be morally acceptable has never been greater than those who find it morally repugnant.

Of Americans who think that abortion should be legal in some circumstances, a majority believe that abortions should be legal in a “few” circumstances rather than in “most” cases. Examples of limited circumstances can include cases of fetal abnormality, rape or where the mother’s life is in danger.

The split in pro-life and pro-choice beliefs reveals a rise in pro-life attitudes that has been escalating since the 1990s. Multiple states have banned abortions after 15 weeks into pregnancy, and Iowa banned abortions after six weeks into pregnancy on May 4.

These pro-active measures to protect life reflect Americans’ changing opinions about abortion: Forty-seven percent of Americans identified as pro-choice while 46 percent identified as pro-life in 2000. Only 40 percent of Americans identified as “pro-life” while 51 percent identified as “pro-choice” in 1990.

Gallup conducted their poll by conducting telephone interviews between May 1 and May 10. Gallup spoke with 1,024 persons age 18 and older in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

This article originally posted at Stream.org.

What Does it Mean to be a Conservative?

What does it mean to be a Conservative? Historically, issues of faith and family that reflect traditional morals and values – the sanctity of life, heterosexual marriage, and belief in God and in His Word – have been the primary hallmarks of conservatism. But today, a new type of Conservative is emerging, one that identifies as an atheist, transgender, or gay. How (or can) we reconcile our established definition of conservatism with the views presented by these new, non-religious, non-traditional, self-proclaimed Conservative voices?

Dr. Michael L. Brown contrasts the foundational importance of faith, family, and freedom to the traditional conservative position with the new conservatism that espouses a redefinition of marriage and LGBT activism. Please watch and listen to this important 5 minute video as Dr. Brown asks: Is it possible to be a true Conservative if one does not adhere to the most fundamental values of conservatism?

Please share!

Charlie Gard’s Chilling Case Should Serve as a Dire Warning for Parental Rights in the United States

On July 27, 2017 a judge made the final decision in the case of Charlie Gard, ordering that the infant be moved to hospice for his last days on this earth. Charlie was one of 16 known children in the world to have mitochondrial depletion syndrome. This condition is a very rare terminal illness which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.

This decision followed the determination of the hospital that he would be better off dead. The European Court of Human Rights backed this decision. According to BBC News the court determined that further treatment would “continue to cause Charlie significant harm:”

European Court judges have now concluded it was most likely Charlie was “being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress” and undergoing experimental treatment with “no prospects of success… would offer no benefit”.

They said the application presented by the parents was “inadmissible” and said the court’s decision was “final.”

The legal battle to protect the life of little Charlie Gard began on March 3, 2017 when a Justice from the Family Division of the High Court in London held a hearing to analyze Charlie’s case. On April 11, Justice Francis subsequently decided that the hospital could stop Charlie’s life support. On May 3, Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, appealed the decision of Justice Francis but the appeal was analyzed on May 23 and dismissed on May 25. On June 8, the parent’s appeal at the Supreme Court also failed. The family’s lawyers then appealed the case to the European Court of Human Rights on June 20. That Court refused to stop Charlie’s death at the hands of socialized medicine, despite the fact that Charlie’s parents had raised millions of dollars for experimental treatment in the United States. Multiple hospitals, including a Vatican hospital offered to take in Charlie but a High Court ruled against Charlie leaving the Great Ormond Street Hospital, instead saying he should be “allowed to die with dignity.”

“We are utterly heartbroken,” Charlie’s parents said in a June 29 Facebook post the day before Charlie was to die, “spending our last precious hours with our baby boy. We’re not allowed to choose if our son lives and we’re not allowed to choose when or where Charlie dies. We and most importantly Charlie have been massively let down throughout this whole process. Charlie will die tomorrow knowing that he was loved by thousands… thank you to everyone for all your support.”

According to CNN:

Under British law, parental responsibility includes the right to give consent for medical treatment, according to the British Medical Association.

However, parental rights are not absolute, and in cases in which doctors and parents disagree, the courts may exercise objective judgment in a child’s best interest.

Anytime government can usurp parental rights, it is a slippery slope, but this especially rings true when a life is at stake. Even though Charlie Gard’s case was certainly a life-threatening condition, his parents still had hope that the experimental treatment offered in the United States would have helped alleviate Charlie’s suffering and give Charlie a legitimate chance at life. Sadly, Charlie was not given that chance. According to WND, in response “a team of experts on parental rights, and related child rights, is asking President Trump to get the United States out of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child:”

The group’s letter to the White House said, “The Charlie Gard situation highlights the stark difference between our national values and those of internationalists who believe that government bureaucrats and the courts should decide how children should be raised, and even whether a life is worth living.”

The HSLDA notes that the Clinton administration signed the convention, but it never was ratified by the Senate.

HSLDA’s William Estrada explained, “When courts and medical authorities in England can overrule parents’ wishes and declare it is in the best interest of a child to let him die, it’s time to redouble efforts to protect parental rights here in America.”

The letter written to Trump by HSLDA rightfully states the belief “that life is precious and that parents, not the government, know best how to protect and care for their children.”

The United States has been the leader of the free world on the issue of human rights, and this must continue. With the case of Charlie Gard, critical time was wasted in legal battles when Charlie was left languishing to die in the Great Ormond Street Hospital If the United States ever ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, cases like Charlie’s would easily begin taking place in the United States.

“We just want some peace with our son – no hospital, no lawyers, no courts, no media, just quality time with Charlie –away from everything to say goodbye to him in the most loving way,” Yates expressed on Thursday, according to a CNN report posted by Fox 8. “Mummy and Daddy love you so much, Charlie, we always have and we always will and we are so sorry that we couldn’t save you. We had the chance, but we weren’t allowed to give you that chance. Sweet dreams, baby. Sleep tight, our beautiful little boy.”

Our Failing Demographics

In an exhibition gallery, somewhere …

Welcome to our display of demographic failures! Here you will see amazing things, from both near and far. Behind this first curtain we have … Japan! It’s a nice place but the locals don’t seem to like it much. You see, their families aren’t having many children. As their birth rate is only at two-thirds of the needed replacement rate, experts see Japan’s population dropping by a third within 50 years.[i] Even now, parts of the Japanese countryside have been abandoned, left to return to the wild.[ii]

Moving to our second curtain we see … Europe and Russia. Birth rates in the whole region are alarmingly low. In Spain, with 1.2 children per woman, and Italy, with 1.4 children per woman,[iii] the decline is dramatic. Their populations are expected to go down by a fourth in 50 years. Researchers say that there is hope of easing their population woes through immigration.[iv] However, immigration can have unwelcome side effects.

Coming to our third curtain we have … a mirror? Yes, the United States also has a population problem. Our national birth rate is down to 1.8 children per woman.[v] As with Europe, immigration is hiding the decline.

The developed world, including the United States, has a shortage of children.

A Problem of Too Few Children

The birth rate of American families has been declining since the 1970s. Recently it decreased below the population replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman (slightly more than 2.0 to account for childhood deaths).[vi] A four decade decline is a trend, not an accident. Perhaps these causes have combined to make it so.

Economic pressures on families push both parents into the work force. A two income household once was a novelty, gaining an additional income for a bearable cost in daytime child care. But the marketplace has since adjusted to these extra workers. Now it is hard to make ends meet without both incomes. But child care costs discourage having additional children.

Young adults are less likely to marry until they finish their college years and establish themselves in their jobs. Having college debts to pay off, couples put off starting a family. Compared to people who can get a decent job right out of high school, married college graduates lose up to ten years of fertility. These older parents are less likely to have a large family.

Propaganda by zero population growth advocates has made large families unfashionable. The disasters that these people were afraid of never came to pass, but their mindset is still with us.

Perhaps young adults don’t value marriage and don’t need, or want, children. If they can have casual sex, then why bother with the cost, restrictions, and relationships of marriage? Or perhaps these people don’t believe that there is a future worth living for. Ours wouldn’t be the first age where someone said “this isn’t a good time to have children.”

For these reasons and others, the United States, like many countries, has a problem with declining birthrate. As this continues it has varied and surprising effects.

The population isn’t just shrinking, it is aging. This means more old people receiving Social Security benefits, Medicare, and publically financed pensions, but supported by a shrinking pool of young adults. There is no guarantee that the decreasing numbers of youth will continue to agree to fund the increasing burden of supporting the elderly.

A declining, aging workforce won’t be able to do the things it can do now. Tasks that require youthful vigor, or intense physical exertion, will become more expensive due to lack of workers.[vii]

A declining population won’t affect everywhere equally, or at the same moment. Some cities or farm regions will suddenly become unsustainable. It might be that there aren’t enough people left to justify maintaining streets or utilities. Such areas quickly become vacant.[viii]

A nation with a shrinking population isn’t likely to be vigorous. Its mindset is on self-preservation, minimizing risk, and not fixing wrongs.

Can Immigration Fix Things?

Some advocate immigration as a fix for a nation’s declining population.[ix] An influx of new blood could simultaneously increase population and raise the birthrate. Problem solved, right?

This solution might create its own problems. The hoped-for immigrants would likely be coming from another culture. How will they assimilate into the culture of their new home?

If they assimilate somewhat, but keep a strong birthrate, then soon their strong relative numbers will help fix the birthrate issue. Their traditions meld with the native culture, as has occurred many times in the past.

If they assimilate to become just like the natives then they, too, would be afflicted with our child-deficient mindset. We’ll still have that declining national birthrate.

If they don’t assimilate then they effectively take over, seeing themselves as colonists. After all, the future belongs to those who show up for it.[x]

There’s no guarantee that immigration will fix the ills of a country with a declining birthrate.

Back to the Bible

The United States has a declining birthrate. What does the Bible say about birthrates?

First, we’re told to “be fruitful and multiply.”[xi] We’ve already done a fair job at multiplying. This commandment can also be construed to read “don’t go and die off.”

Second, we’re to be stewards of the Earth.[xii] That can easily be restated as keeping the Earth in good shape for living in, both for us and our successors. The two commandments are complementary.

How are we doing with this stewardship? Have we hit peak population? Are we living on the last resources of the planet?

We’re definitely in good shape.

There is plenty of food to eat. America has so much corn that we burn it in our cars (ethanol). At need we could take this food to feed the hungry. Across the world there is enough to eat except when people live in wastelands (deserts, perhaps like the Sudan), where men make war, and where men deliberately mismanage things (like Zimbabwe or Venezuela).

There is plenty of oil and gas for heat, electricity, and transportation. New technologies have revealed centuries of reserves of these resources.

There is plenty of land to live on. When rich, productive farmland is turned into suburban subdivisions it illustrates that we have ridiculous amounts of room to grow into.

There are enough resources for the population we have and for the future.

Third, God wants us to think of the future, the long haul. He’s promised to meet our needs.[xiii] We’re told that when the Master returns he expects us to be doing the tasks he gave us.[xiv]

Fourth, children are a blessing.[xv] Raising them provides a purpose for life and direction for organizing a society. They’re also part of God’s supplying for our needs in old age.[xvi]

Fifth, children are an expression of hope for the future. Creating a family is commitment to care for them and to shape the world for their benefit. You prepare and teach them to go and do the same with their own children. As a society you plan on staying around for a long time.[xvii] You believe in God to provide for you and yours.

From this we conclude that God doesn’t want our nation to go “out of business” for lack of children. Having children is an act of faith in God’s provision, and his reward for our being faithful to Him.

Conclusion

Developed industrial nations seem to be historically nearsighted. Their peoples are too busy, perhaps too selfish to bother replacing themselves. People without children have a limited stake in the future.

Christians shouldn’t have that mindset. A godly family is a form of evangelism. Having more children in an ungodly society is a means of conquering it.[xviii] Your children are a stake in Americas’ future, your own future, and a comfort for your old age. How large a legacy do you wish to create?

Endnotes:

[i] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/26/its-official-japans-population-is-drastically-shrinking/

[ii] http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-japan-population-snap-story.html

[iii] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/italian-birth-rate-continues-to-sink-and-drag-down-italian-life-satisfactio

[iv] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117826/

[v] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/24/is-u-s-fertility-at-an-all-time-low-it-depends/

[vi] http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2014/2014-world-population-data-sheet/us-fertility-decline-factsheet.aspx

[vii] http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/issue-6/after-the-baby-bust

[viii] See second endnote

[ix] http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

[x] http://www.steynonline.com/6320/alone-again-naturally

[xi] Genesis 1:28

[xii] Genesis 1:28, 2:15

[xiii] Matthew 6:25-33

[xiv] Matthew 24:45-47

[xv] Psalm 127:3-5

[xvi] Exodus 20:12, Mark 7:9-13, 1 Timothy 5:8

[xvii] Jeremiah 29:6

[xviii] Exodus 1:7-10,20

Richard Mourdock, the Problem of Evil, and God’s Sovereignty

Another conservative has made another inept comment regarding rape. I am referring to this comment from Indiana Republican U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock in response to a question regarding his views on abortion:

Life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen.

First, it should be clear that the demonstrative pronoun “that” was referring to conception, not rape. To some listeners, Mourdock’s comment was offensive because they mistakenly thought he was saying that God intended rape “to happen.”

Second, it should be equally clear—at least to Christians—that God is the author and creator of life. So, if a new life begins, God has, indeed, “intended it to happen.” All human beings are precious gifts from God and are created in the image and likeness of God.

I am not a theologian, nor do I know precisely what Mourdock was trying to say, but I suspect he was trying to express a difficult theological concept that is better left out of our political discourse, which is decidedly not shaped by theological sophistication. In fact, neither our mainstream news media nor most of our political discourse is shaped by any kind of intellectual sophistication or depth, let alone theological sophistication.

Mourdock’s comment suggests the difficult theological issue of the problem of evil and God’s sovereignty, which raises a whole host of theological questions: Does God ordain, cause, will, or bring about evil? What is the nature of the relationship between God’s sovereignty; his redemptive plan for history; human will; evil; and his infinite goodness, knowledge, holiness, and wisdom?

One thing is certain, our political circus tent is not the place where substantive, serious discussions of the problem of moral evil and God’s sovereignty can take place. Before the mainstream press, feminists obsessed with feticide, and other “progressives” start throwing stones at Mourdock, perhaps they should take note of the fact that the greatest theological minds throughout history and today wrestle with precisely the question his comment raises.

The only sound bite that’s needed in response to a media question that is intended to generate all heat and no light is, “Babies do not deserve to be killed because of the evil actions of their biological fathers.”

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln. Please consider standing with us.

Click here to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

Click here to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts only.

You can also send a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL 60188.

Pro-Life Action League’s annual “Face the Truth” tour begins

The Pro-Life Action League Face the Truth Tour 2012 kicked off Friday, July 7, in Joliet and Shorewood with pictures representing the nearly 4,000 children whose lives are legally terminated through abortion every day. With its 13th annual tour, organizers say they are “eager for participants to join us on the front lines showing our fellow citizens the truth about abortion.”

Face the Truth has spread across the nation since the League launched its first tour in 1999 in Wisconsin. Established under the inspiration of Pastor Matt Trewhella, pro-life activists across the nation have eagerly adopted this method of educating the public about the horror of abortion.

Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, reports that past Face the Truth tours have generated immediate positive results.

“We’ve had women come to us and thank us,” he explained. “With their abortions already scheduled, they saw our pictures and it changed their hearts.”

Scheidler said that is why the Pro-Life Action League continues to organize what he calls, “an important public education campaign.”

The Pro-Life Action League uses graphic pictures to get out its message. Some people express concern that the images may cause emotional harm to young children.

“We too wish it were possible for children to be shielded from the reality not only of abortion but of so many of life’s tragedies,” the Pro-Life Action League website states. “Many of us who hold these pictures first saw them as children. We found the pictures gruesome and saddening, but their only lasting effect was to impress us with a deep sense of the injustice of abortion.”

Scheidler notes the organizations controversial tactic has consistently generated some level of offended opposition.

“The reality is that if people see the horrible truth of abortion it makes them uncomfortable and upset, and they are more likely to do something to try and prevent it,” said Scheidler.

Pro-life witnesses will line the roads at selected locations through the month of July, displaying pictures of healthy newborn babies juxtaposed with huge graphic photographs of aborted babies, visually exposing the tragedy of their tiny broken bodies.

See www.prolifeaction.org/truth/tours.php for a complete list of tour locations in Illinois and elsewhere in the U.S.

Stand With Us

Click here to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

Click here to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

You can also send a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL 60188.

Illinois Parental Notice Case

Illinois Roe v. Wade Brewing As Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 is Set to Go Before the Illinois Supreme Court

The issue of a law requiring parents to be notified if their minor daughter is to obtain an abortion has a long and contentious history in Illinois.

The story begins in 1977 when the Illinois General Assembly passed the Illinois Abortion Parental Consent Act. The act, supported by the vast majority of Illinoisans, passed with sound majorities in both houses, but was promptly found unconstitutional by the courts and was never enforced.

In 1983, the General Assembly passed the Illinois Parental Notification of Abortion Act of 1983. It too was found unconstitutional by the courts and was never enforced.

Finally, in 1995, the Parental Notification Act of 1995 became law, which required a parent or guardian to be notified 48 hours before a child under 18 has an abortion. The ACLU immediately obtained an injunction in Federal Court due to unclear rules on the judicial bypass procedure by which a minor girl could obtain an abortion without her parents being notified if a judge approved the procedure. The law remained locked in judicial limbo until for over a decade.

In 2005, the Thomas More Society began implementing Special Counsel Paul Linton’s legal strategy to get the injunction lifted. Representatives of pro-life organizations met with DuPage County State’s Attorney Joseph Birkett in the spring of 2005 to ask him to petition the Illinois Supreme Court to adopt the rules required by the 1995 Act. Birkett agreed and filed his petition in June 2006.

On September 7, 2006, the Thomas More Society, representing a range of interested organizations, filed a supplemental petition with the state supreme court. Less than two weeks later, the Illinois Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Bob Thomas, unanimously adopted Supreme Court Rule 303A.

After various delays, Attorney General Lisa Madigan returned to federal court in March 2007 and petitioned Judge David Coar to lift the permanent injunction which had been issued eleven years earlier. After Judge Coar denied the petition, the Thomas More Society intervened in the case on behalf of State’s Attorneys Stu Umholtz (R – Tazewell County) and Ed Deters (D -Effingham County) to press an appeal against the injunction.

In the fall of 2009, after Thomas More Society had filed a writ of mandamus, urging that the law be enforced, and in September of that year, it was enforced for the first time ever—but only for four hours. Once again, the ACLU intervened and convinced a judge to put a temporary restraining order on the law preventing its enforcement.

In the spring of 2010, the Illinois attorney general argued that the Illinois State Constitution protects the fundamental right to abortion even though the constitution was penned in 1970—three years before the monumental Roe v. Wade decision.

Though that request was denied, on March 29, 2010, Judge Daniel Riley dismissed the ACLU’s case and the Thomas More Society joined the case as “friends of the court.”

In 2011, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed and remanded the decision of the Cook County Circuit Court that upheld the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 on state constitutional grounds. The Appellate Court did not resolve the ultimate legal issues raised in the case, even though those issues were fully briefed in both the trial and appellate courts.

On November 30, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to decide a pair of appeals arising out of the ACLU’s latest challenge of the legality of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995—an Act whose enforcement the ACLU has stymied through successive court challenges ever since it became a law.