Protect Children & Taxpayers From Radical Gender Ideology

On May 15, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) introduced two bills to the U.S. Senate—one that would prohibit federal funds from supporting gender transition procedures, and another that would altogether ban such procedures on minors.

These bills are so radical in light of contemporary opinion, yet so simple and straightforward in achieving their goals, that when I read their respective texts, I was awed that the U.S. Senate still contains the type of statesman who will stand for the truth in this way.

And Marshall isn’t alone; co-sponsoring one or both of these bills are U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Mike Braun (R-IN), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Steve Daines (R-MT), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Mike Lee (R-UT), Markwayne Mulllin (R-OK), James Risch (R-ID), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Roger Wicker (R-MS), and Josh Hawley (R-MO).

On the one hand, the End Taxpayer Funding of Gender Experimentation Act of 2023 (S. 1595) would prohibit several of the current ways that federal dollars can fund gender transition procedures. Under this bill’s provisions, federal funds may not directly fund gender transition therapy or surgery. Neither may they be shuttled into health care plans that include such practices in their coverage.

Further still, no health care service that is furnished by a physician employed by the federal government or even furnished in a facility owned by the federal government may provide gender transition procedures.

The bill does clarify that non-federal health care providers would be free to provide such treatment, and that customers would still be free to seek out separate (non-federal) plans that cover such treatment should they want it. Yet, the federal government must stay out of it.

On the other hand, the Protecting Children From Experimentation Act of 2023 (S. 1597) takes it a step further when dealing with minors; it would ban gender transition procedures for minors in almost all cases—excepting rare medical situations. Under its provisions, any physical or mental healthcare professional would be fined (or face up to five years in prison) for performing or even referring a gender transition procedure.

The bill makes sure to clarify that minors may not be prosecuted for receiving such treatment; however, recipients of the treatment are allowed to bring civil action for relief against the physician who performed it.

Marshall and his colleagues’ stand for the truth deserves three whole-hearted cheers. They are daring to suggest that physicians performing supposedly “essential” gender transition care should be imprisoned! While it seems harsh, it is not any less harsh than the “care” they are purporting to provide—nothing less than a 21st-century version of the self-mutilation practiced in pagan rites for millennia, an abomination which defiles God’s created order bestowed to each one of us since our conception.

Now, it’s one thing to sit back and cheer for U.S. Senators who are willing to take stands like this, drawing clear lines between black and white in a world filled with multitudinous shades of grey. But politics is not a spectator sport. “The people” are more than just the hypothetical but fictitious “12th man” on the football team. “The people” send the players onto the field, tell them how to play, and recall them when they don’t do their jobs right.

Many of Marshall’s colleagues are assuredly shocked at his audacious proposal. But it’s audacious when viewed from a worldview that presupposes society has already settled the question—or at least the toleration—of gender transition procedures.

Thankfully, U.S. Representative Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) has introduced the same legislation in the U.S. House (H.R. 3328 and H.R. 3329), which has 40 co-sponsors, including U.S. Representatives Mike Bost and Mary Miller from southern Illinois.

If we all called or emailed our representatives right now and let them know that we—their very own constituents—agree with Marshall’s stand for the truth, the excuses to dismiss his position as audacious and radical, will start disappearing. Let them know that you sent them on to the field to represent you, and you will not tolerate government support of lies.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth and your local U.S. Representative to ask them to support or even co-sponsor these two bills. Impressionable children should not be making life-altering, body-mutilating decisions about their sexuality and adults should not be pushing woke sexual anarchy either.

U.S. Representative LaMalfa rightly points out in his press release,

let kids be kids and wait until adulthood to make a choice they likely wish they hadn’t as a child. Adults and the medical field shouldn’t be allowed to coerce this “woke” agenda onto them when they should be their protectors. Adults need to realize that their coercion is abuse, and should face appropriate consequences.

On January 9, 2023, U.S. Representative Lauren Boebert (R-CO) introduced H.R. 128, also known as the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2023, to the U.S. House of Representatives. This proposal would restrict the federal funds Planned Parenthood receives for abortion (except in cases of rape or incest or danger to the woman’s life) for one year to redirect $235 million toward community health centers. Currently, 40 representatives have cosponsored the bill. The Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2023 was referred to the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce on January 9th, the same day it was introduced, and has not moved since.

In the official press release from Rep. Boebert’s government website, she’s quoted as saying,

The nation’s largest abortion provider has no business receiving taxpayer dollars. Planned Parenthood claims these funds go to healthcare for women, but last year, Planned Parenthood performed a record number of abortions while also reducing the number of well-woman exams and breast cancer screenings it performed. Instead of funding Planned Parenthood, my bill will redirect this funding to community health centers that actually meet the health needs of women across the country.

Millions of dollars of federal money, many of which are taxpayer dollars, go to Planned Parenthood every year. A lot of this money is poured into expanding abortion access, prioritizing it above caring for women in real ways, such as through cancer screenings or prenatal care. Rep. Boebert’s bill would redirect $235 million to community health care centers that work to provide real health care.

As Illinois strives to become the abortion capital of the world, we need to pray that this bill goes through. If Planned Parenthood were to lose its funding, it would be just that much more difficult for them to continue opening and operating new abortion mills.

The forty U.S. Congressmembers who have co-sponsored this important bill include Republicans Mary Miller and Mike Bost of southern Illinois. To read the full text of the bill and the list of cosponsors, click here.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your federal representative to ask him/her to vote for this legislation when it comes up for a vote. Urge them to support this legislation that will take steps to stop abortion and significantly limit Planned Parenthood’s federal funding.

Please, support this life-saving bill.

On September 23rd, 135 weak-kneed Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives joined the ranks of progressive Democrats when they voted to put our young women in potentially serious harm’s way. The overall vote was 316 to 113 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022.

This bill includes language to require young women to register for Selective Service. Just like young men when they turn 18, and in a time of national emergency, women would be drafted into the military for the first time in our nation’s history. Of course, the National Defense Authorization Act is considered critical legislation which authorizes the funding of our military.

We are shocked and dismayed to report that Illinois Republicans Mike Bost (Murphysboro), Rodney Davis (Taylorville), Adam Kinzinger (Channahon), and Darren LaHood (Peoria) voted for this legislation with this liberal provision attached.

On September 27^th, a U.S. Senate committee approved the measure and it’s now on its way to a vote in the U.S. Senate, which is split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats. The deciding vote would be cast by Vice President Kamal Harris in the event of a tie.

The National Commission on Military, National, & Public Service was created in 2017 to study the moral, legal, and practical arguments of women in the draft. In 2020, they came out in favor of requiring women to register for Selective Service.

“The Commission concluded that the time is right to extend Selective Service System registration to include men and women, between the ages of 18 and 26. This is a necessary and fair step, making it possible to draw on the talent of a unified Nation in a time of national emergency,” the report stated.

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) is strongly opposed to the measure and tweeted,

“American women have heroically served in and alongside our fighting forces since our nation’s founding. It’s one thing to allow American women to choose this service, but it’s quite another to force it upon our daughters, sisters, and wives. Missourians feel strongly that compelling women to fight our wars is wrong and so do I.”

In a 2020 candidate forum put on by the Military Officers Association of American, then-candidate Joe Biden said,

“The United States does not need a larger military, and we don’t need a draft at this time…I would, however, ensure that women are also eligible to register for the Selective Service System so that men and women are treated equally in the event of future conflicts.”

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, the U.S. Senate Republican Leader. Urge him to filibuster or block the National Defense Authorization Act until they strip out this foolish social engineering provision. You may want to remind Leader McConnell that God has made male and female equal in value and worth, but very different in form and function. To ignore this fact is absurd. 

Women have the ability to enroll in the military already, yet is intolerable for our federal government to mandate that women be drafted in case of national emergency.

You can call Leader McConnell’s office to urge him to do the right thing too. His Washington D.C. number is (202) 224-2541 and his district phone number is (502) 582-6304.

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

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!

We are pleased to report that Illinois Family Institute, along with Samaritan’s Purse, The Family Foundation (Virginia) and the National Legal Foundation, filed an amicus brief (aka friend-of-the-court brief) this week to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the case of June Medical Service, LLC v. Gee. The brief supports a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the clinic.

The law was passed in Louisiana in 2014. After being blocked by a lower court, the law was upheld by the 5th Circuit. The law is now on appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our brief contends that the Court should uphold the Louisiana law because the Court has previously upheld the right for states not to facilitate abortion, arguing:

In Harris v. McRae, this Court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal funds being used for payment of elective abortions. And in Williams v. Zbaraz, this Court rejected a challenge to a State law that prohibited public funds from being used for any abortions except to save the life of the mother. Then, in 1989, this Court found constitutional a similar Missouri law in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that prohibited the use of public funds, employees, and facilities to provide abortions. The Court reiterated that such prohibitions place no governmental obstacle in the path of a woman who wants to have an abortion.

Earlier this week, more than 200 members of Congress signed a different amicus brief urging SCOTUS to uphold that same Louisiana abortion law. Democrat Dan Lipinski joined his Republican colleagues from Illinois in signing on to the brief: Mike Bost, Rodney Davis, Adam Kinzinger, Darin LaHood, and John Shimkus.

Oral argument in June Medical Service, LLC v. Gee is currently scheduled for March 4, 2020.

You can read the entire brief filed by IFI et al. HERE.

You might wonder why Illinois Family Institute has joined with the above- named co-filers regarding a Louisiana law (Louisiana Act 620) that is on appeal before the SCOTUS. Don’t we have more than enough on our plate right here in Illinois without becoming involved in legal issues in other states?

Quite simply, there is too much at stake to not be involved. The law on the books in Louisiana has already withstood a previous challenge and was upheld by the 5^th Circuit Court.

Now the petitioner has been granted a hearing by SCOTUS. If the highest court in our land was to rule in favor of this petitioner, the legal doctrine of stare decisis – precedent — would be established. Then, that precedent could be cited in other court cases across the nation where petitioners are determined to abolish existing, legally-enacted, pro-life legislation.

We encourage you to read the brief in its entirety in order to understand the facts of the case at hand, the compelling reasons why the Louisiana law should be upheld, and the erroneous analysis and misrepresented “precedent” on which the petitioner has based the appeal. While this case deals with abortion legislation, a decision by the Supreme Court in favor of the petitioner could have implications for issues that extend beyond the scope of abortion access.

Please keep this case, the pro-life attorneys arguing this case and SCOTUS Justices in your prayers!

For more information, contact Illinois Family Institute at contactus@illinoisfamily.org, or (708) 781-9328.

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

With a vote of 237 to 189, the U.S. House voted yesterday to pass H.R. 36, the 20-week ban on abortion.  The official title of this important legislation is the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” which restricts most abortions after 20 weeks of gestation, with limited exceptions.  It also specifies that any baby born alive in the process of an abortion should be given the same care as a baby born prematurely.

This federal legislation was sponsored by U.S. Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ), and cosponsored by 182 other lawmakers, including the following Illinois Congressmen: Mike Bost (R-Carbondale), Peter Roskam (R-Wheaton), John Shimkus (R-Collinsville), Daniel Lipinski (D-Chicago), Randy Hultgren (R-McHenry), Rodney Davis (R-Decatur), and Darin LaHood (R-Peoria).  See roll call vote for the Illinois Congressional delegation below.

This legislation now moves to the U.S. Senate for consideration.

We are proud to see that our pro-life leaders in Congress are advancing this commonsense legislation in order to protect the life and dignity of some of the victims of abortion. Regardless of party affiliation, every member of Congress should recognize the scientific research which demonstrates that pre-born babies can feel pain beginning at 20 weeks gestation.  We must pray that the members of the U.S. Senate, including Illinois Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, will put their partisan allegiances aside and act in the best interest of our pre-born neighbors and their mothers.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators to ask them to support H.R. 36, the 20-week abortion ban, also known as the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.”  President Trump’s Administration has made it clear that he intends to sign it, if and when it reaches his desk.

H.R. 36 is a step in the right direction when it comes to affirming the dignity, sanctity and value of every human life, from conception to natural death.

How Did They Vote on H.R. 36:

Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D)—NAY
1st Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-4372
District Phone: 773-779-2400
Webform

Rep. Robin Kelly (D)—NAY
2nd Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-0773
District Phone: 773-321-2001
Webform

Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D)—YEA
3rd Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-5701
District Phone: 773-948-6223
Webform

Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D)—NAY
4th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-8203
District Phone: 773-342-0774
Webform

Rep. Mike Quigley (D)—NAY
5th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-4061
District Phone: 773-267-5926
Webform

Rep. Peter Roskam (R)—YEA
6th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-4561
District Phone: 630-232-0006
Webform

Rep. Danny K. Davis (D)—NAY
7th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-5006
District Phone: 773-533-7520
Webform

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D)—NAY
8th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-3711
District Phone: 847-413-1959
Webform

Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky (D)—NAY
9th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-2111
District Phone: 773-506-7100
Webform

Rep. Bradley Schneider (D)—NAY
10th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-4835
District Phone: 847-383-4870
Webform

Rep. Bill Foster (D)—NAY
11th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-3515
District Phone: 815-280-5876
Webform

Rep. Mike Bost (R)—YEA
12th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-5661
District Phone: 618-457-5787
Webform

Rep. Rodney Davis (R)—YEA
13th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-2371
District Phone: 217-791-6224
Webform

Rep. Randy Hultgren (R)—YEA
14th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-2976
District Phone: 630-584-2734
Webform

Rep. John Shimkus (R)—YEA
15th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-5271
District Phone: 217-347-7947
Webform

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R)—YEA
16th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-3635
District Phone: 815-708-8032
Webform

Rep. Cheri Bustos (D)—NAY
17th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-5905
District Phone: 309-966-1813
Webform

Rep. Darin LaHood (R)—YEA
18th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-6201
District Phone: 309-671-7027
Webform

Please subscribe to the IFI YouTube Channel to get timely
video reports & other special presentations!

Great news from the congressional front!

In light of the possibility that Governor Bruce Rauner may renege on his commitment to veto HB 40—the bill that would require taxpayer-funding of abortions through Medicaid and state employee insurance plans through the entire 9 months of pregnancies—and the moral gravity of such an obscene (and costly) requirement, Illinois Family Institute Executive Director David Smith sent a letter to Illinois’ Republican congressmen requesting their help in persuading Governor Rauner to veto HB 40.

Earlier today, U.S. Congressmen Peter Roskam, John Shimkus, Randy Hultgren, Adam Kinzinger, Rodney Davis, Mike Bost, and Darin LaHood sent a letter to Governor Rauner urging him to do just that:

Dear Governor Rauner:

We are writing to convey our deepest concern about House Bill 40 which has been sent to your desk.

This bill would require taxpayers to subsidize abortions for those covered by Medicaid and for those covered by state employee health insurance through the full nine months of pregnancy. This includes painful late-term abortions, even past the point at which some children could survive outside the womb if given appropriate care.  Under HB 40, there is no cap on the number of abortions that could be covered under Medicaid and no cap on the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on these procedures.  Current estimates of cost to the State range from$1.8 million to $21 million.  While Illinois faces a financial crisis, it is unwise to place such a burden on the taxpayers.

Illinois state policy has been consistent with federal protections such as the Hyde Amendment which prohibits federal funding for abortion. The Hyde Amendment saves lives – at least 2 million people are alive today thanks to 40 years of Hyde Amendment protections.  This bill is an egregious step away from those protections by requiring public funding for abortions, which will surely result in more lives lost to the tragedy of abortion.

As you have said yourself, this bill wrongfully requires taxpayers to participate in funding abortions. While the political pressure may feel extreme, we respectfully ask you to focus on the underlying issue and not waiver on your commitment to protect taxpayers as well as the most vulnerable members of our community.  We ask you to veto this harmful legislation.

David Smith emphasizes the significance of this letter, particularly in conjunction with the unanimity of opposition to HB 40 among state lawmakers:

This letter to Gov. Rauner is vitally important. The entire Illinois House Republican Caucus and Illinois Senate Republican Caucus are uniformly opposed to HB 40. Now the Illinois Republican Congressional Delegation has weighed in opposing this legislation. I can only hope and pray that this puts tremendous pressure on our Republican Governor to veto this legislation.

I hope and pray other pro-life elected leaders will also speak out. We may not be able to overturn Roe v. Wade yet, but if enough conservatives speak out and overwhelm the governor’s office, we just might protect thousands of babies from the horror of abortion in Illinois.

Though there is a legal right for women to have their offspring killed, such a “right” does not confer on the public an obligation to pay for the deaths of these tiny human beings. In addition, aiding and abetting women in killing their own children is neither just, nor merciful, nor morally defensible.

The dismissively called “social issues” are fundamental cultural issues and crucibles that determine the moral worthiness of a society. Illinois Republican lawmakers deserve our thanks for their support for the lives of humans in the womb.

Will Republican Governor Rauner stand with pro-life, small government lawmakers in Congress and the General Assembly or will he stand with pro-abortion, big government Leftists?

Take ACTION: Click Here to email Governor Bruce Rauner. Urge him to keep his pledge to veto HB 40. Also, please continue to call the governor’s public comment line every day until this is resolved: (217) 782-0244 and (312) 814-2121. 

You can also send Gov. Rauner a message via Twitter: @GovRauner

Read Congressman Peter Roskam’s press release on this issue HERE.

Listen to Laurie read this article in this podcast:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-Illinois-GOP-Congressional-Caucus-Responds-to-HB-40.mp3

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

This week, U.S. Representatives Peter Roskam (R-West Chicago), Randy Hultgren (R-Campton Hills), Daniel Lipinski (D-Chicago),  Mike Bost (R-Belleville), Rodney Davis (R-Decatur),  and John Shimkus (R-Effingham),  joined dozens of their colleagues in the U.S. Congress in calling for an investigation into the shocking revelations that a top Planned Parenthood executive was caught on video discussing dismembering babies and selling their body parts.

(Read more:  Click HERE to read Laurie Higgin’s article.)

This recently released video exposes Dr. Deborah Nucatola, a Planned Parenthood executive, negotiating with tissue brokers to determine what organs they would like to “procure” and offering ways to alter abortion procedures to make sure they would be able to safely secure the necessary body parts, in tact and undamaged.  She explains how she carefully places her graspers such that she can crush the baby’s body without damaging the organs that the broker is seeking. At one point Nucatola even describes how they could alter the abortion in such a way, that it sounds very much like she is describing the illegal partial birth abortion procedure.

The content of the Congressional letter demanding an investigation is pasted here below:

Dear Chairman Upton and Chairman Goodlatte,

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the nation doing over 300,000 abortions per year.  That is roughly a quarter of all abortions in America and means that on average Planned Parenthood carries out one abortion every 2 minutes. 

While this fact is outrageous enough, we are deeply disturbed by new allegations that Planned Parenthood abortion clinics not only profit from the intentional destruction of unborn children, but also sell children’s organs piece by piece to fetal tissue brokers.  These actions are unconscionable and these horrific abuses must be stopped.

In a recently released video a top Planned Parenthood executive describes huddling with tissue brokers early in the day to determine what organs they would like to “procure” and altering procedures to make sure she is able to obtain the necessary body parts.  She explains how she carefully places her graspers such that she can crush the baby’s body without damaging the organs that the broker is seeking. At one point she even describes abortion providers altering the abortion such that she could be describing the illegal partial birth abortion procedure.  

Also in the video, the executive discusses payments of $30-$100 for fetal body parts. She further indicates that they want to avoid being perceived as selling tissue, so they want to come up with a rate that “looks like it is a reasonable number for the effort that is allotted on their part.”

These revelations give good reason for Congress to take a serious look at the practices of Planned Parenthood and the companies that buy and sell the body parts and organs of unborn children who are dismembered in Planned Parenthood clinics. 

We greatly appreciate your announcement that you will be launching an investigation and urge you to act swiftly to examine current federal laws and regulations in your Committees’ jurisdiction, potential violations of current law, and identify areas where the law may be insufficient. In addition we urge you to explore the activities of abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood, companies that broker fetal tissue and any incentives created by National Institutes of Health funding for research using the body parts of unborn children.

Please support IFI as we fight for liberty & work to advance the truth
about the sanctity of life & importance of marriage in our culture!

Every year in America, more than 18,000 perfectly healthy babies – developed enough to feel pain and, in many cases, survive outside the womb – are brutally killed in their mother’s wombs.

Eighteen thousand. 

Can you imagine the public outrage if 18,000 babies died every year from faulty baby formula or substandard infant car seats? Liability lawsuits would flood the court systems and manufacturing companies would shutdown in bankruptcy and disgrace.

These particular 18,000 babies have been growing for 20 weeks or more in their mother’s bodies.

“These are innocent and defenseless children who can not only feel pain, but who can survive outside of the womb in most cases, and who are torturously killed without even basic anesthesia. Many of them cry and scream as they die, but because it is amniotic fluid going over their vocal cords instead of air, we don’t hear them, ” U.S. Representative Trent Franks of Arizona told LifeSite News this week.

Eighteen thousand innocent babies.

Next Wednesday, 42 years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs Wade decision legalizing abortions for any reason up to the moment of birth, Franks and U.S. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) will ask their Congressional colleagues in the U.S. House to vote on H.R. 36 – a federal measure to protect those 18,000 innocents from painful, violent deaths.

Franks and Blackburn expect to be joined by nearly 180 other House members who will co-sponsor the measure.

Five Illinois Congressmen have signed on thus far as co-sponsors, four Republicans: Randy Hultgren (Geneva), Peter Roskam (Barrington), Aaron Schock (Peoria) and John Shimkus (Effingham) and one Democrat: Dan Lipinski (Chicago).

Three Republican House members have yet to commit on the bill: Adam Kinzinger (Rockford) and newbies Mike Bost (Murphysboro) and Bob Dold (Mundelein).  Historically the remaining Democratic members of Illinois’ delegation have supported abortion advocates’ position.

Abortion defenders are holding the line against any restrictions whatsoever.  They deny the medical studies showing 20 week old preborn babies can feel pain.

“The studies are pretty clear — at 20 weeks, there is no indication that nerves are developed. Abortion is really rare past 20 weeks and is incurred because of a set of complex circumstances,” Jamila Perritt, MD, medical director of Planned Parenthood of Metro Washington, D.C., said at a press conference this week.

In response, numerous brain and nerve activity experts cite the need for prenatal surgeons to anesthetize their patients during in utero surgical procedures.

“To experience pain an intact system of pain transmission from the peripheral receptor to the cerebral cortex must be available. Peripheral receptors develop from the seventh gestational week,” Marc Van de Velde and Frederik De Buck wrote in, “Fetal and Maternal Analgesia/Anesthesia for Fetal Procedures”:

From 20 weeks’ gestation peripheral receptors are present on the whole body. From 13 weeks’ gestation the afferent system located in the substantia gelatinosa of the dorsal horn of the spinal cord starts developing. Development of afferent fibers connecting peripheral receptors with the dorsal horn starts at 8 weeks’ gestation. Spinothalamic connections start to develop from 14 weeks’ and are complete at 20 weeks’ gestation, whilst thalamocortical connections are present from 17 weeks’ and completely developed at 26–30 weeks’ gestation. From 16 weeks’ gestation pain transmission from a peripheral receptor to the cortex is possible and completely developed from 26 weeks’ gestation.

Numerous other doctors have filled in about prenatal infants’ pain capability and made their testimony available at www.doctorsonfetalpain.com.

Medical science is convincing the American public that preborn babies can indeed feel pain. In a March 2013 survey by The Polling Company, 64 percent of 1003 registered voters said they would support a law such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks — when an unborn baby can feel pain — unless the life of the mother is in danger. Less than a third opposed such legislation.

It’s very likely Franks and Blackburn’s H.R. 36 will pass the U.S. House as the nation remembers the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs Wade decision.  It could also pass the U.S. Senate in the days after.

However, Congress.gov says the measure has less than a five percent chance to be implemented because it’s unlikely President Barack Obama, who hailed the practice of Partial Birth Abortion, would ever sign abortion restrictions into law.

And what about the chances of overriding an Obama veto?

“I’m told there is no way there are 60 votes to override a veto in the Senate,” said nationally-popular prolife blogger Jill Stanek.

So why try to so hard pass legislation that won’t become law?

“We just keep pushing, educating, making a big deal out of the humanity of preborn babies and pain,” Stanek said. “This will be similar to when [former President Bill] Clinton vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban twice.”

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban was finally signed into law by President George W. Bush November 5, 2003 – nearly eight years after the first version was introduced.

H.R. 36 prohibits an abortion from being performed if the pain-capable child is 20 weeks or more, except when a mother’s life is endangered, or the pregnancy is the result of reported rape or incest.

How can anyone oppose saving those 18,000 innocent babies’ lives and protecting them from potential inhumane pain and suffering?

On the other hand, perhaps we should ask ourselves how we could ever explain to future generations how we didn’t even try.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative asking them to support H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Or call the Capitol Switchboard to ask to be connected to your U.S. Representative’s office: 202-224-3121.

If you live outside of Illinois, Click HERE to send an email through the National Right To Life Committee’s web site.

The Truth Project

First Annual IFI Worldview Conference
featuring Dr. Del Tackett
April 10-11, 2015

CLICK HERE for Details

IFI readers, please, whether you have children in schools or not, take seriously the assault on the minds and consciences of students, and take action against the newly amended and completely unnecessary anti-bullying bill: HB 5290.

IFI has requested that a provision be added that would guarantee students and school employees the right to opt out of any programs or activities that promote ideas that conflict with their personal or religious beliefs. If such a provision were added, IFI has agreed to adopt a neutral position on the bill, but so far the bill’s sponsors and the ACLU have steadfastly refused to add an opt-out provision.

It has already passed in the House. Please contact your state senator and ask him or her to oppose the bill unless this opt-out provision is included:

No student or school employee will be required to attend or participate in any anti-bullying program, activity, or assembly that infringes upon free expression or contradicts personal or religious beliefs.

Listening to the audio of the House floor debate on HB 5290 was an illuminating and frustrating experience. Here are some of the illuminating and frustrating excerpts from that debate in which the bill’s chief sponsor, State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) was questioned:

Rep. Mike Bost (R-Murphysboro):

If someone has a different belief than you and they explain that belief and express their belief, and express it in a hard way, but doesn’t put a hand on the person, could that be considered bullying?

Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago):

I don’t believe it does. This would have to rise to the level of harassment and torment.

Rep. Bost:

But what is torment to you and harassment might not be torment to me and harassment.

Rep. Cassidy:

A single statement, I don’t think, can be reasonably predicted to have the following outcome. There is no reasonable person under any standard of law that would say one statement, one single statement that “I disagree with you” would put me at fear of physical harm. So, I don’t believe that your situation would rise to that level. Bullying is about behavior, not belief.

What Cassidy “thinks” and “believes” about how this law would be applied in schools is hardly reassuring.

In addition, she is either ignorant of the text of the existing law or deceitful. The law passed in 2010 does not define bullying as only “harassment,” “torment,” or being in “fear of physical harm” as Cassidy implies in her response to Bost. The law defines bullying as any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act or conduct, including communications made in writing or electronically that can be reasonably expected to place the student in fear of their person or property, cause a substantial detrimental effect to their physical or mental health, or substantially interfere with their academic performance or ability to participate in school activities.  

Since the law does not state — as it should — that bullying acts must be severe and pervasive, a single act, including a verbal act, could be construed as constituting bullying. In addition, a single verbal act that is expected to interfere with academic performance or a student’s ability to participate in school activities could be construed as bullying even if it does not constitute harassment or torment, or “put a student in fear of physical harm.”

It should have been obvious to Cassidy that Bost was not asking if students would be permitted to say literally, “I disagree with you.” He was asking if a student who expresses ideas or beliefs that another student finds offensive could be accused of bullying.

For example, if a student were to say in a classroom discussion or to her friends in the cafeteria, “Homosexual acts are perverted,” or “Gays shouldn’t be allowed to adopt,” or “When men have sex with men, they degrade themselves,” could she be accused of bullying? Could someone claim that those verbal acts caused a “detrimental effect to his mental health”?

Bost’s questioning continued:

Rep. Bost:

What does your bill add to this [existing anti-bullying] law?

Rep. Cassidy:

The underlying [existing] law required that school districts adopt policy on bullying. We have not had compliance statewide and many of the schools have very minimal policies…This [bill] defines what a policy on bullying would look like….There are 3 school districts with no policy at all and over 20 with inadequate policies—one-line policies at best.”

According to Cassidy, 20 schools have “inadequate” bullying policy, but the law passed in 2010 does not mandate any particular policy formulation, so perhaps the very liberal Task Force and Cassidy may not view the policies of these 20 unnamed school districts as adequate, but as long as they have even a one-sentence policy, they’re in compliance with the law. Moreover, no one provided any evidence that these schools’ bullying policies have been problematic. To reiterate, there are about 879 public school districts in Illinois and dozens more non-public, non-sectarian schools to which existing law applies. Of those, only 3 districts, according to Cassidy, have not complied with the law.

State Representative Dennis Reboletti (R-Elmhurst) suggested that the Illinois State Board of Education(ISBE) should be working with the districts that have no policy, rather than passing yet another law. He suggested that the judgment of “inadequacy” seems subjective and the decisions regarding “adequacy” are best left to communities and their elected school boards.

Bost’s question about what HB 5290 adds to current existing law is critical. Despite Cassidy’s obfuscation to the contrary, HB 5290 adds nothing. No school is required to adopt any of HB 5290’s recommendations.

Furthermore, a comparison of the recommendations that HB 5290 makes to the recommendations that the Task Force made and posted  on the ISBE website over a year ago reveals that they’re virtually identical.

State Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie) asked Cassidy if the State Board of Education has made “an effort with those 23 school districts to resolve those issues [no or inadequate bullying policy]. Cassidy responded awkwardly in the passive voice: “The desire was to have a more fully defined guideline.”

First, as already discussed, the guidelines in HB 5290 are not more fully defined. They are the same as the guidelines provided by the Task Force.

Second, who precisely is the person or persons whose identity Cassidy craftily concealed by using the passive voice. Who exactly desired “to have a more fully defined guideline for the school districts”? Suspicious minds would guess that the desirers were Cassidy; the homosexual activist groups Equality Illinois and the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance; and the ACLU of Illinois.

Cassidy claimed during the floor debate that she “hears very often from parents,” presumably about bullying issues. How many parents over the past year since the Task Force published their bullying policy recommendations have contacted Cassidy? Did Cassidy verify their stories with their school districts? Did the parents who contacted Cassidy identify their school’s bullying policy as the problem? Did Cassidy ascertain whether these parents live in one of the 23 districts that purportedly have no or inadequate bullying policy? Did Cassidy ask these parents if they had addressed the issue with their principals, superintendents, and school boards? Did Cassidy point these parents to the Task Force’s non-mandatory recommendations, which HB 5290’s non-mandatory recommendations merely restate?

The fact that HB 5290’s recommendations are virtually identical to the Task Force’s recommendations raises a few issues:

• If HB 5290 proposes nothing new, why waste time creating and debating it?
• If HB 5290 mandates nothing, how is it different from a resolution?
• The Illinois State Bullying Prevention Task Force has already issued and posted its recommendations in a 106-page document (about which I have written). Since the Task Force has already issued its recommendations, why are multiple homosexual activist organizations pushing for the passage of HB 5290 if not to establish a beachhead from which to launch their next attack on local control?  The next step will be to make all of their non-mandatory “recommendations” mandatory. The next step will require students and school personnel to attend indoctrination sessions—I mean, “programming” and “training”—that will promote “progressive” views on homosexuality, gender confusion, and cross-dressing.
• If any administrators have contacted Cassidy or other lawmakers requesting further guidance, did the lawmakers direct them to the Task Force’s recommendations, which are posted on the Illinois State Board of Education’s website and are essentially identical to HB 5290?

Imagine we’re playing the childhood game of “Red Light, Green Light.” Homosexual activists and their ideological allies see conservatives with their backs turned away from the game and know they have the green light. Some will career wildly toward their goal of total societal transformation, while others take baby steps, hoping no one will notice until it’s too late.  

Don’t be fooled again. HB 5290 is not about bullying prevention. If we’re going to allow this unnecessary, partisan bill to pass, at least make sure it includes an opt-out for students and school employees. 

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to contact your senator and urge him/her to oppose this unnecessary bullying bill.