Parents will be held responsible by God for their children’s education, says the Bible. This was a view shared by the majority of America’s founders. But today there is a great defiance against this on the part of many in our educational establishment. Many leaders in the educational system seem to think they know better than the parents as to what should and should not be taught.

FoxNews.com reports (3/4/23): “A Colorado elementary school’s private emails show secret plans to defy parents’ wishes on transitioning their child’s gender.”

Recently, a Fairfax (Virginia) County parent, Neeley McCallister noted:

“As parents, it is our primary duty to protect our children and preserve their innocence…Unfortunately, there is a toxic movement infiltrating our schools that is more interested in pushing a political agenda rather than teaching…our children the subjects we were taught in school: math, reading, science, history.”

McCallister made these remarks during hearings to promote a bill in the new U.S. House of Representatives, under the leadership of Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). The new bill seeks to assert parental rights when it comes to what is taught in the schools.

This is right and good. Centuries ago America made great strides in becoming a “city on a hill” in part because of the great education so many citizens received. Initially it was based on the Bible and resulted in astounding levels of literacy.

As James Madison, a key architect of the U.S. Constitution, observed,

“A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.”

The first Congress under the U.S. Constitution that gave us the First Amendment also passed a law that ensured that each state to be added to the new nation should be committed to education. If the American experiment were to work, it could only do so if the people could read and write for themselves. So on August 4, 1789, Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance. This important document said in Article III:

“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

This was in a day when “Religion” meant Christianity of one stripe or another.

Even Thomas Jefferson, who departed from Christian orthodoxy later in life, allowed the Bible and Isaac Watts’ hymnals to be used to teach reading at two schools for which he served as president of the board of trustees. Isaac Watts was a great writer of classic Christian songs, including “Joy to the World,” “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross,” and “Jesus Shall Reign.”

However, in the last few decades, there has arisen an anti-God tenor in the schools. Last week, Foxnews.com reported on a story out of the Phoenix area, where a school board rejected hiring teachers from a Christian college because these teachers were deemed “not safe”: “An Arizona school board member wearing cat ears during a meeting said she would oppose having a contract with a Christian university over the religious and Biblical beliefs they espouse.”

Another board member concurred with her, as he decried the university for “teaching with a Biblical lens.” The board agreed with the anti-Christian ban.

The school board says in effect, “Teachers needed. Biblical Christians need not apply.” This sort of discrimination is clearly unconstitutional. But is it what parents want?

We all have a lens, a worldview. It was a Biblical worldview, a “Biblical lens,” that made us the most free and prosperous nation. But if the Left had their way, only those with godless values should be teaching our children—with little or no significant input from the parents.

Americanwirenews.com noted a similar example of anti-Christian bias at work in the schools. A public school teacher in Washington state said we need to keep the schoolchildren safe from their “Christo-fascist parents.”

Some parents teach their children to follow the Bible—the way Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan learned their values. “Horrors,” say many in the education establishment today, trying to separate parents from their children’s education.

Thankfully, the new Congress is fighting back, as noted. Former Speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich writes,

“Speaker Kevin McCarthy and House Republicans have given the American people an opportunity to dramatically strengthen the role of parents in the education of their children.”

The preamble to The Parents Bill of Rights Act declares:

“Parents have a God-given right to make decisions for their children. Unfortunately, many school districts have been ignoring the wishes of parents while special interest groups try to criminalize free speech.”

The preamble adds,

“This list of rights will make clear to parents what their rights are and clear to schools what their duties to parents are.”

Perhaps U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY) says it all:

“Parents are the primary stakeholders in their child’s education, and they have a right to know what is going on inside their child’s classroom.”

Hear, hear.

To fulfill Governor J.B. Pritzker’s dream to make Illinois a slaughterhouse extraordinaire and the abortion mecca of the Midwest, that ever-reliable instigator of moral mayhem, State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), has sponsored a bill that would put a twinkle in the eye of Kermit Gosnell. The absurdly named Reproductive Health Act—or as I call it, the Baby Butchery Bill, which has little to do with reproducing and nothing to do with health—was introduced in the Illinois House by Cassidy and now has 40 accomplices. Two days later Melinda Bush (D-Grayslake) introduced it in the Illinois Senate. She now has 4 accomplices.

For those unfamiliar with Cassidy, she’s a lesbian whose “spouse” is Newt Gingrich’s half-sister, “genderqueer” Candace Gingrich, an instigator of moral mayhem herself. She’s a leftist ideologue and Associate Director of the Youth and Campus Engagement Program of the Human Rights Campaign who refers to herself by plural pronouns. Cassidy, obsessed with using government resources to promote deviant sexuality, supports all sorts of lousy body-, soul-, family-, and culture-destroying legislation.

According to constitutional attorney Paul Linton, Cassidy’s nightmarish 120-page bill (HB 2495) will increase the numbers of weak, vulnerable humans who will have their bodies destroyed by adults who ironically claim to worship bodily autonomy. Here are some of the things Cassidy’s Baby Butchery Bill will do according to Linton:

• eliminate any restrictions on post-viability abortions and allow abortions for any reason whatsoever throughout all nine months of pregnancy

• eliminate any requirement that the person performing a post-viability abortion use a method of abortion that would enhance the chances of the unborn child surviving the abortion [thus providing evidence that women aren’t fighting for the right to terminate a pregnancy but rather to kill their babies]

• eliminate the requirement that a second physician be present to provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of a post-viability abortion

• eliminate any restrictions on where abortions may be performed

• allow non-physicians to perform abortions, both surgical and medical

• allow women to attempt to abort their own pregnancies regardless of potential health risks

• undermine institutional and individual rights of conscience

• provide a basis to nullify regulations governing the operation of abortion clinics

• allow DCFS to use public funds to pay for abortions

• require health insurance policies to include coverage for all abortions, with no exemptions, even for churches and other religious organizations

• jeopardize enforcement of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 (which is the subject of separate bills that would expressly repeal the Act)

• eliminate any requirement to investigate fetal deaths or maternal deaths resulting from abortions or to record fetal deaths resulting from abortions

• impose no restrictions on fetal experimentation

• provide a basis for barring any common law cause of action for prenatal injuries and any statutory action for the wrongful death of an unborn child

When it comes to the legalized slaughter of inconvenient or imperfect babies in their 6^th through 9^th month of life in the womb, eager Baby Butchery-Choice advocates like Cassidy and her 40 accomplices prefer to focus on percentages rather than numbers. They will exploit whatever tactic may help conceal the unmitigated evil of abortion. Instead of percentages, let’s look at numbers to help expose the truth.

In the United States, there have been 61,000,000 abortions committed since 1973—a year that will live in infamy. It is estimated that 1.3% of those babies were killed after 21 weeks gestation. That means 793,000 10-inch-long babies with fingers, toes, hearts, and brains have been killed since 1973.

Imagine the caterwauling of Leftists if, over the past 45 years, 793,000 guilty death row inmates had been executed and had been executed by having scissors inserted in the back of their skulls, their brains scrambled, and skulls crushed; or had their bodies torn into pieces; or had their hearts stopped via an injection of potassium chloride, all of which are done to babies after 21 weeks of gestation.

It’s important to note that the government does not permit the administration of potassium chloride to criminals guilty of heinous crimes without first administering powerful sedatives because, as pharmacologist and toxicologist David Kroll explains in Forbes Magazine, “If given alone without the other drugs, the high concentration of potassium chloride would be terribly painful, akin to fire or electricity coursing through the veins.”

It’s important to note also that experts say that by 20 weeks gestation or earlier, babies can experience pain and that fetal surgeons administer anesthesia and analgesics (i.e., painkillers) to unborn babies undergoing surgery.

Leftists relentlessly defend abortion by asserting that pregnant women have the absolute right to make decisions concerning their bodies. This, of course, requires proof that abortion involves only the bodies of pregnant women—a patently false, science-denying claim. If abortion really involves only one body and the owner of that body is entitled to do with it as she pleases, then shouldn’t “progressives” defend the moral right of women to take Accutane or drink alcohol throughout their pregnancies? Is it coherent to argue that while a woman has a right to kill the purportedly non-existent body within her body, she is ethically obligated not to ingest anything that would “harm” the purportedly non-existent body within her body? Either her bodily autonomy rights are absolute or they’re not. Either there are two bodies or there aren’t.

As science continues to prove the falsity of their claims, Baby Butchery-Choice advocates are being forced to move away from hard science for the foundation of their arguments and move into metaphysics. Now, they argue that, sure, the product of conception between two humans is a human, but it’s not a person with rights until…

Yeah, we’re all waiting on pins and needles for morally-compromised metaphysician Cassidy et al to explain that. Is the product of conception a person with rights when she can feel pain? Breathe on her own? Show evidence of self-awareness? Are her rights dependent on her anatomical wholeness, her physiological health, or on how others feel about her? Are her rights dependent on her cost to others? Shouldn’t Cassidy and her colluders answer these questions before they make Baby Butchery even easier?

Already, Illinois permits abortion through all nine months if a doctor concludes that a woman’s “health” is jeopardized by the continuation of a pregnancy, with “health” defined so elastically as to include virtually any reason. But that’s not enough for the self-centered and amoral among us. Everyone with the capacity to think through the logical implications of an argument knows where we’re headed. If late-term abortions of babies—not fetuses—are ethically justified by the presence of physical anomalies, terminal conditions, the emotional state of their mothers, or their mothers’ fiscal concerns, why aren’t post-natal abortions (i.e., infanticide) of newborns or week-old or month-old babies justified by those same factors?

Every Republican who claims that the reductively called “social issues” are less important than tax rates or pension reform is culpable for the noxious political and moral climate that is killing us. Every Republican who defers to GOP leaders who claim that party unity and political “wins” demand silence and capitulation on the “social issues” is culpable for the increasingly brazen and foul demands for de facto infanticide. Every Republican who has skittered nervously away from saying it is evil to permit the intentional killing of babies in the womb who were conceived via criminal acts is culpable for the political power of the intellectually incoherent and morally vacuous whose consciences are so seared they cheer and shout for death.

Take ACTION:  Please speak out!  Click HERE to send a message to your state senator, state representative and to Gov. Pritzker. Ask them to stop targeting innocent pre-born children and vulnerable women in Illinois. Ask them to vote against HB 2495 and HB 2467.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/IL-abortion-article.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

Six GOP presidential candidates are battling it out in the great “early voting states trifecta.” Voters launched the process in Iowa last week to select the Republican Party’s nominee to challenge President Barack Obama in November. The remaining weeks in January citizens in New Hampshire and South Carolina will make their voices heard. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney seems to have a lock on the Granite State while the more conservative presidential hopefuls have better prospects in South Carolina.

Poll Watch?

A recent 7 News/Suffolk University tracking poll has Romney receiving 41 percent support, Texas Congressman Ron Paul was second in the poll with 18 percent and in third 8 percent of likely voters say they support former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum. Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who has made New Hampshire the focus of his bid for the GOP nomination, came in at nine percent.

But the world saw what a difference a caucus makes in Iowa. The social conservative, Santorum, who two months ago had one percent support among likely South Carolina Republican Primary voters, now is running a close second there with 24 percent of the vote. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sits in third with 16 percent of the vote. Bringing up the rear is Texas Governor Rick Perry with five percent and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman at two percent, according to Rasmussen Reports. Another two percent of these likely primary voters like some other candidate, and 11 percent remain undecided.

Evangelical Christian voters prefer Santorum over Romney 33 percent to 17 percent.  But Romney leads among other Protestants, Catholics and voters of other faiths with roughly one-third of the votes from each group.

Vying for the Evangelical Vote

For weeks now Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, and in some regards Paul, have all vied for the important evangelical Christian vote.

Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) says developing the right message and a good strategy is critical if a candidate hopes to receive the nomination.

“They’re saying Mitt Romney, who looks like he’s a shoo-in in New Hampshire, if he could have a good, strong showing in Iowa and go through New Hampshire and on down and win South Carolina, he’d be well on his way to the nomination,” King reports. “It’d be awfully hard to reverse it at that point.”

Even if a conservative candidate did not do well in Iowa, he suggests a good showing in South Carolina can sustain a campaign through the summer months.

“On the other hand, a candidate who may not finish first here in Iowa has an opportunity to go to South Carolina, and if they do well there, they can keep their fundraising going enough to get to [the January 31 primary in] Florida,” the congressman adds.

After leading in the pools, Gingrich did poorly in Iowa as a result of millions of dollars was spent in negative attack ads by pro-Romney PACS (political action committees).  Rick Tyler, senior adviser for Winning Our Future, a super PAC for Newt Gingrich, says fundraising has been robust of serious of ads hit the Internet pushing back.

“We intend to lay out the record of all the people in the race and let people make a decision as long as we don’t make a false witness,” said Tyler. “We will extol Newt’s record as a solid conservative who can beat Barack Obama.”

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.