On Tuesday, July 12, 2022, Northwestern University hosted a webinar entitled, Implications of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Decision. Faculty members of Northwestern participated in the webinar: Dr. Cassing Hammond (abortion practitioner), Professor Paul Gowder, Professor Heidi Kitrosser, Professor Andrew M. Koppelman, Professor Doreen Weisenhaus, and Dean Hari Osofsky (she/her) moderated the event.

The lament from these esteemed members of the once Christian Northwestern University is to be expected. I want to call attention specifically to Prof. Andrew Koppelman who claimed that the right to abortion should be protected by the 13^th amendment.

Distinguished Senior Fellow and Scalia Scholar Ed Whelan in a recent tweet noted that by his count the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 8^th, 9^th, 13^th, 14^th, and 19^th Amendments have all been cited in support of the non-existent constitutional right to abortion. Like the astronomer Percival Lowell, who spent 15 years studying canals on Mars, progressive experts think they find abortion everywhere they look in the US Constitution.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and proclaimed in the final days of 1865. The text of this amendment has two sections.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It is interesting to recognize in these debates that those who advocate for killing unborn children proclaim themselves to be the compassionate abolitionists. Those who want to save children from being dismembered and vacuumed out of their mother’s wombs are the evil slave owners.

According to the perverse logic of these supposed abolitionists, pregnancy is slavery. If you “force” someone to carry a child to term, that would go against the Thirteenth Amendment. Really?

Now I should point out that Prof. Koppelman did not develop his argument in this webinar. He has written a 30-page paper on the subject. His abstract states, “The Thirteenth Amendment’s purpose is to end the specific institution of antebellum slavery. A ban on abortion would do to women what slavery did to the women who were enslaved: compel them to bear children against their will.”

Let’s accept this argument for just a moment. Where does it end? What about a distressed mother who has to provide care for her ornery two-year old who whines, demands, runs away, and never sleeps when the mother desires? Forcing a mother to care for this child sounds a lot like slavery to me. Or what about a son or daughter who provides care for an aging relative who suffers from dementia or Alzheimer’s? Without any thanks, care must be provided around the clock for someone who often has no resources to compensate for the care given. That sounds a lot like slavery to me, well, at least according to this perverse logic.

Stick with me as we finish off the illogic of this argument, if something appears to be slavery, the answer is to kill.

The mother is free to kill her unborn child to prevent a forced pregnancy. The mother or father is free to kill a born child because this precious one might be a burden. A son or daughter is free to kill a parent who needs round-the-clock care all in the name of the ending of slavery.

It is abhorrent and illogical to compare slavery with pregnancy. I recognize that not all who are pregnant made that choice. There are difficult cases, but to suggest that what slaves endured is what mothers face is perverse and wicked logic.

Dan McLaughlin, a senior writer at National Review Online, has written a very similar article on this very subject that I would also highly recommend.

The compulsory sexual integration of private spaces here in the Land of Degeneracy Lincoln continues apace, aided and abetted by rich men with perverse sexual fetishes, academicians with disordered sexual desires, and unprincipled, ignorant Democrat Lawmakers.

Two months ago, I first warned about a screwball amendment (HB 3195) to the “Equitable Restrooms Act,” which has now been passed by the muck-making bureaucracy we call the Illinois House of Representatives by a vote of 63-43 and is now being considered by the Illinois Senate. Here’s a section of that screwball, privacy-denying amendment:

The purpose of this Section is to promote the privacy, safety, and gender inclusivity of all Illinois residents and visitors. …

Any multiple-occupancy restroom may be converted into an all-gender multiple-occupancy restroom. If a multiple-occupancy restroom is to be converted into an all-gender multiple-occupancy restroom and a multiple-occupancy restroom serving a different gender is located adjacent or in proximity to the all-gender multiple-occupancy restroom, then both multiple-occupancy restrooms must be converted into all-gender multiple-occupancy restrooms. …

If an all-gender multiple-occupancy restroom is newly constructed, a newly constructed or previously existing restroom located adjacent or in proximity to the newly constructed all-gender multiple-occupancy restrooms must also be designated as an all-gender multiple-occupancy restroom. (emphasis added)

If passed, this wholly partisan amendment will mandate that if an existing single-sex multiple-occupancy bathroom is converted to a co-ed multiple occupancy bathroom, any nearby single-sex multiple-occupancy bathroom must be converted to a co-ed bathroom as well.

Further, if a new co-ed multiple-occupancy bathroom is constructed, any bathroom nearby must also be a co-ed bathroom.

How long before the conscience-deformed swampsters propose a bill requiring that all new and existing multiple-occupancy bathrooms must be co-ed? Incrementally, the left will ban all single-sex multiple-occupancy bathrooms (and locker rooms) in deference to their overlords: “trans”-cultists.

As I have said repeatedly (and with increasing frustration), the end game for the “trans”- cult is not unrestricted access to opposite-sex private spaces for a handful of delusional cross-sex impersonators. The end game is the eradication of all public recognition of sex differences, which means no private spaces for anyone. No private spaces for girls and women. No private spaces for boys and men.

“Trans”-cultists believe girls and women should have no single-sex multiple-occupancy bathrooms (or locker rooms) available to them anywhere. And “trans”-cultists believe boys and men should have no single-sex multiple-occupancy bathrooms (or locker rooms) available to them.

This proposed amendment makes the fatuous claim that its purpose is to promote the “privacy” and “safety” of girls and women. How exactly are the privacy and safety of girls and women who live in or visit Illinois promoted by allowing biological males into previously all-female bathrooms?

Cross-dressing men like “Martine” Rothblatt and “Jennifer” Pritzker use their wealth and political power to normalize their deviant sexual fetishes. Some may remember that the big burly RINO “Jennifer” Pritzker published an editorial threatening that if the GOP didn’t capitulate to his demands that the GOP affirm “trans”-cultism he would take his filthy lucre and stomp home in his man-sized stilettoes.

Both Pritzker and the eccentric Rothblatt—who has created his own religion which teaches that “death is optional,” as well as a creepy “humanoid robotic” bust of his actual wife programmed with hours of his wife’s “memories, feelings, and beliefs”—are pouring money into academia to promote their “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices.

Unfortunately, they’re not alone in using academia to promote “trans”-cultism. Just this week, the Chicago Tribune—almost always on the wrong side of history—had a splashy piece announcing the opening of the Chicago-based Center for Applied Transgender Studies, which “aims to combat misinformation and lack of trans-led research.”

By now, many Americans know what leftists mean when they refer to “misinformation.” They mean information they hate. And I think many Americans know by now what leftists mean when they refer to “trans”-led research. They don’t mean well-constructed, objective research. They mean research whose results are pre-ordained, including poorly constructed “social” science research.

The founder, TJ Billard, is a foolish assistant professor at Northwestern University—a man who self-identifies as a “non-binary” “scholar of political communication and media activism” who wants adults to refer to him by the pronouns “they/them.” #eyeroll.

The managing director of the Center for Applied Transgender Studies is also a sexually confused man who goes by Erique Zhang (formerly Eric Zhang), who also expects to be referred to by plural pronouns.

In an interview with the equally foolish Joan Esposito, Billard expressed his hope that the center, composed of him, his two co-founders, “17 senior research fellows and 10 junior fellows” would influence public policy, presumably including policies pertaining to the sexual integration of private spaces.

“Trans”-cultists seek to impose on the world their metaphysical claims and dubious psychological beliefs in the hope of having their feelings and fetishes treated as healthy, normal, and essential components of their “authentic identities.”

Central to their science-denying de facto Gnostic religion are two beliefs: 1. human spirits merely inhabit manipulable bodies, and 2. physical embodiment as male or female—i.e., biological sex—has no intrinsic meaning and, therefore, sex-segregated spaces in which humans undress, shower, and tend to intimate bodily functions are nonsensical or worse.

But society has no obligation to act as if the false ontological and moral assumptions of “trans”-cultists and their ideological allies are true. And, by the way, we don’t have to capitulate to their language commands.

Please, fight this destructive bill.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state senator to ask him/her to vote against HB 3195 and the foolish agenda that fails to recognize biological facts. Ask them to protect the privacy, dignity and safety of all Illinois citizens.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/IL-Dems-Seek-the-Abolition-of-Sex-Segregated-Bathrooms.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

Before anyone gets angry at me for the content of this article, please understand that you have paid for the research I’m about to describe, so don’t shoot the messenger.

Two homosexual “researchers” managed to get tax money to survey 429 homosexual men to find out whether they like to insert their penises in other men’s rectums (self-identified “tops”), or they prefer having penises inserted into their own rectums by other men (self-identified “bottoms”), or whether they are versatile (aka “versatiles”). This survey also sought to identify how “penis size, muscularity, height, hairiness, and weight” correlates with identification as “tops,” “bottoms,” or “versatiles.” The survey revealed that “Generally, tops reported larger penises than bottoms.”

What might be the academic or social value of such a survey, which was funded in part by the National Institute of Mental Health, which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)?

The two homosexual “researchers” were Ryerson University professor of psychology Trevor A. Hart and New York Medical College Adjunct Associate Professor of Health Behavior and Community Health, David A. Moskowitz, who according to his academic webpage is an “active supporter of the Sex-Positive Movement.”

The “Sex-Positive Movement” is sexual immorality gussied up in euphemistic language to conceal its pagan/hedonistic ickiness. Wikipedia offers a good summary of the movement:

The sex-positive movement is a social and philosophical movement that seeks to change cultural attitudes and norms around sexuality, promoting the recognition of sexuality (in the countless forms of expression) as a natural and healthy part of the human experience. … Sex-positivity is “an attitude towards human sexuality that regards all consensual sexual activities as fundamentally healthy and pleasurable, encouraging sexual pleasure and experimentation.” The sex-positive movement also advocates for comprehensive sex education and safe sex as part of its campaign. The movement generally makes no moral distinctions among types of sexual activities, regarding these choices as matters of personal preference.

Bisexual Wiccan “Sexologist” Carol Queen describes “sex-positive” as a “simple yet radical affirmation that we each grow our own passions on a different medium, that instead of having two or three or even half a dozen sexual orientations, we should be thinking in terms of millions.”

And this is exactly why the term “sexual orientation” should never have been added to any antidiscrimination law or policy. All that “progressives” have to do now is add the millions of types of sexual orientations to the definition of “sexual orientation” and voilà, local, state, and federal law will force everyone to treat volitional sexual perversions like polyamory, sadomasochism, infantilism, and pony play like race, sex, and nation of origin.

Moskowitz studies sex a lot. He and three collaborators—two of whom don’t appear to be academics—received an NIH grant to subsidize a study titled “Physical, Behavioral, and Psychological Traits of Gay Men Identifying as Bears.” For those unfamiliar with all the terminology of sexually deviant subcultures, a “bear” is an overweight, hirsute, non-effeminate homosexual man. The “two large scale studies” resulted in these conclusions:

Our studies indicated that Bears were more likely to be hairier, heavier, and shorter than mainstream gay men. They reported wanting partners who were hairier and heavier. They were less likely to reject sexual partners and the partners they did reject were more likely to be young or weigh too little (i.e., were not bearish). Bears were more likely than mainstream gay men to enact diverse sexual behaviors (e.g., fisting, voyeurism) and were comparatively more masculine. Bears had lower self-esteem but were no less (or more) hypermasculine than non-Bears. We concluded that Bears are intensely sexual.

You paid for it, folks.

Moskowitz and four collaborators used taxpayer money via the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, which is also part of the NIH, to come up with ways to help adolescent boys between the ages of 13-18 who are having sex with other boys avoid contracting HIV. In the pseudo-scientific community these boys are referred to as “Adolescent Men who have sex with Men” (AMSM).

Moskowitz was the lead author on yet another survey that received funding from the NIH, this one titled, “What If My Dad Finds Out?!: Assessing Adolescent Men Who Have Sex with Men’s Perceptions About Parents as Barriers to PrEP Uptake.” PrEP is short for “pre-exposure prophylaxis,” and it refers to a daily oral pill that those who are HIV-negative can take to reduce the likelihood of contracting HIV when engaged in risky sexual behavior. The study surveyed 491 adolescent boys to ask how parental supportiveness for PrEP affects teen boys’ attitudes toward taking it.

One of Moskowitz’s co-authors on this survey was another homosexual, Brian Mustanski, Professor of Medical Social Sciences at Northwestern University and Director of Northwestern University’s Institute for Sexual and Gender Minority Health and Wellbeing. Mustanksi and five other academics wrote “Age- and Race/Ethnicity-Specific Sex Partner Correlates of Condomless Sex in an Online Sample of Hispanic/Latino, Black/African-American, and White Men Who Have Sex with Men,” in which they “sought to identify” the factors that correlate with the willingness of colorless and colorful men to have “condomless receptive anal intercourse with HIV-positive or unknown status partners .”

Yep, you paid for it through a CDC grant.

According to his academic profile, Mustanski,

has been a Principal Investigator of over $40 million in federal and foundation grants and. … is a frequent advisor to federal agencies and other organizations on LGBTQ health needs and research priorities.

A principal investigator of grants is “the primary individual responsible for the preparation, conduct, and administration of a research grant.” A principal investigator is “responsible for directing” projects “intellectually and logistically.” By his own admission, Mustanski—an academic from outside the government with no accountability to the public—has been responsible for directing millions of dollars of taxpayer money toward his goal of inculcating other people’s children with his sexual assumptions.

Mustanski, who is faux-married to a man, works like the devil to use the federal government to normalize homoeroticism within the adolescent population—particularly the young male population:

I really felt like a calling to dedicating my career to focusing on young gay men and HIV.

In the service of his “calling,” he has created myriad programs and materials dedicated to teenage boys who want to have sex with boys. For all those pernicious efforts, in 2017 “NBC News selected him from 1,600 nominees as one of 30 changemakers and innovators making a positive difference in the LGBTQ community.”

To be clear, “positive” is based on the unproven, faith-based, and erroneous belief that homoerotic desires and volitional acts are intrinsically moral acts and that affirming an identity based on them is a positive act.

Remember when homosexual activists claimed relentlessly that all they sought was tolerance in the public square? Well, here they are today, using your money to serve their body-, soul-, and culture-destroying interests. And this is just the teeny tip of the enormous sexual anarchy-affirming iceberg paid for by but hidden from you.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to President Trump, U.S. Senators Durbin and Duckworth, and your U.S. Representative, urging them to stop using tax-dollars to fund pseudo-scientific “research” related to sexual deviance.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Sex-Positive.mp3

Please consider making a donation to the Illinois Family Institute. 

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

As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

**WARNING — Graphic and Disturbing Content**

By now you’ve likely heard about Northwestern University professor, Dr. J. Michael Bailey’s invitation to “members of Chicago’s fetish community,” including an exhibitionist, to “educate” undergraduate students on the finer points of fetishism and sex toys.

With over one hundred students in attendance, the 25-year old female exhibitionist disrobed below her waist, thus enabling her 45-year-old fiance to insert into her a mechanical sex device and stimulate her to orgasm.

On WTTW’s Chicago Tonight, the exhibitionist, her fiance, and one of the lecturers from Weird Chicago Tours explained that when they arrived at Bailey’s class “a film was playing. It was a very graphic representation of a woman masturbating…. There was a woman’s vagina, probably ten feet tall on the screen. There was moaning. It would be porno, basically.” They shared that they had talked with Bailey about “doing a demonstration to show that the g-spot orgasm is actually real.”

One wonders how the United States flourished as a nation with so many young people having graduated from college without such an illuminating “education.”

Bailey’s chicanery likely won’t surprise Northwestern’s administration: apparently, Bailey’s been providing porn to students under the guise of “education” for years. Alice D. Dreger offers the following description of another sexcapade that Bailey offered his students, this time involving a male-to-female “transsexual” whose birth name was Chuck Kieltyka but who now goes by “Anjelica.”:

Kieltyka also arranged with Bailey opportunities to present to students in his Human Sexuality class herself, her history, and her understanding of transsexuality. She says her ”lectures were an opportunity to do ‘outreach’; to educate AND entertain” As in the case of other guest speakers, these presentations took place after the regular class session and were optional but heavily attended; between 1994 and 2003, a total of several thousand Northwestern University students saw Kieltyka’s annual appearances; In these presentations, held in a large auditorium to accommodate the class size, Kieltyka showed and explained a series of still images using overhead projection….Kieltyka also presented a short video compilation she had made….

No doubt to the surprise of Bailey’s students, that video compilation actually begins with a pornographic segment Kieltyka had made for herself pre-SRS. In it, as Donna Summer sings ”Love to Love You Baby” in the background, Chuck appears as a nude woman through use of prosthetics, including false breasts, a glued-on vulva (with his penis glued up inside his body), a female mask, and a platinum blonde wig.

The woman whom Chuck appears as masturbates through simulated finger-clitoral stimulation and through the use of a dildo attached to the floor; she straddles the dildo and thrusts up and down so that it looks as if the dildo is going in and out of her vagina. (It was actually going in and out of Chuck’s anus.) Kieltyka overlaid an audio clip from a porn video in this segment to provide the sound of a woman reaching orgasm. Immediately after this segment, the compilation cuts to a postop scene of Anjelica standing topless in a bikini bottom and moccasins, looking radiant and being dramatically bathed in a Rushing water fall. She brushes back her long dark hair with her hand and motions to two nearby women unknown to her to also take off their tops. They decline.

Bailey had this to say about his recent decision to allow a live sex show: “My decision to say ‘yes’ reflected my inability to come up with a legitimate reason why students should not be able to watch such a demonstration.” Any adult who is “unable” to come up with a legitimate reason not to host a live sex show for students is a moral ignoramus and unfit for teaching.

Bailey describes his students as “open-minded grown ups rather than fragile children.” Does Bailey seriously think that opposition to live sex shows in class grows out of the notion that college students are “fragile children”? Is he really that intellectually bankrupt? Or is this further evidence of his moral bankruptcy? Without making an explicit assertion, he is trying to divert attention from his corrupt and execrable decision by hinting that opposition derives from overprotective or puritanical impulses.

Most people believe “grown-ups” are distinguished from children in part by their maturity and wisdom. Bailey demonstrates the maturity and wisdom of an adolescent. Only someone lost in spiritual darkness, as Bailey clearly is, could defend this.

In his explanation as to why he proceeded with this controversial event, Bailey said he “was not in a mood to surrender to sex negativity and fear.” Apparently, he feels no obligation to provide evidence for his suggestion that opposition to public acts of perversion — in a classroom — is motivated by “sex negativity and fear.” A good argument could be made that it is “sex positivity” that drives opposition to live sex shows. Wisdom and respect for the sanctity of sexuality dictate that, among many things, sex acts are private acts.

Four questions pop into my fragile, fearful, sex-negative mind:

• What kind of perverse ideas did Bailey weave into classroom lectures and discussions?
• Does he bear any moral culpability for undermining the moral development of the young people whose parents paid thousands of dollars for a Northwestern education?
• Does he bear any moral culpability if this live sex show contributes in even a small way to a current or future porn addiction in one of his students?
• Is Bailey complicit in the exploitation, degradation,and objectification of the obviously troubled young woman who demonstrated this act in front of scores of strangers?

Bailey reports that “‘student feedback was uniformly positive.'” No surprise there. The burnished legacy of Alfred Kinsey and his cultural progeny, the sexual revolutionaries of the 60’s, burns bright at Northwestern University. The “Northwestern University independent student newspaper,”North by Northwestern, has included some articles that surely must warm the cockles of Bailey’s darkened heart. For example, there is the articlein the March 11 edition that offers suggestions for “eco-friendly fu**ing,” which include “showering together” and using natural lubricants.

And then there was the 2009 article that suggests students have sex to de-stress during finals week. The author of that article was kind enough to include a link to a porn website that provides diagrams of and instructions for a variety of sexual positions.

But that’s not all from one of our most esteemed academic institutions. There’s also SHAPE, which is, according to their website, a “student organization affiliated with Northwestern University Health Service that provides education, organizes events, and generates dialogue about sexual health and sexual assault. SHAPE’s mission is to increase students’ comfort surrounding sexuality, encouraging them to learn and adopt sexually healthy behaviors and to recognize and address unhealthy and dangerous behaviors and attitudes regarding sexuality.”

SHAPE members have contributed a sex column that appears in the North by Northwestern. In it, they have offered tips for having sex during menstruation; tips on how to make intercourse for virgins comfortable; explanations of bondage, discipline, sadism, and masochism; help for college-induced decreased libido; descriptions of orgasms; instructions on how to prolong ejaculation, whether to swallow semen, and how to make dorm rooms more conducive to sex.

An initial feckless statement from the vice president for University Relations (no pun intended), Alan Cubbage, appeared to defend Bailey:

Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines….The University supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge.

But perhaps wiser heads will prevail. On Thursday, Northwestern President Morton Schapiro issued this statement:

I have recently learned of the after-class activity associated with Prof. Michael Bailey’s Human Sexuality class, and I am troubled and disappointed by what occurred.

Although the incident took place in an after-class session that students were not required to attend and students were advised in advance, several times, of the explicit nature of the activity, I feel it represented extremely poor judgment on the part of our faculty member. I simply do not believe this was appropriate, necessary or in keeping with Northwestern University’s academic mission.

Northwestern faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial. That is the nature of a university. However, in this instance, I have directed that we investigate fully the specifics of this incident, and also clarify what constitutes appropriate pedagogy, both in this instance and in the future.

Many members of the Northwestern community are disturbed by what took place on our campus. So am I.

Our nation’s best and brightest deserve better. They deserve an academic experience worthy of Northwestern’s motto: Quaecumque Sunt Vera, which comes from the New Testament and means “Whatsoever things are true.” Paul wrote in Philippians 4:8: “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

Northwestern should recommit to their motto, and dump Bailey.