It’s Hoosier David versus rainbow-clad Goliath.

Indiana Governor Mike Pence recently signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in a small, humble ceremony—unlike the prideful, garish, gay ceremony that former Illinois Governor Pat Quinn staged for the signing of Illinois’ marriage-deconstruction law (invited 2,300 guests, used 110 pens, imported Abraham Lincoln’s desk from Springfield for the signing, and quoted from the Gettysburg Address.)

The contrast is marked. Pence has acted humbly in the service of truth. Quinn acted pridefully in the service of lies.

In the wake of Governor Pence’s courageous act, he and Indiana have been the recipients of blistering attacks, both verbal and fiscal.

As usual when blustery homosexual activism is involved, ironies abound. Marc Benioff, CEO of San Francisco-based company Salesforce has canceled “all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination” (while it continues its business dealings in China—the font and source of human rights protections).

Since the Indiana law is similar to the federal RFRA law sponsored in the U.S. House by New York Democrat Chuck Shumer, passed by the U.S. Senate 97-3, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, what, pray tell, is Benioff worried about? Does he worry that during a business trip, his customers or employees will suddenly decide to order a wedding cake to be transported back to San Francisco?

John McCormack, writing on the Weekly Standard blog clarifies what RFRA will actually protect:

RFRA allows a person’s free exercise of religion to be “substantially burdened” by a law only if the law furthers a “compelling governmental interest” in the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 

The law does not provide absolute, unfettered freedom to people of faith to do just anything they want. Nor are people of faith seeking absolute unfettered freedom to do just anything they want. This law reinforces First Amendment protections against the increasing encroachment of government impelled most often by homosexual activists.

RFRA laws would permit religious liberty to be limited only if there exists a compelling government interest in doing so and only if the burden on religious liberty is the least restrictive means of furthering that government interest. Court cases have gone both ways. Sometimes courts have decided in favor of religious liberty; sometimes they’ve ruled against it.

Indiana’s RFRA is carefully worded to protect the right of people of faith who are engaged in commerce to allow their business decisions to be informed by their faith. Christians understand what many homosexual activists and their ideological allies seem not to, which is that the totality of life should conform to biblical principles. The free exercise of religion is not limited to hearts, homes, and pews.

Governor Mike Pence has the U.S. Constitution on his side. He has court precedent on his side. He has the precedents set in 19 other states that have RFRA laws, including blue Illinois. But opposition to this law include marauding bands of hate-mongering homosexual activists, arrogant Hollywood lemmings, and feckless captains of industry.

Homosexual activists, fancying themselves the heir apparent to the great civil rights leaders, are in the vanguard of the assault on the Hoosier state.

Following close behind is Hollywood—widely known for arrogance, ignorance, immorality, vanity, and cool-crowd-following.

And then bringing up the rear with powerful reinforcements are business leaders—rarely noted for their deep thinking on matters moral, ethical, or philosophical.  With their pockets lined with lucre, they’re responding to the vitriol from homosexual activists with reflexive knee jerks that enhance their pride in their own pretense of moral courage. Does anyone believe these business leaders have thought deeply about the First Amendment, homosexuality, or marriage? One of the chief goals of business leaders is to make business decisions that increase profits, but no responsible business leader can divorce profit from principle—and by principle, I mean right principle.

What is astounding in this brouhaha is the deceit of the Left. Homosexual activists and their media sycophants continue to proclaim—without evidence—that, for example, Christians owners of wedding-related businesses are seeking to refuse to serve homosexuals. But refusing to use their gifts, labor, and time to produce a product or provide a service for a celebration that violates their religious beliefs does not constitute a refusal to serve homosexuals. In fact, the cases that have been in the press actually expose the Leftist lie, because the owners of the wedding-related businesses have, indeed, served homosexuals on multiple occasions prior to the wedding-related requests.

Religious-owners of businesses should be allowed to discriminate between types of events and products when making business-decisions regarding the provision of their goods and services. Experiencing homoerotic desire and affirming a homoerotic identity does not give men and women absolute dictatorial authority to command what kinds of events religious owners of businesses will serve or what types of products they will make. Homoerotic desire does not supersede religious liberty—or in a sane and moral universe, it would not.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims should be allowed to refuse to provide goods and services for bisexuals’, polygamists’, or polyamorists’ commitment ceremonies or in the near future, weddings (which could be construed as discrimination based on “sexual orientation.”)

Christians and Jews should be allowed to refuse to provide goods and services for pro-Hamas events (which could be construed as discrimination based on religion).

Christians should be allowed to refuse to provide goods and services for events sponsored by eugenics organizations like Planned Parenthood (which in the mad, mad, mad, mad world of feminism that sees a war on women everywhere could be construed as discrimination based on sex).

And Christians should be allowed to refuse to provide services for GLSEN events. Though dogmatic Leftist ideologues would likely construe such refusal as discrimination against homosexuals, it would, in reality, reflect the kind of business decision that Mark Benioff thinks he’s making. Refusing to provide goods and services for a GLSEN event would reflect a principled objection to the event—not the people hosting it.

Other organizations threatening to reconsider their involvement with Indiana include, Eli Lilly, Yelp, Angie’s List, the NCAA, and (irony of ironies) the Disciples of Christ denomination, which apparently supports religious discrimination.

Where do we witness courage? We are witnessing courage through the heroic actions of Mike Pence and every Hoosier who defends him and this law with unwavering steadfastness in the face of withering assaults. Another biblical allusion comes to mind. It appears the citizens of Sodom are clamoring at Lot’s door.

But we can do something.

Take ACTION:  Express with courage, boldness, and grace your support for Governor Mike Pence.

1.)  Call  his office and thank him for standing for religious liberty and freedom.   His office telephone number is (317) 232-4567.

2.)  Get on social media.  Click here to access his Facebook page.  Send this article out by Twitter, include these hashtags in your tweet:  #StandwithIndiana  and  #RFRA

3.)  Contact Eli Lilly; Yelp (415) 908-3801; Angie’s List; the NCAA at (877) 262-1492 ; and, if you’re a member, the Disciples of Christ.

4.)  Support Indiana businesses.

The Truth Project

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

CLICK HERE for Details

On September 15, 2014, the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (HFS) will close public comment period on a proposed policy that will increase the state’s Medicaid coverage of long-term birth control.

Despite a deepening state budget crisis, Governor Pat Quinn and his administration hope to not only double the amount Medicaid (i.e., you) pays for vasectomies and intrauterine devices, but pay healthcare providers in advance.

A vasectomy, which sterilizes a male, commonly costs between $350 and $1000. An IUD, which is inserted into a woman’s uterus to remain between five and ten years, costs between $500 and $1500.

HFS Director Julie Hamos (formerly a state representative and shortly after losing a bid for U.S. Congress in 2010, was appointed by Governor Quinn to HFS Director) told the Chicago Tribune she didn’t know how much the program would cost Illinois taxpayers. But, she emphasized, 90 percent of the state’s Medicaid cost is reimbursed by the federal government, as if it comes from somewhere other than our pockets.

Hamos claims a similar initiative in Colorado cut teen birthrates by 40 percent from 2009 through 2013, reduced abortions and saved the state $42.5 million in 2010.

Conveniently, Planned Parenthood worked with HFS and other groups on the proposal and has expanded its services to include performing non-surgical vasectomies on men and inserting IUDs into women of childbearing age.

Other than Planned Parenthood, not everyone is so upbeat about the program HFS expects to begin October 1st.

The Catholic healthcare system opposes the HFS proposed rules that will require Catholic healthcare providers to refer patients looking for vasectomies and IUDs to facilities like Planned Parenthood.

To do so would go against their religious beliefs.

And that some find ironic. The recent U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision protecting employers with religious convictions from providing birth control and abortifacients is the reason the Quinn Administration moved to increase Medicaid payments for long-term birth control.

HFS Director Hamos told the Tribune her department “proposed the changes in part to address the recent Supreme Court decision that allowed some companies to exclude contraceptives from their employees’ insurance coverage on religious grounds.”

The Hobby Lobby decision, she said, was of “extreme concern” for Governor Quinn and state health officials.

Controversies surround IUDs and vasectomies

IUDs are controversial in how they work. Mirena, an IUD manufactured by Bayer Pharmaceuticals, is coated with time-released spermicide that inhibits sperm survival. However, if healthy sperm does unite with a fertile egg, the IUD-released hormones, which thin the uterine wall, typically prevent egg implantation necessary to sustain new life.

However, if the new life is able to implant within the uterine wall, doctors recommend the baby be aborted immediately. Otherwise, the uterus may become septic, endangering the mother’s life.

Still, the IUD has increased in popularity over the last decade as an effective birth control method.

However, since the Federal Drug Administration approved the Micena IUD for birth control in 2000, more than 100,000 complaints have been reported.

Women report the device dislocating, including one that moved to the woman’s rib cage and another that damaged the woman’s liver.

Others complain about the IUD causing abdominal pain, while others suffered perforated uteruses.

There are currently more than 2,000 product liability lawsuits involving Mirena birth control filed against Bayer throughout the United States.

And there are questions as to whether vasectomies lead to a higher risk of prostate cancer as men grow older.

A 1995 study concluded that a comparison between normal and vasectomized Chinese males “indirectly support[ed] the hypothesis that there is an elevated risk of prostate cancer among men who underwent vasectomies 20 years or more earlier.”

Other researchers claim there is no verifiable connection between vasectomies and higher prostate cancer risks, and doctors no longer warn male patients of the possible risk.

Planned Parenthood promotes birth control, sexual experimentation

Even though Illinois’ new Medicaid payment plan would double for vasectomies for men, Planned Parenthood gains public sympathy and taxpayer dollars by keeping the focus on lower income women’s birth control costs. And it’s no coincidence that Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider.

Planned Parenthood spokesperson Brigid Leahy told Champaign WCIA News recently the new HCF payment proposal was a good thing because, “Women who are lower income do face higher rates of unintended pregnancies because they cannot access the services they need in order to prevent pregnancies.”

While Planned Parenthood claims it is trying to prevent pregnancies, last spring they successfully pushed through the Illinois General Assembly a sex education program that emphasizes condom use while de-emphasizing abstinence.

“How do you sell an abortion? In the U.S. it’s very simple: You do it through sex education,” states Carol Everett, former abortion clinic director. Everett ran four abortion clinics in Texas from 1977-1983, where an estimated 35,000 unborn children were aborted before her dramatic conversion and departure from the industry.

Illinois Family Institute’s executive director David E. Smith says Illinois’ expanded sex education curriculum feeds into the HRS’ proposal doubling Medicaid payment for long-term birth control.

“While the state of Illinois is dead broke,  more money is being allocated toward birth control,” Smith said. “All the while, lawmakers just mandated the teaching of ‘comprehensive’ sex education – encouraging risky sexual experimentation — the very activity that causes unplanned pregnancies.”

Do you see the connection?

Public comments on the new Medicaid payment proposal will be taken by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services until September 15.  So please take action today!

Take ACTION:  Please click HERE to send an email or a fax to Jeanette Badrov, General Counsel of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services to ask policy makers to stop spending our hard earned tax dollars — federal or state — on birth-control programs that only encourage irresponsible sexual activity.  Taxpayers, especially those with deeply held religious convictions, have no obligation to pay for non-essential medical procedures and/or products that support another person’s risky sexual activities.

Written by Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

Marriage is very important to me. Personally, it is a covenant that I made with my wife of over 35 years. It is a sacred trust between the two of us but it is more than that. Marriage plays a significant part in the health of our society and the future of our children. This is why I have fought so hard to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

In November, Illinois became the sixteenth state (including the District of Columbia) to change its definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships. You probably didn’t hear too much about the fight in Illinois, which dragged on for several months longer than homosexual “marriage” activists had intended. Why did it take so long for an overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature to approve what homosexual activists promise us is an inevitable part of our future?

The answer is that, for quite a while, the efforts of key black clergy members preserved the traditional definition of marriage in Illinois. Their courageous stand—which included placing relentless pressure on black Democratic legislators—had the opposition gnashing its teeth in frustration. The Chicago Sun-Times reported on their activity in May, noting, “stubborn resistance within the House Black Caucus, a 20-member bloc of African-American lawmakers who have faced a withering lobbying blitz against the plan [to redefine marriage] from black ministers, has helped keep Harris’ legislation [to redefine marriage] in check, with several House members still undecided.”

In the end, however, the well-funded and aggressive campaign to redefine marriage succeeded. It is worth noting that the margin in the House was razor thin. The measure would not have passed without the three Republicans who supported it: Representatives Tom Cross, Ed Sullivan, and Ron Sandack.

As the Associated Press explained, after the bill failed in May, “Proponents then launched another aggressive campaign with help from labor, the former head of the Illinois Republican Party and the ACLU… [Illinois Governor] Quinn and House Speaker Michael Madigan also persuade[d] lawmakers in the final days.” Shortly after Illinois’ decision, New Mexico’s State Supreme Court ruled homosexual “marriage” a constitutional right.

Homosexual activists have been hailing these victories as an unstoppable tide of change sweeping the nation. They rarely mention the fact that 31 states have already passed amendments to their state constitutions clarifying that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Even with the Supreme Court striking down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in June, the tide may in fact be turning.

From now on, advocates for homosexual “marriage” face a very different landscape. Only one of the remaining states (which have not redefined marriage) has a Democrat-controlled state legislature. That state is West Virginia, where recent polls suggest that less than 20 percent of the population supports redefining marriage to include homosexual couples.

Thus far, homosexual activists have relied on bullying and on two major deceptions. The first is that all they want out of the redefinition of marriage is rights for loving, committed couples. The second is that homosexual marriage is so incredibly popular that its universal acceptance is inevitable. To be on the “right side of history,” we are told we must get on board now.

The first lie is being exposed before our eyes. Illinois had already legalized civil unions. But as a brief “Civil Unions are not Enough: Six Key Reasons Why” from Lambda Legal explains, “Regardless of whether civil unions and marriage offer the same benefits and obligations on paper, when the government relegates same-sex couples to civil unions rather than marriage…those couples lose the respect and dignity that they deserve for their commitment…” What homosexual activists want, and have always wanted, is mandatory public approval of their lifestyle.

The widespread support for traditional marriage in the black community has been very difficult for radical homosexual activists to understand. After all, if we are to believe their narrative, blacks should be nothing but grateful for all our gains in civil liberties since slavery. They believe that our own experience with oppression should impel us to go along with whatever homosexual activists tell us to believe.

But those who feel this way completely misunderstand what the Civil Rights Movement was all about. It was not about radically restructuring society. We appealed to the rights given to us by our Creator, who created not only mankind, but placed us in families. The family was the one institution that held the black community together through slavery and segregation. And it is the black community that has suffered most acutely as marriage has been devalued and the family has begun to fall apart.

Homosexual activists would have us believe that the fight is nearly over and that their victory is inevitable. Yet barring action from United States Supreme Court, it seems most likely that the real fight is only beginning. The battle will be waged state by state, and it will test the patience and perseverance of all. Several of the black Democrats in Illinois who voted to redefine marriage are facing primary challengers, as are all three Republicans. Will they face consequences for their decisions? Only time will tell.

This article was originally posted at the Townhall.com blog.

Politicians and pundits are making mincemeat of marriage, faith, and religious liberty.

Rumors are circulating that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) and homosexual activist, State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago) may call for a vote on the marriage redefinition bill (SB 10) next week. Because their ideological accomplices in the political and punditry spheres are promoting this effort with fervor and tenacity, it’s essential that Illinoisans understand the specious nature of the arguments that animate them. The Chicago Tribune once again provides a cornucopia of lousy — that is to say, false and destructive — ideas about marriage, ideas which, unfortunately, extend beyond the narrow boundaries of the Tribune and the narrow minds of newly installed Chicago Alderman Deb Mell, Tribune columnist Eric Zorn, and Governor Pat Quinn.

Lesbian activist Deb Mell’s recent Tribune commentary isn’t actually a rational argument for the redefinition of marriage. Rather, it’s an extended piece of demagoguery that embodies and conceals a troubling set of assumptions and an absurd conclusion. And it’s the only thing Mell’s got, so she repeats it ad nauseum.

To summarize her “argument”: She and her partner have been together for nine years, they own a home together, they do household chores together, they are raising a child together, they assume extended familial roles together, they attend a church that rejects orthodoxy together, they care for one another during illness, and they manage their finances together. Therefore, marriage has no inherent connection to sexual complementarity.

Yes, folks, that’s what passes for an argument in the alternate universe called “progressivism.” No attempt to define marriage. No attempt to justify why marriage is restricted to two people. No attempt to explain why platonic friends, siblings, or polyamorists — all of whom can do all the things listed above — should not have their unions legally recognized as marriages. No attempt to justify the deliberate denial of children’s inherent right to be raised by both a mother and father, preferably their own biological mother and father. No attempt to explain what the government interest is in inherently non-reproductive types of relationships.

While Mell replaces sound logic with appeals to emotion, Eric Zorn replaces it with ad hominem arguments and condescending dismissals, starting with calling business owners who make distinctions between right and wrong actions “intolerant.” To business owners like the Christian photographers who have been fined $6,637 for declining to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony, Zorn offers these tolerant and compassionate responses: “Tough,” “Please,” “Yawn,” and “Then don’t open a business.”

Zorn believes that anyone who makes moral judgments with which he disagrees is intolerant. One wonders, would Zorn similarly malign a photographer who refused to photograph a commitment ceremony between a father and his 30 year-old consenting daughter? And let’s complicate the question by hypothesizing this refusal comes during a time when laws prohibiting incestuous acts between consenting adults have been repealed. After all, the government has no business in our bedrooms.

Out of either ignorance or dishonesty, Zorn fails to address the fact that the photographers did not decline to photograph homosexuals. They declined to photograph a homosexual ceremony. They were not discriminating against people. They were making legitimate ethical distinctions among types of activities—an inconvenient truth for “progressives.”

Zorn seems to believe that the ultimate arbiter of all matters moral is THE LAW. Yes, laws like the Illinois Human Rights Act, which was created by Left-leaning Illinois politicians in cahoots with homosexual activists, are the ultimate arbiters of moral truth. Regarding religious liberty, Zorn says:

“You want to open a business that serves the public? Then you can’t practice discrimination on the basis of…religion…sexual orientation and so on….The law [the IL Human Rights Act] doesn’t care what you think about customers in these protected categories.”

Zorn doesn’t seem to see his inconsistent application of both a principle and a law. He uses the law that prohibits discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and religion to compel business owners to engage in an activity that violates their religious beliefs.

Further, “sexual orientation” is merely a dishonest term concocted to disguise the fact that a condition constituted by subjective sexual desires and volitional sexual acts has no similarity to other protected categories. Zorn with unequivocal eagerness subordinates religious liberty to the newly minted sexual “rights” of homosexuals. Methinks there’s some rollicking grave-rolling roiling the cemeteries of our Founding Fathers.

Zorn harrumphs that the religious protections in the proposed marriage revision bill that protect the right of churches to refuse to solemnize homosexual “weddings” are all the protections conservative people of faith deserve. This exposes Zorn’s ignorance of what it means to be a Christian and what the First Amendment was intended to protect. The totality of the life of a Christian is informed by his or her faith. There is no distinction between the sacred and the secular spheres for true followers of Christ, a point Martin Luther King Jr. eloquently expressed in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”

Governor Quinn, who claims to be a Roman Catholic, reveals, like Zorn, a troubling measure of theological ignorance. Quinn defends his defiance of the teachings of the Catholic Church on marriage by stating that he is acting in accordance with his “conscience.” Zorn and Quinn share a strange and stunted view of faith, doctrine, and religious liberty. Zorn wants to keep religion out of the public square. Quinn wants to keep it out of the public square and his conscience.

IFI is extending an urgent plea to our readers to take a few moments to express your opposition to SB 10, the bill that will permit the government to recognize non-marital unions as marriages, will harm children, and will further undermine religious liberty. It’s not just homosexual activists in Illinois who are watching this vote. Homosexual activists and their ideological allies throughout the country are watching Illinois. So too are conservatives in other states in which marriage is now or soon will be under attack. Defeat of this bill will offer hope to them.

Take ACTION: Send an email or a fax to your state representative.  Encourage your him/her to uphold marriage, family and religious freedom in Illinois by voting against SB 10.  Then take a moment to call the Capitol switchboard at (217) 782-2000 and ask your state representative to vote NO to SB 10.

 Please help your Illinois Family Institute remain strong in this fight.  
Please, click HERE to contribute what you can today.

Thank you.

Today, May 30, 2012, the homosexual activist organization Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Illinois have filed two lawsuits against the clerk of Cook County, charging that his office’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to 25 homosexual couples violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Illinois Constitution.

The fact that Illinois’ civil union law grants homosexual couples all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage means next to nothing to homosexual activists. As IFI and many others warned, civil union legislation was merely a stepping stone to legalized same-sex marriage.  “It’s now painfully obvious that the purpose for securing civil unions legislation last year was to gain legal leverage in the attempt to overturn the Illinois law that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” said IFI’s executive director, David E. Smith.

It is not the legal benefits and responsibilities that homosexual activists most ardently desire. Rather, they seek the symbolic victory that legalized same-sex marriage represents. Homosexual activists want to eradicate any formal public recognition that homosexual relationships are different from heterosexual unions.

The Illinois Family Institute’s cultural analyst Laurie Higgins states that “Homosexual activists and their ideological allies will exploit any means to achieve their goal of eradicating moral disapproval of homosexuality, including censorship, propaganda, demagoguery, slander, and judicial activism.”

The means they are now using in Illinois are those they used to legalize same-sex marriage in Iowa. Homosexual activists have announced they are bypassing the will of the people as reflected in their elected representatives. According to the Chicago Tribune’s cheerleader for the homosexuality-affirming movement, Rex Huppke, “[John] Knight, the ACLU attorney, said that he is confident same-sex marriage rights can be won through the state’s judicial system and that there is no reason to wait for lawmakers to act.”

Governor Pat Quinn (D) and Cook County Clerk David Orr (D) have both stated publicly that they believe same-sex marriage should be legalized.  While apparently believing that the criterion of numbers of partners is essential, they believe that sexual complementarity is irrelevant to marriage.

Let’s hope and pray our judges are wiser.

Gambling revenue promises are rarely met. Gambling interests are pushing for a vote on a massive expansion bill during the final days of the legislative session. SB 1849 legalizes 11 more casinos, including a city-owned casino in Chicago and six racetrack casinos.

During the past 21 years, legislators have legalized riverboat gambling, off-track betting, dockside gambling, advanced deposit wagering, Internet lottery and video gambling. With all that gambling revenue coming in, why does the state have such a large backlog of unpaid bills?

There would be little concern about how much gambling we have in Illinois if it were not for the social problems and costs that gambling creates. Casinos do not just shift crime from neighboring regions, but create crime, according to a study by Professors Earl Grinols and David Mustard. For every $1 of revenue gambling that interests indicate is being contributed in taxes, it costs taxpayers $3 or more in social welfare, criminal justice and regulatory costs. The average cost to society per pathological gambler per year is $13,586.

One purpose of the bill is to keep and attract Illinois residents to gamble. The presence of a gambling facility within 50 miles roughly doubles the prevalence of problem and pathological gambling, according to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. The rate of pathological gambling is significantly higher among minorities and low income individuals.

Gov. Pat Quinn, who has continually opposed slot machines at racetracks, has said the state cannot gamble its way to prosperity. Call your legislators at (217) 782-2000 and the governor at (800) 642-3112 and ask them to Vote “no” on SB 1849.

NARAL Pro-Choice America, an infamous pro-abortion organization, is described by Fortune Magazine as “one of the top 10 advocacy groups in America.” NARAL Pro-Abortion America recently published its annual Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States report. According to this vehemently anti-life group, the United States received a “D” grade for so-called “reproductive rights.” 

The report not only graded the nation but also graded states individually. The report card uses a point system based on an assessment of governors, laws, access to contraceptives, access to abortions, spousal and parental consent, “post viability abortion restrictions” on abortions, state constitutional guarantees of abortion, “contraceptive equity” (a euphemism for state-subsidized contraceptives), and the codification of Roe v. Wade in state law. 

The “D” given to our nation means that our federal laws tend to lean pro-life. Those of us who believe that life is sacred from conception to natural death look forward to the day that NARAL assigns the United States an “F.” 

The report explains that both state restrictions and federal “anti-choice” laws determine the nationwide grade. These laws include the Federal Abortion Ban, signed into law in 2003 by President George W. Bush; the Federal Refusal Clause of the 2004 Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, which protects health care practitioners who oppose abortion; and abortion restrictions for U.S. military women. 

This relatively good news, however, does not extend to the Land of Lincoln. In fact, NARAL lauds Illinois’ state constitution for providing “greater protection for a woman’s right to choose than the U.S. Constitution.” (The U.S. Constitution neither explicitly nor implicitly guarantees the “right” to abort an unborn baby.) 

Additionally, NARAL lists our state’s top executive, Pat Quinn, as “pro-choice,” the Illinois Senate and Illinois House are listed as “mixed-choice,” however; the Illinois General Assembly is led by abortion supporters Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) and Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago). 

NARAL enumerates several anti-life laws in Illinois, which include requiring health-insurance plans that cover prescription medication to provide the same coverage for contraception, requiring pharmacies to dispense birth control, and providing access to “family planning” to low-income women through Medicaid. The report also highlights the long-litigated case to enforce Illinois’ 1995 Parental Notification Act, which remains in legal limbo and unenforced. 

The NARAL report underscores the unacceptable reality that Illinois’ laws and far too many lawmakers favor abortion. After the tabulation of points, NARAL ranks Illinois as the 17th most anti-life state in the nation — with Louisiana ranking 50th and California placing 1st in this dubious competition. NARAL also gave the state of Washington an “A+,” while Maine, Oregon, Maryland, Hawaii, and Connecticut received an “A.” States that received an “A-” are Alaska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Montana and Vermont.

The states that received a failing grade from NARAL, thus being the safest for the unborn, are Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

Homosexual activists emboldened by Illinois’ civil union law are attempting to force Christian agencies that receive state funds to license foster families either to place children with homosexuals or lose state funding, which would jeopardize the placements of thousands of children.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Gov. Pat Quinn and the Department of Children and Family Services are investigating these Christian foster care agencies for discrimination because of their religiously based decisions not to place children in the homes of homosexual partners.

If homosexuals were centrally concerned for the welfare of children, they would leave religious agencies to act according to the dictates of their faith traditions. But as usual the ignoble desire of homosexuals to compel the entirety of society to affirm their attractions, volitional acts, and moral and political beliefs takes precedence over all else. It supersedes the rights of parents, speech rights, religious liberty, and even the welfare of children. It’s astonishing to witness such monumental narcissism and selfishness in the service of normalizing perversion. Of course, the real motivations are speciously papered over with “civil rights” rhetoric to deceive the gullible.

They justify this effort by claiming that the refusal to place children in homes of homosexuals violates laws that prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” This points to the disastrous cultural consequences that will continue to accrue because homosexual activists and their ideological allies were allowed to add the term “sexual orientation” to anti-discrimination laws and policies. Of course, they were aided by the ignorance, cowardice, and silence of conservatives who failed to fight vigorously against such a feckless inclusion. 

Individuals and organizations have a moral right to discriminate among volitional behaviors. That is to say, they have an inalienable right to make judgments about what constitutes moral behavior. Homosexuality is not equivalent to race, and disapproval of homosexuality is not equivalent to racism. Homosexuality is a condition centrally defined by subjective feelings and volitional acts, and as such, should never be included in policy or law with conditions that are objective and non-behavioral.

What are the essential criteria for evaluating the suitability of families seeking to foster or adopt children? They must have the financial means to support them and be able to provide a clean, nurturing environment. If it is a couple, they must demonstrate that they have a stable, committed relationship. But is that all? If so, then we as a society should cheerfully turn over suffering children to the care of loving, committed, stable incestuous couples who are able to provide a safe, nurturing environment.

And we should cheerfully and comfortably relinquish suffering children to the care of loving, stable, committed polyamorous families who are able to provide a safe, nurturing, environment.

And what about lesbian sisters who demonstrate similar relational qualities and can provide the same material security that a heterosexual married couple demonstrates and provides?

Love, commitment, stability, safety, and support are, indeed, essential factors when evaluating the appropriateness of a family seeking to foster or adopt, but so too is the moral nature of the relationship of the family. Those who recoil at the idea of incestuous couples or polyamorous partners fostering or adopting do so out of the same kind of moral evaluation of the nature of incest and polyamory as others do out of a moral evaluation of homosexuality. Those who would prohibit loving, stable incestuous couples or polyamorous partners from fostering or adopting do so for the same kind of reason that those who would prohibit loving homosexual couples from fostering or adopting do: a belief that these kinds of relationships are morally flawed.

Some argue that the belief that homosexual conduct is morally flawed is a prejudice and cannot be imposed on all of society. But then one could reasonably argue that the belief that adult consensual incest and polyamory are immoral is an ignorant, antiquated, provincial, bigoted, hateful prejudice that ought not to be imposed on all of society.

One could also make an effective case that gender complementarity occupies such a central place in both marriage and parenting that incestuous and polyamorous partnerships are in some ways more defensible than homosexual couplings.

Moreover, incestuous couples could make the case that their desire to adopt reveals their sense of responsibility in that procreation could result in serious birth defects. Shouldn’t loving incestuous couples be allowed to have children? Is it fair to allow society’s prejudice to prevent them from this basic right?

And what about all the hard to place children waiting for loving homes? Doesn’t opposition to adoption or fostering by incestuous or polyamorous partners (to borrow the fatuous words from Chicago Tribune columnist Stephen Chapman), “mainly serve to harm children in dire need of stable, loving families”?

The Tribune points out that there are 57 other private agencies with “non-restictive” policies to which homosexual couples can apply for fostering licenses, but according to ACLU attorney Benjamin Wolf, “‘We don’t know for sure if a loving lesbian or gay family turned away from a discriminatory agency is necessarily going to go to another agency because of the disruption and harm caused to them.'” Perhaps those homosexual couples who are that emotionally fragile are not constitutionally suited for the arduous task of fostering.

Wolf also said that “limiting the pool of prospective foster care parents because certain religious traditions believe same-sex relationships are sinful is irresponsible when children are in need.” Homosexuals constitute between 2-4 percent of the population; the number of those who are in stable relationships is smaller; and the number of homosexuals in stable relationships who want to foster is smaller still. By allowing a few Christian agencies to prohibit homosexuals from fostering–homosexuals who may foster through other agencies–will result in a negligible impact on the pool of foster care parents.

Compare that to the impact on the pool of prospective foster care parents that will result when all theologically orthodox Christian agencies are forced to cease operations. Who’s really being “irresponsible”?

If we measure harm only in concrete, measurable ways — dirty house, lack of food, untended infections, emotional detachment — then we ill-serve the children we purport to care so deeply about. When organizations make decisions regarding the placement of children in families, it is not only appropriate but critical that they take into account the moral nature of the relationships of the potential caretakers.

NARAL Pro-Choice America, an infamous pro-abortion organization, is described by Fortune Magazine as “one of the top 10 advocacy groups in America.” NARAL Pro-Abortion America recently published its annual Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States report. According to this vehemently anti-life group, the United States received a “D” grade for so-called “reproductive rights.”

The report not only graded the nation but also graded states individually. The report card uses a point system based on a n assessment of governors, laws, access to contraceptives, access to abortions, spousal and parental consent, “post viability abortion restrictions” on abortions, state constitutional guarantees of abortion, “contraceptive equity” (a euphemism for state-subsidized contraceptives), and the codification of Roe v. Wadein state law.

The “D” given to our nation means that our federal laws tend to lean pro-life. Those of us who believe that life is sacred from conception to natural death look forward to the day that NARAL assigns the United States an “F.”

The report explains that both state restrictions and federal “anti-choice” laws determine the nationwide grade. These laws include the Federal Abortion Ban, signed into law in 2003 by President George W. Bush; the Federal Refusal Clause of the 2004 Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, which protects health care practitioners who oppose abortion; and abortion restrictions for U.S. military women.

This relatively good news, however, does not extend to the Land of Lincoln. In fact, NARAL lauds Illinois’ state constitution for providing “greater protection for a woman’s right to choose than the U.S. Constitution.” (The U.S. Constitution neither explicitly nor implicitly guarantees the “right” to abort an unborn baby.)

Additionally, NARAL lists our state’s top executive, Pat Quinn (D), as “pro-choice,” the Illinois Senate and Illinois House are listed as “mixed-choice,” however; the Illinois General Assembly is led by abortion supporters Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) and Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago).

NARAL enumerates several anti-life laws in Illinois, which include requiring health-insurance plans that cover prescription medication to provide the same coverage for contraception, requiring pharmacies to dispense birth control, and providing access to “family planning” to low-income women through Medicaid. The report also highlights the long-litigated case to enforce Illinois’ 1995 Parental Notification Act, which remains in legal limbo and unenforced.

The NARAL report underscores the unacceptable reality that Illinois’ laws and far too many lawmakers favor abortion. After the tabulation of points, NARAL ranks Illinois as the 19th most anti-life state in the nation — with North Dakota ranking 50th and California placing 1st in this dubious competition. NARAL also gave the state of Washington an “A+,” while Maine, Oregon, Maryland, and Connecticut received an “A.” States that received an “A-” are Alaska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Vermont.

The states that received a failing grade from NARAL, thus being the safest for the unborn, are Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia.