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.

Psalm 139:13-16: For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.

‘Some people say that life begins at birth. Others say that it begins at conception. But my God is so pro-life that He said “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb.”‘ – Pastor Luke J. Robinson

January 22, 1973 brought a sinister welcome to abortion on demand in America. The Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade was a wake up call for the church. Demonstrations and organizations sprung up like the spring grass. But, in the 37 years that have passed, it seems many don’t bother themselves with the disturbing fact that children are being murdered in our backyards. Protests take time. Volunteering to pray in front of abortion mills is embarrassing. Life Chain Sunday usually interferes with a good football game. And it is just too cold to march in January on the anniversary of the Roe decision.

To me, the apathy is appalling. Human life is precious. Most Christians say they are “pro-life,” but what are they doing to stand against the tide? Can we not see the impact of the proverbial “slippery slope” on our culture? How can we forget the demise of the children? Why do so many pastors ignore preaching on this issue? Who will defend the weak?

If we continue to ignore what is happening, there may come a day when doctors evaluate the value of live births. They may come up with a quantitative way to assess whether or not a child is worthy to live:

-A child’s home life (HL)
-Potential contribution to society (CS)
-Physical natural endowment and physical condition at birth (NE)

They may combine these factors into some bizarre mathematical equation and come up with a Quality of Life Index (QL). If a child scores above this mark, they may then be deemed worthy to live. Fall below that mark, and they will be left to die.

Science fiction? Think again. Such a formula [(HL + CS) * NE = QL] was used by Children’s Hospital of Oklahoma, in Oklahoma City from 1977 to 1982 to evaluate children born with Spina Bifida. During this period, 24 children were determined to be better off dead. And they were left to die.

This story is important to me. You see, my wife, Stacy, was born with Spina Bifida in the 60’s, the day after her birth mother, Ginger, turned sixteen. Ginger, was one of eight children-the oldest in the household. No doubt being brought up in a home full of little ones helped develop in this young mother an understanding and appreciation for the life growing within her womb-because when faced with a crisis pregnancy, what she chose for Stacy was life. Granted, the choice was made a little easier by the fact that it was still illegal to murder a child in the womb. But even in that day there were ways to “terminate a pregnancy,” code word for killing a child. But, Ginger chose life for the baby she carried!

Ginger was allowed to hold and rock Stacy during brief visits to the hospital during her infancy. My wife was even baptized in her birth mother’s christening gown. Sadly, because Stacy was so young, she has no recollection of these short meetings.

Stacy was placed into the family of her adoptive parents when she was two years old. By God’s grace, this young couple chose to take on a child who was past infancy, loaded with hefty medical bills, and facing future difficult surgeries. Yet, despite all that, they brought Stacy home and called her their own. Years later, when God captured the heart of my wife, He revealed to her the providential Hand that had protected and guided her throughout her life.

Soon after her twenty-first birthday, after a series of incredible events, Stacy was introduced to her birth grandparents and all of her birth mother’s siblings, nieces, nephews, aunts, and uncles. She even had the opportunity to know her great-grandmother. Stacy was not able to meet her birth-mother. Ironically, Ginger was twenty-one years old when she died in a tragic automobile accident – the same age Stacy was when she was reunited with her birth-family.

Since that time, not only has Stacy grown to appreciate her adoptive parents in new ways, she has also grown close to her birth family-especially her grandparents. When asked about her thoughts on God’s providential hand in her life, she says this:

“I stand amazed and humbled that God spared my life; and, by His grace, He gave me the chance to raise ten beautiful children for His glory.”

When I gaze upon our children, I marvel at the way God weaved His thread of Providence throughout the intricate fabric of Stacy’s life. And yes, I am thankful for the precious gift of that life-a gift that is continuing into future generations.

This gift of life, given by God, is stolen from so many. In our human deception, we are too often convinced by the Enemy that some precious souls are not fit to live. Some children are conceived during an “inconvenient” time of life; and, since the child is often not even considered human yet, murder is treated as a form of “birth control.” Other times, we are persuaded to believe that the life of the mother is more important than the life of the child, and a precious life is snuffed out. Other times, even live babies outside the womb-at least partially outside-are not safe, and children are butchered as they are being delivered.

May we continue to fight for the sanctity of all life. May we view it in the pre-born, the handicapped, the elderly, the helpless, and the infirmed as a gift from the Lord. It is the God-breathed spirit of our Heavenly Father (Genesis 2:7) that gives quality to life. Such worth is not determined by a doctor or by the state. And it cannot be stolen from them without consequence – for their blood cries out to God (Genesis 4:10).

This Sunday marks the annual Life Chain, a silent protest against the practice of abortion on demand. It only takes an hour of your time to stand, side by side, with others in prayer against this national holocaust. Are you willing to make this investment for life?

Those who will do anything possible to quash dissent regarding the issue of abortion were foiled once again on Wednesday, August 18, 2010. The case against David Avignone, an MBA student at Chicago’s Loyola University, was dropped by the City of Chicago. Avignone was originally charged with disorderly conduct due to his alleged violation of a controversial ordinance referred to as a “Bubble Zone”. The ordinance applies outside local abortion clinics to prohibit approaching within eight feet of a person to present a leaflet, sign or oral message to that person. Avignone was arrested while praying the rosary in front of a near north side Planned Parenthood abortion mill.

“We are pleased that for the second time, the City of Chicago has dismissed the false charges of disorderly conduct against a man who was properly and legally exercising his First Amendment rights on the public way,” said Peter Breen, in a statement issued by the Chicago-based Thomas More Society. Breen is the organization’s Executive Director and legal counsel.

“We hope these two baseless cases involving alleged ‘Bubble Zone’ ‘infractions’ show the Chicago City Council why it should repeal this controversial ordinance altogether and cease efforts to scare pro-life people away from Planned Parenthood,” continued Breen who defended Avignone in the case.

The Thomas More Society won an historic Supreme Court decision where abortion facilities attempted to restrict any kind of sidewalk counseling, demonstrations or expressions of First Amendment free speech near facilities which provide abortion services. In the case of NOW v. Scheidler, the nation’s highest court ruled that the Pro-Life Action, headed by Joe Scheidler, was not in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The Thomas More Society’s victory cleared the way for sidewalk counseling and protests in front of abortion clinics. However, many believe the City of Chicago with its “Bubble Zone” ordinance is attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court decision in the Scheidler case.

The case against Avignone is the third “Bubble Zone” case, all of which have been dismissed. The decision by the City of Chicago not to pursue the case against Avignone and two others who were previously charged with violating the “Bubble Zone” ordinance was a good one in the opinion of most experts in constitutional law.

The Gallup released the results of a new survey confirming, for the third time in the last year, that more Americans call themselves pro-life than “pro-choice” on abortion. That’s enough for the respected polling firm to say a pro-life majority is the “new normal” in the United States.

According to a May 3-6 Gallup poll, 47 percent of Americans say they are pro-life on abortion versus 45 percent who say they are “pro-choice,” supporting legal abortions.

This is nearly identical to the 47% to 46% division Gallup found last July, which was down from the 51-42 percent split favoring the pro-life position last May.

Because this is the third consecutive time Gallup has found more Americans taking the pro-life position, the polling firm calls the results “a real change in public opinion.”

Looking at the Gallup polling data dating back to 1995, the pro-life movement has been successful in changing public opinion on abortion — as Gallup found a 56-33 percent pro-abortion split in 1995. That 23 percent pro-abortion majority has shifted 25 percent towards the pro-life position to the pro-life majority the movement against abortion enjoys today.

Massachusetts Citizens for Life president Anne Fox credits that shift to the pro-life movement’s focus on legislation such as a partial-birth abortion ban that highlights how abortion kills unborn children.

“The battles we have had to fight at the legislative level, Partial Birth Abortion Ban and Obamacare among them, and at the political level (which provides our only chance to get abortion into the media) are the cause of these positive moves in public opinion,” she said.

“You and I are working to educate people about the value of every human life and we are succeeding,” she added.

The new Gallup poll presents other good news for the pro-life movement.

“All age groups have become more attached to the pro-life label since 2005, with particularly large increases among young adults and those aged 50 to 64 years,” the poll noted.

Meanwhile, men and women have also become more likely to identify as pro-life, with the increase among women coming mainly since 2008, whereas the increase in men started after 2006.

Conservative writer Ed Morrissey notes that the Gallup poll found 18 percent more Americans say abortion is morally wrong than say it is morally right.

He suggests the pro-life number is moving up because people are internalizing that through people they know who have experienced the pain of an abortion and are taking that message to heart.

“We are looking at a cultural shift on abortion, where its perceived morality (consistently rejected by majorities over the same period of time) has finally come into closer relationship with personal identification on the issue,” he said. “It’s not the political divide that’s driving these numbers – but it may be that the cultural shift has started to impact political identification as well. If so, pro-choice Democrats could find themselves in a minority party in the next several years.”

Gallup’s own conclusion is that politics are playing a role as Republicans an independents become more pro-life and Democrats more pro-abortion.

Republicans have become more likely to call themselves pro-life since polling conducted in 2003/2004, as have Republican-leaning independents since 2005/2006. Independents who lean to neither party also became more likely to call themselves “pro-life” between 2003/2004 and 2005/2006, but have since held steady.

Democrats’ self-identification with the pro-life position has moved in the other direction, declining from 37% in 2003/2004 to 31% in 2009/2010. Among independents who lean Democratic, there has been no movement in either direction.

“Barring evidence that Americans are growing more wary about the morality of abortion per se, the trends by party identification suggest that increased political polarization may be a factor in Republicans’ preference for the “pro-life” label, particularly since Barack Obama took office,” Gallup notes.

“Whatever the cause, the effect is that the pro-life label has become increasingly dominant among Republicans and to a lesser degree among independents, while the pro-choice label has become more dominant among Democrats,” the polling firm concludes.

College students travel to Springfield to lobby against “The Reproductive Health and Access Act”, deemed “Illinois FOCA”.

Springfield, IL – On Thursday, February 11, Illinois students will converge in Springfield for a lobby day hosted by Students for Life of Illinois, calling it “Cupcakes at the Capital”. Their lobbying efforts will focus on dissuading the Illinois General Assembly from passing “The Reproductive Health and Access Act”. The bill has been called the Illinois Freedom of Choice Act, due to its radical agenda to remove commonsense restrictions on abortion ranging from parental notification to right of conscience laws for health care providers.

Students will give cupcakes to the legislators with the message “Life is Sweet” written in the icing. “So often, people go into lobbying with a demanding spirit. We want to show our appreciation for our representatives, while at the same time boldly informing them of our stance on this crucial issue,” said John-Paul Deddens, Executive Director of Students for Life of Illinois. “Nothing in last year’s Illinois FOCA or what we expect to be introduced this year is meant to help women in need. It only tears down what few protections we have in Illinois.”

Students from over 13 different schools including University of Chicago, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Loyola University Chicago, Lewis University, Bradley University and Northern Illinois University will be lobbying Thursday in Springfield.

Students for Life of Illinois is an umbrella organization that exists to help college students bring about a culture of life on their campuses by providing resources, training and support. More on Students for Life of Illinois at www.ProLifeIllinois.com.

For far too long, far too many people of faith who hold conservative views on abortion have defended the right to abort preborn babies who are the products of rape or incest. The logical and moral error that this position represents must be exposed publicly. The position that abortion constitutes murder cannot be sustained if Christians continue to make exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape or incest.

The pro-life position depends on acceptance of the following assumptions:

• Life begins at conception.
• Humans are created in the image and likeness of God.
• All human life is sacred.
• All human life possesses infinite value.
• Incipient life has its own unique DNA, meaning that at every developmental stage, the baby is a unique individual, distinct from his or her mother.
• Dependency status (i.e., the state of being dependent on another) does not abrogate the right to life. The preborn, newborns, toddlers, the aged, and the infirm all share in common an inability to survive on their own. The physical location of the preborn is insufficient justification for abrogating its inherent right to life.

Given that pro-life people of faith accept and defend these propositions, how does the unjust manner of conception justify the deliberate destruction of the incipient life that is produced through this unjust manner of conception?

Those who defend exceptions in cases of rape and incest believe that compassion dictates such exceptions, but that position represents terribly misguided compassionate impulses. These misguided impulses depend on and reflect logical inconsistency and result in tragic moral error that ultimately undermines the pro-life position.

For anyone to conclude that compassion for the victims of heinous crimes permits slaughter of the unborn, who then suffer an even greater moral evil than the one that their mother experienced, means that they had to have rejected the assumptions they claim to believe.

One cannot truly believe that life begins at conception; that all humans are created in the image and likeness of God; that all life is sacred and infinitely valuable; that the product of conception is distinct from its mother; and that those who are dependent on others are equally deserving of life, while also claiming that killing a baby who is the product of a crime is morally defensible.

At least one cannot make that claim with any logical or moral consistency.

It is never morally defensible to extinguish a baby’s life* even if he or she is the product of a violent, horrific crime-a crime, of course, for which this baby bears no responsibility.

Could carrying an unwanted baby that is the product of rape or incest involve terrible suffering? Yes. But the noble ends of alleviating the suffering of girls or women who become pregnant through rape or incest must never involve the means of taking an innocent life.

Compassionate people of faith must come alongside the victims of rape and incest, praying with and for them; providing the emotional care and counseling they need; and providing for their physical needs.

Compassionate people of faith must never be complicit in communicating to victims of rape or incest that the destruction of innocent life is a morally defensible response to a terrible crime.

Preborn human life is precious and sacred. The babies who are produced by criminal acts should never become the victims of compassionate but misguided impulses and sloppy moral reasoning. When the baby’s right merely to exist-after all, a mother does not have to raise her baby-comes into direct conflict with the “reproductive rights” of the mother, existence must take precedence. The right merely to exist is a right of a higher moral order than reproductive rights. It is, in fact, the right upon which all others depend.

Christian blogger and book reviewer Tim Challies writes this:

It is my conviction that some evangelicals and pro-lifers have given away the moral high ground by making a false and irrational distinction between children who are conceived by choice (or at least by the choice to engage in sexual intercourse) and children who are conceived by rape or incest (though, of course, most incest is also rape)….The argument from Scripture is simple: a fetus is a human being. A fetus has the same “humanness” as an adult and thus has the same right to life. A fetus is fully human. A fetus is as fully human if she is conceived by choice as if she is conceived by brutal force. Of course I affirm that rape is a horrific crime-undoubtedly one of the worst crimes a person could commit and one whose full spiritual, physical, mental and emotional impact I am sure I cannot adequately understand. But the brutality of the crime does not change the fact that is indisputable from Scripture-even a child conceived by rape is fully human.

A moral life and a morally consistent life is a difficult life-a life of sacrifice that is ultimately richer, more satisfying and more God-pleasing. Please choose and defend life even in cases of rape or incest. And serve compassionately and sacrificially those mothers who choose to sacrifice their comfort in order to give life to their babies.

* Exceptions are morally permissible when the life of the mother is threatened by the continuation of a pregnancy to term.

Support IFI’s pro-family work in the culture and at the capitol.
Please consider making a special monetary gift to IFI today to help sustain our work and ministry.

Please prayerfully consider making a tax-deductible donation of $50, $75, $100 or $250. You may be able to give $500 or even $1000. Your donation will help us meet our monthly budget needs and be ready to meet the challenges ahead.

Please send your gift to Illinois Family Institute at the address below, or click HERE to donate online today!

Give by mail:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

Give By Phone:
Give a gift by phone with your Visa or MasterCard by calling 708-781-9328 during normal business hours.

We cannot do it without the support of people like you.

P.S. Please forward this email to your like-minded friends!