This article has been updated to correct errors and add additional information.

Full-Term, Preborn Babies Can Be Killed For Virtually Any Reason

Why, I kept asking myself last week, are so many Americans so livid about Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) signing into law a bill passed jubilantly by the state legislature that makes it possible for women to abort full-term babies. Sure, the bill is morally repugnant and the jubilant applause by the legislature was grotesque, but 19 other states—including Illinois—allow full-term babies to be killed and for the same reasons. Seven other states and the District of Columbia allow full-term babies to be killed for any or no reason. Two other states allow full-term, healthy babies to be aborted if they were conceived during rape or through incest.

Toward the end of last week, just as outraged pro-life voices were dying down, it came to light that a new bill was proposed in Vermont which many mistakenly believe would legalize unrestricted abortion throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. They were mistaken in that unrestricted access to abortion through the entire nine months of pregnancy has been legal in Vermont since 2014. The bill proposed in Vermont merely enshrines in state law the existing legal right as a “fundamental right.” Pro-baby-killing advocates are preparing for the day Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Late-term abortions are banned in 20 states except if the mother’s “health” is deemed at risk by allowing the baby to grow to term. But here’s the catch: “health” includes any physical, emotional, psychological, or familial factors that affect “well-being.” With that ambiguous and wildly broad definition, virtually any woman can have her baby killed at any point in her pregnancy.

Two states allow healthy babies to be killed in the womb in the 9th month if they were conceived in rape or through incest (AR, UT). Killing full-term babies is no less barbaric because they were created via criminal acts of someone else’s doing.

Seven states allow full-term babies to be killed if the babies have “lethal” abnormalities, which is de facto infanticide.

Take a gander at the chart provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation which lists the 20 states that allow late-term abortions for “health” reasons and the 7 that allow it for any or no other reason.

Also, take note of Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and the District of Columbia. Those places are virtual killing fields. They don’t even require the pretense of a “health” reason for women to abort their full-term babies. In those 7 states, there are no bans on abortion at any stage. It’s open season on babies who, through no fault of their own, have the misfortune of being conceived in the wrong womb.

Since all 50 states and D.C. allow late-term abortions that threaten a mother’s life—as distinct from her “health”—it’s important to understand the inconvenient truth “progressives” don’t want Americans to think about: There is no life-threatening condition that would ever necessitate the direct, intentional, active killing of a baby in the womb. There are relatively rare occasions in which continuing a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life, but ending a pregnancy does not require the direct, intentional, active killing of a baby.

Doctors can induce delivery or perform a C-section to save a woman’s life in a life-threatening or emergency situation without dismembering, crushing, burning, or chemically inducing cardiac arrest in a baby. In some induced deliveries or C-sections, babies will not survive, but that is wholly different from intentionally killing them. Obstetrician-gynecologist and former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino explains:

Let me illustrate with a real-life case that I managed while at the Albany Medical Center. A patient arrived one night at 28 weeks gestation with severe pre-eclampsia or toxemia. Her blood pressure on admission was 220/160. A normal blood pressure is approximately 120/80. This patient’s pregnancy was a threat to her life and the life of her unborn child. She could very well be minutes or hours away from a major stroke.

This case was managed successfully by rapidly stabilizing the patient’s blood pressure and “terminating” her pregnancy by Cesarean section. She and her baby did well.

This is a typical case in the world of high-risk obstetrics. In most such cases, any attempt to perform an abortion “to save the mother’s life” would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving care. During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.

GET WOKE, AMERICANS! Full-term babies can be legally exterminated in the womb for virtually any reason or no reason in most states in the U.S. Take your righteous anger at this barbarism and do something useful.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Cuomo-Re-Recording-3.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

There are two dates on my mind today. The first is January 22, 1973, the day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade, opening the door for virtually unlimited abortion on demand. Since that day, over 61 million Americans have perished at the hands of medical practitioners who shun the Hippocratic Oath. Let that number sink in for a minute. 61,000,000. That equates to about the total populations of California and Texas combined!

There have been so many deaths from abortion that many Americans are becoming desensitized to the issue. I remember the initial response to Roe v. Wade. There were grief-stricken people of faith across the nation standing in peaceful protest and turning out for marches, walks, and human life chains so long they passed through cities. But today, the silenced innocents are all but forgotten. To most, they are nameless, faceless, soulless numbers. But God remembers.

Can a woman forget her nursing child, and not have compassion on the son of her womb? Surely they may forget, yet I will not forget you.” (Isaiah 49:15)

Medical science has revealed that these babies were far more than numbers. Even though they were doomed never to take their first breath, they had beating hearts, working organs, functioning brains, and souls that cried to the Lord for justice. We didn’t hear their screams. But God heard.

Imagine the horror of seeing such things done to the bodies of our living children. God doesn’t have to imagine. He sees.

You keep track of all my sorrows. You have collected all my tears in your bottle. (Psalm 56:8)

But these realities are not stopping “progressive” politicians from doing what they can to facilitate more deaths. On the 46^th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade, Illinois’ new governor, J.B. Pritzker, while signing an executive order supporting taxpayer-funded abortions, declared that Illinois “will be the most progressive state in the nation when it comes to guaranteeing women’s reproductive rights.”

Equally damning, the majority of elected state lawmakers in New York erupted in applause at the passing of the Reproductive Health Act, a measure which legalizes the death of babies, even up through the ninth month of gestation. The bill was quickly and joyfully signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo. New York, the state with the highest percentage of abortions per capita, will see even more innocent babies executed—legally. These forsaken children will have no memorial, outside of those detailed in Planned Parenthood’s annual report.

Ironically, there is one famous public memorial that urges New Yorkers to remember and to validate the lives of New Yorkers—an eerie reminder that human life is precious—all human life. Regardless of sex, race, creed, color, or age, we are fearfully and wonderfully made. In this place, there is a statement affirming the value of the unborn.

That is the memorial to those lost on September 11, 2001, the second date on my mind. A day of great tragedy and heartache—one that still haunts America to this day. Almost 3,000 innocent people died that day. The victims of the tragedy could not protect themselves. The decision to terminate their lives was made by others.

Yet, we remember and honor these precious lives. A solemn monument was erected in downtown New York City called the 911 Memorial. At this sacred site, the names of all those who perished are forever chiseled into the American psyche—inscribed in gray granite for future generations to see and remember.

Ten of those listed include unborn children. The unborn who perished inside their mothers are listed for the world to see and mourn! They are not callously called “fetuses.” They are not referred to as a “biological mass.” They are called what they are: children!

The names of each individual are there to remind us about the horror of deaths of innocent people caused by the decisions and actions of others. This memorial is in the center of New York City, ironically a place where the lives of many other babies are extinguished daily.

And, we are not to forget—unless you happen to be a “progressive” politician with an agenda.

“DEANNA LYNN GALANTE AND HER UNBORN CHILD.”

“LAUREN CATUZZI GRANDCOLAS AND HER UNBORN CHILD”

“JENNIFER L. HOWLEY AND HER UNBORN CHILD”

“HELEN CROSSIN KITTLE AND HER UNBORN CHILD.”

“VANESSA LANG AND HER UNBORN CHILD”

‘PATRICIA ANN CIMAROLI MASSARI AND HER UNBORN CHILD”

‘RENEE A. MAY AND HER UNBORN CHILD”

“SYLVIA SAN PIO RESTA AND HER UNBORN CHILD.”

“RAHMA SALIE AND HER UNBORN CHILD”

“DIANNE SINGER AND HER UNBORN CHILD”

Download the IFI App!

We now have an IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the “Tracks” you choose, including timely legislative alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

• It’s FREE!
• Specific content for serious Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get

Illinois’ newly installed governor, billionaire J.B. Pritzker, looked at the mess that decades of “progressive” rule has made of Illinois and had an epiphany: OMG, the problem here in Illinois is that it’s not progressive enough! That set him on a quest to out-“progressive” every “progressive” state in the union—well, at least regarding feticide. At a press conference pregnant with symbolism held at Chicago’s Planned Parenthood (PP) office on Tuesday, Pritzker issued this proclamation:

On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I’m proud to declare under my administration, the State of Illinois will be the most progressive state in the nation when it comes to guaranteeing the right to choose for every single woman…. And today, I’m proud to sign an executive order that will further protect and expand the right to choose in Illinois.

Someone just arriving from Mars may wonder about the odd construction of those sentences. They might ask, “Right to choose what?” A translator would then explain that Pritzker was using a script written by the denizens of the Upside Down. For those who are unfamiliar, the Upside Down is “a dimension that is a dark reflection or echo of our world. It is a place of decay and death. A plane out of phase. A place of monsters. It is right next to you and you don’t even see it.” Those denizens are the monsters of Planned Parenthood, and the “choice” they and Pritzker avoid identifying is the choice to have one’s offspring offed.

Pritzker knew it would be challenging to follow in the colossal footsteps of that colossal failure Pinocchio Rauner who became the first governor in the country to mandate public-funding of abortion. Pritzker knew he had to do something BIG to capture the hearts and wallets of those who celebrate human slaughter and shout the killings of their children, like Amelia Bonow, seen here indoctrinating children in a lighthearted discussion of the absolute, unrestricted right to abortion:

In the service of his morally disordered fan-base, Pritzker signed an executive order to ensure that all state insurance policies are quickly up to snuff in ensuring that women can snuff out their babies on the public dime.

Americans must disabuse themselves of the notions that killing humans is healthcare and that PP is deeply invested in providing mammograms. In an recent interview, PP president, Dr. Leana Wen, who absurdly claims there is “no more important organization than Planned Parenthood,” shared that,

The last thing I would want is people to get the impression that we are backing off of our core services…. What we will always be here to do is provide abortion access… it’s who we are.”

While everyone is aware of PP’s body-snatching-for-profit business, few remain aware that “Planned Parenthood is one of the largest sources in the US of transgender healthcare.” According to The Guardian,

[Planned Parenthood’s] centers use a newer model for gender transitioning that gives the patient input on whether to start their transition, rather than turning the decision over entirely to a psychiatrist. Some clinics have staff with detailed knowledge of how to update driver’s licenses, passports and social security cards to reflect someone’s name and gender.

Perhaps that’s another reason for J.B. Pritzker’s personal and political investment in PP. Who can forget his first cousin James/”Jennifer” Pritzker. Since not everyone who wants to masquerade as the opposite sex is a billionaire, maybe J.B. thinks the public should pay for their chemically and surgically constructed flesh costumes as well. If he’s willing to use public money to destroy the tiny bodies of young humans, why not use public money to destroy the bodies of bigger, older humans?

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also used the shameful occasion of the 46^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to sign into law a bill that guarantees the legal right of women to have their offspring killed in the womb without restrictions until 24 weeks of pregnancy and to have their offspring killed up until birth if the “health” of a woman is deemed at risk or the baby is “not viable.” Prior to the passage of this law, New York—which legalized abortion in 1970, three years prior to Roe—has had a law on the books that “defined homicide as ‘conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than 24 weeks.’”

New York mothers now have a legal right to have their babies killed for virtually any reason one day prior to their  birth day. One day after birth, such a killing would be murder. Nowhere in America do we permit the non-voluntary killing of terminally ill humans, so we shouldn’t permit the non-voluntary killing of 40-week-old “non-viable” humans.

Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont have no restrictions on late-term abortions, and now New York joins the ranks of the 23 other states that permit abortions up until birth days if the non-defined “health” of the mother is deemed at risk by preventing the killing of her baby. “Health” includes factors pertaining to well-being, including physical, emotional, psychological, and familial. In other words, anyone who wants an abortion can get one in these states.

The product of conception between two humans is inarguably a human. Slowly, over decades, proponents of the legal right to kill humans in the womb have been forced to abandon their intellectually untenable early claim that the unborn were mere clumps of cells. Feticide-advocates now admit that humans in the womb are, indeed, human. What they say now is that, well, yes, it is a human but it’s not a person because essential to personhood are some abilities. One’s person-ness is constituted not by what one is but by what one can do. But if that’s the case, then the whole foundation for the Leftist “social justice” project is threatened. As philosophy professor  Francis Beckwith writes,

For if human ability (or achievement) is the sine qua non [i.e., something essential] of an individual’s right to life, then it is difficult to explain why we shouldn’t abandon the idea of human equality, since all our abilities come in degrees at every stage of human development.

If our moral status as persons with unalienable rights depends solely on our abilities—rather than on our existence as humans—then on what basis can we argue for the importance of equality in human affairs? To “progressives,” ability—a continually shifting phenomenon—precedes and determines personhood and, therefore, the rights conferred by personhood. According to the pro-abortion ideology, all humans are not equal. Equality based on humanness alone does not exist. I guess a panel of personhood judges is going to have to evaluate human worth and award those coveted and hard-to-earn rights. Woe to those who, once deemed persons, lose cognitive or physical abilities.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Pritzker-Recording-3.mp3

Save the Date!!!

On Saturday, March 16, 2019, the Illinois Family Institute will be hosting our annual Worldview Conference. This coming year, we will focus on the “transgender” revolution. We already have commitments from Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians; Walt Heyer, former “transgender” and contributor to Public Discourse; Denise Schick, Founder and Director of Help 4 Families, and daughter of a man who “identified” as a woman; and Doug Wilson, who is a Senior Fellow of Theology at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, and pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho .

The Transgender Ideology:
What Is It? Where Will It Lead? What is the Church’s Role?
Click here for more information!

A common refrain when people lament violence, sex and f-bombs in movies, goes: “How did we get from the golden days of Hollywood to this?”

Actually, Hollywood, with many notable exceptions, has been at war with decency and American values since its inception. It just wasn’t as starkly apparent.

If you don’t think so, take in some of those black and white films on the Turner Classic Movies channel. Sure, you won’t get nudity, gratuitous violence, or profanity, and some are delightful.  But many are not very good, with stilted dialogue and ham acting, and certain films from the Golden Era are surprisingly subversive.

A case in point is “Theodora Goes Wild,” a 1936 “screwball comedy” that netted Irene Dunn an Oscar nomination for her role as a prim, church organ-playing small-town girl who secretly writes racy novels under a pseudonym.  Upon meeting the randy illustrator of her book covers (Melvyn Douglas), she flees from the New England home she lives in with her two uptight aunts and goes hog wild in New York as the scandalous novelist “Caroline Adams.”  We’re supposed to think this is great.

What’s most subversive is the acidic portrayal of small-town America, and particularly the church ladies. They’re uniformly unattractive, small-minded gossips, backbiters and hypocrites.

The Christian life in “Theodora” is cold, boring and the enemy of a good time.   The only spark of life comes in nightclubs, parties or scenes when the protagonists put it over on the uptight yokels.  Absent is fellowship and community, the pursuit of truth, love of family and neighbor, happiness, mutual sacrifice, and God’s love, all of which are found in a vibrant church.

The deal is sealed for hedonism when the entire town turns out with a marching band to welcome home their heroine once her cover is blown. She’s now famous for writing smut, and lives happily ever after with the illustrator. Nobody but a prude would object. Life is colorful once more.  A literal version of this theme of salvific sex is expressed in “Pleasantville” (1998).

In a larger sense, this is where we find ourselves today. There’s no need for Hollywood to employ subtexts to attack the moral order when we’re already drowning in a sea of sensations. Unless you’re Amish, staying free from the pornified culture is like trying to focus on small print with a tiny book lamp in the middle of the Vegas strip.

Recent columns in Politico.com, the New York Times and National Review have explored America’s acquiescence to the porn culture. They point to the Internet tidal wave and the invention of the smart phone in 2007, which is putting adults –and children – at risk in ways undreamed of a dozen years ago.

Still, technology is only one powerful element.  The main factor is the mid-20^th Century sexual revolution, in which morality, sexual roles, family and what constitutes the good life were upended.

In his 1941 opus “The Crisis of Our Age,” Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin traced the waning of traditional American norms to just before World War II, when advertising imagery and movies became increasingly sensual.  America was an ideal-driven culture that honored virtue, duty and delayed gratification.  Then it began to slide toward a sensate culture that valued cultivating and sating appetites above all. Sorokin compared it to the decline of Greece and Rome, whose art evolved toward the sensual as the empires declined.

In “Kinsey, Sex and Fraud” (1990) and subsequent books, Judith Reisman has chronicled the enormous impact of Alfred Kinsey’s fraud-packed sex studies in 1948 and 1953.  Hugh Hefner drew inspiration from them to launch the Playboy empire, which mainstreamed porn and helped fund Roe v. Wade’s legalization of abortion. With the advent of the birth control pill and the explosion in visual stimuli, the wheels came off.

In his classic “Brave New World,” Aldous Huxley envisioned a future in which every need was met and sex was noncommital.  Anyone experiencing discomfort could take the drug “soma” to zone out on “soma holiday.”  Unlike our opioid crisis, people did not overdose on soma, but both dull the body and soul.

So here we are, with every conceivable way to gratify our appetites.

Are we happier? Does constant pursuit of sensations bring sustained joy? Not likely. That comes from purpose, accomplishment, and close bonds with family and friends.  It comes from knowing that we’re valued and loved by a creator God Who cares enough to give us rules to live by, and, as shown in Jesus’s parable of the prodigal son, forgiveness and reconnection.

Perhaps not all is lost.  There seems to be genuine concern among some in the intelligentsia over the culture’s destination. The campaign to label porn as a public health hazard is finding purchase, and what actually produces health and happiness is becoming more evident by the day.

Hollywood turns out some good flicks now and then, and there’s always hope for more uplifting fare even beyond the wholesome stuff on the Hallmark Channel. Three years after scripting “Theodora Goes Wild,” Sidney Buchman was nominated for a screenplay Oscar for “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

Robert Knight’s latest book is “A Nation Worth Saving: 10 Steps to Restore Freedom” (djkm.org/nation, 2018).

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

Abortion pills are becoming more common among women seeking to abort their offspring, and the availability of these pills online is growing, allowing women to avoid going to an abortion clinic entirely.

Numerous news outlets have reported on the efforts of Dutch physician Rebecca Gomperts to expand her 13-year-old internet abortion-pill business Women on Web into the U.S. Gomperts, who launched her U.S. push in April, has received awards from Planned Parenthood and various feminist groups and is also known for her environmental activism.

Reports in the mainstream media have portrayed Gomperts’ efforts as heroic or at least worthwhile, while the perspective of pro-life groups has been given only minimal attention. A story in the Atlantic noted that,

For American women who’ve wanted pills, though, there’s been one major problem: Women on Web wouldn’t ship to the United States. American women could (and do) instead search online for abortion pills, but some of the medicines and pharmacies they’ve found have been less than reliable. Now Women on Web’s founder, a doctor named Rebecca Gomperts, has launched a new service that she says is just as safe as Women on Web, and it does ship to the United States. The cost is $95, but the website says the service will try to help women who can’t pay.

Just like Women on Web, the new service, Aid Access, will screen women for their eligibility to take the pills—they should not be more than nine weeks pregnant—through an online process. (If the pills are taken later, they are less likely to work.) Gomperts will herself fill each woman’s prescription for misoprostol and mifepristone, which together are about 97 percent effective in causing an abortion within the first trimester and already account for a third of all abortions in the United States. She then sends the prescriptions to an Indian pharmacy she trusts, and it ships the pills to women at their homes in the United States.

The market for abortion pills and for buying them online is growing in the U.S. because of their low cost and convenience, because of tightening state restrictions on surgical abortions, and because of the belief that a Trump-era U.S. Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade.

Gomperts was previously hesitant to sell the pills to women in the U.S. because of the strong pro-life movement here. She has established the new, separate service Aid Access so as not to jeopardize Women on Web. In an interview with Mother Jones, Gomperts characterized what she is doing as “humanitarian aid.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of abortion pills in 2000, but selling them over the internet through unregulated channels might violate U.S. laws and the FDA has said it is evaluating whether any laws are being broken. Americans United for Life told CNN that Gomperts’ push to sell pills in the U.S. is “reckless and irresponsible.”

Abortion clinics have been providing pills for women up to 10 weeks along in their pregnancies, so they can have what’s called a medical, or chemical, abortion. Mifepristone, also known as RU-486 or Mifeprex, cuts off nutrition to the baby growing in a mother’s womb. The mother then takes misoprostol, typically within 48 hours, which causes intense contractions. Abortion activists misleadingly characterize what happens next as a miscarriage to mask the deliberate taking of a life.

Many women now prefer the idea of having an abortion in the comfort of their own homes as opposed to undergoing a procedure at a clinic, which they consider more invasive and less private. But pro-life groups say a growing number of women are emotionally traumatized by the process, especially if they are not prepared for the possibility of seeing what is clearly a developing baby get expelled from their bodies.

According to LifeSiteNews, chemical abortions put women at a greater risk of being traumatized: “At home, a woman may actually see the remains of her baby, sometimes while alone and in great physical pain…. ‘Those who do see more [by using the abortion pill] have more nightmares, more trauma symptoms.’”

Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said earlier this month ,“It’s hard to imagine a society any more dangerous and any more deadly than a society that will kill unborn life in the womb by a pill.”

Mohler said Gomperts’ efforts to sell abortion pills online to women in the U.S. reflects “the desperation of the pro-abortion movement, so determined to make abortion available to as many as possible, as quickly as possible, in as uncomplicated a manner as possible, whether or not the law is on their side.”

Women having second thoughts after taking the first abortion pill, RU-486, can potentially get the effects reversed and continue their pregnancies, according to Heartbeat International. The success rate is 64 to 68 percent, according to the group’s Abortion Pill Reversal website. The website can be found at abortionpillreversal.com. There’s also a 24/7 helpline number, 1-877-558-0333.

In Alabama, voters gave their stamp of approval to Amendment 2 – a result that pleased Eric Johnston, president of the Alabama Pro-Life Coalition.

“The amendment [approved by voters] is a statement of public policy that basically says the unborn child is a person within the meaning of the Alabama Constitution, and as such is entitled to all the rights and protections of a person in the Constitution,” he explains. “It’s just a statement by 59 percent of the people in the state of Alabama that they support life.”

Those results mean the amendment will be in place if Roe is overturned by the nation’s high court – a court that now has a conservative slant because of the two justices appointed by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Johnston also notes a decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld as unconstitutional Alabama’s dismemberment abortion ban. “The judges who wrote that opinion both spoke out and said they were only doing this because Roe required them to do it. They did not agree with it,” he points out. “That’s significant when senior intermediate appellate court judges disagree with Roe. So it’s the precedent of the land right now – but precedents can always be changed.”

According to Johnston, it’s an issue that will not go away. Several cases are making their way to the U.S. Supreme Court that could alter or abolish Roe if the court agrees to hear them.

Meanwhile, in West Virginia the usual opponents of anything pro-life went down in flames on Tuesday.

WV advocates for life chime in

The West Virginia Supreme Court issued an edict 25 years ago that the state constitution required the state to use tax dollars to pay for abortions. That issue was on the ballot this week – and voters chose in favor of a constitutional amendment overturning that decision.

Dr. Wanda Franz of West Virginians for Life explains a second aspect of the amendment. “It says that the constitution does not include abortion,” she tells OneNewsNow. “What we were trying to do was to simply neutralize the constitution so that it says nothing in the constitution secures or protects a right to abortion.”

The organizations vigorously opposing passage were the usual suspects, says Franz.

“The ACLU was the primary group that was involved here in the state,” she shares. “And the coalition that was made up of Planned Parenthood and the local-state NARAL – and a number of other groups were part of that coalition – they were based out of the ACLU’s offices.”

Those groups argued that passage of the amendment would mean the state could ban abortion, a false statement outside the realm of legal possibility; and would make it more difficult to legally challenge pro-life bills passed by the legislature and signed into law.

This article was originally published at OneNewsNow.com

I recently tweeted, “Regardless of the charges against Justice Kavanaugh, this much is absolutely clear. The frenzied attempt to try to keep him out of the U.S. Supreme Court is simply a battle for the ‘right’ to abort babies in the womb. That’s the bottom line.”

Similar sentiments were expressed by Brandon Morse, writing on RedState.com: “The whole reason Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is in the crosshairs of a sexual assault allegation, and a media circus is ensuing, is because the left is 100 percent focused on making sure their ability to abort children and profit from it goes uninterrupted. They can pretend it’s about honor and making sure an attempted rapist doesn’t get a seat on the highest court in the land, but the left cares very little about sexual assault or abuse.”

Is Justice Kavanaugh guilty of an attempted sexual assault 36 years ago? Is his accuser, Prof. Christine Blasey Ford, a credible witness? Those are totally separate questions.

The left’s opposition to Kavanaugh would be no less intense, no less angry, no less pitched had these charges never been raised. The real issue is abortion.

To quote Morse again, “This is about Planned Parenthood’s ability to keep the money wheel flowing for the Democrats. This is about keeping a narrative alive that without abortion, America would fall apart.”

Yes, “Democrats are so desperate to keep abortion alive and well in the United States that they’re willing to paint an innocent man as the worst kind of person so that they can continue killing children without trouble.”

And what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned? What would happen if “abortion rights” were severely restricted (or entirely removed) from state after state?

All hell would break loose on the streets. Fierce protests would arise. Things would get ugly overnight – and by ugly, I mean very ugly.

A headline from July 12, 2013 on Townhall.com read, “Bricks and Tampons Intended to be Thrown at Pro-Life Lawmakers Confiscated by Police. UPDATE: Jars of Feces Too.”

The accompanying article, written by Katie Pavlich, stated that, “Apparently chanting ‘hail Satan,’ ‘f*ck the church,’ ‘bro-choice’ and holding signs that say ‘hoes before embryos’ just wasn’t enough for pro-abortion protestors in Texas. According to reports on the ground, police have confiscated bricks, tampons, pads and condoms protestors planned to throw at pro-life lawmakers.”

Fast forward to October 17, 2017, and a headline on LifeNews stated, “Topless Feminists Throw Firebombs, Tampons and Feces at a Catholic Church to Protest Abortion.” (This took place in Argentina.)

Are you seeing a pattern?

So, I ask again: What happens if Roe v. Wade gets overturned? What can we expect?

We can expect fury. We can expect feces. We can expect vitriol. We can expect vandalism. We can expect violence.

Watch this short video of Antifa and other leftists stealing and destroying pro-life signs in a Boston park. Then ask yourself: What happens when it’s not just pro-life signs that are the issue? What happens when pro-life laws are the issue? What then?

On May 1 of this year, Matthew Vadum reported that Antifa activists in California “protested a campus speech by Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America.”

As Vadum noted, according to the Orange County Antifa group Refuse Fascism, “Because Hawkins’ group would outlaw abortion, its members are equivalent to ‘Hitler-youth’ who want to treat women as ‘mere breeders or incubators, subordinate and shackled to a patriarchal order that sees them merely as objects.’ Pro-lifers are about ‘control over women, not saving lives (as evidenced by their bombings of clinics and outright murder of heroic doctors who provide abortions).’

Indeed, “Hawkins ‘and the whole fascist program against women and their rights’ need to be opposed and the ‘entire culture on campuses needs to be shaken up’ so students take on ‘the grave threat being posed by the Trump/Pence fascist regime.’”

You can be assured that these radical activists believe every word of this rhetoric, which could easily lead to violence. And I repeat: This kind of rhetoric is being used while Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land. Antifa activists and their ilk would go absolutely berserk if the laws were dramatically changed.

To be clear, I recognize that for many women, having an abortion is an intensely difficult moral choice. I’m thinking of a woman in her 20s, reared in a religious home, already raising two little children without a father. Her boyfriend takes advantage of her, she discovers she’s pregnant, and she is devastated by the news.

She cannot imagine adding one more child to her household, she struggles with depression and fear, finally deciding to abort her baby after four months.

Her decision was still morally wrong. But this woman is unlikely to join the “Shout Your Abortion” movement or, even less, to hurl feces at a church building.

Put another way, most of the women (and men) raging for the “right” to abort babies do so ideologically. Among them are devout feminists (although the pioneer feminists were reportedly anti-abortion). Among them are a large percentage of atheists. (According to a recent Pew Research report, 87 percent of atheists feel that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.)

Among them are LGBT activists, like those featured in this story describing, “How Queer Women and Nonbinary People Led the Fight to Secure Abortion Rights in Ireland.” (According to the congratulatory article, there is a clear “connection between LGBTQ+ rights and reproductive rights.”)

Among them are Satanists, like those who led a battle for “abortion rights” in Missouri. Yes, these Satanists claimed that the “rules in Missouri’s strict abortion law violate their religious beliefs.”

This is quite the coalition.

The bottom line is that, these examples, which provide just a sampling of the ideological opposition to the pro-life movement, remind us that hell hath no fury like that of the militant pro-abortionists.

Get ready.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com.

The world is quickly becoming over-populated. There is not enough water, food, fuel or other natural resources to sustain us all. We will soon be faced with a “survival of the fittest” class struggle, as the “have-nots” contend with the “haves” for land and property rights, in an attempt to stay alive during the coming economic apocalypse that ensues. Billions will starve to death (or worse) as every blade of grass is consumed by the ever-encroaching urban sprawl and demand for limited services.

At least this is the neo-Marxist narrative the socialist / globalist journalist, politicians and educrats want you to believe.

How Did We Get Here?

Whence did all these stories of over-population, limited resources, carbon footprint, etc. originate?

Thomas Malthus (1766-1846), wrote a book in 1798 entitled, An Essay on the Principle of Population as It Affects the Future Improvement of Society. He hypothesized that “… the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.”

Charles Darwin (1809-1888) was influenced by Malthusian theory. Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, created a world where only the physical reality matters. The soul of humans was diminished, and people quickly became reduced to resource-consuming units. Social Darwinism soon developed the concept that only the strongest should be allowed to survive, and that often was the “white race.” Eugenics, a practice of eliminating unwanted elements of the population through whatever pragmatic means was currently culturally accepted (or whatever you could get away with), was a driving worldview behind Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

Eugenics advocate, Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), the founder of Planned Parenthood, invented the term, “birth control,” and raised $150,000 for research leading to the first birth control pill in 1951. Sanger promoted “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108

Radical environmentalism placed the continued survival of the species as a primary virtue (with all of the devotion of a religion). We must save the planet, so we can all survive. If that means killing off large segments of our population (through abortion or other means), so be it.

Margaret Sanger, who intentionally set up abortion clinics in African-American neighborhoods, declared: “The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children,” she continued “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.

The Over-Population Myth

The real fact is that we have plenty of land and natural resources to accommodate our growing population. Of course, we should be good stewards of the earth, and find renewable resources, but we need to stop seeing children as a pestilence to be exterminated, and view them as they are; emerging innovators who can create a more sustainable future for us all.

The doomsayers with this message have consistently been proven wrong. Fifty years ago, Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, wrote: “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

He also predicted the average age of death would be 42 by 1980, and the oceans could rise 250 feet because of melting ice caps (anyone wonder where Al Gore got his nonsense?). Ehrlich was certainly a false prophet. While poverty, hunger, and lack of adequate drinking water are present realities in many parts of the globe, these problems are almost always created by corrupt and oppressive governments, poor infrastructure, inefficiency (wasted food), lack of technology (shortage of water wells), war, and even cultural superstition (like in India where their religious beliefs have created food shortages by not allowing mice and rats to be killed, or cattle to be eaten for food, ceremonial bathing in drinking water, etc.).

False over-population myths have been responsible for many of the over 60 million abortions since Roe v. Wade in 1973. The truth is, there is room for every person on this planet to stand shoulder to shoulder within the city limits of Los Angeles, CA. It’s not a space issue, it’s a stewardship issue.

Despising Children

While not self-consciously pro-eugenics, the philosophical descendants of Malthus, Darwin, Sanger and Ehrlich have produces a negative view of children in our culture.

Children are not a negative drain on a society, they are, in the words of the Psalm 127 in the Bible, “a reward.” Population growth through birth rate9 is one of the prerequisites of a healthy economy. What is scary, is not child birth, but rather a massive aging population who have trusted their government to pay for their retirement (with funds long past spent). Our current Social Security system for the immense Baby Boomer generation is being funded by the current labor and taxation of Gen X and Millennials.

The problem is, in western culture, we’ve almost either killed off, or prevented the conception of, an entire generation of scientists, doctors, nurses, farmers, technicians, engineers and inventors. If we weren’t thinking of this in theological terms (considering the sovereignty of God), one might speculate that the scientist who would have discovered the universal cure for cancer may have been murdered in the womb.

A society needs a fertility rate of 2.1 births children per (hopefully married) woman to sustain population levels and maintain a stable economy. What we see happening in many part of Europe is a society driving full speed towards an economic cliff (not to mention a moral one!).

Demographics from the World Bank demonstrate a fall in global fertility rates from about 5.0 in 1960, to under 2.5 today. In 2015 in Europe the 10 worst economies, (with their accompanying birthrates beside it) were (from worst to better): Finland (1.6), Greece (1.3), Estonia (1.6), Portugal (1.3), Austria (1.5), Netherlands (1.7), Italy (1.4), Belgium (1.7), France (2.0), and Germany (1.5). None of these countries are above the 2.1 threshold for sustainability.

Muslims are quickly taking over population centers in Europe through a much higher than average birth rate. Muslims recognize the value of child-birth as a means for cultural domination. America only slightly exceeds a 2.1 growth rate, but that is due to immigration, not birth rate. As our birth rate slows to match that of Europe, we can expect to see our productivity decrease as well.

The Solution

Many nations, including China, Japan, Israel and others are seeking to encourage their citizens to have more children now, not less. The problem is, the anti-child and anti-family worldview is so ingrained in many cultures, people are now avoiding marriage and child-bearing altogether. STD’s are on the rise (so sexual activity is likely on the rise) but marriage and raising children within a committed marriage is despised.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that birth alone solves these complex economic problems. There is far more to a stable society, and robust economy that human bodies taking up land mass. What is needed is for a healthy family culture to emerge. Committed, monogamous, heterosexual marriages provide the best context for raising good citizens. Children need both fathers and mothers to help guide them into life’s complex maze of choices. We do not merely need to give birth to babies; we need to train them well how to become contributing adults. Divorce and parental absenteeism has given us a generation of lost young adults who are struggling to find their way through emotional pain, and subsequent substance abuse. They need the stability only a loving family can provide.

The key is to raise the next generation to understand their responsibility to be producers and nor mere consumers. Entertainment, government subsidies and dumbed-down educational systems have created youth who have a major entitlement complex. They’ve had free daycare, free government schooling, free meals at school, and even in many cases, free college that wasn’t merit-based. The growing acceptance of marijuana and other addictive substances have sapped ambition and is crippling what is left of the American work ethic. Many of them sit back, waiting on the government to take care of them throughout their life. Young adults like this will never successfully lead us into the future.

While information is essential for our global economy, we must also continue to produce goods and services. This is where parents are going to have to work hard to combat the indoctrination towards government dependency being inculcated in our nation’s youth from a very young age.

I’ve never been one to merely preach at others, while not taking my own advice. At the time of this writing, my wife and I are eagerly awaiting the birth of our tenth child in just a few short months. We have never been on government assistance, and we support them all, and teach them a good work ethic (age appropriate of course) from the time they are young. We homeschool them entirely by ourselves and will save taxpayers over a million dollars just between K-12 by not putting them into government schools.

We patiently endure the sarcastic and snarky comments of perfect strangers who ask us, “Do you know what causes that?!” or “Are they all yours?! Surely you aren’t planning to have more?!” Many of those casting shade at us have children who are on drugs or have been in jail for felonies. We don’t take offense at their rudeness and ignorance. We have our eyes set on a higher goal. We are preparing these young ones to be successfully in life: Physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. We are teaching them how to love and care for their neighbors, and how to solve problems, rather than create them. It’s not for the faint of heart, but our great country wasn’t built by people who shrank back from challenges. It was built by people of strong moral courage and tenacious convictions.

It is my hope that conservatives will stop reading from the playbooks of the progressive, leftist, Eugenic, social engineers, and will return to what make America great: Faith, family (including children) and freedom. These universal principles never fail. Join with me in helping to make America great again…by seeing once again that value of our children (our future).

IFI’s Annual
Faith, Family & Freedom Fall Banquet

Friday, October 5, 2018
The Stonegate in Hoffman Estates

Featuring special guest, George Barna

Secure your tickets or table now – click here or call (708) 781-9328.

Program advertisements & banquet sponsorships available.

Abortion is much in the news lately as Judge Brett Kavanaugh—who many abortion-cheerleaders fear will overturn Roe v. Wade—stands poised to become the newest member of the U.S. Supreme Court. Their protestations to the contrary, abortion supporters—who call themselves euphemistically “pro-choice”—are, in reality, pro-death. Women who seek abortions do not seek centrally to terminate a pregnancy. They seek to terminate a human life.

Here’s a thought experiment that might help reveal the ugly truth hiding behind euphemisms: Imagine if all these past 45 bloody years, it had been technologically possible to extract tiny humans from the wombs of their mothers at the earliest stages of pregnancy and incubate and nourish them until they reached full development at which point they could have been placed for adoption. The pregnancy would have been terminated but the lives of babies spared. Does anyone really believe many women would have chosen to terminate their unwanted pregnancies without terminating the lives of their children whom they didn’t want?

Even without such technology, women could have chosen to allow the termination of their pregnancies to occur naturally and without killing their human offspring. All they had to do was wait 1-8 months and voilà, pregnancy terminated, babies’ lives spared. But the termination of a pregnancy was not the ultimate goal. Death of a new human life—the product of conception between two humans and one with unique DNA—was the ultimate goal. The incomprehensible truth is that women who choose to “terminate their pregnancies” prefer the ignoble choice of death for their children over the noble choice to give their children life in the arms of women and men who want them.

Defending abortion in such a way as to mask the barbarism of the act requires recasting incipient human life as either non-life or life unworthy of any rights (The non-life argument is challenging because of, well, science). Since ideas have consequences, we’re seeing that what was once considered shameful and tragic—that is, killing one’s own offspring—is now celebrated by the rich and famous. Actress Martha Plimpton encourages women to “shout their abortions,” Hollywood made a romantic comedy about abortion, and comedienne-manqué Michelle Wolf performed an abortion-celebrating comedy sketch titled “Salute to Abortion” for her now-canceled show.

The idea that because tiny womb-inhabiting humans are not fully developed, lack self-awareness, depend on others for survival, have physical anomalies that will cause suffering, are afflicted with conditions “incompatible with life,” or are inconvenient to their mothers, those mothers have the right to have them killed has far-reaching, tragic, and predictable consequences.

As I wrote prior to HB 40 being signed into law, there are no criteria that Leftists can manufacture to defend the right of some humans to snuff out the lives of other humans that apply only to incipient human lives. Whether those criteria are intrinsic or extrinsic to humans in the womb, they can be applied to humans who escaped the torture chamber that the womb has become.

Intrinsic criteria such as immature development, dependency status, lack of sentience, or lack of perfection apply to humans outside the womb as well. Extrinsic criteria such as being considered a financial or emotional burden also apply to humans outside the womb. And so, we’re seeing the mission creep of death supporters.

Unethical Princeton University bioethics professor Peter Singer wants to extend killing “rights” 30 days post-natally to allow parents to ascertain the health status of their conditionally wanted children. After all, some imperfect humans may have escaped all the currently available tests for determining human perfection and, therefore, “wantedness.”

As I wrote earlier, Leftists who believe that more developed, self-aware, able-bodied, and cognitively superior humans have the right to exterminate less-developed, or cognitively or physically impaired humans whose self-awareness is diminished or absent are kindred spirits with Singer.

The infamous Singer himself acknowledges in his book Practical Ethics that we have already started down the unctuous slope:

I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show… this is not something to be regarded with horror…. [O]nce we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that… collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.

Then in 2011, two philosophers at the University of Melbourne, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, published a paper in which they advocated for “after-birth abortion”:

[W]e argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

One of the many grotesque arguments “progressives” use to rationalize human slaughter is to suggest that in order to prevent adult women from choosing to have back-alley abortions, we must keep the slaughter of humans in the womb legal.

Let’s add some perspective. Here’s from the liberal pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute:

In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women…. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200.

Compare those numbers of accidental deaths to the 647,000  intentional killings of humans in the womb just this year.

Someone recently asked me who would care for and how we could afford all the “unwanted children” that would result from the abolition of legalized human slaughter (well, that’s not exactly what he called it). It’s important to note that not all of the babies who are currently in the death chute, destined by their mothers to be killed would become wards of the state or dependent on social services. Moreover, the $500 million dollars that we currently give to Planned Parenthood for their bloody business could be re-allocated to organizations that help needy families—including faith-based organizations.

If legalized feticide were abolished, the very real possibility exists that some—perhaps many—women would use their “reproductive rights”—rights that don’t include killing other humans—more responsibly. There are reasons we have a million abortions every year, and one of those reasons is we’ve made it cheap and easy.

Some women would use birth control more consistently. Some would become less promiscuous. More would allow their offspring to live and place them up for adoption. More would allow their children to live and would raise them themselves.

And some would freely choose to have back-alley abortions. If infections followed, they would be treated with antibiotics. None of these women would have their hearts injected with digoxin, their skin burned off, their brains scrambled and sucked out, or their limbs torn off. Let’s remember that none of the over 60 million humans slaughtered in the womb since 1973 chose her or his own slaughter.

But most important, no amount of public expense can ever justify the deliberate killing of innocent humans.

Once humans arrogate the right to determine the value of the lives of others or, as with abortion, when humans predict the future value or experiences of the lives of others or the costs to others of the lives of weaker humans, we have launched ourselves down a slippery slope that will end in involuntary euthanasia (also known as murder) of those who are deemed unworthy. Once we say that a person’s unwantedness or presumed unwantedness or physical imperfections rob her of her right to exist and justifies her killing, how is it possible to prevent the killings of others whom the powerful deem unworthy? Once we rid ourselves of that pesky notion about the “sanctity of life,” who among us is safe?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Life-Terminators.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

In the first few days of his confirmation hearings,Judge Brett Kavanaugh has already been doggedly questioned on his views on abortion, specifically whether he will overturn Roe v. Wade. The attention on his views is warranted. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the 5-4 conservative majority will have the ability to overturn the court-protected “right” to abortion.

But contrary to conventional wisdom, Roe v. Wade is no longer the main constitutional guardian for abortion access. While Roe established that the constitutional right to privacy extends to the choice of whether to abort a baby, most of Roe’s jurisprudence has been replaced by another U.S. Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It is Casey, not Roe that governs most of abortion jurisprudence today.

When Roe was first heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, few on either side of the abortion debate thought the case would produce a far-reaching decision on the issue. The case was initially taken up by the Court to decide a technical civil procedure issue. As a result, the Court did not have a factual record of the medical, social, and legal effects of abortion restrictions (Roe’s questionable background is excellently documented in Clarke Forsythe’s book Abuse of Discretion). This left Justice Harry Blackman without much guidance and the freedom to be creative.

The result was ugly and not just due to Roe’s tragic consequences for millions of unborn children. Justice Blackman’s unwieldy legal reasoning made legal scholars of all viewpoints blush for its broad scope and legislative-like assertions. The Court found that the U.S. Constitution’s implied right to privacy (based on the famous birth control case of Griswold v. Connecticut) extends to a woman’s decision to choose abortion, though the state had legitimate state interests in protecting the mother’s health and “potential life” of the child.

To balance these interests, Justice Blackman created a statute-like three-trimester system outlining what aspects of the abortion procedure the state can regulate at each of the three stages. In the first trimester, the decision whether to abort the child was left completely to the mother. In the second trimester, the only regulation on the procedure had to be necessary to protect the mother’s health. It was only after the point of fetal viability—which Justice Blackman also chose without any substantive legal basis—that the state could prohibit abortion altogether. The decision was disjointed, ill-informed, and without a grounded basis in constitutional law, making it vulnerable to being overruled.

In 1992, Roe was put on trial in the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But instead of overruling Roe, the Court decided to keep the outcome yet overhaul its legal structure. Gone was Roe’s clunky trimester system. In its place, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor implemented a more judicially scrupulous standard, known as the “undue burden test.” Now when reviewing a law restricting access to abortion, a court must ask whether the law has the purpose or effect of placing an undue burden on the woman deciding whether to seek an abortion. For example, in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 2015 Texas law that placed new health and safety standards on abortion clinics that would have caused 21 of the 40 clinics in the state to close due to their inability to comply with it. The Court found that the health and safety concerns of mothers were not valid enough concerns compared to the decreased access to abortion. Therefore, the law was unconstitutional under Casey because it placed an undue burden on access to abortion.

With Casey, the path to overrule Roe becomes more difficult for several reasons. First, Casey’s undue burden standard is widely considered to be a more judicially acceptable constitutional standard than Roe’s unusual trimester system. Before Casey, if the U.S. Supreme Court wanted to overrule to right to abortion access, they could have said that Roe was simply a poorly conceived decision and should be overruled in its entirety. However, under the undue burden test, the Court loses that justification.

Second, courts have a general rule of respecting prior decisions in a doctrine known as stare decisis. The more case law that backs a certain position, the less likely the Court is to be willing to overturn that precedent. Having two major U.S. Supreme Court decisions supporting a precedent will make a future court wary to change it.

This is not to say all hope for protecting the lives of the unborn is lost. It is unlikely, however, that the Court will overrule the right to abortion in one bold stroke in a single case. More realistically, the Court’s conservative majority will slowly chip away at past precedent by upholding pro-life laws. Ironically, the conservative majority could do this by using the flexibility of Casey’s undue burden standard. What comprises an undue burden on abortion access can mean essentially anything the Court wants it to mean. The Court could say that few or even no government restrictions on abortion would constitute an undue burden on abortion access. For example, a health and safety law that closes abortion clinics like that in Hellerstedt does not place an undue burden on abortion access, because it merely insures the safety of the mother, and any clinic closures are simply an incidental effect. Roe would not be explicitly overturned but effectively undermined.

Some argue that the undue burden standard is already weaker than what it was in Casey. In the 2007 case Carhartt v. Gonzalez, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a congressional ban on partial-birth abortion, a procedure that kills the child once he or she is partially outside the body of the mother. The Court ruled that simply banning a certain form of abortion does not place an undue burden on abortion access.

With Judge Kavanaugh on the U.S. Supreme Court bench, the pro-life movement has reason for hope that legal protections for the unborn will not be struck down. With, however, all the attention focusing on whether Judge Kavanaugh will strike down Roe, a more poignant question is how stringently he will apply the undue burden standard of Casey.

IFI’s Annual
Faith, Family & Freedom Fall Banquet

Friday, October 5, 2018
The Stonegate in Hoffman Estates

Featuring special guest, George Barna

The early bird special expires on Sept. 14th 

Secure your tickets or table now – click here or call (708) 781-9328.

In Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s U.S. Senate confirmation hearing earlier today, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) made a mind-blowing—make that head-exploding—statement. Citing the liberal Guttmacher Institute, Feinstein said, “In the 1950s and ’60s, the two decades before Roe, death from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000 to 1.2 million [emphasis added].”

That is not what the Guttmacher Institute says. The Guttmacher Institute says, “Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year.” Please note, this statement does not mention death. Feinstein’s numbers would have been correct if she had been referring to humans in the womb, but she wasn’t.

Here’s what Feinstein omitted, also from the Guttmacher Institute:

In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200.”

The number of (accidental) deaths of women caused by illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s doesn’t come close to 200,000, let alone 1.2 million. Compare the number of actual deaths of women from illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960’s to the almost 61 MILLION intentional killings of humans in the womb since 1973, or the almost 630,000 humans intentionally killed in the womb just this year.

The “Conservative Millennial” Allie Stuckey recently wrote this:

The most impressive feat the Left has accomplished is convincing millions of people that decapitating a child inside the womb is worthy of celebration. That alone should teach us to never underestimate the power of a lie and the willingness of ignorant people to believe it.

The success of the Left can be attributed in no small measure to their repugnant willingness to lie in the service of evil.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Diane-Feinsteins-Big-Fat-Abortion-Lie.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

Based on the response from the left, you would think that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court would virtually guarantee the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Why, then, are some conservative and pro-life groups opposing his confirmation?

On the positive side, many pro-life leaders reacted enthusiastically to the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the highly-respected Susan B. Anthony List.

She said, “President Trump has made another outstanding choice in nominating Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, keeping his promise to nominate only originalist judges to the Court.”

In her opinion, Kavanaugh was “an experienced, principled jurist,” who has a “strong record of protecting life and constitutional rights.”

Many others were enthusiastic as well, including conservative think tanks and long-term pro-life leaders.

On the negative side, Jane Coaston wrote an article for Vox.com explaining, “Why social conservatives are disappointed that Trump picked Brett Kavanaugh.”

She pointed to a number of top leaders in the conservative and pro-life movement who had reservations about Kavanaugh or who called for outright opposition.

Upon hearing of President Trump’s nomination of Kavanaugh, the National Review’s David French wrote, “I’ll defend [Kavanaugh] vigorously from unfair critiques tomorrow, but tonight I join many conservatives in a slight sigh of regret. There was a better choice.”

Tim Wildmon, President of the highly influential American Family Association, wrote, “AFA has opposed the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S Supreme Court for some very valid reasons. We are deeply concerned about how he might ultimately rule on issues related to abortion and religious liberty. For these reasons, we consider this nomination to represent a four-star appointment when it could have been five-star.”

Other groups, like Columbia [South Carolina] Christians for Life sent out e-blasts with titles like, “ROE VS. WADE protector Kavanaugh: Another red flag for Jesuit-educated, Jesuit school director, BRETT KAVANAUGH.” (This was sent out August 30.)

Another pro-life activist sent out links to this video, with this warning: “President Trump broke his campaign promise to pro-lifers when he nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Ricardo Davis of Georgia Right to Life calls Kavanaugh’s pro-abortion position ‘morally reprehensible’ and urges pro-lifers and conservatives to demand Kavanaugh’s withdrawal and for Trump to replace him with a real pro-life nominee such as Amy Coney Barrett.”

How can we make sense of this?

On the one hand, there is agreement that someone like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, if appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, would definitely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade should the opportunity present itself. The downside is that many believe that in today’s climate, despite the Republican majority, she would not have been confirmed.

Others have suggested that it’s unlikely that there will be a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade as much as an incremental challenge. What if something like the Fetal Heartbeat Bill became law and was challenged up to the U.S. Supreme Court? How would Kavanaugh vote on that?

The real answer is that we simply do not know what a U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh would do.

According to Thomas Jipping, Deputy Director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and a Senior Legal Fellow, Kavanaugh’s “record meets the Schumer standard of a judge who does not predictably rule for a particular side. That is because Kavanaugh is the kind of judge who follows the law rather than his personal views.”

What, then, are we to make of the varied and passionate responses to Justice Kavanaugh? Does the left have reason to fear? Does the right have reason to rue a missed opportunity?

Here are a few things that seem clear.

First, we can be almost certain that Justice Kavanaugh will be a far better friend of the U.S. Constitution and of conservative values than any judge a President Hillary Clinton would have appointed. That is a very big positive.

Second, we who are pro-life do well not to put our ultimate trust in a man (Kavanaugh) or an institution (the U.S. Supreme Court) to change the direction of our nation. (This is not to deny the importance of both the man and the institution. It is simply to bring perspective.)

Third, it is possible that Kavanaugh himself cannot guarantee how he will rule if confirmed. There have been surprises in every direction from various appointees in the past, and even the best vetting process cannot guarantee the future.

Obviously, I hope that the leftist opposition to Kavanaugh is correct and that, should the opportunity arise, he would vote for life and for family and for our essential liberties.

But there may be a reason for the concern of some on the right, in which case we should be praying for Kavanaugh and the rest of the members of the Court that God would direct their hearts.

Scripture teaches that, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will.” Surely He can turn the hearts of U.S. Supreme Court justices as well.

More importantly, He can turn the hearts of a nation. That is the greater goal when it comes to cultivating a culture of life, and it must always remain the foremost goal for all of us who love life. As powerful as the Supreme Court has become, it alone cannot transform hearts.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

Written by Anne Reed

For those of who have fought for the reversal of Roe v. Wade for years, it has seemed, at times, like a giant too powerful to topple. But the landscape is changing. As little David stood with five smooth rocks in hand, one made its way to the slingshot. Maybe, just maybe, a similar rock is prepped and ready in our day. Now.

Politically speaking, the divide between abortion supporters and opponents is as wide as the east is from the west. With the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the air has become increasingly volatile as the real-life prospect of overturning the 1973 landmark decision that legalized abortion nationwide is coming into view.

Also remarkable is the timing of a new film Roe v. Wade, produced by Alveda King, niece of the late Martin Luther King, Jr. The movie is currently under production and is causing quite a stir.

A number of cast and crew members have quit, citing the pro-life slant or confusion caused by the privacy requirements concerning the script. You would think it was being produced by President Donald J. Trump himself the way the liberal, agenda-driven mainstream media is going after it – thus the great need for confidentiality.

Tucker Carlson of Fox News put his finger on it when he asked director Nick Loeb a rhetorical question during a recent interview:

“If you try to make a film that doesn’t celebrate that Supreme Court decision as a watermark in the advancement of the human race, I think you’re going to run into some trouble, don’t ya’ think?”

Well, that was a mouthful.

I always find it amusing when the left refers to the court case as “Roe” for short as they make their rabid pro-abortion case – as if Roe herself was making their case. Not so. Ms. Roe (Norma McCorvey), who died last February, longed to see the case overturned. She wrote two books detailing the behind-the-scenes manipulation and lies, and her new life as a Christ follower and pro-life activist: I am Roe (1994), and Won by Love (1998).

The liberal media is working hard to discredit the Roe v. Wade movie – anything to keep the truth buried in the dark. But in the midst of the fierce attacks, the producer and director are determined to show on the big screen the back alley manipulating that brought the infamous case to the Supreme Court and to its perceived final victory.

Let’s just look at one article published by Yahoo News from The Cut as an example. The writer went so far as to link a story from Jezebel.com, an internet site sharing a name with King Ahab’s wife, the biblical supermodel of rebellion and wickedness. While the site attempted to paint Martin Luther King, Jr. as pro-abortion, Alveda clarified that while her uncle never supported abortion, his wife did, as did Alveda herself in her early years. Alveda now openly shares about her past abortions, as well as her transformation from darkness and death to light and life.

The Yahoo article criticized the movie for including Center for Medical Progress investigative video footage exposing Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby organs and its eerily calloused contempt for human life. Of course, the author of the article is sure to remind her readers that Planned Parenthood “vociferously and repeatedly denied” the actions portrayed in videos that were, by the way, provided in their entirety on YouTube.

The writer also claims the film will likely be rated R because of “several graphic scenes depicting aborted fetuses,” including one showing “a dozen buckets of tiny fetuses and baby parts” found in an abortionist’s hotel room during a police sting.

It is baffling that abortion proponents find it morally repugnant to show “graphic” actual images of aborted fetuses. If it is merely a clump of cells, a parasite, contents of pregnancy, or whatever else they choose to call these precious human lives, then why is it so offensive to show?

I could go on…and on.

Before directing the film, Loeb was best known for his custody battle over frozen embryos shared with former girlfriend, Sofia Vergara. He was approached by the director/screenwriter of Roe v. Wade who explained that a 1989 made-for-TV movie about Roe v. Wade didn’t really lay out the truth surrounding the case.

When Loeb read the script, he was shocked.

“Everyone in America has heard of Roe v. Wade, but no one really knows the true story of what led up to that,” he explained.

He then went on to read about 40 different books and the bios of others linked to the story, like Norma McCorvey. And he became determined to make the truth known.

For more information about the movie, go to roevwademovie.com by clicking here.

This article originally posted at AFA.net.

A majority of Americans including many mainline Christians support legal abortion, but many religious conservatives say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, according to the Pew Research Center.

Those religious conservatives are now hoping that Roe v. Wade will be overturned in light of President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, a practicing Catholic, to the U.S. Supreme Court. They’re optimistic that having a fifth conservative on the bench could lead to a reversal of the 1973 landmark case that made abortion a constitutional right. Kavanaugh gave a speech last year in which he praised former Chief Justice William Rehnquist for dissenting in Roe v. Wade.

A Pew survey last year showed that 57 percent of Americans support legal abortion, while 40 percent believe it should be illegal in most or all cases. A Pew 2014 Religious Landscape Study found that evangelicals tend to oppose legal abortion while people in mainline Protestant churches, as well as Jews, atheists, and agnostics, tend to support it. While Catholics are divided, the Roman Catholic Church continues to speak out against abortion.

Sixty-six percent of Southern Baptists are opposed to legal abortion, compared to only 8 percent of Unitarian Universalists and 18 percent of Episcopalians. Other religious groups with a high percentage opposed include Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christians affiliated with the Assemblies of God.

In a January 2018 news release, Pew reported:

Among those who do identify with a religion, the majority view about abortion among members of a particular group often mirrors that group’s official policy on abortion. This is the case with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon church) and the Southern Baptist Convention – both churches oppose abortion, as do most members of those churches. And the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Unitarian Universalist Association, and Reform and Conservative Judaism, for example, all support abortion rights, in line with most of their adherents.

There are, however, cases where the views of a church’s members don’t align with its teachings on abortion. For instance, while the Roman Catholic Church is an outspoken critic of abortion, U.S. Catholics were divided on the issue in the 2014 survey, with 48% supportive of legal abortion and 47% opposed.  (See chart HERE.)

In June 2017, the Southern Baptist Convention at its annual meeting denounced Planned Parenthood and called on Congress to fully defund it. The convention passed a resolution that called out the “immoral agenda and practices of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates, especially their role in the unjust killing each year of more than 300,000 precious unborn babies, its use of particularly gruesome illegal abortion methods, and its profiteering from harvesting unborn babies’ tissues and organs.”

By contrast, representatives of mainline denominations have been vocal in support of legal abortion. This past March, 68 faith leaders in Iowa wrote a letter published in the Des Moines Register criticizing a bill in the state legislature that would make it illegal for a woman to get an abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. The letter said in part:

Every person has the right to their own personal and religious beliefs and to live their life how they determine is best for them. The government does not have the right to infringe on the freedoms or privacy of Iowa women based on those religious beliefs. Every woman deserves to consult her values, faith, and doctor when making a decision about her body and her pregnancy. Any law that strips a woman of her faith and tries instead to legislate her values for her is immoral.

Republican state lawmakers in Iowa were able to pass the fetal heartbeat bill despite objections from Democrats. No Democrats supported the bill. It was signed into law by Republican Governor Kim Reynolds, but a judge blocked it from taking effect July 1 as a result of a lawsuit filed by abortion activists.

The Chicago Tribune has reported that more out-of-state women have been coming to Illinois for abortions because of less restrictive laws compared to those in surrounding states. The overall number of abortions had dropped, however, but is now on the rise, an increase attributed to a state law passed last year that expands taxpayer subsidies for abortions. Under the new law, which took effect January 1, Medicaid recipients and state employees and their dependents covered by state employee insurance can get taxpayer-subsidized abortions.

Read more:  Illinois Taxpayer Funded Abortions Increase at Least 274 Percent in First Six Months of 2018

Spread the Word! 

Do you have friends or acquaintances who could benefit from IFI’s informational emails? If you do, please forward this IFI email to them and encourage them to subscribe our e-mail list!

It is only because of concerned citizens like you that we are able to continue promoting pro-family values in the Prairie State.

“Progressives” control academia, government schools, the mainstream press, access to information (e.g., Google), social media (e.g., Facebook), professional medical and mental health organizations, the arts, and are infiltrating even churches. And now they seek absolute control over the judiciary through “court-packing.” They want constitutional revisionists to dominate the U.S. Supreme Court even if that means expanding the number of Justices. And some of them openly share their reasons for this proposal, thus exposing the brazenness of their tyrannical quest to transform America into a totalizing and totalitarian “progressive” dystopia.

Todd N. Tucker, political scientist and fellow at the liberal think tank, the Roosevelt Institute writes that,

With Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling upholding Trump’s Muslim ban, Wednesday’s decision attacking public sector unions, and Justice Anthony Kennedy’s announcement that he’s retiring, it is time to push a once-marginal idea to the top of the agenda: pack the Supreme Court….  A thoughtful court-packing proposal would ensure that the Court more carefully reflects the mores of the time, rather than shackling democracy to the weight of the past…. [T]he time to begin mainstreaming an enlarged Court is now.

The far wiser Richard Weaver, author of Ideas Have Consequences, wrote something a tad different about the weight of the past:

Whoever argues for a restoration of values is sooner or later met with the objection that one cannot return, or as the phrase is likely to be, “you can’t turn the clock back.” By thus assuming that we are prisoners of the moment, the objection well reveals the philosophic position of modernism. The believer in truth, on the other hand, is bound to maintain that the things of highest value are not affected by time; otherwise the very concept of truth becomes impossible. In declaring that we wish to recover lost ideals and values, we are looking toward an ontological realm that is timeless.

In an article for the online magazine Slate, Osita Nwanevu summarizes the pro-court-packing argument of David Faris, author of the troubling book It’s Time to Fight Dirty: “The argument you’re making here, in sum, is that the time has come for Democrats to throw out some parts of the rulebook of American politics and embrace radical, structural strategies.”

Faris explains—with no evident sign of irony—that his sense of “urgency definitely comes from just this long ideological march off to the right in the Republican Party. That, to me, is dangerous because the Republicans are no longer committed to the spirit of the constitutional framework as it exists. And they’re committed to policies that are going to wreak incredible havoc on this country.”

Have you ever pulled into a parking spot, looked at the stationary car parked next to you, and wrongly perceived your own car—which you forgot to put in park—as stationary and the other one as backing out? That’s the optical illusion Faris is experiencing. Faris wrongly perceives conservatives, who parked their ideological and political car securely with emergency brake activated, as moving rightward while in reality “Progressives” have careered madly leftward.

Faris ironically frets that “incredible havoc” will be wreaked by conservatives. Yes, a card-carrying member of the party that believes it’s ethical to kill humans in the womb for no reason other than that their mothers don’t want them; that destroyed marriage; that recognizes no intrinsic right of children to be raised by a mother and father; that wants to eradicate all public recognition of sexual differentiation; that wants to limit the exercise of religion to homes, hearts, and pews; that put Christian adoption agencies out of business; that seeks to force citizens to lie by using incorrect pronouns in the service of a science-denying cultic belief worries that conservatives will “wreak incredible havoc on this country” and is “no longer committed to the spirit of the constitutional framework.”

Maybe he’s right. Maybe conservatives aren’t committed to the “spirit,” or penumbras, or emanations of the Constitution. Maybe they’re committed to the text of the Constitution.

The fact that “progressives” in their opposition to constitutional textualists/originalists—whom they know approach the U.S. Constitution with more rigorous fidelity than do “progressive” Justices—focus almost exclusively on the possibility that Roe v. Wade may be overturned would seem a tacit admission that there exists no constitutional right of women to have their intrauterine offspring slaughtered.

Well, here’s some food for thought about Roe v. Wade from “progressives” who support the legal right of women to choose to have more vulnerable humans killed—quotes that shrieking feminists may find wholly unpalatable:

• “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” (Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor).

• “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose” (Edward Lazarus, former clerk to SCOTUS Justice Harry Blackmun).

• What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent—at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed” (Edward Lazarus).

• “[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum—will tell you it is basically indefensible” (Edward Lazarus).

• “Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference” (William Saletan, Slate magazine writer).

• Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be…. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking” (John Hart Ely, clerk for Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren).

• Roe “is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.” (Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution).

• “[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision—the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution—strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy…. As a layman, it’s hard for me to raise profound constitutional objections to the decision. But it is not hard to say it confounds our common-sense understanding of what privacy is. If a Supreme Court ruling is going to affect so many people then it ought to rest on perfectly clear logic and up-to-date science. Roe, with its reliance on trimesters and viability, has a musty feel to it, and its argument about privacy raises more questions than it answers…. “[Roe] is a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument…. Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument—but a bit of our soul as well” (Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist).

• “Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy) …. [C]lear governing constitutional principles… are not present” (Alan Dershowitz, former Harvard Law School professor).

• “In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roeon constitutional grounds. Its overturning would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary, the pro-choice movement, and the moderate majority of the American people…. Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself. As a result, the pro-choice majority asks nominees to swear allegiance to the decision without being able to identify an intelligible principle to support it” (Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School professor, former clerk to Judge Abner Mikva).

• “Liberal judicial activism peaked with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision…. Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching” (Michael Kinsley, attorney, political journalist).

• “[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. It supported that right via a lengthy, but purposeless, cross-cultural historical review of abortion restrictions and a tidy but irrelevant refutation of the straw-man argument that a fetus is a constitutional ‘person’ entited [sic] to the protection of the 14th Amendment…. By declaring an inviolable fundamental right to abortion, Roe short-circuited the democratic deliberation that is the most reliable method of deciding questions of competing values” (Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Law School professor).

• “The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution” (Archibald Cox, JFK’s Solicitor General, former Harvard Law School professor).

Roe v. Wade, my friends, is the SCOTUS decision that “progressives” argue absolute fidelity to precedent demands Justices uphold. If they think “lousy,” “indefensible,” “barely coherent,” unintelligible, a-constitutional non-reasoning must be honored in slavish service to the political end of allowing feticide, I hate to imagine what they would have thought about revisiting Dred Scott.

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/No-Surprise-Leftists-Want-to-Fight-Dirty.mp3

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-