PODCAST: No Surprise, Leftists Want to Fight Dirty

“Progressives” control academia, government schools, the mainstream press, 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 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.

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

The Overturning of Roe v. Wade and the Possibility of Cultural Change

Within hours of Justice Kennedy announcing his imminent retirement, voices on the left began announcing the imminent overturning of Roe v. Wade.

David Cole, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said, “If Donald Trump, who has promised to overturn Roe v. Wade, picks someone who is anti-choice, the future of Roe v. Wade is very much in question.”

More emphatically, Slate magazine ran a story with the headline, “The End of Roe,” declaring, “Anthony Kennedy’s retirement ensures the Supreme Court will allow states to outlaw abortion.”

And CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin tweeted, “Anthony Kennedy is retiring. Abortion will be illegal in twenty states in 18 months. #SCOTUS.”

During his appearance on CNN, he added that there was “just no doubt” that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, stating, “Roe v. Wade is doomed. It is gone because Donald Trump won the election and because he’s going to have the chance to appoint two Supreme Court justices.”

As stated succinctly in a tweet from Planned Parenthood Action, “With Kennedy retiring, the right to access abortion in this country is on the line. #SaveSCOTUS.”

May all these fears and warnings prove true! May we see Roe v. Wade overturned speedily, in our time. And may the many women who struggle with their pregnancies find new hope and learn that there are better alternatives than abortion.

Of course, it is too early to proclaim the end of Roe v. Wade. And for more than 55 million babies who have already lost their lives, this is too little, too late.

But, based on his performance to date, it is highly likely, if not almost certain, that President Trump will nominate a solid, pro-life justice. And it is then very likely that Roe v. Wade would be overturned in the years ahead.

This would be beyond historic. It would be unprecedented. It would mark the first time that the court made a radical, anti-life turn only to reverse course decades later. And it would mark a major turning point in the cultural life of our nation, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade seemed like an impossible dream for years.

Although I was almost entirely unaware of the battle for life in 1973 (I was 18 at the time and I don’t remember hearing a word about abortion in my church), older colleagues have told me how bleak things appeared at that time. They have even related that pro-lifers were more despised back than those who hold to traditional family values are today. That’s saying something!

Back in 1973, after the Roe v. Wade ruling, pro-life forces were in disarray. Yet, Nina Martin reported in the New Republic in 2014, they quickly mounted “a push for a constitutional amendment affirming that life begins at conception.” But, she explains, “that first effort fizzled, and it’s only in recent years that a new wave of pro-life activists—many of them born after Roe and educated in fundamentalist Christian settings—have once again seized on personhood as a way not just of weakening Roe, but of overturning it. In state after state, they have been pushing to have their beliefs enshrined in policy.”

So, according to Martin, a lot of the recent success in opposing Roe v. Wade is due to the efforts of conservative Christians born after 1973. In other words, they were born after abortion on demand was considered a settled issue in America. After the battle for the unborn was apparently lost. After our side was told to throw in the towel.

But that was not the end of the story. As Austin Ruse noted, “Social conservatives point out that the number of young people opposed to abortion used to be equally bleak among the young but is now trending their way.”

What makes Ruse’s point especially poignant is that he made this comment in a short article documenting the rising acceptance of same-sex relationships among young Republicans. In light of that, he suggested that, “All this leaves open the possibility that Republican opposition to same-sex marriage may fade with time.”

That’s exactly what was expected with regard to the battle for life in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade. The die has been cast. The verdict has been rendered. The older, conservative opposition will soon die out. As for the generations that follow, abortion on demand will be the law of the land, unopposed and largely, if not universally, embraced.

And this, of course, is what we are told unceasingly with regard to same-sex “marriage,” almost word for word. Why couldn’t we see a cultural reversal there as well?

Today, we stand on the precipice of undoing the monstrous injustice of Roe v. Wade. Who’s to say we won’t live to see the reversal of Obgergefell vs. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court’s overreaching decision to redefine marriage?

It is for good reason that CNN is already writing about, “What Anthony Kennedy’s retirement means for abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action and the future of the Supreme Court.”

And Vox opines that “a Court without Kennedy is substantially more likely to: Overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states (and maybe the federal government too) to ban most or all abortions. . . . Rule in favor of religious challenges to anti-discrimination law, and perhaps, in an extreme case, reverse some past Supreme Court rulings on gay rights.”

All this sounds totally within reach today. And it could hinge on the next appointee to the Court. Let’s pray for God’s mercy on our nation, for the continuing turning of hearts towards life, and for righteous justices to adjudicate in our courts.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

The ERA Harms Our Unborn Children

Written by Elise Bouc
State Chairman, Stop ERA Illinois

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA – SJRCA 4) is a poorly worded proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restrict all laws and practices that make any distinctions based on gender or sex. While we believe in equal opportunity for men and women, we also recognize that there are situations where we must make distinctions based on our biological differences such as providing privacy through separate bathrooms and locker rooms. If the ERA becomes fully ratified, men and women could not be treated differently, even if the different treatment is due to physical differences.

The ERA will harm our unborn children

Since abortion is unique to women, any attempt to restrict a woman’s access to abortion is seen, under the rules of the ERA, as a form of sex discrimination – because women are being singled out for a characteristic that is unique to them, and they are being treated differently based on that physical characteristic (in this case- the ability to become pregnant). Therefore any abortion restrictions would be overturned by the ERA. The ERA prohibits sex discrimination. In addition, since medical procedures unique to men are funded by Medicaid (such as circumcision and prostatectomies), then abortion which is unique to women, must also receive Medicaid funding under ERA requirements.

Some of the states with state ERAs have already used their ERAs to mandate Medicaid funding for elective abortions and overturn abortion restrictions:

The New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously ruled that under their state ERA since only women undergo abortions, the denial of taxpayer funding for abortions is “sex discrimination” (N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 975 P.2d 841, 1998). As a result, New Mexico now provides Medicaid funding for elective abortions.

A Connecticut Superior court ruled that the state’s policy of paying for abortions only in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother violated the Connecticut ERA. “Since only women become pregnant, discrimination against pregnancy by not funding abortion…is sex-oriented discrimination,” the court ruled. The court ordered the state to pay for any abortion which a doctor deems advisable for any reason relating to “physical and/or psychological health” Doe v. Maher, 515 A.2d 134 (Conn Super. Ct. 1986). This ruling was final. As a result, women only have to claim that their unintended pregnancy is causing depression or stress in order to receive Medicaid funding for elective abortions.

The Montana Supreme Court struck down a statute prohibiting non-physicians from performing abortions. The majority opinion cited state ERA language in art. II, sec. 4, of the state constitution in support of its holding (par. 72 of the opinion). Article II, sec. 4, provides, in part, “Neither the state nor any person,…shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of . . . sex . .” (Armstrong v. State of Montana, 1999)

Using this same ‘sex discrimination’ logic, legal scholars have stated that the ERA would:

Eliminate all abortion restrictions including the partial birth abortion ban, third trimester abortions, and parental notification of minors seeking abortions, and overturn the Hyde Amendment.

Mandate expanded taxpayer funding for abortions.

End conscience clauses for nurses, doctors and hospitals who do not want to participate in performing abortions. Courts do not allow conscience clauses in race discrimination, and they would not be able to allow it under the ERA.

Threaten tax exemptions of private prolife religious schools who discourage abortion through their teaching practices.

ERA would provide a new basis in the Constitution for the right to abortion. Roe v. Wade is based on weak reasoning founded on an unwritten “right to privacy” assumption. As public sentiment grows in opposition to abortion, there is hope that the U.S. Supreme Court could reverse that dreadful decision. However, if the ERA passes, that hope would be destroyed because the ERA would insert a written and defined right based on sex discrimination into the Constitution.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to email your state representative to urge him/her to oppose the ERA (SJRCA 4).

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

Women’s March Plans New Event, But Rejects Human Rights

Written by Liberty McArtor

On January 21, 2017, the Women’s March on Washington became the largest march in American history. On January 21, 2018, Women’s March, the organization behind last year’s historic protest, will hold an anniversary event in Nevada. Like last year, similar events will be held in cities around the nation.

This year’s event is called “Power to the Polls.” According to the website, it’ll “launch a national voter registration tour” and “channel the energy and activism of the Women’s March into tangible strategies and concrete wins in 2018.”

But something else is happening on January 21. It’s Sanctity of Life Sunday. Every year around this time, pro-lifers observe the anniversary of Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Often it’s with sermons about the value of life, and education on how to get hands-on in the pro-life movement. It’s sometimes marked with a presidential proclamation.

There are plenty of problems with Women’s March and its events. But the fact that Sanctity of Life Sunday falls on the same day as its next event highlights the worst problem of all.

Human Rights are Human Rights

Let me put politics aside for a moment. To be honest, I sympathize with Women’s March’s desire to lift up the marginalized. Though its solutions are often misguided, the organization’s desire to fight for minority communities, disabled people, immigrants and others is clear. Those involved want to make life better for people who have traditionally struggled and held little influence.

And this is where — politics still aside — the movement is choked by sad irony.

While claiming to exalt the marginalized, members marginalize the most vulnerable group of all: unborn children. They brush aside the very group that we as women, by our biology, have the privilege of carrying, nurturing and bringing into the world.

If any Women’s Marchers are reading this, they probably rolled their eyes at that last sentence. Maybe they’d say I care more about fetuses who haven’t been born yet than real-live people. That’s false.

Human rights have to start in the womb, otherwise they’re meaningless outside it.

Here’s the deal: you can’t value any human life if you rob it of its inherent right to exist.

The Women’s March website lists several “unity principles.” Among them are statements like “Women’s rights are human rights,” and “LGBTQIA rights are human rights.” But it fails to include the most obvious statement of all: Human rights are human rights.

The Other Women

This is why so many women cannot join in Women’s March events. It’s not just that Women’s March rejects pro-lifers — which the organization has done at an official level, by the way. It’s that, despite touting so many “human rights,” the movement has rejected the most basic human right.

There are plenty of other reasons to criticize Women’s March and its efforts. Their affiliation with an anti-American, terrorist-supporting activist, for one. The fact that they include as “women” people who are biologically male and only undermine true women’s causes, for another. And the fact that the only women they care about promoting are those who will further an extremely progressive agenda.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

But the fact that they reject the most basic human right — life — and evangelize for the cause, is the most telling.

So on January 21, thousands, or maybe millions, of women will gather around the nation for the “Power to the Polls” event. But millions of others will gather in churches. They’ll gather in pregnancy centers, shelters and ministries. They’ll be helping women and their babies to not only make it, but thrive.

And they’ll be praying. Praying for the restoration of the most basic human right, and the liberation of America’s women from this lie that unborn life is the enemy.

This article originally posted on the Stream.org.

The Equal Rights Amendment and Abortion

For those who weren’t politically active in the 70’s or never got around to learning the specifics about the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), here is a thumbnail sketch of the purpose and danger of the ERA.

This proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment is deceptively named. Men and women already have equal standing and equal protection before the law and possess God-given rights which are delineated in the Bill of Rights.

If the goal is to ensure equal opportunity, then the path is not the broad and ambiguously written ERA. Even supporters of the ERA cannot answer questions about its full impact on existing legal protections for women (and children) in state and federal statutes.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote Sex Bias in the U.S. Code when she was with the ACLU. In her book, she admitted that at least 800 federal laws would likely be struck down – laws aimed at protecting women.

Are men and women different? Over the course of centuries, common sense and science have detailed the physical and mental differences that are biologically based. The push today by Leftists to pretend these obvious differences don’t exist is not a new phenomenon — and the ERA was once such an effort that ended in failure in the 1970s.

The Equal Rights Amendment says:

“Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or any State on account of sex.“ (Emphasis added.)

The Equal Rights Amendment is a poorly worded amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restrict all laws and practices that make any distinctions based on gender or “on account of sex.” Under the ERA men and women could not be treated differently, even if the different treatment is due to physical differences.

The ERA is centrally about abortion.

Since abortion is unique to women, any attempt to restrict a woman’s access to abortion would be seen, under the rules of the ERA, as a form of sex discrimination. As a result, abortion restrictions would be overturned.

In addition, since medical procedures unique to men are funded by Medicaid (such as circumcision and prostatectomies), then abortion which is unique to women, must also receive Medicaid funding under ERA requirements.

Pro-abortion groups, including Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund have all submitted legal briefs stating that the ERA supports abortion rights.

Using this same ‘sex discrimination’ logic, legal scholars have reasoned that the ERA would do the following:

Eliminate all abortion restrictions including the federal partial birth abortion ban, third trimester abortions, and parental notification of minors seeking abortions.

End conscience clauses for nurses, doctors and hospitals who do not want to facilitate abortions in any way.

Threaten tax exemptions of private religious schools that do not believe abortion is moral and that discourage it when teaching students.

ERA would also provide a new basis for abortion rights in the U.S. Constitution. Roe v. Wade is founded on an unwritten “right to privacy” assumption that is vulnerable in legal challenges. The ERA would insert a written, defined right based on sex discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, and thus provide a strong legal basis for overturning all abortion restrictions.

Americans need to become informed on this issue and seek to help educate others on the consequences of the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. Then they must make sure their state representatives and state senators know both the dangers of the ERA and their opposition to it.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email to your lawmakers, urging them to protect women’s rights by opposing the Equal Rights Amendment.

The Illinois Family Institute has posted important articles outlining what the ERA is all about – examples can be found here, here, here, and here.

State lawmakers will be back in Springfield for the veto session November 7-9, and this legislation may come up for a vote during that time. PLEASE speak out today!

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

-and, please-

Rep. Breen & Sen. McConchie File Legislation to Ban Use of Taxpayer Funds for Elective Abortions

Today, State Representative Peter Breen (R-Lombard) and State Senator Dan McConchie (R-Hawthorn Woods) filed the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” which would prohibit units of government in Illinois from using taxpayer funds for elective abortions, reversing key provisions of the recently enacted House Bill 40. Breen and McConchie are pressing for full debate and a floor vote on the measure during the upcoming fall veto session later this month, before HB 40 goes into effect in 2018.

“With the signing of HB 40, Illinoisans will be put on the hook for roughly 75% of the state’s 40,000 annual elective abortions,” said Breen. “Strong majorities of Illinoisans, especially folks in the suburbs and downstate, oppose taxpayer funding of abortions, and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act will respect both their pocketbooks and their consciences. Considering the average cost of $1,000 per Medicaid abortion, we don’t have the $30 million required to cover 30,000 abortions every year.”

“The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act is a critical piece of legislation that respects the moral and fiscal concerns of our residents,” said McConchie. “In states that have legalized Medicaid abortions, over 50% of all abortions become taxpayer-funded. The residents in my suburban district are overwhelmingly opposed to this new spending scheme.”

The legislators are relying on data from the Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, about income levels of those seeking abortions and payment data from other states that provide elective abortion funding. Guttmacher indicates that 75% of women seeking abortions are below 200% Federal Poverty Level, and that, in states with elective abortion, over 50% of all abortions are paid for by Medicaid. See, https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014. Because Illinois’ Medicaid system extends eligibility to pregnant women up to at least 213% Federal Poverty Level, those who will be eligible for taxpayer funded abortions may be even higher than 75%. See, http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=14091 (pregnant women considered at least family size 2, as Illinois law counts unborn children in family size). The legislators also received information from the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services showing that the average cost, over the past five years, for a Medicaid abortion and ancillary services is approximately $1,000 per procedure.

Breen drafted the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act on the model of the federal Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funding for abortions, other than for abortions sought in connection with pregnancies that result from rape or incest, or that threaten the life of the mother. Abortions under these circumstances constitute roughly 1% of all abortions. Federal law already requires states to provide Medicaid abortions under these three conditions, and the proposed Act recognizes those federal provisions.

While the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act reverses the substantive provisions of HB 40 and prevents taxpayer funding for abortion at all levels of government, it adds new public policy language on abortion, not including controversial “trigger language” about Roe v. Wade that was at issue in HB 40.

“The ‘trigger language’ in HB 40 had no legal effect, and there’s no need to reopen a theoretical debate about language from over 40 years ago. Instead, we wanted to start fresh with updated language and concepts that reflect the majority position of Illinoisans, especially folks in the suburbs and downstate, who care very deeply about this issue,” Breen added.

“This controversial and culturally divisive act should not be one that taxpayers should be forced to fund,” said McConchie. “Likewise, there is no good reason for taxpayers to be on the hook for someone else’s personal decision.”

Additionally, while the federal government typically matches a state’s Medicaid expenses, it will not do so for elective abortions. Breen has stated previously that, based on the estimated direct cost to the state of $30 million for abortions, the true impact to the Medicaid system is actually double that, $60 million in lost medical services.

Within an hour of the filing of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, numerous legislators from across Illinois joined the bill as cosponsors. The bills are pending as HB 4114 & SB 2241. Legislators are also considering legal action in the coming weeks to challenge whether HB 40 can be effective before June 1, 2018, due to it being held beyond the May 31 deadline set by the state constitution for the passage of bills. The current effective date is set at January 1, 2018, and legislators estimate the five-month difference in effective dates could prevent taxpayer funding of 10,000 abortions or more.

Smashmouth Incrementalism

A recent development within the pro-life movement has both a heartening and disheartening aspect. I am talking about the rise of the “abolish human abortion now” sentiment. This in one sense is the whole point of being pro-life, and so a clear reaffirmation of the entire raison d’être is always welcome. The other side of it, the disheartening part, is the tendency among some of these “abolitionists” to denounce any pro-life incrementalists as being, by definition, temporizers, vacillators, or compromisers.

So let me begin by granting part of the point, and then offering for your consideration a scenario that is going to upon us relatively soon—a scenario that will identify the plain difference between principled incrementalists and those who are simply using pro-life language as a shield to hide behind. I should say from the outset that I don’t like the name abolitionist because it is too closely associated in my mind with characters like John Brown, a murderous thug. Paul Hill, the man who shot an abortion doctor in Florida years ago, wanted to become the John Brown of the pro-life movement, and I am afraid there are others who might share that desire now. That is not the way to go.

Also, in the abstract, incrementalism is not necessarily ineffective in cultural battles. It has been the central tactic used against us by the Gramscians, and with devastating effect. They have managed their “long march through the institutions.” So incrementalism does not necessarily mean “lose slowly.”

So there are politicians who campaign on a pro-life platform, and who buckle in the face of fierce resistance when a real opportunity arises to turn the tide. Yes. There is such a thing as cowardice, and there is such a thing as hidden sympathies with the other side. That is a problem. And there might be pro-life groups who would be dismayed at the prospect of actual victory—victory might damage the fund-raising prospects. Yes, it is a fallen world, and that kind of thing might well happen. A manufacturer of fighter planes might look forward to peace with no little dismay.

And there might be abolitionists who denounce all previous pro-life efforts as worthless because they did not succeed in attaining the object, which is the abolition of human abortion now. But there is an active pro-life movement in America, numbering in the millions. This is not the case elsewhere in the Western world, and it should not be taken for granted. The movement here has been robust enough and big enough to develop a hardline right wing.

A conscientious abolitionist might grant the distinction I am making, but still be impatient. How can we tell the difference between genuine incrementalism and slow surrender? Glad you asked, and it is almost upon us.

When Neil Gorsuch was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, there was a fight, naturally, but it was not the blood bath that the next one will be. Because it was a fight over maintaining the status quo, replacing a conservative with a conservative, it was possible for the Republican leadership to hold U.S. Senate Republicans together. This was possible because everything remained the same afterward. On the pro-life issue, nothing changed. The balance on the Supreme Court stayed the same.

But the next U.S. Supreme Court battle will probably be an appointment that will replace a liberal with a conservative. If a vacancy occurs because a liberal dies or steps down, and the president appoints someone like Gorsuch, then that battle will be over whether or not Roe will be overturned. It would alter the balance.

Now the overturning of Roe, were it to happen, would be a genuine incrementalist victory. Abortion would not become illegal in all fifty states. It would likely be greatly restricted in about 35 states. This would leave 15 states still willing to traffic in human misery. Because it would not be a complete victory, it would be an incrementalist victory. Pro-lifers could then turn their attention to those 15 states—because the final goal of abolishing human abortion has not changed.

So it would be a genuine, pro-life victory, but it would not be complete victory. It would be a genuine incrementalist advance. And that is why the U.S. Senate Republicans would not be able to hold together in numbers sufficient to confirm the man appointed to replace, say, Anthony Kennedy.

This is because compromised Republicans would bail. For the purposes of this scenario, let us say that 5 of them abandoned the pretense of being pro-life, and voted not to confirm the one who would join the Court and bring down Roe. Those 5 would be the legitimate targets of abolitionist ire. The Republicans who voted to confirm a justice who would in fact overthrow Roe would be illegitimate targets of abolitionist ire. But the rhetoric after such a debacle would probably be directed against feckless “Republicans” generally, and not against the 5 who proved themselves feckless.

Now I want everyone to know that this is guaranteed to happen. If a conservative justice comes before the U.S. Senate, one who would enable us to repent of Roe, then you can rest assured that there will not be enough votes to confirm him. The desertions will be declared with fanfare and high-flying rhetoric, and the corrupt media will lionize the traitors for their courage. All that, right?

While I share the goal of abolishing human abortion, I do not like calling myself an abolitionist. I like to call it something more like smashmouth incrementalism. This is what that would look like. Overturning Roe is the way to go, I am convinced. But how?

The president nominates Kennedy’s replacement, say. Kennedy retired in the confidence that what I am saying is true—knowing that the machinery of our corrupt generation would destroy anyone who would seriously attempt to undo Roe. So the outcry begins immediately. The media discovers that “Smith” pushed somebody on the playground in junior high. He is temperamentally unsuited to this high office. The drumbeat of character assassination begins. The confirmation hearings are conducted. His overdue books from the library are produced. His wife’s dating habits in high school are minutely examined. And then, at the moment when maximum damage would be inflicted, the Republican “gang of five” announce that it is with the greatest reluctance that they cannot support the nominee. You could almost see the tears glistening in their eyes.

I believe that the president should not withdraw the nomination. Nor should he allow the vote to go forward. He should announce that he is “pausing” the nomination of Smith, which will be brought forward again in six months’ time. In the meantime, he invites the good people of Arizona, Alaska, Maine, etc. to investigate and act upon all their legal options when it comes to impeachment and/or recall elections. Some of the 5 might see the light right away.

And those who do not should prepare to face the wrath of worked-up incrementalists.

This article was originally posted at Blog & Mablog

Illinois: Safe Haven for Abortionists, Killing Zone for the Unborn

Isaiah the prophet warns in chapter 5, verse 20: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

America was settled and founded by people of faith who revered God and his Word. They fled here to escape religious persecution and the tyranny of King George.

From the time of the first permanent colony, Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, the next settlement of the pilgrims in Plymouth, Massachusetts, in 1620, America has been blessed and prospered, a haven for the persecuted, a hope for the industrious and downtrodden.

Indeed, Psalm 33:12 could, for the most part, apply to the United States of America:

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.

America’s history records periods of affluence, growth, and, at times, growing wickedness stopped by revival. As the Weeping Prophet’s warning to and diagnosis of the Hebrews applied universally, including Americans:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

But the remedy (2 Chronicles 7:14) always, always was available for healing and restoration:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

On Friday, July 14, the Chicago Tribune published an article by Angie Leventis Lourgos titled, “‘My last resort’ — thousands come to Illinois to have abortions.” Never have I read a more stunning example of Isaiah 5:20. The stories told in the article, coupled with the story told in the accompanying video, are wholly, viscerally repugnant.

In the video a woman, Cyndi Portteus, a wife and mother of one, pregnant with their second child, recounts their heartbreak when they learn that their 22 week baby in the womb has a potentially fatal heart condition — hypoplastic left heart syndrome. The doctors and counsellors gave Cindy and her husband three options: a series of three surgeries to mitigate the malformed infant heart and give baby Portteus a chance to live; carry to term, have the baby, administer only palliative care (pain care) at home and allow him to die; or “terminate the pregnancy.”

Think on that. Now think some more and suppose that the infant in question, rather than being a second trimester baby in the womb, were a three year old child with a possibly fatal heart condition. What would people say of any doctor or genetic counsellor who offered up that third option? Such a practitioner would be deemed a Nazi-esque monster.

And what do you suppose is the point of the video, where one mother records for all of history how she and her husband would prefer to “terminate” a baby rather than give the tiny boy care? The video is an indictment on any and all states that would dare pass bans on abortions past twenty weeks. So much for the “safe but RARE” ruse.

Think of this. Dr. C. Everett Koop quashed the lie that abortion is sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother:

Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. . .

If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarean section. His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby will be premature and perhaps immature depending on the length of gestation. Because it has suddenly been taken out of the protective womb, it may encounter threats to its survival. The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.

~ C. Everett Koop, M.D., as told to Dick Bohrer, in Moody Monthly, May, 1980.

And now 3D and 4D ultrasounds and medical heroes like Koop have revealed the humanhood of life in the womb and advancements in fetal development science reveal that the tiny humans in the womb can feel pain as early as eight weeks.

Therefore, abortion kills a human. Abortion is not necessary to save the life of the mother. The baby feels pain. All of those facts make a pretty solid case against abortion.

Yet, in this article Angie Leventis Lourgos writes as though the expectant mothers were the victims, hard pressed by states that have limited parameters allowing abortion.

Another story told within the article concerns a young woman from Missouri who is twelve weeks pregnant — right on the cusp of the second trimester. The narrative vilifies the expectant mother’s family:

Her conservative Christian family was against abortion. When her parents learned they had conceived a fetus with a severe and typically fatal birth defect, they chose to deliver rather than terminate.

And this young woman’s reasons for wanting an abortion?

“I’ve seen what unplanned pregnancies do to people,” said the woman, who requested anonymity to keep her recent abortion a secret from those closest to her. “I don’t want to be put through that. I don’t want to be forced into a marriage. I don’t want to raise a child alone.”

Oh. I see. Rather than marry or raise a child alone (as if those are the only two options), it’s preferable to kill the baby who is a separate human being with separate DNA and who is blameless in the condition of pregnancy.

When should the excuses for abortion stop? Perhaps a married couple don’t want to buy a larger home with more bathrooms and bedrooms? Perhaps another child would stretch the family budget and sacrifices might be required?

The impetus of the article is to show each of the pregnant women as desperate, seeing the state of Illinois as their beacon of hope. Lourgos notes:

Illinois health data show that each year around 3,000 women come from out of state to have an abortion in Illinois, which has some of the least restrictive laws in the Midwest.

. . .

While the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade has guaranteed the right to an abortion since 1973, lawmakers and courts across the country continue to tussle over the boundaries of that reproductive freedom. That has created pockets of access in places like Illinois amid what has been termed the U.S. abortion desert of the South and Midwest.

Whenever you hear terms such as “the boundaries of that reproductive freedom” be on guard: such language is radical feminist talk for abortion. Every woman has “reproductive” freedom. But according to geneticists, biologists, and yes, God, that image on the ultrasound is not tissue, but a tiny human on its way to becoming a larger human. The fetus is not part of the woman’s body, but living and developing in the womb, what should be a safe haven for the innocent baby.

Also included in the article is a video featuring “Leah Greenblum, founder and executive director of Midwest Access Coalition, a Chicago nonprofit that provides lodging, transportation and other support for women traveling to have an abortion.” Ms. Greenblum proudly speaks as though she’s a modern day Harriet Tubman, leading besieged women to the promised land of Illinois to realize freedom.

Sorry Leah. You have been deceived and are deceiving others. You also are culpable in the murder of these unborn.

Moses wrote God’s firm admonition concerning life in Deuteronomy:

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live. Deuteronomy 30:19

President Ronald Reagan called America a shining city on a hill, alluding to Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount, “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.”

That was the Founders intent. Unfortunately, America has lost her sheen as a war rages on between a culture of life and a culture of death. The Apostle Paul wrote, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

And never has there been more spiritual wickedness and darkness than in the Land of Lincoln, a safe haven for abortionists and abortion-seekers, and a killing zone for the unborn.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

Culture War Victory Still Possible for Conservatives

Written by Pastor Scott Lively

What we call the pro-family movement is a component of the larger conservative movement and deals with matters of sexuality and the natural family. Its American roots are in the cultural backlash to the Marxist revolution of the 1960s that turned family-centered society on its head and swapped the Judeo-Christian morality of our founding for Soviet-style “political correctness.”

Before the 1960s there wasn’t any need for a “pro-family” movement because family values had been the overwhelming consensus of the western world for centuries. Indeed, so surprised were Americans about the cultural revolution that it took nearly twenty years for the conservatives to mount a truly effective response to it. That came under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

The 60’s revolution was not grounded in the Marxist orthodoxy of Lenin and Stalin, but the Cultural Marxism of Herbert Marcuse’s Frankfort School, which envisioned sexual anarchy, not a “workers revolt,” as the key to dismantling Judeo-Christian civilization. The natural core constituency for this ideology was the underground “gay” movement whose dream of social acceptance was not possible without a complete transformation of American sexual morality. Thus, beginning in the late 1940s, Marxist organizer Harry Hay, so-called “father of the American gay movement” was also “father” of the (then hidden) army of “gay” activists most responsible for the “culture war” that exploded in the 60’s and continues today.

America’s Marxist revolution was therefore a “sexual revolution” whose overwhelming success vindicated Marcuse’s destructive vision and became the primary tool of the one-world government elites for softening resistance to their domination by breaking the family-centered society which is every nation’s greatest source of strength, stability and self-sufficiency.

Importantly, though primarily driven behind the scenes by “gays,” the first goal was not legitimization of homosexual sodomy but the normalization of heterosexual promiscuity. This was the motive and strategy that drove “closeted” 1940s and 50s homosexual activist Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent “science” attacking the marriage-based sexual ethic as “repressive” and socially harmful. It also drove the launch of the modern porn industry, beginning with Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Magazine (Hefner called himself “Kinsey’s pamphleteer”). It drove and defined the battles in the courts where sexual morality was systematically “reformed” by Cultural Marxist elites on the U.S. Supreme Court: contraception on demand to facilitate “fornication without consequences” (Griswold v Connecticut 1966), abortion on demand as the backup system to failed contraception (Roe v Wade 1973), and finally legalization of homosexual sodomy (Lawrence v Texas 2003).

Note the thirty year gap between Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas. That major delay in the Marxist agenda was achieved by the election of Ronald Reagan, under whom the pro-family movement became a major political force. That gap also highlights a critical fact: that “street activism” may be essential to any political cause but the real key to the culture war is the U.S. Supreme Court. By 1981 when Ronald Reagan took power the Marxists had nearly succeeded in collapsing the nation’s family and economic infrastructure and the LGBT juggernaut had come completely out of the shadows and taken its place at the head of the cultural blitzkrieg it had been steering from the beginning. Reagan stopped that juggernaut by putting Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, the lion of constitutional originalism who wrote the majority opinion in Bowers v Hardwick (1986) which affirmed (not created) the constitutional right of states to criminalize homosexual sodomy and other harmful sexual conduct in the public interest.

Reagan and Scalia stopped the sexual revolution in its tracks and made it possible for the pro-family movement to begin restoring family values in society, which we strove diligently to do. I got my start in Christian social activism in those heady days and served as State Communications Director for the No Special Rights Act in Oregon in 1992 which forbade the granting of civil rights minority status based on sexual conduct. We fell short in Oregon but a Colorado version of our bill passed the same year. We had in essence won the culture war with that victory given that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that minority status designation required three things: a history of discrimination, political powerlessness, and immutable (unchangeable) status (such as skin color). We had a slam-dunk win on at least two of the three criteria and it would have been just a matter of time before we passed the No Special Rights law from coast to coast.

However, Reagan had been prevented by the elites from putting a second Scalia on the court in the person of Robert Bork, and was forced by the unprecedented political “borking” of Mr. Bork to accept their man Anthony Kennedy to fill the seat instead. Just ten years later, Kennedy served his function by writing the majority opinion killing the Colorado law in Romer v Evans (1996), audaciously declaring that the court didn’t need to apply its three-part constitution test to the No Special Rights Act because it was motivated by “animus” (hate) and thus did not represent a legitimate exercise of the state’s regulatory authority. The ruling was all the more outrageous given that it was only possibly through a blatant abuse of the court’s own judicial authority. Kennedy’s “disapproval = hate” lie set the tone for the political left from that point forward.

In Lawrence v Texas, Kennedy delivered the coup-de-grace to Justice Scalia by striking down Bowers v Hardwick and brazenly ruling that “public morality” cannot be the basis for law. Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority in all five SCOTUS opinions that have, in essence, established homosexual cultural supremacy in America, including the infamous and utterly unconstitutional Obergefell v Hodges (2015) “gay marriage” decision. He is, in my opinion, the worst and most culturally destructive jurist in the history of the court: the culprit (among many villainous candidates) most responsible for the current dysfunctional state of the family in America.

So where’s the “bright future” amidst this lamentation? It’s in the promise made and so-far kept by President Donald Trump to appoint only constitutional originalists to the supreme court. It is in the pleasantly surprising discovery that his first pick, Neil Gorsuch, seems from his first comments as a “supreme” to be a perfect choice to fill the “Scalia seat” on the court. It is in the hopeful rumors that Anthony Kennedy is about to retire, and the simple fact that ultra-hard leftist Ruth Bader Ginsberg and leftist Steven Broyer are of an age that their seats could at any time be vacated by voluntary or involuntary retirement.

In short, the bright future of the pro-family movement is in the hands of the man we hired to drain the swamp in Washington DC, and who hasn’t yet backed down in that fight despite the remarkable scorched-earth campaign of destruction and discreditation being waged against him by the establishment elites of both parties, Hollywood and the media.

I must admit that after Obergefell I began to think that the pro-family movement had lost the culture war, but I now believe there is real hope, not just for reclaiming some lost ground, but possibly of reversing all of the “gains” of the hard left over the past half century. A solid majority of true constitutional originalists could actually restore the legal primacy of the natural family in America fairly quickly, and our cultural healing could quickly follow.

As the leftist elites and street activists continue their all-hands-on-deck attempted “borking” of President Trump, let’s not forget why they’re doing it. His political survival means the end of theirs. I can’t think of a brighter future than that for our nation.

This article was originally posted at ScottLively.net

Gruff Ruff, the Unhinged “Progressive” Public School Administrator

If you want to know what lurks in the hearts, minds, and mouths of many taxpayer-subsidized “educators” in government schools, watch the first 8 1/2 minutes of this video of unhinged assistant principal Zach Ruff shouting, hurling obscenities, and singing show tunes to silence two young pro-life Christian conservatives.

Last Friday, 40-year-old administrator Ruff—henceforth referred to as Gruff Ruff—verbally accosted 19-year-old Lauren Haines and her 16-year-old brother Connor on the sidewalk outside STEM Academy in Downingtown, Pennsylvannia where they were protesting abortion and sharing their faith.

Here are some choice comments from the tolerant, diversity-lovin’ Gruff Ruff:

When Connor Haines referred to the killing of 60 million humans as a holocaust and stated that aborted humans are image-bearers of God, Gruff Ruff told Haines, “There’s no holocaust in America. You can go to hell where they [aborted babies] are.”

Connor defended his description of abortion as a holocaust: “These children are being murdered….Sir, these are innocent human beings.”

Gruff Ruff exploded:

“They’re not children! They’re cells! Go home! Take [the fetus] out. If it can live on its own, then it’s freakin’ awesome! Otherwise shut up! Leave me alone. I will call the police for you harassing me….They’re not innocent. They’re cells. They’re the size of a dime. They’re cells. ”

Perhaps Gruff Ruff could point to the full-term newborns who can live on their own, or the one year olds, or the two year olds.

He defended his indefensible verbal pummeling of two teenagers by claiming that protecting STEM Academy students was his sole motivation:

“I wish to protect my students from unsightly things that they don’t need to see. We don’t have a single pregnancy in my school. I’ve been here for five years. Nobody’s been pregnant. And there has never been a single abortion.”

It’s hard to understand how a photo of cells no bigger than a dime could be too unsightly for students in a science and technology high school. It’s even harder to understand how an assistant principal could possibly know that no girl in the high school is pregnant, that no student has been pregnant in the past five years, and that there has never been a single abortion. Is Ruff not only gruff but omniscient as well?

According to the Daily Mail, “a Facebook user who identified themselves as a STEM Academy student” said the posters depicted “a horrendous image of a dead baby covered in blood.”

So, was it a dime-sized clump of cells or a dead baby? Or is Gruff Ruff unable to distinguish between the two?

Does Gruff Ruff try to prevent STEM Academy students from seeing all unsightly images? Does he stop teachers from showing photos of lynchings, the Jewish Holocaust, My Lai massacre, or the famous photo of the napalmed Vietnamese girl? Does he stop teachers from showing the movies Amistad or Schindler’s List? And what kinds of unsightly images of cells does he censor in biology classes?

In the face of Gruff Ruff’s blistering rage, Connor said, “Sir, you need to turn to Jesus Christ who can set you free from your sins,” and then things took an even uglier turn.

With a perverse laugh, Gruff Ruff offered this unexpected response:

Listen here, son. All right, I’m as gay as the day is long and twice as sunny. I don’t give a f*ck what you think Jesus tells me and what I should and should not be doing. Just because you choose to believe a book of fiction doesn’t mean I have to. Prove it to me with science….You and Trump can go to hell. Just because you believe something doesn’t make it a fact….Shut up and leave me and my children alone….Shut your mouth and don’t talk to my students. You do not have permission to speak and engage….This isn’t the time or the place for you to harass innocent school children who have nothing to do with your twisted or perverted agenda….That is your opinion….It’s like a***oles. Everyone has one and they all stink.”

Yikes! Ruff’s in a leadership position in a public school. He’s a role model for “innocent children” whom he believes belong to him. In post-modern America, an arrogant fool who hurls obscenities at teenagers, affirms sexual perversity, and denies the dignity and rights of humans in the womb is paid to educate other people’s children. Remarkable.

Much of the rest of the video shows Gruff Ruff’s more aesthetic side as a prances about singing show tunes to silence the Haines siblings.

While Zach Huff’s public diatribe may be unusual, his beliefs and arrogance are not. Many “progressive” teachers view themselves as agents of change and have arrogated to themselves the right to use their positions to change the moral, philosophical, and political views of other people’s children—all in the service of diversity, of course. Unlike the unglued Ruff, however, most “progressive” change-agents have the cunning sense to conceal their pernicious beliefs, their rage at conservatives, and their expletive-laden language from the public at large and certainly from their conservative students’ parents.

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click HERE to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

A Question of Lawful Authority

Baseball season gets underway this week, a welcome distraction from the political battles in Washington.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate is warring over the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. The Republicans say he’s a stellar nominee, a judicial umpire who calls balls and strikes as he sees them. Democrats, led by New York’s Charles Schumer, however, say the judge is a creature of “special interests” who would slide into a base with spikes up and who deserves to be filibustered.

Who are those “special interests” you might ask? Well, they would be anyone who disagrees with progressives, which the November election indicated is at least half the country if not more.

The Republicans say Judge Gorsuch will help the Court return to constitutional principles. Democrats claim that he will “undo the gains” made by decades of liberal jurisprudence. We can only pray that they’re both right.

Over the years, federal courts – especially the U.S. Supreme Court – acquired an out-sized role in the nation’s affairs, especially during Franklin Roosevelt’s administration. Think of the federal government as a three-bodied creature, with one of the bodies in a black robe towering over the others with a giant Nancy Pelosi gavel.

Restraining the U.S. Supreme Court’s power, even slightly, has been a non-starter. Congress is packed with lawyers who dream of serving on or before the highest bench someday. It’s also an open secret that many politicians are relieved when hot button issues slide off their plates and directly onto the Court’s docket.

Nonetheless, given the Court’s near-omnipotence, the central question of what constitutes lawful authority will dominate public discussion in years to come, especially if there is a conservative majority. Right now, “lawful authority” is in the eye of the beholder on many levels.

For example, progressives applauded a federal judge in Washington State in February for overruling President Trump’s order temporarily barring immigrants from seven terror-prone Muslim-majority nations. The judge snapped his fingers, extending constitutional rights to foreigners not even in this country and accused Mr. Trump of racist motives for good measure. Another judge in Hawaii piled on last week by ruling against Mr. Trump’s re-written order affecting six countries. Progressives again cheered.

On the other hand, when a federal judge in Texas ruled in 2015 that President Obama had usurped congressional authority with executive actions shielding five million illegal immigrants from deportation, progressives pledged resistance and urged people to take to the streets.

Progressives look with favor on the 500 or so “sanctuary” cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration laws and procedures. Conscience, they say, overrides mere lawfulness. Except, of course, when it comes to Christian bakers, florists, wedding planners and photographers. They must be forced by law to violate theirs.

Only a few months ago, progressives cheered an edict from the Obama Administration ordering all school systems in America to accommodate female-identified males in girls’ restrooms and locker rooms or risk losing federal funds. Can’t these schools follow the rule of law?

And what about those scoundrels, the Little Sisters of the Poor, or Hobby Lobby and other Christian-owned businesses that don’t want to obey Obamacare’s abortifacient mandate? What are they trying to do, provoke anarchy?

When the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United restored collective political free speech, President Obama pilloried the justices in person during the 2010 State of the Union address, badly misrepresenting the facts of the ruling. Fellow progressives vowed to see the opinion overturned.

But when the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges invented a “right” to same-sex marriage in the penumbras of the Constitution in 2015, overriding state marriage laws – 31 of them constitutional amendments approved by voters – progressives instantly pronounced it “settled law.”

They said the same about the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that struck down abortion laws in every state – “settled law.”

If these examples leave you confused about what is actually lawful authority, don’t worry. We have an omniscient media to explain it to us. If they feature lots of people “hailing” a ruling or order, you can bet it’s about another judicial or executive demolition job on America’s heritage, the Constitution, founding values and genuine civil rights. If they quote lots of people condemning the ruling or order as an abuse of authority, it’s a clear victory for constitutional governance.

To progressives and the lockstep media, legitimate authority means only advancing progressive causes. If so, it’s no big deal for liberal presidents or judges to run outside the baselines when they need to score some runs.

This article was originally posted at Townhall.com

Choosing Blessing: We Must All Be Advocates for Life

What makes a country great? Why have civilizations come and gone? Why do some people groups last against all odds?

Modern America and France both were born through revolutions. One revolution was ignited by the firm belief that “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

The other revolution was kindled and supported by the motto “Liberté, égalité, fraternité!” I.E. “Freedom, equality, brotherhood.” Though that sounds inspirational, the cry was purposefully sterilized of any mention of a Creator, of God.

America’s Founders, contrary to the assertion of modern, elitist academia, firmly believed in the God of the Bible. Prayer was indispensable to America’s founding.

The French revolution, in stark contrast to the America, was fueled by a robust secular humanism. French culture grew out of that unchecked “liberté” — humanity as the arbiter of right and wrong, with utility rather than moral convictions, steering that nation’s society.

America grew in strength and prosperity for some 200 years, adhering, for the most part, to her godly heritage. France, it can be argued, degenerated from within, just another of Europe’s godless countries.

Thirty-five years ago Dr. Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop wrote a comprehensive treatise on life, Whatever Happened to the Human Race. Schaeffer and Koop spoke of the “slippery slope” of devaluing life. And the devaluation of life grew in direct proportion to the rejection of God and His principles from the private and public lives of U.S. citizens and government.

Dr. Schaeffer’s words:

The fully developed view of the sanctity of human life in the West did not come from nowhere. It came directly from the Judeo-Christian consensus, which was the framework in the West for centuries. Based on biblical teachings, people used to view human life as unique, something to be protected and loved because it was made in the image of God.

Today, the United States of America is reaping the whirlwind of rejecting the Founder’s wisdom, which was based on biblical wisdom. The secular humanism which predicated France’s revolution has inundated our nation’s gatekeepers: academia, entertainment, and media.

And now, America is at a crossroads. The wrongly decided Roe v. Wade paved the way for the murder of 60 million innocent lives since 1973.

But the tide is turning as pro-life people of faith awaken and declare the truths that once made our nation great. A culture can be judged not by their GNP, scientific discoveries, manufacturing capabilities or technological brilliance. Rather, the true test of a society is how they treat the most vulnerable, the least of these.

God’s word instructs us (as it did the Founders):

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live

And as written in 2 Chronicles:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

David wrote in Psalm 139:

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

The path to restore our nation, the United States of America, is clear: we must humble ourselves, confess and turn from our sin (which includes abortion), and we must choose life!

Every Christian bears responsibility to not only know these inspired verses, to not only live these inspired verses, but to speak out these inspired verses. The Christian life was never meant to be a secret society of “good works doers.” We are called to, like Caleb, be bold and courageous, to stand for God and His Word.

We have such an opportunity now in a simple yet striking billboard campaign:

Illinois Family Institute is partnering with pro-life advocates to challenge millions of our neighbors about abortion. We are putting up pro-life billboards with the simple and bold statement “Abortion Takes Human Life“, but we need your financial partnership to make this a success.

Moses penned concerning the responsibility of people of the Book to teach and make known God’s Word and precepts:

These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

Every one of you can partner with IFI and write truth “on your gates.” Translated to 2017, these billboards are the modern day version of the city gates of biblical times.

America can be great again if we humble ourselves and uphold God’s principles, which includes choosing life. Americans of faith can stop the breakneck speed down the slippery slope, but we must be willing to speak out.

Join Illinois Family Institute and choose life, declare that life is special.

Click HERE to sign a petition to defund Planned Parenthood.

Ohio To Protect All Humans With Beating Hearts (Born & Unborn)

The Ohio legislature has sent a bill to Governor John Kasich that will legally protect unborn babies from abortion once a heartbeat can be detected. The law makes it a fifth-degree felony to abort an unborn human without checking for a heartbeat or aborting after the baby’s heartbeat can be detected. It also opens the door to civil lawsuits and disciplinary action.

The heartbeat is present at around 3 weeks and 3 days, but usually can’t be detected until 4 to 6 weeks. The bill also provides an exception to allow an abortion when it is necessary to save the mother’s life.

If Governor Kasich doesn’t veto the bill by December 16th, it automatically becomes law. He also has the option to veto a portion of the bill (line-item veto). The state legislature could override a potential veto, but that requires a three-fifths vote. They are likely to override it in the Ohio Senate since the original vote was 21 to 10, but it’s less likely to be overridden in the Ohio House since that vote was 56 to 39.

Take ACTION: Call Gov. Kasich’s office at (614) 466-3555 to leave a message encouraging this one time presidential candidate to stand for the right to life and sign the “Heartbeat Bill” into law. You can also click HERE to send a message to Gov. Kasich via his website.

Background

The ACLU has already threatened to sue the state of Ohio if this bill becomes law. It’s very likely that the lower courts will find it unconstitutional because of Roe v Wade and subsequent cases. Tragically, the current U.S. Supreme Court would agree and Ohio would be forced to pay the legal fees of the attorneys that sued. If Ohio tried to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court and enforce the heartbeat bill anyway, the Federal Government would force the state to comply.

Ultimately, the real problem is the current U.S. Supreme Court.

The five pro-choice Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court will not allow “we the people” to govern ourselves when it comes to abortion. Five pro-choice Justices continue to impose their personal opinions about abortion on 320 million Americans instead of allowing the ordinary democratic process to create the law that the people want.

These Justices hide behind stare decisis (upholding prior decisions), dubious interpretative approaches including substantive due process and what they call looking to the shadows of the U.S. Constitution. However, prior decisions have been changed numerous times and because they are so controversial, they harm the U.S. Supreme Court by politicizing the nomination and confirmation processes. Meanwhile, it’s well established that no provision of the U.S. Constitution was ever adopted or ratified with the intention of creating a legal “right to abortion” nor were they adopted or ratified with the intent to prohibit the people from protecting the unborn from abortion.

Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court has five pro-choice Justices (Ginsberg, Kennedy, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor) and three pro-life Justices (Thomas, Alito, and Roberts). There is one vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court left by the late Justice Scalia. President-elect Trump has stated repeatedly that he will nominate a pro-life Justice once he is in office in January 2017. The Republican U.S. Senate will likely fast-track the confirmation of that Justice. However, the U.S. Supreme Court will still be split five pro-choice Justices to four pro-life Justices. We will need one of the pro-choice Justices to leave the Court while Trump is President and the U.S. Senate is Republican if we want to move the U.S. Supreme Court away from abortion and toward life.

The three oldest Justices are pro-choice. They are Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Breyer. If one of them leaves the U.S. Supreme Court and that position is filled with a pro-life Justice, we could see Roe overturned in our lifetime. Bills like this one in Ohio that protect babies with detectable heartbeats can finally be a reality. It will be a true victory for the value of human life and for our democratic process.

Pro-lifers are hopeful that Gov. Kasich will sign this “Heartbeat Bill” into law. It’s the right thing to do. Meanwhile, another bill is available for him to sign that protects the unborn from abortion after 20 weeks.

Nevertheless, the real fight is with these five pro-choice Justices. They stand in the way of democracy. They stand in the way of basic human rights for all humans (born & unborn). They stand in the way of true human progress.

Join IFI at our Feb. 18th Worldview Conference

We are excited about our third annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Frank Turek on Sat., Feb. 18, 2017 in Barrington. Dr. Turek is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture:

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Pro-Life Americans Have the Opportunity of a Generation

Written by Melanie Israel

The American people have returned a pro-life majority to Congress and have elected a president committed to rolling back the Obama administration’s radical abortion policies and to appointing pro-life justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. This presents an incredible opportunity for defending innocent human life. Now is the time to act.

Executive Action

President-elect Donald Trump should act to defend life and conscience immediately after he takes the oath of office, and should:

Reinstate the Mexico City Policy to ensure that federally funded nongovernmental organizations do not perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in foreign nations.

Enforce the Weldon Amendment to stop states from unlawfully discriminating against health care entities that refuse to pay for or cover abortions.

Reject a proposed parting gift to Planned Parenthood through new Title X regulations designed to lock in the abortion giant’s cut of federal funds.

Nominate an U.S. Supreme Court justice that will respect the Constitution and the right to life.

Repeal the Department of Health and Human Services mandate requiring insurance coverage of certain contraceptives and abortifacients. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has protected the consciences of closely held businesses and religious institutions, consciences of individual consumers and employees are still vulnerable absent full repeal.

Reinstitute Bush administration conscience protections for health care providers.

Reaffirm states’ freedom to exclude abortion providers from state Medicaid programs.

Congressional Action

With a pro-life majority in both the House and the Senate, pursuing a life-affirming agenda is a must. Congress should:

Pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The United States is one of only seven countries in the world that allows elective abortion past 20 weeks (5 months), at which point the baby is capable of feeling excruciating pain during an abortion procedure.

Pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Instead of relying on a patchwork of policy riders attached to appropriation bills each year, Congress should permanently end taxpayer funding for abortion once and for all.

Defund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers have disqualified themselves from federal funding due to their callous disregard for human life. The money should be redirected to comprehensive health centers not entangled with abortion.

Pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The disturbing case of Kermit Gosnell has shown there must be criminal consequences for abortionists who violate the law and refuse to provide medical care to infants born alive after abortions.

Pass the Conscience Protection Act, which ensures that individuals get their day in court when their rights to conscience concerning abortion are violated by the government.

End funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). President Barack Obama sent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to the UNFPA despite evidence of its involvement in China’s coercive two-child policy. This funding should end.

Repeal Obamacare. Under Obamacare, tax subsidies are available for health plans that include coverage of elective abortion, and the HHS mandate requires coverage of certain abortion-inducing drugs and devices. Both anti-life policies would disappear with Obamacare’s repeal.

Promoting a Culture of Life

The success of pro-life candidates up and down the ballot is a victory for the pro-life movement. But more importantly, it is a victory for the most vulnerable and innocent among us. Since Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton effectively legalized abortion on demand, more than 56 million children have been denied the opportunity to live.

For over 40 years, the pro-life community has worked to counter the devastating impact abortion has had on mothers and their unborn babies, witnessing to the fundamental truth that from the moment of conception, a distinct human being with inherent worth and dignity has a right to life.

Congress and Trump have an opportunity to codify important policy riders, stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to organizations that perform or promote abortion, end the inhuman practice of late-term abortions on babies who are viable or capable of feeling pain, appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, and much more.

They should take action with confidence, knowing that Americans have spoken for life at the ballot box.

This article was originally posted at the DailySignal.com

40 Days of Life: Defeating Roe’s Darkness with Prayer

Forty-three years ago the Warren Burger Supreme Court struck a mighty blow for the powers of darkness: In a 7-2 decision the Justices ruled in Roe v. Wade that the right to privacy was broad enough to “encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

With that one awful decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) declared Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) the victor. McCorvey, a pawn of feminist activists, would later see the horror of Roe v. Wade, and with her decision to follow Jesus, picked up the gauntlet to fight for the unborn.

Over 57 million innocents have been sacrificed on the altar of convenience and the “right to privacy” since Roe was wrongly decided.

But today there’s a righteous spirit, gripping women young and old across America, compelling more and more victims of the abortion deception to come out of the shadows, tell the truth, and reinvigorate a love for the sanctity of life in our nation.

Ricki Giersch is one such woman. In a desperate place — 16 and pregnant — Ricki turned to a Champaign, Illinois Planned Parenthood to solve her dilemma. Then later as a junior in college, with a repeat crisis pregnancy, she turned again to Planned Parenthood.

At age 32 Giersch made a decision to follow Jesus, whose truth began to illuminate the evil of abortion, and whose grace and love began to heal her broken spirit and heart, the consequences post-abortive women often bear.

Now, years later, Ricki Giersch and Catherine Walker co-lead 40 Days for Life in Aurora, Illinois along with team members Katherine Woltering, Sabina Dahl, and Jenine Mehr. They are resolutely committed to this effort to overcome the darkness ushered in by the nefarious Roe v. Wade decision. These women understand this is a spiritual battle against principalities and powers and that the solution, the weapons necessary to defeat this evil, must be spiritual as well.

40 Days for Life, “The beginning of the end of abortion,” is:

A community-based campaign that takes a determined, peaceful approach to showing local communities the consequences of abortion in their own neighborhoods, for their own friends and families. It puts into action a desire to cooperate with God in the carrying out of His plan for the end of abortion. It draws attention to the evil of abortion through the use of a three-point program:

Prayer and fasting

Constant vigil

Community outreach

The 40-day campaign tracks Biblical history, where God used 40-day periods to transform individuals, communities … and the entire world. From Noah in the flood to Moses on the mountain to the disciples after Christ’s resurrection, it is clear that God sees the transformative value of His people accepting and meeting a 40-day challenge.

The mission of the campaign is to bring together the body of Christ in a spirit of unity during a focused 40-day campaign of prayer, fasting, and peaceful activism, with the purpose of repentance, to seek God’s favor to turn hearts and minds from a culture of death to a culture of life, thus bringing an end to abortion.

The Aurora 40 Days for Life Kickoff Event is September 24, 2016, from 9:00AM – 10:30AM at the NE corner of New York Street and Oakhurst Street:

Ricki Giersch and Catherine Walker hope for a huge turnout for the kickoff event, and are praying that local believers and local churches will join in the effort: everyone attending the Kickoff Event can sign up to be part of 40 Days for Life.

Take ACTION: Folks can sign up to be part of the prayer force on site at the Aurora Planned Parenthood daily while the facility is open from 7AM to 7PM daily. (click the picture below to sign up)

The “enemy of our souls” thought he had won the battle 43 years ago, but God’s people, moved to pray, can defeat this great evil and once again restore a culture of life in our nation.

40 Days for Life will fight quietly, with prayers, mindful of the words written by Moses:

This day I call the heavens & the earth as witnesses against you
that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses.
Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.
~Deuteronomy 30:19~