Tag Archives: Sara Feigenholtz
Illinois Legislators Pass Bills Allowing Transgender, Nonbinary Individuals to Change Vital Records
Just in time for LGBTQ Pride Month, the Illinois Senate passed House Bill 2590 requiring county clerks to issue new marriage certificates upon request to reflect legal name changes for transgender and non-binary individuals. It passed by a vote of 82 to 28 in the House on April 22, 2021 and by a vote of 49 to 5 in the Illinois Senate on May 28, 2021.
State Senator Sara Feigenholtz (D-Chicago), the sponsor of the bill, also sponsored Senate Bill 139 which passed in both the Illinois House and Illinois Senate a few weeks earlier and allows the removal of …
State Lawmakers to Remove Basic Protection for Patients
Regressives in Springfield Attack IFI and IFA
Are Progressives Targeting Minorities with Abortion?
Pro-life advocate Chris Iverson noted this fact in an article here at IFI recently:
The U.S. abortion rate is the lowest in recorded history! The Guttmacher Institute found that there were 14.6 abortions for every 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 2014. That’s lower than the abortion rate in 1973 (when the Roe v. Wade case was decided) and every year since then.
Republicans in Washington, D.C. are taking steps to defund Planned Parenthood and prevent the use of federal taxdollars for abortions.
Illinois Democrats are going in the opposite direction. State Representative Sara Feigenholtz (D-Chicago) has re-introduced legislation that would …
The Left Hates IFI
If you have been reading our material over the past several years, you know that IFI is a favorite target of the Left.
Apparently, even the Christmas holiday season cannot temper their hatred of our pro-life and pro-family message.
Last week, a Mr. Reed McCann visited the Facebook page for Illinois Family Institute and left an angry and hateful review and a comment in which he expressed his desire that God kill all of us:
Laurie did a great job trying to reason with Reed, but he decided to take it to an unacceptable level by threatening IFI’s staff with …
State Lawmaker “Worried” Illinois Might Protect Babies From Abortion
In 1975, Illinois adopted language declaring the state’s intent to “protect the right to life of the unborn child” by prohibiting abortion. Now, an Illinois politician plans to introduce legislation to reverse that pro-life language. It’s not clear that this has any real world impact. The same politician is pushing another bill we previously covered to force Illinois taxpayers to pay for abortions under Medicaid and to include abortion coverage in state worker’s insurance plans.
Here’s the background. The U.S. Supreme Court prohibits “we the people” from legally protecting pre-viable humans from abortion. Illinois’ law protects unborn humans from abortion …
State Lawmaker Wants Taxpayers to Subsidize Killing “Unplanned” and “Unwanted” Babies
State Representative Scott Drury (D-Highwood) wrote this to a constituent who opposes HB 4013*, the bill that would remove all restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions:
Thank you for your email. As a devoted husband and father of two children, I have a deep understanding of how rewarding parenting can be. However, not every pregnancy is planned or desired. It is, therefore, vital that all women have access to safe reproductive health care without government interference. Should the legislation you reference be called for a vote, I will support it.
Very truly yours,
Scott R. Drury
As indicated by the …
Tax Payer Funding for Abortion
POLST in the Illinois House
There are three weeks left before our state lawmakers adjourn for the summer. Please contact your state representative today and ask him/her to vote NO on SB 3076.
Legislation known as Physician Orders For Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) would legalize a troubling end-of-life directive to be honored in health care facilities. When signed by a designated healthcare professional, the POLST document dictates whether to withhold or administer certain forms of medical treatment and care.
The bill, SB 3076, would change the POLST form from requiring a physician’s signature to requiring the signature of a “practitioner.” This means that …
