We want to draw your attention to another important pro-life bill that our state lawmakers will be considering this session. HB 4117, sponsored by State Representative Tom Morrison (R-Palatine),  would require abortion clinics that perform more than 50 abortions a year to meet basic safety regulations of other similar outpatient treatment centers. (They have never been regulated.)

HB 4117 passed of a House Committee on Tuesday afternoon (February 21st) and will now be considered in the Illinois House. Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups are working overtime trying to stop this bill.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state representative to urge him/her to support HB 4117 or even sign on as a co-sponsor.

Background

Patients undergoing abortion procedures have just as much right to expect the State of Illinois to apply health and safety standards to their health as to the health and well-being of patients undergoing other types of outpatient treatment.

The bill applies to ambulatory surgical treatment centers where abortions are performed and any other facility where 50 or more abortions are performed in any calendar year.

The measure is intended to provide health and safety protections for patients undergoing abortions in non-hospital settings. It reaffirms the intent of 1979 amendments to the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act (ASTCA) — that it apply to abortion facilities — notwithstanding a federal court settlement imposed on the state in the Ragsdale case in 1989, by which a Rockford abortionist settled a lawsuit challenging application of the ASTCA’s provisions and regulations to his abortion clinic, which could not meet the state’s safety standards for his patients.

The 1979 amendments which applied the ASTCA specifically to abortion clinics were sponsored by lawmakers whose records reflected a consistent “pro-choice” perspective. They were filed in response to a November, 1978, expose of unethical, unsafe practices in Chicago abortion clinics, published by the Better Government Assn. and the Chicago Sun-Times in a noteworthy series of articles titled “The Abortion Profiteers.” The shocking reports disclosed the deaths of at least a dozen women following abortions in the Chicago clinics, revealed unsterile conditions in the clinics, documented abortions performed on women who were not pregnant and others performed without anesthesia, showed premature dismissals from recovery rooms and falsifications of medical records and uncovered kickbacks paid for abortion referrals.

Because of the Ragsdale settlement, Illinois is notorious for its inability to regulate health and safety in abortion clinics. Given the number of scandals breaking across America related to shocking practices in under-inspected abortion clinics, it is only a matter of time before scandals break out in the uninspected abortion clinics here.

Illinois women deserve better. Illinois women deserve protection of their health and safety when they undergo abortions in non-hospital settings. Illinois women need enactment of HB 4117.

Please take a moment to contact your state representative to urge him/her to vote “yes” for HB 4117.

Working with the Catholic Conference of Illinois, IFI wants to alert you to an extremely important pro-life bill sponsored by State Representative Joe Lyons (D-Chicago).  If passed, this bill would require abortion providers to simply offer an ultrasound picture to women considering abortion. The choice of whether or not to view the ultrasound picture is still their. Research has proven that between 70 and 90 percent of “abortion minded” women who see images of their unborn children choose life.

The Ultrasound Opportunity Act (HB 4085), passed out of committee earlier today and will now be considered on the House floor.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state representative to ask him/her to support HB 4085. Informed consent for women in a crisis pregnancy is vital. HB 4085 is a reasonable reform that offers Illinois women true choice.

Background

The backers of commercialized abortion like to say their guiding principle is “choice,” but women considering abortion  cannot make a truly informed choice without having sufficient, objective information. Such complete and accurate information on the reality and status of her pregnancy and her unborn child is essential to her psychological and physical well-being and to her free exercise of autonomy.

We are living in the 21st century with medical technology available that offers pregnant mothers the opportunity for such information via ultrasonography. Yet few if any abortion doctors offer ultrasound views to their patients. That is the reason HB 4085 is a necessary and compassionate approach to informed consent in abortion.

Of course, the bill also offers a measure of protection for the unborn child who is the object of the abortion.

An exception is provided when a medical emergency would necessitate skipping this stage in the informed consent process.

Reports to the Department of Public Health, required by the bill, would be in statistical form only and would give future General Assemblies insight as to how the law is functioning as well as assuring compliance by individual abortion providers.

We commend Rep. Lyons for his sponsorship of this common sense piece of legislation.

Please contact your state representative today to encourage him/her to support HB 4085.

P.S. Spring is an extremely busy time at our State Capitol.  More than 8,000 bills have been filed so far this session. I want to thank you for your patience with IFI and the frequency of emails we are sending out. We are doing everything we can to keep you informed in a timely manner. As we pray, partner together, and build our team of subscribers, I can tell you with confidence, we are making a difference.

Today, Monday, December 19, 2011, the Chicago Tribune included not one, but three articles (click HERE,HERE, and HERE) on “transgenderism” by Rex Huppke, their designated proselyte for “progressive” views of homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder (GID). (In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the American Psychiatric Association uses the term Gender Identity Disorder to designate the phenomenon that Huppke refers to as “transgender issues.”)

In response to these articles, I sent this brief letter to Mr. Huppke and to the Tribune editorial board:

Dear Mr. Huppke,

Once again, you’ve written an editorial masquerading as a news story. Your lengthy article (or three articles) on “transgender” issues includes one mention of American Family Association’s dissenting views on Gender Identity Disorder and one quote from Focus on the Family’s position statement on Gender Identity Disorder.

Apparently, you didn’t solicit any comments from either public policy organizations or mental health professionals who hold different views on the nature of Gender Identity Disorder, the morality of cross-dressing, or the ethics of “sex reassignment” surgery. The absence of any substantive exposition of dissenting views is particularly notable in light of two articles written by psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow that lit up the blogosphere, particularly among those who identify as homosexual and transgender. (Read Dr. Ablow’s articles HERE and HERE.)

It would have been illuminating to interview some theologians and philosophers on the nature of reality. For example, is “reality” merely a construct of our minds or our subjective feelings, or does an objective reality exist?

Another interesting question concerns allowing people to change their birth certificates: Does such an act make the state complicit in fraud?

Or, what evidence do you have for your clear implication that “discrimination” is the cause of the the increased risk of suicidal ideation among those who experience Gender Identity Disorder. And what do you mean when you use the word “discrimination”? Do all expressions of moral disapproval of behavior constitute illegitimate “discrimination” or just those with which you disagree?

But alas, it’s abundantly clear that your mission is not to report or discuss, but to exploit your position as a journalist to write an extended apologetic for your personal moral, philosophical, and political views, painted over with a rhetorical patina of neutrality.

What is equally troubling is that your bosses find this acceptable.

Sincerely,

Laurie Higgins
IFI Cultural Analyst

Take ACTION: Chicago Tribune reporter Rex Huppke continues to write pro-homosexual opinion pieces, presenting them as “new” articles.

Send email complaints to the Tribune editorial board about Mr. Huppke’s lack of balance and failure to present views from mental health professionals who hold different views on the nature of Gender Identity Disorder, the morality of cross-dressing, or the ethics of “sex reassignment” surgery.

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

Phone: (708) 781-9328
Fax: (708) 781-9376

Evil men don’t understand the importance of justice,
but those who follow the Lord are much concerned about it.
~Proverbs 28:5

It’s refreshing to see college students take politically incorrect and counter-cultural positions on sexual matters because to do so risks both hostility and ridicule. Recently a group of courageous and principled Bradley University students risked both to oppose the resolution that was passed by the administration, which will compel all Bradley students to pay for condoms for those Bradley students who, lacking a moral compass, choose to engage in anal or vaginal intercourse and are too irresponsible and/or cheap to purchase their own.

One interesting aspect of the issue is that while the administration has committed to facilitating promiscuous sex, administrators make clear that the school “will not be held liable for the quality or effectiveness of the condoms provided.” Well, isn’t that special: Help students have non-marital sex by paying for and distributing condoms that often fail to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and then take no responsibility for the inevitable consequences.

Student Body President Tricia Anklan recently expressed her deep disappointment that as a dorm resident advisor (RA), she is “not able to provide condoms for our residents.” Not to worry, however, because Anklan, along with student body officers Devon Schulz, Kyle Mathers, and Jeff Baumgartner, had a plan to use students’ compulsory health fees to buy condoms and give them out for free in all the dorms as well as the recreation center’s offices and information offices.

They defend this resolution using a feckless analogy (flawed analogies seem to be the stock-in-trade of sexual libertines). They laughably compare Bradley’s provision of flu shots and hand sanitizer to the provision of free condoms.

Those Bradley University students who do not want their, or their parents’ money, used to subsize the sexcapades of fellow students wrote the following letter to the Student Senate and prominent locals:

We are Bradley University students who are writing you today in order to make you aware of a resolution that has been made policy here at our university. The Bradley Student Senate passed a Sexual Health Resolution that would allocate funds from tuition that is reserved for the Student Health fee to cover condoms. Starting Spring 2012, condoms will be free and widely available across campus, and every student will have to provide funding for these condoms. This resolution was passed by the administration. However, we object to the Sexual Health Resolution.

First, the content of the Sexual Health Resolution is not reflective of the views of a majority of Bradley University students. It also directly affects the image of Bradley University.

The resolution itself was passed quickly and quietly with little publicity. In the resolution, it was stated that just like hand sanitizer and flu shots, the Sexual Health Resolution ensures that students are safe from illness:

Just as Bradley University takes preventative action in preventing illness by subsidizing flu shots, providing hand sanitizer, and offering programs like Get Fit, Stay Fit, the Student Senate hopes the university will be just as action oriented in promoting sexual health.

It is within Bradley University’s duty to provide preventatives to disease such as flu shots and hand sanitizer because students get sick and spread diseases in the classrooms and in the cafeterias and other public places. Also, professors and visitors, as well as staff, can become ill from the germs that are spread in this manner. However, sexual actions are in full consent and do not occur within the natural context of the learning environment…. It is also not the university’s responsibility to provide contraceptives…

[W]hen condoms fail, the result is more catastrophic than failed hand sanitizer. Yet, the resolution clearly states:

Bradley University will continue to not be held liable for the quality or effectiveness of the condoms provided.

This service will not promote sexual health as much as charge all students for the contraceptives of a minority of Bradley students. According to the resolution, of students polled, only 23.9 percent reported they always used a condom during sexual intercourse in the past 30 days. We ask …, why should the other 76 percent pay for their condoms?… If students do not have the motivation to purchase their own condoms, can they deal with the possibility of the consequences of sex…?

Also, we ask why Bradley University would put its image at risk for the demand of a few students? The resolution implies it is Bradley University’s responsibility to take tuition money, purchase condoms, and have them sitting out for students to utilize.

Our second objection is that this resolution forces every student to pay for contraception: this is against our religion, and it’s against our conscience. In fact, the resolution, in its last clause, states: “Whereas, Bradley University is not a religiously affiliated institution.” This implies a religious controversy with the purpose of the resolution. Therefore, we hold this resolution is blatantly and in fact unashamedly discriminating against religious students.

Free condoms would be available in the health center, in the gymnasium, and in the residencies. This unabashed promotion of premarital sex is against all major Christian denominations. Also, Bradley University’s student body is an estimated 30 percent Roman Catholic; this resolution would force Catholic students to pay for contraceptives, which is a mortal sin (the highest level of sin), and, therefore, is a direct violation of their First Amendment Rights.

Finally, we ask that you please support our efforts to appeal this policy by voicing your opinion to the administration at Bradley University or anyone else who would share our concern. Please do not hesitate if you would like to contact any of the student leaders listed below. If we are united in our efforts to overcome this detrimental and discriminatory policy, we may have a positive impact on Bradley’s campus.

Thank you,

Bradley Students

Watch this You Tube video of a coalition of students, alumni, and community members being interviewed about this debate:

Make A Tax-Deductible Donation
The work of the Illinois Family Institute is completely underwritten through the voluntary generosity and shared blessings of pro-family citizens. IFI operates on a modest annual budget, which represents the greatest need for your support. We operate with a small, full-time staff, and we hire additional part-time legislative staff to assist us during the General Assembly.

To help our work for Illinois’ families continue, please send your donation today:

• DONATE ONLINE HERE — It’s safe, fast and secure!
• CALL US: (708) 781-9328