We are pleased to announce that former state legislator Peter Breen has been added to our line-up of speakers for the IFI Special Forum on Religious Liberty.  In addition to being a pro-life hero, Peter leads the Thomas More Society’s Legal Team in service of its Life, Family, and Religious Liberty missions.

Peter recently testified in front of an Illinois House committee to highlight the legal and practical flaws of SB 1909 – a bill designed to punish traditional Christian beliefs about the sanctity of human life at pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) throughout Illinois. SB 1909 allows the Attorney General to investigate any PRC and levy fines up to $50,000 against any PRC that the he/she “believes” is engaging in deceptive practices.

What are false and deceptive practices? Any information the Attorney General believes is deceptive.

Once the Attorney General concludes its formal investigation with your tax dollars and imposes the fine against the PRC, the law would allow the Attorney General to provide this biased information to a person to file a civil suit against the PRC for more monetary damages. You can imagine the damage this will cause.

Planned Parenthood and Attorney General staff testified in favor of this freedom-quashing bill. Their argument contained no complaints (not one) that could be verified — they were all anecdotal accounts they claimed to have witnessed at PRC’s or heard second hand.

In fact, before the hearing, Peter had requested that the Attorney General’s Office provide all complaints it received against PRC’s in the last 10 years. Their response? Zero. Zero complaints against pregnancy care centers have been documented. There is simply no demand from “we the people” for a bill like this. It’s another opportunity for Big Abortion and their allies in the General Assembly to go after and bully people of faith into silence.

Make no mistake, this is an infringement on the First Amendment rights of those who work and/or volunteer at PRCs and want to save preborn babies and minister to women facing unplanned pregnancies. Specifically, this quashes our right to freely exercise our religiously informed views about what abortion does to mother and baby. These beliefs are shared by the vast majority of orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims.

The state has no business regulating speech it doesn’t like. Yet tyrants at the Illinois State Capitol passed SB 1909 and sent it to the Governor for his signature.

The Illinois Senate passed this bill on March 31^st by a vote of 36 to 19.

The Illinois House passed this bill on May 10^th by a vote of 72 to 40.

Click HERE to listen to this week’s IFA podcast in which Monte Larrick interviews Peter Breen.

Join us on Thursday, June 1st! You won’t want to miss hearing from Peter Breen and the plans to challenge this unconstitutional law in court as well as hear from our featured speaker, Ambassador Sam Brownback, who serves as chairman of the National Committee for Religious Freedom. He will report on the international situation in countries like China, Nicaragua, and Nigeria, as well as domestic attempts to eradicate religiously informed conscience rights for medical professionals and those working at pregnancy centers.

We will also be joined by Arielle Del Turco, Family Research Council’s Director of the Center for Religious Liberty and co-author of the organization’s “Hostility Against Churches” report. This new report “indicates that criminal acts against churches have been steadily on the rise for the past several years… The first three months of 2023 saw approximately 3x the number of acts of hostility perpetrated against churches compared to the same timeframe last year.

Religious liberty requires our vigilance because its degradation affects the exercise of every other constitutional right. Literally, our freedom is at stake.

“[T]hat the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction;
that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain
the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy,
which at once destroys all religious liberty.” ~Thomas Jefferson, 1779.

In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, little if anything has changed concerning abortion in Illinois. You would think radical pro-abortion activists and legislators would be satisfied to know the status quo remains, but sadly, you would be wrong. Even though Illinois’ abortion law is one of the most liberal in the nation, pro-abortion forces are not content with unfettered access to abortion, and they are now coming after crucial pregnancy resource centers (PRCs).

Last week, SB 1909 passed the Illinois Senate on a partisan roll call vote (36 to 19) and has arrived at the Illinois House for their consideration. The so-called Deceptive Practices of Limited Services Pregnancy Centers Act amends the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, giving the Illinois Attorney General, who is militantly pro-abortion, the ability to fine PRCs for any perceived fraud or misleading statements.

So, what constitutes an instance of fraud or a misleading statement? Based on the Executive Committee hearing testimony by State Senator Celina Villanueva (D-Chicago), it depends entirely on the interpretation of the AG’s office. The so-called “testimonies” shared in support of the amendment were in no way substantiated, with one coming from Planned Parenthood Action and the other–get this–from the AG’s office. It’s a textbook conflict of interest, and yet no one seems to think this is problematic.

Now, a senate committee meeting is not a trial in which evidence is expected to be produced, but you would think that the obvious bias and lack of proof on the side of the bill’s proponents would raise some red flags. But apparently, the consciences of pro-abortion Illinois legislators are seared. Even a clear assault on religious liberty and free speech is no problem to them where their pet issues are concerned.

In addition to the shaky-at-best reasoning behind this new legislation, it was brought up multiple times in the hearing that this bill is not necessary, as the current Consumer Fraud Act more than covers the examples Villanueva and others gave. If a PRC is acting unlawfully, they are already subject to the law currently on the books. When pressed, the Deputy Attorney General for Policy at the AG’s office said over and over that infractions would be evaluated on a “case-by-case” basis. In other words, it’s subject to the whims of the AG, not the objective standards set out by the law. But then this isn’t about using the law correctly. It’s about punishing and potentially fining out of business these critical, often faith-based, centers for any reason.

Unsurprisingly, proponents cast “limited services pregnancy centers” as preying upon women, set against Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses as compassionate providers of healthcare. Among the accusations they brought against PRCs is that they delay or under-deliver healthcare for pregnant women through vague language or outright lies about their pregnancies. But as Serena Dye, regional executive director of Hope Life Center, testified, “The wording in this bill reminds me of my personal experience at abortion facilities, not pregnancy help centers.”

Although the eventual outcome of the hearing was evident from the start, it was heartening to hear from both Dye and Kristi Hofferber, a pro-life speaker and executive director of A Beacon of Light. Both women know personally the harm done by the abortion business. They spoke boldly, detailing the compassionate and crucial work done by their respective organizations and drawing attention to the damage this bill will do if signed into law.

Another bright spot was the dogged questioning of State Senator Neil Anderson (R-Andalusia), who pointed out the inconsistencies and clear animus embedded in SB 1909, over the protests of other members of the committee. With Democrats in the majority, however, the bill passed out of committee along party lines and went on to do the same in the Senate. The same will likely happen in the House, and then it will go on to the Governor’s desk, where it will no doubt be signed into law.

Watch the Senate Committee Hearing HERE.

So, what next? This bill spells disaster for one of the last places where vulnerable moms in Illinois (and beyond, thanks to burgeoning abortion tourism coming from surrounding states) stand a chance of hearing the whole story about what their pregnancy could mean for them, and of course, where their innocent, unborn children can be saved. First, we must pray for God’s mercy and that more and more believers will be stirred to stand for life in their homes, churches, and communities. Second, we must pray for and support pro-life PRCs. Third, we must pray for and support pro-life, pro-freedom organizations that can use the law to bring attention to this unconstitutional, government-sanctioned witch hunt.

The Thomas More Society, a pro-life law firm headquartered in Chicago, has already gone on record that if this bill is signed into law, they will bring a lawsuit against it. Peter Breen, a former Illinois state legislator and the Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society stated, “Senate Bill 1909 is a radical attempt to silence and chill the speech of pro-life advocates in Illinois. The bill is presented as a ‘consumer protection’ measure, but its purpose is to protect abortion clinics from competition…” He went on to say, “This bill is flagrantly unconstitutional, and if it becomes law, we will immediately file suit to protect pro-life organizations’ right to free speech.”

Democrats in Illinois have long stood for ever-increasing abortion access. SB 1909 demonstrates, in no uncertain terms, their desire to eliminate all options but abortion for women facing an unplanned pregnancy. We know God will not allow evil to continue forever, but today, we lament and cry out to Him for justice for those who have no voice.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative asking him/her to leave PRCs alone by voting against SB 1909. Point out that pregnancy care centers do not engage in “deceptive practices” but rather vital life-giving work. The people at these centers minister to needy, vulnerable women and children and are supported by people of faith across the state who want to be a blessing.

Read more:

How A Pregnancy Center Saved Me From Homelessness, Addiction, And Despair
(The Federalist)

Pregnancy Resource Centers Must Be Ready for a Post-Roe America
(National Review)

The Critical Pro-Life Work of Pregnancy Resource Centers
(ERLC)

Why are so many public schools in Illinois keeping so many secrets from the public? Last August, Christopher Rufo disclosed that Lurie’s Children’s Hospital, unbeknownst to parents or the general public, was collaborating with Chicago area schools to promote “radical gender theory, trans activism, and sexually explicit materials in at least four Chicago-area public school systems: District 75, District 120, District 181, and District 204.” Three of these school districts are elementary districts and one is a high school district.

We don’t know how many other school districts receive training from Lurie. But we have learned of at least one other, Palatine School District 15, another elementary school district. In January, Dawn Ravine, Lurie’s Sexuality Education Program Coordinator reportedly provided training to the District’s P.E./Health teachers during a planned institute day.

When parents learned of this training that was provided to the teachers, it came as a surprise since the District had voted to reject the National Sex Ed Standards. Why are the teachers being taught about subjects that were part of those standards, the parents asked? The District 15 school board did nothing to resolve the confusion. Instead of explaining the purpose of the training, the board Chair attacked the critics as liars at the most recent board meeting last week.

Does the school board even know why the training was held?

It appears that this training first exposed by Rufo has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the National Sex Ed Standards will be implemented by any specific district. Instead, it appears to be the result of guidance directed by the Illinois State Board of Education found here.

Several acts and suggested policies were developed after Governor JB Pritzker issued an executive order in 2019 to create a task force to investigate and report on creating affirming and inclusive schools to welcome, support and affirm transgender, non-binary and gender non-conforming children and adolescents.  The Task Force issued its report in January, 2020.

It doesn’t look like there was a single conservative, or even a liberal with a differing view, on the Task Force. The ACLU was represented, but neither ADF nor the Thomas More Society were anywhere to be seen. There were several students on the Task Force, but no former students who had de-transitioned. The Task Force sought the views and advice of the Trevor Project, but not the position of the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine. Do you suppose the Governor decided what the report would say before it was written?

The laws, regulations and suggested policies under Pritzker’s administration fully embrace the view that children suffering from gender dysphoria should be affirmed, that children should be allowed to “transition” without parental knowledge or involvement, that trans girls should be allowed to use the same facilities as biological girls and that they be allowed to play on girls teams.

Under Governor Pritzker’s guidance, the Illinois State Board of Education has set up a network of laws, regulations and suggested policies that seemingly tie the hands of local school boards. Ideologically, the board administrators and elected board members in Illinois schools mostly are not inclined to push back against the ISBE. If a majority of the board were so inclined, they likely would get advice from the board lawyers that the schools have to go along with what the state wants. Besides, they would be (and have been) told, suing the state over any issue would be very costly and not good stewardship of public tax funds.

Lost in the discussion is consideration for what is best for the children and what parents want.

Parents are not powerless, however. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that parents have a right to control what their children are taught. Given the current state of education in Illinois, it might be best for parents to home school their children or to send them to a private faith-based school that focuses on STEM subjects and English. If enough children are pulled out of school, it might prompt a more child and parent friendly environment.

If home schooling or sending children to a sane private school is not possible, the only thing that can be done is for parents to opt their children out of everything they don’t like—sex ed, SEL, counseling by any member of the school staff or any contractor, instruction on any subject other than math, science, biology, engineering, technology, English, or other subject the parents might approve. At the very least, though, parents will have to closely monitor what their children are taught in those classes–what textbooks, websites, videos, research projects, etc.

Illinois government, the ISBE, local boards along with the lawyers and administrators they hire, the teachers’ unions, and activist teachers have proven themselves to be completely secretive and untrustworthy. Inaction and inattention have brought us to this point. The result is we get exactly the government we deserve and there is nobody out there to fix it for us.

Unless parents get involved like they did in Virginia, nothing is going to change.

Did you hear in the mainstream media about the scores of attacks, including some firebombings, of the Planned Parenthood facilities by pro-life extremists?

Did you hear about the harassment of the pro-abortion politicians and judges for their pro-choice stance?

You didn’t? Neither did I, because none of those things happened. But the mainstream media has for the most part ignored the multiple churches and pro-life facilities that have been attacked in one way or another by pro-abortion forces in the last several weeks. Indeed, if they had been mosques or abortion providers, we would hear over and over about all this.

To add insult to injury, the loving services that the crisis pregnancy centers provide is being woefully distorted by many, including Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Senator Warren said last week: “In Massachusetts right now, those crisis pregnancy centers that are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help outnumber true abortion clinics by three to one. We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts, and we need to shut them down all around the country. You should not be able to torture a pregnant person like that.”

Pregnancy centers “torture” women? How blind can these people be? The crisis pregnancy centers, now in the cross hairs of the left, provide loving alternatives to abortion.

Through no help of the government, they provide millions of dollars of services—at no charge to the mothers they serve.

Micaiah Bilger of lifenews.com reports that “$266 million of free medical services and resources” are provided per year by these pregnancy centers.

The attack against pro-life churches and facilities was highlighted in the Capitol recently by Congressman Jim Jordan who read a litany of the dozens of attacks since the May 2 leak of the draft of the Dobbs decision. Yet the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives just voted against a measure to condemn these attacks.

Recently I spoke on a radio segment with Jim Harden, the president of Compass Care, a ministry that helps women with crisis pregnancies. Their center in Buffalo (technically, Amherst), New York, was firebombed on June 7^th, and he told me that the perpetrators were “the pro-abortion terrorist group known as Jane’s Revenge. They’ve taken responsibility for scores of attacks on pro-life organizations since the leak of the Dobbs case.”

I asked Harden, isn’t it illegal to firebomb any building—say a candy factory, much less a charity providing loving services to those in need (although the left doesn’t view it as charity)? He answered, “An arson attack is just below murder in the criminal justice system because it carries too much potential damage and threat to life.”

He told our listeners that so far there have been no leads from the police or the FBI as to suspects. He said that friends in nearby offices were able to provide office space so that Compass Care could continue to serve the mothers in need. They did not miss a day serving, despite the firebombing.

In a follow-up call this week, he told me there have now been, all over the nation, “over 100 attacks where prolife people gather, with no arrests to date.”

His organization is dedicated to rebuilding the facility, which had to be gutted, costing $300,000-$400,000.

Crisis pregnancy centers are doing the Lord’s work, but today it is “open season” on them, thanks in part to the Marxist organization, “Jane’s Revenge.”

Meanwhile, there has been an on-going harassment against pro-life justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. These were illegal acts when the pro-death party was trying to intimidate them to change their opinion.

Now the left is even going after pro-life individuals at home.

Writer Alicia Powe notes, “An attorney who founded the Thomas More Society, a conservative Catholic law firm, was attacked as abortion activists threw smoke bombs and firecrackers at his house following the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade. The insurgents surrounded the home of pro-life lawyer Thomas Brejcha, in Evanston, Illinois.”

I’ve interviewed Tom Brejcha through the years. He once said of the pro-life cause in general: “This is a spiritual battle. This is not just a legal battle. And prayer is the ultimate resource. We need divine intervention…This is God’s work to protect the dignity and value of every human being.”

Is this the America the left is bringing to us, where the full force of government is on the side of death? This is indeed a spiritual battle. Our founders said that our first right granted by the Creator is the “right to life.” But the left seems more committed to death than life.

This article was originally published at JerryNewcombe.com.

Obama judicial appointee Judge John Z. Lee of the Northern District of Illinois ruled against The Beloved Church last week as they filed a federal complaint challenging Governor J.B. Pritzker‘s emergency Executive Orders. The pastor and church, located in Lena, Illinois, are seeking to have their First Amendment rights restored to them in order to host regular services of up to 80 people each week.

Judge Lee’s reasoning in his decision denying the church’s complaint was shocking:

It is difficult to see why the legislature would recognize these long-running problems as disasters, yet divest the Governor of the tools he needs to address them.

Judge Lee continues:

The Thomas More Society filed a complaint in federal court stating that both the state of New York and New York City are discriminating against pro-life advocates.

The complaint, which was filed Jan. 21, 2020 on behalf of Evergreen Association, Inc., accuses the State and City of New York of disregarding the charitable organization’s First Amendment rights. Evergreen operates maternal health and pregnancy centers under the names “Expectant Mother Care” and “EMC Frontline Pregnancy Centers.” The Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Chris Slattery, Director of EMC Frontline, described the discrimination: “We are all about saving the unborn lives threatened by abortion. Thus, we are all about offering alternatives to abortion. New York’s discriminatory laws undermine our charitable mission. How could we in good conscience hire someone who advocates abortion to encourage expectant mothers not to pursue that deadly route?”

According to a media release from the Thomas More Society, the complaint charges discrimination against pro-life organizations in the following ways:

• Violation of the right to association (First Amendment)
• Violation of due process (Fourteenth Amendment)
• Violation of free speech (First Amendment)

In a public radio program in Jan. 2014, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo denounced pro-life advocates as “extreme conservatives,” saying that “they have no place in the state of New York.” Despite repeated calls for him to apologize, the governor has refused. In the same pattern, the Thomas More Society states, “A recent string of New York attorney generals has sought to silence peaceful citizens offering abortion-bound women information on life-affirming alternatives.”

In remarks about the legislation, Thomas More Society Special Counsel Timothy Belz stated, “This is especially egregious when you consider that the law was packaged with other bills specifically designed to strip away any regulation of abortion. New York’s ‘Boss Bill’ was passed in tandem with the state’s Reproductive Health Act, which legalizes abortion until the birth of the child, and the Comprehensive Contraception Coverage Act, which requires health insurers to provide no-cost birth control, including abortifacient drugs, in their health plans.” In Illinois, the Reproductive Health Act (SB 25), passed by the General Assembly at the end of the spring 2020 session, also requires all employers in the state to provide no-cost birth control and abortions up to nine months in their health plans.

According to the Thomas More Society release, “The case challenges the constitutionality of New York’s so-called ‘Boss Bills,’ laws that make support of abortion a protected class in the employment nondiscrimination laws of both New York State and New York City, thus forbidding employers from making hiring and promotion decisions  based upon ‘reproductive health’ decisions of employees or applicants, including the decision to have or promote abortions. The laws pose existential threats to pro-life organizations because they impose debilitating fines and also provide for statutory damages.”

Belz explained, “These laws violate our client’s rights in multiple ways. Expectant Mother Care and EMC Frontline exist for the purpose of advocating for and providing desperate women with alternatives to abortion. Forcing them to hire someone who promotes abortion would completely undermine their mission.”

“It’s ludicrous,” said Belz, “and tramples all over Expectant Mother Care and EMC Frontline’s right of expressive association guaranteed by the First Amendment. These state and city laws also violate our client’s right to free speech and right to due process. Finally, the state’s failure to define ‘reproductive health decision making’ makes the laws unconstitutionally vague.”

The Thomas More Society is a not-for-profit law firm headquartered in Chicago and Omaha, dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty. 

To read the complaint visit https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Complaint-for-Declaratory-and-Injunctive-Relief-1-16-20.pdf.

IFI is hosting our annual Worldview Conference on March 7th at the Village Church of Barrington. This year’s conference is titled “Thinking Biblically About Our Corrosive Culture” and features Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Rob Gagnon. For more information, please click HERE for a flyer or click the button below to register for the conference.

We at IFI and IFA have been humbled and blessed by the words of encouragement, prayers, and support we have received over the past two weeks from subscribers. We can’t adequately express how thankful we are for such support or describe how it has bolstered our spirits and strengthened our resolve to act and speak boldly in defense of the least among us.

We also want to express our deep appreciation to the organizations and leaders who have publicly and privately expressed their unwavering support for Illinois Family Institute, including the Thomas More Society, Illinois Conservative Union, Concerned Women for America of Illinois, Catholic Citizens of Illinois, 2^nd Vote, the Rockford Pro-Life Initiative, the Illinois chapter of Concerned Citizens for America, Freedom’s Journal Institute, Restore our Constitution, Businessmen in Christ, Nehemiah Leaders, as well as dozens of religious, political and talk-radio leaders throughout the state and nation.

The fact that we compared the evil of the baby holocaust in America to the evil of the Jewish Holocaust has the proponents of abortion expansion in Illinois on the defensive. They are desperate to change the narrative. They cannot defend their indefensible views, so they attack pro-life conservatives.

They have launched a counter-offensive, House Joint Resolution 55, which is rife with lies and rhetorical nonsense and being used to try to deny us of our First Amendment rights. While the ad hominem attacks of Leftists are not new, their increasing willingness to use government to silence dissent is both new and deeply troubling.  (More on that in a future article.)

We are not anxious. We know that what the enemy intends for evil, God can use for good (Genesis 50:20).

We are trusting God in this latest skirmish. We trust that God’s plan is better than anything we can come up with (Isaiah 55:8-9).

We don’t believe it is a coincidence that this is happening at a time when the abortion debate is raging nationally, when Leftists are revealing through radical legislative proposals their murderous intentions, and when the movie Unplanned has hit thousands of movie theaters nation-wide.

IFI’s and IFA’s Board of Directors, staff, and I are of one mind that the time is long past due for defenders of the unborn to unite in a bolder confrontation of the evil of abortion and of those who celebrate it. Proponents of this abomination should be put on the defensive!

As every decent person can see, America is edging ever closer to legalizing post-birth infanticide. All lawmakers who support abortion should be publicly condemned and their views compared to other genocidal movements that have scarred human history.

You and I cannot remain silent in the face of this evil.

Yet, at the same time we are told to love our enemies “and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:28). So at this time and in this prayer alert, we are calling for prayer for those who seek to harass and intimidate us by misusing their governmental authority.

It is at times difficult to pray for our opponents, especially those who spread vicious lies about who we are and what motivates us. By extension, these unfair attacks on IFI smear all orthodox Christians. Yet we know that God changes hearts and minds (Ezekiel 36:26; Psalm 51:10; Proverbs 21:1). God can reveal to them their sins (Psalm 146:8; John 3:3; Acts 26:18) and their need for a Savior (John 3:1-21; 2 Corinthians 7:10).

So, our prayers for these lawmakers are essential. Let’s lift up the sponsors of HJR 55 in fervent and compassionate prayer over the next two months:

State Rep. Bob Morgan (D-Highwood)
State Rep. Jennifer Gong-Gershowitz (D-Glenview)
State Rep. Yehiel Kalish (D-Skokie)
State Rep. Sara Feigenholtz (D-Chicago)
State Rep. Daniel Didech (D-Buffalo Grove)
State Rep. Robyn Gabel (D-Chicago)
State Rep. Jonathan Carroll (D-Northbrook)
State Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago)
State Rep. Will Guzzardi (D-Chicago)
State Rep. Sam Yingling (D-Round Lake Beach)
State Rep. Anna Moeller (D-Elgin)
State Rep. Karina Villa (D-St. Charles)

Pray that the Lord will open their eyes to the evil of abortion.

Pray that they will turn from darkness to light (Acts 26:18).

Pray that they will know the hope of His calling (Ephesians 1:18).

Pray that He will open their eyes to the injustice of their attempt to quash our civil rights (Isaiah 59:14-15).

Pray too that the bloodlust and greed of Planned Parenthood and their allies is exposed (Proverbs 6:16-19).

Finally, pray that the movie Unplanned continues to do well in theaters and that its pro-life message will reach far and wide here in Illinois, in our nation, and around the world.

IFI Prayer Team

If you pray and believe that God hears and answers prayer, will you please consider joining the IFI Prayer Team? This special opt-in group receives occasional emails asking for prayer regarding public policy issues, for specific government officials and various statewide needs as the Holy Spirit may lead.

Thank you and God bless you!

In an email, conservative Chicago attorney Joseph A. Morris, former Assistant Attorney General of the United States, President and General Counsel of The Lincoln Legal Foundation, and frequent guest on WTTW’s “Chicago Tonight,” told IFI that he is “thrilled by the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh,” elaborating,

Brett Kavanaugh is smart, learned, and honorable. He is exactly what President Trump promised to nominate and appoint: An originalist in the tradition of the late Antonin Scalia. With his hundreds of finely written, rigorously-reasoned opinions as a judge of the Court of Appeals, Judge Kavanaugh’s jurisprudence is literally an open book. He will make one of the finest Supreme Court justices in history.

While “progressives” work fast and furious to do what they do best—that is, manipulate emotions—Mr. Morris works to quell nerves jangled by the paranoia of people untethered to reality, wisdom,  or the Constitution:

Although the work of judges is not, and should not be, political, the nomination, confirmation, and appointment of Federal judges are necessarily political acts.

Much wailing will be heard, and ink will be spilled, this summer, regarding President Trump’s asserted “politicization” of the judiciary. A few simple numerical facts about the current staffing of the higher levels of the Federal judiciary may help put things in perspective.

Staffing of the United States Supreme Court:

Appointed by Republican:  4

Appointed by Democrat:    4

Vacant:  1

Total:      9

Staffing of the United States Courts of Appeals:

Mr. Morris is far from alone in his assessment of Judge Kavanaugh. All across the country, voices of support for Kavanaugh’s nomination are sounding. American Center for Law and Justice’s Jay Sekulow wrote,

The nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to fill the vacancy created with the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy is a superb choice who is certain to serve this nation well. Judge Kavanaugh is a brilliant jurist who embraces the philosophy of our Founders—an unwavering commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution.

The Thomas More Society released a statement, saying in part,

The Thomas More Society applauds President Donald J. Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States…. “We are excited to see the President nominate a great human being who is one of the finest legal minds of our time. Judge Brett Kavanaugh has a proven track record of judging fairly, always applying the Constitution and our laws as they are written. We look forward to his confirmation and anticipate that he will distinguish himself in his time on the high court.”

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) wrote,

“By any measure, Judge Kavanaugh is one of the most respected federal judges in the country and I look forward to supporting his nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. For over a decade, Judge Kavanaugh has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often referred to as the second highest court in the land. He has over 300 published opinions, with a strong record of defending the Second Amendment, safeguarding the separation of powers, reining in the unchecked power of federal agencies, and preserving our precious religious liberties.

Even National Review’s David French, who was an impassioned proponent of Amy Coney Barrett, said, “Kavanaugh will be an excellent judge.”

Be of good, cheer, friends. This is most definitely not a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. Thanks to President Donald J. Trump and his crack team of experts, it’s quite the opposite.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Be-of-Good-Cheer-About-Brett-Kavanaugh.mp3

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  It does make a difference.

The Thomas More Society has now moved for an emergency injunction to be heard on Thursday, December 28, to stop State of Illinois officials from providing tens of thousands of taxpayer funded abortions in the New Year.

Additional legislators and groups will also seek to join the suit that day, including State Representative Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton) and State Senator Neil Anderson (R-Rock Island). The taxpayer lawsuit, filed at the end of November in the Sangamon County Circuit Court, is brought on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Illinois taxpayers, represented by county and statewide pro-life organizations, the Springfield Catholic Diocese, and a group of Illinois legislators from across the state.

“This emergency injunction would stop a New Year’s Day implementation of this law, under which Illinois taxpayers would be forced to pay for 20,000 to 30,000 or more abortions per year,” explained Peter Breen, Thomas More Society Special Counsel. “Even apart from the sincere moral objections that many folks have to paying for abortions, there is no money in the Illinois state budget to pay for them. And, because of games played by Senate Democrats, in holding HB 40 until late September, after the May 31 cutoff for legislative action, this bill can’t be effective until June 1, certainly not on January 1.” Breen also serves as state representative for Illinois’ 48^th District.

If implemented, despite its illegality, HB 40 would force every Illinoisan to pay for free abortions for those on Medicaid. This would apply through the full nine months of pregnancy and for any reason, even when the latest scientific research has shown that the unborn child can feel pain and survive outside of its mother’s womb.

The State of Illinois has a tradition of allowing taxpayer lawsuits, which are brought by private individuals to protect the public treasury. Illinois law requires such a suit to be brought by a petition for leave to file a taxpayer complaint, which was granted by Judge Jennifer Ascher on December 6, at the last hearing in this case.

The Illinois legislators bringing the lawsuit include (italicized names are newly added):

• Representative Mark Batinick, District 97
• Representative Jeanne Ives, District 42
• Representative Charlie Meier, District 108
• Representative Steve Reick, District 63
• Representative Barbara Wheeler, District 64
• Representative Keith Wheeler, District 50
• Senator Neil Anderson, District 36
• Senator Dale Fowler, District 59
• Senator Sam McCann, District 50
• Senator Kyle McCarter, District 54
• Senator Dan McConchie, District 26
• Senator Paul Schimpf, District 58

The pro-life groups listed on the complaint include (italicized names are newly added):

• Illinois Federation for Right to Life
• Illinois Right to Life Action
• Springfield Right to Life
• Right to Life of Adams County, Inc.
• Clinton County Citizens For Life
• Henry County Right to Life, Inc.
• Knox County Right to Life, NFP
• Lake County Right to Life Committee, Inc.
• Morgan County Right to Life, Inc., NFP
• Faith and Freedom Family Ministry, NFP
• Pro-Life Action League, Inc.

The above listed legislators and groups are joined in this action by:

• Diocese of Springfield In Illinois

Read the Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Verified Amended Taxpayer Complaint HERE.

Read the original Petition for Leave to File a Taxpayer Action to Restrain and Enjoin the Disbursement of Public Funds and the Taxpayer Complaint to Restrain and Enjoin the Disbursement of Public Funds HERE.

About the Thomas More Society

The Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty. Headquartered in Chicago and Omaha, the Thomas More Society fosters support for these causes by providing high quality pro bono legal services from local trial courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. For more information, visit thomasmoresociety.org.

Written by David E. Smith and Laurie Higgins

Despite a full-court press by IFI and many Illinois pro-life groups–including dozens of pregnancy resource centers (PRCs)–Governor Bruce Rauner chose to sign legislation (late Friday afternoon) that will result in our state government requiring pro-life medical professionals to refer patients for medical procedures/services they find morally objectionable such as abortion, sterilization and certain end-of-life care protocols.

This is not the result for which so many hoped and prayed.

Nonetheless, IFI wants to thank all those who took time to call or email the governor to ask him to veto SB 1564.

IFI also wants to acknowledge and thank those handful of pro-life state lawmakers who recently met with Rauner in an attempt to persuade him to reject this proposal.  IFI is deeply grateful for those who took time to plead the pro-life, pro-conscience position with Rauner.

Despite the fact that not one Republican voted for the final version of SB 1564, Rauner decided to side with the Democrats in approving its final passage.

Thankfully, we have a system of checks and balances.  IFI has been informed that a lawsuit is being planned to challenge this onerous and tyrannical new law.  So now we must now shift our focus to praying for the Thomas More Society in their effort to overturn this unconscionable law in court.

This legislative travesty accentuates the need for Christians to be involved in the political process and engaged in the public square.  No American should ever be required by the government to do or say something that violates their deeply held beliefs.

It is because so many Christians have abdicated their civic responsibilities with regard to self-government (also known as “politics”) that we are seeing tyranny rise and religious liberty erode. Unless and until conservatives cease being one- or two-issue voters (e.g., focusing almost solely on the economy and defense), secular humanists, cultural Christians, and libertarians will continue their perversion of the legislative process.

Unless and until social conservatives exercise their power while they still have any, there will remain no party to defend social conservatism, including issues related to life, marriage, properly ordered sexuality, physical privacy, religious liberty, and conscience rights. Unless social conservatives reject those who reject social conservatism, the already-present hostility to social conservatives and rejection of social conservatism will intensify.

Instead of throwing in the towel in response to the traitorous outrage perpetrated by Rauner–who has demonstrated his willingness to thwart the will of Democrats with regard to the budget bill–IFI wants to challenge conservatives to double down instead.  We desperately need more–many more–pro-life/pro-family/pro-children’s rights men and women in Springfield.

As we head into fall, the November election looms large. Don’t disengage! Find a local candidate you can get behind, and volunteer and/or financially support him or her. Support those candidates who demonstrate an unequivocal and unashamed commitment to the social issues, which are essential to the continued flourishing of America.

In addition, consider volunteering and/or financially supporting a local pregnancy resource center, starting a pro-life/pro-family committee at your church, and attending IFI events and forums.

And let us not grow weary while doing good,
for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.
~Galatians 6:9~

On Wednesday afternoon, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit in federal court against School District 211 and the Department of Education (DOE) on behalf of 51 district families who rightly claim that the district and the Department of Education “trample students’ privacy” rights and create an “intimidating and hostile environment” for girls who are being forced to share the girls locker room and restrooms with a boy who wishes he were a girl.

The lawsuit claims that the DOE’s reinterpretation of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, is unlawful. The DOE through its Office for Civil Rights claims that the word “sex” in Title IX actually includes “gender identity” and “gender expression,” thereby prohibiting schools from maintaining separate restrooms and locker rooms for boys and girls.

There’s only one wee little problem with that fanciful interpretation. Title IX specifically states the following:

[T]itle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972…is designed to eliminate (with certain exceptions) discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program….A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex. [emphasis added]

For those who may not remember, several months ago the ACLU represented a gender-dysphoric boy in District 211 who was seeking the right to use the girls locker room and restrooms. Actually, he was seeking the right to unrestricted access to the girls locker room and restrooms. Though he and the ACLU lost the right—for now—to unrestricted access, he won the right to use the girls restrooms and locker room, which has been fitted with a privacy changing area.

While this boy—and he is a boy—demands the right to change clothes and go to the bathroom with only girls, he seeks to deny actual girls the right to change clothes and go to the bathroom with only girls.

According to the Chicago Tribune, ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka waxed indignant over opposition to a boy in the girls locker room and restrooms and to the conventional and proper use of pronouns to denote objective, immutable sex:

Ed Yohnka…called the lawsuit a “sad development by groups opposed to fair and humane treatment of all students, including those who are transgender.”

He also bristled at the lawsuit’s repeated reference to the transgender student as “he.”

“It’s pretty offensive that they don’t even fundamentally acknowledge that our client is a girl,” Yohnka said.

I regret being so graphic, but Yohnka’s idiotic statement makes it necessary: Girls don’t have penises.

The Left takes umbrage if anyone dares to dissent from their doctrinaire notions about sex and grammar. Tyrannical Leftists demand that biological males who wish they were female be treated as if they are in reality female—even in womens showers. The Left demands that everyone join them in their delusional charade.

District 211 superintendent Daniel Cates said “students have shown acceptance, support and respect of each other,” evidently meaning that students don’t object to sharing restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex students. If true, is that a good thing? Has the culture successfully indoctrinated all our young people with the lie that acceptance and respect of those who suffer from gender dysphoria require sharing restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex persons? Doubtful.

Should the delight of teens in sharing restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex students determine policy? If physical embodiment matters and if modesty is a virtue derived from physical embodiment, shouldn’t schools create policies that reinforce those truths?

And does anyone believe that in this cultural climate, teens who don’t want to share restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex peers would feel comfortable admitting it? Or to use Leftist jargon, does anyone believe it is “safe” for students to express opposition to sharing restrooms and locker rooms with opposite-sex peers?

The issue of objectively male students using girls private facilities is not solely about the risk of assault—though that risk exists. The central issue concerns the meaning of physical embodiment as male or female, particularly as it pertains to modesty and privacy.

Virtually everyone—including gender-dysphoric persons and homosexuals—acknowledges that men and women are substantively and significantly different. When homosexuals claim they are attracted only to persons of the same sex, they are implicitly and necessarily saying men and women are different, and those differences include bodily differences.

When gender-dysphoric persons who wish they were the opposite sex say they don’t want to use restrooms or locker rooms with persons of their same sex, they are saying there are fundamental and significant differences between men and women. Further, they are necessarily saying that their desire to use opposite-sex restrooms is based on objective bodily differences. They are demanding privacy based on objective sex differences while denying that privacy to others.

Questions Leftists must answer:

• Why are sex differences meaningful for those who have gender dysphoria but not for those who don’t?

• Do the desire for privacy and feelings of modesty derive from objective sex differences or from desires about one’s sex?

• If gender-dysphoric persons are allowed to use restrooms with only those whose “gender identity” they share, why shouldn’t non-gender-dysphoric persons be allowed to use restrooms with only those whose sex they share?

• If there is a mismatch between a person’s sex and their feelings about their sex, why would anyone assume the problem is with the healthy, normally functioning body and not the mind?

How refreshing and encouraging it is to see parents boldly challenging the incoherent and indecent actions of “progressives” in government schools. Please pray for these families and the success of their lawsuit.

The Illinois Appellate Court, Second Judicial District, has overturned a lower court’s dismissal of a zoning and fraud lawsuit brought by the Thomas More Society on behalf of Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood and several neighbors. The Society argued that the zoning of the mega-abortion facility (built eight years ago in Aurora, Illinois) was illegal, as it was (and remains) located in a business development district – an area which is exclusively reserved for profit-making businesses. The appellate court remanded the case for discovery and further proceedings in the circuit court focused on the nearby residents’ primary contention – that the clinic’s continued operation at this location would be illegal and in defiance of an explicit ban on non-profits.

“Planned Parenthood built its abortion facility in Aurora under false pretenses and in blatant violation of the strictures of Aurora’s zoning code, which require a tax-paying for-profit use on that site,” said Peter Breen, Thomas More Society Special Counsel. “This facility was built on a foundation of deception, and the appellate court’s ruling reaffirms that Planned Parenthood must obey Aurora’s zoning laws, just like any other resident of Aurora. We look forward to returning to the circuit court and continuing to prosecute this lawsuit aggressively.”

The appellate court’s decision overturned the dismissal of the Society’s main claim that the property is zoned for tax-paying, business uses, thereby barring any non-profit use on the part of Planned Parenthood, which is an IRS-recognized 501(c)(3) public charity. Unless further proceedings are undertaken in the appellate court or a further appeal is taken up to the Illinois Supreme Court, the case will now return to the DuPage County Circuit Court for further litigation on whether this non-profit entity may continue to occupy land meant for business uses.

The appellate court upheld the circuit court’s dismissal of several secondary claims by Fox Valley Families and neighbors against Planned Parenthood, ending the lawsuit on those claims.

Planned Parenthood boasted that it had been paying property taxes on the property from 2006 throughout the pendency of proceedings in the circuit court, and its attorneys argued that such payment of property taxes proved that it was lawfully operating as a for-profit entity. However, within a few months after the suit was dismissed by the circuit court, Planned Parenthood applied for and was granted property tax exemptions and a rebate of taxes paid for the prior three years, arguing that its use of the property was strictly charitable and non-profit. In 2007, Planned Parenthood also won $8.05 million in 501(c)(3) tax-free bond financing from the Illinois Finance Authority upon its promise that it would use the property for exclusively charitable purposes.

In 2006 and 2007, Planned Parenthood hid behind two layers of dummy “front” companies to secure permits to construct a 21,000-square-foot abortion facility in Aurora, Illinois. During the development process, Planned Parenthood withheld its true intended use and the resultant negative impact on its neighbors from the people and City of Aurora. After media revelations in July 2007 that the property was to house a massive Planned Parenthood abortion facility, intense public outcry resulted. But Aurora finally allowed the facility to open in October, 2007.

In late 2007 and early 2008, attorneys with the Thomas More Society brought administrative appeals and then a lawsuit alleging zoning ordinance violations against Planned Parenthood and the City of Aurora. The lawsuit was dismissed by the circuit court in August of 2013. In April 2015, the case was argued before the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District. The decision of the Appellate Court was filed June 19, 2015.

Read copy of Appellate Court’s decision here.

This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down a highly anticipated ruling that affirmed First Amendment  protections of religious liberty and freedom of conscience.  In this particular ruling it means that our government does not have the authority to force family businesses like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods to provide abortifacient drugs and contraceptives in their health care plans.

The Illinois Family Institute celebrates this important decision in favor of religious liberty and freedom of conscience. The Court ruled that private companies cannot be forced to comply with onerous federal government mandates that violate their religious beliefs. 

Read or download the entire SCOTUS decision HERE.

No one in America should be forced to violate their deeply held beliefs in order to keep their jobs or run a business.  We should be free to live and work according to our religious beliefs, not the government’s religion.  To put it more bluntly, our government has no business compelling pro-life citizens to bow at the altar of Leftism.  It is a foundational principle on which this country was founded.

In a free, diverse and tolerant society, the government should respect the freedom of citizens to live out their convictions, not just in private but in the way citizens conduct their lives in public as well. 

It must be noted that this was a 5 to 4 vote on ideological lines, which means that barely a majority of the Justices understand that government shouldn’t suppress religious freedom.  On some level it is distressing to know that it took three years and millions of dollars of legal action to affirm what the First Amendment clearly states: that people have a right to live by the dictates of their faith. And in this case, the right not to partake in the destruction of an innocent human life.   While the victory is important and one for which we should be thankful, the fact is that we were within one vote of a significant loss of religious liberty for individuals who own their own business. Don’t misunderstand, I’m very grateful for this victory, but his vote was too close for comfort.

Key to the decision was the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  This federal law does not give license to discrimination, as many on the Left have mistakenly claimed.  Today, the SCOTUS directly repudiated this false notion and specifically reiterated that RFRA provides no defense to discriminate in hiring. No federal or state RFRA has ever been used to discriminate against someone.  In fact, RFRA is actually about preventing discrimination against any American due to their religious beliefs.

Locally, reaction was swift and jubilant.   “I am proud that our Supreme Court has upheld the fundamental religious liberties of American citizens to engage in the free exercise of their religious beliefs, not only in their houses of worship, but also in their day to day lives, in business as well as at home,” said Thomas Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society.  “Our Justices have affirmed that Americans must not be compelled to put aside their religious beliefs and values as a pre-condition to their entering into the sphere of commerce and making a living for themselves and their families.”

“This ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby is a victory for all who cherish religious freedom,” said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League and one of the national directors of the Stand Up for Religious Freedom rallies. “The movement that began with hundreds of protest rallies outside federal court buildings has just won a great victory inside the nation’s highest Court.”

Response from national organizations was no less enthusiastic.  Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council had this to say:

The Supreme Court has delivered one of the most significant victories for religious freedom in our generation. We are thankful the Supreme Court agreed that the government went too far by mandating that family businesses owners must violate their consciences under threat of crippling fines.

All Americans can be thankful that the Court reaffirmed that freedom of conscience is a long-held American tradition and that the government cannot impose a law on American men and women that forces them to violate their beliefs in order to hold a job, own a business, or purchase health insurance.

The unfair HHS mandate gave family businesses two non-choices: either violate your deeply held moral beliefs and comply by paying for drugs and services to which you object, or pay crippling fines of up to $100 per day, per employee, for non-compliance. This mandate threatened the jobs, livelihood and healthcare of millions of Americans and forced those who stood up for their conscience, like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, to either comply or be punished.

Thankfully, the threat the HHS mandate imposed on Americans has been deemed unlawful today as a violation of core religious freedom rights.  While we celebrate this landmark decision, it is our hope that lower courts will follow the Supreme Court’s lead and protect non-profits like Little Sisters of the Poor, Priests for Life, and Wheaton College from the unfair HHS Mandate.

Dr. Russell Moore of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission sums it up well, “Hobby Lobby [and Conestoga Wood Specialities] refused to render to Caesar what belongs to God: their consciences. The Supreme Court agreed.” 

Help us be your voice for pro-family values! 

In a stunning public admission during a debate on the future of marriage in Illinois, the chief sponsor of SB 10, the proposed bill to legalize same-sex “marriage,” homosexual State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago) acknowledged that the bill does not provide religious liberty or conscience protections for individual Christian business owners. Further, it was clear that both he and homosexual Chicago Alderman Deb Mell (a former state representative and co-sponsor of of SB 10) oppose any such protections.

In the unfortunately titled “Marriage Equality” debate, sponsored by the Chicago Tribune, moderator Bruce Dold asked Harris about the absence of conscience protections in the bill:

Dold: The bill specifically protects churches, but it does not have any language about individual conscience…. Would the bill not have a better chance if it had an individual conscience protection in it?

Harris: [D]ecades ago when the Human Rights Act was passed, it said, we the people of Illinois have decided not to allow discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, veteran’s status in housing, employment, or public accommodations. The question of should we treat all of our citizens equally in all of those three areas has been answered. But also there are exemptions for religious institutions in the Human Rights Act. There’s also the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and specific language in this bill…that explicitly protects freedom of religion for those churches and denominations which do not want to consecrate same-sex marriages.”

Harris publicly admitted that this bill protects the religious liberty of only religious institutions, churches, and denominations—not individuals. It was clear that Harris has no desire or intent to include such protections.

That said, the inclusion of such protections would not make this a good bill. It would simply make it a less terrible bill.

Harris tried to claim that SB 10 poses no threat to religious liberty, but was challenged by both Robert Gilligan, Executive Director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, and Peter Breen, Vice President and Senior Counsel with the Thomas More Society, who talked about the Illinois bed and breakfast owner who is being sued for his refusal to rent out his facility for a same-sex civil union ceremony  (read more HERE).

Mell, who earlier had claimed that warnings about future religious persecution were dishonest “scare tactics,” responded “But [the bed and breakfast] is a business that does business in the state of Illinois, and in Illinois, we don’t allow discrimination.” While claiming that warnings about loss of religious liberty were deceptive and false “scare tactics,” she vigorously defended this religious discrimination. She apparently didn’t notice her own contradiction.

Neither she nor Harris seemed to notice that while they obsess about Illinois’ prohibition of discrimination based on “sexual orientation,” they pay no attention to its prohibition of religious discrimination. They don’t care if the bed and breakfast owner is discriminated against because of his religious beliefs.

Former Georgetown University law professor and current EEOC Commissioner, lesbian activist Chai Feldblum has written that when same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights. She argues that it’s a zero-sum game in which a gain in sexual rights for homosexuals will mean a loss of religious rights for conservative people of faith, which she finds justifiable. She, Mell, and Harris share the view that the sexual “rights” of homosexuals trump religious rights.

Harris cited the Illinois Human Rights Act as his justification for not protecting the rights of people of faith to refuse to use their labor and goods in the service of an event that violates their deeply held religious beliefs. Well, the Illinois Human Rights Act also prohibits discrimination based on religion; hence the conflict of which Chai Feldblum spoke. Harris finds discriminating based on religion tolerable and justifiable but not discrimination based on sexual predilection.

By the way, choosing not to participate in a same-sex “wedding” does not reflect discrimination against persons. It reflects discriminating among types of events. The elderly florist who is being sued by the state of Washington for her refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex “wedding” did not discriminate against a person. She made a judgment about an event. She had previously sold flowers to one of the homosexual partners. She served all people regardless of their sexual predilections, beliefs, sexual activities, or relationships. She just wouldn’t participate in an event that she (rightly) believes the God she serves abhors. She takes seriously Jesus’ command to “Render unto Caeser what is Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Prior to the debate, I had a conversation with one of the event planners in which I predicted Harris would refuse to answer the critical question regarding why marriage should remain a union of just two people. Dold twice asked, if marriage is a right, why should it be limited to two people? Twice Harris obstinately refused to answer.

It was an embarrassingly obvious and intellectually dishonest dodge. Harris tried to use the language of the current bill to deflect the question saying in essence that the bill’s language says nothing about plural unions. This is the same embarrassing dodge ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka used in a program on which both he and I were guests. Three times I asked him why marriage should be limited to two people, as he claimed it should be. Three times he awkwardly refused to answer.

It doesn’t take much intellectual wattage to understand that once the ideas that marriage is just about love and has nothing to do with sexual complementarity or reproductive potential are embedded in law, there remains no reason to restrict marriage to two people. The legalization of plural unions becomes not merely possible but inevitable.

Harris also said, “All families should be created equal,” to which I would have asked, “Even polyamorous families?”

And he said marriage law should “expand to reflect the reality of society,” to which I would have said, “But there exist polyamorous families in society.”

A few additional thoughts on the debate:

1. “Progressive” language police: At one point Mell attempted to compel Breen to use the term she wanted him to use for her partner (whom she “married” in Iowa). She attempted to compel him to use the term “wife.” She correctly insisted that “terminology is important.” But the law is not the ultimate arbiter of truth and reality. Compelling Breen to use the term “wife” would rob him of the right to use the term he wanted to use and believes reflects truth and reality. Conservatives have the ethical right and obligation to use the language they believe reflects truth and reality. Conceding terminology to the Left, as conservatives too often do, is not smart, not truthful, not helpful, and not compassionate.
   
   In reality, a wife is the spouse of a man (and each partner must actually be the sex they claim to be). No one is ethically obligated to participate rhetorically in any fiction the government has foolishly decided to join.

2. Media bias and the “equality” chimera: The importance of terminology is the reason I described the title of the debate, “Marriage Equality” as unfortunate. “Marriage Equality” embodies and reflects assent to “progressive” assumptions. Conservatives recognize that the notion of “equality” in this context is strategically effective non-sense.  Treating different things differently does not reflect unjust, unequal treatment. Equality demands we treat like things alike. When homosexual men and women say they are attracted only to persons of their same sex, they are acknowledging that men and women are fundamentally and significantly different. As such, a union composed of two people of the same sex is fundamentally and significantly different from a union of two people of opposite sexes. Society has no reason to treat them as if they are the same.
   
   
3. The connection between marriage and children: Both Mell and Harris talked about children deserving, in Mell’s words, “the label” of marriage. Inconsistencies abound. While homosexuals claim that marriage has no inherent connection to reproductive potential, they use arguments about children as justifications for the legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriage. This points to the fact that homosexuals are pursuing the acquisition of children, which necessarily means that in their view, children have no inherent, unalienable right to be raised by their biological parents. Homosexual couples are creating children who will be wholly unconnected to either their biological mother or father or both. In addition, they are creating intentionally motherless or fatherless children, which means homosexuals believe children have neither a right to be raised by both their mother and father, nor a right to be raised by a mother and father.
   
   The issue of children naturally and inevitably arises because marriage is centrally about the next generation. If marriage weren’t centrally about the procreation of children, if children weren’t procreated via sexual unions, there would be no such thing as marriage. The government has no more vested interest in recognizing inherentlysterile homosexual relationships as marriages than it does in recognizing platonic friendships as marriages. The government simply has no vested public interest in recognizing or affirming loving, inherently non-reproductive relationships. If it does, Harris and Mell need to explain what it is. And remember, they cannot include children in their answer, because the Left says marriage has no inherent connection to children (and by extension, their rights).
   
   If the government is compelled to recognize as marriage any loving relationship that involves the raising of children, then, for example, a grandmother and aunt who are raising the children of their deceased daughter/sister, should be permitted to marry.

4. Appeals to emotion and redefining marriage: Mell’s “arguments” amounted to little more than appeals to emotion: She really loves her partner. She and her partner have been together for nine years. Her partner has stuck with her through difficult times. Therefore, the government should legally recognize their relationship as a marriage.
   
   Say what? If marriage has an inherent nature, it doesn’t change simply because she and her partner wish it were different. Harris and Mell have concluded that because they are not attracted to people of the opposite sex, marriage has nothing inherently to do with sexual complementarity or reproductive potential.
   
   What’s interesting is that they don’t deny marriage has a nature that is inherent and immutable. They believe marriage is inherently and immutably constituted solely by the presence of love between two people. But then they can’t provide a single reason for their stubborn insistence that marriage is an inherently binary institution. Harris and Mell need to provide reasons for jettisoning sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage while retaining the less essential requirement regarding number of partners in a marriage. Simply asserting that marriage is a union of two people is not an argument.

5. Catholic Charities and religious discrimination: During the debate, a brief discussion arose about Catholic Charities being forced to drop out of the adoption business following the passage of Illinois’ civil union law—a change that Harris views as serving the “best interests” of children. Neither Harris nor Mell expressed concern about the clear presence of religious discrimination—something which deeply concerned Princeton University law professor Robert George. In a 2011 CNN debate among candidates running in the Republican primary, George asked the following question and in so doing, told congressmen and women what they should do:
   
   

   In Illinois, after passing a civil union bill, the state government decided to exclude certain religiously affiliated foster care and adoption agencies, including Catholic and Protestant agencies, because the agencies, in line with the teachings of their faith, cannot in conscience place children with same-sex partners.

   Now, at least half of Illinois’ foster and adoption funds come from the federal government. Should the federal government be subsidizing states that discriminate against Catholic and other religious adoption agencies? If a state legislature refuses to make funding available on equal terms to those providers who as a matter of conscience will not place children in same-sex homes, should federal legislation come in to protect the freedom of conscience of those religious providers?

There is no more critical legislation pending than SB 10. Despite what some lawmakers and pundits fecklessly claim, this issue is more important than even pension reform. The rights of children, parents, and people of faith are at risk.

Demonstrate that you care more about preserving marriage than the Left does in destroying it. Demonstrate your willingness to endure hardship and even persecution in the service of truth.

Please call your lawmaker, and please try to attend the Defend Marriage Rally in Springfield on Oct. 23. The Left will be marching on Oct. 22. 

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

In their efforts to redefine marriage, most homosexual activists become apoplectic at the suggestion that there is more to their efforts than just their  purported goal of achieving “marriage equality.” They dismiss the comments of homosexuals like lesbian journalist Masha Gessen who states that the institution of marriage “should not exist,” and that homosexual activists are “lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there,” as the extreme views of just a few radicals.

What cannot be dismissed, however, is that time and again homosexual activists have proven through their actions that the redefinition of marriage isn’t their only goal, but rather government enforced acceptance and celebration of the LGBT lifestyle. Here are just a few portents that shouldn’t be ignored:

• Washington State is suing a Christian florist who declined to provide floral arrangements for a homosexual “wedding” ceremony. The state is threatening thousands of dollars in fines and a requirement that the elderly florist provide floral arrangements to any homosexual couple that seeks her services.  (Read more HERE.)

• The Christian owners of an Oregon bakery were contacted by the Oregon Department of Justice and told that they are being investigated because of a discrimination complaint that followed their refusal to violate their beliefs by providing a wedding cake for a lesbian “wedding” ceremony.  (Read more HERE.)
   
• A Christian owner of a bed and breakfast in Hawaii has been ordered to provide a room to any same-sex couple that wants to stay there, thus violating her religious convictions. (Read more HERE.)

• And in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the owner of Elane Photography declined to provide her skills and services for a lesbian commitment, explaining that doing so would violate her conscience as a Christian. As a result of a complaint being filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, a fine of $6,600 was issued against this small business for discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” This case is pending a hearing before the New Mexico Supreme Court.  (Read more HERE.)  

There are many more cases like these, and many more will be coming down the litigation pike. In each of these cases, homosexual activists prove that what they really want goes far beyond “marriage equality” or “tolerance.” And they clearly demonstrate their lack of tolerance for any dissenting opinions.

In each of these cases, the homosexuals involved could simply have sought the services of a vendor who held no moral objections to same-sex relationships. Instead, they chose to use the heavy hand of government to coerce and punish those who do not share their beliefs. 

Finally, consider the current bill to redefine marriage in Illinois (SB 10). This proposal has been labeled by law professors on both sides of the marriage issue the “worst in the nation” when it comes to protecting religious liberty and freedom of conscience. In a letter to state representatives, the Thomas More Society warns that if SB 10 passes, Illinois’ religiously affiliated hospitals, schools, and organizations like the Knights of Columbus as well as businessmen and women of faith will face costly lawsuits not dissimilar to the ones listed above.

If the concern of homosexual activists were simply about gaining “marriage equality” as they claim, why would proponents oppose legal protections for all people of faith? Why wouldn’t proponents add specific language to SB 10 to protect the free exercise of religious belief and an individual’s right of conscience, which would protect their right to decline to provide goods, services, and accommodations to those seeking government recognition of same-sex unions as “marriage”?

Because this isn’t merely about “marriage equality.” It’s about quashing every semblance of opposition to the LGBT political agenda through every governmental entity at their disposal: Congress, state legislatures, Presidential Executive Orders, or the judicial or quasi-judicial branches of government. It has nothing to do with marriage “rights” and everything to do with religious bigotry.

While it is important that we stand up to defend the institution of marriage, it is vital that we understand that the agenda is far more insidious and far-reaching than many realize. Once you understand how far they want to take this agenda, it is unconscionable to sit on the sidelines.

[Editor’s note:  If you would like to read more about how religious liberties are eroding in the wake of the LGBT political agenda, I encourage you to read this article from World Magazine about what is happening in Canada and how it may be a precursor for the United States.]

Help protect marriage & family now!
Click HERE to support IFI’s work in the public square.