Most of what you read in the news (and, to be frank, most of what we at IFI report in our daily articles) focuses on things the writer thinks are wrong with the world. That’s certainly a vital function of journalism. All the same, it’s definitely a blessing when a journalist gets to report on something God-honoring happening in the world.

Earlier this month, U.S. Representative Mary Miller (R-Lincoln) announced the launch of the Congressional Family Caucus from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. In a brief but spirited speech, she explained that the caucus’ purpose is to defend the natural family from Left-grounded erosion. She subsequently criticized the Left for its support of “abortion, fatherlessness, surgical castration, and atheism,” as well as “eliminating parental consent and replacing families with the state.”

As the Congresswoman laid out the stakes in the battle over the family, she was firmly clear both about what the family is and about why the family matters. The “natural family,” as she put it, is “a man and a woman committed for life to each other and to their children,” and is fundamental for our nation’s prosperity as it is “the root of self-government, service, community, and personal responsibility.” To top it all off, she cited Deuteronomy 6 to justify why the family ought to be the hub of instructing our children to love and obey God, then she contended that U.S. Representatives have a moral obligation to protect the family. The caucus is co-sponsored by U.S. Representatives Diana Harshbarger (R-TN) and Brian Babin (R-TX).

And all from the floor of the House of Representatives. That Mrs. Miller had the boldness to call out the importance of the family was one thing, but to chastise the Left for their relentless undermining, to unequivocally define the traditional family contrary to the torrent of popular opinion, and to cite Scripture as support for her initiative, all deserve a standing ovation.

In an interview with Tony Perkins, Miller explained her and her co-sponsors’ efforts more specifically. The caucus’ purpose is to inform legislators about upcoming bills that would promote or tear down the traditional family. This would not only include legislation that is directly aimed at the family, but also bills that might have a completely different surface-level purpose—such as bills pertaining to the economy—but which have family-impacting implications. Miller again emphasized that God’s command about the instruction of children was given to parents, not to the government. And when Perkins asked her how she could use prayer, Miller referenced Psalm 18’s emphasis on the importance of words and asked for prayer for words that would be used to build people up. Let’s pray that the Lord continues to give Miller boldness to speak the firm and simple truth to a world that is blazing with lies.

Speaking of which, although Representative Miller said that the caucus has been met with a great deal of support, not everyone is thrilled about the new show in town. An article in the American Independent warned about the “new anti-LGBTQ Congressional Family Caucus, “lumping it together with recent GOP-sponsored bills addressing transgender bathrooms, locker rooms, and military service as yet another attack on the transgender community. We can only expect that the more effective the caucus becomes, the more fire it will draw from those who reject traditional, scriptural morality and seek to erode it. If you live in Illinois, but especially if you live in Legislative District 15, send Representative Miller an encouraging letter right now.

An old story tells of a big, successful store with a plaque in the employees’ lounge which read: “Rule #1. The customer’s always right. Rule #2. If you ever think the customer is wrong, reread Rule #1.”

I bring this up because the public school education establishment (to be distinguished from the rank and file teachers, many of whom are dedicated public servants), often treat their customers as if they’re wrong and as if the education elites know better than the dumb parents.

School choice is the ultimate answer to America’s education crisis, and there ought to be bipartisan agreement on it. School competition makes education better and gives all parents more options for their children. But the Left opposes it adamantly, though even a liberal newspaper surprisingly spoke out recently in favor of school choice.

Foxnews.com reports (7/9/2021):

“The liberal Washington Post editorial board on Thursday broke rank with the left and pondered why Democrats are so opposed to giving poor children a choice in schooling.”

The Washington Post opined,

“For 17 years, a federally funded K-12 scholarship program has given thousands of poor children in D.C. the opportunity to attend private schools and the chance to go on to college. And for many of those 17 years, the program has been in the crosshairs of unions and other opponents of private school vouchers…Their relentless efforts unfortunately may now finally succeed with House Democrats and the Biden administration quietly laying the groundwork to kill off this worthy program.”

What a tragedy. And who will suffer the most? Inner-city families.

The Left is all about power. But true public service is always about empowerment – empowering others, regardless of their socio-economic background – so that people can fulfill their God-given destiny.

The pandemic over the past year-and-a-half showed how the teacher’s unions held hostage many schools from re-opening in person.

During the shutdown, many parents discovered the option of homeschooling. In an interview for Christian television, Mike Donnelly of the Home School Legal Defense Association told me, “The U. S. census bureau issued a report recently that showed that homeschooling households doubled from about five and a half percent, before the virus, to over almost 12%.”

Homeschooling is not as radical as it sounds. Many of our founding fathers and key American leaders, like Abraham Lincoln, were home-taught.

In August 2020, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, observed,

“If there was one positive outcome I could point to from the Coronavirus Pandemic…was the fact that public schools were shut down and kids were at home. Parents were to a larger degree, involved in what their kids were learning… And I’ve heard from a number of parents, who are now rethinking education in terms of how they’re going to go about it post Coronavirus Pandemic.”

Fast forward to the present time and we see many parents revolting against some of what the education establishment is trying to cram down their throats, such as Critical Race Theory (CRT), a racist set of doctrines disguised in anti-racist garb.

CRT is a Marxist attempt to destroy America from within by teaching that white people always oppress minorities. Always.

When parents learn about CRT-type curricula in their schools, they have spoken out against it. Even many minority parents and parents in heavily Democratic areas have opposed it. It certainly flies in the face of the goals of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., that America become color-blind and judge people according to the content of their character not the color of their skin.

But the major teachers’ unions have not backed down from the teaching of CRT. With the unions’ blessing, about 5000 teachers recently pledged to teach CRT, even if it’s illegal.

For example, President Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, promises to “legally defend” members of their union who teach CRT, even if in that particular school district it is illegal.

CRT has different manifestations in our schools. Gary Bauer notes in his End of Day (7/9/2021):

“For example, at least 25 school districts around the country are using a book called ‘Not My Idea.’ Here’s how Amazon describes the book: ‘Not My Idea’ is the only children’s picture book that roots the problem of racism in whiteness and empowers white children and families to see and dismantle white supremacy.”

School choice seems to be the best answer to our education crisis, of which CRT is just the latest manifestation. And yet the Democrats are trying to shut it down, as in the poor sections of the District of Columbia.

Ironically, those who claim to champion “choice,” by which they mean killing preborn babies, want a one-size-fits-all approach to education in a diverse country like America.

I think the teacher’s unions need to re-read Rule #1.

This article was originally published at

Government school “education” in Illinois has dropped to a staggering new low, according to an article by Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “In the competition for ‘wokest school system of all,’ Illinois just might be the winner. But be warned, parents in the other 49 states, it’s coming for you too.”

National Review also has an article on these new “standards,” and the headline reads, “Ultra-Woke Illinois Mandates Are Top Threat to U.S. Education.”

IFI first alerted our subscribers to this alarming proposal back in mid-November.

On February 16, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) will make the final decision on whether or not to pass new teacher standards that will mandate teachers to “embrace and encourage progressive viewpoints and perspectives,” and so much more.

The Illinois Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards will turn Illinois schools into political indoctrination camps and only progressive viewpoints will be taught. Their goal is to change the hearts and minds of your children.

“Whiteness” is a huge problem, according to this article from EdPrepMatters, a liberal publication of the progressive American Association for Teacher Education. They boldly assert that it is “embedded in many so-called traditional values in the U.S.” and must be addressed and eradicated.

Another problem that needs to be corrected in your child’s mind is the problem “progressives” have with conservatism. The article goes on to state,

“some conservatives in the U.S. either lack a complex understanding of key terms and ideas (critical thinking, capitalism, socialism, communism, social justice, multiculturalism, etc.) or are willfully misrepresenting these concepts for political gain.”

And it does not end there. Propaganda promoting “systems of oppression,” “sex and gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, racism, sexism, homophobia, unearned privilege,” will be taught and reinforced through K-12 because, according to Illinois State Board of Education spokesperson Jackie Matthews, “Culturally responsive practices are especial in better supporting Illinois’ LGBTQ+ youth.”

And there you have it.

Parents, your children are at great risk. Covert efforts to undermine Judeo-Christian values and principle have been going on for decades, but they are now out-in-the-open and quickly becoming the core curriculum. Pulling your children out of these government indoctrination camps is imperative. God will bless your efforts and both your children’s and our country’s futures depend on it.

Take ACTION: It is vital that the members of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) hear from all Illinois taxpayers. Please click HERE to send a message to this committee urging them to vote against any proposal that would mandate all Illinois teachers be indoctrinated with left-leaning “woke” beliefs.

The Democratic Co-Chairman is Illinois Senator Bill Cunningham (D-Chicago). His office number is (773) 445-8128.

The Republican Co-Chairman is Keith Wheeler (R-North Aurora). His office number is (630) 345-3464.

More ACTION: Here is a list of all the members of JCAR, and their individual contact information. It is imperative that we respectfully contact these state lawmakers to urge them to reject these new divisive “standards” by the ISBE.

Please consider a gift to the Illinois Family Institute. 

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

With all the focus on the aftermath of the presidential elections, you might have missed an important victory in the courts recently. As reported November 20 by Liberty Counsel, which litigated the case successfully, “A three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals struck down laws that ban counselors from providing minor clients with help to reduce or eliminate unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or gender confusion.”

This was a victory for freedom, for tolerance, for individual rights, and for therapist-client privilege. Above all, it was a victory for minors.

Liberty Counsel, led by Mat Staver, represented “Dr. Robert Otto, LMFT and Dr. Julie Hamilton, LMFT and their minor clients who challenged the constitutionality of ordinances enacted by the City of Boca Raton and Palm Beach County which prohibit minors from voluntary counseling from licensed professionals.”

These local, Florida ordinances were part of a disturbing national trend that prohibits minors with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion from seeking professional help.

Of course, under these same ordinances, had these minors wanted help to reinforce their same-sex attraction or gender confusion, that would have been allowed. By all means, let professionals help minors embrace their homosexual desires or their transgender identity.

But God forbid that a 15-year-old male should not want to be attracted to another male. Or an 8-year-old should not want to feel like a boy trapped in the wrong body. No professional help could be offered to them. This is how LGBTQ activists have turned our society upside down.

Let’s say, then, that this 15-year-old male had been raped repeatedly by an older, male neighbor from the ages of 7 to 9, unbeknownst to his parents. As he came into puberty, he felt confused about his sexuality, ultimately realizing he was attracted to males, not females.

He had always dreamed about getting married (meaning, to a woman!) and having children, and he was repulsed by his same-sex attraction, now sharing everything with his parents.

They say to him, “We will get you all the help you need,” and they find a highly-recommended family therapist. But when they share their situation with the therapist, the therapist replies, “Oh, I would love to help you, but it’s against the law. However, I’d be glad to help your son embrace his same-sex attractions. That is perfectly legal.”

What a perversion of fairness, of freedom, and of personal dignity. What an unrighteous and oppressive imposition of the state. Really now, what on earth gives them the right to make rulings like this?

Or consider the case of the 8-year-old girl who is troubled by feelings that she’s actually a boy in a girl’s body. This makes her very uncomfortable, causing confusion for her and her siblings. So her parents reach out to a well-trained professional, feeling they are at their wits end and unable to provide adequate help.

But when they sit down with the family counselor, the counselor says to them, “I would love to help your daughter embrace her girlhood, but I’m strictly prohibited by the law. However, here’s how I can help.

“We’ll work with your daughter to embrace the fact that she’s really a boy, sending her back to school with a new name and dressed like a boy. The school will allow her – actually him – to use the boy’s bathroom. Then, in two years, we’ll start him on hormone blockers to stop the onset of puberty, then have his breasts removed when he’s 18, then schedule him for full-scale gender confirmation surgery at 20, supplemented by male hormones for life. Isn’t that a wonderful option?”

And remember: under these oppressive ordinances, to sit and talk with the child was forbidden by law if that child wanted to feel at home in her own body. But to put her on puberty-blocking hormones as a child, then remove total healthy parts of her body, then put her on hormones for life, was allowed by the law.

To call this perverse is an understatement. Child abuse would be more accurate.

Outrageously, 20 states now ban such counseling, which they label “conversion therapy,” alleging that such therapy is harmful to minors. And last year, California almost passed a ban on such counseling for people of all ages. It would have even prohibited religious leaders from offering such counseling.

Yet this is where things are going unless believers, in particular, joined by all freedom-loving people, push back.

The LGBTQ tyranny must be challenged. The assault on individual rights must be resisted.

No one has the right to tell a young person (or any person), “You must be gay” or “You must be trans.”

Absolutely, categorically not. And that’s why this Florida victory is so important.

As to the notion that sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) are harmful, Peter Sprigg and the FRC just released a 37-page report titled, “No Proof of Harm. 79 Key Studies Provide No Scientific Proof That Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) Are Usually Harmful.”

In short, “While these 79 studies do provide anecdotal evidence that some SOCE clients report the experience was harmful, they do not provide scientific proof that SOCE is more harmful than other forms of therapy, more harmful than other courses of action for those with SSA, or more likely to be harmful than helpful for the average client. If alleged ‘critical health risks’ of SOCE cannot be found in these 79 studies, then it is safe to conclude that they cannot be found anywhere.”

Old lies die hard, but for those seeking the truth, the data is undeniable.

Last year, in New York City, an Orthodox Jewish therapist challenged the city’s prohibition of SOCE counseling for people of any age “for violating his freedom of speech and infringing on his religious faith and that of his patients.”

With the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom, the city quickly reversed course, leading to this exuberant announcement from Tony Perkins and the FRC in September, 2019: “The last place anyone would expect liberals to rethink their extremism is New York City. But, thanks to a new lawsuit, even the Big Apple seems to understand when it’s vulnerable. ‘Pinch yourself,’ FRC’s Cathy Ruse says. One of the most radical cities on earth is about to walk back its LGBT counseling ban. All because one courageous psychotherapist fought back.”

In Florida, in the 2-1 opinion, Judge Britt C. Grant wrote that, “We hold that the challenged ordinances violate the First Amendment because they are content-based regulations of speech that cannot survive strict scrutiny.”

Precisely. These ordinances represent a fundamental assault on freedom of speech, among other things. May this be the beginning of a national trend.

In fact, as Liberty Counsel noted,

The 11th Circuit decision was foreshadowed by comments in a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision, NIFLA v. Becerra, dealing with California’s efforts to regulate speech by pro-life pregnancy centers. In the course of rejecting the argument that governments can regulate ‘professional speech’ without offending the First Amendment, the Supreme Court directly criticized earlier appeals court decisions that had made the same argument in upholding state therapy bans. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that ‘this Court has not recognized “professional speech” as a separate category of speech. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by “professionals.

There is reason for real hope. May the righteous pushback continue unless freedom of self-determination is restored for minors across America.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Written by Ruth Moreno

On November 12,U.S. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) held a joint press conference calling for the passage of the Heroes Act. The U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and White House have been dealing with this far-left bill for months, but Schumer claims that the results from the 2020 election prove the necessity of passing the Heroes Act as a “starting point” on a new round of coronavirus relief legislation. [Recently] on “Washington Watch,” FRC President Tony Perkins spoke with House minority whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) to discuss the Heroes Act and the Democrats’ latest attempt to push it through Congress.

Though formally titled the “Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act,” the $2-$3 trillion Heroes Act is much more than a relief package. It bails out mismanaged Democrat-led cities and states on the taxpayer’s dime, making Americans pay for the incompetence and overreach of Democratic leadership.

Worse, the Heroes Act applies “nondiscrimination” provisions which redefine the term “sex” to include “sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” In service of the Left’s radical social agenda, this redefinition undermines both pro-life values and broader pro-family values. It also precludes the exemption of religious organizations and private schools from qualifying for the relief the bill provides.

This, as Whip Scalise pointed out, comes in the midst of a time when many public schools are refusing to even teach students in the classroom.

“If somebody is going to take your money but not educate your child safely in person when other school systems are willing to, then parents ought to be able to go to those places that will safely educate their child while taking the money,” Scalise said.

As he observed, the Heroes Act would also release “untold thousands” of criminals from prison. The number of criminals that would be released is truly unknown, because the bill does not explain exactly to whom it would apply.

Also woven into the Heroes Act is the full text of the Safe Banking Act, which grants the marijuana industry direct access to banking services. Under the Controlled Substances Act, this is currently prohibited.

One must wonder, as Tony asked Whip Scalise, what any of this has to do with the coronavirus.

“There are bills that would get huge bipartisan votes that would just renew paycheck protection program loans for small businesses,” Scalise said, adding that “There are millions of families that don’t want to be unemployed and their businesses are about to go under. You could save those jobs. That’s where our focus ought to be.”

Instead, Democrats are pushing partisan legislation under the guise that it’s what the American people want. Despite what Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi may say, the still-disputed 2020 elections were not a “mandate” for the passage of the Heroes Act.

According to exit polls reported by the New York Times, 35 percent of American voters said their top political priority was the economy. Twenty percent of voters said it was racial inequality, followed by the coronavirus pandemic at 17 percent.

Seventeen percent is not a mandate. Americans want coronavirus legislation and relief, but it should not come at the expense of other important issues. And though the presidential race and certain Senate races are still lacking a clear winner, Republicans’ 10-seat gain in the House of Representatives proves that Americans are certainly not onboard with the Democrat’s radical agenda being pushed by Pelosi. Democrats spent enormous sums of money trying to flip House seats blue, but in states like Florida and Texas, the electorate came out in defense of common sense and traditional American values. Adding to this, Republicans will most likely hold on to the Senate, and even picked up gains in state legislatures around the country. When races are examined around the country, at all levels, the voters actually delivered a mandate for a conservative agenda — not the Heroes Act!

The 1,800-page long Heroes Act stands against just about every traditional American value imaginable. In addition to legislating bailouts, freed criminals, marijuana banking, and a complete redefinition of the family, the Heroes Act also includes Planned Parenthood loans, taxpayer-funded abortion, cash for illegal immigrants, and even election-altering provisions (the Heroes Act guts voter ID laws and other state measures which protect the integrity of elections). The bill also includes anti-free speech “hate crimes” provisions.

Indeed, after the 2020 elections, Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi should know better than to force upon Americans something as radical as the Heroes Act.

Take ACTION: The Heroes Act has already passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and is pending in the U.S. Senate. Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to ask them to vote against this radical $3 trillion dollar boondoggle.

Roll Call: Twelve members of the Illinois Congressional delegation voted in favor of the Heroes Act. They are as follows: Cheri Bustos, Sean Casten, Danny Davis, Bill Foster, Jesus Garcia, Robin Kelly, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Mike Quigley, Bobby Rush, Jan Schakowsky, Brad Schneider and Lauren Underwood.

This article was originally published at FRC.org.

Reverend Franklin Graham, the president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, posted a message on Facebook and sent an email to his social media followers requesting they dedicate Sunday, June 2, as a day of prayer for President Donald Trump. Two hundred and fifty Christian leaders quickly responded by signing the proclamation, including three former presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention (the largest Protestant denomination in America) and the general superintendent of the Assemblies of God.

The proclamation reads:

“We the undersigned are calling for June 2 to be a special Day of Prayer for the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, that God would protect, strengthen, embolden, and direct him. We believe our nation is at a crossroads, at a dangerous precipice. The only one who can fix our country’s problems is God Himself, and we pray that God will bless our president and our nation for His glory.”

The full statement can be read on Rev. Graham’s Facebook page. Tens of thousands are expected to answer the call to pray for the president .

In an interview with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, Graham referred to Trump as “the most Christian-friendly president” in his lifetime. He noted, “I don’t think any president in modern history has come under attack day after day after day by almost all the media. That’s just never happened. And it distracts the president. It weakens our country.”

While quick to point out that his call to prayer isn’t an endorsement of Trump, Graham quoted a scripture verse that calls on Christians to pray for “kings” and all those in authority. He asked his followers to leave a comment on his Facebook page stating that they will pray for the president: “And will you share this on your social media platforms so that we can have as many people as possible praying?” he added.

Graham concluded with a quote from the Apostle Paul:

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12).

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

As expected, pundits on the left are in an uproar at the president’s claims that a doctor conspires with parents as to whether to execute their newborn baby. In Trump’s words (spoken at a recent rally in Green Bay), “The baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”

In response, Rolling Stone senior writer Jamil Smith tweeted, “President Trump keeps telling the same lie about abortion doctors murdering healthy fetuses after delivery. This doesn’t happen. Yet he said it again last night. This is precisely the kind of hysteria that inspires people who murder doctors and patients.”

Julia Pulver, a former neonatal nurse, said this: “When a baby dies in the hospital, it is a very sad thing but it is not something that is ever chosen. It is a horrible situation thrust upon parents who want their baby, who have prepared for the baby, who have framed sonograms sitting on their desks.”

According to Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, “What Trump asserted, for the second time, is false, illegal, and simply not happening — nor would it happen.” She claimed that, “The president “not only straight-up lied but also vilified women, families, and doctors facing situations every single one of us prays we never encounter.”

And Huffington Post adds this: “The recent focus on the alleged horrors of late-term abortions is especially fact-free. Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks, and experts say these involve pregnancies that endanger the mother (and by extension the baby) or severe fetal anomalies that are incompatible with life.”

Let’s address these claims one at a time.

First, President Trump said nothing about the baby being healthy (contra the tweet of Smith). Instead, he spoke about the very real situation in which a baby survives an abortion (or, presumably, is born with a life-threatening defect) and is allowed to die. That’s why Congress keeps trying to pass the Born Alive Protection Act.

In its current form, the bill reads, “To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”

This is a real bill designed to address real, life and death situations.

Not only so, but it was Virginia governor Ralph Northam who provided Trump with his main talking points about infanticide.

As Northam infamously said during a radio interview, “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.”

Yet the left rails on Trump for calling this out rather than on Northam for saying it.

To repeat: These things are really happening.

An official government document dated September 23, 2016, notes that, “In 2002, Congress responded by passing the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was signed by President George W. Bush and is current federal law. This law recognized a child who is born alive after a failed abortion attempt, as a legal person under the laws of the United States. The legal definition of live birth includes any sign of life, such as breath, heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.

“Unfortunately, incidents involving born alive children being killed after an attempted abortion have continued after this law was passed. Infanticide is unacceptable in a civilized society, regardless of what one may think about abortion itself. It should be uncontroversial for the federal government to supplement current law with enforcement protections for born-alive children after attempted abortions. That is why Congress must pass the proposed legislation known as the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504/S. 2066).”

Trump is not lying. These things are happening. They may happen just as he described (with the baby being wrapped in a blanket) or they may not (perhaps the baby is left naked and crying on a table). But they are happening, nonetheless.

Yet, to repeat, there’s no outcry from the left about these horrors. The outcry is about the president drawing attention to the horrors.

As noted by Tony Perkins, “Liberals certainly thought infanticide was real enough in 2002, when protecting infants was so uncontroversial that it passed without a single Democratic opponent. Since then, the CDC’s data only confirms these atrocities — as do mountains of eyewitness testimony, grand jury reports, survivors’ own stories, and admissions by doctors like Northam himself!”

Second, what point is made by saying, “Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks”? What if the sentence read, “Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after birth”? Would that lessen the severity of the crime? We only kill a tiny percentage of babies once they’re born!

Let’s also put this in real-life numbers.

According to a just-released CDC report, in New York City in 2015, “the number of abortions at or after 21 weeks was 1,485 while the number of homicide victims was 352.”

Shall we celebrate the fact that this (allegedly) represents “only” 1.3 percent of abortions?

These, in short, are the facts: States like New York have passed laws allowing for abortions right up to the time of delivery. Infanticide is taking place. And in countries like the Netherlands, “650 babies a year [are] euthanized so that their parents don’t have to witness them struggle with disability or disease.”

In light of all this, I’m glad that President Trump continues to speak up. He is addressing something terribly evil, and it behooves every person of conscience to stand with him in standing for the rights of “the least of these.”

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

The Army recently released a new training presentation for troops regarding their interactions with transgender soldiers, and guidelines regarding gender transition in the military. The policy favors the needs and feelings of the individual over the well being of the unit, a practice that is formerly foreign to military protocol. In the Christian Post, James Hasson, a former Army captain, shed some light on the PowerPoint presentation containing the new procedures:

“For a soldier to officially change gender requires only some paperwork. A military doctor or civilian medical professional must certify that the transgender person has achieved ‘stability in the preferred gender’ and the soldier must change the gender designation on the soldier’s passport or birth certificate,” Hasson wrote. “From that point on, the transgender soldier is ‘expected to adhere to all military standards associated with their gender,’ and ‘use the billeting, bathroom and shower facilities’ of their new gender.”

Since no sex-reassignment surgery is required, this means that, among other things, female soldiers will have to shower alongside “transitioned females” (with male genitalia), and male soldiers will be forced to shower with “transitioned males” (with female genitalia). This practice does nothing to improve combat readiness, but rather contributes to making the normal 30-some person shower that soldiers are routinely subjected to an even more unpleasant and violating experience.

Further, The Federalist points out that:

The changes also affect drug-testing procedures. DoD Instruction 1010.16 requires urine specimens to be “collected under the direct observation of a designated individual of the same sex as the Service member providing the specimen.” To be blunt, “observers” must watch the urine sample leave the tested soldier’s body and enter the collection cup.

Practically, this means that biologically born females may be forced into very exposed and uncomfortable one-on-one situations such as the one described above with “transitioned females,” who may still have male genitalia. Rather than protesting this blatant breach of privacy and social boundaries, biologically born female and male soldiers must simply accept these new policies and their implications, for the sake of their transgender peers.

Obama-era military policies like these continue to haunt and hinder the Armed Forces, placing emphasis on and favoring a minority group and social platform rather than building service members up to be stronger, more lethal, unified, and ready to protect America from danger. A One News Now contributor highlights this well:

“The social extremism that characterized the last eight years still haunts the Defense Department at a time when the military can least afford it,” FRC President Tony Perkins warned. “With ISIS torching its way across the Middle East, our troops shouldn’t be torn between its role securing America and securing the Left’s radical social agenda.”

Thankfully, President Trump has expressed a desire to further strengthen our military. If these new policies take effect, may their detrimental consequences quickly be brought to attention, so that the military’s focus can shift from coddling a small group of people at the expense and privacy of many, to ensure our military is a force to be feared and reckoned with.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA) of 2017. This bill, which will now head to the U.S. Senate, would redirect over 80 percent of funds away from Planned Parenthood for a year. Those funds (more than $390,000,000) would instead be used for comprehensive community health centers which outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities 20 to 1.

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council issued the following statement:

“Today is a day that should and will be remembered. The House GOP today fulfilled its nearly decade old promise to pass a bill that replaces Obamacare with a law that is pro-life and reduces premium costs for the American people.

“We are proud of the House Freedom Caucus for working diligently in coalition with conservative groups and others to make this day possible. After entrusting the GOP with authority to lead the country based upon their campaign promises, the House GOP has made good on turning promises into policy. Now it is time for the Senate to follow in the House’s footsteps and pass the AHCA, so that this vital legislation can be signed into law by President Trump who understands the value of every person, born and unborn.

“As a nation, we are without excuse in paying for abortion on demand in Obamacare and subsidizing Planned Parenthood’s gruesome trafficking of baby body parts and its inhumane treatment of mothers and their unborn children.

“I look forward to even more pro-life gains under the Trump administration, as we continue to move toward once again being a nation where all human life is welcomed into the world and protected under our laws,” Perkins concluded.

This is a major pro life step in the right direction but not an absolute victory. This is the third time the House has now voted to strip funding away from Planned Parenthood. The provisions to redirect funds away from Planned Parenthood are included as part of a reconciliation bill, so it’s passage will require 51 votes in the Senate.

Regarding the House’s passage of the American Health Care Act, which includes a provision that would eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood if the bill is eventually signed into law, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot said:

“[T]his billion-dollar abortion giant has been implicated in massive fraud, waste, and abuse of Medicaid and other federal and state programs. Congress’s well-founded concern that Planned Parenthood and its affiliates are engaged in a pattern of deceptive practices designed to maximize their bottom-line revenue should be enough reason to end the public largesse on their behalf, even apart from the fact that they destroy a third of a million human lives every year and have been involved in numerous other scandals.”

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

Written by Tony Perkins

America may recognize same-sex marriage now — but not because voters asked it too! And if the Left thinks the Supreme Court has finally decided the issue, they’re in for a major surprise. Turns out, the court of public opinion has its own verdict on the subject — and new polling shows it’s anything but liberal.

A year and a half into this experiment in judicial activism, the opinion of most voters hasn’t budged. When asked by Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research if they agreed with this statement — “I believe marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman” — a solid 53 percent agreed. That’s a 16-point difference between those who disagreed at 37 percent (another 10 percent were undecided). No wonder liberals had to win same-sex marriage through the courts. It isn’t nearly as popular as the Left insists it is! Sixteen months into this illegitimate ruling, nothing about the people’s opinion has changed. According to Wilson, the 53 percent support for natural marriage is identical to what it was pre-Obergefell. Even the five justices of the Supreme Court haven’t managed to move the needle on America’s views!

For once in her life, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was right. If it weren’t for the U.S. Supreme Court forcing this decision on America, redefining marriage would have taken years for the Left to accomplish — if ever. “Legislatively, we couldn’t really succeed,” she admitted in May, “but from the courts and the rest… that victory has been won.” For years, the media managed to create this phony narrative of support — even when ballot boxes and state laws told another story. It’s encouraging to see that even when the laws change, people’s understanding of right and wrong do not. Obviously, voters — especially conservative Christians — are looking for politicians who will stand up to the cultural elites and their radical agenda.

That may be one reason why Donald Trump enjoyed such overwhelming support. As the poll goes on to say, nearly six in 10 Trump voters were swayed by the pro-life, pro-religious liberty planks of the GOP platform. And, as someone who served on the RNC Platform Committee, I can tell you that the 2016 document is the most conservative it’s ever been on every issue, including marriage. So when 66 percent of voters tell pollsters that the “Government should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage between one man and one woman as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses,” it’s really no surprise that Donald Trump enjoyed the record-breaking evangelical support he did. He was the only candidate in the race that showed his commitment to religious freedom, especially when it comes to giving churches the ability to speak freely about politics from the pulpit (which 53 percent support).

As I told Fox News’s Todd Starnes, the Republican Party’s platform positions on the unborn and religious liberty were the bridge between Donald Trump and Christian conservatives. And he sealed that deal in the final debate when he vividly described a partial-birth abortion and pledged to appoint pro-life justices. If the liberal press had bothered to listen to what voters believe — instead of telling them what to believe — this election wouldn’t have been nearly as shocking. Because if there’s one overwhelming message everyone should have heard on Tuesday, it’s this: the media, the courts, and the Left don’t speak for the American people.

Tony Perkins is the president of Family Research Council.

This article was originally posted at the FRC blog.

Family Research Council (FRC) commends the U.S. House of Representatives for the passage of H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, and urges the U.S. Senate to take up and pass the bill. This bill will restrict for one year funding under several mandatory programs such as Medicaid to abortion entities such as Planned Parenthood and would also repeal key provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which encourage subsidies for abortion coverage and which threaten conscience protections.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following statement about this legislation:

We thank the House for redirecting taxpayer money away from an abortion giant that engages in gruesome and unethical practices.

With a strong majority vote, the House passed a budget reconciliation bill that effectively removes the significant majority of federal funding of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in the country, responsible for killing an estimated 340,000 unborn children every year. This represents about one-third of all abortions in the United States.

Additionally, the reconciliation bill strikes a serious blow to Obamacare, the President’s failed healthcare plan, by repealing the individual and employer mandates as well as a government slush fund. This alleviates federal coercion of Americans who are forced to purchase health insurance they may object to because it contains elective abortion coverage, and removes the threat of punishing fines on employers who decline to violate their deeply held beliefs.

Republicans in the Senate now have the opportunity to work toward keeping the campaign promises that helped them secure the Congressional majority. For our friends in the Senate who think the House bill is not strong enough, we encourage them to try and make the measure even better. The House leadership has said they will accept any improvements the Senate makes to the bill that eliminates much of Planned Parenthood’s funding and removes the heart of Obamacare.

In October 2014, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) put Dr. Benjamin Carson on its “Extremist Watch List.” Why? Because Dr. Carson holds the traditional, historical, and true belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and has the courage to express that belief.

Who else is on this “Extremist Watch List”? In addition to a host of unsavory Neo-Nazis, KKK members, and skinheads, the SPLC lists the following as “extremists”:

• Dr. Michael Brown, Bible scholar, author, and radio host
• Cliff Kincaid, director of Accuracy in Media
• Charles Murray, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of The Bell Curve and Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010
• Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council

The depth of the ignorance and malignity of the SPLC’s leaders is exposed through their defamation of a man of such unquestioned integrity as Dr. Carson.

After being exposed by Bill O’Reilly on his Fox News Channel program this week (video here), and receiving “intense criticism” from the public, the far Left SPLC decided to reverse their decision and issue an apology to Dr. Carson—well, an apology of sorts. You know, the sort that’s not really an apology. Here’s an excerpt from their deeply contrite apology:

In October 2014, we posted an “Extremist File” of Dr. Ben Carson. This week, as we’ve come under intense criticism for doing so, we’ve reviewed our profile and have concluded that it did not meet our standards, so we have taken it down and apologize to Dr. Carson for having posted it. 

We’ve also come to the conclusion that the question of whether a better-researched profile of Dr. Carson should or should not be included in our “Extremist Files” is taking attention from the fact that Dr. Carson has, in fact, made a number of statements that express views that we believe most people would conclude are extreme….We laud Dr. Carson for his many contributions to medicine and his philanthropic work, and we, like so many others, are inspired by his personal story. Nevertheless…because Dr. Carson is such a prominent person, we believe that his views should be closely examined.

I wouldn’t want to go so far as to claim that the SPLC is a racist organization, but we can’t help but wonder if Dr. Carson’s skin color may have factored into the SPLC’s decision to remove him from their fear-mongering, money-making “Extremist Watch List” while leaving Dr. Brown, Cliff Kincaid, Charles Murray, and Tony Perkins on the list.

One brief word about “extremism”: “Extremist” is a free-floating term with no fixed meaning relative to truth or goodness. Being an “extremist” can be either good or bad depending on the activity or belief from which one has become distanced. In the midst of a culture so corrupt and decadent that citizens cheer when men legally wed men and women flock to a movie that extols the pleasures of sadomasochistic sex, we should thank God that for our “extremist” status.

If having a public forum and expressing the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman warrant inclusion on a list of hateful extremists, then the SPLC must be either short-staffed, which seems unlikely given the millions of dollars they suck from a gullible public, or they’re slackers.

There are countless Jews and Christians from Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant faith traditions who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And many of these men and women have access to public forums in which they express their beliefs. They express their beliefs in college, university, and seminary classrooms; podcasts; sermons; scholarly journals, magazines; newspapers; websites; speaking engagements; and news programs. So, why are they not on the ethically impoverished Southern Poverty Law Center’s “extremist” list?

Perhaps the reasons for the SPLC’s oddly truncated list are twofold:

1.) A common tactic of homosexual activists is to exploit the natural sheep-like human tendency to desire membership in the cool group and the natural human tendency to avoid pain and conflict. The Left maligns leaders who tell the truth about homoeroticism so that others who also hold these same true beliefs will not want to be associated with them. The Left thereby effectively marginalizes truth-tellers.

2.) The SPLC leaders surely know that if they included every public person who affirms the truth that marriage has a nature central to which is sexual complementarity, the SPLC would discredit itself—further.

We should learn three lessons from this newest unforced error from the SPLC.

Christians need to speak the truth in love about homosexuality and gender confusion with the perseverance and boldness that the Left speaks lies.

Second, Christians need to publicly come alongside those who are speaking the truth about homosexuality, gender confusion, marriage, and children’s rights.

Finally, Christians need to be willing to be persecuted for expressing biblical truth—which is to say, truth—about homosexuality and gender confusion.

Temporal and eternal lives are at stake.

An Idaho pastor and his wife have won a showdown with the city of Couer d’Alene over demands that they preside over same-sex union ceremonies.

Donald and Evelyn Knapp, who are both ordained Pentecostal ministers, have operated The Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel in Coeur d’Alene since 1989.

City officials had previously informed the Knapps that they must perform same-sex “weddings” at their chapel, or face the potential of a $1000 fine for each day of violation and up to 180 days in jail.

City attorneys said the failure by the couple to do so would violate the city’s non-discrimination ordinance, which prohibits bias against persons based on so-called “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

City officials said the Knapps must comply because The Hitching Post is operated as a for-profit corporation.  The Knapps responded by filing suit in federal court arguing that the edict was a violation of their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

The Knapps stated publicly that they would shut down The Hitching Post before they would take actions contrary to what the Bible teaches.

Following a controversy that attracted national headlines, city officials have reversed their position.   They now say that the Knapps’ lakeside chapel is exempt from the ordinance because the business is a “religious corporation.”

In their lawsuit, the Knapps asserted that they believe that “God created two distinct genders in His Image” and “that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman.”

The weddings conducted by the Knapps are distinctly Christian in nature.  Scriptures are read during the ceremonies, and couples are provided with sermons on Christian marriage and recommended books on the subject.

Jeremy Tedesco, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, says the city’s treatment of the ministers is a predictable result of the “special rights” laws pushed by homosexual advocates.

“We’ve been told that pastors would never be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith.  Yet that’s exactly what is happening here, and it is happening this quickly.”

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, says that the Hitching Post case reveals the true intentions of the so-called “marriage equality” movement.

“Americans are witnesses to the reality that redefining marriage is less about the marriage altar, and more about fundamentally altering the freedoms of the other 98 percent of Americans.”

Please support the work of Illinois Family Institute.

U.S. Republican House Speaker John Boehner (OH), who came under fire from conservatives for resisting the creation of a Benghazi select committee until the scandal got too big to ignore, is under fire from conservatives once again. On Saturday he raised funds for Carl DeMaio, a gay Republican congressional candidate at the center of a scandal to turn the GOP into a gay-friendly political party like the Obama Democrats.

DeMaio, charged with sexual harassment and exhibitionism, is one of the Republican “young guns” getting official Republican money and support. But he has also enjoyed the strong support of Fox News personalities, especially Richard Grenell, a Fox News contributor and homosexual activist who advises his campaign.

The Conservative Review calls DeMaio a “deviant” and wonders whether the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) vetted DeMaio before the Republican Party funneled $1 million into his campaign.

DeMaio probably never anticipated that being labeled “the candidate to watch” in the GOP would turn out this way. His accuser, former staffer Todd Bosnich, said in an exclusive interview with CNN that he came into DeMaio’s office and saw him openly masturbating.

The alleged misconduct went much further than this, however. CNN reported Bosnich said DeMaio “would find him alone and make inappropriate advances, massaging and kissing his neck and groping him.” On another occasion, Bosnich said DeMaio “grabbed my crotch.”

DeMaio, a former member of the San Diego City Council, denies all the charges. But he reportedly had a similar problem when he was accused of masturbating in a San Diego City Hall restroom.

Although House Speaker Boehner is under fire for supporting the controversial candidate, the growing scandal pits two news organizations, Fox and CNN, against each other.

Back in January, Fox News had run a story about DeMaio preparing to “make history” in the congressional race, while Dana Perino, co-host of the channel’s “The Five,” hailed DeMaio for being in a “committed relationship” with another man and the first candidate “to feature his partner in campaign literature.”

“Full disclosure,” said Perino. “I am a former employee of the San Diego City Council, where I worked with Ric Grenell, now again a colleague of mine at Fox News Channel, and who currently consults on the DeMaio campaign.”

Despite this conflict of interest, DeMaio appeared on Fox News with Martha MacCallum and declared, “I don’t think either political party ought to be talking about social issues.”

Yet, his campaign website declares that on social issues:

• Carl DeMaio supports “marriage equality.”
• Carl DeMaio supports medical marijuana…
• Carl DeMaio supports a woman’s right to choose…

Boehner’s fundraising for the controversial candidate comes as prominent San Diego Christians have announced they will cast a “tactical vote” against DeMaio and in support of his Democratic opponent, Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA).

The letter from the Christian leaders, issued before the sex scandal broke wide open, says DeMaio not only supports homosexual “marriage,” but abortion rights. He supports “medical marijuana” and is reported to be open to the idea of legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes.

He also accepts the Obama line on so-called climate change, having declared that “human activity has an impact on the climate,” and that “we must continue to invest in research to determine what is happening, why, and what we can do to mitigate it.”

The Christian leaders declared, “DeMaio is an avowed LGBTQ activist (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning). The LGBTQ movement believes in a genderless society, where God’s order of male and female is denied. Their goal is much greater than that. It is to impose their views upon us, with the intent of abolishing our rights to freedom of religious conscience, coercing us to affirm homosexual practice and to forever alter the historic, natural definition of marriage.”

Despite the sex scandal charges against DeMaio, Boehner and the National Republican Congressional Committee are still in support of this “new generation Republican” candidate.

However, former Arkansas Governor and Republican pro-family leader Mike Huckabee is threatening to leave the GOP over the issue. “If the Republicans want to lose guys like me—and a whole bunch of still God-fearing Bible-believing people—go ahead and just abdicate on this issue, and while you’re at it, go ahead and say abortion doesn’t matter, either,” he said.

CNN’s coverage of the issue has noted the relationship between DeMaio and Fox News contributor Grenell.

After interviewing Bosnich on camera, CNN said it “repeatedly tried to get detailed answers from DeMaio’s campaign,” but that a conference call “was led by hired consultant Richard Grenell, a former Mitt Romney presidential campaign spokesperson and Fox News contributor. Grenell refused to answer questions and accused CNN of being on a partisan witch hunt.”

Grenell is an official of Capitol Media Partners and an open homosexual who appears frequently on Fox News. His areas of expertise include “crisis communications,” and his website declares, “Capitol Media Partners has a proven track record of working with journalists, editors and executives to mitigate developing stories and shape ongoing news coverage. We have extensive contacts and relationships with a variety of national and international reporters across industries and beats.”

But the crisis has been building for DeMaio and Boehner.

CNN noted, “This is not the first time DeMaio has been accused of sexually inappropriate behavior. Last year, a fellow city councilman, Ben Hueso, said he twice caught DeMaio masturbating in a semi-private city hall restroom accessible only to city officials.”

The Wall Street Journal previously reported that then-Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) had given DeMaio $10,000; Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) contributed $5,000; and Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) had kicked in $1,000.

Meanwhile, national pro-family leaders have sent a letter to Boehner and other Republican officials opposing official GOP support for candidates like DeMaio who are openly homosexual or pro-abortion.

The letter, signed by Brian S. Brown, President, National Organization for Marriage; Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council; and Tom Minnery, President, CitizenLink, said, “The undersigned organizations are writing to inform you that we actively oppose the election of Republican House of Representative candidates Carl DeMaio (CA-52) and Richard Tisei (MA-6) and Oregon U.S. Senate candidate Monica Wehby and will mount a concerted effort to urge voters to refuse to cast ballots for them in the November election.”

Richard Tisei is a homosexual Republican running for the U.S. House from Massachusetts, while Monica Wehby is a GOP Senate candidate from Oregon who has endorsed homosexual marriage.

The letter said:

This decision was reached only after having exhausted all attempts to convince the Republican leadership of the grave error it was making in advancing candidates who do not hold core Republican beliefs and, in fact, are working to actively alienate the Republican base. We believe that Republican candidates should embrace the full spectrum of conservative principles—economic, national security and social issues—that have defined our party since President Reagan led us to a transformative victory. While we acknowledge that a national party must accommodate varying points of view on matters of prudence, we also believe a party must stand for certain core principles that it expects its candidates to defend.

Referring to the National Republican Congressional Committee supporting candidates like DeMaio, Tony Perkins has said it appears that “some of the GOP want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory” this November.

Sounding optimistic, candidates DeMaio and Tisei have formed a joint fundraising committee called the Equality Leadership Fund, and plan to “build a foundation for other gay Republicans to use in their campaigns for office.”

But that depends on Republicans voting for and electing these candidates.

Pro-family advocate Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth says Republican “big shots” have failed to take into account  the number of social conservatives who will “walk away from the GOP or simply not vote,” as result of the party nominating candidates like DeMaio.

This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media website.

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!