On Tuesday, April 18th, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for a monumental religious liberty case known as Groff v. DeJoy. At the heart of this case are the questions: do American citizens have Constitutionally protected rights under the First Amendment to the “free exercise” of their faith in the workplace, and; are employers obligated to grant reasonable religious accommodations.

Christian mail carrier Gerald Groff requested the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for a religious accommodation that would excuse him from working on Sundays after they started doing Amazon package deliveries so that he could observe the Sabbath and live by his Christian faith. The fact that regular mail isn’t delivered by the USPS on Sundays was a major factor in Groff’s choosing to work there over a decade ago. USPS refused to grant him the accommodation and Groff chose to resign rather than be fired.

Groff is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes it will overturn its ominus 1977 precedent in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, which enabled employers to deny religious accommodations. Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief in the case asking the U.S. Supreme Court to restore Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides protection against religious discrimination. Their the amicus brief asserts in their summary:

This Court should overrule the interpretation in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison that Title VII does not require an employer to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs if doing so would impose more than a de minimis burden on the employer. Hardison’s de minimis standard—found nowhere in the Title VII’s text or legislative history—has led to absurd results, allowing employers to discriminate against religious employees with impunity, thereby forcing workers to choose between their religious beliefs and their jobs.

The U.S. Supreme Court justices spent much of the hearing debating the exact meanings of “undue hardship” and “de minimis.”

Groff’s attorney, Aaron Streett, recommended that the justices “construe undue hardship according to its plain text to mean significant difficulty or expense,” which would be consistent with the language in the accommodation standard of the “Americans with Disabilities Act.”

Arguing on behalf of the Biden administration, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court that Hardison adequately protects religious exercise, to which Justice Samuel Alito responded, “I’m really struck by that because we have amicus briefs here by many representatives of many minority religions, Muslims, Hindus, Orthodox Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, and they all say that is just not true, and that Hardison has violated their right to religious liberty.”

Chief Justice John Roberts spoke about changes in religious liberty case law since the Hardison ruling, arguing that religious protections had been expanded.

Thankfully, it appears that the conservative justices are poised to rule in favor of Groff and the religious liberty of every employee. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule over this case by the summer.

A version of this article was originally published by Wisconsin Family Action.

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)

With more and more states in the region and beyond moving to protect the lives of unborn babies or at least restrict the mass killing, abortionists in Illinois are busier than ever, according to the abortion industry in the state and news reports about the gruesome phenomenon.

The Associated Press, a far-left pro-abortion propaganda service masquerading as an objective news agency, reported last week that hundreds of women were being lured to Southern Illinois each week to kill their pre-born children. Many more are expected.

The pregnant women are coming from almost a dozen states where authorities started reining in the unchecked slaughter after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. In fact, even before the Dobbs decision, the flow of victims into Illinois was growing as states like Texas cracked down.

Abortionists in Illinois can hardly keep up, they told reporters.

“With every piece of litigation, with every new constitutional amendment, with every new abortion restriction in a state that has some access, we are on this teeter-totter of, ‘what can we do here to make more space for the people who are going to be fleeing their home state?’” abortion “doctor” Colleen McNicholas with Fairview Heights’ Planned Parenthood was quoted as saying by the AP.

According to news reports, the waitlist at the Southern Illinois abortion operation has gone from two days to three weeks in recent months, even as staffers now do 10-hour shifts and work Saturdays. Now the leadership is talking about keeping the doors open on Sunday, too.

More than 10,000 pre-born babies are forecast to be killed there just this year. Meanwhile, the abortionists have turned an RV into a mobile baby-killing center that travels around the inner perimeter of the state perpetrating abortions.

Other local abortionists are seeing similar surges as multiple new “abortuaries” open their doors across Southern Illinois. Two opened in Carbondale late last year, the AP reported.

“Any additional decision [to restrict abortion by nearby states] has the potential to really change demand again,” abortionist McNicholas continued, as if killing babies were just like any other good or service to be provided in the marketplace. “It’s like crisis management every day of the year.”

Florida, despite GOP super-majorities in both houses of the legislature, has also become a Mecca for women from other states in the region seeking abortions. As in Illinois, the number of unborn babies killed in the Sunshine State has surged dramatically as other Southern states moved against the carnage.

However, legislation being considered by Florida lawmakers and a proposed constitutional amendment may shut that option down, too. That would increase the numbers even further in Illinois, which has some of the most radical and permissive abortion laws in the entire world.

In recent years, Planned Parenthood has been forced to acknowledge the grotesque racism and white supremacy of its brutal founder, Margaret Sanger. Among other evils, Sanger was a leading advocate of eugenics, deliberately targeting minorities and others she deemed unfit. That stench of that legacy looms large.

One key purpose of the AP article touting the surge in abortions in Illinois was obviously to mock those seeking to protect the unborn in other states. A childish taunt, the AP “reporter” and the abortion industry were letting readers know the slaughter will continue regardless of what other states do.

However, it cannot continue forever. As America’s founding documents make clear, God endowed all people with the right to life, and government exists primarily to protect that and other rights. As the Bible makes clear, too, the purpose of government is to punish evil, and God clearly defines murder as such.

Some of the nation’s most prominent legal minds have pointed out that governments — even in states like Illinois — have a constitutional obligation to protect the right to life of all people, including pre-born people. There can be no “state right” to allow abortion or any other murders, much less to subsidize it with public money.

In the meantime, though, state and local authorities in Illinois and beyond can and should start exploring options to rein in the savagery taking place under color of law. Nobody would tolerate it if Illinois legalized the killing of post-birth children and lured people to the state to carry out the grisly task. This cannot be tolerated either.

With more than 60 million babies massacred over the last 50 years, Illinois and the nation must deal urgently with these ongoing atrocities. Someday, civilized people will almost certainly look back at this much as Americans today look back on the slave trade or National Socialist (Nazi) concentration camps.

The time to stop this evil is now.

“Roe v. Wade” turned 50 years old on Sunday, January 22nd. This is the infamous U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively gave us abortion on demand (when you add the impact of its companion decision of the same day, “Doe v. Bolton.”) Here are some comments from some pro-life leaders on the fallout from 50 years of “Roe.”

*Abby Johnson, former head of a Planned Parenthood clinic and one-time “Planned Parenthood Employee of the Year,” is strongly pro-life today because she saw a sonogram of an abortion in her own clinic. This wasn’t a blob of tissue fighting for his life—it was a baby.

She gave me a statement (through email to Jerry Newcombe on 1/20/23)  for this article on 50 years of legalized abortion in America:

“One of the biggest fallouts from Roe is that every woman’s bathroom will now become an abortion clinic if she decides to use the abortion pill to end her unwanted or unplanned pregnancy.”

These pills are marketed as safe. But she warns,

“The use of the abortion pill is about to skyrocket and I don’t think the nation is ready for both emotional and physical ramifications of such sweeping actions. I think it’s going to be horrific, and the pro-life movement needs to be there for these women who need love the most when they are considering abortion and in the aftermath of their decision.”

*Father Frank Pavone, founder and director of Priests for Life, who was recently “laicized” by the Vatican, told me through an email (1/22/23):

“Roe v. Wade has distorted our entire process of self-governance, replacing the will of the people with the imposition of a fake Constitutional right, and allowing abortion, as the only medical procedure with such a status, to grotesquely disfigure everything from city council meetings to Supreme Court confirmation processes.”

*Eric Scheidler, the son of long-time abortion foe Joe Scheidler, heads up the Pro-Life Action League in Aurora, Illinois. He sent me an email (1/23/23):

“The nearly 50 years of abortion on demand forced on the American people by the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision have had a devastating impact on our culture. If Roe had been reversed much earlier — for example, in 1992 when the Casey v. Planned Parenthood case instead reaffirmed Roe — then it would have been much easier to repair that damage. But after two generations of abortion without limits, one of the most extreme policies on the face of the Earth, we have a scene of devastation on our hands. That means the Christians and all Americans of good will need to get involved in not just promoting pro-life laws, but in promoting such fundamentals as marriage, the blessings of children, and the rebuilding of our support communities.”

*“Abortion is bad for women and babies,” notes the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. She admits she had two abortions—and now is so grateful for the forgiveness of Jesus in her life. She warns against others making this same mistake. In fact, Evangelist Alveda King of told me in a recent radio segment, “Life should be celebrated and acknowledged and appreciated from the womb to the tomb into eternity.” Alveda has now started the organization, “Speak for Life.”

This article was originally published at JerryNewcombe.com.

In June of 2018, the body of a little baby was discovered floating in the ocean near an inlet in South Florida. One sheriff told NBC News that he had thought he had seen it all, but this corpse really tugged at his heart.

And now, more than 4 years later, through DNA technology, authorities have been able to isolate the mother. She’s been arrested and faces first-degree murder charges. So sad.

How could this type of thing take place in “the land of the free”? I believe that it’s not hard to draw the link between abortion and this type of story which is being repeated over and over. After 63 million abortions where it’s supposedly okay to kill the baby inside the womb, why does it suddenly become wrong to kill the baby outside of it?

Look at these tragic headlines in lifenews.com:

• Woman Abandoned Her Newborn Baby Outside in Freezing Cold, Lied to the Police About Baby’s Location

• Woman Stabs Her 3-Month-Old Baby, Puts Him in Plastic Bag, Throws Him in Dumpster

• Couple Used Poison to Kill Their Viable Unborn Baby, Then Dumped the Baby’s Body

One of the key writers who covers these and other abortion-related stories is Micaiah Bilger who pens articles for lifenews.com.

I asked her to comment on these frequent tragedies. She told me, “The shock never weakens when I hear about another case of infanticide. It’s difficult to imagine how any mother could kill her child, born or unborn, but even more so after seeing her newborn child for the first time. How can a mother hold her precious baby and then throw the child in a garbage bag or abandon it in the cold?”

As to the link between abortion and these cases, Bilger adds, “I suppose after so many years of it being ‘normal’ to kill a child before birth, it’s not surprising that children outside the womb are being devalued, too.”

What should be trumpeted throughout our culture is this: There are safe harbor or safe haven laws that exist in one form or another in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia.

Within a short time of delivering a baby, often 30 days, a mother can bring a baby over to a local fire department or police department or hospital and drop the child off—no questions asked, no charges filed.

For example, here is what the Sunshine State says about its safe harbor law on its website: “Florida’s Safe Baby Law allows mothers and/or fathers, or whoever is in possession of an unharmed newborn approximately 7 days old or less, to leave them in the ‘arms’ of an employee at any Hospital or staffed 24/7 Fire Rescue Station, or Emergency Medical Station. No questions asked, totally anonymous, free from fear of prosecution.”

How much more humane to let the baby live and be placed in the arms of those who can bring the child to a safe future.

The U.S. Supreme Court even referred to these laws in their Dobbs v. Jackson decision from last June, overturning  Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion decision of January 22, 1973. Dobbs noted:

“…States have increasingly adopted ‘safe haven’ laws, which generally allow women to drop off babies anonymously; and…a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home.”

I also asked Eric J. Scheidler, the executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, based in the Chicago area, for a comment on these laws. He told me, “Many women know nothing about this option, and as a result, newborn babies are abandoned and even murdered. We must do more to publicize this important way to save babies’ lives.”

America’s two founding documents have important bearing on the subject of abortion. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. The first right enumerated is the “right to life.”

The founders didn’t grant this right. They simply acknowledged it and spelled it out in our founding documents. The U.S. Constitution begins,

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” [emphasis added]

Our posterity includes the promise for those yet unborn.

One could only wish that the mother in South Florida who apparently drowned her newborn had instead brought the child to a “safe haven.”  After a half-century of the abortion ethic, we have lost a lot of ground in cherishing the “right to life.” Raising awareness of these nationwide safe haven laws is a step in the right direction.

Not much time has passed since Christian baker Jack Phillips fought to defend his choice not to make cakes celebrating homosexual unions (2018), and Christian florist Baronelle Stutzman dealt with multiple lawsuits regarding her choice not to arrange flowers for similar functions (2021). Yet, earlier this December, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case which is shaping up to be the next high-profile skirmish between the homosexual movement and Christian providers of wedding services. The civil rights snipers are at the same old game again—this time zeroing in on Christian wedding website designer Lorie Smith.

IFI’s cultural affairs writer Laurie Higgins has already slashed apart the argument against Smith in a mic-drop opinion piece on this case. And with legal battles like these, it’s often very easy to uncover the left’s real agenda, an agenda that deserves a floodlight and an industrial-size vacuum cleaner. But while it’s not hard to see where the left is going, it’s often harder to see how they even got here in the first place. Our society has gone through decades of liberalization—supposedly intended to free us from government censorship—but is now beholding the rise of censorship yet again.

For its first century and a half, America was a nation permeated by Christian values. These values didn’t just sit nice and proper in the pews on Sunday morning—they actually influenced the country. In 1811, eminent jurist James Kent issued the landmark ruling People v. Ruggles, upholding a blasphemy case on the grounds that “we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity.” This case stood as good law for well over a century, joined by a host of other cases all agreeing that the government—even while submitting to the free speech protections of the First Amendment—had proper authority to prohibit blasphemy.

Some cases explicitly acknowledged that this was because Christian morals undergirded so much of our society (see Updegraph v. Commonwealth [1824], State v. Chandler [1837]), and others painted it more broadly as maintaining societal order (see Commonwealth v. Kneeland [1838], State v. Mockus [1921], Oney v. Oklahoma City [1941]). Whether it was openly stated or subtly implied, our nation’s legal system acknowledged that Christianity occupied a special place in our societal fabric. Therefore, government had legitimate authority to censor blasphemy in order to preserve legitimate community standards. But that wasn’t all: if you were propagating such other types of caustic speech as the lewd, the obscene, the profane, the libelous, or fighting words, the First Amendment would not save you (see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire [1942]).

However, this state of affairs did not last forever. In a series of unfortunate developments in 20th-century legal opinion, America’s culture and law began to view “expression” as a good in-and-of-itself, regardless of whether the expression communicated something good or bad. Because “expression” became a good of its own, this now meant that any attempts to suppress the act of speaking—whether you were publicly displaying a four-letter word in a courthouse or publishing pornography—were harmful to society, and violations of the First Amendment (see Cohen v. California [1971] and Miller v. California [1973], respectively). And therefore, the label “freedom of expression” was now all that was needed to ward off those oppressive government censors trying to stamp out individualism and human dignity with their mumbo-jumbo about public morality.

After Burstyn v. Wilson (1952), blasphemy laws themselves were relegated to the dustbin along with all those other archaic colonial relics of religious intolerance. We had now entered a blessed era in which freedom of expression was king, and we could forget about any absolute standards for public morality because we had opened up our society to an open marketplace of ideas. Everything anyone wanted to say—except for the rare case of a clear and present danger—was given a fair hearing, Christians and pornographers alike.

If that sounds odd, it’s because it is. The contemporary interpretation of the First Amendment strives for a weirdly laissez-faire society in which our only definite core value is the absence of any definite core values. And so, Christians and pornographers now team up against the common enemy of “censorship,” which is really the only enemy left in the ring—now that we’ve given a big warm hug to all contradictory points of view at the same time. This self-contradictory societal plan might have tottered along for a few decades, but we are beginning to see it fall before our eyes. Core values are what hold societies together. Without them, societies are merely amorphous population statistics, without any form of identity. Thus, every society has an orthodoxy which it enforces, and now that we’ve evicted Christianity and swept the house clean, a new orthodoxy has moved in. Now we’ve gotten to the 303 Creative case.

The new orthodoxy is the religion of tolerance, and its blasphemy laws are creatively re-named “hate speech” laws. If you tolerate—i.e., accept and affirm—whatever manners of sinful behavior are dictated by societal winds, you can expect to live a happy and peaceful life. If, however, you dare to promote and live out ideas that blaspheme against the prevailing orthodoxy, say, that marriage is an institution ordained by God to join one man and one woman together for life, you can expect to be hounded by the government.

“Wait a minute!” you say, “Aren’t we supposed to be living in a society where we can all speak our mind and live out our own religious convictions?” “Ah, yes,” is the reply, “but of course that doesn’t apply to hateful [translation: blasphemous] speech like yours. You can say what you want as long as you don’t offend other people [translation: the prevailing orthodoxy]. Since your conscience contradicts the fundamental principles of tolerance, you must violate your conscience or pay the price.”

And here the real gloves have come off. The period of liberalization was really just a transition period from one form of censorship to another. In the name of freedom of expression and liberation from ideological tyranny, we threw off the yoke of Christian morality and the accompanying government powers to suppress caustic expression that eroded that foundation. But societies are defined by core ideas—and attempting to value the absence of core values just doesn’t cut it. When we removed the Christian set of core values, it was only a matter of time before we found something else to take its place. And now our censorship policies are moving right back to where we started, this time saluting to the devil instead of to the Lord.

In light of this, it’s time for Christians to stop playing the game that we can all get along without having any rules for getting along. Society will have rules for getting along—the question is whether those will be rules honoring to the Lord or disobedient to Him. As it is now, we relegate Christianity to the personal and private, and acquiesce to the lie that the Constitution requires such a separation of church and state that anything Christian is banned from the realm of public policy. We huddle up next to the pornographers and violent video game manufacturers, and appeal to the fading mantras of “freedom of expression” to justify living out our basic Christian convictions, completely ceding the possibility that there is something objectively true and good about Christianity, something objectively true and good about God’s design for marriage, something objectively true and good about God’s created sexuality. God created the world with a certain created order, and law has an obligation to reflect that order. Period.

Because the legal system runs on precedent, Christian lawyers will often have to appeal to misguided precedent to win needed victories for the side of truth. But it’s important to not let the short game overshadow the long game. The more we appeal to misguided precedent, the more we cement it in legal tradition and the harder it is to eradicate. We must always keep in mind that the ultimate reason we fight to defend the Lorie Smiths of the world is not because censorship is bad. It is because evil is bad—objectively bad, and ought to be so in the eyes of the law—and Lorie Smith is standing for the good.

As you read this, remember how many times leftists assured Americans that homosexuals wanted nothing more than to be left alone to do their thing in the privacy of their bedrooms. And remember how they asserted that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” would affect no one, no way, no how.

Two days ago, the Corruption of Marriage Act (COMA)—known euphemistically by leftists as the Respect for Marriage Act—passed the U.S. Senate and will now go back to the U.S. House where it is expected to slither quickly through a U.S. House vote like a snake in the grass.

Recognizing the unconscionable and unconstitutional threat to religious liberty posed by COMA, U.S. Senators Mike Lee, James Lankford, and Marco Rubio proposed amendments that would strengthen religious protections, all of which were rejected. Adding insult to conservatives to injury to the First Amendment, twelve treasonous Republicans voted for COMA.

Why would anyone on the right or left reject amendments that would strengthen religious liberty protections? The amendments failed because Democrats have no respect for religious free exercise protections, especially if they come into conflict with the cultural and political desires of those with deviant erotic predilections.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz describes the shape of things to come after COMA is signed into law:

The so-called Respect for Marriage Act is going to set the stage for the Biden IRS to target people of faith, and in particular, to deny tax exempt status to churches, charities, universities, and K-12 schools. This bill creates a federal cause of action to sue institutions that believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. There are going to be hundreds of lawsuits filed all across this country, forcing underfunded defendants to settle and violate their beliefs or close their doors. That’s what the Democrats want. And 12 Republicans went along with it. 

COMA will overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which preserved in federal law the cross-cultural and historical definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. COMA will force the federal government and all state governments to recognize homoerotic, non-conjugal relationships as marriages. In other words, COMA codifies the unconstitutional U.S. Supreme Court Obergefell v. Hodges decision.

Quisling Senator Mitt Romney made a statement both silly and repugnant in support of COMA:

This legislation … signals that Congress — and I — esteem and love all of our fellow Americans equally.

Romney, as a sitting U.S. Senator, has proclaimed that esteem and love for others depend on passing laws that codify that marriage has no connection to sexual differentiation or reproductive potential. In so doing, he has insulted the thousands of people who believe otherwise, including many whose beliefs are central to their identity as Christians. And he has lent Republican weight to the allegations of hatred hurled at conservatives every day from every corner of American life.

Signaling esteem and love for all Americans equally does not require Congress, Mitt Romney, or any other citizen to affirm any particular beliefs about marriage. Presumably, Romney esteems and loves his fellow Americans who would like to marry their four poly partners. Does he seek to legalize plural marriage in order to signal his virtuous love and esteem?

What about adult women who want to marry their fathers or men who want to marry their brothers or young adult nephews? Does Romney want to signal to them how much he and Congress esteem and love them?

Such juvenile foolishness was bipartisan. U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, who has a “married” lesbian daughter, emoted,

By passing this bill, the Senate is sending a message that every American needs to hear: No matter who you are or who you love, you, too, deserve dignity and equal treatment under the law.

Schumer claims to believe that dignity and equal treatment under the law require the law to recognize any union constituted by “love.” That will be very good news to Minor-Attracted Persons. All they have to do now is grow their lobby and change the definition of consent.

But the core question regarding marriage has nothing to do equality, dignity, love, or esteem. The core question is, “What is marriage.”

Romney’s foolish ideas about the role of government echo former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Obergefell:

The nature of marriage is that … two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation. … There is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry. … [Same-sex couples’] hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

At least Kennedy acknowledged that marriage has a nature. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to know what that nature is or why the government is involved with marriage.

He doesn’t explain why marriage is composed of two people. He doesn’t explain what criteria he used to determine that “there is dignity” in the erotic/romantic bond between two people of the same sex. He doesn’t explain why not being able to marry someone of the same sex dooms homosexual couples to “live in loneliness.” And where oh where does Kennedy find a right to dignity in the U.S. Constitution? If such a right lurks somewhere in the penumbra and emanations of the U.S. Constitution, how is it granted to those whose beliefs about marriage are attacked as hateful by members of Congress?

Here’s yet another remarkable statement from Kennedy on the dignity-dispensing role of government:

I thought [dignity-bestowing] was the whole purpose of marriage. It bestows dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage. It’s dignity-bestowing, and these parties say they want to have that, that same ennoblement.

The “whole purpose of marriage” is to bestow dignity on sexually differentiated marital unions? Really? Many Americans thought the inclusion of sexual differentiation in the legal definition of marriage was a recognition of the intrinsic nature of marriage and served to unite mothers and fathers to each other and to any children that may result from their sexual union, which in turn serves to protect the inherent needs and rights of children, which in turn serves the public good. The job of the government is not to affirm love or confer dignity on any type of union—conjugal and reproductive or erotic and sterile.

Always two or two dozen steps ahead of conservatives, leftists are anticipating the day when Obergefell will be overturned, and states will once again be free either to recognize in law what marriage in reality is or redefine marriage to help homoerotically attracted persons pretend their relationships are marital. Leftists want to ensure that states in which citizens vote to recognize true marriage are forced to recognize legal same-sex faux-marriages performed in other states.

COMA’s sponsors also cynically included interracial marriage in the bill, which strikes many as bizarre. Is there a movement afoot that no one has heard of to ban interracial marriage? Of course not. Including a reference to interracial marriage serves two pernicious purposes of leftists.

First, it is an implicit way to reinforce their nonsensical comparison of skin color to homoerotic desires.

Second, it enables leftists to cast aspersions on Republicans who oppose COMA. Unprincipled Democrats can now say in voices trembling with faux-umbrage, “Republican Senator (fill in the blank) voted against a bill to protect interracial marriage” as they wag their crooked fingers.

The GOP needs an overhaul. We need a Republican National Committee chair not named Ronna Romney McDaniel. We need men and women with working moral compasses and spines of steel. And we need to give fools and quislings like the dirty dozen in Congress a big joyous heave ho.

Leftist boomers and their ideological spawn together have created the worst generations, shameful heirs of a noble legacy hard-won by our forebears. Leftist boomers, taking their cues from pervert Alfred Kinsey, hedonist man-child Hugh Hefner, and addled Timothy Leary, ushered in the drug and sexual revolutions. Satiating primitive urges, escapist longings, and self-centered desires while eschewing self-denial and God are the driving forces of these generations. They believe their Deep Thoughts, intense feelings, and overactive groins determine morality (which they incoherently claim is subjective while trying to force others to believe leftist morality is objective, inarguable truth). And so we see the child-sacrifice cult growing, particularly here in Illinois, the former breadbasket/current killing fields of the country.

According to Chicago Sun-Times columnist leftist crank Rich Miller, Illinois House Speaker Democrat Chris Welch “strongly indicated recently that a state constitutional amendment guaranteeing reproductive rights was a very likely prospect” (emphasis added).

Miller acknowledged the troubling reality that the manifestly failing state of Illinois is ruled by a de facto single-party system:

Welch will soon have more members of his party than any speaker since the state constitution was revised to reduce the chamber’s membership by a third. He said there were a number of explanations for his caucus’ expansion, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was “monumental.”

It’s ironic that leftists who have conniptions about the possibility of Republicans controlling both the U.S. Senate and House and about the somewhat-conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court don’t seem to mind the super-majority of leftists in Springfield who are ruining the state in every measurable way. (Nor did leftists seem exercised about the Warren and Burger Courts, which are both considered liberal Courts.)

But enough about “progressive” inconsistency. Back to the nefarious plans of Illinois’ Springfield miscreants.

Welch told Miller that “the Republican Party, not just here in Illinois but across the country, is wrong on those issues. They’re just wrong.”

“Those issues” seems to be one issue: the legal right of women to choose to kill their gestating children. I’d love to hear more from moral absolutist Welch on his justifications for asserting the wrongness of protecting human life.

State Senator Don Harmon (D-Oak Park) also dismissed the concerns of those who believe incipient human life has value:

I think that voters who would traditionally vote for Republican candidates turned out and said, ‘I’ve had enough of this nonsense. I’m going to vote for a Democrat, or I’m certainly not going to vote for the crazy Republicans’ and skipped a race.”

I’m not sure exactly what Deep Thinker Harmon believes is nonsensical and crazy. Is it “nonsensical” and “crazy” that Republicans believe a new human being comes into existence when sperm and egg unite?

Is it “nonsensical” and “crazy” that Republicans believe more powerful humans ought not have a legal right to order the extermination of weaker humans?

Is it “nonsensical” and “crazy” that Republicans support the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which “progressive” legal scholars have long argued had no basis in the Constitution?

Miller cited the new president of Personal PAC, Illinois’ most powerful pro-genocide lobbying organization, Sarah Garza Resnick, who hopes to “work with legislative Republicans to recruit pro-choice candidates.”

What is the “choice” she wants Republicans to support—the one she avoids identifying? That would be the “choice” of women to have their human offspring dismembered at any stage of development for any or no reason with no restrictions: no limits on gestational age, no parental notification, no mandatory waiting periods, no informed consent (and no limits on scientific experimentation on human embryos).

Garza offers some unsolicited advice to Republicans:

“I think that any smart political strategist would need to read the tea leaves of what is going on and what the voters are sending a very clear message on. And if you want to stay relevant and get the other important issues that you care about discussed, then I think it would make sense to recruit and run pro-choice Republicans. …

If you look at what happened in Kansas, and if you look at what happened where [abortion] was on the ballot in five states … on November 8, the people of this country overwhelmingly want choice to be protected and codified and they don’t want it to be dismantled.”

Well, anyone who’s anyone knows how important it is to “stay relevant.”

This seems a good moment to remind Americans who favor truth and justice over political expedience that sometimes the madding crowd is on the way wrong side of history. We should have learned that lesson from the history of the slave trade all around the world. And at one time, there were countless numbers of Americans who did not want the institution of slavery dismantled. It’s a good thing Garza wasn’t around then to offer unsolicited advice to political leaders.

Sunny Hostin, co-host of The View—a show whose leftist hosts are so intolerant and hostile they drive away all co-hosts with distinctly conservative views—recently compared white suburban women who would vote for Republicans to “roaches voting for Raid.” The steaming pile of ironies keep mounting.

First Hostin, a person of color and member of the diversity-loving, anti-racist crowd, refers to white women as roaches. And then she claims that voting to outlaw the extermination of tiny, weak humans is equivalent to voting for extermination. Hmmm …

Near as I can tell, Hostin is suggesting that outlawing the intentional serial extermination of tiny humans will result in deaths of women, so let’s examine Hostin’s claim to see how sound her analogy is.

In legal abortion, the dead victims are intentionally killed by the choice of their mothers aided and abetted by the law. In illegal abortions, the rarely dead women die accidentally as a result of choices they made.

Thousands of women choose to have their human offspring killed—nearly one million humans annually. Compare that to the statistics for the number of women who accidentally died from illegal abortions a decade before Roe legalized prenatal genocide. According to the liberal Guttmacher Institute, by “1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200.”

Who do leftists treat like roaches? Who do they want to exterminate? (As an aside, would leftists support the daily serial killing of actual roaches via dismemberment? I’d say there are two chances of that: slim and fat.)

It’s not surprising that apparatchik for the prenatal genocide industrial complex Sarah Resnick Garza believes “codifying” human slaughter “on the constitutional level would make sense.” Let’s hope and pray that there are enough decent Illinoisans left in Illinois and the General Assembly to keep that from happening.

The 103rd General Assembly begins on Jan. 11, 2023 and runs for two years. IFI will alert our subscribers about any proposal regarding an abortion amendment to the Illinois constitution and urge them to contact their lawmakers to dissuade them from supporting it.

If you are like me, there are three primary thoughts running through your mind following this election: “What happened to the red wave?”  “How can so many people be so fooled by the party of death?” and “What is God doing?”

The last question is the most important and the most difficult to answer.  I will address it in a bit.

First, I would like to look at a couple of things I observed in the days prior to the election and during the presentation of the results following.  Am I the only one who noticed that in spite of the  rumblings across the political spectrum and media that there would be a “Red Wave” of epic proportions on election day, the talking heads on the Leftist media appeared unperturbed and simply repeated the mantra that the election would be very secure, and that “election deniers” were dangerous to democracy.  (This in spite of the fact that Stacy Abrams and Hillary Clinton remain big-time election deniers).

What did these people know that gave them such peace in the face of what appeared to be imminent disaster for their cause? I don’t expect that it was the peace of God! Yes, what did they know that the rest of us didn’t know? Hmmm.  Just asking!

There are other possibilities, of course:

Did voters hear too much about a “Red Wave” and decide at the last minute that they didn’t want a two-house majority for Republicans having witnessed the sorry consequences of the Democrats holding such a majority for two years?

Did Republicans and conservatives err in their messaging over the last few weeks assuming that everyone connected Democrat policies to the disasters they caused? For example, did they assume that people understand that government spending is the major cause of inflation, and thus think all they needed to say was “Inflation bad” to convince people to reject Democrats?

Are there still so many people who do not grasp that killing is a really bad response to an unwanted pregnancy? Are millions of Americans so superficial as to listen only to the rhetoric of the Left and not dig deeper into what words mean? “Choice” is a pleasant-sounding word but we’re not choosing whether to put cheddar or mozzarella cheese on a sandwich. We are choosing to end a human life! Is human life now that cheap to millions? Did the pro-death crowd really come out in record numbers due to a U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Are the political “machines,” which are in place across America, especially in major cities, so powerful that they are, from a human perspective, unbeatable? Are people either so indebted to them, or so intimidated by them that they do whatever they are told to do?

Have so many wise and weary people left states like Illinois, California, and New York that there are no longer enough right-thinking people to defeat the Leftists? This certainly contributes to the bad election results. Reports suggest that millions of others wish to leave these states but cannot as family and jobs make a move difficult or costly.

One or more of these things may have affected the election results, but there is a more important perspective which we must consider.

Most people throughout history have lived under the tyranny of dictators and thugs, men who ruled for their own benefit, acting as gods, (many actually claimed to be deity), caring nothing for the people they ruled. One must ask, “did the people not mind the oppression? Were they passive to the brutality of the ruling class? Did they have no ambition to be free?” Anyone paying attention should notice the similarity to our major cities where violence and death are so common as to be ignored, yet in our case, the ones most oppressed and abused routinely reelect their abusers. Is there such a thing as “Battered Citizen Syndrome?”

This darkness and bondage are not America’s intended destiny! From the Founders to the present, nearly a million men have sacrificed their lives that we might live free. They understood that tyrants always lurk in the wings, seeking an opportunity to take the reins of power to themselves.

So, what about God? Are these results His intention? Where is He in all of this?

America is not Israel and thus we do not have the same earthly promises Israel has. We do know that there is perpetual enmity between God and Satan, and Satan is called the “god of this world.” We also see in Scriptures a time when God will give mankind precisely what they have been striving after for 6000 years or so: God’s withdrawal from active participation in man’s affairs. This “Time” is called the “Great Tribulation,” in the Bible, and what a time it will be! The Spirit of God will withdraw His restraining influence to allow people to live as they want. It is certainly the spirit of this present age, and the direction America has been heading in recent years. Remember that this Nation, and particularly, the Democrat Party, kicked God out of America’s political and cultural affairs decades ago, and such actions have consequences. God is gracious, but we have no guarantees as to His response in the face of such brazen hatred and wickedness ultimately other than judgment.

Not surprisingly, America is now going the way people want it to go and reaping the consequences. So many want to live however they wish to live without God and without truth. Pleasure has become the Nation’s god, but so few understand the human cost of this paganism. One would think that the tragic death toll from drugs alone over the last several years would discourage such idolatry; but so far, few seem to notice or care. We have gone from Mayberry to a war zone over the last sixty years, and it is not by accident!

For any young person reading this, I hope that it is now crystal clear that Utopia is not arriving any time soon, so, I encourage you to ask what God is doing, and what He seeks from you? He is the very embodiment of all that is good, and His delight is to share His own goodness with us. If we reject Him, the result is eternal separation from Him, of our own doing. Therefore, His method is first grace, then warning, then discipline, and finally judgment. His desire is that we love and enjoy Him, but He will not force Himself upon us, for love cannot be coercive. In the end, if we do not come to Him, He will allow us our own way. I believe we are in the discipline/judgment stages.

Therefore, now what, If we would see as God wants us to see and think as God wants us to think?

First, we are to trust Him and yield to His sovereignty over every area of our lives, including America’s culture and politics. Trusting Him is not merely putting up with trials or patience in the face of opposition; it is gratitude for His working even when things seem to be dismal or contrary. Romans 8:28 reminds us that for those who love God, He is active on our behalf making everything in our lives work together for our eternal benefit. Lessons learned in suffering bring eternal rewards.

Second, this world, as we know it, is quite brief. Earthly kingdoms and nations all have an end. God intends that we be thinking eternally, looking beyond the events and troubles here. Paul wrote in II Corinthians 4:17 that “our light afflictions” here are “but for a moment,” meaning that we are not to be distracted by them. Our tendency is to despair when things go badly, but we must remember that the best is yet to come (His Kingdom), and it will last forever!

Third, God has many promises for us, but the greatest may be that those who love Him will be like Him! This promise applies, of course,  only to those who satisfy His criteria.  And what are those criteria?  Peter tells his readers to “pursue. . .holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.” Therefore, nothing could be more important for us than to search for and secure holiness!

Being with Him and being like Him are interdependent, for John tells us in I John 3:2 that “when we see Him, we shall be like Him…” To receive this promise one must repudiate sin, that is repent of it, stop practicing it, and turn from it to accept by faith His gift of forgiveness. America is in this condition of chaos, conflict, and confusion because we, as a nation, have turned against God. (Who would have believed that America, created upon Christian principles and blessed above all nations by God, would turn against the best, most gracious, and loving Creator, Jesus Christ?)

This act of turning from sin to trust in Christ is called the “new birth,” and brings with it eternal life with God Himself. This is the fulfillment of God’s plan for mankind and goes far beyond all that we imagine or experience here. The terrible things we endure while on earth will be forgotten, and the best things we enjoy will be eclipsed by the wonder of all God will provide for us.

Therefore, by God’s grace let us trust the infinitely good God, do what we can to oppose the wickedness of our world, help raise the downcast eyes of the discouraged to see Jesus Christ more fully, and live in a way that the light of Christ shining through us exposes the evils of sin, yet lights up the pathway to the Savior!

And who knows what good He may still have in store for America if we turn in faith to Him?

Since the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade was overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, leftists have been roiling in rage at the thought that states are now free to enact the will of their voters with regard to killing humans in the womb. In his concurrence, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued that three other Supreme Court cases should be revisited in that they too lacked constitutional grounding—an argument made also by the esteemed Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork.

One of the decisions Thomas believes should be revisited is the Obergefell decision that imposed same-sex “marriage” on the entire country, robbing states—that is, the people—of their right to decide if intrinsically non-marital relationships should be legally recognized as marriages.

And so, leftists, livid at the prospect of states one day being free to enact marriage laws in accordance with the will of their voters, are trying to take that right away preemptively through federal legislation.

On July 19, 2022 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the absurdly named “Respect for Marriage Act” (H.R. 8404)—a bill that doesn’t merely disrespect marriage; it is hostile to marriage. The bill, which would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), next goes to the U.S. Senate.

On September 15, seven weeks before the mid-term elections, the Senate announced plans to delay a vote on the controversial bill until after the elections. According to CBS news, “GOP negotiators” who are “involved in the talks over a bipartisan plan” believe this will help increase Republican support.

Who are these GOP Senators? They are RINO Susan Collins, Rob Portman who began supporting all things homosexual after his son announced his sexual attraction to men, and Thom Tillis, who the day after the House passed H.R. 8404 announced he would “probably” support it when it comes to the Senate for a vote. I think this “bipartisan collaboration” is bipartisan in name only.

DOMA, which was passed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, explicitly defines marriage:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,
and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is
a husband or a wife. (emphasis added) 

Forty-seven Republicans voted for the dis-Respect for Marriage Act, including Adam Kinzinger, Rodney Davis, Liz Cheney, Tom Emmer (chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee), Darrell Issa, Elise Stefanik (U.S. House Republican Conference chair), Lee Zeldin (who was recently defeated in the New York race for U.S. Senate), and Florida Representatives Michael Waltz and Brian Mast.

Any Republican who doesn’t understand the essential role of the nuclear family—that is, mother, father, and children—to the health and future of any society doesn’t deserve to serve in government. The same applies to any Republican who votes for a bill that robs states of the right to pass laws regulating marriage.

DOMA, which all U.S. House Democrats and 47 “Republicans” oppose, defines marriage in federal law “as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex.” In contrast, the dis-Respect for Marriage Act recognizes in federal law “any marriage that is valid under state law.”

Again, while DOMA has a provision requiring states to recognize marriages from other states, that provision specifically limits the type of marriages that must be recognized to those composed of two people. No such limit is placed on the federal government in the dis-Respect for Marriage Act.

This means that once Utah, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, or any other nutty state recognizes plural/poly unions as marriages, the federal government will be forced to recognize plural/poly unions as marriages. And once the federal government recognizes plural/poly unions as legal marriages, all states will be forced to recognize those marriages as well.

While some naïve or gullible voters view the absence of language defining marriage as the union of two people in the dis-Respect for Marriage Act as an oversight, others see it correctly as intentional—an interim step to the compulsory legal recognition of plural/poly unions from sea to darkening sea.

Take ACTION: H.R. 8404 may be taken up in the U.S. Senate soon. Please take a moment to urge our two U.S. Senators to vote to protect the Defense of Marriage Act by voting NO to H.R. 8404. Remind them, “The government has no interest in inherently non-reproductive types of relationships. The government has no more vested interest in recognizing and regulating inherently non-reproductive erotic relationships than it does in platonic friendships.”

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin
https://www.durbin.senate.gov/contact/email
Phone: (202) 224-2152

U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth
https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/connect/email-tammy
Phone: (202) 224-2854

Please send a message and then follow up with a phone call this week.

Can you imagine what would go through the mind of a child upon being told by his parents that he would be unsupervised all day? He could do whatever he wanted! It would be heaven, but no loving parent would ever allow such a thing. The risk to the child would simple be too great. “Anything goes” is a bad idea for any age.  But that is where our culture is being driven by the Left.

Much can be learned about people in general from watching children. Sadly, we often do not learn much from age two to twenty! A two-year-old child is not capable of knowing or understanding the consequences of his choices; and if he is strong-willed, he resists any restrictions on his behavior. His desire is “anything goes!” But we are patient with him as he climbs a ladder or goes where he should not go. We intervene to protect him from his choices. We do not reason with him regarding the physics involved in a four-thousand-pound car striking a forty-pound child, we simply don’t allow him to run into the street. Our goal is to keep him safe until he understands such things for himself.

There are, however, some things that are not so obviously dangerous. And just as the two-year-old believes that he knows everything, unfortunately, if he has not been disabused of the notion, so does the average teen. There are choices that are becoming available to him, the consequences of which are mentally, spiritually, or emotionally, as well as physically harmful, but may not manifest themselves as such the moment a bad choice is made, unlike the immediate injury caused by walking in front of a moving car. How does a person learn such things so as to protect himself from bad choices? And of equal concern, how are we to deal with a culture that covers its collective ears so as not to hear the warnings and, indeed, calls those who sound a warning, “evil?”

The significant social unrest in recent times and the tragic rise in drug use, alcohol abuse, depression, and suicide, have not happened in a vacuum. Nothing occurs without a cause, and such alarming trends can only be traced to a culture that is increasingly rebellious against standards and, if you will, God. We are witnessing a culture collapsing upon itself and are told that it is not those who sell the poisons who are evil, but those of us who warn of the poisoning! In this upside-down world, “anything goes” is good, while God, order, and discipline are bad!

We must protest!

Little children are not wise enough to understand that a parent who is too lenient is undermining their ability to succeed in life. If one parent allows the children to eat whatever they want, run around the neighborhood until the early hours of the morning, and never do chores while the other parent tries to make them get up early, clean their rooms, do their homework, and help with tasks around the house, there will be major problems! An “anything goes, no rules” attitude by a parent, and by the same token community leaders, might make them popular with naïve young people, and politically garner many votes, but it is a mistake as catastrophic for the community as it is for the home. Every healthy organization and organism has and needs order and rules.  Nothing can long survive without them.

In the public arena, when a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is unwilling to define what a woman is you know that something other than truth is controlling the narrative. Does Ketanji Brown Jackson, recently placed on the U.S. Supreme Court, really not know how to define a woman? Of course she does! But when people as high profile as a judicial nominee express opinions which are patently nonsensical, yet are placed on the Court regardless, the nation is in serious trouble.  Ketanji Jackson does not decline to define what a woman is because “woman” is open to various definitions, but because some powerful people have an insidious objective.

The confusion of language created by the Left is only a small part of the chaos they have created over the last few decades. They have worked tirelessly to sow discord between racial groups and conflict between men and women, young and old, rich and poor, as well as between the public and the police.  Their true nature was revealed when, in the summer of 2020, they did not seek to quell the violence, but rather encouraged it.  And just as their inability to define a woman is a fiction, so are their explanations for the division and chaos they have fomented.

America’s leaders know that the public will tolerate a societal breakdown for only so long before demanding order be restored. Thus, having created the anarchy in the first place, the Leftist elites will ride in as saviors to bring peace and calm, at the expense of liberty and personal rights.

Mrs. Jackson’s unwillingness to define something as obvious as what a woman is, is a manifestation of the Leftists’ assault on truth and against God, Himself. They are not creating conflict and confusion because they believe reality is malleable, but because their goal is to break down America’s cultural stability, incite violence, and create disorder and fear, leading the public to panic and give them, the Leftists, a lock on power from which we will not be able to escape.

As they convince millions of gullible young Americans that concrete realities directly before their eyes are not real and that they cannot trust their own perception of things, the nation experiences a collective vertigo, and the trust necessary for cultural and social cohesion evaporates. Panicked people are more easily led, more easily enslaved. This has only occurred, of course, with a simultaneous destruction of the traditional Christian philosophy and culture which have provided a foundation for the country for centuries. Until recently, Christianity has been the bulwark of truth, clarity, and common ground for Americans, making the nation extraordinarily resistant to irrationality, Marxism, and other errors.

Tragically, the Left’s assault on America, Christianity, and truth have been effective. A large segment of the population now irrationally hates Christ and Christianity not understanding the devastating consequences of discarding them. No culture or nation can long survive where the citizens do not have significant commonality and generally accepted standards of morality. The Left knows this and intends this.  America’s Founders, while differing in some interpretations of Christian theology, were still united in the broad, general tenets of the Faith giving America a strong, foundational, uniting philosophy. For the last sixty years and more the Left has maliciously undermined the nation’s orderly Judeo/Christian culture and has been replacing it with an “anything goes” culture.

As a Christian and a pastor, I understand the appeal of such. It feeds the fallen nature’s desire for autonomy and pleasure. Of course, the “anything goes” licentiousness isn’t new! Long before the Leftists began their assault on America the Bible warned of it. The pseudo liberty that Leftists temptingly hold before the public’s eyes has been around since the beginning of time. It began with the “Hath God said, “ of Genesis 3:1, and progressed to a modern outright denial of God’s existence and authority and offers a consequence-free life to all who heed its siren song.

Modern iterations are worded differently than the Serpent’s lies in the Garden, but the appeal is the same. Satan asked, “Hath God said?” and followed it with “you will not surely die.” Now the Leftists cry, “Don’t let anyone tell you what to do!” and “If it feels good, do it!” Same song, different words. But there is no such thing as consequence free living. “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Newton’s Third Law of Motion expresses the principle well.

Imagine a ball game where “anything goes.” It would ruin the game, and probably injure players. Can you imagine a medical school teaching future doctors that “anything goes” or a math professor teaching future aerospace engineers that “anything goes?” In every area of life, even the seemingly inconsequential things like gardening or bike riding, no one with any sense would suggest that “anything goes.”

As an experiment I have taken groups of young people into the gym and told them that we were going to learn a new game, one for which there were no rules, none. They simply looked at me as if I had lost my mind! If it is impossible to play a game without rules, how much more impossible it is to live a good life without rules.

Only a truly evil person bent on destroying people would say that one can live however they like and suffer no consequences. If order and rules are essential for simple things like a ball game or a garden, how much more important are they for things as complex as human life and relationships? In every heart is an awareness that there must be rules to live well.  Many people today just don’t want to hear God’s rules and the Left is making it easy to ignore them!

Fishermen do not catch fish on empty hooks. They must use bait that is attractive to fish, but while being tasty to the fish, the bait leads to its demise. So it is with the bait the Leftists dangle before Americans. How appealing “do whatever you want” sounds, especially to young people who have neither a theological foundation nor life experience to protect them!

The reality is, of course, that a truly “anything goes” culture does not and cannot exist. Someone is deciding what does and what does not “go.” The “anything” they encourage for the moment refers to reckless and evil things such as drugs, immorality, and violence. Calling something wrong, on the other hand, does not go. But when immoral and destructive conduct is encouraged, conflict and suffering  become inevitable as reasonable and normal boundaries are broken down. The suffering and destruction are only magnified as those who see what is coming and try to warn others are denounced as haters and bigots. If the boycott against truth continues long enough, the destruction of the culture and of many lives is practically guaranteed. In an “anything goes” culture, the highest “good” is to do whatever one wants.

Consequences, good or bad, become irrelevant. It is not far from the moronic axiom uttered by someone in the 60s, “Live fast, die young, and leave a good-looking corpse!” Adults know that such thinking leads to catastrophe, but we seem to be short on adults these days. Tell a child that habitually eating packets of sugar may lead to diabetes and your words will fall on deaf ears. And so it is with a lawless culture. People’s hearing has dulled; and so, we witness many of our youths, some even into their thirties, displaying the logical skills of children, and tragically suffering and dying as a consequence!

Leftists, who for the moment dominate America’s ruling class, pander to the public’s baser inclinations just like those who through lies, promises, and manipulation entrap young women in lifestyles that may lead to their deaths, or the “coyotes” who make millions off promises to bring people to a better life in the U.S., only to leave many of them dead in the desert or kidnapped by human smugglers. There is no more accurate word for them than “evil.”

If an “anything goes” culture is tolerated too long a cataclysmic failure of the culture and nation will occur and those in power will cement their places, no longer as tolerant, beneficent friends, but as tyrants. The current wanton disregard for God and His morality is frighteningly reminiscent of the early chapters of Genesis which culminated in God’s declaration that, regarding mankind, “every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man. . . .”  (Gen. 6:5-6). At that point the Great Flood ensued!  Whether we soon suffer catastrophic judgment as well depends solely upon God’s grace, which should lead every American who has not repented and turned from their sin to do so now!

The confusion currently enveloping America’s culture did not develop organically, it has been artificially produced by wicked people to confuse, weaken, and overcome Americans. The “anything goes” philosophy is mere bait. Once ensnared, the prey, America’s citizens, will no longer have such liberties.

On Tuesday, July 12, 2022, Northwestern University hosted a webinar entitled, Implications of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Decision. Faculty members of Northwestern participated in the webinar: Dr. Cassing Hammond (abortion practitioner), Professor Paul Gowder, Professor Heidi Kitrosser, Professor Andrew M. Koppelman, Professor Doreen Weisenhaus, and Dean Hari Osofsky (she/her) moderated the event.

The lament from these esteemed members of the once Christian Northwestern University is to be expected. I want to call attention specifically to Prof. Andrew Koppelman who claimed that the right to abortion should be protected by the 13^th amendment.

Distinguished Senior Fellow and Scalia Scholar Ed Whelan in a recent tweet noted that by his count the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 8^th, 9^th, 13^th, 14^th, and 19^th Amendments have all been cited in support of the non-existent constitutional right to abortion. Like the astronomer Percival Lowell, who spent 15 years studying canals on Mars, progressive experts think they find abortion everywhere they look in the US Constitution.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and proclaimed in the final days of 1865. The text of this amendment has two sections.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It is interesting to recognize in these debates that those who advocate for killing unborn children proclaim themselves to be the compassionate abolitionists. Those who want to save children from being dismembered and vacuumed out of their mother’s wombs are the evil slave owners.

According to the perverse logic of these supposed abolitionists, pregnancy is slavery. If you “force” someone to carry a child to term, that would go against the Thirteenth Amendment. Really?

Now I should point out that Prof. Koppelman did not develop his argument in this webinar. He has written a 30-page paper on the subject. His abstract states, “The Thirteenth Amendment’s purpose is to end the specific institution of antebellum slavery. A ban on abortion would do to women what slavery did to the women who were enslaved: compel them to bear children against their will.”

Let’s accept this argument for just a moment. Where does it end? What about a distressed mother who has to provide care for her ornery two-year old who whines, demands, runs away, and never sleeps when the mother desires? Forcing a mother to care for this child sounds a lot like slavery to me. Or what about a son or daughter who provides care for an aging relative who suffers from dementia or Alzheimer’s? Without any thanks, care must be provided around the clock for someone who often has no resources to compensate for the care given. That sounds a lot like slavery to me, well, at least according to this perverse logic.

Stick with me as we finish off the illogic of this argument, if something appears to be slavery, the answer is to kill.

The mother is free to kill her unborn child to prevent a forced pregnancy. The mother or father is free to kill a born child because this precious one might be a burden. A son or daughter is free to kill a parent who needs round-the-clock care all in the name of the ending of slavery.

It is abhorrent and illogical to compare slavery with pregnancy. I recognize that not all who are pregnant made that choice. There are difficult cases, but to suggest that what slaves endured is what mothers face is perverse and wicked logic.

Dan McLaughlin, a senior writer at National Review Online, has written a very similar article on this very subject that I would also highly recommend.

The National Education Association’s (NEA) annual convention took place last week in Chicago. It opened with a theatrical speech act by NEA president, Rebecca (Becky) Pringle who has no dearth of pride in the “amazing accomplishments” of the NEA members. Pringle cited as inspiration for world transformation—not systemically oppressed persons of color like Thomas Sowell, Carol Swain, or Glenn Loury—but communist and former Black Panther who studied under Herbert Marcuse, Angela Davis:

We must share [the] view Professor Davis holds dear whether it is a mind, a heart, a school, a community, or our world, transformation is always possible, change is always possible, NEA, because of you. [wild applause for themselves]

Of the many troubling things Pringle emoted, this may be the most troubling:

NEA, you are answering my call to lead a movement that unites, not just our members, but this entire nation, to reclaim public education as a common good, as the foundation of this democracy, and then transform it into something it was never designed to be—a racially and socially just and equitable system that prepares every student, every student, EVERY STUDENT, EVERY ONE TO SUCCEED IN THIS DIVERSE AND INTERDEPENDENT WORLD!

Yes, she was cacophonously shouting about the NEA’s goal to transform public education into something it was never designed to be.

Precisely how are “socially just and equitable” defined and by whom? How does the NEA propose to achieve their socially constructed goal?

The NEA plans to achieve that goal by using taxpayer funded schools with captive audiences to promote sexual perversity, sexual confusion, science denial, the slaughter of the unborn, compulsory language mandates, censorship of ideas they hate, and the destruction of the nuclear family. That’s how.

Pringle went on to bemoan recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions:

… [T]he rights many of us have spent a lifetime fighting to secure are being stripped away in our lifetimes.

… we’ve known since 2016, since that fateful election, that this day would come—that we would feel the effects of a radicalized Supreme Court, issuing decisions that do not reflect the views or the values of America.

We knew that the ground had shifted and the stage had been set to move us further away from the promise of America for all Americans, from decisions on school prayer that attack religious freedom to vouchers that threaten the right to a universal public education to the long-term devastating impact of the Supreme Court’s decision to hijack the fundamental freedom to decide for ourselves when and how to have a family.

The U.S. Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade—a decision that even leftist law professors have long acknowledged had no grounding in the Constitution—is “radical” but the U.S. Supreme Court that overturned marriage for the whole country was not?

Allowing more powerful, more privileged “pregnant persons” the legal right to have powerless, non-privileged humans killed constitutes the “promise of America”? And here I thought the promise of America was to recognize that all men are created equal and endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life. Has Pringle read any books on history, civics, or government other than Howard Zinn’s People’s History of America and the 1619 Project?

Allowing a coach the freedom to choose to pray silently on a football field after a game constitutes an attack on religious freedom?

Providing school vouchers that help give impoverished families a tiny bit of freedom to choose where and how their children are educated constitutes threatening the right to a universal public education?

What Pringle and her thought-control collaborators don’t want is for moms and dads who must work two jobs in order to make ends meet to be allowed to choose not to have their children indoctrinated by leftists who want to turn public education into something it was never intended to be.

Pringle then began shrieking:

As we have for decades, we will fight tirelessly for the right to choose. We will never stop. We will fight unceasingly for the rights of our LGBTQ plus students and educators. We will say gay. We will say trans. We will use the words that validate our students and their families–words that encourage them to walk in their authenticity, to love themselves fully, to become who they are meant to be! 

What if walking in their authenticity includes sadomasochism, polyamory, infantilism, or any other of the myriad paraphilias that delight fallen humans? Will Pringle encourage those students to love themselves fully and become who they are meant to be?

Who exactly intends people to be “gay” or “cross-sex” impersonators, and how does Pringle know that’s how some people are meant to be? Is it the mere presence of persistent, unchosen desire that tells Pringle how someone or something intended those people to be? Do all unchosen, powerful, persistent desires have to be affirmed, in order for humans to fully love themselves?

Pringle’s proclamations “We will say gay. We will say trans,” are an allusion to the Florida law that prohibits teachers from initiating conversations about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation in grades K-3. Pringle has announced defiantly that creepy members of the NEA should violate Florida law in order to impose their socially constructed assumptions about sexuality on other people’s 5–9-year-olds.

Funny how leftists, who now treat the appointments of Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett as an outrage and insult to the Democratic process, were never exercised when, according to Politico,

Democrats almost exclusively named federal judges and Supreme Court justices for decades. … Of the 22 open Supreme Court seats between 1933 and 1968, 17 were filled by Democratic presidents. And Eisenhower’s five nominees included Earl Warren and William Brennan, two future progressive icons.

Pringle believes that the NEA’s ideological world domination goals are thwarted by unceasing attacks:

We have weathered countless attacks on our profession, on us. We have become exhausted by the demands created by a crippling educator shortage. We have felt our voices grow hoarse from demanding professional pay and the respect we deserve.

Maybe the NEA has something to do with the crippling educator shortage.

Maybe liberty-loving young people don’t want to enter the teaching profession because it is controlled by leftists who demand ideological conformity from faculty, who demand that teachers promote sexual deviance and ideas derived from critical theory, and who disrespect parental rights and transparency.

Maybe veteran teachers are dropping out for the same reasons.

Maybe teachers young and old don’t want to be forced to be vaccinated. Maybe conservative teachers young and old are tired of being “attacked” by taxpayers for the inappropriate decisions leftist teachers make and which dissenting educators are not free to criticize.

Maybe leftist “educators” are getting paid too much and are getting all the respect they deserve.

Maybe teachers or those considering the teaching profession don’t support the commitment of the NEA to profile

the largest 25 organizations “that are actively working to diminish a student’s right to honesty in education, freedom of sexual and gender identity, and teacher autonomy.”

Maybe they object to the NEA’s plan to “spend more than $47 million to elect friendly candidates …, pro-labor judges, lobby for or against legislation, and support state and local affiliates in ballot measure campaigns.”

Maybe they object to the NEA’s decision to “publicly stand in defense of abortion and reproductive rights and encourage members to participate in activities including rallies and demonstrations, lobbying and political campaigns, educational events, and other actions to support the right to abortion.”

The self-important Pringle arrogantly declares to the NEA members the importance of the NEA’s work:

You understand that our work is fundamental to this nation. You have accepted the profound trust that has been placed in us. 

No, the work of the NEA is not fundamental to this nation. In reality, the NEA’s work is fundamental to no one and nothing but leftist ideologues—their beliefs, their systems, and their socio-political agenda.

No leftist event would be complete without an attack on the 2^nd Amendment, and Pringle did not disappoint. She claimed to have “listened to the stories of young people who experience gun violence in their communities every day,” but Pringle never mentioned that virtually every mass killer in America’s history has come from a broken, dysfunctional family. Leftists can’t say that because they are committed to the lie that all family structures serve children equally.

The NEA’s work contributes to the slaughter of the unborn; to a false understanding of sexual differentiation, sexual ethics, marriage, and family; to an imbalanced/erroneous view of history; to the dismantling of democratic institutions; to the erosion of liberty, tolerance, ideological diversity, and civility. The NEA is destroying public education, disrespects parental rights, and foments division. The NEA is plucking out all the threads that hold society together. 

At least Pringle admits two true things:

You have found a way to resist even as you hold on to joy. Creative and courageous, prepared and persistent, you stand in the power of the N-E-A, and the NEA stands in the power that is you [wild applause for themselves].

It is true that the NEA has power—too much power. And it is true that the NEA resists. It resists relinquishing power.

Pringle waxes melodramatic as she focuses—not on the needs of children and their families—but on the weepiness of poor pitiful NEA members:

For over a year I have traveled this nation to listen to the voices of, to learn from and to be inspired by our NEA members. … I’ve listened to educators describe their challenges as tears stream down their cheeks.

Today’s “educators” live and move and have their being in narcissism, narrative, and DEEP FEELINGS, so anecdotes about themselves weeping are even better than self-congratulations.

There was little to inspire truth-seekers in Pringle’s performance, but there was this:

Resistance is the secret of joy.

It’s good to know that Pringle looks favorably on resistance, because finally parents are resisting the efforts of public servants to force their socially constructed views on the nature and morality of cross-sex impersonation, homoeroticism, and human slaughter on all American children.

I hope Pringle realizes that one person’s “attack” on the NEA is another person’s act of resistance—which Pringle believes is the secret of joy.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/The-National-Education-Association-Convention.mp3

Written by Dr. David J. Ayers

So now it is official. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has overturned Roe v. Wade, and the legal issue of whether and how to restrict abortion has been returned to the states.

I cannot imagine how much this is going to be discussed in the coming days, months and even years—from every conceivable angle. Moreover, many states will become legal and political battlegrounds for this issue. This includes my own Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Dobbs shifts and even intensifies the struggle between pro-life and pro-choice, but it certainly does not end it.

Still, those who have stood for the pro-life cause, many of us for decades, have much to be thankful for. Not least among them are the many Evangelicals and Catholics who have stood for life, voting, pressuring, picketing, appealing, funding, manning legal organizations, lobbying, and educational organizations focusing on state and federal efforts, and a lot more. We stayed in the fight and have seen a wonderful victory.

However, a major concern I have had for a long time has not been so much political, as it has been pastoral and personal. This includes what will now be a growing need to care for pregnant women in difficult circumstances before and after they give birth. It includes compassionate ministry for post-abortive women and others, such as the biological fathers of these aborted babies and the families of these women. And this last thing includes, for too many who were comfortable with that decision to abort, helping them see the sin of abortion, encouraging confession and spiritual restoration. We have done a lot, and now will need to do more.

Which brings me to one of the issues I tackled in my recently released book, After the Revolution: Sex and the Single Evangelical. That is, the degree to which abortion is far more common among believers associated with conservative churches which are overwhelmingly opposed to it than most people realize or want to know.

Consider the two most recent releases of the large and prestigious National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), which is an undertaking of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Among middle-aged women 35 to 44 years old who have been pregnant, 13 percent of Evangelical Protestants and 12 percent of Roman Catholics have had at least one abortion. Their level is not significantly different than that of mainline Protestants, even though many if not most mainline churches do not oppose abortion, and many support it. They are certainly doing better than those of no religious affiliation, an astounding 29 percent of whom had had an abortion by that age. But still.

And for too many, it has not just been one abortion. Among these respondents, of those who had ever had an abortion, one-third of both the Evangelicals and Catholics had more than one.

A report of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine shows that things are actually a lot worse. Despite the anonymity and professionalism of the NSFG, the women surveyed tend to dramatically underreport abortion. Up to half or more of the women who said they had not had an abortion in fact had one. This problem is probably worse for religious women because they are more likely to experience guilt and shame when they have done this than those who are not religious.

We Evangelicals and Catholics must face up to the reality that we have a serious pastoral issue on our hands. The shepherds of Christ must not focus so much on the larger political and cultural scene that they end up ignoring the hurting people needing their care.

Sound teaching on all that the sanctity of human life means, rooted in the larger themes of Christian theology and anthropology, must characterize our churches. Too many pastors and priests rarely if ever address this sensitive issue, from the pulpit or other teaching ministries.

But we must also uncover and confront the plague of actual abortions, and their effects, in our own spiritual houses. The heating up of the abortion debates in the coming days, months, and years will open more raw wounds than we think. How many of these women have never confessed this sin? How many have but continue to suffer from it, even years or decades later? And what about the others in their intimate circles?

When I read the Gospels, I see a Jesus who, though perfect and without sin, approached sinners with compassion, person-to-person, without ever diluting the truth. As He did with the Samaritan woman at the well or the weeping prostitute, He laid bare the reality of their sins, realizing that they themselves were typically conscious of them. But He never did so in ways that demeaned them or left them without hope.

Religious people, let us be honest about how much abortion has occurred in our own churches. Let us redouble our efforts to instruct the people of God. But let us also draw out those who have sinned, even terribly, into the healing light of God’s grace and the love of His people.

Dr. David J. Ayers is the Fellow for Marriage and Family with the Institute for Faith & Freedom. His latest book is “After the Revolution: Sex and the Single Evangelical.”

Ever since the unprecedented leak of an early draft of the Dobbs decision from the U.S. Supreme Court which may overturn Roe v. Wade, the “shock troops of tolerance” have been busy interrupting church services. And they have done much destruction of crisis pregnancy centers.

They claim to be “pro-choice,” but choice involves options. And these people want to make sure women make only one choice—the choice of abortion. When there’s only one choice, then “pro-choice” is an oxymoron.

Since May 2, when the draft decision was leaked, consider what has happened:

• There have been numerous disruptions of church services, usually Catholic ones. However, even Joel Osteen’s church service was interrupted by topless promoters of abortion.

• There have been illegal protests in front of the homes of conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justices to intimidate them to change their opinion.

• There have been at least 59 attacks on crisis pregnancy centers, which are all funded by private donations and which do the Lord’s work to provide loving alternatives to abortion.

Many of these attacks have been done through an ad hoc organization called “Jane’s Revenge.”

The name would imply revenge on behalf of “Jane Roe” from the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court pro-abortion decision, Roe v. Wade. Jane’s Revenge declares open season on crisis pregnancy centers across the nation:

“From here forward, any anti-choice group who closes their doors, and stops operating will no longer be a target. But until you do, it’s open season, and we know where your operations are. The infrastructure of the enslavers will not survive. We will never stop, back down, slow down, or retreat.”

A friend of mine works in a crisis pregnancy center. She told me in an email over the weekend: “I worked in the Emergency Dept as a RN for 25 years with police security, but I never dreamed that working at a pro-life clinic would be a high risk job!”

And this damage is being done in the name of Jane Roe? As the record shows, Jane Roe’s identity was revealed in 1987, and her name was Norma McCorvey. It turns out McCorvey had not been raped (as claimed in the case). She had gotten pregnant from her boyfriend, and she just wanted an abortion.

ACLU attorney Sarah Weddington lied to her as she assured McCorvey she could get an abortion, but what Weddington really wanted was McCorvey’s participation in what became Roe v. Wade.

Then in the late 1990s, something amazing happened. Norma McCorvey made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ and came to oppose abortion. Thus, Roe came to agree with Wade. Henry Wade had been the District Attorney of Dallas County, and Roe v. Wade challenged Texas’s pro-life law.

Norma McCorvey wrote her story in her 1997 book, Won By Love (with co-author Gary Thomas). The subtitle of that book is “Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade Speaks Out for the Unborn as She Shares Her New Conviction for Life.”

And now, in the name of Jane Roe, anarchists and ANTIFA-types are carrying out acts of vandalism and damage of pregnancy centers that simply exist to provide loving alternatives to abortion.

One man who knew McCorvey, who died in 2017, is Father Frank Pavone, the president of Priests for Life. He even baptized her and spent time sharing Scriptures and Church teaching with her.

I asked him for a comment on the former “Jane Roe” since these groups are doing damage to try and disrupt pro-life work in her name. Father Pavone told me:

“As for Norma McCorvey, hers was a life of repentance, not of revenge. She wouldn’t have needed to take ‘revenge’ on pro-life people anyway, because she was one of us. She would have abhorred the way the pro-abortion people are acting now. In fact, she didn’t like them even when she was on their side. She thought they were arrogant and disrespectful of her.”

He adds,

“The abortion supporters were handed abortion-on-demand on a silver platter by Roe v. Wade. They didn’t have to engage in the laborious, tedious process of elections, lobbying, debating, persuading and lawmaking. Instead, a ‘constitutional right’ was just created for them.

Now that it is being taken away, they whine and stomp their feet like a child.”

Where is the U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in all this? When is he going to act against this intimidation? Our nation’s founders said that the Creator has endowed us with “unalienable rights”—first among these is “the right to life.”

Father Pavone has the final word: “Of course, their attacks on our churches are because when we restrict abortion, they perceive it as an attack on theirs. The abortion clinics are their churches, abortion-on-demand is their dogma, and abortion itself is their sacrament. May they be given the grace of repentance.”

This article was originally published at JerryNewcombe.com.