Written by John A. Sparks

The idea of expanding the size of the U.S. Supreme Court, also known as “court packing,” has surfaced once again, as it did after the Brett Kavanaugh appointment. Often mentioned is a proposal by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of University of California Berkeley’s Law School. He favors increasing the size of the court to 13 instead of its current nine. There are other calls for a larger court, such as those produced by organizations like “Take Back the Court” and “Demand Justice.” Of course, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) simply demands: “Expand the court.”

Let’s start with the basics. The U.S. Constitution does not state a particular size for the U.S. Supreme Court. The number of justices are fixed by Congress. The initial size was set by the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was passed by both houses and signed into law by President George Washington. That act called for one chief justice and five associate justices—a total of six. The number has been changed a few times, but a later Judiciary Act (1869) set the total number at nine, where it has remained for over 150 years. Although there are other proposals circulating—rotating justices off the court and onto the U.S. Courts of Appeals and requiring mandatory retirement at a certain age—a change in the number of justices would be the only change which would clearly not require a constitutional amendment.

So, why change the size of the court? Is it really necessary?

One reason given by advocates of expansion is that the current configuration of nine justices does not give duly elected presidents sufficient opportunities to shape the court by their appointments. In theory, since a newly elected president can’t “clear the deck” and name an all new court, the president must wait for court retirements or deaths to occur. Until that happens, the president is unable to make a court appointment. In the case of President Trump, he had the rare occurrence of two deaths and a retirement during his first term.

However, such opportunities are not far from the norm. Remarkably, the facts show that with the exception of partial-term presidents (William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson), virtually every U.S. president, beginning with George Washington and ending with Donald Trump, has been able to appoint at least one U.S. Supreme Court justice during his term of office, with Jimmy Carter being the only exception. In fact, the average number of appointments by each of our 45 presidents is approximately 2.6 appointments. Two-term presidents appoint on average 3.1 justices, if one excludes Franklin Roosevelt (8) and George Washington (11), who are “statistical outliers.”

Coming forward to the post WWII era, the 13 elected presidents—six Democrats and seven Republicans—have maintained an average similar to the historical average. Here are the number of appointments for each: Truman (4), Eisenhower (5), Kennedy (2), Johnson (2), Nixon (4), Ford (1), Carter (0), Reagan (3), George H.W. Bush (2), Clinton (2), George W. Bush (2), Obama (2), and Trump (3). The mean average per president for this period is 2.3 appointments. The statistics on appointments by sitting presidents seem to show that on average presidents have not been curtailed by the nine-justice configuration.

Another argument made years ago is now resurfacing. It challenges the fundamental structure of American government. These supporters of change say that our current constitutional system of presidential nomination and senatorial confirmation is outmoded because it is anti-democratic, that it is not responsive enough to “the people.” They say the existing judicial processes of choosing justices are  “relics” from a political “ice age” that was “pre-democratic.”

True, the court and the way its members are chosen and serve is not democratic, if by that one means that “the people” choose the justices directly and can regularly remove them. The fundamental configuration of American government put in place by the Founders is what Aristotle called “mixed government,” that is a mixture of democratic and non-democratic forms. Members of the U.S. Supreme Court are chosen by the president, not elected by the people. The confirmation of the nominee is done by the U.S. Senate, where population does not determine political power because each state has the same number of votes. The term of service for a justice (and other federal judges) is for life. These are the only federal office holders with life-long tenure. Therefore, the justices are not reachable by “the people” in the same way that, for instance, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives is. The reason? The Founders wanted the judicial branch to be able to resist the fitful pressures of majorities and of the executive which would endanger the cardinal rights of citizens—life, liberty, property, religious expression, and speech.

However, this is not to say that the people have no voice in the shape the court takes. But that voice is a muted, indirect voice. It is expressed by choosing a president who then, through the rigorous filter of the U.S. Senate, appoints a justice upon a vacancy. The voice of the people, though restrained by the existing system with nine justices, has produced courts of differing political hues. One only must only compare the New Deal court with the Rehnquist court or the Warren court with the current Roberts court. However, those changes in emphasis and judicial philosophy come gradually, helping to guarantee a substantial degree of certainty and predictability which should be the hallmark of a court, the chief interpretative body in our constitutional republic.

What the proponents of expansion actually fear is candidly expressed by Chemerinsky. Expansion of the court “is the only way to keep there from being a very conservative court for the next 10-20 years.” Chemerinsky’s statement reveals that he is not really dissatisfied with the current size, structure, and process of judicial nomination. What he is unhappy about is that certain Republican presidential wins coupled with deaths and retirements by justices have produced a court with a conservative tilt. He fears a “long winter” of conservative opinions by the court and is unwilling to trust that future Democrat presidential wins, deaths, and retirements could just as well turn the court back in the liberal direction he desires while keeping the current process and size of the court.

Despite current polls which indicate that court packing would be viewed unfavorably by the electorate, the temptation to pack the court would be significant with a Democrat presidential win. Assuming an expansion of the court to 13 justices, the four new members of the court would presumably be liberal judges inclining the court in that direction. Regrettably, such an abrupt change in the size of the court based on a single presidential victory would diminish and eventually destroy respect for and confidence in the court. It would result in long-term damage to the court, which would be converted from a generally impartial deliberative body following the rule of law into a branch whose size could be altered in favor of either victorious political party in any given election.

Court packing is unnecessary and potentially destructive of the court’s dignity and high standing. It would undermine the delicate balance between the branches that the Founders labored to ensure.

This article was originally published by The Institute for Faith & Freedom.

Still reaching for peak absurdity with ever more zeal, elements of the radical left are now smearing an honest interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and those who support it as “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” and more. In fact, those are the exact words used by U.S. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) to describe originalism — the widely accepted judicial doctrine holding that the words in the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted and understood as intended by the authors and ratifiers. The revolutionary view offered by Markey and others like him is a threat to America and every single American, fellow lawmakers warned.

Amid the nasty confirmation fight over U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Sen. Markey unleashed vitriolic and hateful comments against her “originalist” view on interpreting the U.S. Constitution. “Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic. Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination,” Markey claimed in an October 26 Tweet, essentially smearing as racist, sexist, “homophobic,” and discriminatory ACB and the tens or even hundreds of millions of Americans who believe the words in the Constitution mean what they say. Originalism now joins math, objectivity, individualism, milk, lower taxes, babies, Star Wars, and more in being called “racist” by the far left.

In comments made on the U.S. Senate floor, Senator Markey echoed that bizarre view after noting that Amy Coney Barrett proclaimed that her judicial philosophy was the same as the late Justice Antonin Scalia‘s view, originalism. “As Judge Barrett described so-called originalism, it means she is supposed to interpret the U.S. Constitution’s text to have the meaning it had when the U.S. Constitution was ratified,” Markey said, falsely claiming that various categories of people such as women and homosexuals had “no rights” when the U.S. Constitution was ratified, and omitting the fact that the Constitution has been amended repeatedly since then.

Markey’s summary of what originalism means is relatively accurate. The elected representatives who wrote and voted to ratify that governing document delegating “few and defined” powers to the federal government did so with the understanding that the text meant what it said. No sane or sensible person would ever vote to empower a government, with all its dangerous and coercive powers, under a Constitution in which the words had fluid meaning — or no meaning at all. It would be the equivalent of handing that government a blank check with unlimited power over life, liberty, property, and more — something only a fool or a suicidal madman would even consider.

And yet, this is obviously how U.S. Senator Markey and other leftwing extremists seeking control over Americans believe the U.S. Constitution ought to be understood. Common sense and basic decency would dictate that if Sen. Markey and his far-left allies would like to change the U.S. Constitution, they should do so honestly, using the amendment process outlined in the document itself. They could then make their case to the American people. Then, the people, acting through their elected representatives, could decide for themselves whether they wished to change, re-structure, or further empower their federal government with new authorities.

But Markey and others know that Americans would never willingly tolerate many of the changes that “progressives” would like to bring about. And so, like communists and revolutionaries have done for generations, Senator Markey proceeded to accuse originalists of exactly what progressives have been doing for decades. “Originalam — originalism — is just a fancy word for discrimination,” Markey claimed on the U.S. Senate floor. “It has become a hazy smokescreen for judicial activism by so-called conservatives to achieve from the bench what they cannot accomplish through the ballot box.”

Of course, in reality, the exact opposite is true. For instance, much of Markey’s bizarre rant centered on “LGBT” issues and the supposed right to a homosexual so-called “marriage.” And yet, it was only through judicial activism that this mockery of the people’s wishes and God’s design for marriage could be implemented. Indeed, even in California, perhaps the most liberal state in America, voters rejected so-called “gay marriage” when given the opportunity at the ballot box. In states like Alabama, over 8 in 10 voters supported real marriage. Only through the rogue U.S. Supreme Court were “progressives” able to defy the will of the people and impose faux marriage on America. The same is true with legalizing the murder of unborn babies euphemistically referred to as “abortion.”

Fellow U.S. lawmakers expressed outrage and shock over Markey’s words. “Of all the irresponsible and inflammatory statements I’ve heard over the last few weeks, and I’ve heard some doozies, this might well be the worst,” U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), a former clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, said on Fox & Friends in response to his Democrat colleague’s accusations. “I hope, expect, and demand that Senator Markey retract his statement. It is irresponsible; he can’t defend that.” Despite having sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution, Markey has so far refused to apologize.

Senator Lee, among the most faithful members of the U.S. Congress when it comes to respecting his oath of office, also highlighted the implications of Markey’s dangerous narrative. “If you think about what he is really saying there, Senator Markey has essentially said that our Constitution is racist, and [that] an effort to understand it, understand its words at the time they were written, is itself racist and bigoted,” Lee noted. “I can’t think of a statement that has a greater tendency to undermine the foundation of our constitutional republic.” Perhaps that was the goal.

The reason why Markey and others are so triggered by originalism is clear, too. “They don’t want the courts to be limited to judging institutions; they want them to be institutions of social change, of social policy, they want them to take debatable matters beyond debate and, so, that is why this isn’t satisfying to them,” Lee explained, adding that they want to go far outside the bounds of what the U.S. Constitution allows without having to get the consent of Americans through the amendment process. “Justice Barrett sees the elegant simplicity of the fact that you want judges to interpret the law based on what it says.”

Interestingly, pinned at the top of his Twitter page, Sen. Markey has an article promoting universal dependence on the federal government through monthly payments to every American. The propaganda comes from the fringe leftwing “Jabobin” magazine. That magazine is named after the monstrous revolutionaries known for their “Reign of Terror” during the French Revolution — a murderous orgy of violence that resulted in mass murder, tens of thousands of beheadings, savage persecution of Christians, destruction of civilization, and other bloody horrors from which France never fully recovered.

HELP: Our get-out-the-vote campaign is up and running. 

We are distributing the IFI Voter Guide to hundreds of churches and civic groups throughout the state..
Will you financially support our endeavor to educate Illinois voters and promote Christian family values?

Nearly a month after calling Christians to the nation’s capital for a prayer march, Franklin Graham is calling on them again, this time to join him for a day of prayer and fasting. Graham posted to his Facebook page October 20th,

“I urge you to join me for a day of prayer and fasting for our nation on this Sunday, October 25. The upcoming election is the most important in our lifetime—with two diametrically different directions for this country on the ballot. Our only hope is in God, and we need to call out to Him for His help and intervention. Will you join me—and will you share this with others?”

A similar message went out on his Twitter page.

The BillyGraham.org website shared a further appeal.

“Today, our nation is at a critical juncture. We need to call out to God for His help, His intervention, and His mercy. It is only by His hand that America will survive and be able to thrive again.”

Graham described how King Jehoshaphat, when the very survival of his nation was at stake, called on his people to fast. When the people turned to God, He delivered them. The story is captured in 2 Chronicles 20:3-4, “And Jehoshaphat feared, and set himself to seek the Lord, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah. So, Judah gathered together to ask help from the Lord; and from all the cities of Judah they came to seek the Lord.”

According to Graham, as much is at stake now as it was then. The decision is between “two vastly different directions for the future of this country. This not only affects us, but our children and our grandchildren.”

Pastor Myles Holmes of REVIVE Church in Collinsville agrees with Graham’s call to prayer and fasting, saying, “the most earth-shaking, culture-shaping interventions of God’s Holy Spirit changing our world have always been in response to the fervent, faith-filled fasting & prayer of God’s people. There is simply no other pathway to repentance, revival and restoration.”

Church of Christian Liberty Pastor Calvin Lindstrom wisely points out, “We trust not in our own prayers, but if we are not praying, then are we really trusting in the Lord? We must pray not because of who we are, but because we serve a faithful, sovereign God who does hear the prayers and cries of His people.”

Rev. Richard Valkanet, senior pastor of Living Waters Church in Grayslake reminds us that, “in times of great stress, people of God have always turned to the Lord with “fasting & prayer.” George Washington proclaimed a Day of Prayer in 1789.  Lincoln put forth a proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer in March, 1863. If there ever was a day as the one we are in, it would be most appropriate for all true believers to unite, petitioning God’s divine intervention as we repent.”

Striking a similar chord in the October issue of Decision Magazine, Rev. Graham wrote,

“If we truly want the blessings of the Lord on our country, then we must come humbly before Him, seek His face in prayer and fasting and repentance, and ask if He might by His grace and mercy bring healing to our troubled nation.”

His “To the Point” column message paraphrased 2 Chronicles 7:14 and echoes his October 20th call. Decision is a Billy Graham Evangelistic Association publication, of which Graham serves as editor-in-chief.

The son of the late evangelist Billy Graham and CEO of Samaritan’s Purse Ministries was joined by thousands on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. for the September 26th National Prayer March. Participants in the non-political event asked God to save the country from its current situation and petitioned Him for peace. Other prayer topics included the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects, ongoing nationwide protests and rioting, and upcoming national elections.

Take ACTION: Join the IFI board of directors and staff as we intentionally fast and pray for our state and nation this Sunday. Please pray for God’s mercy on this state and on our nation. Pray for the election of God-fearing candidates to every level of government. Pray for wisdom for voters and a safe and fair election.

HELP: Our get-out-the-vote campaign is up and running. 

We are distributing the IFI Voter Guide to hundreds of churches and civic groups throughout the state..
Will you financially support our endeavor to educate Illinois voters and promote Christian family values?

Well, they dusted off those colorful “Handmaid’s Tale” outfits that were so visible at Brett Kavanaugh’s U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2018.

Even before Amy Coney Barrett’s hearing on Monday before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, the Democrats were being cheered on by permanently angry women (and maybe some men) dressed in red cloaks with white duckbills extending from their hoods.

This is the uniform of the oppressed women in Hulu’s serialization of Margaret Atwood’s dystopic, anti-Christian novel. If you thought atheist crusader Philip Pullman’s thinly disguised depiction of church authorities as evil in “The Golden Compass” book and movie were bad, Ms. Atwood runs circles around him.  In her 1985 book and TV series, the polygamous men cite Bible verses and treat the women as sex slaves.

Braving the rain on Monday, the demonstrators held signs festooned with messages such as a giant NO! in rainbow colors over “Trump/Pence Must Go!”

This time around in the U.S. Senate star chamber, the Democrats who pretend to honor religious liberty while assailing nominees’ faith think they have a smoking gun. The word “handmaid.”

Mrs. Barrett and her husband have long been members of an ecumenical charismatic Christian group begun in 1971 called People of Praise, based in South Bend, Indiana, home to Notre Dame University and its law school, from which she graduated summa cum laude and taught constitutional law.

Women leaders in the group, including Mrs. Barrett, previously held the title of “handmaid,” which is derived from Jesus’s mother Mary’s own description of herself in Luke 1:38 as “the handmaid of the Lord.”

The group dropped that title in favor of “women’s leader” because “the meaning of this title has shifted dramatically in our culture in recent years,” a spokesman said.

Mrs. Barrett, 48, now serves on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, to which she was nominated by President Donald J. Trump in 2017.  At that time, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said at a hearing that Mrs. Barrett’s religious beliefs worried her because “the dogma lives loudly within you.”

Wow. Talk about open religious bigotry. But it’s OK because the senator is a Democrat, and they get to do this sort of thing. It’s not as if the media would have a problem with it.

Here’s a front-page headline from last Wednesday’s Washington Post:

Barrett long active with insular Christian group: Community preached subservience for women, former members say.

Ah, those “former members.” You can always dig up a dissident or two to make the point you want, unless you’re reporting on Black Lives Matter or the Democratic National Committee, which are pretty much the same thing.

As for People of Praise, here’s more from their own media statement provided to Heavy.com:

A majority of People of Praise members are Catholic, and yet the People of Praise is not a Catholic group. We aim to be a witness to the unity Jesus desires for all his followers. Our membership includes not only Catholics but Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals and nondenominational Christians. What we share is a common baptism, a commitment to love one another and our teachings, which we hold in common.

Freedom of conscience is a key to our diversity. People of Praise members are always free to follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, experience and the teachings of their churches.

As the Apostle Paul instructs, and many biblically sound churches teach, men are to be the spiritual leaders in the church and in their own households and they are to love their wives as they love themselves. This is considered scandalous by our cultural commissars.

In Ephesians 5:25, Paul writes: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for her.” That means laying down your life if necessary.  It’s why when things go bump in the night, the guy should be the one who goes downstairs with the baseball bat or the Sig Sauer.

Democrats are terrified of the attractive and articulate Mrs. Barrett, a mother of seven, just as they were threatened by Clarence Thomas, who destroyed their narrative that blacks belong on the leftist plantation.

Mrs. Barrett has impeccable credentials that the U.S. Senate already examined when she was nominated for the appeals seat.  At that time, the “handmaid” reference didn’t get traction, since the TV version of “The Handmaid’s Tale” only debuted in April of that year.

In the meantime, we’ve seen U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) take a page from Bernie Sanders and grill Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo in 2018 about sex and marriage, strongly implying that his traditional Christian views are a form of bigotry. Booker likes to make much of his own Christian faith, which apparently is free of the burden of having to abide by crystal clear biblical principles regarding sex.

Also hewing to “smarter than God” theology is Kamala Harris, who has embraced all things LGBTQ, plus taxpayer-funded abortion and Marxist economics. On December 5, 2019, Harris asked Brian Buescher, President Trump’s nominee for district court in Nebraska, “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?” And, “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?”

During Monday’s hearing, Mrs. Barrett had to face the likes of Booker, Feinstein and Harris, plus the troupe of “Handmaid” harridans.

After the process is over and Associate Justice Barrett is sworn in, the “ladies” can make further use of their costumes.

After all, Halloween is right around the corner.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com. Follow Robert Knight on is a His website is robertHknight.com.

Illinois’ feckless U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth opposes the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the U. S. Supreme Court because Barrett signed a 2006 newspaper ad sponsored by an Indiana pro-life organization that said,

We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death. Please continue to pray to end abortion.

In an October 2^nd letter to her Senate colleagues, Duckworth said the pro-life organization whose ad Barrett signed 14 years ago opposes,

a critical step of the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) process that gave me my children.

Duckworth conveniently omitted what that critical step is.

Duckworth went on to say in her “Dear Colleague” letter that Barrett is a

Supreme Court nominee who appears to believe that my daughters shouldn’t even exist.

Really? Does Barrett really believe Duckworth’s living breathing daughters shouldn’t exist? If there were technology that allowed doctors to create life in a lab and grow babies in artificial “wombs,” would opposing that technology necessarily entail the belief that children created and gestated like that shouldn’t exist?

Someone might want to clarify to Duckworth that what pro-life supporters oppose is the discarding of any siblings of IVF-created children that their parents—like Duckworth—didn’t want.

Duckworth began her missive the way “progressives” like to address all debates over substantive moral issues: with a heartstrings-tugging “narrative”—a narrative irrelevant to the underlying moral issue she hopes no one will think about as they read her appeal through misty eyes.

She spent 2 ½ paragraphs describing bringing her second baby onto  the floor of the U.S. Senate “swaddled in blankets” with colleagues “cheering … as little Maile Pearl continued to sleep blissfully in my lap.” She quickly switched to describing the “deep knot of dread and anguish in the pit of my stomach” she experienced when hearing that Amy Coney Barrett had been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Duckworth experiences dread at the prospect of a woman sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court who believes all lives are of infinite value—including imperfect humans and humans Duckworth views as disposable. Duckworth feels no dread about U.S. Supreme Court Justices who have no qualms about the dismemberment of humans or about chucking humans in an incinerator, but she does experience dread about a woman sitting on the Court who is raising a disabled child and who has adopted two Haitian orphans.

Duckworth appealed particularly to “Republican colleagues who cooed and cuddled” her ten-day-old infant, while never mentioning that she supports the legal right to have ordered the killing of her daughter 11 days prior to the day of cooing and cuddling. In Duckworth’s foolish view, eleven days prior to the day of cooing and cuddling, her daughter was a non-person and deserving of no legal protections.

Worse still, Duckworth believes all Americans should have to pay for the choice of women to order the killing of their offspring up to the day of birth for any or no reason.

Demagogue Duckworth claims that “Judge Barrett’s willingness to associate her name” with an organization that believes that humans are not disposable “is disqualifying and, frankly, insulting to every parent, hopeful parent or would-be parent who has struggled to start a family.”

Duckworth’s claim insults every American who believes the science that the product of conception between two humans is a human and who believes that all humans are of infinite worth. The feelings of other more developed or less “defective” humans about tiny humans in the womb does not abrogate the right of tiny humans to exist. Despite what Duckworth may believe, subjective feelings do not determine either reality or morality.

Duckworth claims to,

fear that, if confirmed to the nation’s highest court, Judge Barrett would be unable to resist the temptation of overturning decades of judicial precedent in an effort to force every American family to adhere to her individual moral code.

Duckworth must focus on “judicial precedent” because nowhere in the text of the U.S. Constitution can a right to abortion be found.

John Hart Ely, former dean of Stanford Law School, former Yale and Harvard law school professor, and former clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, wrote,

What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the U.S. Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. … It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.

No matter to Duckworth. She wants what she wants and will use any means to get it.

Although Duckworth isn’t an attorney, surely, she knows that all laws “force” Americans to “adhere to” someone’s moral code. Make no mistake, Duckworth and her pro-feticide collaborators have no problem forcing every American to adhere to their moral code. If they did, they wouldn’t try to force Americans to perform abortions or pay for abortions (not to mention bake cakes for faux-weddings, share locker rooms with opposite-sex persons, or use incorrect pronouns when referring to opposite-sex impersonators).

Desperate to retain laws that reflect the non-existent moral right of women to off their offspring, Duckworth concludes her letter with these patently silly words:

I hope you’ll join me in speaking out for every American family who has struggled with infertility by opposing this confirmation.

Leftists know that Barrett is eminently qualified and morally beyond reproach. They also know that since religious tests for holding office are constitutionally prohibited, they can’t again attack her religious faith as Diane Feinstein once did, so now they will start manufacturing fanciful new justifications for opposing her. Duckworth’s fanciful justification is that Barrett will try use her position on the U.S. Supreme Court to thwart the use of IVF by infertile families. Where’s an eyeroll emoji when you need one?

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to let them know that you support the nomination and confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. We must confirm nominees who will uphold the U.S. Constitution’s protections of life and religious liberty.

Amy Coney Barrett is a proven originalist who sees her roles as limited to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. She is the type of judge conservatives have been praying for. Her faithful approach to the U.S. Constitution and her experience on the 7th Circuit federal appeals court make her an outstanding nominee.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Duckworths-Foolish-Attack-on-Amy-Coney-Barrett.mp3

HELP: Our get-out-the-vote campaign is up and running. We are distributing the IFI Voter Guide to hundreds of churches, civic groups and tea party organizations. Will you financially support our endeavor to educate Illinois voters and promote Christian family values?

Written by Calley Mangum

Last Saturday, President Trump nominated U.S. Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court. Barrett, 48, has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since October 2017. While there may be much dissent across political lines over the confirmation of Judge Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court, the facts of her extensive qualifications speak for themselves.

Amy Coney Barrett is a married mother of seven children, five biological and two adopted from Haiti. She grew up in New Orleans, Louisiana and graduated from Rhodes College magna cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in English literature. She then attended Notre Dame Law School, where she was the executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review. Barrett graduated summa cum laude in 1997, and she clerked from 1998-99 for the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

“That is trial by fire,” Barrett said in an interview with The Heritage Foundation. “The way Justice Scalia ran his chambers is we all had to be prepared to discuss all the cases […] Justice Scalia, obviously very quick witted, brilliant, and he didn’t want you to agree with him. He wanted you to say what you thought. And so disagreeing with him as I sometimes did and pushing back with someone like Justice Scalia really taught me a lot.”

After clerking for Justice Scalia, Barrett worked a few years in private practice before returning to Notre Dame Law School in 2002 to teach. She remained at Notre Dame until President Trump nominated her for the 7^th Circuit in 2017. When she was nominated, every clerk who served with Barrett at the U.S. Supreme Court from 1998-99 wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recommending Barrett for the 7^th Circuit seat.

During her 7th Circuit confirmation hearing, Barrett was subjected to continued questions regarding her Catholic faith and its influence on her role as a judge, questions that many argue violated the U.S. Constitution’s No Religious Tests Clause.

“I don’t think that faith should influence the way a judge decides cases at all,” said Barrett in her interview with Heritage. And she said the same to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee during her hearing. “Somehow people seem to think that I said the opposite of what I said, but I think that one of the most important responsibilities of a judge is to put their personal preferences and their personal beliefs aside because our responsibility is to adhere to the rule of law.”

Barrett’s record while on the 7^th Circuit reflects this dedication to the law, including the U.S. Constitution. (Read Heritage’s article for more details on Barrett’s rulings while on the 7^th Circuit.) Barrett has said her judicial approach falls under “original public meaning originalism,” or that “the meaning of the words at the time they were ratified is the same as their meaning today.”

The confirmation hearings for Judge Barrett in the U.S. Senate are scheduled to start Monday, October 12.

This article was originally published by NCFamily.org.

Written by Walter Williams

The United States Constitution’s Article 2, Sec. 2, cl. 2, provides that the president of the United States “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” President Donald Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett as U.S. Supreme Court justice who will replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Barrett currently serves as United States Circuit judge of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 7th Circuit serves the Midwestern states of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.

It is now the U.S. Senate’s job to decide whether to confirm Barrett’s appointment as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. In thinking about the U.S. Senate’s criteria for making their decision, we might ask what is the role of a U.S. Supreme Court justice? A reasonable answer is to recognize that our U.S. Constitution represents our rules of the game. It dictates what is and is not permissible behavior by government and its citizens. Therefore, a U.S. Supreme Court justice has one job and one job only; namely, that of a referee.

A referee’s job, whether he is a football referee, baseball umpire or a U.S. Supreme Court justice, is to know the rules of the game and to ensure that those rules are evenly applied without bias. Do we want a referee or justice to allow empathy to influence their decisions? Let us answer this question using this year’s Super Bowl as an example.

The San Francisco 49ers have played in seven Super Bowls in their franchise history, winning five times. On the other hand, coming into the 2020 game, the Kansas City Chiefs had not won a Super Bowl title in 50 years. In anyone’s book, this is a gross disparity. Should the referees have the empathy to understand what it is like to be a perennial loser, not winning a Super Bowl in five decades? What would you think of a referee whose play calls were guided by empathy or pity? Suppose a referee, in the name of compensatory justice, stringently applied pass interference or roughing the passer violations against the San Francisco 49ers and less stringently against the Chiefs. Would you support a referee who refused to make offensive pass interference calls because he thought it was a silly rule? You would probably remind him that it is the league that makes the rules (football law), not referees.

U.S. Supreme Court justices should be umpires or referees, enforcing neutral rules. Here is a somewhat trivial example of a neutral rule from my youth; let us call it Mom’s Rule. On occasion, my sister and I would have lunch in my mother’s absence. Either my younger sister or I would have the job of dividing the last piece of cake or pie. Almost always an argument would ensue about the fairness of the cut. Those arguments ended when Mom came up with a rule: Whoever cuts the cake gives the other person the first choice of the piece to take. As if by magic or divine intervention, fairness emerged and arguments ended. No matter who did the cutting, there was an even division.

This is what our society needs — the kind of rules whereby you would be OK even if your worst enemy were in charge. Despite the high stakes of bitterly fought football contests, most games end peaceably, and the winners and losers are civil. It is indeed a miracle of sorts that players with conflicting interests can play a game, agree with the outcome and walk away as good sports. That “miracle” is that it is far easier to reach an understanding about the game’s rules than the game’s outcome. The same conflict-reducing principles should be a part of a civilized society.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
This article was originally published at the Creators Syndicate webpage at creators.com.

Written by Makenna McCoy

The U.S. Department of Education recently announced a new rule that aims to protect the First Amendment rights of students, teachers, and student organizations at public colleges and universities.

The final rule, entitled Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities, serves to defend First Amendment rights in two primary ways. First, in order to receive grants from the Department of Education, public colleges and universities must uphold religious liberty and free speech rights. Second, public colleges and universities must treat religious student groups the same as any secular student group, providing them with the same rights, funding, and privileges.

In announcing the rule, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos declared, “Students should not be forced to choose between their faith and their education, and an institution controlled by a religious organization should not have to sacrifice its religious beliefs to participate in Department grants and programs.”

Although the same guidelines for public universities do not apply to private universities, the rule does require private universities to abide by their own policies on freedom of expression in order to receive Department funding. WORLD also notes that the rule lays out “a shield for religious schools” by establishing that Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination based on sex, which some now claim encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity, is not binding for colleges “controlled by a religious institution.”

The new rule has been particularly beneficial for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a Christian campus ministry. Greg Jao, Director of External Relations for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, pointed out that the rule was necessary because universities were accepting some faith-based student groups and refusing others. Most often, he says, the groups that were rejected were those that required their student leaders to comply with the group’s religious beliefs.

Jao also recognizes that the rule not only benefits Christian groups, but all religious organizations because “universities should welcome all religious groups equally, in order to encourage tolerance, pluralism and religious diversity.”

The Department of Education rule will go into effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register sometime in November.

This article was ordinally published at NCFamily.org.

Rev. Franklin Graham is calling Christians to Washington, D.C. on September 26 for a national prayer march to ask God to save the country from the perilous situation it’s currently facing. Issues include the effects of COVID-19, nationwide protests and rioting, and the upcoming national elections.

Grahan, the son of the late evangelist Billy Graham and CEO of Samaritan’s Purse Ministries, released a video announcing the march. “Our communities are hurting. Our people are divided, and there’s fear and uncertainty all around us,” he said. “So, let’s join together and do the most important thing, and that is to pray.”

He also urged Christians to petition God to bring peace to the United States.

David Brody of CBN News recently interviewed Graham about the march. Brody asked him to explain the difference between a prayer event and a rally. “We don’t have any speakers; don’t have any stage or other people preaching or whatever,” Graham shared. “We’re coming to pray…the only hope of this country is God. Donald Trump can’t turn it around. Biden isn’t going to turn it around. Only God can do this, okay? And we need God’s help.

“The Democrats have taken God pretty much out of our government and there’s a lot of Republicans that want to take God out of government. A lot of them, but I just thank God that we’ve got a president who wants God, not only in his administration but he wants to see more of God here in Washington.”

Clearly not seeking to court controversy, the march’s website, PrayerMarch2020.com, states, “The Washington Prayer March 2020 event is a dedicated prayer march that is focused solely on asking God to heal our land. It is not a protest or political event, and we are asking participants to not bring signs in support of any candidate or party.”

The website also lists multiple prayer points for our nation, families, and leaders. These include humbling ourselves in repentance and asking God to forgive our sins and heal our land, as well as praying for the president and vice president along with their families.

Graham has been in the spotlight recently for speaking out publicly in support of President Donald Trump’s policies that affirm biblical values. Most recently he raised hackles by delivering a prayer at last month’s Republican National Convention. The far-left group Faithful America has started a petition asking the Samaritan’s Purse Board of Directors to remove Graham as its CEO.

The petition calls him a “notoriously homophobic preacher,” and adds that “[t]he final night of the 2020 Republican convention began with a partisan appearance from Franklin Graham, who prayed, ‘I thank you tonight for our president, Donald J. Trump… in the mighty name of your Son.’” (Read what the petition left out of his prayer.)  Apparently, that is a fireable offense to the group’s members. Ironically, the social justice group’s motto is “Love thy neighbor. No exceptions.”

Newsweek contacted Samaritan’s Purse about the petition and received an e-mail from the ministry, which stated that “Franklin Graham does not tell people who to vote for, but he does encourage everyone to pray and to vote. If the Democratic National Convention had asked him to pray, he would have prayed at the DNC as well. The most important thing any of us can do for our nation is to pray for our leaders, regardless of their political affiliation. Franklin Graham continues to lead Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association with the purpose of sharing God’s love and the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with hurting people around the world.”

The petition has nearly 14,000 of the 15,000 signatures the group is seeking.

The prayer march is Saturday, September 26, from noon to 2 p.m. and starts at the Lincoln Memorial and continues along the National Mall past the Washington Monument and down to the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. Additional information is available at PrayerMarch2020.com.

Dating back to 2016, I have been urging Christian conservatives and other people of conscience to distinguish between the important affirmation that black lives do matter and the BLM movement.

The statement that “black lives matter” should be shouted loudly and clearly, since through much of our history, black Americans have felt that their lives did not matter to white Americans.

As for the BLM movement, it should be exposed for what it is. As I tweeted on July 6:

Here’s what we know about the BLM movement, especially when we dig a little deeper into their “What We Believe” statement.

When you start to connect the dots, you’ll understand why I described BLM as “dangerous” and “anti-Christian.” In fact, at the end of this article, I’ll connect the BLM movement with the J word – as in Jezebel. (Do I have your attention?)

BLM was founded by three black women: Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi.

The first two identify as queer and the third as “a transnational feminist.”

Speaking of Cullors, a website celebrating “lesbians who tech” states that, “When Patrisse was 16-years-old she came out as queer and moved out of her home in the Valley.”

The official BLM site describes Garza as a “queer Black woman” who states that “we must view this epidemic through a lens of race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

That’s why a June 21, 2020 article on ABC news declared that, “From the start, the founders of Black Lives Matter have always put LGBTQ voices at the center of the conversation. The movement was founded by three Black women, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, two of whom identify as queer.”

On a certain level, reading through the official BLM statement, being queer is as much of an issue for the movement as being black.

Accordingly, there are multiple references to “trans,” as highlighted here: “We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.

“We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.”

Even more forthrightly, the statement reads, “We foster a queer-affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).”

Thus, the only references to heterosexuality are negative, as in “cisgender privilege” and “heteronormative thinking,” meaning the assumption that heterosexuality is the norm.

So, BLM is not just fighting against white privilege but also heterosexual privilege. Make no mistake about it.

That’s why the statement also goes out of its way to include people of “actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression.” The leaders have made themselves abundantly clear.

But there’s more, and this has often been missed in commentary on BLM beliefs.

While there are references to “mothers” and “parents” in their statement, there is not one single reference to fathers. Not one. (Contrast this with the multiple references to queer and trans and gender identity, etc).

As for mention of “men” or the idea of a male-led household, these are only found in totally negative contexts.

Specifically, “We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered” (my emphasis). Oh, those terrible, evil men.

And this: “We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work ‘double shifts’ so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work” (again, my emphasis).

Yes, that oppressive, husband-wife, male-female union, that outdated, outmoded patriarchal dinosaur. It must be dismantled. (And note the assumption that if something is “patriarchal” it is unfair to women. A truly fair relationship would have the husband home with the kids while the wife is out doing “public justice work”).

This is the language of radical feminism in unabashed, undisguised form. This too is part of the queer, trans-affirming spirit.

As for the third founder, Opal Tometi, she is also described as “a student of liberation theology.” And there is now the widely circulated quote from Cullors that she and Garza “are trained Marxists.”

As for the connection between liberation theology and Marxism, especially in this context, Prof. Anthony Bradley, himself black, has pointed out that, “Black Liberation Is Marxist Liberation.”

So, without question, the official BLM movement is Marxist-based, queer-affirming, trans-activist, traditional-marriage degrading, radical-feminist promoting and more. In a certain sense, it is fatherless as well.

That’s why I said that “the BLM organization is dangerous, anti-Christian, and should be avoided.”

Now, let’s also remember that Cullors is on record saying that their goal is to remove Trump from office: “Trump not only needs to not be in office in November, but he should resign now. Trump needs to be out of office. He is not fit for office. And so, what we are going to push for is a move to get Trump out.”

And this leads me to one last important point. When you connect all the dots, the spirit of the official BLM movement is downright Jezebelic, thus in direct conflict with the Alpha Male Trump.

This article originally posted at Townhall.com

In June Medical Services v. Russo, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts again disappoints conservatives. Roberts voted with the politically “progressive”/morally regressive majority to strike down a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have hospital privileges within 30 miles of the slaughterhouses in which they kill tiny humans and occasionally end up killing or maiming their mothers. This law would have required abortuaries in which surgical procedures are performed to adhere to the same safety regulations as all other ambulatory surgical centers.

Ironically, in a similar case out of Texas similarly decided, Roberts dissented, siding with conservatives. In June Medical Services v. Russo, Roberts concluded that following precedent (i.e., stare decisis) rather than sound reasoning is the absolute highest priority of any Justice. Good thing Roberts wasn’t sitting on the Supreme Court when Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson or when Loving v. Virginia overturned Pace v. Alabama.

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas made clear that the abortionists pursuing this lawsuit lacked “standing”:

Their sole claim before this Court is that Louisiana’s law violates the purported substantive due process right of a woman to abort her unborn child. But they concede that this right does not belong to them, and they seek to vindicate no private rights of their own. Under a proper understanding of Article III, these plaintiffs lack standing to invoke our jurisdiction.

Despite the fact that we granted Louisiana’s petition specifically to address whether “abortion providers [can] be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients,” a majority of the Court all but ignores the question. The plurality and THE CHIEF JUSTICE ultimately cast aside this jurisdictional barrier to conclude that Louisiana’s law is unconstitutional under our precedents.

Attorneys represent litigants in lawsuits, and litigants must be able to claim that they are in some way harmed by a law. The purported harmful effect is what gives them “standing” to pursue a lawsuit. Since feticidal profiteers have trouble getting women to argue against abortionists having hospital privileges, this lawsuit was pursued by “third parties” who would be “harmed” monetarily by a law requiring abortionists to have hospital privileges.

The ability of abortionists to serve as third-party litigants was secured in the 1976 case Singleton v. Wulff in which two feticide providers sued for the right to have Medicaid reimburse them for killing humans in “not ‘medically indicated’” abortions. It was determined by the liberal court that the feticide providers had “standing” because, according to Justice Blackmun, “they will benefit by receiving payment for the abortions.”

“The point is, Ladies and Gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works,” says Gordon Gekko.

‘Twas ever thus.

Justice Thomas goes on to remind America of the fundamental truth that Supreme Court precedents defending abortion lack even “a shred of support from the Constitution’s text”:

Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled.

He’s far from alone in his assessment of the precedents as “grievously wrong.” Here are some assessments of Roe v. Wade from liberals:

• “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” (Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor).

• “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose” (Edward Lazarus, former clerk to SCOTUS Justice Harry Blackmun).

• “[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum—will tell you it is basically indefensible” (Edward Lazarus).

• “Blackmun’s [U.S. Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference” (William Saletan, Slate magazine writer).

• Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be…. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the U.S. Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure.” (John Hart Ely, clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren).

• “[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision—the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution—strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy. … “[Roe] is a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument. … Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument—but a bit of our soul as well” (Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist).

• “Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy) …. [C]lear governing constitutional principles… are not present” (Alan Dershowitz, former Harvard Law School professor).

• “In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roe on constitutional grounds. … Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself. As a result, the pro-choice majority asks nominees to swear allegiance to the decision without being able to identify an intelligible principle to support it” (Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School professor, former clerk to Judge Abner Mikva).

• “Liberal judicial activism peaked with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision…. Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching” (Michael Kinsley, attorney, political journalist).

• “[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor. … who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. … As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.” (Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Law School professor).

• “The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution” (Archibald Cox, JFK’s Solicitor General, former Harvard Law School professor).

The super creepy pro-feticide organization Personal PAC, whose sole reason for its creepy existence is to protect the legal right of women to have their own offspring offed, is expressing only tepid kudos for this decision. Their enthusiasm is tempered by their correct assumption that pro-life activism will not cease:

While the Supreme Court’s decision in June Medical Services was a temporary reprieve from the assault on reproductive rights. … [d]on’t be fooled. … The anti-choice extremists are emboldened by today’s decision and it is to our great peril if we think it portends anything other than a reprieve by the Court Trump promised would end Roe.

“Choice” is an obvious and deceitful euphemism that is not up to the task for which it was created: it can’t conceal the truth about the unseemly nature of the choice leftists want women to have.

There exists no absolute or constitutional right “to choose.” Leftists exploit the word “choose” or “choice” because of its positive connotations. They exploit it because of the fondness everyone has for making choices in life. But not even leftists believe that a free-floating right “to choose” exists. There are a host of choices they want to proscribe:

• Leftists don’t believe parents should have school choice.

• Leftists don’t believe parents should have the right to choose whether their minor gender dysphoric children are chemically sterilized or surgically mutilated.

• Leftists don’t believe parents should have the right to choose the type of sex education their children should receive.

• Leftists don’t believe minors who experience unchosen, unwanted homoerotic feelings should have counseling choice.

• Leftists don’t believe employers should have the right to choose whether to hire or fire cross-dressing men.

• Leftists don’t believe anyone should have the right to refer to cross-dressing men by male pronouns.

• Leftists don’t believe women have the right to choose to exclude all biological men from their private spaces or sports.

• Leftists—well, most leftists–don’t believe minors should have the right to choose to have sex with adults.

So many choices of which tyrannical leftists want to deprive Americans. Well, many Americans don’t believe women have a moral or constitutional right to order the killing of imperfect or inconvenient humans.

Feminist and family abolitionist Sophie Lewis cheerfully admits,

Abortion is … a form of killing. It’s a form of killing that we need to be able to defend. I am not interested in where a human life starts to exist.

Because science confirms that the product of conception between two humans is a human, abortion inarguably kills humans. At no point in the gestational process is the product of conception anything other than human. Since abortion kills humans, legalized human slaughter will never cease to divide America.

Anything that gnaws around the edges of the child-killing cultural tumor that we refer to as Roe v. Wade is a good thing. Chief Justice Roberts didn’t help babies, women, or America.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/mp3-Chief-Justice-Roberts-Votes-with-Liberals-Against-Tiny-Humans-and-Women-_audio_01.mp3

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

Written by Rhonda Graff

There is another important U.S. Senate Bill that needs your attention. This proposal ( S. 3398) is sponsored by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and is supported by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE). Introduced on March 5th, it is now pending before the Judiciary Committee, and expected to be “marked up” by the Committee on Thursday, July 2.

The Earn It Act  (Eliminating Abusive & Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act) makes the Internet’s immunity from liability to be considered “CONDITIONAL” on complying with best business practices to:

a) Prevent online sexual exploitation including enticement, recruiting, grooming, and sex trafficking; and

b) Prevent and reduce the proliferation of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

This bill revises the framework governing the prevention of online sexual exploitation of children.

The Earn It Act creates a new National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention, charged with enforcing accountability on interactive digital platforms. This will be flexible in the face of fast-changing technology and online risks that often emerge overnight… a reality no legislative body is nimble enough to track or oversee.

The Earn It Act directs the commission to develop best practices for interactive online service providers (i.e. Facebook and Twitter) to prevent the online sexual exploitation of children. It requires online service providers to certify compliance with the best practices or else they lose liability protections from claims alleging violations of child sexual exploitation laws. Lastly, the Earn It Act replaces statutory references to child pornography with child sexual abuse material.

This legislation has bipartisan support, and is co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Joni Ernst (R-IA), John Kennedy (R-LA), Doug Jones (D-AL), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Over 75 credible organizations have endorsed it including NCOSE, the National Center for Missing and Exploited, Shared Hope International. But Big Tech lobbyists are working overtime to defeat it. 

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth to ask her to co-sponsor the Earn It Act. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin is already a co-sponsor.

Additional talking points in support of the Earn It Act can be found at this link.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

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

Conservative writer, podcaster, and attorney Ben Shapiro interviews Ryan T. Anderson, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and founder and editor of Public Discourse on the dire implications of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia that has roiled the political waters, including within the Republican Party. They discuss the likely affect of this decision on Title IX, speech mandates, businesses owned by people of faith, and more. To better understand the profoundly troubling nature of this decision, take 12 minutes to watch and listen to this important discussion.

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