1

Springfield Democrats Redefine “Infertility” in Law to Appease “LGB” Activists

Last Friday, I wrote about the pernicious bill passed by creepy Illinois Democrats that will require 5-11-year-olds to be taught positively about homosexuality, hormone-blockers for cross-sex impersonating children, masturbation, and “gender expansiveness” in public schools. Something tells me Illinois elementary school teachers were not polled on whether they want to teach such age-, developmentally, culturally, and morally inappropriate leftist beliefs. But Democrat lawmakers—being intolerant, exclusionary, and presumptuous—don’t care what parents or teachers think, so, not surprising.

On Tuesday, I wrote about the Tampons for Boys bill just passed by those same creepy Illinois Democrats, which requires all boys’ bathrooms in all Illinois public schools to provide “free” tampons and sanitary napkins at great taxpayer expense.

But Illinois Democrats were not yet done brown-nosing the “LGBTQ” communities.

On May 27, 2021, they passed the Babies for Everyone bill. Passing that bill required redefining—er, I mean, “expanding”—the definition of yet another word. This time “infertility” has been “expanded” to include non-infertile conditions in order to force insurance companies in Illinois to pay for medical procedures that will enable single people and people in intrinsically non-reproductive, homoerotic relationships to procure biologically related children.

Infertility was formerly defined in Illinois law as “a disease, condition, or status characterized by inability to conceive after one year of unprotected sexual intercourse, the inability to conceive after one year of attempts to produce conception, the inability to conceive after an individual is diagnosed with a condition affecting fertility, or the inability to sustain a successful pregnancy.”

But that was then, and this is now. Those words were stricken from HB 3709, and now “infertility” includes “a person’s inability to reproduce either as a single individual or with a partner without medical intervention.” In plain English, single persons and homosexual couples are deemed “infertile.”

Single women and single men who have no sexual partners are not by the mere fact of the absence of partners “infertile.” Men and women who choose to be in homoerotic relationships that are naturally and by design non-reproductive are also not “infertile.” At least they’re not infertile in the world of rationality and science. But Illinois Democrats inhabit a world of irrationality and anti-science where wishes are horses, beggars ride, and sexual anarchy reigns supreme.

As of May 27, this bill has passed both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly and is winging its way through Illinois’ morally polluted air to Governor J.B. Pritzker’s desk, which is now buried under a mountain of trash.

Illinoisans better believe these costs will be passed on from insurance companies to We the People.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Springfield-Democrats-Redefine-Infertility.mp3





Tampons for Boys: IL Dems Pay Tribute to the “Trans” Community on Memorial Day

While patriots around the country spent the weekend paying tribute to soldiers who died to preserve our God-given liberties, Illinois Democrats took advantage of the holiday to ruin Illinois further by paying tribute to “trans”-cultists. Democrat lawmakers hoped Illinoisans would be too busy honoring our servicemen and women to notice the repugnant legislation they were passing.

“Tampons for Boys” bill

On May 20, 2021, the Illinois House passed an amendment to the school code, and then on May 31 when few Illinoisans were paying attention, the Illinois Senate passed it as well. This amendment (HB 156) expands the availability of free (taxpayer-funded) feminine hygiene products from all girls’ bathrooms in public schools to all boys’ bathrooms. It replaces all occurrences in existing school code of the word “feminine,” as in “feminine hygiene products” with the word “menstrual.” Now the bill goes to Governor J.B. Pritzker who can be counted on to sign every piece of garbage legislation that morally corrupt Democrat lawmakers send his way.

The “Tampons for Boys” bill requires every restroom in public schools that serve grades 4-12 to make available feminine hygiene products for free in all boys’ bathrooms. Remember, grades 4 and 5 are in elementary schools, so boys in grades K-3 will also be exposed to tampons and sanitary pads in their bathrooms. Such exposure will reinforce the leftist gender theory (i.e., “trans”-cultism) that Democrats just passed a bill requiring to be taught in elementary schools.

In a couple of hilarious exchanges between the science-denying chief senate sponsor of the “Tampons for Boys” bill, State Senator Karina Villa (D-West Chicago), and Republicans who asked why boys’ bathrooms need to be equipped with free tampons, Villa robotically replied multiple times “for emergencies.”

These tenacious Republicans persevered and finally with an assist from State Senator Celina Villanueva (D-Summit), the two of them came up with one implausible emergency scenario that—they believe—justifies spending thousands and thousands of dollars to make feminine hygiene products available in every boys’ bathroom in every public elementary, middle, and high school in Illinois.

Here’s what the two pudd’nheads came up with: One day, there may be a female athlete who is participating in a competition held at another school at which the visiting girls’ team has to use a boys’ locker room. This girl may suddenly begin menstruating and, therefore, would need tampons available in the boys’ locker room.

Yep, they actually said that on the Senate floor.

No one bothered to ask whether it’s likely that no teammates would have any tampons or why a girl in this predicament couldn’t dash momentarily into the girls’ locker room or into a nearby girls’ restroom to obtain the necessary feminine hygiene product.

But, of course, everyone knew what this bill is really about, and it’s not about unlikely menstrual crises in boys’ locker rooms during athletic competitions. It’s really about expensive genuflecting to the “trans” cult, and finally the truth came out. Villa fessed up:

According to the American Journal of Medicine, 41% of folks who are transgender, have thought or attempted suicide. I don’t want to keep speaking around the subjects that you all are wanting me to talk about, because it wouldn’t be fair. It wouldn’t be fair to the kids that I’m standing here to help normalize life for. … they should be able to go in the bathroom, and get the product. That’s it.”

Illinois Democrats are forcing all Illinoisans to pay to retrofit every boys’ bathroom in every public school in order for menstruating, cross-dressing girls who don’t belong in boys’ bathrooms to be fortified in their delusion. And Villa is forcing this public expenditure in order to “normalize” disordered thinking and unethical practices.

It was not just women who made foolish statements, though. State Senator Christopher Belt (D-East St. Louis) made one of the most head-scratching comments:

[I]t doesn’t emasculate a man to know … a sanitary napkin dispenser is in a bathroom. … God forbid, we go to Walmart or Target and push down an aisle of sanitary napkins with our five-year-old son and expose them to all of the things that we’re dying about and having a fit about on this floor.

Say, whaaat? Who said anything about tampons in boys’ bathrooms emasculating men? And who opposes boys seeing feminine hygiene products in stores? The problems are that boys don’t need tampons, and schools shouldn’t be affirming anti-science, socially constructed, “trans”-cultic beliefs through expensive, taxpayer-funded practices imposed by leftist lawmakers.

It’s not just curricula that teach. Policies and practices teach as well. Leftists know that. Get your kids out of government mal-education camps yesterday.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Gov. Pritzker’s administrative staff to urge him to VETO the foolish, science-denying HB 156. Our public schools shouldn’t be affirming socially constructed beliefs through expensive, taxpayer-funded practices imposed by leftist lawmakers.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Tampons-for-Boys.mp3





Dumb Things Dems Said in Sex Ed Floor Debate

Don’t let the word “debate” in the term “floor debate” fool you. Floor debates in Springfield are no more debates than transwomen are women. There is no cross-examination or rebuttal, for which most of our lawmakers must be deeply thankful in that they couldn’t argue their way out of an imaginary paper bag—at least not using logic and evidence.

Floor debates in Springfield are occasions for bill sponsors and supporters—almost always Democrats—to pontificate and for opponents to try to point out flaws that are promptly ignored by Democrats no matter how reasonable and justified. A floor debate in Springfield for Democrat-sponsored bills is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing but more government restriction of liberty, more government spending, and more moral chaos.

For an example, let’s look briefly at last Friday’s floor debate preceding the vote in the Illinois House on the pernicious sex ed bill that now awaits Governor J.B. Pritzker’s signature. According to the bill’s chief sponsor, State Representative Camille Lilly (D-Chicago), the bill was socially constructed by three far left organizations—”Advocates for Youth, SIECUS and the Answer”—all of which are dedicated to normalizing abortion, early sexual experimentation, and sexual deviance. It is noteworthy that this bill is so perverse and troubling that even Illinois Democrats were barely able to scrape together the 60 votes needed to pass it.

Before looking at the “debate,” here’s a reminder of what lawmakers in Springfield think government employees should be exposing other people’s children to.

If signed into law, this bill will require all personal health and safety lessons in Illinois public schools—including charter schools—to teach children in grades K-2 about unmarried moms and dads and families led by homosexual couples. These very young children will also be expected to define “gender identity’’—a euphemism for the disordered desire to be the opposite sex.

Government employees will demand that children ages 8-11 explain, describe, and define masturbation, homosexuality, bisexuality, cross-sex impersonation, the use of hormone blockers for children who pretend to be the sex they aren’t, and “gender expansiveness”—a socially constructed leftist term.

Then in grades 6-8, government employees will instruct other people’s children in the ways of oral and anal sex; the “methods of contraception that are available without a prescription”; the “many methods of short- and long-term contraception that are safe and effective and … how to access them”; and the meaning of intersex, queer, twospirit, asexual, and pansexual. And, of course, leftists have snuck in some critical race theory, so 11–14-year-olds will be taught as objective and true the socially constructed theory of “intersectionality.”

To ensure that religious Illinois school children graduate from high school ashamed of and detesting the faith of their mothers and fathers, government employees will teach them about the evils of what leftists call “homophobia” and “transphobia.” In the Upside Down where leftists live and move and have their being, the true belief that homosexual acts and cross-dressing undermine the image of God imprinted on all humans constitutes irrational hatred.

State Representative Avery Bourne (R-Raymond) was able to get Lilly to admit that this law—like the ever-shifting moral beliefs of leftists—is fluid. If the bill becomes law, it will forever be tied to the National Sex Education Standards which change as progressivism affirms additional forms of sexual perversion. Bourne’s question elicited this shocking confession from the hapless Lilly:

As the National Sex Education Standards are updated, the State Board of Education shall update these learning standards.

All the ideas related to sexuality just mentioned are socially constructed leftist terms embedded with leftist assumptions. All the terms tossed about with absolutist certainty by Democrats to justify the indoctrination of other people’s children, including “age-appropriate,” “developmentally appropriate,” and “culturally appropriate,” are defined by leftists using criteria established by leftists.

Virtually no theologically orthodox Christian believes it is “culturally appropriate” for their 5-8- year-olds to be taught anything about homosexuality or “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices. SB 818’s supporters like to emphasize the sop they’re tossing to conservatives: Any parent may opt their child out of perversion-positive training.

Doesn’t sound very inclusive to me. In addition, conservatives still have to pay for perversion-positive “personal health and safety” training.

Curiously, in the floor “debate,” the issue of moral development never arose. It’s clear that moral assumptions/conclusions are embedded in the National Sex Education Standards with which this law requires all health and safety curricula selected by schools to align. How do I know that moral conclusions are embedded in these standards?

I know because these “standards” do not require schools to teach about, for example, polyamory, zoophilia, or infantilism—all forms of “identity” for some people. Even though these are forms of identity, Springfield Democrats don’t—yet –require that Illinois schools affirm them. The reason is that not enough Democrats—yet—believe these forms of identity are moral. Currently, Democrats believe homosexual and cross-sex identities should be normalized via taxpayer-funded schools because Democrats have concluded they are morally acceptable.

Remember what this bill requires as I quote some of the dumb things Democrats said about it in their fatuous floor speechifying, starting with the foolish sponsor of the bill, Camille Lilly:

Under SB818 … the materials and instruction must be age and developmentally appropriate, medically accurate, correct, complete, culturally appropriate, inclusive. … SB818 is not a mandate. Under SB818 parents, guardians and others will still be able to review the materials used by schools. Parents are still able to opt out, and local control applies to the selection of courses and materials and the curriculum. In addition to reducing stigma, SB818 would result in creating and the creation of learning standards that reflect the diversity of all students here in the state of Illinois.

Some brief thoughts about Lilly’s claims:

  • SB 818 is not age-, developmentally, or culturally appropriate. The claims by leftist sexperts do not change reality.
  • If by “correct” Lilly means “conforming to truth” or “proper,” she is incorrect.
  • Clearly, materials and instruction will not be “complete” because the NSES do not include any information about polyamory, zoophilia, infantilism, sadomasochism, or any other paraphilias. I wonder if Camille Lilly et al. hate polyamorists, zoophiles, infantilists, and sadomasochists.
  • SB 818 is a mandate in that no school may teach anything on personal health and safety in grades K-5 unless the materials they choose align with the age-, developmentally, culturally, and morally inappropriate leftist National Sex Education Standards.
  • Lilly should explain which stigmas she seeks to reduce because this bill stigmatizes the moral views of many Illinoisans.

State Representative Delia Ramirez (D-Chicago) asked Lilly if it were true that the Illinois State Board of Education and the Illinois Association of School Boards are “neutral on the bill,” to which Lilly responded “Yes.” Then in an amusing and obvious manipulation of rhetoric, Ramirez changed the word “neutral,” saying, “So, educators don’t oppose the bill.” Well, it’s equally correct to say, “So, educators don’t support the bill.”

It would be interesting to poll anonymously all K-5 teachers in the state, asking if they are in favor of being required to teach about homosexuality, bisexuality, co-habitation, masturbation, cross-sex impersonation, hormone-blockers, and gender expansiveness in personal health and safety lessons.

And we should ask if they think there should be a law prohibiting all teaching on personal health and safety unless it includes those topics. No discussions of healthy eating permitted unless they’re accompanied by affirming discussions of cross-dressing, hormone-blocking, and self-pleasuring.

State Representative Maurice West (D-Rockford) apparently derives his hearty support for requiring public school teachers to instruct 5-year-olds in the intricacies of masturbation and 11-year-olds about anal sex from TLC’s programs about hoarders and obese people:

We view television shows on TLC like Hoarders, My 600-Pound Life, just for example, where they often recall their childhood experience with shame, emptiness, guilt, confusion from their dealings with that word: sex. This legislation’s primary focus is not about the birds and the bees. It’s about equipping our children with age-appropriate conversations about how they can be empowered within themselves.

Well, West is right on one thing: This bill is definitely not about the birds and the bees.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s not the job of education majors to sexually “empower” other people’s children with the pagan sexual beliefs of regressives.

Two questions for West and all leftists:

1.) Since when did it become the task, pedagogical obligation, or right of public school teachers to solve all societal ills?

2.) Are there any pedagogical, ethical, moral, emotional, or psychological problems potentially created by introducing sexual imagery, ideas, and beliefs to other people’s children who have never been abused or shamed and whose parents have successfully protected them from ideas they—the parents—believe are age-, developmentally, culturally, and morally inappropriate?

In case parents don’t yet realize it, this newest bill is centrally about normalizing homosexuality and “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices. In yet another statement made with a voice quivering with faux-emotion, lesbian activist with a burnt soul, State Representative Kelly Cassidy, made that clear:

For far too long, LGBTQ youth were either invisible or expressly stigmatized. And I remember that. It burned into my soul. …  I remember that. … And as a kid who didn’t understand why I didn’t fit in, who couldn’t define why I felt different, and whose parents were not an option to go to, I wish I had had a teacher I could turn to. I wish I had had a curriculum that didn’t call me unnatural.

The presumptuous Cassidy demands that public schools affirm her arguable belief that homosexuality is natural, and if parents disagree, Cassidy wants the state to come in between them and their children.

State Representative Ann Williams (D-Chicago) made this boneheaded statement:

[I]t’s hard to imagine why anyone would think our children should not learn about sex education in school, but rather should refer to the internet or Google to determine what sex is or what their questions are and get them answered there. Right now, if you Google any of these terms related to sex education, you’re going to get a lot more explicit information than anything would be provided in a curriculum.

Phew. I guess Illinois parents should thank Democrats. At least curricula aligned with leftist standards won’t be as bad as what kids can find on the Internet.

It’s unfortunate that Williams suffers from such a dearth of imagination. It’s true, many people don’t think children should learn about sex in public schools. Here’s something else that may surprise the unimaginative Williams. Many people don’t think children should be learning about sex in co-ed classes in public schools. They believe that talking about menstruation and nocturnal emissions in co-ed classes can be embarrassing, inhibit discussions, and undermine the virtue of modesty.

Poor Williams suffers too from an inability to reason logically. Suggesting that there exists only the choice between public schools and the Internet is a classic example of the fallacy of the false dilemma. In addition to leftist-controlled public schools and the Internet, there are parents, grandparents, churches, libraries, and bookstores that can and do educate children on sex. It is not the business of the government to step in and expose all children to assumption-riddled claims about sexuality because some parents are derelict in their responsibilities.

Here’s a modest proposal: Rather than devouring the hearts and minds of other people’s little ones, how about schools offer two classes in personal health and safety—a perversion-positive class and a truly age-appropriate class. The class descriptions should include all materials used, the name of all organizations that constructed the materials, all the standards employed by those organizations, and all the criteria used to determine what constitutes age-, developmental, and cultural appropriateness. Let parents opt-in to whichever class they want or none at all. And allow teachers to choose which class they want to teach. With their deep commitments to diversity, inclusivity, cultural sensitivity, and choice, leftists should love this modest proposal.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Gov. Pritzker’s administrative staff to urge him to VETO SB 818 as a terrible overreach of government. Impressionable students in public schools should not be exposed to body- and soul-destroying messages that promote leftist beliefs about sexuality.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Dumb-Things-Dems-Said-in-Sex-Ed-Floor-Debate.mp3





Are ALL “Gender Stereotypes” Bad?

The homosexual, flamboyantly faux-feminine, HIV-positive actor Billy Porter, known for his farcical, LOOK-AT-ME female gowns, will play Cinderella’s fairy godmother called Fab G in the upcoming live action movie to be released exclusively on Jeff Bezos’ Amazon Prime Video.

The movie’s writer claims Fab G “transcends mundane human labels,” and, in what passes for profound in Hollywood, Porter proclaims “magic has no gender.” Maybe “magic” has no gender, but humans have a sex. Sexed humans are designed by God for purposes. And families and societies have critical roles in recognizing, affirming, and reinforcing sexual differentiation through “gender stereotypes,” more accurately called sex-based conventions. Sex-based conventions are good and important phenomena that Hollywood, feminists, homosexuals, drag queens, and the “trans”-cult—all of which are spiritually lost—view as evil.

I am a member of a private, non-partisan Facebook group with people of diverse views on many issues but united in our opposition to “invasive, harmful, unproven medical interventions for gender-confused children.” This group includes radical feminists, lesbians, and theologically orthodox Christians. Members are prohibited from expressing either religious or anti-religious views, but there is not a similar prohibition on what may be expressed regarding sex-based societal conventions. What has developed is that feminists and lesbians post a fair number of harsh critiques of “gender stereotypes,” but dissenting views—for example, the view that sex-based conventions, particularly regarding dress, can serve important, good, and necessary functions—are largely absent and would be vociferously condemned by feminists and lesbians.

The patent hostility to sex-based conventions from feminists and lesbians is not a view I share. Nor are their beliefs about sex-based conventions anything other than a set of socially constructed assumptions. Feminists and lesbians who feel antipathy for all sex-based conventions promote one set of assumptions while rarely if ever acknowledging that their beliefs about such conventions are socially constructed and arguable.

While I agree society should not have overly restrictive (e.g., that women can’t or shouldn’t be pilots) or inappropriate sex-based conventions, I disagree that all social conventions that reflect and reinforce the good of sexual differentiation are harmful. Quite the contrary. It is a very good thing for societies to acknowledge and reinforce identity with one’s own objective, immutable sex via sex-based conventions.

All societies throughout history have had such conventions, particularly regarding dress. While the specifics of sex-based clothing styles look different in different parts of the world and throughout history, the existence of sex-based clothing styles is universal. Sex-based conventions, particularly in dress (and hairstyles), seem to emerge organically.

G.K. Chesterton warns that before we destroy something, we ought to know why it exists. I would argue that sex-based conventions do more than merely help us distinguish males from females. Rather, they reflect, affirm, and reinforce the good of sexual differentiation. Sex-based conventions help children develop a sense of true sexual identity through membership in a sex-based group.

I would argue that the eradication of all sex-based conventions and the concomitant erasure of all taboos against cross-sex-behavior—particularly regarding dress—harm society in multiple ways. Children become confused about their own nature (i.e., ontology) and purpose (i.e., teleology) as males and females. Foundational sexual and familial relationships become disordered. To use Freud’s term, “polymorphous perversity” supplants sexual morality. And the erasure of public recognition of sexual differentiation erodes privacy and safety.

Rebellion against sex-based clothing styles signifies rebellion against sexual differentiation. Erasure of the taboo against cross-dressing both reflects and reinforces rebellion against one’s sex and leads ineluctably to public affirmation of both homosexuality and “trans”-cultism.

While radical feminists argue that clothing styles are arbitrary, socially constructed, and contribute to the development of cross-sex identification, I would argue that the rejection of sex-based conventions is caused by the prior rejection of one’s sex. Boys and girls reject the styles associated with their sex because they reject their sex. Not the other way around.

In short, it is not good for society or boys for boys to wear tutus, pink lace panties, and lipstick. And it is not good for society or girls for girls to wear men’s swim trunks, boys’ briefs, and buzz cuts. And if swim trunks and boys’ briefs come to be accepted as neither a male nor female convention, women like Ellen Page won’t want to wear them. She wants to wear boys’ clothing because she has rejected her sex. In other words, she—like Bruce Jenner—loves sex-based conventions. She—like Jenner—rejects her sex.

“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Are-ALL-Gender-Stereotypes-Bad.mp3


Please consider supporting the good work of Illinois Family Institute.

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




The Sordid History and Deadly Consequences of ‘Sex Ed’ at School

This article was originally published in April 2020.

Very few people realize that the reason children today are being sexualized at school is because pedophiles sexually abused hundreds of children, then claimed that the victims enjoyed it. That’s a fact, and the documents prove it.

In government schools all across the United States today, young children are literally being encouraged to experiment with fornication, masturbation, sodomy, oral sex, and all manner of sexual activities. It often begins as early as kindergarten and elementary school.

In fact, what passes for contemporary “sex education” in the United States and around the Western world would have been unthinkable just a generation ago—even a few years ago. And believe it or not, it’s getting more and more radical by the day.

In California, a top school district official defended teaching pedophilia to children because it’s one of a number of “different types of sexual orientation” that “have existed in history.”

The consequences of all this sex-ed mania have been devastating, too.

But it wasn’t always this way. And the history of how the United States got here will blow your mind.

The proliferation of “sex education” in American government schools has its roots in the pseudo-scientific quackery of sexual revolutionary Alfred Kinsey.

Hundreds, maybe thousands, of children were allegedly raped, molested, and brutalized, and their experiences recorded under the guise of “science.”

Even before Kinsey unleashed his perversion on an unsuspecting American public, though, communist butchers had experimented with the use of so-called sex education to break down family, culture, traditional morality, and nations. It worked well.

Kinsey’s ‘Research’

Long before Kinsey came on the scene, sex educators say, there was a sort of sex education being taught in schools. But it wasn’t called that. And comparing it with what Kinsey and his fellow sex fiends and perverts would unleash on America would be like comparing alfalfa to meteors.

In the early to mid-1900s, sex education in the United States, often described as “hygiene,” consisted primarily of religious and moral teachings on the subject. The programs also warned children about the horrifying consequences of extramarital and premarital sex—venereal disease, mental scars, the moral and emotional problems, and so on. That was the norm for generations.

The relatively new idea that children must be taught graphic and obscene sex education only emerged seriously in the United States in the middle of the last century. It came from Kinsey, who was financed by the Rockefeller foundations and the American taxpayer.

In his “Kinsey Reports” published in the late 1940s and early 1950s, Kinsey dropped what was described as an “atom bomb” on American society. Widely viewed as perhaps the worst books to have ever been published in America, the “findings” would unleash a wave of perversion and a “sexual revolution” that continues to claim more victims with each day that passes.

One of the elements of his “sex research” involved pedophiles, who sexually abused children while gathering “scientific data,” experts have concluded. Kinsey’s own data show that potentially hundreds of children were raped or molested by one or more pedophiles using a stopwatch to figure out when the children might experience “orgasm.”

About 200 boys under the age of 12 were among the victims.

Table 34 in Kinsey’s report documents, for example, that one 4-year-old boy supposedly endured 26 alleged “orgasms” in a 24-hour period.

Even babies a few months old were repeatedly abused. One 11-month-old baby was reported to have had 14 “orgasms” in a period of 38 minutes, as documented by the child abuser himself and then afterward recorded as Kinsey’s data. Even a 4-month-old baby girl reportedly had an “orgasm.”

However, experts noted that it isn’t even physically possible for children so young to have an orgasm. Instead, Kinsey’s report reveals that one way the “subjects” defined an orgasm in their “partners” was marked by “violent convulsions of the whole body; heavy breathing, groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children).” Does that sound like an orgasm? Perhaps to a pedophile seeking to justify his monstrous crimes.

Experts such as Dr. Judith Reisman, the world’s top expert on Kinsey and the author of multiple books on his research, have pointed out that this would be the equivalent of claiming adult-female rape victims enjoyed being raped, as evidenced by their screaming, crying, and convulsing. And yet this is exactly what Kinsey did. And America, tragically misled by Kinsey and his media dupes, believed him. (Editor’s Note: Dr. Reisman passed away in April 2021.)

Why Americans should trust child molesters and rapists for insight into “child sexuality” has never been adequately explained by Kinsey or his disciples. As Reisman put it, why in the world would somebody ask a rapist whether his victim enjoyed it, and then present that to the world as “science” and “evidence” that children enjoy being molested?

“If he would do that to kids, how can you trust anything this psychopath would have to say?” she asked.

Kinsey’s so-called sex research has been widely debunked and ridiculed by other experts as well. Professor of constitutional law Dr. Charles Rice of Notre Dame University, for instance, denounced Kinsey’s work. “Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty,” he said.

Incredibly, Kinsey even claimed the children enjoyed this abuse, and that sex with adults—even incest—could be beneficial to them. Among other outrages, Kinsey, citing what critics have blasted as his “junk science,” also posited that children are actually “sexual beings” from birth. As such, they must be “educated” in every manner of sexual activity and perversion conceivable.

This radical idea is literally the foundation of all modern sex education today.

Using Pedophiles’ ‘Data’ to Sexualize Children

Based on his fraudulent findings that children experience orgasms from birth, Kinsey declared that children need early, explicit sex education throughout their school lives. He also claimed children should be taught masturbation, homosexual acts, and heterosexual acts. He even claimed sexual abuse of children didn’t produce serious damage to children, which is self-evidently ludicrous.

According to Reisman, Kinsey’s claims and pseudo-science have produced unprecedented levels of child sexual abuse, pedophilia, sexual torture, and more. Laws were changed and repealed based on Kinsey’s fraudulent data, leaving women and children unprotected and sparking a deadly avalanche of sex education that may bury civilization beneath its icy embrace.

In the May 1954 edition of “Sexology,” a “sex science” magazine that styled itself as the “authoritative guide to sex education,” Kinsey is quoted making an astounding claim. After arguing that it was possible to sexually stimulate infants as young as 2 months or 3 months old, Kinsey claimed it was “clear” that “the earlier” children are started on “sex education,” the “more chance they will have” to supposedly “develop adjusted personalities and wholesome attitudes toward sexual behavior.”

By 1958, inner-city public schools serving primarily black children in the District of Columbia became testing grounds for the radical sexual reeducation envisioned by Kinsey and company. This included showing children “explicit” films that featured details of “barnyard animals mating,” “animated drawings of male ejaculation,” and even the use of a torso model with male and female genitalia.

Reisman writes that children as young as 3 years old were targeted for this sort of “education,” according to reports from the now-defunct Sunday Star newspaper.

The effects were predictable. Soaring rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, devastation of the family unit, skyrocketing numbers of fatherless homes, an explosion in venereal diseases, surging crime levels, massive increases in mental health problems, and more.

After those “successes,” the Kinsey-inspired sex education began spreading across the United States.

Many of the early sex-education curricula—often under misleading names such as “family life education,” as it was known in Virginia—openly cited Kinsey’s data as the source.

Pedophile advocacy groups such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) also have openly recognized the importance of Kinsey’s “research” to their cause.

Long after Kinsey died, his disciples continued to push the idea that these fraudulent findings by child rapists were foundational to the sexualizing of children in public schools. “The specific findings about these children are totally relevant to modern sex education,” former Kinsey Institute boss Dr. John Bancroft told CBS in a televised interview.

The institute had previously included responses to controversies by Bancroft on their website, which, while expressing concerns about the data, confirmed that Kinsey had obtained information on orgasm in children from men who “had been sexually involved with young boys and who had in the process observed their orgasms,” and one man in particular.

SIECUS Is Born

One of Kinsey’s first major speeches was about the supposed need for sexual education for children, explained Reisman, who has worked with the Department of Justice and now serves as a research professor of psychology at Liberty University. But Kinsey claimed only properly trained “experts” could do the teaching.

Thus, in 1964, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, now known just as SIECUS, was officially born. These operatives would be Kinsey’s specially trained “sex experts.”

Indeed, the formation of SIECUS was among the most crucial milestones on the road to the ubiquitous sexualizing of America’s children—and the destruction of their innocence and future families.

The organization, which received plenty of money from tax-exempt foundations and American taxpayers, was founded by Dr. Mary Calderone. The highly controversial figure had previously served as the medical director for Planned Parenthood.

In the late 1950s, Calderone went to the Kinsey Institute in Indiana. At a meeting, the group of radical sexual revolutionaries plotted how to advance their cause, and even assigned roles, Reisman told The Epoch Times during a series of interviews. It was decided that SIECUS would handle sex education, with multiple Kinsey Institute representatives serving on the board.

“SIECUS emerged out of the Kinsey Institute after this meeting, where they decided SIECUS should carry out the sex-education that Kinsey envisioned,” Reisman said. “SIECUS was really Kinsey’s arm—and the Kinsey Institute’s arm—into the schools.”

In 1979, despite receiving all sorts of government funding, Calderone compared the task ahead for SIECUS to the “spreading of a ‘new religion,’” according to Reisman. First, Calderone said, adults would have to be converted, so that children could eventually “flourish” and have an understanding that “sexuality” unrestrained by any moral standards was supposedly “healthy.”

SIECUS actually has been rather open about this. In the May–July 1982 SIECUS Report, on page 6, the outfit dropped a bombshell about its links with the Kinsey Institute:

“Few people realize that the great library collection of what is now known as the Kinsey Institute in Bloomington, Indiana was formed very specifically with one major field omitted: sex education,” the report stated, according to Reisman. “This was because it seemed appropriate, not only to the Institute but to its major funding source, the National Institute of Mental Health, to leave this area for SIECUS to fill.”

The report also revealed that SIECUS applied for a “highly important grant” from the taxpayer-funded National Institute of Mental Health that “was designed to implement a planned role for SIECUS.” This role, according to the same report, was to “become the primary data base for the education for sexuality.”

Today, SIECUS peddles its raunchy sex education all across the nation. For some perspective, the organization’s “National Sexuality Education Standards” call for starting the process in kindergarten, teaching children its values on homosexuality, genitalia, sexual activity, and more.

It brags about this, too. “SIECUS is not a single-issue organization because sex ed, as SIECUS envisions it, connects and addresses a variety of social issues,” the group says on its website. “Sex ed sits at the nexus of many social justice movements—from racial justice and LGBTQ rights to the #MeToo movement.”

The group’s new tagline reveals a great deal, too: “Sex Ed for Social Change.”

In addition to the nexus with the large foundations—and especially those tied to the Rockefeller dynasty—the humanist movement played a role in all this, too. In fact, so significant were the links that SIECUS boss Calderone became “Humanist of the Year” in 1974, continuing the long and well-documented humanist takeover of education in the United States that began with John Dewey, as covered in part 4 of this series.

Planned Parenthood, which today specializes in aborting children by the hundreds of thousands, also has played a key role in sexualizing American children with sex education.

More than a few critics have highlighted the conflict of interest here: On one hand, the tax-funded abortion giant encourages children to fornicate, while on the other, it charges big money to abort the children produced by those children fornicating.

Before Kinsey

Even before Kinsey, subversives had realized the potential horrors that sexualizing children and undermining sexual morés could wreak in society—and they loved it.

In 1919, German homosexual activist Magnus Hirschfeld created the Institute of Sex Research. Among its goals was the promotion of “free love,” masturbation, homosexuality, euthanasia, population control, abortion, feminism, and more. In the United States, this agenda was peddled as a way to fight back against the spread of sexually transmitted disease and poverty.

Communists also played a key role. Prior to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Russian communists vigorously promoted perverted sex education and “free love.” However, after realizing that society (and their regime) would collapse if it continued, that was stopped in 1924—at least in Russia, while the “New Soviet Man” was being created.

Outside of the enslaved communist nations, though, Marxists would continue promoting their radical sex revolution in free nations, something that continues to this day.

Bolshevik Deputy Commissar for Education and Culture Gyorgy Lukacs, who assumed his post in Hungary’s Bela Kun regime in 1918, pioneered this strategy in Hungary, with catastrophic results. Upon taking power, Lukacs and his comrades mandated raunchy sex education very similar to what is used today in the United States.

His goal was to obliterate Hungary’s Christian civilization and values on the road to a Marxist Utopia. His tools included mandating puppet shows featuring perverted sex acts to young school children, encouraging promiscuity in sex education, and mocking Christian-style family values at the bedrock of civilization.

While the Bela Kun regime in Hungary didn’t last long, Lukacs became a crucial player in the Frankfurt School, as exposed in part 6 of this series. This group also played a key role in spreading sex education and sexual immorality throughout the West. They did this not just by encouraging sex education, but by deliberately and strategically breaking down traditional values, especially those having to do with sexuality, marriage, monogamy, and family life.

By the early 1900s, the socialist-controlled National Education Association, which was the subject of part 8 in this series, began advocating for “sex hygiene” to be taught in schools as well. The excuse was combating venereal diseases, which of course in the real world have exploded in response to the promiscuity unleashed by widespread sexual liberation.

Another key figure in promoting the idea of sex education was G. Stanley Hall, the progressive who trained Dewey, the architect of today’s “progressive” indoctrination program masquerading as public education. Hall’s pretext for pushing sex education was that some girls believed they could get pregnant by kissing.

Changing Values

Ultimately, sex education was a means to an end: Changing the values of children and undermining the family in order to fundamentally transform society away from a free, Christian civilization and toward a new “Utopia.”

Indeed, in a 1979 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headlined “An Analysis of U.S. Sex Education Programs and Evaluation Methods,” researchers revealed that the “goals” of sex education in American schools had become “much more ambitious” than parents realized. Those goals included “the changing of … attitudes and behaviors,” something that the authors acknowledged wouldn’t be supported by many Americans.

Even before that, the United Nations and its U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which has been crucial in indoctrinating humanity as documented in part 9 of this series, got on board with the sex education, too. A report on the February 1964 UNESCO-sponsored International Symposium on Health Education, Sex Education and Education for Home and Family Living recommended “sex education [should] begin at the primary school level.”

The document also called for sex ed to be “integrated into the whole curriculum” and argued that “boys and girls should be taught together.” Taking a cue from Kinsey, the U.N., which has always been close to the Rockefeller dynasty that financed Kinsey, called for “anti-dogmatic methods of teaching” to be used, also claiming “moral norms are relative concepts which change with time.”

The “anti-dogmatic” teaching and the moral relativism would be crucial. Thus, all of the sex education has been combined with what is known as “values clarification,” a scheme that UNESCO—an outfit dominated by communists, socialists, and humanists from day one—has encouraged in education for decades.

This subversive process is aimed at having children reject moral absolutes—in sexuality and everything else—by using mental and emotional manipulation.

It works by giving children hypothetical situations in which the ethical solution appears to be doing something that they were taught was wrong. For instance, a common example involves a hypothetical life raft that can only hold eight people, but there are currently nine in it. The students are told who is in the boat—a doctor, an engineer, a nurse, a cop, and so on—then asked who should be sacrificed for the “greater good.”

A better answer than choosing a victim to murder would be for the passengers to take turns swimming alongside the raft, of course. But that would ruin the whole point of the exercise, which is to get children to reject the idea of right and wrong, as well as the teachings of their own parents and pastors.

Combined with the raunchy sex education that encourages an “anything goes” mentality and offers children tantalizing claims about “safe” pleasure with no moral standards and no consequences (babies can be aborted, after all), the result has been absolutely catastrophic.

The Effects

The fruit of all this radical sex education is now clear to see. The institutions of marriage and family are in free-fall. Half of marriages now end in divorce. And even the couples that stay together often struggle, big time.

Birth rates, meanwhile, have plummeted below replacement levels across the West.

Civilization is literally dying amid a cocktail of loveless sex, drug abuse, suicide, despair, venereal disease, pornography, and sexual chaos.

The effects on the individual are horrific, too. “Little brains are not designed to process sexual stimuli of any kind,” said Reisman, adding that sex education is confusing and creates anxiety for any normal child. Indeed, these stimuli rewire their brains to accommodate the “new” information, she said.

It also causes children to mimic the behaviors they are exposed to, leading to addiction to sexual stimuli.

“The addiction to sexual stimuli and acting out leads to depression, identity disorders of various kinds, STDs, mental health problems, emotional distress, anger, loss of academic achievement, and more,” said Reisman, one of the world’s leading academic experts in this field.

“In the past, shocking sex stimuli often confused many kids into assuming they were homosexual,” she added. “Now many youngsters will assume that they are transgender, especially as they are encouraged everywhere they turn, and often by their own very troubled parents.”

The data already show this, with a 2017 study from the University of California–Los Angeles finding that more than one-quarter of Californian children aged 12 through 17 identify as “gender non-conforming” or “androgynous.” In Sweden, where sex education is even more radical and ubiquitous than in the United States, reports indicate that the number of “transgender” children is doubling each year.

“Juvenile mental health as well as physical and sexual health have deteriorated in every measurement of well-being historically identified by our society,” Reisman said, adding that this downward trend continues.

Another expert who has explored the horrific consequences of sex education on children is the late psychoanalyst and medical doctor Dr. Melvin Anchell, who wrote the minority report for President Lyndon Johnson’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography and also served as an expert witness for the attorney general’s 1985 Commission on Pornography and Obscenity.

Among other concerns, he said these sexual indoctrination programs targeting young children cause “irreparable harm” to their victims that lasts their entire lives.

Anchell, who has a great deal of experience in the field of sex education, documented the damage done to children in books including “Killers of Children: A Psychoanalytic Look At Sex Education” and “What’s Wrong With Sex Education.”

Citing vast amounts of data and evidence, Anchell argued that sexualizing children causes unspeakable and often permanent harm, severely damaging the children’s future marriages, families, relationships, and lives. In some cases, it can even contribute to psychopathy, suicide, mass-murder, and more.

Unwed child-bearing also exploded right around the time sex-education schemes became ubiquitous in the 1960s. The evidence shows children growing up without a father on average do much worse on every metric than children in homes with a mother and a father.

In the black community, consider that only about 15 percent of children were born out of wedlock between 1940 and 1950. By 2008, after 60 years of sex education, almost 3 out of 4 black babies were born to unwed mothers.

Among whites, less than 5 percent of babies were born out of wedlock prior to 1960. By 2008, that exploded to about 30 percent.

Of course, comprehensive sex education is often marketed to the public as a tool for combating unwed teenage pregnancy and STDs. In fact, the data is clear: After the introduction of sex education, STDs and unwed teen pregnancies skyrocketed. Obviously, reducing STDs and unwed pregnancies was never the goal. If it had been, the experiment would have been stopped by the 1960s at the latest—not turbocharged.

Going Forward

Comprehensive sex education in the United States and around the world is becoming progressively more extreme, with tiny children now being exposed to obscenity, perversion, sexualization, LGBT propaganda, and more.

In 2018, UNESCO released “international technical guidance on sexuality education” urging schools to teach children about “sexual pleasure,” masturbation, and “responses to sexual stimulation” before they even turn 10. By 12, the standards call for children to be taught that “non-penetrative sexual behaviors” can be “pleasurable.”

If the epidemic of perversion, sexualization, and grooming of children isn’t brought under control, Reisman warned of “dark” consequences such as “cultural collapse.” Also, Americans can expect a continued crumbling of families, an explosion in crime, far more suicide, escalating government tyranny, even more drug abuse, widespread poverty, and much more.

“‘The Brave New World’ really was never brave,” Reisman said, a reference to Aldous Huxley’s famous book about a future of free sex and total government regimentation of every aspect of life. “We may find ourselves living it.”

Asked why governments and other powerful institutions seem so determined to sexualize children at younger and younger ages, Reisman said it was partly a matter of following the money. “Governments are backed by people and organizations with money, increasingly the pornography industry, pharmaceutical industry, and the Sex Industrial Complex,” she said.

“Big-government advocates nurse mind-numbed subjects to be dependent upon them,” she added. “If they get children early with sex training, the victim child will have limited critical thinking capability, little real education. Government will have willing subjects to regurgitate propagandistic barbarisms—like Social Justice Warriors, college kids/professors, repeatedly screaming the F word at anyone with another thought.”

Solutions

To deal with the existential crisis, Reisman had two main points: Remove children from public school, and open criminal investigations into Kinsey’s sex-education machine.

“Remove children from public schools; return to parents or grandparents the training of their children,” she said. “Parents are the primary educators of their children and need to reclaim that mantle and responsibility.”

Beyond that, she also called for restoring Judeo-Christian moral standards and repealing exemptions to obscenity laws that protect public-school officials who distribute obscene material to children—something that would be a felony in most circumstances.

On top of that, she called on lawmakers to resurrect H.R. 2749 to investigate the Kinsey Institute for any “past and present criminal activity.” The institute has argued that “patient confidentiality” precludes sharing the information, but Reisman and other advocates say it is essential that Americans learn the truth about what happened.

The sex-education craze unleashed by the communists, then given credibility by “Dr.” Kinsey, combined with the “progressive” government takeover of education, have brought family, civilization, and political liberty to the brink of collapse.

It’s time for Americans to seriously address these matters before it all comes crashing down.


The Illinois General Assembly is considering another “comprehensive” sex education bill (SB 818) that so-called “progressives” and their evil allies–Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and Equality Illinois–are using to indoctrinate children starting in kindergarten. This horrible bill passed earlier this month by a partisan vote of 37 to 18. It is now up for consideration in the Illinois House of Representatives.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to ask him/her to vote against SB 818. Impressionable students in public schools should not be exposed to body- and soul-destroying messages that promote leftist beliefs about sexuality.


This article was originally published by The Epoch Times, and is one report in a series of articles examining the origins of government education in the United States.




Cultural Collision: “Comprehensive” Sex Ed Passed in Illinois Senate

Our Springfield snollygosters are working tenaciously to provide Christian parents with a plethora of reasons to abandon government schools in Illinois. On Thursday afternoon (May 20th), the Illinois Senate took up and debated another “comprehensive” sex education bill (SB 818) that so-called “progressives” and their evil allies–Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and Equality Illinois–are using to indoctrinate children starting in kindergarten.

This bill to corrupt children with leftist humanistic values is sponsored by Illinois State Senator Ram Villivalam (D-Chicago) and passed by a partisan vote of 37 to 18 with four members not voting. It is now up for consideration in the Illinois House, where State Representative Camille Lilly (D-Chicago) is the chief sponsor.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to ask him/her to vote against SB 818. Impressionable students in public schools should not be exposed to body- and soul-destroying messages that promote leftist beliefs about sexuality.

Background

The Illinois Senate debated this controversial legislation for almost an hour on Thursday afternoon. You can watch/listen to the entire debate on the IFI YouTube channel or on our newer Rumble channel. You can also watch the embedded version at the end of this article.

It was encouraging to see five conservative senators rise to question the sponsor and/or criticize the bill. Kudos to Illinois State Senators Sue Rezin (R-Morris), Terri Bryant (R-Murphysboro), Darren Bailey (R-Louisville), Neil Anderson (R-Moline), and Jason Plummer (R-Vandalia) for boldly speaking against this terrible bill.

Regarding the hour-long debate, there are just too many fallacies, outright lies and corrupt intentions to address in one article. Here are just a few of the glaring problems.

State Senator Celina Villanueva (D-Summit), a former sex education teacher, rose to ask the sponsor, “What’s the main goal of this bill?” Senator Villivalam responded:

The main goal is to insure that our youth have the opportunity to be safe and healthy by obtaining and having access to age and developmentally appropriate, medically accurate information and making sure that no one, no one, feels excluded in their classroom. No one feels excluded in their community.

Well, the bill also demands that comprehensive sex education classes be “culturally” appropriate, which the bill defines as follows:

“Culturally appropriate” means affirming culturally diverse individuals, families, and communities in an inclusive, respectful, and effective manner, including materials and instruction that are inclusive of race, ethnicity, language, cultural background, immigration status, religion, disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and sexual behavior.

Culturally diverse and culturally appropriate? This Planned Parenthood legislation is neither inclusive nor respectful of orthodox Jewish, Christian or Muslim families. What families from these faith traditions deem to be “developmentally appropriate” is wildly different from what Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and Equality Illinois celebrate and promote. This point is further illuminated by the floor statement made by State Senator Patricia Van Pelt (D-Chicago):

In my history, before I came here, I was a preacher, and I preached on a regular basis. When I looked at bills like this it was really, really hard for me to get my hands around it, because it was so contrary to what we teach in church. But this is a law this is not a church. And we are representatives of the people in our district. We are not their preachers. We are not their pastors. We are not the ones that’s gonna make them keep the values right or their morals right. 

I learned by being here that many of the things that we held true in the church was actually hurting our community. And I think not having that knowledge not letting those children have the knowledge about what this is [is not good]

I’m standing in support of this bill as a new Patricia, not the Patricia that came in here. Because the Patricia that came in here would have had a hard time even voting for it, more less standing up and saying ‘yes, these children need to know what’s happening to them.’

State Senator Van Pelt has been in Springfield since 2013, and by her own testimony, it appears she has been thoroughly corrupted by the Springfield swamp. The “new Patricia,” must have a heart of stone because she has repeatedly ignored the Holy Spirit’s promptings to do what is right. The “new Patricia” no longer has a problem upholding sexually corrupt material being taught to children.

It was also disappointing  to hear State Senator Doris Turner (D-Carlinville) assert that “families come in very different sizes and boxes and no one has the right to define what a family is and what a family should consist of.” As with “marriage,” the God of creation ordained family. It is He who has the right to define what a family is and what it is not.

Senators Van Pelt, Turner and many of their colleagues think that “knowledge” will solve the problems caused by a sexualized culture. State Senator Linda Holmes (D-Aurora) even stated on the floor during debate:

I just don’t understand it, I think what we are doing when we are teaching–again, age-appropriate, medically accurate–sex education to our children, we are arming them with knowledge, and I don’t know when that has ever been a bad thing. 

Maybe Senator Holmes doesn’t remember, or maybe she was never taught the creation story. Genesis 2:15-17 tells us:

Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Knowledge of evil is not a good thing. It leads to death. Comprehensive sex education as proposed by Planned Parenthood, et al. is evil. Exposing young, innocent and impressionable students to Planned Parenthood’s  view of “age appropriate” material normalizes early and high-risk sexual experimentation.

Perhaps the clearest denunciation of this atrocious bill came from State Senator Darren Bailey who rightly said it will put “perversion into our schools.”

I sat here and I listen to this, and I participate in what I expect to be a prestigious body. And here we are dealing with absolute nonsense of putting perversion into our schools. Yeah, that’s what it is, it’s perversion.

Thank God we still have some state lawmakers in Springfield with the moral clarity and backbone to boldly tell the truth about this insidious agenda to undermine and subvert Judeo-Christian values.

You can watch/listen to the entire 57 minutes here:

More info:

The War on Children [VIDEO]

Stop CSE Tools & Resources

Sign the Online Petition

A Plea to Exit Public Schools ASAP


Please consider supporting the good work of Illinois Family Institute.

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





Privacy in Transtopia

Virtual ink has been saturating the Internet on the allegedly discriminatory laws pending or passed in many states that limit girls’ sports to girls or prevent the medical malpractice of mainlining cross-sex hormones into the healthy bodies of children in order to “treat” unhealthy, obsessive thoughts about their sex. Less has been written about legislation that would prohibit schools from forcing boys and girls to share locker rooms and bathrooms with opposite-sex peers.

For example, the Tennessee House and Senate recently passed a commonsense bill that will allow not only students but also staff and faculty to refuse to share multi-occupancy bathrooms and locker rooms as well as sleeping quarters during school-sponsored overnight events with persons of the opposite sex. The bill would also permit students, staff, or faculty to sue schools if they encounter opposite-sex persons in those private contexts. While schools will be required to make reasonable accommodations for students who pretend to be the sex they aren’t, those reasonable accommodations do not include the construction of new facilities. As of this writing, the bill awaits Governor Bill Lee’s signature.

Satan’s henchmen and henchwomyn at the Human Rights Campaign describe this bill and all other bills that oppose “trans”-orthodoxy and “trans”-praxis as “appalling,” “anti-equality,” “Slate of Hate” bills. The henchians don’t explain why it’s not appalling to force girls to undress in front of boys in girls’ locker rooms. Nor do they explain exactly how treating all biological males the same violates the principle of equality or how it constitutes hatred.

To rational people, treating some biological males as if they were biological females is the epitome of inequality. And to compassionate people, forcing girls to undress, go to the bathroom, or tend to menstrual needs in the presence or proximity of male peers is cruel.

Moreover, policies that abolish sex-segregation in private spaces teach all children that biological sex as manifest in sexed bodies has no intrinsic meaning and that to be compassionate and inclusive requires the suppression of all natural and good feelings of modesty. Such arguable ideological indoctrination falls far outside the purview, expertise, and moral rights of partisan educrats whose salaries are paid by all taxpayers.

“Progressives” in thrall to science-denying “trans”-cultism assert that private spaces in which humans undress or tend to intimate bodily functions should no longer correspond to objective, immutable biological sex. They argue that these spaces should correspond to “gender identity”—that is, to disordered feelings about maleness or femaleness. But in Transtopia, maleness and femaleness are untethered to anything objective, including to either of the two biological sexes that comprise the human species. In Transtopia, malenesss and femaleness are disembodied conceits.

How “trans”-cultists know their “gender identities” when maleness and femaleness have nothing to do with biological sex is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. But solving riddles tightly wrapped in mysteries, buried deep inside enigmas pose no obstacle to the construction of revolutionary laws and policies for delusional people wrapped inside artificially constructed skin costumes and buried inside incoherent dogma.

Cartesian “trans”-cultists overlook a host of enigmas as they seek incrementally to eradicate sex-based segregation. For example, why should private spaces correspond to “gender identity” rather than objective biological sex?

Or, if gender is the aggregate of socially constructed and imposed conventions associated with males or females, how can, for example, toy choices, hair fashions, and sartorial preferences—socially constructed and arbitrary as they are—point to anything “authentic” about one’s identity?

Or, if it’s not bigoted for “trans”-cultists to want to use private spaces with only those whose “gender identity” they share, why is it bigoted for reality-tethered persons to want to use private spaces with only those whose biological sex they share?

Or, how do men like “Caitlyn” Jenner know the “gender identities” of the men in men’s locker rooms or the women in women’s locker rooms? “Trans”-cultists claim that “gender identity” is wholly unrelated to biology, anatomy, clothing, behaviors, or interests, and that it’s impossible to know another person’s “gender identity” unless they declare it publicly, so why their obsession with which private spaces they use?

(“Buck Angel” before)

More than a few “trans”-cultists will point to women like porn star “Buck Angel” (formerly Susan Miller), who now identifies as a “man with a pu**y and looks indistinguishable from buffed up, steroid-doping real men. “Trans”-cultists ask what they view as the “gotcha” question: “So, would women be okay with Buck Angel using their locker room?”

This is, indeed, a thorny problem. No woman will want to share private spaces with Buck Angel wearing her elaborate chemically and surgically constructed flesh costume. Nor should any woman have to share private spaces with her. Conversely, no man should be deceived into undressing or going to the bathroom in front of a woman wearing a chemically and surgically constructed disguise. But this is a problem “trans”-cultists have created, and the consequences are theirs to bear.

If humans have an intrinsic right not to undress in the presence of persons of the opposite sex, then that right is not abrogated by “trans” deception. If Buck Angel had any integrity, she would honor the rights of others by using single-occupancy private spaces.

If, on the other hand, there exists no human right to be free of the presence of strangers and other unrelated persons of the opposite sex when undressing, going to the bathroom (or in the case of women and women only, tending to menstrual needs), then all sex-segregated private spaces should be abolished, which is the end goal of “trans”-cultists.

(“Buck Angel” after)

The “trans” cult is abusing anti-discrimination laws and policies to eradicate public recognition of sexual differentiation and sex-based rights, and people who know better have facilitated this work of the devil through their silence and cowardice.

If “discrimination” based on both sex and “gender identity” is legally prohibited, there remains no legal justification for maintaining any sex-segregated spaces anywhere for anyone. If no organization or facility is allowed to consider either sex or “gender identity” when designating private space usage, there remains no legal way to prevent any Tom, Dick, or Harry—whether they fancy themselves women or men—from accessing heretofore “women’s” spaces.

That, my friends, is Transtopia.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Privacy-in-Transtopia.mp3


A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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




Stop Lying to Us!

“Transgender” political conditioning has crept deep into the conservative tent. My hope is that conservatives will not only recognize this noxious trend but also push back against any supposedly “conservative” pundits and politicians who are unwittingly advancing this cultural rot.

A couple of weeks ago, “Caitlyn Jenner announced his intention to run for governor in California. Various establishment “news” outlets happily reported this development but, of course, intentionally used the wrong pronouns to identify Mr. Jenner in their stories. When Fox News, the supposedly “conservative” news channel of choice, started to use female pronouns in their broadcasts, I could take it no longer, so I found the online webform for feedback and sent the following message:

Please STOP lying to us about Caitlyn Jenner and his run for governor in California.

We know that he is a biological male, so why are you using deceitful language to affirm his gender dysphoria?

I hope you will respect your conservative audience enough to tell the truth and not capitulate to left-wing ideologues who demand politically correct pronoun use.

I CANNOT watch and listen to reports that repeatedly and intentionally lie to us.

Then on Wednesday, May 5th, Sean Hannity aired an exclusive interview with Jenner, who won an Olympic gold medal in the men’s decathlon in 1976, during which Hannity failed his conservative viewers by repeatedly referring to Jenner by female pronouns.

As the FNC segment opens, Hannity asks, “So just how will Caitlyn Jenner restore that California dream? And can she actually beat the state’s very powerful Democratic machine?” Hannity intentionally used the wrong pronoun for Jenner multiple times during this interview.

Ironically, last week when he was asked about transgenders participating in women’s sports, Jenner said “it was unfair,” and that he supports banning the practice. But when Hannity asked him about this commonsense position about biological boys not playing girls’ sports, Jenner started to backpedal and then suddenly switched topics.

Conditioning

The Left is working overtime to condition our thinking and speech. While the correct use of pronouns may seem a trivial  matter that many conservatives are willing to overlook, the fact that change agents are demanding compliance should tell us something. In fact, it should alarm us.

These seemingly small lies are being promoted through covert “narratives” such as Hannity’s interview, as well as overtly as in the case of the Shawnee State University professor, who was punished for using the correct pronoun when addressing a gender-confused student.

Cultural Marxists and their allies are working diligently to condition the American people to accept science-denying absurdities as truths one seemingly insignificant step at a time, just as they do with every other issue. If they desensitize us to accept lies on the small things, then it will be easier for them to get us to tolerate their moderate-to-large false narratives, also known as propaganda. The goal is to grow our already too big, centralized government, which will then wield more power and control over individual lives. Free and critical thinkers threaten this power structure.

It is sad to see Hannity and other “conservatives” capitulate to leftist demands. We must refuse to be conditioned by lies, no matter how small and innocuous they may seem. In fact, the book of wisdom exhorts us to “Buy the truth and do not sell it.” (Proverb 23:23).

Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness

Truth is vitally important, especially to serious Christians. In John 18:37, Jesus tells Pilate, “For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” In the Ten Commandments, God makes it very clear: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16).

What these cultural Marxists are doing is antithetical to what we are taught in Holy Scripture. The author of Psalm 119 states, “Therefore all Your precepts concerning all things I consider to be right; I hate every false way” (Psalm 119:128). And Solomon tells us that “If a ruler pays attention to lies, all his servants become wicked” (Proverbs 29:12-13). Lies are an egregious offense to a Holy God, and liars are destined to spend eternity in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8).

The Christian website Got Questions explains it this way:

False witness, or spreading a false report, is associated with being allied with the wicked (Exodus 23:1), willing to do violence to others (Psalm 27:12), and sowing discord among brothers (Proverbs 6:19). The Bible calls bearing false witness lying (Proverbs 14:5) and compares a man who bears false witness against his neighbor to a violent weapon (Proverbs 25:18). Lies harm people.

When we recall that Jesus clearly identifies Satan as “the father of lies,” we should quickly dust ourselves off and resolve not to put up with being lied to, whether by Sean Hannity, Fox News, or by a political candidate. Instead, we must expose lies and boldly declare the truth at every opportunity.

A trustworthy witness will not lie,
But a false witness declares lies.
~Proverbs 14:5

Take ACTION: Click HERE to access the Fox News Channel webform. Click the box and pick “Sound Off: Share your thoughts/opinions with us!” Ask them to stop lying to us by using incorrect pronouns. Do this at every opportunity you have to push back against the “woke” useful idiots who publicly use incorrect pronouns.

Prayer Request

Please pray for “Caitlyn” Jenner. Near the end of the interview, Jenner admits that he has been dealing with gender dysphoria for decades but then talks about a conversation he had with his pastor and expresses his desire to hear his creator God affirm his life, saying on the verge of tears, “I just hope He says, ‘hey, come on in.'”

We should pray that Jenner is honestly seeking the approval of God. If that is the case, we know that God has promised repeatedly in His Word that those who seek Him with all their heart, will find Him. More important, we know that sinners of every kind can be redeemed by God through the atoning sacrifice (1 John 2:2). A great example of this miraculous transformation is our friend Walt Heyer, who was a keynote speaker at our 2019 Worldview Conference. (You can watch his presentation HERE).

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-1, the Apostle Paul provides a list of those who were sinners but who have been washed, sanctified and then justified “in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” So please pray that Jenner would submit to God’s truth and accept His offer of salvation (John 3:16-21). What a wonderful testimony he would have if he were truly transformed by the Holy Spirit.

To God be the glory!

Learn more:

[VIDEO] Preferred Pronouns or Prison (Abigail Shrier)

[VIDEO] Mr. Rogers on Biology and Kids (The Tonight Show)

Questions for Sex-Eradicationists, Lawmakers, and School Leaders (Laurie Higgins)

Leftists See Orwell’s Novel 1984 As a Blueprint for Progress (Laurie Higgins)


A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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




Drag Queen Sunday at a Central Illinois Church

At first glance someone viewing Bloomington, Illinois’ Hope United Methodist Church’s Sunday morning worship service online might chuckle about the 1980s style “big hair” worn by the redheaded woman addressing viewers on April 11. But looks can be deceiving. That particular Sunday was Drag Queen Sunday, and the person speaking was Ms. “Penny Cost,” the drag alter ego of Isaac Simmons, Hope Church’s director of operations.

In the message, Simmons, as Ms. “Penny Cost”—a sacrilegious play on the word “Pentecost”—describes the service which followed Palm and Easter Sundays as, “Our way of celebrating and uplifting the voices of drag artistry within the church.” And this was not the first time Simmons has appeared as his drag persona before the church. Other videos of him speaking on various topics can be found by searching the church’s website.

Earlier this year Simmons was unanimously certified as a ministry candidate by the Illinois Great Rivers Conference’s Vermillion River District Committee on Ordained Ministry. He is the first openly gay candidate to be certified by the conference and the first known drag queen to be certified by the United Methodist Church. Simmons told Religion New Service (RNS), “It is mind-boggling simply that it’s 2021 and I’m the first, but also it’s incredibly humbling.”

In addition to his position at the church, Simmons is a student at Illinois Wesleyan University studying Business Management and Religious Studies.

In his daily podcast, The Briefing, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, commented on Simmons statement:

This man says that he is shocked, and of course that means offended and disappointed, that his particular move and the move of this Methodist group in certifying for ministry, an undeniably openly gay drag queen. The fact is what we’re looking at here is a revolt against the Christian tradition.

Mohler noted the growing division within the Methodist Church:

Just to state the obvious, you’re looking not only at two different positions, as we will understand, you’re looking at two different religions and those two different religions cannot possibly continue to exist in one church or in one denomination.

He continued,

And also understand this. Once conservatives are out of the picture in the United Methodist Church, this is only the start of where things will go in the future. And yes, right now, much of it is unimaginable, but it won’t stay unimaginable for long.

In the United Methodist Church General Conference, traditional and progressive churches are struggling for control of the global denomination. In the U.S. many of the clergy have given their support to LGBTQ causes while clergy in African churches continue to support conservative biblical theology. Churches on both sides have been leaving the denomination, while, a group of traditional leaning churches has discussed breaking away to form its own denomination.

Following biblical and traditional Christian theology, churches are to welcome all people including those in the LGBTQ community. However, they are not to affirm behavior that the Bible teaches is sinful. Hope Church not only welcomes those who identify as “LGBTQ” but also affirms sinful behaviors.

According to its website,

First and foremost: we at Hope UMC wish [to] vocalize the fact that all identities, orientations, and bodies are created in the image of the Divine. We are here to affirm, support, and empower you to live your true and authentic life. You are holy. You are loved. You are simply amazing!

The text goes on to indict other Christians and the church for following what the Bible teaches:

For decades, religion and faith has been utilized as a tool of oppression against LGBTQIA+ individuals. This is a vial and evil use of power that should be denounced by institutions of love and grace. We also recognize that the path of unpacking the past and rebuilding new understandings of faith is hard and tiring.

Commenting on the division, Mohler stated,

This is open revolt, and of course, you’re going to see a division between those who are appalled by it, deeply troubled by it, deeply concerned by it and opposed to it on the one hand, and those who celebrate it and say that it’s arrived far too late on the other hand.


A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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




Illinois Democrats Seek the Abolition of Sex-Segregated Bathrooms

The compulsory sexual integration of private spaces here in the Land of Degeneracy Lincoln continues apace, aided and abetted by rich men with perverse sexual fetishes, academicians with disordered sexual desires, and unprincipled, ignorant Democrat Lawmakers.

Two months ago, I first warned about a screwball amendment (HB 3195) to the “Equitable Restrooms Act,” which has now been passed by the muck-making bureaucracy we call the Illinois House of Representatives by a vote of 63-43 and is now being considered by the Illinois Senate. Here’s a section of that screwball, privacy-denying amendment:

The purpose of this Section is to promote the privacy, safety, and gender inclusivity of all Illinois residents and visitors. …

Any multiple-occupancy restroom may be converted into an all-gender multiple-occupancy restroom. If a multiple-occupancy restroom is to be converted into an all-gender multiple-occupancy restroom and a multiple-occupancy restroom serving a different gender is located adjacent or in proximity to the all-gender multiple-occupancy restroom, then both multiple-occupancy restrooms must be converted into all-gender multiple-occupancy restrooms. …

If an all-gender multiple-occupancy restroom is newly constructed, a newly constructed or previously existing restroom located adjacent or in proximity to the newly constructed all-gender multiple-occupancy restrooms must also be designated as an all-gender multiple-occupancy restroom. (emphasis added)

If passed, this wholly partisan amendment will mandate that if an existing single-sex multiple-occupancy bathroom is converted to a co-ed multiple occupancy bathroom, any nearby single-sex multiple-occupancy bathroom must be converted to a co-ed bathroom as well.

Further, if a new co-ed multiple-occupancy bathroom is constructed, any bathroom nearby must also be a co-ed bathroom.

How long before the conscience-deformed swampsters propose a bill requiring that all new and existing multiple-occupancy bathrooms must be co-ed? Incrementally, the left will ban all single-sex multiple-occupancy bathrooms (and locker rooms) in deference to their overlords: “trans”-cultists.

As I have said repeatedly (and with increasing frustration), the end game for the “trans”- cult is not unrestricted access to opposite-sex private spaces for a handful of delusional cross-sex impersonators. The end game is the eradication of all public recognition of sex differences, which means no private spaces for anyone. No private spaces for girls and women. No private spaces for boys and men.

“Trans”-cultists believe girls and women should have no single-sex multiple-occupancy bathrooms (or locker rooms) available to them anywhere. And “trans”-cultists believe boys and men should have no single-sex multiple-occupancy bathrooms (or locker rooms) available to them.

This proposed amendment makes the fatuous claim that its purpose is to promote the “privacy” and “safety” of girls and women. How exactly are the privacy and safety of girls and women who live in or visit Illinois promoted by allowing biological males into previously all-female bathrooms?

Cross-dressing men like “Martine” Rothblatt and “Jennifer” Pritzker use their wealth and political power to normalize their deviant sexual fetishes. Some may remember that the big burly RINO “Jennifer” Pritzker published an editorial threatening that if the GOP didn’t capitulate to his demands that the GOP affirm “trans”-cultism he would take his filthy lucre and stomp home in his man-sized stilettoes.

Both Pritzker and the eccentric Rothblatt—who has created his own religion which teaches that “death is optional,” as well as a creepy “humanoid robotic” bust of his actual wife programmed with hours of his wife’s “memories, feelings, and beliefs”—are pouring money into academia to promote their “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices.

Unfortunately, they’re not alone in using academia to promote “trans”-cultism. Just this week, the Chicago Tribune—almost always on the wrong side of history—had a splashy piece announcing the opening of the Chicago-based Center for Applied Transgender Studies, which “aims to combat misinformation and lack of trans-led research.”

By now, many Americans know what leftists mean when they refer to “misinformation.” They mean information they hate. And I think many Americans know by now what leftists mean when they refer to “trans”-led research. They don’t mean well-constructed, objective research. They mean research whose results are pre-ordained, including poorly constructed “social” science research.

The founder, TJ Billard, is a foolish assistant professor at Northwestern University—a man who self-identifies as a “non-binary” “scholar of political communication and media activism” who wants adults to refer to him by the pronouns “they/them.” #eyeroll.

The managing director of the Center for Applied Transgender Studies is also a sexually confused man who goes by Erique Zhang (formerly Eric Zhang), who also expects to be referred to by plural pronouns.

In an interview with the equally foolish Joan Esposito, Billard expressed his hope that the center, composed of him, his two co-founders, “17 senior research fellows and 10 junior fellows” would influence public policy, presumably including policies pertaining to the sexual integration of private spaces.

“Trans”-cultists seek to impose on the world their metaphysical claims and dubious psychological beliefs in the hope of having their feelings and fetishes treated as healthy, normal, and essential components of their “authentic identities.”

Central to their science-denying de facto Gnostic religion are two beliefs: 1. human spirits merely inhabit manipulable bodies, and 2. physical embodiment as male or female—i.e., biological sex—has no intrinsic meaning and, therefore, sex-segregated spaces in which humans undress, shower, and tend to intimate bodily functions are nonsensical or worse.

But society has no obligation to act as if the false ontological and moral assumptions of “trans”-cultists and their ideological allies are true. And, by the way, we don’t have to capitulate to their language commands.

Please, fight this destructive bill.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state senator to ask him/her to vote against HB 3195 and the foolish agenda that fails to recognize biological facts. Ask them to protect the privacy, dignity and safety of all Illinois citizens.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/IL-Dems-Seek-the-Abolition-of-Sex-Segregated-Bathrooms.mp3


A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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




A Plea to Exit Public Schools ASAP

While claiming they don’t believe homoerotic attraction is biologically determined, far too many conservatives act as if they do so believe. If conservatives really disbelieved the assertion by leftists that homoerotic attraction is biologically determined, they—that is, conservatives—would be far more vigorously opposed to their children being “educated” in public schools. If conservatives really believed that a child’s environment can contribute to the development of homoerotic attraction (and later to volitional homoerotic activity), then they would remove them immediately from any context that introduces them to positive ideas and images of homoeroticism, including especially public schools.

Here in Illinois, such propaganda starts in kindergarten and continues every year throughout elementary, middle, and high school. How do conservative parents think a 5-year-old will process the lies their teachers spread about homoeroticism, including through heartstrings-pulling tales about children with two mommies, or about allegedly homosexual penguins, or about “gay” children being bullied? Are conservative parents absolutely sure their young children won’t start wondering if the natural love they feel for their best same-sex buddies is a sign that they are “gay”? Ideas have consequences, folks.

Don’t be duped by the mockers who will claim it’s absurd to think ideas about homoeroticism can create feelings. Ideas absolutely can create feelings that then shape actions. By allowing young children to be exposed year after year to homosexuality-affirming ideas, parents are playing with fire—the fire of sexual desire ripped from its moral moorings.

In the book Male Colors: The Construction of Male Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan, Gary Leupp demonstrates the effect of culture in constructing homoerotic desire:

Nanshoku [male homoeroticism] … arose largely to compensate for men’s lack of female companionship, but at some point its culture came so to influence the structure of male desire that its vitality no longer required the absence of women. Indeed, it remained a vigorous tradition in Tokugawa [Tokugawa period: 1603-1868] cities even as the institution of the female courtesan throve. … The iro [sexual desire] of most Tokugawa men was bisexual.

This eros was specifically constructed to mirror the hierarchical relations specified in Confucian thought and in feudal society; males were socialized to desire to penetrate younger males and to be penetrated by older males.

Anyone who believes homoerotic desire cannot be constructed or created by culture is naïve or ignorant.

Homoerotic desire can be shaped not only by childhood sexual molestation, early exposure to pornography, peer ostracism, and familial dysfunction but also by cultural values that spread like disease contagions. In fact, there is a term for such a phenomenon: “social contagion” or “group contagion.”

“Social contagion” or “group contagion” is defined by the American Psychological Association as,

the spread of behaviors, attitudes, and affect through crowds and other types of social aggregates from one member to another. … [S]tudies suggest that social contagion is sustained by relatively mundane interpersonal processes, such as imitation, conformity, universality, and mimicry.

Social contagions include anorexia, bulimia, cutting, and even suicide. Homoeroticism and cross-sex identification (i.e., “transgenderism”) are the newest contagions to emerge in our deviant sex-saturated public square and infect our children.

There’s a reason the rates of homosexual, bisexual, and “trans”-identification are rising, and the reason is not that humans are biologically evolving or that these higher percentages always existed but were hidden due to cultural disapproval. The reason is that culture is constructing disordered sexuality.

In 2018, The Telegraph reported  that this social contagion had infected children in the United Kingdom, leading a member of Parliament to call for an investigation into the reasons for the shocking increase in children rejecting their biological sex:

An explosion in the number of children wanting to change sex has prompted an inquiry by ministers.

Penny Mordaunt, the Minister for Women and Equalities, wants to understand the reasons behind a 4,400 per cent increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment in the past decade.

Officials will look into the role of social media and the teaching of transgender issues in schools as part of their inquiries. …

In 2009/10 a total of 40 girls were referred by doctors for gender treatment. By 2017/18 that number had soared to 1,806. Referrals for boys have risen from 57 to 713 in the same period. …

Some educationalists have previously warned that the promotion of transgender issues in schools has “sown confusion” in children’s minds and that encouraging children to question gender has “become an industry”.

Dr Joanna Williams, author of the book Women vs Feminism, has said that schools are “encouraging even the youngest children to question whether they are really a boy or a girl”.

Just as in England, government schools in the United States play a significant role in sowing gender confusion.

The government schools Americans fund are an integral part of the metastasis of these social contagions. Schools are providing a distorted lens through which children are misinterpreting experiences, and this in turn can lead to the construction of disordered desires and “identities.” Socially distancing our children from those who would intentionally mainline contagions into them is the best way to protect them during their most vulnerable developmental years.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/A-Plea-to-Exit-Public-Schools-ASAP.mp3


Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  


Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!




Asa Hutchinson Sells Out Gender-Dysphoric Children

We learned this week that the love of money is the root of all evil. Well, we learned that in Scripture. This week purportedly conservative Christian governor of Arkansas Asa Hutchinson just reminded us of it when he sold out children to corporate interests.

For those still basking blithely in the afterglow of America’s once shining light or are socially distancing under a rock, the Arkansas legislature sent a bill to Hutchinson that would 1. prohibit doctors from the risky and experimental use of puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones—some of the effects of which are permanent—for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors, 2. prohibit surgeons from performing mutilating, irreversible cosmetic procedures on minors. and 3. prohibit the use of public funds, including Medicaid, for any of those barbaric, snake oil “treatments.”

The purportedly conservative, purportedly Christian Hutchinson vetoed this commonsense bill to protect children from procedures that are devastating young healthy bodies.

Hutchinson might reflect for a moment on who exactly is cheering his decision. Hint: It’s not conservatives. Oh, no, it’s the “trans”-cult; the “entertainment” industry; the medical industrial complex; the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party (i.e., CNN, NBC, MSNBC, NYTimes, and Washington Post); soulless corporate America; BLM; the ACLU; and the Human Rights Campaign.

Word to Hutchinson: If all the good guys are criticizing you and all the bad guys are cheering you, maybe you made a disastrous decision.

On Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program, Hutchinson defended his decision by appealing to conservative small government commitments—the last refuge of conservative scoundrels who want to embrace “progressive” positions on “social issues.” He also said, the bill “goes too far” because it would stop minors who are already being experimented on from continuing with dangerous “treatments” to conceal their biological sex.

Of course, small or limited government doesn’t mean no government. Nor does it mean abandoning children to the “trans”-cult and the godless profiteers who line their pockets with the lucre gained by chemically sterilizing children and lopping off parts of their sexual anatomy.

Many people, stunned by Hutchinson’s decision and not duped by his small government rationalization, look to corporate pressure as the real reason for Hutchinson’s alignment with the dark side.

In March Hutchinson appeared on another Fox News show and was asked about corporate “pushback” against legislation that promotes sexual sanity. Hutchinson responded,

We’re the home of some major global corporations here in Arkansas, they’re certainly worried about the image of our state.

Immediately after Hutchinson’s veto, left-leaning Tom Walton, whose family owns Walmart, issued this public pat-on-the-back to Hutchinson:

We are alarmed by the string of policy targeting LGBTQ people in Arkansas. This trend is harmful and sends the wrong message to those willing to invest in or visit our state. We support Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s recent veto of discriminatory policy and implore government, business and community leaders to consider the impact of existing and future policy that limits basic freedoms and does not promote inclusiveness in our communities and economy.

Our Founding Fathers would be surprised to learn that our “basic freedoms” include the freedom of children to stop puberty, take cross-sex hormones, and have healthy body parts cut off.

According to the Institute of Southern Studies,

Steuart Walton has been a generous donor to the Arkansas Republican Party as well as to Hutchinson’s campaign.

And Tucker Carlson reported that he “spoke with a source” who said that when the term-limited Hutchinson leaves office in 2022, “he would very much like a board seat” at Walmart.

There are some curious omissions in Hutchinson’s public statements on Fox News about the bill he vetoed.

For example, Hutchinson pointed to the depression and high rates of suicide among gender dysphoric minors. He implied that depression arises from gender dysphoria and can be alleviated by cross-sex hormone-doping. He didn’t seem to know that both depression and gender dysphoria could be symptoms of some other underlying problem. And he didn’t address studies showing that cross-sex hormone-doping can increase suicidal ideation or that suicidal ideation increases after “gender confirmation” butchery.

Hutchinson didn’t address the shocking increase in the number of adolescent girls now identifying as boys. Before the “trans”-cult stopped its slow titration of their ideological poison into the body politic, gender dysphoria affected a minuscule portion of the population and affected mostly boys, beginning between the ages of 3-5. Upwards of 80 percent of those boys eventually desisted from identifying as girls.

Now with the secular world promoting opposite-sex impersonation, particularly via social media, there is an explosion in the number of adolescent girls and young women suddenly identifying as male. As psychologists and sociologists know, girls are much more vulnerable to social contagions, like anorexia, bulimia, cutting, and now cross-sex identification.

Hutchinson didn’t mention the politicization of the professional medical and mental health communities. For example, while “trans”-cultists and their ideological allies like to tout the American Academy of Pediatrics’ endorsement of the medical “transing” of children, they don’t like to mention that the pro-“transing” policy was created and voted on by fewer than 50 members of the now-67,000-member academy.

Hutchinson didn’t mention the increasing number of young women who “detransition” and deeply regret having taken testosterone and/or having had their healthy breasts cut off. These young women with permanently male voices and scarred chests that will never nurse a baby feel betrayed by the medical and mental health communities.

Hutchinson didn’t talk about the health risks from the experimental use of puberty blockers and hormones never tested for long-term cross-sex use, risks that include infertility; liver dysfunction; coronary artery disease; cancer; strokes; osteoporosis; and the development of gallstones, blood clots, hypertension, and pituitary gland tumors.

Hutchinson never talked about the ethics of turning healthy children into lifelong medical patients (You know who likes that? Endocrinologists and pharmaceutical companies, that’s who).

Someone should ask Hutchinson whether his limited government principles would lead him to oppose bans on limb amputations for those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder—a condition in which the sufferer experiences a mismatch between his bodily wholeness and his internal sense of himself as an amputee.

And what about Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), which was banned by the Stop FGM Act of 2020 and signed into law by former President Donald Trump? Would small government Hutchinson oppose a ban on the excision of female genitalia from a 14-year-old girl who, for religious or cultural reasons, wants her genitalia mutilated?

While leftists, practiced at the art of deception and the skill of Newspeak, describe the slicing off of female genitalia as “mutilation,” they describe the slicing off of breasts as “gender affirmation care.”

Since girls as young as 13 are having double mastectomies, a 2015 article by Derrick Diaz and published in the DePaul University Journal of Healthcare Law about cosmetic surgery for minors may offer some helpful insights:

Minors should not have access to cosmetic surgery unless found by a court to be medically necessary. … [I]f medical necessity has not been shown, then the service should be prohibited the same as any regulated service or product prohibited to minors.

[A] medical necessity determination can be made through a four-pronged analysis. First, does the impairment hinder a minor’s normal physical function; and, is the proposed surgery intended to treat a present or future clinically verifiable disease, deformity, or injury? Second, is the physical anomaly (1) objectively tangible, and (2) unusual or relatively common? Third, what is the state of the minor applicant’s psychological health? Fourth, would a reasonable minor in the applicant’s position be hindered from normal functioning by the condition (e.g., avoiding normal childhood/adolescent activities)?

[R]egardless of whether continued [legislative] noninterference is sound policy generally speaking, it is absolutely not so with regard to minors, as states have statutory mandates to protect their health and welfare. When it comes to cosmetic surgery on minors, states must have an intervening hand in preventing the potentially harmful effects of caveat emptor.

“Trans”-cultists and their allies try to get around this position by arguing that amputating the healthy, natural breasts of gender-dysphoric minor girls is “medically necessary.” But it’s not, and leftists have no conclusive, researched-based proof that it is.

On March 30, just days before his surprising veto, Hutchinson met with two “trans”-cultists—both men who pretend to be women, including “Evelyn” Rios Stafford, a justice of the peace in Arkansas, who pleaded with Hutchinson to veto the bill.

Did Hutchinson talk to any parents of teen daughters who suddenly started identifying as boys?

Did he talk to any young “detransitioned” women who grieve over their damaged bodies and the betrayal of adults who didn’t stop them?

Did he talk to any of the members of the American College of Pediatricians who oppose experimentation on the healthy bodies of children?

Did he consult with Abigail Shrier, the Wall Street Journal writer who wrote the book Irreversible Damage about the harm being done to adolescent girls?

Has he read any of the articles by historically leftist Jennifer Bilek who has been exposing the “money behind the rapidly growing juggernaut of transgenderism in American culture and beyond,” which she argues, “all leads back to the pharmaceutical and tech giants that now interface with LGBT NGOs which are driving the normalization of a biology-denying ideology.”

There is some good news emerging from Arkansas. The Arkansas legislature overrode Hutchinson’s unconscionable veto.

If Hutchinson’s relationship with God and truth are his first priorities—which they should be—then he should publicly confess his sinful decision and repent. Something tells me, however, that confession and repentance aren’t on his agenda.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Gov. Hutchinson via his official webpage. You can also call the governor’s office during normal business hours to give him and his administration feedback: (501) 682-2345

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Asa-Hutchinson-Sells-Out-Gender-Dysphoric-Children.mp3


Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  


Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!




Butchering Bodies of Suffering Young People

To be clear from the outset of this article, when I refer to the evil of “trans”-cultism, I am referring to its beliefs and practices—not to people suffering from gender dysphoria or confused by the cultural lies they encounter daily.

Everyone is harmed by “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices—girls, women, boys, and men. Those in bondage to the cult and those outside of the cult are harmed. Adults in bondage to confusion and sexual fetishes are eradicating all sex-segregated private spaces; undermining First Amendment protections of assembly, speech, and religious free exercise; corrupting every cultural institution, including education, medicine, religion, sports, and the arts; putting girls and women at risk of assault by men who pretend to be “trans”; and sowing confusion among children, teens, and young adults.

As with all forms of evil, the most vulnerable—those least able to protect themselves—suffer most. The “trans”-cult allied with a host of profiteers, including semi-celebrity butchers who self-identify as doctors, are experimenting on the bodies of children and young adults with ghastly, barbaric results. No one should avert their gaze from the evidence of this butchery.

Surgeons like Florida’s Dr. Giancarlo McEvenue make big bucks using their skills to disfigure confused, suffering young women, like this young woman:

Here’s the shameless, narcissist Dr. McEvenue gleefully posing for photos with the ghastly evidence of his crime:

For young women, these surgical snake-oil profiteers lop off healthy breasts; remove vaginas, uteruses, and ovaries. They fashion fake penises—also called “phalloplasty”—out of skin peeled off the forearms, thighs, or backs of young women, which leaves permanent sizable scars. These “neo-penises” will never function sexually without mechanical aids.

“Trans”-positive Genderkit UK includes this warning:

Phalloplasty is a complex surgical procedure with significant risks that you must understand before it is carried out. Phalloplasty usually causes significant scarring due to skin grafting (usually on the lower arm). Complications are also common in this operation, particularly problems with urinating which may require surgical correction, including urethral strictures and fistulae (urethra closing up so you cannot urinate). 

These Mengelian butchers castrate young men, using scrotums to create fake vulvas, and scooping the inside tissue out of penises which they turn inside out to create fake vaginas through a new opening they dig out between rectums and urethras. Male bodies will forever view these openings as the wounds they are and try to close them up, so men must manually open them through the weekly insertion of silicone dilators.

Surgeons have another option for the creation of a fake vagina. They can go in through the abdomen and pull some of the abdominal lining down through the new hole they have excavated between rectum and urethra, thereby creating a fake vagina with intestinal lining.

Oh, but they’re not done. As it turns out, men’s and women’s bodies are very different. So, surgeons remodel men’s chests, chins, Adam’s apples, vocal cords, foreheads, and facial orbital bones in a quest to create believable flesh and bone costumes that can deceive women whose private spaces they hope to invade and even potential romantic partners.

In days gone by, these mutilating surgeries were called “sex change” surgeries, but then “trans”-cultists were forced to acknowledge that a person’s sex can never change. So, like all propagandists, they reached deep into their magic sophistry hat and pulled out “gender confirmation” surgery.

But now there’s a new problem. “Trans”-cultists have been claiming that “gender” is wholly distinct from biological sex. In Transtopia, “gender” is the aggregate of arbitrary socially constructed and imposed roles, conventions, behaviors, and expectations associated with males or females. So, how can surgeons confirm “gender”? Does lopping off healthy, properly functioning body parts confirm arbitrary, socially constructed and imposed conventions? And if those conventions are arbitrary, socially constructed and oppressively imposed, why would surgeons want to confirm such oppression?

Perhaps by “gender confirmation,” our ontological tricksters mean “gender identity confirmation.” “Gender identity” is the rhetorical cloak thrown over the disordered subjective desire to be or delusional belief that one is the sex one is not—disordered desires or delusional beliefs often shaped by external forces, like trauma and social media. No matter the cause, should surgeons use mutilating surgeries as a treatment for disordered desires or delusional beliefs?

Those with a condition called Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) experience incongruity between their subjective, internal sense of themselves as amputees and their objectively whole bodies. Some even engage in self-harm to rid themselves of the body part they detest. In a Healthline article on BIID, well-known bioethicist Arthur Caplan says,

“I think doctors and psychologists cannot set up to maim somebody or harm them. You’ve got to try to get them to treatment, I don’t care whether they appear competent or not,” he said.

A doctor who carried out a theoretically unnecessary amputation in order to prevent his or her patient from doing it themselves with potentially fatal results would fall outside of the widely accepted scope of medically ethical practice, Caplan said.

“There are a lot of conditions like anorexia where there’s a core of people who just don’t respond [to treatment],” he said “You don’t give up, you keep trying. That’s all you can do. You don’t indulge it.”

And yet an entire lucrative “trans” industrial complex has emerged composed of all sorts of morally deficient collaborators to indulge the disordered desires of cross-sex identifying persons.

Surgeons, endocrinologists, pharmaceutical companies that sell puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones, hospitals with “gender” clinics, academicians who research and promote “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices, counselors, diversity and inclusion “educators,” and entrepreneurs who make accessories to enable girls and boys to conceal their sexual anatomy all profit handsomely from “trans”-cultism and, therefore, are incentivized to keep bodily confusion and  despair alive.

It is unlikely that this “trans” scourge will end soon. Not only are countless men and women profiting from harming young people, but sexual deviants with billions of dollars are promoting the “trans” movement. As they pursue their unholy quest to “trans”-form America, their venomous tentacles reach deeply into medicine, academia, and politics.

Organizations like the Tawani Foundation founded by “Jennifer” Pritzker—a man who pretends to be a woman—the Arcus Foundation founded by homosexual Jon Stryker; and the Gill Foundation, founded by homosexual Tim Gill are using their buckets of ducats to promote the morally disordered and intellectually incoherent “trans” ideology.

The “LGBTQ” activist organization, the Human Rights Campaign, estimates that there are now over 50 clinical “care” programs in the United States for “gender-expansive children and adolescents.” Young women and men who can’t afford disfiguring surgeries can apply for grants or beg for money via GoFundMe. There is no shortage of people who will pay to disfigure others in the service of an alchemical superstition.

And some say Satan isn’t real🙄.

Every conservative and every theologically orthodox Christian must come to grips with “trans”-cultism. It is an evil in our midst that is harming everyone, and many Christians are failing to respond as Christ-followers should. Reasons for that failure are confusion, cowardice, and lack of information. Many Christians do not know enough to grasp fully how evil and destructive the “trans”-cult is. I hope this article may in some small way contribute to the awakening that must happen.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Butchering-Bodies-of-Suffering-Young-People.mp3


Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  


Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!




Illinois Congressional Rep. Newman’s Dumb Plea for Equality Act

How can someone as foolish and manipulative as U.S. Representative Marie Newman get elected to Congress? Oh, yeah, she ran in Illinois, the land that once gave the nation Abe Lincoln but now saddles the nation with Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth, Jan Schakowsky, Sean Casten, and Brad Schneider.

On March 17 Newman, the anti-life, self-identifying Catholic, spoke in a U.S. Senate hearing in support of the execrable Equality Act, which has nothing to do with Equality and everything to do with advancing an alchemical superstition about the alleged ability of humans to become the opposite sex through desire, cross-dressing, hormone-doping, and mutilating cosmetic surgery.

She did what “progressives” do best. Rather than make a cogent, rational argument based on reason and evidence, she instead tried to manipulate feelings through a personal “narrative.” She told the sad tale of her troubled teenage son who now pretends to be a woman. Unfortunately, since she chose to exploit her son’s problems on the national stage in order to pass legislation that will affect the entire nation, others have a right to respond.

Newman began her exploitative sermonette by making this remarkable claim, the ramifications of which she clearly has not thought through:

The most important thing in life is to be authentic. I think we all understand that. … Imagine if I asked any of you … on the committee today to simply try being someone you absolutely are not … To try to be something that you are not every day is very difficult. Do this for a week, a month, a year and I guarantee you will feel deep depression, great anxiety, and yes, even suicidal.

Newman neglected to define “authentic.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “authentic” as “conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, and belief.” As such, a man seeking to pass as a woman is the antithesis of authenticity.

Perhaps Newman believes an “authentic” life means living in accordance with deeply held beliefs. If so, then she should understand that for theologically orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims living an authentic life precludes treating humans as if they are the sex they are not. In other words, the Equality Act would compel many Americans to live inauthentic lives. It would compel them to participate in a destructive lie.

From the context, however, it appears Newman links authenticity to living a life of bondage to unchosen, powerful, and persistent desires, no matter how disordered, irrational, or delusional. To Newman being “authentic” appears to refer to yielding to desires that impel artificially induced cessation of natural biological processes and surgical mutilation of healthy, properly functioning parts of sexual anatomy.

Applying consistently Newman’s definition of an “authentic” life would mean that those who experience an unchosen, powerful, and persistent desire to be an amputee (i.e., those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder) should be treated as if they are amputees even if they are equipped with fully functioning, healthy limbs.

And those who experience unchosen, powerful, persistent sexual attraction to children should not be prohibited from acting on those desires, for trying to be someone they are not will—Newman guarantees—result in deep depression, great anxiety, and suicidal ideation.

If trying to be “someone you absolutely are not” is life’s greatest evil, should prideful, vain people stop trying to be modest and humble? Should greedy, selfish, narcissistic people stop trying to be generous, unselfish, and empathetic? Should slothful people stop trying to be industrious? Should people consumed by lust yield to their insatiable appetite for pornography and prostitutes?

Newman arrogantly presumed that everyone on the committee understands that “the most important thing in life is to be authentic”—as she understands authenticity. Perhaps, however, some on this U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee—for example, Marsha Blackburn, Vicki Hartzler, or James Lankford—believe an authentic life means living in a way that corresponds to material reality or to Scripture. To many people, living an authentic life requires denying their desires daily.

Continuing in her presumption about what everyone knows, Newman said,

[W]e already have freedom of religion in our Constitution, and this act does not discriminate against religion, as we all know.

Actually, lawmakers in thrall to the “trans” cult stripped the Equality Act of religious protections, and numerous legal scholars have warned that the passage of the Equality Act poses the most significant threat to constitutional protections of the free exercise of religion ever in America’s history. Newman is either outright lying or indefensibly ignorant.

Mary Hasson, graduate of Notre Dame Law School and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., testified at this same hearing. She made clear what Newman tried to obscure:

The Equality Act threatens serious harm to religious believers and religious organizations, stripping away crucial protections afforded under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—a law enacted in 1993 with overwhelming, bipartisan support. The Equality Act attacks First Amendment rights as well, inserting language that attempts to tip the scales against believers if they assert claims under the First Amendment or Equal Protection.

The Equality Act reaches far beyond Bostock (which pertained to workplace discrimination) by expanding “public accommodations” to permit discrimination claims wherever Americans “gather,” even virtually. The result? Churches, synagogues, temples, faith-based schools, soup kitchens, and shelters for battered women will be subject to government coercion pressuring them to compromise their religious beliefs or risk endless litigation.

Recipients of federal funds, including houses of worship, religious schools and other faith-based organizations are litigation targets under the Equality Act as well—even for something as simple as maintaining sex-segregated bathrooms. This means a Muslim food bank, Catholic homeless shelter, or Christian center for female survivors of domestic violence will be punished for doing good while following their religious teachings.

Similarly, any private school that enrolls students who receive Pell grants or who participate in school lunch programs are subject to the Equality Act’s sex discrimination provisions. Urban Catholic schools, for example, which provide life-changing education to low-income children would face an untenable choice: violate their deeply held religious beliefs about human nature, sexual difference, and marriage or close their doors to students who rely on federal help. Adoption and foster care programs run by religious believers who desire to serve the most vulnerable are also at risk.

Newman sneakily perpetuated the lie that minor children who experience gender dysphoria will commit suicide unless they “transition”—a euphemism for pretending to be the opposite sex. No one can “transition” from one sex to the other. Newman said,

More than five years ago, before she [sic] had transitioned, my daughter [sic], at just 14 years old had experienced deep depression and anxiety. Unable to identify the cause of her [sic] pain, she [sic] told her [sic] parents that the only two solutions she [sic] felt would solve it was either suicide or running away.

Newman’s son may have felt despair—he may have felt the only solutions were suicide or running away—but his feelings do not mean he was born in the wrong body. Many teens feel despair for many reasons. And now it’s becoming increasingly difficult for teens to access counseling that can help them uncover those reasons.

In addition, there is much mis- and dis- information about suicide and gender dysphoric children circulated eagerly by the “trans”-cult and its ideological allies—misinformation/disinformation that has been dispelled by medical experts who lack the cultural imprimatur and reach of “trans”-cultists. Newman and other members of Congress might do less societal harm if they would read more widely.

It appears Newman may have gotten her son tangled up in one of the many “therapeutic” programs that are, in reality, profiteering “trans”-advocacy programs staffed with activists who couldn’t identify mental health if it slapped them upside their indoctrinated noggins:

[W]e enrolled in a local day therapy program. One night after her [sic] program, my daughter [sic] perked up in her [sic] chair at the dinner table, excited to share some news. She [sic] told us she [sic] had figured it out. “Mom, I’m not a boy. I’m a girl, and my name is Evie Newman.” Everything had clicked at that moment. She [sic] had been pretending to be something she wasn’t. She [sic] wasn’t being authentic, and as we all know, it is the hardest thing in the world to pretend every day. It was the happiest day of our lives.

Newman’s son was not pretending to be a boy prior to the night he made his sudden perky announcement. He always was a boy and remains in perpetuity a boy.

Newman argues that the Equality Act will merely afford her son “civil rights” of which he is currently deprived:

Signing the Equality Act into law. … will ensure that Americans like my daughter [sic] are afforded the same civil rights already extended to every other American across the nation. … We’re not asking for anything special or different, equality and nothing more. No American should have to live a lie.

Baloney. Is Newman arguing that her son is currently denied the right to vote, assemble, speak, exercise his religion freely, own a gun, petition the government, or get a fair trial?

The irony is rich in her claim that “No American should have to live a lie” as she argues for a bill that will compel all Americans to live the lie she and her family are choosing to live.

Demanding that a condition constituted by desire and volitional acts that many view as immoral be treated like objective conditions with no behavioral features like, for example, race or biological sex is, indeed, asking for something special and different.

The irony continues in her statement about religion and sports:

I encourage all of you to not weaponize religion and not weaponize red herrings about sports.

Newman absurdly described the desire of theologically orthodox Christians to live authentic Christian lives when they refuse to affirm a deceit as “weaponizing religion.” And she described the desire of authentic girls not to be forced to compete athletically against biological males who impersonate females as a “weaponized red herring.” In Newman’s view, only the affirmation of “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices can be authentic.

Nearing the end of her Oprah-esque testimony, she almost spoke some sense. She began,

Truth is real and should be a part of this [Equality] act.

Then she had to go and ruin it by making yet another patently false claim:

And it is.

Nope, there is no truth about sex, civil rights, or equality in the Equality Act.

It’s astonishing that the most powerful nation in the world has leaders whose ethical philosophy hasn’t advanced beyond that of a heathen adolescent.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/IL-Congressional-Rep.-Newman-s-Dumb-Plea-for-Equality-Act.mp3


Please support the work and ministry of IFI.  


Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!




The Bigoted Call to Ban ORU from the NCAA

The founding of higher education in America was almost entirely Christian, to the point that, even by 1881, “80 percent of the colleges in the United States were church related and private.” As one Christian author pointed out, “106 of the first 108 colleges were started on the Christian faith. By the close of 1860 there were 246 colleges in America. Seventeen of these were state institutions; almost every other one was founded by Christian denominations or by individuals who avowed a religious purpose.”

Yet an op-ed published in USA Today has called for the NCAA to ban Oral Roberts University because of its biblically-based, Christian standards. What an example of bigotry and intolerance, not to mention an anti-American spirit – and I mean the op-ed, not ORU.

According to sports columnist Hemal Jhaveri, as ORU made a surprising run in the annual NCAA men’s basketball tourney, “the university’s deeply bigoted anti-LGBTQ+ polices can’t and shouldn’t be ignored.”

Put another way, ORU’s Christian views shouldn’t be ignored. Yes, Jhaveri tells us,

“Twice in their student handbook, Oral Roberts specifically prohibits homosexuality. In their student conduct section, under the heading of Personal Behavior, the school expressly condemns homosexuality, mentioning it in the same breath as ‘occult practices.’”

How horrific and unthinkable. A Christian university founded by Oral Roberts holds to Christian values. A Christian university that bases its code of conduct on the Bible holds to biblical values.

Oh, the bigotry. ORU should be banned!

Yes, this is the thought process of Jhaveri, who is so shocked by ORU’s code of conduct that she quotes an entire section verbatim:

Students are expected to maintain the highest standards of integrity, honesty, modesty and morality…Certain behaviors are expressly prohibited in Scripture and therefore should be avoided by members of the University community. They include theft, lying, dishonesty, gossip, slander, backbiting, profanity, vulgarity (including crude language), sexual promiscuity (including adultery, any homosexual behavior, premarital sex), drunkenness, immodesty of dress and occult practices.

How about we quote the words of the apostle Paul directly – the words of the Bible? Paul wrote, “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Jhaveri’s problem is with Scripture, not with ORU. And Jhaveri, through the vehicle of USA Today, is, by implication, calling for the NCAA to ban any university that honors Scripture.

Think about that for a moment. And think about what the Christian founders of Harvard and Yale and Princeton and a host of other major universities would have felt had they known what would happen to their beloved schools.

One of the original rules of conduct at Harvard stated:

“Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life.” And, “Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day . . . .”

Now, a sports columnist writing for a national publication wants the NCAA to ban a university from competition because it honors the Scriptures. Is it any wonder that America is so morally and spiritual confused today? When it comes to sexual mores, our fall has been precipitous. Jhaveri writes,

“As a private university and under the banner of fundamentalist Christian beliefs, the school is free to impose whatever standards of behavior they see fit, even if those standards are wildly out of line with modern society and the basic values of human decency. Now, as Oral Roberts gains national attention, the focus shouldn’t just be on their very good men’s basketball team, but on their prejudiced teachings and moral regressiveness.

“That Oral Roberts wants to keep its students tied to toxic notions of fundamentalism that fetishize chastity, abstinence and absurd hemlines is a larger cultural issue that can be debated. What is not up for debate however is their anti-LGBTQ+ stance, which is nothing short of discriminatory and should expressly be condemned by the NCAA.”

In point of fact, USA Today should be ashamed of itself for providing a platform for such bigoted, anti-Christian, Bible-mocking commentary.

The truth is that ORU is not “fetishiz[ing] chastity, abstinence and absurd hemlines.” Rather, in a sea of immorality and promiscuity and immodesty, ORU is simply calling for decency and modesty and integrity.

The university also recognizes that – perish the thought – marriage is the union of a man and a woman. But for Jhaveri, this too, is an example of religious fanaticism. She writes, “as part of their honor code, the university requires students to abide by a pledge saying that they will not engage in ‘homosexual activity,’ and that they will not be united in marriage other ‘than the marriage between one man and one woman.’”

Oh, the horror. A Christian university honoring marriage. Ban them!

Sadly, Jhaveri, with the help of USA Today, is guilty of glorifying anti-Christian, Bible-mocking, morality-twisting bigotry, thereby spreading hatred and narrow-mindedness rather than tolerance and grace. A Christian university should not be penalized for being Christian. As for those who disapprove of those standards, there are hundreds of others schools to attend.

In response, then, to this ill-conceived editorial, Christian schools should be strongly encouraged to reinforce (and/or return to) their Christian roots, ORU should be applauded for standing strong, and USA Today should be challenged for giving place to such Bible-bashing bigotry.

Having said that, let the young people compete and have fun. Jhaveri’s editorial should not be allowed to detract from the moment – or from ORU’s unlikely run so far.


This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.