How did Illinois’ Congressional Delegation Vote?

As you may know, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 242-184 yesterday to pass a bill to to extend federal protections for preborn children who are 20 weeks fetal age or more, and who are capable of experiencing excruciating pain.  (Read more about this HERE.)  This legislation would also protect babies who are born alive during late abortions.

The bill is called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 36), and it’s chief sponsor is U.S. Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ).  This legislation was developed from model legislation developed by National Right to Life and enacted thus far in eleven states, and lays further groundwork for the ongoing legal battle that pro-lifers hope will eventually result in forcing the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that  legalized abortion.

In a nationwide poll of 1,623 registered voters in November 2014, The Quinnipiac University Poll found that 60 percent would support a law such as the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks, while only 33 percent opposed such legislation. Women voters split 59-35 percent in support of such a law, while independent voters supported it by 56-36 percent.

Of Illinois’ 18 U.S. Representatives, seven voted to end painful late-term abortion on innocent helpless children while 10 voted to continue. Chicago Democrat Daniel Lipinski joined the majority of Republicans who supported this bill, while Lincolnshire Republican Bob Dold joined the majority of Democrats who voted against this bill. We’ve also indicated in the list below, the Congressmen who co-sponsored this bill.

IFI greatly appreciates the 7 Illinois members of the U.S. House who voted in favor of H.R. 36.

It is unknown if U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will call the bill for a vote in the U.S. Senate.  Moreover, the White House is on record saying that President Barack Obama would veto it if it ever reached his desk, saying it is “an assault on a woman’s right to choose” and “a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.”  You may remember that as an Illinois State Senator, Mr. Obama repeatedly voted to allow infanticide to continue unabated in Illinois hospitals.

Voting Results for The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act:

Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D)–No
1st Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-4372
District Phone:             773-224-6500
Webform

Rep. Robin Kelly (D)–No
2nd Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-0773
District Phone:             773-568-2623
Webform

Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D)–YEA
H.R. 36 Co-Sponsor
3rd Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-5701
District Phone:             312-886-0481
Webform

Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D)–No
4th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-8203
District Phone:             773-342-0774
Webform

Rep. Mike Quigley (D)–No
5th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-4061
District Phone:             773-267-5926
Webform

Rep. Peter Roskam (R)–YEA
H.R. 36 Co-Sponsor
6th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-4561
District Phone:             630-232-0006
Webform

Rep. Danny K. Davis (D)–No
7th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-5006
District Phone:             773-533-7520
Webform

Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D)–No
8th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-3711
District Phone:             847-413-1959
Webform

Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky (D)–No
9th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-2111
District Phone:             773-506-7100
Webform

Rep. Bob Dold (R)–No
10th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-4835
District Phone:             847-793-8400
Webform

Rep. Bill Foster (D)–No
11th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-3515
District Phone:             630-585-7672
Webform

Rep. Mike Bost (R)–YEA
H.R. 36 Co-Sponsor
12th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-5661
District Phone:             618-233-8026
Webform

Rep. Rodney Davis (R)–YEA
13th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-2371
District Phone:             217-403-4690
Webform

Rep. Randy Hultgren (R)–YEA
H.R. 36 Co-Sponsor
14th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-2976
District Phone:             630-232-7104
Webform

Rep. John Shimkus (R)–YEA
H.R. 36 Co-Sponsor
15th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-5271
District Phone:             217-446-0664
Webform

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R)–YEA
16th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-3635
District Phone:             815-431-9383
Webform

Rep. Cheri Bustos (D)–No
17th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-5905
District Phone:             309-966-1813
Webform

VACANT SEAT
18th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-6201
District Phone:             309-671-7027

---

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.

How did they vote?

This afternoon, the Illinois Senate voted 34 to 19 to pass SB 1564 — the onerous re-write of the Healthcare Right of Conscience Act.  This bill broadly defines “health care,” “health care personnel,” and “health care facility.” SB 1564 will force health care personnel to violate their consciences in regard to morally dubious medical procedures such as abortion, sterilization, and certain end-of-life care. Pro-life lobbyists are deeply concerned that even Crisis Pregnancy Centers that offer pregnancy tests would be subjected to unsavory duties under the law (e.g. abortion referrals).

According to the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, ninety-five (95) percent of physicians in a national poll agreed with this statement: “I would rather stop practicing medicine altogether then be forced to violate my conscience.”

Click HERE to see how your state senator voted on this legislation, or look at the graphic below.  State Senators Kyle McCarter (R-Vandalia), Jason Barickman (R-Bloomington), Dale Rigther (R-Mattoon), and Bill Haine (D-Alton) spoke against the bill.  Unfortunately, Republican leader Christine Radogno and Senator Chris Nybo (R-Hinsdale) voted in favor of the bill.  Sen. Nybo also spoke if favor of SB 1564 on the floor.

The bill now moves to the Illinois House.  We can stop this bill — but only with your help, calls and prayers!

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state representative. Ask him/her to uphold Rights of Conscience for medical personnel, and vote NO to SB 1564.  (If you have already sent an email to your state senator, please send an email to your state representative.)

Please also call your state representative during normal business hours.  The Capitol switchboard number is (217) 782-2000.

Joe and Ann Schiedler of the Pro Life Action League are concerned about two new bills gaining traction in the Illinois General Assembly. HB 4013 would remove all restrictions on taxpayer funded abortions. SB 1654 would drastically weaken the right of conscience protection for medical professionals. See video below:

Take ACTION: Please click HERE to send a message to your state representative to ask him/her to vote AGAINST HB 4013.

Click HERE to send a message to your Illinois state senator to ask him/her to please uphold religious freedom and conscience for medical personnel in Illinois.  Ask them to reject SB 1564.

You can also contact your state legislators by calling the Capitol switchboard at (217) 782-2000.

You can also sign up as an IFI Sustaining Partner!  Your on-going monthly support will go directly toward influencing our Illinois culture and government with Biblical values.

We cannot stress the importance of your monthly support.

Illinois doctors, nurses and medical personnel could be forced to make ethical choices between serving God and obeying the State with a bill being considered in the Illinois Senate.

Imagine for an instance that you’re a neurologist, and a patient comes to you for help with painful, paralyzing, never-ending headaches. You do everything you can to help him, but after months of experimental drug concoctions and nutritional experiments, the headaches worsen. Depressed and distraught, the patient decides he wants to end it all. He wants you to help him end his agony once and for all.

As a doctor, you’ve been trained and have sworn to “Do No Harm,” as Greek philosopher Hippocrates taught. Your pastor, church and the Scriptures say it is a mortal sin to end or assist with ending another human life.

But suppose that the state says that you must ignore your conscience or moral standards and deliver to the patient exactly what he wants. Your conscience and your religious beliefs are irrelevant. Or, it’s possible that a doctor refusing to assist with something as radical as suicide could be the basis for a lawsuit.

That’s what could happen with doctors, pharmacists, any medical personnel if SB 1564, State Senator Daniel Biss’ (D-Chicago) amendment to Illinois’ Health Care Right of Conscience Act, become law, says First Amendment attorney Thomas Brechja.

The proposal stipulates that a medical facility or physician must have an established protocol in place, printed to distribute to patients in response to any condition that the physician may find the patient seeking.

The legislation does not state that the protocol must include only legal recourses.

The idea of such a scenario may seem impossible to imagine, but that’s what Senator Biss’ plan in SB 1564 would set into place, Attorney Brechja said in an interview.

Even delaying the treatment by one day beyond what the patient demands could imperil an objecting doctor’s practice.

“If you’re impairing the patient’s health by delaying his or her access to a suicide pill, [for example], that may be ‘Brave New World,’ but we’re already living in ‘Brave New World,’” Brechja said. “Who knows what some court somewhere is going to decide. With this bill, you’ve certainly started down that path, and into the abyss.”

Once the law says a person’s conscience must yield to state or federal law, there’s no prediction where that may lead, Brechja said.

While Illinois’ Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows citizens to act upon their religious beliefs, Biss’ law would supersede the state’s RFRA.

Nationwide, some states’ conscience clauses explicitly cover abortion, contraception, sterilization, and the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatments.

Some clauses cover local conditions. For example in Oregon, a conscience clause describes a physician’s right of refusal concerning physician-assisted suicide, which is legal in that state.

Biss’ proposal contradicts the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, Brechja said, the first part of which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”

The legislation would overrule the religious beliefs of American citizens that practice medicine and encumber their constitutionally-guaranteed free exercise of religion.

The medical personnel would be required to have on hand printed information that can be immediately distributed to the patient with referrals to the desired service.

“This is dangerous legislation,” Brechja said.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your Illinois state senator to ask him/her to please uphold religious freedom and conscience for medical personnel in Illinois.  Ask them to reject SB 1564

The Illinois Medical Society and the Illinois Citizens for Life lobbyists agree. They are opposing SB 1564.

Thus far, only the Illinois Social Workers have signed on in support of Biss’ legislation.  However, the bill is co-sponsored by State Senators Julie A. Morrison (D-Deerfield), Toi W. Hutchinson (D-Chicago Heights), Linda Holmes (D-Chicago), Kimberly A. Lightford (D-Chicago), Michael Noland (D-Elgin), Heather A. Steans (D-Chicago), William Delgado (D-Chicago) and Iris Y. Martinez (D-Chicago).

SB 1564 may be heard on March 17, 2015 in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Biss’ office said.

You can also sign up as an IFI Sustaining Partner!  Your on-going monthly support will go directly toward influencing our Illinois culture and government with Biblical values.

We cannot stress the importance of your monthly support.

Doggedly committed to pro-homoeroticism, lesbian activist State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) has resurrected the dangerous “Conversion Therapy Prohibition Act,” which seeks to prohibit minors from receiving any counseling that involves efforts to change homoerotic desire, homoerotic activity, gender-confused feelings, and behaviors impelled by gender confusion.

This doozy of a bill states that “‘Sexual orientation change efforts’ or ‘conversion therapy’” means any practices or treatments that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation, as defined by (o-1) of Section 1-103 of the Illinois Human Rights Act, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions.” Unlike the more common definition of “sexual orientation,” the Illinois Human Rights Act defines “sexual orientation” as “actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or gender-related identity, whether or not traditionally associated with the person’s designated sex at birth.”

If passed this bill would prohibit parents of a child or teenager who experiences homoerotic desire, gender dysphoria, or Gender Identity Disorder from having access to counseling that may include facilitating change in feelings or volitional activity—even if such change is desired by both parents and their children.

Cassidy’s oppressive anti-autonomy, anti-parental rights bill seeks to ban any counseling that may result in the rejection of a “gay” identity. This bill seeks to rob minors of the freedom to seek ways of constructing an identity that don’t include affirming their unchosen homoerotic feelings. Liberals like Cassidy don’t believe that it’s possible for people who experience unchosen homoerotic feelings to construct such an identity and want to impose their philosophical and moral assumptions on everyone in America.

Such a bill would be more accurately titled the “Anti-Identity-Choice Act” because what homosexual activists like Cassidy seek to do is legally prohibit mental health professionals from even discussing ways to construct identity that do not affirm same-sex attraction. Surely though, if mental health providers are permitted to help minors pursue radical changes in their “gender expression,” including even sanctioning cross-dressing and the use of hormone-blockers, they should be allowed to help minors pursue changes in their sexual identities. If minors are allowed to reject their physical embodiment, why shouldn’t they be allowed to reject their homoerotic feelings? Cassidy needs to explain why the rejection of one’s objective, biological sex is viewed as sound, right, healthy, and legally permissible while the rejection of one’s homoerotic feelings is viewed as unsound, wrong, unhealthy, and legally prohibited.

While the Left wants minors to be able to change their “gender identity” (or access oral contraceptives and abortions) with absolute, unfettered freedom, they want minors to be prohibited from even hearing any ideas that may be linked to their unchosen same-sex attraction, because such ideas undermine the unproven, non-factual, self-serving assumptions of homosexual activists and their highly politicized, Leftist mental health community allies.

The sponsors of this bill have marshalled an unimpressive array of claims from mental “health” organizations, all of which are loaded with biased and ambiguous language in support of an astoundingly totalitarian bill. If we have any really good critical thinkers and debaters in Springfield, they should be able to shred this bill in a floor debate. (That said, I’ve learned that floor debates are not debates in any true sense of the word. Participants in even a faux-debate should challenge contentions and demand evidence for claims.)

Questions for the bill’s sponsors

This bill raises a number of questions—all of which would be good for lawmakers to pose to Cassidy:

• What specifically constitutes “sexual orientation change efforts”?

• The bill cites the AMA’s criticism of one type of therapy (i.e., aversion therapy). Is that the only form of therapy that would be prohibited by this bill?

• Would a 17-year-old who experiences homoerotic feelings but wants to construct an identity that does not include affirming those feelings be allowed to get help from a mental health provider for such an endeavor?

• Would a 14-year-old who experiences homoerotic feelings and admits to having been sexually molested be allowed to explore the connection between sexual molestation and homoerotic feelings with a mental health provider?

• The bill claims that homosexuality is not a “disorder, deficiency, or shortcoming,” stating that “The major professional associations of mental health practitioners and researchers in the United States have recognized this fact for nearly 40 years.” What specifically does this mean? Are the bill’s sponsors asserting as fact that engaging in homoerotic activity is not morally disordered, morally deficient, or a moral shortcoming? If so, where is their conclusive scientific proof for such a claim about the moral status of freely chosen activity?

• One of the “expert” organizations cited refers to “bias” and “societal prejudice,” neither term of which is defined. Is the belief that voluntary homoerotic activity is immoral proof of bias and prejudice? So, for example, since Pope Francis, Oxford University law professor John Finnis, Princeton University law professor Robert George, and New Testament scholar N.T. Wright believe that homoerotic activity is immoral, are they—in Cassidy’s view—biased and prejudiced? If the bill’s sponsors think such moral beliefs about homoerotic activity are inherently biased and prejudiced then they must include their definitions of “bias” and “prejudice” in the bill.

• The bill cites the American Psychological Association’s (APA) claim “that sexual orientation change efforts can pose critical health risks to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.” Note that the APA did not claim that such efforts do pose risks but rather that they can. Additionally, the claim does not identify if all “sexual orientation change efforts” pose such risks. Nor does the bill provide conclusive, incontrovertible proof for this nebulous claim. The bill’s sponsors should be asked which specific “sexual orientation change efforts” have been unequivocally proven to cause serious health risks and asked to provide their incontrovertible proof.

• The bill cites the APA’s admission that there exists “anecdotal reports of ‘cures’” which are “counterbalanced by anecdotal reports of psychological harm.” Someone should ask Cassidy, why she believes there are quotation marks around the word “’cures’” while no such marks surround “harm.” Then someone should ask if she believes anecdotal reports of “harm” should be treated the same as anecdotal reports of cures.

• The bill cites the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’s claim that “there is no medically valid basis for attempting to prevent homosexuality.” Might this statement hold true for other conditions for which people seek counseling, like “minor-attraction,” paraphilias, and relationship problems? Couldn’t an argument be made that “there is no medically valid basis for attempting to change” minor attraction, or paraphilias, or relationship dysfunction? In addition,  aren’t there reasons other than medical reasons for which people seek counseling?

• The bill claims that “Minors who experience family rejection based on their sexual orientation face especially serious health risks.” First, what does this have to do with prohibiting certain therapeutic modalities? And second, not all parents who believe homoerotic activity is immoral reject their children. Merely holding the belief that homoerotic activity is immoral no more constitutes rejection of minor children who experience unchosen homoerotic attraction or engage in homoerotic activity than does disapproval of polyamorous activity constitute rejection of minors who experience polyamorous feelings or engage in polyamorous activity.

• The bill cites the National Association of Social Workers’ claim that “sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is…freely chosen.” This claim could mean two different things. It could mean that some therapies assume homoerotic feelings are freely chosen, or it could mean that some therapies assume a “gay identity” is freely chosen—which, of course, is true. Cassidy should explain which of these two interpretations is correct. More important, if the justification for banning “sexual orientation conversion therapies” is related to the claim that homosexuality is freely chosen, shouldn’t Cassidy identify which specific therapeutic modalities make that claim?

• The bill cites the National Association of Social Workers’ claim that “no data demonstrates that reparative or conversion therapies are effective.” But what about, for example, the study conducted by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse and published in the book Ex-gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Medicated Change in Sexual Orientation that suggests that some therapeutic modalities can result in “sexual orientation” change in some people?

• The bill cites the American Counseling Association Governing Council’s statement that they “oppose the promotion of ‘reparative therapy’ as a ‘cure’ for individuals who are homosexual,” which is a very specific and limited claim. So, would therapeutic models that do not promote therapy as a “cure” but instead allow for the possibility of change or allow for the construction of an identity that does not affirm homoerotic feelings, activity, and relationships be permissible?

• The bill cites the American Psychoanalytic Association’s claim that “Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful attempts to ‘convert,’ ‘repair,’ change or shift an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” If passed would this bill allow for discussions that are not initiated by mental health providers but rather are initiated by minors who desire to purposefully pursue shifts in their sexuality identity?

• What is the goal of mental health practice?

• Is the goal of mental health practice to eliminate all guilt?

• Is the goal to affirm all feelings, desires, or attractions? If not, how do the bill’s sponsors determine which feelings must be affirmed?

• Is the goal to prevent or alleviate depression by any and all means (including even affirming non-factual, subjective assumptions as unassailable, incontrovertible facts)?

• Might a healthy identity ever entail rejection of or resistance to feelings, desires, attractions, or volitional acts?

• Can sound mental health practice include helping people of faith—including minors—to incorporate their religious beliefs—including orthodox religious beliefs—into their construction of identity or their choice of life path?

• Is our contemporary mental health community capable of responsibly and ethically treating those whose faith is central to their identity?

• Is the rejection of or hostility to the existence of God corrupting social science research and counseling?

• Has society elevated unstable social science research to an omniscient, godlike epistemological status it does not warrant?

• What if the Left’s assumptions about guilt, shame, depression, homosexuality, gender confusion, morality, and identity are in reality false?

More flaws in the bill

Here are some criticisms of the resurrected “conversion therapy” ban:

• It fails to distinguish between counseling in which explorations of potential links between same-sex attraction and family dysfunction, peer rejection, or childhood molestation take place and other discredited and abusive aversion therapies. In other words, it fails to distinguish between coercive attempts to eradicate same-sex attraction and counseling efforts that would allow a teenager who wants to find a life path that does not involve affirming his or her same-sex attraction as central to his or her identity.

• It fails to acknowledge that it is a belief—not a fact—that the only path to happiness for those who experience unchosen same-sex attraction is affirmation of those feelings.

• It fails to distinguish between unchosen same-sex feelings and/or voluntary homoerotic activity, and persons. It says, “being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is not a…disorder…deficiency, or shortcoming.” Such a statement fails to distinguish between feelings and acts and between feelings/acts and persons, thereby revealing that this legislative project is infused with Leftist assumptions about identity.

• It fails to acknowledge that science has not proved that homoerotic desire is 100 percent heritable or biologically determined, in which case it is possible that it is caused or influenced by environment. If same-sex attraction is influenced in some cases by environment, it is possible that it can in some cases change. Moreover, would the influence of biology in the development of homoerotic attraction necessarily mean homoerotic activity is inherently moral? That question stands far outside the purview of both hard science and unstable social “science.”

Conclusion

This is not a bill created essentially to protect minors. It’s yet another pernicious effort to forcibly rid the culture of any suggestion that homoerotic activity may be immoral, or any suggestion that homoerotic desire can in some people change, or of any suggestion that individuals who experience unchosen homoerotic desire may choose to construct a meaningful identity that does not affirm such desire. All humans experience unchosen, powerful, and persistent feelings that for a variety of reasons they choose not to affirm, act upon, or place at the center of their identity.  For some, that unchosen, powerful, and persistent desire is homoerotic attraction.

While Kelly Cassidy continues her unhealthy quest for legislation that serves the desires of homosexuals for compulsory affirmation of homoeroticism, it is hoped that the will of wiser men and women will prevail.

TAKE ACTION: CLICK HERE to contact your State Representative and urge them to protect the rights of minors to seek help for their unwanted attractions. Urge a “No” vote on HB 217.

On January 15th, Pastors and church leaders from all around the state gathered in Capitol Rotunda in Springfield to pray for our elected officials – name by name – for guidance, wisdom, and conviction for the upcoming legislative session. See the video below:

The Truth Project

First Annual IFI Worldview Conference
featuring Dr. Del Tackett
April 10-11, 2015

CLICK HERE for Details

Today in Springfield, Bruce Rauner took the oath of office to become the 42nd Governor of Illinois.  This coming Wednesday, state lawmakers will be sworn in for the 99th session of the Illinois General Assembly.  Last week in Washington D.C., federal lawmakers in the U.S. House and U.S. Senators were sworn in to begin a new session of the U.S. Congress — the 114th Congress to be precise.

We want to encourage you to please set aside some time this week to specifically pray for our state and national political leaders. It would be good and wise if Christians throughout the state commit to praying regularly for these men and women.

Don’t ever think we are too far gone. What’s impossible with man is possible with God!

Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask
or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, 
to him be glory in the church and
in Christ Jesus throughout all generations,
for ever and ever!
~Ephesians 3:20

…if My people, who are called by My name,
shall humble themselves and pray, and seek My face
and turn from their wicked ways,
then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin
and will heal their land.
~2 Chronicles 7:14

The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.
~James 5:16 

Prayer is powerful and effective. Will you join us in praying for our state and nation?

Here are a few suggestions:

• Pray for the new officials, their families, and their staffs as they take office. Pray the transitions to the new officials go smoothly.

• Pray that those men and women recognize that Jesus is the Son of God and that they need Him as their Savior.

• Pray the Lord’s goodness is made manifest in their lives and that the Holy Spirit guides and convicts them of truth this year.

• Pray that lawmakers and the executive officers and their staffs would seek God’s wisdom and seek Godly counsel for the many decisions they will make.

• Pray that these men and women would make decisions free from selfish motivations.

• Pray that the National Prayer Caucus would increase its members.

• Pray that the Illinois Prayer Caucus would attract many lawmakers and increase its members.

• Pray that God would stop bills that are morally abhorrent to Him.

• Pray the bills that will be introduced in the new legislative session will protect life, marriage and family, and religious freedom. Pray bills that would be harmful to foundational values do not pass. Ask God to give all the committee members wisdom as they discuss and vote on bills.

• Pray that God would remove any obstacles to pro-family bills.

Please also pray for IFI Team:

• Please be in prayer for the IFI Team as we work at the Illinois Capitol this year. Ask the Lord to lead and bless our legislative agenda.

• Pray that the IFI Team is able to catch any hostile amendments or bills that could negatively impact life, marriage and family, and religious freedom.

• Pray over our events plans for 2015. Our goal is to host a number of events this year to engage our community in honest discussions on foundational values and to educate the Body of Christ.  We also hope to introduce new people to IFI through these events.

• Please pray for the IFI Team as we look for new office space.  We have outgrown our current location and we are need for a good place to call home.

A Streator family — including their special needs son — are featured in a new video that shines a spotlight on combating fraud and abuse in state Medicaid and welfare programs.

Produced by the Foundation for Government Accountability, a free market think tank based in Naples, Fla., Gary and Christine Chalkey, along with their 19-year-old developmentally disabled son, Jacob, are interviewed in the video about how abuse in state subsidy systems robs scarce resources from the eligible and truly needy.

An FGA spokesman told The Times the production, entitled “Stop the Scam,” will be used as a marketing tool to inform policymakers to create a safety net for those who need it most and to promote immediate audits of the Medicaid and welfare rolls in all states.

According to its website — thefga.org — the FGA promotes better lives for individuals and families by equipping policymakers with strategies to replace failed health and welfare programs nationwide. As an organization, it demands integrity, honesty, perseverance and personal accountability.

Christine said the video should help get the word out about who she believes are the most vulnerable — those with Developmental Disabilities in Illinois — and how they are being cheated out of their mandated entitlements in the Medicaid program because of the hundred of thousands of people fraudulently enrolled in Medicaid.

She said an independent audit in Illinois Medicaid released last January showed more than 300,000 people were scamming taxpayers of more than $350 million dollars while taking the necessary funding away from the truly vulnerable.

The Chalkey couple has been advocating for Jacob’s rights since he was diagnosed at 6 months old. Jacob is the oldest of 19 people in the world with the life-threatening condition that causes debilitating seizures. Because of problems within Illinois’ Medicaid system, cuts were made that eliminated state financial assistance for Jake’s medications.

In the video, FGA representatives interviewed Christine, Jacob and state Rep. Patti Bellock, R-Hinsdale — not only about the fraud and abuse within Illinois’ Medicaid system — but also the frustration with programs that will not allow outside audits to allow them to be made accountable to state taxpayers.

“I have been fighting for over two years to bring attention to the Medicaid cuts that were made to the most vulnerable of all residents — those with developmental disabilities in Illinois, children and adults classified as medically fragile and technologically dependent,” said Christine. “Our government is mandated to provide some necessary life-sustaining medical care to children with rare disorders, which insurance would not cover.”

Christine explained, “In July of 2012, the state of Illinois stopped paying for the only medicine that would prevent Jacob from going into a life-threatening seizure. They also cut medically necessary services for over 5,000 other children. I spent weeks, frantically calling my insurance company, state agencies, local, state and congressional legislators, media and talk radio show to help us. Long story short, we had to try Jake on another medicine, which caused him to have a major reaction and seizure, temporarily losing his ability to walk and talk.

“The federal government provides medical help to the states for these rare cases. We worked with state Sen. Dan Kotowski, D-Park Ridge, who got the state to follow the federal law and got Jake back on the only medicine that helps control the seizure.

“Sen. Kotowski worked to help get name-brand seizure medicine covered in the Medicaid programs for the truly vulnerable like Jake. He also offered his assistance in helping Jake and the most vulnerable.”

Christine said, “I just want the truth to be heard and for the most vulnerable to get the mandated medical care they are entitled and need to survive to save taxpayers millions by removing the dead and illegal recipients. Historically, as our Medicaid system grows, it is always the most vulnerable who get cut first because they have no voice, no paid representatives or lobbying groups to help them. This video should help bring attention to the Medicaid cuts that were made against the most vulnerable of all residents.

“It is said that the test of a society is how it treats the fragile, or those who cannot help themselves. Well, then, I believe, Illinois is failing holding a bottom of the barrel national ranking serving those with developmental disabilities for decades now. Don’t you think it is time to for the state to, at least, get a passing grade for serving the vulnerable — those who government was truly intended and need?”

Originally posted at mywebtimes.com

*WARNING: some graphic language not suitable for younger readers*

Residents of California’s 52^nd Congressional District were just confronted with the choice between Democratic incumbent Scott Peters and homosexual “pro-choice” Republican challenger Carl DeMaio, whom the GOP establishment vigorously supported. Not only is DeMaio openly homosexual—which is no problem for House Speaker John Boehner who campaigned for him—but according to multiple accusations, DeMaio has a peculiar practice of engaging in semi-public self-pleasuring. According to Slate Magazine, a third man has recently come forward alleging sexually inappropriate conduct on the part of DeMaio:

I was at the urinal, and (DeMaio) came from the stall that was closest to the urinal and was kind of just standing there hovering….I turned around and realized that it was Carl. He had his pants up, but his fly was undone, and he had his hand… grasping his genitals.

Previously, a former colleague of DeMaio’s who served with him on the San Diego City Council told CNN that he had twice found DeMaio self-pleasuring in public restrooms, and a former campaign staffer for DeMaio, who is also homosexual, has alleged that DeMaio both sexually harassed him and engaged in onanism in his campaign headquarters office.

Thanks to the support of the Republican Party, DeMaio came very close to winning, losing by just a hair three days after the election.

A few weeks before yesterday’s mid-term election, Princeton University law professor Robert George made these comments about this California race, comments that are equally applicable to any races with RINO candidates, including Illinois races:

If I were in the district, I could not in conscience vote for the Republican. His election would do greater harm to the causes of life, marriage, and religious liberty than would the election of his Democratic opponent, as bad as that guy himself is on these issues. The question is whether to abstain or to cast a tactical vote in favor of the Democrat. In circumstances like these, I believe that tactical voting is morally permissible, and it would improve the likelihood of the least bad outcome….Abstaining is morally permissible too.

The partisans of abortion and marriage redefinition have a lock on the Democratic Party now. Effective dissent of any type is not possible. Having gained that lock on one party, they are now turning their resources and attention to weakening the pro-life and pro-marriage reality witness of the Republican Party. … I can think of no more urgent priority than preventing that from happening. Maintaining and solidifying the pro-life and pro-marriage reality stance of the Republican Party is critical. That’s why tactical voting, including voting for bad Democrats over bad Republicans, is IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (e.g., where the election of a Democrat does not jeopardize Republican control of a legislative house), morally legitimate and perhaps even advisable. We must not let the pro-abortion and pro-marriage redefinition movements strengthen their positions in the Republican Party. We must make the Republican Party as solid for life and marriage as the Democrats now are for the contrary positions.

The GOP is slowly transmogrifying into the political incarnation of Tolkien’s Gollum:

Gollum, dancing like a mad thing, held aloft the ring, a finger still thrust within its circle. “Precious, precious, precious!” Gollum cried. “My Precious! O my Precious!” And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell. Out of the depths came his last wail precious, and he was gone.

Illinoisans should fully expect to hear immoderates and perhaps even dispirited conservatives say, “See, Bruce Rauner/Mark Kirk-type of Republican is the only kind of Republican who can get elected in Illinois.” But soon, they won’t be tacking on “in Illinois.”

Four years ago, the U.S. Senator-elect from Colorado, Cory Gardner, supported the Personhood Amendment and even circulated petitions to gather signatures for it. Then this year, the GOP establishment got to him. Shortly before Gardner announced his candidacy, pro-life activists in Colorado got wind of the news that he would be renouncing his support for the Personhood Amendment.

Karl Rove deceitfully wrote this last May: “in Colorado, tea-party favorite and front-runner Ken Buck stepped aside when Mr. Gardner entered the race, recognizing he was better able to enthuse all the party.” So, in May Rove implied that Buck just freely stepped aside because of his own uncoerced epiphany that Gardner would be the best candidate for “enthusing” the party.

That’s interesting, because late last night on FOX News election coverage, Karl Rove boasted that his Super PAC told the Colorado GOP that no Super Pac money would go to support Ken Buck for U.S. Senate. I’m speculating here, but I suspect that Rove et al told Gardner they would support him as long as he retreated from the Personhood Amendment.

Immoderate Republicans accuse conservatives who agree with Robert George of turning on their Republican brethren and “forming a circular firing squad.” But who really is Cain in this contemporary narrative? Who is Sméagol and who is Déagol?

Well, what’s done is done, and now Rauner, who proudly campaigned on his support for the “right” of women to have their own babies killed, can work the fiscal wonders for which his supporters have been slavering.

Under his mystical, magical management, Illinois should shortly be transformed into a pecuniary powerhouse. Then with fiscal victory securely in their grasp, immoderate Republicans will jubilantly announce the end of the social issues “truce” and the dawn of a new day. They will marshal all their resources—chief among them money—and announce the start of a battle—nay , a war—the likes of which  this state has never seen to protect human life at all stages, to restore a legal definition of marriage that comports with reality, to preserve religious liberty, and to eradicate “progressive” political and philosophical advocacy from government-funded schools.

Yeah, I’m sure with Rauner and Kirk at the helm of the IL GOP that will happen.

Please consider supporting our work of Illinois Family Institute.

Below is the IFI Voter guide broken down by congressional district, the full version can be found HERE.

Voter Guide Breakouts:

1st Congressional District

2nd Congressional District

3rd Congressional District

4th Congressional District

5th Congressional District

6th Congressional District

7th Congressional District

8th Congressional District

9th Congressional District

10th Congressional District

11th Congressional District

12th Congressional District

13th Congressional District

14th Congressional District

15th Congressional District

16th Congressional District

17th Congressional District

18th Congressional District

IFI has compiled and produced our 2014 Illinois General Election Voter Guide to help Illinois citizens make educated and informed decisions about the candidates on the primary ballot. The Voter Guide is non-partisan and is not intended to endorse or oppose any candidate, whether explicitly or implicitly.  It simply provides pertinent information about the candidates themselves (when available), and their positions on issues of importance.

We encourage you to go to the polls on November 4th and vote for the candidates who best reflect your values. It is crucial for pro-family citizens to vote their values and encourage their friends to do the same.

Support the IFI Voter Guide

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

October 7th is the last day to register to vote for the upcoming
November 4th General Election

Just think about how many people you know who have moved or changed their name and need to re-register. Think of how many teens you know who are turning 18 and can vote for the first time this year. Consider engaging citizens who have not voted in the past to become actively involved in impacting our nation’s future!

God has blessed America with the gift of self-government — a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Voting is a privilege that millions of people in other parts of the world are denied.

But this unique blessing also comes with a tremendous responsibility. In Romans 13, we are told that all authorities are appointed by God. Who is the authority in America? If you look at the first three words in our U.S. Constitution, you’ll get your answer — “We the People…”

As Christians, we have a duty and a moral obligation to be involved in the democratic process. Imagine the IMPACT we could have on our government, its leadership, and our nation if we all simply registered to vote and voted our values!

Registering is Easy!

Two simple ways to register to vote:

1.  Register online, CLICK HERE.

2.  Mail-in Voter Registration Application, PRINT HERE.  Mail your completed application(s) to your local election authority (usually the county clerk). Click HERE to look up the mailing address. If you are unsure of your election authority, please contact us. Call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328 during normal business hours and we will be glad to help!

Voter Registration FAQ’s

Q. I’ve moved. Do I need to register again?
A. Yes. The easiest way to register again is to just follow the process above.

Q. My name has changed. Do I need to register again?
A. Yes. The easiest way to register again is to just follow the process above.

Q. I’m not 18 yet, but I will be soon. Can I register?
A. Yes. You may register as long as you will be 18 on or before November 4th. Just follow the process above.

Q. I sent in my form two weeks ago, but I haven’t heard anything back yet. Did it get lost?
A. You should receive confirmation 4-6 weeks after your original submission. If you do not hear from your County Clerk by then, give them a call. Click HERE for a list of County Clerk offices.

Q. I am a pastor or a church leader. Can I encourage the members at my church to register to vote and hold a voters registration drive?
A. Yes. Voter registration drives are not considered political activity. Although certain limitations are imposed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax code and campaign laws, churches and pastors are able to engage in nonpartisan activity, particularly voter registration and voter education. There is no legal restriction whatsoever on the ability of churches to register voters or provide them candidate survey information, like the material provided in the IFI Voter Guide.

**IMPORTANT: If you are registered to vote but think you may be out of town on election day (e.g. college students, military personnel), make sure you cast an absentee ballot!

Click HERE for more information on absentee voting. If you have any questions about registering to vote or absentee voting, please call the IFI office during normal business hours at (708) 781-9328.

Spread the Word!

Do you have friends or acquaintances who could benefit from IFI’s informational emails? If you do, please forward this IFI email to them and encourage them to join our e-mail list! 

It is only because of concerned citizens like you that we are able to continue promoting pro-family values in the Prairie State. 

Thank you for helping us to reach more families!

Constitutional Amendments on the Nov. 4th Ballot

Two proposed changes to the Illinois Constitution will be on the November 4th ballot — one pertaining to crime victims’ rights and the other, elections. A simple majority of those who pull ballots or three-fifths of those voting on the measure itself will be required to make the suggested constitutional changes.

1.)  Proposed Amendment to Section 8.1 of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution — Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights

Illinois Family Institute Position: Vote YES

Illinois Family Institute supports victims’ rights. Opponents believe this amendment is unnecessary because the current law already provides these protections. Proponents of this amendment believe it may ensure enforcement of existing law.  The 492-word amendment specifies twelve different rights for crime victims, all in current law, including the right to be notified about court rulings, proceedings, and to be protected from the accused during the justice process. The amendment gives the victims the right to communicate with the prosecution and to be heard at any court proceeding involving release, plea or sentencing.

2.)  Proposed Amendment to Section 8 of Article III of the Illinois Constitution — Elections

Illinois Family Institute Position: Vote NO

Proponents of fair elections argue this amendment would negatively impact and stop any effort to combat election fraud, efforts 31 other states have enacted. They also raise questions about the phrase “status as a member of a language minority.” It is unknown whether this requirement will eventually force polling places to provide ballots in an array of language translations or require them to make available language interpreters to convey ballot choices.

Referenda on the Nov. 4th Ballot

Three advisory referenda will be on the Illinois’ 2014 General Election ballot. On an “advisory referendum,” voters express their opinions. The question will not become law if a majority agrees with it, but their opinion will be considered as the Illinois General Assembly decides legislation on the issue.

1.)  Minimum Wage — Shall the minimum wage in Illinois for adults over the age of 18 be raised to $10 per hour by January 1, 2015?

Illinois Family Institute Position: Vote NO

Minimum wage hikes fall disproportionately on small-business owners who are less able to absorb increased labor costs. This means there are fewer opportunities for unskilled workers or adults to get started in the labor market and move their way up. This referendum would trigger employers to hire more workers under the age of 18 where the minimum wage hike doesn’t apply, forcing workers over the age of 18 out of a job.  Minimum wage hikes actually harm the very people that proponents of the laws say they want to help.

2.)  Prescription Birth Control Coverage — Shall any health insurance plan in Illinois that provides prescription drug coverage be required to include prescription birth control as part of that coverage?

Illinois Family Institute Position: Vote NO
Supported by Planned Parenthood

Since 2004, Illinois law has already required health insurance policies to include prescription birth control coverage, which could include abortion inducing drugs. Opponents view this referendum as a way to increase uninformed voter turnout.

3.)  Additional 3%Income Tax — Should the Illinois Constitution be amended to require that each school district receive additional revenue, based on their number of students, from an additional 3 percent tax on income greater than one million dollars?  (emphasis added)

Illinois Family Institute Position: Vote NO

This referendum would drive more businesses and millionaires, who are already highly taxed, out of Illinois.  Illinois is currently one of the nation’s top three income losing states — an estimated $20 billion lost as Illinoisans  moved to other states over the past decade. If the temporary tax is made permanent, which Governor Patrick Quinn and Speaker Michael Madigan are recommending, the additional 3 percent brings their tax to 8 percent, one of the highest in the nation.★

Click HERE for a PDF version of this article.  

Please share with family and friends!

Please consider supporting our work and ministry in the public square.