Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx are the mid-19^th century philosophical fathers of Communism.  Both men epitomized the rally cry of Atheism which is “God doesn’t exist, and I hate him.”   They saw religion as a competitor to their agenda of a government-based socialistic society.

In disparaging religious faith, Engels wrote:

“All religion… is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces.”

Regarding this rivalry, Engels observed:

“Both Christianity and the workers’ socialism preach forth coming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society.”

Do government powers compete with faith?  More specifically, can big government displace religious faith?   When people can get things they want from the government as a provider, are they less likely to turn to God for help?  These are not strange questions.  In fact, researchers have a name for it.  They call it an exchange model of religion.

A new paper compiled by researchers from three universities published April 12th in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin say that the answer to these questions is “yes.”   Big government replaces God for many people around the world.  They conclude that if some of the appeals of faith can be acquired from government, then religiosity declines in that society.

The researchers found a delayed effect between an increase in government services and a measurable decline in faith occurring one to two years later.  “If a secular entity provides what people need, they will be less likely to seek help from God or other supernatural entities. Government is the most likely secular provider,” the researchers concluded.

“The power and order emanating from God can be outsourced to the government,” the researchers claim.  I wonder how many politicians who are drawn to government doing more and more in every aspect of our lives realize that they are making a god out of government.  I suspect that many do know this.

The researchers compared state and country services as a percentage of gross domestic product with data about religion collected by Gallup from 455,104 people across 155 countries.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

You may have thought I was overstating things in my recent article, “Will California Go from Banning Religious Books to Burning Them?” You may have thought I was exaggerating when I referenced LGBT activists who compared Christian conservatives to ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Be assured that there was not a word of hyperbole in what I wrote. The truth is unsettling enough.

To put things in perspective, when Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he stated clearly that marriage was the union of one man and one woman. And he knew he needed to do this to win the conservative, black vote.

Today, you are branded a radical and a dangerous fanatic if you espouse that same view. You will be grilled by the tolerance inquisition!

Ten years ago, you would have laughed me to scorn if I told you Bruce Jenner would become Caitlyn Jenner and be named woman of the year. You would have ridiculed me if I told you the federal government would punish schools that refused to open the girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms to boys who identified as girls.

Today, “transphobic” is a household word, a gender-confused teen has his (her?) own reality TV show, and drag queens are reading stories to toddlers in libraries.

Ten years ago, you would have said “Impossible!” to the idea that a minor with unwanted same-sex attraction would be forbidden by law to receive professional counseling, even if that child expressly requested it and even if that child had been sexually abused. And you would have dismissed completely the notion that some states would seek to bar such counseling from adults as well.

Today, a number of states have outlawed this much-needed counseling for struggling minors, while California is poised to make it illegal for anyone of any age to receive professional help for unwanted same-sex attraction or gender-confusion. That is the unvarnished, unembellished truth.

And what happens when we draw attention to this outrageous California bill? We are attacked as maniacs.

As one gay activist put it (specifically, in the context of my opposition to the California bill), “Brown is a religious zealot — a Christian convert — who is barely distinguishable from the folks who flew airplanes into buildings for their god. Unlike them, Brown is nonviolent. However, like those 9/11 maniacs, Brown substitutes literalist religious belief for logic, science and common sense. Brown, I think, relishes the negative attention and while I say that he is nonviolent he does equivalent violence to LGBT people every day through misinformation.”

To parse these words in any serious way is to give them a dignity they do not deserve. I simply post them to say, “You see! I was not exaggerating.”

This is what comes your way when you oppose radical LGBT activism. This is what you can expect when you take a stand for liberty and freedom. This is what happens when you tell the truth.

This same gay activist wrote, “In the final analysis, Michael Brown is an advocate of pseudoscience in order to conform the world to his religious beliefs. It should be noted that Brown sports a PhD in Near Eastern Languages. Obviously, he has no training or work experience relative to human sexuality.”

And after claiming that there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through counseling or that gender-confused children can, with help, become at home in their own bodies, he writes, “If Michael Brown knows of more compelling research, he has not cited it. He has failed to make any meaningful argument in support of conversion therapy. Promoting the existence of this mythical approach only creates prejudice and discrimination. It serves no useful purpose. Come to think of it, Michael Brown serves no useful purpose. It is a cheap shot but the guy rails against LGBT people all day, every day. Maybe he needs a new hobby.”

Actually, I and others have been citing scientific literature for years, along with an endless number of personal anecdotes from friends and colleagues. (I’m talking about former-homosexuals and former-transgenders.) But whoever we cite gets discredited immediately, since the psychologists and psychiatrists and therapists and scholars do not adhere to the standard LGBT talking points.

Ryan Anderson provides ample scientific literature about transgender issues in his new book, while a major review of scientific literature by two prominent psychologists addresses broader issues of sexual orientation change as well. Be assured that the science is there.

This, however, is not to deny that there are many gays and transgenders who have tried to change, without success. They have suffered depression and fear and self-loathing, spiraling even deeper into hopeless after unsuccessful therapy efforts. I do not minimize their struggles, I do not pretend to be able to relate to what they have endured, and I constantly call on the Church to show great compassion to such strugglers.

But to each of them – and to the critics who attack us with such venom – I make a simple appeal. Allow others to find their own path.

When you try to pass laws that will take away essential freedoms of those you differ with, and when you demonize those who oppose your values, you only discredit yourselves. In the long run, this will work against you. We will overcome your venom and anger and bills and laws with grace and truth and love – and God’s help.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

For many years I’ve said that, when it comes to America, I’m more concerned with the absence of light than with the presence of darkness. In the same way, I’m more concerned with our failure to speak freely than with those who are trying to silence us.

This, of course, is not to deny that there is a frontal assault on our most fundamental freedoms. I’ve witnessed this firsthand and documented it for years.

Just this week, media researcher Brent Bozell sounded the alarm about this concerted attack. He said, “This is the emerging of the greatest censorship of free speech worldwide in the history of man. Now, let me explain this, the left is on a jihad against conservative thought. It’s happening in academia, entertainment, business, religion, everywhere.”

His warning follows on the heels of the release of a major study done by Bozell’s Media Research Center (MRC) titled, “CENSORED! How Online Media Companies Are Suppressing Conservative Speech.”

According to this study: Twitter Leads in Censorship; Facebook’s Trending Feed Has Been Hiding Conservative Topics; Google Search Aids Democrats; YouTube Is Shutting Down Conservative Videos; Tech Firms Are Relying on Groups That Hate Conservatives; Liberal Twitter Advisors Outnumber Conservatives 12-to-1; Tech Companies Rely on Anti-Conservative Fact-Checkers.

In short, the MRC study confirms what we knew to be true already: There is a war against conservative and religious speech. And it is not just in the realm of online media, as Bozell rightly observed.

But, to repeat, that’s not my greatest concern today, as weighty as these developments are.

Instead my focus is on our failure to stand up and speak out, especially as religious conservatives.

Who’s stopping pastors from speaking freely from the pulpit? I’m not talking about endorsing political candidates. I’m talking about addressing abortion and LGBT activism and racial division and more. Who’s stopping us from being socially and culturally relevant?

Why must we dance around these issues with the constant fear of stepping on people’s toes? How can we possibly take gospel-worthy, moral stands if we are such people-pleasers and if we are so ambiguous in our declarations? Why are we more concerned with not offending people than with genuinely helping people?

And what about the rest of us who are not preaching behind pulpits (or speaking over the airwaves)? Who’s stopping us from speaking the truth in love on our social media outlets? Or in our social circles? Why are we more concerned with the opinions of people than with the opinions of God? Why don’t we share our faith and our convictions more clearly and boldly and publicly?

A young man once reached out to me on Facebook. He wrote, “I shared one of your articles recently, and I was shocked at the negative comments I received. Some folks even unfriended me. So, what do you think I should do? Should I pull the article?”

Seriously? Pull an article you agree with because you got some flack? Delete a post you feel is important because some people unfriended you? Our fellow-believers around the world are being tortured and killed for the gospel, and we’re afraid of losing friends on social media?

No wonder we’re losing our freedoms. We’re handing the jailer the keys.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for being sensitive and compassionate. I’m all for using wisdom. But true compassion speaks the truth. Love warns. Wisdom doesn’t waver.

Unfortunately, so much of what we call sensitivity and compassion and wisdom is nothing more than cowardice and compromise. Let the truth be told.

Again, I’m not downplaying the very real assault on our freedoms. We are getting hit on every front. I don’t deny this and I don’t minimize it.

But if we all started to speak up together, things would change. If pastors and leaders took their clues from the Word of God rather than from what’s trending, the nation would be rocked. If we used the freedoms we do have and used them to the fullest, those freedoms could not be taken from us in 100 years. (I’m speaking in particular of the situation here in America.)

Jesus urged us to let our light shine, to put it on a lampstand where everyone could see it rather than hiding it under the bed. It’s time we let our light shine for America to see.

If we do, our nation will be blessed and our freedoms will be preserved. If we don’t, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

So let your light shine!

This article originally posted at Townhall.com.

Farmers and even city slickers understand the value of protecting the hen house and would never allow a fox or wolf to stand guard. The fox does not see the hens as egg-producers, but as a lip-smacking meal ready to be devoured.

In the digital world, so many of the social media platforms are owned by Progressive and even radical ideologues. What began as a free marketplace of ideas and the next frontier in technology has evolved into a totalitarian bully pulpit: liberals and radicals of every persuasion are given free rein, while conservatives and most especially Christian conservatives are quashed and censored with impunity.

Too many conservative media organizations have felt the wrath of Facebook or Twitter or YouTube over innocuous posts and tweets with biblical or constitutional content.

Pages, businesses, and persons are suspended, blocked, or muted at will. The explanation for such actions?

“Your post (tweet) violates our Community Guidelines/Standards.”

Facebook writes:

Our mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. Every day, people come to Facebook to share their stories, see the world through the eyes of others and connect with friends and causes. The conversations that happen on Facebook reflect the diversity of a community of more than two billion people.

We want people to feel safe when using Facebook. For that reason, we’ve developed a set of Community Standards…

1. We remove content, disable accounts, and work with law enforcement when we believe there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety.
2. To help balance the needs, safety, and interests of a diverse community, however, we may remove certain kinds of sensitive content or limit the audience that sees it.

Sounds noble, doesn’t it?

What about Twitter? Once the freest, fastest growing social media platform, it too now has nebulous rules:

We believe in freedom of expression and open dialogue, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we prohibit behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice.

Context matters when evaluating for abusive behavior and determining appropriate enforcement actions. Factors we may take into consideration include, but are not limited to whether:

1. the behavior is targeted at an individual or group of people;
2. the report has been filed by the target of the abuse or a bystander;
3. the behavior is newsworthy and in the legitimate public interest.

Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.

The preeminent question should be, who determines if “behavior is newsworthy and in the legitimate public interest”? The deeper you drill into these “guidelines,” the more the true agenda becomes apparent.

Listing “sexual orientation, gender, gender identity” among immutable characteristics (race, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability) and faith (religious affiliation) subtly and slyly equates a new perverse worldview.

Obviously the Facebook and Twitter geeks don’t heed the wisdom of the late influential black pastor from Seattle, Ken Hutcherson who noted:

It has been said loudly and proudly that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. If that’s the case, then gays would be the new African-Americans. I’m here to tell you now, and hopefully for the last time, that the gay community is not the new African-American community.

Don’t compare your sin to my skin!

If Pastor Hutcherson were alive today and posted that to Facebook or tweeted that commentary on Twitter, he would swiftly find himself in the FB/Twitter gulag indefinitely.

It was only a matter of time before YouTube followed Facebook and Twitter to the Left’s Utopia where everything a man or woman can do (including kill their unborn) is right in their own eyes and can be shared millions of times via social media!

Whoa just one minute!

The Left shouts “Diversity! Inclusion! Love!”

But what they REALLY mean is “Diversity of all radical, perverse, progressive thought” and “Inclusion of all communications from people who think like us” and “Love is sex and sex is fine in every possible perverse manner!”

And YouTube is following the anti-biblical drumbeat.

YouTube was founded/created in 2005 by three former PayPal employees, Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim.

But in 2015, Google CEO Larry Page announced the creation of a new holding company, Alphabet, Inc., which is now the parent company of Google, with the YouTube subsidiary under the Google umbrella. The relationships are a bit muddy and incestuous, but while Alphabet is at the helm, Google is the General that commands many of the subsidiaries. So, as Google goes, so goes YouTube and Google Search Engine.

Naturally, YouTube Community Guidelines come from on high — from General Google and Fleet Admiral Alphabet.

Here’s a sampling:

Our products are platforms for free expression. But we don’t support content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity, or whose primary purpose is inciting hatred on the basis of these core characteristics.

Once again we see the pattern: an expected litany of prohibited speech includes “sexual orientation/gender.” Adding that protected class by necessity means any Bible verses, any beliefs which disagree with a radical LGBT agenda have become verboten hate speech.

And to add to their wholly biased standard, YouTube has created what it calls a Trusted Flagger Program. Flaggers are people who flag videos they deem transgressing YouTube/Google Community Guidelines.

Back in 2012, we noticed that certain people were particularly active in reporting Community Guidelines violations with an extraordinarily high rate of accuracy. From this insight, the Trusted Flagger Program was born to provide more robust tools for people or organizations who are particularly interested in and effective at notifying us of content that violates our Community Guidelines.

What is even more troubling, if that is possible, one organization known for it’s rabid anti-Christian bias and 100% pro-LGBT+ agenda, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), is part of the Trusted Flagger Program.

Peter Hasson writes at The Daily Caller:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has confirmed The Daily Caller’s exclusive report that they are policing content on YouTube as part of YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers” program.

The left-wing nonprofit — which has more recently come under fire for labeling legitimate conservative organizations as “hate groups” — is one of the more than 100 non-government organizations (NGOs) and government agencies in YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers” program, a source with knowledge of the arrangement told TheDC.

Hmmm. This is same SPLC whose “Hate Map” incited a foiled assassination attempt at the DC offices of the Family Research Council.

The red flags should be all over this discovery. Of course YouTube will censor Dennis Prager and any and all conservatives and/or Christians with the hateful SPLC calling the shots.

Christians and other conservatives across America should contact YouTube and politely, but firmly object to the SPLC being any part of the Trusted Flaggers program:

YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave.
San Bruno, CA 94066
USA
Fax: +1 650-253-0001

We are admonished by the Apostle Peter:

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. (1 Peter 3:15)

Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8)

Paul tells us in the letter to the Ephesians:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. (Ephesians 6:12-13)

Be alert! That roaring lion has many active emissaries, including the aforementioned Southern Poverty Law Center.

Armour up and fight against the SPLC Fox guarding the YouTube (or any other) hen house!

IFI Worldview Conference May 5th

We have rescheduled our annual Worldview Conference featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet for Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture.

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Written by Frank Cannon

Our nation’s elites are waging war on the American people, wielding the institutions they’ve spent several decades capturing to punish those who disagree with their preferred positions and to deny them the ability to speak publicly, all in an effort to stifle free and open debate. And no, this isn’t a George Orwell novel — this is the United States of America.

While many still mistakenly view our political arena as a skirmish between “liberals” and “conservatives”, it would be more accurate to describe it as an all-out war between “elitists” and “populists”. As my late friend Jeff Bell argued in his 1992 book, “Populism and Elitism: Politics in the Age of Equality”, elitists believe in a top-down approach where a cadre of experts rule the country and determine what is acceptable discourse and what is not, while populists believe the people should ultimately determine the course of our politics and culture.

Traditionally, the “elitists” have always had the upper hand in this battle by controlling many of our cultural institutions, but the respect for the will of the people — exercised by the ability to elect our political leaders — remained in place. Over time, however, that respect eroded, and today, it is completely gone. Now the “elitists” find the “populists” to be repugnant, backward, and bigoted, and they believe the only way to defeat the people is to use elite institutional power in academia, corporate America, the administrative state, and the mainstream media to stifle debate, force-feed elite opinions masquerading as facts, and stamp out dissent.

For example, consider these three widely held views by the American people:

• Young children should not be taught about transgenderism or changing their gender.
• Abortion is wrong, especially after the first trimester.
• The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Despite their relative popularity, these views are repulsive to our elites, and in recent years, they have sought to shut down debate on all three topics by calling anti-gender ideology activists “transphobic”, anti-abortion activists “anti-women”, and defenders of the Constitution “gun nuts” who have “blood on their hands”. On the gender ideology issue, elites have been wildly successful in completely removing debate over transgenderism from the public square and even politics. On abortion, they have largely failed as pro-life sentiment among the people has proven too strong for elites to overcome. And on guns, the jury is still out, but elites are engaging in perhaps their most brazenly outrageous effort to silence opposing views to date.

It’s About Tactics, Not Issues

The battle between elite opinion and popular opinion is as old as time, but the recent tactical change among elites seeking to stifle dissenting speech is a new, and frightening, development. In a departure from the normal give-and-take of American democracy, the elites have begun using their clout within every major institution of civil society to demonize and punish their opposition — through public shaming in the media, economic extortion and retaliation by big businesses, and even criminalization of certain protest activities. And given their entrenchment within these institutions, the elites face little or no consequences for their blatant illiberality.

A case in point of this change has been the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting. Despite the complexity of the issues involved and the diversity of views held by Americans as to the proper response, the elites have pursued a scorched earth campaign against those who do not hold their black-and-white views on guns. In the news media, a narrative emphasizing the immediate necessity of national gun control legislation has become a 24-hour rallying cry, with victims of the tragedy exploited to advance this narrative and brand those who disagree as somehow complicit in the violence. Meanwhile, corporations have begun to sever ties with the NRA, sending a message that only one side of the debate is socially acceptable while the other is deserving of punishment.

A similar strategy has been playing out with the movement to normalize the Left’s gender ideology. Despite a lack of scientific evidence — and widespread parental skepticism — regarding the soundness of treating young, gender dysphoric children with highly experimental puberty blockers and hormonal treatments, elites have slowly co-opted influential medical associations in order to ensure that these treatments are not only widely adopted but also that alternative approaches to gender dysphoria are marginalized and even criminalized. Moreover, opponents of this takeover, no matter how well-grounded their opposition, are branded by the media and its self-appointed experts as “transphobes” and “bigots” while being denied any opportunity to make their arguments in a respected forum.

Most Americans Already Understand What’s Happening

Make no mistake: an America with total elite control over the population and where dissent from their views is vilified is not an America at all. The gun debate is simply another battle in the all-out war elites are waging on the American people’s right to even have an opinion, let alone speak out about it and not be punished for it.

Fortunately, the American people are fully cognizant of what is taking place, which is why they voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Instead of looking at Trump and Clinton through the two lenses voters typically use, moral character and issue positions, voters applied a third lens: would their views be allowed to be articulated at all without dire consequences under a Clinton administration?

We cannot keep pretending, like so many Never Trumpers do, that we are operating in an environment of normal political give-and-take on issues. That time has passed. We are instead operating in a country now where elites demonize the populist position with such ferocity that many are afraid to voice their opinion at all, which is, of course, the entire point of their strategy. Our fight is no longer just over political issues — it is a battle against the very tactics being used by elites to stifle debate and destroy the essence of what makes America great.

Frank Cannon is the president at American Principles Project.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

Homosexual head honcho in the country music industry, Jason Owen, threw a tantrum over the appointment of Mike Huckabee to serve on the board of the philanthropic arm of the Country Music Association (CMA). Owen was furious that Huckabee holds the theologically orthodox belief that homosexuality is a sin and that Huckabee supports the NRA.

Owen and his equally intolerant allies were successful in forcing Huckabee to step down less than 24 hours after his appointment, with Owen threatening to take his money and his musicians and go home if Huckabee stayed:

“It is with a heavy heart that I must let you know moving forward, Sandbox and Monument will no longer support the CMA Foundation in any way (this includes everyone we represent collectively) considering the heartbreaking news shared today regarding Mike Huckabee appointee/elected to the CMA Foundation. Further, we find it hard to support the organization as a whole as a result. As you may know I have a child and two on the way. This man has made it clear that my family is not welcome in his America. And the CMA has opened their arms to him, making him feel welcome and relevant. Huckabee speaks of the sort of things that would suggest my family is morally beneath his and uses language that has a profoundly negative impact upon young people all across this country. Not to mention how harmful and damaging his deep involvement with the NRA is. What a shameful choice. I will not participate in any organization that elevates people like this to positions that amplify their sick voices. This was a detrimentally poor choice by the CMA and it’s [sic] leaders.

I only wish the best for you and I know how hard you work for the foundation but a grossly offensive decision like this only makes your job harder and diminishes the foundation’s purpose.

In Owen’s perverse world, homosexuality and intentionally motherless and fatherless children are in. The Bible, the Constitution, and diversity are out.

Let’s not forget that it was Jesus who established marriage as a man-woman union—not Mike Huckabee. While Owen and his allies may not be theologically orthodox Christians, many Americans—including many country music fans—are. And let’s not forget that for theologically orthodox Christians, their faith is as central to their identities as homoeroticism is to the identities of “gays” and “lesbians.”

Owen believes that those who express the theologically orthodox Christian view that marriage is a male-female union are also saying that homosexual couples are “not welcome in America.” So, does Owen apply that principle consistently?

When Owen says it’s “grossly offensive” and “shameful” for an organization to hire someone who holds theologically orthodox biblical views on marriage, does he make theologically orthodox Christians feel “not welcome in America”? Are his words, therefore, “grossly offensive,” “shameful,” and “sick”?

What about all the homosexuals who, before Obergefelle, said that marriage is the union of two people who love each other? Are they guilty of making polyamorists who would like to marry feel their families are “not welcome in America”? Are their voices “sick”?

What about men and women who experience “Genetic Sexual Attraction” and are in love with close blood relatives (remember, love is love)? Is it “grossly offensive” and “shameful” to express opposition to adult consensual incest?

More broadly, is helping people feel good about all their life choices some sort of moral principle that subsumes all other moral claims? Does everyone have an obligation to refrain from expressing moral propositions with which others may disagree? If so, does that apply to Owen and his ideological co-conspirators?

Like all homosexual tacticians, Owen appeals to emotions by referring to his children, saying that Huckabee’s beliefs suggest Owen’s “family is morally beneath” Huckabee’s.” Huckabee’s beliefs concern types of family structures, and yes, theologically orthodox Christians believe that a family headed by two men or two women in a homoerotic relationship is morally inferior to a family headed by a man and woman. That idea too comes from Scripture, which speaks in unequivocal and plain language about homoerotic activity, marriage, the roles of mothers and fathers, and the needs of children. If Owen has a beef with those beliefs, he should take it up with the Almighty.

Singer and lesbian Chely Wright self-righteously chastises Huckabee: “[Y]oung people will be shattered, yet again, to hear someone with so much power saying the things you’re saying about who God made them to be.” It’s preposterous to claim that God “made” anyone to desire that which He condemns. I don’t know where Wright gets her theology, but it’s not from Scripture.

So, what’s the end game for those disciples of diversity and teachers of tolerance like Owen, Wright, and their allies? Do they want to rob theologically orthodox Christians of their ability to make a living? Do they want to impose a religious test for holding office? Do they want the state to take children away from theologically orthodox Christians? Do they want the state to prohibit theologically orthodox Christians from adopting? Do they want to nullify the speech rights of theologically orthodox Christians?

Word to Owen et al.: Love is inseparable from truth. If it’s true that homosexual activity is immoral, if it’s true that marriage has a nature central to which is sexual complementarity, if it’s true that children have a right to be raised by a mother and a father whenever possible, then expressing those views is not only permissible but also good. If the Bible is true, the ideology of Owen and Wright will have a “profoundly negative impact upon young people”—eternally.

P.S. Our get-out-the-vote campaign is up and running. We are distributing the IFI Primary 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?

To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.

As a nurse threatened with termination for refusing to participate in an unethical health care decision years ago, I have a special interest in conscience rights for health care professionals.

Over the past several decades, new threats to conscience rights have widened from refusing to participate in abortions to other deliberate death decisions like withdrawal of feedings from people with serious brain injuries, VSED (voluntary stopping of eating and drinking), terminal sedation and physician-assisted suicide.

Thus, I am pleased that the Trump administration recently announced the new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division  in the department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to enforce “federal laws that protect conscience and the free exercise of religion and prohibit coercion and discrimination in health and human services”. The division specifically mentions “issues such as abortion and assisted suicide (among others) in HHS-funded or conducted programs and activities” and includes a link to file a conscience or religious freedom complaint “if you feel a health care provider or government agency coerced or discriminated against you (or someone else) unlawfully”.

Predictably, both Compassion and Choices and Planned Parenthood immediately condemned the new department.

In a recent fundraising email, Compassion and Choices states that:

 “This office (OCR) is not about freedom; it’s about denying patient autonomy. Under their proposed rules, providers are encouraged to impose their own religious beliefs on their patients and withhold vital information about treatment options from their patients — up to, and including, the option of medical aid in dying. And your federal tax dollars will be used to protect physicians who make the unconscionable decision to willfully withhold crucial information regarding their care from a patient and abandon them when they are most vulnerable.” (Emphasis added)

Planned Parenthood is just as adamant and includes other issues in their reaction:

“OCR is an important office within the HHS that’s meant to protect health care for marginalized communities, including LGBTQ people and underserved women. But the creation of the new “Conscience and Religious Freedom Division” paves the way for discrimination against people for a variety of reasons — be it their gender identity, sexual orientation, or decision to access a safe, legal abortion.” (Emphasis in original)

A SHORT RECENT HISTORY OF FEDERAL CONSCIENCE RIGHTS PROTECTIONS

In response to declining numbers of doctors willing to do abortions in the 1990s, efforts began to mainstream abortion into the health professions such as requiring abortion training for OB/GYNs, shifting training and practice into teaching hospitals and  integrating abortion into regular health care.

The National Abortion Federation along with Medical Students for Choice, pushed for change and in 1995, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education ruled that OB/GYN residency programs must include abortion training or lose accreditation.

That was overturned the next year with the Coats Amendment passed by Congress but  efforts to marginalize pro-life medical professionals continued, especially with newly passed physician-assisted suicide laws and well-publicized withdrawal of feeding tube cases like Terri Schiavo’s.

In 2008, the Christian Medical Association compiled a list of dozens of real-life cases of discrimination in health care, including doctors, medical students, nurses and pharmacists.

That same year, President Bush strengthened the HHS rules protecting the conscience rights of doctors and nurses to refuse to perform abortions.

In 2011, the Obama administration dismantled key provisions of the Bush administration conscience rights rules.

That same year, 12 New Jersey nurses faced firing for refusal to participate in abortion and had to rely on groups like Alliance Defending Freedom to bring a  lawsuit defending their rights. They were finally vindicated in 2013.

Right now, Wisconsin is considering a physician-assisted suicide bill that states a doctor’s refusal to prescribe the lethal drugs or refer the patient to a willing doctor “constitutes unprofessional conduct”.

Obviously, conscience rights cannot depend just on litigation, conflicting state laws or professional organization positions like the American Medical Association’s  or American Nurses Association’s that don’t vigorously defend conscience rights.

As explained on the Dorsey Health Care group website ,

“In January 2018, OCR announced a proposed rule to strengthen conscience-based protections for individuals and entities with objections to certain activities based on religious belief and moral convictions.”

“OCR now proposes to return much of 45 CFR part 88 to its 2008 Bush-era form, adding a requirement that certain recipients of HHS funds certify they comply with conscience protection laws and notify individuals of their rights thereunder”, enhance investigative and enforcement abilities and expands its enforcement authority to more conscience-protection laws than the 2008 or 2011 iterations. It will also “handle complaints [both formal and not], perform compliance reviews, investigate, and seek appropriate action,” including terminating funding and requiring repayment. OCR states “that a more centralized approach to enforcement of conscience protections is necessary in part due to rapidly rising complaints.” (Emphasis added) Comments on this proposed rule can be submitted by March 27, 2018.

CONCLUSION

Health care professionals with pro-life views have been under attack for decades. It’s more than just not being “politically correct”; the very existence of such health care professionals threatens the appropriation of health care by groups dedicated to promoting abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia as civil rights.

Without strong conscience rights protections like a successful Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, they will succeed in making health care termination-friendly.

But in the end, enforcement of the most basic civil right of health care professionals to provide care for patients without being required to participate in life-destroying  activities should not be determined by politics or popularity polls but by the acceptance of the universal principle of respect and protection for human life.

This article was originally published at NancyValko.com

Written by Brandon Showalter

Vice President Mike Pence swore in Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback as the new Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom [last week], a key State Department post that advocates for persecuted religious minority groups worldwide.

Following a contentious nomination process, Pence had to cast the tie-breaking vote twice in a divided U.S. Senate last month for Brownback to be confirmed. Brownback took the oath of office at a White House ceremony attended by dozens of friends and religious freedom advocates Thursday afternoon.

In remarks before administering the oath, the vice president praised Brownback for his three decades of public service, and referenced their close friendship while serving in Congress and as state governors at the same time.

“In all the years I’ve known him, I’ve never ceased to be encouraged or inspired by his example, his faith, his unwavering belief in the goodness of the American people and his dedication and commitment to fight for what’s right. It’s all those qualities I know that made this decision an easy one for President Donald Trump,” Pence said.

In brief remarks after taking the oath, Brownback noted that never before has there been so much religious persecution in the world, highlighting the plight of the Rohingya people in refugee camps in Myanmar, and the 21 Coptic Christians who were beheaded on a beach in Libya. The right to determine the destiny of one’s own soul is a freedom Americans cherish and it’s a freedom worth fighting for on the world stage, he said.

Religious liberty for everyone is one of America’s most “noble efforts,” Brownback said, and “perhaps, and in my opinion it is, the greatest of our efforts and the greatest of our causes.”

Religious freedom is a “foundational human right,” he said, “and its establishment is foundational for a nation to prosper and move forward in freedom.” Americans believe in this and “we will fight for it,” he added.

“If you want more security and less terrorism in your country, have more religious freedom. It’s a byproduct, a fruit of more security and peace. It’s in all the data, and now we need to spread it to all the world.”

The new ambassador expressed confidence that with the backing of the Trump administration the Islamic State’s atrocities against religious minorities in the Middles East will cease.

“We will see the expansion of religious liberty around the world. Mark my words. This is going to happen. We will get it done,” he told the crowd to enthusiastic applause.

“So as a son of the prairie, I humbly accept this high role for our nation. May God bless this cause,” Brownback concluded.

In addition to his wife and three of his children, guests attending Brownback’s ceremony included his predecessor, David Saperstein, and Federal Communications Commission head Ajit Pai, who once worked for Brownback when the Kansas governor was a U.S. Senator. Also present was former Congressman Frank Wolf, a passionate advocate for religious freedom and human rights, after whom the revamped International Religious Freedom Act of 2016 is named.

This article was originally posted at ChristianPost.com

In early January, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) overturned a longstanding policy that forbade churches from getting federal disaster relief money.

The rule change by the Trump Administration affected any houses of worship that were damaged on or after August 23, just before Hurricane Harvey devastated large areas of Texas and especially the Houston area.   It was a welcome relief also to congregations in Florida, Georgia and South Carolina in the path of Hurricane Irma, and to church communities in Puerto Rico that endured Hurricane Maria.

What might seem to be a neutral stance – that all damaged buildings in a disaster area could apply for aid financed by U.S. taxpayers – was denounced by atheist groups as a violation of the “separation of church and state” doctrine that has governed church-government relations since a series of Supreme Court rulings in the 1940s.

Beginning with Justice Hugo Black’s misapplication in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) of a reference in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists promising a “wall of separation” between church and state, the court effectively abandoned neutrality for hostility.

Federal officials’ initial singling out of religious institutions for denial of disaster aid is just one of many consequences from that serious misreading of President Jefferson’s letter — and of the First Amendment.  As historian David Barton notes, liberals now use the First Amendment as a sword to attack religious freedom, while conservatives use it as a shield.

Wrong-headed rulings have fundamentally transformed many constitutional protections into their opposite, but nowhere has more damage been done than to the First Amendment, the first part of which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

America’s Founders, and particularly Mr. Jefferson and James Madison, who championed religious liberty, would be appalled at how those very words have been twisted to advance discrimination against religious speech and practice.

But perhaps a turnaround is on the horizon.

The Trump Administration’s appointment of judges who respect the Constitution is one good sign. Another is the recent move by FEMA to undo bureaucratic discrimination.  Still another is a pending Supreme Court case.  On December 5, the justices heard arguments in what could produce the most important First Amendment ruling in decades.

A Christian baker in Colorado who had declined to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding invoked First Amendment protection from having to use his artistic ability to express something against his values.  The case is Masterpiece Cake Shop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Similar cases have arisen across the nation involving bakers, wedding planners, photographers and florists, all of whom say they have no problem with serving homosexual clients but draw the line at helping to facilitate weddings.  They say it is about the event, not the clients, a crucial distinction that the Court just might find persuasive.

Although all of these involve religious liberty, they could gain more support from liberals if they are based on freedom of expression.  After all, these are the same folks who think nude dancing is covered, so why not expressive cake baking?

In many arenas, the courts have invented new “rights” not envisioned by the Founders or ignored specific constitutional guarantees.  Without the Founders’ Biblically-based understanding of humans as flawed but redeemable, it’s easy to arrive at rulings, policies and laws that sound good on paper but are calamitous in the real world, producing a less responsible populace.

“If men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments,” G.K. Chesterton observed, “they shall be governed by the ten thousand commandments.”  The less that people embrace personal responsibility, the more we need bureaucrats, police, prosecutors and prisons.

Thanks to the genius of the Framers, there is a way back.  The Constitution itself is the most articulate voice in any legal matter. Since people are policy, the short answer to how we can restore America’s constitutional freedoms and ordered liberty is to elect and appoint leaders and judges who respect the original text and defeat those who do not.

Another remedy would be to impeach lawless judges, something clearly authorized by the Constitution, but almost never exercised. Maybe we need the president to declare some of these judges a disaster.

This article originally posted on Townhall.com.

Last year brought a flurry of news reports about how Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have been actively working to suppress the conservative message. Their actions are not new — all the big four tech/social media giants are run by Leftists. Some speculate that the election of Donald Trump increased their motivation to step up their efforts.

The arguments in the public square and in the courts about the First Amendment, free speech, and religious liberty are common — and now another discussion is gaining momentum — this one is about viewpoint discrimination.

The government is not permitted to engage in it, nor are taxpayer funded entities. To what degree, however, are private companies allowed to do so because of public accommodation laws?

The “literature” on the topic, as they say, is growing. As the courts and commentators hash it out, it is worth excerpting from a must-read article last November by Ben Weingarten at The Federalist. Here is how it opens:

PragerU Sues YouTube For Discriminating Against Conservative Videos

PragerU’s suit against Google and YouTube alleging unlawful censorship and free speech discrimination has the potential to be groundbreaking.

Those blackballed from social media platforms for sharing views dissenting from prevailing progressive Silicon Valley orthodoxy have to date had little recourse against the tech speech police. That is why PragerU’s newly filed suit against Google and Google-owned YouTube alleging unlawful censorship and free speech discrimination based on the educational video purveyor’s conservative political viewpoint has the potential to be groundbreaking.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, details upwards of 50 PragerU educational videos that YouTube has, in PragerU’s view, unjustifiably slapped with “restricted mode” or “demonetization” filters, violating its First Amendment right to free speech. These filters limit or otherwise prevent viewers, based on characteristics like age, from consuming content deemed “inappropriate.”

Weingarten goes on to address whether basic conservative ideas can be called “inappropriate.” YouTube told PragerU that it “can’t share more details about our review process, as doing so could benefit channels that do not play by the rules (those who game the system).”

Weingarten writes:

Indeed, PragerU’s suit confirms what conservatives have recognized for some time: the rules that govern banning users, taking down content, or otherwise disadvantaging posts and tweets on the basis of the sharer’s ideology or the message’s bent have been capriciously written and arguably even more capriciously applied.

The section of Weingarten’s article regarding “Free Speech Rights Can Apply in Private Contexts” is important and informative:

PragerU’s argument rests on the idea that modern social media behemoths constitute the digital equivalent of today’s public square. Thus, their users must be provided the same free speech protections in cyberspace as in the town green.

The suit reads in part:

The United States Supreme Court…recognized more than a half-century ago that the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution can apply even on privately owned property. One of the most important places to exchange and express views is cyberspace, particularly social media, where users engage in a wide array of protected First Amendment activity on any number of diverse topics.

Where, as in the case of Google/YouTube, a private party operates as one of the largest internet forums for speech and expression in the history of the world and such forum is accessible to and freely used by the public in general, there is nothing to distinguish it from any other forum except the fact that title to the property on which the forum exists belongs to a private corporation. As the highest court in the nation has made clear, ‘[t]he more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.’

“Time will tell what the courts make of this argument,” Weingarten writes.

Later in the article he says:

To the degree to which there is still a relatively free market in technology, there are plenty of measures we can take to challenge Silicon Valley’s speech muzzles. Unlike the Left, which knows how to organize and strategically execute its political campaigns, to date conservatives have not committed to such a concerted effort to protect free speech in cyberspace. We should. These efforts would have to encompass extensive, highly coordinated and unceasing.

Click here to read the bullet points that follow. They provide examples of what I’ve been writing for years about our side’s failure in the information war. And that gets back to the question asked in the title of this article: what is the conservative movement’s answer to the big four social media outlets?

Weingarten applauds PragerU’s efforts, but notes that they are “by no means a sufficient and sure safeguard of our rights.” Putting our hopes in the decision of judges, some of whom (may I say it?) are unmoored from reality and the U.S. Constitution, is not a winning strategy.

Preserving free speech, like all of our cherished freedoms,” Weingarten writes, “requires constant vigilance and persistent defense.”

What does that mean? It can’t mean more of the same when it comes to the marketing and messaging efforts on the part of conservatives. One way to accelerate that process would be for big conservative donors to learn about the groups such as Illinois Family Institute and Illinois Family Action that are willing to innovate, fight and finally win the information war.

If you wish to read many more examples about how the “big four” treat conservatives, you can scan through these links: Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube.

IFI Worldview Conference Feb. 10th

We are excited about our annual Worldview Conference featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet on Sat., Feb. 10, 2017 at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture:

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

From Mauck & Baker

WASHINGTON—today twenty-three Illinois pregnancy centers filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra. Their brief defends their right to not promote abortion and a woman’s right to choose life for her unborn child. The NIFLA v. Becerra case out of California deals with whether the government can force pro-life pregnancy care centers to provide free advertising for the abortion industry. The Illinois centers contend that they, like the California centers, are also being targeted by state efforts to force them to provide pro-abortion information to those who come to them for support.

In July 2017 an Illinois Federal District Court granted several pro-life pregnancy centers a preliminary injunction stopping Illinois’ efforts to enforce a recent amendment to the Healthcare Right of Conscience Act which forces pro-life medical professionals to promote the benefits of abortion and inform women where they can obtain an abortion. California enacted a similar law called the Reproductive FACT Act which is at issue in NIFLA v. Becerra.

Attorney Noel W. Sterett of Mauck & Baker, LLC, who represents the twenty-three pregnancy centers before the Supreme Court, said “The government has no business forcing pro-life doctors and pregnancy care centers to operate as referral agents for the abortion industry. A law that targets medical professionals because of their pro-life views and right of conscience is unconstitutional and unethical.”

There are thousands of pregnancy centers across the country that work to ensure that women are not burdened by fear, financial concerns, or lack of information about their pregnancy. Last year alone, the twenty three pregnancy centers represented in the brief served over 14,000 women with free pregnancy services and support including free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, parenting classes, baby clothes and other material assistance.

This press release was originally released at MauckBaker.com.

Written by Sean Maguire

Based on a quick survey of news articles and blogs on Mississippi’s law, HB 1523, you could conclude that gay, lesbian, transgender, and people who have sex outside of marriage, are about to be in great danger.

That is because the news articles and blogs are filled with hyperbole about how hated these groups of people must be. You will read about how scared lesbian women are when they travel to Jackson. You will read that opponents of the law say unmarried women will not be able to get birth control. You will read that people will be “hurt” and won’t have access to health care and governmental services. You will read that this law “leaves LGBT people in Mississippi in the crosshairs of hate and humiliation.”

And that’s about all that you will read about it. Based on the news reports alone, this law sounds like the worst thing ever to happen in Mississippi.

So it was fair to assume, based on the news and blogs, that the Supreme Court would protect the people of Mississippi from such a terrible law. Yet, the Supreme Court didn’t do that. This week, the high court announced that it isn’t going to hear the challenge brought against this law.

This is good news for the Mississippi government, which passed the law in the first place. But is it bad news for all the people the news and blogs have been crying out for?

Journalists, bloggers, and even Business Councils have talked about the “environment of discrimination” that this law might generate.

The name of this law is the, “Protecting Freedom of Conscious from Government Discrimination Act.”  So there’s no doubt, the law is about discrimination.

It’s telling that only one of the news articles called this act by its name. All the others, and all the blogs, called it “HB 1523” or “The Religious Freedom Act.”

Instead of talking about the dangers of governmental discrimination against religious persons, all the news articles and blogs have been going on about the dangers of discrimination by religious persons.

In reality, this law will not result in a discriminatory environment against individuals.

(This law does nothing to change the state of the law against individual discrimination. Churches are already allowed to make hiring decisions based on their religious beliefs. Individuals are already allowed to discriminate against same-sex weddings. This was reported in the one news article that actually called the act by its name.)

The “Protecting Freedom of Conscious from Government Discrimination Act” does just that. It protects religious individuals and organizations from discrimination by the government. After what we’ve seen done to Jack Phillips in Colorado, Baronnelle Stutzman in Washington, Kevin Cochran in Atlanta, Aaron and Melissa Klein in Oregon, and so many others, that kind of protection is definitely warranted.

Article originally posted on FamilyFoundation.org.

Roe v. Wade may have locked the “right” to abortion in American caselaw for the present future, but the courts have generally been respectful to medical professionals who wish to abstain from any affiliation with abortion. If doctors, nurses, or any other medical professional had moral objections to abortion, the state could not force them to participate. That is until the Ninth Circuit upheld the California FACT Act, a law which requires pro-life pregnancy centers to post disclosures encouraging women to seek abortion services elsewhere.

In November, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to rule on the constitutionality of the FACT Act in NIFLA v. Becarra. The court will be faced with weighing the free speech rights of pro-life pregnancy centers with the state’s “interest” in promoting abortion access. Here is what you need to know.

Just the Facts on the FACT Act

Pro-life pregnancy centers are nonprofit organizations which provide pregnant women with free pregnancy services such as ultrasounds. Yet in the eyes of the abortion industry, these centers were using deceptive methods to persuade women not to abort their child such as citing studies about the negative health risks of abortion. The health risks of abortion to the mother have long been disputed in the medical community. Abortion advocates claim the studies cited by the pregnancy centers are debunked and are therefore misleading women to the detriment of their health. This led to legislative efforts to regulate the pro-life pregnancy centers’ speech.

The California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT) Act requires licensed pregnancy centers to post a disclosure saying that the state offers free or low-cost abortion services. The disclosure includes a phone number for a county office that refers women to abortion clinics. The law also forces unlicensed pregnancy centers to add large disclosures about their non-medical status in all advertisements, even if they provide no medical services.

The harm to the pregnancy centers free speech is evident. The mission of these centers is to advocate for the life of unborn, but they are now being forced to advertise for the abortion industry. However, California argues that the burden on speech is necessary to protect women’s health because women need to know where low-cost abortion services can be obtained.

The Legal Issues in NIFLA v. Becerra

The law is challenged as a violation of the pregnancy center’s right to free speech. When analyzing a law under the First Amendment, the court must first determine which judicial test, known as the standard of scrutiny, to apply to the law. Think of the standard of scrutiny as a balancing scale where on one side is the individual’s right and on other is the government’s interest behind the particular law. A stricter standard of scrutiny will place more weight on the individual right’s side and thus make it more likely to be unconstitutional. The stricter the standard, the more likely the court is to strike down the law.

In NIFLA, the U.S. Supreme Court must determine whether to apply strict or intermediate scrutiny to the FACT Act. Strict scrutiny is the heaviest test available and means the law is only constitutional if it advances a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to meet that interest. This is a very heavy burden for the government to meet and as such, laws under strict scrutiny are nearly always struck down.

However, if every speech regulation were struck down, it would leave government incapable of ensuring basic health and safety precautions in everyday life. For example, there are laws requiring food products to place the ingredients on the label. Thus, for certain types of speech laws, particularly in commercial or professional settings, courts use a weaker test known as intermediate scrutiny. Under this test, the government must only have an important (as opposed to compelling) interest and be no more intrusive than necessary (as opposed to narrowly tailored).

In NIFLA, the challenging pregnancy centers contend the FACT Act should receive strict scrutiny analysis. They argue the disclosure’s message is ideological in nature since abortion is one of the most controversial political, religious, and ethical issues in the nation. Should the government be compelling private individuals to express the government’s message on abortion unless absolutely necessary?

On the other, California argues the weaker standard of scrutiny applies, since these centers are offering medical services and influencing women’s health decisions. Thus, they are within the purview of the state’s regulatory interest to protect health and safety.

Even if the court goes with California’s arguments and uses intermediate scrutiny, the battle is not lost for the pregnancy centers. The FACT Act still must pass intermediate scrutiny. The state must still prove the FACT Act is no more intrusive than necessary to advance the state’s interests in ensuring pregnant women are aware of the availability of abortion services. The pregnancy centers argue that the state could pursue its interests in many other ways such as simply advertise abortion services in government buildings as opposed to using a private organization to speak its message.

The Risk to the Pro-Life Informed Consent Laws

A broad court ruling in favor of the crisis pregnancy centers may prove to be a double-edged sword for the pro-life cause. One pro-life legislative initiative that may be harmed is informed consent laws. These laws require abortion doctors to discuss with the mothers information about the baby’s development, health risks of abortion, and even displaying and describing an ultrasound of the baby. Informed consent laws often aim to persuade women to forgo abortion and choose life for their unborn baby.

If the U.S. Supreme Court were to give a resounding victory for the speech rights of the pregnancy centers in NIFLA v Becerra, it may mean the same rights go for all medical professionals including abortion doctors. It would then open constitutional questions on whether informed consent laws violate the abortion doctors’ free speech rights.

The court could, however, draw a line between the FACT Act and informed consent laws. The court could say the state’s interest in regulating an invasive procedure like abortion is stronger than the interest of informing women where they can obtain abortion. The Court could also draw a distinction by deferring to the court precedent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey which upheld an informed consent law.

NIFLA’s Impact on the Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling will not just affect pro-life pregnancy centers and abortion doctors, it could affect a wide range of laws, including the Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act.

Before 2016, the Act protected medical professionals from liability if they refused to participate in procedures they had conscientious objections to like abortion. However, due to the passage of SB 1564, the Act now requires medical professionals who have moral projections, to either transfer, refer, or give written information on where to obtain the procedure if asked by a patient.

This is a heavy burden on the free speech rights of medical professionals. Fortunately, the Act was stayed by preliminary injunctions in both state and Federals courts for its violation on free speech. Yet, the future of the Act’s new provisions is heavily dependent on how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on free speech in NIFLA v. Becerra. If the FACT is struck down, SB 1564 is sure to follow.

However, even if the FACT is upheld, SB 1564 may still be unconstitutional. SB 1564’s compelled speech is substantially more burdensome than the FACT Act since it requires the doctors to verbally speak as opposed just posting a disclosure on the wall.

The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to schedule oral arguments for NIFLA, but the decision can be expected to come down at the end of the court’s term in June.

IFI Worldview Conference Feb. 10th

We are excited about our annual Worldview Conference featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet on Sat., Feb. 10, 2017 at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture:

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

A coalition of Christian leaders, including the Illinois Family Institute’s Dave Smith, has sent a letter to President Donald Trump calling on him to move forward with his plans to revoke President Barack Obama’s policies regarding “transgenders” in the military. An article at The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) explains why the letter is necessary:

In recent weeks, two federal district judges exceeded their authority by ordering the Trump Administration to continue enforcing President Barack Obama’s policies regarding transgenders in the military. They did this even though President Donald J. Trump has initiated formal procedures to review and revoke those policies.

The administration can and should defend presidential prerogatives and sound policies to strengthen our military, but the problem requires immediate attention at the administration’s highest levels.  It would be dangerous to sacrifice the President’s constitutional military powers, and to disregard Supreme Court precedents while allowing judges to make military policy.

The Illinois Family Institute reached out to an attorney specializing in constitutional law to explain why federal district judges think they have the authority to make military policy. The attorney’s response was simple: Those judges are merely giving us another demonstration of lawlessness that we have been witnessing at high levels in our government.

Since it is an obvious overreach by those judges, the Trump Administration should just ignore the rulings. Instead, the administration has appealed the rulings to the D.C. Circuit Court.

In its article titled “‘Supreme Judicial Commanders'” Should Not Run Our Military,” CMR expands further:

President Trump has the right, and the responsibility, to resist these activist court rulings and more that may be handed down in the coming months.

The Commander-in-Chief also has the right, and the responsibility, to restore sound Defense Department policies that were in place long before President Obama took office.

The U.S. Constitution does not grant to any federal judge powers to make policy for the military. (See Article 1, Section 8, and Article II, Section 2.)  The judges’ bizarre rulings favoring transgender plaintiffs were issued without any constitutional authorization, and they are a direct affront to the authority of the Commander-in-Chief.

If the Trump administration fails to act, the result would “shift control of our military to unaccountable, activist judges.” This would, in turn, do the following:

…convey the devastating message that the administration does not have the political will to do what President Trump promised the voters he would do — end political correctness in the military.

The coalition letter explains why President Trump should resist the courts:

At a time when there is widespread concern over the decline of military readiness in the U.S. armed forces, our military has become involved in an extravagant and novel social program involving individuals who will be unable to serve effectively for extended periods of time due to their need for medical and psychological care.

There is no evidence to suggest that the DOD adequately addressed the impact President Obama’s policy experiment would have on military readiness given the costs and physical effects of gender transition. Additionally, no consideration was given to the conscience and religious rights of military personnel who may be required to share close quarters, including showers, with individuals of the opposite sex. Nor were the conscience and religious rights of military personnel addressed for those who may have objections to providing transgender health services, such as hormone therapy, gender reassignment surgery, or counseling.

The letter goes on to say, “The focus of military training should be combat effectiveness, not social engineering…. This will ensure our military focuses on its mission of fighting and winning wars, not experimenting with our troops’ social lives” (emphasis added).

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to President Donald Trump to encourage him to continue to focus on military readiness and the well-being of our military by reversing President Obama’s harmful transgender policy.

You can also call the White House comment line at (202) 456-1111 to leave a voice message for the administration.

Click here to read the coalition letter. Click here to read the article by the Center for Military Readiness. Click here and here for more information about the Constitutional role of the federal courts.

End-of-Year Challenge

As you may know, IFI has a year-end matching challenge to raise $160,000. That’s right, a great group of IFI supporters are colluding with us to provide an $80,000 matching challenge to help support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.

Please consider helping us reach this goal!  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2018!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 876
Tinley Park, Illinois 60477

The Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC) recently held its annual opening day ceremony for their privately sponsored and funded display depicting the birth of Jesus Christ.  This display marks the 10th straight year that this display has had spot in the center of the State Capitol Rotunda, right next to the Governor’s “holiday tree.”

Tom Brejcha, Esq., founder and chief counsel of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, a member of the SNSC and its legal counsel, explained the constitutional rights of private citizens to erect Nativity Scenes as a form of free speech and free exercise of religion in America’s “public square.”  Pastor Greg Wooten of Hope Chapel in Lincoln and Father Charles Edwards of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield also spoke during the opening ceremony.

The SNSC is encouraging those who would like to sing Christmas carols in the Illinois State Capitol Rotunda at the site of the Nativity Scene to contact Salli Chernis at the Secretary of State’s office, Dept. of Special Events, at (217) 782-8996 for permission to do so. Choirs and/or groups may perform on weekdays from 12 noon until 1 p.m. The Thomas More Society will provide free legal help, if any is needed, at (312) 782-1680, to any individual or group of private citizens interested in putting up a similar Nativity Scene — privately sponsored and funded — in any “traditional public forum” in their own town, village or hamlet in Illinois or elsewhere, whether it’s for this year (if time permits) or for next year.

IFI thanks Julie Zanoza, Beth Rogers and the entire SNSC for their dedication in this public witness and free exercise of religious speech in this very “public square” at the state capitol.

Become a Sustaining Partner of our Work

You can become a Sustaining Partner with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form. Your gift will go even further than ever because:

• Our paperwork will be reduced.
• Our income will be more predictable, leading to improved cash management.
• Our administrative costs will be reduced, putting your gift to work immediately.
• It is simpler and saves time for you!