Top Vatican adviser Jeffrey Sachs says that when Pope Francis visits the United States in September, he will directly challenge the “American idea” of God-given rights embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

Sachs, a special advisor to the United Nations and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is a media superstar who can always be counted on to pontificate endlessly on such topics as income inequality and global health. This time, writing in a Catholic publication, he may have gone off his rocker, revealing the real global game plan.

The United States, Sachs writes in the Jesuit publication, America, is “a society in thrall” to the idea of unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But the “urgent core of Francis’ message” will be to challenge this “American idea” by “proclaiming that the path to happiness lies not solely or mainly through the defense of rights but through the exercise of virtues, most notably justice and charity.”

In these extraordinary comments, which constitute a frontal assault on the American idea of freedom and national sovereignty, Sachs has made it clear that he hopes to enlist the Vatican in a global campaign to increase the power of global or foreign-dominated organizations and movements.

Sachs takes aim at the phrase, which comes from America’s founding document, the United States Declaration of Independence, that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These rights sound good, Sachs writes, but they’re not enough to guarantee the outcome the global elites have devised for us. Global government, he suggests, must make us live our lives according to international standards of development.

“In the United States,” Sachs writes, “we learn that the route to happiness lies in the rights of the individual. By throwing off the yoke of King George III, by unleashing the individual pursuit of happiness, early Americans believed they would achieve that happiness. Most important, they believed that they would find happiness as individuals, each endowed by the creator with individual rights.”

While he says there is some “grandeur in this idea,” such rights “are only part of the story, only one facet of our humanity.”

The Sachs view is that global organizations such as the U.N. must dictate the course of nations and individual rights must be sacrificed for the greater good. One aspect of this unfolding plan, as outlined in the Sachs book, The End of Poverty, involves extracting billions of dollars from the American people through global taxes.

“We will need, in the end, to put real resources in support of our hopes,” he wrote. “A global tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels might be the way to begin. Even a very small tax, less than that which is needed to correct humanity’s climate-deforming overuse of fossil fuels, would finance a greatly enhanced supply of global public goods.” Sachs has estimated the price tag for the U.S. at $845 billion.

In preparation for this direct assault on our rights, the American nation-state, and our founding document, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon told a Catholic Caritas International conference in Rome on May 12 that climate change is “the defining challenge of our time,” and that the solution lies in recognizing that “ humankind is part of nature, not separate or above.”

The pope’s expected encyclical on climate change is supposed to help mobilize the governments of the world in this crusade.

But a prestigious group of scholars, churchmen, scientists, economists and policy experts has issued a detailed rebuttal, entitled, “An Open Letter to Pope Francis on Climate Change,” pointing out that the Bible tells man to have dominion over the earth.

“Good climate policy must recognize human exceptionalism, the God-given call for human persons to ‘have dominion’ in the natural world (Genesis 1:28), and the need to protect the poor from harm, including actions that hinder their ascent out of poverty,” the letter to Pope Francis states.

Released by a group called the Cornwall Alliance, the letter urges the Vatican to consider the evidence that climate change is largely natural, that the human contribution is comparatively small and not dangerous, and that attempting to mitigate the human contribution by reducing CO2 emissions “would cause more harm than good, especially to the world’s poor.”

The Heartland Institute held a news conference on April 27 at the Hotel Columbus in Rome, to warn the Vatican against embracing the globalist agenda of the climate change movement. The group is hosting the 10th International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, D.C. on June 11-12.

However, it appears as if the Vatican has been captured by the globalist forces associated with Sachs and the United Nations.

Voice of the Family, a group representing pro-life and pro-family Catholic organizations from around the world, has taken issue not only with the Vatican’s involvement with Sachs but with Ban Ki Moon, describing the two as “noted advocates of abortion who operate at the highest levels of the United Nations.”Sachs has been described as “arguably the world’s foremost proponent of population control,” including abortion.

Voice of the Family charges that environmental issues such as climate change have become “an umbrella to cover a wide spectrum of attacks on human life and the family.”

Although Sachs likes to claim he was an adviser to Pope John Paul II, the noted anti-communist and pro-life pontiff, Sachs simply served as a member of a group of economists invited to confer with the Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace in advance of the release of a papal document.

In fact, Pope John Paul II had worked closely with the Reagan administration in opposition to communism and the global population control movement. He once complained that a U.N. conference on population issues was designed to “destroy the family” and was the “snare of the devil.”

Pope Francis, however, seems to have embraced the very movements opposed by John Paul II.

Sachs, who has emerged as a very influential Vatican adviser, recently tweetedthat he was “thrilled” to be at the Vatican “discussing moral dimensions of climate change and sustainable development.” The occasion was a Vatican workshop on global warming on April 28, 2015, sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences of the Roman Catholic Church. Sachs was a featured speaker.

The plan going forward involves the launching of what are called “Sustainable Development Goals,” as envisioned by a Sustainable Development Solutions Network run by none other than Jeffrey Sachs.

“The Network has proposed draft Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which contain provisions that are radically antagonistic to the right to life from conception to natural death, to the rights and dignity of the family and to the rights of parents as the primary educators of their children,” states the group Voice of the Family.

In July, a Financing for Development conference will be held, in order to develop various global tax proposals, followed by a conference in Paris in December to complete a new climate change agreement.

Before that December conference, however, Sachs says the pope will call on the world at the United Nations to join the crusade for a New World Order.

Sachs says, “Pope Francis will come to the United States and the United Nations in New York on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, and at the moment when the world’s 193 governments are resolved to take a step in solidarity toward a better world. On Sept. 25, Pope Francis will speak to the world leaders—most likely the largest number of assembled heads of state and government in history—as these leaders deliberate to adopt new Sustainable Development Goals for the coming generation. These goals will be a new worldwide commitment to build a world that aims to harmonize the pursuit of economic prosperity with the commitments to social inclusion and environmental sustainability.”

Rather than emphasize the absolute need for safeguarding individual rights in the face of government overreach and power, Sachs writes that the Gospel teachings of humility, love and justice, “like the teachings of Aristotle, Buddha and Confucius,” can take us on a “path to happiness through compassion” and “become our guideposts back to safety.”

Writing elsewhere in the new issue of America, Christiana Z. Peppard, an assistant professor of theology, science and ethics at Fordham University, writesabout the “planetary pope,” saying, “What is really at stake in the collective response to the pope’s encyclical is not, ultimately, whether our treasured notions of theology, science, reality or development can accommodate moral imperatives. The real question is whether we are brave enough and willing to try.”

The plan is quite simple: world government through global taxes, with a religious face to bring it about.

This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media website.

When an influential political leader states that, when it comes to abortion, our “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed”; when a New York Times columnist tells us we need to remove homosexual practice from our “sin list”; when the Solicitor General tells the U.S. Supreme Court that, potentially, religious schools could lose their tax exemption if they refuse to redefine marriage – when statements like this are being made on a regular basis, don’t tell me I’m overreacting when I sound the alarm.

Recently, after I posted yet another “wake up” call online, a woman accused me of “fear mongering” and called me “Chicken Little” on my Twitter feed.

Ironically, she claimed to be a truth-based realist in her bio, yet it seems that her personal, anti-Christian biases had robbed her of her ability to think clearly, since it is anything but fear mongering to tell American believers that we had better come to grips with the most aggressive assault on our faith in our nation’s history.

I’ve often pointed out that, 10 years ago, when I began to say that, whereas gay activists came out of the closet in the late 1960s, they now want to put us in the closet, I was greeted with mockery and derision. “No one wants to put you in the closet!”

A few years ago, I noticed a change in sentiment, with people now saying, “Bigots like you belong in the closet!”

Now, with the U.S. Supreme Court potentially poised to make same-sex “marriage” the law of the land (this is not a foregone conclusion but could well happen), believers are still saying, “What’s the big deal? How does this affect me?”

How can so many of us be so self-centered and blind?

Cultural commentators like John Zmirak have recently posted articles with provocative titles like, “Gay Totalitarianism and the Coming Persecution of Christians,” with subtitles declaring, “Hatred of the Gospel is boiling over into the vilification of Christians. State violence won’t be far behind, history teaches.”

Another Zmirak article proclaims, “If the Supreme Court Imposes Same Sex Marriage, You Could Lose Your Church,” noting that “Obama’s Solicitor General admits that the feds will treat orthodox Christians like racists.”

A few weeks ago, I posed the question, “Could Biblical Preaching Be Outlawed in America?” Not a few of those responding to the article answered, “Yes!”

After all, if our religious liberties could be eroded so dramatically in a matter of years, who can predict what’s coming next – unless we wake up and start doing what is right today.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote that, “The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.”

What kind of world are we leaving to our children?

When our kids or grandchildren ask us one day, “What were you doing when they changed America?”, how we will respond?

Thankfully, there is still time for us to turn the cultural tide, and there are many leaders and individual believers who have refused to capitulate or throw in the towel.

But there are many more who are still slumbering blissfully in the midst of the storm, content with their cozy, non-offensive gospel churches and their meaningless, “Who am I to judge?” mantras.

That’s why I raise my voice as often as possible, seeking to arouse my fellow Americans from their slumber, urging them to see that an anti-Christian tsunami is already flooding the country.

The good news is that, sooner or later, they will recognize I (and others) have been telling the truth without exaggerating or overreacting. The bad news is that by then it could be too late.

This article was originally posted at the Townhall.com website.

While actions speak louder than words, words often predict future actions. Secular progressives’ words and actions rarely align. This is because the pseudo-utopian, wholly dystopian perch from which they view the world is so detached from reality that, from a cultural and public policy standpoint, they must disguise their intended actions in flowery and euphemistic language, or face near universal rejection.

When they don’t like the terms, liberals redefine the terms to mean something they do not, never have and never can mean. Consider, for instance, the once meaningful words “marriage” and “equality.”

Other “progressive” doublespeak includes words like “invest” (meaning socialist redistribution of wealth), “tolerance” (meaning embrace immorality or face total ruin), “diversity” (meaning Christians and conservatives need not apply), “hate” (meaning truth) or “The Affordable Care Act” (meaning unaffordable, unsustainable and utterly inferior socialized medicine).

Even so, it’s during those rare moments of candor that our cultural Marxist friends’ rhetoric actually aligns with their intended actions. In other words, every so often, and usually by accident, they tell the truth.

Take this recent declaration by President Obama at Georgetown University. He was discussing his contempt for conservative new media in general and Fox News in particular:

“[W]e’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues,” he said.

How Kim Jong-un of him. In sum: Goal 1) Control thought by, Goal 2) Controlling the media.

This is an idea older than – and as well preserved as – Vladimir Lenin himself. How Dear Leader intends to reconcile his scheme to “change how the media reports on these issues” with the First Amendment’s Free Press Clause, namely, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom … of the press,” is abundantly clear.

He doesn’t.

Our emperor-in-chief will force feed his once-free subjects yet another unconstitutional executive decree – a Net Neutrality sandwich with a side of Fairness Doctrine.

Or take would-be President Hillary Clinton’s comments last month on the “rite” of abortion vs. the right of religious freedom.

Reports LifeNews:

“The comment has Hillary Clinton essentially saying that Christians must be forced to change their religious views to accommodate abortions.

“‘Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced,’ Clinton said, using the euphemism for abortion.

“‘Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,’ Clinton argued. ‘Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.’”

That’s a lot of “have tos.” See the pattern here? Whether it’s Obama saying government will “have to change how the media reports,” or Hillary saying “deep-seated religious beliefs have to be changed,” such despotic demands should spike the neck hair of every freedom-loving American.

And then there are those left-wing extremists whose designs on despotism require that Christians “must be made” to obey. Homosexual practitioner and New York Times columnist Frank Bruni is one such extremist. In his April 3 column titled, “Bigotry: The Bible and the Lessons of Indiana,” Bruni quotes homosexual militant Mitchell Gold, a prominent anti-Christian activist: “Gold told me that church leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list,’” he writes. “His commandment is worthy – and warranted,” he adds.

Of course, if homosexual behavior, something denounced as both “vile affections” and “an abomination” throughout both the Old and New Testaments, is no longer sexual sin, then there can be no sexual sin whatsoever. To coerce, through the power of the police state, faithful Christians to abandon the millennia-old biblical sexual ethic and embrace the sin of Sodom would likewise require that Christians sign-off on fornication, adultery, incest and bestiality. Such is the unnatural nature of government-mandated moral relativism.

“But this isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech!” come the mournful cries of the ill-informed and the ill-prepared, desperately afraid to debate the issues on the merits. “Hate speech is excluded from protection,” opines CNN anchor Chris Cuomo in a recent tweet on the topic. “But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment,” replies UCLA law professor Eugene Volohk in a Washington Post op-ed. “Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas.”

Of course this matters not to those to whom the First Amendment is meaningless.

Indeed, one man’s “hate speech” is another man’s truth, and as I’ve often said, truth is hate to those who hate truth.

And boy do they hate it.

And so they mean to muzzle it.

The time of which many of us have long warned is no longer on the horizon. The left’s full-on assault against freedom, most especially religious freedom, is at hand. Oddly, or maybe not so oddly, it’s at once the secular left and orthodox Muslims who lead the charge. These strange bedfellows share a common enemy. He is Truth in the person of Jesus Christ. In order to silence Him, they must silence His faithful followers.

Which brings us to this modern age of American lawlessness. We’re fast moving from a soft tyranny to hard tyranny, and “progressive” leaders like those mentioned above are, chillingly enough, emboldened to the degree that they will openly call for it.

Like our brothers and sisters around the world, American Christians must prepare for suffering.

But, like them, we mustn’t despair.

For there are different kinds of suffering.

Suffering through cancer, for instance, can, and often does, lead to death. Without Christ, who is mankind’s only hope, such suffering is hopeless indeed.

Yet when a young mother suffers through child birth, and while she may experience the same level of pain as the cancer sufferer, her crying out elicits an entirely different response, and her pain serves an entirely different purpose. While one type of suffering leads to death, the other leads to life. While one attends sorrow, the other attends joy.

Similarly, there is a kind of suffering, suffering in sin, which leads to spiritual death, and a kind suffering, suffering in grace, which leads to spiritual life. Anti-Christian persecution, be it efforts to force Christians into disobedience to God, attempts to silence them outright or, worse, the torture, enslavement and even execution of Christ followers – now widespread in both Muslim and Marxist nations across the globe – signifies “the beginning of birth pains” (see Matthew 24:8).

And birth pains lead to new life.

On Wednesday morning, the Human Services Committee heard testimony about SB 1564, a bill that would change the Health Care Rights of Conscience Act by forcing doctors, nurses, pharmacists to distribute information to help a patients find objectionable medical services such as abortion, sterilization, and certain end-of-life care.  The bill passed out of committee on a party line vote of 8-4, as expected.  The bill now moves to the Illinois House floor where it could be voted on as early as next week.

It is important to point out that SB 1564 would also negatively affect crisis pregnancy centers that provide health care services by requiring that these life centers give referrals to Planned Parenthood or other venues that promote abortion.

Dr. Pamela Smith, a Chicago area Obstetrician who graduated from Yale University of Medicine, shares her thoughts about SB 1564 with Illinois Family Institute:

 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.  

Please also call your state representative during normal business hours to politely ask them to uphold the rights of conscience for medical personnel.  The Capitol switchboard number is (217) 782-2000.

In the first century, Jesus was asked whether the Jewish people, who were under pagan, Roman occupation, should pay taxes to Caesar. The Lord, of course, said we are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s. But in 21^st century America, Caesar is angling for a better deal—and he’s getting it.

Our old friend Chuck Colson sounded the alarm several years ago when certain political figures on the Left—including former secretary of state Hillary Clinton—began downsizing the First Amendment’s guarantee of our God-given right to freedom of religion into a more manageable “freedom of worship.”

Chuck feared—rightly, it turns out—that opponents of religious liberty were seeking to keep religion within the four walls of our churches, synagogues, and mosques—as if religious belief were no more than a purely private opinion with no practical implications for the real world. In other words, “Feel free to worship, if you like, but keep your religiously informed opinions and actions to yourself.”

It’s a totalitarian impulse, and you can see it in the intensifying efforts to force faith groups to pay for abortions, to shut down Christian businesses that don’t want to participate in so-called “gay weddings,” and so on.

And the totalitarians are getting bolder about it. In Victoria, Australia, doctors are required by law to perform abortions when asked, or refer the patient to a colleague who will. In Canada, meanwhile, the Ontario and Saskatchewan Colleges of Doctors and Surgeons want physicians forced to perform euthanasia—which is now a fundamental national “right”—if no one else is available to do it.

And the totalitarians—being totalitarians—will brook no compromise. According to Canadian bioethicist Udo Schuklenk, “The very idea that we ought to countenance conscientious objection in any profession is objectionable.”

Really? And alas, this totalitarian streak is not confined to the Great White North. Mrs. Clinton, who once said that abortion can be “a sad, even tragic choice,” now asserts that a so-called “right to reproductive health care” trumps religious freedom. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she said at a recent meeting of the Women in the World Summit. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” Religiousbeliefshave to be changed?

Now Caesar seeks to regulate not just our actions, but our thoughts as well!

New York Times columnist and gay-rights advocate Frank Bruni thinks we need to change our religious beliefs about marriage, too—since, he says, interpreting the Bible is filled with subjectivity and uncertainty. Therefore believers shouldn’t take it too literally on matters of sexuality. “So our debate about religious freedom,” Bruni says, “should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

How nice that Mr. Bruni and other sexual totalitarians stand ready to “free us” from our prejudices. What’s next, re-education camps? If you think I’m exaggerating the totalitarian threat, in the same newspaper, David Brooks writes, “If orthodox Christians are suddenly written out of polite society as modern-day Bull Connors, this would only halt progress, polarize the debate and lead to a bloody war of all against all.”

Lord have mercy.

Originally posted at BreakPoint.com.

To the Members of the Illinois Legislature:

I understand that you are considering passing SB 1564, a bill to amend the existing laws of Illinois that protect freedom of conscience. I urge you not to do so, as SB 1564 fatally weakens the conscience rights of Illinois citizens.SB 1564 would amend existing law to, among other things, add a new section regarding “access to care and information protocols.” This section would require “health care facilities, physicians, and health care personnel” who are opposed for reasons of conscience to performing an abortion to, nevertheless, “refer, transfer, or give information . . . about other health care providers who they reasonably believe may offer . . . the . . . service,” which includes abortion. In so providing, SB 1564 violates elementary notions of conscience protection.The point of conscience protection is to shield a person from being forced to participate in something that he or she finds morally wrong — perhaps, as in the case of abortion, gravely so. Accordingly, Illinois’s existing law states: “It is the public policy of the State of Illinois to respect and protect the right of conscience of all persons” regarding “medical services” whose morality is disputed. There is no more disputed “medical service” than abortion.

How might one be forced to participate in a “disputed medical service”? One way, of course, would be to require that the objector perform the procedure. The proposed revision of the law does not go that far, but that does not mean that it is modest or moderate. Requiring the objector to refer (or to transfer) the person to a different medical provider who will perform the abortion is radical and unacceptable because it implicates the objector in the obtaining of the disputed “medical service.” It makes her or him a participant, that is, one who facilitates the procedure by assisting in its being obtained. It overlooks the simple point that the objector finds the procedure to be morally wrong and wishes not to be associated with it.

This conclusion holds whether the referral is direct or indirect. In requiring the objector to at least provide a list of those whom he or she “reasonably believes” may offer the “service,” SB 1564 requires that the objector facilitate the very procedure to which he or she objects — because the list necessarily is composed solely of those of whom it is “reasonable” to believe would perform the abortion. (If one has no reason to believe a facility performs abortions, it would not be “reasonable” to put it on the list. Similarly, if one knows a facility does not perform abortions, it would not be reasonable to put it on the list.)

The truth of the point I am making can be shown by imagining a different situation, one in which racial segregation in public accommodations was legal but not mandated, and imagining further that some restaurants segregated their clientele by race but that others did not, believing that doing so would be morally wrong. Imagine further that a law were passed requiring that any restaurant that did not segregate nevertheless tell anyone who asked where to find a segregated restaurant. Clearly such a law would make the non-segregating restaurant owner a participant in facilitating the underlying wrong to which he or she objected (racial segregation). Would anyone conclude differently if the law, instead, required the restaurant owner to provide a list of restaurants that the owner “reasonably believed” were segregated? The owner would be right, and consistent, to point out that this violated his conscience every bit as much as requiring him to segregate his restaurant. The same is true in the case before you. It makes no difference whether referrals or transfers or “reasonable” lists of abortion providers are required of those who object to abortion – in each case, the result would be coercing them through the power of the law to facilitate a procedure they find profoundly morally objectionable.

Conscience is the very citadel of the soul. One’s conscience enables one to make basic decisions about right and wrong. To violate it is to violate an individual’s personal integrity in the most fundamental way. Thus, the right to freedom of conscience has been recognized everywhere, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Vatican II’s great declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae. Cardinal John Henry Newman called conscience, written in every human heart, “the aboriginal vicar of Christ.” One need not be Catholic to understand that robust protection for freedom of conscience is the mark of a just society. Since SB 1564 fatally undermines conscience protection, I urge you to reject it.

Sincerely,

Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence
Princeton University

 Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to Gov. Bruce Rauner to ask him to VETO SB 1564.  Ask him to uphold Rights of Conscience for medical personnel.

Written by Daniel John Sobieski

The IRS targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups prior to the 2012 election was an unconscionable abuse of power for which accountability and punishment have been noticeably absent. But this was and is not the only use by the Obama administration of the power to tax to attempt to destroy its political opponents.

The IRS is also involved in targeting what President Obama has called “less than loving” Christians through the mandates of ObamaCare and its attack on the free exercise of religion through the attempted coercion of mandated health insurance coverage  This administration’s war on religion is also seen in the monitoring of Christian churches by the IRS in response to a lawsuit filed on December 27, 2012 by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF)  concerning sermons that are considered by the political left  to be political speech by tax-exempt organization in alleged violation of federal law. These sermons, often criticizing ObamaCare’s encroachment on freedom of religion through its mandates among other issues, are considered electioneering by the atheist left.

The FFRF sought enforcement by the IRS of the 1954 Johnson Amendment which states that tax-exempt groups, including churches, are not allowed to endorse political candidates. But the FFRF stretches that law to interpret churches taking positions from the pulpit in opposition to, say, gay marriage or the ObanaCare mandates on providing contraceptive coverage as support for political candidates, albeit unnamed, that might share that opposition.

In a November 6, 2012 letter to the IRS by the group’s staff attorney, Rebecca Markert, the Wisconsin-based FFRF took particular issue with Bishop Robert Morlino of the Madison Wisconsin Archdiocese, accusing him of sending out an election eve article to parishioners in his diocese stressing the need to vote against candidates endorsing homosexual marriage and abortion even though no candidates were mentioned by name:

The issues identified by the bishop in the November 1st article are generally what distinguish Republican and Democrat social platforms. In Wisconsin, these issues differentiate candidates for federal and state offices, i.e., one candidate for U.S. Senate is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, and the other candidate is a lesbian who supports marriage equality and abortion rights. Biushop Morlino’s article, published and distributed just five days before election day, is clearly urging people not to vote for candidates that embrace these positions.  Likewise, the paragraph about “religious freedom and freedom of conscience” is a clear reference to the HHS mandate of the incumbent candidate for president, Barack Obama. Though he does not specifically state, “Vote for Romney: or any other specific candidate, it is clear to the reader that Morlino is urging members of his diocese to vote against President Obama and other Democratic candidates in today’s election.

Clearly, it is the position of the FFRF that not mentioning a candidate, as “issue ads” by genuinely political groups such as labor unions often do not by name doesn’t matter. A bishop or minister is not allowed under their Constitution cannot preach church doctrine in an election year and ask parishioners to vote accordingly, connecting the dots on their own.

Investor’s Business Daily, in a biting July 31, 2014 editorial ripped apart the FFRF’s faulty logic:

But is the Catholic Church “politicking” when it proclaims its “Fortnight for Freedom” dedicated to opposing ObamaCare’s contraceptive mandate and the government’s forcing schools and charities it considers an extension of its faith to include it in insurance coverage or face crippling fines?

Are Protestant and evangelical churches “politicking” when they participate in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” this year on Oct. 5 to encourage congregations to “vote their faith,” which they consider to be an exercise of free speech and freedom of religion?

The FFRF says that such events at “rogue churches” have “become an annual occasion for churches to violate the law with impunity.” But doesn’t the Constitution say that Congress can make no such laws?

The IRS seems to have sided with the FFRF through a settlement of the lawsuit against it, agreeing to silence through monitoring and implied intimidation churches whose religious beliefs are at odds with stated administration policies. In a press release dated August 1, 204, the FFRF announced:

FFRF agreed to voluntarily dismiss its closely-watched federal lawsuit against the IRS after being given evidence that the IRS has authorized procedures and “signature authority” to resume initiating church tax investigations and examinations.

As National Review Online contributing editor Quin Hillyer notes in an August 20, 2015 article, the IRS, as it did in the Tea Party targeting scandal, is refusing to make public any documents or correspondence relating to its acquiescence to the FFFR lawsuit, causing conservative groups Alliance for Defending Freedom and Judicial watch to file Freedom of Information lawsuits:

To fight this combined assault on religious liberty and on government transparency, conservative legal stalwarts Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and Judicial Watch together filed suit April 9 to force release of the IRS documents. ADF asserts that the IRS already has shared the documents with the atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). Once again, the IRS bends over backwards on behalf of leftists while harassing and ignoring the rights, on multiple levels, of conservative groups or faith communities.

As Investor’s Business Daily noted in its editorial:

Congress can make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So it’s not clear where the IRS gets off doing just that by spying on religious leaders lest they comment on issues and activities by government that are contrary to or impose on their religious consciences. Our country was founded by people fleeing this kind of government-monitored and mandated theology last practiced in the Soviet Union.

Indeed, the Constitution if fact guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Thomas Jefferson, source for the “separation of church and state” phrase often invoked by liberals, also said

“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against any form of tyranny over the mind of man”

That should apply to those who speak their mind from the pulpit as well.

Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications. Origninally published at AmericanThinker.com.

Written by Mark Hemingway

In January 2013, Rachel Cryer and her mother walked into Sweet Cakes By Melissa, a bakery in Gresham, Oregon, and tried to order a wedding cake. Aaron Klein, the co-owner (and Melissa’s husband), was informed Cryer would be marrying another woman. He apologized and told them that providing a cake for a same-sex wedding violated his Christian convictions. Cryer walked out of the store.

In a suburb adjacent to Portland, one of the most progressive cities in America, Sweet Cakes By Melissa was living on borrowed time once the incident became public. (The city is so famously tolerant that Sam Adams, the first openly gay mayor of a major city, survived two recall attempts after it was revealed that he had lied about having a relationship with an underage teenage boy. His supporters initially smeared those making the accusations as homophobic.) Protests started outside the bakery soon after, and by September 2013 Sweet Cakes had closed its doors.

You might think that once Sweet Cakes By Melissa had been driven out of business, the good citizens offended by the Kleins’ beliefs would have called it a day. But the totalitarianism of America’s liberal culture warriors is a thing to behold.

On April 24, 2015, more than a year and a half after the bakery was shuttered, Alan McCullough, an administrative law judge for Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries, ordered the Kleins to pay $135,000 in fines for violating the state’s public accommodation laws. It is impossible to see this award as anything but excessively punitive. A few years back, a New Mexico wedding photographer was penalized by that state for refusing to work at a same-sex commitment ceremony. The fine in that case was $6,637.

McCullough arrived at his determination by citing a laundry list of damages asserted by Cryer and her partner. Since this was an administrative decision, there was no requirement the women prove their claims. And so they piled them on: “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful” and “pale and sick at home after work,” suffered “shock,” “surprise,” and “uncertainty.” Some are contradictory: both “loss of appetite” and “weight gain.” The judge was apparently moved.

The Kleins have five children to take care of, and their income has dropped precipitously since their business closed. Aaron now works as a garbage collector. They say the fine could bankrupt them. So shortly after the decision was handed down, supporters started taking up a collection on the popular GoFundMe website. In just a few hours, donors had contributed $109,000 to the Kleins. Then GoFundMe, under pressure from critics of the Kleins, shut down the fundraiser. The rationale? The website has a policy of refusing fundraisers “in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.”

Behind the organized campaign to pressure GoFundMe was Lisa Watson, the owner of Cupcake Jones in downtown Portland. (Cupcake Jones also provides wedding cakes and was presumably a competitor of Sweet Cakes By Melissa.) “This business has been found GUILTY OF DISCRIMINATION and is being allowed to fundraise to pay their penalty. .  .  . The amount of money they have raised in a matter of a few hours by thousands of anonymous cowards is disgusting,” Watson wrote on her Facebook page.

The First Amendment issues surrounding compelled participation in a same-sex marriage celebration are far from settled, and it’s absurd to think the Kleins are guilty of a “heinous crime.” Even Andrew Sullivan, the writer perhaps most responsible for making gay marriage a legal reality, has spoken out against such inquisitions: “If you find someone who’s genuinely conflicted about doing something for your wedding, let them be. Find someone else.”

But ironically, pleas for tolerance are not carrying the day, either in Portland or in the gay community. On April 25, Cupcake Jones was given an award for LGBT activism by Basic Rights Oregon. Prominent gay activist and radio host Michelangelo Signorile has a new book out in which he declares, “It’s time for us to be intolerant—intolerant of all forms of .  .  . bigotry against LBGT people.”

C. S. Lewis once warned that a tyranny of “omnipotent moral busybodies” would be the worst tyranny of all, for “those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end .  .  . with the approval of their own conscience.” The Klein family’s Jacobin persecutors are intent on stamping out a Christian morality they believe to be rigid and punitive. By inflicting inordinate material harm and insisting on a total capitulation of conscience, they only reveal their own pernicious and pitiless ambitions.

Originally published at WeeklyStandard.com.

The Left believes minors should be able to access medical help in rejecting their unchosen, unwanted physical embodiment but then wants to prohibit minors from accessing medical help in rejecting their unchosen, unwanted same-sex attraction. So, how do “LGBTQIAAP” activists reconcile yet another of their incoherent propositions and ironies? They just make up some novel terms that embody queer (pun intended) ideas.

Every time the incoherence or fallaciousness of their arguments is exposed, they frantically invent a new theory and a new term to advance their irrational agenda. Just keep dangling dazzling neologisms in front of the public’s blurry eyes and they won’t notice the idiocy and perversion that is destroying the lives of children while serving the desires of adults.

For example, the Left invented the politically useful term “gender identity,” which is the sex with which one identifies and with which one is supposedly born. In this queer ontological universe “gender identity” has no intrinsic relation to physical embodiment. So, sometimes one’s “gender identity” accidentally aligns with physical embodiment, and sometimes it doesn’t. When people’s “gender identity” and physical embodiment align, they are deemed “cisgender”—yes, another novel rhetorical construction that embodies very queer ideas.

In a more rational, less cowardly culture, we would just say that “gender identity” denotes the disordered desire to be the opposite sex. We would call it gender confusion or Gender Identity Disorder or Gender Dysphoria. Oh, wait, we tried that, but it didn’t serve the desires and social and political goals of the gender confused among us.

So moving on, if your “gender identity” does not align with your objective biological sex, you are not cisgender or a ciswoman or a cisman, you are transgender, a trans-man (that is, an actual woman) or a trans-woman (that is, an actual man).  In this new queer vernacular I, for example, am a ciswoman. Bruce Jenner is trans-woman.

Now stay with me.

When Leftists argue that minors should be able to access medical help in rejecting their physical embodiment, they won’t state it exactly like that, because that would expose their hypocrisy and incoherence. Instead, they employ their novel terms to explain their queer ideology. They will say trans-minors are not seeking to change anything. They’re seeking to “align” their bodies with their inherent, immutable “gender identity,” which is either a trans-man (that is, an actual woman) or trans-woman (that is, an actual man). And when trans-people have healthy body parts amputated, they’re no longer having either “sex change surgery” or  “sex reassignment surgery.” They’re now having “gender confirmation surgery.” This new term diverts the public’s attention from the truth that no one can change his or her sex. And it serves to reinforce the belief that subjective feelings are the ultimate arbiter of reality. In the Gnostic world of trans-activism, healthy, objective, material bodies must submit.

Well, two can play this foolish game.

Oh, and just to forewarn you, there are two other novel terms embodying queer ideas peeking over the rainbow-hued horizon: GSM and GSRM. GSM means Gender and Sexual Minorities, and GSRM means Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities. The Left needed to invent these because they were being mocked for the silliness of LGBTQIAAP.  You gotta give it to the Left. They are a rhetorically nimble and imaginative bunch.

Right now, liberals in Springfield do not have the votes to pass HB 217–the anti-autonomy, anti-choice Reparative Therapy Prohibition Act–even though they control both houses of the legislature. The lack of support for this bill is something liberals and their water-carriers in the mainstream press don’t share with the public.

But “LGBTQIAAP” activists are working like trans-madmen to garner support for this bill. Illinoisans need to match and exceed their fervor and tenacity in order to retain the right of minors to access medical help in aligning their unchosen, unwanted sexual desires with their inherent, immutable “sexual orientation identities” or in constructing identities that do not affirm unchosen, unwanted same-sex attraction.

TAKE ACTION: CLICK HERE to contact your state representative and state senator urge them to protect the rights of minors to seek help for their unwanted attractions. Urge a “No” vote on HB 217 and SB 111.

Join Us on May 7th

“Islam in America: A Christian Perspective”
with Dr. Erwin Lutzer

CLICK HERE for Details

Written by Americans United for Life

A bill that would force pro-life health care providers in Illinois to promote and participate in abortion, SB 1564, passed the Senate and now moves to the House. Plainly bad policy, the bill would also violate federal law. A bipartisan letter from Members of the federal Illinois delegation urges state legislators to immediately cease consideration of SB 1564.

If the bill becomes law, pro-life doctors and pregnancy centers in Illinois, which exist solely to provide alternatives to abortion, would be forced to distribute information on where to obtain abortions.

The unnecessary and coercive policy could cost Illinois its federal funding.

The Members of Congress explain that the Illinois Senate-passed bill does more than problematically “gut the conscience protections currently enshrined in [Illinois law].” The bill would “stand in stark contrast to the requirements of superseding federal law, including the Church Amendment, the Coats-Snowe Amendment, and the annual Hyde-Weldon Amendment.”

Violating these longstanding federal laws would come with a heavy price tag for the people of Illinois. The Members of Congress write that “such legislation could seriously imperil funds for healthcare programs, including reimbursements under Medicare and Medicaid.”

SB 1564 is bad for everyone in Illinois.

Originally published at AUL.org.

 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.

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.

Over this past weekend, Christians were shot and killed, beheaded and drowned because they refused to abandon their faith in the face of venom-filled Muslim jihadists.

In one case, twelve Christians were thrown overboard to their deaths in the Mediterranean when a young Nigerian Christian refused to stop praying to God for help when the rubber boat began to sink. Witnesses said Nigerian Muslims on the dinghy “went mad” and began screaming “Allah is great” before they threw the Christians to their deaths. The remaining Christians formed a human chain and protected themselves against the attackers by clinging to the dinghy, the Daily Mail reports.

On Sunday, the Islamic State released a video of ISIS jihadists killing thirty Ethiopian Christians in Libya. The video shows about 15 men being beheaded on a Mediterranean beach and another group of the same size being shot in their heads somewhere in the Libyan desert.

The video referred to both groups of martyrs as “worshipers of the cross belonging to the hostile Ethiopian church,” the Jerusalem Post reports.

In February, 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians were beheaded in Libya.

Two months earlier, the Vicar of Baghdad, Andrew White, told the Christian Post of four Iraqi children that ISIS jihadist beheaded.

“ISIS turned up and they said to the children, ‘you say the words that you will follow Muhammad.’ The four children, all under 15, said, ‘No, we love Yashua [Jesus]. We have always loved Yashua. We have always followed Yashua. Yashua has always been with us,'” White recalled.

“[The militants] said, ‘say the words!’ [The children] said, ‘no, we can’t do that.’ They chopped all their heads off,” White told the Christian Post.

And then there is Pastor Saeed Abedini, who has been imprisoned in Iran for nearly two-and-a-half years, shaken when six of his fellow prisoners were executed in early March. Pastor Saeed is accused of proselytizing Muslims to Christianity and being involved in underground church activities that “endanger Iran’s national security.”

Were any of these tragedies a reason for pause and prayer when you freely met with other Christians to worship or study God’s Word this weekend?

Scripture instructs fellow believers in Hebrews 13:3 to:

“Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them;
and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.”

As the Church, are we doing that?

Naive skeptics say what ISIS jihadists do across the world is no threat to American Christians. “It will never happen here,” they say, sighing that only the hysterical and paranoid believe anyone will suffer for their faith in America.

Indeed.

But Jewish-American writer Elie Wiesel isn’t so sure. During his 1985 acceptance speech after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Wiesel shared a conversation he had with a young Jewish boy that asked him how the Holocaust could have happened.

“… I explained to him how naïve we were, that the world did know and remained silent. And that is why I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation,” Wiesel said.

“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must — at that moment — become the center of the universe.”

“The center of the universe …”

Not pleasant thoughts to have on a bright, sunny Sunday morning, though, are they?

American Christians must not remain silent about what our Christian brothers are enduring. Our own religious freedoms are already being eroded by secularists that demand we must abandon Biblical principles and Church teachings in the public aquare. Instead, they want political correctness to prevail as a new national belief system.

History shows that when the Nazis annexed Austria in 1938, they were met with little resistance. Swastika flags waving, Austrians lined the parade route as the Nazis entered their homeland. Right away, the Nazis instituted anti-Jewish policies and banned Jewish Austrians from participating in community events.

Jewish store owners were required to publicly identify their businesses. Austrians knew they were to avoid the businesses with “Jud” painted on outside walls if they didn’t want to antagonize their Nazi rulers.

It wasn’t long after synagogues were robbed and destroyed, that Austrian Jewish resisters were killed and innocents sent to Dachau and Bechenwald death camps.  Estimates are that 65,000 Jewish Austrians perished from 1938 to 1942.

Americans were made aware of the Austrian Jews’ peril during the late 30s and early 40s, but the tragedies were overseas and surely, they had nothing to fear from Hitler’s evil plans to conquer the world.

It would never happen here, they thought. And thankfully, it did not, because Allied Forces defied the abuse. Eastern Europe became “the center of the universe” for almost a decade.

Christian American business owners are now being forced to abandon their religious beliefs if they clash with America’s national religion of political correctness. If a business owner dares to live out his faith by standing for one-man, one-woman marriage or honoring life as sacred, he makes himself vulnerable to ridicule, boycotts and even bankruptcy – simply because his religious beliefs make others uncomfortable.

A recent movement is crossing America that advocates Christians wear orange to church on Sundays to identify with the orange-jump suited Christian prisoners that ISIS has beheaded over the past several months.

It’s time for Christians in Illinois to remember those that are in bonds, as if we – as fellow believers – were imprisoned with them. We need to bear the burdens of Christian brothers and sisters that are suffering for righteousness’ sake. We need to pray earnestly for them, repent of our inattention and speak out about the atrocities.

We need to demand action from authorities that affect public policy.

It’s time for Christians to break their self-consumed silence and speak out, pray, and at the very least, don the color orange in solidarity with those suffering for righteousness’ sake – starting next Sunday.

It’s the least we can do.

SAVE the DATE:

“Islam in America: A Christian Perspective”
with Dr. Erwin Lutzer
May 7th

CLICK HERE for Details

Written by Anna Paprocki, AUL Staff Counsel

Sunday’s Chicago Tribune article, “State bill seeks to mandate disclosure,” is terribly misleading.  It implies SB 1564* merely requires a healthcare provider to disclose that she has a conscientious objection, that the bill is simply about not having patients be “blind-sided” that a Catholic hospital/provider doesn’t perform abortions, elective sterilizations, etc. The bill does not require mere transparency about objections, but creates new obligations for healthcare providers, including pregnancy resource centers that offer women alternatives to abortion, to promote and participate in conscience-violating activities. Sponsored by State Sen. Daniel Biss (D-Skokie), the bill promotes the coercive anti-conscience agenda of his abortion-industry backers, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.

Pregnancy resource centers that offer “health care” such as ultrasounds, and perhaps even pregnancy testing, would be required under the bill to violate their core mission by discussing “benefits” of abortion and providing information on where to obtain abortions.

The article heavily quotes OSF ethicist Erica Laethem for irrelevant points. While Ms. Laethem explains that providers in her healthcare system do not have a moral objection to discussing any “topic” with patients, the bill is not about permitting doctors to talk about what they don’t object to, or providing information to what they don’t object to. It literally does the opposite. It creates duties on all healthcare providers regardless of his or her conscientious objection.

There is a fundamental difference between Ms. Laethem’s role in advising those in her healthcare practice about her view on complicity and a government-imposed mandate that all healthcare providers must, regardless of sincerely held moral convictions, promote and participate in conscience-violating services.

Notably, federal law does not share Ms. Laethem’s view that there is an appreciable “distinction” between a technical referral and effectively facilitating one that makes mandating the latter acceptable. Federal law prohibits discrimination against those who object to referral, in the technical sense, and also when she “refuses to make arrangements for” referral.

By violating federal law, SB 1564 could jeopardize Illinois’ federal financial assistance, including reimbursements through federal Medicaid, Medicare, and other federal health programs.

SB 1564 is detrimental to both healthcare providers and patients in Illinois.

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

*SB 1564 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), Iris Y. Martinez (D-Chicago), Jacqueline Collins (D-Chicago), and Emil Jones III (D-Chicago).

In the monumental U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling, a federal appeals court decision that would have forced Catholic organizations in Pennsylvania to pay for their employees’ abortion-inducing drugs as part of their medical coverage was blocked by Judge Samuel Alito Jr.

Secular war on Christian values

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver welcomed the SCOTUS ruling as a pivotal point toward tearing down what he considers an unconstitutional program developed by President Barack Obama to force Americans to pay for something that goes against their sincerely held religious beliefs.

“For the fifth time, the Supreme Court has acted against Obama’s tyrannical, secular mandate,” Staver announced Friday morning, just hours after the Thursday night decision.

On the first day the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, Staver’s international nonprofit, litigation, education and policy organization focusing on religious freedom and the sanctity of human life filed the first private lawsuit against ObamaCare on behalf of Liberty University. The case was filed to keep the Christian higher education institution from not having to pay for abortions under its healthcare policy.

Staver contends that the Obama administration is taking away the freedoms of American citizens at an unprecedented level.

“Never before have Americans been forced to participate in human genocide,” Staver asserts. “Never before have Americans been forced to a take part in same-sex unions.”

Staver alludes to the irony of a self-proclaimed Christian president who continues to develop and enforce laws and policies that force believers to forsake their faith and biblical convictions.

“Christians living in America are facing a secular assault on our values and our religious liberties,” Staver argues.

The beginning of ObamaCare’s end?

Signed into law as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by Obama in March 2010, many believe that ObamaCare, with all its objections and failures, is here to say, but Staver believes otherwise.

“Some have said ‘Obamacare is a done deal,’” Staver points out. “We are finding that is not the case.”

After nearly five years of reported shortcomings, complaints and legal concerns brought up regarding ObamaCare, the federal program is far from being out of the woods in the courtroom and could likely be overturned on its face in the not-so-distant future, Staver insists.

“The courts are just now beginning to respond to the many constitutional challenges of a so-called healthcare system that was used by secularists in the White House to attack sincerely held religious beliefs,” Staver said.

Just last June, SCOTUS handed the national arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby a victory so that the ObamaCare abortion mandate can’t force it and other private companies with Judeo-Christian values to pay for contraception, including abortion-inducing drugs, in their healthcare coverage.

Staver views the latest SCOTUS decision as another victory against the Obama administration and the war it has been waging against Christians and the American family from its command center in the White House.

“I applaud the Supreme Court for stopping ObamaCare’s assault on human life, religious liberty, and conscience,” Staver voiced on behalf of Christian organizations and families across America.

SB 1564 undermines the freedom
of conscience and invites intimidation and
legal action against pro-life healthcare providers.

Earlier this year, State Senator Daniel Biss (D-Skokie) introduced SB 1564 to radically alter the Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act — an Act that allows medical personnel and health care facilities to avoid participating in morally dubious medical procedures such as abortion, sterilization, and certain end-of-life care.  Doctors, pharmacists, and other medical personnel have been protected from having to violate their beliefs and values for almost twenty years under this Act.

This week, State Senator Biss introduced Amendment No. 3 in hopes of  assuaging opponents of this bill. However, Amendment 3 does nothing to secure conscience rights.  According to the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, 95 percent of physicians in a national poll agreed, “I would rather stop practicing medicine altogether then be forced to violate my conscience.”

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

IFI, Americans United for Life, the Christian Medical and Dental Association, Illinois Citizens for Life, and Lake County Right to Life all agree: The changes to SB 1564 are woefully inadequate.  The bill would still require pro-life doctors to participate materially in actions that violate their deeply held beliefs, such as helping patients find abortion-providers or securing other similarly objectionable procedures.

Background

American’s United for Life Analysis of SB 1564
Detrimental to Both Healthcare Providers & Patients
Written by Anna Paprocki, AUL Staff Counsel

AUL RECOMMENDATION: Vote NO

SB 1564 as amended by Senate Amendment 3 erodes the freedom of conscience for healthcare providers—including the right not to counsel or refer for conscience-violating services—which has been statutorily protected in Illinois for nearly 20 years. Instead, it creates new obligations for healthcare providers to participate in conscience-violating activities.

Under current law, healthcare providers are protected against participating in any phase of a healthcare service that would violate their sincerely held moral convictions, including “counselling, referrals, or any other advice …” The law respects a healthcare provider’s conscientious determination of what constitutes his or her complicity.

That same existing law already ensures patient safety is not compromised by clarifying that physicians are not relieved from a duty to “inform his or her patient of the patient’s condition, prognosis, and risks…” The law also clearly provides that healthcare personnel are not relieved from “obligations under the law of providing emergency medical care.”

SB 1564 as amended by Senate Amendment 3 uses the force of government to impose new and unnecessary obligations that are contrary to this longstanding law that appropriately protects both the freedom of conscience and patient care.

Contrary to existing law, SB 1564 as amended by Senate Amendment 3 obligates a healthcare facility, physician, or healthcare provider to participate in potentially conscience-violating services by requiring the provider to refer or transfer a patient or provide information to the patient regarding other healthcare providers who the provider reasonably believes offer the objected-to healthcare service. While this may be the existing practice for many healthcare facilities and providers, mandating it as a legal obligation would eliminate the law’s respect for the sincerely held moral convictions of a healthcare provider for whom these actions constitute complicity with the objected-to service.

The bill further creates a duty to inform patients of “legal treatment options” and “benefits of treatment options.” This is an unnecessary and potentially dangerous new obligation that may later be used by abortion advocacy groups as the basis for a lawsuit against healthcare providers whose consciences are violated by suggesting abortion—a “legal treatment option” service—to pregnant patients.

The bill additionally requires that this information on “legal treatment options” be given in a “timely manner” without defining what constitutes “timely.” All abortions, whether accomplished by invasive surgery or potent chemicals, pose significant risks to women’s health. It is also undisputed that these risks increase with gestational age. Therefore, “timely” may be construed by abortion advocacy groups to mean “immediate” with regards to abortion information, as any delay would potentially increase abortion’s risks.

Although not expressly applied to the new duties regarding referral, transfer, and information, the bill does contain a definition of “undue delay” that is defined as “unreasonable delay that causes impairment of the patient’s health.” Problematically, it fails to define “health.” In the context of abortion, federal courts have defined “health” expansively. In Doe v. Bolton, decided the same day as Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court created an unlimited definition of maternal “health.” The Court wrote, “[T]he medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.” The Court held that the abortionist alone was allowed to make this judgment.

Abortion proponents such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), and Planned Parenthood already frequently file lawsuits aimed at intimidating and discriminating against pro-life healthcare providers and facilities. SB 1564 as amended by Senate Amendment 3 provides fodder for their coercive litigation and intimidation tactics, as well as their anti-conscience agenda.

SB 1564’s attack on the freedom of conscience advances a radical ideology and fails to meet any demonstrated need.

There is no demonstrated need for SB 1564’s erosion of the freedom of conscience that has been protected by Illinois law for decades. Rather, the bill fits a nation-wide pattern of ideological discrimination advanced by abortion proponents.

For example, the factual findings in Stormans v. Selecky, a challenge to anti-conscience Washington State Board of Pharmacy rules, document that purported “refusal stories” used to advance the coercive rules were not the result of natural encounters with access problems, but were “manufactured” by Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates. In fact, the court in Stormans found, “no Board witness, or any other witness, was able to identify any particular community in Washington—rural or otherwise—that lacked timely access to emergency contraceptives or any other time-sensitive medication.”

SB 1564’s attack on the freedom of conscience would be counterproductive for patient access to care in Illinois.

Protecting the freedom of conscience of healthcare providers and institutions is necessary to avoid added stress on an already overtaxed healthcare system.

Experts project that current shortages of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals will worsen, failing to meet future requirements. There is an important public health interest in ensuring the protection of conscience rights; forcing healthcare professionals to choose between their consciences and their careers will only heighten the current healthcare provider shortage.

In a survey conducted in 2008, 91 percent of faith-based physicians agreed with the statement, “I would rather stop practicing medicine altogether than be forced to violate my conscience.”

Protecting the freedom is critical to slowing, not exacerbating, shortages of healthcare professionals and ensuring access to quality health care in Illinois.

(Click HERE for the PDF version.)

*SB 1564 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), Iris Y. Martinez (D-Chicago), Jacqueline Collins (D-Chicago), and Emil Jones III (D-Chicago).