The Illinois Family Institute has warned repeatedly about the failure of faith leaders to lead properly on matters related to homosexuality and the “trans” ideology. These failures are found in most Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church. A recent interview with Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich reveals part of the reason many Catholics lack biblically informed views on these matters.

Cardinal Cupich was asked about Pope Francis’ controversial and confusing Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” to which Cupich offered this controversial response:

[Amoris Laetitia] asks people to have an adult spirituality….to realize that in some way you have the grace, by God, to discern truth in your life in terms of where the Lord is calling you to the next step. It does put the responsibility on each individual, rather than an outside authority telling people what to do as if they were children. What the Holy Father is calling us to, what the Church is calling us to now is to be able to take responsibility for our lives and that means making sure people understand the freedom of conscience but also the responsibility that goes with it. So, this really, I think, is a movement to moving out of adolescent spirituality into an adult spirituality. That’s a big significance and it’s been going on since the Second Vatican Council. 

IFI’s good friend and faithful Catholic Daniel Boland (PhD), offers this analysis of Cupich’s words:

Cardinal Cupich’s statement, however well-intentioned, is a worrisome summary of present day Catholic relativism. Indeed, he adds significantly to the magisterial relativism which is unraveling the Church at all levels, from Baltimore’s Fr. Joseph Muth and his celebration of lesbian marriages to Cardinal Cupich’s notions of an “adult” Catholic to Pope Francis and his oft-confusing commentaries.

As a psychologist for fifty years (with a theology background), I believe the comments of Cardinal Cupich are astonishingly naive and reveal incomprehensible ignorance of 1) human nature (even so-called “adult” human nature), 2) the deep and enduring impact of our morally-tattered culture’s agencies and their profound effect on moral and intellectual growth, and 3) fundamental psychological facts relating to human development (e.g., in the realm of psycho-sexual identity, many persons continue to evolve well into their adult years, not to speak of the plethora of moral aberrations which are now commonplace).

These and a dozen more reasons clearly reveal and starkly underline the fact that we humans need the guidance of the organized Church all the years of our lives. We have only to look at the morally derelict conditions in our United States for stunning evidence of the corrupting results of relativism in public and private realms, corruption and violence wrought by educated “adults,” many of whom claim to be Catholic, many of whom claim both maturity of years and purity of “discernment.” But any experienced and candid spiritual director will attest that discernment is an elusive and often precarious quality which is so often missing even among those who are spiritually motivated and deeply prayerful.

In the world of human realities, Cardinal Cupich opens the door to moral nihilism and calls it “adult” Catholicism. This is astonishing. It is a recipe for institutional disaster for the Catholic Church and for the society which the Church supposedly is called to evangelize. It is also a recipe for moral isolation of individuals, as is (or should be) already evident to those who have eyes and will see.

The notion of “discernment,” in the generic, come-get-yours manner in which ecclesial relativists are using it, is a near-frivolous example of a lack of discernment, a psychological and moral anomaly. It is a misguided, if well-meant, idea (“offensive to pious ears” as older moralists used to say) to suggest that at some point in life, we can safely detach from the theological traditions and moral restraints of Catholicism because we have, at last, decided that we have attained Our Responsible Adult (transgendered? thrice-married? GLBTQ? goat-loving?) Self.

Given the topsy-turvy morality of our culture, one cannot fathom why Cardinal Cupich would promote the probability of even greater moral anarchy. The cumulative evidence over many decades now strongly indicates that major elements within the Magisterium (i.e., the Church’s official teaching authority of the bishops in unison with the Holy Father) are, at the very least, profoundly confused about their prophetic role in our culture. They seem to be in substantial doctrinal flux or in a state of political correctness about their fundamental moral responsibilities to the Church, reluctant to attest forthrightly to their Christocentric pastoral responsibilities to Catholics and to the larger secular culture in which the Church supposedly evangelizes (or used to).

A contrary condition of moral, doctrinal, and canonical relativism is what is involved in and represented by this Cupich statement. He and a number of Francis’ appointees to the Magisterium are changing the Church in radical ways. One cannot but be concerned about the degree to which relativism has been embraced by the first ranks of the teaching authority of the hierarchical Church Christ founded. Laity are unable to make any impact or even be listened to, and yet it is clear that the laity can offer profound enlightenment to Church leadership.

Perhaps the Church is meant to devolve into a state of dispirited chaos about 1) its moral and doctrinal identity and 2) about the reliability—if not the stability and validity—of its leaders, following the model of the Episcopalians and other morally fragmented assemblies. If so, we are clearly on that path, and it is the relativism, silence, and passivity of ecclesiastical and clerical leadership that are taking us there.

Written by Samuel Smith

More than eight in 10 Americans admit that they have some level of concern that the morality in America is declining, a new survey by LifeWay Research shows.

The Nashville-based Christian polling group’s survey, released [earlier this month], found that 81 percent of Americans either agree or strongly agree with the statement: “I am concerned about declining moral behavior in our nation.”

Forty-six percent of respondents said they “strongly agree” with that statement, while 35 percent said they “agree.” On the flip side, only six percent said they “strongly disagree” and 13 percent said they “disagree” that they are concerned about the declining morality in the nation.

“We are shifting very fast from a world where right and wrong didn’t change to a world where right and wrong are relative,” Lifeway Research Executive Director Scott McConnell said in a statement. “We are not all on the same page when it comes to morality. And we haven’t reckoned with what that means.”

When broken down into different demographics, the survey — which polled over 1,000 Americans and has a plus or minus 3.1-percentage-point margin of error — found that a total of 85 percent of Christians agreed that they are concerned about the decline in moral behavior across the nation, which makes them more likely than people of other religions (70 percent) and people of no faith (72 percent) to agree with that statement.

The survey also found that evangelicals are more likely to have concern about the moral decline of the nation than non-evangelicals are. In total, 91 percent of evangelicals said they agreed with the statement, while 79 percent of people without evangelical beliefs agreed. Likewise, those who attend a religious service at least once a month (89 percent) were more likely to be concerned than those who don’t attend religious services regularly (77 percent).

Seventy-nine percent of Protestant respondents and 82 percent of Catholic respondents also expressed concern with morality in America.

Respondents were also asked about the factors that shape the shared moral views that should exist in the country. They were given a list of factors and asked to select as many as applied. Sixty-four percent pointed to their parents as influencing their moral views, 50 percent said their religious beliefs shaped their moral views, and 42 percent selected “personal feelings.”

Eighty-two percent of evangelicals said that their views on what the United States’ shared moral standards should be are shaped by their religious beliefs, while only 43 percent of non-evangelicals said the same.

“For those with evangelical beliefs, the Bible is the ultimate authority,” McConnell said. “It trumps everything. So it’s going to be the source for how they determine right from wrong.”

Additionally, 78 percent of people who attend a religious service at least once per month said that their religious beliefs shape their views on the shared moral standards, while only 35 percent of those who don’t attend church at least once a month said the same.

The respondents were also asked which factors are most important to them in deciding what is morally right and wrong.

Only 48 percent said “nothing specific” because what is morally right and wrong does not change. Twenty percent said that someone getting hurt influences what is right and wrong, 8 percent said whether the benefits outweigh the costs, 7 percent said whether or not there is a law outlawing a certain behavior and 2 percent said “whether you think you will get caught.”

Although most Americans agree that the moral decline in America is concerning, Americans seemingly disagree about whether or not morality should be legislated.

Sixty-three percent of respondents agreed that “implementing laws to encourage people to act morally is not effective,” while 37 percent disagreed with that statement. However, 56 percent of respondents disagreed with the claim that “the fewer laws regulating moral standards, the better,” while 44 percent agreed.

People with evangelical beliefs (72 percent) were most likely to agree that “too many laws” regulating moral standards have been removed. Forty-six percent of non-evangelicals agreed.

Considering the fact that the term “evangelical” has different definitions, depending on who is using the word, LifeWay Research has a format for qualifying evangelical respondents by evaluating their religious beliefs.

Respondents were asked their level of agreement with four different statements and those who “strongly agree” with all four statements were categorized as “evangelical.” The four statements are:

– The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe.

– It is very encouraging to me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

– Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could removethe penalty of my sin

– Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’sfree gift of eternal salvation

However, as political scientist Ryan Burge at Eastern Illinois University pointed out in an interview with The Christian Post, LifeWay’s approach to categorizing evangelicals might not be the most effective.

This article was originally posted at ChristianPost.com

Today’s fiscal and social conservatives are feeling what the late baseball legend Yogi Berra described as “deja vu all over again.”

The Daily Signal is reporting that “Congressional negotiators agreed late Sunday on a broad spending plan to fund the government through September,” and a vote is expected within days.

The “makeshift spending agreement” is business as usual. We’ve been here before. But there’s a big problem: the GOP-led Congress did not remove funding for Planned Parenthood. That’s $500 million dollars!

The Washington Times reports:

The spending deal congressional negotiators hammered out early Monday morning runs 1,665 pages, and spends $700 million per page — the cost of keeping the basic operations of the government running for a year.

Deja vu, anyone?

After watching the Republicans in Washington, D.C. for the past 100 days, most conservatives of all stripes are coming to grips with the fact that the GOP isn’t quite ready to be a governing party.

President Donald Trump and U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan continue to promise that they will fulfill their promises regarding repealing and replacing Obamacare, enacting tax reform, and starting to build a wall on the southern border.

Governing the United States is a massive job, and healthcare and taxes and a border wall are difficult issues to deal with. Defunding Planned Parenthood is not.

The omnibus spending bill continues to use your tax money to take the lives of the unborn. That, despite the fact that Republicans now hold the White House and majorities in both houses in Congress. Scientific evidence proves those babies feel the pain of abortion. What do our elected Republicans feel?

How is this possible? A clue might be the excuse used for failing to spend money on a border wall. The Daily Signal reported this:

Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have said they prefer to put off a fight with Democrats over beginning to pay for the wall until the fall, rather than as part of funding the government for the rest of the current fiscal year.

Is that their excuse for failing to defund Planned Parenthood? Preferring to put off a fight with Democrats? Republicans cannot find the intestinal fortitude to stop spending taxpayers money on abortions — not a good sign for the other battles to come.

No doubt many Americans who voted for Republicans have put Congress and the White House on probation, and will for a time, give them the benefit of the doubt. Funding Planned Parenthood through September is another matter.

The abortion industry is rejoicing. U.S. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-New York) is “boasting” about what Democrats were able to accomplish in this GOP-led Congress.

Your U.S. Representative need to hear from you. Tell them to vote against any spending bill that funds Planned Parenthood.

Here is something they should vote for, however:

[U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz,] said he was preparing an amendment to defund Planned Parenthood for inclusion in the omnibus spending bill. He said it mirrors Vice President Mike Pence’s amendment to defund Planned Parenthood that the House passed in 2011, when Pence was a Republican congressman from Indiana.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to urge your U.S. Representative to vote for the Biggs amendment — if it doesn’t pass — then vote no on the spending bill.

Download the IFI App!

Download our apps for your phone or tablet. We offer apps for a variety of devices. You can get our alerts, commentary, video reports and event notification on an Android and Apple devices.

Click HERE for the Android app, or click HERE for the Apple app.

Written by Dr. Jonathan Wells

I am a scientist, but I won’t be joining the worldwide March for Science April 22. That’s because it’s really a march for something that undermines good science.

March organizers say “our diversity is our greatest strength.” They say “a wealth of opinions, perspectives, and ideas is critical for the scientific process.” But they don’t really mean it. Their passion for diversity extends to race, religion, nationality, gender and sexual orientation, but not to opinions, perspectives and ideas.

In particular, it doesn’t extend to diversity of opinion about two controversial ideas. The first idea is that you evolved from ape-like ancestors by unguided processes such as accidental mutation and natural selection. The second idea is that manmade global warming threatens civilization, and our government must take drastic action to stop it, even if that means wrecking the economy.

History should teach us to be wary of consensus.

Skeptics of the first idea are labeled “creationists.” Often, they are expelled from science altogether. And if global warming alarmists have their way, skeptics of the second idea may soon be criminally prosecuted.

Note the hypocrisy. Organizers describe the march as “a call to support and safeguard the scientific community.” But then they silence and expel those who won’t bow to the community’s majority opinion — the “scientific consensus.”

History should teach us to be wary of consensus. In 1750, the scientific consensus held that maggots are generated spontaneously in rotting garbage. In 1900, it held that atoms consist of electrons orbiting a nucleus like planets around the sun. In 1910, it held that the continents had never moved. In 1940, it held that protein, not DNA, is the stuff of heredity.

All of these views turned out to be wrong. And the history of science is full of other such cases.

The Message of the March: Ignore the Evidence and Trust Us

Some of our newly elected politicians refuse to bow to the scientific consensus on evolution and global warming. So defenders of the consensus are marching to pressure them to submit.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is a big supporter of the march. So is the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).

The AAAS vigorously defends evolution. The NCSE insists “there is no scientific debate” over evolution. And they strongly oppose criticisms of it. They were in classic form last month in Indiana. The Indiana Senate had resolved that students should be “informed” about “scientific evidence” regarding evolution and develop “critical thinking skills.” The NCSE called this language “antiscience.” Why? It might lead students to raise uncomfortable questions about the evidence for evolution.

As a biologist I know there is a scientific debate over the evidence for evolution. There are dissenters. And some are willing to speak out publicly even though doing so may threaten their careers.

The reason for the dissent is simple. The evidence does not support Darwinian evolution. Mutation and natural selection have never been observed to produce anything more than minor changes within existing species.

In place of evidence-based science, Darwin and his followers have relied on materialistic philosophy. That philosophy says only matter and physical forces are real. It says mind, spirit, free will, God and intelligent design are illusions.

In 1859, Darwin wrote that he “would give absolutely nothing” for his theory if it required “miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.” He allowed only unguided natural processes. In other words, Darwinism is materialistic.

For many in the nineteenth century, this was its most attractive feature. As Historian Neal Gillespie explained, “It was more Darwin’s insistence on totally natural explanations than on natural selection that won their adherence.”

As a scientist, I am bothered by this. Science is supposed to seek truth by testing hypotheses against the evidence. But evolution is materialistic story-telling. And the story persists even when the evidence contradicts it. I call this “zombie science,” and I describe many examples of it in my book of the same name. I’ll mention just one here. Students are shown drawings of some embryos of animals with backbones. In the drawings, all the embryos look similar in their earliest stages. Darwin believed this showed that we evolved from fish. But the story is false. Worse, mainstream biologists have long known that the drawings are false. They know that human and fish embryos look very different in their early stages. But many textbooks recycle the lie year after year anyway. Why? Because the materialistic story must be true.

The Sky is Falling

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is a big supporter of the March for Science. The UCS started as a leftist political movement in the 1960s, and it still champions various progressive causes. One of these is environmental activism. According to the UCS, “an overwhelming majority of climate scientists” believe in manmade global warming. More than that, “there is no debate” among scientists over global warming. None. Nada.

The AAAS and NCSE are also determined to enforce the consensus on global warming.

But there is a scientific debate over manmade global warming. Some climate scientists think the evidence does not support the consensus. The way to address the question is to debate the issue. It’s to weigh the evidence pro and con. Yet the UCS would silence dissenting scientists.

What really matters in science is not an opinion poll. It is the evidence. And some scientists argue persuasively that the evidence does not support Darwinian evolution or manmade global warming.

So the March for Science is not really about “evidence-based policies.” It is about enforcing the scientific consensus. It is about materialistic philosophy and progressive politics. And you’d better believe it!

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. is a senior fellow of Discover Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He’s the author of Icons of Evolution, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Evolution and Intelligent Design, and the new book Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution.

This article was originally posted at Stream.org

Illinois State Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago) and Illinois State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) believe that legalizing marijuana for recreational use will be good for Illinois so they have introduced introduced SB 316 and HB 2353 and, as part of the public relations push, formed the Coalition for a Safer Illinois.

Yes, Safer. It’s hard to imagine how adding more drugged drivers on the roads and putting more drugs into the hands of our children could possibly make Illinois safer.

The bills before the General Assembly would legalize the possession of up to 28 grams of marijuana and allow facilities to sell marijuana products for adults over 21 and tax and regulate those sales “in a manner similar to alcohol.”

“Safer?”  Hardly.  We just have to look to the examples of Colorado and Washington State to see the consequences.  Both states legalized marijuana for recreational use in 2013 and 2012 respectively.

Colorado now has more pot shops than Starbucks and McDonald’s combined. [1]

Keep reading, parents, because you can help stop this!

Impact on Kids

Each year two-thirds of new marijuana users are under 18. [2]

Colorado Youth (ages 12-17) rank #1 in the nation for “past month” use, and 74% higher than the national average. [3]

During the 2015-2016 Colorado school year, 62% of all expulsions or suspensions were marijuana violations. [4]

In 2016, 82% of the 103 Colorado school resource officers surveyed reported an increase in marijuana-related incidents since legalization. They reported 45% obtained it legally, 24% obtained it from black market, 22% from their parents. [5]

In Colorado, College-age (18-25) “past month” use increased 17% in the 2-year average after legalization, while nationally it increased 2%. [6]

Colorado school officials say the #1 problem in schools is marijuana. [7]

Impact on Road Safety

Marijuana-related traffic deaths increased 62% by 2015, two years after Colorado’s legalization. By 2015, 21% of drivers involved in all traffic fatalities in Colorado tested positive for marijuana. [8]

Colorado has seen a 67% increase in operators testing positive for marijuana who were involved in a fatal traffic accident since recreational marijuana was legalization in 2013. [9]

By 2014, Spokane Valley (Washington State) youth marijuana DUI’s increased 1700% and youth accounted for 64% of all confirmed marijuana DUI cases in Spokane Valley.[10]

In Spring Valley (Washington State) from 2012 to 2014 marijuana-related DUI’s increased 400% and marijuana–only DUI’s increased 460%.[11]

According to the NHTSA FARS (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Analysis Reporting System) data, the “rate of marijuana involvement in fatal car crashed will soon rival alcohol as the #1 preventable traffic problem.” [12]

Impact on the Workplace

An increase in marijuana use makes doing business costly and challenging. The pool of drug-free workers will be in decline. “Marijuana use impairs the ability to function effectively and safely on the job and increases work-related absences, tardiness, accidents, compensation claims, and job turnover.”  [13]

Safety, absenteeism, turnover rate, tardiness, productivity, work quality, and lawsuits are significant liabilities for employers with marijuana-using employees.

Colorado companies are encountering job candidates who fail pre-employment drug testing. As a result, many are actively recruiting from other states and many have moved their business to other states.

Illinois has a severe exodus of businesses and people. Can we afford more leaving the state?

Because the Arizona churches got involved, recreational marijuana was defeated at the ballot box last November. They realized that you can’t be a good husband, father or worker if you’re stoned.

You can STOP this!

Call or email your state representative today and urge him/her to oppose any attempts to legalize or decriminalize marijuana. CLICK HERE to find your state rep and senator. Your state rep and senator will be listed as the last 2 entries on the page, once you fill in your zip code and address. Simply click on their names. CLICK HERE to send them an email.

Read more:  Resources on the Truth and Consequences of Marijuana

Footnotes:

[1] The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact (Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, Volume 4, September 2016, page 4) www.rmhidta.org.
[2] Hall and Degenhardt, 2009, SAMSHA, February 22, 2013.
[3] The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact (Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, Volume 4, September 2016, page 4) www.rmhidta.org.
[4] Ibid. page 43
[5] Ibid. pages 46, 47
[6] Ibid. page 63
[7] http://tinyurl.com/pzkf7qq
[8] The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact (Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, Volume 4, September 2016, page 1) www.rmhidta.org.
[9] Ibid. page 14
[10] Washington State Marijuana Impact Report, March 2016, Impaired Driving, Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
[11] Ibid.
[12] Al Crancer, M.A., Phillip Drum, Pharm. D., Data: NHTSA FARS encyclopedia: http://www- fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
[13] National Association of Drug Court Professionals statement at http://goo.gl/G82YIN.

First, we wanted to let you know the good news.  Our lobbyist reports that SB 912 is not going to move forward. This is the proposal that we sent out an alert about earlier this week which would force religious leaders to undergo domestic violence recognition-training within one year of their initial employment and every five years thereafter.  For all intents and purposes, the bill is now dead.

THANK YOU! Your calls and emails made all the difference! The sponsor has agreed to make training discretional (instead of a mandate). We understand a new proposal will be introduced as a resolution.

As for the other bills that are on our radar screen, this is a good opportunity to bring you up up-to-date. If you haven’t yet done so, please urge your state representative to oppose these bill. CLICK HERE to identify all of your elected officials.  Your state representative will be the last one in the list. Click on their name to get his/her phone number. Remember that you pay their salary. They work for you!

HB 40 reinstates taxpayer-funded abortions for medicaid recipients and adds abortion coverage in state employee’s insurance plans. We are optimistic that the sponsor has yet to reach the 60 votes needed to call it for passage. But let’s remain diligent! Please make your phone call to your state rep, if you haven’t yet done so.

HB 3735 creates a censorship zone around abortion clinics. HB 3735 adds the offense of “intimidation” to the list of aggravating factors in the criminal code. “Intimidation” is defined as exposing any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule and would apply to staff and clients.

One can easily foresee abortion clinic staff using such a law to intimidate and silence pro-life counselors and to justify reporting them to the police when no harassment or violent actions have been perpetrated.

The bill is on second reading. Government censorship, or prior restraint, is viewed by the U.S. Supreme Court as “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.”

HB 1785 allows a gender dysphoric person to change their gender and name on their birth certificate with a declaration from a health care worker or mental health professional stating the person has undergone “gender transition treatment.”

Wording in the bill, changed from “sex change” to “change of sex designation,” implicitly implies the science-denying nature of this bill: no one’s sex can change. The government should never be required to participate in science-denying fraud.

SB 316 will legalize marijuana for recreational use for persons 21 and older. This bill is on third reading, which means it could be called at anytime.

Colorado legalized recreational marijuana in 2014 and is seeing an increase in car fatalities involving marijuana, emergency room visits, poison control center calls. Businesses are seeing a rise in drugged-induced workers. The #1 problem in Colorado schools is marijuana! It’s critical that calls flood into state rep offices!

HB 3235 will decriminalize marijuana, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and oxycodone, between 50%-80% depending on the drug and gram amount! By reducing penalties, Illinois will see more drugs on the streets, in the hands of kids and more drugged drivers on the road. But praise the Lord! Because of many calls, emails, and visits, the bill appears to be in limbo. Thank you for doing your part!

HB 3715 reduces penalties for “enrolled students” for delivering cannabis on school grounds. Yes, you read that right. But, once again, praise the Lord! Because of your calls, emails, and visits, the bill appears to be in limbo. Thank you!

For an updated flier on the bills on IFI’s radar screen, including these, please CLICK HERE.

>>Text Alerts: Text IFI to 555888 or click HERE to fill in a short form to enlist. You will receive a prompt reply thanking you for subscribing. Of course, you can easily opt out at any time.

We urge you to join today.

In an October 2015 article about attendance rates in Illinois School District 60, the Chicago Tribune reported  that “average daily attendance is up from 92 percent in 2010 to around 94 percent in 2014, and it hovers about equal to the state average, according to state board of education data.”

So the state daily attendance average is about 94 percent, and according to New Trier High School officials, student attendance on the controversial All-School Seminar Day on race was 77 percent. According to the North Cook News, more than 900 students were absent. Retiring superintendent and spinmeister Linda Yonke stated the obvious that attendance “was lower than a regular school day.”

Not to worry though about the popularity of dogma day because Linda Yonke also claims the low attendance rate was expected “for a day like this when there were no tests or homework assignments.”

Riiight, the 900 absences had nothing whatsoever to do with the whiz-bang, taxpayer-funded “progressive” phantasm that included over 100 sessions and 38 speakers (who were paid collectively about $28,000)–none of whom were discernibly conservative in perspective. I’m still hoping someone will find out how many of the speakers “identify” as conservative.

IFI depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Abortion clinics have been closing at a record pace. Since 2011, at least 162 abortion clinic have shut or stopped offering the procedure while just 21 have opened.[1]  Five states now have just one abortion clinic still open.

New pro-life laws regulating safety and standards are part of the reason but as feminist Madeleine Schwartz writes, even in liberal states “the combination of the economic difficulties of operating a clinic, a generally hostile atmosphere and declining demand means that many clinics are shutting down.”[2]

So it should be no surprise that telemedicine medical abortion has become appealing to Planned Parenthood because it reduces the cost burden of the clinics.

Not to mention that abortion has also become increasingly concentrated among the poor with 49% of aborted women patients having a family income below the federal poverty level. [3]

MEDICAL ABORTION AND TELEMEDICINE

Although abortion was legalized in 1973, it wasn’t until 2000 that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first oral abortion drug mifepristone (also known as RU-486) for medical abortions within 7 weeks of pregnancy (In March 2016, the FDA changed its guideline to allow medical abortion up to 10 weeks into pregnancy.)

Back in 2000, the “early abortion” procedure involved 3 clinic visits. The first session was with a doctor and taking the mifepristone dose to stop the progesterone necessary to establish and maintain the attachment of the unborn baby and placenta to the womb.  2 days later and if still pregnant, the expectant mother had to return to the clinic for the dose of misoprostol to cause expulsion of the preborn baby. Two weeks after the first clinic visit, the mother must return to the clinic to confirm that the pregnancy was ended.[4]

In 2008, a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Iowa initiated the first formal telemedicine medical abortion program in the U.S. for abortion clinics not regularly staffed by a physician. In this situation, a physician in another location reviews prior lab work and imaging to estimate the length of pregnancy and potential contraindications before speaking by a webcam to the pregnant woman.

The doctor is never physically present. Instead, he consults with the pregnant woman via the webcam about her medical history and tests, explains the procedure, obtains consent and then remotely activates a drawer that opens to dispense the abortion pills.

Now the rates of medical abortions rival those of surgical abortions in the U.S. [5]

However, citing safety concerns, 37 states currently require clinicians who perform medication abortions to be licensed physicians and 19 states require that the clinician providing a medical abortion be physically present during the procedure, thereby prohibiting the use of telemedicine to prescribe medication for abortion remotely.[6]

NOW MEDICAL ABORTIONS BY MAIL?

A new study has been started in 4 states (Hawaii, New York, Oregon and Washington) to allow women to terminate a pregnancy by telemedicine and mail-order drugs. [7]

Although telemedicine medical abortions with the abortion drugs delivered to women by mail are touted as especially a boon for women in rural areas without a close abortion clinic, the process does not allow women to avoid the doctor’s office entirely. Using a video hookup on a home computer, a woman first consults a physician (or other clinician such as a nurse practitioner) at one of three participating abortion clinics who evaluates her medical history, explains how to take the abortion pills and what to expect. The woman then must get medical tests including ultrasound and bloodwork at a medical facility.

If the tests show she is eligible for the study, the clinic sends her a package with pills and instructions by overnight mail. After she completes the abortion process, the woman must have additional tests such as an ultrasound to verify that the abortion is complete and a phone consultation to review the results.

The study is being conducted by Gynuity Health Projects in the hope that good results will encourage the FDA to stop restrictions on mifepristone in pharmacies.

IS MEDICAL ABORTION SAFE?

The list of contraindications for medical abortion include ectopic pregnancy, chronic adrenal failure, chronic corticosteroid use and blood clotting problems. If tests do not reveal such problems or if a pregnant woman does not know or tell the doctor about certain conditions, the results could be deadly.

Complications of medical abortions include infection and heavy or prolonged bleeding in an estimated 1% of women and an estimated 2% to 5% of medical abortions where the unborn baby is not completely expelled from the womb. When the unborn baby is not completely expelled, a surgical abortion is done to prevent infection or other problems.[8]

In December 2014, the University of California-San Francisco (UCSF) released an extensive study on Medicaid abortions in California. While its press release was titled “Major Complication rate after Abortion is Extremely Low”, Stanford University Ph.D. Michael New and his team found something quite different when they analyzed the data. They found that the study confirmed the finding that telemedicine abortions have “four times more risk of complications.”[9]

A NURSE’S PERSPECTIVE

Although Planned Parenthood calls medical abortion “similar to a miscarriage”, it’s not.

Years ago, I had a miscarriage at 10 weeks with complications. I had a doctor who knew my medical history before he gently told me that my baby had died in my womb. When I had complications at home during my miscarriage, he met me in the emergency room and took care of the problem. It was my doctor who reassured me when I was hospitalized overnight. That kind of personal physical and emotional support is not possible with a medical abortion from a clinic.

Now imagine a young woman afraid to tell anyone she is pregnant and who visits an abortion clinic to get the abortion pills. Will anyone be with her or even know when she goes home and experiences what Planned Parenthood says is “kind of like having a really heavy, crampy period” with large clots and that “(a)ny chills, fevers, or nausea you have should go away pretty quickly”? Will she recognize the signs of a complication? Will anyone follow up if she doesn’t return to the clinic to be checked after the abortion? [10]

There is a big difference between medical abortion and miscarriage physically, emotionally and spiritually because abortion is not health care.

[1] “Abortion Clinics Are Closing at a Record Pace” by Esmé E Deprez. February 25, 2016. Bloomberg news.  Online at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-24/abortion-clinics-are-closing-at-a-record-pace#media-4

[2] (“Abortion Clinics in Blue States Are Closing, Too” by Madeleine Schwartz. May 2, 2016. FiveThirtyEight.com. Online at https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-clinics-in-blue-states-are-closing-too/)

[3] “Abortion in the Lives of Women Struggling Financially: Why Insurance Coverage Matters” by Heather D. Boonstra, July 14, 2016. Guttmacher Institute. Online at  https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2016/07/abortion-lives-women-struggling-financially-why-insurance-coverage-matters

[4] “Early Abortion Pill Approved by FDA” WebMD. September 28, 2000. Online at: http://www.webmd.com/women/news/20000928/early-abortion-pill-approved-by-fda#1

[5] “Abortion by Prescription Now Rivals Surgery for U.S. Women” by Jillian Mincer. November 1, 2016. Medscape. Online at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/871142#vp_1  (password protected)

[6] “Medication Abortion”. Guttmacher Institute. January 2017. Online at https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/medication-abortion

[7] “A Study Tests the Safety of Women Using Abortion Pills Sent by Mail” by Phil Galewitz. November 10, 2016. New York Times. Online at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/health/abortion-study-mail.html?_r=0

[8] “Medication Abortion-Evidence-based information about mifepristone, methotrexate and misoprostol”. Online at http://www.medicationabortions.com/mifepristone

[9] “Planned Parenthood Covers Up How Its Telemed Abortions are Four Times More Dangerous” by Marisa Lengor Kwaning.   Mar 19, 2015. Lifenews.com. Online at  http://www.lifenews.com/2015/03/19/planned-parenthood-covers-up-how-its-telemed-abortions-are-four-times-more-dangerous/   

[10] “What can I expect after I take the abortion pill?”. Planned Parenthood. Online at https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill/what-can-i-expect-after-i-take-the-abortion-pill

Audacity: unrestrained impudence, impropriety, gall

Last week President Barack Obama delivered his farewell address. Aside from his lovely tribute to his family, there were more than a few portions of his address that raised eyebrows, hackles, and dander.

For 240 years, our nation’s call to citizenship has given work and purpose to each new generation. It’s what led…slaves to brave that makeshift railroad to freedom. It’s what pulled immigrants and refugees across oceans and the Rio Grande, pushed women to reach for the ballot….It’s why GIs gave their lives at Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima; Iraq and Afghanistan—why men and women from Selma to Stonewall were prepared to give theirs as well.

It’s both audacious and offensive for Obama to compare the struggle of blacks for freedom from slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws or the sacrifice of soldiers fighting to defeat evil totalitarian regimes to the protests of homosexuals clamoring for America to affirm and celebrate homoeroticism.

Obama then boasted about his galling impropriety, spuriously couching it in language that appeals to our better selves:

If I had told you eight years ago that America…would win marriage equality… you might have said our sights were set a little too high.  But that’s what we did.

Obama and five U.S. Supreme Court Justices did not win marriage “equality.” They imposed a radical revision of the legal definition of marriage on the entire country. Equality demands that like things be treated alike. Equality does not demand that we treat unlike things as if they were alike. An intrinsically sterile union of two people of the same sex is as different from a union composed of two people of different sexes as men are from women (which is a difference that even homosexuals acknowledge is real, substantive, and profound). Homosexuals have always been free to marry. They’ve been as free to marry as polyamorists have been. They weren’t fighting for a right they were denied. They were fighting for the unilateral right to revise the legal definition of marriage.

Obama inadvertently alluded to this when he referred to “reinvention”:

Our youth, our drive, our diversity and openness, our boundless capacity for risk and reinvention means that the future should be ours. But that potential will only be realized if our democracy works. Only if our politics better reflects the decency of our people.

Obama has used every extra-legal and unconstitutional means at his disposal to force people to share restrooms, locker rooms, and shelters with persons of the opposite sex. He has undermined true marriage and eagerly endorsed family structures that deny children their intrinsic right to be raised by a mother and father. He refers to people who publicly proclaim their embrace of homoeroticism as heroes. He has vigorously supported the putative “right” of women to have the humans growing in their wombs killed and believes taxpayers should subsidize this barbarity. And Obama has the audacity to talk about decency.

Obama-the-Audacious continued his reverie in la-la land:

 “Now, I’ve lived long enough to know that race relations are better than they were 10, or 20, or 30 years ago, no matter what some folks say.”

Surely Obama jests. More likely he lies. Well, perhaps race relations are better than they were in 1996 or 1986, but are those improvements the result of Obama’s words and actions? More to the point, are race relations better now than they were eight years ago, before Obama assumed office?

In an interview that aired shortly before Obama’s farewell address, liberal pundit Stephanopoulos asked him  about his record on race relations: “The heart of your promise when you first burst on the national scene, bringing everyone together. And you look now and most African-Americans think we’ve gone backwards on race relations over the last eight years. What do you say to that?”

Obama responded, “I am absolutely convinced that race relations on the whole are actually better now than they were 20 years—.” An incredulous Stephanopoulos interrupted him: “Better now?”

Sly rhetorician that he is, Obama changed the question Stephanopoulos had asked. Stephanopoulos asked about the trajectory of race relations during Obama’s eight-year tenure. He did not ask if race relations were better compared to race relations in 1996.

Obama, whose honey-tongue (or is it forked tongue?) masks his extremist and divisive cultural agenda, continued:

…[I]f our democracy is to work in this increasingly diverse nation, then each one of us need to try to heed the advice of a great character in American fiction—Atticus Finch–who said “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view…until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”

Has Obama walked around in the skin of orthodox Christians—especially those who are being persecuted for their faith? While “progressive” business owners have the freedom to live in accordance with their deeply held convictions by refusing to provide baked goods, music, or dresses, orthodox Christians are sued for doing likewise. One dress designer justified her refusal to design a dress for Melania Trump: [W]e consider our voice an expression of our artistic and philosophical ideas.” Apparently Obama spends more time walking around in designer clothes and little time walking around in the skin of Melissa and Aaron Klein who lost their bakery business and were fined $135,000 because of their artistic, philosophical, and religious ideas about marriage.

Obama warned about the deep distrust Americans have of government:

When trust in our institutions is low, we should…insist on the principles of transparency and ethics in public service. 

When Obama entered office he promised his would be “the most transparent administration in history,” but in a scathing report for the Committee to Protect Journalists, Washington Post vice president at large Leonard Downie Jr. wrote that the Obama “administration’s war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration.”

In this report, New York Times chief Washington correspondent David Sanger described the Obama administration as “the most closed, control freak administration I’ve ever covered.” And New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan said, “it’s turning out to be the administration of unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press.”

Obama continues to foment division even in his waning days. He commuted the sentence of traitor Bradley (aka “Chelsea”) Manning who was convicted of 17 charges resulting from leaking 700,000 pages of classified or sensitive government documents to Wikileaks that, according to experts, resulted in incalculable and ongoing damage to national security. Obama commuted his sentence from 35 years to 7, a commutation that even Democrats oppose.

Obama also offends with his audacious reference to Manning as “she” despite the fact that Manning has not yet been castrated and despite the scientific fact that castration and cross-sex hormone-doping cannot turn Manning into a “she.” This is particularly ironic in light Obama’s supposed commitment to science and reason:

But without some common baseline of facts, without a willingness to admit new information, and concede that your opponent might be making a fair point, and that science and reason matter, then we’re going to keep talking past each other, and we’ll make common ground and compromise impossible.

Surely a scientifically-grounded, reasonable man like Obama knows that it’s not actually possible for Manning ever to be a woman. Even a child can tell that he’s a man in the empress’ new gown.

In his farewell address, Obama proclaimed “Our Constitution is a remarkable, beautiful gift.” Equally remarkable, his nose didn’t grow when he said it.

If he actually did believe our Constitution is a beautiful gift, he wouldn’t have abused it. In a congressional hearing, Left-leaning and well-respected constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley warned about the danger to the Republic posed by Obama’s abuse of executive actions to legislate:

The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. 

At the beginning of this article, I provided the definition of audacity—well, I provided one definition of audacity. There’s another. Audacity also means “boldness” or “daring.” As Obama at long last leaves office, let’s not follow in his impudent, at times even galling footsteps. Let’s step into the public square with boldness, constrained by our remarkable Constitution and unsullied by impropriety.

Please subscribe to the IFI YouTube Channel to get timely
video reports & other special presentations!

Contact Your State Senator to Oppose SB 7.

Democratic Senate President John Cullerton and Minority Leader Christine Radogno negotiated an ambitious plan to end the budget impasse.  Promising to act on a package by month’s end, they introduced 13 measures that included sweeteners that are not budget-related for both sides.

One of the bills is SB 7, the massive gambling expansion bill. All 13 bills must pass for this “grand bargain” to become law.  The Illinois Senate will only be in Springfield three days this month – Jan. 24-26. Read more

Knowing the taxpayers won’t like it, Illinois Sen. Radogno’s advice to Republican State Senators:

“I cautioned my caucus you might want to turn off your phone because you’re going to get inundated from people who don’t like pieces of it.”  Read more

SB 7, the massive gambling expansion bill, has been assigned to a new Gaming Committee.  No members have been added at this time. We will alert you when a hearing date is posted.

SB 7 will double the amount of casinos in Illinois plus:

An increase in electronic gambling at various locations

Perpetual casino license for Chicago–4,000 positions (over 3 times larger than current casinos)

5 additional Land-based casinos with 1,600 positions

Expands number of gambling positions at existing casinos from 1,200 to 1,600.  Competitive bidding of unused positions–casinos can have up to 2,000 positions.

Nationwide, revenue at casinos has declined.  Illinois is saturated with gambling – Lottery, 25,000 video gambling machines, 10 casinos, Internet wagering on horse racing and the Lottery, 21 Off-Track Betting parlors, 4 racetracks, charitable gambling, raffles and Poker Runs.

Take ACTION: CLICK HERE to send an email to your state senator asking them to oppose SB 7.

Gambling is an unstable source of revenue
that has not and cannot solve the State’s fiscal problems.

Thousands gathered at Federal Plaza in Chicago on Sunday, January 15, 2017 to stand for LIFE!  Pro-life speakers at the march included Pat McCaskey of the Chicago Bears, three representatives from Congress, an abortion survivor, religious leaders, and pro-life students!  We got news coverage on Chicago’s WGN TV News and local CBS TV News!  More news coverage is likely to follow.

Overcoming Pro-choice Protesters

There was a pro-choice protest of the march, but pro-life marchers FAR outnumbered them!  The march officially started at 2 pm, but the protesters scheduled their protest to start at 1 pm to deceptively make it appear that they had more people. My friends in the pro-life groups LIVE PRO LIFE and Chicago Pro-life Future made sure we had a good presence at 1 pm to offset the small pro-choice protest.  We faced the pro-choice protest with fun pro-life chants and a line of professionally made signs!  Then, we put up a three sided sign that is 12 feet tall and ten feet wide with the same message.  We call it the “triangle.”

Cautiously Optimistic Signs For Future Activism

With the election of Donald Trump and the hope of pro-life changes that will bring, the pro-life movement is watching to see if there will be a change in engagement for pro-life or pro-choice activism.  Will pro-life and/or pro-choice activism get a boost?  March for Life Chicago was the first major test.  So far, it looks like both sides are getting a boost.  Pro-life people are excited that change is possible and we want to be engaged to help push ahead to a brighter future!  The official estimate for the pro-life side is 6,000!  Pro-choice people are upset that the law may be moving away from abortion and towards life.  They want to continue the status quo of a lack of legal protection for unborn humans, resulting in over 1 million humans aborted each year in the US.  We still outnumbered them, but we will need to be diligent in 2017 to keep the activism advantage that has been critical to moving our country in a pro-life direction.

Encouraging & Powerful Speakers

Gianna Jessen survived a saline abortion and was born in an abortion clinic!  She gave a powerful testimony of the power of her faith in living with cerebral palsy which was caused by the attempt on her life by the abortion doctor.  She’s forgiven her birth mother and boldly proclaims her faith and the stands up to the injustice of abortion, proclaiming unashamedly that abortion cannot be a woman’s rights, because her rights were not recognized when the abortion doctor was trying to take her life.

U.S. Representatives Dan Lipinski (D-Chicago), Peter Roskam (R-Wheaton) and Darin LaHood (R-Peoria) were bold and clear in standing up for life, declaring their commitment to defund Planned Parenthood, marching toward overturning Roe, and passing life-affirming legislation!  Pro-life Democrat Dan Lipinski highlighted that abortion should not be treated as a partisan issue and religious views shouldn’t separate people on it either because all humans deserve legal protection.  Instead of allowing abortion to divide people, we should all be united with the shared purpose of defending human life, especially the weak and vulnerable.

Brianna Todd shared her courage in choosing life for her unborn son and finding help at Aid for Women, a pro-life pregnancy resource center.

Fun & Young!

The march was packed full of energetic youth! They danced, they sang, and they jumped for joy!  There was a drum line, there were cheers, and there was the fun laughter and drive that youth brings.  It was a block party for LIFE that invaded the abortion culture that infects too much of Chicago.  It was nothing short of epic.

Pro-life Activists (left to right) Babette Holder, Jan Shaw, Dave Smith and Stephanie Trussell.

Yesterday a Washington Times headline read “GOP wins first Obamacare fight in Senate budget vote.” Katie Pavlich reported this at Townhall.com:

Republicans eager to show quick action against Obama’s health care law took an initial procedural step Tuesday, introducing a budget bill that would have to be considered under a parliamentary procedure that would prevent Democrats from using a Senate filibuster to protect the health care law.

Pavlich also reported that Vice President-elect Mike Pence told Congressional Republicans that President-elect Donald Trump wants Obamacare (i.e., the Affordable Care Act) repealed and sent to his desk by February 20.

With Republicans in control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue after January 20, the Republican Congress will be able to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with the help of the new president.

Candidate Trump made clear his intentions, and President-elect Trump began to make good on his commitment to repeal and replace the ACA with his choice of U.S. Representative Tom Price (R-GA) to serve as his Secretary of Health and Human Services. Rep. Price is considered one of the most knowledgeable Republicans on healthcare policy.

Since the election, a lot has been written about the challenges in repealing the ACA. The bill ran thousands of (mostly unread) pages when it was signed into law in March, 2010, and tens of thousands of pages of regulations dealing with the ACA have been added since then.

What will replace Obamacare is a work in progress as conservative health care expert Lanhee Chen explained:

It’s not that we don’t have enough ideas as conservatives, it’s that we actually have too many. A lot of thinking and research has gone on the last several years around how you create a health care system that is more consumer friendly, that pays attention to costs first, that recognizes the importance of health care in people’s lives but doesn’t believe that the federal government is necessarily well-suited to make all of those important decisions.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth, and your local U.S. Representative asking them to support the repeal of Obamacare.

Obamacare has caused many to lose their existing coverage, insurance rates to soar, policy options to be restricted, and increased the national deficit. The law has negatively affected the economy in several ways, especially by discouraging companies from hiring.

Join IFI at our Feb. 18th Worldview Conference

We are excited about our third annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Frank Turek on Sat., Feb. 18, 2017 in Barrington. Dr. Turek is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”

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!

We hope your days and weeks leading up to Christmas Day have been filled with opportunities for rich worship and contemplation of the enormity of what Jesus Christ’s first coming means to you in this life and what His second coming will mean for you in eternity.  Such reflection may be aided by thoughtful reading of Scriptures and devotionals that speak of the Lord’s Advent, joyful singing of carols and hymns that tell of the hope that we have in Emmanuel, God with us, as well as prayers of gratitude and praise that in the fullness of time, God sent forth His Son.

Unlike temporal preparations for the celebration of secular Christmas, these spiritual matters are of supreme importance. They cannot be put off until the “last minute,” for one day time will run out and it will be too late. Our hearts must be prepared to receive Jesus, God’s Perfect Gift and the Author of Eternal Salvation, the only One who can save us from our sin. And our hearts must also be ready to meet Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our Faith, when He returns to execute judgement, redeem His creation, and bring everlasting peace between us and our Creator.

May God bless you as celebrate with great joy the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and anticipate with eagerness and excitement His certain return.

Merry Christmas!