On Tuesday, June 18, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 228-196 on a bill to protect unborn children nationwide during the last four months of pregnancy, when their nervous systems are developed and they are capable of experiencing excruciating pain.

The bill is called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 1797), and it’s chief sponsor is U.S. Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ).  The proposal is based on a model bill written by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), which has already been enacted in nine states.  H.R. 1797 would extend the life-saving policy to the entire nation, protecting unborn children of 20 weeks fetal age or later.  It mirrors 20-week abortion ban laws passed by some states, and lays further groundwork for the ongoing legal battle that pro-lifers hope will eventually result in forcing the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that  legalized abortion.

This historic bill would prohibit the termination of unborn babies capable of living outside the womb.   This move comes in light of the revelations of numerous late-term abortionists who, like Kermitt Gosnell, have killed children born alive in abortion clinics by jamming scissors in their necks or strangling them.   No civilized nation should allow such barbarism! 

Of Illinois’ 18 U.S. Representatives, 6 voted to end painful late-term abortion on innocent helpless children while 12 voted to continue. Democrat Daniel Lipinski joined Illinois Republicans who all supported this bill. We’ve also indicated in the list below, the Congressmen who co-sponsored this bill.

IFI greatly appreciates the 6 Illinois members of the U.S. House who voted in favor of H.R. 1797.

It is widely believed that the U.S. Senate will ignore this bill. Furthermore, the White House has already said that President Barack Obama would veto it if it ever reached his desk, saying it is “an assault on a woman’s right to choose” and “a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.”  You may remember that as an Illinois State Senator, Mr. Obama repeatedly voted to allow infanticide to continue unabated in Illinois hospitals.

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

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

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

Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D)–YEA
H.R. 1791 Co-Sponsor
3rd Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-5701
District Phone:             312-886-0481
Webform

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

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

Rep. Peter Roskam (R)–YEA
H.R. 1791 Co-Sponsor
6th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-4561
District Phone:             630-232-0006
Webform

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

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

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

Rep. Brad Schneider (D)–No
10th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-4835
District Phone:             847-793-0625
Webform

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

Rep. William Enyart (D)–No
12th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-5661
District Phone:             618-233-8026
Webform

Rep. Rodney Davis (R)–YEA
H.R. 1791 Co-Sponsor
13th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-2371
District Phone:             217-403-4690
Webform

Rep. Randy Hultgren (R)–YEA
H.R. 1791 Co-Sponsor
14th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-2976
District Phone:             630-232-7104
Webform

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

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

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

Rep. Aaron Shock (R)–DID NOT VOTE
H.R. 1791 Co-Sponsor
18th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone:             202-225-6201
District Phone:             309-671-7027
info@aaronschock.com

 

---

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values!

Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year,
which is just $5 per month.

 

What I’m getting at, and what I don’t see a lot of conversation about, is the number of people that change their sexual orientation and the frequency with which they change it.

Homosexual advocates say that homosexuals are “born that way,” a cliché that has all but died thanks to science disproving the existence of a “gay gene.” These same advocates say that once a person admits they are homosexual that it is impossible to change and be anything other than a homosexual. Now, to be fair, they are okay with homosexuals becoming bi-sexual, or even transgender, but certainly not heterosexual.

I suppose homosexual advocates don’t like when a man like Nicholas Cummings, former president of the APA makes statements like this one: “Contending that all same-sex attraction is an unchangeable or immutable characteristic like race is a distortion of reality.” Cummings is only admitting what honest experts already know, that homosexuality is a choice and just as it can be chosen, it can be un-chosen.

But homosexual advocates have to rabidly deny science and reality and claim that people don’t choose to be homosexual, that they are “born that way.” Otherwise their lifestyle becomes one of perception rather than biological reality and that is a crumbling foundation they know will not gain social or political sympathy. So, consequences of their delusion be damned, they have pushed forward with their dangerous agenda of perception and asked all of society to agree.

And, as we’ve seen in recent years, both society and government have indeed sympathized with their “plight” and sought to deconstruct all of the moral underpinnings of our nation in order to recreate America in the image of a flexi-sexual with little to no moral compass. This still doesn’t solve their biology dilemma, as Dr. Joseph Berger, a Toronto psychiatrist has explained, there is no such thing as a “transgender” person:

“From a scientific perspective, let me clarify what ‘transgendered’ actually means. I am speaking now about the scientific perspective – and not any political lobbying position that may be proposed by any group, medical or non-medical. ‘Transgendered’ are people who claim that they really are or wish to be people of the sex opposite to which they were born, or to which their chromosomal configuration attests. Sometimes, some of these people have claimed that they are ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ or alternatively ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’. The medical treatment of delusions, psychosis or emotional happiness is not surgery.”

And yet the homosexual lobby has sought to surgically cut the moral fabric from America and replace it with their own brand of humanism that starts with fluid sexuality. The point being to destroy any moral absolutes because, if moral absolutes exist then people will continue to oppose their lifestyle on the basis of morality; that is a reality they simply cannot allow. By first deconstructing the foundation of morality, starting with sexual norms and guidelines, they can then reconstruct morality according to an ideology that says sexuality is so fluid it can change daily.

The most heinous part of it all is that homosexual advocates are very willing to go after children and seek to “educate” them according to their ideology. To cause such confusion in the mind of a developing child is beyond despicable, but that won’t stop them. One particularly awful example of this comes from a cartoon set to debut on the TheHub, a children’s cartoon network. The cartoon is all about the adventures of a cross-dressing superhero. The boy gains magical powers by wearing a special ring and dressing like a girl. AS if the sexualization of our children wasn’t already a problem, now ratings execs think it’s a good idea to confuse them with cross-dressing “heroes.”

We’ve fallen so far that we are pitching deviant sexual behavior to kids on cartoons. And while we would like to think that behaviors such as bestiality will never be accepted in our society, already the push to “normalize” such behavior is under way. We are moving ever faster towards a society that is LGBTPBQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Pedophilia, Bestiality) inclusive.

Inclusive isn’t the word, it’s more like demanding acceptance and affirmation under threat of penalty of the law. That is really the society we are heading towards. One in which every deviant sexual behavior is not merely tolerated but affirmed, where silence is prosecuted as opposition, and where morality changes daily based on horoscope.

If morality is based on transcendent truth then it cannot be altered, regardless of cultural or political opinion. If morality is based on culture then it will continue to change until it brings about the implosion of the society that forgot morality is based on transcendent truth.

Help Protect the Family Now!     
Please click HERE to support IFI through our secure online server

Faith, Family and Freedom Fall Banquet

“Standing Strong”

with special guest, Dr. Benjamin Carson

Friday, October 4, 2013
The Midwest Conference Center in Northlake, Illinois

Click HERE for more details

Dr. Ben Carson is an award-winning pediatric neurosurgeon, New York Times best-selling author, and Presidential Medal of Honor recipient. His inspiring rise from an impoverished single-parent home in downtown Detroit to one of the leading pediatric surgeons and political voices in our nation inspired the 2009 movie Gifted Hands.

Dr. Carson grabbed national headlines after delivering the keynote speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in February of this year. Standing mere feet away from President Barack Obama, Dr. Carson spoke truth to power when he discussed the importance of family, personal responsibility, and the dangers of political correctness.

Sponsorship packages and program advertisements for this great evening are available. I hope you’ll reserve this date on your calendar. If you have any questions, please call us at (708) 781-9328.

The bill is called “The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” (H.R. 1797) because we now know from medical science that an unborn baby can experience pain at least as early as the 20th week of gestation.

This is why doctors administer anesthesia to babies who are operated on in utero at this stage of development.

In fact, medical science tells us the pain they experience in gruesome late-term abortions may be more intense than the pain adults experience because of the way our nervous system develops. Dr. Paul Ranalli, a neurologist at the University of Toronto, says that 20 weeks is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop.”

“Knowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the point that they can feel excruciating pain every terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies everything America was called to be. This is not who we are.” ~U.S. Rep. Trent Franks

As Dr. Robert J. White, a neurosurgeon at Case Western Reserve University says, “Without question, [abortion at 20 weeks] is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.”

There are at least 300 abortion providers in the United States who will perform abortions after the 20th week. It’s time to put an end to this savagery in our land.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email to urge your representative TODAY to vote to end the barbaric practice of abortions performed on unborn babies who can feel pain.

President Barack Obama and his administration announced earlier this week that it will not appeal the ruling. Critics argue that this is one more attack on a young girl’s ability to resist pressure to become sexually active. No longer can a teen girl say she doesn’t want to have sex because she may get pregnant. Manipulative men will now have a convenient solution to that natural concern. What’s more, parents will be further removed from providing critical input in a young girl’s decision-making process regarding sexual activity.

To view a copy of the radical National Women’s Liberation website and their declaration of victory, click HERE.

To view legal documents concerning the morning after court battle, click HERE. 

Birk and his fellow teammates had been invited to the White House to meet President Obama at a ceremony honoring the Ravens’ victory in Super Bowl XLVII.

Birk says he chose to sit out the White House Super Bowl tribute because President Barack Obama invoked God’s blessing Planned Parenthood.  ”About five or six weeks ago, our President made a comment in a speech and said, ‘God bless Planned Parenthood,’” Birk said. “I’m very confused by that statement… For God to bless a place where they’re ending 330,000 lives a year?  I just chose not to attend.”

While Birk says he meant no disrespect to the office of the Presidency, he explained that he could not endorse President Obama’s support for Planned Parenthood “in any way.”

“I am Catholic, I am active in the pro-life movement, and I just felt I couldn’t deal with that,” he concluded.

President Obama made his infamous comment at the close of his keynote address in April to the annual meeting of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. 

Obama told attendees:  “I want you to know that you’ve got a President who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way.  Thank you, Planned Parenthood.  God bless you.”

Birk participated in the annual March for Life in Washington in January, saying that it is “one of the coolest things I’ve done.”  Quite a statement from somebody wearing a Super Bowl ring.

“It seems like our society and media want to push pro-lifers to the side and hope we would shut our mouths and go away quietly.  I say let’s not do that.”  

The school board voted to strengthen the parental notification letter that goes out to parents at the beginning of the year by adding a euphemistic caution, warning parents that particular books contain “mature” content. Yes, nothing says “maturity” quite like masturbating with a hot dog, homosexual sodomy between teenagers, and the use of obscene language.

For a parental notification letter to be meaningful, it should avoid vague and euphemistic language like “mature content.” Teachers should include clear and explicit descriptions of the “mature  content.” For example, in the case of Perks the notification should state that the book includes obscene language and depictions (in some cases graphic depictions) of masturbation, homosexual sodomy, heterosexual teen intercourse, incest, rape, and bestiality.

One aspect of the controversy that has received too little press are the actions of teachers who exploited their positions and power in the classroom to promote their views with little regard for how their political activity would affect students. It has been reported that the three teachers who spoke at prior school board meetings in favor of Perks and who expressed their views on the community controversy in class, Tina Booth,  Lynn Bruno, and Ali Tannenbaum, also  wore paraphernalia  with messages about  book banning or “FREADOM” during school activities.

There are far too many political activists/ “agents of change” masquerading as “educators” in American classrooms. They rely on their anonymity and autonomy to use their publicly subsidized positions to try to shape the moral and political views of other people’s children. They do it through curricula, through supplementary resources that are never reviewed by department chairs or curriculum review committees, and through their classroom comments and actions of which parents remain largely unaware. Community members should demand that school boards create policy to stop these abuses of power on the parts of teachers—most of whom hold “progressive” views.

One report on the school board meeting states that The Perks of Being a Wallflower  “will again be allowed for independent reading purposes for eighth graders, as will any other legal book that teachers choose to offer as an option for students.” Community members should ask what criteria teachers use in determining what they “choose to offer as an option for students.” 

Ever in thrall to celebrity, some students asked author Judy Blume to make a statement in opposition to “book banning.” Apparently, Blume’s status as celebrated author makes her an expert on educational philosophy, the use of public resources, the First Amendment, psychology, sociology, and ethics—all of which are relevant to this discussion. (What’s curious is that when IFI writes about a school issue, encouraging taxpayers to contact school board members, the press often describes IFI as an “outside” organization in an apparent attempt to delegitimize our efforts. I have yet to see any articles in which Florida-based author Blume is described as an “outsider.”)

These students  also wrote to Hollywood  actor and activist Anne Hathaway who promotes the normalization of homosexuality because her brother is homosexual; Chris Colfer, homosexual actor on dissolute teen television show Glee; and Logan Lerman one of the stars of The Perks of Being a Wallflower film. Perhaps they chose Hathaway and Colfer because these Hadley students understand that one of the goals of Perks is to normalize homosexuality.

The school board believes that as long as parents have the right to decide whether their child reads Perks, it’s legitimate to spend public funds to purchase and include it in the independent reading curriculum. This “solution” to the controversy ignores three critical questions:

• Should public resources be spent on highly controversial books with language so obscene and sexual content so graphic and in some cases perverse that they couldn’t be read over the PA system or printed in newspapers? 

• Is it the position of those teachers who support the acquisition and use of Perks that they never take into account the nature and extent of obscene language or sexual content when considering the purchase or use of books for school? If they do make the claim that they never take into account the nature and extent of obscene language or sexual content when selecting texts for purchase or use, they’re either lying or our schools have even bigger problems than it appears. If they say they do take into account obscene language and sexual content when making literary decisions, then they should be asked if they, therefore, engage in book-banning. 

• Some defend the purchase and use of Perks in public schools because students are already familiar with the controversial content. This is another way of saying that curricula should reflect culture. If that is the educational philosophy of Hadley, what happens as culture continues to degenerate? Are there any objective standards regarding obscene language and sexual content that should be included in text-selection criteria? 

Conservatives need to be as tenacious in pursuing sound school policy as “progressives” are in undermining it. It should be unthinkable that any public school would have this book in its library or that any teacher would permit students to choose it for a class project. We have allowed the culture to desensitize us to vulgarity and perversion. We have allowed the ridicule of the “cool” people to silence us. And we have allowed the rationalization that minor concessions to an obscene culture and Leftist teachers are unimportant.

When in doubt about the wisdom, reasonableness, or truth of your position on a controversial issue, look to see who is on the other side. You should feel reassured that you’re on the right side when you see that most Hollywood actors and Neuqua Valley High School math teacher Hemant Mehta* (aka “The Friendly Atheist”) are on the other side.

*Click here and here to learn more about Neuqua Valley math teacher Hemant Mehta who has written on the Hadley controversy and oh so much more.

Click HERE to support the work and ministry of IFI.
With your support we can continue our vital work!

To say that same-sex “marriage” is a hot topic is an understatement. It’s huge. News headlines have been filled with the latest state or country that has legalized homosexuality-based “marriage,” the politician who has just “evolved” on the issue, or emotional stories about homosexual couples. From the countless stories in the media one would expect that vast numbers of homosexuals feel they are being deprived of something they desperately need: the rights and benefits that the government accords to married heterosexual couples.

Why then do we not see vast numbers of homosexuals taking advantage of each new law that their high-powered lobby secures for them? 

On June 1, 2011, civil unions went into effect granting same-sex couples all the legal benefits of marriage without expressly calling it marriage. Illinois Family Institute surveyed all 102 Illinois County Clerks by phone to gather data on the actual number of civil unions in our state.  What we found surprised even us.  The following population data is taken from the U.S. Census Bureau (2012):

(Click HERE for a PDF version of this chart.)

Though these statistics are not in themselves a solid argument against the idea of homosexual “marriage” as a civil right (one cannot judge a supposed civil right on population factors alone), it is instructive to observe the actual level of “gay” participation in the civil unions law.  Oddly, the very group that demanded civil unions and insisted they wanted the legal benefits of marriage, have in large part, not taken advantage of this law.

In Illinois, only 0.45 percent of the homosexual population received a civil union in the first full year of availability, and only a fraction of a percent (0.0166 percent) of Illinois’ population got “civil unionized” in 2012.  This is the response to all the enthusiasm and celebration that surrounded the passage of Illinois’ civil unions law?

The response to civil unions has been lackluster at best, and one should not expect these percentages to rise dramatically. The law came into effect June of 2011, so one would expect that homosexuals who had been committed to a partner would have formed a civil union by now, but the vast majority have not.  

All of this raises the question, why has same-sex “marriage” been such a high priority of the Left? Earlier this year, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel even listed passage of the “gay marriage” bill as one of his top three legislative priorities in Springfield. Why the sudden political urgency for a same-sex “marriage” law in Illinois — when there seems to be so very little interest in forming civil unions? And there is absolutely zero evidence that same-sex “marriage” would be more popular in the long run than civil unions has proven to be in Illinois.  

One cannot help but question the homosexual lobby’s motives.

Same-sex “marriage” legislation is front-and-center in Illinois in part because in big cities like Chicago, homosexuals have accumulated power far beyond their numbers.  That includes power in the media, which routinely classifies homosexuality-based “marriage” in euphemistic terms favored by “gay” activists – phrases like “marriage equality” and “gay civil rights” that blatantly favor one side of the debate (while marginalizing pro-family advocates).

The reality is that same-sex “marriage” is just another step in the process to erase the boundaries of what constitutes marriage and family. The ultimate goal is the eradication of conservative moral beliefs and the creation of a social and legal climate that promotes homosexuality as normal behavior.  (Read more HERE.)  Redefining marriage in order to accommodate the unjustifiable demands of a tiny but politically powerful group will ultimately prove too costly.

Take ACTION: Please take a few minutes to email or a fax to your state representative — it is time to speak up now!  Click HERE to contact your Illinois Representative and tell him/her to oppose the effort to redefine marriage!  Even if you have previously contacted your representative, please do so again. Tell your representative in no uncertain terms that you want him or her to oppose the effort to redefine marriage and family in Illinois.