Last week, there were 8 bills IFI was fighting against final passage in either chamber – 5 went to the Governor. They were all partisan roll calls. Those five bills did have a lot of trouble getting through both chambers, courtesy of lots of IFI phone calls, witness slips, and debates. But they passed.

The five were:

HB 4536 – broadens the definition of trauma in the school code to include such things as “identity development” and “systemic and historical oppression,” in furtherance of the mental health assessments in grade schools;

HB 4606 – sets up a voluntary, short-term newborn visiting program under DHS for new moms, but we know how that will go;

HB 4834 – removes abortion drugs and hormone therapies from the Prescription Monitoring Program that doctors and pharmacists use to see a patient’s drug history;

HB 4714 – builds out the Children Mental Health Partnership state infrastructure to expand their duties and LGBTQ participation; , and

HB 5095 – allows one to put an “X” on a driver’s license if one “believes” he or she is “another gender.”

So we’ve got a pretty sick society. Nothing new, but it is disheartening to know that common sense is uncommon in the Capitol these days. It is by the grace of God we still have a functioning society. And yet, not coincidentally, so many prayers are being offered. More than ever, perhaps.

The new weekly prayer hosted in the Capitol by State Senator Chris Balkema (R-Pontiac) and others at 8 a.m. every Wednesday during session; Intercessors for America (IFA) prayer every Thursday at 10 a.m. now expanded to Thursday night at 7 p.m. also; the Freedom Caucus Bible Study; and Networking the Networks prayer and action every Friday at 10 a.m.

There are at now at least three Christian pastors roaming the halls of the Capitol during session, talking individually with and quietly praying with and for legislators. And of course, we know people outside the Capitol are waking up to the spiritual battle of good and evil going on in our society, where many in the past had merely explained away the insanity to someone’s political viewpoints. It’s really hard to say that now.

I do feel the effects of these increased prayer efforts as I lobby. Granted, we’re still in a deep, dark place in the Capitol. But I am noticing positive changes in legislators in both parties, all to the glory of God, as souls begin seeing the light and Christian principles are brought forth. Sometimes you can see it in some votes on bills, sometimes just a changed countenance. All of the IFI articles have been outstanding in exposing the callousness to Christians by legislators and legislation under the Dome. All in all, God’s Word and the prayers of His people are penetrating the darkness in many ways with many people. And the number one reason is the increased prayer, I believe.

Final Week of Session….Will they pass two unconstitutional bills?

We’ll know the answer by the end of the week.

IFI will continue to defend Christian principles this week with two bills that were expected to move last week, but didn’t: HB 4966 (Cassidy-Villaneuva) and HB 5295 (Canty-Villanueva). The 8th bill, SB 3138, was gutted and replaced last week with innocuous insurance language because the identical bill, HB 4714, passed and went to the governor. Anyway, the left extended the deadlines for HB 4966 and HB 5295 so they could debate and pass them.

Both bills are highly problematic from a legal perspective.

HB 4966, the DCFS SECURE Act, addresses DCFS caregiver conduct, placement decisions, case planning, interstate placements, “lawful health care” access, and restrictions on conduct considered harmful to youth – all with respect to gender identity and sexual orientation. Basically, if the children think they’re the opposite gender, they are affirmed and handled by opposite gender proponents. No other viewpoints allowed, including parents. Same with sexual orientation. Only positive affirmation.

HB 4966 is on its face unconstitutional because it directly conflicts with the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 8-1* decision in March in Chiles v. Salazar. The Court ruled that a state cannot stifle one point of view in counseling and only allow another point of view in counseling. That’s exactly what HB 4966 does. It mandates an “affirm-only” posture with DCFS caregivers, caseworkers, medical professionals, and foster parents regarding a child’s chosen gender identity. Of course, the supermajority has to ignore the law to pass this bill. They’ve successfully done that in the past only to have their “law” declared null and void. So they can and probably will pass it, if history is any guide, although the Senate is a bigger hurdle than the House. It should be an interesting debate.

HB 5295 says that electronic health networks and exchanges would be restricted from disclosing abortion-related protected health information to out-of-state providers, entities, or investigators (unless the patient specifically directs the records to a treating provider).

HB 5295 has been stalled for a couple of weeks because the Illinois Hospital Association told the sponsor there’s no way this legislation can legally be implemented without exposing medical providers to lawsuits. In-state medical facilities will be exposed to lawsuits for hiding medical information of Illinoisans from doctors in other states who need full access to medical records to treat them. This should be a substantive debate too, and it will likely wind up in court.

TAKE ACTION: This is the final week of the regular legislative session, and major legislation is still moving quickly through Springfield. Although veto session will return this fall, now is the time to speak out. Please take a few moments to contact lawmakers regarding these two pending bills:

Click HERE to email your state senator to OPPOSE HB 4966.

Click HERE  to email your state senator to OPPOSE HB 5295.

*Chiles v Salazar was an 8-1 decision, with Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayer concurring with the conservative justices. Elena Kagan even wrote a separate concurring opinion. This was not a nail-biter case; it was a clear First Amendment case. In the eyes of most court-watchers, it was significant because there aren’t usually 8-1 rulings on anything, let alone a big culture war issue like this.