Illinois Senate passed the Equal Rights Amendment

ERA PASSED THE ILLINOIS SENATE

On April 11, 2018 the Illinois Senate passed the Equal Rights Amendment as Senate Joint Resolution Constitution Amendment 4 (SJRCA4). The fight now goes to the House.

Eight Republican Senators voted for the ERA. Pro-life Illinoisans deserve political leaders who will clearly commit to the protection of innocent unborn children, and who will follow through on that commitment.

While we are disappointed with all 43 Senators who voted for abortion, we are gravely disturbed by those who solicited pro-life support and presented themselves as pro-life but voted for the ERA. Their vote was a vote in opposition to life and will not be ignored. The Illinois Federation for Right to Life PAC, Illinois Citizens for Life PAC, Illinois Family Action PAC, Illinois Family PAC, and Lake County Life PAC will not endorse or support any legislator that casts a vote for such a sweeping pro-abortion piece of legislation as the ERA. Click here for more

August 24, 2016

Having dismantled standard pro-abortion talking points, columnist can’t see how illogical it is to stand by and do nothing

National Post’s George Jonas
National Post’s George Jonas
Anyone who keeps track of the abortion debate is painfully aware how amazing it is that some observers can tip-toe right to the edge, conclude that all the reasons for abortion are examples of shoddy and/or self-exculpatory reasoning, and then….punt.

Or better put, say “Forget how I have just decimated the standard pro-choice talking points, because in the end….”

I don’t think I’ve read a better example than George Jonas’s piece for the Canadian newspaper, the National Post. The headline certainly catches the bottom line—“Abortion is a parent’s decision, not the government’s”—but it misses the wrecking ball Jonas wields to dismantle the basic foundation of excuses for abortion.

He tells us right out of the chute

“I don’t necessarily oppose abortion; I oppose fuzzy thinking. I oppose the arguments ‘pro-choicers’ customarily use to support abortion. I find them flimsy at best, and at worst, false.”

For example

“Pro-choicers argue, for instance, that society shouldn’t interfere with what a woman does with her own body. Well, society doesn’t. Society interferes with what she proposes to do with someone else’s body. Few societies expect a woman to keep her baby if it’s inconvenient for her. They only expect her not to kill it.”

Or

“There are those who say that, well, you can outlaw abortion, but women will just keep doing it in back alleys. I suppose on the same basis we could legalize holdups since people keep robbing banks anyway. Others argue that men shouldn’t participate in the debate because they can’t get pregnant, which is true. That’s why I never rely on my credentials as a man in the abortion debate, only on my credentials as an ex-fetus.”

Click here for more from National Right to Life.