Equal Rights Amendment SJRCA 75—ALERT !!!

 

We need your immediate help to phone and email your Illinois State Representative and urge a NO vote on the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) - which just passed the Illinois Senate and is on the House Floor!

 

(1) Call the Capitol switchboard at 217-782-2000, and ask to be connected with your own State Representative, or visit: http://www.elections.il.gov/districtlocator/addressfinder.aspx and urge a NO vote on ERA.  It is very easy!  Call and email today!

 

(2) Spread the word to every pro-lifer you know!

 

ERA will require taxpayer funding of abortions. Several states have ruled that ERA requires taxpayer funding of Medicaid abortions because, since only women undergo abortions, the denial of taxpayer funding is "sex discrimination." (N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, Nov. 25, 1998.) The same reasoning could extend to all insurance through Obamacare. We must NOT give courts the power to force us to pay for abortions!

 

Please call the Illinois Capitol office TODAY at 217-782-2000, ask to be connected with your State Representative, and urge a NO vote on ERA. (The operator will tell you who is your own Representative.) We must not let Illinois make the terrible mistake of voting for ERA.

 

 

What is the ERA?

 

The ERA is a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that has not yet been fully ratified.  The supporters of the amendment claim that if they can get 3 more states to ratify it, it will become a binding US Constitutional Amendment.  The main wording of the amendment reads:  "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." 

 

The amendment originally sought to give women equal rights, but its vague, overly broad language would actually harm women, their families, and our society by removing important legal safeguards. The ERA would create a genderless society by nullifying all laws and government practices that make any distinction based on gender.  The broad language of the ERA will empower the federal government to regulate every aspect of our lives.  An immediate example includes abortion.

 

Please call and email your state senator again and continue to encourage them to vote no on the ERA. Remind them that because the amendment is poorly worded, it will actually harm women by overturning many laws and practices that benefit women.  It will prohibit all restrictions on abortions.  Finally, the 3 state strategy being used to resurrect the legally dead ERA is in violation of the U.S. Constitution.  Encourage them to support women, their families, and our society by voting against the ERA (SJRCA 75).  If they want an amendment for women in the Constitution, encourage them to write a better amendment that doesn't bring about so much harm to women and our society.

 

What can I do?

 

(1) Please contact your State Representative today to urge them to vote NO on the Equal Rights Amendment.  You can find contact information for your state legislators at (217) 782-2000 or visit: http://www.elections.il.gov/districtlocator/addressfinder.aspx

 

(2) Please pass this on to others and encourage them to contact their state legislators too.

 

If we all take action, our voices will be heard.  Thanks for all you are doing to protect our families, our society and our religious freedoms! 

 

 

More information about the ERA:

 

There is currently an attempt to pass the original federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in Illinois in an effort to have three more states ratify the amendment.  The supporters of the ERA have a complex legal argument in which they claim that the time deadline of 1979 can be extended.  If three more states ratify the ERA, it could become a binding national constitutional amendment.  The Illinois House passed it in 2003, but it was blocked in the Illinois Senate.   The Equal Rights Amendment will not help women; instead it will harm women, their families, and our society.

 

The ERA will further entrench abortion in our society and legally mandate taxpayer funding for elective abortions. The New Mexico Supreme Court recently ruled under their state ERA that since only women undergo abortions, the denial of taxpayer funding is "sex discrimination" (N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 975 P.2d 841, 1998).

 

Clearly the ERA will harm women, families, society, and the structure of our government.  Please contact your state senator and state representative today to urge them to vote NO on the Equal Rights Amendment.   You can find contact information for your state legislators at (217) 782-2000 or visit: http://www.elections.il.gov/districtlocator/addressfinder.aspx

 

After 42 years, ERA passes the Illinois Senate - ALERT!

ERA activist spill pigs blood on the floor of the Capitol rotunda in 1972

SPRINGFIELD - With not a vote to spare, the Equal Rights Amendment passed the Illinois Senate Thursday afternoon, just a day after it passed committee.

There were no ERA activists spelling legislators' names in pig blood on the Capitol rotunda floor as there were in 1972. Neither was conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, soon to be 90 years old, on hand leading the charge in opposition.

And despite the Senate Democrats' super-majority, the 39 yes, 11 no, and 6 present votes were not along party lines. Two Republicans - Minority Leader Christine Radogno and State Senator Kirk Dillard provided the needed 39 votes.

Dillard's vote surprised observers, as he was endorsed in the 2014 Republican gubernatorial primary by Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, who has fought the ERA since the early 1970s.

Three Republican women - Senators Karen McConnaughay, Pamela Althoff and Sue Rezin - voted "Present" on the bill, as did two Democrats - Haine and Landek - and one Republican male, Senator Dave Syverson.

The resolution will proceed to the Illinois House, where it may have a more difficult time gathering the needed three-fifths vote.

The Senate roll call is below:

ALERT – What can I do?

Liberal lawmakers showed their corruption and willingness to break Senate rules of procedure today by rushing the ERA to a Senate floor vote.  Normally the Senate rules require three separate days of 'reading a bill' during a Senate session before they bring it up for a vote.  Rather than follow the rules, they rushed the bill to the floor, held a brief debate for such a monumental issue.

The bill has already been sent to the House where they will also try to push it quickly.  Please contact your state representative immediately by both email and phone to urge them against this destructive amendment.  Then reach out to all you know to encourage them to speak up.  This bill will have tremendously destructive effects on women, their families and our society.

 

Please also take a moment to thank your state senator if they voted against the bill by voting "no" "present," or "not voting."  They deserve our thanks!

 

Please contact your state representative today to urge them to vote NO on the Equal Rights Amendment.  It is currently listed as SJRCA 75 in the Senate. You can find contact information for your state legislators at (217) 782-2000 or visit: http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

 

Information from Illinois Review

Diagnosed as brain-dead, man now back on basketball court and pursuing college degree

By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

Courtesy of Barrow Neurological Institute

I have no doubt that someone has already passed this amazing story of recovery along to Nailah Winkfield, the mother of Jahi McMath, the teenager whom medical authorities are convinced is brain dead. Ms. McMath won the right to move Jahi from Oakland Children's Hospital to an undisclosed location where feeding and breathing tubes were successfully inserted into the 13-year-old Jahi.

McMath recently told a reporter, "She's still asleep. I don't use the word 'brain dead' for my daughter. I'm just waiting and faithful that she will have a recovery. She is blossoming into a teenager before my eyes."

Over the weekend ABC News's Susan Donaldson James reported the remarkable story of Sam Schmid.

She explained that two years ago his close encounter with death

"was called a 'Christmas miracle.' As he lay in a coma after sustaining massive brain injuries in a car crash, doctors were discussing organ donation with his parents and ready to take him off life support. Schmid astounded those at his hospital bedside who thought he was brain dead, raising two fingers to signal he still had life left in him."

But after the wonderful news that Schmid, a business major at the University of Arizona when he was critically wounded in five-car accident in Tucson in 2011, would survive there was the question if he "would ever return to his studies," James writes, "or even walk or talk again."

And that's where James's story of Schmid's almost unbelievable progress takes off. But before describing that, it's important to give credit where credit is due: Someone believed when others didn't.

Schmid was airlifted to Barrow Neurological Institute at St. Joseph's Medical Center in Phoenix after the local hospital would not treat him; Schmid's injuries were that profound. At St. Joseph's specialists performed surgery for a life-threatening aneurysm.

"Schmid's doctor, renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Robert Spetzler, said that while others had 'reasonable' reasons to think Schmid was brain dead, he had a 'hunch' the young man would make it," James reported.

During surgery, Spetzler clipped the balloon-like aneurysm in the blood vessel — "as if I were patching a tire," a procedure that eventually worked.

For days Schmid didn't seem to be responding, but what puzzled his doctor was that he did not see fatal injuries on the MRI scan. So he decided to keep Schmid on life support longer.

"There was plenty wrong — he had a hemorrhage, an aneurysm and a stroke from the part of the aneurysm," Spetzler said in 2011. "But he didn't have a blood clot in the most vital part of his brain, which we know he can't recover from. …"

So while the family was given a realistic picture of Schmid's poor chances for survival, Spetzler ordered one more MRI to see if the critical areas of the brain had turned dark, indicating brain death

"If not, we would hang on and keep him on support," he said. "But I didn't want to give the family false hope."

Schmid's mother said no one "specifically" asked if her son would be a donor, but kept praying that her son would come around.

The MRI came back with encouraging news during the day and by evening Schmid "inexplicably" followed the doctors' commands, holding up two fingers.

Schmid's mother told James that his remarkable recovery is "a modern-day … Christmas miracle." And what a recovery it is.

At 23 he is back on the basketball court, taking college courses, and hoping to be a veterinary technician. Recently discharged from the Center for Transitional Neuro Rehabilitation at Barrow Neurological Institute, he gives all the credit to his surgeon and the facility.

"I am surprised at the end result," Schmid told James. "I was willing to comply with all the help at Barrow and my recovery is based on the hard work I did."

As for his mother, she told James, "I have friends who are atheists who have called me and said, 'I am going back to church.'"

Why abortion clinic regulation drives pro-abortionists crazy

By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

Pro-abortion Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) is working full time to undercut protective abortion clinic regulation

It would be almost amusing if the subject—abortion—was not so horribly tragic and the attempt to conjure up conspiracies so transparent. In a few words, pro-abortionists are forever accusing pro-lifers of "secret" (or "back-door") plans for this and that which (pro-abortionists hope) will fizzle if only the public finds out.

Of course the problem (for them) is that our objectives—our "plans"—are transparent. Borrowing from President George W. Bush we work unceasingly for "the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law."

That glorious day has yet to be realized. As we work toward a restoration of protection (and a "culture of life"), we move one step at a time. We offer commonsensical protections which, unsurprisingly, the majority of Americans agree with.

But, unlike our opponents, we are win-win types—we care about both mother and unborn child. We will do everything possible to persuade a woman to choose life. Every single success matters.

We work as well to ensure there are no more Kermit-Gosnell-type abortion clinics. And for all those apologists who insist he was a "renegade" or "outlier," there are plenty of clinics that perform "meat-market style assembly line" abortions (to quote one nurse who formerly worked at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Delaware).

That is why we promote laws to require that abortionists who (in many states) fly in, kill unborn babies, and fly out, have admitting privileges in a local hospital if/when complications arise. Similarly for requiring that the abortionist be in the pregnant woman's presence when she receives abortifacients, rather than hundreds of miles away communicating by webcam/skype.

What prompted this post was an article written by Robin Marty, a prolific pro-abortion writer who occasionally stumbles across an insight. This particular piece, which appeared at www. truth-out.org, is not an example of such.

However there is an interesting paranoid twist on something Marty [mis]represents: the aforementioned abortion clinic regulation. Like all defenders of the Abortion Industry, Marty can only see any protective regulation through the lens of "TRAP," the pro-abortionist's acronym for what she/he thinks is a clever turn of phrase–Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider.

So, by definition if upgrading minimal requirements leads an abortion clinic to close (or merge), this must be an example of TRAP in action. And of course if you assume that abortion clinics are model "health care providers," places where it is nearly impossible for an abuse to occur, then—by definition—no upgrades are needed.

But, of course, this is not true. The irony of this was on display Monday in the first day of a lawsuit against Alabama's admitting privileges requirement, HB 57.

One abortion clinic owner was complaining that "If I close my doors, their [women's] access is dramatically, dramatically reduced." We pointed out that one set of doors had already closed, and not because of HB 57.

"The Birmingham clinic of Planned Parenthood Southeast ceased operations in January after firing two staff members for selling an abortion medication to a person in the clinic's parking lot," AP's Phillip Rawls reported. "Staci Fox said the clinic hopes to get approval from the state health department to reopen by next month."

Our only "target" is to protect women from unscrupulous abortionists.

But Marty's piece is about how, if abortion clinics close, "private physicians may be fielding more requests to terminate a patient's pregnancy." She doesn't say it, but I'm guessing that she believes that is the one and only redeeming factor. By that I mean pro-abortionists lament that almost all abortions are done in free-standing abortion clinics. The result is, as Marty puts it, that abortion has become "segregated from the rest of health care, resulting in its stigmatization." But if women in larger numbers come to and are accepted by, say, doctor's offices….

However the 'evil genius' of a Louisiana bill about to be signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal is that abortionists who perform only a "few" (aka 60 or fewer) abortions will no longer get a free pass.

As one physician who testified on behalf of the bill said, abortion facilities shouldn't have "special interest loopholes" that sanction a lower standard of care than what ambulatory surgical centers must have.

So the bill mandates that surgical abortion facilities are held to the same safety standards of other outpatient surgical facilities. What drives Marty crazy is a change in the status quo.

Currently in Louisiana an abortionist can perform 60 abortions a year before being subject to the health and safety inspections that are required of "licensed outpatient abortion facilities." But because every woman is entitled to the protection of regulated safety standards, the new bill requires licensure and inspections for physicians who perform five or more abortions per year.

Marty laments that this is all unnecessary and a huge inconvenience to the (so to speak) mom and pop abortionist. But of course if patient safety is a concern, you look at the requirement differently.

Marty seeks to assist abortionists polish their image by being reintegrated into real medical care. We are not. Abortion is not health care. It's death care, whether in free-standing abortion clinics or doctors' offices.

Bravo to Louisiana and all the other states that have, are, or will insist that abortionists and abortion clinics be regulated.

The Fast-paced and Completely Convincing “Case against abortion: prenatal development”

By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

Of the three categories of posts on National Right to Life News Today that receive the most response, two are especially adroit at combining appeals to the head and to the heart: prenatal development videos and music videos, such as John Elefante's wonderful pro-life, pro-adoption "This Time" ("Pro-Life Music Video 'This Time' goes viral'"

I am making my periodic request to National Right to Life News Today readers for your help. Please send along links to videos that illustrate that most miraculous process–how you and I each started out the same but ended up each unique—and pro-life music videos.

To illustrate what I'm looking for, may I offer, "The case against abortion: prenatal development"

Only 3 minutes and eleven seconds long, the video covers the waterfront –the docks, stevedores, and merchant vessels—at a breakneck speed. In so doing it borrows from many of the finest resources—in print and online—to create a riveting and absolutely convincing case against abortion.

Backed by a pulsating music score, flashing across the screen is the question, "At what point does it become wrong to intentionally abort a developing human being?" Options range from conception through birth.

We see a snapshot of a Gallup poll where 2/3rds support a first-trimester abortion but only 10% support a third trimester abortion. Why the discrepancy?"

Because the former "kills a baby" while a first trimester abortion "kills a bunch of cells…. Or does it?" The remainder of the video races through a highly entertaining, richly informative/persuasive tour conclusively demonstrating the developmental continuity of human beings whose maturation unfolds just the way it is supposed to.

"The case against abortion: prenatal development" begins with a quick perusal of the prenatal photography taken by Lennart Nilsson in his classic, "A Child is Born." We see in these photos the developmental milestones and how remarkably intricate the child even in the first weeks.

Next to flash on a screen is that statement, "Nucleus [Medical] Media creates award winning medical illustrations." Now we are shown the unborn as if her mother's body is translucent. Again, remarkable how developmental sophisticated is the child even in the first trimester.

"On the outside chance you're still envisioning the first trimester embryos and fetuses as shapeless clumps of tissue…" we are introduced to "The biology of prenatal development." As it happens I wrote about this incredible 42-minute-long DVD in 2010.

This documentary utilizes six different imaging technologies to give you unforgettable images inside the womb of the growing baby at the embryonic and fetal stages. The breath-taking real-time pictures that are utilized are of the human embryo in the first three weeks. Without thinking, you have absorbed another lesson in early prenatal development, including the fact that six week embryos have measurable brain impulses.

Then the first of two key truths wrap up, "The case against abortion: prenatal development."

"They may not look like a baby yet, but they look exactly as a human being should look, 21 days after conception."

To finish the point, we see highlighted text from Geraldine Lux Flanagan's book, "Beginning Life" that reads,

"In the hours of conception, every aspect of the genetic inheritance for the new individual will be determined once and for all."

The inescapable conclusion?

"At any stage of pregnancy abortion kills a rapidly developing, genetically distinct human being."

Wow! Do yourself a big favor and watch, "The case against abortion: prenatal development"

How do pro-abortionists deny the undeniable? Change the question

By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.)

My apologies for arriving at this late. One (very good after the fact) excuse is that Mollie Hemingway has already written the definitive rebuttal.

For those who may not have followed what took place last week, in responding to criticism that he had doubts about global warming, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) was mocked as an ignorant rube by a pro-abortion blogger appearing in the Washington Post for saying the following:

"Let me give you a bit of settled science that they'll never admit to. The science is settled, it's not even a consensus, it is a unanimity, that human life begins at conception. So I hope the next time that someone wags their finger about science, they'll ask one of these leaders on the left: 'Do you agree with the consensus of scientists that say that human life begins at conception?' I'd like to see someone ask that question."

So, how in the world do you ridicule Rubio for stating the super-abundantly obvious? That there is "unanimity" that human life begins at conception? If you can make the time, please read Hemingway's brilliant, A-Z debunking of the attack on Rubio.

What follows is shorter but I think hits most of the high points (Hemingway) and low points (the Washington Post's Philip Bump and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). There are a number of stratagems Bump employs to pretend to conclude that Rubio knows not of what he speaks. We'll only talk about a couple.

The first is to choose only one witness: a representative from the rabidly pro-abortion ACOG, which is so in the tank for legal abortion it opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion.

(Quick sidebar. In 2010, writing for National Review Online, Shannen W. Coffin described how now-Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan [then in the nomination process] had played a pivotal while working for the Clinton Administration in devising a defense for his veto of a ban on partial-birth abortion. Suffice it to say, support from ACOG was hugely important. But "The problem is that the critical language of the ACOG statement was not drafted by scientists and doctors," Coffin wrote. "Rather, it was inserted into ACOG's policy statement at the suggestion of then–Clinton White House policy adviser Elena Kagan." Partisan then, partisan before, partisan forever.)

So, Step One, talk to only one source, one that is pro-abortion to the hilt.

Step Two, turn a question of science—of biology—into a philosophical discussion. How? Answer a different question.

Bump and ACOG wisely choose not to discuss whether there is "unanimity" that "human life begins at conception." How could they?

Instead, as Hemingway explains so well, they talk about when "pregnancy"—not human life– begins. And that is, according to the ACOG rep, at implantation in the uterine wall.

Hemingway points out—with humor and insight—ACOG is answering a question of its own choosing: when "pregnancy" begins, not human life. (Anyone who's ever debated abortion recognizes what's going on.) Sen. Rubio was not talking about "pregnancy."

This Bump/ACOG love fest illustrates the mother of all pro-abortion evasive tactics. Talk about anything but when human life begins. Talk about "pregnancy"; talk about a wholly imaginary distinction between "human life" and "biological life"; and talk about at what point it is after conception that this human life should be given legal protection, which pro-abortionists like to divert into a discussion about "personhood," which IS a matter of philosophy.

Justice Blackmun established the matrix for dissembling: confuse/meld the issue of when human life begins (which is not in debate, contra ACOG) and when that human life is protected, which is what we've been debating the last 41 years.

And at that point in her rebuttal, Hemingway digs into that vast store of scientifically impeccable sources demonstrating that human life begins at conception. Very impressive and very much worth reading.

Hemingway concludes with an extensive overview of the pro-abortion plan to change the language. She observes

"Did you know that the definition of pregnancy was changed not long ago from beginning at 'fertilization' to beginning at 'implantation'? Did you know that this was a political decision? Did you know that some groups have even tried to say that implantation is when 'conception' occurs, too?"

Conception=implantation? One of those groups peddling this nonsense was—surprise, surprise—ACOG.

One other point, drawing on a column by Jonah Goldberg. Calling in a wildly politicized organization like ACOG, he writes,

"to settle a politically fraught issue isn't good journalism. It's not even good opinion journalism. It's simply handing the microphone off to a fellow partisan in a fight.'

Maybe it's just me, but it seems as if it was only yesterday that when newspapers did explore controversies, they really did give both sides a more or less fair shake. But when ( as in Bump's case) only one side is allowed to intone as if there is no other opinion—or when one side is given multiple responses to one for the other—what is the average reader to conclude? That there is only one opinion, or, at a minimum, only one about which a "consensus" exists.

You see this all the time in abortion-related controversies. There is no "other side" on specifics that might prove uncomfortable for abortion advocates and their allies.

No one (who counts) believes there is an association between an induced abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer. "Junk science."

No one (who matters) believes there is physical, emotional, or psychological baggage that can and does plague a certain percentage of women who abort. Any problems/difficulties either last only a short time or were part of the woman's makeup before she aborted.

And finally no one (of any account) could think that there exists a substantial body of medical and scientific evidence that unborn children can feel pain by 20 weeks after fertilization. And thus you can tear those kids limb from limb and they won't feel a thing.

The point? The rule of the "expert" which always, always, always just so happens to coincide with the agenda of the Abortion Industry.

Again, if you have some time, please read "The Washington Post Is Super Confused About Where Babies Come From," by Mollie Hemingway.

Why pro-lifers are winning “the publicity war over abortion”

By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

As much as there is to cover in the United States alone, we also try to carve out time to cover abortion/euthanasia/assisted suicide issues abroad. But it's also intriguing—and sometimes very useful—to see how others overseas see our situation, whether they are with us or (especially) against us.

Peter Foster is the U.S. editor for the British newspaper, the Telegraph, based in Washington D.C. He tells us prior to that he was based in New Delhi.

He ran a piece today under the headline, "In the publicity war over abortion, pro-lifers are winning." Let's see what is useful, unhelpful, and just plain wrong.

He is not the only observer—there are plenty of American commentators—who are thrown for a loop that at the same time "liberals" are seeing a great deal of movement on the issue of gay rights, they are not "winning" on abortion. The former issue is not ours, but the implication that only conservatives resist unfettered abortion is. And it is flat-out wrong.

True, support for abortion on demand is near-orthodoxy for national Democrats. But it is not at the state level and surely not true for all people who identify as Democrats.

As an overview, nearly 6 in ten Americans disapprove of the reasons almost all abortions are performed. A sizable portion of Democrats, like all Americans, oppose abortions performed for birth control or abortions performed after the first trimester. Likewise in support of a ban on abortions performed on babies capable of experiencing that excruciating pain.

But Foster is useful for all the wrong reasons. As we talked about in "Why abortion clinic regulation drives pro-abortionists crazy," Foster insists that pro-lifers do not mean it when we say women's health is our concern when we pass such laws. (We'll just ignore the assertion that any law that gets in the way of the abortion steamroller is, in Foster's words, "onerous.")

Where does the "publicity war" angle come in? Foster's first (and primary) illustration is the Kermit Gosnell case. Pro-lifers have "been winning the wider publicity war, seizing on the horrific case of Kermit Gosnell, a Pennsylvania doctor and late-term abortionist who was given life in prison for murdering babies in the most gruesome of circumstances."

But he misunderstands the pro-abortion response, including the virtual absence of coverage by their media friends–until reporters were shamed in writing a few stories.

Foster writes

"Tackling the Gosnell case head on would have given the pro-choice lobby the opportunity to make the wider point that late-term abortions (20-24 weeks) are already heavily regulated and only account for less than 1.5 per cent of terminations in the US."

Who didn't tackle the case "head on"? "The liberal media," according to Foster. Get it? If they hadn't "made a big mistake [of] not adequately covering his case," the Abortion Lobby could have emphasized that the hundreds of viable babies Gosnell aborted alive and then slaughtered were only a drop in the bucket (figuratively and literally).

But what coverage there was often talked about how almost all abortions are performed in the first trimester. And the Abortion Lobby did plenty of spin-control on its own. That "a film is now going to be made of that story using $2.1 m[illion] raised through crowd-sourcing by a group of conservative filmmakers" makes the alleged missed opportunity all the more painful for Foster.

Foster's final slam at pro-lifers is that when abortion clinics are closed, it has an impact on poor and working women. The assumption, obviously, is that a life not lost to abortion is a loss for "poor and working women." Foster is throwing out a canard that is so old it is covered with dust.

In Foster's Jeremiah, the implied assumption is that when clinics do close, most, if not all, do so because the demands for upgrades are too costly and/or were not necessary in the first place. If that were true, why would states that do pass these bills and investigate abortion clinics find abuses that even pro-abortionists concede are wrong?

It is an article of faith to people like Foster that Gosnell was "not representative." But he did what he did, making a fortune by aborting almost exclusively poor women of color, so Foster felt the need to throw in this caveat:

"[W]hile his case may point to the need to tighten the oversight of abortion clinics, that is not the same thing as imposing regulations designed to shut them down."

A grudging concession, to put it mildly. But it is as sure as the sun rises in the east that when you get to specifics, it is virtually—it not absolutely—impossible to ever find an example of "tighten[ing] the oversight of abortion clinics" that for the Fosters of this world is not "imposing regulations designed to shut them down."

What a waste of gas. Foster came 7,500 miles just to make the same misstatements and mistakes he could've made in New Delhi!

URGENT ALERT ON ERA!! - Passed the Senate in 1 day

The ERA has moved from the Executive Committee to the Senate Floor and now the House Rules Committee in just 2 days!  This bill is very dangerous and moving very quickly.  Legislators are scrambling to get this passed by May 31st.  ACT NOW!

Please contact your state representative today to urge them to vote NO on the Equal Rights Amendment.  It is currently listed as SJRCA 75. You can find contact information for your state legislators at (217) 782-2000 or visit: http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

What is the ERA?

 

The ERA is a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that has not yet been fully ratified.  The supporters of the amendment claim that if they can get 3 more states to ratify it, it will become a binding US Constitutional Amendment.  The main wording of the amendment reads:  "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." 

 

The amendment originally sought to give women equal rights, but its vague, overly broad language would actually harm women, their families, and our society by removing important legal safeguards. The ERA would create a genderless society by nullifying all laws and government practices that make any distinction based on gender.  The broad language of the ERA will empower the federal government to regulate every aspect of our lives.  An immediate example includes abortion - it will prohibit all restrictions on abortion.



What can I do?

 

(1) Please contact your state representative today to urge them to vote NO on the Equal Rights Amendment.  It is currently listed as SJRCA 75 in the Senate. You can find contact information for your state legislators at (217) 782-2000 or visit: http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

 

(2) Please pass this on to others and encourage them to contact their state legislators too.

 

If we all take action, our voices will be heard.  Thanks for all you are doing to protect our families, our society and our religious freedoms! 

 

More information about the ERA:

 

There is currently an attempt to pass the original federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in Illinois in an effort to have three more states ratify the amendment.  The supporters of the ERA have a complex legal argument in which they claim that the time deadline of 1979 can be extended.  If three more states ratify the ERA, it could become a binding national constitutional amendment.  The Illinois House passed it in 2003, but it was blocked in the Illinois Senate.   The Equal Rights Amendment will not help women; instead it will harm women, their families, and our society.

 

The ERA will further entrench abortion in our society and legally mandate taxpayer funding for elective abortions. The New Mexico Supreme Court recently ruled under their state ERA that since only women undergo abortions, the denial of taxpayer funding is "sex discrimination" (N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 975 P.2d 841, 1998).

 

Clearly the ERA will harm women, families, society, and the structure of our government.  Please contact your state senator and state representative today to urge them to vote NO on the Equal Rights Amendment.   You can find contact information for your state legislators at (217) 782-2000 or visit: http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx