In the photos that accompany an article in the Forrest Park Review Wednesday, Belinda Sanchez, a lesbian student at Proviso East High School, is seen smiling and fitting into a white tuxedo. But, a few weeks ago, that was only a dream.

The eighteen-year-old high-school senior had approached her principal, Milton Patch, to tell him about her choice of attire, but Patch rebuffed her request. He said it would make her a "sideshow" at "his prom," according to Sanchez. What's more, said Sanchez, Patch told her that girls "are supposed to wear things that are more revealing."

"I told him, 'I don't feel comfortable wearing a dress because that's not who I am,'" Sanchez said. "Pretty much he shut me down."

Sanchez emailed Proviso District 209 Superintendent Nettie Collins-Hart and received no response, so she called the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois (ACLU-IL) for help. ACLU lawyers sent a letter to the school district on March 30, and the district overruled Patch the following day. D209 officials denied that the ACLU's involvement had any impact on its decision.

"I think there is a reality that a school district probably pays more heed when it gets a letter from a lawyer than when a student raises a question. I'd say that's sort of a shame," said Ed Yohnka, a spokesman for ACLU-IL. "Schools are insular places by their very nature, and sometimes there needs to be that little continued push from the outside to help make that substantial change."

Yohnka said the reply the ACLU-IL received from the district explicitly states that Sanchez can wear clothes of the opposite gender, but the district's policy on the matter is not specifically outlined in its code of conduct or the district's prom review policy.

"Our Constitution says you should be able to express yourself, with freedom of speech and the First Amendment, so why shouldn't it be that way in school, the safest place, supposedly?" Sanchez said.

In Wednesday's Tribune, columnist Eric Zorn writes that even as the "Ultrasound Opportunity Act," a bill church leaders are now lobbying heavily for in Springfield, is dressed up in the high-minded language of sound medical practice, leaders are open about the fact that its real purpose is to persuade women seeking abortions to change their minds at the last minute.

"We have studies and statistics that show something north of 80 percent of women (seeking abortions) who view ultrasounds of their babies decide against abortion, which is why we've gone this way," said Catholic Conference spokesman Zach Wichmann during a news conference at the Capitol last week.

Laws linking abortion and ultrasound imaging — in which the fetal shape and some anatomical details are visible — are among the latest tactics in the fight against abortion. Since the mid-2000s, 21 states have enacted a variety of mandates, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a private, nonprofit reproductive health research organization.

The bill in Illinois is one of more than two dozen now seeking to impose or expand the use of ultrasound in crisis pregnancies. See the national rundown of laws and legislation here.
Ours — House Bill 786 — is on the moderate end. As proposed by downstate Democratic Rep. Brandon Phelps, it requires that a woman seeking an abortion six weeks or more into her pregnancy be offered the "opportunity to receive and view an active ultrasound of her unborn child" at the clinic.

Officials at Guttmacher, which favors abortion rights, report that bills now pending in a handful of states mirror a law in Oklahoma that not only mandates the ultrasound test, but requires that the video screen be placed where the woman can see the images during the procedure, and that the woman listen to a technician narrate what's on the screen.

Guttmacher officials dismiss as anecdotal and unscientific claims that women who view ultrasound images late in the process are statistically less likely to ultimately obtain an abortion.
But why doesn't the Illinois bill try to force women to watch and listen?

Updated April 13, 2011, 3:44 p.m.: A measure to ensure faith-based groups could turn away committed same-sex couples who want to adopt children or provide foster homes failed in the Illinois Senate.

On Wednesday a Chicago Tribune article discussed the debate surrounding gay adoptions as lawmakers push a measure to ensure faith-based groups could turn away committed same-sex couples who want to adopt or provide foster homes to children.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois says it is troubled by the potential for far-reaching impact. The group questioned whether the bill would violate a couple’s equal protection rights under federal law as well as tenets of a sweeping federal consent decree that requires placement decisions in Illinois to be made in the best interest of the child.

Ben Wolf, an ACLU attorney who represents the 15,000 children in foster care in Illinois in federal court, said the legislation could prevent a child from being placed with a “loving aunt, grandmother or grandfather” who would be unacceptable to a private agency because of their sexual orientation.

“That’s just wrong,” Wolf said.

The legislative dispute arises as Illinois officials are investigating whether religious agencies that receive public funds to license foster care and adoptive parents are breaking anti-discrimination laws if they turn away potential parents who are openly gay.

If they are found in violation, Lutheran Child and Family Services, Catholic Charities in five regions outside Chicago, and the Evangelical Child and Family Agency will have to license openly gay foster parents or lose millions of state dollars, potentially disrupting thousands of foster children in their care.

Kendall Marlowe, spokesman for the Department of Children and Family Services, said the vast majority of private agencies the state contracts with welcome and freely accept prospective foster and adoptive parents regardless of sexual orientation. But the legislation would carve out a niche for those who do not follow that practice, he said.

The Windy City Times ran an article on the restrictions this week. Peoplesworld.org also ran a story about the bill.