10 Principles about Healing From Abortion

By | Blog, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Abortion. Almost one in three women in America has now faced it; almost everyone is touched by it in some way.  It has changed our world more than any other issue in that the very inhabitants of the world have been lost.  In mourning such a gargantuan loss, people can forget to consider that we should mourn not only for the children, but for the mothers who have often been taken advantage of, who need great compassion and mercy.

  1. Knowing that God will heal abortion doesn’t mean you should choose one. The possibility of healing from abortion is not at all a justification for the deed.  Far too often at the sidewalk, I heard women walking in say, “God will forgive me.”  They figure that if God is as loving as we say He is, He will, therefore, understand why they are having an abortion and just cover it in grace and excuse it.  This is a form of the antinomian heresy that Christ’s love justifies proceeding to choose bad behavior.  Paul says in Romans 6, “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!”
  1. Repression and healing are vastly different. Many post-abortive women try to find a way to cope through repressing what happened. Repressed trauma can manifest itself in various degrees of visibility through symptoms like depression, self-destructive behaviors, and repeat abortions.   Trauma also often causes illogical overreaction to subtly triggering circumstances.  There is information available online to help women identify whether they may be suffering from PASS-Post Abortion Stress Syndrome.
  1. Healing requires genuine confession of wrongdoing. Until a woman admits what happened, her conscience will chase her. Budziszewski has theorized five furies that happen until a woman finally seeks healing.  Among these is a desire to share one’s personal abortion story without admitting it was actually wrong.
  1. Healing involves admitting being wronged by others, but also forgiving them. Many can be blamed for the prevalence of abortion.  Maybe a woman blames her partner, pressuring family, doctor and nurses, the culture at large, the lawmakers, Planned Parenthood, or the lack of alternative options.  All of these people and institutions do bear some of the weight of responsibility, but first acknowledging having been wronged or manipulated, and then forgiving the perpetrators, is vital to healing.  Focus on the Family talks about what forgiveness is and is not in reference to divorce, but some of the same principles apply to the issue of abortion.
  1. Healing requires forgiving oneself. On the other extreme of antinomianism are women who feel like God will never be able to forgive them for what they have done or who struggle terribly with forgiving themselves. Often, forgiving oneself can be the hardest thing to do, but one must cling to knowing that Christ’s grace is enough for you and that refusing to forgive yourself is minimizing the extent of His sacrifice.  Thus, it is possible to overemphasize the sacrifice by justifying a decision to go ahead and have an abortion, or underemphasize Christ’s sacrifice in a refusal to forgive yourself after you have already had one.
  1. Healing is not an instantaneous process. It will take lots of time and a different amount of time for each person. It will not often happen overnight but take lots of combing through the issues leading up to and following the abortion.  Trying to rush one’s own or a loved one’s healing is unhelpful, because it is impossible to simply “get over it.”
  1. Healing doesn’t happen alone. This is why it is very important that everyone should know a bit about recovery from abortion. It is very important that others aren’t judgmental of the women, but rather eager to hear her story, love her, and help her heal. Friends, family, partners, and spouses should be supportive and seek healing themselves if they were involved in the abortion. Women should feel free to seek outside help through counseling, pregnancy center support groups, and post-abortion retreats.  Project Rachel is a well-known post-abortion retreat option that has helped many women as they strive to go on with life after abortion.
  1. Healing will look differently for different people. This is because people will often have had the abortion for different reasons.  One’s own circumstances and one’s own personality means one’s own healing will be unique. People need different amounts of engagement with God, counselors, friends, other post-abortive women, and others involved in their abortion in order to fully heal.
  1. Healing involves remembering. Many women have found great refuge in remembering their unborn children through memorial services.  Often, as a part of these, an aborted child is named.  By acknowledging the dignity and humanity of their children, they are able to come to grips with what abortion was.  Until they face that reality, it is difficult to heal.
  1. Healing is ongoing and not complete. Regrets will remain.  Life will never be the same without the child that was lost.  It’s okay that the feeling never entirely goes away.  The scar is still there, even if the wound is no longer raw.  On this side of heaven, the painful memories will, in some sense, remain.


Grassley: No hearings on Supreme Court nominee this year

By | Blog, Iowa, News and Events | No Comments

GrassleyStrackeJanae Stracke, CWA’s Communications Coordinator and a native Iowan, attended Senator Grassley’s last town hall meeting for the year in Jones County Iowa yesterday. She spoke on behalf of Concerned Women for America to support the senator and his stance to give “We the People” a voice regarding the next Supreme Court justice appointment. Our voices will be heard through the presidential election in November. She was quoted in an Iowa newspaper following the meeting:

Janae Stracke of Concerned Women for America, who was sporting an “I stand with Grassley” sticker, thanked him “wholeheartedly (because) we don’t need a Supreme Court full of judicial activists as we have been seeing.”

“We need to make sure Justice Scalia’s position is filled with a strict constitutionalist,” she said. As a millennial, Stracke said she understands the next justice will affect her and her children for years to come.

Many people who disagree with him think his decision to delay confirmation hearings “is about the next four years,” Grassley said. “But in the case of the Supreme Court, it’s about the direction of the Supreme Court for the next 40 years.”

To read the entire article, click here.

Valuing Life in the Special Needs Community

By | Blog, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments
Chandler's friend, Jason Dohrman, is a senior at Sparkman High School in Harvest, Alabama.

Chandler’s friend, Jason Dohrman, is a senior at Sparkman High School in Harvest, Alabama.

Every life is a gift. Each of us is fearfully and wonderfully made. If our society advocates for equality and opportunity for all, we must ensure the right to life, especially for those who cannot speak up for themselves. Nearly 90 percent of babies in the womb diagnosed with a disability like Down syndrome are aborted. This statistic is absolutely unfathomable.

The claim of atheist apologist Richard Dawkins that “it is immoral not to abort a baby with Down syndrome,” breaks my heart in more ways than one. My heart is broken because the very individuals who take this horrific stance are likely to have missed out on the opportunity to form the beautiful relationships that I have developed which have positively affected me. Some of my most cherished friendships are those that I share with my Down syndrome friends, who are extra-special to me.

With this in mind, Congress MUST pass H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, into law. The passage of this 20-week abortion ban would prevent the termination of an innocent child’s life past 20 weeks for any non-fatal reason — including those with diagnosed disabilities. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is important to all lives, but today I’m advocating for the passage of this legislation for our special needs community.

Let me share a personal anecdote:

Before my birth, my soon-to-be mother took a number of standard prenatal tests, and one indicated she was at high risk for having a child born with Down syndrome. My mother was encouraged by her nurse to undergo the prenatal testing procedure known as “amniocentesis.” According to my mother, our family medical records were not, and have not been, as readily available due to my family’s origin, which is one of the reasons they proceeded with the testing. As my parents were sitting in the waiting room, many of the couples surrounding them had a history of Down syndrome in their families. During the procedure, with the assistance of an ultrasound, a needle punctured my mother’s abdominal wall into her uterus to retrieve amniotic fluid for testing. This fluid contained fetal cells that were examined for chromosome testing to determine whether or not I, her baby, had Down syndrome.

By no means were my young and expecting parents considering an abortion, but they were desperately seeking answers to a question that they assumed a test would correctly answer.

The test led the doctors to believe I would be born with an extra chromosome. I would have Down syndrome.

The test was inaccurate. The test was also later labeled by my mother’s doctor, not her nurse who originally suggested the test, as an invalid and unreliable test.

Based on this personal anecdote, my concern is heightened for mothers like mine who achingly receive these (potentially inaccurate) results and, unlike my mother, regretfully choose to end their child’s life. The majority of abortions done to children diagnosed with disabilities occur after the 20-week period, and since the most informative testing procedures take place between 18-20 weeks gestation, there may be a correlation between the two.

This must stop. Congress must pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

I believe every child is a child of the Lord and deserves the right to life to fulfill a meaningful purpose. My heart beats wildly for the special needs community, and it manifests outwardly in the relationships that I have with my extra-special friends. Two of my friends have truly epitomized what it means to exude a genuine joy. Jason and Chad are brothers; they both have special needs, and their parents willingly adopted them. I am confident there are families who are actively seeking the opportunity to serve as loving parents to those with special needs.

Statistically speaking, 79 percent of parents said their lives were more positive as a result of their child with Down syndrome. Ninety-nine percent of people with Down syndrome reported they were happy with their lives.

Let us value opportunities for others. Let us value friendships, sons, and daughters.

Let us value life itself.

“I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well,” Psalm 139:14.



CWA Poetry Corner: Dudley E. Garner, Jr.

By | Blog | No Comments

What follows is a selection of poetry from our friend, Dudley Garner, Jr., whose heart for the unborn moved him to write a selection of pro-life poems. Mr. Garner gives Biblical references for his poetry, and we encourage you to read the verses that serve as a skeleton to these works. To read his poetic offerings, click here.

Living Together Before Marriage? God’s Best Is Worth the Wait, Research Shows

By | Blog, News and Events | No Comments

They say some of the smartest people in the world move to D.C., but take one look at the housing costs, and you may beg to differ. If you’ve ever lived in the vicinity of our nation’s Capital, you know it’s not cheap.

My fiancé took one for the team and recently moved to the D.C. Metro area — the plan being that he’d rent a one bedroom apartment for half a year, then I would move in after the wedding. When we told people, they were shocked and even a professing Christian was slightly surprised.

We got questions like, “Don’t you want to test it out first and see if you’re compatible?” or “Don’t you want to save money?”

I felt like responding, “Is the Pope Catholic? Does Hillary delete e-mails?” Of course we want to live together, but instead we simply replied, “To us, it’s worth it.”

The wait, that is.

But “wait” is not a word we hear often today.

We Americans have developed a short attention span; whether it’s social media, fast food, or even relationships (thanks to the hook up culture), the more quick and “hassle-free” the better. As a result, people both inside and outside the Church are becoming increasingly willing to settle for substitutes of God’s best — especially regarding sex and marriage.
Click here to read the rest of this article on The Christian Post.

Anniversary of the Center for Medical Progress Scandal

By | Blog, News and Events, Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

July 14, 2016, marks the first anniversary of the release of the first of a series of videos produced by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP).  These videos exposed that Planned Parenthood is not only harvesting body parts after an abortion, but altering abortions to get them, and then profiting off their sale. Several illegal and unethical actions on the part of Planned Parenthood were brought to life.

The overarching theme of the investigation is clear: Planned Parenthood sometimes justifies abortion by saying the baby isn’t really a baby, but then turns around and sells the baby parts which are valuable precisely because of their humanity.

Concerned Women for America (CWA) developed an exclusive webpage devoted to bringing summaries of each video geared towards those who wanted to know the truth, but may not be able to stomach watching every detail unfold – which at times included images of aborted babies.

The pro-choice side says the videos are all edited.  But CMP has put together a document archive with proof after proof that this hidden industry in baby parts trafficking not only exists but is a huge source of profit – often at the expense of proper consent.

CWA then covered updates of the scandal and how it fits in with a history of investigative journalism in America.  The scandal resulted in David Daleidan, the main undercover investigator, being accused of two charges – (ironically) buying baby body parts and using fake identity – both bogus charges for actions that were a simple mainstay of undercover investigation.  The conflicts of interest in the case were fraught with forefront, and eventually the first charge against Daleidan for the buying of baby body parts was dropped.  There are reports that video footage unjustly stolen by the Attorney General from his California home are still in possession by the state.

The investigation sparked controversy on a national scale, including the involvement of Congress.  Some very important findings from a hearing at which Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood, testified are outlined here, and even more questions could have been asked.

A select panel on Infant Lives was set up with Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) at its head.  Disturbingly, it found substantial evidence that Planned Parenthood was violating HIPPA patient right protection laws when allowing contracted StemExpress workers to view medical records to screen for better baby parts to meet their research demands.  Furthermore, consent from the women for release of her medical records was not obtained.  These disturbing revelations are scandals in and of themselves, and Chairman Blackburn has reported some of the select panel’s findings to Health and Human Services in a letter.

To this day, the first video has 3,233,090 views on Youtube.  That’s only about 1 in every 100 people in America.  Let’s make it more.  Share the video now.  People need to know the truth.

The Dangers of Deregulating Abortion

By | Blog, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

The Supreme Court has struck down Texas abortion clinic regulations meant to protect women, provoking strong reactions on both sides.  In this decision, the court drew upon its own legal precedent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 abortion case where abortion regulations were proclaimed legal only under certain conditions.  Apparently, ensuring abortion health and safety measures is an “undue burden” for women seeking an abortion, even though it cannot be proved that any woman who wanted an abortion didn’t get one as a result of requiring clinics to be safe.

The Supreme Court has, unfortunately and incorrectly, decided that abortion is a woman’s right and that getting it — no matter the sub-par conditions — is what truly matters.

Where does it end?  Because of this, it may become legally harder to implement and enforce much of the headway we have made towards regulating abortion in states throughout the country.  These particular regulations — which were not about abortion itself but rather about the safety of women — couldn’t even stand!

There is no clear metric for deciding what is or is not an undue burden and what can or cannot be regulated.  What about states that are smaller — places like Rhode Island or Delaware where driving to a top standard clinic takes a short time? Geography, finances, and individual preference could all contribute to what constitutes “undue burden,” which is truly an undefinable and transient concept.

But though this case will certainly open the door for rolling back regulations meant to protect the unborn, the case directly applied to rolling back regulations meant to protect the woman.  And rolling back women’s health and safety is scary.  No one should want to see back-alley abortion clinics again.

As one pro-life doctor said in his response, “Today’s Supreme Court decision means that Gosnells are still going to be allowed out there practicing.”

So that means we can have doctors who can’t admit patients to a local hospital, but can perform abortions.  The prospect of doctors without hospital admission privileges is terrifying, and no doctor will be held accountable for patients with complications who need to visit the ER after their abortion.

That means more women can easily get a medical abortion with less follow up, a procedure with the trauma and risks of expelling their small baby at home.  (1 in 100 women need hospitalization after this procedure due to heavy bleeding that won’t stop.)

That means more women will be rushed to the ER because of botched abortions, or even die, their stories often forgotten.

If further regulations are thrown out, and abortions can continue to be done with dirty tools in infected facilities, women will rush into abortion without seeing an ultrasound and without regard for her rights to informed consent.

Let history record that the pro-life movement tried to ensure clean abortion clinics that met health and safety standards.  Let history record that women in America, thanks to the Big Abortion Lobby, were left instead with this:

“In all the years I have spent writing and thinking about a woman’s right to choose, I have never set foot in an abortion clinic, because I have never needed to. In my mind, I had always pictured a clean and comfortable place. … This was no Westchester clinic. The place was dirty and dark and the women in the room outside were standing, as there were no chairs. A woman beside me was crying … the visceral reality of abortion — the grimy clinic, the sobbing and hapless young woman…abortion is still a dirty word,” Reporter Hannah Selinger.

Chaney Mullins serves as Special Projects Writer for Concerned Women for America.

Defending the Born Identity

By | Blog, News and Events | No Comments

The battle over when life begins ultimately boils down to differing worldviews. But when the conversation flips to life outside the womb, it should be a bipartisan, basic human rights issue … right?

One would think.

Astonishingly, the conversation has in fact moved to babies outside of the womb, and members of Congress are recognizing the need for language which now protects living, breathing babies who are born alive as the result of an attempted abortion.

It is mind-boggling that a child’s right to life outside the womb is even in question. But, seeing as the U.S. is only one of the seven nations in the world that allows abortion past 20 weeks or has no restriction on gestational age — in a camp with nations like Canada, China, The Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore, and Vietnam — explains the progression from where such a thought stems. Ultimately, it underscores just how lax we have become about respecting human dignity.

Currently, there is no federal directive to ensure abortion providers report the care given to infants who survive failed abortions. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a 2003-13 query shows 362 newborn deaths due to an attempted termination of pregnancy. That said, experts say the actual numbers are likely much greater but go unacknowledged due to voluntary underreporting.

Click here to read the rest of this article on

Stop the Move to Force our Daughters into the Selective Service!

By | Blog, Defense of Family, LAC Hot Topics/Alerts, News and Events | No Comments

UPDATE: The CWALAC team has put together a letter from a coalition of conservative leaders and activists. Read it here.

Has the world lost its mind? John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and other senators think your daughter should be drafted into combat. We have gone from debating whether or not women should serve in combat to some advocating that they should be forced to serve in combat. Leadership should know better than to disregard basic biology in order to embrace political correctness.

Yet, this Tuesday, the Senate will vote on the National Defense Authorization Act, which currently includes a provision to expand the Military Selective Service requirements to female citizens aged 18-26. But, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has offered an amendment which would strike the provision which forces our young women to register with the Selective Service. Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee supports the senator’s wise provision which puts America’s national security first.

Our military’s sole purpose is to protect our nation, not to serve as this administration’s laboratory for social engineering. Peak childbearing years for women continue to be cited1 at 20-35, an age range in line with the 18-26 age group affected by this policy that ignores basic biology. We firmly believe in the equality of men and women, but that does not require us to ignore the physical differences and unique risks to women in combat particularly in the case of capture.

There are exceptional women who are capable of meeting or exceeding the combat standards put forth by each branch. We support them as we do all individuals willing to put their lives on the line for the greatest nation in the history of the world. However, the female draft discussion should revolve around combat readiness, efficiency, and national security, and weeding through applicants that are overwhelmingly biologically unable to meet combat standards would be a logistical nightmare and would force the lowering of combat standards. The capabilities of these rare women should not mean all appropriately aged women are involuntarily eligible for combat.

Perhaps the greatest threat to our national security is radical Islamic terrorism. Radical Islamists view women as less than men and as property. The torture, repeated rape, and humiliation that would face female POWs would be unthinkable. Women who understand these risks and who bravely choose to serve regardless are different from women who are chosen to serve based on the day they were born.

Women are not clamoring for this “opportunity.” Only 15 percent of our active-duty military forces are women.2 We find it demeaning to suggest that women who have instead chosen to serve our nation in other civilian roles – such as manufacturing, commerce, medicine or even caring for their children – are not contributing to our nation. They are indeed!

We strongly support the heroic, capable, and honorable women who chose and will choose to serve our country in the military. However, this issue centers around whether or not women are to be forced to register to serve in tip-of-spear combat roles should our nation reinstate the draft. Forcing women to serve in combat against their will is a deep departure in U.S. policy.

Penny Nance and CWALAC’s legislative team have been meeting with key Republican senators and now those senators need to hear from you.

ACTION: Call your senators now and urge them to support Sen. Lee’s amendment to strike the portion of the National Defense Authorization Act which would require women to register with the Selective Service. Click here to find your senators’ contact information.

Thank you in advance for your important action!


1 “Best age for childbearing remains 20-35 – Delaying risks heartbreak, say experts,” Medical News Today, September 16, 2005, accessed at, May 18, 2016.
2 “See Women’s Progress in the U.S. Military,” Time Magazine, September 8, 2015, accessed at on May 18, 2016.

Once Upon a Time Features Lesbian Kiss, Devalues Friendship

By | Blog, Defense of Family, News and Events | No Comments

oncedorothyrubyABC boasts one of the most popular, family-friendly shows in Once Upon a Time.  This fairy tale characters mash-up has given five seasons of an exploration of family, belonging, love, and even redemption.  Orphaned Emma has found family; the Evil Queen has become good, and love has persevered through hardship – again and again.

However, a recent episode saw Ruby (Red Riding Hood) wake Dorothy (from Oz) with the “true love’s kiss” of lesbian love.

The writing decision was already strange, as Ruby has previously had a boyfriend earlier in the show (they clearly left the question of chosen vs. inborn sexuality aside) and even some on the left felt the story was too rushed to justify the designation of “true love.”  But the plot’s decisive offense lies in its intentional normalization of homosexuality on prime-time, Sunday night, TV-PG, family-friendly television.

The creators justified their decision by saying “This is the world we live in” and “True love’s kiss has been a staple of this show since the beginning, this past Sunday’s episode was just another example of how in a fairy tale, as in life, love is love.”

But does their own writing hold up to that standard?

Indeed, the show has featured several kisses of “true love” breaking sleeping and other curses in typical Snow White/Sleeping Beauty fashion.  Most notably, the show has already established how familial love is strong enough to break any curse.  In the same episode as the lesbian kiss, Belle said her father could wake her from her own sleeping curse, and the characters had first sought Aunt Em to break Dorothy’s curse.  Most notably, even the non-blood-related love of Regina for her adopted son Henry broke a curse!

But if “love is love” then – according to the show’s own standards – love is not sex!  And if love is not sex – if adopted family love is powerful enough to break a curse – then why isn’t platonic love able to as well?

There are a lot of different kinds of love.  True, deep, caring love.  And if love is wanting the good of another, than sometimes that love would be sexual, other times it certainly would not be.

As I watched the episode, I kept wondering why the love the cluster of storybook characters were showing Dorothy wasn’t enough to awaken her.  What does it take for love to be “true”?  Cannot a genuine care constitute true love?  It did for Regina to Henry.  The definition of true love has already expanded beyond sex.  Why not between friends?  And can’t we all speak of friends who become so close to us, we describe them as “chosen” or “spiritual” family?

The episode, thus, is not only tragically normalizing homosexuality, but oversexualizing all love, while especially devaluing the love of friendship.

Both women in the plot were lonely.  In this story retelling, Ruby had failed to find other human/wolves like her, and Dorothy had been abandoned by her family when she told them about Oz.  It is natural that their human need for relationships would drive them towards one another. But there is no need for this to take on a sexual nature.  Their relationship didn’t need sex to be love, and it didn’t need a kiss to be deep and true.

This lesbian kiss would never have aired even five years ago, which is when the show began.  But now “this is the world we live in.”

So what can we as Christians, saddened by this drastic cultural turn, do in the face of such a world?

Many of us continue to pray and fight for religious freedom protections and fight to protect our own marriages.  We are learning to talk in age-appropriate ways with our children about healthy sexuality and its perversions.  We maintain ultimate hope in the Savoir who longs to redeem sexual brokenness and all of culture.

Let us add to these responses that we also work to advance the beautiful truth of chaste friendship as a valid form of love.

Chaney Mullins serves as Special Projects Writer for Concerned Women for America.