Sanctity of Life

Nominee Makes No Difference The Senate Should Hold Its Ground

By | Defense of Family, News and Events, Press Releases, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Washington, D.C. – Penny Nance, President and CEO of Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation’s largest public policy organization for women, had this to say on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the United States Supreme Court:CWALAC_MediaStatement

“President Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court does not change the fact that the Senate needs to continue to do the proper thing by fulfilling its role of ‘advice and consent.’ The people need to have a voice in the type of justice they want to replace Justice Scalia by electing the next president of the United States.

“This nomination will upset the balance of the Supreme Court to the radical left for many decades.  Such a seismic shift in the highest court of the land must be presented to the people.

“Our very form of government is at stake here.  Fundamental rights, like the First and Second Amendment, do not have majority support at the Supreme Court right now.  Americans should be aware of what is at stake as they select their candidate for president this November.

“Over two hundred CWA state leaders from around the country have signed a letter in full support of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley’s careful approach to this vacancy. Republican leadership is living up to its sacred oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States by withholding consent from President Obama’s nominee.”

For an interview with Penny Nance, please contact Janae Stracke at or 712-269-1724.

URGENT: Two Distinct and Important Events Happening March 2

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

us supreme court for roarMarch 2 is a very big day for our nation.

The first major event is a large rally outside the Supreme Court on the first day of oral arguments regarding Whole Women’s Health v. Cole, colloquially referred to as the “Texas abortion clinic regulations case.”  Texas passed state legislation requiring abortion clinics to meet the standards of surgical outpatient clinics, including ambulance access, and also required abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges to allow follow up with women experiencing complications.  These laws have helped ensure that abortions are truly safe in Texas.

If the court rules 4-4, with Scalia now missing, then the ruling of the lower court — which ruled in favor of the legality of the clinic regulations — will stand.  However, there is a possibility that the court will rule 5-3, which would strike down the clinic regulations and, potentially, severely limit the state’s rights to regulate the abortion industry.  As the first serious abortion case that the Supreme Court has heard since 1992, the stakes are high.

Many of the arguments will ask questions about intentions behind a law.  According to legal precedent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 case, abortion regulations were proclaimed legal only under certain conditions that depend on the type of regulation, the extent of that regulation, and the true purpose of that regulation.

Casey addressed other types of regulations, too.  As PBS reported, “The Court proclaimed that any regulation that imposes a ‘substantial obstacle’ preventing a woman from obtaining a legal abortion is an ‘undue burden’ that violates the woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.”  In other words, regulations about abortion clinics and procedures would be allowed if the intention was truly to ensure health and safety, not to limit access to legal abortion, which had already been ruled a constitutional right.  Many abortion clinics have shut down as a result of the Texas regulations — and there will be questions of whether that and that alone was the true driving force between passing the law in the first place, or whether it was only a side effect of the law. However, many of the abortion clinics shut down for other reasons, and there is nothing preventing an abortion clinic that meets the reasonable health standards from legally functioning in Texas.

It will be hard for the court to develop a true metric of measuring the intention behind a law.  If the justices are to maintain the precedent of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and if the court determines that the true intention of this law is shutting down abortion clinics and limiting  access to abortion, then the clinic regulations will be ruled unconstitutional.  But if the court sees the law as centered on women’s health — making abortion not just legal, but also safe — then the court will let the regulations stand.

The second big event happening is the first hearing of the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives. This was the panel formed in the wake of this summer’s Planned Parenthood video scandal exposing the apparent trafficking of fetal tissue after abortion.  This hearing with focus on ethical questions, and a witness list is posted here.  The panel is headed by Chairman Marsha Blackburn, who commented:

“We will hear from professors who teach ethics, from medical practitioners, from those who do biomedical research, from those within America’s faith traditions — so that we as legislators might become informed about the ethical implications and issues for the women who terminate a pregnancy, for the researcher, for the person who needs a cure, and for the baby. I look forward to a productive, thought-provoking discussion for all the Select Panel Member.”

Both of these events are important, and many will be interested in their outcomes.  However, they are not to be confused with one another, and neither case is about making abortion illegal.  The Supreme Court case is about women’s safety in obtaining an abortion. The panel hearing is a different event specifically regarding the ethical questions surrounding fetal tissue donation and research. Again, neither case is about abortion itself, only on the related, yet distinct, issues of clinic conditions and fetal tissue use.

Concerned Women for America’s intention is always to protect both women and babies. We will have representatives at both events and will work to keep you updated on both situations.

Time to End “Back-Alley Abortion Clinics”

By | News and Events, Press Releases, Sanctity of Life, Texas | No Comments

Rally in Support of Texas Woman’s Health Law to be Held at the Supreme Court During Oral Arguments 

Washington, D.C. – Statement by Penny Nance, CEO & President of Concerned Women for America at the United States Supreme Court on the day of oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt in favor of Texas’ sensible clinic regulations.

“I want to thank each of you for being here today. This is an historic day in the fight for civil rights. Martin Luther King, Jr., would have been proud to see you here!

“If they were alive today, suffragists like Susan B. Anthony would be standing in this podium cheering you on today.

“Because, today, we are standing up for equality!

“It is simply appalling that abortionists and abortion supporters insist on treating women like second-class citizens.

“Why don’t they want to give women the highest quality care available? Why do they stand in the way of progress? Why would they continue to put women’s lives at risk for the sake of political ideology?

“This case is not about abortion. This case is about making sure women receive the best care available, even when they choose to have an abortion.

“We live in a post-Gosnell world. If the abortion industry truly cared about women, they would be standing right here with us today, demanding women be treated with respect and dignity. We should be united on this.

“But the abortion industry has, once again, been exposed for the sham that it is. They don’t care if their policies enable the Gosnell’s of the world. They are perfectly fine with allowing Gosnell-like doctors to operate in unsanitary conditions, risking women’s lives every time a complication arises, and yes, even discriminating base on the patient’s race.

“If you remember, Gosnell had a more “sanitized” room for his “white” patients. The filthier one he reserved especially for minority women, because he thought they were less likely to complain to the authorities.

“And the Gosnell clinic operated unsupervised for fifteen long, treacherous years.

“Finally, the investigation which uncovered everything (which only opened because it was part of a drug bust, by the way) revealed the clinic had not been inspected precisely because of the political pressure that our good friends on the other side place on states like Texas, taking them all the way to their friends at the Supreme Court if they have to.

“After dealing with the Gosnell case, District Attorney Seth Williams, who is not a pro-life activist like me, marveled that, “There’s more oversight for women’s hair salons than for abortion clinics in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

“Well, God bless Texas! Anyone from Texas here?

“God bless Texas because it refuses to be the next Pennsylvania, waiting until another woman’s death before pushing back on this political correct nonsense.

“God bless Texas because it refuses to put women at risk by leaving them to the mercy of self-regulating abortionists.

“God bless Texas for standing up to the political bullies of the abortion lobby for the sake of our daughters.

“God bless Texas for leading the way to the next frontier of the civil rights movement: the fight for the sanctity of every human life and the intrinsic value of the individual.

“We urge the Supreme Court Justices to resist the temptation to play super-legislature once again on the issue of abortion. Nothing in the Constitution warrants that they substitute their policy judgment for that of Texas. They should not stand in the way of commonsense measures that protect women in crisis pregnancies.

“Abortion doctors and abortion clinics must provide quality care to their patients. There is nothing unreasonable about that, and women deserve no less.

“It is time to end these “back-alley abortion clinics!”

“And for the Supreme Court to stand in the way of that effort would be not only unconstitutional, it would be unconscionable, inhumane, discriminatory, and immoral.”


For an interview with Penny Nance, please contact Janae Stracke at or 712-269-1724.

SCOTUS, Remember That Abortion Safety Truly Cares for Women

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

In the first major abortion case in almost 10 years, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for the Texas abortion case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a challenge to new Texas regulations requiring hospital admitting privileges and Ambulatory Surgical Center health and safety standards that abortion clinics must now meet.

The case Read More

Impugn the Court, not CMP

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

The Houston grand jury and District Attorney’s office investigating Planned Parenthood indicted the Center for Medical Progress’ (CMP) David Daleiden instead of Planned Parenthood.

We saw in Part Two how this situation is a violation of the freedom of the press; now this court is threatening the integrity of our legal system. These are two great institutional pillars in a democratic nation — the law and the press — and the court indictment misunderstands them both.

Getting in the weeds reveals layers of disturbing evidence against trusting this particular court.  In 2013, the court let abortionist Douglas Karpen get off scot-free, though there were three former clinic workers who were testifying that he killed born-alive babies.  Any court that dismisses that case is subject to great suspicion.  This very same district attorney, Devon Anderson, was then shielded by the public relations help of Douglas Karpen’s very own attorney, Chip Lewis, who later contributed $25,000 to her next election campaign.

Sadly, this district attorney, who claimed she was a pro-life Republican, has now dropped the ball on not one, but two abortion cases against abortion extremism in Texas, both involving the work of Troy Newman (instrumental in that earlier case against abortionist Douglas Karpen, he went on to be one of the founding members of the Center for Medical Progress).  This massive drama seems like it belongs more on TV then in real life.  Clearly this DA’s office is not taking pro-life cases seriously and has even worked with the pro-choice side for both PR and political advantage.

As if that was not enough, there are even more reasons not to trust this jury and DA.  The District Attorney has under her several prosecutors in the same office.  One of these is a board member or uncompensated director of the very Planned Parenthood affiliate who CMP is working to expose in this case — the one they were originally investigating before the tables turned and they indicted David instead.  It’s true that we don’t know how many prosecutors are under the DA, and that this director didn’t work directly on this case.  Still, the presence in the same office under the same DA makes the potential for conflict of interest too eerie to ignore.

Troy Newman is rightly alarmed on account of both the past case and the current ethical violations:

“There are too many questions about the independence of the Harris County District Attorney’s office with a Planned Parenthood board member on hand and given the failure of a previous grand jury under Anderson to indict a Houston abortion provider despite ample photographic evidence and eye-witness testimony of late-term babies being born alive and intentionally killed. The public needs to be assured that an impartial investigation will be conducted on the facts and not on a personal political agenda.”

Apparently this is a repeated request for a new investigator, as the District Attorney was asked months ago to recuse herself from the case.

Conflict of interest and impartiality are both concerns here.  One pro-life group is asking for a new jury, for the District Attorney to resign and the indictments to be dropped.  That sounds reasonable at this point. Otherwise, we are left only with a corrupt court and the fear that exposing injustice will be punished in our nation.


The Importance of Investigative Journalism

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

The recent indictment made against the Center for Medical Progress is ethically questionable on so many levels.  It is clear now that the battle is of a spiritual nature, and Satan doesn’t like it when his works of darkness are exposed.  In the civic realm, the freedom of the press and the discipline of investigative journalism are being unfairly bridled.  As explained in Part One, David Daleiden has been charged with a felony regarding the alternative identity he took on in order to pose as a tissue procurement company.

All right.  Let’s talk about everyone who has ever assumed an alternative identity for the purpose of investigation.

There’s To Catch a Predator, a hit reality show where Chris Hansen catches sexual predators using young teens who pose as potential sexual partners.  Disturbing and effective, everyone knew it was the predator, not the decoys, worth going after!

Lila Rose, founder of Live Action, is a pro-life undercover investigator whose work is similar to Daleiden’s (he has worked with them in the past).  It was her work (often done by going undercover in PP clinics) that exposed Planned Parenthood (PP) covering up sexual abuse, allowing sex-selective abortions, and informed the public that Planned Parenthood does no mammograms.

For a historic favorite, there is Nellie Bly.  She bravely pretended to be insane and lived in an insane asylum for 10 days.  Through this, she exposed the horrible behavior towards the women patients, and that far from reforming and assisting them, the so-called treatments and caretakers were likely contributing to the insanity.  Nellie took on the name “Nelly Brown” during this time.  What is now happening to David is as silly as proclaiming that Nelly Bly should have been charged for pretending to be insane.  But she wasn’t, of course.  Instead, her work paved the way for total reform.  She is honored as a hero today.

These identity cases join many other whistle-blowing and investigative journalism cases in American history.  There are the muckrakers, the Watergate scandal, the recent Fast and Furious exposé and many, many more.  Do we wish to ban and endanger this entire genre of American press?  Is our freedom of the press not vital to the fabric of our nation?  “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”  Is that not, then, the true purpose of journalism, to petition the government for a redress of grievances?  And is that not exactly what David Daleiden is doing, bringing to light grievances against abortion and Planned Parenthood? Thankfully, even some pro-choice people are concerned, stating, “Undercover exposés play a vital role in informing the American public of important facts that would otherwise remain hidden.”  We cannot allow this important work to be hindered in a free nation.

Read Part Three of this series titled “Impugn the Court, not CMP” to see how this case hurts not just the pro-life cause and the freedom of the press, but also the integrity of the court.