Add the Supreme Court’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt to the long line of horrible, unlawful, abortion rulings. Read More
Washington, D.C. – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a (5-3) ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the case challenging a law requiring abortion clinics to meet the building standards of ambulatory surgery centers and that abortionists maintain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. Penny Nance, CEO & President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), had this to say:
This decision represents a great setback for woman’s health and safety. For that is what this case was about, not abortion. Women’s health and safety are a top priority for the thousands of women I represent at Concerned Women for America, and they fought hard to enact this basic commonsense legislation.
The Supreme Court dishonors that commitment today by imposing its policy preferences over the women of Texas.
It is simply a complete fabrication to say that the Constitution somehow demands that these laws be struck down.
Worse, the outcome of this case represents what we have known for a while now, that we have a deep problem of judicial activism. Eight unelected Justices sitting 1,500 miles away should not have the constitutional authority to second guess the policy choices of the women of Texas.
The justices created and self-defined this extra-constitutional “undue burden” to advance their political ideology and, in doing so, just five justices are able to halt the efforts of a whole state to protect its citizens.
This reminds us once again that the types of justices we appoint to the Supreme Court make the decisions that, unfortunately, affect every area of our lives, and we must fight for men and women who respect the law and the Constitution instead of liberals wanting to advance an agenda.
For an interview with Penny Nance contact Janae Stracke at email@example.com or 712-269-1724.
We just celebrated Mother’s Day, and continue to celebrate mothers, children and families everywhere as we remember that May is National Foster Care Month. In this audio interview, Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America, talks to Angela Paxton, wife of pro-life, pro-family stalwart Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) of the great state of Texas.
This story is the type that movies are made of, and as Mrs. Paxton would confirm, it could only happen through the grace of a Sovereign God. You do not want to miss it!
On April 26, the Superintendent of the Fort Worth, Texas, Independent School District (ISD) unilaterally issued new transgender student guidelines at the Board of Trustees’ meeting dictating serious and dangerous new policies, effective immediately. They were not debated, discussed or voted on at any Board meetings.
These new guidelines (many of which may actually violate Texas state law) say employees of the district will undergo adverse employment action if they do not go along with all of the new guidelines that clearly violate not only common sense, but First Amendment speech and religious liberty rights. They can no longer use the words “boy” and “girl” and must abandon gender references, information about the students gender expression on campus will be withheld from parents, no medical or mental health diagnosis is required in order to have a student claim an identity and therefore, have full rights to the opposite sex locker rooms, bathrooms, etc. Click here to read the actual guidelines.
They are making the guidelines look as if they are in accordance with governing law, but there is no federal or state law on this. Title IX, which was written in 1972, states that you cannot discriminate based on sex (sex meant male or female) in order to receive federal funds. School districts are not required to make any transgender policy changes by Texas or Federal law, even if it is the desire of bureaucrats from the Department of Education to make up new definitions and set up interdepartmental guidelines without having any amendments to the law passed by Congress. The Department of Education Office of Civil Rights is bullying school districts into believing they have no choice but to make these policy changes as is currently happening in Chicago, Illinois. Click here to read more about that situation.
The Fort Worth ISD guidelines are mandatory and retroactive to the 2015-2016 school year unless revised or revoked. They must, and can be, revoked with public outcry and parental as well as local and statewide involvement. Will you join us as we commit this issue in pray and then take action?
Please pray about this very concerning situation.
- Pray for each member of the Fort Worth ISD School Board by name.
- Pray that the Fort Worth district parents, community and our state will overwhelmingly rise up against this.
- Pray for the Lord’s wisdom and strategy as we oppose these guidelines and the individuals perpetrating them.
Take action now!
- If you live in the Fort Worth area please attend the Fort Worth ISD School Board meeting on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, at 5:30 p.m. to be held in the Board of Education complex at 2903, Shotts Street, Fort Worth, TX 76107.
- Email each member of the Fort Worth ISD Board and respectfully express your concerns. Even if you don’t live in Fort Worth school district, this sets a dangerous precedent and they need to hear from all Texans.
Jacinto “Cinto” Ramos, Jr – firstname.lastname@example.org
Tobi Jackson – email@example.com
Christene Chadwick Moss – firstname.lastname@example.org
Theophlous Aron Sims, Sr. – email@example.com
Judy Needham – firstname.lastname@example.org
Ann Sutherland – email@example.com
Norman Robbins – firstname.lastname@example.org
Matthew Avila – email@example.com
Ashley Paz – firstname.lastname@example.org
3. Please forward this e-alert to fellow Texans, especially those in Fort Worth.
CWA of Texas
On May 9, 2016, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, called for the resignation of Dr. Kent Paredes Scribner, Superintendent of the Fort Worth Independent School District. He issued the following statement
“After less than a year as superintendent, Dr. Scribner has lost his focus and thereby his ability to lead the Fort Worth ISD. He has placed his own personal political agenda ahead of the more than 86,000 students attending 146 schools in the district by unilaterally adopting ‘Transgender Student Guidelines.’
“Without any discussion with parents, board members, principals, and other community leaders, Dr. Scribner’s unilateral action, underscores his lack of fitness to hold his position as superintendent.“Campus safety should be of paramount concern for anyone in his position. Every parent, especially those of young girls, should be outraged.
“The State of Texas has an affirmative responsibility to provide a safe environment in the schools where attendance is compulsory. While this may be an example of the need for the Legislature to pass a meaningful School Choice Bill, we must not allow the actions of Dr. Scribner to go unnoticed or unanswered.“I call upon the parents within the Fort Worth ISD to take immediate steps to repeal this stealthy scheme and remove Dr. Scribner from his post.”
Click here to view his press release.
Lt. Governor Dan Patrick will be attending the Fort Worth ISD school board meeting this evening and speaking out against the dangerous new guidelines the superintendent is trying to impose on the school district. If you live in Fort Worth, please make plans to attend and address the elected members of the Fort Worth ISD School Board meeting today, Tuesday, May 10, 2016, at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Board of Education complex at 2903, Shotts Street, Fort Worth, TX 76107.
Concerned Women for America of Texas has worked tirelessly on this issue from the beginning and brought light to the problem by mobilizing and educating others, and speaking with public officials such as the Lt Governor.
CWA of Texas sincerely thanks Lt. Governor Patrick for making sure our Texas schools are not overtaken with dangerous policies that not only violate free speech and religious liberties, but also the protections of children and parental knowledge of their child’s wellbeing on campus.
Click here to read the FWISD policy changes.
For more information click here to view our previous e-alert on this issue.
March 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.