FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Conservative Women to the Supreme Court: “We Value Religious Freedom”
WASHINGTON, D.C. –– Today, Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, submitted its amicus brief in the ObamaCare HHS mandate cases at the Supreme Court (Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius). Joining CWA in this effort is the Susan B. Anthony List, the Charlotte Lozier Institute and a coalition of almost 50 women state legislators, representing the voices of the millions of conservative women who are standing up for religious freedom against this attack from the Obama Administration. The brief reads in part:
The Mandate advances the interests of only that subset of women who value free abortion drugs above public goods such as religious freedom and limited government. The Mandate works against the interests of those free-minded, independent women whose personal, moral, and political values lead them to support a different balance of policy considerations.
Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America, issued the following statement:
We are honored to stand with such a distinguished group of women who value religious freedom as one of our most cherished constitutional rights. As did our Founders, who placed it at the top of the list of the Bill of Rights. We are asking the Court to honor all women as they look at this case, ignoring the politically-motivated “War on Women” rhetoric that some women have used to attack another group of women who do not agree with their worldview.
As our brief says, ‘No one person, and certainly not the Government, speaks for the interests of all women, and the Mandate cannot be generalized as a measure that advances the interests of all women.’
We hope the Justices will heed our call and uphold religious liberty for the benefit of all, including women.
CWA’s think tank, the Beverly LaHaye Institute (BLI), directed by the distinguished Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, also submitted a brief highlighting the lack of scientific evidence on the ways in which this mandate will benefit women. The brief read in part:
[W]hile the Government’s general interest in “preventive services” for “women’s health and well-being” may be valid, its act of coercing religiously objecting employers and individuals to pay for coverage for drugs that significantly increase risks to women’s health, while providing dubious health benefits, certainly fails to further that interest. As explained by the U.S. Supreme Court, “We do not doubt the validity of these interests, any more than we doubt the general interest in promoting public health and safety. . . but under RFRA invocation of such general interests, standing alone, is not enough.”
Dr. Crouse said:
The government’s theories about how this Mandate is to benefit women are not based on scientific data but on speculation. We hope to help the Court see that this unprecedented attack on our religious liberty is in no way compelled by the data. It might be politically appealing for the administration, but it will not improve the health conditions of women.
If you would like an interview with Penny Nance or a Concerned Women for America spokesperson, please contact Alison Howard at firstname.lastname@example.org or 202-266-4816.
Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with 500,000 participating members across the country, over 450 Prayer/Action Chapters and Home Teams, 600 trained leaders and over 30 years of service to our nation.
# # #