All Posts By

Alexandra McPhee

Mar 08 2023
0

Defending National Sovereignty for the Unborn

By | International, National Sovereignty, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Pro-abortion groups recently sent a letter calling on United Nations (UN) officials to take action in response to America’s “violation of its obligations under international human rights law” for not having a constitutional right to abortion. Protections for the unborn, according to signatories, are a “human rights crisis.” This letter is a reminder that defense of national sovereignty is vital in a landscape where international bodies are being lobbied and used to push a pro-abortion agenda. No international organization should have authority over our country in any area, much less in mandating policies that destroy lives.

 

Unfortunately, there is already a bias within the UN against protections for the unborn. UN human rights chief Michelle Bachelet called the outcome in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which returned the question of abortion policy to the people, “a huge blow to women’s human rights and gender equality.” At that time, the UN women’s rights committee “reiterated its call for States parties to remove punitive measures for women who undergo abortion and to legalize abortion – at least in cases of rape, incest, threats to the life or health of the pregnant woman, and in the case of severe [fetal] impairment.”

 

The UN touts Bachelet and the committee as “rights experts.” Yet the so-called “experts” seem to have their heads in the sand about what both sides are really saying about the abortion debate.

 

There are no punitive measures—certainly not criminal measures—against women who obtain an abortion in the United States. Our President and CEO, Penny Nance, has only spoken with truth and love about women who have suffered abortion, most recently in front of a nationally broadcast audience at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC). And pro-life groups, including Concerned Women for America, universally call for protections for the unborn who fall outside of the listed exceptions. Those unborn lives are the vast majority of children killed in abortions.

 

On the other hand, as the letter evidences, many on the pro-abortion side want abortion under any circumstance. The dignity and worth of the unborn child is totally irrelevant. Girls and women indisputably suffer from criminal attacks and maladies like post-partum depression. But abortion access is demanded in every circumstance, and the suffering that results from abortion is unacknowledged.

 

One might wonder why the UN takes the positions it does when America foots most of the bill. In 2020, America contributed over 11 billion dollars to the UN. It seems like the UN’s priorities and America’s priorities are so often at odds. Bizarrely, most if not all of the signatories are from America. It seems to boil down to a desire to take the easy route of appealing to an unaccountable international body rather than do the hard work of changing fellow Americans’ hearts and minds. It is a call for policy by fiat and no consent from the governed.

 

Sadly, the U.S. is responsible for its own pressure on foreign governments to support anti-life, anti-family, and anti-woman policies. At a Summit for Democracy, the Biden Administration explicitly linked so-called LGBTQI+ “rights” to democracy, and President Biden called for the elimination of the filibuster in order to pass a law to practically undo the outcome in Dobbs. The U.S. Department of State’s annual human rights report includes sections on sexual orientation/gender identity mandates and abortion access. The U.S. Agency for International Development has recommended training for educators funded to teach in foreign countries “to model the use of inclusive language (i.e., names, pronouns, descriptors)” with information about “diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.” The U.S. State Department awarded one of its “International Women for Courage Awards” to a male.

 

At a panel event this week for International Women’s Day, German Ambassador Emily Haber was asked to speak about differences in pay between men and women of Germany. She was asked if she observed any policies in Germany that America should apply. She explained,

 

“There’s a conversation to be had about [fair pay]. But I wouldn’t give any advice or wouldn’t, as I said before, lecture anyone. We all come from our specific vantage points, experiences, societal and political traditions. Whatever we do will have to fit into it. As we pursue the same objectives . . . we’ll have to have the conversation on how best to do it. There is not one single panacea to move ahead.”

 

This is a refreshing perspective for issues that are debatable, like economic policy. How much more must we forbear on exporting to other countries ideas that undebatably lead to harm and destruction. But as the letter shows, and as we have seen from the Biden Administration, not everyone is on the same page.

 

Feb 22 2023
0

Don’t Let Congress Undo Dobbs, Erase Women: Update

By | Erasing Women, Legislative Updates, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

This article has been updated (1) to include additional findings and (2) to correct an incorrect reference to Colorado, which should have been a reference to Connecticut.

 

State of play. This Congress, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) reintroduced a resolution in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in support of the so-called Equal Rights Amendment.

 

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has already moved the measure onto the Senate’s Legislative Calendar for potential consideration in April. There are rumors that supporters will also attempt forced consideration on the House Floor.

 

Dobbs‘ undoing, erasing women. If it was ever properly ratified, the Equal Rights Amendment could constitutionalize abortion and radical gender ideology. It could undo the historic victory in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court case that correctly concluded that there is no right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution, and it could erase women from the Constitution.

 

Procedural defects. The only good news is that this current effort to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment—in the tradition of the past efforts—will fail. As a proposed constitutional amendment, the Equal Rights Amendment is bound by a unique set of procedural requirements for ratification. Currently, supporters are pursuing ratification outside of these bounds and through improper means.

 

Substantive issues. That said, we remain vigilant because of the Amendment’s dire consequences. Of course, the text sounds good: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” But as we have explained before, “the amendment could have a reverse effect on women’s progress.” Rep. Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), for example, expertly revealed in a 2019 House Judiciary Committee hearing that activists will use the Equal Rights Amendment to constitutionalize abortion and gender identity.

 

Abortion. Any difference in treatment between men and women can be considered denial or abridgment of equality. This even includes natural, common sense differences, such as pregnancy and birth. Connecticut and New Mexico have Equal Rights Amendments in their state constitutions. Supreme courts in both states interpreted these Equal Rights Amendments to require abortion access in their state health programs.[1] In New Mexico, for example, the court said:

 

  • “women’s biology and ability to bear children have been used as a basis for discrimination against them.”
  • “Since only women become pregnant, discrimination against pregnancy by not funding abortion when it is medically necessary and when all other medical[ly necessary] expenses are paid by the state for both men and women is sex oriented discrimination.”

 

Further, as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Rep. Johnson explained, groups that support abortion access—NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Organization for Women, and Planned Parenthood—have explicitly stated that they would use a federal Equal Rights Amendment to strike down laws that protect the unborn. Should it become law, the Amendment could insert a right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution.

 

Gender Identity. Equality could also mean reinterpretation of the law that makes distinctions based on sex, such as registration for the Selective Service. The Equal Rights Amendment could be used to force women to register for the Selective Service, and the legality of women-only spaces would be thrown into question.

 

The New Mexico Supreme Court’s reasoning once again raises these concerns by stating that it is “erroneous to rely on the notion that a classification based on a unique physical characteristic is reasonable simply because it corresponds to some ‘natural’ grouping…we must ascertain whether the classification ‘operates to the disadvantage of persons so classified.’” This reasoning—which could be the reasoning used for a federal Amendment—opens the door to judicial Monday morning quarterbacking that introduces today’s radical gender ideology.

 

The Amendment only uses the word “sex.” But as we have seen, Rep. Johnson exposed through congressional questioning that activists would use it to force the same treatment of women and men who identify as women.

 

  • Kathleen M. Sullivan, Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan: “The proper textual reading of the term on account of sex does include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender identity, and that is just a textual reading of the term on the basis of sex.”
  • Pat Spearman, Co-Majority Whip, Nevada Senate: “When you talk about on the basis of sex, gender identity is a new way of saying this is who I am.”
  • Patricia Arquette, Actor and Advocate: “That is going to be argued in court.”

 

Then-House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney hosted a hearing on the Equal Rights Amendment, which included men who identify as women as within the scope of coverage for women’s new legal status under the Equal Rights Amendment.

 

And as many of you know, Mrs. Beverly LaHaye, Concerned Women for America (CWA) Founder, started CWA and mobilized thousands of women across the country because of her concerns with the Equal Rights Amendment. She spoke out against not just the Amendment’s harms for the unborn but the unfair characterization of women as a monolithic block of pro-abortion feminists. Radical gender ideology presents new challenges, but our mission remains the same to advocate for Biblical values in public policy and through that, “speaking the truth in love,” Ephesians 4:15.

 

[1] Doe v. Maher, 40 Conn. Supp. 394, 515 A.2d 134 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1986); New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 975 P.2d 841 (N.M. 1998).

Feb 14 2023
0

Making Sense of ESG With Jerry Bowyer

By | ESG, Legislative Updates, News and Events | No Comments

In case you missed it, Concerned Women for America released an explainer about environmental, social, and governance scores, otherwise known as “ESG.” As we state in our explainer, “You have either heard of it, or you will, but the radical ideology known as ‘ESG’ is harming you.”

 

We know that the issue has the attention of the U.S. Congress. In what is likely a very small sample of what is to come, the House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-North Carolina) formed an “ESG Working Group” of nine Members of Congress. On his way out, Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) published a report, “New Banking GOP Report Reveals How Asset Managers Use Proxy Voting Power to Advance Liberal Policies.”

 

The “E” in ESG—environmental—is most well thought out. ESG investors that push for “decarbonization,” for instance, demand not just disinvestment in energy but things that use energy—such as farming, especially dairy and meat cattle farming. The harms here are evident. What about the “S” and “G”? So far, this has looked like pro-abortion policies and “gender diversity” quotas on boards, and pressure on businesses to comply.

 

To better understand the issue, CWA spoke with Jerry Bowyer, a Christian financial economist, author, and columnist. Jerry is also host of the new podcast “Meeting of Minds,” author of “The Maker Versus the Takers,” contributor to WORLD News and the Christian Post, and a former columnist for Forbes.com.

 

He agreed to an interview to explain what ESG is and the problems it creates for America.

 

How would you summarize the problem with ESG? ESG is an approach to investing that brings politics—particularly left politics—and inserts it into the financial process. The problem is that we ought to make investment decisions based on financial criteria, not politics.

 

What institutions consider ESG? Managers for investment funds. Banks, which are ESG central. Public and private university endowments. Pension plans, especially in deep blue states.

 

Is this the cause for corporate wokeism, e.g., Walmart and Target? I would say corporate wokeism is a general social phenomenon of which ESG is a particular expression. ESG is wokeism from the standpoint of the investor. Some corporations do it on their own because they have an ideologically captured CEO, e.g., Salesforce or BlackRock. But often, it has to be pushed. ESG is one of the major pushes.

 

I would also call it a fad past due. The logic is, “this is the future so you should do it.” There have been lots of fads in finance. But this one is worse because it’s intertwined with politics in a way others have not been.

 

Can ESG be used to promote abortion policies? It is being used to promote abortion policies. For instance, asset managers will introduce and vote for shareholder resolutions that support abortion.

 

Another argument goes that investing in businesses in states that prohibit abortion are an investment risk. Of course, this is nonsensical. Just look at the population flow from the northeast [which tends to have no or weak protections for the unborn] to the south [which tends to have some or total protections for the unborn].

 

Could Christians be de-banked for having traditional views on marriage? Almost certainly if left unchecked.

 

Who are the relevant government officials? At the state level, the relevant officials are state treasurers and state attorneys general.

 

The treasurers are the Lexington and Concord minutemen of this fight. They didn’t sign up for the war but stepped up when the time came. Great examples are treasurers in Kentucky, Utah, West Virginia, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and others with the State Financial Officers Foundation.

And attorneys general are starting to rev up. They saw people messing with their states; they’re fighting, and they’re winning.

 

At the federal level, the relevant actors are the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the United States Department of Labor, and the Federal Reserve System and the United States Department of the Treasury to some degree.

 

Are there any “wins”? Costco just had a shareholder vote that was pro-abortion and that went down in flames, which you can learn more about here. The bubble is beginning to burst. Revolutionary ideologies can never get enough. Now, regular investors and liberals are finding out that the far Left cannot be appeased. I am glad conservative Christians are beginning to engage. For 30 years, there was a game we [conservative Christians] didn’t show up for. We lost by way of forfeit.

 

What are some action items? If you’re willing to do the work, if you’re an investor, stop throwing out proxies. If your financial advisor is in charge, you need to talk to them. Advisors need to feel the pressure from investors to vote their values.

 

Shareholders have power highly analogous to citizens in a republic. When you don’t like your government, do you never go to the polls again or do you vote them out?

 

States already have good laws. What will help is legislation that will more clearly and forcefully assert what is already the law—that assets will not be commandeered for political purposes.

 

You wrote a book, “The Maker Versus the Takers: What Jesus Really Said About Social Justice and Economics.” What did Jesus really say about social justice and economics? What He really said is that there is nothing immoral about wealth as long as it’s about producing wealth and not extracting wealth. He confronted the rich about wealth exclusively to individuals within the capital region. There are zero confrontations with entrepreneurs in Galilee. Every confrontation was with state actors—people who use their power to extract wealth from others.

 

We are grateful to Jerry for his time. What a unique moment for believers in the financial industry. If there is anything that the ESG phenomenon has revealed, it is a reminder that everything, including financial industry, is under the Lord’s domain.

Feb 09 2023
0

Don’t Let Congress Undo Dobbs, Erase Women

By | Erasing Women, Legislative Updates, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

State of play. This Congress, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) reintroduced a resolution in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in support of the so-called Equal Rights Amendment.

 

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has already moved the measure onto the Senate’s Legislative Calendar for potential consideration in April. There are rumors that supporters will also attempt forced consideration on the House Floor.

 

Dobbs‘ undoing, erasing women. If it was ever properly ratified, the Equal Rights Amendment would constitutionalize abortion and radical gender ideology. It would undo the historic victory in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court case that correctly concluded that there is no right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution, and it would erase women from the Constitution.

 

Procedural defects. The only good news is that this current effort to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment—in the tradition of the past efforts—will fail. As a proposed constitutional amendment, the Equal Rights Amendment is bound by a unique set of procedural requirements for ratification. Currently, supporters are pursuing ratification outside of these bounds and through improper means.

 

Substantive issues. That said, we remain vigilant because of the Amendment’s dire consequences. Of course, the text sounds good: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” But as we have explained before, “the amendment could have a reverse effect on women’s progress.” Rep. Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), for example, expertly revealed in a 2019 House Judiciary Committee hearing that activists will use the Equal Rights Amendment to constitutionalize abortion and gender identity.

 

Abortion. Any difference in treatment between men and women can be considered denial or abridgment of equality. This even includes natural, common sense differences, such as pregnancy and birth. Rep. Johnson explained:

  • [I]n 1988, the Colorado Supreme Court held that Colorado’s ERA in its state constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.
  • Ten years later in 1998, the Supreme Court of New Mexico took the next step and relied on New Mexico’s state-level ERA to strike down a state reg[ulation] that restricted state funding of abortions for Medicaid-eligible women. In New Mexico, Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, the court held as follows:
    • “Neither the Hyde Amendment nor the federal authorities upholding the constitutionality of that amendment bar this court from affording greater protection of the rights of Medicaid-eligible women under our state constitution in this instance. Article II Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution guarantees that equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person.” “We construe,” the court said, “the intent of this amendment is providing something beyond that already afforded by the general language of the equal protection clause.”
  • More recently, NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a March 13, 2019, national alert, admitted their belief that the Equal Rights Amendment would,
    • “reinforce the constitutional right to abortion. It would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws.”.

 

Gender Identity. Equality could also mean reinterpretation of the law that makes distinctions based on sex, such as registration for the Selective Service. The Equal Rights Amendment could be used to force women to register for the Selective Service, and the legality of women-only spaces would be thrown into question.

 

Further, while the Amendment only uses the word “sex,” Rep. Johnson exposed through congressional questioning that it would be used as a tool to advance gender ideology.

 

  • Kathleen M. Sullivan, Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan: “The proper textual reading of the term on account of sex does include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender identity, and that is just a textual reading of the term on the basis of sex.”
  • Pat Spearman, Co-Majority Whip, Nevada Senate: “When you talk about on the basis of sex, gender identity is a new way of saying this is who I am.”
  • Patricia Arquette, Actor and Advocate: “That is going to be argued in court.”

 

And as many of you know, Mrs. Beverly LaHaye, Concerned Women for America (CWA) Founder, started CWA and mobilized thousands of women across the country because of her concerns with the Equal Rights Amendment. She spoke out against not just the Amendment’s harms for the unborn but the unfair characterization of women as a monolithic block of pro-abortion feminists. Radical gender ideology presents new challenges, but our mission remains the same to advocate for Biblical values in public policy and through that, “speaking the truth in love,” Ephesians 4:15.

Jan 31 2023
0

States Rejoice for School Choice

By | Education, Legislative Updates, News and Events | No Comments

Every child deserves educational freedom. At Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC), we saw landmark developments in the states for the school choice movement during National School Choice Week.

 

Gov. Kim Reynolds (R-Iowa) listened to the voices of parents in Iowa and signed key education policy into law. Under Iowa’s Students First Act, state education funding—an estimated $7,598 per student—can go to K-12 students who choose to attend private schools and pay for their schooling and other qualified education expenses.

 

Gov. Spencer Cox (R-Utah) signed into law the Utah Fits All Scholarship Program. Eligible students can apply for and receive an $8,000 per-year scholarship for qualified education expenses, with preference for lower-income families and a program cap of $42 million per year.

 

In Arkansas, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ (Republican) signed an executive order—her first in office—that directs the Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Education and the Arkansas State Board of Education to create “policies that streamline processes to continue, expand, and replicate effective charter schools.”

 

No student should be forced to attend failing schools or schools that denigrate their beliefs and values. Unfortunately, parents have seen far too much of this, and the problem accelerated during the pandemic. These actions by Govs. Reynolds, Cox, and Sanders empower parents to choose the best education for their children and advance education freedom. A key component of education freedom is educational choice—at CWALAC, we focus on choice in the forms of education savings accounts and open enrollment. CWA has already identified target states to advance the mission for educational choice: Florida, Louisiana, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia. In each of these states, more can be done.

 

Iowa’s Students First Act, as mentioned, above, creates an education savings account (ESA). ESAs vary from state to state, but generally speaking, ESAs are publicly funded, are administered by the state government, and use state funding already allocated for the student. ESAs are used to provide an education in reading, grammar, mathematics, social studies, and science. ESAs allow a parent to purchase vetted educational services to tailor a learning experience that meets a student’s needs.

 

Every student must have access to an ESA, like in Iowa and the nine other states that have adopted ESAs that are publicly funded: Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. An ESA helps fulfill the proper goal of education to impart knowledge to students and teach them how to think, not what to think.

 

Open enrollment refers to the policy of allowing students to request to transfer to another school either within a school district (intradistrict open enrollment) or outside of the school district (interdistrict open enrollment) in which the student resides. Over half of the states have policies permitting intradistrict or interdistrict open enrollment. Fourteen states require interdistrict open enrollment for all grade levels.

 

Of those 14 states, five states—Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, South Dakota, and Tennessee—have the strongest policy because they require schools to accept transfer requests, subject to capacity of the receiving school. Gov. Sanders’ executive order builds on Arkansas’ strong foundation in what is sometimes called “public school choice.”

 

Every student must have access to transfer-request acceptance as in Arkansas and the other four states. Without it, there is a risk of open-endedness in transfer policies that give schools the latitude to create policies that prioritize the preservation of an institution rather than an individual student’s quality of education.

 

The remaining nine states require schools to have policies for transfer requests but do not require acceptance of transfer requests: Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wisconsin. Open enrollment that is interdistrict, available for all grade levels, and available for any reason (subject to capacity) gives even more options to the parents and the student to achieve maximum educational outcomes.

 

A zip code should not determine a student’s success. The pandemic, despite its many tragedies, has resulted in an opportune climate for change in education policy. For this year’s National School Choice Week, more parents are experiencing more meaningful choice in their student’s education.

Jan 20 2023
0

CWA Cosigns Letter to CVS and Walgreens

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

Concerned Women for America cosigned a letter to Walgreens and CVS regarding the recent changes by the government to allow pharmacies to dispense chemical abortion. CVS and Walgreens announced their plans to seek certification to stock and fulfill prescriptions for mifepristone (the first part of a two-part regimen to complete a chemical abortion). The letter outlines a long list of potential legal, policy, media, and cultural concerns these pharmacies should consider when deciding on becoming abortion businesses.  

 

Read letters to Walgreens and CVS.

Jan 12 2023
0

Victorious Life Votes Advance Culture of Life

By | Legislative Updates, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, Uncategorized | No Comments

Legislation for Life

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and a resolution condemning attacks on pregnancy centers and pro-life groups. By a majority vote, which included all Republicans and even some Democrats, we saw two very moderate bills pass the House.

 

The Born-Alive Act only strengthens guarantees in existing law for medical care owed to babies who are born alive following an unsuccessful abortion. The resolution would create no new law and simply calls for the condemnation of criminal attacks following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Mississippi abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The majority of those criminal attacks were on pro-life institutions, like pregnancy centers and churches.

 

Elections Have Consequences

It is a stark example of how elections have drastic consequences on what legislation gets to see the light of day.

 

Mere months ago, the U.S. House of Representatives under Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) passed the Women’s Health Protection Act, legislation that supported abortion-on-demand and up to the point of birth. Following the Dobbs decision and in addition to that bill, the House voted to pass legislation that guaranteed access to abortifacients and conflated the issue of contraception with abortion in order to cause confusion about what the Supreme Court decided in Dobbs (hint: the decision had nothing to do with contraception).

 

The Born-Alive Act only received floor consideration through procedural maneuvering by the conservative minority in a measure known as a discharge petition. The over 100 attacks against pro-life institutions received no floor consideration.

 

But what a difference an election makes! While this Congress is held by conservatives with a slim 5-seat majority, control of the House is a zero-sum game, and the U.S. House of Representatives is a pro-life majority. House Republicans put it best when they said, “Following two years of Democrats’ fight for a radical abortion on-demand up until the moment of birth agenda, there is finally a House majority that fights for life.”

 

Promoting A Culture of Life

Pro-life means much more than what abortion opponents want it to mean, which is anything less than abortion on demand. As a pro-life organization, we wait in eager anticipation of the day when all abortion is illegal and unthinkable. But being pro-life means supporting the kind of policy that creates a culture of life, even when it has nothing to do with new protections for the unborn. That very policy passed the House today.

 

While the Born-Alive Act specifically protects abortion survivors, it is really about protecting newborns no matter the circumstance of their birth. During President Donald Trump’s Administration, President Trump issued Executive Order 13952, “Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children.” That Executive Order described hospitals that “refuse[d] to require[] medical screening examination and stabilizing treatment or otherwise [did] not provide potentially lifesaving medical treatment to extremely premature or disabled infants, even when parents plead for such treatment.” The Order advanced a culture of life by directing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to enforce laws that protected newborns and dedicated federal funding to enhancing life-saving treatment for newborns. The Born-Alive Act similarly advances this goal by giving stronger tools to enforce an appropriate medical standard of care for babies who survive abortions.

 

Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Missouri), who introduced the Born-Alive Act, recognized the cost of the death of a newborn when she said, “Women, fathers, and whole families all suffer deeply from the loss of their child. Our communities are weaker because these bright young ones did not grow up to share their wisdom, laughter, and ingenuity with us.”

 

The resolution is about calling for justice for crime victims, which should be obvious. Sadly, even access to justice is in question now more than ever while the Department of Justice is being used to increase abortion access through specious legal authority. The resolution condemns the attacks on pro-life institutions, recognizes the sanctity of life, and calls upon the Biden Administration to use all appropriate authority to protect the rights of pregnancy centers and pro-life groups and churches.

 

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), who introduced the resolution, explained that the resolution was necessary because “there has been so little accountability for the leaked draft opinion and ensuing violence and intimidation against pro-lifers,” so the pro-life majority in Congress was going to call for justice.

 

These actions elevate a conversation that advances a culture of life. As Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-California) said, the Born-Alive bill “protects the lives of the unborn and their mothers,” and the resolution is important because “in the face of a growing movement to devalue the miracle of life, we must also protect every American fighting for life.”

 

Keep Up the Pressure

Your engagement makes outcomes like this possible. Unless you tell your elected officials that you want to see laws that reflect a culture of life, they will assume that their constituents no longer care, or worse, think that their constituents support the pro-abortion narrative. Thank you so much for reaching out to your legislators, and we look forward to more pro-family votes that reflect Biblical values in the ensuing two years.

Dec 14 2022
0

Conservatives Defend Ground on Defense Bill

By | Defense of Family, Legislative Updates, News and Events | No Comments

Every year, Congress passes the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a bill that governs policies and funding for federal defense agencies. The bill recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives and is on track for enactment before the end of the year. In a perfect world, the defense bill only focuses on military readiness and fortifying national security. Unfortunately, legislators try to use such an important bill as a vehicle for their non-defense-related pet priorities.

 

At Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC), our main job is to be the sticky fly trap for those pet—or perhaps “pest”—priorities. Fortunately, as of this week, our sticky paper has caught the major vermin. We gave decision-makers clear, achievable goals – stop women in the draft, no bankrolling Big Marijuana, and keep out woke data collection mandates. Your activism and our direct communications with staff and legislators made it possible to kick out these bad provisions from the NDAA.

 

Stop Women in the Draft

  • This year, we once more combatted the existential threat of women in the draft. For several years now, certain legislators—Democrat and Republican—have tried to expand the Selective Service to include women. Thankfully, families and advocates batted off this latest attempt to draft our daughters. Leaders like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) and his colleagues staked their ground early on by demanding a vote to amend the bill if it included women in the draft. NDAA bill negotiators Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Alabama) listened to these legislators and constituents and ensured no Selective Service expansion.
  • We are grateful for the women who volunteer to serve, which includes daughters and mothers at CWA. We also pray towards a world in which we never need the draft. But it is contrary to reason and morals to force women—who would be 18-25—into the draft. Doing so takes away the only reason for a country to fight in the first place: to defend the family at home. If everyone is on the frontlines, the only thing being protected is government for its own sake, and this is antithetical to the proper role of government. The government exists to protect us and not the other way around.

 

Bankrolling Big Marijuana

  • Besides stopping women in the draft, activists successfully intercepted a drug deal to include the unrelated, unsafe “SAFE Banking Act” into the annual defense bill. Law enforcement input was the nail in the coffin. First, the National Sheriffs’ Association gave legislators a grave warning of the harm that the Unsafe Act would bring. The Sheriffs’ Association shared that amid the rising crime wave, its members are seeing a form of THC-induced psychosis when booking criminal defendants. Second, the Department of Justice provided an assessment that law enforcement is in no way prepared to handle the influx of money laundering likely to come from the Unsafe Act’s enactment.
  • The only thing the Unsafe Act achieves is legitimizing the marijuana industry, enabling criminal behavior. It gives marijuana businesses access to the federal banking system, and it grants access with no regulation or guidance for the financial and law enforcement industries. Enactment only exposes the economy to money laundering, and there will be little to show for the benefits proponents proclaim.

 

Woke Data Collection Mandate

  • Finally, negotiators said “no thanks” to woke data collection efforts, which have been kicked out of the bill. These efforts seek to inoculate “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” into as many areas of federal law as possible. This time, it was mandates on data collection of veterans and small business loans from the federal government. However, there is no limit to the ways in which the Left will try to include radical gender ideology in federal law.
  • It is worth noting that these provisions are but a snapshot of the unrelated riders that legislators often try to attach to the annual defense bill. Most bills “die” before they ever reach the level of consideration by a congressional committee. Some of these bills are great ideas and worthy of merit. But that is no excuse to cut corners—or as we say in the legislative world—circumvent “regular order.” This practice of cutting corners makes the NDAA more controversial than it needs to be. National security is critical, and no pet project, much less one fueled by leftist ideology, should dilute that goal.

 

Making our opposition loud and clear from the beginning helped focus this bill on national security. It is only with raising our voices and hard work that we have a shot at keeping out advances by the Left.

Nov 30 2022
0

Young Women for America: 1 Corinthian 16 Culture Warriors

By | News and Events, YWA | No Comments

Urgency, faith, courage, strength—these words characterize the women we have the privilege to disciple through Young Women for America (YWA). YWA is an initiative of Concerned Women for America to mentor and disciple female high-school students, college students, and young professionals in their faith. There are over 150 YWA leaders across the country. They are our daily reminders of the command in 1 Corinthians 16:13 to “stay alert, stand firm in the faith, show courage, be strong.” With the help of the Lord, these women are able to swim against the cultural tide telling every beautiful young woman that she should get to do with her body what she wants, when she wants, no matter who—including herself—gets hurt in the process.

 

This mentality is a dead-end road to fulfillment. It unfortunately characterizes the identity politics movement every American is steeped in today. This is especially true for identity politics related to gender and sexuality. How do we know? Take a look at the following statistics:

  • The percentage of U.S. adults who identify as LGBTQ has doubled over the past decade, from 3.5% in 2012 to 7.1% in 2021.

Gen Z adults who identify as LGBTQ have increased from 10.5% in 2017 to 20.8% in 2021.

Millennials, ages 26 to 41, identifying as LGBTQ increased from 5.8% in 2012 to 10.5% in 2021.

  • People who identify as LGBTQ could make up 10 to 15% of the adult population “in the not too distant future,” as Gen Z and millennials comprise an increasing share of the adult population.

This trend affects Gen Z and Millennials disproportionately—especially women—”Gen Z women are roughly three times more likely than men to identify as LGBTQ and Millennial women are about two times as likely than men to identify as such.”

 

The generational divide reveals views on sexuality that differ from the general Christian view of sexuality. Future marriage stats will inevitably reflect this variation. And if the trend holds up, more women will be affected than men.

 

Any arrangement besides a stable, traditional marriage—same-sex, open, divorced, abusive, and so on—inhibits the flourishing of everyone involved—man, woman, son, daughter. Government action like the so-called Respect for Marriage Act—which is an attack on people of faith with Biblical views of marriage—unnecessarily throttles us away from the only arrangement in which people will flourish. The next generation, especially the women of the next generation, will pay the price.

 

But the attitudes, actions, and beliefs of this constituency do not represent all Gen Z or Millennial Women.

 

YWA leaders in Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, and Arkansas were brave enough to speak in support of Biblical marriage, while the U.S. Senate was actively considering the Respect for Marriage Act. Through social media, they encouraged their Senators who voted to support traditional marriage. This is no easy thing when the majority of women their age would rather support noncommittal sexual encounters or even just stay silent. The light of their commitment to the truth burns bright as every institution in American society continues to lean left. Right where they are in their high schools, their college campuses, and their jobs, they epitomize 1 Corinthians 16:13.

 

They are unlike their peers, but they are not alone. Through the YWA network, they are able to connect with one another. As an initiative within Concerned Women for America, these women also receive Titus 2 reinforcements—older Christian women mentoring younger Christian women. Whether they get credit or not, these young women are courageously doing the right thing for themselves and for their peers by speaking truth to power. They are tilling the ground for those around them to reap the rewards that come from a stable, traditional marriage and identity found only in Christ.

Play Video
Nov 27 2022
0

It Takes One to Know One

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

It Takes One to Know One: Activist Groups that Sued for Same-Sex Marriage are Same Groups Peddling Fear about Suits Against Same-Sex Marriage

 

The Senate is expected to wrap up its vote on S.4556, the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act,” this week. All votes so far have been to advance the bill. Senators will now vote on the bill itself. There is an amendment supported by Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Minnesota), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), and Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) to include references to religious liberty that unfortunately falls short of accomplishing anything significant.

 

Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC), the nation’s largest public policy organization for women, has been sharing its opposition to the bill and the amendment. We are defending the merits of God-designed marriage in the halls of Congress. We are letting Senators know that the bill does not just codify same-sex marriage; it codifies a prohibition against preferring to place adoptive and foster kids in husband-wife households. The self-styled religious liberty amendment continues to leave wedding vendors like cakebaker Jack Phillips and website designer Lori Smith in the cold. Faith-based child welfare service providers remain vulnerable to litigation related to placing kids in traditional families. The Act gives activists renewed momentum.

 

There are precious few days on the legislative calendar. Why is Congress spending it on codifying same-sex marriage?

 

Activist groups have successfully drowned out every other priority. It is not just about conservative versus liberal policy. One priority drowned out is child welfare. Leftist activists appear unwilling to ask Congress to spend its time on even ideologically center-left child-focused legislation like the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. And Congress is apparently willing to let its priorities be decided by the leftists even though, as explained earlier, the rights and benefits for same-sex marriage are under no threat. Congress is not even taking time to pass the the annual defense bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, during these last few days of the legislative calendar. These are lost days and weeks for votes on policies that help America and its families.

 

The leftist rally for codification of same-sex marriage comes from insecurity. The Left has long used courts rather than legislatures to make radical changes in policy. But this way of policymaking is unstable, is subject to the whim of activist judges, and requires constant maintenance.

 

Thus, activists push for codification in the Respect for Marriage Act. They point to Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence in the historic overturning of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as impetus for the Respect for Marriage Act. Activists waive Justice Thomas’ nonbinding opinion in the air because it accurately describes the right to same-sex marriage as being another court-created right. They overlook the majority opinion limiting the scope of Dobbs to the overturn of the court-created right to abortion. They peddle fear, like the American Civil Liberties Union, which described “the right to marry potentially at risk.”

 

It is a classic case of “takes one to know one.” The activists are paranoid about being sued out of the right to same-sex marriage because they sued into the right to same-sex marriage. Observe the number of cases after United States v. Windsor (2013)—which held the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional—and leading up to Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)—which held that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages. In 2013, there were at least 17 lawsuits challenging marriage amendments in state constitutions, many of which were filed shortly after Windsor.

 

The same shortcut that activists used to get power is now their downfall. To close the gap, they have taken hold of the legislative calendar. Untold riches are spent to advance the radical individualism of the pro-abortion and gender ideology agenda. Imagine if they put it towards policies that help families instead.

 

At CWALAC, we continue to fight the good fight for marriage. But we do not lose sight of why government is involved in marriage in the first place. Foremost, marriage policy must build strong foundations for kids and families. Thus, we have spent almost as much time—if not more—advocating for policies like the Standing With Moms Act by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and the Unborn Child Support Act by Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota). The Unborn Child Support Act incentivizes states to have a child support program that provides for costs of parenting that many know begin well before the baby’s first birthday. The Standing With Moms Act, which CWALAC worked closely with legislative staff to create, would create a website called life.gov that would list local resources available for expectant moms and families at all levels of government and the private sector.

 

Twelve senators who traditionally support religious liberty policy voted to advance the Respect for Marriage Act. We are clear-eyed about the likelihood that they will vote to pass the bill. But we will continue to dutifully make the case for the sake of advancing pro-family policy at the federal and state level.

Nov 09 2022
0

Election Day Recap

By | News and Events | No Comments

With Election Day, we have reached the end of the voting period for candidates. Praise the Lord for the opportunity to vote, which is a chance to influence our country’s decisions. I am grateful for the Americans who exercised this privilege for the 2022 mid-term elections, in which there are more than 40 million ballots cast. As citizens of a democratic republic, we possess authority not enjoyed by many others worldwide.

 

As of this writing, we do not know which party holds the congressional majority. Prognosticators still expect that Republicans will take the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is unclear whether Democrats or Republicans have the majority in the U.S. Senate. Given that America now has an election “season” rather than an election “day,” I personally made sure to get at least six hours of sleep last night to save my energy for the next few days and weeks (not hours) for results to come in.

 

Concerned Women for America dedicated the past three weeks to the She Prays She Votes bus tour. The mission of this bus tour, as in past bus tours, is to encourage women of faith to vote their values. Our target states—Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada—proved to be the battleground elections we were expecting for the U.S. Senate.

 

Not all of the races were called, but here is what we know:

  • Pennsylvania: Former Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman (D) defeated candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz (R) by 156,000 votes.
  • Georgia: Incumbent Senator Raphael Warnock (D) received more votes than candidate Herschel Walker (R) but fell short of Georgia’s requirement to win at least 50% of the vote. Sen. Warnock faces a runoff with Walker in December.
  • Arizona: Incumbent Senator Mark Kelly (D) leads by 100,000 votes against candidate Blake Masters (R), with 67% of the votes reported.
  • Nevada: Candidate Adam Laxalt (R) leads by 23,000 votes against incumbent Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D), with 75% of votes reported.

 

We have been in prayer for you to have boldness in applying your faith to your vote. By God’s grace, we are still on track to have the strongest pro-life majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in decades. It is also a Congress where legislators appreciate now more than ever the dangers of radical gender ideology. Relatedly, these legislators value parental rights in education. We will be working with you to make sure they understand what is at stake for the next two years of a presidential administration very opposed to the issues we care about.

 

As voters, we have a responsibility to help elect a government that will affect justice. In our time, the injustices are many. But we are convicted about the children killed in the womb, radical gender ideology that leads to permanent, life-altering physical and emotional harm, and government intrusion into the spiritual and emotional connection between parent and child. In a very small and imperfect way, our votes help end these injustices.

Nov 03 2022
0

Election 2022 Forecast

By | News and Events, SPSV 2022 | No Comments

Next week is the big day. On Tuesday, November 8, 2022, voters across the country will cast their ballot for the 2022 U.S. elections that will decide the makeup of the 118th Congress.

 

Let us begin with the upper chamber. One Senate seat must flip in order to achieve a Republican majority, and three seats must flip in order to achieve a pro-life, pro-woman, pro-parental rights majority. The U.S. Senate is considered a toss-up. As of this writing, seats in Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada are within reach of candidates Blake Masters (R), Herschel Walker (R), and Adam Laxalt (R), respectively. These candidates, if they succeed, would replace Sen. Mark Kelly (D) of Arizona, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D) of Georgia, and Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto (D) of Nevada. Unfortunately, these incumbents have toed the line in Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-New York) radical leftist agenda. If candidates Masters, Walker, and Laxalt succeed, it would be a message that Americans have no tolerance for the policies of the current regime.

 

Wisconsin is also within reach of remaining with incumbent Sen. Ron Johnson (R) and out of the hands of his opponent, Mandela Barnes. Finally, there is a chance that Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R) seat in Pennsylvania will remain within the Republican party. Candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz (R) is in a tight race with candidate and current Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman (D).

 

In the lower chamber, there is a strong prospect of a Republican majority. Only eight House seats must flip in order to flip the House from Democrat to Republican. About that same amount is necessary to achieve a majority that will advance pro-life, pro-woman, and pro-parental rights policy at the federal level. If this prediction holds true, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-California) is on track to be the Speaker of the House.

 

In light of all this, up until the day of the election, Concerned Women for America is on the She Prays She Votes bus tour to generate voter turnout among women of faith. We hit the road for a 12-state, 40-stop, 3-week tour across the country to show support for Biblical values in public policy. Speakers like Jenna Ellis, Toni McFadden, and Reps. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) and Yvette Herrell (R-New Mexico) have joined us. With Jenna, we had the opportunity to share the importance of voting and our invaluable right to select who represents us in our government. In multiple states, we prayed with community leaders for law and policy to help moms and families with unexpected pregnancies, to protect the unborn, to reflect how God created us male and female, and to help rather than hinder parents to raise their children. Check out our roundtables on our Facebook page here.

 

In all this, we cannot help but marvel at the privilege to vote. Of course, President Joe Biden and his leftist policies still control the White House. Indeed, there will be legislators who do not share a Biblical worldview and work to oppose this view at every turn. However, our vote is not just about who gets to be in control of government. Voting with our values in mind is just one small way we can shine His light in a world of darkness.

 

We heard an important message during our bus tour stop at First Church in Pearland, Texas. As Christians, we are called to live a Christ-filled life, which includes praying for the peace of the land in which the Lord has placed us. In Jeremiah 29:11, the Lord promises: “For I know the plans I have for you. Plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” He made this promise when the Jews were in a hostile land and after commanding them to pray for the community opposed to them.

 

Thus, we do not anticipate all of our legislative priorities becoming law quite yet. Nevertheless, we will continue to pray for the sanctity of life, the dignity of women, and parental rights to have representation in Congress that the American people do not currently enjoy. We pray for these policies because they are consistent with Biblical values, which contribute to rather than undermine human flourishing. Even amid the challenges that lay ahead, and regardless of the outcome, we can abide in the Lord’s promise and continue to share Christ’s love because He gave it to us first.

Nov 02 2022
0

Rejoice, Even While Enduring Name-Calling

By | News and Events, Religious Liberty, SPSV 2022 | No Comments

The She Prays She Votes bus tour is a concrete representation—a tribute—to the truth that the Lord is sovereign over all things, which includes American politics. Every American has the right to civic engagement, Christians included. It is an honor that we get to be a part of the democratic process in this way.

 

But what to do about the name-calling? Have you been called a “hypocrite” for trying to engage in politics with a Biblical worldview? Have you been lumped in with the amorphously defined category known as “Christian Nationalist”? You are not alone. Concerned Women for America (CWA) President and CEO Penny Nance, and Annabelle Rutledge, National Director for Young Women for America, joined Washington Journal to discuss the bus tour. They were called “hypocrites” by at least one caller on the line. “Christian Nationalist” is another term that pops up from time to time in the news.

 

Such comments are bound to arise whenever we put ourselves out there as the face for civically engaged women of faith. It is important to understand these comments and how to respond to them. Here are some ways to think about this topic when the conversation comes up with colleagues, friends, or family. Ultimately, such labels are a result of a misunderstanding of the proper role of faith in politics.

 

First, we can rest on the fact that Scripture tells us to expect these slights and treat them as a blessing. In the Beatitudes, Jesus states, “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me” Matthew 5:11 (NIV). Note the emphasis on verbal attacks. This is exactly what we face in the present day when we are called “hypocrites” or “Christian Nationalist.” We can expect this when we share our belief in Scripture or share why we apply those beliefs to every aspect of our lives, including how we vote.

 

Why is it a blessing? The reasons are numerous. But the final caller into the Washington Journal was an immediate blessing for the bus tour team. She shared how alone she felt in her community for her belief in the Bible. She shared how encouraged she was that there was a group of people actively trying to share Jesus in the political realm. Through the name-calling, the team was given the gift of giving encouragement to a fellow believer.

 

We must always respond to verbal attacks firmly, respectfully, and with a Biblical perspective. Of course, no one is perfect or always does this perfectly. But with this sincere intention, the Holy Spirit will use our imperfect selves and “will teach [us] at that time what [we] should say” Luke 12:12 (NIV). When done right, we may not get the other person to vote for the same party, but that person has a shot at getting a better glimpse of the Lord because of our constructive engagement.

 

What about the phrase “Christian Nationalist”? The phrase often (though not exclusively) amounts to little more than name-calling. For instance, one article blames today’s “Christian nationalists” for the antisemitism towards Jews, then calls for the solution for the GOP to condemn antisemitism (it has many times over, including one condemnation from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia)). Another article throws in the word “white” for good measure. One of CWA’s core issues is support for Israel, and we abhor anti-Semitism. We also strongly condemn racism, knowing that the Lord created all of us in His image. But the phrase “Christian Nationalist” is just another convenient tool to hit well-worn media punching bags.

 

Sometimes, the phrase receives a veneer of credibility. “Christian Nationalism” has been mentioned by a Member of Congress in a floor speech as a threat to the nation. He cites the report by Baptist Joint Committee (BJC) and Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), “Christian Nationalism and the January 6, 2021 Insurrection.” Notably, BJC comes from a philosophy that faith must remain out of the public square. For instance, it supports the Johnson Amendment, which creates a chilling effect on religious leaders’ ability to discuss politics with congregants. FFRF frequently files suit to remove religious imagery from public property. It is important to keep these perspectives in mind. But even on the merit of the report alone, the supposed case against “Christian Nationalism” is really a superficial attack against former President Donald Trump and his supporters.

 

In addition to attributing qualities of racism and nativism to “Christian Nationalism,” the Member and the report lump in a host of other qualities. The report references support for “Trump and Trumpism.” The Member describes unnamed Members of Congress, unnamed officials in the previous administration, and presumably Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court. Mrs. Thomas in particular said things that—according to the Member—“smacked of White Christian nationalism.” It is a shameful accusation given that Justice Thomas, Mrs. Thomas’ husband, is African-American. Those who broke into the Capitol deserve the consequences of their actions. But “Christian Nationalism,” as it has been put forth by its theoreticians, is a label to oppose conservatives.

 

What are some statements one can make in response to claims of “hypocrisy” or “Christian Nationalism”? Here is a short list:

  • I am a Christian because I believe the Gospel.
  • The Gospel is God’s message to us through Scripture to reconcile us to Him because we have strayed and sinned.
  • Our reconciliation is possible because Christ died for our sin.
  • Christ’s love and role in our lives transcends, age, race, and any other category you can think.
  • Laws and government best serve the people when they reflect values in Scripture. This is true even for nonbelievers.
  • We often partner with groups of other faiths and no faith so that these values are reflected in law and policy.
  • These values are cross-sectarian because they are good.
  • Although, God wants nonbelievers to be reconciled to Him, too.
  • America was founded on principles of religious freedom and free expression.
  • The Constitution preserves my right to advocate for Biblical values.
  • Everyone has the right to vote for the candidate who most closely maps onto views rooted in their beliefs and faith, which for me is:
    • respect for the sanctity of life in order to honor God’s creation,
    • preserving the traditional family and the categories male and female in order to reflect His design for humanity, and
    • freedom to exercise one’s faith in the public square, including our jobs, in order to show His love for us and declare His glory.

 

Be encouraged! We can stand firm on the truth that the Lord wants the unborn child to survive, the girl to be comfortable in her own body with a loving mother and father, and the missionary to serve the vulnerable. By deciding and encouraging others to vote for the candidate that reaches this outcome, we are trying to implement Biblical values in public policy and bring human flourishing to all.

Oct 18 2022
0

Biden Admin Uses VA to Provide Abortion-On-Demand

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

Biden Admin Uses the Department of Veterans Affairs
to Provide Abortion-On-Demand, No Conscience Protections

 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is comprised of 171 medical centers and 1,113 outpatient clinics. It is the largest integrated healthcare network in the world. Sadly, the Biden Administration has used its power to co-opt these facilities under the guise of “medical necessity” for the abortion industry. The action, known as an “interim final rule,” cut procedural corners and effective immediately allowed abortion-on-demand and abortion counseling at VA facilities. There are no clear conscience protections for VA health professionals with objections to abortion.

 

The rule is a 180-degree reversal in VA policy that only allowed abortions in the tragic cases of rape, incest, and an immediate physical threat to the life of the mother. The rule is also contrary to law. During the opportunity for public comment, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) declared its opposition to the rule. Read CWALAC’s public comment opposing the rule here.

 

A baby has already been killed under this cruel ploy to violate clear-cut, pro-life protections in law. Not only that, but the Administration wants Americans to pay for it. Taxpayers will be on the hook for over $10 million to provide veterans and their beneficiaries with elective abortions, abortion counseling services, and abortion travel.

 

The VA asserts that “allowing even one preventable death” is unacceptable. This is tragically ironic. For many Americans, the intentional killing of a baby in the womb, which is what happens in an abortion, is not healthcare and should not be classified as such. All states with laws to protect life include exceptions for the life of the mother.

The right of conscience is an inalienable right given by God and protected from government overreach. At the very least, the rule should have explicitly protected employees with faith- or conscience-based objections to abortion. We cannot count on the Biden Administration to protect their rights. Without clear exemptions, pro-life employees could face a bureaucratic nightmare that can take years before actually obtaining recourse.

 

Veterans who need help for their service-connected injuries deserve it. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has done little more than turn veterans and their beneficiaries into a campaign prop for a radical, pro-abortion agenda. This rule is yet another sad example of the Administration’s unrestrained and ruthless quest for abortion-on-demand.

Oct 10 2022
0

The Equal Rights Amendment—Long Gone or Here To Stay?

By | Defense of Family, Erasing Women, Legislative Updates, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

The Equal Rights Amendment—Long Gone or Here To Stay?
Answer May Depend on Politicized Justice Department

 

Recently, the question of ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) emerged once again during Senate confirmation hearings for a new Archivist of the United States, the person in charge of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Colleen Shogan, Ph.D., is President Joe Biden’s pick to lead NARA. She previously worked in the U.S. Senate and the Library of Congress, and she has held various positions on boards and commissions related to American History. She faced rigorous questioning from Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) about her stance on whether NARA could certify the ERA.

 

What is the ERA, exactly, and why would it be unlawful to certify it? The misnamed resolution purports to ensure that women are equal in the U.S. Constitution. But in reality, the amendment could have a reverse effect on women’s progress. During a 2019 House Judiciary Committee hearing, for instance, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) exposed that—as written—the ERA can be used to enshrine subjective gender identity classifications and abortion protections into the U.S. Constitution.

 

The ERA also suffers procedural defects. When the ERA passed Congress in 1972, it included a seven-year deadline for ratification. With the deadline fast approaching, CWA’s founder, Beverly LaHaye, held the first CWA meeting in 1978 to share with women in her community the dangers of the ERA and the anti-God, anti-family rhetoric of the ERA’s supporters. Mrs. LaHaye’s goal was to make sure her friends knew how important it was that the ERA stay out of the Constitution. Thanks to her actions and the leadership of others like Phyllis Schlafly, the ERA was three states short of ratification by its 1978 deadline. Congress voted to extend the deadline to 1982. But even by that time, no new states ratified the ERA. 

 

The ERA is dead. There are measures to retroactively “remove” the 1978 ratification deadline on the ERA, like H.J. Res. 17/S.J. Res. 1. But even according to the Washington Post, a news outlet sympathetic to leftist causes, “every time the issue has been litigated in federal court, most recently in 2021, the pro-ERA side has lost, no matter whether the judge was appointed by a Democrat or Republican.” Under the Trump Administration, the U.S. Department of Justice issued an opinion stating “that Congress had the constitutional authority to impose a deadline on the ratification of the ERA and, because that deadline has expired, the ERA Resolution is no longer pending before the States.” A federal trial court with a judge appointed by President Barack Obama upheld the deadline contained in the 1972 resolution and said that Illinois, Nevada, and Virginia’s ratifications—which came after both the original and extended deadlines that Congress attached to the ERA—are not binding for the purposes of the recognizing the ERA.

 

The Archivist has a unique role in stewarding the rule of law. In addition to preserving the U.S. Constitution and other Founding documents, the Archivist certifies constitutional amendments that states have ratified. The ERA’s procedural defects doom efforts to amend the Constitution using the 1972 resolution. Pro-ERA activists have urged current Archivist David Ferriero to unlawfully certify ratification of the ERA. In response, the Archivist pointed to his “ministerial role” and said that he “defers to [the Justice Department] on this issue and will abide by the [Justice Department] opinion, unless otherwise directed by a final court order.” During her hearing, Dr. Shogan essentially took the same position.

 

So what is the problem? The approach to defer to the Justice Department is unstable. Principled constitutional lawyers at the U.S. Department of Justice under the previous administration recognized that there was no constitutional basis to ratify the ERA. The Archivist abided by this counsel from the Justice Department, and ERA ratification was put on hold. Unfortunately, with the Biden Justice Department, we are facing a situation where the leftist fox is guarding the constitutional-hen house. This very Justice Department is comfortable recognizing the ability of the Veterans Affairs to provide abortions and abortion counseling to veterans even though federal law explicitly writes out abortion from healthcare benefits for veterans. The ERA analysis from the previous administration’s Justice Department is vulnerable to an activist “reinterpretation” by the attorneys in power under the radical Biden Administration.

 

Fortunately, there are Members in Congress who are willing to press the matter. Sen. Lankford has already urged Archivist Ferriero to withstand “ridiculous calls to ignore clear guidance from both the court and the Department of Justice and to unilaterally certify the ERA.” Similarly, Sens. Portman, Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), and Mitt Romney (R-Utah) have pressed Archivist Ferriero to stand by the rule of law.

 

Any pro-ERA attorneys at the Justice Department should heed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s counsel that ERA supporters should start over. Even she did not think that the ERA could be ratified under its 1972 mandate. If the Justice Department were to unlawfully “reinterpret” its understanding of the Constitution in this regard, the Archivist must stand for the rule of law. That is why we must stay engaged on this nomination.

Oct 05 2022
0

Breakthrough—Marriage Act Ceasefire, Retreat Gives Time to Build Case for God’s Design

By | Defense of Family, Legislative Updates, News and Events | No Comments

Sometimes, it seems like very few legislators in the U.S. Congress listen to what the American people have to say. This is especially true for legislation related to family values. It sometimes seems like in Washington, D.C., the media and the consulting class are able to drown out the voices outside the beltway. But more often than we sometimes appreciate, voters’ voices break through.

 

It is in this vein that I want to encourage you with our partial victory over the “Disrespect of Marriage Act” in the U.S. Senate. Thanks to your engagement, the U.S. Senate punted a vote to further undermine the institution of marriage and religious liberty until after the elections.  Don’t get me wrong, there is still much work to be done. The word on the Hill is that Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) is pushing for the Senate to take up the Act during the week of November 14, 2022.

 

But Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) understands that it is your voice that truly matters. When we asked you to share your unique stories with your Senator, you stepped up. In a show of force and might, thousands of you reached out to defend traditional marriage and the people and groups that believe in it. Your engagement made it possible for wins like the delayed vote in the Senate and comments by senators like Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) walking back initial signals that they would support the bill.

 

Those with the opportunity also fostered greater understanding among those who disagree. Young Women for America’s Andrea Silvera from Charlotte, North Carolina, met with the office of Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) about the Act. Sen. Tillis publicly supports the Disrespect of Marriage Act. Andrea was able to share why a pro-life Catholic pregnancy center licensed by the state health department would no longer be welcome to partner with the government. Andrea shared how the true losers would be the mothers, babies, and young children in need who receive clothing, houseware, and hope that there are people and a God willing to help them even at their most vulnerable. These types of meetings take up time but contribute to the deeper work of changing hearts and minds.

 

We are in a period of ceasefire, so what now? As it says in Scripture, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” 1 Peter 3:15 (NIV). Our culture and our government pressure us to reject God’s design for marriage. Our task is to defend it.

 

The consequences of attacks on the family like the Disrespect of Marriage Act flow downstream to the most vulnerable in our society—children. Every child deserves a mother and a father, and both are instrumental to a child’s healthy development. We know it is not always possible, but government should do whatever possible to encourage the most beneficial policies for children, which includes first and foremost, strong families. Children who grow up without a father, for example, are vulnerable to becoming adults with behavioral problems, mental and physical health problems, and challenges forming healthy relationships. Single motherhood and paternal abandonment continue to rise. It is estimated that 13.2 million children, or 1 in 5 children in the U.S., receive child support. Over 400,000 children are in foster care today, the number one reason being neglect and abuse in the home. No child deserves the pain of an absent parent. The Disrespect of Marriage Act not only further decouples marriage from children’s rights, but it totally displaces the conversation about how children today are suffering from parental separation in favor of a conversation about the government validating feelings between “consenting adults.”

 

Beneath any discussion of marriage is a deeper conversation about the meaning of family. It is overwhelming to imagine making a thorough defense of marriage in what may be a brief interaction. Not to mention the additional responsibility to do so “with gentleness and respect.”1 Peter 3:15 (NIV).

 

Be assured that “the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say,” Luke 12:12 (NIV), meaning that He will give us the words to say at the moment when we need them. Whether it is a phone call with a Senate office, forwarding an article to a friend, or a Bible study with a Prayer/Action Chapter, our voice can be used to advance God’s will for marriage.

Jul 29 2022
0

Act Now: Tell Your Senator to Vote NO on Disrespect of Marriage Act

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

The Senate is poised to vote on S.4556, the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act” (more like the “Disrespect of Marriage Act”). Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC), the nation’s largest public policy organization for women, stands for the undisputed foundation of family as the union of a man and woman in marriage who together raise children, and the importance of mothers and fathers. This Act is an attack on millions of Americans, many whom are people of faith, who affirm Biblical morality when it comes to marriage and sexuality.

 

The Disrespect of Marriage Act would require federal recognition of any one state’s definition of marriage without any parameters whatsoever, even beyond anything that is recognized right now—plural marriages, open marriages, or even marriages involving minors and adults. Anything goes. And the Act purposely ignores any sort of religious liberty protections.

 

Take action TODAY and email, call, or tweet your senators through our Action Center HERE and urge them to Vote NO on the Disrespect of Marriage Act. 

 

Here is the truth: the Disrespect of Marriage Act is a political tool for the Left and its mainstream media enablers to challenge the historic overturning of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. They know that Americans reject their abortion-on-demand agenda, so they are making the Dobbs decision about anything and everything, except about the fundamental, intrinsic value of every human life.

All Senators should treat this legislation with the contempt it deserves. Marriage, the union between one man and one woman for life, strengthens social norms and best promotes children’s welfare.

The Left continues to ignore the facts to the detriment of the American people. They won’t  even say what a woman is anymore, so we are not surprised they are taking this ridiculous step right now. Senators should stand strongly against their continued denigration of women, mothers and fathers, and the institution of marriage.

 

Take action TODAY and email, call, or tweet your senators through our Action Center HERE and urge them to Vote NO on the Disrespect of Marriage Act. 

Jul 26 2022
0

Pro-Family Groups to Mitch McConnell: Disrespect for Marriage Act Is A Trap

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

Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) unapologetically proclaims the foundation of family as the union of a man and woman in marriage who together raise children. That is why we joined pro-family groups in strongly opposing S.4556, the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act” (more like the “Disrespect of Marriage Act”). We sent a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), stating in part:

 

The truth is, while H.R. 8404 does nothing to change the status of, or benefits afforded to, same-sex marriage in light of Obergefell, it does much to endanger people of faith. Justice Alito was right when he predicted the Obergefell decision would “be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.” We are seeing this play out more and more against those who decline to openly embrace extreme views regarding marriage and human sexuality. This legislation will only hasten and intensify hostility against them. As such, anyone who supports this measure is crossing a line into aiding and abetting the persecution of people of faith.

 

See the full letter here.

 

There should be no question in Senators’ minds on why they should oppose the bill. For starters, The Disrespect of Marriage Act would require federal recognition of any one state’s definition of marriage without any parameters whatsoever, even beyond anything that is recognized right now—plural marriages, open marriages, or even marriages involving minors and adults. Anything goes. And the Act purposely ignores any sort of religious liberty protections.

 

CWALAC is also hard at work making the case for policy that honors marriage while also encouraging Senators to use this conversation about marriage as an opportunity to address a crippling disease in our society: absent fathers. Children who grow up without a father in particular are vulnerable to becoming adults with behavioral problems, mental and physical health problems, and challenges forming healthy relationships.

 

That is why in addition to opposing the Disrespect for Marriage Act, we are calling on Senators to support the Unborn Child Support Act and the Standing with Moms Act. The Unborn Child Support Act incentivizes states to have a child support program that provides for costs of parenting that many know begin well before the baby’s first birthday. The Standing With Moms Act, which CWALAC worked closely with legislative staff to create, would create a website called life.gov that would list local resources available for expectant moms and families at all levels of government and the private sector.

 

But here is the bigger picture: the Disrespect of Marriage Act is a political tool for the Left and its mainstream media enablers to challenge the historic overturning of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. They know that Americans reject their abortion-on-demand agenda, so they are making the Dobbs decision about anything and everything, except about the fundamental, intrinsic value of every human life.

 

All Senators should treat the Disrespect for Marriage Act with the contempt it deserves. The Left continues to ignore the facts to the detriment of the American people. We look forward to continuing to work with you all in advancing pro-family policy at the federal and state level.

May 11 2022
0

Abortion on Demand Act Defeated! Thank you!

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

In an email sent yesterday, we asked you to contact your Senators and urge them to oppose S. 4132, the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA). Your engagement was successful! 

 

On Wednesday afternoon, the WHPA failed to receive the 60 votes necessary to end debate on the Senate floor and advance to final passage. Thanks to your powerful messages, a bipartisan majority of the Senate—51 Senators including one Democrat–stood strong and rejected this radical ploy for abortion on demand up until birth. View the roll call HERE.

 

We cannot yield in our efforts to end this blatant denigration of the sanctity of all human life. The Left and Congressional Democrats have pledged to continue this futile charge to enshrine and expand Roe v. Wade into federal law and overrule all commonsense state measures to protect innocent life and the health and well-being of vulnerable women. Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee will fight back every step of the way to champion a culture of life. We hope you will walk alongside us!

May 10 2022
0

Action: Senate Soon to Consider Abortion on Demand Act!

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

ACTION: Tell Your Senators to Reject the So-Called Women’s Health Protection Act!

 

The U.S. Senate will consider S. 4132, the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA). This extreme bill—more aptly named the “Abortion on Demand Act”—aims to codify and expand Roe v. Wade, superseding any conflicting state or federal law and creating a sweeping right to provide or obtain an abortion without limitation or safeguards up until a child’s birth. In doing so, the bill jeopardizes common sense measures like ultrasound and fetal heartbeat tests, mandatory reflection periods, and parental notice requirements

 

In a transparent attempt to disguise their extremism, Senate Democrats have simply copied and pasted failed legislation from late February, the only change being an omission of the “findings” section. The result is the same abominable policy proposal that denigrates the sanctity of life.

 

Please email, call, or tweet your senators through our Action Center HERE and urge them to oppose this radical ploy for abortion on demand. Women deserve better.

 

Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) vehemently opposes this inhumane legislation. We are not alone. An overwhelming majority of Americans support limits on abortion after the first trimester at least.

 

The deceptive WHPA does nothing less than advance a culture of death by abortion in America. Sadly, as the Left processes the potential overturning of Roe, sending abortion policy decisions back to the people through their elected representatives, this tone-deaf bill has become their final, desperate rallying cry.

 

Contact your senators TODAY and demand policy that truly protects women’s health and well-being and defends our most vulnerable, the precious unborn.

ABOUT

TRENDING ISSUES

RESOURCES

MEDIA

GRASSROOTS ENGAGEMENT

DONATE

PRIVACY POLICY

© 2022 CWALAC. Privacy & Terms. All Rights Reserved