All Posts By

Chaney Mullins

Mar 22 2017
1

Concerned Women Through History: National Sovereignty — Deborah, Joan of Arc, and Bev Ehlen

By | Blog, National Sovereignty, News and Events | No Comments

There is a deep valor in standing up for one’s own nation.  Believing in a nation’s sovereignty literally means believing in the state’s right to “self-govern.”  It is the patriotism that protects one’s own nation against those who seek to oppress or destroy it.

We could, at first, think national sovereignty has more to do with men.  Men are often in governing positions; men are often the ones on the battlefield. We are told by the left that women care mostly about “women’s issues” like reproductive “freedom.”  But this worldview misses a long legacy of women who are deeply involved in their country’s governing and protection.

Deborah, the Bible’s only female judge, was so important to Israel’s history that she was known as the “Mother of Israel.” She was a judge in the land, an amazing civic responsibility, but she became concerned that the Israelite people had been so long enslaved by the king of Canaan and his army commander Sisera. Deborah knew God was calling Israel’s army, led by Barak, to come against Sisera.  She was brave enough to demand that Barak follow God’s call and brave enough to accompany him.  Yet she was humble enough to not be the head of the army herself, and to share in the victory with another woman — Jael — who slew Sisera with her tent peg!  It’s a remarkable story (read more in Judges 4 & 5) about protecting one’s nation.

Then there is Joan of Arc whose love for France led her to a battle of her own.  Born a poor shepherd girl, she felt directly called by God to defend France from English oppression.  In chapter one of his book, 7 Women, Eric Metaxas tells of the situation France faced: “It was not unusual for English soldiers to march into French villages, killing civilians, burning homes, and stealing crops and cattle.” This situation called Joan out of her comfort zone and into great acts of bravery: “Although I would rather have remained spinning at my mother’s side,” she said, “yet must I go and must I do this thing, for my Lord wills that I do so.” Her sacrifices eventually led to victory and the restoration of the King of France before her own capture and trial.  Her ultimate martyrdom speaks highly of her commitment to God and country at all costs.

Whilst Deborah was “Mother of Israel,” Joan was “The Maid of Orleans.”  Whether married or single, whether judging the laws or leading the troops, whether Israel or France, Deborah and Joan protected national sovereignty. They are an inspiration for concerned women who wish to protect America today.

In today’s world, women like Bev Ehlen protect America by educating our leaders, so that the loyalty of those leaders to America can grow against any internal or external threat.

Bev is standing up for America by working on the ground to educate individuals across Missouri regarding the Christian history and foundation of our country. Because of Bev’s work, each member of the Missouri General Assembly (MOGA) is given a copy of The Five Thousand Year Leap when they take office, which explains the twenty eight principles that the Founders used to create our republic and write our U.S. Constitution.  Bev believes that protecting America requires renewed commitment to these principles and to the governing structure of federalism where each sovereign state makes up a wonderful sovereign nation.

In what way might God be calling you to protect America today?

 

Mar 17 2017
0

Concerned Women Through History: Religious Liberty — Miriam, Anne Hutchinson, and Tanya Ditty

By | Blog, News and Events, Religious Liberty | No Comments

Freedom.  It’s something for which every human heart longs.  That opportunity to connect with God and seek Him.  Women throughout history have taught the world something about the need for freedom.

Miriam, from the book of Exodus, helped her brother Moses lead their nation out of slavery into freedom.  Retellings of this epic story often leave out that Israel’s freedom was fundamentally tied to the Israelites need to freely worship God which they were not allowed to do in Egypt: “Then say to [Pharoah], ‘The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to say to you: Let My people go, so that they may worship Me in the wilderness. But until now you have not listened,’” (Exodus 7:16).  Israel’s Exodus reminds us that the freedom of nations is tied to the freedom of religion; one begets the other.

And God’s people, once free from Egypt’s grasp, had to make a conscious, willful decision to follow God.  Their religious freedom allowed them to choose rightly or wrongly: “But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD,” (Joshua 24:15).

Likewise in America, people must choose whether to follow God, and be free and unhindered to do so according to their conscience.  In the early days of the colonies, Anne Hutchinson fought for our nation to be one founded on the principle of religious freedom, not one particular sect or denomination against others. In what would become the nation of “E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One),” Ann was ahead of her time in respecting conscience.  After her own specific religious beliefs lead her to part with the majority religion, she moved to Rhode Island and helped establish freedom of religion there.  She was laying the groundwork for what would become a great American value outlined in the eloquent words of the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

And today it’s Concerned Women for America of Georgia State Director Tanya Ditty who carries on this American legacy of religious freedom. She has stood up for our fundamental right to freedom of conscience — the right to think and believe what we want without fear of punishment.  She has fought tirelessly for religious freedom legislation in Georgia that ensures broad-based religious protections for all its citizens. She had this to say about the importance of religious freedom: “It is the bedrock of all liberty, and it must be protected now for the sake of the generations that come behind us.”

Blessings for future generations are such an important concept to America.  Ask God how you can be a part of ensuring a legacy of religious freedom in America.

 

Mar 14 2017
1

Concerned Women Through History: Education – Eunice, Septima Clark, and Jill Noble

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

Eunice is one of the lesser known women of the Bible.  She’s referenced twice, once in Acts and once in Paul’s letter to Timothy.

2 Timothy 1:5 states: “I have been reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also.” This passage helps us connect with the humanity of Paul and Timothy as they discuss common relationships and admire educational achievements.

It is Timothy’s mother, and her mother before her, who set the young leader on a good path.  We learn here that education and the family are linked.  We are reminded that spiritual maturity — learning the ways of God in our life — begins at home and extends out to an entire community.

Furthermore, we know from Acts 16:1 that Eunice was married to an unbeliever.  So she managed to raise her son in the faith, despite what could have been opposition and marital tension.  Eunice’s name means “victory.”  Indeed, Timothy’s faith was a great victory not only for Eunice, but meant great victories in the church — both historically and today.

What Eunice did for the church, Septima did for her race.  Septima Poinsette Clark’s husband died tragically shortly after their marriage, so, like Eunice, she had to forge her own advocacy.  She was African-American and spent her life making sure African-Americans received proper education and civil rights.  She was a teacher who lost her job for her desire to work in the NAACP.

And in 1961, she joined the Southern Christian Leadership Conference as director of education and teaching, helping to create over 800 schools. 

Jill Noble, the Greater Kansas City area director for Concerned Women for America, also knows education is a tool for empowerment.  In her home state of Missouri, she fought Common Core curriculums, which were putting local needs aside and reducing intelligence standards to the lowest common denominator.

Her deep passion for education comes from a deep awareness of its divine origin.  As she puts it:

“We always need to remember that it was God Himself who created the ability to transfer a grapheme symbol to represent a spoken word.  There is great power in this technology that we call ‘reading.’  It was designed from the beginning to educate God’s people out of slavery into a holy nation. We saw that in the giving of the Ten Commandments and, ultimately, in the giving of the entire Word of God.  It was and is entirely designed to educate the human race in all areas of life.  Today, education is under assault in large part because liberal policies cannot easily control an educated population.  And so we continue to educate our children and ourselves in order to uphold the precepts of God, as well as the Constitution of the United States of America.”

These women understand the reverberating effects of education — on a church, for a race, and in a nation. We admire them as heroines who know the next generation needs our care.

 

Mar 10 2017
1

Concerned Women Through History: Family — Ruth, Abigail Adams, and Kari Zeier

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

Ruth.  She was a Moabite — a nation that only existed because of the rape and incest of Lot’s daughters with their father.  Thus there was political hostility between her race and Israel.  And in her personal life, she’d already been through so much.  Her father-in-law had died.  Her husband had died.  Her first marriage had been infertile.

Looking at this, it is hard to believe she was destined to be the family woman of the Bible!

But she is.  She stuck by Naomi — her mother-in-law, a woman of a different race, age, and religion — knitting herself to her with fierce commitment.  Giving up her homeland’s gods, she embraced Judaism.  She bravely gleaned food for her and her mother-in-law and humbly accepted Boaz’s help and protection, while boldly reminding him of his further duties as her kinsman redeemer and eventually becoming his wife.  And she bore the grandfather of David, in the very lineage of Christ.

Then there is Abigail Adams.  In many ways, she was the woman behind American independence.  Farmer, supportive wife, community organizer, and fiercely faithful to God, Abigail was truly a “Founding Mother.” Her letters to John are full of the homemaking rhythms of passion and practicality.  Her faith stood strong even in the midst of literal war: “The God of Israel is He that giveth strength and power unto his people,” she wrote, for which her husband called her a “heroine” and reassured her in Heaven’s hope that, “The worst that can happen, can do you no harm.”

Today, there is Kari Zeier, Montana state director for Concerned Women for America.  She models the redemption in a culture full of sexual confusion — showing the world it is still possible to love and be loved.  Kari was born in 1982, when abortion was very popular in this nation.  But Kari’s birth mother chose life and then adoption for her, a selfless decision for which Kari is profoundly grateful. Though her adopted family was loving, Kari was assaulted in high school, leading to tragic decisions such as drugs, alcohol, and promiscuity.  She got pregnant and chose to be a single mother to her daughter, whom she prophetically named Grace. She experienced a lot of God’s grace in the following years, when she met and married a loving husband with whom she had two more children.  As Kari says, “To have a husband who loves me and loves Grace as his own, that is only something God can orchestrate.”

Today, Kari is passionate about restoring a respect for family in a culture where it is devalued.  “We are losing our emphasis on family, we are seeing unwed mothers, and teenage pregnancies, and life being devalued,” she says. “Everything is so centered on stuff. It’s all about ME, instead of what I can give to my family.”  Kari feels that for both Ruth and herself, God aligned their desires with His desires for them, the result being the gift of joy and family.

Indeed, Ruth, Abigail, and Kari have a lot in common.  Devoting themselves to what some would consider “private life,” these women epitomized the truth that strong families are the building block of strong societies.  The devotion to family life has reverberating effects for generations.

 

 

Mar 01 2017
1

Concerned Women Through History: Sanctity of Human Life, Hebrew Midwives, Elizabeth Blackwell, and Sancha Smith

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

In celebration of Women’s History Month, we offer a seven-part series, each with a short featurette on one of Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) core issues and three women who champion that cause: one from Scripture, one from history, and one from today. The seven featurettes will cover our core issues: Defense of Family, Sanctity of Human Life, Education, Sexual Exploitation, Religious Liberty, National Sovereignty, and Support for Israel.

The list is by no means exhaustive; and many more women could be added to each category. But even a partial list is meant to inspire us to look up to these women and to honor their excellent achievements, which are too often ignored by the hijacked feminism of today.

One breed of today’s hijacked feminism is the movement for a “women’s strike” this month, a radical protest by women who feel American society has been inherently against them.  These women fail to recognize the brilliant opportunities and blessings of America, and instead harbor bitterness, resentment, and a demand for government dependency.  Women’s History thus becomes a forum for pouting liberalism — for women who focus only on what they don’t have and how they want the government to get it for them.

In one sense, these women are right in that life is not always easy for all women.  But the government is the worst place to turn to solve their problems.  Women need better role models who understand the source and solution to adversity and who ultimately rely on the Lord.  They need to hear examples of Concerned Women Through History, who changed their world for the better — without bitterness, violence, and faulty ideology.

#WomenMakeAmericaWork is a truth that CWA hopes resounds through this Women’s History month and the discussions around the women’s strike.  Rather than walking out on the job, we hope women know their work matters and that they can make a real difference in our nation.  The women in this series, most of whom are from Israel or America, are women who show how their hard work and God’s grace have lifted them up to remarkable and inspiring destinies.

Concerned Women for America is also honored to have our own modern-day “Esthers,” “Ruths,” and “Corrie Ten Booms” in our midst, as leaders in states all across our nation, whom we also wish to extol.

In each Concerned Women Through History Featurette you will find women who, in their time and place, helped spread the message of freedom within God’s design.  We hope you enjoy this conservative woman’s history!

Sanctity of Life

Exodus 1: 15-22a is the story of Shiphrah and Puah, two remarkable women who stood up for the sanctity of life in Biblical times:

“Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, ‘When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live.’ But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. So the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them, ‘Why have you done this, and let the male children live?’ The midwives said to Pharaoh, ‘Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.’ So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families.”

This stirring account reveals the true bravery and shrewdness of the women.  They were willing to use civil disobedience to carry out God’s will in their vocations instead of bending to the will of an oppressive government.  Regardless of how you feel about their lying, it’s clear that rescuing these precious babies’ lives was pleasing to God, who blessed the midwives with families of their own.  Even though many of the boys would later die at Pharaoh’s hands, they refused to have blood on their own hands.  And one of the boys would survive Pharaoh’s massacre: the little baby Moses.

Imagine if the midwives had killed Moses on the birthstool!

Imagine if they had given in to the male genocide of the time, as many succumb to the female genocide that exists today.  Imagine if they gave in to the government’s laws, the conventional wisdom of the times, the mantra that they must help destroy lives.

But thankfully, many women have a maternal instinct that makes them especially suited to standing up for the unborn. Elizabeth Blackwell also knew instinctually that viewing abortion as a woman’s right went against the very wiring of the female heart. She was “anti-abortion and pro-woman.”  Blackwell became the first female in America to graduate with a medical degree.

Part of the reason she began studying medicine was that the “female physicians” of the time were abortionists, at which she expressed great horror:

“The gross perversion and destruction of motherhood by the abortionist filled me with indignation, and awakened active antagonism. That the honorable term ‘female physician’ should be exclusively applied to those women who carried on this shocking trade seemed to me a horror. It was an utter degradation of what might and should become a noble position for women. … I finally determined to do what I could do ‘to redeem the hells,’ and especially the one form of hell thus forced upon my notice.”

Today, Sancha Smith, the Louisiana state director for CWA, does a superb job living up to the legacy of the Hebrew Midwives and Blackwell.  Her passion for the issue comes from personal experience:

“When I learned that I was pregnant … again, I was horribly disappointed in myself. My grandmother heard the desperation and confusion in my voice and exhorted me saying, ‘If God can hang the sun, the moon, and the stars in the sky, and keep the waters from overtaking the land, surely He can take care of you and your child.’”

The Hebrew midwives’ civil disobedience, Elizabeth Blackwell’s trailblazing educational achievements, and Sancha’s decision to choose life all required great courage, trust in God, and a willingness to make personal sacrifice.  But all women received great blessings from God, their courageous Witness, reminding us that God’s promises are what sustain our fight for life today.

 

Feb 22 2017
1

“Clothes Hanger” Abortions – The Worst Argument for Keeping Abortion Legal

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

One of the most often repeated talking points of the pro-choice left, and even your average apolitical American, is that abortion must be legal because, if illegal, women will need abortion so badly they will resort to clothes hangers to self-induce abortion.

This argument is fundamentally flawed and makes a good deal of unfounded assumptions.

ASSUMPTION: If abortion were illegal, then abortion would not be available at good clinics, and women would do them at home.

REALITY: Abortion clinics have always and will always exist as an option for women who want them.  When abortion was illegal in the late 50s, a Planned Parenthood representative explained that only 8% of illegal abortions were done at home, and a full 90% were done by medically trained physicians.   When abortion became legal, their practices continued as is with less threat from the law but no alteration in procedure.

ASSUMPTION: If abortion were illegal, this would not act as an effective deterrent to getting an abortion.  Women — maybe just as many women — would still be getting abortions, even if they had to do them themselves.

REALITY:  When abortions are illegal, fewer women desire and obtain them.  The law does serve as a natural deterrent on human behavior.  This is illustrated by the example of Poland, where the total number of legal abortions was over 130,000 for several years under communism — and paid for (when in the first trimester) by the state.  This number greatly reduced in 1990 to under 60,000 and then down to less than 300 a year by 1998, most of which were only for “difficult” cases (rape, incest, mother’s life, mother’s health, and fetal impairment).

ASSUMPTION: Legal abortions are safe for women.

REALITY: Women experience serious health complications and can die from abortion.  This includes 427 women that we know of who have died from legal abortion, but that is a far underreported number (one year, the whole U.S. abortion death total was reported as 21, but later 12 additional deaths which had not been reported were uncovered — but those 12 were shockingly in just Chicago alone.)  Women also face increased risks of cancer, suicide, depression, and substance abuse because of abortion.  Butchers like Kermit Gosnell in Pennsylvania and others like him reveal the decrepit conditions in today’s abortion clinics.  Pro-choicers claim “Safe, Legal, and Rare” (a mantra that is evolving to “Safe, Legal, and Accessible”) but turn a blind eye to such cases and oppose further regulations on today’s abortion clinics.

ASSUMPTION: Abortion should be legal or illegal based on its effect on women — not based on whether abortion itself is objectionable.

REALITY:  Those who make an argument for clothes-hanger abortions hesitate to outwardly proclaim that abortion itself if good, but merely insist that abortion is necessary to protect women’s health.  Were this to be examined more closely, these activists would have to decide whether abortion itself can be justified, which it is not because it is never safe for the unborn child that is ruthlessly destroyed.  Abortions always result in deaths of children and risks to the mother — no matter how clean or unclean, legal or illegal.

ASSUMPTION: Women need abortion.  As a recent pro-choice chant put it: “Without this right we can’t be free, abortion without apology.”

REALITY: If abortion is so desperately needed that a woman would resort to any method of obtaining it, even a dangerous method like a clothes hanger — then it is not a choice and not a right — it’s a necessity like food or water.  This disempowering idea that abortion is NEEDED at all costs (the cost of women’s health, the cost of unborn life, etc.) is an anti-woman belief that does nothing to help women or give them real choices.  In reality, women have 13,000 local Federally Qualified Health Centers, in addition to thousands of local health centers, private practices, and pregnancy centers that can help them when they are in need.

ASSUMPTION: When abortion was illegal, thousands of women died from illegal abortions.

REALITY: Bernard Nathanson was once a cofounder of the pro-choice organization NARAL, but later regretted his involvement in the legalization and proliferation of abortion in America.  He admitted that all the figures about five or 10 thousand women dying from illegal abortions per year were made up statistics fabricated to support his talking point that abortion needed to be legalized in order to be made safer.

Chaney Mullins serves as Special Projects Writer for Concerned Women for America. She wishes to express her appreciation for the excellent book, “ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments,” by Randy Alcorn, which served as a source for much of this article; she wholeheartedly recommends the resource for all pondering abortion questions.

 

Jan 24 2017
1

“Women’s” March: Vulgar Signs and Liberal Policies

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

Editor’s Note: This article contains pictures from the Women’s March which are unsuitable for children and may not be especially safe for work. We advise reading this article away from others. In most cases, the pictures are crass, vulgar, and an embarrassment to those who value civil discourse. 

I hope the women at the “Women’s March” took a moment to realize how amazing it is that in America we have freedom of speech. In many places around the world, women and men can be jailed for expressing their beliefs.

I am deeply glad that Americans have freedom of speech.  I am deeply thankful for the First Amendment.  I am looking forward to expressing my own pro-life beliefs at the March for Life this coming Friday.

I want to say that the “Women’s March” participants had some valid concerns, but I often disagree with their perspectives on the causes and solutions of societal problems.

  • HEALTH CARE is important and necessary. Health care access is just less efficient and effective when run by the government.  Free market solutions can make health care affordable and specialized to what a particular person needs from their insurance.
  • DISRESPECTING WOMEN in our society does happen. Trump did say disgusting and shameful things in that “locker room” video, but I am also deeply disturbed that so many women seem to put up with abusive men who want casual sex and don’t care about them. I’m troubled by the rap stars that Obama invited to the White House whose songs treat women like dirt; I’m troubled by former-President Clinton and everything he did to women. Standing up against any of this should cut across partisan lines — but at this march, it did not.
  • VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN is a real problem. Concerned Women for America (CWA) has supported alternate versions of the Violence Against Women Act that would make sure aid gets directly to victims and that rape kits are actually processed, instead of getting stuck in the backlog that is common throughout our nation. But we have also worked to expose how pornography and sex trafficking are some of the most dangerous assaults on women’s dignity and causes of violence. But I saw no signs regarding these issues.  I also saw no signs about the violence against women in other countries — from honor killings to female genital mutilation to forced child marriages to acid disfigurement and beyond.
  • LOVE is so important! But does love mean sexual license? Does love always mean approving of every decision someone makes — even if it is a decision to kill their child? Shouldn’t peace and love and “coexisting” begin in the womb?!  How was screaming “F*ck Trump” and “Burn the White House” an example of love and respect and peace?  How was saying that the white women who voted for Trump must be “called out” at an inclusive, tolerant women’s march full of love?

But despite any common ground, it’s clear that this march took a lewd turn, better shown than repeated. Their signs were some of the most vulgar displays I have ever seen. I’ve collected some of them for you here — but I warn you they are not pretty.  I’ve divided them into three categories: Women’s Body Parts, Abortion, and Disrespecting the President.

PART 1: Women’s Body Parts

Is that all that women are?  How is wearing a vagina empowering women and respecting our bodies?  How is self-degradation going to end societal degradation?

PART 2: Abortion

Then there’s the overemphasis on abortion at this March — when abortion is itself one of the greatest violations of women’s rights.  Abortion disproportionately kills more unborn females than males, preying on vulnerable women for profit, and rejecting pregnancy and mothering as a unique power of the female body.  These women claim to pro-choice, but are only fighting for one choice — abortion — while banning pro-life women from this march and supporting Planned Parenthood.

PART 3: Disrespecting the President

Finally, is disrespecting the President of the United States the right way to advocate for what you believe? Surely the office of president is enough to garner some semblance of respect and peaceful disagreement, not Madonna’s cries of wishing you could blow up the white house.

 

Also see Media Research Center contrast of the Women’s March and the March for Life:
(Warning: Some Strong Language)

 

The message of the march was convoluted – but whatever it was, it was not a “woman’s march.” The fact that the marchers dared to proclaim that being a “woman” equals embracing this sort of march is offensive — it’s the very hatred, degradation, and alienation they claim to be against.

It is for the very purpose of being an alternative voice in the public square that Concerned Women for America even exists.  Beverly LaHaye started CWA because radical pro-abortion, anti-marriage feminists did not represent all American women.

We give other women a voice, women who know that profanity, crude hats, sexual license, abortion, economic liberalism, and disrespecting the president are not ways to empower the women of America.

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

Jan 03 2017
0

Funding for Select Investigative Panel Continues

By | Blog, Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

The House recently voted 234-181 to continue funding the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, a wonderful victory for those who wish to expose the corrupt industry of abortion and enforce current law stating that aborted baby parts should not be sold for profit.

The panel’s work has already revealed potential violations of this law that it has referred to departments and states for further investigation and potential prosecution.

The violations of law are numerous:

  • The University of New Mexico violated state law by accepting tissue from a late-term abortion provider.
  • StemExpress illegally profited off aborted baby remains.
  • StemExpress and abortion clinics violated HIPPA patient privacy rights.
  • An Arkansas abortion clinic sold tissue to StemExpress for profit.
  • A college in Ohio violated state law by trafficking aborted baby parts.
  • DV Biologics broke the law in trafficking aborted baby remains for profit and also violated sales tax law.
  • Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast sold baby parts for profit to the University of Texas.
  • Advanced Bioscience Resources profited from selling baby parts to colleges.
  • A Florida Women’s Center violated state and federal law by profiting from aborted baby remains through its work with StemExpress.

The panel has already been successful in taking a hard look at the industry of fetal tissue trafficking and the privacy and ethical concerns therein.  The panel is also investigating the medical procedures used in an abortion for baby parts, which will most likely mean researching whether these procedures have been illegally or dangerously altered to obtain better specimens, including the use of partial-birth abortions.  Additional official tasks of the panel include determining what happens with federal funding of abortion providers and what happens to medical care for born-alive infants.  The panel is prepared to recommend changes in laws and regulations.

Since the investigation has to cover all this – spanning the issues of profit, funding, medical procedures, privacy violations, and born-alive babies – it was imperative that the panel’s funding be extended – and it has been.

But soon our nation should go further and deeper.

Experimenting with aborted baby parts – precisely because they are human parts – is not ethical at all, profit aside.  Scientific research should soon seek discovery alternatives that don’t request baby parts for experiments.

The truth is the abortion industry will always do unethical things – because abortion itself will always be unethical.  The exposition of the practice of fetal tissue procurement reveals the humanity of the unborn and the tragedy of all abortions.

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

 

Oct 25 2016
0

Abortion Demographics – Who Has an Abortion?

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

Each year in the United States, about 926,000 abortions take place, which account for about 20% (1 in 5) of pregnancies in our nation. Sixty-five percent of these abortions are occurring when the woman is seven weeks pregnant or more.  The pro-life movement has successfully reduced the number of abortions, but they have not been able to end it.

As we seek strategy for the continuing fights, it’s important to identity who has abortions.  Who are the women we need to reach with the message that the unborn child’s life is valuable?

Race

FACT: Not every state reports abortion by ethnicity, but those that do reveal that abortions to blacks and Hispanic women account for 55.4% of the 405,795 abortions reported by race.  This number is disproportionate considering the fact that black and Hispanic women only comprise roughly 29% of the total U.S. population.

ACTION: Given the number of minority babies aborted, we need to expose abortion as a form of racism that may be targeting minority women for profit.  This also creates a demographic disaster for minority populations.

Age

FACT: Sixty percent of women getting an abortion are in their 20s.  That breaks down to about 33% of all abortions to women who are just 20-24, and about another 25% of abortions to women 25-29.

ACTION: Women who obtain abortions are mostly young women in their 20s trying to forge their way through the responsibilities of adult life.  They may be putting off childbearing until they feel more stable.  It’s important to support women who are young and pregnant, so they don’t look to abortion as their only option.

Marital Status

FACT: Unmarried women account for about 85% of all abortions.

ACTION: Improving marriage rates will lower abortion rates.  Few draw the clear, direct connection between the collapse of the institution of marriage and the family and abortion.  Churches and policies that support and encourage marriage and parenting will treat the underlying disease, not just abortion — the symptom of a larger problem.  Sadly, women without supportive partners often feel like they are left with no choice but to abort the child.

Other Children

FACT: One of the most surprising facts about abortion is that almost 60% of women obtaining an abortion have already given birth to one or more children!  Only 40.3% abort their first child.

ACTION: One would think that having other children would change a mother’s heart to welcome the beauty and joy of mothering.  But for some reason, they feel like they cannot handle another child.  This speaks to a failure in our culture to make children wanted and mothers supported.  If moms feel so overwhelmed they kill their own unborn children, then what are we doing to help them feel less overwhelmed, less alone, and less financially strained?  Communities which are truly pro-life will build a culture of life where parenting is not all on the mother’s shoulders, but where fathers and communities help share the load.

Religion

FACT: Thirty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions identified as evangelical or Catholic.

ACTION: Though self-identification may be a poor form of measuring religious engagements, these findings show that women getting an abortion are willing to be thought of as religious, but are also still willing to get an abortion.  This is a tragic failure of the Church to truly educate women on what it means to trust God’s providence and forgiveness in difficult circumstances.

Income Level 

FACT: Poverty does drive women to abortion.  The economic incentive behind the idea that they can pay for an abortion instead of raising a child is a significant driving force behind their “decision,” one they likely feel driven to by these practicalities of not making ends meet. Three out of four women having an abortion are low income and cluster near or below the poverty line.

ACTION: The economic factor behind the abortion decision needs to be met with advocating for policies which reduce poverty and encourage upward mobility.

A Portrait of an Abortion-Minded Woman

If all these statistics are taken together, you may end up with a picture like this.

An African-American woman named Maria is living in Baltimore.  She is 23 years old and already has a young two-year-old named Michael.  She baptized Michael into the Catholic Church, but hasn’t been to church much since, though she’s always considered herself Catholic.  Maria is unmarried and living below the poverty line.  Michael’s dad left just before she found out she was pregnant again.  She works two jobs, but is shouldered with the responsibility of her son and her aging mother, who is soon going to become unable to care for Michael when Maria’s at work.  The cost of childcare and nursing care will be heavy.

At seven weeks pregnant, Maria goes to Planned Parenthood.  She is reluctant to go through the trauma of abortion, as she’s heard that it is unpleasant.  But she just can’t figure out how to fit another baby into her crumbling world. So she faces it — like everything else in her life lately — alone.

The crisis of girls with stories like this is not that they are particularly desirous of abortion through some ideological feeling of career advancement and reproductive rights and freedoms.  Instead, some women who choose abortion feel like they don’t have a choice.  Poverty, age, and everything else feels like it’s stacked against them.  And although they love children enough to often have already had one, how tragic it is to see that they cannot fathom another?  Through strong charity support and the social safety net, girls like Maria need our support and understanding.  They need the Church to see them, know them, and act to help them.

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

 

 

Oct 04 2016
0

HHS Wants to Force States to Fund Planned Parenthood

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

hhslogoIn September, the Health and Human Services Department released a report detailing their argument for a new rule saying that states can’t deny Title X funding to “focused reproductive health providers” — which is code for Planned Parenthood.  Title X was a provision of the Public Health Service Act, originally enacted in 1980 and dedicated to funding family planning programs.  Under their argument, family planning and women’s health services which qualify for Title X funding are offered by Planned Parenthood, and regardless of what else Planned Parenthood does, they can’t be denied the Title X funds.

If such a new rule is enacted, all the state and federal efforts to redirect funding to Community Health Centers would thus be rendered useless.

According to HHS, Planned Parenthood provides services that are more “effective” and “high quality” than other health centers.  But this HHS recommendation is littered with agenda-driven jargon that bulldozes state rights, disregards fair reporting, and invents unclear qualifications.

  • States would no longer be able to control who receives Title X funding. States are the best judge of which entities in their state serve their people best, but would lose jurisdiction to make those geographically-specific qualifications.
  • HHS is trying desperately to undo the work of state legislators who have defunded Planned Parenthood. HHS is effectively disregarding the legislative branch and the public will in favor of further government executive overreach. Bottom line: the Obama Administration is protecting big abortion.
  • Community Health Centers outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics 20 to 1; they would be able to absorb the influx of patients, especially with funds further redirected away from Planned Parenthood and towards them.
  • Some women may not know a Community Health Center option is available to them, but a marketing push to help them know all the places they can get help can aid this transition.
  • Planned Parenthood makes enough profit to be able to make up for the lack of federal funds. Thus, any real reduction in Planned Parenthood’s services is due to a failure of Planned Parenthood to prioritize their budget to women most in need, not a failure of the direction of state funds.  In some states, Planned Parenthood would still receive Medicaid reimbursements for their medical services, even if the Title X funding source is removed.
  • The reporting methodology of the HHS report relies on demographic trends to generate numbers, not hard data such as assessment of women’s true needs, structures, processes, and outcomes that would be required for a full audit of the effectiveness of Title X recipients and subrecipients.
  • When national numbers are considered, community health centers are providing more services in both number and type, and serving more patients, than Planned Parenthood.
  • The HHS arguments that reproductive-focused health clinics are more “effective” and provide “high quality” care are subjective terms that beg further definition.
  • The actual goal of Title X includes making provision for improving the health of women and infants. Considering Planned Parenthood’s narrow focus on reproductive healthcare for women only, Community Healthcare, which cares for a broad spectrum of health needs for women and children, is actually more effective at fulfilling Title X’s stated purposes.
  • If HHS is going to adapt their rules for recipients, they would be wise to consider the larger trend in healthcare towards more comprehensive care, not more specified services.
  • Thirty-one citations of the HHS report are generated by a biased source — a research arm that used to be part of Planned Parenthood.

Many of these points are outlined in a bipartisan letter authored by Joni Ernst and Diane Black, available here in its entirety. The HHS rule is available to read here.  You can view more information about why women don’t need Planned Parenthood here.

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

Sep 07 2016
0

Legislative Efforts to Reduce the Number of Abortions

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

In 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton invalidated state abortion bans and made abortion for any reason legal on the federal level in the United States throughout the pregnancy.  But certain state restrictions on abortion were still possible.  In the next few years, the pro-life movement mobilized against these rulings.  In 1980 a grassroots pro-life movement formed to not just counter abortion, but to help women choose life.  By caring about both the woman and child, the pro-life movement moved beyond being simply anti-abortion.  Legal strategies to reverse Roe v. Wade also began. The pro-life work of crisis pregnancy centers became like a fireproof building, while the work of legislators trying to save as many dying children as possible became the firefighters.

Those legislative “firefighters” have set about passing several important restrictions to abortion working with state laws.  You can view a map of abortion restrictions where, in 2013, more than 25 states had implemented four or more restrictions to abortion!  You can see below the types of restrictions that have been implemented state by state.  Many pro-life groups have sprung up to help in this effort.  For example, Americans United for Life has help craft model legislation for such restrictions, with an “Infant Protection Project” and a “Women’s Protection Project.”  This is because abortion isn’t solely about protecting the unborn, but also the women who are at serious physical and psychological risk from abortion.

One particularly encouraging development has been the ability to work with unlikely allies in the middle, who have reservations about abortion on demand for any reason.  Many are willing to pass restrictions which truly benefit women’s health, ensure abortion isn’t coerced, or limit late term abortions, as long as that legislation that allows for certain exceptions. (In fact, rape and incest make up only about 1 percent of all abortions and are rarely the only reason given to obtain an abortion.)

The Washington Examiner put it this way, “Large majorities oppose re-criminalizing all abortions.  But large majorities also support limits on abortion, including banning them after … 24 weeks (when half or more [babies can survive]).”  Sen. Marco Rubio explained his philosophy working with these moderates on passing legislation which includes exceptions: “I recognize that in order to have consensus on laws that limit the number of abortions, a lot of people want to see those exceptions.” And he clarifies, “I’ll support any legislation that reduces the number of abortions.”

But the public momentum slowed some after pro-lifers faced a crushing defeat this summer when the Supreme Court ruled against abortion restrictions in Texas meant to protect women’s health by ensuring each abortion clinic and abortionist was up to safe medical standards. It’s particularly crushing to have legislative successes trampled by court overreach.  But this defeat should not discourage pro-lifers to continue legislative efforts in the states, many of which have been and continue to be successful ways to save lives, as you will see in the list of types of pro-life laws below.

Until Roe v. Wade is repealed, we need more of these laws to advocate for unborn babies and also for women who are at risk from abortion.  We pray these kinds of laws will pass in many states and, eventually, on the federal level.

 Below are some types of pro-life laws that have helped to reduce the number of abortions in this country.  

 Gestational Limits: These laws make abortion legal after a certain age in the womb — often at viability.

Ultrasound Requirement: These laws require women to have an ultrasound before they decide on abortion.  Sometimes they are required to hear a description of the ultrasound.  Sometimes women who are raped or incest victims are excused from this requirement.

Informed Consent: These laws ensure women have all the information about abortion and its risks before deciding to go through with one.

Restrict Interstate Access: These laws prevent women from traveling across state borders for abortion.

Health and Safety Requirements: These laws require abortion clinics to meet certain safety standards like ambulance access.

Legal Restrictions on the Abortionist: These laws often take the form of requiring an abortionist to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital (ensuring a certain standard of medical report and competency). There are also cases of laws which reduce medical malpractice protection for abortionists.

Parental Consent Laws: These laws require parents at least be informed about a minor’s decision to abort; in some cases they must consent to the decision.

Defund Planned Parenthood: Legal proposals like defunding Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics aim at limiting or banning federal or state funds like grants from being awarded to these organizations.

Allow States to Defund State Medicaid to Clinics Performing Abortions: Recently, the House passed a bill which authorizes states to decide that they will not provide Medicaid reimbursement of medical expenses if the medical office providing that service is also performing abortion.  Thus, this legislation clears a path for states to stop giving money to abortion providers.

Web-Cam Abortion Bans: There are proposals to administer abortion drugs via skype-like technology without needing to meet the doctor! These laws ban that.

Choose Life License Plate: These allow people to pay to have Choose Life License Plates on their cars; money raised goes to pro-life centers.

Waiting Periods/Counseling Before Abortion: This makes women wait, receiving counseling and/or simply time between expressing her desire for abortion an actually obtaining one.  At times, this requires two trips to the clinic.

Fund Health Center Alternatives and/or Adoption Options: Some states with pro-life leadership have, instead of funding abortion clinics, funded programs that fund adoption agencies, pregnancy centers, or non-abortive healthcare centers.

Fetal Homicide Laws: These laws mean that if a criminal harms a pregnant mother he is responsible for the harm causes to both mother and child as two victims.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban: A national law now bans partial-birth abortion, the procedure of delivering most of the baby’s body before snapping the neck while the child’s head is still in the birth canal.  There is some evidence from the Center for Medical Progress videos that Planned Parenthood may still be using the partial-birth abortion procedure to obtain “intact specimens” of whole baby organs.

Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act: This law would ban abortion after 20 weeks, because it is scientifically proven that the baby at that gestation can feel pain and the abortion is painful to them.  The law failed to pass the United States Senate.  However, some states have implemented the law.

Note: Find out what laws your state still needs to limit abortion!  Explore your state’s laws here, and find out how they compare to other states here. 

The pro-choice research entity Guttmacher Institute also provides detailed charts of abortion restrictions (you can click on a restriction, such as gestational limits here called “state policies on later abortions,” and see the states that have it.  A summary overview chart of all restrictions is here). 

Sep 05 2016
0

Are Humans an Invasive Species?

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

most-invasive-speciesEvery summer, my family and I make a trip to Calvert County to visit Old Spout Farm, a historic property that our cousins own on the banks of St. Leonard’s Creek.  For many years, they have urged us to visit the local Calvert County museum to experience their science exhibits.  This summer, we finally did, and we were beyond impressed with the quality of the museum experience.  That is up until one particular exhibit.

At first it seemed innocent — invasive species were introduced as a problem in many ecosystems.  Various suggestions were presented to solve this issue, such as eating invasive species in weird culinary creations.

But then we came upon a strange mirror on the wall, and I realized with horror the message being conveyed. “See the most invasive special of all” — and then you were staring at yourself.

My scientific curiosity turned to outrage.  What are we teaching children on field trips about themselves?  After they have just learned one solution to invasive species is eating them, they then learn that they are an invasive species.  This was unacceptable.

Invasive species are defined as: “Plants, animals, or pathogens that are non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause harm.”

Putting aside the question of whether a human can even be called an animal, the idea that humans are alien on earth is problematic in so far as earth was created for us. Genesis 1:28 reads, “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’”  Some eschatological theologians even believe Christ’s return will eventually result in the establishment of His Kingdom in a restored earth.

We must admit that at times humans have abandoned their call to stewardship of Earth and have contributed to environmental and social problems in this fallen world.  But to imply that humans invaded the earth — that we aren’t supposed to be here, that we mess up earth’s balance and perfection (which is implied to be clearly more valuable than us) — is a great devaluing of human life. This isn’t to say poverty and starvation are not series problems in some regions.  But humans are just as much a solution as they are a problem. We are complex beings with potential to follow or depart from God’s will.  But we are not something to be eliminated!

This “humans are invasive” attitude has profound implications for public policy.  If we see humans as invasive, then, logically, there should be fewer of them.  I couldn’t help thinking of China’s disastrous one-child policy, recently amended due to the negative effects.  I couldn’t help thinking of the scary eugenics movement in response to this idea that humans were overpopulating the earth, and all the human rights violations that came out of it, like forced sterilizations and human genetic engineering research.

I couldn’t help thinking about the overpopulation myth which leads to policies which propagate abortion as a solution to human “invasion.” And I couldn’t help thinking of our country, when we justify selling the aborted baby body parts of unborn children so we can supposedly figure out some way to save others.

Bottom line: Believing humans are an invasive species can lead to clear violations of the sanctity of life.

The idea that human beings are actually invasive to the world has morphed from eugenics to abortion in this culture of death.  This exhibit can create deep-seated issues in young children who needn’t feel guilty for being alive.

Human life is the most valuable resource of all, and I would hope our educational museums teach children to value their own lives and those of their fellow man.

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

 

Aug 05 2016
1

Planned Parenthood: What Can We Do?

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

When Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards was called before the House Oversight Committee.  The question of the day was whether Planned Parenthood deserved federal funding (a decision Congress put off by passing a temporary budget until December when the debate on passing a budget will resume). Miss Richards was the only one questioned with Republicans grilling her and Democrats rushing to her defense.

The hearing was sparked by the Center for Medical Progress undercover videos which show Planned Parenthood’s illegal activity. Using the videos as a starting point, members of the Oversite Committee plunged deep into the larger spending habits of Planned Parenthood and the things that make them unworthy of funding. Planned Parenthood, Republicans pointed out, uses money for exorbitant salaries ($520,000 just for Cecile Richards — by her own admission!), overseas funding ventures, pro-choice political lobbying, and expanding their services, though they are already the largest abortion provider in America.

Planned Parenthood makes millions in excess revenue each year and does not need federal money to continue its mission. Proposals to defund have two components — 60 million federal dollars directly, and around $500 million more government reimbursements for Medicaid services. Though Medicaid money can’t go directly to abortion (except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother’s life), the money Planned Parenthood gets from the government allows them to move their other sources of revenue into their abortion-centric business and their questionable lobbying efforts.

If you were watching the hearing and felt like pulling your hair out (trust me, we understand), then you’re probably wondering, “What can I do?” Beyond calling your senators and representatives, learning more about Planned Parenthood, and signing a petition, there are several important ways a concerned Christian can be involved:

  1. We need to pray and discuss.
    Don’t be silent about what is happening. So many still don’t know about the videos or don’t think they can trust them. Discuss them, and prove them wrong. Pray for those who stand against us, especially mislead pro-choice advocates like hurting post-abortive women.  Pray for Cecile Richards that God would touch her heart. We need to treat her with the same human dignity we wish she would extend to the unborn.
  1. We need to actually be the medical alternative to Planned Parenthood.
    The pro-life movement has done an excellent job of meeting many needs, such as counseling, baby supplies, ultrasounds, post-abortive healing, legal advocacy, and educational initiatives.  Unfortunately, we have let Planned Parenthood hold a monopoly on medical services like family planning, STD testing, and breast exams. It is true that community health centers, primary care doctors, and increasing numbers of medicalized pregnancy centers and non-profit OBGYNs serve many of the health needs of women, but the pro-life movement itself is still primarily non-medical, a reality that needs to be addressed.
  2. We need to realize that health clinic name ID truly matters.
    Planned Parenthood is so successful in many ways because of their marketing and the coherency of their affiliates in a way that makes women think Planned Parenthood is the only option, when scattered community health centers are little known, underfunded, and underutilized. As we consider offering alternatives, we should carefully strategize marketing, franchising, and name ID.
  3. We need to question Planned Parenthood’s lies that they help women.
    Because Planned Parenthood is such a recognizable name in women’s healthcare, they’re thus able to define the terms of their services, leaving many women unaware of findings such as abortion’s link to breast cancer, certain health risks of some birth control, potential abortifacients, and the effectiveness of hormone-free family planning.  Furthermore, Planned Parenthood has essentially made “women’s health” synonymous with birth control and abortion, denying or minimizing all other health issues facing American women.  For instance, the number one killer of women is heart disease, and we do not hear them discussing that fact.  They also continue pushing the ideology that the government should be the one funding their “healthcare” services, despite the deep controversy and possible criminal activity of Planned Parenthood.

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

Apr 18 2016
0

If You Are Pro-Life, Memorize These 10 Simple Facts

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

You can use this chart as a guide to talking to uncertain or pro-choice friends curious about why you are pro-life and to motivate the passively pro-life towards further action. Facts 1-3 are about abortion in America. Facts 4 and 5 are about the corruption of the abortion industry. Facts 6 and 7 are about how abortion affects women. And facts 8-10 are about the humanity of the unborn.

1. Abortions in the United States Each Year About 1 million per year.1 Roughly 2,700 per day.
2. Taxpayer Funding of Planned Parenthood $528 million2
3. Ratio of Community Health Clinics to Planned Parenthood Clinics 20 to 13
4. Planned Parenthood Abortions Each Year About 327,000.4 Almost 900 per day. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider5 and is riddled with scandal.6
5. Racism and Abortion The largest killer of African-Americans is abortion.7 Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a racist.8
6. Post-Abortive Women by Age 45 About 1 in 3 women. (22% of pregnancies in the U.S. end in abortion.9)
7. Abortion has Health Risks Abortion increases breast cancer risks,10 other health risks,11 and leads to serious emotional consequences.12 Also, “421 women have died as a result of legal abortion.”13
8. The Unborn is Human The child’s size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency can’t change their fundamental being.14 Infants are also small, undeveloped, and just as dependent on their mothers.
9. The Baby’s Heartbeat The child’s heart beats at 21 days.15 It is audible at 8-10 weeks gestation.16
10. Fetal Development Almost 54% of abortions occur from 7-12 weeks17 when a baby already has a developing nose, mouth, ears, intestines, brain waves, touch response, hiccups, and more.18

 

 

ENDNOTES

Dec 23 2015
0

Reimagining Christmas

By | Blog, News and Events | No Comments

When I was a little girl, I looked forward each year to my own rendition of the nativity.  I would insist on wearing a blanket over my head to act out being Mary, performing the entire story all over the basement or living room with whatever siblings or friends I could pull in for participation. Besides acting it out myself, I’d also act it out with the nativity figurines, always ensuring the wise men were far off from the rest of the nativity set, because, of course, they weren’t there on the actual birth night. Read More