All Posts By

Mario Diaz, Esq.

URGENT! Calls Needed to Stop Dangerous “Inflation Reduction Act.”

By | Legislative Updates, News and Events, Religious Liberty | No Comments

Your voice is needed. The U.S. House of Representatives is returning from its August recess this Friday, August 12, to take up the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act.” Your Representatives need to hear from you. Tell them to stand with the American people and vote against this legislation.

 

This disastrous bill will further aggravate this recession (yes, we are in a recession!) by imposing new taxes, extending Obamacare premium subsidies (which subsidizes elective abortion coverage), and spending more than $450 billion on “Green New Deal” wish list items that will only increase energy prices for Americans, not to mention the $80 billion given to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for “tax enforcement and compliance.”

 

The monstrous bill would add 87,000 new IRS agents to go after taxpayers. Just think about that. There are only 19,648 border patrol agents in the U.S. The CIA has 21,575 agents. The FBI has 36,149. The IRS already has 93,654 employees.

 

The IRS collects $4.1 trillion every year. That’s over $12,000 per citizen! Yet, this is the Democrats’ priority. Not our depleted military, for example, not that. The U.S. Army is projecting that it will fall short of its recruitment goals for the next two years by 40,000. Forty thousand! Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisconsin) told Politico, “We are on the cusp of a military recruiting crisis.”

 

This bill’s priorities are out of whack with the reality of everyday Americans. We urge you to take the time to call your Representatives and ask them to oppose it in the strongest possible terms. Tell them you will not support anyone who shows such a lack of awareness and wisdom.

 

The Capitol Switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. Ask the operator to put you through to your Representatives. Click here to find who represents you in Congress.

 

Call your Representatives from both sides of the aisle. Do not be dissuaded by what you think they will or will not do. They need to hear from you.

 

Not a single Republican in the Senate voted for this bill. In an evenly divided Senate, it was a 50-50 vote with Vice President Harris casting the final blow against the American people, releasing this new law enforcement army against small businesses and political dissenters (whatever happened to Lois Lerner?). And an army is what they will resemble. According to their website, the IRS is looking for agents who can “Carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary.”

 

Friend, we must raise our voices now. We cannot wait. Call your Representatives today and tell them to vote against the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act.”

 

The Capitol Switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.

 

Call today! We must stand together and make our voices heard. Our freedoms and liberties are under attack. Our families are paying a steep price for the failed policies of this Administration. We cannot let up.

 

Concerned Women for America Legislation Action Committee is committed to this fight! As you can, please consider supporting our efforts in any way possible. We are at a crucial time in our history that will demand extraordinary efforts if we are to keep our freedom. We need your engagement.

Unprecedented Raid-CWA Responds

By | National Sovereignty, News and Events | No Comments

Enough is enough. The unprecedented raid of the personal residence of former President of the United States Donald J. Trump strikes at core foundational principles of liberty. Americans, regardless of political persuasion, must stand against it. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) must be held accountable for these destabilizing and seemingly politically motivated actions against the political opponent of the current Administration.

 

But congressional accountability will not happen without our voices demanding the sort of bold action that this historic moment demands. We need to band together to make our voices heard.

 

This is not a time for the faint of heart. Many may shy away from the big bureaucratic state, with its promise of many more IRS agents in the near future, but with your help, Concerned Women for America (CWA) will not back down. We will fight for your rights and stand up to their abuses, as we have done before.

 

Would you please prayerfully consider supporting our efforts at this crucial time?

 

We have stood up to Big Government before. CWA was audited by the IRS during the Clinton years, coming out of the ordeal stronger than ever. And just last year, when reports of the FBI’s unjust targeting of CWA surfaced, we immediately stood up to their abuses, prompting senators into action.

 

We will not be bullied. And that is why the voice of conservative women standing together is so crucial now that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI seem to be prioritizing their work by political persuasion. We saw it with the targeting of parents at school board meetings as “domestic terrorists,” and we are seeing it now with this abuse of power in what is allegedly a record dispute.

 

If we allow this sort of action to go unaccounted for, there is no question that escalation and manipulation of government agencies for political gain will only increase in the years to come, putting all our liberties at risk.

 

Please, consider giving sacrificially to make sure we can present a robust challenge to these unprecedented attacks. And continue to pray for our nation.

Payback: Abortion Radicals to the Court

By | LBB, News and Events | No Comments

President Joe Biden is doing everything in his power to pay back his pro-abortion supporters who are enraged following the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs, which finally overturned Roe v. Wade, sending the issue back to the states.

 

He recently signed an executive order to allow Medicaid funds to be used to facilitate travel for women who want to have an abortion, in clear violation of the spirit, if not the letter of federal law, as expressed through the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal money being used to cover the cost of abortions.

 

But the Left long ago figured out that taking such illegal actions requires judges willing to manipulate the law to make sure the policy choices they cannot get through the legislative process are imposed by judicial fiat, exactly what they did through Roe for so many years.

 

Enter Julie Rikelman, President Biden’s nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit based in Massachusetts. Rikelman is none other than the abortion rights activist who represented the abortion clinic in Dobbs. It doesn’t get more brazen than that.

 

Rikelman has dedicated her life to promoting abortion. She is the senior director of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the nation’s most active pro-abortion organization challenging pro-life laws in the states. She was appointed to that position after returning to the organization where she first served as a “Blackmun Fellow.” Justice Blackmun was the author of the Roe v. Wade decision.

 

Needless to say, Rikelman is not an impartial jurist. She is an abortion activist and has been tapped for this position for that very reason. This White House has shown complete contempt for law and justice and the proper role of a judge.

 

President Biden nominated Rikelman after word got out that he might have a deal with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) that would have allowed, Chad Meredith, a nominee some considered conservative to be nominated. Radical groups immediately jumped on the White House to get in line. And so they did, nominating Rikelman to appease the mob and showing little regard for the proper role of a judge.

 

This fits with the increasing abortion radicalism of this White House. Recently, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the Justices took “an unconstitutional action” in Dobbs. That was right on the heels of calling Justice Clarence Thomas “Justice Thompson,” showing complete disdain for Justice Thomas simply because of his judicial philosophy.

 

Senators in the Senate Judiciary Committee must stand against the Rikelman nomination while raising awareness of the dangers of the continued political weaponization of the processes of justice.

 

We have seen it, not only in the nominations process, but in the Department of Justices’ targeting of parents, in the FBI’s mishandling of critical information about those they favor politically, and more.

 

Senators should use every tool at their disposal to protect the ideas that guard our liberties. The corruption and politicization of justice should be right at the top that list.

Defining Reality

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events, Religious Liberty | No Comments

Who defines what is? It’s a strange question. Most people would struggle to even grasp the question at first. The point is reality. Who defines it? The Founding Fathers had a beautiful way of describing things that are “self-evident.” All men are created equal. Says who?

 

Reality says—truth. But the truth is under assault in our day and age. The Founders embraced a Judeo-Christian worldview precisely because it best describes (helps explain) the reality of the human heart and experience. It is self-evident that babies are born male or female. We can observe it and know that it is true. When we look at Scripture, we get insight into that observable reality. “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:27)

 

Science, of course, confirms it, as science is based on scientific observations. Our biological makeup, physical, chemical, and psychological, bears witness to that reality. As scientific advancement gives us more information about DNA and XY chromosomes, we only gain more evidence of what is a well-established fact.

 

But from the beginning, the garden’s serpent came to question what was. “Did God actually say?” was its attack then. It still is today. We must realize that this is the battle, in politics, the culture, the church, within your very soul! We either hold on to reality or succumb to the enemy’s manipulations.

 

Redefining reality does not change it. A man is not a woman because he believes he is a woman. He does not become a woman if everyone else around him goes along with it. He and those going along with it are living a lie and lies will always conflict with reality. You may believe you are the man of steel, but you step in front of a bullet at your peril…

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

 

Unlawful Attacks on Supreme Court Justices Multiply

By | LBB | No Comments

Even after the attempted assassination of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the campaign of harassment at the homes of conservative justices has continued by a tiny but vocal radical crowd. Protesters showed up recently at a restaurant where Justice Kavanaugh was dining.

 

To his shame, Attorney General Merrick Garland continues ignoring these clear federal law violations. Title 18 U.S. Code § 1507 authorizes a fine or even imprisonment to “Whoever … with the intent of influencing any judge … pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge …”

 

But these radicals operate at the urgency of legal, liberal intellectuals. Harvard Law School lecturer Alejandra Caraballo tweeted recently that the justices should be harassed at every turn. “It is our civic duty,” she wrote, “to accost them every time they are in public. They are pariahs. Since women don’t have their rights, these justices should never have a peaceful moment in public again.”

 

Congress, too, is participating. A radical group of Democrats introduced a bill to put “term limits” on Supreme Court Justices. The bill titled the Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act of 2022 is blatantly unconstitutional. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states plainly, “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” But they have no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law.

 

Their unconstitutional legislation says, “Each justice shall serve in regular active service for 18 years from the date of justice’s commission, after which the justice shall be deemed to have retired from regular active service ….” And it requires the President to nominate new justices “during his first and third years after a year in which there is a Presidential election.”

 

It is a messaging bill, as radicals are so apt at producing. It is part of their strategy to harass and intimidate the justices into submission. It is going nowhere, and even if it did, it would be immediately declared unconstitutional.

 

But the point for us is to realize that the attacks on our constitutional structure and the rule of law are in full force, and we must engage them both at the spiritual and policy level. So, pray for the justices, pray against the evil schemes of harassment, and make sure your members of Congress are standing up to protect the crucial institution that is our U.S. Supreme Court.

The Myth of the Neutral State in Matters of Religion

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events, Religious Liberty | No Comments

Now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissenting opinions in Carson v. Makin, one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest cases clarifying America’s robust religious liberty protections, reveals one of the fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment which impairs many people’s judgment in such cases. It is the myth of the neutral state.

 

In comparing religiously affiliated private schools to public schools, Justice Breyer writes that “public schools are religiously neutral.” I was glad I was not taking a sip of my coffee at that moment, or it would have been all over my desk. Can anyone who is aware of what is being taught in our schools seriously argue that schools are “neutral” regarding religious matters?

 

The radical left’s dogma is being imposed much more forcefully than any other religious tenet taught in most American religious institutions. And it’s not even close.

 

In Carson, the state of Maine had enacted a tuition assistance program for children in school districts that do not have a state secondary school. The program allows parents to choose the public or private school their children will attend, and the government would pay the school to help defray the cost. Before 1981, parents could choose any school if they met some basic requirements. But in 1980, the state excluded religious schools with a condition that the schools be “nonsectarian.”

 

The state “considers a sectarian school to be one that is associated with a particular faith or belief system and which, in addition to teaching academic subjects, promotes the faith or belief system with which it is associated and/or presents the material taught through the lens of this faith.”

 

Are not our public schools overwhelmingly associated with a particular “belief system”? In addition to teaching academic subjects, don’t they promote that belief system in any way they can? Have you seen the modern classroom decor? Have you seen the resources they are spending money to bring into the school… 

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Rebuking Jesus—Liberal Elites Know Best

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

Our sensory-overloaded society has a hard time focusing. We go from scandal to scandal, emergency to emergency, outrage to outrage. There is no time for serious reflection and introspection—no time for mourning and repentance. It is no wonder we have become so easily deceived and manipulated.

 

The swindle of the radical gender ideology is a perfect example. This week, UC Berkeley School of Law Professor Khiara Bridges testified at a Senate Judiciary hearing titled, “A Post-Roe America: The Legal Consequences of the Dobbs Decision.” Of course, everyone expected the radical abortion position that refuses to acknowledge the humanity of babies in the womb at any point. That sort of callous disregard for human life, even after birth, has become a hallmark of the liberal elites that permeate our institutions of higher learning. What is new is this attempt to present a fact-free, fantastical account of reality as an uncontroverted fact that everyone must pretend to accept or else.

 

Thanks for reading Mario’s Musings! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

 

In speaking about the killing of a baby in the womb, Prof. Bridges repeatedly said things like, “I think that the person with the capacity for pregnancy has value, and they should have the ability to control what happens.”

 

To speak of mothers as “the person with the capacity of pregnancy” is deranged. But this is what is being demanded of all of us. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) clashed with the new gender ideology golden statue as he tried to probe Prof. Bridges on the matter.

 

HAWLEY: “You’ve referred to people with a capacity for pregnancy. Would that be women?”

 

BRIDGES: “Many women, cis women, have the capacity for pregnancy. Many cis women do not have the capacity for pregnancy. There are also trans men who are capable of pregnancy as well as nonbinary people who are capable of pregnancy.”

 

Click here to watch the clip and read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

No Freedom Without Prayer

By | Case Vault, Legal, News and Events, SCOTUS | No Comments

We are a nation born of the radical idea that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” That is why liberty and freedom flourished in our nation against all odds. That fundamental appeal to the authority of our Creator, above and beyond earthly governments, levels the playing field among selfish human interests.

 

It is a plea to a higher authority above raw human power, and it necessarily affirms every person’s intrinsic, equal value. It stands squarely against the inevitable attempts of our broken nature to establish one class of individuals above another. These attempts have existed throughout time. They were undoubtedly palpable at the nation’s founding. We still have them today. And they will continue.

 

Eternal vigilance is a prerequisite for sustained freedom in this world.

 

The recent religious liberty win in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District is an excellent example of the efforts needed to preserve liberty in America in the coming years. Increased hostility toward Christ and His teachings is leading our culture to some bizarre conclusions that will devastate our future if they are allowed to take root.

 

At the same time that our culture insists on promoting the early sexualization of our children in schools, with drag queens promoted as the best role models, here, in this case, a Christian coach had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to defend his unalienable right to pray silently after school football games. He is apparently not the type of role model our kids need.

 

Drag queens, fantastic role models; humble, praying, Christian coaches, horrible-no-good-intolerable role models, according to today’s woke school officials.

 

Like Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority to uphold Coach Kennedy’s First Amendment rights, pointed out, in the system’s view, “the only acceptable government role models for students are those who eschew any visible religious expression.”

 

Thankfully, the United States Supreme Court has stopped the targeting of our Christian faith for now. However, the attitude that persisted in this injustice for almost seven years against Coach Kennedy still dominates our public educational institutions. And our federal courts, let’s not forget that. The targeting of Coach Kennedy was approved by both the district and the appellate courts.

 

We have so distorted the Constitution throughout the years that public officials actually believed, and again, the lower courts went right along, “not only that it may prohibit teachers from engaging in any demonstrative religious activity, but that it must do so in order to conform to the Constitution.”

 

This is, of course, absurd given our nation’s founding, but anti-Christian forces have used the so-called “separation of church and state” extra-constitutional mantra so often for so long that this misconception of the First Amendment in schools is widespread. Here the Court helps clarify that this misunderstanding of law cannot shield school officials from their intolerant practices. “[T]he only meaningful justification the government offered for its reprisal rested on a mistaken view that it had a duty to ferret out and suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech,” the Court wrote. “The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination.”

 

Religious speech is speech. It should be afforded all the constitutional protections traditionally applied to any other speech. Instead, for years, it has been particularly targeted because it is religious. This boggles the mind when one considers that, if anything, religious expressions were singled out in the Constitution as perhaps worthy of heightened protection. As the Court wrote:

 

In the name of protecting religious liberty, the District would have us suppress it. Rather than respect the First Amendment’s double protection for religious expression, it would have us preference secular activity. Not only could schools fire teachers for praying quietly over their lunch, for wearing a yarmulke to school, or for offering a midday prayer during a break before practice. Under the District’s rule, a school would be required to do so.

 

That double protection the Court references was also a crucial part of the opinion because, for years, some have tried to pit the free exercise and the establishment clause against each other, but instead, “the Clauses have ‘complimentary’ purposes, not warring ones where one Clause is always sure to prevail over the others.”

 

The school district here thought it needed to choose between the two. The Court explained: “[T]the District effectively created its own ‘vise between the Establishment Clause on one side and the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses on the other,’ placed itself in the middle, and then chose its preferred way out of its self-imposed trap.”

 

The school officials were simply mistaken, as they are so often. “And in no world may a government entity’s concerns about phantom constitutional violations justify actual violations of an individual’s First Amendment rights.” This should have been apparent, especially for the judges reviewing the cases. “We are aware of no historically sound understanding of the Establishment Clause that begins to ‘mak[e] it necessary for government to be hostile to religion’ in this way,” the Court wrote. There is none. The courts below did not cite one either.

 

Instead, they relied on the infamous Lemon test, which “called for an examination of a law’s purposes, effects, and potential for entanglement with religion.” The test has long been criticized for fundamentally distorting the original meaning of the First Amendment.

 

Concerned Women for America (CWA) has long joined that chorus of criticism, asking the Court to abandon it. As the Court held, “the ‘shortcomings’ associated with this ‘ambitiou[s],’ abstract, and ahistorical approach to the Establishment Clause became so ‘apparent’ that this Court long ago abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot.”

 

Lemon is dead. Justice Gorsuch’s straightforward treatment leaves no doubt for lower courts. “In place of Lemon and the endorsement test, this Court has instructed that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.'”

 

Under that standard, it is clear that “in this case Mr. Kennedy’s private religious exercise did not come close to crossing any line one might imagine separating protected private expression from impermissible government coercion.”

 

Of course, some will still find offense at any public expression of faith—especially the Christian faith. But “[o]ffense. . . does not equate to coercion,” and the Court puts that “hecklers veto” to rest masterfully.

 

Naturally, Mr. Kennedy’s proposal to pray quietly by himself on the field would have meant some people would have seen his religious exercise. Those close at hand might have heard him too. But learning how to tolerate speech or prayer of all kinds is “part of learning how to live in a pluralistic society,” a trait of character essential to “a tolerant citizenry.”

 

Ordinarily, the Court would spend some time describing the different standards of review, but this case was so clear that the Court said, “it does not matter which standard we apply. The District cannot sustain its burden under any of them.”

 

This is a strong opinion that we hope can help lower courts and even school officials better understand the constitutional burdens they bear when dealing with sincere religious exercises going forward. They would be wise to train their instincts towards accommodation.

 

As the Court concluded, “Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head.” Well said.

SCOTUS

Super-Duper Supreme Court Term

By | Case Vault, Legal, SCOTUS | No Comments

Remember when some tried to sell Roe as “super-duper” precedent? Well, it didn’t work. Roe is gone (all praise be to God!), but we have been indeed left with something “super-duper”—this Supreme Court term. It was just superb.

 

It all starts with Dobbs, of course (and that would be more than enough to celebrate), but it went beyond that, and I wanted to take a moment and celebrate with you each victory by presenting to you a short summary of the term’s most amazing top 5 wins!

 

  • Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization— The Court declared unequivocally that the United States Constitution does not and has never conferred a right to abortion. Therefore, the Court spent much time discussing the grave errors in the Roe and Casey framework before formally overruling them and returning the authority to states to be free to protect unborn life in the best way they see fit.

 

  • Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson— Just before the Dobbs case was argued, the Court heard a challenge to the Texas Heartbeat Act. The state law prohibits most abortions after a heartbeat can be detected through an ultrasound, but it has no state law enforcement mechanism, only private enforcement action. The pro-abortion side wanted the Supreme Court to intervene to stop the law, but the Court correctly refused to intervene. The practical result was that almost 8,000 babies were saved in the first three months after the law went into effect.

 

  • Shurtleff v. City of Boston— A unanimous Court here agreed that the First Amendment rights of Harold Shurtleff, the director of Camp Constitution, were violated by the city of Boston when it refused to allow him to fly the Christian flag at a public pole that the city had made available for private groups to fly different kind of flags indiscriminately.

 

  • Carson v. Makin— The Court held Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for generally available tuition assistance payments to parents who lived in a district that did not operate a secondary school of their own violated the parent’s First Amendment free speech rights. Parents are free then to use the money to send their kids to any school they want, treating all schools, secular or religious, equally, instead of targeting religious schools for discrimination.

  • Finally, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District— the Coach Kennedy case, as most of you know it. Coach Kennedy was unjustly fired for silently praying at midfield after football games. The Supreme Court has now made official the fact that he was fired, not only unjustly but unconstitutionally. What a sweet victory for this man and his family, who have fought for almost seven years to protect our religious liberty rights. The Court held that both the free exercise and free speech clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual’s right to engage in a personal religious observance. The Court said, “The Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.”

 

Can we stop and thank God for His goodness, mercy, and grace? All of these are part of just one Supreme Court term. We can expect more! The Constitutional imbalance we have been living (and suffering) under is slowly being straightened back to a more faithful and impartial application of justice. We are sure to reap the blessings of these actions for decades to come.

A Prayer of Thanksgiving that Roe is No More

By | Dobbs, Legal, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, SCOTUS | No Comments

As the deer pants for the water,

So we have longed to see

Your righteousness restored, oh Lord

With the demise of abortion on demand in our land.

 

This was a seemingly impossible task,

The world told us.

“Abortion is our right,”

They screamed, as millions of babies died.

 

For fifty years Roe hung

Like an evil dark cloud of judgment

While many mocked You and Your Word

As approving of such barbarity.

 

But we, the remnant, had faith in You,

In justice and truth.

We drank the tears of repentance for our nation

And prayed diligently, without ceasing.

 

We hoped in God alone,

Therefore, we know our redemption

Was secured. Those who trust in You

Are never disappointed!

 

Thank You, Father!

Thank You, Jesus, the Son!

Thank You Holy Spirit, for guiding us!

All glory to You.

 

As hard as we have worked,

To see this day of joyful deliverance,

We know it was not our efforts,

But the Lord’s grace. Amen!

 

Grace, grace!

God’s grace!

That grace that pardons and cleanses within,

Grace that is greater than all our sins.

 

Even the great sin of abortion

Melts away— as far as the East is from the West

Your grace removes our transgression

And gives us hope for the future.

 

Now, we pray peace in our land, Lord.

Calm the hearts not set on you,

Let not the Enemy use and abuse

Any more women in the cause of death.

 

Help us to care for all mothers

And their children, born and unborn.

Help us to trust and pray, even more,

Until the day of Your return.

 

Amen.

Justice Restored—Roe Overturned

By | Dobbs, Legal, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, SCOTUS | No Comments

“Down goes Roe.” You could almost hear it from inside the U.S. Supreme Court (in that iconic Howard Cosell voice). And just as Cosell said of George Forman, the pro-life movement “is as poised as can be.” Justice demanded an end to Roe. Justice, we got.

 

In a stunning 6-3 masterclass opinion delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Barrett, with Chief Justice Roberts concurring in judgment (but saying he would not go so far as to overturn Roe and Casey), the Court simply holds: “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

 

Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented.

 

“The critical question is whether the Constitution, properly understood, confers a right to obtain an abortion,” the Court wrote. First, the Court acknowledges the obvious, “The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion,” and turns at once to the many theories that have been offered throughout the years to manipulate the constitutional text and read a right to abortion into the Constitution. “Roe held that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments,” the Court explains. Casey shifted that and “grounded its decision solely on the theory that the right to obtain an abortion is part of the ‘liberty’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”  Still, others tried the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

It is refreshing to see the Court refuse to play the usual pro-abortion games in law and instead conclude, “regulations and prohibitions of abortion are governed by the same standard of review as other health and safety measures.” …

 

Please, click here to read the rest of this column as featured on American Thinker.

Grasping at Straws on Dobbs

By | Dobbs, LBB, Legal, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, Substack | No Comments

The boorish left is having a full-blown meltdown over the leaked opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and its impending official release by the United States Supreme Court. Justice Samuel Alito’s unassailable, monumental takedown of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey’s complete lack of constitutional underpinning has them panicked.

 

It is certainly not the result they want. That is the reason for all the screeching, weeping, and gnashing of teeth we have seen in front of the Supreme Court and at the constitutionalist justices’ homes in clear violation of federal law. But the worst part about it is that Roe’s legal reasoning is such a dud that all they are left with is trying to manipulate what they see as the internal soap opera at the Court. Their target, as usual, is Chief Justice Roberts, who they hope can somehow swindle other justices into keeping Roe alive.

 

Politico’s Senior Legal Affairs Reporter Josh Gerstein’s latest “What a Roberts compromise on abortion could look like” is the latest not-so-subtle attempt at this. “It’s a longshot,” says the tagline on the piece, “but court watchers are closely eyeing the chief justice for middle ground on Roe.”

 

Gerstein acknowledges no one wants this middle ground. The pro-abortion side emphatically rejected it at oral arguments. Still, they can dream. Here is how he summarized the feeble argument of this dream opinion: “The central organizing principle for a Roberts opinion is likely to be one he has articulated many times: that the court shouldn’t issue a sweeping decision when a more modest one would do.” …

 

 

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

The Right Kind of Victims

By | Dobbs, LBB, Legal, News and Events, SCOTUS, Substack | No Comments

The establishment media portrays the radical left as caring for “victims” in many contexts, but the reality is that they are laser-focused not on defending but on victimizing the right kind of people. For them, pro-life, pro-family, conservative Americans are the right kind of victims. Violence against them is understandable and even desirable.

 

But worse than merely the media portrayal is the fact that the federal government, under the Biden-Harris Administration, is entirely controlled by the radical left. They, too, ascribe to this warped philosophy. That is why the spectacle of January 6 is worthy of a multi-million-dollar investigation and media focus. In contrast, the attempted assassination of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice must be buried. One goes after the right kind of people. According to the left, both the January 6 investigation and the attempted assassination against Justice Brett Kavanaugh are going against those who deserve to be punished.

 

Attacks on abortion clinics in the past were intolerable and taken seriously. The FBI and DOJ were quickly mobilized. The full resources of the federal government were invested in protecting those injured. They were the wrong kind of victims…

 

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Female Athletes Are Being Victimized to Pander to the Personal Fantasies of a Few

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation, Women's Sports | No Comments

Women athletes are in danger of losing their rights to the desires of men who feel they are women.

 

The anti-science effort to erase the physical differences between men and women is regressive and dangerous. Women are being victimized in the name of an AstroTurf diversity that discriminates against all who do not conform to the personal fantasies of a few.

 

The effort has consequences that go well beyond women’s athletics. In April, a male Rikers inmate claiming to be a woman was sentenced to seven years for raping a female prisoner in the women’s section of the jail. Concerned Women for America, the organization I represent — a Christian, conservative organization — is supporting a lawsuit by the liberal feminist organization Women’s Liberation Front to fight for women’s rights on this front.

 

We are also witnessing the pernicious promotion of transgender ideology in public schools, which ignores the sadpractical reality of the harmful long-term effects of life-altering surgical procedures on all young people, but on young women in particular.

 

But legally speaking, the women’s sports aspect of this battle, which has the backing of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, should be preventing the injustices we are witnessing…

 

Read the rest of this op-ed as featured exclusively on The Western Journal.

You Can’t Undo the Supreme Court Leak

By | LBB, Legal | No Comments

The United States Supreme Court has stayed relatively quiet following the shameful news of the leaked Dobbs draft opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement condemning the leak and calling for an investigation, but we have heard nothing else since.

 

As you know, Concerned Women for America (CWA), though encouraged by the content of the opinion, refuse to engage in any public analysis of its content, believing the ethical breach by someone at the Court, presumably a liberal clerk, worthy of the utmost contempt.

 

In a recent interview, Justice Clarence Thomas tried to put words to the magnitude of the breach, and I think you must be aware of his wise words. He was interviewed by his former law clerk John Yoo at an event in Dallas. He said:

 

“[T]he institution that I’m a part of if someone said that one line of one opinion would be leaked by anyone in you would say that, ‘Oh, that’s impossible. No one would ever do that.’ There was such a belief in the rule of law, belief in the court, a belief in what we were doing, that that was verboten. It was beyond anyone’s understanding, or at least anyone’s imagination that someone would do that. And look where we are, where now that trust or that belief is gone forever. When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it.”

 

The Supreme Court will never be the same. We must reckon with that reality. We don’t even know the extent of this breach yet. Help me pray that the person responsible is exposed convincingly so that they can be severely punished. That would help tremendously. We expected this would be quickly resolved, given how tight things are kept within the Court, but nothing has been announced.

 

The warning is broader than the Court. Justice Thomas said:

 

“I think we are in danger of destroying the institutions that are required for a free society. You can’t have a civil society, a free society, without a stable legal system. You can’t have one without stability and things like property or interpretation and impartial judiciary. And I’ve been in this business long enough to know just how fragile it is.”

 

Most Americans can see that. Both the Court and the Country are in a fragile state. We must proceed with caution and urgency. We need courage. Justice Thomas spoke about that too. “I think a lot of people lack courage,” he said, “like they know what is right, and they’re scared to death of doing it.” He is right, of course. We need help from above, no doubt.

Question the Mules

By | Electoral College, LBB, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

Question the mules. That’s the only reasonable response to the evidence presented by Dinesh D’Souza’s new movie, 2000 Mules. The documentary offers concerning evidence of election fraud in the 2020 election that should be investigated. Whatever your views on former President Donald Trump or President Joe Biden, they are not the focus of the investigation.

 

It is uncontroverted that states bent and amended election rules when faced with the COVID-19 pandemic. Mail-in and absentee ballots were greatly expanded with little time for proper implementation. Hundreds of drop-off boxes were added to ensure everyone had access to them while maintaining social distancing, but many went unmonitored. That’s where D’Souza’s documentary raises some critical questions and gives us an urgent cautionary tale for future elections. We must do better.

 

How secure were these drop boxes? Do we have a way to monitor them? How do we stop bad actors from abusing the system? No one needs to be depositing multiple ballots at 2:00 a.m.

 

The film does not answer all the questions. For example, the organizations from which these mules were allegedly getting ballots are generically referenced but not mentioned by name. But the evidence presented of people depositing several ballots at a time using gloves and taking pictures so as to document that they had deposited them is seriously suspicious and should be quickly investigated.

 

The attorneys general in the states involved should follow up with an investigation. True the Vote (TTV), the organization that provided the information to D’Souza, has the names of the individuals and organizations involved, and they are willing to cooperate with law enforcement. So why wouldn’t every state want to follow up and either clear the record or catch and expose the perpetrators as a strong deterrent for future elections?

 

Conspiracies are not good for our democracy, and ignoring the legitimate evidence presented in the documentary will only fuel those. On the other hand, an investigation would serve to tamper speculations and give confidence to voters, whatever the outcome, by answering some basic questions about what happened and punishing any bad actors.

 

The crux of the investigation is the identification of 2,000 individuals who deposited multiple ballots while visiting an average of 20-30 drop boxes and stopping by left-leaning non-profit organizations in between those visits. These are identified as the mules. TTV used commercial cell phone tracking data to identify and track these individuals. The evidence becomes compelling when they are able to obtain footage of some individuals depositing multiple ballots at locations that kept surveillance on some drop boxes.

 

Not all locations were on camera, though, which has raised some questions. Though it is not unreasonable to think they were doing the same at other sites, you are left wishing there was more on tape. The fact that some locations that were supposed to be monitored somehow were not also raises concerns. Again, the evidence is compelling enough for law enforcement to go and ask the questions at the very least. If nothing wrong was done, they should be able to confirm it.

 

The documentary features one person who says they believe they were involved in paying “mules” for this work, which is not legal in any state. But she cannot corroborate it completely because she can only say she assumes she was handing out checks. She also says she had been approached about her own ballot. It is conceivable that others may come forward if an investigation is started.

 

Contact your state attorney general and express your desire to see a full investigation into the matter.

 

The documentary is certainly a must watch for anyone interested in the topic. But ultimately, my prayer is that you are left inspired, not frustrated, to become part of the solution and get involved in the election process in your state. Sunshine is the best policy when it comes to our election procedures.

 

If you would like to know more about how you can do that, click here to connect with our She Prays She Votes 2022 effort.

 

 

 

Steady as the Enemy Panics on Abortion

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

Let darkness squelch and screech at the loss of the sacrifices they value. The violent among them will stir up the multitudes to fulfill their vision and protest that the innocent are no longer as expendable. The undiscerning mob is sure to follow whichever way the wind blows, tossed to and fro — used, abused, and ultimately discarded.

 

They shall fail. The end of Roe is yet to be at the appointed time.

 

Remember how we have gotten to this point. Our almost 50 years of struggle against the evil of abortion centered not on legislation or legal battles but on prayer.

 

He who is able to give life and give it more abundantly told us that, as He reminded us, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy” (John. 10:10). Darkness has its nature. It will act according to it. The desperation and hopelessness they feel will make them do irrational things.

 

But the people of God shall stand firm and take action (Daniel 11:32). Prayer is action.

 

Therefore, pray.

 

Concerned Women for America (CWA) is making our Dobbs prayer guide available to you through this link.

 

Scripture tells us that we are “able to stand against the schemes of the devil” by putting on the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-18). We stand:

 

    1. Having fastened on the belt of truth,
    2. Having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 
    3. As shoes for our feet, we put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace,
    4. We take up the shield of faith, with which we can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one,
    5. We put on the helmet of salvation,
    6. And the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

The promised result is that we will “be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.”

Steady, then. We know where our hope is laid.

 

The leaked opinion is indeed promising—inspiring even. It states simple truths as it lays out Roe’s unethical, unconstitutional foundations. But we cannot reward the malicious tactics that have been used to release it to the public. So, we will wait until the official word from the Court, and then we will celebrate with thanksgiving to God, shining a light that darkness may flee.

 

The statement from CWA CEO and President Penny Nance, following the breaking news, laid out this righteous vision:

 

“The betrayal of trust we have witnessed today at the United States Supreme Court by what is reportedly the malicious leak of a private draft of the Court’s Dobbs opinion is outrageous.  

“This appears to be another attempt by the Left to intimidate the justices to uphold a law that is clearly unconstitutional. On the contrary, these tactics should only embolden the Court to stand firm on law and principle. Chief Justice John Roberts must take charge of his court and issue this decision as soon as possible, sending a clear message that the Court will never be intimidated.

 

“The hundreds of thousands of members of Concerned Women for America remain prayerful and cautiously optimistic as we work to provide loving alternatives to the violent ending of a human life through abortion.”

Amen.

Boston Violates First Amendment by Targeting Christian Flag

By | Case Vault, LBB, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

All nine justices of the United States Supreme Court agree in Shurtleff v. City of Boston. The city violated the First Amendment rights of Harold Shurtleff, the director of Camp Constitution, by refusing to allow him to fly the Christian Flag at a public pole where the city allowed private groups to fly their flags indiscriminately.

 

“The most salient feature of this case is that Boston neither actively controlled these flag raisings nor shaped the messages the flags sent,” wrote Justice Stephen Breyer in his majority opinion as the Court concluded what Boston was engaging in was not government speech. “Boston told the public that it sought ‘to accommodate all applicants’ who wished to hold events at Boston’s ‘public forums.’” Except for those pesky Christians.

 

Thankfully, the Court 9-0 (though using different rationales) declared, “Boston’s refusal to let petitioners fly their flag violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” The Court correctly stated, “When the government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude private speech based on “‘religious viewpoint’; doing so ‘constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.’”

 

Breyer’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. They were also three concurring opinions. One by Justice Kavanaugh, a second by Justice Alito joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, and a third by Justice Gorsuch joined by Justice Thomas.

 

Justice Kavanaugh, concurring, made clear this case only got to the Supreme Court “because of a government official’s mistaken understanding of the Establishment Clause.” We should also add that many judges share the mistaken view, also. But as Kavanaugh writes, “Under the Constitution, a government may not treat religious persons, religious organizations, or religious speech as second-class.”

 

Justice Alito’s concurrence agrees with the Court’s ultimate conclusion but disagrees with the majority’s analysis. And with good reason. Justice Alito rightly points out that some of the “tests” the majority uses to answer the question here, like “the extent to which the government has actively shaped or controlled expression,” can actually be used by bad actors to discriminate against those with whom it disagrees. But that, too, would be an impermissible violation of the First Amendment.

 

Justice Alito smartly advocates for a more precise and robust definition of government speech, which, after all, is the only organism restricted by the First Amendment. “Government speech,” he writes, “is thus the purposeful communication of a governmentally determined message by a person exercising a power to speak for a government.” Furthermore, after establishing that government speech is at issue, “the government must establish it did not rely on a means that abridges the speech of persons acting in a private capacity.” This is the type of clear definitional guidelines that will help judges around the country administer justice in a much fairer way. Let us hope Justice Alito’s test finds wide acceptance in the years to come.

 

Finally, Justice Gorsuch writes a concurring masterpiece on what is known as the Lemon test. This is an approach that Concerned Women for America  has asked the Court to overturn on many occasions. As he wrote, “Lemon ignored the original meaning of the Establishment Clause, it disregarded mountains of precedent, and it substituted a serious constitutional inquiry with a guessing game.”

 

The historical discussion especially is worthwhile in Gorsuch’s concurrence; I commend it to you. Here is a taste (citations omitted):

 

As a close look at these hallmarks and our history reveals, “[n]o one at the time of the founding is recorded as arguing that the use of religious symbols in public contexts was a form of religious establishment.” For most of its existence, this country had an “unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life.” In fact and as we have seen, it appears that, until Lemon, this Court had never held the display of a religious symbol to constitute an establishment of religion. The simple truth is that no historically sensitive understanding of the Establishment Clause can be reconciled with a rule requiring governments to “roa[m] the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine.” Our Constitution was not designed to erase religion from American life; it was designed to ensure “respect and tolerance.”

 

It is a critical discussion that accentuates his clear thinking on religious liberty issues.

 

This is a great win that envisions even greater protections for religious freedom for decades to come—a great development for all Americans regardless of religious belief.

 

Prayer at the Supreme Court

By | News and Events, SCOTUS, Uncategorized | No Comments

One of the great evangelists of the Nineteenth Century, Dwight L. Moody, famously said, “The Christian on his knees sees more than the philosopher on tiptoe.” The reality of those words came to life for us this week as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist., where the government punished a Washington State high school football coach for the sole fact that he took a knee at midfield to say a brief, personal, private prayer after football games. For that, Coach Joe Kennedy was fired.

With everything going on in the world, can you imagine our government is concerned with one coach praying privately at midfield after football games? Think of how desperate our youth are for good role models. Think of how many men need father figures to teach them the life skills needed to be good citizens.

Think of how many objectionable things public schools are not only allowing but encouraging inside public classrooms. Yet, a fleeting, private prayer is beyond the pale, apparently.

CWA General Counsel Mario Diaz and CWA Director of Government Relations Alexandra McPhee with Coach Kennedy and his wife.

Concerned Women for America (CWA) has stood firmly in support of Coach Kennedy and our constitutionally protected religious freedoms throughout the years, and we were proud to lift our voice in support today as we prayed in front of the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., while arguments where being heard inside the courtroom.

We are thankful that Paul Clement, the veteran constitutional appellate advocate, presented Coach Kennedy’s case on behalf of First Liberty. He was superb.

Much of the argument centered on government “coercion,” as if the government were, through the coach, forcing students to pray. But this complete fiction by the state is impossible to reconcile with the facts as presented. Clement exposed the point using an analogy:

[T]hink about what happens when a player gets injured on the field. I mean, it’s common practice at all levels of the game, public school, private school, you take a knee. The coach takes a knee. The players take a knee. Many of them presumably are praying for the player’s health. Some of them are not. Some of them are –have their own religious traditions. But none of that is coercion, not in a real sense, and none of it violates the Establishment Clause.  

It really is that simple. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked about a similar hypothetical pressing on the limits of government control, “[T]he question is, how far does that go? The coach does the sign of the cross right before the game. Is that –could a school fire the coach for the sign of the cross right before the game?” The answer was revealing. Richard Katskee of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who argued the case for the school district, said candidly that “if the coach is doing it while not making himself the center of attention at the center of the field, it’s perfectly fine.” Justice Kavanaugh expressed his frustration with such a frivolous argument. “I don’t know how we could write an opinion that would draw a line based on not making yourself the center of attention as the head coach of a game.”

In rebuttal, Clement drove home some of the facts of the case that make the school district’s religious retaliation very dangerous. Coach Kennedy was reprimanded for his conduct (his prayer) in two specific games where, to the surprise of many listening to the arguments, no one (no player) joined him in that prayer. If that was supposed to be a form of coercion, it was not very effective.

The other side tried to argue the case should be sent back to the lower court, yet again delaying what should be a resounding defeat. Clement appealed to the Court with a powerful example:

[M]y client has already waited six years to get his job back. And if you imagine the parallel for this is a race case where the lower courts, both lower courts, said the sole reason the government acted was because of race. But yet, we think it’s okay because there’s this compelling interest. If this Court took that case up and said there’s nothing to the compelling interest, it wouldn’t send it back down to see if there was some other reason when the courts had already found the sole basis for the action was on the basis of race. Here the record is clear, two courts that didn’t agree with much of what we said, said the sole basis for the government’s reactions –actions here were religion. That is not something that should stand.

It shouldn’t. Let us pray that the Supreme Court vindicates Coach Kennedy and protects religious freedoms for all Americans, regardless of faith. A decision is expected by the end of the Court’s term in June.