Mario Diaz, Esq., CWA’s General Counsel, joined NPR’s Morning Edition with Noel King to discuss the future of Roe v. Wade following the historic Supreme Court oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Today, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the most important pro-life case of our lifetime: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. As hundreds of pro-life supporters rallied outside the courtroom (outnumbering the other side by a considerable margin!), inside the Justices heard arguments from the state of Mississippi, the Jackson abortion clinic, and the United States Solicitor General.
Here are the top three takeaways:
1- Institutional Legitimacy was the Liberal Side’s Theme
Justice Stephen Brayer led the charge for the liberal side of the Court on this point. He quoted Casey and argued that to overturn Roe and Casey “Would subvert the Court’s legitimacy.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who blatantly and embarrassingly acted as an advocate for the pro-choice side instead of a justice of the Supreme Court, suggested the Court would not survive “the stench” of overturning Roe.
She’s obviously grown used to the fetor of more than 60 million babies aborted since 1973.
In the liberal side’s warped view, to overturn Roe would be a political action, but to impose abortion on demand on all Americans was not. They kept expressing concerns over the politicization of the Court as if it were not seen as activist in favor of abortion right now.
Mississippi’s State Solicitor General Scott Grant Stewart made clear that Roe and Casey had no grounding in the constitutional text and that the continued upholding of erroneous precedent is in fact more of a threat to the Court’s legitimacy…
Having established that “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy,” as the Court accurately noted in Roe, and that the Court relied on that virtual right to further invent another constitutional “right” to abortion with no basis in law, history or tradition, we turn to the Court’s dreadful shift to policymaking and why it, too, is indefensible.
While the media’s caricature of pro-life laws around the country at the time of Roe is that they sought to completely ban it, without regard for women, the facts of the case in Roe were, of course, different. I think by now every reader knows that the media lies. Therefore, remember that when it comes to the coverage you hear around Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
The Texas law at issue in Roe actually had an exception for “medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life.” If Roe were overturned, it does not mean abortion will be criminalized everywhere for every reason as some will have you believe. Instead, it would mean that laws would more accurately reflect the convictions of most Americans in their localities. What the Supreme Court did in Roe was impose its preferred view of abortion policy robbing “we the people” of a voice in the matter.
In Dobbs, Mississippi passed a law establishing a policy of restricting abortions after 15 weeks only to the cases of medical emergencies and or severe fetal abnormalities. There is no basis, constitutional or otherwise, for the Supreme Court to second guess a state’s policy in such a matter. …
As that great bulwark of honesty Buddy the elf would say, Roe “sit[s] on a throne of lies.” This series will expose many of them in the spiritual, scientific, cultural, moral, and policy realm. But we start this endeavor with the most pressing deception as far as it concerns the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming considerations of the Dobbs v. Whole Women’s Health Organization case: the legal one.
It is a plain statement of fact that the U.S. Constitution has nothing to say about abortion. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. In fact, the fallacy of Roe is so deep, that the Court did not just invent the right to abortion, it actually based its decision to invent it on another “right” that appears nowhere in the Constitution. In an earlier case (Griswold v. Connecticut), the Court had “recognized” a new right to privacy that it now magically expanded to cover the right to abortions.
The Court is not even sure where this right to privacy comes from; it recognizes different theories. But wherever it came from, it is surely meant to cover abortion; it promises us. Here is how Justice Harry Blackmun, who shamefully wrote the Roe majority opinion, put it:
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
And just like that, 185 years after the Constitution was officially ratified on June 21, 1788, the Court gives birth to a new right to abortion with no legal underpinning whatsoever…
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Mississippi case where abortionists are challenging the state’s “Gestational Age Act,” should force the United States Supreme Court to reevaluate its disastrous abortion jurisprudence.
Because Mississippi’s law places strict limits on abortion after 15 weeks, it runs straight up against the Court’s nonsensical and arbitrary “viability” pronouncement which has somewhat guided the Court through its oversight of more than 60 million babies aborted since 1973. In Roe v. Wade, the Court invented a right to abortion out of nothing and established limits based on an arbitrary trimester framework, but it also recognized a state’s interests in the health of mothers and “potential life,” as it cunningly termed babies in the womb. Only when those state interests become “compelling” are states able to regulate abortion, perhaps even ban it. The Court explained:
With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
The Court’s mushy pronouncement ensured it would continue to act as a super-legislature, second-guessing virtually every state attempt to protect life. Therefore, we continue to see a never-ending series of cases at the Supreme Court with citizens from different states trying to assert their interests in the health of mothers and protecting children in the womb…
In a recent emergency application before the United States Supreme Court, the justices declined an appeal from Maine health care workers to stop the enforcement of a vaccine mandate that did not contain a religious exemption. Though certainly disappointing, those concerned with these oppressive vaccine mandates should not read much into the denial, and indeed should be encouraged by Justice Neil Gorsuch’s excellent discussion of the legal principles involved which Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined.
It was disappointing that Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh declined to hear the case, but we should note their denial was a technical one as to the timing of the appeal. “[D]iscretionary consideration counsels against a grant of extraordinary [emergency] relief in this case, which is the first to address the questions presented,” wrote Justice Barrett. Practically all she wrote in her one-paragraph concurring opinion.
The bottom line is that the Supreme Court will end up taking one of the many cases challenging these vaccine mandates soon, and I am extremely confident that, at the very least, a religious exemption will be required.
Any government or private entity taking action against a worker’s request for religious accommodation does so at their own peril, putting itself at serious risk of legal liability once these cases work themselves out which will not take long, given how aggressively the strong arm of government is seeking to assert itself.
Not even a week after the Supreme Court’s denial in this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit blocked the Biden administration’s latest mandate. “Because the petitions give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate, the Mandate is hereby STAYED pending further action by this court,” the per curiam (by the court) noted.
There are a lot of moving parts in this battle, so be patient and continue to pray for the judges, the justices, and the attorneys involved. The Biden mandate is to take effect on January 4, so the one thing that we can be sure of is that it will move fast.
I commend to you Justice Gorsuch’s exceptional dissent from the denial of the application for injunctive relief against Maine’s vaccine mandate which demonstrates why we can be confident that religious liberty will win. The government must treat religious exceptions on the same level as any other exemptions. They cannot target religious exemptions as less worthy of protection. “Maine has so far failed to present any evidence,” wrote Justice Gorsuch, “that granting religious exemptions to the applicants would threaten its stated public health interests any more than its medical exemption already does.”
Where many other States have adopted religious exemptions, Maine has charted a different course. There, healthcare workers who have served on the front line of a pandemic for the last 18 months are now being fired and their practices shuttered. All for adhering to their constitutionally protected religious beliefs. Their plight is worthy of our attention.
Indeed. This is why the Court will have to address the issue in the not too distant future. Continue to pray.
On Monday (November 1, 2021), the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard oral arguments in two cases (Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, and United States v. Texas) challenging the Texas Heartbeat Act (S.B. 8). The law prohibits most abortions after a heartbeat can be detected through an ultrasound.
Other laws around the country have tried to do this only to run afoul of SCOTUS’ arbitrary viability line which makes a law unconstitutional in the Court’s view.
The Texas Heartbeat Act is unique because it explicitly prohibits any state law enforcement from enforcing the law. Instead, it allows any private citizen to bring a civil suit against anyone who performs or helps someone obtain an illegal abortion.
Because of this, abortionists cannot simply sue state officials, as they usually do to prevent the implementation of this law. And that is the question before the Court in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, “whether a State can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.”
This has confused many people because popular media outlets love to fixate on the “war on women” and the abortion narrative. But I hope you can see by the question presented how the issue before the Court is not really about abortion. We have a fundamental disagreement about abortion being a “constitutional right,” obviously. It is not. Still, the legal question, as presented, could be about any other constitutional right.
This is why even some of the more constitutionally faithful justices expressed concerns about the law. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked about an amicus brief filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition that argued that a similar law would be used against Second Amendment rights in liberal states. He said, “[I]t could be free speech rights. It could be free exercise of religion rights. It could be Second Amendment rights. If this position is accepted here, the theory of the amicus brief is that it can be easily replicated in other states that disfavor other constitutional rights.”
Justice Clarence Thomas asked about the concern that those bringing the suit have apparently suffered no injury, even though they will be awarded monetary relief. “[U]sually, when you think of traditional torts, there is a duty, there’s an injury to the individual. It’s a private matter. There is no requirement here that there be an injury to the plaintiff.” To this, the Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone rightfully answered that the Texas Supreme Court does, in fact, require an injury in fact, even if none is explicitly asserted in the text of the law. But Justice Thomas struggled to find the injury, “So what would that injury be in this — under S.B. 8, if it’s an injury in fact?”
Those attacking the law had serious difficulty making their case, too. SCOTUS has strong precedent which restricts a federal court’s power to enjoin state judges. That is why the pro-abortion side sought to enjoin state law clerks. However, this seemed artificial and unenforceable ultimately. Justice Samuel Alito expressed the skepticism this way:
“[A] clerk performs a ministerial function. Somebody shows up with a complaint, wants to file a complaint, and assuming the formal requirements are met, the clerk files the complaint. The clerk doesn’t have the authority to say, you can’t file this complaint because it’s a bad complaint. I mean, what if the judge, the presiding judge in a particular jurisdiction, said, okay, fine, you don’t want the clerks filing these things, if anybody shows up with an S.B. 8 complaint, call me and I’ll docket it myself? Then what?”
In United States v. Texas, the question was related, but it had to do with the federal government’s power to obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against state officials to stop the enforcement of a law, like the Texas Heartbeat Act. And if the effort of the Texas abortionists to obtain such a relief is difficult, this one seems even more problematic under the federalism principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.
Justice Neil Gorsuch stressed the unprecedented nature of the United States’ request by pointing out it would be the first time in the nation’s history that the Court would grant such a request:
Justice Gorsuch: “General, are you aware of a precedent that permits an injunction against all persons in the country or the world, the cosmos, who bring suit?
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar: No, Justice Gorsuch.
There are novel legal concepts to consider in both these cases for sure, but ultimately this is a problem of SCOTUS’ own making by its underlying, unconstitutional overreach when it comes to abortion. Texas and other states simply continue to try to find ways to save babies within the limits imposed by law. The Texas Heartbeat Act is said to have been saving 150 babies a day, thousands by now. And that is a good thing, no matter how you look at it.
That is why Concerned Women for America (CWA) stood with the people of Texas and Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has been a champion for life, on the steps of the Supreme Court on the day of oral arguments. And we will continue to do so until the day the Court acknowledges the error of its ways and restores justice for the unborn. We are praying that day is very close.
My heart breaks for Scott Smith, the Louden County, Virginia dad whose daughter was raped in a school bathroom by a boy in a skirt, being arrested while protesting at a school board meeting.
He was mercilessly arrested and bloodied up in the process for defending his daughter. I cannot hold back the tears thinking of how he must have felt.
The school district’s superintendent Scott Ziegler claimed that there had been no assault in a school restroom anywhere in Louden County. The dad was painted as a liar and a right-wing extremist as he got agitated.
Based partly on Mr. Smith’s example, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) wrote a letter to President Joe Biden asking him to use the Patriot Act to crack down on these out-of-control parents. They wrote:
“As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”
Think about that. You are out there fighting for justice for your daughter, and instead, you get labeled a domestic terrorist.
Five days later, the Biden Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ), led by Attorney General (AG) Merrick Garland, took immediate action against parents based on the NSBA letter alone. AG Garland sent a memo saying, “While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.” The memo directed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (yes, the FBI) to go after these parents.
Again, DOJ and the FBI were not to focus on protecting Mr. Smith and his daughter; they were to work to suppress Mr. Smith’s efforts to protect his daughter.
But their evil scheme has blown up in their faces. Reports have surfaced of how the school board knew of Mr. Smith’s daughter’s assault, and they concealed it to protect their hideous transgender bathroom policy. They were so negligent that they actually transferred the “transgender,” biological male boy to another school where he assaulted another young woman. A criminal investigation is underway.
The backlash has been so intense that the NSBA has disavowed its letter comparing parents to terrorists, while many of its state members resigned in condemnation.
But the battle is far from over. Believe it or not, AG Garland has yet to renounce his shameful memorandum.
Please pray for this father and against these evil school board policies.
And speak up against it. Ephesians 5:11 says, “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” To do one part of the verse is not enough. We cannot simply take no part in the works of darkness; we must also expose them. We cannot remain silent.
I want to appeal to you, as the news cycle conveniently shifts from crisis to crisis, sparing bad actors of proper accountability, to remember our brothers and sisters trapped in Afghanistan under the terrible, evil rulership of the Taliban.
You might have heard that Glenn Beck, through his Nazarene Fund, was helping to get thousands of Christians out of the country very successfully. Until the U.S. Government got wind of it, that is. Here is what he told Tucker Carlson in a recent interview:
“The State Department has blocked us every step of the way. The State Department and the White House have been the biggest problem. Everyone else, everyone else, has been working together, putting aside differences, and trying to get these people to safety. The State Department and the White House have blocked us every single step of the way. In fact, an ambassador was called in Macedonia last night and told not to accept any of these people, as we were trying to get them off the tarmac here to keep the airport flowing and getting these Christians out. We haven’t really been able to move anybody for about twelve hours. Our mission is now changing greatly. We have to send people into even greater danger to try to smuggle these Christians out, who are marked not just for death, but to be set on fire alive because they’re converted Christians.”
This is the reality for Christians in Afghanistan. And our government, as you heard, shows no sympathy to them as a group. We must pray. We cannot forget that we are one body in our Lord, Jesus Christ. When they suffer, we suffer…
America is changing. Perhaps you have noticed. Our cities, our communities, our schools do not reflect American values, let alone Christian ones. We must begin to pay attention to who is teaching our children if we have ordinarily not paid attention in the past. A series of recent exposures have put an exclamation point to the urgency of this development.
Meet Kristin Pitzen, English teacher at Back Bay High School in Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. Ms. Pitzen proudly posted the video on one of her social media accounts (now deleted), saying this:
Teacher mocks the American Flag and suggests to students they can say the Pledge of Allegiance to the pride flag: pic.twitter.com/1QTS5xjPln
— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) August 27, 2021
“Okay, so during third period, we have announcements, and they do the pledge of allegiance. I always tell my class, ‘Stand if you feel like it; don’t stand if you feel like it. Say the words if you; [sic] don’t have to say the words.’ So, my class decided to stand but not say the words. Totally fine. [Grin] Except for the fact that my room does not have a flag. It used to be there [points toward a wall]. [More grinning] But I took it down during COVID because [whispers] it made me uncomfortable. And, ugh, I packed it away, and I don’t know where [more grinning] and I haven’t found it yet [laugh]. But my kid today goes, ‘Hey, it’s kind of weird that we just stand and, you know, we say it to nothing.’ And I’m like, ‘Oh, well, you know [sarcastically] I gotta find it. Like, I’m working on it. I got you.’ [Shaking head mocking the kid that she is deceiving while laughing hysterically] ‘In the meantime,’ I tell this kid, ‘We do have a flag in the class that you can pledge your allegiance to.’ And he, like, looks around and goes, ‘Oh, that one?’ [pointing at a big LGBTTQQIAAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual) flag the teacher is proudly displaying for the class].”
She could not stop laughing…
The radical left and its media enablers are going berserk over the United States Supreme Court’s denial of an application for injunctive relief to stop Texas’s Heartbeat Law from going into effect. The Court simply refused to act in an activist manner and allowed the process to work as it was constitutionally envisioned.
Anyone seeking the Court to take such an extreme action that would frustrate the democratic process in this manner needs a “strong showing” that they are “likely to succeed on the merits” of the case. The pro-abortion side failed to meet that heavy burden.
Though they are fixated on Roe v. Wade, this case presents “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden.”
To put it simply, the Texas law is not being enforced by state officials, which the pro-abortion side is used to suing in their official capacity, given the fact that they are usually charged with enforcing the law. Not here. This law does not charge any agency or official with its enforcement. Instead, it gives private citizens the right to sue if the law is violated in the future.
The Court then, making no judgment on merits of the case, has refused to enjoin the law (meaning stopping it from going into effect) until there is an actual case or controversy with a proper defendant in order for the courts to assess it in the proper context.
The Court concluded: “This order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.”
Such limited action shows the Court is acting under the sort of judicial restraint envisioned by the constitutional structure, instead of as a super legislature constantly interfering and frustrating the democratic process.
It is discouraging that Chief Justice Roberts joined Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan to dissent from the decision. The Chief Justice recognizes the complex nature of the procedural question presented, saying, “We are at this point asked to resolve these novel questions—at least preliminarily—in the first instance, in the course of two days, without the benefit of consideration by the District Court or Court of Appeals.” But he would actually enjoin the law, frustrating the will of the millions of Texans who helped enact it. This fits a pattern we have seen from the Chief Justice before, where he seems to worry about public opinion in an unhealthy way, taking steps in every major case to protect what he perceives as the “legitimacy” and independence of the Court.
Not surprisingly, the liberal side of the Court, Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, wrote separately, eager to project that they are ready to act on behalf of the pro-abortion side. No need for them to worry about the legitimacy of the Court. That seems to always cut one way.
We are thankful for Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett for their unwavering commitment to the law and showing the proper judicial restraint in such a politically charged area of law. That’s where it counts.
Words fail to express the sorrow
Of the Body of Christ here in America
As we consider the fate
Of our brothers and sisters in Afghanistan.
The images are just heartbreaking.
The stories, agonizing.
We grieve for those in such perilous situations
Wondering what awaits their families.
We humbly ask for Your guidance
For our leaders and those with the
Power and means to come to their aid.
We consider, and plead especially,
For the women and children who are
Specifically targeted by the evil rule
Of the Taliban. Rise against it, Lord.
Stretch out Your mighty hand
And show Your awesome power
For all the world to see that
You are God!
Frustrate the enemy’s plans at every turn.
Let those uncommitted to freedom and liberty
Among our leaders in Washington be exposed,
Let them be removed from their posts.
Let the righteous rule again
That the people may rejoice,
As Your Word says, Lord.
And strengthen the knees of Your Church.
Give us faith to engage the spiritual fight
We so often overlook.
Give us spiritual eyes and help us
To pray fervently in the power of the Spirit.
Hear the plight of those who,
In their distress, cry out to You.
Deliver them and protect them.
Let Your wisdom increase in Afghanistan.
May the threat of persecution
Be a catalyst for Your Word to flourish,
For Your church to do as our Lord and Savior did,
To give our very lives for love.
Teach us to love, Father.
Teach us to have compassion—
To be moved as Jesus when He saw the crowds,
And give us the faith to multiply the loaves and the fish.
For what is impossible with men,
It is possible with God.
We know this to be true, Lord,
And we declare it anew.
We believe in You, our Father.
We believe in Your Son, Jesus, in whose name we pray.
We believe in Your Holy Spirit, through whom we pray.
You will find one of the most stunning mysteries of life in John 1:14. Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, in the original Greek, the Apostle John reveals to us in the most beautiful language that, “The Word,” the Logos, “became flesh.” He is speaking of Christ, of course, but as the Logos? Yes.
God spoke, and it was created (Genesis 1). What else would He speak but “logos.” After creating man, God could have related to us in any number of ways, but again He chooses the word—the logos. Rational thoughts and ideas, blessings and warnings, come to us through words with specific meanings. Yes, even in the beginning, it was understood.
The fall of man comes through the serpent’s word games. “Did God really say?” it asked Eve (Genesis 3:1). God communicates His covenant through words. He gave us prophets to announce and pray, yes, with words.
Even after Christ, Christians are to herald the good news (the Gospel) by using the miracle of God’s Word (the Bible) to tell the story of redemption. “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” asked the Apostle Paul (Romans 10:14).
Looking at all this, one might begin to think that words (the logos) matter.
Which brings us to the problem of this present age…
The most innocuous category of our useless TV ratings system is TV-Y. According to the parental guidelines, it signifies content that is suitable for preschool children (2-6). This is such a formative, innocent age that even children’s networks have developed a junior version (i.e., Nick Jr., Disney Junior) to target these little ones.
Some popular shows have followed suit, developing toddler versions of their shows, specifically targeted to this age group. For example, Disney Junior has developed “Muppet Babies.” Just one look at the baby versions of the classic characters like Miss Piggy, Kermit the Frog, and Gonzo puts a smile on your face.
But I hope by now you know that you cannot entrust your children to the culture. I spoke to NTD News recently about San Francisco’s Gay Men’s Chorus coming out publicly with a song proclaiming they want to “convert our children.”
Please note, you cannot trust the TV ratings either. The Muppet Babies’ latest episode introduces your preschooler to the first transgender princess. Season 3, Episode 19, titled “Gonzo-rella / Summer’s Car Trouble,” just as it sounds, plays on the old story of Cinderella, but now featuring the beloved Gonzo character…
The Concerned Women for America (CWA) Legal Studies Department is proud to report that we have completed your amicus (friend of the Court’s) brief in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case before the United States Supreme Court.
From the outset, we let the Court know we are representing you, and we make clear the values for which you stand. “CWA believes abortion harms women, men, their families, and the nation and actively promotes legislation and public education to support women in crisis pregnancies and address the harms caused by pro-abortion policies,” we write on our Statement of Interest. And we conclude saying, “CWA believes it is false to suggest women need abortion to have equality. Moreover, we affirm women are not a monolithic group assenting to a homogeneous worldview on any policy issue so that this honorable Court benefits from hearing and giving value to a broad range of women voices in cases such as this one.”
We present three basic arguments: (1) states should be free to make a reasonable determination about abortion policy that places a higher value on the life of mothers and their unborn children, (2) the Court has undervalued the state’s interest in women’s health by failing to give the proper weight to the physical, psychological, emotional, and even spiritual harms abortion has had on women’s lives, and finally (3) the Court should give proper weight to the views of a wide range of women’s voices, including those who reject the Court-created “right” to abortion.
The first argument is simple. The Court’s abortion jurisprudence has no foundation in our Constitution and has therefore been predictably unreliable and inconsistent. We write:
Advances in science and our understanding of the process and interests involved in the abortion decision today should push the Court not only to reconsider the definition and timing of viability but the factual underpinnings from Roe that it left standing in Casey. The time has come for the Court to rectify the constitutional error of Roe’s quasi-legislative analysis. States should never be prevented from presenting the evidence which undergirds their legislative reasoning as they fight to withstand a constitutional challenge to its laws in areas where the Constitution envisions them having ample freedom to engage based on well-established federalism principles.
The lower court, in this case, did not even allow the state of Mississippi to show the scientific evidence on which it relied to enact the law at issue. The state’s interest in women’s health was front and center; therefore, we write of the great injustice of the court barring this evidence, “As a women’s organization, amicus considers the omission of the evidence for the state’s interest in the mother’s health from consideration at the pre-viability stage, for example, a grave misuse of the Court’s jurisprudence that the Constitution in no way prescribes.”
The Constitution’s framework is key to our argument because, though the question before the Court concerns viability, the Court’s abortion jurisprudence problem is much more profound. We conclude: “Though not strictly necessary to resolve this case, the Court’s fundamental problems in this area of law go all the way back to Roe and Doe. To fully vindicate the constitutional principles involved requires an honest reversal.”
Second, we argue, “Women’s interests should never be irrelevant in the abortion context at every stage of pregnancy, including at the pre-viability stage.” Period. “Amicus represents mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, and friends who have seen the devastation that abortion can have on women’s emotional, psychological, and spiritual lives.” We go on to present some of the studies of the mental health risks associated with abortion and let the Court know, “Any interpretation of viability that forces courts to exclude the consideration of women’s health, not only before choosing to have an abortion but also after that choice, as the lower court decreed here, should not be upheld.”
And finally, third, we go to CWA’s roots. Pro-abortion women do not represent all women. They do not even represent most women. Pro-life is pro-woman. “[A] new AP-NORC poll found that, ‘most Americans say abortions should generally be illegal during the second and third trimester,’” we report, “One would never guess this by looking at the Court’s abortion precedent.”
The hundreds of thousands of women amicus represent want to stress that women do not need abortion as a measure of equality. Women have intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of abortion public policy. The fact that men do not give birth is not something they see as a flaw but a feature of the beautiful way women are created—the imago Dei. Being mothers is not to women’s detriment, despite its many challenges. Women celebrate the diversity of our Creator and therefore affirm our dignity, aside from abortion. Amicus affirms the dignity of every woman, including unborn women.
That is just a sample, but you can access the full document here. We are confident this brief is something you can be proud of, as we stand together before the Supreme Court and proclaim the truth with honesty and respect.
It is an honor to serve you in such a way.
We are proud to let you know that today, Concerned Women for America (CWA) submitted its amicus brief before the United States Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case challenging the constitutionality of a Mississippi state law that places strict limits on abortions after 15 weeks.
CWA cherishes the opportunity to address the nation’s highest court on such an important topic that has caused so much pain to women, the more than 62 million babies lost to abortion since Roe v. Wade, and to the country.
We asked the Court to take an honest look at its abortion jurisprudence. It is time for the Justices to come clean and acknowledge what we all know: that the Court-created right to abortion has no basis in the Constitution, and states should be free to enact reasonable legislation that reflects the values of its citizens and the full range of interests at play when it comes to abortion.
We asked the Court to reclaim its impartiality as jurists. When it comes to abortion, many judges, like Judge Reeves at the district level in this case, have become advocates for a particular group of women, those who are pro-abortion—ignoring the majority of women who are for strict restrictions on abortion.
In this case, the lower court would not even allow the state to offer evidence of its compelling interest in women’s health. It declared it irrelevant. Our brief makes clear that women’s health should never be irrelevant in the abortion context, no matter the stage of pregnancy.
I think that is something all women—all Americans—believe.
The bottom line is CWA’s brief affirms the dignity of every woman’s life, including unborn women. That’s something we are proud to stand for; pro-life is pro-woman!
Here is a quote from our brief:
“The hundreds of thousands of women amicus represent want to stress that women do not need abortion as a measure of equality. Women have intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of abortion public policy. The fact that men do not give birth is not something they see as a flaw but a feature of the beautiful way women are created—the imago Dei. Being mothers is not to women’s detriment, despite its many challenges. Women celebrate the diversity of our Creator and therefore affirm our dignity, aside from abortion. Amicus affirms the dignity of every woman, including unborn women.”
We ask the Court to restore the dignity of women and the unborn, and concluded saying plainly, “the Court’s fundamental problems in this area of law go all the way back to Roe and Doe. To fully vindicate the constitutional principles involved requires reversal.”
Click here to read our filing in full.
I have pleaded with you before to realize that secular humanists are systematically targeting our children for indoctrination. A recent op-ed titled “Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it.” in one of our nation’s most prestigious newspapers, The Washington Post, helps stress the urgency of the call to stand up and fight for your children.
Though The Post makes the headline personal to make the writer Lauren Rowello’s message more palatable, her call is collective. She is pushing community standards. It’s not that she wants her kids to see sexual deviant behavior (she will make sure of that); she wants your kids to see it. That is why she is writing publicly, advocating for the behavior to be kept in full public display of children—again, they are the target.
She is not urging this wickedness for herself or even as the “self-expression” of those involved, but for the great “benefit” of corrupting children’s minds.
To their shame, The Washington Post, gives her a platform to expand her reach. The author writes, “Children who witness kink culture are reassured that alternative experiences of sexuality and expression are valid — no matter who they become as they mature, helping them recognize that their personal experiences aren’t bad or wrong, and that they aren’t alone in their experiences.”
Your child needs this, you see. That is why Pride parades must be celebrated in public on the busiest streets of the most dynamic of towns. And the more sexually deviant behaviors they showcase, the better…
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!
This week, on the last day of the Court’s 2020 term, the United States Supreme Court gave us a significant First Amendment victory in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, and Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta. In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded the cases, concluding, “California’s disclosure requirement is facially invalid because it burdens donors’ First Amendment rights and is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest.”
The decision is a major victory for the First Amendment, for us at Concerned Women for America (CWA), since we submitted a brief supporting the Petitioners, but more importantly, it is a victory for freedom.
California’s requirement for charities to file major donor lists was a blatant attempt at political intimidation, which would have been exploited maliciously in today’s cancel culture environment. Thankfully, the Supreme Court recognized it for what it was and declared it unconstitutional.
There was some disagreement among the justices about the standard of review to be applied in this case. The Chief Justice argued for an “exacting” scrutiny standard, which would be lower than the traditional “strict” scrutiny, which is the highest the Court applies. In the case of an exacting scrutiny standard, the law does not have to be the “least restrictive” means for the government to accomplish its purposes, but it does mean that it has to be “narrowly tailored.”
This law was blatantly not “narrowly tailored,” so it was declared unconstitutional.
Though we agree with Justice Thomas, who argued in his concurrence that in review of a law that so blatantly burdens First Amendment rights, the higher strict scrutiny standard should apply; Justices Alito and Gorsuch were right in writing that this law was so egregious it fails either standard.
Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan dissented.
The Court recognized that the law “casts a dragnet for sensitive donor information from tens of thousands of charities each year, even though that information will become relevant in only a small number of cases.” Juxtapose that with the risks involved in today’s day and age, and the danger is hard to ignore.
“The petitioners here, for example, introduced evidence that they and their supporters have been subjected to bomb threats, protests, stalking, and physical violence,” the Chief Justice wrote. And continued, “Such risks are heightened in the 21st century and seem to grow with each passing year, as ‘anyone with access to a computer [can] compile a wealth of information about’ anyone else, including such sensitive details as a person’s home address or the school attended by his children.”
This recognition is significant. Cancel culture is a cancer that has overtaken our culture by storm, and the Court needs to recognize it here. California, of course, tried to downplay this issue at oral arguments, boasting of its intent to keep the information private, even when the evidence showed they had violated that privacy in multiple ways.
You are sure to hear this ruling reported as a “conservative Court” acting on behalf of conservatives. A New York Times tweet read, “Breaking News: The Supreme Court rejected California’s requirement that charities report the identities of major donors, siding with conservative groups who said the disclosures could lead to harassment.” This is fake news, as we’ve come to expect. They are manipulating this decision for political gain.
The reality is this was an unusual case where most charitable organizations from both the left and the right were in agreement, standing against California’s radicalism. As the Court noted, “The gravity of the privacy concerns in this context is further underscored by the filings of hundreds of organizations as amici curiae in support of the petitioners. Far from representing uniquely sensitive causes, these organizations span the ideological spectrum, and indeed the full range of human endeavors.”
Yes, this was the rare case where CWA stood alongside the American Civil Liberties Union and many other organizations, conservative and liberal. Good to see the Court take notice and concluding, “the Attorney General’s disclosure requirement imposes a widespread burden on donors’ associational rights. And this burden cannot be justified on the ground that the regime is narrowly tailored to investigating charitable wrongdoing or that the State’s interest in administrative convenience is sufficiently important.”
Catholic Social Services (CSS) has been serving the underprivileged children of Philadelphia for over two centuries. The organization serves children through adoption and foster care services as an outpouring of the love embodied in the tenets of the Christian faith.
This is a problem for the Left.
Today’s secular humanist Left is adamant about crushing dissenting views. All people and organizations that refuse to publicly affirm support for LGBTQIA+ desires must be “canceled”—ostracized, isolated, punished, re-educated. Christians, in particular, are a nuisance. They continue to believe in Creation as told in Scripture. They believe every person has intrinsic value as created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). That’s why they just will not shut up about the injustice of abortion.
Christians insist that God created us male and female (Genesis 1:27, Matthew 19:4) and that God instituted marriage and the family as a foundational institution (Genesis 2:24) that reflects the most sacred relationship between Christ and His Bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:31,32). They dare to promote that children honor both their mother and father (Exodus 20:12, Ephesians 6:2). They insist on loving God above all and neighbors as themselves (Mark 12:30,31). They even believe their help of the poor is akin to serving Christ himself (Matthew 25:40).
This is intolerable. Well, it’s been tolerable for 200 years, but no more. When the Liberal Elites got wind (through a newspaper report) that CSS would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents due to its religious convictions, they decided to kick them off the state’s programs designed to help needy children. …
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!
In our distress we cry out to You, Lord,
For You hear our prayers.
We stand at the door and knock,
Confident that You will open.
Not to excuse our unfaithfulness,
But to receive us in Your grace
Upon the confession of our sin,
Bidding us to turn from our wicked ways.
We extol You for your goodness and patience.
Our hearts burst with the songs of thanksgiving!
Give us understanding, Father, give us wisdom,
According to Your Word, generously and without reproach.
Restore in us the spiritual tastebuds that
Appreciate the sweetness of Your statutes.
All Your commandments are righteous and good.
They bring life. Peace and joy are its fruit.
May Your hand become our help and rest,
We choose to trust in You, instead of our frantic work.
Help our fellow countryman to value Your ways,
Grant us to see, collectively, that there is no other way.
That Your Law may be our delight is our plight.
For we all as sheep have gone astray;
We know we have lost our way,
And turn to You, Good Shepherd, to guide us again.
Your ways alone are just.
We pray against those who promise
The sort of justice that enslaves,
We pray their self-aggrandizing schemes fail.
We pray for those who get caught up in their ways.
Have mercy, O God, and help us to be there,
Once the deceivers find no use for them and abandons them,
Let Your body delight in that restorative work.
For we are not without hope.
None are beyond Your Love, O God.
There is power in Your Word,
There is power in the blood.
You’ve done it in our lives,
Throughout the ages You have been glorified.
Continue Your work, LORD, in our land.
Glory to God, now and forevermore!