Jul 03 2020
0

CWA Celebrates Independence Day

By | National Sovereignty, News and Events | No Comments

On July 4, 1776, 244 years ago, after Congress voted for a complete separation from Great Britain, our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence declaring these beautiful self-evident truths: “That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Today, we continue to be the longest on-going Constitutional Republic in the history of the world.

And that is no accident.  John Adams said it best as he meditated on what they had done.  He said this day “ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to Almighty God.”

From Penny Nance and the staff at Concerned Women for America, we wish you a Happy Independence Day!

Jul 02 2020
0
SCOTUS

Political Justice Strikes Again—June Medical v. Russo

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

If there was any doubt about what the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ era at the Supreme Court was all about, they were erased this week as the Court delivered its opinion in June Medical L.L.C v. Russo. Chief Justice Roberts represents the era of political justice, and it is as ugly as it sounds. Constitutional principles and law are not paramount. The Court’s perception before the radical left is what matters.

In June Medical, the Chief Justice declared a law unconstitutional, not because he thought it was unconstitutional, but because he believes to be consistent is more important than being right. He wrote, “I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.”

To be consistently wrong is a virtue in the Roberts’ era of political justice since it appeases the mob if only for a moment. Remember, this is a case dealing with abortion, a politically charged topic, and, as the Chief demonstrated in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) cases, he will consider much more than the law to save the Court’s reputation.

In the context of abortion, the liberals in the Court, along with the Chief Justice, will abandon impartiality and twist the law to fit the outcome they want. Justice Anthony Kennedy (the former justice who “wrote the book” on political justice) actually admitted as much in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Partial Birth Abortion case, where he confessed:

It is true this longstanding maxim of statutory interpretation has, in the past, fallen by the wayside when the Court confronted a statute regulating abortion. The Court at times employed an antagonistic ‘canon of construction under which in cases involving abortion, a permissible reading of a statute [was] to be avoided at all costs.’

Roberts perpetuates the shameful legacy with this decision, upholding an erroneous precedent for the sake of appeasing the insatiable abortion mob.

The left has his number. They know he is susceptible to the slightest criticism of the Court. So you cannot blame them for making sure the threats are forceful and consistent. Just recently, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse submitted a reprehensible brief making all kinds of threats of “restructuring” the Court if they do not do as the left wants in controversial cases—gun control in that instance. He wrote, “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’”

Guess what happened in that case and in several others involving gun laws? You guessed it; the Court shied away from delving into the topic. “Don’t want to appear political,” you see? So goes the political justice chorus on every controversial case where they face the mob.

Need another recent example? See the Bostock/Harris Debacle.

Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberal bloc of the Court to say this case was just like the one they heard four years ago “Whole Woman’s Health.” But as the dissenters pointed out, this is merely a copout. The Court did not even give proper consideration to the third-party standing issue, where the Court’s unusual approval of abortionist asserting a constitutional right they do not have has been allowed to go forth. The conclusory claim of stare decisis (precedent) solves all in the plurality’s view.

As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out, ultimately, “those decisions created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text.” Precedent didn’t really matter then.

Justice Thomas concluded, “The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion. This Court created the right to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy, which it grounded in the ‘legal fiction’ of substantive due process … As the origins of this jurisprudence readily demonstrate, the putative right to abortion is a creation that should be undone.”

Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh also wrote to highlight the plurality’s distortion of the facts and the law to reach their preferred policy position. “Today’s decision doesn’t just overlook one of these rules. It overlooks one after another,” wrote Justice Gorsuch in dissent. “To arrive at today’s result, rules must be brushed aside and shortcuts taken.”

Political justice strikes again, leaving many victims on its way. Not the least of which is true justice itself.

Jul 02 2020
0

Transgenderism’s War On Women Betrays Left’s Claims To Champion Our Rights

By | CEO, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

While our two organizations, Concerned Women for America and the Women’s Liberation Front, could hardly be farther apart on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, we share a growing concern over much of the political left’s recent policy agenda for women.

A flurry of lawsuits is pressuring the Department of Defense to allow service members to identify into being recognized as a member of the opposite sex. This endorses the misguided notion that it would be safe to allow frontline combat troops to have inaccurate medical information stamped onto their dog tags, and completely disregards the physical privacy and dignity of female service members who would be required to share sleep and shower facilities with male colleagues.

The serious ramifications of forcing the military to falsify official records of sex doesn’t only open all branches of the service to civil rights liability, it creates immediate risks for the brave women who volunteer to serve our country.

For civilians, global news stories about the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders were quickly followed by stories from every part of the world about an increase in family and intimate partner violence against women. Yet the left continues to press for a version of the Violence Against Women Act that would make federal funding for women’s shelters and prisons contingent on allowing men to identify into being allowed to stay with women, instead of other men, on the basis of gender identity.

Both of our organizations include women who’ve survived domestic violence, as well as members deeply committed to women’s crisis shelters. We are appalled that this still-inadequate measure to ensure the safety of the most desperate, at-risk women is being derided as “exclusionary,” when approximately three women a day are murdered by current or former partners. Not even this means of preventing a leading cause of women’s deaths can now be for us.

… Click here to continue reading this important op-ed as featured on The Federalist.

Jul 01 2020
0
CWA CEO and President Penny Nance speaking at Protect Women Protect Life rally at the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Circumvents Louisiana’s State’s Rights

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

Concerned Women for America (CWA) ­­is dismayed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision this week in June Medical Services v. Russo. The decision is not a ruling involving the constitutionality of abortion, but rather about upholding protective health codes and guidelines for women receiving medical procedures involving abortion. Unfortunately, in this case, the highest Court again turned its back on protecting life and protecting women.

In 2014, Louisiana State Senator Katrina Jackson, a Democrat, took a stand to protect women’s health relating to abortion procedures by sponsoring Louisiana Law 620, the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act. The state law ensured safety for women receiving abortions by requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. The law safeguards women during medical procedures in case of emergencies, as well as aligns with medical protocol required for the rest of the state. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s ruling declared the law “unconstitutional” as an “undue burden” on abortion and failed the citizens of Louisiana who believe in the importance of guarding women’s health and safety.

State Senator Jackson vowed to protect against “shoddy medical care … There is no dispute in the medical community about the known complications of abortion, such as hemorrhage, uterine perforation and incomplete abortion … Every complication can become serious and have the potential to change the course of a woman’s life by endangering her reproductive health.”

She went on to state, “While abortion is legally protected, abortion facilities should have the same health standards as the rest of the medical profession. Why should we settle for lower standards for women, especially when women are often coerced or abandoned to the trauma of abortion? I am pro-woman and pro-life.”

U.S. Congressman Dr. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) had this to say:

“I am frustrated and angered by today’s Supreme Court ruling. As an OB/GYN of 25 years, I have personally cared for women in emergency situations after they were driving home from a botched abortion … It is necessary to require abortion clinics to comply with basic regulations protecting these women. Beyond the obvious tragedy of abortion, today’s ruling will put the lives and direct health of women at risk. A shameful and wrong decision.”

Louisiana’s abortion clinics, including June Medical Services, have been flagged on multiple occasions with violating safety codes and guidelines. Violations documented in Statements of Deficiencies by the Louisiana Department of Health include failure to ensure all patients completed and signed consent forms for the abortion procedure, failure to ensure an abortion patient was medically stable upon discharge, failure to ensure that the physician performed and documented a physical examination on each abortion patient, failure to ensure medical supplies utilized were sanitary, unexpired, and properly stored, and more.

Instead of affirming a state’s right to regulate against such egregious violations, the Court majority chose instead to fail women by refusing to allow states like Louisiana to regulate abortion in the same way it regulates other medical procedures. This ruling extends the bad Supreme Court precedent that only guarantees future court fights over state laws.  Rest assured that CWA will be there rallying for the pro-woman, pro-life cause, and against the misguided abortion “carve-outs” that continue to be perpetuated by the Court.

—

Lindsey Hudson is a CWA 2020 Intern for our Government Relations Dept.

Jul 01 2020
0

CWALAC Stands with the U.S. Against Forced Abortion and Sterilization in China’s Religious Minority Populations

By | CEO, International, News and Events, Press Releases, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

This week the U.S. learned the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) is using forced abortion, forced sterilization, and coercive family planning against the Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang as part of a campaign to curb the Muslim minority population in China. As natural population growth has drastically decreased in Xinjang, CCP documents from 2019 reveal plans including a mass sterilization of women in two Uyghur counties with a focus on women in rural minorities.

Penny Nance, CEO and President, and Dr. Shea Garrison, Vice President of International Affairs, at Concerned Women for America had this to say:

“We join Secretary Pompeo in calling on the CCP to immediately end this horrific abuse of human rights. A program of mass sterilization and forced abortion in ethnic and religious minority communities is particularly dehumanizing, and the global community cannot stay silent.

“This past September at the UN General Assembly, Secretary Pompeo called out China as the perpetrator of the worst human rights crisis of our time, as they interned 1 million Uyghurs into so-called training camps to be “re-educated” and “saved” from their culture, language, and faith. Reports that the Chinese government’s oppression of the Uyghurs now extends to forced depopulation of their community continues to demonstrate an utter disregard for the sanctity of human life and the rights and human dignity of ethnic and religious minorities.”

Jul 01 2020
0
SCOTUS Rally

The Bostock/Harris Debacle

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

One of the most disappointing things about the recent Supreme Court decision on the definition of “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the majority’s poor reasoning. The majority included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, along with the four liberal justices (Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan).

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, does not dispute that the word “sex” in federal law means male and female. He indeed says, “The parties concede that the term ‘sex’ in 1964 referred to the biological distinctions between male and female.” Still, the majority argues that because homosexuality and transgenderism relate to “sex,” employment discrimination based on transgenderism or homosexuality is prohibited under the law.

The Court ignored the fact that Congress has considered and rejected protections explicitly based on those categories.

Simply put, the majority did what it wanted to do, not what the law demanded. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, filed a forceful dissent making the point. “There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation,” he wrote. Indeed.

This is extremely disappointing, especially in the case of Justice Gorsuch, because he had been up until now, a strong proponent of originalism or textualism, a legal philosophy that emphasizes sticking to the text of a statute. Unfortunately, he has shown now that he will deviate from that philosophy depending on the topic.

Justice Alito calls him out on it:

The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated––the theory that courts should “update” old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also saw the fallacy, writing in his own dissenting opinion, “Our role is not to make or amend the law. As written, Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation.” It was a simple interpretive exercise unless a judge brings personal emotions into the mix.

One of the signs of the weakness of the majority’s argument was its dismissive attitude towards the opponents’ arguments. Despite the glaring problems with its interpretation, the majority simply declared that it was obvious that sexual orientation and gender identity were included. It was easy to see.  Justice Kavanaugh, again, showed how unserious the argument was: “Because judges interpret the law as written, not as they might wish it were written, the first 10 U. S. Courts of Appeals to consider whether Title VII prohibits sexual orientation discrimination all said no. Some 30 federal judges considered the question. All 30 judges said no, based on the text of the statute. 30 out of 30.”

They were all merely stupid, according to the majority. Same for Congress. No one intended to include sexual orientation or gender identity in the law. They debated whether to include it or not and rejected it. But the majority says they were just too naïve to know they were actually including it in the language.

File this decision among the worse in our history, right along with Obergefell v. Hodges, Roe v. Wade, and Dred Scott v. Sandford. The consequences will be devastating for our country. It will most certainly be used as a weapon against Christian conservatives. But this does not mean we allow it to be used in this way.

We must fight to limit its impact. The Court, indeed, as it always does when it knows it is doing wrong, tells us its impact is limited. Justice Gorsuch swears it will not affect religious liberty and that it does not involve other statues (like Title IX, in the women’s sports context). We must fight to make sure that is the case.

Right now, Concerned Women for America is in the middle of a big fight in regards to Title IX. We have two complaints with the Department of Education and are working on legislative fixes that could help mitigate the damage.

This case is thrusting us into a much bigger fight that is just beginning. A battle for reality. A struggle for truth. And as you know, Truth is on our side. Do not be discouraged. In the end, we will win.

This is not a time for timidity. It is time to redouble our efforts. Strengthen our resolve and stand on the Word of God. Join us in prayer for this fight and be part of the remnant of God in our country. There is power in the unity of the body of Christ (John 17:20-23).

Jun 30 2020
0

Religious Bigotry Law Rejected by Supreme Court, Despite Liberal Justices Objections

By | Education, LBB, News and Events, Press Releases, Religious Liberty, SCOTUS | No Comments

Washington, D.C.— In a 5-4 decision in Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, the United States Supreme Court invalidated a Montana law that targeted religious institutions for discrimination. Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), the largest public policy organization for women in the nation, had this to say:

“We applaud the Supreme Court’s majority today for recognizing that Montana’s exclusion of religious schools from the state scholarship program violates the U.S. Constitution. Tax dollars should not be used in such a blatant discriminatory way. The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause is clear, no law should aim to punish Americans for the free exercise of their faith.

“What is concerning is that all four of the liberal justices of the Court are fully on board with that type of religious discrimination. Shame on them. This should have been a unanimous decision. It is as simple as they come.

“Americans should beware of how close we are to losing our religious liberties in our country. Come election time, CWA member from around the country will make sure people know what is at stake when it comes to the courts.

“We have made progress, but there is much more work to be done.”

Jun 29 2020
0
Penny Nance at Protect Women Protect Life rally at Supreme Court

Conservative Women Decry Chief Justice Roberts’ Politically Correct Jurisprudence

By | Legal, News and Events, Press Releases, SCOTUS, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

Washington, D.C.— Today, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in June Medical Services v. Russo, invalidating a law meant to protect women by raising the standard of care to an acceptable level in cases of abortion. Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America had this to say:

“What a disappointment Chief Justice John Roberts has turned out to be. June Medical Services v. Russo is about whether the abortion industry in Louisiana should receive special exemption from state regulators or should be held to the same standard of medical care that other outpatient procedures require.  Doctors must have hospital admitting privileges for a colonoscopy, why not for abortion?  Do women deserve the same standard of care for emergencies or not?  The state of Louisiana wants to require that abortion doctors have admitting privileges, but the left sees this as a threat to their unregulated abortion agenda.

“It’s unconscionable that abortion clinics have been given a special carve out shielding them from the responsibility for providing a standard of care that a woman deserves under any circumstance.  CWA does not believe abortion is health care.  But the left is hypocritical when it claims that abortion is health care and then opposes requiring doctors to have the full responsibility of a medical provider as an ‘unconstitutional burden.’

“Conservatives must face the fact that we still face a liberal majority in the most important cases at the Supreme Court. When it matters most, some conservative justices have unfortunately shown themselves to be susceptible to the politically correct mob’s demands.

“The hundreds of thousands of women I represent will not let up. We will redouble our efforts to make sure more courageous justices are appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“What this case ultimately demonstrates is that the fight for life is the fight for women’s rights. We are not discouraged. We are not deterred. We will fight, and we will win. For life. For Women.”

Laura Huber, State Director, Concerned Women for America of Louisiana, had this to say:

“The Supreme Court today failed the women of Louisiana. It was we who demanded these protections from our elected officials. But the Supreme Court, once again, imposes itself over the will of the people and enacts their preferred liberal policies by judicial fiat. Women are not free to decide for themselves in the case of abortion. The Supreme Court will dictate what we can and cannot do with our laws. Shame on these five justices who stood against women today. We are especially disappointed to see the Chief Justice, who acknowledges the decision upon which they decided this case was wrongly decided, still let himself be bullied into the politically correct position. But we are not deterred. We will continue to fight for women. We will continue to speak for those who can’t speak for themselves. We will continue to fight for life.”

Jun 26 2020
0

CWA of Louisiana – We Pray!

By | Louisiana | No Comments

Concerned Women for America of Louisiana State Director Laura Huber and several CWA members met at the State Capitol this week to pray for the state legislators and their state.

Concerned Women for America of Louisiana State Director Laura Huber and several CWA members met at the State Capitol this week to pray for the state legislators and their state.

Jun 26 2020
0

CWA Thanks Secretary of Education

By | CEO, Education, Legislative Updates, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

Cute Filipina Female Athlete

As we recognize the 48th Anniversary of Title IX this week, Penny Nance sent a letter to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos encouraging decisive action to enforce Title IX’s mandate of equal opportunity and protection on the basis of biological sex, including for female athletes.  She also requested action on CWA’s civil rights complaints against two universities for violating the Title IX rights of female college athletes because they rostered male athletes identifying as women to compete on their women’s teams, winning conference and national championships:

“On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of women supporters of Concerned Women for America (CWA) around the nation, I want to thank you and the Trump Administration for the Department of Education’s (ED) support to protect female student-athletes under Title IX. We also write to urge you to take proactive measures to ensure consistency, equality, and fair play in every athletics department in every educational institution across the country…

“CWA currently has two complaints before ED’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR), where two institutions (Franklin Pierce University and the University of Montana) have engaged in blatant violations of Title IX protections for female student-athletes by allowing biological men to compete on women’s teams in athletic competitions, inflicting irreparable inequity and injury to their college careers…

“The battle to protect the integrity and fairness of women’s sports is ground zero in the fight for women’s rights. As mothers, daughters, granddaughters, sisters all, we urge you to heed our plea to stand firmly for our rights as women and take bold actions to ensure Title IX is protected at every level of education in our country.”

Read the entire letter to Secretary DeVos here.

Jun 25 2020
0

July 11 Second Saturday Meeting: Update on Missouri General Assembly

By | Missouri | No Comments

(Click here to view and print flyer.)

We are honored to have Sen. Bill Eigel speak on what was accomplished during the abbreviated 2020 Missouri legislative session. He will also address the expansion of Medicaid that will be on our August ballot.

Sen. Eigel is a United States Air Force military veteran of eight years and has owned a small business in St. Charles County for more than 10 years.

After leaving the service in 2006, Sen. Eigel purchased St. Louis Skylights, a small residential and commercial remodeling company. Despite the challenges of the economic recession in 2008 and 2009, Eigel took his company (and affiliates) to be one of the fastest growing skylight installation companies in the country.

Sen. Eigel was elected to the Missouri State Senate in 2016.

Sen. Eigel lives in Weldon Spring with his wife, Amanda, and their two children.They are all members of St. Joseph’s Catholic Parish in Cottleville, Missouri.

 

 

Jun 24 2020
0

Defunding World Health Organization is Necessary; Here’s Why

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

By Jaelyn Morgan, Intern for the Department of International Affairs, Concerned Women for America

Wall Street Journal could not have phrased it any better, “What good is a global health agency that won’t tell the truth about a pandemic?”[1] Yet, controversy still surrounds the recent announcement made by President Trump to defund the World Health Organization (WHO) due to its untimely and China-biased response to COVID-19. Some say the reaction is extreme. Others claim WHO is corrupted beyond repair. The question remains: is this policy worth supporting? Or is the U.S. withdrawing from an organization at the time the world needs it the most?

The World Health Organization is a branch of the United Nations responsible for communicating internationally relevant medical information to its Member States all across the globe. In light of their failure to properly convey information about the Coronavirus, it is no wonder the Trump Administration decided to write it off. On April 15, 2020, the White House released a fact sheet containing specific accusations of misconduct against WHO, criticizing the organization for its slow response to the Coronavirus and calling it to engage in total structural reform to ensure transparency, data sharing, accountability, and impartiality.[2]

On May 29, 2020, President Trump officially announced that the U.S. would terminate its relationship with WHO and redirect U.S. annual funding of $450 million dollars to “other worldwide and deserving, urgent, global public health needs.”[3] Justification for this measure was China’s “total control over World Health Organization,” and consequent action to “[pressure] the World Health Organization to mislead the world when the [Coronavirus] was first discovered by Chinese authorities.” The ensuing weeks resulted in a mixed reaction from both sides of the political aisle. However, this wakeup call toward WHO might not only have been necessary, but inevitable.

The political nature of a global entity makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make any “neutral” decisions. Even WHO’s objectively “good” goal of “building a better, healthier future for people all over the world,”[4] does not make it a completely neutral entity which promotes what is best for humankind. Why? Each nation represented in WHO comes from a complex socio-cultural background with their own worldview and priorities. These worldviews inevitably clash due to significant variations in what each perceives as real, good, or best.

The World Health Organization is biased on many of its policies and recommendations. For example, a central aspect of WHO’s reproductive health initiative is the promotion and facilitation of abortion services. This objective is cleverly disguised under rhetoric advocating for “women’s rights” on the grounds of “realizing a women’s right to decide the spacing and timing of her children.”[5] Yet, this failure toward neutrality is exposed in its complete disregard for the pro-life argument against abortion on the grounds that it violates the human rights of an unborn child. WHO’s Reproductive Health Strategy explicitly states that “urgent actions are needed … to the extent allowed by law, provision of safe abortion services … [and] providing abortion services at primary health care level.”[6] Again, their progressive healthcare agenda is revealed in the claim that “access to safe, legal abortion is a critical reproductive healthcare service.”[7]

In addition, WHO’s explicitly progressive goal of advancing abortion across the globe demonstrates its profound lack of understanding and respect for national sovereignty. Their one-sided agenda reveals bias against nations who are culturally pro-life, as their publications demonstrate that WHO views such nations as oppressive entities which must provide “safe abortion” services to show that they support women.

For the United States, defunding the World Health Organization and using the funds to help other like-minded entities instead is a good decision. If an organization such as WHO cannot be neutral, there is no sense in funding it, especially since it has become clear that WHO has been acquiescing to the Chinese Communist Party at the expense of the health and well-being of other nations. The United States does, and hopefully always will, stand for democracy, freedom, and national sovereignty. This can be accomplished by withdrawing from WHO and determining as a nation which like-minded organizations we ought to support amid this worldwide pandemic.

[1] The Editorial board, “How WHO Really Feels About China,” Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-who-really-feels-about-china-11591226923.

[2] “President Donald J. Trump Is Demanding Accountability From the World Health Organization,” Fact Sheets: Healthcare, The White House, April 15, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-demanding-accountability-world-health-organization/.

[3] “Remarks by President Trump on Actions Against China,” Remarks: National Security & Defense, May 30, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-actions-china/.

[4] “About WHO,” World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/about.

[5] “Abortion” Overview, World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/health-topics/abortion#tab=tab_1.

[6] World Health Organization, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, “Reproductive health strategy to accelerate progress towards the attainment of international development goals and targets,” May, 2004, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/68754/WHO_RHR_04.8.pdf.

[7] Bearak, Jonathan Marc, Anna Popinchalk, Gilda Sedgh, et al., “Pregnancies, abortions, and pregnancy intentions: a protocol for modeling and reporting global, regional and country estimates,” Reproductive Health 16, no. 36, (March 2019), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-019-0682-0.

 

Jun 24 2020
0

Join Us! CWA Launches Summer Speaker Series

By | News and Events, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

Concerned Women for America (CWA) is hosting a series of virtual events this summer that spotlight one of our seven core issues. We are launching the first of the series this Thursday, June 25, with an emphasis on the core issue of sexual exploitation. The topic will be “Saving Women’s Sports.”

Background:
This week marks the 48th Anniversary of Title IX. As a reminder, Title IX is the federal civil rights law that protects women from sex discrimination in educational programs, including sports. CWA is standing for female athletes whose rights are being violated under Title IX when male athletes identifying as girls are taking their place.

We are excited to have as our first guest speaker Beth Stelzer, the founder of  Save Women’s Sports. Beth is an amateur powerlifter, and she will share with us her unique personal story about transgender athlete participation in her sport. Beth stresses that defending women in athletics ought not be a partisan nor religious issue. Beth says, “If we allow males to compete in female sports, there will be men’s sports; there will be co-ed sports, but there will no longer be women’s sports.”  

Here are the details:
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2020
Time: 1:00 – 2:00 EST
Registration:

  • Registration is free but required for this Zoom event.
  • Click here to register. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.

We hope you will join us for this educational and timely event. Be sure to invite your friends and family. Space is limited so be sure to register today!

Jun 22 2020
0

Protecting Fair Play for Women’s College Sports

By | Blog, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

Editor’s Note: This week marks the 48th Anniversary of Title IX being enacted into law. This groundbreaking civil rights law prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. It paved the way for female students to have equal opportunities in school athletics vastly multiplying female opportunity and participation in sports. Join us in our efforts to #SaveGirlsSports.

CWA’s Government Relations Intern shares her personal story as she discusses the importance of requiring a fair playing field for female athletes:

The first time I came face-to-face with the issue of fair play and equal opportunity for women in sports occurred while I was in my junior year of college. I competed on Liberty University’s Taekwondo Sports Team in 2018. The team competed against Ivy League universities around the U.S., such as the Eastern Collegiate Taekwondo Conference and the Atlantic Collegiate Alliance of Taekwondo. During practice one day, our coach pulled the female athletes aside and made us aware of the fact that certain competitions now allowed males who identified themselves as females to compete against females. He went on to explain that if one of us did not feel comfortable fighting against a male, then she was not obligated to do so. I remember thinking how it would be unfair to me and all of my fellow female teammates, who had trained long and hard for months, to end up being paired to spar with a male at one of these competitions. In fact, our coach mentioned how highly competitive teams might take advantage of this policy of permitting biological males to compete against females to achieve greater success and to win the overall team award. A female Taekwondo athlete should not be in a situation that forces her to either forfeit a match or compete in an unfair fight.

Unfairness in women’s sports impacts female college athletes in the U.S. today and is something that continues to spread throughout all educational levels. Colleges and high schools that have allowed males identifying as females to compete in women’s sports have proved to be detrimental to female athletes everywhere. At the college level, Franklin Pierce University, located in Rindge, New Hampshire, was awarded the 2019 NCAA title when a biological male on its women’s team won the 400-meter women’s hurdles. The University of Montana permitted a former male cross-country team winner to transfer to the female cross-country team and win gold in the 2020 Big Sky Conference Championship indoor mile. At the high school level, female athletic students have filed lawsuits, due to unjustifiable losses in women’s sports scholarships. Multiple examples and scientific research confirm that biological differences, levels of testosterone, and puberty gives the biological male the upper hand in athleticism.

As we recognize the anniversary of Title IX, enacted on June 23, 1972, it is imperative that our nation remember and defend the civil rights law’s intention: enable women equal opportunity and fair competition within sports. Now, with attempts to permit male athletes who identify as women  to compete in any and every women’s college sport, social progress seems to be reverting, women’s rights are being threatened, and females are being discriminated against on the basis of sex.

Concerned Women for America has taken a stand to protect women’s rights as athletes in its support of H.R 5702, Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2020, which protects Title IX. This legislation secures women’s and girls’ right to fairly compete in athletics. Under H.R. 5702, it is a federal violation for males, identifying as females, to compete in government funded, sponsored, and facilitated all-female sports. Rep. Greg Steube (R-Florida) sponsored this bill, which to date has only 15 co-sponsors. CWA in partnership with other prominent women’s organizations has sent a coalition letter to the House of Representatives urging support for this legislation.

Please join CWA in this effort. Click here to email or tweet a message asking your U.S. Representative to cosponsor H.R. 5702 to protect and uphold Title IX and women’s sports.

Jun 18 2020
0

Heritage Foundation and Concerned Women for America Unite to Reach Young Women

By | News and Events, Press Releases, YWA | No Comments

Heritage and CWA presidents announce collaboration effort to grow Young Women for America

WASHINGTON—Heritage Foundation President Kay C. James and Concerned Women for America CEO and President Penny Young Nance announced today that the two organizations have launched a combined effort to energize young women to advocate for fundamental American principles—freedom, faith, and strong families and communities—on college campuses across America.

Concerned Women for America began Young Women for America in 2011 in response to a growing need to invest in young women leaders on campus. Young Women for America has grown to 36 chapters across the nation, but the leaders of Concerned Women for America and Heritage don’t think it is enough. The two organizations have joined together to serve as a force multiplier for the conservative movement to reach even more young women.

“We are at a pivotal point in our nation’s history and for the future of freedom in America. The Heritage Foundation has the intellectual firepower and resources for training and developing this new generation of young women,” said James. “Working together, Heritage and Concerned Women for America will empower and activate thousands of women to do the hard but necessary work of keeping our republic.”

A recent survey by Gallup found that 52% of young adults have a favorable view of socialism compared to 47% who have a favorable view of capitalism. This alarming trend is being played out on the national stage with the rise of political leaders who espouse socialist policies. This follows the last 40 or more years during which billions of dollars have been poured into women’s studies programs on campuses.

“The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s premier conservative research and educational institution,” said Nance. “Concerned Women for America is humbled and grateful for the support from Heritage under the leadership of Kay James. With the incredible support of this great institution, our current and future Young Women for America chapters and women will gain invaluable exposure to your scholars and resources that will equip them to be better informed and engaged citizens and leaders throughout their lives. Thank you, Heritage Foundation, for your incredible collaborative support.”

The partnership will help Concerned Women for America expand its reach to bring young women from around the country to Washington, D.C., to give them access to mentors, elected officials, and learn the true history of our great nation. Creating a more robust presence of Young Women for America leaders on America’s campuses will answer the careful and patient cultivation and indoctrination by the political and institutional Left which allows no dissent from radical dogma such as intersectionality.

Young Women for America leaders not only engage in rich and meaningful discussions with fellow students, hold outreach events, and invite top thinkers to campus, but also volunteer in their local communities, hold fundraisers, and build deep friendships.

Click here to learn more about Young Women for America and locate a campus chapter to get involved.

###

Jun 18 2020
0

Johnson City Prayer/Action Chapter Kick-Off Meeting – Monday, June 29

By | Tennessee | No Comments

(Do you, or someone you know, live in or near Johnson City, Tennessee? Either way, please read on.)

Hello, I am Tammy Smith, the new Concerned Women for America (CWA) Prayer/Action Chapter Leader of Johnson City. I am very excited to announce our kick-off meeting to be held Monday, June 29.

No doubt you are as concerned as I am about the many moral issues threatening our community, state, and nation today. Most people want to work to create a better nation for our children and grandchildren but are unsure of the steps to take.

That is why I am involved today, and why I invite you to join me at our kick-off meeting. Our Prayer/Action Chapter will meet once a month to educate ourselves on one of CWA’s seven core issues, and then pray and take action on the issue(s). Join us and enjoy fellowship with like-minded individuals. If you are unable to attend our first meeting, be sure to contact me and ask to be put on our email list for future meetings.

When: Monday, June 29, 12:00 noon
What: Kickoff Meet & Greet. There will be a brief CWA presentation, prayer, fellowship, and lunch. Bring a dessert to share if you would like.
Where: Home of Tammy Smith at 803 Hales Chapel Road, Johnson City, TN 37615
RSVP: Please RSVP by Thursday, June 25. Contact me at 585-356-7331 or  [email protected].

Do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Please plan to attend and be sure to bring a friend!

If you do not live in the Johnson City area, but would like information on how to start a chapter in your area, please reach out to CWA’s national office today. They will be happy to assist and train you as they did me.

I look forward to hearing from you!

Tammy Smith
Johnson City Prayer/Action Chapter Leader
Concerned Women for America
[email protected]

Jun 18 2020
0

Despite Bad Ruling at the Supreme Court, HHS Issues Final Rule Upholding Traditional Definition of Sex

By | Blog, Legislative Updates, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation, Social / Cultural Issues | No Comments

Last year,  President Trump, through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), proposed a rule to overturn an erroneous interpretation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that redefined the word “sex” to include “gender identity” and “termination of pregnancy.” Concerned Women for America supporters mobilized in support of this change, submitting some 2,000 comments in favor of this essential regulatory change to protect life and health.

Last week, HHS announced the final rule to make this fix permanent and in doing so reasserted the rule of law that government regulations must be consistent with laws passed by Congress. The new rule clarifies that Section 1557 of the ACA does not force a recipient of federal funding to include abortion or gender transition treatment as a mandate to comply with anti-discrimination laws based on sex.

CWA called it the Conscience Care Rule because HHS has acted to restore consistency with the First Amendment and the intent and longstanding interpretation of civil rights laws. It also upholds the integrity of pro-life policy, conscience rights, and religious liberty protections in current law.

With the Supreme Court issuing a horrible ruling this week that transgender status must now be interpreted as “sex” under Title VII workplace discrimination laws, the HHS rule change is an essential and timely clarification that the federal definition of sex discrimination under health care programs does not include abortion or gender identity, but aligns with biological sex. For many healthcare providers, performing abortions or providing sex reassignment treatment is a violation of conscience and sound medical practice.

The HHS Conscience Care Rule represents a final roll back of the Obama-era regulation which had been blocked by a federal court that agreed the mandate to redefine sex exceeded its statutory authority. It also lifts many costly regulatory requirements, such as requiring insurance companies to explain benefits in writing in 16 languages. This rule is estimated to save taxpayers $3.6 billion over five years.

We applaud the Trump Administration for holding true to the text of the ACA statute, not an activist interpretation as Obama did. Congress’ sole responsibility to write the law under Article 1 of the Constitution should not be defied by administrative activism in the executive branch or judicial activism in the courts.