Category

Legal

Little Sisters of the Poor Win, Again, at the High Court

By | CEO, Legal, News and Events, Press Releases, Religious Liberty, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Washington, D.C.The U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania. Once again, the Court sides (7-2) with protecting their religious liberties from government intrusion. Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America had this to say:

“The hundreds of thousands of women I represent at Concerned Women for America (CWA) are thrilled to see the United States Supreme Court upholding the religious liberty rights of the Little Sisters of the Poor. We have been standing with them from the beginning and will continue to fight against government intrusion into matters of faith and conscience.

 “It is truly unbelievable that they continue to have to go to court to defend their constitutional rights and that the possibility still exists that they may be dragged into court once again. The Court says today that the Trump Administration has the authority under the Affordable Care Act to promulgate this religious liberty exception, leaving the door open for another more hostile administration to undo it.

“This is why Americans must continue to be fully engaged in the political process. It is why CWA is investing considerable resources urging Christians to pray and work to get out the vote this November. Our religious liberties are at risk. We must elect those who exhibit a clear track record of upholding religious liberty.

 “Today, CWA supporters celebrate this decision. Tomorrow, we are back at work to protect our freedoms.”

###

Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) is the legislation and advocacy arm of Concerned Women for America. Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with a rich 40-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.

 

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.

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.

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).

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.”

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.”

Bostock – Harris Supreme Court Update

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

The United States Supreme Court has released its decision in the Title VII cases Harris v. EEOC, Bostock v. Clayton County, and Altitude Express v. Zarda rewriting federal law in a raw act of judicial overreach.

We have seen this movie before. The Supreme Court rewriting federal law to appease political correctness is one of the most destructive developments in American jurisprudence. It always disappoints and brings more, not less, pain to our country. We can expect a similar type of legacy for today’s decision.

As Justice Alito plainly puts it in dissent: “There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation.” Which of course is a fundamental violation of the separation of powers set by our Constitution.

The majority betrays the Constitution and, Justice Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts betray the textualism they purport to support with this nonsensical decision that hurts women most of all. The protections based on “sex” in federal law were specifically enacted to protect women and strengthen justice, not threaten it because of the beautiful differences between males and females. But today, the Court erases that and envisions a world where fundamental truths can be twisted to mean whatever the “woke” culture of the times dictates.

CWA General Counsel Mario Diaz, Esq. and Doreen Denny, VP of Government Relations, have more on the potential dangers of this disastrous decision.

Supreme Court Rewrites Law to Appease PC Police, Again

By | Culture, News and Events, Press Releases, Religious Liberty, SCOTUS, Social / Cultural Issues | No Comments

Washington, D.C. — The United States Supreme Court has released its decision in the Title VII cases Harris v. EEOCBostock v. Clayton County, and Altitude Express v. ZardaPenny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) made the following comments:

“The majority of the Court has effectively destabilized protections for women in federal law with this ruling. Today they invite federal lawsuits in every other area of federal law where the word ‘sex’ appears. Women will need to redouble their efforts to retain the protections that have cost us so much throughout the years. And that is exactly what we will do.

“The protections based on ‘sex’ in federal law were specifically enacted to protect women and strengthen justice, not threaten it because of the beautiful differences between males and females. But today, the Court erases that and envisions a world where fundamental truths can be twisted to mean whatever the ‘woke’ culture of the times dictates.

“Worse, the Court majority diminishes what it means to be a woman and the status and dignity of being female. This is not a left or right issue. Concerned Women for America rallied in front of the Supreme Court alongside radical feminists who boldly stood to ask the Court to stand strong for women and not deviate from the truthful application of the word ‘sex’ in federal law.”

###

A Privilege to Support Judge Walker for the D.C. Circuit

By | Judicial Nominations, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

President Donald Trump has given us great judicial nominees throughout his presidency. It has indeed been the best group we have ever seen. The vast majority have a proven track record of being Constitutionalists who are committed to upholding the Constitution and laws as written.

But every once in a while, an exceptional talent comes along that stands out as someone with an extraordinary intellect and understanding of our history and ideals. Judge Justin Walker is such a jurist. He is President Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where Justice Kavanaugh used to serve. He currently serves as a federal district judge in the Western District of Kentucky.

As the nation wrestles with the constitutional limits of the power grab many mayors around the country are enjoying as the result of the coronavirus, Judge Walker stands out as a judge who understands the importance of our religious liberties as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Going into Easter weekend, many mayors, including Kentucky’s Greg Fischer, wanted to prohibit Easter services, under threat of law.

On Holy Saturday, the day before Easter, the matter came before Judge Walker. A Church called “On Fire Christian Center” sued to enjoin Mayor Fischer from enforcing an executive order that prohibited them from gathering, even if they observe social distancing and also if they stayed in their cars and did a “drive-in church” service.

Judge Walker saw that for what it was, a great offense to the Constitution. He then proceeded to enter a temporary restraining order enjoining Mayor Fischer and the City of Louisville from enforcing compliance with their prohibition on “drive-in churches.” In doing so, he wrote a magnificent memorandum that showed complete command of the issue and highlighted its importance on our constitutional structure. I commend to you the entire document. Judge Walker did not hold back:

On Holy Thursday, an American mayor criminalized the communal celebration of Easter. That sentence is one that this Court never expected to see outside the pages of a dystopian novel, or perhaps the pages of The Onion. But two days ago, citing the need for social distancing during the current pandemic, Louisville’s Mayor Greg Fischer ordered Christians not to attend Sunday services, even if they remained in their cars to worship – and even though it’s Easter. The Mayor’s decision is stunning. And it is, “beyond all reason,” unconstitutional.

Judge Walker traced the history of religious discrimination that made us the great nation that we are. He wrote, “The Pilgrims were heirs to a long line of persecuted Christians, including some punished with prison or worse for the crime of celebrating Easter – and an even longer line of persecuted peoples of more ancient faiths.”

He explained the importance of religious freedom and the importance of Easter for Christians. He even showed great sensibility by noting that churches owed no explanation of their beliefs to the government.

The Christians of On Fire, however, owe no one an explanation for why they will gather together this Easter Sunday to celebrate what they believe to be a miracle and a mystery. True, they can attempt to explain it. True, they can try to teach. But to the nonbeliever, the Passion of Jesus – the betrayals, the torture, the state-sponsored murder of God’s only Son, and the empty tomb on the third day – makes no sense at all. And even to the believer, or at least to some of them, it can be incomprehensible as well. But for the men and women of On Fire, Christ’s sacrifice isn’t about the logic of this world. Nor is their Easter Sunday celebration. The reason they will be there for each other and their Lord is the reason they believe He was and is there for us. For them, for all believers, “it isn’t a matter of reason; finally, it’s a matter of love.”

Writing this way, Judge Walker displays great respect not only for the Constitution but also for religious communities (for Christians), which is unfortunately so rare with so many today.

That is why we should be ecstatic to see Judge Walker elevated to the D.C. Circuit. Let us pray for him and the attacks he will surely get for speaking boldly in favor of religious liberty.

Nance: Norma McCorvey’s Testimony Reveals Roe v. Wade’s Foundation of Lies

By | CEO, Family Issues, Feminist / Women's Issues, Legal, News and Events, Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life, Social / Cultural Issues, Uncategorized | No Comments

CWA’s CEO and President Penny Young Nance wrote the following op-ed published on CNS News.

“It is always sobering to stand and contemplate the destruction and devastation left along the pathway of “Hurricane” Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that invented a right to abortion. It is worse than any of the modern-day disasters we have experienced. More than sixty million babies now lost.

In light of a new documentary airing Friday — “AKA Jane Roe” — today is yet another day of mourning as we now hear a new tragic explanation that only adds to the injustice and confusion that is Roe.

The Supreme Court case was not only plainly an unconstitutional exercise in judicial activism, it was also the result of a wicked plan to deceive the public into something it never wanted. And now, this 2020 documentary, produced by Nick Sweeney, whose body of work informs viewers of his agenda, paints a picture of even more injustice and deception surrounding the complicated and sorrow-filled life of Norma McCorvey.”

Read Penny’s Entire Op-Ed Here:

The U.S. Constitution – Part 3

By | Legal, News and Events | No Comments

Concerned Women for America (CWA) General Counsel Mario Diaz, Esq. continues his journey helping us understand America’s founding documents and the principles which guard our liberty. Part III delves into Article II of the Constitution, which focuses on the Executive Branch.

Part IV is scheduled for release on May 20 at 3PM on Facebook Live. Be sure to follow us on Facebook so you can be notified to join us live!

The U.S. Constitution Series – Part II

The U.S. Constitution Series – Part I

Concerned Women for America Rallies (Virtually!) in Support of the Little Sisters of the Poor

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

Believe it or not, the Little Sisters of the Poor are back at the U.S. Supreme Court still trying to defend their religious liberty from the burdens that states continue to impose on them following the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare). Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in their case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court is broadcasting the arguments live, via conference during the Covid-19 lockdown period. Click here to listen to oral arguments that will be transmitted by C-Span starting at 10 AM today.

Concerned Women for America will be joining Becket, who represents the Sisters, and other pro-religious liberty organizations in a virtual rally, starting at 8:45 AM. The theme is a simple one that has carried us throughout the years fighting for these poor sisters, “Let Them Serve.” Click here to join in!

To refresh your memory, the Sisters run 30 health care facilities for the elderly poor in the United States — from nursing homes to intermediate care to residential or assisted living and other independent-living facilities. All members of their order disregarded worldly comforts, taking vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and hospitality, in order to serve the Lord and their neighbors. The Little Sisters of the Poor actually maintain a tradition of begging, demonstrating a life of true dependence on faith.

That is why it has been so infuriating from the beginning that the Obama Administration insisted that these sisters violate their religious beliefs and provide health insurance covering contraception and abortifacients. The Sisters won their case at the Supreme Court, which required the federal government to accommodate the Sisters.

The Trump Administration also broadened the scope of religious liberty protections, hoping to put an end to the issue finally. But several states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, sued the Federal government, saying the protections were too broad.

The Sisters were then forced to intervene in the lawsuit once again, asking the courts to let the Trump Administration implement the religious protections that will finally protect their religious liberties.

It is a simple ask that we are hoping the Supreme Court will quickly uphold, telling states to stop harassing people of faith.

The U.S. Constitution Series – Part II

By | Legal, News and Events | No Comments

Concerned Women for America (CWA) General Counsel Mario Diaz, Esq. continues his journey helping us understand America’s founding documents and the principles which guard our liberty. Part II delves into Article I of the Constitution and focuses on the structure of government.

Part III is scheduled for release on May 6 at 3PM on Facebook Live. Be sure to follow us on Facebook so you can be notified to join us live! And let others know about it.

 

The U.S. Constitution – Part 3

The U.S. Constitution Series – Part I

Denny: Supreme Court Should Look to Transgender Sports Case in ‘Harris v. EEOC’

By | Feminist / Women's Issues, Legal, News and Events, SCOTUS, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

CWA’s Vice President of Government Relations, Doreen Denny penned the following opinion piece published on CNSnews.com highlighting  Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, arguing the definition of sex in federal civil rights law in the context of employment. Doreen argues that the Justices should consider DOJ’s recent conclusions about the impact of gender identity-based claims on women in a Connecticut sports case in their deliberations.

“The Supreme Court announced it will resume oral arguments by teleconference in May. Several high-profile cases are being decided and opinions in these cases are sure to break through the latest news of the coronavirus pandemic.

Among them is Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, arguing the definition of sex in federal civil rights law in the context of employment. If the Court rules sex under Title VII includes “gender identity,” it would effectively rewrite federal law and invalidate policies and practices which treat men as male and women as female.

The Justices would do well to consider DOJ’s recent conclusions about the impact of gender identity-based claims on women in a Connecticut sports case in their deliberations in Harris.

Late last month, Attorney General William Barr signed a Statement of Interest in the federal case about the meaning of sex and equal opportunities in women’s sports. Three Connecticut high school female track athletes have been forced under state athletic association policy to compete against male runners identifying as girls.

Connecticut officials have rejected the concerns of female athletes, claiming federal law compels them to allow students to compete according to the gender with which they identify. Racing against males with built-in physical advantage, the female plaintiffs have lost opportunities to excel in their sport, including state and regional titles.

But, in a 13-page statement, the Department of Justice (DOJ) flatly rejects the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) claim that Title IX requires classifying transgender students according to their perceived gender, not their biological sex:

“Title IX and its implementing regulations prohibit discrimination solely ‘on the basis of sex,’ not on the basis of transgender status, and therefore neither require nor authorize CIAC’s transgender policy. To the contrary, CIAC’s construction of Title IX as requiring the participation of students on athletic teams that reflect their gender identity would turn the statute on its head.”

Barr’s statement offers multiple reasons why dismissing “on the basis of sex” as binary and immutable would be fallacy and should move us a step closer to protecting an equal playing field for every female student athlete in America:

  • Physiological differences between the sexes matter in protecting equal opportunity.”

Read Doreen’s Entire Piece Here:

The U.S. Constitution Series – Part I

By | Legal, News and Events | No Comments

Concerned Women for America (CWA) General Counsel Mario Diaz, Esq. takes us on a journey to understand America’s founding documents and the principles which guard our liberty. Part I focuses on the Declaration of Independence by way of introducing us to the concepts that undergird the U.S. Constitution.

Part II of the series is scheduled for release on April 22 at 3PM on Facebook Live. So be sure to follow us on Facebook so you can be notified to join us live!

The U.S. Constitution Series – Part II

The U.S. Constitution Series – Part III

CWA Welcomes DOJ Action to Protect Women’s Sports

By | Feminist / Women's Issues, Legal, Legislative Updates, News and Events, Press Releases, Social / Cultural Issues | No Comments

Washington, D.C. — Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC), made the following statement after the U.S. Department of Justice led by Attorney General William Barr filed a Statement of Interest in federal court against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference for their policy that forces female athletes to compete against male athletes identifying as girls. Plaintiffs in the case are three high school female athletes who have faced sex discrimination as they sought to excel in track at their schools.

“The Attorney General and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have taken a crucial step in the right direction to protect women’s sports. Concerned Women for America and our allies fighting to protect equal opportunities for female athletes have been waiting for them to speak. Female athletes are being sidelined by a culture that refuses to stand up to this injustice. Our daughters deserve better. It’s time for the Administration to act and for the court to get it right.

“CWA has been calling on the Trump Administration to make clear that Title IX’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex should prevent any male athlete identifying as a girl from competing in female sports. The reason is obvious. Biology tells us why. It’s been an uphill battle, but with this statement, we know they are listening.

“For this reason, CWA filed a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against Franklin Pierce University for rostering a male transathlete on their women’s track team who won the 2019 NCAA national title in the women’s 400-meter hurdles. OCR has opened an investigation but has yet to rule.

CWA will continue to fight for the rights, dignity, and status of women and girls against an activism that wants to deny us a fair playing field.”

###

Trump Nominates For OMB Director A Man Bernie Sanders Savaged For Being A Christian

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

You might remember that Vought was viciously attacked for his Christian faith at his previous nomination hearings. Indeed, this reminds us the radical, anti-Christian left is now the mainstream of the Democratic Party, as it was Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), a front-runner for his party’s presidential nomination, who led the attack.

President Trump fights a more significant battle than just this nomination by appointing him. He fights for the liberties of all Americans, regardless of faith.

Click here to read the entire article, as featured on The Federalist.

Pro-Life Victory in the Ninth Circuit?

By | LBB, News and Events | No Comments

The impact of President Donald Trump’s success in the appointment of judges, not only at the U.S. Supreme Court but beyond, was tangibly felt recently when the traditionally-liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the Trump Administration’s implementation of Title X regulations that would effectively defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion-focused organizations.

The Ninth Circuit ruled (7-4) in California v. Azar, that the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) regulations implementing Title X do not violate federal or constitutional law. The court acted as a limited en banc panel composed of 10 judges selected at random and the Chief Justice which is usually its final say on matters before the court. All seven judges who ruled to uphold the law were appointed by a Republican president, including two new judges appointed by President Trump.

Thirteen of the 29 judges currently serving at the Ninth Circuit have been appointed by a Republican president. That composition gives much better odds of getting constitutionalist judges to hear cases to anyone bringing their case before the court. That is why all the effort we have put into making sure we get quality nominees to the federal bench matters.

Concerned Women for America (CWA) members have understood the importance of judicial nominations for a long time. It does not matter what laws we pass if we allow judicial activists to dominate the court system imposing their personal policy preferences by judicial fiat. We are seeing the fruits of our disciplined focus on this area for many years. I want to thank those of you who have done the hard work behind the scenes to support our efforts in this area.

The opinion in the California v. Azar case shows clearly the contrast of judges trying to impose their policy preferences unto laws and courageous judges standing up for judicial restraint in the most sensitive of areas, like abortion. Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority, exposed some of the passionate language that judges use to masquerade as legal authority (citation omitted):

The dissent relies heavily on its mistaken view that the Final Rule is a “Gag Rule” that “gags health care providers from fully counseling women about their options while pregnant.” …  The dissent conjures up a “Kafkaesque” situation where counselors have to “walk on eggshells to avoid a potential transgression” of the Final Rule and in response to questions about terminating a pregnancy can merely say: “I can’t help you with that or discuss it. Here is a list of doctors who can assist you with your pre-natal care despite the fact that you are not seeking such care.” … But this “Kafkaesque” scenario is belied by the Final Rule itself, which expressly authorizes counseling on abortion while prohibiting referrals for abortion. Indeed, the Final Rule provides its own example of a straightforward conversation with a client who asks about abortion:

[When a] pregnant woman requests information on abortion and asks the Title X project to refer her for an abortion[, then] [t]he counselor tells her that the project does not consider abortion a method of family planning and, therefore, does not refer for abortion. The counselor offers her nondirective pregnancy counseling, which may discuss abortion, but the counselor neither refers for, nor encourages, abortion. … (emphasis added). The dissent’s arguments that the Final Rule is a “Gag Rule” is merely a restatement of its disagreement with the Final Rule’s interpretation of § 1008 as precluding “referral for abortion as a method of family planning.”

To illustrate the radical activism fueling the dissenters in this case, which would have invalidated these regulations, in support of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, consider their clarification that men can get pregnant too:

While the Rule disproportionately impacts women, people of all genders rely on Title X services, can become pregnant, and will suffer the consequences of the Rule. See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11035(g) (defining individuals eligible for pregnancy accommodation as including “transgender employee[s] who [are] disabled by pregnancy”); Jessica A. Clarke, They Them, and Theirs, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 894, 954 (2019) (“People of all gender identities can be pregnant[.]”); see also Juno Obedin-Maliver & Harvey J. Makadon, Transgender Men and Pregnancy, 9 Obstetric Med., 4, 5 (2016).

I hope this illustrates for you the type of judges we are certain to get if we do not give this next election the importance and urgency it deserves. The work of appointing constitutionalists to the federal courts is the work of saving our republic. Thank you for staying engaged!