Category

Legal

CWA Stands for Religious Freedom and the Christian Flag at the Supreme Court

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

Today, Concerned Women for America (CWA) was proud to stand for the Christian principles of our founding in an important First Amendment case before the United States Supreme Court. Annabelle Rutledge, National Director of CWA’s Young Women for America program, delivered an impassioned speech (below) in front of the Court as they heard oral arguments in Shurtleff v. Boston.

 

Statement by Annabelle Rutledge
National Director
Concerned Women for America’s Young Women for America
Delivered January 13, 2022, at the United States Supreme Court
Shurtleff v. Boston Oral Arguments Rally

Good morning everyone

My name is Annabelle Rutledge from Concerned Women for America, the largest public policy organization for women in the nation. I serve as the national director of CWA’s Young Women for America project, which is training the next generation of young women on the Christian and constitutional principles that are the foundation of our liberties and freedoms.

I stand here on behalf of hundreds of thousands of women who want to see an end to the pernicious hostility towards religion that has become all too common in our day and age. If we are being honest, the hostility we see in many cases is directed specifically at Christians.

Many Americans fail to realize that the very foundations of the liberties they enjoy sprout out of Biblical soil. Therefore, in attacking religion as a whole, and Christianity more specifically, they work against their own interests, against their own liberty.

This case is a prime example that sometimes the loudest voices crying for diversity and tolerance are the most intolerant of diversity when that diversity is also inclusive of people of faith with whom they disagree.

The City of Boston has a worthy goal for its flagpole policy in its city hall plaza. The city explained that it wants “to create an environment in the City where everyone feels included and is treated with respect.” Except that “everyone,” according to the City of Boston, does not include Christians—we are apparently the right kind of people to exclude.

The city’s website further explains their policy this way, “We also want to raise awareness in Greater Boston and beyond about the many countries and cultures around the world. Our goal is to foster diversity and build and strengthen connections among Boston’s many communities.”

Accordingly, LGBTQ+ communities are loudly celebrated, their flag displayed with pride, no pun intended. Likewise, flags with Muslim themes from countries other than our own are welcomed with open arms. “Yay, diversity!”

But the flag that represents the faith of the very people who founded the City of Boston (the Puritans) that flag is just not welcomed. For Boston, diversity stops at Christianity’s doorsteps.

Needless to say, this nonsensical policy stands in clear violation of the First Amendment to our Constitution, which states plainly, as applied to the states, that the city “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” In targeting religious speech and somehow saying it is unworthy of the same protections afforded other types of speech, the city violates the most basic principles of justice and fairness, not to mention the essence of our First Amendment.

As we pointed out in our brief before the Court, the city’s attempt to differentiate between religious organizations and civic organizations fails to recognize the nature of our faith. By their very nature, religious organizations are civic organizations. Our concern for the poor and needy, for the weak and oppressed, and for justice and righteousness cannot be contained to the four walls of a building. Call that building a church or call it what you want.

Our faith is a living faith. We are called to go and love our neighbors. We cannot do otherwise.

That faith gave birth to many of the freedoms we enjoy. The faith that is at the root of the City of Boston, whose very city flag contains its motto in Latin words that read, “God be with us as he was with our fathers.”

Fitting, since from the founding of our country, churches have been the most important civic institution, bringing incredible progress. It is why the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 declared that “religion, morality, and knowledge [were] necessary to good government.”

The words of John Adams also stand as a similar reminder when he said that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Religion and faith are not only compatible with our Constitution; they are indispensable to its proper understanding.

We are confident the Supreme Court understands this, and we expect a unanimous Court to send a clear message by striking down this unconstitutional policy.

Thank you.

Click here for a PDF version of the statement.

Sensible Supreme Court Opinion Halts Vaccine Mandate

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

In a “per curiam” opinion, meaning a decision authored by the entire Court, instead of a single justice, the United States Supreme Court granted a stay of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) vaccine mandate for employers with 100 or more workers. The rule, therefore, will not go into effect until the case goes through the entire appellate process.

But the Court’s division can be further assessed by the fact that the three more liberal justices—Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan— dissented from the opinion, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined a very strong concurring opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The Court’s sensible approach to the issue simply noted that OSHA’s “emergency standard,” which it used here and which circumvents the usual public notice and comment accountability processes, should be used with precision and caution. Instead, the Court notes that the OSHA rule which applies to 84 million workers “requires workers receive a COVID-19 vaccine, and it pre-empts contrary state laws,” works as “a blunt instrument.” It found the exemptions presented (for employees who work outside 100 percent of the time or who work exclusively outdoors, for example) were “largely illusory.” The rule “draws no distinctions based on industry or risk of exposure to COVID-19.”

The Court found those objecting to the rule were “likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that [OSHA] lack[s] authority to impose the mandate.”

In doing so, the Supreme Court returns power to the states and the people, where it belongs, because the vaccine mandate goes way beyond establishing a simple workplace standard, as the agency is charged to enact, and into establishing nationwide public health policy. Remember, OSHA has never in its history done anything like this.

And here is where Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence is extremely helpful because it acknowledges what most Americans understand. This administrative mandate is trying to accomplish what President Joe Biden could not get done through the people’s representatives. He is trying to enact something Congress up until now has rejected.

If the people want a vaccine mandate, they could easily demand it from Congress. The reality is most people do not. In fact, the President’s approval numbers have been steadily declining. The latest numbers show him at an all-time low of 33 percent.  Fifty-five percent disapprove of his handling of the pandemic.

That is why President Biden had to work through OSHA to establish this national vaccine mandate. He lacks the necessary support to do it otherwise.

Justice Gorsuch wrote:

The central question we face today is: Who decides? No one doubts that the COVID–19 pandemic has posed challenges for every American. Or that our state, local, and national governments all have roles to play in combating the disease. The only question is whether an administrative agency in Washington, one charged with overseeing workplace safety, may mandate the vaccination or regular testing of 84 million people. Or whether, as 27 States before us submit, that work belongs to state and local governments across the country and the people’s elected representatives in Congress.

That power belongs to the people, said the Supreme Court today—to those most immediately accountable to them. The concurrence noticed that “a majority of the Senate even voted to disapprove OSHA’s regulation.” Therefore, it seemed reasonable to conclude “the agency pursued its regulatory initiative only as a legislative ‘work-around.’”

With this decision, the Court re-affirms what it has said in the past, that major questions of doctrine with broad effects on the public are left to the people’s elected representatives, and that they must make it very clear when they are giving such broad power to an agency. The concurrence said this rule, known as the “major questions doctrine”:

[E]nsures that the national government’s power to make the laws that govern us remains where Article I of the Constitution says it belongs—with the people’s elected representatives. If administrative agencies seek to regulate the daily lives and liberties of millions of Americans, the doctrine says, they must at least be able to trace that power to a clear grant of authority from Congress.

And even then, the concurrence suspects that such an intrusive mandate brought through the backdoor of an administrative agency might run afoul of the “nondelegation doctrine,” which “ensures democratic accountability by preventing Congress from intentionally delegating its legislative powers to unelected officials.”

Justice Gorsuch concludes:

On the one hand, OSHA claims the power to issue a nationwide mandate on a major question but cannot trace its authority to do so to any clear congressional mandate. On the other hand, if the statutory subsection the agency cites really did endow OSHA with the power it asserts, that law would likely constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

Whatever your view of the COVID vaccine in general, it should be encouraging to all to see the Court protecting the Constitutional structures that guard our liberties in this way. As Justice Gorsuch put it, “The question before us is not how to respond to the pandemic, but who holds the power to do so.”

The rule will be halted for now, but the case will continue. As we await further proceedings let us pray for a wiser, more honest, and unifying approach to fighting the pandemic going forward.

Indefensible Roe – The Scientific Track

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

Do not believe your lying eyes.

This (pictured above) is not a baby. No sir.

If it were a person, then the Supreme Court itself admitted in Roe they would not have made the decision they made to allow her to be crushed and sucked out of her mother’s womb.

It is actually a good thing they didn’t have such confusing pictures back then. In 1973, when Roe was decided, they thought a baby at 15 weeks, as is at issue in the Mississippi law being challenged in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, looked like this:

Much easier to declare that this is some sort of tissue, part of a woman’s body, instead of a baby deserving of love and care. That is why the pro-abortion side in Dobbs wants the justices to keep women back in 1973. Nothing has changed, they argued on the day of oral arguments…

<em><a href=”https://mariodiaz.substack.com/p/indefensible-roe-the-scientific-track”>Click here</a> to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive <a href=”https://mariodiaz.substack.com/”>Substack column</a>. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!</em>

<center><iframe style=”border: 1px solid #EEE; background: white;” src=”https://mariodiaz.substack.com/embed” width=”480″ height=”320″ frameborder=”0″ scrolling=”no”></iframe></center>

Supreme Court Releases Opinions in Texas Abortion Law Cases

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

As we discussed recently, the state of Texas presented a novel problem to the United States Supreme Court by enacting a law prohibiting abortions after a heartbeat is detected, but giving the right of enforcement to private citizens and not to any state official. Today, the Court handed down its opinion dismissing most of the claims but preserving the challenge going forward. Here is a short summary.

When abortionists sought to challenge S. B. 8, the Texas Heartbeat Act, they really had no one to sue because no state official is charged with its enforcement and no private citizen had sued. Still, they tried to push the legal envelope by suing a whole host of people, including state judges or state law clerks, the attorney general, some licensing officials, and even a potential private citizen defendant in an effort to enjoin the law and prevent it from going into effect.

The United States also tried to intervene, given its radical pro-abortion stance under President Joe Biden. That was the easy part (United States v. Texas). Its claim was summarily dismissed by the Court (8-1), as expected, with only Justice Sotomayor dissenting. The United States simply has no business interfering with this state law and basically seeking an unprecedented injunction against all persons in the country. Their effort would break with the most fundamental principles of federalism in our Constitution.

The more interesting challenge (Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson) is a bit more complicated. In its opinion, the Court wanted to stress first what it was not deciding. “In this preliminary posture, the ultimate merits question, whether S. B. 8 is consistent with the Federal Constitution, is not before the Court,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch who wrote the majority opinion.

He summarized, “The Court concludes that the petitioners may pursue a pre-enforcement challenge against certain of the named defendants but not others.” So, who can be sued? Well, not court officials: “Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, named defendants Penny Clarkston (a state-court clerk) and Austin Jackson (a state court judge) should be dismissed.” Not the attorney general: “Texas Attorney General Paxton should be dismissed.” And not a private citizen prematurely (an affidavit showed he had no intention to sue): “The sole private defendant, Mr. Dickson, should be dismissed.”

But the Court leaves open “other defendants (Stephen Carlton, Katherine Thomas, Allison Benz, and Cecile Young), each of whom is an executive licensing official who may or must take enforcement actions against the petitioners if the petitioners violate the terms of Texas’s Health and Safety Code, including S. B. 8. Eight Members of the Court hold that sovereign immunity does not bar a pre-enforcement challenge to S. B. 8 against these defendants.”

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from this last pronouncement, saying he would have dismissed the case against “all respondents, including the four licensing officials.”

It also declared “petitioners may bring a pre-enforcement challenge in federal court as one means to test S. B. 8’s compliance with the Federal Constitution. Other pre-enforcement challenges are possible too; one such case is ongoing in state court in which the plaintiffs have raised both federal and state constitutional claims against S. B. 8. Any individual sued under S. B. 8 may raise state and federal constitutional arguments in his or her defense without limitation.”

So, the bottom line is that the challenge to this law will continue as to the allowed defendants.

It is important to note that Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, expressed considerable frustration with the law in concurring in part and dissenting in part. He wrote, “Texas has employed an array of stratagems designed to shield its unconstitutional law from judicial review.”

It seems clear the Chief views the law as an attack on the Court itself. “The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings … Indeed, ‘[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.’[] The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake,” he wrote.

We will have to wait for a further challenge to see where the more conservative justices land on the issue.

As I mentioned before, this problem is of the Court’s own making, by injecting itself into the political abortion debate. Texas is simply trying to protect life, which most of its citizens demand, and trying to work within the arbitrary and dubious parameters the Supreme Court has set up. The best way for the Court to guard its legitimacy would be to reverse Roe and Casey in the Dobbs case, and then states like Texas would be free to protect life, without having to come up with innovative ideas to appease the Supreme Court’s personal preferences.

Three Takeaways from Today’s Dobbs Oral Arguments

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

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…

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!

Indefensible Roe – The Policy Track

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

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. …

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!

Indefensible Roe – The Legal Track

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

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…

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!

Indefensible Roe — An Introduction

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

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…

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!

On the Maine Vaccine Mandate Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court

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

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.”

He concluded:

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.

Texas Abortion Law Cases at the Supreme Court—What was it All About?

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

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.

Expose the Darkness

By | LBB, Virginia | No Comments

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.

California Just Doesn’t Get It

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

They know it is wrong. You have told them it is wrong. But our kids do it anyway, don’t they? Of course, we know once caught, they promise they will never do it again. Ever. They promise they get it, but you walk away from the conversation thinking, “They don’t get it.”

That was the feeling one got from the state of California after hearing oral arguments this week in two significant First Amendment cases before the United States Supreme Court: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta and Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta.

The cases challenge California’s effort to force all non-profits that solicit support in the state to disclose to the government sensitive information about their major donors.

Although the state recognizes the glaring constitutional burdens on individual rights to freedom of speech and association, it still claims it needs the private information to guard against fraud. Besides, the state promises to keep the information super confidential.

Only they haven’t. As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out during oral arguments, the district court that heard the evidence in this case found that “there was a pervasive, recurring pattern of inadvertent disclosure by California.” In other words, they promise to keep the donor information private, but they don’t. They leak them intentionally or by error, ensuring, as the court also found, that “donors would likely be subject to threats and harassment.”

So, what do you do when your child has a pervasive and recurring pattern of misbehavior that endangers others? Do you just need them to promise you (one more time) that they will never do it again? …

Click here to continue reading this op-ed as featured on American Thinker.

President Biden Delivered a Partisan Speech; Sen. Scott Brought Hope

By | LBB, News and Events | No Comments

It was supposed to be President Joe Biden’s big night as he delivered his first address to Congress last night, but it was Sen. Tim Scott who delivered light through his hope-filled response. If you did not get a chance to hear it, I urge you to take a moment.

This is the message the country needs at this moment.

We are not adversaries. We are family! We are all in this together. And we get to live in the greatest country on Earth. The country where my grandfather, in his 94 years, saw his family go from cotton to Congress in one lifetime.

So I am more than hopeful — I am confident — that our finest hour is yet to come.

Original sin is never the end of the story. Not in our souls, and not for our nation. The real story is always redemption.

Amen! That is the truth. While President Biden continued to lean in on our divisions, to strengthen his political position further, Sen. Scott focused on our blessings, even ending by proclaiming one over our nation:

I am standing here because my mom has prayed me through some very tough times. I believe our nation has succeeded the same way. Because generations of Americans, in their own ways, have asked for grace — and God has supplied it.

So, I will close with a word from a worship song that helped me through this past year. The music is new, but the words draw from Scripture.

[May] the Lord bless you and keep you,
Make His face shine upon you
And be gracious to you.
May His presence go before you,
And behind you, and beside you.
In your weeping and rejoicing,
He is with you.
May His favor be upon [our nation] for a thousand generations
And your family … and your children …
And their children.

It was a stark contrast. While President Biden continued to malign those who disagreed with him, even continuing his pernicious mischaracterization of conservatives’ election integrity efforts, Sen. Scott tackled the issue with dignity and sincerity.

A hundred years ago, kids in classrooms were taught the color of their skin was their most important characteristic — and if they looked a certain way, they were inferior.

Today, kids again are being taught that the color of their skin defines them — and if they look a certain way, they’re an oppressor. From colleges to corporations to our culture, people are making money and gaining power by pretending we haven’t made any progress. By doubling down on the divisions we’ve worked so hard to heal.

You know this stuff is wrong. Hear me clearly: America is not a racist country.

It’s backwards to fight discrimination with different discrimination. And it’s wrong to try to use our painful past to dishonestly shut down debates in the present.

I’m an African American who has voted in the South all my life. I take voting rights personally. Republicans support making it easier to vote and harder to cheat. And so do voters! Big majorities of Americans support early voting, and big majorities support Voter I.D. — including African Americans and Hispanics. Common sense makes common ground.

But today, this conversation has collapsed. The state of Georgia passed a law that expands early voting; preserves no-excuse mail-in voting; and, despite what the President claimed, did not reduce Election Day hours.

If you actually read this law, it’s mainstream. It will be easier to vote early in Georgia than in Democrat-run New York. But the left doesn’t want you to know that. They want people to virtue-signal by yelling about a law they haven’t even read.

Fact-checkers have called out the White House for misstatements. The President absurdly claims this is worse than Jim Crow. What is going on here?

I’ll tell you. A Washington power grab.

This misplaced outrage is supposed to justify Democrats’ sweeping bill that would take over elections for all 50 states; send public funds to political campaigns you disagree with and make the bipartisan Federal Elections Commission partisan!

This is not about civil rights or our racial past. It’s about rigging elections in the future.

Sen. Scott also called liberals out, including the President, for their reckless and untruthful characterization of the filibuster.

And, no — the same filibuster that President Obama and President Biden praised when they were Senators, that Democrats used just last year, has not suddenly become a racist relic just because the shoe is on the other foot.

Race is not a political weapon to settle every issue the way one side wants.

It’s too important.

His focus was on common ground and common sense. And he exposed how the liberals’ increasing radicalism on issues that should unite us is hurting our country.

The President is abandoning principles he held for decades. Now, he says your tax dollars should fund abortions. He’s laying groundwork to pack the Supreme Court.

This is not common ground.

Indeed.

On issue after issue, he showed that common sense and common ground should be possible. Yet, it is continually being rejected by a hyper partisan Administration that seems to believe the national divide benefits them. His words on education were yet another inspiring example.

Locking vulnerable kids out of the classroom is locking adults out of their future.

Our public schools should have reopened months ago. Other countries did.

Private and religious schools did. Science has shown for months that schools are safe. But too often, powerful grown-ups set science aside. And kids like me were left behind.

The clearest case for school choice in our lifetimes.

I conclude by asking you to pray for Sen. Scott. There is no question he stole the spotlight and delivered the message the country deserved today. And you can bet that the left will hate him for it. Let us pray that his light may only increase in the months and years ahead.

We Must Fight Media Bias

By | LBB, News and Events | No Comments

I take the opportunity to write to you today about media bias (1) because of a recent D.C. Circuit Court opinion that highlights the issue in a compelling way, but (2) because we simply cannot grow tired of fighting this menace at every turn.

Surely, it is incredibly frustrating, and at times we get tired of the proverbial deck being stacked against us. Still, I encourage you to remain diligent in exposing the press’s blatant bias every chance you get. Many around us are still clueless about it!

I write to you from my office in D.C. having finished watching President Joe Biden’s first press conference since taking office. Wow! The transformation of the Trump White House Press Corps to the Biden one is astronomical. Here is the second questioner of the day, Yamiche Alcindor from the taxpayer-funded PBS:

Thanks so much, Mr. President. Ahm, you’ve said over and over again that immigrants shouldn’t come to this country right now; this isn’t the time to come. That message is not being received. Instead, the perception of you, that got you elected as a moral, decent man, is the reason why a lot of immigrants are coming to this country and trusting you with unaccompanied minors. How do you resolve that tension?


I almost spit my coffee out laughing. The bias is plain for all to see, so let us continue to expose it and not grow tired or cynical as we shine a light on the problems we face.

Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit Court recently penned a significant dissent in which he took the time to state the obvious, but it is vital for him to take the time to do it, and we can learn from his bold approach. I want to highlight some extensive passages from his dissenting opinion in Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc.

The case was a libel suit that allowed Judge Silberman to touch on the fact that most of the media is an extended arm of the Democratic Party:

Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s.[] (I do not mean to defend or criticize the behavior of any particular politician). Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.

He also touched on the fact that Big Tech is part of this problem:

As has become apparent, Silicon Valley also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news. And it similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party.

It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination “raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.” R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn.[] But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.

He also noted the efforts to silence even the very few conservative voices in media that there are:

To be sure, there are a few notable exceptions to Democratic Party ideological control: Fox News, The New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.[] It should be sobering for those concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News. And although upstart (mainly online) conservative networks have emerged in recent years, their visibility has been decidedly curtailed by Social Media, either by direct bans or content-based censorship.

Finally, he notes the dangerous relationship that a media invested in protecting a political party in power presents:

It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism. The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.

I highlight for you as a conclusion the judge’s last footnote, where he notes one of the root causes of the media crisis we face: “The reasons for press bias are too complicated to address here. But they surely relate to bias at academic institutions.”

He is right. And we, as freedom-loving Americans, must not be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task. We must embrace the challenge to take back our institutions—one step at a time.

The Insidious, Anti-Freedom, Unbiblical, Leftist Racism Drives Push to Pass S.1, and Every Other Radical Policy

By | LBB, News and Events | No Comments

You can understand why they do it. The Left has figured out that everyone wants to stand against racism. They know it first-hand. Many of the most racist policies in American History came to us, in fact, through the Left. So now, they figure that calling their opponents racists on every issue gives them the high moral ground.

It’s a silly, fake, and politically motivated charge that bears no semblance of truth, but sadly, it works.

It works because most of the media today is also radically left, so the argument will always be treated as accurate, no matter how preposterous. You dare vote against their chosen nominee? Racist. You dare say that men do not menstruate? Transphobe!

But it is not only that they will make that charge. The Left’s stand has gotten so radical that they now support racism in the name of diversity. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois) blew me away with a radically racist statement this week, saying, “I am a no vote on the floor, on all non-diversity nominees. You know, I will vote for racial minorities, and I will vote for LGBTQ. But anybody else I’m not voting for.”

The new “woke theology” promoted by the Left says that it is not racist, you see because it’s directed against their hated target: “white men.” But it is. It is breathtakingly racist, and we, as Christians, must speak against it just as we speak against any other type of racism.

We must fight it as vigorously as we fought against slavery – as courageously as Fredrick Douglas, as boldly as Dr. King, as persistently as Wilberforce. We must continue to dream with Dr. King of “a nation where [people] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

The Left has turned Dr. King’s dream into the exact opposite. It is a nightmare. Character is nothing to them. Your race, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and political affiliation are everything.

That is why this week’s hearing on S.1, the so-called “For the People’s Act,” was so predictable. Election integrity is a big issue around the nation after the extraordinary events of the last election. Millions are not entirely confident in the results of elections from both political parties.

So, it is understandable that many states are considering bolstering their election procedures to ensure our votes’ integrity is preserved and increase American’s confidence in the system.

But according to the Left, any effort by conservatives on this front is, as you can probably guess, (drum roll, please) racist.

Once again, though the Left has consistently complained about foul play on elections, they won the last one, so it is racist to claim so now. According to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York), the last election was “one of the safest in recent history.”

At the hearing, he went straight for the jugular, “Our country has come a long way, supposedly, since African Americans in the south were forced to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar in order to vote,” he predictably said, “But some of these voter suppression laws in Georgia and other Republican States smack of Jim Crow rearing its ugly head once again.”

Republican racists!

No shame in looking at his colleagues as he does this. They want power, and the ends justify the means. The press is in agreement, so he’ll get glowing reviews for his bold stance against those “white, old men.” Other Democrats followed the same script.

But anyone thinking about this for more than two minutes can see that asking someone to have a photo I.D. to vote is most reasonable. You need a photo I.D. to buy some medicine at the grocery store. Is that an effort to keep medicine away from minorities?

It’s preposterous – not to mention insulting for those of us who are minorities.

That is the truth. Every state needs to have a voting photo I.D. law on the books. It is common sense.

That is one of the many reasons that we must oppose S.1 – the Left’s attempt to make every photo I.D. law in the nation illegal. And in the process, we can emphatically reject the race baiting and outright racism that has become so common in the Left’s political discourse.

H.R. 1, “For the People Act” One Pager

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

Stop the Dangerous H.R. 1, For the People Act

PDF Version

At a time when the country is in desperate need of confidence in our elections, this bill will completely shatter American’s confidence. The bill oversteps constitutional limits by seeking to curtail the states’ rights in an attempt to nationalize election procedures and permanently alter the power balance to favor one political party. These are some of the most grievous provisions included in H.R. 1:

  • It makes pandemic-related emergency changes to election procedures permanent.
    The threat presented by COVID-19 in the last election gave way to a barrage of “accommodations,” like expanding mail-in voting or extending deadlines beyond what state law required, which gave way to irregularities that undermined public confidence in the election. H.R. 1 wants to force states to make these changes permanently. For example:

    • It requires states to implement an automatic registration system to register any eligible unregistered citizen, while at the same time shielding them from prosecution if ineligible voters are mistakenly registered.
    • It mandates no-excuse absentee voting, while prohibiting the requiring of a voter I.D.
  • Its ultimate end is to nationalize our election system.
    • It mandates that states provide ballot drop boxes 45 days before a federal election.
    • It requires states to establish an independent redistricting commission, in strict violation of federalism principles.
    • It establishes a new federal “Election Security Grants Advisory Committee,” to award grants to states that meet federal preferences.
  • It seeks to aggravate our national divide in order to punish political opponents, in direct violation of our First Amendment protections.
    • Imposes new requirements on any group that merely seeks to speak about federal policy, incentivizing disengagement.
    • It seeks to force citizens who contribute to nonprofit organizations into a searchable government database, facilitating the harassment and intimidation of private citizens by making their personal information available to the public.
  • It makes permanent the politicization of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that we have experienced in the past under malicious officials like Lois Lerner.
    • It permits the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy persuasions of any organization and its members before granting tax-exempt status.
  • As if our national debt was not a crisis already, it seeks to inject more federal money into funding political campaigns.
    • R. 1 actually creates a 6 to 1 government match to any small donor contributions of $200 or less in a congressional or presidential campaign.
    • It also establishes a new voucher pilot program that grants eligible voters a $25 voucher to donate to any campaign of their choosing.
  • It further seeks to blatantly politicize the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
    • It changes the FEC from a bipartisan, six-member agency to a partisan, five-member agency under the control of whoever is president, opening it up to political manipulations by a simple majority.

PDF Version

CWALAC Letter to Congress


Dear Reader: Like the quality of the work we do? Donate now to keep the information flowing!

Oppose HR-1 Letter to Congress

By | LBB, News and Events | No Comments

Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee sent a letter to the United States Congress asking them to oppose the dangerous H.R. 1 proposal. The letter enumerates some of the glaring problems with the proposal, saying:

At a time when the country is in desperate need of confidence in our elections, this bill will completely
shatter American’s confidence. The bill oversteps constitutional limits by seeking to curtail the states’
ability to enact their preferred registration and voting procedures.

Many Americans are deeply uncomfortable with the hasty, last-minute changes made in the last election
by non-legislative entities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many states are already undertaking
efforts to prevent such unconstitutional actions in the future. Yet this bill ignores the concerns of
millions of Americans and seeks to force states to conform to the Democrat’s preferred methodology in
clear violation of the federalism principles of our founding.

Millions are concerned with foreign interference in the election with online and other forms of
electronic voting mechanisms. Yet H.R. 1 forces states to implement online, automatic, and same-day
voter registration measures, no matter these concerns.

Further more, it highlights H.R. 1’s unconstitutional overreach, and ask members to, not only vote against the legislation, but to boldly speak of its many dangers in order to educate the public about the ongoing efforts of the left to fundamentally transform the country into a socialist nation. It concludes:

This bill will aggravate the deep divide on our country by changing the current bipartisan makeup of the
Federal Election Commission, weaponizing this important entity for political purposes. Not to mention
the blatant efforts to violate American’s First Amendment rights with vague standards on advocacy
efforts and even unconstitutional donor disclosure requirements for organizations like ours.

These are but a few of the concerns with this sinister legislation that will have an enormous impact on
the women I represent and their families. We, therefore, ask you to stand in strong opposition to this
attack on our liberties and respectfully ask you to speak out on behalf of the people it seeks to target.

Read the full letter.

Click here for our one-pager with more details on H.R.1.

CWALAC Letter Opposes Becerra for HHS

By | Legal, Legislative Updates, News and Events | No Comments

Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) submitted a letter to the U.S. Senate opposing the nomination of Xavier Becerra to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. The letter concludes:

Gen. Becerra is a prosecutor and activist with no experience in the healthcare industry, no respect for the conscience rights of American citizens, and no compassion for the lives of the most vulnerable. CWALAC urges all Senators to oppose Xavier Becerra’s nomination to be Secretary of HHS. He is simply the wrong choice for this important position.

Read CWALAC’s full letter here.

Click here to read our general counsel Mario Diaz’ op-ed on the nomination as feature on The Stream.


Dear Reader: Like the quality of the work we do? Donate now to keep the information flowing!