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.
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.
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.”
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.
Stop the Dangerous H.R. 1, For the People Act
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.
Dear Reader: Like the quality of the work we do? Donate now to keep the information flowing!
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.
Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name forever.
With thankful hearts, we behold
Your awesome works from the beginning.
You are Faithful and True
Still moving in the midst of Your people.
Help us fret not for evildoers.
They are like grass withering away.
But Your Word stands forever.
We delight in Your counsel and Your statutes,
We crave to know You more and more,
To increase in faith and trust; this is our goal.
Thank You for sending Your Son, Jesus Christ
To be our Savior—to show us the way of salvation.
His example is our encouragement and aim,
Oh, to be more like Him, each and every day.
We stand in the great promises of Scripture.
We delight ourselves in You Lord,
Knowing You will give us the desires of our heart.
Give us righteous desires Abba, Father.
For often we seek after the wrong things
Thinking they will somehow fill the hole in our hearts,
When we know it is a God-shaped hole we bear,
And only living water will ease our thirst.
Lord, we pray for the assault on sexuality
The enemy is leveling against our world.
We pray against the increasing gender confusion,
Against the identity crisis he seeks to create in Your creation.
But our identity is found in Christ,
Let that healing lesson spread among those who hurt today.
Our hearts break for them; do not let the enemy get away
With his schemes to establish a lie as a foundational truth in their lives.
Let the truth that You are our Creator shine ever so brightly.
May we commit our ways to You, Lord,
For we know You will act. And You are good!
You are God.
In the name of Jesus, we pray,
Click here for more prayers from our “For America” Prayer Journal.
Dear Reader: Like the quality of the work we do? Donate now to keep the information flowing!
The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) handles one of the most essential and basic functions of government: public health. Its mission is “to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, by providing for effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.”
The U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services leads HHS. It is an important post that requires a knowledgeable and experienced individual.
The previous HHS Secretary under President Donald J. Trump, Tom Price, was a medical doctor with decades of health care policy experience.
Kathleen Sebelius and Sylvia Burwell, who both served as HHS Secretary under President Barack Obama, also had significant health care management background before being nominated.
Sure, one can disagree with their political philosophies and policies (I sure did). Still, Sibelius was the Insurance Commissioner of Kansas for eight years before becoming the Governor of Kansas. Burwell worked for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, becoming the president of their Global Development Program which is highly influential in developing global health policy.
The question is, why in the world is California Attorney General Xavier Becerra President Joe Biden’s nominee for HHS?
A Rabid Abortion Activist
Look, Becerra is an accomplished attorney of Mexican descent, so I’m sympathetic. But Gen. Becerra has zero experience in public health care. Unlike with previous candidates, his career does not suggest he even cares about public health policy.
Gen. Becerra was admitted to the California State Bar in 1985. The next year he was an administrative assistant for California State Senator Art Torres. He then served as deputy attorney general for three years, and his next move was to run and become a State Assemblyman for two years, where he worked on laws revising criminal sentencing.
Then, before taking his current post as Attorney General for California (in 2017), he went to the U.S. House of Representatives, where, again, nothing stands out about his interest in health care policy.
Except in one area: abortion. That has been his focus. Gen. Becerra is a political operative, prosecutor, and a rabid abortion activist. Does that qualify him to lead the nation’s health care policy?
Put aside the abortion issue. There are plenty of abortion proponents with enormous health care experience. Why is Becerra the pick?
Dear Reader: Like the quality of the work we do? Donate now to keep the information flowing!
Oh God, our refuge,
We give thanks to You
For Your protection and blessing
Over our land and our people.
You have been our bulwark,
Our shelter and hope.
Let the nations look and marvel
At Your lovingkindness.
You have been patient at every turn,
So, we accept and affirm Your loving correction.
Let our hearts be heavy for the suffering
Among our people—fill us with compassion.
May our hearts break
For the sins we have committed.
Against You we have committed them,
And we repent with contrite hearts.
We stand on Your grace,
In You alone we trust.
Help us to return once more
To Truth, to what is good, to Love.
Restore Your church in America!
Help us as Your bride,
To await Your coming with great expectation—
With great joy and peace. Help us be ready!
We are not.
We have become distracted
With the things of this world.
Help, Lord. Help!
For You reign from eternity to eternity;
How great are Your ways;
How unscrupulous and awesome!
Help us to see—open the eyes of our hearts and spirits.
Help us be light in all that we do,
Help us love You above all,
And help us to love each other more and more
So the world may know we are Yours.
In Christ, we pray these things,
Click here for more prayers from our “For America” Prayer Journal.
Oh Lord, my God,
We have heard of Your mighty deeds of old.
How You parted the Red Sea, closed the mouths of lions;
How You send fire from heaven and won mighty battles.
We know of Your great name,
We know that trust in human strength or intellect is foolish.
We know we do not save ourselves,
Just like we did not create ourselves.
Victory is commanded by You,
Carried out by Your servants—the seen and unseen.
It is in Your name and to Your glory that history is written.
In You we boast all day.
But You lovingly allow Your judgment to reach us, too.
You let shame do its repentant work in us,
And allow us to discover the pain and solitude
Of trusting in the things of this world.
Forgive us, Oh Lord,
And be quick to come to our aid.
Restore the joy of our salvation in our hearts.
Restore the pursuit of righteousness in our land.
Help us to thirst for justice and peace,
For goodness and beauty, for what is noble and true.
Help us to seek after holiness.
Revive our churches and our communities.
We will not turn our backs on You,
We stand in Your covenant love for us.
You have broken us, and we say only, “amen.”
Thy will be done, Oh God.
You know the state of our hearts,
You know how the world hates us,
As they hated You, just as You said they would,
We are pressed on every side.
But You have promised to never leave us or forsake us.
In this we trust, arise Lord and show Your deeds again.
Let those who stand against You cower in fear.
Arise and help your people. Redeem us, for Your mercies’ sake.
Click here for more prayers from our “For America” Prayer Journal.
As in the time of Babylon, there are those in power today who, like King Nebuchadnezzar, demand we bow down to an image. It is not a golden image, to be sure, but it is an image, nonetheless. It is the image of safety—the image of security.
The two weeks to stop the spread of COVID-19 has turned into an indefinite violation of our civil liberties. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki recently said that “Even after you’re vaccinated, social distancing, wearing masks are going to be essential.”
“Essential” is a crucial word. You see, for the government, wearing a mask and social distancing is essential to public health, but faith is not. Despite mountains of evidence showing how important the church community is, they insist on unconstitutionally limiting the free exercise of religion.
Friday night, the United States Supreme Court issued an injunction on California’s draconian restrictions on indoor activities for houses of worship, affirming the churches challenging the restrictions are likely to prevail on the merits of the case. That means that the restrictions are likely to be found in violation of the First Amendment.
This is good news, but it was not enough. The Court denied the appeal for an injunction “with respect to the percentage capacity limitations,” and “with respect to the prohibition on singing and chanting during indoor services.”
At least two justices recognized that those are likely also to be violations of our religious liberties. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch would have granted the injunction in full. Justice Samuel Alito also would have gone a lot further, giving the state 30 days to prove that “nothing short of those measures will reduce the community spread of COVID–19 at indoor religious gatherings to the same extent as do the restrictions the State enforces with respect to other activities it classifies as essential.”
Chief Justice Roberts concurred that “the State’s present determination—that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero—appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.” But he also unexplainably concluded, “that singing indoors poses a heightened risk of transmitting COVID–19.” The evidence of this does not come even close to withstand judicial review.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barret said the record was insufficient to make such a determination on singing, saying, “[I]f a chorister can sing in a Hollywood studio but not in her church, California’s regulations cannot be viewed as neutral,” which, of course, is precisely what the government has done time and again.
When the government is trying to impose its power, there are always those who will point to the Christians and chastise them for not bowing down to the image of the age. In the times of King Nebuchadnezzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego defied the edict to bow down to the golden image, and they were brought before the king to be thrown into the fiery furnace.
Such is the case today. Churches are being forced all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for their religious freedoms. They ought to have a lot more support from the American public as a whole. They ought to have overwhelming support from the body of Christ— the Church at large.
But the threat of the fiery furnace is compelling to those who have their eyes set on the things of the world. Cancel culture today is an incredible incentive to comply with the Spirit of the Age.
We should learn from Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego and stand against it. Remember what they told King Nebuchadnezzar as they were about to be “canceled” by the fiery furnace? “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up” (Daniel 3:16-18).
Faith and faithfulness, that is how they pushed back against the evil in their time. Faith that God can and would deliver them from the hands of evildoers, but also the faithfulness to say, “even if He doesn’t, we will not bow down.”
That is exactly how we must fight today. We must be courageous in the face of evil. Trusting God and remaining faithful until the end.
How beautiful are the feet
Of those who bring good news,
Who proclaim peace, good tidings,
And the salvation of the Lord.
May our gaze turn to them;
May our ears hear the sweet sound
Of the proclamation of Your Word
In this new year.
Lord of the harvest,
Send us laborers
For we know the harvest is plentiful.
We need those who love the mission field.
The pain of so many is so evident.
Like sheep without a Shepherd,
They move here and there
Swept by the winds of every moment.
Yet we know of an immovable Rock
Jesus, the Christ
By Whose blood all our sins are swept away.
We know that He alone can save.
Forgive our callousness
Which heretofore has blinded us
And prevented us from the self-sacrifice
You showed us the way,
Yet we turn away.
And illuminate our hearts and minds.
You are God.
The winds still obey at Your very word.
Let the political winds of the present age
Tremble at the sound of Your Name.
Take this year. Take our lives.
Do as You please, Oh Lord on high!
We stand in awe and are still
To know You and Love You more and more.
Heal our land, heal our hearts,
Unite us as one.
In You we want to abide.
Amen— may it be so.
Click here for more prayers from our “For America” Prayer Journal.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an important religious liberty case this week, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Sharonell Fulton and other foster parents who work with Catholic Social Services (whose work goes back 200 years in the city) brought suit after the City of Philadelphia tried to kick them out of the foster care and adoption arena because of their faith.
The city wants to force them to violate their faith and place children with same-sex couples. Concerned Women for America submitted a brief in support of the foster parent’s religious liberty.
This should be a simple case. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That is exactly what the city is doing here in trying to prevent Catholic Social Services from serving the poor and needy in the way they have done for centuries.
Lori Windham, of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who represented the foster parents put it succinctly for the justices. “The City has no compelling reason for excluding Catholic Social Services, which has exercised its faith by serving at-risk children in Philadelphia for two centuries,” she said in her opening presentation.
The real motivation behind this law, a blatant attack on Christians, was exposed in Court as Justice Samuel Alito asked a simple question: “How many same-sex couples in Philadelphia have been denied the opportunity to be foster parents as a result of Catholic Social Services’ policy?”
To which Ms. Windham responded, “Zero. In fact, Justice Alito, none have even approached Catholic Social Services asking for this approval and endorsement.”
Still, the liberal justices wanted to see a big problem here, suggesting, as they always do, that the situation is akin to Catholic Social Services discriminating against African Americans. But both, Ms. Windham for the foster parents and the federal government who also presented arguments in their support were careful to bring back the issue to what was really before them. “What the City’s trying to do here is tell religious groups who have been doing this prior to when the City got involved, ‘We’re going to exclude you; you can no longer carry out this work unless you take actions that are contrary to your faith.’”
Ms. Windham concluded saying, “In our pluralistic society, a properly functioning Free Exercise Clause is supposed to prevent this kind of unnecessary and harmful conflict. There are children in need of loving homes waiting for them. Neither Philadelphia nor [precedent] should stand in the way.”
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hashim Mooppan also presented in support of religious liberty on behalf of the United States. He took the argument from where Ms. Windham left off. “Philadelphia has not afforded Catholic Social Services the tolerance of religious practice that is required by the Free Exercise Clause and vital to our pluralistic nation,” he said.
He was strong also in responding to the liberal justices’ contention that this requirement was neutral and did not target faith specifically. He highlighted that the city indeed made many exceptions to their supposed rule, including in law. “[U]nder 55 Pennsylvania Code 3700.64,” he highlighted, “the City requires agencies to consider both familial status and disability in certifying foster children — foster parents. The City has tolerated racial and ethnic-based outreach to — for foster parents. And then the City itself considers race and disability when placing children.”
But now, when it comes to taking into account faith, they want to bully Christian agencies to violate their deeply held beliefs to accommodate the city’s desired preferences.
Radical liberal attorney Neal Katyal represented the City of Philadelphia and tried to persuade the Court that they extended those exemptions at a different stage and so that made it different. It was not persuasive. Justice Alito, again, got to the heart of the matter: “[I]f we are honest about what’s really going on here, it’s not about ensuring that same-sex couples in Philadelphia have the opportunity to be foster parents. It’s the fact that the City can’t stand the message that Catholic Social Services and the Archdiocese are sending by continuing to adhere to the old-fashioned view about marriage. Isn’t that the case?”
Katyal, of course, denied it and tried to deflect to another matter.
The new member of the Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also asked important questions about the ramifications of the government’s actions in this case. She asked Mr. Katyal:
[L]et’s imagine that the state takes over all hospitals and says from now on, you know, we are going to be responsible for hospitals, but we will contract with private entities to actually run them. And so there’s a Catholic hospital and gets a contract with the City to run it. In fact, it’s a Catholic hospital that’s in existence before the state adopts this policy. And its contract with the state provides that there are — in the contract the state gives everyone is that you can get some exceptions for some medical procedures, but every hospital has to perform abortions.
The deflection continued. Justice Barret made an important point because as the size of government continues to grow, this sort of anti-religious bullying will only expand to more and more areas. Justice Alito, later on talked about homeless shelters, and one could think of any number of other spaces.
The city’s position is not only that people of faith cannot get government funding to serve the poor in those cases, but that they couldn’t operate at all.
Thankfully, the oral arguments show their position is likely to be rejected by a majority of the Court.
To quote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Amy Coney Barrett is “going to the Court.” The hearings are over, and she simply shined through it all. The most memorable moments included ACB schooling senators trying to challenge her on precedent and originalism and severability and textualism. She was the smartest person in the room. The moment when Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) asked her to show her notes went viral because it illustrated how exceptional she was as a nominee. Here is the clip:
But the most powerful testimony, showing us the type of person we are supporting for the Supreme Court was heard on the last day. It was the testimony of Laura Wolk, one of Judge Barrett’s law students and current Supreme Court clerk, who is blind. She explained the extraordinary help she received from ACB that made it possible for her to break down barriers in the legal profession. Please watch:
These hearings were historic. The voices of conservative women were heard like never before, both inside and outside the hearing room. Sen. Graham highlighted this with his remarks on day two. He said, “This hearing to me is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling, but a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women. You’re going to shatter that barrier. I’ve never been prouder of a nominee than I am of you.” Here is the expanded clip of his remarks:
Outside, as most of you know, the “Women for Amy” army made its mark, outshining the opposition.
The nomination will be held one week, as is customary, with some written questions and answers for the record submitted. Then a final committee vote is scheduled for October 22 at 1:00 p.m. It is expected to be 12-10, along party lines.
The nomination then will be sent to the full Senate where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) has said, “We’ll go to the floor with her on Friday, the 23rd, and stay on it until we finish this… We have the votes.”
President Donald J. Trump added 20 more names to his list of possible Supreme Court nominees. Here is who he added, saying they are in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito:
- Judge Bridget Bade, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Daniel Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky
- Paul Clement, former U.S. Solicitor General
- Tom Cotton, R- Arkansas
- Ted Cruz, R-Texas
- Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Steven Engel, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice.
- Noel Francisco, former Solicitor General of the United States
- Josh Hawley, R-Missouri
- Judge James Ho, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Judge Gregory Katsas, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
- Judge Barbara Lagoa, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- Christopher Landau, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico
- Justice Carlos Muñiz, Supreme Court of Florida
- Judge Martha Pacold, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
- Judge Peter Phipps, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- Judge Sarah Pitlyk, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
- Judge Allison Jones Rushing, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Kate Todd, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President
- Judge Lawrence Van Dyke, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Click here to read Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) CEO and President Penny Nance’s statement on the news.
As you well know, humanity has a sin problem. We all do. This is the nature and essence of all the issues we face as a Church and as a country. Anyone talking about racism and justice must begin there. Be wary of those, whether inside or outside the Church, purporting to be fighting for “justice” while disregarding and even advocating sin.
It is impossible to address these problems efficiently while brushing aside the eternal principles of nature, as given to us by the Creator. We would be missing the problem entirely, and in fact, aggravating it further.
This is not just within the confines of the Church. We are talking about reality here. Social change must be sought in this manner. It is the way Martin Luther King, Jr. accomplished so much in such a short life. Remember his Letter from a Birmingham Jail? In it, Rev. King explained how we could determine whether a law is just or unjust. He wrote:
“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”
Justice demands a standard. And aside from God’s standard, there are only personal preferences— human preferences, to be precise. The same humanity plagued with the sin problem.
That is why so many today are committing such heinous, unjust acts of racial violence against their neighbors. They are committing such actions because they believe similar acts were committed against them or their communities. They are acting according to their evil nature and imposing their sinful preferences over another’s. Sin for sin – an atrocious exchange.
Warning: Graphic Content
We, as the Church of Jesus Christ, simply cannot support those whose whole strategy is to commit sinful acts against another in the name of “justice.” We do not repay evil with evil (1 Peter 3:9). We are not frustrated when some are “getting away” with this or that. This is not what we believe.
No one gets away with anything. We trust in the Lord Almighty (Romans 12:19), so we do not lose hope and fall into despair as the unbeliever does. And we reject the worldly, devilish dichotomy by the scornful telling us that not to join them in their wicked ways is to allow injustice to flourish.
No. There is a better way. The way. It was the way of Dr. King and most abolitionists throughout history. They fought injustice, even as they remember the admonitions of Proverbs 3:29, “Do not plan evil against your neighbor, who dwells trustingly beside you.” There were plenty of instigators among their ranks, too, with promises of quicker resolutions. Evildoers claim victory at every chance they get.
Do not fall for their lies. Continue to heed the Proverbs (3:31, 32), “Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways, for the devious person is an abomination to the Lord, but the upright are in his confidence.”
Standing in the confidence of God, we can speak truth that is more powerful than an entire army. We extend the hands of grace and help, empathy, and longsuffering that bring healing and reconciliation. We stand up to tyrants and, yes, perhaps even give our lives for freedom.
It is “[f]or freedom Christ has set us free,” and we, therefore, “stand firm … and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” That was our previous life. We were slaves to sin. But now, we do not walk in our former ways. We do not join the sinful mob for whatever reason. We walk in the light.
We will fight injustice. You can rest assured of that. We will just not fight it the world’s way (Romans 12:21).
May the God of all hope and peace fill you with the courage and love you need for this moment, that the power of the Holy Spirit may shine in your community now as never before.
Letter: one, two.
Precisely forty-two years ago, in 1978, Beverly LaHaye held the first Concerned Women for America (CWA) meeting in San Diego, California, to educate women about the threats presented by the so-called Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). More than 1,200 attended. It was the beginning of what would become the largest public policy organization for women in the nation.
CWA went on to have a resounding victory against the ERA both in the culture and the courtroom. But, believe it or not, some radical feminists never got over that resounding loss. They are still trying to revive the old, putrefied ERA corpse to this day.
CWA continues to stand in their way.
Just last week, we filed a brief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia standing against illegal efforts to bypass precedent and keep the effort to pass the ERA alive. The brief, filed by Michael Farris, who was legal counsel for CWA back when we defeated the ERA the first time, and who is now the CEO and General Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, explains to the court why the efforts to revive this effort violates the constitutional process.
Simply put, the ERA’s ratification deadline has come and gone. The effort is legally dead. The U.S. Congress gave the states seven years to ratify it, and they failed in that effort decades ago. To pass the ERA, they would need to start the process all over again.
Even the radically liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has acknowledged as much, saying at a Georgetown Law School event that the effort to revive it comes “long after the deadline passed” and needs to start over. “I would like to see a new beginning,” she told the moderator Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge M. Margaret McKeown, “I’d like it to start over.”
In our brief, we argue ERA activists themselves have acknowledged that their time has expired in numerous public statements. But now they seek to circumvent the constitutional process and revive the effort. Even their efforts to “remove the deadline,” acknowledge as much:
The Alice Paul Institute admits that “the ERA did not succeed in getting [sufficient] ratifications before the deadline.” The Feminist Majority Foundation explains that Congress must either “rescind the arbitrary timeline on ERA ratification … [or] pass the ERA again.” Likewise, the League of Women Voters of the United States currently urges its followers to “Tell Congress to remove the deadline so the ERA can cross the finish line!” … On its website, Equality Now tells supporters they “now must urge Senators to pass S.J. Res. 6, another joint resolution to eliminate the deadline. It is more important than ever to urge Senators to eliminate the original deadline!”
The ERA was bad policy then and is still bad policy today. It is why the American people rejected it. Feminists seek to use it to force their radical pro-abortion policies on the country, like finally getting our tax dollars to pay for abortions up to the moment of birth. Big abortion businesses like NARAL and Planned Parenthood have long argued that ERAs at the state level guarantee a right to taxpayer-funded abortions.
The president of the National Organization for Women argued, “The ERA would codify reproductive rights in the Constitution and greatly support low-income women who are the first to lose access to affordable birth control when family planning services are reduced.”
And today we know the ERA would be even worse for women, given the monumental fight in which we are engaged in an effort to protect women sports. Proponents of the ERA want to redefined the word “sex” in federal law opening the door for men who identify as women to hijack women’s rights, safety, and protections.
CWA is currently fighting in courts and legislatures around the country for the right of women in women’s shelter to prevent males from coming into their spaces, a development that could further aggravate the emotional and psychological pain of women who have suffered domestic abuse, rape, and even trafficking in some cases.
The bottom line is that the ERA continues to be a disaster for women and CWA is, once again, leading the fight against it to preserve the intrinsic and unique value of every woman. We won back then. And we will do so again.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) has been fighting for years to expose Planned Parenthood’s (PP) legacy of death which has its roots in the racist eugenics movement. As PP celebrated 100 years a few years back, CWA launched a campaign called “100 No More,” exposing the organization’s racists founding through eugenicist Margaret Sanger. CWA also noted the disparate impact of PP’s policies on minority communities to this day.
Though African Americans are only 12.6% of the U.S. population, they make up 35.4% of all abortions, over 1 in 3. And census data shows that 79% of PP’s surgical abortion facilities are within walking distance of minority neighborhoods. Here is a shocking clip of Margaret Sanger in her own words]:
The same liberals who prop themselves up as champions of minorities would fight us every time we would shed light on PP’s racist roots. They were proud when the Smithsonian put a bust of Margaret Sanger in the National Portrait Gallery. CWA fought them hard on it and called on them to remove it, yet they emphatically refused and were elated to have the pro-abortion display, ignoring the explicit racism attached to it.
But time has caught up to their lying, hypocritical schemes, and now they’ve been forced to acknowledge their racist legacy. The news just broke this week that Planned Parenthood of Greater New York (PPGNY) is being forced to remove the Margaret Sanger name from its abortion clinic as “a necessary and overdue step to reckon with our legacy and acknowledge Planned Parenthood’s contributions to historical reproductive harm within communities of color.”
The change does not come out of self-reflection, but out of pressure from its base. As The Washington Times reported, in a June 18 open letter, 350 current and former staff members and about 800 members wrote, “We know that Planned Parenthood has a history and a present steeped in white supremacy, and we, the staff, are motivated to do the difficult work needed to improve.”
In today’s climate, PP’s racism is no longer able to hide behind their friends in the media and the politicians they support. So, PPGNY has announced the removal of Sanger’s name, and perhaps we are seeing the beginning of the truth coming out. It is definitely an excellent development for truth and life.
The fact that it is the New York Planned Parenthood facility is significant. CWA has also talked about the deep abortion extremism in NYC, where more African American babies were killed by abortion (31,328) than born (24,758) in 2012. We can only hope that the city wakes up to this racial genocide and turns against the inherent racism within the pro-abortion movement.
To be sure, PP is only changing a name, while changing none of its racist policies, like opposing bills that have tried to ban abortions based on race. They have announced no willingness to change their shameful policy on taking money for abortions based on race.
CWA will continue to fight for justice for women. There is much work to be done to protect the inherent value of every human life. But perhaps this development shows us that Americans are starting to wake up to the abortion con and will demand change.
It is definitely something CWA had been hoping to see, and we give thanks to God for this small crack in Big Abortion’s stranglehold on our nation.
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.”
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.