Category

SCOTUS

What did the Supreme Court Do in the Challenge Against Texas Heartbeat Law?

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

The radical left and its media enablers are going berserk over the United States Supreme Court’s denial of an application for injunctive relief to stop Texas’s Heartbeat Law from going into effect. The Court simply refused to act in an activist manner and allowed the process to work as it was constitutionally envisioned.

Anyone seeking the Court to take such an extreme action that would frustrate the democratic process in this manner needs a “strong showing” that they are “likely to succeed on the merits” of the case. The pro-abortion side failed to meet that heavy burden.

Though they are fixated on Roe v. Wade, this case presents “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden.”

To put it simply, the Texas law is not being enforced by state officials, which the pro-abortion side is used to suing in their official capacity, given the fact that they are usually charged with enforcing the law. Not here. This law does not charge any agency or official with its enforcement. Instead, it gives private citizens the right to sue if the law is violated in the future.

The Court then, making no judgment on merits of the case, has refused to enjoin the law (meaning stopping it from going into effect) until there is an actual case or controversy with a proper defendant in order for the courts to assess it in the proper context.

The Court concluded: “This order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.”

Such limited action shows the Court is acting under the sort of judicial restraint envisioned by the constitutional structure, instead of as a super legislature constantly interfering and frustrating the democratic process.

It is discouraging that Chief Justice Roberts joined Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan to dissent from the decision. The Chief Justice recognizes the complex nature of the procedural question presented, saying, “We are at this point asked to resolve these novel questions—at least preliminarily—in the first instance, in the course of two days, without the benefit of consideration by the District Court or Court of Appeals.” But he would actually enjoin the law, frustrating the will of the millions of Texans who helped enact it.  This fits a pattern we have seen from the Chief Justice before, where he seems to worry about public opinion in an unhealthy way, taking steps in every major case to protect what he perceives as the “legitimacy” and independence of the Court.

Not surprisingly, the liberal side of the Court, Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, wrote separately, eager to project that they are ready to act on behalf of the pro-abortion side. No need for them to worry about the legitimacy of the Court. That seems to always cut one way.

We are thankful for Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett for their unwavering commitment to the law and showing the proper judicial restraint in such a politically charged area of law. That’s where it counts.

Your Voice in the Biggest Abortion Case of Our Lifetime

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

The Concerned Women for America (CWA) Legal Studies Department is proud to report that we have completed your amicus (friend of the Court’s) brief in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case before the United States Supreme Court.  

From the outset, we let the Court know we are representing you, and we make clear the values for which you stand. “CWA believes abortion harms women, men, their families, and the nation and actively promotes legislation and public education to support women in crisis pregnancies and address the harms caused by pro-abortion policies,” we write on our Statement of Interest. And we conclude saying, “CWA believes it is false to suggest women need abortion to have equality. Moreover, we affirm women are not a monolithic group assenting to a homogeneous worldview on any policy issue so that this honorable Court benefits from hearing and giving value to a broad range of women voices in cases such as this one.” 

We present three basic arguments: (1) states should be free to make a reasonable determination about abortion policy that places a higher value on the life of mothers and their unborn children, (2) the Court has undervalued the state’s interest in women’s health by failing to give the proper weight to the physical, psychological, emotional, and even spiritual harms abortion has had on women’s lives, and finally (3) the Court should give proper weight to the views of a wide range of women’s voices, including those who reject the Court-created “right” to abortion. 

The first argument is simple. The Court’s abortion jurisprudence has no foundation in our Constitution and has therefore been predictably unreliable and inconsistent. We write: 

Advances in science and our understanding of the process and interests involved in the abortion decision today should push the Court not only to reconsider the definition and timing of viability but the factual underpinnings from Roe that it left standing in Casey. The time has come for the Court to rectify the constitutional error of Roe’s quasi-legislative analysis. States should never be prevented from presenting the evidence which undergirds their legislative reasoning as they fight to withstand a constitutional challenge to its laws in areas where the Constitution envisions them having ample freedom to engage based on well-established federalism principles.  

The lower court, in this case, did not even allow the state of Mississippi to show the scientific evidence on which it relied to enact the law at issue. The state’s interest in women’s health was front and center; therefore, we write of the great injustice of the court barring this evidence, “As a women’s organization, amicus considers the omission of the evidence for the state’s interest in the mother’s health from consideration at the pre-viability stage, for example, a grave misuse of the Court’s jurisprudence that the Constitution in no way prescribes.” 

The Constitution’s framework is key to our argument because, though the question before the Court concerns viability, the Court’s abortion jurisprudence problem is much more profound. We conclude: “Though not strictly necessary to resolve this case, the Court’s fundamental problems in this area of law go all the way back to Roe and Doe. To fully vindicate the constitutional principles involved requires an honest reversal.” 

Second, we argue, “Women’s interests should never be irrelevant in the abortion context at every stage of pregnancy, including at the pre-viability stage.” Period. “Amicus represents mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, and friends who have seen the devastation that abortion can have on women’s emotional, psychological, and spiritual lives.” We go on to present some of the studies of the mental health risks associated with abortion and let the Court know, “Any interpretation of viability that forces courts to exclude the consideration of women’s health, not only before choosing to have an abortion but also after that choice, as the lower court decreed here, should not be upheld.”  

And finally, third, we go to CWA’s roots. Pro-abortion women do not represent all women. They do not even represent most women. Pro-life is pro-woman. “[A] new AP-NORC poll found that, ‘most Americans say abortions should generally be illegal during the second and third trimester,’” we report, “One would never guess this by looking at the Court’s abortion precedent.” 

The hundreds of thousands of women amicus represent want to stress that women do not need abortion as a measure of equality. Women have intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of abortion public policy. The fact that men do not give birth is not something they see as a flaw but a feature of the beautiful way women are created—the imago Dei. Being mothers is not to women’s detriment, despite its many challenges. Women celebrate the diversity of our Creator and therefore affirm our dignity, aside from abortion. Amicus affirms the dignity of every woman, including unborn women. 

That is just a sample, but you can access the full document here. We are confident this brief is something you can be proud of, as we stand together before the Supreme Court and proclaim the truth with honesty and respect. 

It is an honor to serve you in such a way. 

High Court Term Closes with Momentous First Amendment Defense, A CWA Win

By | California, Case Vault, News and Events, SCOTUS | No Comments

This week, on the last day of the Court’s 2020 term, the United States Supreme Court gave us a significant First Amendment victory in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, and Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta. In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded the cases, concluding, “California’s disclosure requirement is facially invalid because it burdens donors’ First Amendment rights and is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest.”

The decision is a major victory for the First Amendment, for us at Concerned Women for America (CWA), since we submitted a brief supporting the Petitioners, but more importantly, it is a victory for freedom.

California’s requirement for charities to file major donor lists was a blatant attempt at political intimidation, which would have been exploited maliciously in today’s cancel culture environment. Thankfully, the Supreme Court recognized it for what it was and declared it unconstitutional.

There was some disagreement among the justices about the standard of review to be applied in this case. The Chief Justice argued for an “exacting” scrutiny standard, which would be lower than the traditional “strict” scrutiny, which is the highest the Court applies. In the case of an exacting scrutiny standard, the law does not have to be the “least restrictive” means for the government to accomplish its purposes, but it does mean that it has to be “narrowly tailored.”

This law was blatantly not “narrowly tailored,” so it was declared unconstitutional.

Though we agree with Justice Thomas, who argued in his concurrence that in review of a law that so blatantly burdens First Amendment rights, the higher strict scrutiny standard should apply; Justices Alito and Gorsuch were right in writing that this law was so egregious it fails either standard.

Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan dissented.

The Court recognized that the law “casts a dragnet for sensitive donor information from tens of thousands of charities each year, even though that information will become relevant in only a small number of cases.” Juxtapose that with the risks involved in today’s day and age, and the danger is hard to ignore.

“The petitioners here, for example, introduced evidence that they and their supporters have been subjected to bomb threats, protests, stalking, and physical violence,” the Chief Justice wrote. And continued, “Such risks are heightened in the 21st century and seem to grow with each passing year, as ‘anyone with access to a computer [can] compile a wealth of information about’ anyone else, including such sensitive details as a person’s home address or the school attended by his children.”

This recognition is significant. Cancel culture is a cancer that has overtaken our culture by storm, and the Court needs to recognize it here. California, of course, tried to downplay this issue at oral arguments, boasting of its intent to keep the information private, even when the evidence showed they had violated that privacy in multiple ways.

You are sure to hear this ruling reported as a “conservative Court” acting on behalf of conservatives. A New York Times tweet read, “Breaking News: The Supreme Court rejected California’s requirement that charities report the identities of major donors, siding with conservative groups who said the disclosures could lead to harassment.” This is fake news, as we’ve come to expect. They are manipulating this decision for political gain.

The reality is this was an unusual case where most charitable organizations from both the left and the right were in agreement, standing against California’s radicalism. As the Court noted, “The gravity of the privacy concerns in this context is further underscored by the filings of hundreds of organizations as amici curiae in support of the petitioners. Far from representing uniquely sensitive causes, these organizations span the ideological spectrum, and indeed the full range of human endeavors.”

Yes, this was the rare case where CWA stood alongside the American Civil Liberties Union and many other organizations, conservative and liberal. Good to see the Court take notice and concluding, “the Attorney General’s disclosure requirement imposes a widespread burden on donors’ associational rights. And this burden cannot be justified on the ground that the regime is narrowly tailored to investigating charitable wrongdoing or that the State’s interest in administrative convenience is sufficiently important.”

SCOTUS Strikes Down Philadelphia’s Anti-Christian Policy

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

Catholic Social Services (CSS) has been serving the underprivileged children of Philadelphia for over two centuries. The organization serves children through adoption and foster care services as an outpouring of the love embodied in the tenets of the Christian faith.

This is a problem for the Left.

Today’s secular humanist Left is adamant about crushing dissenting views. All people and organizations that refuse to publicly affirm support for LGBTQIA+ desires must be “canceled”—ostracized, isolated, punished, re-educated. Christians, in particular, are a nuisance. They continue to believe in Creation as told in Scripture. They believe every person has intrinsic value as created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). That’s why they just will not shut up about the injustice of abortion.

Christians insist that God created us male and female (Genesis 1:27, Matthew 19:4) and that God instituted marriage and the family as a foundational institution (Genesis 2:24) that reflects the most sacred relationship between Christ and His Bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:31,32). They dare to promote that children honor both their mother and father (Exodus 20:12, Ephesians 6:2). They insist on loving God above all and neighbors as themselves (Mark 12:30,31). They even believe their help of the poor is akin to serving Christ himself (Matthew 25:40).

This is intolerable. Well, it’s been tolerable for 200 years, but no more. When the Liberal Elites got wind (through a newspaper report) that CSS would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents due to its religious convictions, they decided to kick them off the state’s programs designed to help needy children. …

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Freedom Rings Again in Philadelphia with Big First Amendment Win at U.S. Supreme Court

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events, Press Releases, Religious Issues, SCOTUS | No Comments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 17, 2021

Contact:
Jacklyn Washington
202-748-3501, [email protected]

Freedom Rings Again in Philadelphia with Big First Amendment Win at U.S. Supreme Court

Washington, D.C. – Conservative women celebrate the just-released U.S. Supreme Court decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. 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:

“As the Court acknowledged, ‘The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with [Catholic Social Services] CSS for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.’

“This is a commonsense decision that represents the most basic principles of freedom. Americans should be free to act upon matters of conscience according to their deeply held religious beliefs without fear of government retribution. 

“Children are the real winners here. Children in foster care or in need of a forever home have benefitted from religious communities, like Catholic Social Services, selflessly committed to their welfare for thousands of years. Government should welcome such humble assistance and encourage their expansion, instead of putting a target on them seeking their demise, as Philadelphia tried to do here.

“In a pluralistic society, we must resist those in power who seek to impose their preferred views in matters of faith by force. We must learn to respect one another and understand that disagreement is not bigotry. 

“Today, the Court lives up to the promise of our founding and adheres to the essence of our First Amendment freedoms to the free exercise of religion.”

###

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

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Fact Sheet

By | Legal, News and Events, SCOTUS | No Comments
  • The case1 presents a challenge to a Mississippi state law that places strict limits on abortions after 15 weeks.
  • The case is not a direct challenge to Roe. The limited question before the Court is whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.2
  • The Mississippi law is known as the “Gestational Age Act,”3 and it seeks to protect women and unborn children by limiting abortions after 15 weeks only to the cases of medical emergencies and/or several fetal abnormalities.
  • Though it is true that the Supreme Court manufactured a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade,4 the Court has always recognized “the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus” (see Planned Parenthood v. Casey5).
  • The Court’s jurisprudence has been a complete failure in balancing those two interests, namely, the Court-created right to an abortion and the state’s interest in protecting the health of the mother and the life of a baby in the womb.
  • The Court has used many legal tricks to try to establish some guidelines, including a baby’s viability and the burden on the woman’s rights, but their efforts in this area have been decidedly legislative in nature and beyond the role the Constitution envisioned for the Court.
  • Scientific progress has given us a window into the womb, thereby destroying the foundation upon which Roe and Casey and the Supreme Court’s entire abortion jurisprudence rests.
    • With advancements in ultrasounds, not only do we know the life inside the womb is a baby, but doctors are able to perform life-saving treatment, even perform surgery, as with the famous cases of babies with spina bifida.6
    • Babies feel pain at a very early stage. The scientific evidence shows that from 15 weeks onward, “the fetus is extremely sensitive to painful stimuli, and that this fact should be taken into account when performing invasive medical procedures on the fetus. It is necessary to apply adequate analgesia to prevent the suffering of the fetus.”7
    • According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine,8 a 15-week-old baby:
      • Has eyes and eyelids with a well-formed face,
      • Limbs have developed,
      • The baby has hands and feet with little toes and fingers that have gone so far as to develop nails on them (he or she can make a fist!),
      • The genitals have appeared,
      • Organs are fast developing with the baby’s liver already making red blood cells of its own,
      • And muscle tissue and bones continue to grow and become harder, making it possible to begin to move.
  • It is time for the Supreme Court to catch up to the 21st Century.
  • Americans overwhelmingly support banning late-term abortion and restricting it during the first trimester. A recent Marist poll found 75% of Americans, including 61% of those who identify as pro-choice, say abortion should be banned at the very least to after the first trimester.9
  • It is time for Roe’s House of Cards to come tumbling down. Women and children deserve better than the legislative games the Supreme Court has employed up to this point!
  • It is the states’ highest duty to protect the health of mothers and the life of babies. They should be free to enact laws to do that in the best way they see possible, as Mississippi has done here.

Click here for a PDF version.

[1] Supreme Court Docket No. 19-1392, available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1392.html.

[2] Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Question Presented, available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/19-01392qp.pdf.

[3] Mississippi House Bill 1510, available at https://legiscan.com/MS/text/HB1510/id/1692666.

[4] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113.

[5] Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html.

[6] The Perinatal Revolution, Colleen Malloy, M.D., Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst, M.D., MPH, and Tara Sander Lee, Ph.D, Issues in Law & Medicine, Volume 34, Issue 1, Article 2, (Spring 2019).

[7] Fact Sheet: Science of Fetal Pain, Charlotte Lozier Institute, available at https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/, citing Sekulic S et al., Appearance of fetal pain could be associated with maturation of the mesodiencephalic structures. J Pain Res. 9, 1031, 2016.

[8] Fetal development, MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine, available at https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm, accessed May 21, 2021.

[9] America’s Opinions on Abortion, January 2019, available at https://www.kofc.org/un/en/resources/communications/american-attitudes-abortion-knights-of-columbus-marist-poll-slides.pdf.

Momentous Pro-Life Case to the U.S. Supreme Court

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

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Explained

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a pro-life case out of Mississippi challenging a state law that places strict limits on abortions after 15-weeks. As with every single pro-life case that comes to the Supreme Court, you are about to hear news from the usual suspects in the liberal media that the world is about to end — again! Pay no attention to their hysterics. Here is what you need to know.

As the Supreme Court has said numerous times, states have a legitimate interest in limiting abortion and protecting innocent life. Relying on that premise, Mississippi’s “Gestational Age Act,” enacted in 2018, limits abortions after 15 weeks to the cases of medical emergencies and several fetal abnormalities.

The law was immediately challenged as unconstitutional by abortionists at the Jackson Women’s Health Organization. A federal district court agreed with the abortion clinic, declaring that Supreme Court precedent does not allow states to restrict abortions in this way until a fetus becomes “viable.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision.

Mississippi is now appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Court has fortunately granted the review.  Although you will hear the constant drumming of protecting Roe, the limited question before the Court is whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.

The case will be heard in the fall when the justices return from the summer recess. It joins Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, another pro-life case that will deal with a more procedural question about the State’s authority to ensure that laws are fully defended in the courts. Dobbs, therefore, becomes the most crucial pro-life case the Court will hear, given that it will deal with the merits of the law, testing the limits of the Court’s dubious abortion jurisprudence.

The scientific advances made since the lies upon which Roe and Casey were built have exposed the lie of abortion. As women peer into the womb, the fact that we are not dealing with a blob of tissue has become apparent. And given that undeniable fact, pro-abortion proponents and sympathetic judges have struggled to come up with a clearly arbitrary, yet credible, artificial line at which to allow abortions.

Most Americans (up to 74%) want to ban second and third-trimester abortions.

Now you may be thinking, “What difference does that make? This is a legal case, and polls shouldn’t matter to the Court,” and you would be right. Traditionally, the Court would look at the law and the facts of the case and render a decision on the law, giving the legislature ample room to operate and make policy determinations within constitutional limits.

Nevertheless, in the case of Roe—in the abortion context—the Court has so overstepped its role that all it has and will ever have (until it corrects itself) are questions of policy. Now they are legislating about viability and weighing and reweighing the state’s interests in protecting life and protecting women and children. It is embarrassing. Can there be any more compelling interest than these?

But when it comes to abortion, the Supreme Court has had to employ all kinds of gimmicks and smokescreens in order to ignore its traditional role and interpretative procedures to preserve the abortion fiction. Justice Anthony Kennedy admitted as much in the Carhart decision writing:

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

What has the other side so bent out of shape this time around is that they are not sure they have enough liberal legal wizards to perform their abortion alchemy to save their all-encompassing pro-abortion standard, where even the most reasonable restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional.

There is indeed much hope for most Americans who support such restrictions, given the gains we have made at the U.S. Supreme Court. But far from a turn to the extreme right as you are sure to read about in the papers, all we will hopefully witness (God willing) is a return to the basic tenant of truth in law. A return to scientific reasonableness. A return to biological reality.

And that will be a monumental step indeed.

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.

Rejecting the Idolatry of Safety with Faith and Faithfulness

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

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.

Black Lives Matter riots, good; religious gatherings, bad. Thanksgiving dinner for regular folk, really bad, but indoor dinner for liberal elites, completely fine. You get the picture.

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.

Justice Barrett Win Should Remind You of the Importance of Your Vote

By | Barrett, News and Events, RBG, SCOTUS | No Comments

Now that Amy Coney Barrett has been sworn in as the 115th justice of the United States Supreme Court, I hope you realize the importance of your vote this coming November 3. There was a time when the U.S. Senate would have confirmed Justice Barrett unanimously. That was the way Justice Antonin Scalia, her mentor, was confirmed, 98–0. By contrast, Justice Barrett was confirmed 52-48. She would have never been confirmed if just a few seats were turned. 

This must become a matter of prayer for us as we focus our attention these last few days. Let us pray, not only for the outcome but also that those who are elected would choose justice over partisan bickering.   

Republicans control the Senate right now 53-47. Democrats would need to pick up four seats to become the majority. There are 34 Senate seats up for a vote. Of those 34 seats, 22 are Republican, and only 12 Democrats. 

Right now, Real Clear Politics has nine races as toss-ups— seven Republicans and just two Democrats. It further has five leaning to remain Republican and three leaning Democrat, with one of them being a pickup from a Republican seat. 

As you can see, there is a lot still up in the air as far as the United States Senate’s makeup which will have significant implications for the confirmation of judges. 

President Donald J. Trump has had historic victories in appointing constitutionalists to federal courts. Still, the gains would not have been possible without a Senate committed to the swift confirmation of qualified nominees. 

The number of cloture votes, which used to be rare in judicial confirmations, and which are practically meant merely to slow down nominees, have surged under today’s hyper-political climate. Seventy-seven percent of President Trump’s judicial nominees were forced to go through a cloture vote. Compare that to just 2.9 percent for President Barack Obama. 

Every way you look at it indicates to us that U.S. Senate races are crucial to justice. The media’s focus on the presidential race is, of course, warranted. The two candidates have very different and contrasting plans for our country.  

But we must not forget that even in some of the areas where they are promising to do this or that, they will need Congress to act before they can do anything.  In the case of judicial nominations, they will need the Senate to exercise its “advise and consent” role. 

One troubling idea that is being pushed by the radical left, namely to pack the Supreme Court by expanding the number of justices, would require the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass legislation for the president to sign. 

Packing the Court would be damaging to an institution that relies on its institutional legitimacy for its role in our form of government. This is why most elected officials, including Democrats, have opposed the idea for decades. Even Vice President Biden has said we would “live to rue the day” if the Supreme Court was expanded. 

Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt actually tried to pack the Court in 1937, but he failed when many in his own party opposed him, saying he would turn it into a political weapon. 

The American people also reject court-packing. This is why today, Vice President Biden has been reluctant to speak of the plan publicly. He has famously said he will answer the question “when the election is over” which is troubling in its own right.   

Many have taken that to mean he will do it. If that is the case, he would need the support of a willing Senate to go along with the plan.  

The bottom line is, we must keep the U.S. Senate in focus as we head into Election Day. 

Send Victorious ACB to the Supreme Court

By | Barrett, Judicial Nominations, Legal, News and Events, RBG, Vacancy | No Comments

Prepared Remarks by Doreen Denny, Vice President of Government Relations

Confirm Amy Event Following Senate Judiciary Committee Vote Approving Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Nomination to the U. S. Supreme Court

October 22, 2020

I’m here today on behalf of Penny Nance and all those participating with us as we ride our Women for Amy bus across America.

We’ve logged 3,200 miles since October 6 – starting in Georgia and South Carolina and rolling through South Bend, Indiana, and Iowa among other critical states. Today we’re headed to Texas then Arizona – another 1,500 miles to wrap up our 4-week, 12-state tour.

And I can report that in every place we’ve stopped women are excited and energized about Judge Barrett, soon to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

As Chairman Graham passionately stated: for conservative women, this confirmation is not just about breaking through a glass ceiling, it’s about busting through a reinforced concrete barrier.

Today’s Judiciary Committee action to send Amy Coney Barrett to the Senate for a final vote is a moonshot being witnessed by young conservative women across America who feel they are being censored by a cancel culture. They are wondering if there will ever be a seat at the table for them. Today, the answer is YES – You do not have to compromise your beliefs. Your voice matters. Stand tall and stand proud.

Our daughters, including my own, see in Judge Barrett the strength that comes when a woman of conviction thinks for herself, pursues excellence in her profession, and embraces the values of faith and family that are the unshakable foundations of her life.

We celebrate this moment as a milestone for conservative women who have experienced the disdain and bigotry of the left for far too long. We agree with Judge Barrett in upholding the foundation of our Constitution as the bedrock of our freedoms.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) have played an important role representing our voice and values in this process, and we are especially grateful to have had them on the Judiciary Committee for this confirmation.

There is no woman in America more ready and more qualified to be wearing the robe of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court than Amy Coney Barrett. She will carry a banner for women of faith across America to the highest court.

Today’s boycott by Senate Democrats is nothing more than a political stunt. Americans know Amy Coney Barrett deserves to be confirmed based on her qualifications and her character. We urge all Senators to exercise their duty to advise and consent on that basis alone and vote YES on her confirmation.

The American people are waiting to receive a Victorious ACB on the Supreme Court with the same spirit they embraced the Notorious RBG.

Thank you.

Click here for a .pdf version of the remarks.

Hearing Recap and Next Steps for Amy Coney Barrett

By | Barrett, Judicial Nominations, LBB, Legal, News and Events, RBG | No Comments

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.”

Meet Amy Coney Barrett

By | Barrett, Judicial Nominations, Legal, News and Events, RBG, SCOTUS | No Comments

If you have been a friend of Concerned Women for America (CWA) over the years, you only need to refamiliarize yourself with Judge Amy Barrett. CWA activists supported her nomination to the lower court, and we spoke loudly about the anti-religious, anti-Christian bigotry that characterized her opposition. We won that battle. And we will stand strong against such unconstitutional attacks on people of faith this time around.

But we want you to get to know future Justice Amy Coney Berrett now that the President is set to nominate her to the United States Supreme Court.

Personal Life

Amy Coney Barrett was born in Louisiana; she is 48 years old. She and her husband Jesse Barrett live in Indiana with their seven children. Two of the children were adopted from Haiti. One has special needs. It has been reported that the baby was diagnosed with Down Syndrome during a prenatal screening. She is a devout, pro-life, Catholic.

Academic Credentials

Judge Barrett graduated from St. Mary’s Dominican High School in New Orleans (1990). She studied English literature at Rhodes College where she graduated with a Bachelor of Arts magna cum laude (1994). She was Phi Beta Kappa and earned Most Outstanding English Major and Most Outstanding Senior Thesis.

She earned a full tuition scholarship to go to the Notre Dame Law School where she graduated with a juris doctor, summa cum laude (1997). She was the Executive Editor of the Notre Dame Law Review. She was also the recipient of the Hoynes Prize (for the best record in scholarship, deportment, and achievement), the Dean’s Award (for the best exam in Administrative Law, Civil Procedure I and II, Constitutional Law, Contracts, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, First Amendment, Torts II, and Legal Research and Writing).

Legal Career

Upon graduation, Amy Coney Barret earned some prestigious judicial clerkships. First, under Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1997-1998), and later under the late, great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (1998-1999).

Judge Barret then moved to private practice as an associate at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin (1999-2000), and later at Baker Bots, LLP (2000-2001), two highly regarded law firms in Washington, D.C.

She later became visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C. (2001-2002). Then a Professor of Law, and the Diane and M.O. Miller II Research Chair in Law at the Notre Dame Law School in South Bend, Indiana (2002-2017), where she won the “Distinguished Professor of the Year” award multiple times.

In 2017, she was nominated by President Donald Trump to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit where she continues to serve with distinction.

Judicial Philosophy

Judge Barrett is a constitutionalist who believes the text of the Constitution means what it says and says what it means when looking at the original meaning as it was written at the time of its enactment. She has shown through her career that she is willing to show the judicial restraint necessary to refrain from imposing personal policy views under the guise of law. A student of Justice Scalia, she is similarly committed to originalism and stare decisis (settled law) and grappling with these legal doctrines in a way that preserves the most important principles of our founding.

She will be an outstanding addition to the United States Supreme Court.

Here is the List of Added Names to President Trump’s List of Possible Supreme Court Nominees

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

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:

  1. Judge Bridget Bade, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  2. Daniel Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky
  3. Paul Clement, former U.S. Solicitor General
  4. Tom Cotton, R- Arkansas
  5. Ted Cruz, R-Texas
  6. Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
  7. Steven Engel, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice.
  8. Noel Francisco, former Solicitor General of the United States
  9. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri
  10. Judge James Ho, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
  11. Judge Gregory Katsas, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
  12. Judge Barbara Lagoa, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  13. Christopher Landau, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico
  14. Justice Carlos Muñiz, Supreme Court of Florida
  15. Judge Martha Pacold, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
  16. Judge Peter Phipps, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  17. Judge Sarah Pitlyk, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
  18. Judge Allison Jones Rushing, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
  19. Kate Todd, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President
  20. 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.

SCOTUS

Political Justice Strikes Again—June Medical v. Russo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCOTUS Rally

The Bostock/Harris Debacle

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Alito calls him out on it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Penny Nance at Protect Women Protect Life rally at Supreme Court

Conservative Women Decry Chief Justice Roberts’ Politically Correct Jurisprudence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bostock – Harris Supreme Court Update

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

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

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

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

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

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