Category

SCOTUS

YWA leader Lillian Knight speaking at Protect Women Protect Life rally at the Supreme Court

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Demonstrators Meet outside the Supreme Court

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

One of our amazing Young Women for America college chapter presidents, Lillian Knight, LSU, participated in the Protect Women, Protect Life rally on the steps of the Supreme Court fighting to uphold a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting procedures. She is quoted in the article in National Review.

“On the steps of the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, hundreds of demonstrators gathered as the justices heard oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, the first abortion-related case on the docket since Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Court.

The case was brought by abortion providers against the state of Louisiana, challenging a law that requires them to maintain admitting privileges at a local hospital so women can get emergency care if necessary after a failed abortion procedure. Louisiana law currently requires the same of all other ambulatory surgical centers in the state; the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act aims to hold abortionists to the same standard.

Sources who attended oral arguments told National Review that seven of the nine justices asked questions. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch were the two who did not.

Outside the Court, meanwhile, both the abortion-rights movement and pro-life advocates hosted rallies all morning, standing right beside each other underneath a perfectly blue and sunny sky, the abortion-rights crowd swathed in teal and the pro-lifers in a lighter shade of blue.

“My right, my decision,” read most of the signs on the pro-choice side. The signs were printed, and the rally coordinated, by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the abortion-advocacy group that argued against the Louisiana law this morning, representing June Medical Services and two unnamed abortionists.

One of the most prominent speakers for the abortion-rights rally was Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), who directed part of his remarks at Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. “They’re taking away fundamental rights,” he said. “I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Representative Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) also addressed the pro-choice crowd, opening her remarks by suggesting that “they are obsessed with our bodies,” as well as that abortion is an issue of “economic justice” and “racial justice.”

“We have every frickin’ right to fight for our lives and our bodies,” Tlaib said. Most of the remarks from speakers at the pro-choice rally didn’t touch on the substance of the Louisiana law at all, or they falsely claimed that it was intended to restrict access to abortion. But in fact, in a decision upholding the statute last fall, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “the only permissible finding, under this record, is that no clinics will likely be forced to close on account of the Act.”

Much of the abortion-rights rally centered around common slogans such as permitting or trusting women to control their own bodies.

A poster that one of the abortion-rights demonstrators held read, “Hey Kavanaugh, keep your religion out of my health care. And yea, we still believe Dr. Blasey Ford.” Another, much larger sign said, “Thank God for abortion.”

On the pro-life side of the divide, meanwhile, most signs read, “Protect women, protect life.” The remarks from the slate of speakers in defense of Louisiana’s law focused almost entirely on the law itself, as well as the goal of ensuring that women are able to get emergency care.

Katrina Jackson, the Louisiana Democrat who sponsored the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, addressed the pro-life crowd after exiting the Court following the hearing. “For so long, this nation has put the abortion industry before the health and safety of the women,” she said.

“We will no longer be quiet, because we love the child, and we love the woman. And Louisiana is all about love, even when someone doesn’t agree with us,” Jackson added. “We seek to protect them in their decisions. We seek to hold others accountable, and especially when a billion-dollar industry makes money off of that woman’s decision, they should be held accountable just as other doctors who treat us for other things.”

One young woman from Louisiana, who serves as a campus leader for Concerned Women for America, spoke to the group close to the end of the rally. “Twenty-two years ago, my mom went to a Louisiana Planned Parenthood seeking to know what her options were because she was in a crisis pregnancy,” she said. “She had no support from anybody in my family or from my biological father. They told her that my life was not worth anything and that her only option was to abort me, that she would not be successful in life, that she could not get an education, and that I would essentially ruin her life. Twenty-two years later, I think she begs to differ.””

Read the Entire Article in National Review Here:

Roe’s Foundation of Lies

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

It is always sobering to stand and contemplate the destruction and devastation left along the pathway of “Hurricane” Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that invented a right to abortion. It is worse than any of the modern-day disasters we have experienced. More than sixty million babies now lost. In a way, today is a day of mourning as we march for the 47th time to expose the injustice that is Roe.

The Supreme Court case was not only plainly an unconstitutional exercise in judicial activism, it was also the result of a wicked plan to deceive the public into something it never wanted. If you have never read the testimony of Norma McCorvey, the former Roe of Roe v. Wade, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution in June 23, 2005, you should take the time to read it today and discover the foundation of lies upon which the Roe scheme was concocted.

I believe that I was used and abused by the court system in America. Instead of helping women in Roe v. Wade, I brought destruction to me and millions of women throughout the nation. In 1970, I was pregnant for the third time. I was not married and I truly did not know what to do with this pregnancy. I had already put one child up for adoption and it was difficult to place a child for adoption because of the natural bond that occurs between a woman and her child. And after all, a woman becomes a mother as soon as she is pregnant, not when the child is born. And women are now speaking out about their harmful experiences from legal abortion. Instead of getting me financial or vocational help, instead of helping me to get off of drugs and alcohol, instead of working for open adoption or giving me other help, my lawyers wanted to eliminate the right of society to protect women and children from abortionists. My lawyers were looking for a young, white woman to be a guinea pig for a great new social experiment…

Everything about Roe is a lie. Norma McCorvey never even had an abortion, and in her testimony, she confessed about how she lied about her story to obtain sympathy and win public approval.

Abortion is a shameful and secret thing. I wanted to justify my desire for an abortion in my own mind, as almost every woman who participates in the killing of her own child must also do. I made up the story that I had been raped to help justify my abortion. Why would I make up a lie to justify my conduct? Abortion itself is a lie and it is based on lies. My lawyers didn’t tell me that abortion would be used for sex selection, but later when I was a pro-choice advocate and worked in abortion clinics, I found women who were using abortion as a means of gender selection. My lawyers didn’t tell me that future children would be getting abortions and losing their innocence. Yet I saw young girls getting abortions who were never the same. In 1973, when I learned about the Roe v. Wade decision from the newspapers, not my lawyers, I didn’t feel real elated. After all, the decision didn’t help me at all. I never had an abortion. I gave my baby up for adoption since the baby was born before the legal case was over. I am glad today that that child is alive and that I did not elect to abort.

This is something that is still being done to this day. The abortion industry uses women’s hurt to justify further damage through abortion. How many times do they bring up rape or incest in a debate about abortion, as if that were a common occurrence? In reality, they make about one percent of all abortions.

The hurt that Roe has caused millions of women could never be quantified, as even the Supreme Court has now come to acknowledge. As the Court acknowledges in Gonzales v. Carhart:

It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child. …”

But the abortion deception demands more and more lies in order to keep its house of cards alive. From their standpoint, the public must never discover that pro-life is pro-woman.

Thankfully, the majority of Americans are waking up to the many abortion lies that keep Roe alive and are rejecting them. Two-thirds (65%) say they “are more likely to vote for” a candidate who wants to limit abortion to the first three months of pregnancy. Sixty-two percent want the Court to revisit Roe v. Wade. It should. It is time for the lies to be exposed. It is time to end Roe.

SCOTUS

The Abortion Industry Does Not Speak for Women

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

This month, Concerned Women for America (CWA) filed an important amicus (friend of the court) brief in June Medical Services, LLC v. Gee at the United States Supreme Court standing up for the millions of pro-life women around the country who want to make sure the Justices know that the abortion industry does not speak for them.

Believe it or not, that is often what the abortion industry claims to do, with the blessing of the Court. Big Abortion has created a whole legal industry out of challenging any and all laws that seek to protect women by regulating the abortion procedure to make it safer for women. As predicted by Justice Powell in Singleton v. Wulff (428 U.S. 106, 119 (1976)), in abortion cases, the Court has “invit[ed] litigation by those who perhaps have the least legitimate ground for seeking to assert the rights of third parties”— in this case, women.

The same abortionists who spend millions of dollars fighting against a simple requirement to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals so they can properly follow up with patients that experience complications during an abortion, claim before the courts to have a relationship with patients close enough to justify them representing women in court.

CWA’s brief highlights the research of Prof. Teresa Collett, J.D., the Director of the University of Saint Thomas Pro-Life Center, which surveys all cases since Roe involving federal challenges to abortion laws. The research reveals that “women have consistently challenged abortion-related laws related to public funding and laws requiring parental, spousal, or judicial consent prior to performance of an abortion while showing little or no appetite for attacking laws aimed at providing women with more information on abortion and its alternatives; safer, cleaner abortion facilities; and ethical, competent providers.”

“In the three years between 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and 1976, when Singleton v. Wulff was decided, women were more likely than doctors, hospitals, or clinics to file challenges to abortion-related laws… Since 1976, [when the Court opened the door for abortionists to represent women’s interests,] there have been sixteen years in which there were no cases filed by women alone, and thirteen years in which they have brought only one” (citations omitted).

“From 1973 to 2019, women or girls have filed an annual average of 2.1 cases per year. In contrast, providers have filed an average of 9.1 cases per year; women and providers have joined in the same lawsuit in only 1.6 cases per year.”

“[T]here are almost no cases filed by women alone challenging conscience rights, informed consent requirements, fetal disposition laws, and provider regulations generally. This pattern suggests that women either generally support or at least do not oppose laws like the one before this Court today that are aimed at providing them with more information, safer, cleaner facilities, and more skilled providers” (citation omitted).

Given this research, the Court should reexamine its “third party standing” standards when it comes to abortion cases. It is just another area where, as Justice Anthony Kennedy candidly acknowledged, the “longstanding maxim[s] of statutory interpretation ha[ve], in the past, fallen by the wayside when the Court confronted a statute regulating abortion.” Third party standing should be presumptively denied in such cases, requiring abortion providers to prove their close relationship with the women they seek to represent in order to stand before the Court asserting women’s interests.

Oral arguments for the case have been set for 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 4. Stay tuned for more information on our activities surrounding the arguments. As always, I will be at the Court to bring you an up-to-date report.

CNS News: “LGBT Activists Outside Supreme Court: ‘Trans Women Are Women’”

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

CEO and President Penny Nance spoke with CNS News about Tuesday’s proceedings inside the Supreme Court during a rally on the front steps.

While the Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday about whether sex discrimination, as codified in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, also applies to sexually fluid people – intersex, transgender — activists protested outside the court proclaiming that sex is not based on biology.

LGBT activists yelled, “trans women are women” and had several speakers lecture on gender diversity. On the other side, the conservative group Concerned Women of America pressed that changing the meaning of “sex” in the Civil Rights Act “would greatly undermine the women’s movement.” They held signs that read, “Sex is not Gender.””

Read the Entire Story and Listen to the Audio Here.

SCOTUS Rally

Transgender Legislative Petition Before SCOTUS

By | Case Vault, Family Issues, Feminist / Women's Issues, Legal, News and Events, Religious Liberty, SCOTUS | No Comments

Oral Arguments in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC

“Aimee Stephens is a transgender woman,” started the argument at the United States Supreme Court in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, where Stephens is asking the Court to include “gender identity” within the definition of “sex” discrimination in federal civil rights law (specifically Title VII, the employment context in this case) . With that simple statement David Cole of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who represented Stephens, glossed over the most important fact to remember in this debate. Aimee Stephens is biologically a man. Aimee undoubtedly feels like a woman and has decided to live as a transgender woman. But the biological fact (reality) remains.

This is why, it is no violation of civil rights, to ask Aimee to use the men’s bathroom or at least to refrain from using the women’s bathroom (in many cases a single stall, private bathroom is available). Aimee is scientifically a man. If someone like Aimee wishes to enter athletic competitions, there is a place for males to compete against other male athletes. For someone like Aimee to demand to compete among female athletes is a great injustice to those who in fact are female.

This is plain for all to see. It is not bigotry.

The reality is most people empathize and even identify with the conflict between Aimee’s biology and psyche at some level. Most people in the U.S. would stand against harassment or beratement directed at Aimee. The great majority would fight against those wishing Aimee harm.

But the reality, once again, is that that is not enough for Aimee and most vocal transgender individuals. In their mind, to say they are not the sex they identify with is to discriminate against them. This is why we are seeing a push for laws that demand we refer to them as the pronoun of their choice.

Mr. Cole at oral arguments tried as hard as he could to say that that was not the issue in the case. He danced around multiple questions from Chief Justice Roberts on the issue of bathrooms, ultimately admitting to Justice Neil Gorsuch that it would be harmful to ask transgenders to follow sex-specific bathroom rules.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: “… but ultimately came to, I believe, a submission that a reasonable person in the transgender plaintiff’s position would be harmed if he or she were fired for failing to follow the bathroom rules or some sort of dress code that’s not otherwise objectionable …”

COLE: “Yeah.”

Mr. Cole’s effort to avoid the issue was so blatant, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the most liberal voice on the Court, called him out on it.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “Mr. Cole, let’s not avoid the difficult issue, okay? You have a transgender person who rightly is identifying as a woman and wants to use the women’s bedroom, rightly, wrongly, not a moral choice, but this is what they identify with. Their need is genuine. I’m accepting all of that –­

COLE: Yeah.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: –and they want to use the women’s bathroom. But there are other women who are made uncomfortable, and not merely uncomfortable, but who would feel intruded upon if someone who still had male characteristics walked into their bathroom. That’s why we have different bathrooms.

So, the hard question is how do we deal with that? And what in the law will guide judges in balancing those things? That’s really what I think the question is about.

Still, the ACLU attorney refused to acknowledge reality. “Well, that is –that is -­that is a question, Justice Sotomayor. It is not the question in this case.”

That is the sort of unreasonable halt to logic the Court would need to do to go along with the LGBTQ-affirming demands in this case.

Both Justice Samuel Alito and Ruth Bader Ginsburg tried to engage Mr. Cole in the discussion of women’s athletics (under Title IX). Round and round Mr. Cole went to avoid the issue, knowing, as we all do, the disastrous consequences for women if he were to win in this case. There are no consequences according to the way he argued the case. The hundreds of thousands of people expressing concerns, including Judge Gerard Lynch of the Second Circuit are just hysterically overreacting.

Judge Lynch supports LGBTQ protections but acknowledged the text of Title VII does not include sexual orientation and gender identity under the word “sex.” “Congress did no such thing,” he acknowledged painfully in his dissenting opinion on the case.

There was no such consideration on behalf of the arguing attorney, and in fact, there was no such introspection on behalf of the liberal side of the Court. Justice Sotomayor tried to hold it in for most of the argument but finally, let it out at the conclusion of arguments.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “May I just ask, at what point does a court continue to permit invidious discrimination against groups that, where we have a difference of opinion, we believe the language of the statute is clear. I think Justice Breyer was right that Title VII, the Civil Rights Act, all of our acts were born from the desire to ensure that we treated people equally and not on the basis of invidious reasons.”

Did you notice the shift? The text of the statute means nothing really. Passion rules. It appears Judge Sotomayor is ready to make “sex” mean whatever they feel like, as long as she perceives “invidious reasons.”

Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all seemed open to the idea of manipulating the text as needed. We can only hope they realize the consequences beyond personal passion.

Though there are forceful emotions involved in this case, and even difficult cases left unaddressed where legislation is needed, the judicial action demanded is deference to the legislative branch who has not included sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII. And, were they to do so, would have to inevitably consider the many examples of significant harm to women’s rights that the LGBTQ-affirming side refuses to acknowledge.

John Bursch, of the Alliance Defending Freedom, who argued on behalf of Harris Funeral Homes, said it plainly, “Treating women and men equally does not mean employers have to treat men as women. That is because sex and transgender status are independent concepts.”

Noel Francisco, arguing as Solicitor General, agreed, “There’s a reason why when Congress wants to prohibit discrimination based on the traits of sexual orientation and gender identity, it lists them separately. It doesn’t define sex as including these traits.”

That should be the end of the inquiry here. This is a legislative matter, not a judicial one, and the Court should resist the temptation to engage in judicial activism, as it has done in the past with disastrous consequences.


Mario Diaz, Esq. is CWA’s general counsel. Follow him on Twitter @mariodiazesq.

Will Supreme Court Try to Redefine Sex?

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

Our CEO and President Penny Nance spoke with CBN’s Paul Strand about the Harris case currently before the Supreme Court about the ramifications for women if the definition of “sex” were to change to include gender identity.

“On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court heard three major cases that could affect a wide swath of the American population.

At the core of these cases is what does the word “sex” means when it comes to law. In 1964, when it first became illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, it meant “male” and “female.”  Now, at least one side in these cases is arguing it should be a bit more complicated: gender identity and sexual orientation should be included.

The cases involve two homosexuals and one transgender fired from their jobs. Gerald Bostock is one of the gay men.

He said outside the court after his case was heard, “Millions and millions of people go to work every day fearful for being fired for who they are, how they identify and who they love. And that’s wrong.””

Watch the entire video and read the full story here:

The Daily Caller Interview with our CEO and President Penny Nance

By | Feminist / Women's Issues, News and Events, SCOTUS, Social / Cultural Issues | No Comments

During the rally on the steps of the Supreme Court for the R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission case, our CEO and President, Penny Nance, explained exactly why Concerned Women for America was standing up and speaking out for women in an interview with The Daily Caller.

See the original interview here and read more.

Concerned Women for America Partners with Women’s Liberation Front to Stand Up for Women and Girls

By | Feminist / Women's Issues, News and Events, Press Releases, SCOTUS | No Comments

 

 

 

 

 

Washington, D.C. – The conservative public policy women’s organization, Concerned Women for America (CWA) is partnering with the self-proclaimed radical feminists’ organization, Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) to Stand Up and Speak Out against injustice for women and girls. These two groups represent hundreds of thousands of women across the country who will be victimized if the Supreme Court redefines the word “sex” to include “gender identity” in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

“To arbitrarily change the word ‘sex’ to include gender identity is regressive, not progressive,” said Penny Nance, CEO and President of CWA. “It would greatly undermine the women’s movement and the women who dedicated their lives to see the advancements we enjoy today,” she continued. “It’ll be a rough day for freedom of speech and conscience if the Supreme Court rules that we can all be compelled to lie about sex,” added Natasha Chart, Board Chair of the Women’s Liberation Front.

Together, CWA and WoLF are hosting a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court to highlight speakers who will share story after story of how they are the true victims of the determined political activism over “gender identity.” Examples include women athletes who can no longer compete in their sports, women who have been assaulted in formerly safe places that excluded males, scientists who have been fired for presenting factual science publicly, and former transgender individuals who have now detransitioned. The rally will be held, Tuesday, October 8, 2019, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. ET at the Supreme Court of the United States located at 1 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20543.

Statement of Penny Nance Final

Statement of Natasha Chart Final

 

New Kavanaugh Smear Reminds Us the Mainstream Media Leads the Radical Left

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

Every time you are tempted to ease up on an all-out defense of truth and justice, remember Kavanaugh. The latest maliciously orchestrated smear campaign led by “the newspaper of record,” the New York Times, should be a reminder that the “mainstream” media is not only complicit with the radical left, it is the radical left. It is intent and will stop at nothing to destroy conservatives.

To recap, the New York Times published an op-ed alleging a new “bombshell” allegation that Justice Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a female classmate in a grotesque, sexually demeaning way – complete with tabloid-worthy details of the encounter for its esteemed readers. Their “reporting” cued the usual chorus of leftist media friends who immediately commence talks of impeachment—complete with a Vox explainer of what the process would look like.

Even Democratic presidential candidates jumped at the opportunity to “go for the kill,” given the horrendous event described by the Times.  Sen. Kamala Harris, Julián Castro, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren all called for impeachment. Others, like Sen. Amy Klobuchar, stopped short of impeachment but were nonetheless excited to assail the character of the Supreme Court Justice.

But the Times forgot to include one small detail about the horrible encounter it described: the alleged victim does not recall it.

That’s right, there is no victim. There is no reporting. It was a wishful, fictional piece smearing the character of a sitting Supreme Court justice (for a second time!) for political purposes. The Times would have never published a story like this of someone the editors supported.

It is worthy of note that the Times was forced to publish an embarrassing (for anyone else in a similar situation) correction of the story only after Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist, who had obtained an advance copy of the book alleging the incident, reported on the glaring omission.

Did I mention this was on the front page of its Sunday review section?

But it is not just the New York Times. Most of the mainstream media has been complicit in this miscarriage of justice against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Even after the pernicious omission was disclosed, they have run right in line with the impeachment talk, instead of decrying the error and treating Justice Kavanaugh with the respect he and his family deserve.

This was no different than what we experienced first-hand during the confirmation hearings. The leftist media, hiding behind First Amendment protections, is waging an all-out war against conservatives, and we simply cannot give them the benefit of the doubt anymore.

The authors of this dishonest piece smearing Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly are now doing the rounds on every leftist news organization trying to salvage their reputation. In an MSNBC interview, they claim that they had included the crucial fact in their piece at first but “the editors” took it out.  It was sort of “in the haste” in the editing process, they claim.

Whatever the case, note that it was an editing decision, not a mistake.  It was a decision willingly made in order to attack conservatives, as all editing decisions go for the radical left.

Many conservatives’ first instinct is to give the benefit of the doubt to the media. Many conservatives do not particularly like when the president calls them “fake news.” At first glance, this instinct is a testament to their good nature and character. But knowing what we know today, after living through this wicked Kavanaugh smear, it becomes foolishness and a character flaw to continue to ignore what is plain for all to see.

The mainstream media is not only sympathetic to the left. It is leading their efforts. It does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. It deserves our contempt.


Click here to read additional posts from Mario Diaz, Esq.

Penny Nance Statement: Death of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens

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

Statement of Penny Nance, CEO & President of Concerned Women for America (CWA) on the news that retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens died July 15 at the age of 99:

“Our condolences to Justice Stevens’ family and friends. CWA is praying for comfort in their loss. We join the nation mourning the loss of a public servant who served honorably in the US Navy during World War II even before his 35-years of service as a Supreme Court Justice in the nation’s highest Court. May he rest in peace.”

 

Click here to read Penny Nance’s latest opinion article.

Justice Kavanaugh Confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States

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

Washington, D.C. — Today, the Senate confirmed Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court 50-48.

Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America issued the following statement in response: 

“This confirmation journey has been unlike anything I have ever witnessed. Thank you, President Trump, for choosing such an outstanding and exemplary nominee. What we saw play out over the last month was nothing more than an outrageous display of partisanship at the cost of a good man’s reputation.

“But at the end of the day, truth and justice were victorious. I have been honored to stand alongside and represent half-a-million women who have supported Brett Kavanaugh since July 9. His record and his life of service withstood every salacious and unfounded attack.

“To the senators who endured threats for doing what is right, thank you. Thank you to Sen. Susan Collins who stood up for all women in that historic speech yesterday. To the staff on the hill who dealt with angry mobs at your desks, thank you. To Chairman Grassley, who saw the Judiciary Committee through this unprecedented charade, thank you for your strong and steady leadership. To Leader McConnell, who refused to be bullied, thank you.

“Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee showed up. Our happy warrior/activist ladies did what they do best. Across the United States, hundreds of thousands of our leaders fought unwaveringly for months. They wrote letters, held rallies, traveled to town halls, and even showed up in D.C. I am proud to stand with them.

“Justice Kavanaugh, thank you for not giving up. We are praying for you and your beautiful family. You made a choice to sacrifice yourself for the good of this nation, and the American people saw that. There is no one more qualified or worthy to sit on this esteemed bench at this time.”

For an interview with Penny Nance contact Annabelle Rutledge at arutledge@cwfa.org or 916-792-3973.

Leg Update: Sen. Judiciary Committee votes on Kavanaugh 11-10, What Now?

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

During the Judiciary Committee business meeting this morning, Sen. Flake (R-Arizona) decided that a FBI investigation would be helpful “to mend the nation”. So before he voted on Kavanaugh in committee, he asked for such an investigation to be conducted.  A senator cannot make their vote contingent on anything, so this was mostly symbolic and political. Kavanaugh was reported out of committee favorably 11-10 (voted along party lines); his confirmation can now move to the Senate floor. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) very shortly after the vote echoed Flake’s call for an additional FBI investigation, essentially forcing Leader McConnell to delay the vote for said investigation.

Tomorrow at noon there was a procedural vote (motion to proceed) scheduled, but in a plot twist no one saw coming, about 7:00 p.m. Friday evening, the Senate agreed by unanimous consent request (that means no one, including democrats objected) to the motion to proceed (the one that was scheduled for tomorrow) to move to Executive Session for the consideration of Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Monday at 3:00 p.m. the Senate will convene and continue Kavanaugh’s consideration. There will be other legislation considered then as well.

The White House has now asked the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation into *existing* allegations only, and the investigation must wrap up in one week. This was the exact request from Senate Judiciary. The investigation could last two hours, or it could last all week.  There is no way to know. This is why McConnell moved forward with the motion to proceed regardless.

Chairman Grassley’s repeated remarks this week on why a FBI investigation is useless are helpful.  To summarize: it is not their job to reach conclusions or give recommendations; that is the sole job of the Senate (advice and consent); there was no federal crime committed, so they don’t have jurisdiction anyway.

After the FBI concludes their investigation, there will likely be calls for additional investigations. From day one the Democrats entire goal was to stop this with “everything they have”. There will be more calls for delay. There will very likely be more allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. The pressure on the four undecided senators will be intense (Heidi Heitkamp D-North Dakota, Joe Manchin D-West Virginia, Susan Collins R-Maine, Lisa Murkowski R-Alaska). It will all get much, much worse.  When abortion is your god and life has no value, ruining one man’s life and reputation to “save Roe” is not even an ethical question, it’s a mandate. Leader McConnell is very motivated to move forward. He knows this is important on every level. Floor debate will continue all week.  Once the FBI investigation is over, at some point next week, we will have the cloture vote (end debate), and then the final vote.

Earlier today after the Flake episode, Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana), one of our “gettable” democrats previously undecided, came out in opposition to Kavanaugh and intends to vote against his confirmation.

Pray for Judge Kavanaugh and please pray for Ashley Kavanaugh, too. I will never forget the look on her face yesterday. I cannot imagine having to explain to my 10 and 13 year old girls that even though half the country thinks their dad gang raped women, that is a lie made up and permeated by politicians. I would also encourage you to watch Senator Graham’s questioning of Kavanaugh yesterday if you haven’t already. It sums it up perfectly, and I found it very encouraging.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh Testify Under Oath Amid Politicized Process

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

Washington, D.C. — Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testify under oath. Judge Kavanaugh offered his defense and was questioned immediately following.

Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America issued the following statement in response: 

“Today’s hearing was difficult for everyone.  Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony was powerful, sincere and appropriately emotional.  As a woman who is a victim of attempted rape and a physical assault, a member of the #MeToo movement, I still believe in the presumption of innocence for everyone.

“The process was politicized from even before he was named when abortion activists held up signs opposing “XX (insert name).” After Judge Kavanaugh was named, they stooped to screaming and interrupting the hearings, dressing as handmaids (and not kidding, condoms) and disrupting senate business by harassing senate members and staff.

“The level of nastiness I have observed in the past few weeks is shocking. Add all of this to the games played by Senator Feinstein and Senate Democrats, and it becomes clear that the politics of personal destruction has made a mockery of the Senate.  Senator Charles Grassley has done an heroic job of patiently working to be fair and thorough.  Enough!  It’s time to vote.  And Concerned Women for America urges the swift confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.”

For an interview with Penny Nance contact Annabelle Rutledge at arutledge@cwfa.org or 916-792-3973.

Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee and Coalition Groups Hold Women for Kavanaugh — “I Stand With Brett” Rally

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

Washington, D.C. – The “Women for Kavanaugh” bus is making its way to D.C.! Concerned Women for America LAC and coalition groups will be holding a rally on Capitol Hill, Thursday, September 27, in support of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What: Women for Kavanaugh – ‘I Stand With Brett’ Rally
When: Thursday, September 27, 8:30 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. EST
Where: The Park behind the Russell Senate Office Bldg. on Capitol Hill
The park is located across the street from the Russell Office building and is bordered by C St. N.E., Delaware Ave. N.E., 1st St. N.E. and D St. N.E.
Speakers Include:
 
Penny Young Nance, CEO & President, Concerned Women for America
Peggy Nienaber, Vice President of Operations, Faith and Action
Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network and former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas
Jenny Beth Martin, Co-Founder and National Coordinator, Tea Party Patriots
Allie Stuckey, The Conservative Millennial, Host of the podcast, Relatable
Patrice Onwuka, Senior Policy Analyst, Independent Women’s Forum
Karin Agness, President, NeW
Jessica Anderson, Vice President, Heritage Action
Kimberly Fletcher, President and Founder, Moms for America
Andrea Lafferty, Executive Director, Women for a Great America
Penny Morrell, CWA of ME, State Director
Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy
Victoria Belk, YWA Chapter President, Liberty University
Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America had this to say:

“Accusations continue to surface, but the fact remains that this frenzy is based on unsubstantiated allegations. Concerned Women for America is committed to standing in support of Judge Kavanaugh, as we have throughout this process. We are also committed to much larger goals – protection of the presumption of innocence, support of due process, and pursuit of truth and justice.”

Sen. Hirono Should Step Up for Justice

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

As a woman and as an American,  I’m dismayed by the message Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) delivered this week telling  “men of this country and the men in this committee” to “just shut up and step up” to the allegation of sexual assault from 36 years ago against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  Let’s be clear, these allegations are just that — allegations. They are not facts backed up by evidence, and they are unsubstantiated by eyewitnesses.  Judge Kavanaugh, under oath, has categorically denied the claims. And yet, Sen. Hirono has served as judge and jury in condemning not only Judge Kavanaugh, but all men as complicit in the process.

Make no mistake, this is a form of sexism of an insidious nature.  In her rush to condemn, Sen. Hirono is exploiting the sexes, advocating a culture that favors, without questions, the accuser over the accused (even when wrongly accused). Her misguided view lacks any standard of justice.  She is making a mockery of the judicial system and the oath she took to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States that expresslyprotects due process.

We should fear for our children — girls and boys — and the message this sends.  What exactly is the purpose of Sen. Hirono asking men to “shut up and step up”?  Truth?  Justice?  Hardly. Ironically, truth is exactly what the 11 Republican “old white men” on the Senate Judiciary Committee are trying to seek.  Since learning of these 11thhour allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, which Sen. Hirono’s own colleague, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), concealed for months, the Senate Judiciary Committee has set out to investigate these claims, as is their obligation under Senate rules.  Chairman Chuck Grassley has offered any way possible for this accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, to be interviewed and/or to testify in public or private.  This offer has so far gone unaccepted (but he continues graciously to maintain the offer open).

Senate Democrats are looking more and more complicit in colluding with her handlers to set the terms and conditions under which her testimony might be heard to further their ultimate objective of delaying the nomination until after the election and ultimately derailing it altogether.

Make no mistake, too many women have faced sexual assault without the confidence of due process to come forward. But Sen. Hirono’s rant, essentially condemning the male race as abusers first, disregards the very standards of justice that underpin civility and our freedom.   Yes, the #MeToo era has merit, but not at the expense and erosion of the foundations of our democracy.  Sen. Hirono should step up for justice, for women and for men, and perform her duty to uphold the Constitution that she swore under oath to defend.

CWA Supports Grassley at Tense Town Hall Meeting in Iowa

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

Monday, CWA’s Iowa State Director, Tamara Scott, Iowa native and National Field Director, Janae Stracke, and a handful of other CWA of Iowa supporters attended Sen. Grassley’s (R-Iowa) 99th Town Hall Meeting, which concluded his 38th annual 99 county tour. As expected, the meeting was filled with liberal protesters and contention over the issue of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s pending confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Over the years, CWA of Iowa has attended many of Sen. Grassley’s town hall meetings to offer support for our shared conservative values, but this last meeting was certainly one of the more disruptive. The protesters were disrespectful, yelling, and interrupting both other attendees and the Senator. Several times throughout the hour-long meeting, frustrated attendees would chime in with a “Let him speak!” or a “Show some respect!” as protesters continued to disrupt what is usually a civil meeting with objections to Judge Kavanuagh.

When Stracke was called on to share a comment or ask a question, she started by thanking Sen. Grassley for making himself available to hear from the public face to face, something most senators are not willing to do. She apologized for the disruptive nature of this meeting and referred back to her experiences with protesters at the Kavanaugh hearings in D.C. the previous week. Stracke referred to one instance when a Kavanaugh protester could not make any claim against the judge’s record; rather, they could only talk about the issue of abortion. The point Stracke wanted to make was that there are no legitimate reasons to oppose Judge Kavanaugh based on his years of work and solid record. This was, of course, very upsetting to the protesters present at the meeting in Iowa and interruptions began.

In an effort to unite everyone on common ground, the last person called on to speak stood and asked to close the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag, something that represents a lot, one being the right of everyone present to publicly disagree and voice their opinion. Unfortunately, even our Pledge of Allegiance is no longer common ground for some Americans; a handful of protesters started yelling in opposition to saying the pledge and ultimately kneeled as others in the room stood in respect the flag and what it represents.

This battle we are in spans much further than one issue. It runs far and wide, and as Ephesians 6:12 tells us, we know we are not fighting against flesh and blood, but rather “against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” We must continue to fight on our knees in prayer and then stand to take action with our legs and voices. Offering support to your Members of Congress is just one way to do that; if you haven’t already, be sure to contact your senator and/or local media and let them know you support Judge Kavanaugh and want them to support him as well.

You can watch a Facebook Live of Tamara Scott and Janae Stracke following the town hall meeting here.

Visit our Covid-19 Resource Center Click Here