Category

SCOTUS

Sep 26 2020
0

Meet Amy Coney Barrett

By | 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.

Sep 09 2020
0

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.

Jul 02 2020
0
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.

Jul 01 2020
0
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).

Jun 30 2020
0

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.”

Jun 29 2020
0
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.”

Jun 16 2020
0

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.

Jun 15 2020
0

Supreme Court Rewrites Law to Appease PC Police, Again

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

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

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

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

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

###

Apr 21 2020
0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Doreen’s Entire Piece Here:

Mar 05 2020
0
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:

Jan 24 2020
0

Roe’s Foundation of Lies

By | Blog, 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.

Jan 09 2020
0
SCOTUS

The Abortion Industry Does Not Speak for Women

By | Blog, 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.

Oct 11 2019
0

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

By | Blog, 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.

Oct 10 2019
0
SCOTUS Rally

Transgender Legislative Petition Before SCOTUS

By | Blog, 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.

Oct 09 2019
0

Will Supreme Court Try to Redefine Sex?

By | Blog, 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:

Oct 08 2019
0

The Daily Caller Interview with our CEO and President Penny Nance

By | Blog, 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.

Oct 08 2019
0

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

By | Blog, 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