There is a new level of hostility by the ruling class toward people in this nation, even women and minorities, who dare to believe in the intrinsic value of human life and thus identify as pro-life.
The left is losing the 46-year argument on the federalization of abortion laws, and it has made them angry and reckless.
They are now publicly equating our support for life to racism. It’s insidious and bigoted, but it’s also self-destructive.
On the political front, during an interview with the Des Moines Register “Gillibrand Compares Pro-Life Viewpoint to Racism, ‘Not Acceptable’, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., was clear in her racist allegations against pro-lifers on Tuesday.
Gillibrand said, “I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable. Imagine saying that it’s okay to appoint a judge who’s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic. Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America—I don’t think that those are political issues anymore.”
The push for trans-rights is a blight on the body politic.
The push for trans-rights may have just pushed too far. Persuading Americans that a person identifying as the opposite sex is the opposite sex ultimately will only convince those willing to call a lie the truth.
Last week marked the 100th anniversary of Senate passage of the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote. The Women’s Suffrage Movement knew clearly what the word “sex” meant and who they were fighting for: women, in the full biological sense of the word. These brave suffragists believed women embodied the hallmarks of the female body. They wore yellow sashes and bore the scars of long-sought recognition in the voting booth. They fought for women.
“Gender identity” is an expression of self; a perception, not a fact. There is no objective standard, no medical diagnosis that turns a male into a female. Those promulgating the idea that a “transwoman is a woman” also co-opt female status, saying one’s “gender identity” should entitle a transwoman to all the rights and recognition of the female race.
Today, if you are a woman clinging to the belief that women’s rights are limited to females, I have bad news. Proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) have sacrificed that goal. In an era of progressive ideology, the conventional understanding that a woman must also be female is outdated.
Below are excerpts from a very interesting article by Dave Andrusko at National Right to Life. I commend it to you in its entirety. I think it is important for Concerned Women for America (CWA) members to realize what we are up against when it comes to protecting the sanctity of every human life at every level of public policy. Andrusko discusses the new ways certain billionaires are restructuring their donations in order to get around current IRS regulations and fund abortion on demand to an even bigger extent than they have before.
Even though the American people are against the abortion extremism we have seen in laws coming out New York, Virginia, and Illinois, these mega donors are committed to drowning out their voices by pouring in millions of dollars more in the name of “reproductive health.”
Over the years, pro-lifers have read story after story about billionaires pouring millions upon millions of their virtually limitless resources into advancing abortion both at home and abroad. Their favorite beneficiary is, of course, Planned Parenthood (and International Planned Parenthood) but there are many others.
The names are familiar and a who’s who of big time philanthropy. George Soros and his Open Society Institute (OPI); The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, named after Warren Buffett’s late wife; and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, run by the heirs of one of the founders of printer manufacturer Hewlett Packard, to name just three heavyweights.
Another name that has cropped up with less attention paid to it is the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. A quick look back (thanks to the indispensable web.archive.org) we read this description: “Laura and John established the Laura and John Arnold Foundation in 2008. They believe philanthropy should be transformational and should seek through innovation to solve persistent problems in society.”
According to influencewatch.org, “The foundation focuses on criminal justice, education issues, public pensions, dietary policy, and scientific research reform.” But whatever other initiatives are funded, if you look at their giving (corporate and personal), you see bundles going to the usual pro-abortion suspects.
For example, under “personal advocacy and political contributions,” between December 2015 and December 2017, we find Planned Parenthood Action Fund [under the category $5,000,000 to $9,999,999] and “Planned Parenthood Texas Vote” [under the category $100,000 to $499,999].
Under “Charitable Contributions” for the same time period
- Planned Parenthood Federation of America [$5,000,000 to $9,999,999]
- Center for Reproductive Rights [$1,000,000-$4,999,999]
- Guttmacher Institute [$1, 000,000-$4,999,999]
- National Network of Abortion Funds [$50,000-$99,999]
Back to the Laura and John Arnold Foundation itself and recent major changes.
In January, writing at Inside Philanthropy, David Callahan observed “But those who closely follow the billionaire couple behind this operation know that they’ve long engaged in political giving alongside their foundation’s grantmaking. …Now, the Arnolds are bringing their philanthropy and political giving together in a new limited-liability corporation called Arnold Ventures. The goal is to create a more integrated push for impact on the wide range of public policy issues that have long animated the couple.”
When you go to the list of “public policy issues” at Arnold Ventures, you see “health,” which includes a link to a story headlined, “State lawmakers pass trio of reproductive-rights bills.”
In the first sentence, Jennifer Henderson writes about New York’s “Reproductive Health Act,” which she inaccurately describes are merely a law “to protect reproductive rights and abortion access even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.” As we have written dozens of times at NRL News Today, the RHA not only went miles beyond Roe v. Wade, it also eliminated the state’s protections for abortion survivors.
Callahan’s story—“When Philanthropy Is Not Enough: A Top Donor Couple Takes a Broader Approach to Impact” —is telling not only about the ambitions of the Arnolds but also other billionaires who eagerly fund abortion groups. He writes, “Some of today’s savviest mega-givers strategically blend philanthropic and political giving.” Callahan dubbed them “hybrid entities.”
Click here to read the rest of this article.
When the Founding Fathers gathered for the Continental Congress to draft a new Constitution, future first lady Abigail Adams wrote to her husband John Adams and asked that he “remember the ladies”.[i] Women have been fighting for equal say in the political process since the founding of our nation, and 100 years ago this week, women made a huge stride in achieving that equality.
June 4, 2019 marked the 100-year anniversary of the Senate’s passage of the 19th Amendment, which guarantees women the right to vote. The amendment, having been passed by the House of Representatives two weeks earlier, then headed to the states for ratification. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the last state to ratify the 19th Amendment, and it was declared officially ratified on August 26, 1920. [ii]
On Tuesday, to honor and commemorate this centennial anniversary, the Senate passed S.Res.212 – A resolution celebrating the 100th anniversary of the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment, providing for women’s suffrage, to the Constitution of the United States, introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and cosponsored by every female senator. The Senate also passed S. 1235, the Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commemorative Coin Act. This bill, introduced by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), honors the legacy of suffragists with a commemorative coin. All Senators donned yellow roses, a symbol of the women’s suffrage movement. CWA CEO and President, Penny Nance, as a member of the Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commission, joined other commission members in the Senate gallery to observe and celebrate this anniversary.
The battle for women’s suffrage was long-fought and officially began 72 years before the ratification of the 19th Amendment. Although women participated in the political process, advocated for their beliefs, and were crucial to many movements, such as the abolition of slavery, they were denied the ability to participate in a civic duty so many of us take for granted. Because of the relentless work of the suffragettes, over 71 million[iii] women are now registered vote in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means only 68.5% of the female population is registered to vote. If you are not currently registered to vote, or if you are not sure if you are, please register to vote today in honor of the women who fought so hard for this privilege.
In this episode, Doreen Denny, Concerned Women for America’s Senior Director of Government Relations talks with Beth Stelzer, the founder of Save Women’s Sports. Beth is a powerlifter and she shares with us her unique personal story about transgender athlete participation in her sport. Through Save Women’s Sports, Beth is helping to preserve biology-based eligibility standards for participation in female sports.
Washington, D.C. — Following the Trump administration’s decision to expire funding for human fetal tissue research for the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Concerned Women for America’s President and CEO Penny Nance issued the following statement:
“We thank President Trump and applaud the Administration’s firm decision to curtail this fruitless research, which has promoted the destruction of innocent human life. This is long overdue. Human fetal tissue research has been conducted for nearly a century and has failed to produce any significant scientific gains. The U.S. government should be funding potentially promising research, not unethical research based on 100-year-old science, and we encourage the Administration to continue to accelerate ethical alternatives.”
This week the nation’s imagination was captivated by a beautiful newborn baby girl called Saybie, who left the hospital weighing 5 pounds, 6 ounces. Doctors said she was born in December only 23 weeks into her mother’s pregnancy and was just about the size of an apple, weighing less than 9 ounces.
Her parents were told that Saybie – a name used by her care team – couldn’t survive. But Saybie’s parents didn’t give up hope. Modern medical science saved this tiny baby’s precious life and she is now thriving.
The San Diego hospital where she was born said Saybie is believed to be the world’s smallest surviving newborn, according to the Tiniest Babies Registry kept by the University of Iowa.
I and other pro-life Americans noted on Twitter and other platforms that Saybie is living proof that science is on the side of the pro-life cause. Her very survival must raise questions for our nation regarding current law on abortion…
Support for Israel has been a point of bi-partisan agreement and cooperation, but Democrats in the House are making what normally are straightforward votes difficult. As a result, House Republicans are using procedural maneuvers to get members on the record on legislation combatting the anti-Semitic BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions), since the Majority won’t bring it up for a vote.
BDS stands for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. The movement’s goal is the economic isolation of Israel by encouraging individuals, colleges, private companies, and even countries to stop investing in, trading or doing business with Israel and Israeli corporations or products. The BDS Movement opposes the very existence of Israel.
Last week Republicans in the House used a procedural tactic called a Motion to Recommit (MTR) to attempt to add anti-BDS language to a retirement enhancement act. The MTR is one of the only means for the minority party in the House to force members to vote on an issue—in this case, BDS.
The MTR was narrowly defeated in the U.S. House with a vote of 200 to 222. Though bipartisan, the vote was largely along party lines with only 12 Democrats joining Republicans in support.
Meanwhile, House Republicans are trying to force a vote on more complete anti-BDS legislation by filing a discharge petition on the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East (SASME) Act of 2019.
One of the four components of this bill is the Combatting BDS Act of 2019. This enables states to choose not to do business with entities participating in the anti-Semitic BDS Movement. The BDS movement continues to spread internationally as anti-Semitism is also on the rise across the globe.
Despite the bipartisan support of this legislation in the Senate, Speaker Pelosi has refused to bring the identical House bill, to the floor for a vote. Since the Speaker has blocked this bill for four months, House Republicans are using a procedural tool, called a discharge petition, in hopes of forcing a vote on the SASME Act, H.R. 336.
A discharge petition is a means to get a vote on a bill if a majority of the House, at least 218 members, signs on to the petition.
Ironically, those 12 Democrats who voted on the MTR in support of the anti-BDS resolution, have yet to sign the discharge petition to get the SASME Act, which includes the Combatting BDS Act of 2019, to the House Floor (as of this writing).
Dr. Shea Garrison, CWA’s Vice President of International Affairs, encapsulated this inconsistency well when addressing the media:
At a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise all around the world, it is a travesty that the U.S. House is unable to unite to support Israel, our most critical ally in the Middle East … It is in America’s national interest to stand strong against anti-Semitic BDS. Support for Israel should be a non-partisan issue with complete bi-partisan cooperation.
Contact your Representative and ask them to stand strong against anti-Semitism and the BDS Movement.
This afternoon an attempt to add anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) language to H.R. 1994, a retirement enhancement act, was narrowly defeated in the U.S. House with a vote of 200 to 222. Though bipartisan, the vote was largely along party lines with only 12 Democrats joining the Republicans in support. Anti-BDS language within this legislation would end foreign tax breaks for companies who boycott Israel. Shea Garrison, Concerned Women for America’s Vice President of International Affairs had this to say:
“At a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise all around the world, it is a travesty that the U.S. House is unable to unite to support Israel, our most critical ally in the Middle East. Make no mistake, BDS is anti-Semitic. The founders of the BDS Movement have been explicitly clear: The BDS Movement opposes the very existence of Israel, or any Jewish state.
Although H.R. 1994 passed without the anti-BDS language, 12 Democrats and the majority of Republicans chose to stand with Israel, voting to send H.R. 1994 back to committee to ensure American’s don’t pay for foreign tax breaks of companies who engage in anti-Israel activity. However, those same 12 Democrats have yet to sign the petition to release the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East (SASME) Act of 2019, which contains the Combatting BDS Bill of 2019, to the House floor for a vote. An identical bill passed in the Senate with strong, bi-partisan support; yet Speaker Pelosi has blocked this legislation from getting a vote on the House floor.
Concerned Women for America calls on those same members who supported the anti-BDS motion today to immediately sign the discharge petition and get SASME to the House floor for a vote.
It is in America’s national interest to stand strong against anti-Semitic BDS. Support for Israel should be a non-partisan issue with complete bi-partisan cooperation. We ask the House to come together and condemn anti-Semitism in all forms.”