Category

Sanctity of Life

Little Sisters of the Poor Win, Again, at the High Court

By | CEO, Legal, News and Events, Press Releases, Religious Liberty, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Washington, D.C.The U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania. Once again, the Court sides (7-2) with protecting their religious liberties from government intrusion. Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America had this to say:

“The hundreds of thousands of women I represent at Concerned Women for America (CWA) are thrilled to see the United States Supreme Court upholding the religious liberty rights of the Little Sisters of the Poor. We have been standing with them from the beginning and will continue to fight against government intrusion into matters of faith and conscience.

 “It is truly unbelievable that they continue to have to go to court to defend their constitutional rights and that the possibility still exists that they may be dragged into court once again. The Court says today that the Trump Administration has the authority under the Affordable Care Act to promulgate this religious liberty exception, leaving the door open for another more hostile administration to undo it.

“This is why Americans must continue to be fully engaged in the political process. It is why CWA is investing considerable resources urging Christians to pray and work to get out the vote this November. Our religious liberties are at risk. We must elect those who exhibit a clear track record of upholding religious liberty.

 “Today, CWA supporters celebrate this decision. Tomorrow, we are back at work to protect our freedoms.”

###

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

 

SCOTUS

Political Justice Strikes Again—June Medical v. Russo

By | 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.

CWA CEO and President Penny Nance speaking at Protect Women Protect Life rally at the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Circumvents Louisiana’s State’s Rights

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

Concerned Women for America (CWA) ­­is dismayed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision this week in June Medical Services v. Russo. The decision is not a ruling involving the constitutionality of abortion, but rather about upholding protective health codes and guidelines for women receiving medical procedures involving abortion. Unfortunately, in this case, the highest Court again turned its back on protecting life and protecting women.

In 2014, Louisiana State Senator Katrina Jackson, a Democrat, took a stand to protect women’s health relating to abortion procedures by sponsoring Louisiana Law 620, the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act. The state law ensured safety for women receiving abortions by requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. The law safeguards women during medical procedures in case of emergencies, as well as aligns with medical protocol required for the rest of the state. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s ruling declared the law “unconstitutional” as an “undue burden” on abortion and failed the citizens of Louisiana who believe in the importance of guarding women’s health and safety.

State Senator Jackson vowed to protect against “shoddy medical care … There is no dispute in the medical community about the known complications of abortion, such as hemorrhage, uterine perforation and incomplete abortion … Every complication can become serious and have the potential to change the course of a woman’s life by endangering her reproductive health.”

She went on to state, “While abortion is legally protected, abortion facilities should have the same health standards as the rest of the medical profession. Why should we settle for lower standards for women, especially when women are often coerced or abandoned to the trauma of abortion? I am pro-woman and pro-life.”

U.S. Congressman Dr. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) had this to say:

“I am frustrated and angered by today’s Supreme Court ruling. As an OB/GYN of 25 years, I have personally cared for women in emergency situations after they were driving home from a botched abortion … It is necessary to require abortion clinics to comply with basic regulations protecting these women. Beyond the obvious tragedy of abortion, today’s ruling will put the lives and direct health of women at risk. A shameful and wrong decision.”

Louisiana’s abortion clinics, including June Medical Services, have been flagged on multiple occasions with violating safety codes and guidelines. Violations documented in Statements of Deficiencies by the Louisiana Department of Health include failure to ensure all patients completed and signed consent forms for the abortion procedure, failure to ensure an abortion patient was medically stable upon discharge, failure to ensure that the physician performed and documented a physical examination on each abortion patient, failure to ensure medical supplies utilized were sanitary, unexpired, and properly stored, and more.

Instead of affirming a state’s right to regulate against such egregious violations, the Court majority chose instead to fail women by refusing to allow states like Louisiana to regulate abortion in the same way it regulates other medical procedures. This ruling extends the bad Supreme Court precedent that only guarantees future court fights over state laws.  Rest assured that CWA will be there rallying for the pro-woman, pro-life cause, and against the misguided abortion “carve-outs” that continue to be perpetuated by the Court.

Lindsey Hudson is a CWA 2020 Intern for our Government Relations Dept.

CWALAC Stands with the U.S. Against Forced Abortion and Sterilization in China’s Religious Minority Populations

By | CEO, International, News and Events, Press Releases, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

This week the U.S. learned the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) is using forced abortion, forced sterilization, and coercive family planning against the Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang as part of a campaign to curb the Muslim minority population in China. As natural population growth has drastically decreased in Xinjang, CCP documents from 2019 reveal plans including a mass sterilization of women in two Uyghur counties with a focus on women in rural minorities.

Penny Nance, CEO and President, and Dr. Shea Garrison, Vice President of International Affairs, at Concerned Women for America had this to say:

“We join Secretary Pompeo in calling on the CCP to immediately end this horrific abuse of human rights. A program of mass sterilization and forced abortion in ethnic and religious minority communities is particularly dehumanizing, and the global community cannot stay silent.

“This past September at the UN General Assembly, Secretary Pompeo called out China as the perpetrator of the worst human rights crisis of our time, as they interned 1 million Uyghurs into so-called training camps to be “re-educated” and “saved” from their culture, language, and faith. Reports that the Chinese government’s oppression of the Uyghurs now extends to forced depopulation of their community continues to demonstrate an utter disregard for the sanctity of human life and the rights and human dignity of ethnic and religious minorities.”

Nance: Norma McCorvey’s Testimony Reveals Roe v. Wade’s Foundation of Lies

By | CEO, Family Issues, Feminist / Women's Issues, Legal, News and Events, Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life, Social / Cultural Issues, Uncategorized | No Comments

CWA’s CEO and President Penny Young Nance wrote the following op-ed published on CNS News.

“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 light of a new documentary airing Friday — “AKA Jane Roe” — today is yet another day of mourning as we now hear a new tragic explanation that only adds to the injustice and confusion 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. And now, this 2020 documentary, produced by Nick Sweeney, whose body of work informs viewers of his agenda, paints a picture of even more injustice and deception surrounding the complicated and sorrow-filled life of Norma McCorvey.”

Read Penny’s Entire Op-Ed Here:

CWA’s CEO and President Penny Nance on “Marcus & Joni” on DAYSTAR Television

By | Culture, Defense of Family, Family Issues, Feminist / Women's Issues, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, Social / Cultural Issues, Uncategorized | No Comments

Our CEO and President Penny Nance appeared on Daystar TV on the “Marcus & Joni” Show.

Penny spoke to Marcus and Joni Lamb about numerous topics including her book, Feisty and Femininecurrent events, COVID-19, Concerned Women for America, abortion, and President Trump among many additional topics. Penny closed the show in a heartfelt prayer!

See Penny Nance’s Segment and the Entire Marcus & Joni Show Here: (Penny’s segment runs from 43:30 to 59:13)

U.N. Report Promotes Abortion, LGBT ‘Rights’ Over Human Rights

By | International, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, Uncategorized, United Nations, United Nations | No Comments

CWA’s Vice President for International Affairs, Dr. Shea Garrison, teamed up with Emilie Kao, director of the DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation on an opinion piece published in The Washington Times.

“Billions of people around the world exercised their religious freedom during Holy Week, but a new United Nations report threatens to undermine both this freedom and women’s rights.

The report of Ahmed Shaheed, the U.N. expert responsible for protecting religious freedom, advances a “progressive” agenda of abortion and new “rights” based on membership in sexual identity groups. It seems the U.N. is willing to trample the rights of the vulnerable and undermine the credibility of universal human rights to promote the values of a small number of wealthy countries — a travesty the Trump administration should oppose.

The report to the infamous U.N. Human Rights Council undermines the empowerment of women and girls by lumping their concerns together with novel claims based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It includes a controversial interpretation of “gender equality” that promotes acceptance of transgender ideology and the concept of multiple, fluid, “gender identities.””

Read Dr. Garrison and Emilie Kao’s Entire Piece Here:

From left to right: Dr. Shea Garrison, Concerned Women for America International Affairs; Alfonso Aguilar, Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles and International Human Rights Group; Luis Almagro, Secretary General, Organization of American States; Steven Aden, Americans United for Life; Gualberto Garcia-Jones, International Human Rights Group “On January 28, 2020, international pro-life organizations held a second meeting between and Sec. Almagro to discuss his upcoming reelection in March 2020 and to encourage him to promote the right to life in the American states.”

How Life is Winning in the Americas

By | Blog, International, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

Last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo congratulated Luis Almagro on winning reelection to serve as Secretary General of the Organization of the American States (OAS). Secretary Pompeo commended Almagro for his work promoting democracy in South America and holding Castro accountable in Cuba.

While CWA International is grateful for Almagro’s stance against socialism, including against the illegitimate Maduro regime in Venezuela, there have been concerns regarding his history of proabortion statements

Thankfully, prior to his reelection Secretary Almagro affirmed the right to life and his commitment to uphold that right as a pillar of the OAS convention stating:

“[…] definitely, the principles of religious freedom that I have mentioned and the principles of the right to life are fundamental principles and rights […] The application of the fullest validity of Article 4 of the American Convention is essential.”

Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights declares: “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception.”

It is hard to overstate the significance of this statement by Secretary General Almagro.

This statement is the result of CWA International meeting privately with Secretary Almagro twice in the last three months, working diligently alongside other coalition partners to ask him to defend life and the unborn as the leader of the OAS.

After speaking with him about the importance of protecting all life and upholding the national sovereignty of each member state of the OAS, Secretary Almagro committed to include provisions in his election platform stating abortion is not an international right and affirming the national sovereignty of the countries who oppose abortion. Almagro also promised to support the freedom of religious-based organizations.

The OAS is comprised of 35 member states from North, Central, and South America, including the U.S. and Canada, as well as the Caribbean. According to Article 1 of its charter, OAS was formed in order to achieve “an order of peace and justice, to promote their solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and their independence.” It is a regional entity similar to how the United Nations is a global one.

When Almagro was first elected Secretary General five years ago, he espoused the need for access to abortion:

“[T]he Americas continue to have some of the most restrictive laws regarding sexual and reproductive rights and freedoms [euphemism for abortion], and that reality has to change” [emphasis added].

This directly contradicts the OAS American Convention, not to mention the real healthcare needs of women.

This is why it was imperative Secretary Almagro declare his support for the OAS position on life. The secretary general’s role is to uphold the existing documents and principles, not project an agenda onto it.

Thankfully in March, Secretary Almagro committed publicly to upholding the American Convention and affirmed the right to life as set forth by OAS.

Though CWA International continues to work with Secretary Almagro to resolve some differences regarding defense of the family, we are excited he has made these pro-life declarations in a candidate forum prior to his reelection. We look forward to working alongside him to uphold OAS’s stance on protecting life from conception.

We join Secretary Pompeo in praising Secretary General Almagro’s promotion of freedom in the Americas and pushing back against the repressive socialist regimes of Venezuela, Nicaragua, and communist Cuba. We applaud him for also promising to protect the dignity and life of the unborn.

True freedom for all people.

 

COVID-19 LETTER: Pro-life Leaders Warn of Abortion Industry Exploitation

By | Blog, News and Events, Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

CWA signed on to a letter written to Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar, along with other pro-life leaders, to show how the abortion industry is exploiting this coronavirus pandemic.

Here is an excerpt from the letter:

“While we are in a hectic race to save lives, Planned Parenthood and other powers in the abortion industry remain insistent on taking the lives of innocent unborn children. While surgery centers postpone elective and diagnostic procedures, abortion centers are churning out surgical and chemical abortions and putting women, especially the poor, at risk. Their continued operation depletes sorely needed personal protective equipment and leads to complications that will further overwhelm already overextended emergency rooms. The abortion industry is compounding one crisis with another. Therefore, we urge public officials to use their broad emergency authority to safeguard against the extreme abortion agenda.”

The letter also outlines ways public health officials can resist the abortion lobby’s agenda during this time of crisis such as:

  • Making sure that emergency response funds are not diverted to the abortion industry;
  • Urging the abortion industry to stop their operations and join other healthcare providers to donate their PPE and other equipment to help with the nation’s coronavirus response;
  • Continue actions to stop illegal mail-order sale of chemical abortion; and much more.

Our CEO and President Penny Nance signed the letter along with more than 50 pro-life leaders.

 

Contact your Senators and ask them to pass non-partisan, virus-only relief legislation today!

By | News and Events, Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

America is in an unprecedented moment in history.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is right. It’s time for the drama to end. Please Contact your Senators and ask them to pass non-partisan, virus-only relief legislation today.

Now, more than ever, we need to come together for the good of the nation and the American people.

Instead, Senate Democrats are trying to leverage this crisis to push their political agenda like funding Planned Parenthood and passing their Green New Deal. Now is the time to refuse the left’s wish list and act decisively on behalf of all Americans.

We are issuing a call to reject this political agenda and do what’s right for the American people.   ​​​​​​​

You can make the difference today. Contact your Senators and ask them to support the CARES Act. Ask them to keep the focus only on measures that are critical to responding to the coronavirus. Ask them to follow Leader McConnell’s example and come together in a strong bipartisan effort to fight the invisible enemy plaguing our citizens, our economy, and the world.

The American people are pulling together in the midst of this pandemic and it’s time for Congress to do the same.

Let us show the best of America. When faced with a crisis, we stand united.

House Republicans Force Floor Vote on Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

By | Blog, Legislative Updates, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, Uncategorized | No Comments

At the end of February, on the heels of the U.S. Senate’s two pro-life votes, House Republicans successfully forced a vote on the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act through a procedural measure called a Motion to Recommit (MTR). This was the 80th time that House Republicans, led by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Missouri), sought a vote on Born Alive.

You may recall that last April, Rep. Wagner and Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) filed a discharge petition to force a vote on Born Alive by acquiring support from a majority of the House. Members of the House felt so strongly about comments made last year by disgraced Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, who nonchalantly detailed how a baby born alive after an abortion would be “kept comfortable” while the doctor and mother had “a conversation,” as well as about New York repealing its state-level born alive law, that they were determined to take federal action. Without control of the House floor, a discharge petition was the best option. The discharge petition currently has 204 signatures of the 218 required. Since then, House Republicans have taken to the floor almost 80 times and asked for unanimous consent for the bill to be brought to the floor for a vote.

The Motion to Recommit offered an alternative strategy. When a bill is on the House floor to be voted on, it often undergoes a series of votes before final passage. An MTR is generally used as a tool of the minority (Republicans) to seek a vote on something the majority (Democrats) won’t allow. It is unveiled at the last minute and is often the last vote before final passage. This MTR, if passed, would have amended a youth tobacco bill on the floor to include the text of the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The MTR was defeated 187-220 but was effective in showing Americans exactly where their Member of Congress stands on infanticide. To see how your Member of Congress voted, click here.

The abortion industry says babies surviving abortion never happens, but data from the CDC and stories of abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden, Josiah Presley and Claire Culwell prove otherwise. This does happen. It is gut wrenching to think physicians nonchalantly allow newborn children to die, but Kermit Gosnell is proof that some do. Without these protections in place, we cannot effectively stop a future Gosnell-like doctor from repeating the horrors of Gosnell’s post birth “abortions.”

Remember: the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act isn’t about abortion and doesn’t change a single abortion law; it’s about what happens when a child survives an abortion. This bill requires that doctors provide the same standard of care to a child born alive after an attempted abortion that would be afforded to any other child born at that gestation. It is unconscionable that a bill this basic, that simply requires doctors to treat a child born alive as they would any other child, would be so radical to the far left.

Issues like this, whether or not a child who survives an abortion receives age-appropriate medical care, should not be a political or a partisan issue. This is a moral issue. We must continue to pursue every available avenue for this bill to become law for the least of these.

 

 

Why the Global Protect Life Rule Is Right for the U.S. and Nations Around the World

By | News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

CWA’s Vice President for International Affairs, Dr. Shea Garrison, has just collaborated with Susan B. Anthony List’s research arm, Charlotte Lozier Institute, to develop an On Point policy paper to combat international abortion advocates. Dr. Garrison wrote this policy paper to educate Capitol Hill members on how to keep life protections in foreign policy, giving them the talking points to protect the Trump administration’s pro-life stance around the world.

“In January 2017, President Donald Trump took a bold and unprecedented executive actionto restore the Mexico City Policy and extend its reach through Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA), commonly known as the “Global Protect Life Rule.” With this action, President Trump updated and significantly expanded the scope of limitations on U.S. abortion-related funding, also significantly decreasing the amount of taxpayer dollars going to organizations who actively promote or perform abortion. U.S. foreign aid is now better funneled to alternative foreign organizations who are providing necessary healthcare in developing countries, while also respecting these countries’ cultural values and national sovereignty.”

Read the rest of the article on the Charlotte Lozier Institute site here.

Penny Nance at Protect Women Protect Life rally at Supreme Court

Abortion Extremism on Display at the Supreme Court

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

June Medical Services v. Russo oral arguments at the Supreme Court.

This week the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an important case where abortionists are challenging a Louisiana law that requires they keep admitting privileges at nearby hospitals within 30 miles of the clinic where they perform abortions.

Concerned Women for America (CWA) was there to represent you both inside the courtroom (where the arguments were happening) and outside (where dueling rallies represented the conflict for the media). Both settings presented us with the challenge of our time— an irrational, rabid, and extremely radical pro-abortion mob that promotes abortion as the ultimate good, rejecting even the most basic of parameters of human decency.

Recently, for example, the U.S. Senate rejected the Born Alive Survivors Protection Act which simply required doctors to provide standard medical care to a baby who is born alive after a botched abortion. That’s a baby who has already been born! But it didn’t matter to the pro-abortion loyalists, who unfortunately are many in the Senate. Today’s radical, pro-abortion syndicate cannot, will not, accept anything less than the celebration of abortion for any reason up to the point of birth (and beyond, depending on the desires of the mother), paid for and promoted by you and me, the taxpayers.

This radicalism was evident at oral arguments, too. Julie Rikelman, who represented June Medical Services, could not envision any circumstance in which a law requiring admitting privileges for abortionists could be constitutional. This is significant because, under the direct precedent of the Court in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which (erroneously) invalidated a Texas law, the Court’s inquiry is entirely fact-based depending on the specific situation of each state where a similar medical requirement is enacted.

Chief Justice Roberts tried to establish this simple fact as a starting point for further discussion but found no common ground from Ms. Rikelman.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel, do you agree that the inquiry under Hellerstedt is a factual one that has to proceed state-by-state?

MS. RIKELMAN: Your Honor, I think that facts may vary, but what we know is that the district court held a trial here and found that there were no material differences between this case and –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, no, I know, but if — if the issue, the statutes are on the books in other states, and if the issues are raised there, is the same inquiry required in each case? You have to have the district court examine the availability of specific clinics and the admitting privileges of doctors so that the litigation could be — the results could be different in different states?

MS. RIKELMAN: […] the burdens of a law may vary, but a law that has no benefits and doesn’t serve any valid state interest is much more likely to impose an undue burden.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, similarly, tried several different ways to ask for any scenario where a similar law could be upheld. If the law had no effect whatsoever on providers, could it be constitutional? The counsel for the abortionists danced around the issue as much as she could, but she was ultimately pushed to admit that they could never be constitutional.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Can I follow up on the Chief Justice’s earlier question and mine as well? Are you saying that admitting privileges laws are always unconstitutional, such that we don’t have to look at the facts in — state by state? Or are you saying that actually you do look at the facts state by state, and in some states, admitting privileges laws could be constitutional, if they impose no burdens?

MS. RIKELMAN: Your Honor, the burdens may vary, but a law that has no benefit and serves no valid state interest, which is what this Court held in Whole Woman’s Health, is much more likely to be an undue burden.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Could an admitting privileges law of this kind ever have a valid purpose, in your view?

MS. RIKELMAN: No, Your Honor.

Abortion extremists give not an inch. They demand no limits on abortion. Even accepted medical standards must be surrendered at the altar of “choice.”

In this case, Louisiana asks this same requirement of all doctors that perform outpatient procedures in the state. But somehow, according to “Big Abortion,” abortionists must be exempt from it.

Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was surprised by this fact as she approached the topic with Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: What about a D&C after a miscarriage? As I understand it, these two procedures are very much alike. Are similar regulations, about 30 miles, and admitting privileges applicable to a D&C following a miscarriage?

MS. MURRILL: Under the ambulatory surgery center regs, yes. Under the office practice regs which do not regulate abortion clinics, a doctor who doesn’t have a — have a residency in the proper scope of care would have to have admitting privileges and would have to have them within a 30-mile radius of — of the clinic. So, it’s the same requirement.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: It is the same?

MS. MURRILL: Yes.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: I thought there was something in the record suggesting there was no such requirement for D&C following a miscarriage.

She thought wrong. Louisiana’s law is meant to protect women. The women of Louisiana supported it and helped pass it. According to a Knights of Columbus-Marist poll, 71 percent of women (both pro-life and pro-choice women) want doctors who perform abortions to be required to have hospital admitting privileges. But Big Abortion ignores women when it is inconvenient to their narrative.  To them, that law is simply an attack on its bottom line. Abortion profits motivate them, not women’s safety.

Let us pray the Court sees right through this conflict of interest and stands with the women of Louisiana by upholding this law. A decision is expected this summer.

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:

CWA CEO and President Penny Nance speaking at the Protect Women Protect Life rally at the Supreme Court

Could Debate Over Louisiana Abortion Law have Implications for Kentucky?

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

The following news story aired this week on Spectrum 1 Newschannels. Click link to watch the television broadcast or read the story below.

“Concerned Women for America President Penny Nance says it is her rural Kentucky roots that fueled her passion for the anti-abortion movement.

“I grew up the daughter of a pastor in Eastern Kentucky in Appalachia. My dad served for about 20 years in Paintsville. As a woman of faith, I learned my bible in Eastern Kentucky. We know that God knit us together in our mothers’ wombs,” said Nance.

Nance stood outside of the Supreme Court Wednesday as justices heard arguments on a Louisiana abortion law that would require doctors who perform abortions to hold admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of an abortion clinic. A similar Texas law was struck down by the high court in 2016, when the court decided the issue of admitting privileges was an undue burden on women.

Now the court is more conservative with President Trump’s appointments of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Wednesday’s court proceedings suggest Chief Justice John Roberts will likely be the deciding vote.

“If it is going to follow its own precedent and if it’s going to follow things like the rule of law, we should not have a different result. The change in the Supreme Court should not change the decisions and certainly not so fast,” said Fatima Goss Graves, President of the National Women’s Law Center.

“We know that abortion is one of the safest operations in the country. Admitting privileges are not necessary but even so, we find that the hospitals are denying the clinics and the doctors admitting privileges because they are afraid of the violence. They are being bullied and terrorized and this is closing clinics down for us,” said Toni Van Pelt, President of the National Organization for Women.

There was perhaps no greater illustration of how culturally divisive abortion is than the two competing rallies happening simultaneously on the steps of the court with both sides convinced their argument will prevail.

“Decades of precedent don’t stand for much when the Supreme Court gets it absolutely wrong,” said Johnathan Alexandre, Senior Counsel for Liberty Counsel.

“If you love someone who is seeking an abortion, that is what you should lean into. You should lean into the values that guide and support the people you love,” said Goss Graves.

A decision should come by late June.

Several states including Kentucky have passed laws being challenged in federal courts that would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

The decision in the Louisiana case could have consequences for the Kentucky case.

According to data from the Pew Research Center, just 36% of Kentuckians believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.”

Watch the Entire TV Interview with Penny Nance here:

Concerned Women for America to add its voice to ‘Protect Women – Protect Life’ rally on steps of SCOTUS, Wednesday, March 4

By | Blog, News and Events, Press Releases, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

WASHINGTON — Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), will join a broad coalition of pro-life groups and legislators on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court Wed., Mar. 4, for the “Protect Women – Protect Life” rally.

Pro-life citizens will join together in support of June Medical Services v. Russo, a Louisiana law that requires abortionists, like doctors at all Louisiana outpatient surgical centers, to maintain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The measure was enacted to ensure that women who experience a medical emergency during an abortion have access to proper care.

Remarkably, the bill’s fiercest opponent has been the abortion industry, with abortion doctors asking for exemptions from the law’s requirements.

“Abortion providers shouldn’t be able to erase a law that protects women’s health,” says Penny Nance, CEO and president of CWA. “There is no reason women seeking abortions should be treated with lower standards of medical care than other out-patient surgery centers. That’s why I, and hundreds of thousands of women I represent, stand in support of the women of Louisiana.”

Sancha Smith, a member of CWA of Louisiana, says being pro-life necessarily extends to protecting the life of a woman who chooses to have an abortion. “We cannot say all life is important and ignore the threat posed to women by an abortion procedure. I do not understand how the pro-choice lobby can claim to stand for women’s health while working for this bill to be overturned.”

The “Protect Women – Protect Life” pre-rally event will kick off at 9:00 a.m. Wednesday with a time for women to share their stories. The rally will formally begin at 9:30 a.m. and will end at 11:30 a.m.

For more information, please visit: https://www.protectwomenprotectlife.org/

Media: email [email protected] or [email protected] or call 202.810.5530 or 202.527.3434

U.S. Senators Debate and Vote on Two Pro-life Bills

By | Blog, Legislative Updates, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Tuesday was a dark day for America. The Senate failed to advance two desperately needed pro-life bills: the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Pain Capable would protect unborn children from being aborted after 20 weeks, the threshold science definitively agrees unborn children feel pain. Born Alive requires doctors to provide the same standard of care to a child born alive after an attempted abortion as any other baby born at that gestational age in any other circumstances.

Although each of these bills received the support of a majority of senators, they needed to reach the 60-vote threshold to end a filibuster and pass the Senate. Pain Capable failed to advance by a vote of 53-44 and Born Alive failed to advance by a vote of 56-41.

It is discouraging that 44 senators can’t draw the line to protect human life at 20 weeks, and even more discouraging that 41 senators voted in favor of infanticide. However, there were several pro-life champions who took to the Senate floor to dispel myths on these bills and speak the truth (see list below.) Help us spread the word on what these bills actually do and watch and share these videos on social media and with your friends and family. Together, we can speak truth and life.

During the debate, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) had a sharp exchange regarding what the Born Alive bill would actually do. Sen. Sasse vociferously defended the Born Alive bill.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) sponsor of the Born Alive bill

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) sponsor of the Pain Capable bill,

Majority Leader McConnell (R-Kentucky)

Sen. John Thune (R-South Dakota)

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyoming)

Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Georgia)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Oklahoma)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Montana) led a colloquy with Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) and Sen. Mike Braun (R-Indiana)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

To see how your senators voted on Pain Capable, click here, and to see how your senators voted on Born Alive, click here.