Category

Sanctity of Life

Penny Nance: Democratic candidates are really pro-abortion, not pro-choice

By | Feminist / Women's Issues, News and Events, Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Penny Nance penned the following opinion piece for FoxNews.com:

Remember these statements by Democrats seeking to become their party’s presidential nominee?

“I believe that reproductive rights are human rights, they are civil rights, and they are non-negotiable,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York said in an interview with The Atlantic earlier this month.

“We must be vigilant in protecting a woman’s right to choose,” Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey said on Twitter in January.

“… now more than ever, we must remain steadfast in our defense of a woman’s right to choose,” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii said in a statement on the 40th anniversary of the landmark 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision the legalized abortion nationwide.

The Democratic presidential candidates want everyone to know they support abortion. They call this “choice” – which indicates a decision a woman makes about whether to have an abortion or have a baby. Many are now calling this choice a reproductive, human and civil right.

But not really.

Where were the Democratic presidential hopefuls when a British judge recently ruled that a mentally disabled woman in her 20s with the mental age of a child between ages 6 and 9 must undergo a forced abortion against her will and against her mother’s will? The judge cited the pregnant woman’s “best interests” and determined the pregnancy termination was “the best option.”

Click here to read the entire opinion piece.

Use Your Voice – Episode 12, Abortion and Eugenics

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

In this episode, Mario Diaz, Esq., Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) General Counsel, discusses a recent Supreme Court decision where Justice Clarence Thomas exposes the clear connection between abortion and eugenics. He said, “abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation.” The case is Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky and you won’t want to miss our discussion of its potential impact and what it means for the protection of the unborn.

For more on this case, read Mario’s op-ed “Clarence Thomas Speaks the Truth for SCOTUS on Abortion” as featured on American Thinker.

Top Faith Leaders Predict Evangelicals Will Show Up in Force for Trump in 2020

By | Family Issues, Feminist / Women's Issues, National Sovereignty, News and Events, Politics/National Sovereignty, Religious Issues, Religious Liberty, Sanctity of Life, Social / Cultural Issues | No Comments

CEO and President Penny Nance is featured in The Western Journal along with other top faith leaders such as Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer.

“Some of the nation’s top Christian leaders believe President Donald Trump will once again enjoy the strong backing of evangelicals in 2020, noting he now has a record, and not just promises, to run on.

The Western Journal spoke with Rev. Franklin Graham, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, Concerned Women for America president Penny Nance, American Values president Gary Bauer and Christian Broadcasting Network chief political analyst David Brody to gauge their views on why Trump enjoyed such strong evangelical support in 2016, and how he looks with these voters going into the 2020 election.”

Read the entire article here:

Nutty attacks on pro-lifers by Sen. Gillbrand and CEOs may help make abortion a winning issue for Trump and GOP in 2020

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

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.”

Click here to read the rest of this story as featured on FoxNews.com.

Billionaires Find New Ways to Push for Abortion on Demand

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

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.

World’s tiniest surviving preemie shows abortion isn’t in line with science or common sense

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

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…

Click here to read the rest of this story as featured on FoxNews.com.

Abortion at 20 Weeks Takes the Senate Stage

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

Since Roe v. Wade, technology has changed our understanding of preborn life, and we need to face the truth on this issue: unborn children do feel pain. Science and medicine have no issue acknowledging this. While some preborn children are administered anesthesia during necessary surgery in utero, others have their limbs ripped from their bodies in a late-term dismemberment abortion with no anesthesia or regard for suffering. Read More

Shame on Google for dissolving its AI council over African-American leader Kay Coles James

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

Women across the political perspective applauded recently when Kay Coles James, the first woman and the first African-American to lead the conservative and respected Heritage Foundation, was chosen to join Google’s new external advisory council to in part discuss the ethics of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Our joy lasted barely a week when, in reaction to internal pressure from incensed employees, she was ousted via the dissolution of the council.

As shocking as this may be, it is illustrative of the culture at Google, where over 1,000 Google employees took the time to sign a petition calling for James’ removal. Leaked email exchanges reported by Breitbart News show employees accused her of “transphobia” and “homophobia.” They accused her of viewing the LGBT community as “subhuman” and in support of “exterminationist” views.


Editor’s note: This article was published by Fox News. Click here to read it.

Saving Money Shouldn’t Mean Hurting Grandma

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

Concerned Women for America (CWA) has always fought to protect life from its beginning at conception until natural death. A recent hospital stay and subsequent medical care for my 80-year-old mother has served as a wakeup call to the particular vulnerability of the elderly.

With this top of mind while caring for her in Tennessee, I was struck and surprised when I learned via a TV ad about a new proposed government regulation which is particularly onerous for seniors. Read More

The House Makes Unprecedented Moves on Born Alive

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

On Tuesday, Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) filed a discharge petition for H.R. 962, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. A discharge petition is a way to bring a bill to the floor that is otherwise being blocked by the Speaker, if the majority (218) of representatives agree and sign. On every legislative day since the bill’s introduction, Members have asked Speaker Pelosi for a vote on H.R. 962. This has now occurred 29 times.

On the first day, the discharge petition was ready for signatures, 193 representatives signed; this record-setting number is the most representatives to ever sign a discharge petition on the first day. On Wednesday, five additional members joined, bringing the tally to 198 signatures. We only need twenty more signatures to force Speaker Pelosi to put this bill on the floor for a vote. To find out if your representative has signed, please click here.

CWALAC joined representatives on Tuesday outside of the Capitol at a press conference in support of Born Alive and watched from the House gallery as members lined up to sign the discharge petition. We also attended the Virginia March for Life in Richmond on Wednesday, where many of the speakers highlighted the radical statements of Virginia Governor Northam (D) that sparked the Born Alive debate.

Born Alive is about stopping infanticide, not restricting or regulating abortion. We should all agree that once born, a newborn child is a patient and deserves protection. This is a reflection on our humanity. Recent polling shows that 82% of Americans, including 77% of pro-choice Americans, support protections for children born alive after an attempted abortion. This is not at all the radical bill the Democrats are portraying.

Please call your representative today and ask him/her to sign the discharge petition for H.R. 962, the Born Alive Abortion Survivor’s Protection Act. Click here to make that call.

 

Has Your Representative Signed the Discharge Petition?

By | Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) filed a discharge petition on H.R. 962, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The Senate has voted on this bill, but Speaker Pelosi refuses to bring it to the House floor for a vote, even though House republicans have publicly asked almost thirty times.

A discharge petition is a special tool that can be used to get a bill on the floor for a vote, even if the Speaker, who controls the bills that are voted on and the House floor schedule, does not want a vote. A discharge petition needs 218 signatures from representatives, a majority of the House. Members are now able to sign this petition demanding a vote to protect babies born alive after failed abortions.

As of January 22, 2020, the following representatives HAVE signed the discharge petition to take up H.R. 962, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. If you do not see your representative listed, please click here to contact them and ask them to sign the discharge petition!

 

                    204                                            14

        SIGNATURES TO DATE                    SIGNATURES NEEDED

 

Title

First Name

Last Name

Party

State-District

Rep.

Ralph Lee

Abraham

R

LA-05

Rep.

Robert

Aderholt

R

AL-04

Rep.

Rick

Allen

R

GA-12

Rep.

Justin

Amash

R

MI-03

Rep.

Mark

Amodei

R

NV-02

Rep.

Kelly

Armstrong

R

ND-At Large

Rep.

Jodey

Arrington

R

TX-19

Rep.

Brian

Babin

R

TX-36

Rep.

Don

Bacon

R

NE-02

Rep.

James

Baird

R

IN-04

Rep.

Troy

Balderson

R

OH-12

Rep.

Jim

Banks

R

IN-03

Rep.

Andy

Barr

R

KY-06

Rep.

Jack

Bergman

R

MI-01

Rep.

Andy

Biggs

R

AZ-05

Rep.

Gus

Bilirakis

R

FL-12

Rep.

Rob

Bishop

R

UT-01

Rep.

Dan

Bishop

R

NC-09

Rep.

Mike

Bost

R

IL-12

Rep.

Kevin

Brady

R

TX-08

Rep.

Mo

Brooks

R

AL-05

Rep.

Susan

Brooks

R

IN-05

Rep.

Vern

Buchanan

R

FL-16

Rep.

Ken

Buck

R

CO-04

Rep.

Larry

Bucshon

R

IN-08

Rep.

Ted

Budd

R

NC-13

Rep.

Tim

Burchett

R

TN-02

Rep.

Michael

Burgess

R

TX-26

Rep.

Bradley

Byrne

R

AL-01

Rep.

Ken

Calvert

R

CA-42

Rep.

Earl

Carter

R

GA-01

Rep.

John

Carter

R

TX-31

Rep.

Steve

Chabot

R

OH-01

Rep.

Liz

Cheney

R

WY-At Large

Rep.

Ben

Cline

R

VA-06

Rep.

Michael

Cloud

R

TX-27

Rep.

Tom

Cole

R

OK-04

Rep.

Chris

Collins

R

NY-27

Rep.

Doug

Collins

R

GA-09

Rep.

James

Comer

R

KY-01

Rep.

K.

Conaway

R

TX-11

Rep.

Paul

Cook

R

CA-08

Rep.

Eric

Crawford

R

AR-01

Rep.

Dan

Crenshaw

R

TX-02

Rep.

John

Curtis

R

UT-03

Rep.

Warren

Davidson

R

OH-08

Rep.

Rodney

Davis

R

IL-13

Rep.

Scott

DesJarlais

R

TN-04

Rep.

Mario

Diaz-Balart

R

FL-25

Rep.

Sean

Duffy

R

WI-07

Rep.

Jeff

Duncan

R

SC-03

Rep.

Neal

Dunn

R

FL-02

Rep.

Tom

Emmer

R

MN-06

Rep.

Ron

Estes

R

KS-04

Rep.

A.

Ferguson IV

R

GA-03

Rep.

Brian

Fitzpatrick

R

PA-01

Rep.

Charles

Fleischmann

R

TN-03

Rep.

Bill

Flores

R

TX-17

Rep.

Jeff

Fortenberry

R

NE-01

Rep.

Virginia

Foxx

R

NC-05

Rep.

Russ

Fulcher

R

ID-01

Rep.

Matt

Gaetz

R

FL-01

Rep.

Mike

Gallagher

R

WI-08

Rep.

Greg

Gianforte

R

MT-At Large

Rep.

Bob

Gibbs

R

OH-07

Rep.

Louie

Gohmert

R

TX-01

Rep.

Anthony

Gonzalez

R

OH-16

Rep.

Lance

Gooden

R

TX-05

Rep.

Paul

Gosar

R

AZ-04

Rep.

Kay

Granger

R

TX-12

Rep.

Garret

Graves

R

LA-06

Rep.

Tom

Graves

R

GA-14

Rep.

Sam

Graves

R

MO-06

Rep.

Mark

Green

R

TN-07

Rep.

H.

Griffith

R

VA-09

Rep.

Glenn

Grothman

R

WI-06

Rep.

Michael

Guest

R

MS-03

Rep.

Brett

Guthrie

R

KY-02

Rep.

Jim

Hagedorn

R

MN-01

Rep.

Andy

Harris

R

MD-01

Rep.

Vicky

Hartzler

R

MO-04

Rep.

Kevin

Hern

R

OK-01

Rep.

Jaime

Herrera Beutler

R

WA-03

Rep.

Jody

Hice

R

GA-10

Rep.

Clay

Higgins

R

LA-03

Rep.

J.

Hill

R

AR-02

Rep.

George

Holding

R

NC-02

Rep.

Trey

Hollingsworth

R

IN-09

Rep.

Richard

Hudson

R

NC-08

Rep.

Bill

Huizenga

R

MI-02

Rep.

Duncan

Hunter

R

CA-50

Rep.

Will

Hurd

R

TX-23

Rep.

Bill

Johnson

R

OH-06

Rep.

Dusty

Johnson

R

SD-At Large

Rep.

Mike

Johnson

R

LA-04

Rep.

Jim

Jordan

R

OH-04

Rep.

David

Joyce

R

OH-14

Rep.

John

Joyce

R

PA-13

Rep.

John

Katko

R

NY-24

Rep.

Fred

Keller

R

PA-12

Rep.

Mike

Kelly

R

PA-16

Rep.

Trent

Kelly

R

MS-01

Rep.

Steve

King

R

IA-04

Rep.

Peter T.

King

R

NY-02

Rep.

Adam

Kinzinger

R

IL-16

Rep.

David

Kustoff

R

TN-08

Rep.

Darin

LaHood

R

IL-18

Rep.

Doug

LaMalfa

R

CA-01

Rep.

Doug

Lamborn

R

CO-05

Rep.

Robert

Latta

R

OH-05

Rep.

Debbie

Lesko

R

AZ-08

Rep.

Daniel

Lipinski

D

IL-03

Rep.

Billy

Long

R

MO-07

Rep.

Barry

Loudermilk

R

GA-11

Rep.

Frank

Lucas

R

OK-03

Rep.

Blaine

Luetkemeyer

R

MO-03

Rep.

Kenny

Marchant

R

TX-24

Rep.

Roger

Marshall

R

KS-01

Rep.

Thomas

Massie

R

KY-04

Rep.

Brian

Mast

R

FL-18

Rep.

Ben

McAdams

D

UT-04

Rep.

Kevin

McCarthy

R

CA-23

Rep.

Michael

McCaul

R

TX-10

Rep.

Tom

McClintock

R

CA-04

Rep.

Patrick

McHenry

R

NC-10

Rep.

David

McKinley

R

WV-01

Rep.

Mark

Meadows

R

NC-11

Rep.

Daniel

Meuser

R

PA-09

Rep.

Carol

Miller

R

WV-03

Rep.

Paul

Mitchell

R

MI-10

Rep.

John

Moolenaar

R

MI-04

Rep.

Alexander

Mooney

R

WV-02

Rep.

Markwayne

Mullin

R

OK-02

Rep.

Gregory

Murphy

R

NC-03

Rep.

Dan

Newhouse

R

WA-04

Rep.

Ralph

Norman

R

SC-05

Rep.

Devin

Nunes

R

CA-22

Rep.

Pete

Olson

R

TX-22

Rep.

Steven

Palazzo

R

MS-04

Rep.

Gary

Palmer

R

AL-06

Rep.

Greg

Pence

R

IN-06

Rep.

Scott

Perry

R

PA-10

Rep.

Collin C.

Peterson

D

MN-07

Rep.

Bill

Posey

R

FL-08

Rep.

John

Ratcliffe

R

TX-04

Rep.

Tom

Reed

R

NY-23

Rep.

Guy

Reschenthaler

R

PA-14

Rep.

Tom

Rice

R

SC-07

Rep.

Denver

Riggleman

R

VA-05

Rep.

Martha

Roby

R

AL-02

Rep.

Cathy

Rodgers

R

WA-05

Rep.

David

Roe

R

TN-01

Rep.

Harold

Rogers

R

KY-05

Rep.

Mike

Rogers

R

AL-03

Rep.

Francis

Rooney

R

FL-19

Rep.

John

Rose

R

TN-06

Rep.

David

Rouzer

R

NC-07

Rep.

Chip

Roy

R

TX-21

Rep.

John H.

Rutherford

R

FL-04

Rep.

Steve

Scalise

R

LA-01

Rep.

David

Schweikert

R

AZ-06

Rep.

Austin

Scott

R

GA-08

Rep.

F.

Sensenbrenner, Jr.

R

WI-05

Rep.

John

Shimkus

R

IL-15

Rep.

Michael

Simpson

R

ID-02

Rep.

Adrian

Smith

R

NE-03

Rep.

Christopher

Smith

R

NJ-04

Rep.

Jason

Smith

R

MO-08

Rep.

Lloyd

Smucker

R

PA-11

Rep.

Ross

Spano

R

FL-15

Rep.

Pete

Stauber

R

MN-08

Rep.

Elise

Stefanik

R

NY-21

Rep.

Bryan

Steil

R

WI-01

Rep.

W.

Steube

R

FL-17

Rep.

Chris

Stewart

R

UT-02

Rep.

Steve

Stivers

R

OH-15

Rep.

Van

Taylor

R

TX-03

Rep.

Glenn

Thompson

R

PA-15

Rep.

Mac

Thornberry

R

TX-13

Rep.

William

Timmons IV

R

SC-04

Rep.

Scott

Tipton

R

CO-03

Rep.

Michael

Turner

R

OH-10

Rep.

Fred

Upton

R

MI-06

Rep.

Jefferson

Van Drew

R

NJ-02

Rep.

Ann

Wagner

R

MO-02

Rep.

Tim

Walberg

R

MI-07

Rep.

Greg

Walden

R

OR-02

Rep.

Mark

Walker

R

NC-06

Rep.

Jackie

Walorski

R

IN-02

Rep.

Michael

Waltz

R

FL-06

Rep.

Steven

Watkins, Jr.

R

KS-02

Rep.

Randy

Weber, Sr.

R

TX-14

Rep.

Daniel

Webster

R

FL-11

Rep.

Brad

Wenstrup

R

OH-02

Rep.

Bruce

Westerman

R

AR-04

Rep.

Roger

Williams

R

TX-25

Rep.

Joe

Wilson

R

SC-02

Rep.

Robert

Wittman

R

VA-01

Rep.

Steve

Womack

R

AR-03

Rep.

Rob

Woodall

R

GA-07

Rep.

Ron

Wright

R

TX-06

Rep.

Ted

Yoho

R

FL-03

Rep.

Don

Young

R

AK-At Large

Rep.

Lee

Zeldin

R

NY-01

 

 

Abortion is Not an International Right

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

The Commission on the Status of Women (CSW 63) came to an end this week at the United Nations in New York City. News reports warn that the U.S. seeks to decrease the rights of women and girls by taking away an international “right” to abortion in UN resolutions. Based mainly on propaganda from far-left political interest groups, this information is inaccurate and misleading.

The U.S. has long been a leader in policies and aid supporting the expansion of women’s rights around the world. Under the Trump administration alone, major initiatives have been launched in three sectors where the advancement of female equality is sorely needed increasing economic empowerment and entrepreneurship, increasing diplomatic and security participation and decreasing the technological or “digital divide” of women and girls. Research shows that women and girls face inequalities in all of these areas and initiatives like this can elevate women by targeting the main challenges they face. In addition, these initiatives reflect the strategic objectives of gender empowerment goals.

In contrast, the promotion of a so-called “right to abortion” that dominates liberal narratives at the UN does none of these. … [Read More Online at The Hill]

Secretary Pompeo Continues to Remove U.S. Taxpayer Funds Used for Abortion Overseas

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

Today, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced further implementation of the Mexico City Policy to protect “more unborn babies around the world than ever before” and enforce President Trump’s commitment to stop U.S. taxpayers from funding abortion overseas.

In January 2017, President Trump’s executive action restored and extended the original 1984 Mexico City Policy to prohibit any organization which promotes or performs abortions in other countries from receiving U.S. global health funds. Today, Sec. Pompeo announced that the U.S. will also no longer fund organizations who subcontract with or provide financial assistance to other organizations in the global abortion industry. In addition, he announced the State Department will enforce the Siljander amendment to the 1982 Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act which prohibits tax dollars from being used to lobby for or against abortion. This announcement will directly reduce funding to the Organization of American States (OAS) in proportion to its expenditures on abortion-related activities.

Penny Nance, President and CEO of Concerned Women for America, and Dr. Shea Garrison, Vice President of International Affairs for CWA, responded to Sec. Pompeo’s announcement:

“Secretary Pompeo’s announcement confirms the proud pro-life stance of this administration and their commitment to ensuring that U.S. taxpayer dollars are not used to promote or subsidize the killing of unborn children around the world. Today’s announcement closes two gaping backdoor loopholes that organizations continue to use to get around the funding limitations of President Trump’s expansion of the Mexico City Policy.
“The U.S. has shown we can continue to meet the most critical health care needs for women while refusing to pay for the killing of unborn babies. This is consistent with the moral beliefs of most governments around the world and strengthens U.S.-foreign relations. In addition, women’s rights and health care can be better served through more focused assistance to alleviate the main challenges women face around the world — including in maternal health and mortality.
“We are thankful for Sec. Pompeo’s continued actions to implement the administration’s pro-life policies to the broadest extent possible. As Sec. Pompeo said: ‘This is a policy that is designed fundamentally to protect human beings … this is decent, this is right.’ We are proud to stand behind an administration that protects the most vulnerable among us.”

Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee is the legislative arm of Concerned Women for America, the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with members across the country, over 450 Prayer/Action Chapters and Home Teams, 600 trained leaders, and over 30 years of service to our nation. For more information visit www.concernedwomen.org 

Promoting Fiscally-Responsible Parental Leave Plans

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

Senators Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) have put forward an innovative plan for paid parental leave. The CRADLE Act would allow parents to receive up to three months paid parental leave in a fiscally-responsible way. Instead of creating a new entitlement program, as many on the left have suggested, the CRADLE Act is an opt-in program that allows working parents to access Social Security benefits for up to three months and then subsequently postpone the activation of their Social Security benefits by two months for every one month of parental leave taken. This plan has no impact on the Social Security Trust Fund, is budget-neutral, and the benefit would be calculated using the existing Social Security disability formula. There are other safeguards to assure this program would not be used in conjunction with any employer-paid leave program and would only be used in conjunction with a birth or an adoption.   

Paid parental leave proposals like the CRADLE Act give moms and dads the ability to stay at home with their newborns or adopted children during the crucial first few months. The CRADLE Act is one among similar, fiscally responsible, pro-family, conservative plans to address paid family leave. Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Missouri), along with Sen. Rubio (R-Florida), proposed legislation last Congress to address paid family leave in a similar fashion and plan on introducing similar plans again this Congress. 

Paid parental leave has many societal and familial benefits, including greater workforce attachment, better child and maternal health outcomes, and increased parental engagement. However, the costs of a government mandate are often far greater than the benefits. Governmentmandated leave programs like the liberals’ FAMILY ACT put a strain on businesses, particularly small businesses, and make women of childbearing age less appealing to hire. Additionally, new entitlements irresponsibly pile on to our already crushing national debt. Many businesses know and understand the importance of these benefits to their workforce and offer their employees paid parental leave. For those parents who are not so fortunate, plans like this would bridge the gap without hurting seniors or enacting a new fiscally disastrous entitlement. 

Conservative plans like the Wagner-Rubio and the Ernst-Lee proposals reach a good balance of incorporating fiscal concerns with the benefits of paid parental leave. New parents need new avenues of support, but our nation cannot afford a new government-mandated entitlement program 

 

Sixth Circuit Greenlights Ohio Law Prohibiting Public Funding of Abortion Clinics

By | Case Vault, Legal, Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio v. Hodges

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision from the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati invalidating an Ohio law barring the public funding of abortion clinics. This is good news. The law has now been upheld and can go into full effect.

The court said the state’s condition for receiving public health funds “does not violate the Constitution because the [clinics] do not have a due process right to perform abortions.” I know that seems obvious, but this is exactly what Planned Parenthood has tried to argue for many years. They claim not only that women have a constitutional right to abortion but also that they, as the providers of this “holy” right, have a constitutional right to provide abortions. The court appropriately and emphatically rejected that claim. The court’s sound reasoning now opens the door for the will of the majority of Ohioans to be carried out. The citizens of Ohio, along with the majority of the rest of the country, do not want their tax dollars to subsidize abortion providers.

In 2016 Ohio passed a law prohibiting funds from being used to “(1) Perform nontherapeutic abortions; (2) Promote nontherapeutic abortions; (3) Contract with any entity that performs or promotes nontherapeutic abortions; (4) Become or continue to be an affiliate of any entity that performs or promotes nontherapeutic abortions.”

Ohio made clear the purpose of the law is, (1) to “Promote childbirth over abortion” which the Supreme Court has already said is constitutionally permissible (“[A] State is permitted to enact persuasive measures which favor childbirth over abortion, even if those measures do not further a health interest.” Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 886 (1992)), (2) “to avoid ‘muddl[ing]’ that message by using abortion providers as the face of the state healthcare programs” (there are thousands of quality health care options for women besides Planned Parenthood – in Ohio, one study found 280 federally qualified health clinics and rural health clinics, compared to just 28 Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinics), and (3) “to avoid entangling program funding and abortion funding” (public funding inevitably helps Planned Parenthood be the number one abortion provider in the country, performing more than 300,000 abortions a year – more than 27,000 a month, more than 900 a day).

Planned Parenthood, having become synonymous with abortion, promptly sued Ohio, “claiming that the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by conditioning government funding on giving up their rights to provide abortions and to advocate for them.” The district court and a panel of the Sixth Circuit agreed and permanently enjoined the State from enforcing the law.

Thankfully, the Sixth Circuit en banc (before the full court) now reverses those misguided opinions and correctly applies the law, including applicable precedent, to this case. Judge Jeffrey Sutton, writing for the court, reminds us that, “The United States Constitution does not contain an Unconstitutional Conditions Clause.” Writing clearly and concisely, he says, “Governments generally may do what they wish with public funds,” citing Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 192–94 (1991). He continues, “What makes a condition unconstitutional turns not on a freestanding prohibition against restricting public funds but on a pre-existing obligation not to violate constitutional rights.” In other words, the government cannot deny a clinic’s funding on a reason that violates the clinic’s constitutional rights.

But the constitutional right at issue here “prohibits a State from imposing an ‘undue burden’ on a woman’s access to an abortion before fetal viability. Casey, 505 U.S. at 877 (plurality).” It has nothing to do with a clinic’s right to perform abortions. “The Supreme Court has never identified a freestanding right to perform abortions.”

Therefore, since there is no constitutional right, there can be no constitutional violation of that right. It is that simple.

A woman may bring a claim, as the dissent envisions, saying this law places an undue burden on her constitutional right to obtain an abortion, but this is hard to imagine, given the facts of this case where the clinics have all publicly expressed their commitment to abortion with or without this law. Ruling for Planned Parenthood in this case, “would create a constitutional right for providers to offer abortion services and, in doing so, move the law perilously close to requiring States to subsidize abortions. Case law rejects both possibilities.”

Bottom line, “so long as the subsidy program does not otherwise violate a constitutional right of the regulated entity, the State may choose to subsidize what it wishes — whether abortion services or adoption services, whether stores that sell guns or stores that don’t.”

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

Time for the FCC to Take Parent’s Concerns Seriously

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

In a recent Public Notice, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Media Bureau sought comments on “the accuracy of the television content rating system, known as the TV Parental Guidelines, and the ability of the governing body for TV ratings, the TV Parental Guidelines Oversight Monitoring Board, to oversee the rating system and address public concerns.”

We thank those of you who took the time to write comments in response to our post. It is important for the commission to hear from you personally.

Your voice will also be heard as a supporter of Concerned Women for America (CWA). We submitted an official comment on your behalf, asking the FCC to “put American families

first.” In it, we argue the current rating system benefits the big entertainment conglomerates to the detriment of families and, especially, children.

An effort that was presented as aiming to benefit the public has in fact developed, unsurprisingly, into a system benefiting those who control it, the entertainment industry. Television is more dangerous for families today than it was before this system was devised.

You ask, “Are programs with violent, sexual, or other content that may be inappropriate for children being rated accurately?” No, they are not. Graphic sexual scenes, adult topics, violence, and profanity are routinely rated as appropriate for children. TV-14 and TV-PG ratings are routinely abused to peddle violent, lewd, and salacious content, to the horror of parents who are helpless once their children are exposed to the material without proper warning. This is, of course, an ideal business model which gives advertisers a much larger audience, but it is most certainly not in the best interest of families.

A major breakdown in the implementation of the rating system is the unaccountability of the industry-proposed and self-governing Oversight Monitoring Board (OMB). Here, too, we raise serious concerns on your behalf.

This is a darkly covered body overwhelmingly composed of industry members who even get to choose the very few advocates for families that are part of it. Transparency, which should be at the core of such a body, is virtually non-existent. There is no record of their meetings, when and how often they meet, what is discussed — everything is secret. How can the public feel any assurance that their complaints are being handled appropriately when the people they are complaining about get to judge themselves in secret with virtually no accountability?

The entertainment industry has been masterful in keeping this body under a deep cloud. Most parents do not have any idea that OMB even exists, let alone who is a member of it. They are completely unaccountable. How can we allow this to continue? CWA supporters can’t believe it when we inform them that not even a representative of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is part of this mysterious group. And since no press is allowed in the meetings either, can there be any doubt that the public is systematically and intentionally being kept in the dark on this process?

We conclude by urging the FCC to intervene.

It is time the FCC takes the concerns of parents in this area seriously and exercises the considerable power Congress has granted it to act in the best interest of the public. The entertainment industry has been granted the chance it wanted to do the right thing by families and come up with a process that could empower citizens with the information they need to make the best decisions for their families. But it has taken advantage of the public, betraying our trust, and it is time for the FCC to intervene.

Tell President Trump to Protect our Children!

By | Blog, Sanctity of Life, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

Are you frustrated and bothered by what you see on TV? You are not alone. In recent years, Hollywood has taken advantage of their self-regulated TV ratings system and cable TV looks more like HBO than family-friendly programming. Networks advertise their mature and explicit programming during family-friendly shows; these commercials include overtly sexual themes, violence, and foul language. Most advertisers will not run ads during “mature audience” rated programming; therefore, Hollywood has no incentive to rate any program “mature” and, instead, rates things that should be for mature audiences as “TV-14” or acceptable for children over 14 years old to view. There is virtually no “G”-rated TV on prime-time.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for evaluating the TV ratings system and determining whether or not children are adequately protected from violent, foul, and graphic content. Right now, the FCC is accepting comments regarding the TV ratings system and whether or not they are doing their job to protect our children. There is no doubt that Hollywood, with their vast resources, are inundating this system to avoid further regulation. The content on cable TV is shocking, and no industry, especially one as corrupt and worldly as Hollywood, should be able to regulate themselves.

Submit a comment to President Trump today and tell him you are fed up with the graphic content being shown to our children.

 

 

Senate Dems Deny the Facts About the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

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

On Monday, February 25, the U.S. Senate failed to advance S. 311, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska). The bill needed 60 votes and failed by a vote of 53-44, with three senators not voting: Sens. Cramer (R-North Dakota), Scott (R-South Carolina), and Murkowski (R-Alaska). Sens. Cramer and Scott’s offices informed CWA they were unable to attend the vote due to weather delays. They are both original cosponsors of the bill and would have voted “yes. Sen. Tim Scott spoke at length on the Senate floor the day after the vote, declaring: “This is common sense; this is human decency. This is not an issue of being pro-life or pro-choice. This is being pro-child.” For information on how your senator voted, click here. 

Democrat Sens. Manchin (D-West Virginia), Jones (D-Alabama), and Casey (D-Pennsylvania) joined the 53vote majority, while every other Senate Democrat opposed Born Alive. Their excuses for defending infanticide on the Senate floor were straight from the talking points of Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Many of them claimed this does not happen. Wrong. Documented statistics by the Center for Disease Control say otherwise. Only six states require reporting cases of infants born alive after an attempted abortion, so we don’t know just how frequently this happens, but there is no question that it does. Abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen have testified before Congress detailing their personal stories and asking for protections for babies who survive abortion 

Democrats also claimed the bill is unnecessary, because killing a child born alive is already illegal. While Congress did pass, and President George W. Bush signed into law, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002, it only defined a “person,” “human being,” “child,” or “individual” as including every infant born alive for the purposes of federal law. But the law did not contain any penalty provisions or requirements. This is the issue the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act seeks to correct. It would give law enforcement the legal tools to bring criminal penalties against a health care professional who fails to provide care for a child who is born alive. Some states do impose penalties, but New York repealed their born alive law, and Vermont is close to doing so. Federal law must address this. 

Here are the facts about the Born Alive Act: It is NOT about private medical decisions between woman and her doctor and does not change abortion laws. It is not about first, second, or thirdtrimester abortions; it is about infanticide. The bill only addresses failed abortions and would not substitute Congress’ judgment for standard medical practice in heartbreaking cases when a child is born but is not viable. It mandates the same degree of care be granted to children who survive abortions that would be given to a child born in other circumstances at the same gestational age, including hospitalizationIt also shields birth mothers from prosecution and grants them the right to take civil action against health care professional who fails to provide this care.   

The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is not an extreme “anti-choice” bill. 82% of Americans oppose removing medical care for a viable child after birth, including 77% of pro-choice Americans. Undeniably, Americans widely support this bill. It is now up to the House to correct the failure of the Senate. Speaker Pelosi is standing in the way by denying daily requests to bring this bill to the House floor.  Next month, House Republicans will attempt to force the bill on the floor for a vote through a discharge petition. Please call your congressman today and ask him/her to cosponsor H.R. 962, the House version of S. 311, and sign the discharge petition when it is ready for consideration.