Category

Planned Parenthood

May 18 2018
0

Concerned Women for America LAC Applauds New HHS Title X Rule

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

Washington, D.C. —  Today, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will file a proposal to update Title X grant requirements. These regulations would reinstate regulations similar to the “Reagan rules” which were upheld by the Supreme Court in 1991 in Rust v. Sullivan. These new regulations require physical and financial separation between Title X recipients and abortion providers.Under these new regulations, abortion centers cannot serve as Title X family planning centers, and recipients cannot refer for abortion. This rule repeals the Clinton-era regulations that require abortion counseling, and instead makes this optional.

Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, issued the following statement:

“This new rule is the Trump Administration’s response to the requests of 194 Members of Congress and 85 pro-life advocacy groups to update Title X regulations in light of the fungibility of these funds. Americans want out of the abortion business; six-in-ten Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortion.

“Today, HHS acted on their statutory ability to decide who is eligible for Title X funding. Abortion is not health care, nor is it family planning. Although the Title X statute and legal precedent make this clear, previous administrations have failed to draw this line. This new rule doesn’t reduce Title X dollars, but it does direct funding to service sites like Federally Qualified Health Centers, rural health centers, and nonprofits that are willing to comply with the law. This provides necessary transparency and ensures that Title X dollars are spent on family planning, not abortion.

“Obviously the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, is apoplectic because they view Title X funds as their personal entitlement. But it is disingenuous to characterize a mere 4% loss of income as a ‘devastating blow.’ As with all grantees, Planned Parenthood and affiliates can choose to comply with the statute or forgo taxpayer support and continue offering these services in whatever fashion they please as a private entity.

“This is yet another promise fulfilled by President Trump and his administration. It is also a necessary response to the frustration felt by our grassroots over funding for abortion providers in the omnibus and the Senate’s failure to pass a law to redirect Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid dollars to Federally Qualified Health Centers. I applaud the House members and senators who pushed for this, Secretary Azar’s response, and President Trump’s leadership.”

 

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

Apr 13 2018
0

True Feminism: The Third Choice

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

Reading articles or listening to debates about abortion, I’m always left wondering, “Why isn’t adoption front and center in the national conversation?” Adding adoption as The Third Choice to the stunted “two-choice solution” — abortion or “keeping my baby” — holds promise for many thousands of women and couples. Together, unexpectedly pregnant and childless women can forge a new outlook on adoption.

Can cultural prevailing winds lift up adoption, The Third Choice? In the past few decades, our culture has shifted regarding unmarried pregnant women. In my generation as a Baby Boomer in the south, young women left town under some pretense and returned some months later “having lived with an Aunt” or they “ran off and got married” at the first inkling of a pregnancy, hoping no one was counting the months. For this discussion, I simply want to address our current cultural realities and offer The Third Choice to save the lives of the pre-born baby.

The loosening of shame in our culture has created a new environment where single pregnancy is most often acceptable. What is unacceptable is overlooking and under-emphasizing the adoption option for unwanted pregnancies. It is tragic that too many birth mothers have been propagandized into thinking that the baby in their womb is not a baby but only a conglomeration of irrelevant tissue. The emergence of ultrasound science is proving that a pre-born human is indeed beginning life in the womb. While science is serving women with a needed reality check to pierce the propaganda, many women who chose abortion pre-ultrasound technology face painful regrets that haunt them for a lifetime.

The pro-abortion propaganda which has seeped into our culture has also robbed infertile couples of the joy of parenting. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 7.4 million women have difficulty getting and staying pregnant. And a 2008 American Community Survey estimated that 1.6 million children are adopted. Statistics indicate that childlessness is increasing. While abortion rates are decreasing and pro-life legislation and tax breaks are increasing, “unwanted” babies are still erased from the population rolls, leaving too many couples with empty arms and less possibilities to parent.

Here are two suggestions in simple terms. Adoption is an option that must be rehabilitated. The adoption process is impaired by a bureaucracy that is not only complicated, it is incredibly expensive. Adoption must be elevated in our culture. Part of that process includes changing the national conversation to lift up birth mothers as heroes who, instead of sacrificing the child in their womb, choose to sacrifice nine months of their lives to fill the arms of childless couples. This is the essence of TRUE FEMINISM; a birth mother making The Third Choice to fill the empty arms of an infertile woman.

I am one of the childless women blessed by two brave heroes. They are called “birth mothers.”

Editor’s Note: Today’s post was written by CWA’s friend, Arlene Bridges Samuels. 

Apr 04 2018
1

I Met With Ivanka, Too, and Cecile Richards is Being a Drama Queen

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

In a breathless passage, or as People Magazine prefers to call it, a “riveting passage,” from Cecile Richards’ new book about her life as Planned Parenthood’s president for the past 12 years, she describes meeting with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump in January 2017 to discuss taxpayer funding of her organization, the nation’s largest abortion provider. It is so hyped up and drawn out that I have to wonder about it. Read More

Mar 20 2018
1

CWA Stands for Free Speech at the U.S. Supreme Court

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


NIFLA v. Becerra Oral Arguments Recap

It was a cold, rainy day in the nation’s capital today, but that didn’t stop your representatives from Concerned Women for America (CWA) from being present inside and outside the United States Supreme Court to stand for freedom of speech and for life. We were there as the Court heard oral arguments in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra.

CWA National Field Director Janae Stracke spoke at the rally on the steps of the Supreme Court where numerous groups stood together to send a message to the Court that the American people are paying attention to this case.  Janae praised the work of our CWA of California members who have fought against this law since it was first proposed and energized the valiant crowd, which stood there, despite the challenging weather.

Check out some of the highlights:

I was inside the courtroom to hear the arguments and was able to commend the petitioners, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA). NIFLA has been in our prayers throughout the entire process, and we commend them for how they have stood so strong as the case moved through the lower courts.  I was reminded that CWA actually helped start the organization back in 1993, under the leadership of our friend Thomas Glessner, who still serves as the organization’s president. We thank God for their work.

As an allied attorney, I was also proud to see our friends at the Alliance Defending Freedom give another stellar performance before the Court.  Michael Farris, ADF’s president, argued the case before the justices, and he was calm under intense questioning.

The justice’s interest was evident. Farris started by highlighting the gerrymandering aspects of the case, which are troubling. So troubling they piqued the interest of one of the most liberal members of the court, Justice Elena Kagan. It is evident the State of California wrote this law in such a way as to target pro-life clinics specifically.  The state, represented by Mr. Joshua Klein, tried to argue it was a generally applicable law, not intended to target anyone, but in this, he failed in my estimation.

Justice Samuel Alito honed in on it, asking the state, “If you have a law that’s neutral on its face, but then it has a lot of crazy exemptions, and when you apply all the exemptions, what you’re left with is a very strange pattern and, gee, it turns out that just about the only clinics that are covered by this are pro-life clinics. Do you think it’s possible to infer intentional discrimination in that situation?”

The state had to admit that, yes, it would be a fair inference, even as they denied that was the case here.

The burdensome requirements of this law were also front and center. Justice Sonia Sotomayor tried to get the state to answer a simple question about if a clinic that merely wanted to put up a billboard that said, “Pro-Life” with their logo, would be required to put up the disclaimer at issue in the same size font and in multiple languages.  Mr. Klein danced around on the question until Justice Alito pinned him down and he admitted that, yes, they would be required to put up the disclaimer on the billboard.

Justice Anthony Kenned was visibly disturbed and had this exchange:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Do you agree that mandating speech that the speaker would not otherwise give — indeed, does not agree with — alters the content of the message?

KLEIN: Yes, it does, Your Honor.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: All right. So then you are saying on this billboard, the state can require that the message be — the content of the message be altered, even though they are not providing medical services?

Even Justice Sotomayor returned once more to her hypothetical expressed concerns with the state’s position:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Would it be fair to say — and I still don’t have a full answer to my question — all right, pro-life, nothing else, an unlicensed facility, it meets all of the criteria, has an ad that says just “pro-life” and puts its name. Does it have to give the notice; yes or no?

KLEIN: Yes, if it meets the other criteria. And it’s possible in an as-applied challenge –­

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That seems to me more burdensome and wrong because it’s not tied to an advertisement that is promoting medical services.

It is indeed wrong, and it is one of the reasons why the Court should invalidate the statute here and rule for the pro-life clinics.

Continue to pray for this case. A desicion is expected next summer.

Mar 16 2018
2

Join CWA at the Supreme Court this Coming Tuesday

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

This coming Tuesday, March 20, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a very important pro-life, free speech case: National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra.  And Concerned Women for America (CWA) will be in front of the Supreme Court to rally for freedom and for life.

This is the case I’ve written to you about, where pro-life clinics are being forced, under threat of law, to promote abortion services. The case challenges California’s Reproductive FACT Act (AB 775), which our CWA of California leaders fought so valiantly as it was proposed, because it was a law specifically designed to curtail pro-life clinics’ effectiveness by capriciously requiring them to do what the government could have done much more easily, without infringing on constitutional rights.

If you remember, under this law, pro-life clinics are required to post a notice that must read in multiple languages: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”

In some cases that county office will refer women to Planned Parenthood!

The law also required unlicensed pregnancy centers to put up large signs saying: “This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”

Not only that, the law also requires them to place a similar notice on the pro-life clinic’s advertisement.  The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), who will be arguing the case at the Supreme Court, recently showed what that would look like if a clinic just wanted to advertise their phone number:


Simply Outrageous!

Our First Amendment right to freedom of speech includes not only the right to speak without government silencing you, but also the freedom not to be forced to speak what you don’t want to say.

This is not a religious liberty case, but the implications for religious liberty are daunting. The government in this case is not only forcing clinics and their workers to say something they don’t want to say, it is forcing people of faith to be involved in something that infringes upon their conscience.  And it is completely unnecessary, as we’ve already mentioned.

This should be a 9-0 victory for NIFLA. It is that clear. Other courts have invalidated similar laws in places like Maryland, New York, and Texas. No one should be forced to violate their conscience in order to make government’s job easier.

But, as we know, it is more than about the law when we have judges willing to go beyond the scope of their judicial role.  So, may I ask you to be in prayer daily for this important case?  Pray for Michael Farris and his team, who will be arguing the case, and pray for the justices.

Also, if you are in the Washington, D.C., area, come down to the steps of the Supreme Court on Tuesday (8am-noon). We would love to meet you and stand alongside you as we stand for our constitutional rights and for life.

 

Jan 19 2018
4

House Votes to Protect Infants Born Alive After Abortions

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

Washington, D.C. – Today the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4712, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act by a vote of 241-183. This bill requires any health care practitioner who is present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion to exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and to ensure that such child is immediately admitted to a hospital.

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

“The House has passed commonsense reform that protects infants who are born alive after an attempted abortion. The bill requires appropriate medical care for any child who survives an attempted abortion, as well as establishes criminal penalties for health-care practitioners who violate this requirement. However, the mother of the child born alive may rightly not be prosecuted.

“This is not a restriction on abortion or a way to prosecute women who have abortions. This guarantees that if a child is born alive, he or she will receive the medical care that would otherwise occur if the child was born at that gestation under normal circumstances. This bill places sole responsibility on the medical provider to not simply let the child starve, suffocate, or die of other means, but to fulfill their oath of doing no harm.

“After the horrific Gosnell case and the Center for Medical Progress videos that show Planned Parenthood staff admitting that they perform abortions in specific ways that cause these children to be born alive for tissue procurement preferences, this reform is necessary.”

Dec 27 2017
1

Capitol Hill Brief — 100 No More

By | Blog, Capitol Hill Brief, Planned Parenthood, Religious Liberty, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

 

We’re looking back at God’s many blessings for Concerned Women for America in 2017, and we cannot forget to thank God for his hand directing our 100 No More rallies around the country.

One of the least known facts about the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood is its disturbing connection to population control and eugenics.

The effects are still felt today. Approximately 35% of all abortions in the United States are performed on African-American women, while they represent only 13% of the female population of the country.

This has been a burden for me personally, and that is why Concerned Women for America has been holding rallies to ask the tough questions about abortion and race and what most not be ignored.

Help CWA stand strong on the front lines. Your year-end gift will help us defend critical issues like the sanctity of life and religious freedom. Visit www.CapitolHillBrief.org and give your year-end gift today. If you’d like to hear these commentaries on the radio, find me on your local radio station.