Category

Planned Parenthood

Doreen Denny: Planned Parenthood Chose to Give up Federal Funding – It wasn’t Forced out of Title X Program

By | News and Events, Planned Parenthood, Social / Cultural Issues | No Comments

CWA’s Senior Director of Government Relations, Doreen Denny, wrote an op-ed featured on FoxNews.com about Planned Parenthood’s recent decision.

“Planned Parenthood claims it was “forced out” of the federal Title X family planning program by the Trump administration. Hardly. The choice to exit was Planned Parenthood’s alone.

Title X is the federal program that provides access to contraceptive services, supplies and information. Priority goes to serving low-income individuals.

When the law was enacted in 1970, Congress prohibited funds from going to promote or perform abortion as a “method of family planning.” That requirement has never changed.

Rules prohibiting abortion were bent and unenforced under previous administrations. President Trump determined to realign Title X regulations to uphold federal law. The new rules were finalized in March after a public comment period that gave Americans the chance to weigh in.”

Read Doreen Denny’s Entire Piece Here:

See other Content Featuring Doreen Denny Here:

Planned Parenthood Withdraws From Title X Program Over Trump Rule

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

CWA’s Senior Director of Government Relations, Doreen Denny, was featured on NPR discussing Planned Parenthood’s withdrawal from Title X family planning program.

“Planned Parenthood is leaving the federal Title X family planning program rather than comply with new Trump administration rules regarding abortion counseling.

The new rules issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services earlier this year prohibit Title X grantees from providing or referring patients for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or medical emergency.”

Read and Listen to the Entire Piece Here:

See other Content Featuring Doreen Denny Here:

CWA to Planned Parenthood: Choice is in Your Court, Not 9th Circuit’s

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

WASHINGTON, DC – On Monday, August 19, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services must receive plans from Title X grantees, including Planned Parenthood, proving how they will comply with new rules to uphold long-standing federal law. These rules require full financial and physical separation of Title X funds from abortion services and bar abortion referrals in order to fulfill Congressional intent prohibiting abortion as “a method of family planning.” The rules also require grantees to report any evidence of sexual abuse or sex trafficking in accordance with state law, rules that are needed to combat documented cases of Planned Parenthood’s complicit actions shielding sexual abuse and sex traffickers.

Doreen Denny, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee’s Senior Director of Government Relations, responded to Planned Parenthood’s high-profile threat to pull out of the Title X program barring a court-ordered injunction:

“Planned Parenthood has no entitlement to federal funding, and they apparently have no plans to comply with federal rules either.  For years, Planned Parenthood has skirted federal law to promote its abortion business on the backs of the American taxpayer. If Planned Parenthood truly cared about promoting health, it would stop peddling abortion and start supporting women. Planned Parenthood’s threat to withdraw from the Title X program proves one thing: health care is not their primary business; abortion is. The choice to comply is in Planned Parenthood’s court, not the Ninth Circuit’s.”

###

Use Your Voice – Episode 12, Abortion and Eugenics

By | Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life, Use Your Voice | 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 Kentuckyand you won’t want to miss our discussion of its potential impact and what it means for the protection of the unborn.

 

Concerned Women for America Celebrates Long-Overdue Enforcement of Life-Affirming Title X Rules

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

 

Washington, D.C. – Earlier this week, the Trump Administration announced that restrictions over abortion-referrals and over clinics receiving federal funding will take effect and be enforced by Health and Human Services (HHS). Family planning clinics will no longer be allowed to provide abortion referrals and must be financially separate from any provision of abortion procedures. HHS is now finally free to carry out the will of the people who overwhelmingly support a clear separation between taxpayer dollars and abortion advocacy.

Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), the largest public policy organization for women in the country had this to say:

“This is a day to celebrate life-affirming policies and the rule of law. For way too long, abortion advocates have relied on activist judges to carry out their bidding, despite the many situations when the letter of the law clearly expressed the American people’s desire to promote the intrinsic value and respect of every human life. They tried that in this case again and delayed the implementation of these common sense rules through misplaced and overreaching nationwide injunctions that prevented HHS from doing its job. But they have failed. And failed even in one of the most liberal courts in the land, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“President Donald J. Trump’s unwavering commitment to the protection of human life and his focus on constitutional judges who follow the law, instead of promoting personal policy preferences through judicial opinions, shines brightly as we contemplate this victory.

“The consensus-building principle of prohibiting taxpayer funded abortion has enjoyed overwhelming bi-partisan support over the years. But abortion advocates continue to grow increasingly radical in their positions, and liberals in Congress have sadly fallen right in line with the idea of forcing Americans to pay for abortion-related services, even when they have moral, religious or philosophical objections to it.

“Conservative women all over the country are grateful to the President for his leadership and applaud the men and women of HHS for their steady commitment to the enforcement of these rules to ensure statutory compliance with the law.”

 

 

Click here to see Penny Nance’s Statement on the death of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

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.

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.

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.

 

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 

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.

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.  

 

Use Your Voice – Episode 8, Exposing the Darkness of “Big Abortion”

By | Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life, Use Your Voice | No Comments

Listen to the amazing story of how one young man took on the abortion industry, exposing their greed and callous regard for human life on video. David Daleiden, the founder of The Center for Medical Progress (CMP), exposed Planned Parenthood benefitting from the sale of aborted baby body parts, including hearts, brains, and lungs. Planned Parenthood said at the time that the videos were “heavily edited.” But a recent court ruling vindicated David and CMP’s work, ruling the videos were authentic and not deceptively edited as the lower district court had insinuated.

What You Can Do to Reject infanticide and the reckless crusade to expand late-term abortion!

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

The U.S. Senate is poised to vote Monday, February 25, on the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.  This crucial legislation would shield a newborn who survives an attempted abortion from being denied the right to live.  Doctors would be required to provide the same medical care to a newborn survivor of abortion that would be offered to any other baby at the same gestational age.

Unfortunately — unbelievably! — infants born alive are not guaranteed these protections under federal law, giving abortion doctors the green light to turn their backs on a helpless baby after a botched abortion.  Such negligence is nothing less than enabling infanticide.

We need you to act today.  Too many senators are in the pocket of the big abortion lobby.  They are doing everything they can to avoid the issue and obstruct a vote.   Even if your senators are strong on the life issue, they need to hear from you and know you are standing with them.

U.S. senators are home next week (February 19-22), and a vote is expected when they return.  We are asking you to visit the district offices nearest you NEXT WEEK and tell your two U.S. senators to reject infanticide and vote for the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

If you are unable to visit in person, please contact both of your senators.  Time is short, so please make this a priority! (Here is the link to our action center with a sample message you can personalize.)

It is unbelievable that saving a newborn baby fighting for life should be a partisan issue.  But the left has completely rejected common sense.  They are not willing to call infanticide for what it is and are spreading lies about the need for the legislation.  Here’s the truth: federal law does not protect a survivor of abortion.  At least one-third of states, including New York, have extreme abortion laws that make infanticide LEGAL.  Virginia Gov Ralph Northam publicly endorsed infanticide when he defended a radical abortion proposal that would make abortion legal at any time in pregnancy, including while giving birth!  This is insanity.

Thank you for taking action on this issue.  Please pray that the U.S. Senate will vote to save these little ones.

Wake Up America: Know Where Your State Stands on Abortion

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

This document provides an overview of state laws (as of February 8, 2019) as they relate to late-term abortion, born-alive protections, and public funding of abortion.

Some states adhere to the Roe standard of viability, which is defined by the Supreme Court in Roe as “the capacity for meaningful life outside the womb, albeit with artificial aid” and not just “momentary survival.” Unless specifically stated otherwise, references to “health” adhere to the definition of health in Doe v. Bolton: “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient.” If a state is listed as “N/A,” then there are no state laws regarding either an abortion limit or exceptions. However, these states are subject to the federal precedent of viability in Roe, but if Roe were overturned, then these states would have no limits on abortion. [READ MORE …]

Denise Cappuccio at the Stop Abortion Extremism in Virginia Rally

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

By now you’ve probably seen the shocking video that went viral showing Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran defending a bill that she introduced, which she freely admitted would allow abortion-on-demand up until the moment of birth. Denise Cappuccio, CWA’s Director of Finance and a constituent of Delegate Tran, spoke at a recent rally in support of the unborn and against this atrocious form of extremism on the issue of abortion.

Fifth Circuit: Planned Parenthood Undercover Videos Authentic and Not Deceptively Edited

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

CWA President & CEO Penny Nance talks with CMP Founder David Daleiden at the 2019 March for Life

After being exposed for their unscrupulous attempts to sell baby body parts for profit, Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the nation, tried to discredit the evidence in a massive PR campaign. They claim the videos which clearly showed they sought to benefit from the sale of aborted baby hearts, brains, lungs, etc. were “deceptively edited.”

This blatant lie was so flagrantly promoted by the liberal mainstream media that many Americans, including some judges, took it as fact.

Thankfully, we still have independent-minded judges who refuse to adjudicate based on popular beliefs, choosing instead to follow the law as written, even in difficult cases. Such was the case with a panel from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals who took a look at the evidence in Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas v. Smith.

The panel found a district court who had fully sided with Planned Parenthood’s characterization of the video evidence based on their word alone had abused its discretion. The Fifth Circuit panel composed of Judges Edith Jones, E. Grady Jolly, and Catharina Haynes, said, “The district court stated, inaccurately, that the CMP video had not been authenticated and suggested that it may have been edited” (Emphasis mine). The appellate panel was not just acting on emotion or personal preference by writing this, there was no evidence, aside from Planned Parenthood’s word, to sustain the district court’s characterization of the videos. The court notes:

In fact, the record reflects that [the Texas Health and Human Services Commission Office of Inspector General (OIG)] had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited. And the plaintiffs did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage. (Emphasis mine)

This simple statement of truth has sent shockwaves around the country. And we shouldn’t be surprised. Just as darkness cannot withstand the light, lies crumble at the sight of truth. The court’s acknowledgment is also great vindication for David Daleiden, the founder of The Center for Medical Progress (CMP), who produced the groundbreaking undercover videos exposing the dubious, unethical, immoral, and potentially criminal enterprise.

Daleiden said in a statement: “CMP’s undercover video series caught Planned Parenthood’s top leaders openly admitting to selling baby body parts for profit in violation of federal law. Tonight, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vindicated our citizen journalism work by debunking Planned Parenthood’s smear that the videos were ‘heavily edited’ or ‘doctored.’”

The Texas case dealt with the state’s efforts to terminate its Medicaid provider agreement with Planned Parenthood after their unethical behavior was revealed by the CMP videos. Federal law allows states to terminate a Medical provider agreement when, as in this case, there is evidence of a program violation. The Court explained that, “A ‘program violation’ includes any violation of federal law, state law, or the Texas Medicaid program policies.”

Federal law makes it a crime “to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce” (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Not only that, it also requires “no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy [be] made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue” (42 U.S.C. 289g-1(b)(2)). This is exactly what we see in the forensically-authenticated CMP videos.

The court noted several statements where the videos clearly show Planned Parenthood was willing and able to change the abortion procedure to obtain “intact specimens.” Quoting their representative:

Yeah. So she knows what’s involved in modifying what we need to do to get you the specimens that are intact because she’s done it. … And she was doing those here.

Note Planned Parenthood not only admits it is willing to alter its abortion procedures for this purpose in the future, but it alleges they have done it in the past, also. There are numerous statements of this nature. The lower court dismissed all those statements because it wholeheartedly took Planned Parenthood’s word that they didn’t mean any of it. The appellate panel said, “The district court credited [Planned Parenthood’s] self-justifying explanations.”

It would be like a court believing an abuser because he shows up in court and says he didn’t do anything, while dismissing outright all the bruises and testimony from the victim. The district court’s decision was not based on facts but preference. One can see that when the appellate court notes the lower court actually concluded there was no “evidence, or even a scintilla of evidence,” for Texas’ conclusions about Planned Parenthood. Whatever you think of their decision, any reasonable observer can see that the videos are something – gosh, are the millions of people troubled by them just uneducated troglodytes?

It is that type of extreme, unmeasured action by a judge which shows they are not approaching a case and the evidence in good faith. The appellate court, on the other hand, approached the case with the evenhandedness that is at the heart of ensuring a just outcome. It identifies the case as a case of “judicial review of an agency action.” And accordingly, it gives proper deference to the state agency on its determinations. It noted, “despite being litigated with the trappings of the abortion debate, this is fundamentally a statutory construction case, not an abortion case.”

This is the model of judicial restraint that should be paramount in our judicial system. The court gives deference to the state agency in making its determination based on legitimate evidence of misconduct.

Planned Parenthood argued that Texas could not even make a determination on them because “OIG has insufficient expertise to determine the qualifications of abortion providers.” Unbelievably, the lower court had gone along with Planned Parenthood in that argument too.

Fortunately, the appellate panel gave a proper smackdown to that inane notion:

We reject this argument. OIG is the agency that the state of Texas has empowered to investigate and penalize Medicaid program violations. The agency is in the business of saying when providers are qualified and when they are not. That the Chief Medical Officer is a surgeon—and not himself an abortion provider— does not mean that he deserves no deference when deciding whether a provider has failed to meet the medical and ethical standards the state requires. It is even odder to claim that federal judges, who have no experience in the regulations and ethics applicable to Medicaid or medical practice, much less in regard to harvesting fetal organs for research, should claim superior expertise. (Emphasis mine)

The appellate court ultimately vacated the preliminary injunction imposed by the district court. It remanded the case back to limit the review to the agency record, taking a serious look at the evidence in the videos and not merely at Planned Parenthood’s self-serving explanations after the fact. It also asked the lower court to review the case under the proper arbitrary-and-capricious standard. Here’s hoping they follow through on their application of the law this time, regardless of the political pressures that come with any case even remotely associated with Planned Parenthood.

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