Tag

brief Archives – Concerned Women for America

Your Voice in the Biggest Abortion Case of Our Lifetime

By | Briefs, Dobbs, Legal, News and Events, SCOTUS | No Comments

The Concerned Women for America (CWA) Legal Studies Department is proud to report that we have completed your amicus (friend of the Court’s) brief in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case before the United States Supreme Court.  

From the outset, we let the Court know we are representing you, and we make clear the values for which you stand. “CWA believes abortion harms women, men, their families, and the nation and actively promotes legislation and public education to support women in crisis pregnancies and address the harms caused by pro-abortion policies,” we write on our Statement of Interest. And we conclude saying, “CWA believes it is false to suggest women need abortion to have equality. Moreover, we affirm women are not a monolithic group assenting to a homogeneous worldview on any policy issue so that this honorable Court benefits from hearing and giving value to a broad range of women voices in cases such as this one.” 

We present three basic arguments: (1) states should be free to make a reasonable determination about abortion policy that places a higher value on the life of mothers and their unborn children, (2) the Court has undervalued the state’s interest in women’s health by failing to give the proper weight to the physical, psychological, emotional, and even spiritual harms abortion has had on women’s lives, and finally (3) the Court should give proper weight to the views of a wide range of women’s voices, including those who reject the Court-created “right” to abortion. 

The first argument is simple. The Court’s abortion jurisprudence has no foundation in our Constitution and has therefore been predictably unreliable and inconsistent. We write: 

Advances in science and our understanding of the process and interests involved in the abortion decision today should push the Court not only to reconsider the definition and timing of viability but the factual underpinnings from Roe that it left standing in Casey. The time has come for the Court to rectify the constitutional error of Roe’s quasi-legislative analysis. States should never be prevented from presenting the evidence which undergirds their legislative reasoning as they fight to withstand a constitutional challenge to its laws in areas where the Constitution envisions them having ample freedom to engage based on well-established federalism principles.  

The lower court, in this case, did not even allow the state of Mississippi to show the scientific evidence on which it relied to enact the law at issue. The state’s interest in women’s health was front and center; therefore, we write of the great injustice of the court barring this evidence, “As a women’s organization, amicus considers the omission of the evidence for the state’s interest in the mother’s health from consideration at the pre-viability stage, for example, a grave misuse of the Court’s jurisprudence that the Constitution in no way prescribes.” 

The Constitution’s framework is key to our argument because, though the question before the Court concerns viability, the Court’s abortion jurisprudence problem is much more profound. We conclude: “Though not strictly necessary to resolve this case, the Court’s fundamental problems in this area of law go all the way back to Roe and Doe. To fully vindicate the constitutional principles involved requires an honest reversal.” 

Second, we argue, “Women’s interests should never be irrelevant in the abortion context at every stage of pregnancy, including at the pre-viability stage.” Period. “Amicus represents mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, and friends who have seen the devastation that abortion can have on women’s emotional, psychological, and spiritual lives.” We go on to present some of the studies of the mental health risks associated with abortion and let the Court know, “Any interpretation of viability that forces courts to exclude the consideration of women’s health, not only before choosing to have an abortion but also after that choice, as the lower court decreed here, should not be upheld.”  

And finally, third, we go to CWA’s roots. Pro-abortion women do not represent all women. They do not even represent most women. Pro-life is pro-woman. “[A] new AP-NORC poll found that, ‘most Americans say abortions should generally be illegal during the second and third trimester,’” we report, “One would never guess this by looking at the Court’s abortion precedent.” 

The hundreds of thousands of women amicus represent want to stress that women do not need abortion as a measure of equality. Women have intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of abortion public policy. The fact that men do not give birth is not something they see as a flaw but a feature of the beautiful way women are created—the imago Dei. Being mothers is not to women’s detriment, despite its many challenges. Women celebrate the diversity of our Creator and therefore affirm our dignity, aside from abortion. Amicus affirms the dignity of every woman, including unborn women. 

That is just a sample, but you can access the full document here. We are confident this brief is something you can be proud of, as we stand together before the Supreme Court and proclaim the truth with honesty and respect. 

It is an honor to serve you in such a way. 

CWA Still Committed to the Principles of our Founding

By | Briefs, Defense of Family, Feminist / Women's Issues, LBB, News and Events | No Comments

Precisely forty-two years ago, in 1978, Beverly LaHaye held the first Concerned Women for America (CWA) meeting in San Diego, California, to educate women about the threats presented by the so-called Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). More than 1,200 attended. It was the beginning of what would become the largest public policy organization for women in the nation.

CWA went on to have a resounding victory against the ERA both in the culture and the courtroom. But, believe it or not, some radical feminists never got over that resounding loss. They are still trying to revive the old, putrefied ERA corpse to this day.

CWA continues to stand in their way.

Just last week, we filed a brief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia standing against illegal efforts to bypass precedent and keep the effort to pass the ERA alive. The brief, filed by Michael Farris, who was legal counsel for CWA back when we defeated the ERA the first time, and who is now the CEO and General Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, explains to the court why the efforts to revive this effort violates the constitutional process.

Simply put, the ERA’s ratification deadline has come and gone. The effort is legally dead. The U.S. Congress gave the states seven years to ratify it, and they failed in that effort decades ago. To pass the ERA, they would need to start the process all over again.

Even the radically liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has acknowledged as much, saying at a Georgetown Law School event that the effort to revive it comes “long after the deadline passed” and needs to start over. “I would like to see a new beginning,” she told the moderator Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge M. Margaret McKeown, “I’d like it to start over.”

In our brief, we argue ERA activists themselves have acknowledged that their time has expired in numerous public statements. But now they seek to circumvent the constitutional process and revive the effort. Even their efforts to “remove the deadline,” acknowledge as much:

The Alice Paul Institute admits that “the ERA did not succeed in getting [sufficient] ratifications before the deadline.” The Feminist Majority Foundation explains that Congress must either “rescind the arbitrary timeline on ERA ratification … [or] pass the ERA again.” Likewise, the League of Women Voters of the United States currently urges its followers to “Tell Congress to remove the deadline so the ERA can cross the finish line!” … On its website, Equality Now tells supporters they “now must urge Senators to pass S.J. Res. 6, another joint resolution to eliminate the deadline. It is more important than ever to urge Senators to eliminate the original deadline!”

The ERA was bad policy then and is still bad policy today. It is why the American people rejected it. Feminists seek to use it to force their radical pro-abortion policies on the country, like finally getting our tax dollars to pay for abortions up to the moment of birth. Big abortion businesses like NARAL and Planned Parenthood have long argued that ERAs at the state level guarantee a right to taxpayer-funded abortions.

The president of the National Organization for Women argued, “The ERA would codify reproductive rights in the Constitution and greatly support low-income women who are the first to lose access to affordable birth control when family planning services are reduced.”

And today we know the ERA would be even worse for women, given the monumental fight in which we are engaged in an effort to protect women sports. Proponents of the ERA want to redefined the word “sex” in federal law opening the door for men who identify as women to hijack women’s rights, safety, and protections.

CWA is currently fighting in courts and legislatures around the country for the right of women in women’s shelter to prevent males from coming into their spaces, a development that could further aggravate the emotional and psychological pain of women who have suffered domestic abuse, rape, and even trafficking in some cases.

The bottom line is that the ERA continues to be a disaster for women and CWA is, once again, leading the fight against it to preserve the intrinsic and unique value of every woman. We won back then. And we will do so again.