Tag

Constitution Archives – Concerned Women for America

Vote for Your Kids

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events, Substack, Virginia | No Comments

Democrat Virginia Delegate Elizabeth Guzmán is introducing a bill that would allow the government to charge parents with a felony if they do not affirm their child’s gender confusion in any way that the child wants. The bill would expand the state’s definition of “Abused or neglected child” to include a child whose parent even threatens to inflict a “mental injury on the basis of the child’s gender identity or sexual orientation.”

 

This is, of course, yet another thing that “would never happen.” I recently came across a post from just a year ago where noted Christian leaders mocked the concerns of conservative Christians raising precisely this possibility. I would bet even today, as many read this, some will be inclined to think, “No, something will happen to stop this, and it will never be.”

 

To complicate matters, the fact is that what usually happens is that the first part of that sentiment may be valid for a little while. In other words, even though you are reading about Guzmán’s bill now, it is not new. She’s presented it before. Every time she presents it, it is closer to being passed. Guzmán would have been ostracized within her own party a few years ago. Today, she has their full support, and anyone opposing her stands on the fringes.

 

Why? Because most people thought “It would never happen.” Then, as I hope you realize, it will inevitably pass, as the people who thought “It would never happen” wonder, “How did we get here?” Well, our silence allowed it. Our busy lives. Our apathy….

 

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Unprecedented Raid-CWA Responds

By | National Sovereignty, News and Events | No Comments

Enough is enough. The unprecedented raid of the personal residence of former President of the United States Donald J. Trump strikes at core foundational principles of liberty. Americans, regardless of political persuasion, must stand against it. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) must be held accountable for these destabilizing and seemingly politically motivated actions against the political opponent of the current Administration.

 

But congressional accountability will not happen without our voices demanding the sort of bold action that this historic moment demands. We need to band together to make our voices heard.

 

This is not a time for the faint of heart. Many may shy away from the big bureaucratic state, with its promise of many more IRS agents in the near future, but with your help, Concerned Women for America (CWA) will not back down. We will fight for your rights and stand up to their abuses, as we have done before.

 

Would you please prayerfully consider supporting our efforts at this crucial time?

 

We have stood up to Big Government before. CWA was audited by the IRS during the Clinton years, coming out of the ordeal stronger than ever. And just last year, when reports of the FBI’s unjust targeting of CWA surfaced, we immediately stood up to their abuses, prompting senators into action.

 

We will not be bullied. And that is why the voice of conservative women standing together is so crucial now that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI seem to be prioritizing their work by political persuasion. We saw it with the targeting of parents at school board meetings as “domestic terrorists,” and we are seeing it now with this abuse of power in what is allegedly a record dispute.

 

If we allow this sort of action to go unaccounted for, there is no question that escalation and manipulation of government agencies for political gain will only increase in the years to come, putting all our liberties at risk.

 

Please, consider giving sacrificially to make sure we can present a robust challenge to these unprecedented attacks. And continue to pray for our nation.

SCOTUS

Super-Duper Supreme Court Term

By | Case Vault, Legal, SCOTUS | No Comments

Remember when some tried to sell Roe as “super-duper” precedent? Well, it didn’t work. Roe is gone (all praise be to God!), but we have been indeed left with something “super-duper”—this Supreme Court term. It was just superb.

 

It all starts with Dobbs, of course (and that would be more than enough to celebrate), but it went beyond that, and I wanted to take a moment and celebrate with you each victory by presenting to you a short summary of the term’s most amazing top 5 wins!

 

  • Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization— The Court declared unequivocally that the United States Constitution does not and has never conferred a right to abortion. Therefore, the Court spent much time discussing the grave errors in the Roe and Casey framework before formally overruling them and returning the authority to states to be free to protect unborn life in the best way they see fit.

 

  • Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson— Just before the Dobbs case was argued, the Court heard a challenge to the Texas Heartbeat Act. The state law prohibits most abortions after a heartbeat can be detected through an ultrasound, but it has no state law enforcement mechanism, only private enforcement action. The pro-abortion side wanted the Supreme Court to intervene to stop the law, but the Court correctly refused to intervene. The practical result was that almost 8,000 babies were saved in the first three months after the law went into effect.

 

  • Shurtleff v. City of Boston— A unanimous Court here agreed that the First Amendment rights of Harold Shurtleff, the director of Camp Constitution, were violated by the city of Boston when it refused to allow him to fly the Christian flag at a public pole that the city had made available for private groups to fly different kind of flags indiscriminately.

 

  • Carson v. Makin— The Court held Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for generally available tuition assistance payments to parents who lived in a district that did not operate a secondary school of their own violated the parent’s First Amendment free speech rights. Parents are free then to use the money to send their kids to any school they want, treating all schools, secular or religious, equally, instead of targeting religious schools for discrimination.

  • Finally, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District— the Coach Kennedy case, as most of you know it. Coach Kennedy was unjustly fired for silently praying at midfield after football games. The Supreme Court has now made official the fact that he was fired, not only unjustly but unconstitutionally. What a sweet victory for this man and his family, who have fought for almost seven years to protect our religious liberty rights. The Court held that both the free exercise and free speech clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual’s right to engage in a personal religious observance. The Court said, “The Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.”

 

Can we stop and thank God for His goodness, mercy, and grace? All of these are part of just one Supreme Court term. We can expect more! The Constitutional imbalance we have been living (and suffering) under is slowly being straightened back to a more faithful and impartial application of justice. We are sure to reap the blessings of these actions for decades to come.

Grasping at Straws on Dobbs

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

The boorish left is having a full-blown meltdown over the leaked opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and its impending official release by the United States Supreme Court. Justice Samuel Alito’s unassailable, monumental takedown of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey’s complete lack of constitutional underpinning has them panicked.

 

It is certainly not the result they want. That is the reason for all the screeching, weeping, and gnashing of teeth we have seen in front of the Supreme Court and at the constitutionalist justices’ homes in clear violation of federal law. But the worst part about it is that Roe’s legal reasoning is such a dud that all they are left with is trying to manipulate what they see as the internal soap opera at the Court. Their target, as usual, is Chief Justice Roberts, who they hope can somehow swindle other justices into keeping Roe alive.

 

Politico’s Senior Legal Affairs Reporter Josh Gerstein’s latest “What a Roberts compromise on abortion could look like” is the latest not-so-subtle attempt at this. “It’s a longshot,” says the tagline on the piece, “but court watchers are closely eyeing the chief justice for middle ground on Roe.”

 

Gerstein acknowledges no one wants this middle ground. The pro-abortion side emphatically rejected it at oral arguments. Still, they can dream. Here is how he summarized the feeble argument of this dream opinion: “The central organizing principle for a Roberts opinion is likely to be one he has articulated many times: that the court shouldn’t issue a sweeping decision when a more modest one would do.” …

 

 

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Female Athletes Are Being Victimized to Pander to the Personal Fantasies of a Few

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation, Women's Sports | No Comments

Women athletes are in danger of losing their rights to the desires of men who feel they are women.

 

The anti-science effort to erase the physical differences between men and women is regressive and dangerous. Women are being victimized in the name of an AstroTurf diversity that discriminates against all who do not conform to the personal fantasies of a few.

 

The effort has consequences that go well beyond women’s athletics. In April, a male Rikers inmate claiming to be a woman was sentenced to seven years for raping a female prisoner in the women’s section of the jail. Concerned Women for America, the organization I represent — a Christian, conservative organization — is supporting a lawsuit by the liberal feminist organization Women’s Liberation Front to fight for women’s rights on this front.

 

We are also witnessing the pernicious promotion of transgender ideology in public schools, which ignores the sadpractical reality of the harmful long-term effects of life-altering surgical procedures on all young people, but on young women in particular.

 

But legally speaking, the women’s sports aspect of this battle, which has the backing of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, should be preventing the injustices we are witnessing…

 

Read the rest of this op-ed as featured exclusively on The Western Journal.

You Can’t Undo the Supreme Court Leak

By | LBB, Legal | No Comments

The United States Supreme Court has stayed relatively quiet following the shameful news of the leaked Dobbs draft opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement condemning the leak and calling for an investigation, but we have heard nothing else since.

 

As you know, Concerned Women for America (CWA), though encouraged by the content of the opinion, refuse to engage in any public analysis of its content, believing the ethical breach by someone at the Court, presumably a liberal clerk, worthy of the utmost contempt.

 

In a recent interview, Justice Clarence Thomas tried to put words to the magnitude of the breach, and I think you must be aware of his wise words. He was interviewed by his former law clerk John Yoo at an event in Dallas. He said:

 

“[T]he institution that I’m a part of if someone said that one line of one opinion would be leaked by anyone in you would say that, ‘Oh, that’s impossible. No one would ever do that.’ There was such a belief in the rule of law, belief in the court, a belief in what we were doing, that that was verboten. It was beyond anyone’s understanding, or at least anyone’s imagination that someone would do that. And look where we are, where now that trust or that belief is gone forever. When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it.”

 

The Supreme Court will never be the same. We must reckon with that reality. We don’t even know the extent of this breach yet. Help me pray that the person responsible is exposed convincingly so that they can be severely punished. That would help tremendously. We expected this would be quickly resolved, given how tight things are kept within the Court, but nothing has been announced.

 

The warning is broader than the Court. Justice Thomas said:

 

“I think we are in danger of destroying the institutions that are required for a free society. You can’t have a civil society, a free society, without a stable legal system. You can’t have one without stability and things like property or interpretation and impartial judiciary. And I’ve been in this business long enough to know just how fragile it is.”

 

Most Americans can see that. Both the Court and the Country are in a fragile state. We must proceed with caution and urgency. We need courage. Justice Thomas spoke about that too. “I think a lot of people lack courage,” he said, “like they know what is right, and they’re scared to death of doing it.” He is right, of course. We need help from above, no doubt.

Boston Violates First Amendment by Targeting Christian Flag

By | Case Vault, LBB, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

All nine justices of the United States Supreme Court agree in Shurtleff v. City of Boston. The city violated the First Amendment rights of Harold Shurtleff, the director of Camp Constitution, by refusing to allow him to fly the Christian Flag at a public pole where the city allowed private groups to fly their flags indiscriminately.

 

“The most salient feature of this case is that Boston neither actively controlled these flag raisings nor shaped the messages the flags sent,” wrote Justice Stephen Breyer in his majority opinion as the Court concluded what Boston was engaging in was not government speech. “Boston told the public that it sought ‘to accommodate all applicants’ who wished to hold events at Boston’s ‘public forums.’” Except for those pesky Christians.

 

Thankfully, the Court 9-0 (though using different rationales) declared, “Boston’s refusal to let petitioners fly their flag violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” The Court correctly stated, “When the government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude private speech based on “‘religious viewpoint’; doing so ‘constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.’”

 

Breyer’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. They were also three concurring opinions. One by Justice Kavanaugh, a second by Justice Alito joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, and a third by Justice Gorsuch joined by Justice Thomas.

 

Justice Kavanaugh, concurring, made clear this case only got to the Supreme Court “because of a government official’s mistaken understanding of the Establishment Clause.” We should also add that many judges share the mistaken view, also. But as Kavanaugh writes, “Under the Constitution, a government may not treat religious persons, religious organizations, or religious speech as second-class.”

 

Justice Alito’s concurrence agrees with the Court’s ultimate conclusion but disagrees with the majority’s analysis. And with good reason. Justice Alito rightly points out that some of the “tests” the majority uses to answer the question here, like “the extent to which the government has actively shaped or controlled expression,” can actually be used by bad actors to discriminate against those with whom it disagrees. But that, too, would be an impermissible violation of the First Amendment.

 

Justice Alito smartly advocates for a more precise and robust definition of government speech, which, after all, is the only organism restricted by the First Amendment. “Government speech,” he writes, “is thus the purposeful communication of a governmentally determined message by a person exercising a power to speak for a government.” Furthermore, after establishing that government speech is at issue, “the government must establish it did not rely on a means that abridges the speech of persons acting in a private capacity.” This is the type of clear definitional guidelines that will help judges around the country administer justice in a much fairer way. Let us hope Justice Alito’s test finds wide acceptance in the years to come.

 

Finally, Justice Gorsuch writes a concurring masterpiece on what is known as the Lemon test. This is an approach that Concerned Women for America  has asked the Court to overturn on many occasions. As he wrote, “Lemon ignored the original meaning of the Establishment Clause, it disregarded mountains of precedent, and it substituted a serious constitutional inquiry with a guessing game.”

 

The historical discussion especially is worthwhile in Gorsuch’s concurrence; I commend it to you. Here is a taste (citations omitted):

 

As a close look at these hallmarks and our history reveals, “[n]o one at the time of the founding is recorded as arguing that the use of religious symbols in public contexts was a form of religious establishment.” For most of its existence, this country had an “unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life.” In fact and as we have seen, it appears that, until Lemon, this Court had never held the display of a religious symbol to constitute an establishment of religion. The simple truth is that no historically sensitive understanding of the Establishment Clause can be reconciled with a rule requiring governments to “roa[m] the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine.” Our Constitution was not designed to erase religion from American life; it was designed to ensure “respect and tolerance.”

 

It is a critical discussion that accentuates his clear thinking on religious liberty issues.

 

This is a great win that envisions even greater protections for religious freedom for decades to come—a great development for all Americans regardless of religious belief.

 

Reason Demands an End to Roe

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

A young wife and her husband were enthusiastically awaiting the birth of their first baby. It was a girl. They had already done a big baby shower with family and friends; they had bought all the furniture and decorated the room— a beautiful retreat of yellow and pink. They had faithfully kept every doctor’s appointment and attended all the classes, learning everything about what to expect when you’re expecting. They had even named her: Mary Beth.

But at 28 weeks (7 months), mom confesses she was not ready. She is just too young and not mentally and emotionally prepared to be responsible for another human being. So instead, she wants to have an abortion.

Dad earnestly pleads with her to no avail. “It’s my body,” came the answer.

“Is an abortion even legal so far along in a pregnancy,” he thought? Yes, one quick Google search informed him that there are no limits even for late-term abortions in their home state of New Jersey. He quickly found a clinic’s website offering the service and explaining a third-trimester abortion procedure, but he could not bear to finish reading the short description. He even explored legal options but has no recourse.

So, on a day they were supposed to go to another doctor’s visit and see their baby girl on the latest sonogram, mom will instead drive to an abortion clinic to “terminate her pregnancy.”

Such is the state of abortion policy in our nation. It is part of the wretched legacy of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that invented a constitutional right to abortion…

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Conservatives Should Demand Respect on KBJ Nomination

By | Breyer, Judicial Nominations, Legal, News and Events, SCOTUS, Vacancy | No Comments

“I’m going to remember this,” he vowed.

During the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, Sen. Lindsey Graham galvanized conservatives everywhere when he stood up against the injustices being committed against “a good man.” He spoke for millions of Americans who were outraged by the unjustified antics they were witnessing in the Senate Judiciary Committee when he called the hearings “the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics.”

Conservatives want that fire back as the Senate considers Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Joe Biden’s nominee to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court — not only from Graham but from all conservative senators.

Are they going to put up with the same malicious shenanigans by liberal radicals with this nomination? Some Democrats have already started to accuse GOP senators of racism before the hearings have even started. Conservatives should not put up with it. Not after Kavanaugh…

Click here to read Mario’s op-ed as featured exclusively on The Western Journal.

 

Leftists viciously malign Clarence Thomas

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

Justice Clarence Thomas has done well for himself.  He is in no need of defense by anybody.  His life and work are inspiring by any measure.  But the despicable, racially motivated, coordinated media attacks against him and his family are so unfair that even a slight appreciation of justice would compel a reasonable person to speak.

His professionalism and honor play a part, too, so that reasonable observers can appreciate that in shining a light on the praiseworthy work of the good justice and the nefarious motives of his critics, one speaks for him who “cannot speak for himself,” given the seriousness with which he takes the oath he took.

What pushed me over the edge to add my voice to those decrying the media smear machine against Justice Thomas and his family was a loathsome sentence written by a Washington Post “reporter” that described Justice Thomas as “the Black justice whose rulings often resemble the thinking of White conservatives.”  It’s been a week, and I cannot shake it.

Can you imagine the deep prejudice that’s required among not one, but a group of writers and editors to publish a sentence like that in a “respectable” newspaper?  They can try to correct it all they want, but the animus that produced such a vile sentiment is alive and well at the Post.

Click here to read Mario’s op-ed as exclusively featured on American Thinker.

Supreme Court Releases Opinions in Texas Abortion Law Cases

By | CWA of Texas, Dobbs, LBB, Legal, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, SCOTUS | No Comments

As we discussed recently, the state of Texas presented a novel problem to the United States Supreme Court by enacting a law prohibiting abortions after a heartbeat is detected, but giving the right of enforcement to private citizens and not to any state official. Today, the Court handed down its opinion dismissing most of the claims but preserving the challenge going forward. Here is a short summary.

When abortionists sought to challenge S. B. 8, the Texas Heartbeat Act, they really had no one to sue because no state official is charged with its enforcement and no private citizen had sued. Still, they tried to push the legal envelope by suing a whole host of people, including state judges or state law clerks, the attorney general, some licensing officials, and even a potential private citizen defendant in an effort to enjoin the law and prevent it from going into effect.

The United States also tried to intervene, given its radical pro-abortion stance under President Joe Biden. That was the easy part (United States v. Texas). Its claim was summarily dismissed by the Court (8-1), as expected, with only Justice Sotomayor dissenting. The United States simply has no business interfering with this state law and basically seeking an unprecedented injunction against all persons in the country. Their effort would break with the most fundamental principles of federalism in our Constitution.

The more interesting challenge (Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson) is a bit more complicated. In its opinion, the Court wanted to stress first what it was not deciding. “In this preliminary posture, the ultimate merits question, whether S. B. 8 is consistent with the Federal Constitution, is not before the Court,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch who wrote the majority opinion.

He summarized, “The Court concludes that the petitioners may pursue a pre-enforcement challenge against certain of the named defendants but not others.” So, who can be sued? Well, not court officials: “Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, named defendants Penny Clarkston (a state-court clerk) and Austin Jackson (a state court judge) should be dismissed.” Not the attorney general: “Texas Attorney General Paxton should be dismissed.” And not a private citizen prematurely (an affidavit showed he had no intention to sue): “The sole private defendant, Mr. Dickson, should be dismissed.”

But the Court leaves open “other defendants (Stephen Carlton, Katherine Thomas, Allison Benz, and Cecile Young), each of whom is an executive licensing official who may or must take enforcement actions against the petitioners if the petitioners violate the terms of Texas’s Health and Safety Code, including S. B. 8. Eight Members of the Court hold that sovereign immunity does not bar a pre-enforcement challenge to S. B. 8 against these defendants.”

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from this last pronouncement, saying he would have dismissed the case against “all respondents, including the four licensing officials.”

It also declared “petitioners may bring a pre-enforcement challenge in federal court as one means to test S. B. 8’s compliance with the Federal Constitution. Other pre-enforcement challenges are possible too; one such case is ongoing in state court in which the plaintiffs have raised both federal and state constitutional claims against S. B. 8. Any individual sued under S. B. 8 may raise state and federal constitutional arguments in his or her defense without limitation.”

So, the bottom line is that the challenge to this law will continue as to the allowed defendants.

It is important to note that Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, expressed considerable frustration with the law in concurring in part and dissenting in part. He wrote, “Texas has employed an array of stratagems designed to shield its unconstitutional law from judicial review.”

It seems clear the Chief views the law as an attack on the Court itself. “The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings … Indeed, ‘[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.’[] The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake,” he wrote.

We will have to wait for a further challenge to see where the more conservative justices land on the issue.

As I mentioned before, this problem is of the Court’s own making, by injecting itself into the political abortion debate. Texas is simply trying to protect life, which most of its citizens demand, and trying to work within the arbitrary and dubious parameters the Supreme Court has set up. The best way for the Court to guard its legitimacy would be to reverse Roe and Casey in the Dobbs case, and then states like Texas would be free to protect life, without having to come up with innovative ideas to appease the Supreme Court’s personal preferences.

Texas Abortion Law Cases at the Supreme Court—What was it All About?

By | Case Vault, Legal, News and Events, Texas | No Comments

On Monday (November 1, 2021), the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard oral arguments in two cases (Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, and United States v. Texas) challenging the Texas Heartbeat Act (S.B. 8). The law prohibits most abortions after a heartbeat can be detected through an ultrasound.

Other laws around the country have tried to do this only to run afoul of SCOTUS’ arbitrary viability line which makes a law unconstitutional in the Court’s view.

The Texas Heartbeat Act is unique because it explicitly prohibits any state law enforcement from enforcing the law. Instead, it allows any private citizen to bring a civil suit against anyone who performs or helps someone obtain an illegal abortion.

Because of this, abortionists cannot simply sue state officials, as they usually do to prevent the implementation of this law. And that is the question before the Court in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, “whether a State can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.”

This has confused many people because popular media outlets love to fixate on the “war on women” and the abortion narrative. But I hope you can see by the question presented how the issue before the Court is not really about abortion. We have a fundamental disagreement about abortion being a “constitutional right,” obviously. It is not. Still, the legal question, as presented, could be about any other constitutional right.

This is why even some of the more constitutionally faithful justices expressed concerns about the law. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked about an amicus brief filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition that argued that a similar law would be used against Second Amendment rights in liberal states. He said, “[I]t could be free speech rights. It could be free exercise of religion rights.  It could be Second Amendment rights. If this position is accepted here, the theory of the amicus brief is that it can be easily replicated in other states that disfavor other constitutional rights.”

Justice Clarence Thomas asked about the concern that those bringing the suit have apparently suffered no injury, even though they will be awarded monetary relief. “[U]sually, when you think of traditional torts, there is a duty, there’s an injury to the individual. It’s a private matter. There is no requirement here that there be an injury to the plaintiff.”  To this, the Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone rightfully answered that the Texas Supreme Court does, in fact, require an injury in fact, even if none is explicitly asserted in the text of the law. But Justice Thomas struggled to find the injury, “So what would that injury be in this — under S.B. 8, if it’s an injury in fact?”

Those attacking the law had serious difficulty making their case, too. SCOTUS has strong precedent which restricts a federal court’s power to enjoin state judges. That is why the pro-abortion side sought to enjoin state law clerks. However, this seemed artificial and unenforceable ultimately. Justice Samuel Alito expressed the skepticism this way:

“[A] clerk performs a ministerial function. Somebody shows up with a complaint, wants to file a complaint, and assuming the formal requirements are met, the clerk files the complaint. The clerk doesn’t have the authority to say, you can’t file this complaint because it’s a bad complaint. I mean, what if the judge, the presiding judge in a particular jurisdiction, said, okay, fine, you don’t want the clerks filing these things, if anybody shows up with an S.B. 8 complaint, call me and I’ll docket it myself? Then what?”

In United States v. Texas, the question was related, but it had to do with the federal government’s power to obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against state officials to stop the enforcement of a law, like the Texas Heartbeat Act. And if the effort of the Texas abortionists to obtain such a relief is difficult, this one seems even more problematic under the federalism principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Neil Gorsuch stressed the unprecedented nature of the United States’ request by pointing out it would be the first time in the nation’s history that the Court would grant such a request:

Justice Gorsuch: “General, are you aware of a precedent that permits an injunction against all persons in the country or the world, the cosmos, who bring suit?

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar: No, Justice Gorsuch.

There are novel legal concepts to consider in both these cases for sure, but ultimately this is a problem of SCOTUS’ own making by its underlying, unconstitutional overreach when it comes to abortion. Texas and other states simply continue to try to find ways to save babies within the limits imposed by law. The Texas Heartbeat Act is said to have been saving 150 babies a day, thousands by now. And that is a good thing, no matter how you look at it.

That is why Concerned Women for America (CWA) stood with the people of Texas and Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has been a champion for life, on the steps of the Supreme Court on the day of oral arguments. And we will continue to do so until the day the Court acknowledges the error of its ways and restores justice for the unborn. We are praying that day is very close.

What did the Supreme Court Do in the Challenge Against Texas Heartbeat Law?

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

The radical left and its media enablers are going berserk over the United States Supreme Court’s denial of an application for injunctive relief to stop Texas’s Heartbeat Law from going into effect. The Court simply refused to act in an activist manner and allowed the process to work as it was constitutionally envisioned.

Anyone seeking the Court to take such an extreme action that would frustrate the democratic process in this manner needs a “strong showing” that they are “likely to succeed on the merits” of the case. The pro-abortion side failed to meet that heavy burden.

Though they are fixated on Roe v. Wade, this case presents “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden.”

To put it simply, the Texas law is not being enforced by state officials, which the pro-abortion side is used to suing in their official capacity, given the fact that they are usually charged with enforcing the law. Not here. This law does not charge any agency or official with its enforcement. Instead, it gives private citizens the right to sue if the law is violated in the future.

The Court then, making no judgment on merits of the case, has refused to enjoin the law (meaning stopping it from going into effect) until there is an actual case or controversy with a proper defendant in order for the courts to assess it in the proper context.

The Court concluded: “This order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.”

Such limited action shows the Court is acting under the sort of judicial restraint envisioned by the constitutional structure, instead of as a super legislature constantly interfering and frustrating the democratic process.

It is discouraging that Chief Justice Roberts joined Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan to dissent from the decision. The Chief Justice recognizes the complex nature of the procedural question presented, saying, “We are at this point asked to resolve these novel questions—at least preliminarily—in the first instance, in the course of two days, without the benefit of consideration by the District Court or Court of Appeals.” But he would actually enjoin the law, frustrating the will of the millions of Texans who helped enact it.  This fits a pattern we have seen from the Chief Justice before, where he seems to worry about public opinion in an unhealthy way, taking steps in every major case to protect what he perceives as the “legitimacy” and independence of the Court.

Not surprisingly, the liberal side of the Court, Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, wrote separately, eager to project that they are ready to act on behalf of the pro-abortion side. No need for them to worry about the legitimacy of the Court. That seems to always cut one way.

We are thankful for Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett for their unwavering commitment to the law and showing the proper judicial restraint in such a politically charged area of law. That’s where it counts.

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. 

Update and Prayer: A Chance to Stop the Reframing of U.S. History!

By | Missouri | No Comments

Update on HB 952– Bill Prohibiting the Rejection of American Exceptionalism in Schools

Good news!

Recently, I wrote to you (see below my signature)  about HB952, a good bill that would prohibit public schools from teaching, using, promoting, or providing students the 1619 Project as part of the curriculum course materials or instruction. The 1619 Project teaches Missouri students to reject the truth of American exceptionalism. It seeks to create the myth that our country, and all its accomplishments, both as a whole and individually, are founded upon, and the direct result of, racism.

HB 952 was heard in the General Laws Committee on Monday, April 19. Bill sponsor, Rep. Brian Seitz (R-District 156), did an excellent job presenting his bill and answering questions from the committee. I had the privilege to testify in support of the bill on behalf of our Concerned Women for America (CWA) of Missouri members, along with other outstanding testimony given by Don Hinkle, editor of the Pathway, a mom from St. Louis County, and a former schoolteacher. There were 588 witness forms submitted on HB952, with 373 in support of the amendment. Thank you to those who submitted forms in support.

Current status of HB 952:
The bill passed out of the General Laws Committee and now goes to the Rules: Legislative Oversight Committee. If voted do pass by the committee, the bill could go on the House Calendar for perfection.

Prayer Alert:
With just over two weeks left in the legislative session, would you please pray for the members on the Rules: Legislative Oversight Committee by name. Please pray that God would give them the wisdom and understanding to accomplish His purpose.

Bev Ehlen
State Director


Previous Alert

Voice your support for a good bill that will stop the reframing of U.S. history and eliminate any curriculum that teaches our students to distrust our Founding Fathers and our founding documents. 

You can make a difference in Missouri by praying and acting on an important bill being heard in the General Laws Committee on Monday, April 19. HB952, sponsored by Rep. Brian Seitz (R-District 156), defines the “1619 Project” and prohibits public schools from teaching, using, promoting, or providing students the 1619 Project as part of the curriculum course materials or instruction.

The 1619 Project teaches students to reject the truth of American exceptionalism. And it seeks to create the myth that our country, and all of its accomplishments, both as a whole and individually, are founded upon, and the direct result of, racism.

“Our country has a complex and rich history,” says Rep. Seitz. “Parts of that history are hard to fathom and accept, including the issue of slavery. All of that history, both the bad and the good, should be taught to our students without bias or revision. My bill stops the bias, keeps the history, and stems the Leftists’ tide.”

This Monday, April 19, I will testify in favor of HB952 and urge the General Laws Committee members to give the bill a do-pass recommendation. I covet your prayers. The General Laws Committee will vote on the bill at a later date.

Take Action!

If you take action BEFORE 5:00 p.m. on Monday, April 19, submit your support online for HB 952 online with this easy two-step process. 

  1. Click here for the online form. (a) Check the box by HB 952; (b) Select the “In Support Of” option; (c) Type in a statement (optional); (d) Complete Details section; (e) Check Acknowledgement box and then submit.
  2. Check your email inbox for an email message that requires you to verify your submission.

If you take action AFTER 5:00 p.m. on Monday, April 19, please call or email the members of the General Law Committee (you will need to scroll for the committee name) and ask them to vote a “Do Pass” on HB952. If you are a member of Concerned Women for America of Missouri, please let them know. Do not hesitate to leave a message on their voicemail.


Suggested message:

Please vote “Do Pass” on HB952. HB952 will prohibit public schools from teaching, using, promoting, or providing students the 1619 Project. The 1619 Project’s intent is to reframe U.S. history and teach our students to distrust both our Founding Fathers and our founding documents.

Sincerely,
Your name and town


Forward this email to family and friends! Every email message and every phone call is counted!

Please pray: Pray for our legislators on the General Laws Committee by name that God would give them the wisdom and understanding to accomplish His purpose.

“Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in humility that comes from wisdom.” – James 3:13

Bev Ehlen
State Director

Rulemaking Is Your Chance to Make an Impact

By | Education, National Sovereignty, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Use your voice to help Concerned Women for America hold the line against the Biden Administration’s aggressive, pro-abortion, anti-American agenda. Action items below.


The Biden Administration is rapidly translating President Biden’s radical and far-reaching agenda into new federal rulemaking. The goal of these proposed rules is to enshrine President Biden’s executive orders into regulations that will dictate the terms for federal programs. Where Executive Orders and Dear Colleague letters have limits, federal regulations offer legitimacy and permanency.

Federal rulemaking requires an administrative process established by law that includes a comment period of at least 30 days where the American public can weigh in on the proposed rules.  A federal agency must review all comments and adapt them in revising and finalizing any rule. Public comments that are not sufficiently taken into account can be used to challenge the final outcome. Rules stay in force until comparable action is taken to make changes.

It is vital that concerned citizens voice their position by commenting on proposed rules. Whereas letters to Congress are critical to influence members’ votes on legislation, comments through rulemaking are how citizens can impact the actions of the executive branch. This is perhaps the most significant way your voice counts in policymaking under the Biden Administration.

President Biden wants to overturn the progress made by the Trump administration in federal rulemaking, especially in the area of pro-life policy. He also wants to force progressive mandates across all federal agencies and programs, including redefining sex as gender identity, not biology, and forcing critical race theory and training in education, health care, law enforcement, and more.

Two proposed rules on these subjects with deadlines in mid-May have been published that provide a vital opportunity for your input. Our CWA Action Center provides the information, bullet points, and avenue you need to write a comment and submit it to the Federal Register.

  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Proposed Rule revoking Trump’s 2019 Title X rule to reinstate Planned Parenthood, remove separation from abortion requirements, and encourage abortion counseling and referral.
    COMMENT HERE
    Deadline: May 17, 2021
  2. U.S. Department of Education Proposed Rule requiring 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory curriculum priorities in federal American History and Civics Education grants
    COMMENT HERE
    Deadline: May 19, 2021

Please be counted in opposition to each of these proposed rules by submitting a comment today.

H.R. 1, “For the People Act” One Pager

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

Stop the Dangerous H.R. 1, For the People Act

PDF Version

At a time when the country is in desperate need of confidence in our elections, this bill will completely shatter American’s confidence. The bill oversteps constitutional limits by seeking to curtail the states’ rights in an attempt to nationalize election procedures and permanently alter the power balance to favor one political party. These are some of the most grievous provisions included in H.R. 1:

  • It makes pandemic-related emergency changes to election procedures permanent.
    The threat presented by COVID-19 in the last election gave way to a barrage of “accommodations,” like expanding mail-in voting or extending deadlines beyond what state law required, which gave way to irregularities that undermined public confidence in the election. H.R. 1 wants to force states to make these changes permanently. For example:

    • It requires states to implement an automatic registration system to register any eligible unregistered citizen, while at the same time shielding them from prosecution if ineligible voters are mistakenly registered.
    • It mandates no-excuse absentee voting, while prohibiting the requiring of a voter I.D.
  • Its ultimate end is to nationalize our election system.
    • It mandates that states provide ballot drop boxes 45 days before a federal election.
    • It requires states to establish an independent redistricting commission, in strict violation of federalism principles.
    • It establishes a new federal “Election Security Grants Advisory Committee,” to award grants to states that meet federal preferences.
  • It seeks to aggravate our national divide in order to punish political opponents, in direct violation of our First Amendment protections.
    • Imposes new requirements on any group that merely seeks to speak about federal policy, incentivizing disengagement.
    • It seeks to force citizens who contribute to nonprofit organizations into a searchable government database, facilitating the harassment and intimidation of private citizens by making their personal information available to the public.
  • It makes permanent the politicization of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that we have experienced in the past under malicious officials like Lois Lerner.
    • It permits the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy persuasions of any organization and its members before granting tax-exempt status.
  • As if our national debt was not a crisis already, it seeks to inject more federal money into funding political campaigns.
    • R. 1 actually creates a 6 to 1 government match to any small donor contributions of $200 or less in a congressional or presidential campaign.
    • It also establishes a new voucher pilot program that grants eligible voters a $25 voucher to donate to any campaign of their choosing.
  • It further seeks to blatantly politicize the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
    • It changes the FEC from a bipartisan, six-member agency to a partisan, five-member agency under the control of whoever is president, opening it up to political manipulations by a simple majority.

PDF Version

CWALAC Letter to Congress


Dear Reader: Like the quality of the work we do? Donate now to keep the information flowing!

The U.S. Constitution – Part 3

By | Blog, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

Concerned Women for America (CWA) General Counsel Mario Diaz, Esq. continues his journey helping us understand America’s founding documents and the principles which guard our liberty. Part III delves into Article II of the Constitution, which focuses on the Executive Branch.

Part IV is scheduled for release on May 20 at 3PM on Facebook Live. Be sure to follow us on Facebook so you can be notified to join us live!

The U.S. Constitution Series – Part II

The U.S. Constitution Series – Part I