Tag

dobbs Archives – Page 2 of 2 – Concerned Women for America

CWA Calls on Roberts to Release Dobbs Decision in Light of Leaks & Intimidation Tactics

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

For Immediate Release
May 2, 2022
Contact: Katie Everett, Press Secretary
[email protected]
(571) 420-2488

 

Washington, D.C.— Penny Nance, CEO & President of Concerned Women for America, the largest public policy organization for women in the nation, had this to say about the leaked drafts of the United States Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization:

 

“The betrayal of trust we have witnessed today at the United States Supreme Court by what is reportedly the malicious leak of a private draft of the Court’s Dobbs opinion is outrageous.  

 

“This appears to be another attempt by the left to intimidate the justices to uphold a law that is clearly unconstitutional. On the contrary, these tactics should only embolden the Court to stand firm on law and principle. Chief Justice John Roberts must take charge of his court and issue this decision as soon as possible, sending a clear message that the Court will never be intimidated.

 

“The hundreds of thousands of members of Concerned Women for America  remain prayerful and cautiously optimistic as we work to provide loving alternatives to the violent ending of a human life through abortion.”

###

 

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!

Indefensible Roe – The Scientific Track

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

Do not believe your lying eyes.

This (pictured above) is not a baby. No sir.

If it were a person, then the Supreme Court itself admitted in Roe they would not have made the decision they made to allow her to be crushed and sucked out of her mother’s womb.

It is actually a good thing they didn’t have such confusing pictures back then. In 1973, when Roe was decided, they thought a baby at 15 weeks, as is at issue in the Mississippi law being challenged in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, looked like this:

Much easier to declare that this is some sort of tissue, part of a woman’s body, instead of a baby deserving of love and care. That is why the pro-abortion side in Dobbs wants the justices to keep women back in 1973. Nothing has changed, they argued on the day of oral arguments…

<em><a href=”https://mariodiaz.substack.com/p/indefensible-roe-the-scientific-track”>Click here</a> to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive <a href=”https://mariodiaz.substack.com/”>Substack column</a>. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!</em>

<center><iframe style=”border: 1px solid #EEE; background: white;” src=”https://mariodiaz.substack.com/embed” width=”480″ height=”320″ frameborder=”0″ scrolling=”no”></iframe></center>

An Historic Day at the Supreme Court

By | South Dakota | No Comments

Concerned Women for America (CWA) of South Dakota was well represented at the United States Supreme Court prayer rally on December 1 for the oral arguments of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization pro-life case.

I, along with Lisa Gennaro, our Legislative Liaison, and my daughter-in-law, and four granddaughters were honored to be present to pray and hear great speakers from all walks of pro-life organizations. We were encouraged that God has raised up such a passionate crowd of fighters for the sanctity of life. We estimated that much more than two-thirds of those present were pro-lifers. Our voices rang louder and stronger than the pro-abortion side.

Concerned Women for America  is hosting a live webinar one week after the oral arguments to provide perspective on all the activity that happened outside the Court on December 1, and to answer the question everyone is asking, “Now that the oral arguments are over, what’s next for the Dobbs v. Jackson case?”

On Wednesday, December 8, join CWA’s CEO and President Penny Nance and CWA’s Legal Counsel Mario Diaz, Esq., as they debrief the December 1 oral arguments and discuss what happens next with the Court on this critical pro-life case.

Whether you attended the December 1 event or joined us in prayer from home, this webinar is for you!

Here are the details:
Date: Wednesday, December 8, 2021
Time: 2:00 p.m. EST [1:00 p.m. CST; 12:00 p.m. Mountain; 11:00 a.m. CST]

Click here to register. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

It was an honor to be part of history-in-the-making as we continue to pray that Roe v. Wade will be overturned and life in the womb protected and women empowered.

Blessings,
Linda Schauer
State Director

An Historic Day at the Supreme Court

By | Dobbs, Maine | No Comments

Concerned Women for America (CWA) of Maine was represented at the Supreme Court of the United States prayer rally on December 1 for oral arguments of the pro-life case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Amber Corum, Melissa Stephens, and I were honored to be present to pray and hear from over 30 great pro-life organizations and speakers, including CWA’s CEO and President Penny Nance, Abby Johnson, Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rogers (R-Washington), Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Missouri), Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana), Sen. James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), and many more!

It was encouraging to see the thousands that God raised up, passionate for the sanctity of life. We estimated that much more than two-thirds of those present were pro-lifers. It was a joy and honor to pray together.

What’s next for Dobbs vs. Jackson? CWA will answer this question and update us on all things Dobbs in a webinar on Wednesday, December 8, at 2:00 EST. Learn more about the webinar and register here. Read CWA’s analysis of the case on our Dobbs page here.

Please Pray: While we await the court’s decision, please pray that the Justices will rule in favor of life. It’s time that we finally correct our egregious mistakes and end the greatest human rights violation in America.

To God be the glory.

Penny Morrell
State Director

Webinar: What’s Next for Dobbs v. Jackson?

By | Dobbs, News and Events | No Comments

Several thousand pro-life supporters rallied and prayed outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday, December 1, as the historic Supreme Court oral arguments were heard for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Tens of thousands more joined in prayer from around the nation!

Concerned Women for America (CWA) is hosting a live webinar one week after the oral arguments to provide perspective on all the activity that happened outside the Court on December 1, and to answer the question everyone is asking, “Now that the oral arguments are over, what’s next for the Dobbs v. Jackson case?”

On Wednesday, December 8, join CWA’s CEO and President Penny Nance and CWA’s Legal Counsel Mario Diaz, Esq., as they debrief the December 1 oral arguments and discuss what happens next with the Court on this critical pro-life case.

Whether you attended the December 1 event or joined us in prayer from home, this webinar is for you!

Here are the details:
Date: Wednesday, December 8, 2021
Time: 2:00 p.m. EST [1:00 p.m. CST; 12:00 p.m. Mountain; 11:00 a.m. CST]

Click here to register. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Penny Nance Speaks at Supreme Court Rally for Life

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

12.1.21: A day to remember. Concerned Women for America was proud to help bring thousands of activists and college students from all over the country to Washington, D.C., to pray on the steps of the Supreme Court today while the Justices heard oral arguments in the biggest abortion case of our lifetime.

While we have a few months to wait until the final decision that could end the culture of abortion in America, we are so encouraged by the passion of the prayer warriors who stepped up to defend the least of these.

Click below to watch our CEO and President Penny Nance’s full remarks from the rally.

Three Takeaways from Today’s Dobbs Oral Arguments

By | Case Vault, Dobbs, Legal, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Today, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the most important pro-life case of our lifetime: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. As hundreds of pro-life supporters rallied outside the courtroom (outnumbering the other side by a considerable margin!), inside the Justices heard arguments from the state of Mississippi, the Jackson abortion clinic, and the United States Solicitor General.

Here are the top three takeaways:

1-    Institutional Legitimacy was the Liberal Side’s Theme

Justice Stephen Brayer led the charge for the liberal side of the Court on this point. He quoted Casey and argued that to overturn Roe and Casey “Would subvert the Court’s legitimacy.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who blatantly and embarrassingly acted as an advocate for the pro-choice side instead of a justice of the Supreme Court, suggested the Court would not survive “the stench” of overturning Roe.

She’s obviously grown used to the fetor of more than 60 million babies aborted since 1973.

In the liberal side’s warped view, to overturn Roe would be a political action, but to impose abortion on demand on all Americans was not. They kept expressing concerns over the politicization of the Court as if it were not seen as activist in favor of abortion right now.

Mississippi’s State Solicitor General Scott Grant Stewart made clear that Roe and Casey had no grounding in the constitutional text and that the continued upholding of erroneous precedent is in fact more of a threat to the Court’s legitimacy…

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!

SPECIAL ALERT: Science Proved Us Right. STREAM NOW!

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

Concerned Women for America is thrilled to drop a surprise special podcast episode TONIGHT ahead of the biggest abortion case of our lifetime being argued in front of the Supreme Court tomorrow. To brush up on the science of fetal development and the medical advancements since 1973, Penny is joined by pro-life OB/GYN Dr. Christina Francis.

Available below or wherever you normally get your podcasts!

 

Indefensible Roe – The Legal Track

By | Case Vault, Dobbs, Legal, News and Events, RBG, Sanctity of Life, SCOTUS | No Comments

As that great bulwark of honesty Buddy the elf would say, Roe “sit[s] on a throne of lies.” This series will expose many of them in the spiritual, scientific, cultural, moral, and policy realm. But we start this endeavor with the most pressing deception as far as it concerns the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming considerations of the Dobbs v. Whole Women’s Health Organization case: the legal one.

It is a plain statement of fact that the U.S. Constitution has nothing to say about abortion. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. In fact, the fallacy of Roe is so deep, that the Court did not just invent the right to abortion, it actually based its decision to invent it on another “right” that appears nowhere in the Constitution. In an earlier case (Griswold v. Connecticut), the Court had “recognized” a new right to privacy that it now magically expanded to cover the right to abortions.

The Court is not even sure where this right to privacy comes from; it recognizes different theories. But wherever it came from, it is surely meant to cover abortion; it promises us. Here is how Justice Harry Blackmun, who shamefully wrote the Roe majority opinion, put it:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

And just like that, 185 years after the Constitution was officially ratified on June 21, 1788, the Court gives birth to a new right to abortion with no legal underpinning whatsoever…

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!

Indefensible Roe — An Introduction

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

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Mississippi case where abortionists are challenging the state’s “Gestational Age Act,” should force the United States Supreme Court to reevaluate its disastrous abortion jurisprudence.

Because Mississippi’s law places strict limits on abortion after 15 weeks, it runs straight up against the Court’s nonsensical and arbitrary “viability” pronouncement which has somewhat guided the Court through its oversight of more than 60 million babies aborted since 1973. In Roe v. Wade, the Court invented a right to abortion out of nothing and established limits based on an arbitrary trimester framework, but it also recognized a state’s interests in the health of mothers and “potential life,” as it cunningly termed babies in the womb. Only when those state interests become “compelling” are states able to regulate abortion, perhaps even ban it.  The Court explained:

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

The Court’s mushy pronouncement ensured it would continue to act as a super-legislature, second-guessing virtually every state attempt to protect life. Therefore, we continue to see a never-ending series of cases at the Supreme Court with citizens from different states trying to assert their interests in the health of mothers and protecting children in the womb…

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!

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.