Tag

legal Archives – Concerned Women for America

Payback: Abortion Radicals to the Court

By | LBB, News and Events | No Comments

President Joe Biden is doing everything in his power to pay back his pro-abortion supporters who are enraged following the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs, which finally overturned Roe v. Wade, sending the issue back to the states.

 

He recently signed an executive order to allow Medicaid funds to be used to facilitate travel for women who want to have an abortion, in clear violation of the spirit, if not the letter of federal law, as expressed through the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal money being used to cover the cost of abortions.

 

But the Left long ago figured out that taking such illegal actions requires judges willing to manipulate the law to make sure the policy choices they cannot get through the legislative process are imposed by judicial fiat, exactly what they did through Roe for so many years.

 

Enter Julie Rikelman, President Biden’s nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit based in Massachusetts. Rikelman is none other than the abortion rights activist who represented the abortion clinic in Dobbs. It doesn’t get more brazen than that.

 

Rikelman has dedicated her life to promoting abortion. She is the senior director of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the nation’s most active pro-abortion organization challenging pro-life laws in the states. She was appointed to that position after returning to the organization where she first served as a “Blackmun Fellow.” Justice Blackmun was the author of the Roe v. Wade decision.

 

Needless to say, Rikelman is not an impartial jurist. She is an abortion activist and has been tapped for this position for that very reason. This White House has shown complete contempt for law and justice and the proper role of a judge.

 

President Biden nominated Rikelman after word got out that he might have a deal with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) that would have allowed, Chad Meredith, a nominee some considered conservative to be nominated. Radical groups immediately jumped on the White House to get in line. And so they did, nominating Rikelman to appease the mob and showing little regard for the proper role of a judge.

 

This fits with the increasing abortion radicalism of this White House. Recently, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the Justices took “an unconstitutional action” in Dobbs. That was right on the heels of calling Justice Clarence Thomas “Justice Thompson,” showing complete disdain for Justice Thomas simply because of his judicial philosophy.

 

Senators in the Senate Judiciary Committee must stand against the Rikelman nomination while raising awareness of the dangers of the continued political weaponization of the processes of justice.

 

We have seen it, not only in the nominations process, but in the Department of Justices’ targeting of parents, in the FBI’s mishandling of critical information about those they favor politically, and more.

 

Senators should use every tool at their disposal to protect the ideas that guard our liberties. The corruption and politicization of justice should be right at the top that list.

Catastrophic Day 2 for Ketanji Brown Jackson

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

Early in the second day, the focus of the hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson’s (KBJ) nomination to the United States Supreme Court was on a concerning pattern that has emerged where KBJ has given low sentences to defendants in possession of child pornography. Having given ample room for KBJ to explain her thought processes in these cases, we can say the explanations we heard were simply unsatisfactory.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), who had given KBJ the specific cases he was interested in, drilled down on one particular case that illustrates the problem. The clip is long, but it is eye-opening, I commend it to you in its entirety:

It is troubling, no doubt. Again, she was given time to prepare to answer questions about those specific cases, so to try to obfuscate the issue with a lack of record is not reasonable. The concern is compounded by the fact that Democrats have denied the Republicans’ requests to release the records from KBJ’s time in the Sentencing Commission.

Even Judiciary Chairman Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) seemed to agree with Sen. Hawley that the case was unacceptable and suggests it is Congress fault. He suggests that they need to pass a law to prevent judges like KBJ from enacting sentences like she did in that case. Watch:

Her performance devolved from there. She could not answer Sen. John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) when he asked her when does life begin, even though her advocacy for pro-abortion groups is well established. How can someone who doesn’t know when life begins fairly decide when life can be terminated?

The issue was explored further by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) who got some incredible confessions out of KBJ as she tried to distance herself from the language she approved of in a brief she cowrote calling pro-life advocates a “hostile, noisy crowd of ‘in-your-face’ protesters.” She apparently didn’t really mean it. She was just “lawyering,” you know. Take a look at this troubling exchange. Take special note of her admission that the Constitution says nothing about abortion, even as she apparently supports the Court in making up such rights by judicial fiat.

But the lowest point of the evening came when Sen. Blackburn tried to address the issue of gender with KBJ. The nominee could not even provide a definition of what is a woman. Apparently, one needs to be a biologist to define the term. Take a look for yourself:

How is a justice supposed to stand up for women’s rights if she cannot even tell you what a woman is? Her non-answer is revealing.

Concerned Women for America (CWA) has been at the hearings, monitoring closely every second. We have given her a fair hearing. But the bottom line after day two is that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson simply cannot be trusted. Therefore, how could she be entrusted with a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court in the land? There are still a couple more days of hearings, but the damage she has done today seems too much for anyone to overcome.

Stay tuned.

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.

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. 

Hearing Recap and Next Steps for Amy Coney Barrett

By | Barrett, Judicial Nominations, LBB, Legal, News and Events, RBG | No Comments

To quote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Amy Coney Barrett is “going to the Court.” The hearings are over, and she simply shined through it all. The most memorable moments included ACB schooling senators trying to challenge her on precedent and originalism and severability and textualism. She was the smartest person in the room. The moment when Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) asked her to show her notes went viral because it illustrated how exceptional she was as a nominee. Here is the clip:

But the most powerful testimony, showing us the type of person we are supporting for the Supreme Court was heard on the last day. It was the testimony of Laura Wolk, one of Judge Barrett’s law students and current Supreme Court clerk, who is blind. She explained the extraordinary help she received from ACB that made it possible for her to break down barriers in the legal profession.  Please watch:

These hearings were historic. The voices of conservative women were heard like never before, both inside and outside the hearing room.  Sen. Graham highlighted this with his remarks on day two. He said, “This hearing to me is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling, but a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women. You’re going to shatter that barrier. I’ve never been prouder of a nominee than I am of you.” Here is the expanded clip of his remarks:

Outside, as most of you know, the “Women for Amy” army made its mark, outshining the opposition.

The nomination will be held one week, as is customary, with some written questions and answers for the record submitted. Then a final committee vote is scheduled for October 22 at 1:00 p.m. It is expected to be 12-10, along party lines.

The nomination then will be sent to the full Senate where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) has said, “We’ll go to the floor with her on Friday, the 23rd, and stay on it until we finish this… We have the votes.”

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.

SCOTUS

Political Justice Strikes Again—June Medical v. Russo

By | Blog, Briefs, Legal, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, SCOTUS | No Comments

If there was any doubt about what the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ era at the Supreme Court was all about, they were erased this week as the Court delivered its opinion in June Medical L.L.C v. Russo. Chief Justice Roberts represents the era of political justice, and it is as ugly as it sounds. Constitutional principles and law are not paramount. The Court’s perception before the radical left is what matters.

In June Medical, the Chief Justice declared a law unconstitutional, not because he thought it was unconstitutional, but because he believes to be consistent is more important than being right. He wrote, “I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.”

To be consistently wrong is a virtue in the Roberts’ era of political justice since it appeases the mob if only for a moment. Remember, this is a case dealing with abortion, a politically charged topic, and, as the Chief demonstrated in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) cases, he will consider much more than the law to save the Court’s reputation.

In the context of abortion, the liberals in the Court, along with the Chief Justice, will abandon impartiality and twist the law to fit the outcome they want. Justice Anthony Kennedy (the former justice who “wrote the book” on political justice) actually admitted as much in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Partial Birth Abortion case, where he confessed:

It is true this longstanding maxim of statutory interpretation has, in the past, fallen by the wayside when the Court confronted a statute regulating abortion. The Court at times employed an antagonistic ‘canon of construction under which in cases involving abortion, a permissible reading of a statute [was] to be avoided at all costs.’

Roberts perpetuates the shameful legacy with this decision, upholding an erroneous precedent for the sake of appeasing the insatiable abortion mob.

The left has his number. They know he is susceptible to the slightest criticism of the Court. So you cannot blame them for making sure the threats are forceful and consistent. Just recently, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse submitted a reprehensible brief making all kinds of threats of “restructuring” the Court if they do not do as the left wants in controversial cases—gun control in that instance. He wrote, “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’”

Guess what happened in that case and in several others involving gun laws? You guessed it; the Court shied away from delving into the topic. “Don’t want to appear political,” you see? So goes the political justice chorus on every controversial case where they face the mob.

Need another recent example? See the Bostock/Harris Debacle.

Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberal bloc of the Court to say this case was just like the one they heard four years ago “Whole Woman’s Health.” But as the dissenters pointed out, this is merely a copout. The Court did not even give proper consideration to the third-party standing issue, where the Court’s unusual approval of abortionist asserting a constitutional right they do not have has been allowed to go forth. The conclusory claim of stare decisis (precedent) solves all in the plurality’s view.

As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out, ultimately, “those decisions created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text.” Precedent didn’t really matter then.

Justice Thomas concluded, “The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion. This Court created the right to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy, which it grounded in the ‘legal fiction’ of substantive due process … As the origins of this jurisprudence readily demonstrate, the putative right to abortion is a creation that should be undone.”

Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh also wrote to highlight the plurality’s distortion of the facts and the law to reach their preferred policy position. “Today’s decision doesn’t just overlook one of these rules. It overlooks one after another,” wrote Justice Gorsuch in dissent. “To arrive at today’s result, rules must be brushed aside and shortcuts taken.”

Political justice strikes again, leaving many victims on its way. Not the least of which is true justice itself.

The U.S. Constitution Series – Part II

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 II delves into Article I of the Constitution and focuses on the structure of government.

Part III is scheduled for release on May 6 at 3PM on Facebook Live. Be sure to follow us on Facebook so you can be notified to join us live! And let others know about it.

 

The U.S. Constitution – Part 3

The U.S. Constitution Series – Part I

SCOTUS

The Abortion Industry Does Not Speak for Women

By | Blog, Briefs, LBB, Legal, News and Events, SCOTUS | No Comments

This month, Concerned Women for America (CWA) filed an important amicus (friend of the court) brief in June Medical Services, LLC v. Gee at the United States Supreme Court standing up for the millions of pro-life women around the country who want to make sure the Justices know that the abortion industry does not speak for them.

Believe it or not, that is often what the abortion industry claims to do, with the blessing of the Court. Big Abortion has created a whole legal industry out of challenging any and all laws that seek to protect women by regulating the abortion procedure to make it safer for women. As predicted by Justice Powell in Singleton v. Wulff (428 U.S. 106, 119 (1976)), in abortion cases, the Court has “invit[ed] litigation by those who perhaps have the least legitimate ground for seeking to assert the rights of third parties”— in this case, women.

The same abortionists who spend millions of dollars fighting against a simple requirement to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals so they can properly follow up with patients that experience complications during an abortion, claim before the courts to have a relationship with patients close enough to justify them representing women in court.

CWA’s brief highlights the research of Prof. Teresa Collett, J.D., the Director of the University of Saint Thomas Pro-Life Center, which surveys all cases since Roe involving federal challenges to abortion laws. The research reveals that “women have consistently challenged abortion-related laws related to public funding and laws requiring parental, spousal, or judicial consent prior to performance of an abortion while showing little or no appetite for attacking laws aimed at providing women with more information on abortion and its alternatives; safer, cleaner abortion facilities; and ethical, competent providers.”

“In the three years between 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and 1976, when Singleton v. Wulff was decided, women were more likely than doctors, hospitals, or clinics to file challenges to abortion-related laws… Since 1976, [when the Court opened the door for abortionists to represent women’s interests,] there have been sixteen years in which there were no cases filed by women alone, and thirteen years in which they have brought only one” (citations omitted).

“From 1973 to 2019, women or girls have filed an annual average of 2.1 cases per year. In contrast, providers have filed an average of 9.1 cases per year; women and providers have joined in the same lawsuit in only 1.6 cases per year.”

“[T]here are almost no cases filed by women alone challenging conscience rights, informed consent requirements, fetal disposition laws, and provider regulations generally. This pattern suggests that women either generally support or at least do not oppose laws like the one before this Court today that are aimed at providing them with more information, safer, cleaner facilities, and more skilled providers” (citation omitted).

Given this research, the Court should reexamine its “third party standing” standards when it comes to abortion cases. It is just another area where, as Justice Anthony Kennedy candidly acknowledged, the “longstanding maxim[s] of statutory interpretation ha[ve], in the past, fallen by the wayside when the Court confronted a statute regulating abortion.” Third party standing should be presumptively denied in such cases, requiring abortion providers to prove their close relationship with the women they seek to represent in order to stand before the Court asserting women’s interests.

Oral arguments for the case have been set for 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 4. Stay tuned for more information on our activities surrounding the arguments. As always, I will be at the Court to bring you an up-to-date report.