Tag

life Archives – Page 2 of 8 – Concerned Women for America

Troubling Radical Left Support Drives Ketanji Brown Jackson Choice

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

Three choices were reported to be at the top of President Joe Biden’s list of possible Supreme Court nominees. Judge Michelle Childs appeared to have more broad support, even among some Republicans. But the radical left demanded Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Predictably, they got their wish.

The radical group, Demand Justice, who shamefully had trucks around Washington, D.C., asking Justice Stephen Breyer to retire, along with other radical groups like MoveOn and Indivisible, had called for Judge Brown in no uncertain terms. The move prompted Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-South Carolina) to say, “The radical Left has won President Biden over yet again.”

So, who is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson? Here is a basic rundown.

She was born in Washington, D.C., on September 14, 1970. She is 51. Last year, she became a judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, taking the seat left vacant by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. Even then, she had strong Republican opposition, being confirmed by a 53-44 vote. Only three Republican Senators, Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), voted in favor.

Before that, she was a judge at the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., after being nominated by President Barack Obama and was the Vice Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission. She also clerked for Justice Breyer after graduating from Harvard Law School.

After her clerkship with Justice Breyer, Judge Jackson went to work for Goodwin Procter, a large law firm out of Boston, where she helped write an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief representing NARAL Pro-Choice America, the League of Women Voters, and the Abortion Access Project of Massachusetts, among others. The case was McGuire v. Reilly, a 2001 case where she supported a law targeting pro-life advocates trying to counsel women at abortion clinics.

Her pro-choice advocacy work has earned her the support of Big Abortion, including Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the National Women’s Law Center. They are confident she will be willing to circumvent the Constitution to promote abortion “rights.”

The same can be said for the endorsements of pro-LGBTQ groups, like the Human Rights Campaign, who are pushing the boundaries of laws protecting women in sports, women’s shelters and prisons, and multiple other areas.

Her commitment to labor unions has also been held as an important asset, especially when comparing her to other nominees. She was cheered for her enjoining an executive order by President Trump that sought to hold federal employees accountable. She was later overruled unanimously by a D.C. Circuit panel that included an Obama appointee. But this seems to boost her credibility among activists looking for judges who will be “progressive” in their ruling, despite what may be required by the text of the law and judicial procedure.

There are concerns about her religious liberty commitments, also. At her D.C. Circuit hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) asked her about her involvement with a Christian school. Though she said she believed in religious liberty, she felt the need to distance herself from the Christian teachings relating to marriage that were referenced. This is an area that the Senate must fully explore.

The full review of her record is just starting, so we will have much more to come. But the preliminary report must be concerning for all freedom-loving Americans who want judges who will show the judicial restraint envisioned by the Constitution, instead of judges who interject themselves on every political and socially controversial issue with which “we the people” have vigorous disagreements to push their personal policy preferences.

Indefensible Roe –The Spiritual Track

By | Indefensible Roe, LBB, Legal, News and Events, Publications, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Thank you for reading. Throughout the Indefensible Roe series, we have explored how the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that opened the door to the more than 62 million babies killed in abortion in the U.S. since 1973 has no basis to stand on today as the Supreme Court reexamines its validity in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Supreme Court’s meddling in abortion policy has been a complete failure—a betrayal of the most fundamental principles of liberty. We have discussed how Roe and its supporting cases are indefensible legally, as a matter of policyscientifically, and today we explore perhaps its most tragic failure: the spiritual one.

Though some may be tempted to dismiss this aspect of the discussion as somehow outside the bounds of the legal/policy discussion, I submit to you that the injustice of abortion strikes at the heart of the legal case. As Aquinas put it, an unjust law is no law at all, but a sort of violence:

Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence. (Summa Theologiae, Ia-Ilae, q. xciii, art. 3, ad 2m.)

Further, the social consequences of the spiritual atrophy our country has suffered in the last 50 years, following the selfish, deathly path of abortion, have brought our country to the brink of self-destruction.

Look around. We are not a healthy nation.

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 Cultural Track

By | Indefensible Roe, LBB, Legal, News and Events, Publications | No Comments

The detrimental effects of Roe on American culture are too numerous to catalog. But the denial of the humanity of the unborn sits at the root of it all.

Today, as we commemorate the 49th March for Life, protesting the harrowing Roe v. Wade 1973 decision that invented a constitutional right to abortion, let us consider why culturally speaking, Roe is indefensible.

Few would deny the fact that we are living in contentious times. We are a divided nation. Many are shouting, but few are listening. It is not mere disagreement. We are way past that. The people who stand opposite you, in many circles, are not even worthy of consideration. They are a sort of sub-human.

If this seems shocking to you, just consider the way we are treating each other on the topic of the COVID vaccines. Radio shock jock Howard Stern recently said on his popular radio show, “If it was up to me, anyone unvaccinated would not be admitted to a hospital.” And he is, unfortunately, not alone. But, again, I’m really not talking about the vaccine issue here, but about the warped mentality that would say to his neighbor, if I had my way, “all hospitals would be closed to you. You’re going to go home and die,” over a health policy disagreement.

Facts have nothing to do with it. Your side or my side is all that matters. Facts will be accommodated accordingly. Take a look at this example…

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!

Drama at Supreme Court on Texas Abortion Law Case

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

If there is drama at the U.S. Supreme Court these days, you can rest assured that Justice Sonia Sotomayor is at the center of it. And when the issue in the case is protecting unborn babies, you already know the side for which she fights. So here is why you are hearing so much about her and what the U.S. Supreme Court did in the Texas abortion law case.

If you remember, last time, the Supreme Court dismissed most of the challenges against the law but left the one against the medical licensing officials to go on. That is the case the Fifth Circuit was to consider when Texas asked that the question of whether the medical licensing official can enforce the law if it is violated be sent to the Texas State Supreme Court for clarification as to what the state law allows. The Fifth Circuit allowed that to proceed. This makes sense because the case deals with state law, not federal law.

The pro-abortion side objected to this because it would cause a delay in the proceedings while the law is still in effect. So, they went back to the U.S. Supreme Court and asked it to intervene to stop the case from going to the Texas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the request, making no judgment, but simply allowing the proceedings to continue.

That’s where the pro-abortion advocates at the Supreme Court led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor lost it. They dissented with much fanfare, saying, “The Fifth Circuit should have immediately remanded this case to the District Court, allowing it to consider whether to issue preliminary relief.” Imagine all these babies being born in Texas. Preposterous, in their view. It is a disaster as far as Justice Sotomayor is concerned. She wrote, “This case is a disaster for the rule of law and a grave disservice to women in Texas, who have a right to control their own bodies. I will not stand by silently as a State continues to nullify this constitutional guarantee.”

Aside from the forceful pro-abortion advocacy of Justice Sotomayor, supported by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, not a lot has happened in the case. It is still ongoing. Texas may still lose in the end. The ruckus you read about in the media is the early signs of desperation from the pro-abortion side.

It is a preview of what we can expect when the Dobbs decision is handed down if it does not live up to their abortion on demand for any reason up to birth dreamland.

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>

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!

Indefensible Roe – The Policy Track

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

Having established that “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy,” as the Court accurately noted in Roe, and that the Court relied on that virtual right to further invent another constitutional “right” to abortion with no basis in law, history or tradition, we turn to the Court’s dreadful shift to policymaking and why it, too, is indefensible.

While the media’s caricature of pro-life laws around the country at the time of Roe is that they sought to completely ban it, without regard for women, the facts of the case in Roe were, of course, different. I think by now every reader knows that the media lies. Therefore, remember that when it comes to the coverage you hear around Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

The Texas law at issue in Roe actually had an exception for “medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life.” If Roe were overturned, it does not mean abortion will be criminalized everywhere for every reason as some will have you believe. Instead, it would mean that laws would more accurately reflect the convictions of most Americans in their localities. What the Supreme Court did in Roe was impose its preferred view of abortion policy robbing “we the people” of a voice in the matter.

In Dobbs, Mississippi passed a law establishing a policy of restricting abortions after 15 weeks only to the cases of medical emergencies and or severe fetal abnormalities. There is no basis, constitutional or otherwise, for the Supreme Court to second guess a state’s policy in such a matter. …

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!

Senate Dems Want to Sacrifice Our Daughters on the Altar of Political Correctness

By | Media, News and Events | No Comments

For Immediate Release
November 26, 2021

Contact: Katie Everett, Press Secretary
[email protected]

Senate Dems Want to Sacrifice Our Daughters on the Altar of Political Correctness

Washington D.C. – Upon return from the Thanksgiving holiday, the U.S. Senate will consider the FY 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), including a provision requiring young women to register with the Selective Service for a potential military draft. The U.S. House of Representatives passed its own version of the annual defense bill with a similar provision in September. The House version also includes funds for CRT training, diversity officers, and inclusion and equity programs.

This monumental, unjustified reversal in policy forces our military to be sex-blind in all selection, training, and service of draftees, erasing key biological differences between males and females that have everything to do with readiness in wartime. Further, the provision gives the federal government blanket discretion to institute a draft for any number of unspecified reasons.

Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, had this to say:

“The recent role that woke ideology played in the Virginia election should have been a wakeup call for Congress. Instead, current language in the funding bill for America’s military and military academies contains the same ideology soundly rejected across the nation. CRT funding and woke diversity officers are part of the Left’s effort to deconstruct the U.S. military and our academies. Add to the mix language forcing women to register for Selective Service (i.e. the draft) and language specifically prohibiting military leaders for making decisions based on sex is disastrous policy that will cost lives.

“Concerned Women for America admires and supports the strong, patriotic women who volunteer for military service, but we refuse to believe the destructive lie that women’s equality means sameness with men. American women do not need to be conscripted to fight on the frontline of war to prove their worth.

“Even after a three-year, $45 million taxpayer funded commission’s unsubstantiated recommendation, a 2021 Ipsos poll shows that support for drafting women has nosedived—especially among females—since the issues was last debated in 2016, with only 45% of Americans and a third of women in favor of the policy.

“We are also witnessing growing enthusiasm from both parties to repeal the Selective Service altogether. At a time of such deep division, we rarely see this harmony. This makes any call to expand this outdated agency’s purpose and reach even more tone-deaf.

“Fresh off the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and a terror attack that took the lives of 13 U.S. servicemembers, Americans are rightfully weary to award new mobilization powers to the government. Trusting this Administration—or any other—with the unchecked latitude to declare a national emergency and conscript 18- to 25-year-old women for any number of purposes is too great a risk.

“Sacrificing our young women on the altar of political correctness is a clear dealbreaker, but the potential inclusion of race-driven, divisive ideological agendas gives further reason to oppose the bill in its current form. Sadly, the House-passed version of the NDAA diverts from mission-critical defense objectives to fund this nonsense. The Senate must say no.

“We reject the shameful fallacy that Congress must rubber stamp the social experimentation of our military to secure critical funding for our troops and national defense. An NDAA that drafts our daughters and granddaughters is a non-starter, and we call on members of courage to oppose its advancement.”

###
Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with a rich history of over 40 years.

 

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!

OUT NOW: Podcast with Rep. Vicky Hartzler

By | Media, News and Events | No Comments

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Missouri) joins Penny Nance to discuss how she found her way from the farmlands of Missouri to the halls of Congress by following God’s plan for her life. She also gives a sneak peek into negotiations on the effort to draft our nation’s daughters that will be voted on this week in Congress.

Click here to order a copy of Vicky’s book, Running God’s Way.

You can read the episode transcript here or stream the full episode below on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Nance: Number of Child Brides Is a Global Atrocity

By | News and Events | No Comments

In her latest op-ed posted in Townhall, Concerned Women for America’s CEO and President Penny Nance, draws attention to the atrocity of child brides that affects more than 650 million girls worldwide.

From the article: “The effects on girls forced into marriage at such an early age are detrimental and impact their whole life: literacy, health, and overall well-being. Girls under the age of 15 are five times more likely to die in childbirth, and just as devastating, a child born to a child bride is 60% more likely to die in their first year of life.

“The United States must step forward and work to end the practice of child brides. We cannot ignore girls’ lives being ruined by being forced into a marriage when they should still be playing at recess. As women, we cannot remain blind to this reality. There are no simple answers, but there are some bottom line principles. U.S. aid to offending countries should be tied to reform … ”

Read the full piece here.

NEW: Better Before Biden – CWA Joins African American leaders to denounce Build Back Better Act

By | News and Events | No Comments

The Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) held a press conference today to draw attention to the disastrous effects Biden’s Build Back Better Act would have on at-risk and minority communities in America.

Concerned Women for America’s Deputy Communications Director, Jacklyn Washington, joined to discuss concerns with the federal takeover of childcare included in the act. You can watch the full press conference below, with CWA comments beginning at 7:15.

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.

Nance Joins Congressional Leaders in Opposition to Vax Mandate

By | News and Events | No Comments

Concerned Women for America CEO and President, Penny Nance joins other conservative leaders calling on Congress to oppose the Biden Administration vaccine mandate: “This employee vaccine mandate shows a complete disregard for our civil liberties under the Constitution. It reveals to us a President who has lost touch with the people he represents and who now seeks to impose his policy choices by abusing the constitutional powers granted to him by ‘We the People.’”

Click here to read the full letter.

Penny Nance Speaks to 15,000 College Students at Liberty University

By | CEO, News and Events | No Comments

Concerned Women for America’s CEO and President, Penny Nance, spoke at Liberty University’s convocation last Friday to over 15,000 college students in-person with even more watching online.

Nance led a panel entitled Women of Faith in Leadership that featured herself, Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (R-Missouri), Carrie Sheffield, and Young Women for America National Director Annabelle Rutledge. The focus was to encourage students to vote their values, lean in on national issues, and to become informed citizens.

You can watch the full panel below and read more from Liberty University here.

 

Liberty University Convocation featuring Penny Nance and Women of Faith in Leadership Panel from Concerned Women for America on Vimeo.

So Let’s Talk About Texas

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

The new Texas Heartbeat Bill has dominated the news cycle for the past few weeks. If you’re still confused by what it does and doesn’t do, this episode is for you! Penny is joined by Concerned Women for America’s Legal Counsel, Mario Diaz, to discuss what this bill does and additionally, what the Supreme Court didn’t do.

They’ll also preview the upcoming Supreme Court case that will decide the fate of abortion across the country on December 1st. Listen below!

Texas Doctor Admits to Performing Abortion in Violation of State Law

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

An abortionist in Texas admitted in an op ed in the Washington Post that he performed an abortion earlier this month in violation of Texas’s new Heartbeat Bill. Concerned Women for America’s Vice President of Government Relations, Doreen Denny, joined NTD News to react.

Watch the full video below:

Texas Doctor Admits to Performing Abortion in Violation of State Law from Concerned Women for America on Vimeo.