Category

Dobbs

Praying for Dobbs

By | Dobbs, News and Events, Uncategorized | No Comments

Concerned Women for America

Six Month Spiritual Engagement for Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health


 

The December 1 oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health were just the beginning of our pro-life efforts for this case. If the Court keeps to its historical track record of rendering decisions on “controversial” cases in the last weeks of its term, the Dobbs decision will likely be announced by the end of June.

Until the Supreme Court renders its decision, our posture must be on our knees before the Lord. CWA is encouraging our leaders, members, and friends across the country to set aside the fourth Monday of the next six months, beginning January 24, for focused prayer on the Dobbs case. Using the 30 Days of Prayer for Life prayer booklet and our monthly prayer points listed below, we encourage you to gather together people to pray in person, over the phone, or via Zoom.

 


Monday, January 24, 2022

Using the 30 Days of Prayer for Life booklet, read silently or aloud prayers 1, 2, 13, 14, and 15.

Strategic Prayer Points:

  • Pray that the March for Life, held on January 21 in Washington, D.C., had a great spiritual impact on the Justices and their law clerks as they continue to study and prepare their opinions for the Dobbs vs Jackson case.
  • Pray for the media, that they will see the importance of the March for Life in light of the Dobbs case and choose to report on the march and the case both fairly and accurately.
  • Pray that the decision of the Dobbs case will end the federal scourge of abortion on our nation.

 

February – June prayer points will be listed soon.

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>

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.

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 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!

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!