Concerned Women for America

Trent Franks Admits Anti-Choice Bill is a Ruse to Criminalize All Abortions, Warns of America's Demise

During an appearance on Concerned Women for America’s radio program, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) admitted that his bill to ban abortions based on the race or sex of the fetus wasn’t so much about stopping race or sex-based abortions but a ploy to criminalize abortion overall. “The people on the pro-abortion side say, ‘Trent you have a much bigger issue and a much bigger agenda here than just sex-selection and race-selection abortion,’” Franks said, “and I think the honest thing for me to do is say yes that’s true.” Franks has long been a proponent of the discredited assertion that abortion providers are deliberately trying to abort black children in order to exterminate African Americans, even arguing that black women were better off under slavery than today when abortion is legal.

Later in the interview, Franks repeated his extreme and conspiratorial claims about President Obama, arguing that his reelection would lead to constitutional and security crises and even the emergence of “nuclear terrorism.”

The people on the pro-abortion side say, ‘Trent you have a much bigger issue and a much bigger agenda here than just sex-selection and race-selection abortion,’ and I think the honest thing for me to do is say yes that’s true. I want someday for children of all sexes and all races to be protected and that’s definitely an agenda for me and I think it should be for all people in the human family. But at least we can get together on this much, that it’s wrong to abort a little child because it’s the wrong sex or the wrong race, if we can’t come together on that then I’m afraid that any hope of commonalty and unity in this country is lost forever.



The greatest challenge we have, and I’m going to be partisan for a moment but its reality, we must change presidents. At all costs, we must change presidents. This is the most pro-abortion president in the history of the country and not only will the unborn suffer terribly, the Constitution itself will essentially be abrogated by his Supreme Court nominees, our national security will be fundamentally weakened, we will become a regional power and we will face potentially nuclear terrorism in our world and unfortunately we will step into the shadow of European socialism if this president is reelected and the Congress won’t have anything to do to stop that. The equation is very, very clear, Americans must change presidents and I pray we understand that for the sake of the unborn and essentially everything else that we care about in this country.

After 9th Circuit Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional, Marriage Equality Opponents Look to the Supreme Court

The Ninth Circuit Court today upheld a lower court ruling which found Proposition 8, which overturned marriage equality in California, unconstitutional. Religious Right activists immediately denounced the ruling and used the decision to attack gays and lesbians, judges, Hollywood and San Francisco.

The National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown emailed members with a warning that the case will end up with an “all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court” and told members that donations are needed to deny “same-sex marriage radicals” a legal victory:

Moments ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed down a sweeping ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 and—for the first time ever—finding a "right" to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution!

This sets up an all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court.



A Supreme Court victory would preserve the marriage laws of 44 states, denying same-sex marriage radicals in their campaign to force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop. But if we lose at the Supreme Court, marriage will be jeopardized not just in California, but in all 50 states.

NOM also posted additional statements from Brown and board chairman John Eastman, who called it an “absurd ruling”:

“As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker’s first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.”



“Never before has a federal appeals court – or any federal court for that matter – found a right to gay marriage under the US Constitution,” said constitutional scholar John Eastman, who is chairman of NOM. “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned circuit in the country, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of today’s absurd ruling is the most overturned federal judge in America. Today’s ruling is a perfect setup for this case to be taken by the US Supreme Court, where I am confident it will be reversed. This issue is the Roe v Wade of the current generation, and I sincerely doubt the Court has the stomach for preempting the policy judgments of the states on such a contentious matter, knowing the lingering harm it caused by that ruling.”

The Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Brian Raum dubbed the ruling a “Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage”:

No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people. Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea of changing the definition of marriage. Sixty-three million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on marriage, and 63 percent voted to preserve marriage as the timeless, universal, unique union between husband and wife.

We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage–tried in San Francisco–turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court. Every pro-marriage American should be pleased that this case can finally go to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team’s arguments align with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision on marriage in American history.

Catholics for the Common Good president William May derided the court for failing to “to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society”:

"It is outrageous that judges continue to disregard the will of 7 million voters who voted to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society," May said.

Federal District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker presided over a show trial about marriage in which plaintiff's counsel trotted out witness after witness with emotional arguments in a PR attempt to re-argue Proposition 8.

"Failing to disclose that the judge himself was similarly situated as the plaintiffs (in a long-term committed relationship with a same-sex partner), Walker could find no rational reason for the voters to define marriage between a man and a woman and concluded they were bigoted and discriminatory," said May.

"To reach his judgment about the voters and his decision to strike down Prop 8, he created a new definition of marriage as merely the public recognition of a committed relationship for the benefit of adults. However, the voters of California know that marriage is much more than that. It is the reality that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union. This is what marriage is; that is what it does. It is a reality that can only be recognized by law and never changed."

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council accused the court of “judicial tyranny” and trying to “impose San Francisco values on the entire country”:

"Today's decision was disappointing but not surprising, coming from the most liberal Circuit Court in the country. This Hollywood-funded lawsuit, which seeks to impose San Francisco values on the entire country, may eventually reach the Supreme Court. This is not about constitutional governance but the insistence of a group of activists to force their will on their fellow citizens.

"This ruling substitute's judicial tyranny for the will of the people, who in the majority of states have amended their constitutions, as California did, to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"However, we remain confident that in the end, the Supreme Court will reject the absurd argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a 'right' to homosexual 'marriage,' and will instead uphold the right of the people to govern themselves.

"Voters in 31 states have voted to uphold the historic and natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Twenty-nine, a majority of American states, have actually inserted such a definition into the text of their state constitutions," concluded Perkins.

Focus on the Family analyst Bruce Hausknecht called the ruling “yet another instance of social engineering”:

“Opponents of Prop 8 insist on changing the definition of marriage for everyone, including children who deserve the opportunity to grow up in a home with their own married mother and father," Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family, said in a statement after the ruling.

“But no judge has the right to redefine marriage," he continued. "Doing so redefines parenthood, and offers yet another instance of social engineering based on the desires of adults rather than the interests of children."

Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Young Nance asserted that the judges “undermined the foundations of the family and liberty”:

Once again, the Ninth Circuit lives up to its reputation as the most overturned court in the country. Only this time, they have reached a new low. They not only showed a complete disregard for the Constitution, but also for those principles and values that gave birth to it, and for "we the people" who are supposed to be the ultimate authority.

Californians voted overwhelmingly to support the traditional definition of marriage that has been the foundation of this great nation. Our experiences have shown us, as science proves, that the best environment for children to develop as productive members of our society is in a home where there is a mother and a father who love them and each other unconditionally. Yet with a stroke of the pen these three judges have undermined the foundations of the family and liberty.

Shame on them.

We know this issue will eventually end up at the U.S. Supreme Court and we hope, for the sake of our country's future, that they will show much more respect for the Constitution, our foundations and the people who give them the right to make these rulings in the first place.

UPDATE: The Capitol Resource Institute blasted the ruling as “a stunning assault on democracy”:

"This is a stunning assault on democracy and California's initiative process," explained Karen England, Executive Director of pro-family group Capitol Resource Institute and a key leader in the passage of Proposition 8. "Well over 50% of California voters approved Proposition 8; today their will was overturned by a panel of arrogant judges who want to impose their political agenda on the rest of us."

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling is not the end of the road for Proposition 8.

"The truth will always prevail and we are confident that the traditional-and true-definition of marriage will be upheld by the Supreme Court," stated England. "The voice of the people must be heard and respected. The future of California and American families depends upon the sanctity of traditional marriage. It's time for the courts to recognize marriages' critical role in society and protect it."

Former NOM head Maggie Gallagher, now with the Culture War Victory Fund, writes on National Review Online that the ruling represents a “breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic”:

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Dishonestly, the court claimed it did not require any heightened scrutiny to reach this result.

Gordon Klingenschmitt said that the “Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves” as a result of the ruling:

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced today that the Founding Fathers wrote homosexual 'marriage' rights into the U.S. Constitution, and overturned California's Proposition 8 traditional marriage law, which had twice been passed by voters. The Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves, since all of them believed sodomy was a crime, and certainly not a Constitutional right.

Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver claimed the ruling “undermines the legitimacy of the judicial system” and represents the “unraveling of the actual judiciary”:

"This is a travesty of justice and it undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary," Staver tells OneNewsNow. "When judges find that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it's absolutely absurd. This is, I think, an illustration of why the judiciary has lost the confidence of the American people."

"If you look at ideology ... pushed by this particular panel, obviously that's what this panel did: they looked at their own ideological bias, their radical positions -- not the Constitution itself. And when they did that, it undermined their own legitimacy -- and I think this is the unraveling of the actual judiciary. It is the very seeds, as Thomas Jefferson said, of tyranny."

"They're not only saying that the voters don't have the right to amend their own constitution and define marriage, they're also saying that there is a constitutional, guaranteed right to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution itself. That's absolutely absurd. It is insane to suggest that there is such a right in the United States Constitution."

The Family Leader dubbed the court a “friend of the radical homosexual agenda” and referred to the ruling as a case of bullying:

Today's decision by the liberal 9th Circut Court, while expected, is sad and outrageous on many levels. Not least of which is "we the people" get bullied again by a few "robed masters." It's also evidence that when executives go wobbly on fighting the left's agenda and not appointing ONLY strict constructionist judges, who take the Constitution and due process seriously, we continue to lose these battles. However, the 9th Circuit's opinon is no surprise; they have been a friend of the radical homosexual agenda for years. As for us; we have only begun to and will continue to be in the fight! Join us!

Gary Bauer of American Values chided the “Circus” Court for attempting to “force its radical agenda down our throats” and “threatening religious liberty”:

The Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals has struck again. Today, a divided three-judge panel overruled the majority of California voters and struck down Proposition 8 — the state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The court’s majority ruled that traditional marriage “fails to advance any rational basis.” So in spite of thousands of years of recorded history, in spite of the values held by every major faith, in spite of basic biology and common sense and in spite of the will of the people, these left-wing judicial ideologues believe that normal marriage is irrational.

Here’s the bottom line: The culture war is real. The left does not intend to allow these issues to be decided by the people in their respective states. It will use the courts to force its radical agenda down our throats.

This is why it is so important for men and women of faith to be informed and active in the public policy debates of our time. These decisions are redefining our cherished values and threatening religious liberty.

After 9th Circuit Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional, Marriage Equality Opponents Look to the Supreme Court

The Ninth Circuit Court today upheld a lower court ruling which found Proposition 8, which overturned marriage equality in California, unconstitutional. Religious Right activists immediately denounced the ruling and used the decision to attack gays and lesbians, judges, Hollywood and San Francisco.

The National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown emailed members with a warning that the case will end up with an “all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court” and told members that donations are needed to deny “same-sex marriage radicals” a legal victory:

Moments ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed down a sweeping ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 and—for the first time ever—finding a "right" to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution!

This sets up an all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court.



A Supreme Court victory would preserve the marriage laws of 44 states, denying same-sex marriage radicals in their campaign to force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop. But if we lose at the Supreme Court, marriage will be jeopardized not just in California, but in all 50 states.

NOM also posted additional statements from Brown and board chairman John Eastman, who called it an “absurd ruling”:

“As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker’s first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.”



“Never before has a federal appeals court – or any federal court for that matter – found a right to gay marriage under the US Constitution,” said constitutional scholar John Eastman, who is chairman of NOM. “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned circuit in the country, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of today’s absurd ruling is the most overturned federal judge in America. Today’s ruling is a perfect setup for this case to be taken by the US Supreme Court, where I am confident it will be reversed. This issue is the Roe v Wade of the current generation, and I sincerely doubt the Court has the stomach for preempting the policy judgments of the states on such a contentious matter, knowing the lingering harm it caused by that ruling.”

The Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Brian Raum dubbed the ruling a “Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage”:

No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people. Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea of changing the definition of marriage. Sixty-three million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on marriage, and 63 percent voted to preserve marriage as the timeless, universal, unique union between husband and wife.

We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage–tried in San Francisco–turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court. Every pro-marriage American should be pleased that this case can finally go to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team’s arguments align with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision on marriage in American history.

Catholics for the Common Good president William May derided the court for failing to “to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society”:

"It is outrageous that judges continue to disregard the will of 7 million voters who voted to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society," May said.

Federal District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker presided over a show trial about marriage in which plaintiff's counsel trotted out witness after witness with emotional arguments in a PR attempt to re-argue Proposition 8.

"Failing to disclose that the judge himself was similarly situated as the plaintiffs (in a long-term committed relationship with a same-sex partner), Walker could find no rational reason for the voters to define marriage between a man and a woman and concluded they were bigoted and discriminatory," said May.

"To reach his judgment about the voters and his decision to strike down Prop 8, he created a new definition of marriage as merely the public recognition of a committed relationship for the benefit of adults. However, the voters of California know that marriage is much more than that. It is the reality that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union. This is what marriage is; that is what it does. It is a reality that can only be recognized by law and never changed."

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council accused the court of “judicial tyranny” and trying to “impose San Francisco values on the entire country”:

"Today's decision was disappointing but not surprising, coming from the most liberal Circuit Court in the country. This Hollywood-funded lawsuit, which seeks to impose San Francisco values on the entire country, may eventually reach the Supreme Court. This is not about constitutional governance but the insistence of a group of activists to force their will on their fellow citizens.

"This ruling substitute's judicial tyranny for the will of the people, who in the majority of states have amended their constitutions, as California did, to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"However, we remain confident that in the end, the Supreme Court will reject the absurd argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a 'right' to homosexual 'marriage,' and will instead uphold the right of the people to govern themselves.

"Voters in 31 states have voted to uphold the historic and natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Twenty-nine, a majority of American states, have actually inserted such a definition into the text of their state constitutions," concluded Perkins.

Focus on the Family analyst Bruce Hausknecht called the ruling “yet another instance of social engineering”:

“Opponents of Prop 8 insist on changing the definition of marriage for everyone, including children who deserve the opportunity to grow up in a home with their own married mother and father," Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family, said in a statement after the ruling.

“But no judge has the right to redefine marriage," he continued. "Doing so redefines parenthood, and offers yet another instance of social engineering based on the desires of adults rather than the interests of children."

Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Young Nance asserted that the judges “undermined the foundations of the family and liberty”:

Once again, the Ninth Circuit lives up to its reputation as the most overturned court in the country. Only this time, they have reached a new low. They not only showed a complete disregard for the Constitution, but also for those principles and values that gave birth to it, and for "we the people" who are supposed to be the ultimate authority.

Californians voted overwhelmingly to support the traditional definition of marriage that has been the foundation of this great nation. Our experiences have shown us, as science proves, that the best environment for children to develop as productive members of our society is in a home where there is a mother and a father who love them and each other unconditionally. Yet with a stroke of the pen these three judges have undermined the foundations of the family and liberty.

Shame on them.

We know this issue will eventually end up at the U.S. Supreme Court and we hope, for the sake of our country's future, that they will show much more respect for the Constitution, our foundations and the people who give them the right to make these rulings in the first place.

UPDATE: The Capitol Resource Institute blasted the ruling as “a stunning assault on democracy”:

"This is a stunning assault on democracy and California's initiative process," explained Karen England, Executive Director of pro-family group Capitol Resource Institute and a key leader in the passage of Proposition 8. "Well over 50% of California voters approved Proposition 8; today their will was overturned by a panel of arrogant judges who want to impose their political agenda on the rest of us."

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling is not the end of the road for Proposition 8.

"The truth will always prevail and we are confident that the traditional-and true-definition of marriage will be upheld by the Supreme Court," stated England. "The voice of the people must be heard and respected. The future of California and American families depends upon the sanctity of traditional marriage. It's time for the courts to recognize marriages' critical role in society and protect it."

Former NOM head Maggie Gallagher, now with the Culture War Victory Fund, writes on National Review Online that the ruling represents a “breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic”:

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Dishonestly, the court claimed it did not require any heightened scrutiny to reach this result.

Gordon Klingenschmitt said that the “Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves” as a result of the ruling:

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced today that the Founding Fathers wrote homosexual 'marriage' rights into the U.S. Constitution, and overturned California's Proposition 8 traditional marriage law, which had twice been passed by voters. The Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves, since all of them believed sodomy was a crime, and certainly not a Constitutional right.

Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver claimed the ruling “undermines the legitimacy of the judicial system” and represents the “unraveling of the actual judiciary”:

"This is a travesty of justice and it undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary," Staver tells OneNewsNow. "When judges find that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it's absolutely absurd. This is, I think, an illustration of why the judiciary has lost the confidence of the American people."

"If you look at ideology ... pushed by this particular panel, obviously that's what this panel did: they looked at their own ideological bias, their radical positions -- not the Constitution itself. And when they did that, it undermined their own legitimacy -- and I think this is the unraveling of the actual judiciary. It is the very seeds, as Thomas Jefferson said, of tyranny."

"They're not only saying that the voters don't have the right to amend their own constitution and define marriage, they're also saying that there is a constitutional, guaranteed right to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution itself. That's absolutely absurd. It is insane to suggest that there is such a right in the United States Constitution."

The Family Leader dubbed the court a “friend of the radical homosexual agenda” and referred to the ruling as a case of bullying:

Today's decision by the liberal 9th Circut Court, while expected, is sad and outrageous on many levels. Not least of which is "we the people" get bullied again by a few "robed masters." It's also evidence that when executives go wobbly on fighting the left's agenda and not appointing ONLY strict constructionist judges, who take the Constitution and due process seriously, we continue to lose these battles. However, the 9th Circuit's opinon is no surprise; they have been a friend of the radical homosexual agenda for years. As for us; we have only begun to and will continue to be in the fight! Join us!

Gary Bauer of American Values chided the “Circus” Court for attempting to “force its radical agenda down our throats” and “threatening religious liberty”:

The Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals has struck again. Today, a divided three-judge panel overruled the majority of California voters and struck down Proposition 8 — the state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The court’s majority ruled that traditional marriage “fails to advance any rational basis.” So in spite of thousands of years of recorded history, in spite of the values held by every major faith, in spite of basic biology and common sense and in spite of the will of the people, these left-wing judicial ideologues believe that normal marriage is irrational.

Here’s the bottom line: The culture war is real. The left does not intend to allow these issues to be decided by the people in their respective states. It will use the courts to force its radical agenda down our throats.

This is why it is so important for men and women of faith to be informed and active in the public policy debates of our time. These decisions are redefining our cherished values and threatening religious liberty.

Komen Crisis Reveals Breathtaking Hypocrisy of Anti-Choice Activists

Komen Crisis Reveals Breathtaking Hypocrisy of Anti-Choice Activists On Friday, we reported on how Religious Right groups reacted furiously to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation’s move to roll back their decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood under the excuse that they won’t work with groups under federal investigation — as Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) opened a politically charged investigation into the women’s health organization.

Many Americans were perplexed by a move that would terminate potentially life-saving healthcare for tens of thousands of women in order to cater to the “pro-life” movement and few knew that for years the anti-choice community has campaigned and criticized the Komen foundation for its partnership with Planned Parenthood. So-called “pro-lifers” regularly attacked Komen for giving grants to Planned Parenthood to provide clinical breast cancer screenings and mammogram referrals for women who may otherwise not be able to obtain them since they are uninsured or underinsured and may not have a primary care provider.

However, while anti-choice activists congratulated themselves for pushing Komen to end their partnership with Planned Parenthood, they attacked people who criticized Komen’s decision for their “bullying,” “mafia shakedown” and “gangsterism.”

Two major groups that claimed credit for having Komen cut its ties with Planned Parenthood are now attacking supporters of Planned Parenthood for doing similar advocacy work.

Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Young Nance called Komen’s initial decision a “major victory for the pro-life movement” and boasted that “CWA helped usher in” the investigation which Komen used as an excuse to end its work with Planned Parenthood. But on Friday, Nance denounced the “mafia-style shakedown of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.”

Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest also released a blistering statement on the “ugly and disgraceful shakedown” of Komen and Planned Parenthood’s “scorched-earth strategy”:

As a breast cancer survivor, I am troubled that the Komen Foundation has come under such heavy fire for their recent decision to tighten and focus their funding guidelines. This week we have all been witness to highly partisan attacks from pro-abortion advocates and an ugly and disgraceful shakedown that highlights Planned Parenthood’s willingness to pursue a scorched-earth strategy to force compliance with their pro-abortion agenda.

Contrast that with what Yoest said in support of Komen’s initial decision to defund Planned Parenthood:

As a breast cancer survivor, I applaud the decision made by the Komen Foundation to discontinue their partnership with the billion-dollar, abortion mega-provider, Planned Parenthood. The work of the Komen Foundation has life-saving potential and should not be intertwined with an industry dealing in death. When I learned that the foundation was using donated funds to support abortion providers, I stopped running in the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure. In the future, I’ll be racing with them to support this courageous decision.

Komen says it is halting its funding of Planned Parenthood due to public pressure from pro-life groups and the impending Congressional investigation of the abortion giant. According to a report from the Associated Press, “Many of the allegations [which sparked the Congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood] were outlined in a report presented to Stearns last year by Americans United for Life, a national anti-abortion group, which urged him to investigate.” [emphasis mine]

See that? The “public pressure from pro-life groups” on Komen and the AUL-inspired Stearns investigation was a great achievement, but advocacy to convince Komen to reverse their decision is “scorched earth” politics.

For Yoest, dubbed “the woman who got Komen to defund Planned Parenthood,” and other anti-choice zealots, the only acceptable advocacy work allowed is their own. AUL has now shut down and scrubbed their Team Life group for an upcoming Komen-sponsored marathon. But when opponents of Komen’s move to cutoff Planned Parenthood dollars did the same, AUL derided their “ugly and disgraceful” tactics.

Maggie Gallagher and Penny Nance Gush Over Rick Santorum

Religious Right activists are positively giddy over the new momentum behind Rick Santorum’s candidacy for president, and Maggie Gallagher today praised the former Pennsylvania senator as “a latter-day Rudy suddenly lifted above his Notre Dame teammates in a fantastic photo finish.” Gallagher said that the left wants “to go after him with a hatred unlike anyone else has yet generated in this race,” writing that progressives “hate him with that special ire reserved for his virtues, not his vices.”

On Tuesday night in Iowa, he stood before the cheering throngs like a Republican Rocky, or better yet, a latter-day Rudy suddenly lifted above his Notre Dame teammates in a fantastic storybook finish. On Tuesday night, for the first time, Rick Santorum was a contender. And a contender like nobody has yet seen in this race.



I have not yet endorsed anyone in this presidential race. And unlike some values voters, I am not anti-Mitt Romney. Romney is a fundamentally decent, extremely capable man, who fought hard for marriage in Massachussetts [sic]. If he is the GOP nominee, I can vote for him with great good will and a clean conscience.

But when the guy who has taken more hits than any other for standing up for life and marriage fights his way with nobody's help from nowhere to, well, Tuesday night -- you have to cheer.

The left, which thought it had buried Santorum years ago, is going to go after him with a hatred unlike anyone else has yet generated in this race. They hate him with that special ire reserved for his virtues, not his vices.

They will go after him not just to defeat him, but to smear his good name, to associate it with their own muck, to take a decent and honorable man and try literally to make his name mean mud. They will not succeed.



I am not anti-Romney. But after Tuesday night's victory, count me as pro-Rick.

Meanwhile, Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance penned a column lauding Santorum and couldn’t help herself from taking digs at Romney’s Mormon faith:

Santorum’s appeal to women and evangelicals centers on a desire for authenticity. Rick’s been consistent in behavior and record. His stance on the sanctity of life and traditional marriage gained the voters’ attention.



Many of my Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) members respect Mitt’s savvy business skills, but they are having a hard time wrapping their minds around him as a whole package.

They can’t ignore that it was the former Massachusetts governor who championed health care reform that cost the state $4.3 billion and 18,000 jobs. Nor can they ignore his past support for so-called “domestic partnerships” or the fact that after the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s paper tiger ruling on “gay marriage,” he ordered Justices of the Peace in the state to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples or be fired.

With evangelical Christians being one of the largest voting blocs in America, “the Mormon thing” may be an issue, but I am not convinced this is what has held him back. However, some of my CWALAC ladies would love to understand the whole “eternal pregnancy in heaven thing,” which, admittedly, to me sounds more like damnation than heaven.

Concerned Women for America Claims LGBT Rights Initiative Promotes 'Destructiveness'

Cindy Asmussen of Concerned Women for America’s Central Texas chapter pleaded with the organization’s members to boycott Macy’s over the company’s LGBT rights policy and to protest the Obama administration’s directive to combat discrimination against the LGBT community abroad. Macy’s has faced a torrent of criticism from Liberty Counsel and the American Family Association because the company fired a worker in San Antonio, Texas, who refused to abide by the company’s guidelines on LGBT customers. Asmussen said that members should stop shopping at the store until they rehire the employee:

As I strive to finish my Christmas shopping this season, the stores I choose to shop at are in the forefront of my mind. There are some companies that are actively supporting the lesbian, "gay," bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) agenda in our nation; therefore, they will not be getting my business. In the past week, one more store has been added to my list - Macy's (also their affiliate company Bloomingdales).

The Macy's store in San Antonio, Texas, fired Natalie Johnson after she noticed a cross-dressing man wearing lipstick coming out of the women's dressing room; she politely told him the rooms were for women only. The man, and several friends who were with him, began shouting profanities at Natalie and demanded to speak with her supervisor. After the management of the store assured the man that Macy's was indeed a LGBT friendly store and transgender men could use the women's dressing rooms, the supervisor then summoned Natalie into an office where she was forced to choose between upholding the company policy or job termination. Natalie chose to defend her values and the belief that it is a dangerous precedent to allow men to change in a women's dressing room also used by young girls. For that, she was fired.

But Asmussen wasn’t just concerned about “the lesbian, ‘gay,’ bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) agenda in our nation” (apparently only the word ‘gay’ warrants scare quotes), as she went on to rail against the Obama administration’s efforts to fight both legal and social discrimination against LGBT people around the world, which she said infringed on the rights of people who don’t support LGBT rights and undercut ‘ex-gay’ reparative therapy:

On December 6 at the United Nations, Hillary Clinton championed LGBT "rights." She claimed that members of the LGBT community are born that way, and it is something they cannot change. We know from all of the facts and testimonies of those who have come out of LGBT lifestyles that this is simply a lie. They can and do change all of the time. It is a behavior and a choice, and this is why there are several nationwide ministries helping those who want to be free from this lifestyle.

Statistics and facts already prove the destructiveness of these behaviors (such as the high numbers of sexually transmitted diseases in the homosexual community). Yet despite that, LGBT activists want to alter OUR lifestyles by intimidating us into accepting what we know is not of God, by trying to inhibit our free speech rights and abilities to speak out against it, and by forcing us to use the same dressing rooms (and, in many cases, bathrooms) with the opposite sex.

Evidently, while Concerned Women for America wants their members to pressure companies that developed progressive policies regarding their LGBT customers, the group condemns the U.S. for pushing back against countries that criminalize homosexuality and discriminate against their LGBT communities.

Crouse Trots Out the Same Old Stats to Show How Gays Threaten Marriage

Last week, Concerned Women for America posted a video featuring Janice Crouse, a Senior Fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, discussing the three biggest threats to the institution of marriage.

Among them were promiscuity, co-habitation, and, of course, homosexuality.

Crouse's presentation was chock-full of statistics that she pulled from who-knows where but they featured heavily in her case that the institution of marriage was threaten by gay relationships because gays have a much shorter life span, much higher suicide and STD rates, do not maintain relationships for longer than a year and a half, increased rates of abuse and have multiple sexual partners:

Bachmann's Iowa Campaign Chair Says Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead To Object Marriage

A candidate with a long and ferocious anti-gay record as Michele Bachmann needs a campaign chairman with a similar history of activism against gay rights. Last week, Bachmann’s campaign announced that Tamara Scott will serve as her Iowa Co-Chair, with campaign manager Eric Woolson announcing, “We are proud to have the support of an honorable conservative leader like Tamara.”

Scott is the director of Iowa’s Concerned Women for America chapter, and last year successfully fought to remove three justices from the Iowa Supreme Court after they legalized marriage equality in the state. She claimed that the future of America and people’s potential to enter Heaven would be in jeopardy if marriage equality remains the law of the land, telling supporters, “This is a battle for your future as Americans, for your future as a society and for your future someday when you stand before the Throne.”

One reason Scott said that voters should oppose marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is that it would open the door for polyamory and legalizing marriages between people and inanimate objects. While speaking with Bob Vander Plaats, the head of The Family Leader, Scott warned that gay rights will lead to people marrying objects like the Eiffel Tower:

CWA Protests LGBT Youth Conference To Stop "The Indoctrination And Recruitment Of Our Children"

Kenda Bartlett, National Field Director for Concerned Women for America, asked members to read about the work of CWA Home Team Captain Jeanne Sparks, who every year attends the PrideWorks Annual LGBTQ Youth Conference in Tarrytown, New York. Bartlett said that Sparks will distribute literature from the ‘ex-gay’ group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) on the purported dangers of being gay. Sparks was particularly worried about the emphasis on questioning youth at this year’s conference, warning, “The student who falls into the "Questioning" category at this event does not stand a chance.” “Pray that parents will be alerted to the dangers of the 'Gay,' Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) as it seeks to infiltrate our schools and the school curriculum,” Sparks asked CWA members, “Pray that people will rise up and speak out against this indoctrination and recruitment of our children.”

On Thursday, November 17, hundreds of New York high school students will attend the PrideWorks Conference at the Double Tree Hotel in Tarrytown, New York. PrideWorks is a conference for lesbian, "gay," bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth and their allies. PrideWorks' mission is to inform our communities about the realities of growing up "gay," lesbian, bisexual or transgender, and to inspire them to respect and support LGBT people and advocate for positive change.

Jeanne Sparks, Concerned Women for America (CWA) Home Team Captain, has attended this conference since 2006. "I have also been following this since 2006, when I attended the conference and listened to Dani Neusom, a civil rights lawyer, call parents, preachers, and anyone who believes that homosexuality is unnatural and that you can change 'bigots and homophobes.' She says that in a hundred years Southern Baptists are going to have to apologize to the 'gay' community. Since then I have been on the outside giving out written testimony of those who have been changed by the power of God, giving out Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) information and important statistics from the Centers for Disease Control regarding men having sex with men (71 percent of new HIV/AIDS diagnoses are with men who have sex with men). I wonder if they will tell them that statistic in the workshop on AIDS?"

The keynote speakers for the conference are two transgender lawyers. They will be speaking to between 500-600 attendees - mostly high school students and some middle school students. Most of the workshops have gone beyond homosexuality. Transgender advocacy and normalcy is being taught and promoted. LGBT has recently been changed and is now LGBTQ with the "Q" standing for "questioning." The student who falls into the "Questioning" category at this event does not stand a chance.



"The Bible and the LGBTQ Community" will explore "the language of religion, especially the selective use of 'proof' texts from both Hebrew and Christian Scripture which has long been used to support bigotry and discrimination against LGBTQ people. What does the Judeo-Christian Bible really say and how can it speak to those who use Sacred Literature to exclude rather than include people based on their sexual orientation?"

The workshop description for "'Fixing' What's Not Broken: The Damage of Reparative Therapy and the Ex-Gay" states, "We hear it all the time: 'Jesus can cure you of your homosexuality.' Yet, when the research is done, we find that no one has really 'prayed the gay away.' In fact, most people attending 'change' groups end up harmed and feeling much worse than when they went in. Dr. Rix, an ex-gay survivor and author of Ex-Gay No-Way: Survival and Recovery from Religious Abuse will lead a lively and insightful workshop for anyone to attend."

Jeanne Sparks will be there. "This year, since the conference is on private property, I will not be close to the kids or have a table. I will be on the streets, while the buses arrive and when they leave. I will be there at lunch time and hope that some who see me there and who are questioning or seeking will come out to me. I have spoken to kids who were raised in Christian homes. Pray for me on Thursday, November 17; pray that God would send others to labor with me; pray that parents will be alerted to the dangers of the 'Gay,' Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) as it seeks to infiltrate our schools and the school curriculum. Pray that people will rise up and speak out against this indoctrination and recruitment of our children."

CWA's Diaz Says Marriage Equality Is "Like Redefining A Color"

Last week Mario Diaz, Concerned Women for America’s Policy Director for Legal Issues, appeared on Crosstalk with Jim Schneider on Voice of Christian Youth America radio to warn about the supposed devastation that would result of Congress repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Diaz, who wrote a Washington Times op-ed lashing out at Senate Democrats who support the law’s repeal for working “against the will of the people” in order to “force their own values on the rest of the nation,” told Schneider that legalizing marriage for same-sex couples is like redefining the color blue. He went on to say that even advocates of gay rights intuitively believe that marriage equality is wrong, arguing that gay rights contradicts the Bible and the views of the Founding Fathers:

Schneider: It even revolts me to even say ‘same-sex marriage,’ because that term in itself is an oxymoron. Marriage is between one man and one woman, and when you put ‘same-sex’ before it, it’s two terms that do not go along with each other.

Diaz: That’s exactly right, I always say it is like redefining a color, it’s like getting the color blue and saying for now on some other color will be called blue. You’re really redefining the term to mean whatever you want it.



The Bible is clear and God’s principle is clear, and I think those are those self-evident truths that our Founders referred to, and I think we all know in the end, even those who are supporting this behavior, know that there is something wrong about this. They feel, even those people who are listening to us now, they don’t know exactly how to express it but they know that this is wrong. That is something we can go with but we need to be diligent in standing up for those truths and not buying into this whole idea of ‘tolerance’ as we have talked about it, have unfortunately shamed us, and even made some Christians who know the truth to be silent in order not to be called bigoted or any other name. We need to stand up for those truths because they are important and foundational for our future.

CWA’s South Dakota director Linda Schauer also spoke out against the repeal of the discriminatory law, contending that the repeal of DOMA was part of a plot by liberals to wreak “havoc on our traditional values”:

DOMA prevents states from being forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states and defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman for federal purposes.

The (Dis)Respect for Marriage Act circumvents the will of the 31 states (including South Dakota) that have already voted to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman in their state constitutions.

Liberals are persistent in wreaking havoc on our traditional values. No surprise if Sen. Harry Reid attaches it to a must-pass defense bill putting senators between a rock and a hard place. Hopefully, Johnson will respect the South Dakota Constitution and affirm his 1996 vote for DOMA by opposing the so-called Respect for Marriage Act. I trust his thoughts on the definition of marriage have not eroded.

When not panicking about the demise of DOMA, the anti-gay group was criticizing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s appointment of openly gay actress Ellen DeGeneres to be the United States’ envoy for AIDS awareness. Janice Shaw Crouse, the director of CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, told OneNewsNow that her appointment shows that the Obama Administration is trying to use the AIDS crisis “to promote the homosexual agenda”:

"She is openly lesbian and obviously is an activist on the issue of homosexual rights and has taken a very active role in pushing the homosexual agenda. So for her to be the person who's out front and the face of the Obama administration in the whole fight against AIDS I think is inappropriate," Crouse decides.

She is also concerned about how the appointee will be received in sub-Saharan Africa, where AIDS has been rampant. "There are plenty of Christian nations in that region and some Muslim nations in that region, so she is not going to receive a very warm welcome there or be an appropriate person to be the face of the fight against AIDS," the CWA spokesperson warns.

So Crouse concludes the administration's choice appears to be "an effort to promote the homosexual agenda."

ADL Condemns Film Likening Holocaust To Abortion

Anti-choice activists have for years equated legal abortion in America to the Holocaust, along with slavery, Jim Crow laws and terrorism. The Holocaust comparison is front and center in the new movie 180, a “documentary” that attempts to change the minds of pro-choice viewers by showing graphic footage from the Holocaust and comparing it to abortion. 180 has been publicized by groups such as Concerned Women for America and Personhood USA, which claimed to have sent the film to 600,000 Mississippi residents just days before the unsuccessful “personhood” referendum.

The producers of 180 say that “between 180,000 and 200,000 copies of the 33-minute DVD were given out at 100 of America's top universities” and that they now want high schools to use the film while teaching students about the Holocaust.

Yesterday, the Anti-Defamation League called 180 “one of the most offensive and outrageous abuses of the memory of the Holocaust we have seen in years”:

"The film is a perverse attempt to make a case against abortion in America through the cynical abuse of the memory of those killed in the Holocaust," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and a Holocaust survivor. "Not only does the film try to assert a moral equivalency between the Holocaust and abortion, but it also brings Jews and Jewish history into the discussion and then calls on its viewers to repent and accept Jesus as their savior. It is, quite frankly, one of the most offensive and outrageous abuses of the memory of the Holocaust we have seen in years."



"The creators of the film clearly don't get it," said Mr. Foxman. "No Christian who understands Jewish suffering should resort to inappropriate comparisons to the Holocaust to send a message that abortion is wrong. This was one of the most painful chapters in human history. Must the memory of the 6 million and millions of other victims be continually misused and abused by those with another agenda?"

In the film, Comfort manipulates the young people interviewed to view the killing of innocent Jews during the Holocaust to be the same as the killing of fetuses. First, he asks the young people whether they would agree to bulldoze innocent Jews into a mass grave and bury them alive it would save their own lives. Then he asks questions about abortion. He tells the young people who answered 'no' to the first question that they have just said that they would not kill innocent Jews, but they think it is okay to kill innocent babies.

Ray Comfort, the creator of 180, hit back at the ADL in a statement today, arguing that the group should be “thanking” him, adding that doctors charging for abortions are just like Nazis profiting off the killing of Jews:

"ADL should be thanking me. Instead they have come out swinging" Comfort said. "My only explanation is that they haven't thought it out before they rushed to judgment. If anyone should stand up for those who have no voice for themselves, it should be the Jews."



The Los Angeles-based film maker added, "Germany lawfully slaughtered six million Jews. America has lawfully slaughtered nearly ten times that amount. Also, every time Hitler killed a Jewish family he lined his pockets by seizing their assents -- their paintings, jewelry, cars, homes, and bank account. He also seized the gold from their teeth and the hair from their heads, and it amounted to billions of dollars, financing a third of his war-machine with the blood of the Jews." Comfort maintained that the American abortion industry does the same. He said, "Every time a doctor rips the arms, the legs and the head off a baby, he makes quick and easy money. If you want your 16-week baby killed in the womb, it will cost you $765 (current pricing). But if your baby is 19 weeks, it jumps to $2,165, amounting to billions in the pockets of abortion providers. American abortion is not about 'choice,' it's about money... just like the Holocaust. The analogy is legitimate."

Religious Right Rallies To Fight The Repeal Of DOMA

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) became a chief target of Religious Right activists after she introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and end federal discrimination against married same-sex couples. In an email titled, “Getting Gay With Marriage,” Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition warns that President Obama, the Supreme Court and “left-wing radicals have declared open warfare against America’s families” by “trying to cram gay marriage through Congress”:

URGENT: Please forward this e-mail to as many friends as possible. Senate Democrats led by Dianne Feinstein are once again trying cram gay marriages through Congress! We need to deliver 50,000 signatures in the next 48 hours if we are to fight back against this reckless and liberal attack on marriage!

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee meets to do the unthinkable -- redefine marriage, repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and overturn the will of the people in 41 states across the country.

In the next 48 hours, the anti-marriage left is trying to gather 50,000 signatures to deliver to the Senate to overturn DOMA.



Yet liberals in Washington have used every judicial tool they have to overturn the will of the American people!

Worse, liberals such as Barack Obama have done everything in their power to pack the courts with likeminded left-wing radicals such as Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Make no mistake -- Obama and the left-wing radicals have declared open warfare against America’s families.

Liberty Counsel also called on the Senate to stop the Respect for Marriage Act, warning that the bill will “undermine marriage” and will wrongly reward “same-sex preferences”:

DOMA defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, which is the only way our federal government has viewed marriage. This law was enacted in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton. Natural marriage benefits our society by providing the ideal way to raise future generations, stable relationships, and health benefits that same-sex preferences do not. Government has the authority to reward and defend natural marriage because of the good it creates in our society.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, said: I urge the Senators to vote against the repeal of DOMA. Thirty states have passed constitutional amends to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Senate has better things to do with the faltering economy than to undermine marriage. Liberty Counsel Action will be scoring the votes and will be informing the voters, and the voters will hold Senators accountable.”

Mario Diaz of Concerned Women for America penned an op-ed in The Washington Times last week attacking the bill as a threat to the country’s “freedom and liberty”:

But despite what “We the people” want, liberal lawmakers will stop at nothing until they force their own values on the rest of the nation. That is why they introduced this bill and will continue to introduce it until they get it through. Perhaps they’ll hide it in a defense bill, as they did with the controversial “hate crimes” legislation. They’ll never let freedom and liberty get in the way of liberal ideology.

Americans should take note of every congressman supporting this bill, and they should let their voices be heard. Enough is enough. We need not take it.

If they want to respect something, they should respect “We the people.” How about that?

CWA: Same-Sex Parents Use Children As "Guinea Pigs"

Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute is speaking out against a bill proposed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) that would eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples in the adoption and foster care process. Crouse told the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow that “the data overwhelmingly says” that homes headed by same-sex couples “are not as good for children.” She went on to say that the “homosexual agenda” is “being advanced at the expense of our children and at the expense of the future of our country” and that we are witnessing “children who are being used as guinea pigs.”

Of course, the data actually shows the opposite.

“Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support,” writes the American Psychological Association. “Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.”

Last year, a twenty-five year study following children born to lesbian parents published in Pediatrics confirmed “[p]revious studies [which] have found no significant differences in psychological health between children reared by lesbian or heterosexual parents” and even found that “the children of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence. They were rated significantly lower in social problems, rule breaking, and aggressive problems.”

But Crouse doesn’t let actual research come in the way of her zealous opposition to gay equality:

A conservative Christian public policy group does not agree with a bill under consideration in the Senate that encourages adoption agencies to permit lesbian, "gay," bisexual, and transgender couples to adopt children.

Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America (CWA) tells OneNewsNow that the "Every Child Deserves a Family Act," introduced by New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D), is an experiment that should not be taking place.

"Something around 65,000 adopted children and 14,000 foster children live in homes that are headed by non-heterosexuals, and yet the data very overwhelmingly says these homes are not as good for children," Crouse notes. "They don't even come close to being as good for children as a married couple -- mom and dad -- family."

And she suggests the measure is not so much about the children as it is about advancing the homosexual agenda.

"That agenda is being advanced at the expense of our children and at the expense of the future of our country," the CWA spokesperson laments. "When you have children who are being used as guinea pigs like this, it's totally unwarranted."

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Rick Santorum goes after Herman Cain on the issue of abortion and using quotes from various Religious Right leaders to drive home the point.
  •  

  • The Rick Perry campaign has hit upon a novel possible solution to addressing the candidate's poor debate performances: skipping future debates.
  •  

  • Quran-burning pastor Terry Jones is running for president.
  •  

  • FRC's latest prayer target: "Pray that DOMA will be preserved! May the people elect a President and Congress next November who will pass, and may the states ratify a Federal Marriage Amendment that will protect the definition of natural marriage as found in the Bible."
  •  

  • Bryan Fischer says "the left is profoundly anti-science," which is why they refuse to admit that gays can choose to become straight.
  •  

  • Finally, Concerned Women for America has released talking points [PDF] opposing the Respect for Marriage Act.  Point one: "Despite its deliberately deceptive name, the 'Respect for Marriage Act' insidiously seeks to destroy the historical, traditional definition of marriage."

Perkins Ignores Palin To Spin The 2008 Election Loss

Several weeks ago, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins hosted a press briefing at the National Press Club to discuss just what it is that the Religious Right is seeking in a Republican presidential nominee.

During the Q&A, Perkins was asked to discuss the idea that the very positions that make a candidate appealing to the Religious Right are the same positions that make such candidates unappealing to the general voting population.

Not surprisingly, Perkins took issue with that assessment and asserted instead that without the support of the Religious Right, no Republican candidate can hope to win the general elections and pointed to John McCain as proof:

This idea that a candidate that would be supported by social conservatives that would win the Republican nomination would be unacceptable to the general populace is just not true. I think the opposite it true; we saw that in the last election cycle. There was a Republican nomination that was not acceptable to social conservatives. He did not have the enthusiastic support of social conservatives and, as a result, the Republicans lost the general election.

Now, obviously McCain and the Religious Right had a rather contentious history, but to say that the McCain campaign did not receive the "enthusiastic support of social conservatives" requires one to completely ignore the rapturous lovefest that exploded when McCain announced the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, which we chronicled at the time:

James Dobson, Focus on the Family: "A lot of people were praying, and I believe Sarah Palin is God's answer.”

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council: “Senator McCain made an outstanding pick.”

Connie Mackey, FRCAction: “I am elated with Senator McCain's choice.”

Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel: "Absolutely brilliant choice.”

Richard Land: “Governor Palin will delight the Republican base.”

Rick Scarborough, Vision America, “I’m elated. I think it’s a superb choice."

Ralph Reed: “They’re beyond ecstatic. This is a home run.”

Gary Bauer, American Values: "[A] grand slam home run."

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: “She is the best possible choice.”

Janet Folger, Faith2Action: “[T]he selection of Sarah Palin is more than ‘Brilliant!’ ‘Electrifying!’ and ‘Energizing!’ The selection of Sarah Palin will lead to words like: ‘Rejuvenating!’ ‘Victory!’ and ‘Landslide!’"

Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America: “Governor Palin will change the dynamics of the entire presidential race.”

Janice Shaw Crouse, CWA's Beverly LaHaye Institute: “She is an outstanding woman who will be an excellent role model for the nation's young people.”

David Barton, Wallbuilders: "The talk won't be about, 'look at Sarah Palin' as much as 'look at what McCain's choice of Palin says about McCain's core beliefs.”

Jonathan Falwell: “John McCain made it very clear that his administration was going to be a pro-life administration, and he proved that’s his belief and his passion today with the choice of Sarah Palin.”

Jerry Falwell, Jr.: “I think it’s a brilliant choice.”

Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life: “And then when [Palin] was announced — it was like you couldn’t breathe. [We] were grabbing each other and jumping up and down.”

Gary Marx, Judicial Confirmation Network: "I can tell you that this pick tells millions in the base of the party that they can trust McCain. More specifically that they can trust him with Supreme Court picks and other key appointments’"

David Keene, American Conservative Union: “The selection of Governor Palin is great news for conservatives, for the party and for the country. I predict any conservatives who have been lukewarm thus far in their support of the McCain candidacy will work their hearts out between now and November for the McCain-Palin ticket."

If social conservatives were unenthusiastic about the McCain ticket last time around, some apparently forgot to tell all of these social conservatives who were gushing about just how thrilled they were. 

Religious Right Erupts Following Herman Cain's Incoherent Position On Abortion

Herman Cain has said this week that he is pro-life and that abortion should be made illegal, but also that the government shouldn’t have any role in it and the decision should be left up to the woman and her family. As Kyle notes, it seems that Cain’s position is that abortion should be outlawed but “in situations where a family was deciding whether or not to break the law, it is none of the government’s business to tell them what to do.” Cain seems to be the only person who understands this view, and the Religious Right is not happy, to say the least.

Rick Perry’s campaign suggested that Cain, along with Mitt Romney, has “flip flopped” on the issue and Rick Santorum went so far as to call him “pro-choice.” Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Young Nance said that Cain “needs to decide whether or not he is a social conservative”:

Last week Herman Cain said he didn’t support a federal marriage amendment, this week he has backed away from his earlier position on the sanctity of human life. Herman Cain needs to decide whether or not he is a social conservative. The issue of life is like the issue of slavery, it is an inalienable right. The life issue is a dividing line proving whether or not a leader’s moral compass is intact. This is not a point on which social conservative women will negotiate. Cain needs to figure out what he believes.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association argued that Cain’s remarks “could have come right out of the Planned Parenthood playbook” and wrote a column taking Cain to task:

Herman seems to be saying that he is pro-life with no exceptions for rape and incest — unless the family wants an exception, and then it’s none of his business.

Ouch.

In other words, Herman’s position on conceived-in-rape is virtually indistinguishable from the typical liberal position: personally pro-life, politically pro-abortion.

Although the rape and incest issue is obviously controversial, and a subset of the larger pro-life debate, this will create real problems for Herman in the campaign. It will be difficult for him to walk this one back.

Christian talk show host Janet Mefferd, like everyone it seems besides Cain, was utterly befuddled, saying that “his answer sounds awfully pro-choice,” charging, “that’s how the pro-abortion side talks!”

Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber later called into Mefferd’s show and urged Cain to clarify:

Guy Benson of Townhall also writes that after watching Cain’s interviews with Piers Morgan and with John Stossel, where Cain said that “abortion should not be legal” but an abortion “is her choice, that is not government’s choice,” it seems that Cain’s position, on the face of it, is pro-choice:

I'm a bit mystified that I'm even asking this question, frankly, because I simply assumed Cain was rock solid on the life issue -- but after a puzzling interview with CNN's Piers Morgan, I'm not sure what to think any more.



He starts out by saying he believes that life begins at conception, and that he supports "abortion under no circumstances." When Morgan presses him on the government's role in enforcing that belief -- an exchange that at least begins with a hypothetical question about a rape exception -- Cain begins to sound a lot like a "personally opposed to abortion, but still pro-choice" candidate. If you didn't know the following quote came out of Herman Cain's mouth, I wouldn't blame you for presuming its source was a Democrat.

Alliance Defense Fund To Launch Law School Aimed At Creating "Liberal Chaser" Attorneys

Religious Right leaders are coming together to form yet another law school to train future lawyers of the conservative movement. The right-wing Alliance Defense Fund is helping Louisiana College, a Southern Baptist institution, start the Paul Pressler School of Law, which will join Liberty University, Regent University and others in providing politicized training to the next generation of Religious Right lawyers.

Pressler’s ties to the Alliance Defense Fund will be similar to the Liberty University School of Law’s partnership with Liberty Counsel and the Regent University School of Law’s (originally Oral Roberts University’s Coburn School of Law) alliance with the American Center for Law and Justice. As Sarah Posner notes, such law schools intend to “teach the ‘biblical’ foundations of the law” and create “lawyers unafraid to inject their particular Christian beliefs, not only into the public square, but quite deliberately into legislation, policy, and jurisprudence.”

According to the National Law Journal, the new law school “is named for Paul Pressler III, a former Texas Court of Appeals judge who helped lead the conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention during the 1970s.”

The founding dean of the Pressler law school, J. Michael Johnson, was previously senior counsel of the ADF and, according to his Townhall.com bio, has “provided legal representation to organizations such as Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, Toward Tradition, the American Family Association, and Coral Ridge Ministries, and numerous family policy councils and crisis pregnancy centers.” In 2005, Johnson won the “Faith, Family and Freedom” award from Family Research Council president Tony Perkins for his work defending the Louisiana Marriage Protection Amendment, which placed a ban on same-sex marriage in the state’s constitution.

Yesterday on Today’s Issues, Perkins, who is a member of Pressler’s board of reference, spoke to Johnson about the new law school. Johnson said the law school would be “not unlike what our colleagues are doing at the Liberty University School of Law and the Regent University School of Law.” Perkins said, “This law school’s not going to be pumping out ambulance chasers, this is going to be pumping out liberal chasers, I mean we’re gonna track them down, wherever they are and we’re gonna defeat them, and if we can’t defeat them in the policy realm we’re gonna defeat them in the courts.” He added, “This law school is gonna be pumping out God-fearing, American-loving, family-defending attorneys”:

The choice of Louisiana College is no surprise. The school claims it “seeks to view all areas of knowledge from a distinctively Christian perspective and integrate Biblical truth thoroughly with each academic discipline” and believes “academic freedom of a Christian professor is limited by the preeminence of Jesus Christ, the authoritative nature of the Holy Scriptures, and the mission of the institution.”

In 2008 the school barred members of the Christian LGBT group Soul Force from appearing on campus. In his decision to bar the group, the college’s president cited a fake James Madison quote propagated by David Barton, which states that the U.S. government was based on “the Ten Commandments.”

Now David Barton is serving on the board of the law school.

Along with Perkins and Barton, Religious Right leaders on the board include Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association, Alveda King of Priests for Life, Religious Right luminary Tim LaHaye and his wife Beverly LaHaye of Concerned Women for America, Kelly Shackleford of the Liberty Institute and Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese. Republican politicians including Reps. Rodney Alexander and John Fleming, former congressman Bob McEwen, and senatorial candidate and Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz are also on the board.

North Carolina Legislator Says State Needs To Ban Same-Sex Marriage To Keep Gay "Agenda" From "Being Normal"

North Carolina state Sen. James Forrester appeared on Concerned Women for America radio Tuesday, along with his wife -- who just happens to be the Associate State Director of CWA’s North Carolina chapter -- to discuss the proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Republicans in the state legislature succeeded in getting a referendum on the marriage amendment on the ballot for May of next year.

Earlier this month, Forrester memorably told a town hall meeting that gays “are going to die at least 20 years earlier” than straight people. While proponents of the discriminatory marriage amendment claim that they are only focused on the issue of marriage, Forrester made it clear that there was a much larger goal behind the amendment: to “make it more difficult for the homosexual group to get their agenda recognized as being normal and getting it into schools and things like that.”

Listen:

Forrester: In some states even though the states have ratified having marriage between one man and one woman in the constitution, activist judges have overruled that, overruled the will of the people, that bothers me too, but if we don’t have it in the constitution there’s a whole lot better chance for them succeeding in what they’re trying to do. So I’m very encouraged that we’re gonna have the opportunity to vote on it, hopefully put it in our constitution, and make it more difficult for the homosexual group to get their agenda recognized as being normal and getting it into schools and things like that. So I’m very, very happy this morning.

Porter Bringing In The Prophets To Pray For Passage Of Heartbeat Bill

Janet Porter has, in many ways, been at the center of the merger between the "mainstream" Religious Right and the Dominionist prophets and apostles of the New Apostolic Reformation.  In fact, it was through Porter's participation in the "Convergence 2010" event, where she prayed that Christians would take control of the media, that we first became aware of the likes of Cindy Jacobs. 

Since then, Porter has gotten progressively more involved with the movement - so much so that she lost her radio program due to her embrace of Seven Mountains Dominionism.

But now Porter is back, pushing her radically anti-choice "Heartbeat Bill" in Ohio and her effort has won the support of everyone from Rick Perry to Michele Bachmann.  And next week Porter will once again be bringing self-proclaimed "prophets" like Lou Engle and Rick Joyner together with Religious Right activists like Wendy Wright and Rick Scarborough, this time to press for passage of her bill

Come to the event that will signal the beginning of the end of abortion in America! We've reserved the Ohio Statehouse Atrium (downtown Columbus, Ohio) on Tuesday, Sept. 20, to greet the Ohio senators as they come back from their summer recess. This is an event you will tell your children and grandchildren about! We will begin the day with prayer from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. with Pastor Dutch Sheets, author of "Intercessory Prayer," and Lou Engle of the Call. The rally begins at 11 a.m.



Several of the senators will be speaking, along with the who's who of the pro-life movement, beginning with the founder of both Ohio and National Right to Life, Dr. Jack Willke. Also speaking will be Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League, Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, Troy Newman from Operation Rescue, Dr. Rick Scarborough of Vision America, Dr. Jim Garlow of Renewing American Leadership, Rick Joyner of the Oak Initiative, Phil Burress of Citizens for Community Values and Timothy Johnson of the Frederick Douglass Foundation.


Concerned Women for America: Real Feminism Is Serving Your Husband

With conservative politicians and groups trying to ‘reclaim feminism’ for the Right, it is no surprise to see the notoriously anti-feminist Concerned Women for America jumping on the bandwagon. Concerned Women for America claims it was founded by Beverly LaHaye, whose husband is Religious Right leader Tim LaHaye, to counter the National Organization for Women because “She knew the feminists’ anti-God, anti-family rhetoric did not represent her beliefs, nor those of the vast majority of women.”

LaHaye has said, “Feminism is more than an illness. It is a philosophy of death.” But now, CWA insists that it is actually restoring feminism to its original purpose: to better enable women to serve their husbands.

Janice Shaw Crouse of CWA told the Christian Post that feminism was initially a Christian movement until it “was taken over by lesbians.” According to Crouse, real feminist women in the workplace “don’t view their job as a career or they don’t see themselves as career women – they see themselves helping their husbands.”

Incidentally, Crouse is a PhD who has built a career working as an antifeminist – she is an author and former presidential speechwriter and currently directs CWA's Beverly LaHaye Institute. Her daughter is the president of Americans United for Life:

“For many years, both secular and religious feminists operated with the same definition of equality,” says Crouse. “Then somewhere in the last 30 years that changed. Feminism was taken over by lesbians, by those who wanted quotas and abortion on demand.”



“Christian women do not like workplace quotas because Christian women don’t like the idea of being forced into the workplace – Christian women like choice, the option of going into the workplace or not,” says Crouse.

Part of the workplace tension between Christian women and secular feminists relates to how both groups define success. A Christian woman tends not to seek accolades or advancement solely in the workplace but instead views her work as part of her calling as a wife and mother.

“In general, Christian women are not in the workplace for power, they are there because they have some challenge, some very fulfilling responsibility,” adds Crouse. “Many Christian women choose to work part time, to bring in some extra income to help the family, but they don’t view their job as a career or they don’t see themselves as career women – they see themselves helping their husbands. It’s a completely different perspective from modern secular feminists, a fundamental disagreement and a different worldview about what it means to be a woman.”
Syndicate content

Concerned Women for America Top Posts

Founded by Beverly LaHaye, wife of Religious Right activist Tim LaHaye, as a counter to the progressive National Organization of Women, Concerned Women for America (CWA) describes itself as "the nation's largest public policy women's organization." CWA opposes gay rights, comprehensive sex education, drug and alcohol education, and feminism, while advocating what it calls "pro-life" and "pro-family" values. MORE >

Concerned Women for America Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Tuesday 07/02/2013, 11:00am
After arguing that gay marriage is a threat to children and community spirit, Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America took to the Washington Times today to warn about the approaching “bleak future Christians” in which people of faith will experience “harsh retribution in the form of fines and imprisonment” if gay marriage becomes legal. Crouse lashed out at “in-your-face media campaigns to normalize homosexual relationships” and pointed to an opinion piece by a Heritage Foundation fellow in CNN.com to claim that the DOMA ruling is a threat to... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 07/01/2013, 6:10pm
Despite Tony Perkins’ claim that the tide has turned against gay rights, a USA Today poll released today found that 55% of Americans back marriage equality.  Meanwhile, Rep. Tim Huelskamp has officially reintroduced the Federal Marriage Amendment.  Concerned Women for America warns that if gay marriage becomes legal then “the meaning of those sacred [marriage] vows are [sic] no longer there.”  Matt Barber says he is prepared to go to jail or die to fight gay rights.  James Robison fears that “quoting the Bible concerning... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 07/01/2013, 3:10pm
There are serious risks that come with reading James O’Keefe’s new book Breakthrough, but, on the other hand, if you don’t pick up a copy you will never learn O’Keefe’s “philosophy of war.” In an interview today with Chelsen Vicari of Concerned Women for America, O’Keefe discusses how he became engaged in politics to combat the “soft tyranny” of college and the “hostile professors and administrators” who didn’t appreciate his conservative views. For example, O’Keefe mocked efforts to combat racism by “... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Monday 07/01/2013, 2:25pm
Concerned Women for America’s Janice Shaw Crouse visited Eagle Forum Live on Saturday, where she spoke with Phyllis Schlafly about the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act. The two were not optimistic for the future of the country after the DOMA decision. In fact, Crouse implied that same-sex marriage would undermine community volunteerism because “a man and a woman committed to each other for life” are “where we get our volunteers for hospitals, our volunteers for services to the homeless, our volunteers for all... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 06/26/2013, 2:10pm
Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America claimed today that anti-gay marriage activists should get ready for “persecution” now that the Supreme Court has overturned the Defense of Marriage Act. Speaking on The Mike Huckabee Show, Nance warned that same-sex marriage is like “counterfeit money” that “takes at something that’s the real deal and diminishes it,” adding that the legalization of polygamy is coming next. Later in the show, Nance said the government will “cast aside” around “two thousand years of tradition” and... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 06/12/2013, 12:20pm
As we mentioned yesterday, Concerned Women for America is launching a new campaign to encourage young people to oppose abortion rights and marriage equality. CWA president Penny Nance writes in the Christian Post this week that young people are increasingly supportive of legalizing same-sex marriage because pastors have focused on issues like sex trafficking rather than addressing why gays and lesbians should be barred from marrying. She urges readers to work towards “thwarting threats to society's foundations and threats to anyone's religious freedom,” warning that if... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 06/11/2013, 11:35am
When HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled an FDA recommendation to allow the sale of the Plan B morning-after pill over the counter to women without age restrictions, Religious Right groups weren’t able to come up with a coherent response. Several conservative activists alleged (without any evidence) that the move was intended to compel women to go to Planned Parenthood clinics instead of pharmacies, while Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel came up with the bizarre claim that the Obama administration actually opposed the position it had taken and even defended in court. Now that the... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 06/11/2013, 10:45am
Mike Huckabee was joined by Concerned Women for America head Penny Nance yesterday to discuss CWA’s new campaign, Willing 2 Stand, designed to reach out to young people on their opposition to abortion rights and marriage equality. During most of the interview, Nance maintained that conservatives on college campuses were “bullied” and had trouble articulating their views on topics like gay rights. The former governor and presidential candidate said that “every fear that people had” about the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage “has in fact come true... MORE >