Concerned Women for America

Penny Nance Upset Pastors Would Rather Focus on Fighting Sex Trafficking than Opposing Gay Marriage

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 same-sex marriage is legalized then “children, communities, and governments suffer.”

Nance claims right-wing youth will be like David fighting the gay Goliath in the midst of “judicial despots” on the Supreme Court attempting to “redefine God’s law.”

The Supreme Court is reviewing challenges to state and federal laws that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Lower courts ruled against these marriage laws, so now the Supreme Court has the opportunity to uphold marriage and return authority for marriage policy to citizens and their elected representatives, or step in as judicial despots and cut the debate short by making a broad stroke ruling. And pastors and conservative politicians are stuck in a game of "Would You Rather?"

• Would you rather address the issue of sex trafficking or marriage? Sex Trafficking.

• Would you rather talk about abortion or the definition of marriage? Abortion.

• Would you rather talk about financial responsibility or marital responsibility? Easy choice.

We are losing battles as Christian conservatives follow their leaders into no man's land -- the land of not actually saying what you believe, where no man is offended because no man actually says anything. The issue of marriage is the perfect example. Many feel it is just too hard to talk about this issue. As it becomes more and more politically incorrect to support marriage only defined as the union between one man and one woman, many have decided to be silent in this area and just focus on other things. "Love," they say.

We all have friends and family who are homosexuals and we love them. We feel for them and we care deeply about their well being. As Christians, our whole belief system is summarized in loving God above all and our neighbor as ourselves. And that is our chief objective.

We know there is a growing proportion of believers who seek to live peacefully in this world yet have a growing realization of their place on today's frontlines. We are unable to feign ignorance any longer, as those who touted 'tolerance', unabashedly refuse to tolerate our belief system.



You and I deserve to have the debate. We'd rather not have the Supreme Court step in and try and decide for a nation how it feels on an issue so important, like it did in Roe v. Wade, forever affecting the ability of states to decide for themselves the public policy best for its citizens. We want traditional marriage preserved and supported in law and culture.

It's time to preach to the choir, because the choir has stopped singing truth and has instead taken up a politically correct tune deafening our culture to the reality of what's at stake. As Martin Luther put it, "If I profess with the loudest voice the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the Devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity."

As Believers we are called not just be a light to this world, but also to be the salt of the earth and preserve our culture by thwarting threats to society's foundations and threats to anyone's religious freedom.

Marriage is the special union crafted as a holy covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Marriage is the only institution by which our children are conceived and the best in which to raise them. Marriage identifies the recognizable authority of a mother and a father who are ordained with the responsibility of rearing the future generation. We could never grant these same responsibilities to two heterosexuals who simply live together because marriage is more than a living arrangement. When the government broadens the definition of marriage beyond its traditional parameters, children, communities, and governments suffer. We are already suffering from a 43 percent out of wedlock birth rate in this nation. Anything that further erodes and diminishes marriage must be avoided for many reasons, not the least of which being the incredible damage wrought on our society.

The time has come to decide whether you will be the David to this Goliath in our culture. Are you willing to sacrifice your time to educate yourself on the statistics that back up our Biblical beliefs? Are you willing to sacrifice your energy to speak truth in love to those who question your beliefs? Are you willing to choose this day whom you will serve?

Whether the Supreme Court rules to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act or not, our mission does not change. We know there is a battle raging, but our 'great commission' with Christ has given us the ability to equip ourselves and be willing to engage. Where the battle rages, loyalty is proved. That one point of loyalty may be different for each of us. It may be marriage, abortion, national sovereignty, religious liberty, fiscal responsibility, support for Israel, or freedom of conscience. Your belief is personal, but your profession of faith must be public. While the Supreme Court, your state, and your local school board can redefine America's laws, they can never redefine God's law. We are willing. Are you?

Religious Right Activists Call Plan B Decision 'Child Abuse' and a 'Pedophile's Dream'

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 courts have sided with reproductive justice organizations that supported the FDA’s original assessment of Plan B, the administration has relented and agreed to allow sales of Plan B without a prescription.

Naturally, groups opposed to contraception are now enraged that the Obama administration is complying with the rulings.

Concerned Women for America president Penny Nance accused the administration of having “abandoned common sense,” saying she “fear[s] for the future health and wellness of women and children.” CWA senior fellow Janice Crouse warned that “it will not be long before we see girls and women forced to purchase Plan B for their abuser to keep them and others enslaved. This is a pimp, predator, and pedophile’s dream.”

Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life asserted that the Plan B case was further proof the “President Obama is waging a War on Girls” and endorsing “child abuse.”

Anna Higgins of the Family Research Council said girls will now be forced to take Plan B “under coercion or without their consent.”

Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America told LifeNews: “Though President Obama himself has said ‘as the father of two daughters, I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine,’ his administration has abandoned common sense and will allow our nation’s teens and young girls to have access to a highly powerful drug forty times stronger than birth control. I sincerely fear for the future health and wellness of women and children, as doctors, parents, and pharmacists are eliminated from this very serious conversation about sexual activity, pregnancy, fertility, and overall health.”

Janice Crouse, also of CWFA, responded: “Once again, those who yell the loudest about caring about the nation’s children and youth applaud a decision to place our kids in a special interest experiment. Plan B, popularly called the ‘morning-after pill’ is a much-higher-dosage version of the regular birth control pill (which used to require a doctor’s prescription and continued doctor’s supervision). It is irresponsible to advocate over-the-counter use of these high-potency drugs, which would make them available to anyone – including those predators who exploit young girls. Mark my words, it will not be long before we see girls and women forced to purchase Plan B for their abuser to keep them and others enslaved. This is a pimp, predator, and pedophile’s dream – unlimited access to Plan B.”

She added: “This is a political decision, made by those who stand to profit financially from an action that puts ideology ahead of the nation’s girls and young women. Where is the scientific data and solid reasoning behind a decision that endangers minors?”

Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America also weighed in on the decision.

She told LifeNews: “President Obama is waging a War on Girls by allowing young children to get Plan B without a physician or parent’s care or knowledge. The morning after pill is a megadose of the birth-control pill, which has been categorized by the World Health Organization as a Group I carcinogen. That’s the highest possible ranking – cigarettes are also in Group I. So why are drugstores required to put cigarettes behind the counter and ask for a photo id to stop minors from purchasing them, but President Obama is now ordering the morning after pill be sold over the counter, next to candy bars and packs of gum? This is not reproductive justice, this is child abuse.”



“There is a real danger that Plan B may be given to young girls, under coercion or without their consent. The involvement of parents and medical professionals act as a safeguard for these young girls. However, today’s ruling removes these commonsense protections,” concluded Higgins.

Mike Huckabee Sad He Has To See Gays on TV

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,” arguing that people have lost “their rights” in states with marriage equality.

Huckabee seemed especially sad that he now has to see “television commercials portraying same-sex couples” while textbooks are “forced” to mention gay marriage.

The very thing that many people and I know CWA was a part of this, saying, this is why the legalization of same-sex marriage is going to be a much bigger issue than just saying we let people love whoever they want to love, that’s not the issue. Will it force businesses—of course everyone will say, oh no people still have their rights, but they don’t. And every fear that people had has in fact come true, that this is being forced in textbooks on how marriage is depicted, we’re now even seeing television commercials portraying same-sex couples, that’s something I guess I didn’t expect to see anytime soon.

Right Wing Leftovers - 6/10/13

  • Turns out the IRS manager who initiated the alleged targeting of conservative groups is a conservative Republican
  • Fox News’ coverage of the George Zimmerman trial is journalism at its worst
  • The Washington Times editorial board wants to revive the $500 bill and replace William McKinley with Ronald Reagan because “putting the Gipper on the $100 would require ‘the street’ to no longer conduct its business in ‘Benjamins,’ but deal out ‘Ronalds.’” 
  • Phyllis Schlafly claims Kelly Ayotte “betrayed every conservative who supported her” by backing the Senate’s immigration reform bill.” 
  • The virulently anti-Muslim group Concerned Women for America will now be fighting “increased anti-Israel sentiment within our government” as part of its mission. 
  • Charisma editor Steve Strang says gay rights threaten the freedoms of speech, religion and the press, and that the Obama administration has given the “homosexual agenda” the “red-carpet treatment.”
  • Southern Baptist Convention vice president Roger Oldham maintains the Boy Scouts “planted the seed of their eventual destruction” by including openly gay youth.
  • Linda Harvey believes “our children all deserve kindness and civility, and that can happen even if they are learning homosexuality is wrong.” 

Crouse Warns Sexual Revolution and No-Fault Divorce Creating 'Boyz N The Hood' Dystopia

In a Washington Times column today, Concerned Women for America’s Janice Shaw Crouse repeats her frequent claim that progressive social policies are to blame for what she once called “realities that are evident should one take a risky drive into certain neighborhoods of our cities.”

Crouse writes that the results of “taxpayer-funded contraceptives, abortions and expanding government welfare” and “the decline of marriage, including no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution” are “there for all to see – at least on TV— in areas where married-couple families are already too scarce to provide the necessary critical mass for a healthy environment.”

In particular, Crouse cites the 1991 classic “Boyz N The Hood" as an illustration of the results of liberal social policies.

Participants at the Sydney congress were reminded that throughout history and across all cultures, marriage has been the foundation of families and the bedrock of civilized nations. Married moms and dads having babies and raising the next generation of children have been so much the norm of personal experience in every nation that now with birthrates sinking below replacement levels, it is hard to imagine the long-term impact of their absence. The result is there for all to see — at least on TV — in areas where married-couple families are already too scarce to provide the necessary critical mass for a healthy environment. Without strong families to exert moral authority, neighborhoods echo scenes from the classic 1991 movie “Boyz N The Hood” that take the viewer inside the gang-infested communities of South Central Los Angeles, where marauding gangs, constantly at war with each other, illustrated what happens when there are not enough strong fathers to control and civilize the young males.



For decades, liberals, progressives, feminists and welfare advocates have tried to find solutions to the problems associated with out-of-wedlock childbearing, single motherhood and child poverty — without advocating marriage in public policy. Their solutions? Taxpayer-funded contraceptives, abortions and expanding government welfare. We don’t need to ask how that has worked out. The answer is obvious. The decline of marriage, including no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution, is a luxury popularized by celebrities but it is a dead-end trap for the poor that exacts a price from their children.

Kids that come from healthy marriages are vital to the future of society, but the contributions of good marriages do not end there. By building strong, healthy families, married couples create virtue. In some immeasurable way, the goodness they create — simply by living according to the natural order and moral law designed by the Creator — is of benefit not just for the couple, but their success also contributes vitality to the whole. Anytime a marriage nurtures, shelters and protects, it becomes a stage for all to see where scenes of love and joyful celebration are played out again and again. Equally important, both communities and nations also benefit.
 

AUL Report Highlights Rift in Anti-Choice Movement

The anti-choice movement has for several years been experiencing a quiet rift over extreme state-level measures would ban all abortions – and in some cases, in vitro fertilization and some forms of birth control – in a head-on challenge to Roe v. Wade. As Personhood USA and Janet Porter gain more and more success in pushing “personhood” and “heartbeat” bills at the state level, national pro-life groups who oppose the laws for strategic reasons find themselves in a bind.

In March, when North Dakota passed a “heartbeat” bill which would ban nearly all abortions in the state and strike directly at Roe v. Wade, it also passed two narrower measures banning abortion based on genetic abnormalities or the sex of the fetus. The national anti-choice group Concerned Women for America praised heartbeat the bill,  while Americans United For Life issued press releases that ignored the bill and praised the narrower measures. National Right to Life went even further, actively speaking out against the North Dakota bill and similar “heartbeat” measures in other states.

In an article for the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly this week, Americans United For Life’s senior counsel, William Saunders, lays out his fears of what would happen if the Supreme Court were given the opportunity to reconsider Roe v. Wade. While he praises the “admirable and inspiring” efforts behind the trio of new abortion restrictions in North Dakota, Saunders warns that a direct challenge to Roe will give the Supreme Court a chance to rewrite their 1973 decision on more solid “equal protection” footing.

Instead, he argues, anti-choice activists should target incremental measures at wearing away the opposition of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who voted to uphold the so-called “partial birth” abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart. “Can the statute be fashioned so as to make it as easy as possible for him (and the others) to go the one step (or two or ten) further than Gonzales in restricting abortion?,” he asks.

Taken together, these three laws provide significant food for thought.

While the persistent efforts of pro-life Americans at the state level are admirable and inspiring and must be encouraged, how does one evaluate the wisdom of any particular proposed (or enacted) law? First, I suggest, one must recognize the legal realities—what kinds of statutes will the courts certainly overturn? Of course, this is not to say that the courts should govern this matter. In fact, the usurpation of the political process by courts is, in my view, unconstitutional itself and should be resisted. However, if we know a law will be overturned by a court, we should consider the risk of such a decision. At least one significant risk is that the Supreme Court, in overturning a law, will entrench “abortion rights” more firmly in constitutional jurisprudence, perhaps under an “equal-protection”-based right, as Justice Ginsburg and three colleagues wanted to do in the Gonzales dissent.

Sad as it is to consider, Gonzales was decided by only one vote, that of Justice Anthony Kennedy. The opinion he wrote for the majority, while speaking of the right of the legislature to choose among divided experts in fashioning law and while recognizing that abortion harms at least some women, did no more than uphold the outlawing of one abortion procedure when others were available. Is such a person likely to uphold a ban on all abortions at any point in pregnancy? If so, what rationale for doing so (what basis) is likely to appeal to him? Can the statute be fashioned so as to make it as easy as possible for him (and the others) to go the one step (or two or ten) further than Gonzales in restricting abortion? Might a statute with a ban (or limit) early in pregnancy lead him to “protect” the “abortion right” and vote with Ginsburg and her colleagues in favor of a firm affirmation of a “constitutional” right to abortion? Is it better to move the ball gently, seeking to build momentum for the ultimate reversal of Roe/Doe, or to force the issue with a broad and early ban? While reasonable people can differ on the answers to these questions, the consequences of a possible forty more years of unlimited abortion due to another Casey-like decision by the Supreme Court counsels for very careful consideration of what prudence requires.

Crouse Sees Left's Failures in 'Risky Drive Into Certain Neighborhoods'

Concerned Women for America’s Janice Shaw Crouse is very concerned about a new Census Bureau report finding a spike in births to unmarried mothers. In an American Thinker column today, Crouse accuses “liberals, progressives, feminists and welfare advocates” of responding to “problems associated by the triad of out-of-wedlock childbearing, single motherhood, and child poverty” by promoting “abortion and increased welfare dependency.” The failure of these policies, she claims, “is obvious to anyone who will face the realities that are evident should one take a risky drive into certain neighborhoods of our cities.”

The founding fathers, she continues, “would roll over in their graves” to see that the country has become “mired in reckless self-indulgence and thus regressed in terms of people's well being.”

For decades, liberals, progressives, feminists and welfare advocates have tried to get to the bottom of the problems associated by the triad of out-of-wedlock childbearing, single motherhood, and child poverty.  Heretofore, the solutions have been abortion and increased welfare dependency. I don't need to ask, "How is that working for us?" The answer is obvious to anyone who will face the realities that are evident should one take a risky drive into certain neighborhoods of our cities or choose the safer route of reading about the dramatic increases in non-marital births documented in the SECCUM report.

The nation's founding fathers first instituted a national census so that the nation could "mark the progress of society."  They would roll over in their graves to see that the nation they founded with great hope and based on principles of personal and civic responsibility, instead of progressing, has instead become mired in reckless self-indulgence and thus regressed in terms of people's well being.  We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the past four decades trying to alleviate the consequences of poor and irresponsible choices only to reap a harvest of greater dependency than ever before and several generations of children at risk for all the negative outcomes that parents hope to avoid (truancy, delinquency, substance abuse, etc). It is not merely the demographics of non-marital child bearing that need to be publicized but an honest, extensive reporting of the damages as well.

When the sum total of our morality, both personal and public, consists of not being judgmental, we should not be surprised to find that there is little will to be concerned with more than the pursuit of whatever brings a moment of pleasure today with no regard for the effects this will have for anyone's well-being tomorrow.

CWA's Crouse : Women's Rights Advocates are Waging the 'Real War on Women'

The Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, an Illinois-based conservative group, convened a symposium in Washington earlier this month to discuss topics including “Defending Faith in an Age of Christophobia,” “The Pornography Industry,” and “Economic and Social Costs of Abortion.” 

At a panel titled “The ‘War on Women’: Myth or Reality?,” Concerned Women for America senior fellow Janice Shaw Crouse argued that it is in fact “those who present themselves as champions of women’s rights” who “constitute a very real war on women.” This “war,” Crouse declares, began in the 1960s and has “undermined and torn apart the faith, values and morality that have held together a diverse and multicultural people.”

Why, then, do we even have to ask, ‘Is there a war on women?’ The war began as early as 1960. Since then, our nation has been experiencing a harsh cultural winter. Howling winds of change, insidious myths and outright falsehoods have undermined and torn apart the faith, values and morality that have held together a diverse and multicultural people.

These myths and those attacks, those falsehoods by those who present themselves as champions of women’s rights constitute a very real war on women. It’s a senseless war, promoting casual sex, spreading the myth that women don’t need marriage, and pushing the cultural and public policies that inevitably lead women to be the majority of those in poverty. That war against women has loosened and upended many of the foundation stones of the Judeo-Christian principles.

Harvey: Day of Silence 'Manipulating' Kids to 'Enter A Lifestyle Which Itself Will Be Incredibly Harmful To Them'

The Religious Right’s anti-anti-bullying efforts are beginning to swing into high gear as the Day of Silence, which is run by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and centers on making schools safer for LGBT students, approaches on April 19.

Mission America’s Linda Harvey in her radio bulletin today once again criticized the day of action and called on families to keep their kids away from school that day.

The boycott campaign is backed by anti-gay groups such as Liberty Counsel, Concerned Women for America and Faith2Action, which urge public schools to resist “GLSEN's socio-political goals and its controversial, unproven, and destructive theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality.”

Harvey warns that the Day of Silence “has become a central showpiece in this homosexual agenda in our schools” and offers “inaccurate and harmful information in schools about homosexuality.”

Rather than “preventing harm to kids,” Harvey warns the Day of Silence “encourages more kids to approve of or enter a lifestyle which itself will be incredibly harmful to them. So instead of allowing kids to be manipulated, it’s a good idea to keep your kids at home that day.”

“The compassionate hearts of kids are manipulated into approving of deviant lifestyles and practices,” Harvey states, maintaining that gays and lesbians do “not need to be involved in such behavior and God can rescue anyone who wants a different life.”

We’ve been telling you for several weeks about the pro-homosexual Day of Silence and why Christian families are staying home from school that day. Here’s a little more background: for a number of years Christian groups and parents nationwide have increasingly become concerned about the growth of inaccurate and harmful information in schools about homosexuality. The Day of Silence, coming up on or around Friday, April 19, has become a central showpiece in this homosexual agenda in our schools.

My overwhelming concern about this day centers around three things: 1) It encourages sympathy for homosexuality, which is wrong; 2) it implies that no one can object to homosexuality without being hateful and that’s also incorrect; 3) it does all this while pretending to be about justice and preventing harm to kids. The truth is that this is victim posturing that encourages more kids to approve of or enter a lifestyle which itself will be incredibly harmful to them. So instead of allowing kids to be manipulated, it’s a good idea to keep your kids at home that day.

We’ve called this the Day of Silence Walk Out and you can find out more at DOSWalkOut.net. Why did they start this Day of Silence protest to begin with? Students sometimes even have tape over their mouths and they pledge to remain silent all day. Why? Because they claim that homosexuals have been routinely silenced and victimized and don’t have a voice. You may be thinking, now hold on just a minute! Indeed, it’s a typical leftist victim strategy. Not that we don’t sympathize with any student who is bullied for any reason but this is pure political propaganda, manipulating a sensitive situation and we don’t have to allow our kids to sit there in class while sometimes even the teachers are going along with this.

Unlike the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) would have you believe, schools, parents and kids do not have to condone immoral and harmful behaviors like homosexuality and gender bending to prevent or stand up against bullying. This is a diversionary tactic. High moral sexuality standards are helpful, not hateful. The goal of these adult radicals though is to use vulnerable kids to carry this inaccurate message for them. Meanwhile, the compassionate hearts of kids are manipulated into approving of deviant lifestyles and practices.



So when you stand up against misinformation remember you are standing against behavior, not against the person. That person does not need to be involved in such behavior and God can rescue anyone who wants a different life.

Concerned Women for America Upset Jenna Wolfe Is Having a Baby

Concerned Women for America blogger Christian Shelby wants everyone to know that she is definitely not a bigot for being angry that Jenna Wolfe of The Today Show and her girlfriend Stephanie Gosk are expecting. She said it is “just sad” and “selfish, and supremely so,” for the two women to raise a child, which she claims is not “fair to the overall development of a child.”

In 2006, CWA also attacked Mary Cheney after she announced that she was pregnant and planned to raise the child with her partner.

They’ll call me a bigot, but I prefer to see myself as a realist. So let’s jump into it. The Today Show’s Jenna Wolfe dropped an unexpected bombshell into the national conversation over “gay marriage.” She announced on air (and in her blog) that, “My girlfriend, Stephanie Gosk, and I are expecting a baby girl the end of August.”

First and foremost, I am pro-life. Let’s just put that up front. I love babies. Children are life changing, and I’m sure Miss Wolfe is already finding that out.

However, I’m also like that little kid who yelled, “The king has no clothes!” If there’s something to be said and no one wants to say it for fear of hurting the feelings of others, well, you’ll find me there. Sorry to rain on your parade, but truth is truth.

So here we go. The headline on the Today Show’s website starts out with the word “Surreal.” But, in truth, it should read “Unreal.” Jenna Wolfe and her girlfriend, Stephanie Gosk, are most certainly not expecting a baby girl at the end of August, not in the biological sense, anyway.

When a man and a woman unite in a sexual union, the woman provides the unfertilized egg and the man provides the sperm. Those two things — biologically exclusive to members of the opposite sex — merge and the miracle of life begins.

So herein lies the crux of our dilemma: Miss Wolfe and Miss Gosk are both women. That’s not an anti-“gay” statement; that’s a true statement. Biologically speaking, they cannot, of their own volition, produce a child. I’m sure they’re both nice women, but they need a man in order to have a baby.

And if they need a man in order to have a baby, then who can honestly say that this is the only contribution a man can make? Who can honestly say that Miss Gosk can replace — truly and completely replace — the father who should be present in that child’s life? Consider, if you will, all the social science data to date that shows that children do better in a traditional mom-and-dad household. Which parent does the child not need? A young lady asked that very question to a state legislature recently — “Which parent do I not need?” — and no one could answer her.

It may be politically correct to celebrate the news of Miss Wolfe’s pregnancy. It may be politically correct to celebrate Miss Gosk’s role as the child’s “other parent.” But it is selfish, and supremely so, to deny the child — and others like her — the benefit of either a mother or a father. Two men cannot produce a child. Two women cannot produce a child. And neither of those familial arrangements is fair to the overall development of a child.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure Miss Gosk will be supportive and loving and caring to Miss Wolfe’s child; but she will never be — can never be — the child’s father. And, to me, that’s just sad.

Concerned Women for America: Starbucks Discriminates Against Straight People by Supporting Gay Rights

Concerned Women for America’s Chelsen Vicari in a blog post yesterday attacked Starbucks for supporting marriage equality, which she argues will open the door to anti-straight discrimination. Vicari called Starbucks CEO and gay rights supporter Howard Schultz “prejudicial and bigoted” for telling Thomas Strobhar of the Corporate Morality Action Center that he should sell his shares in the company if he is so distraught over Starbucks’ endorsement of same-sex marriage legislation in Washington state.

Vicari claimed that Starbucks “refuses pro-marriage supporters service” and “is only tolerant of approximately 2 percent of America’s 300 million citizens who live homosexual lifestyles.”

She even said that the coffee company might as well have “two separate drinking fountains for liberals and conservatives or ‘now hiring’ signs reading, “Heterosexuals Need Not Apply.’”

Goodbye pumpkin spice latte. Forever.

Last year during this exact week, I wrote a blog titled, “Starbucks Disrespects Values Voters,” calling out Starbucks’ CEO, Howard Schultz, for supporting a liberal political agenda that totally disregards the traditional values of many customers and staff members.

Another year gone by and Schultz has become even more extreme and intolerant. At Starbucks’ annual shareholders meeting, Schultz sent a clear message that he does not want the business of anyone who believes that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman, pointedly telling one such shareholder, “You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company.” This outburst reportedly came right after Schultz stated he wanted to “embrace diversity of all kinds.”

He doesn’t want our business. Schultz statement isn’t tolerant. It is prejudicial and bigoted. So where are the newspaper headlines reading, “Starbucks CEO Refuses Pro-Marriage Supporters Service,” which is exactly the message his statement conveys?

What’s next, Starbucks? Two separate drinking fountains for liberals and conservatives or “now hiring” signs reading, “Heterosexuals Need Not Apply”?

Considering that there are twice as many conservatives as there are liberals, Schultz should have heeded my warning a year ago. In fact, during this year’s meeting, conservative shareholder Tom Strobhar admitted that after the company voiced its support for same-sex “marriage” in Washington state, the company saw a drop in profits.

So in the end, Schultz is only tolerant of approximately 2 percent of America’s 300 million citizens who live homosexual lifestyles. I do not hold an MBA, but I do remember that 4th grade arithmetic teaches us that the profits made from 2 percent are less than the profits from 98 percent.

I’ve already dumped Starbucks. I prefer Dunkin’ Donuts, anyway.

Right Wing Leftovers - 3/7/13

  • How sad: James O'Keefe is now $100,000 poorer.
  • Hey Todd Starnes, maybe we "claimed" and "alleged" all of these things because they are true.
  • Is anyone surprised that Samuel Rodriguez and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference are threatening to stop supporting immigration reform because they "refuse to budge on allowing visas for same-sex couples, due to their biblical view on marriage."
  • With the Supreme Court scheduled to heard Prop 8 and DOMA cases, now is the time to pray.
  • Finally, "CWA Celebrates Women's History Month" by lumping Rosa Parks in with Phyllis Schlafly:  

CWA: Violence Against Women Act Is Part of the War on Women

It was only last year that Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Nance criticized the term “war on women” as “phony, focus-grouped rhetoric” geared to “raise money and hackles” among Democrats. She predicted that women would turn on Obama and wouldn't vote on issues such as abortion rights or birth control access (unless they are anti-choice). Of course, exit polls showed that Obama carried women voters over Romney 55-44% and that 59% of voters said abortion should be legal either in all or most cases.

So it should come as no surprise that Nance is now using the “war” rhetoric in her latest Washington Times op-ed: “When high-sounding legislation becomes a war against women.” That’s right, she now believes that there is in fact a war on women, but that it comes from supporters of the Violence Against Women Act.

She claims that VAWA “hurts sex-trafficking victims,” even though 93 Senators voted for Sen. Patrick Leahy’s amendment focused on combating the trafficking of women and girls.

The Violence Against Women Act headed to the president’s desk lulls Americans into believing that actual violence was addressed Thursday when, in reality, Congress pushed through a bad bill that hurts sex-trafficking victims, seeks to legalize prostitution for minors and fails to protect the consciences of organizations, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, that oppose abortion but want to protect trafficking victims.
Within the Senate version of the act is an amendment by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, that decimates the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, seeks to change the Model State Law to promote the decriminalization of prostitution for minors, and assaults the conscience protections of groups that have a history of hands-on help for these victims.

The Violence Against Women Act also promotes the decriminalization of prostitution of minors for states, which is also dangerous for trafficking victims. Decriminalization provides a perfect opportunity for pimps, traffickers and gangs to exploit minors in the sex industry by telling the minors that it is not illegal and that they will not get arrested. In Germany, Australia and the Netherlands, child prostitution increased after prostitution was legalized. Why would the outcome be any different here if states decriminalize prostitution for minors? Section 1243 seeks to change the Model State Law to promote the decriminalization of prostitution for minors:
It prohibits the charging of a minor for a prostitution offense. This removes all judicial discretion from the process.
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that there were only 895 arrests of minors for prostitution in 2010. In 2011, the number of arrests dropped to 763. Over the past seven years, arrests of minors for prostitution have averaged 1,067 annually.
Decriminalization provides a great recruiting tool for gangs, pimps and traffickers, who can say, “Don’t worry; it’s not illegal.”

The lesson Congress has learned from the “war on women” apparently is that as long as the title of the legislation sounds good, you must vote for it — even if it is bad policy.

CWA: Marriage Equality 'Will Mean the Destruction of Freedom and Liberty'

Mario Diaz of Concerned Women for America promoted the upcoming Marriage March by warning that gay rights advocates seek to “silence” opponents and that marriage equality “will mean the destruction of freedom and liberty.”

We want people who love God and His principles and who are aware of what the attack on traditional marriage will do to come out and stand up for marriage and for God’s principles and to send a message to the Supreme Court and to other people that we will not be silenced because that is the intent and the strategy of the other side to silence those of us who stand up for the traditional view of marriage.



With truth on our side we most definitely can make sure that our children’s future is protected, God can do it. I know that conventional wisdom says out there that we are losing this fight and there is no use in fighting anymore but we don’t have that luxury. We believe that the destruction of this institution established by God will mean the destruction of freedom and liberty. We must stand and we will on March 26, we hope you can be here with us.

Right Wing Leftovers - 2/28/13

  • The House of Representatives today finally passed a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. 
  • Naturally, Concerned Women for America is upset and calls VAWA “a slap in the face to sex trafficking victims.” 
  • Erik Rush laments that “Western liberal elites” pressured South Africa to abandon the Apartheid system. 
  • Confederate sympathizer Ted Nugent claims the Democratic Party “is the root cause of the violence in our inner cities” and pushing black “cultural suicide.”

Family Research Council Suggests Hagel Confirmation May Bring God's Judgment

When the U.S. Senate finally confirmed Chuck Hagel to head the Department of Defense yesterday, Religious Right leaders who actively campaigned and prayed against his nomination were sorely disappointed.

The Family Research Council’s prayer team today warned that Hagel, along with President Obama, have put America “on dangerous ground” as “those in power have forgotten God's covenant with Abraham: to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse her.”

Indeed, FRC suggests that Hagel’s confirmation may even bring about the judgment of God: “Students of Bible prophecy have said that amid America's declining American faith and morals, our support for Israel has slowed the advance of God's judgment since 2001. But each step we take farther away from Israel has repercussions with respect to that balance.”

Chuck Hagel Confirmed - Today, former Senator Chuck Hagel began his new job as Secretary of Defense.Senate Republicans had rightly criticized Hagel as unqualified based upon his historic disdain for Israel, support for the Palestinian cause, favor of negotiation with Hamas and Iran, lack of any managerial experience, and more, yet 18 Republicans chose not to use their cloture vote to prevent his confirmation. Four supported Hagel directly in the final vote: Thad Cochran (Miss.), Richard Shelby (Ala.), Mike Johanns (Neb.) and Rand Paul (Ky.). With a President and Defense Secretary who have often shown hostility toward Israel and favor toward our mutual enemies, Bible believing Christians know the U.S. is on dangerous ground. Those in power have forgotten God's covenant with Abraham: to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse her. Christians must keep extra vigil, standing in the gap for Israel and America, that our leaders will keep faith with our historic friendship and alliance. Students of Bible prophecy have said that amid America's declining American faith and morals, our support for Israel has slowed the advance of God's judgment since 2001. But each step we take farther away from Israel has repercussions with respect to that balance.

May God's people, who understand God's severe warnings against nations that oppose His plan for Israel, pray, stand boldly and speak out to preserve our nation's commitment to God's covenant people and land! (Gen 12:3; Ps 137: all, Is 40:1-2; 59:15-16; 62:6; Zech 12:3-9; Eze 36:24, 35; 37:11-12, 21, 25; 38:8; Hos 3:4-5; Joel 3:1-2; Amos 9:15; Zech 2:12; 8:7-8; Lk 21:24; Rom 1:16; Eph 6:10 ff)

Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance also chided Hagel for allegedly supporting the disarmament of the US.

The confirmation of former-Sen. Chuck Hagel to be the next civilian head of the United States Military doesn't make American families feel safer, because we as a nation are more vulnerable under his leadership. Hagel does not have a sound understanding of the global threats facing America, nor does he have the discernment needed for a workable defense policy.

The Senate has failed to properly vet this candidate. As if his shaky, inconsistent committee hearing wasn't enough to show his lack of qualifications, we can also add his failure to submit critical documents. Motives follow money, and Hagel's refusal to submit financial documents, as well as his omission of funding sources, reiterates his real motives.

Our national security interests stand at a threatening juncture. Hagel's record shows his lack of knowledge when it comes to nuclear disarmament, and his vision for how to deal with these issues is dangerous to American families. While in the Senate, he voted to adopt Global Zero and reconfirmed his opinion by saying, "How can we preach to other countries that you can't have nuclear weapons but we can and our allies can?" Countries like North Korea and Iran are on the verge of nuclear power; it's naive to put false hope in the fact that anti-American countries would cease their pursuit of nuclear capability if we disarm ourselves.

By confirming Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, the Senate has catered, once again, to the president's wants and overlooked the needs of the American people.

Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families and the Emergency Committee for Israel, who earlier claimed that Hagel will “invite acts of aggression and terrorism” against the US, said he can no longer trust Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) after he voted in favor of Hagel’s confirmation.

Sadly, the Senate voted yesterday 58-to-41 to confirm Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. I say sadly because I never thought I would see the day when a nominee for Secretary of Defense endorsed by Louis Farrakhan would be confirmed! But that day has arrived.

Every Senate Democrat voted for Hagel. They were joined by four Republicans -- Thad Cochran (MS), Mike Johanns (NE), Rand Paul (KY) and Richard Shelby (AL). All four votes are depressing, but I want to comment on Senator Paul's vote.

When Rand Paul ran for the Senate three years ago, there were concerns about his views on Israel and the Middle East. He has tried to dispel the doubts.

In January, Paul traveled to Israel and said, "I came here to show that I am supportive of the relationship between Israel and America." He later said, "I think we should … announce to the world … that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States." That is why his vote for Hagel yesterday was so disappointing.

And it is disappointing for another reason too. Paul explained his vote for Hagel by saying, "The president gets to choose political appointees." That's true to a point, but Paul is under no obligation to vote for them.

Rand Paul's claim to conservative support is that he is a champion of constitutional government. The Founding Fathers could have easily said that the president gets to appoint his cabinet and left it at that. But after a protracted debate, they decided that the president's nominees must receive the consent of the Senate.

Paul's explanation implies he is ignoring the clear words of the Constitution in exchange for a formulation that suggests presidential appointments are essentially guaranteed. That doesn't pass the straight face test.

I don't see how anyone who claims to support a strong national defense, who wants to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and who believes that Israel is our best ally could vote to confirm Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. If Rand Paul wants to be a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2016, he has some explaining to do.

Right Wing Leftovers - 2/20/13

Ever Classy, FRC Says VAWA's Cost to Taxpayers Is the 'Real Abuse'

Last night, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to proceed on a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, despite strong opposition from the Religious Right. But as the legislation moves to the House, the fight is far from over. The Family Research Council has joined Religious Right activists and organizations including Phyllis Schlafly, Gary Bauer, Concerned Women For America, the Southern Baptist Convention, in opposing the reauthorization because it includes new provisions protecting LGBT people, immigrants and Native Americans. In an email alert last night, the FRC denied the positive impact of VAWA, which has contributed to a dramatic decrease in intimate partner violence, and said that the “real abuse” is VAWA’s cost to taxpayers.

Last year, when it first came up for reauthorization, Democrats intentionally loaded the bill with provisions the GOP cannot support--like millions more in spending and special rights based on certain sexual behavior. Their goal was to make the legislation so objectionable that Republicans would be forced to oppose it and fuel the lie that the GOP is anti-woman. Sen. Pat Leahy's (D-Vt.) version, which leaders will vote on this week, is a five-year extension of the Act. Among the bill's most egregious parts is a provision that would ban funds to grantees who may have religious objections to homosexuality--even if no documented case of refused services has been found. It also includes special assistance for homosexual victims.

Although Sen. Leahy promises to have a 60-vote block of support, FRC has warned the Senate that we will be scoring the vote. You can help by contacting your Senators and urging them to vote against VAWA and end the real abuse of taxpayer dollars.

Religious Right Activists Fear Boy Scouts Will Soon Face 'Homosexual Indoctrination'

Conservative leaders are continuing to rally opposition to a proposed plan to end the national ban on gay members in the Boy Scouts of America with warnings about pedophilia and “indoctrination.”

Family Research Council vice president Rob Schwarzwalder told Janet Mefferd yesterday that fathers cannot trust their sons to be around gay people.

Mefferd called gay rights advocates “totalitarian” for opposing the ban and lamented that the “violins are playing full blast” in the media when they cover stories about gay youths kicked out of the Boy Scouts.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel said in a statement that “people like Jerry Sandusky” would be “permitted to be Scoutmasters” if the policy changes, adding, “To allow homosexual Scoutmasters or homosexual Scouts will put young boys at risk.”

Concerned Women for America started a letter-writing campaign against the move before gays attempt “to infiltrate the next generation.” The group even claimed that if gays are allowed to join the Boy Scouts, it would mean that “our religious liberties are being taken away”…somehow.

The Texas Pastors Council called on parents to “defend our children” and not “allow our boys to be targeted by those who believe there is no moral code and no definition of gender” and stop those who are bent on “forcing their immorality on society.”

Pastors, if the scouts fall, the church is next in the sights of the activists committed to forcing their immorality on society – WILL YOU COME?

Fathers, if we allow our boys to be targeted by those who believe there is no moral code and no definition of gender – WHO WILL DEFEND OUR CHILDREN?

Mothers, your voice of courage and protection of the virtue of our children is desperately needed – WILL YOU STAND ALSO?

Florida Family Policy Council president John Stemberger went on another anti-gay rant, alleging that the BSA will “open a can of worms that would cause a mass exodus” and “devastate the Boy Scouts permanently.”

If the BSA departs from its policies on allowing openly homosexual scoutmasters and boys in the program it could destroy the legitimacy and the security of this iconic institution.

As an Eagle Scout, former Scoutmaster and a Vigil Honor Member of the Order of the Arrow, I have a deep personal interest in passing on the rich experience of Scouting to my two sons and I pray that the BSA does not open a can of worms that would cause a mass exodus from a program that America needs now more than ever to train boys to become responsible men. A change of this policy could transform and devastate the Boy Scouts permanently. Additionally, the vast majority of Americans do not support changing the policy to allow openly homosexual scout leaders, so this proposed change makes no sense on many levels.

2000 presidential candidate Alan Keyes in WorldNetDaily warned of “homosexual indoctrination” and “idolatry” in the Boy Scouts if they change the policy:

The simple words of the Scout Oath were meant to encourage boys in the habit of walking this straight path; hence the endeavor to be “morally straight.” But the oath first of all made it clear that the Scout looked first of all to God as the standard of moral rectitude. Try as they might, the present-day trustees of the Scouting movement will never fit the square peg of God’s standard into the round hole of homosexual sin. Moreover, though they begin by admitting practicing homosexuals into the ranks, they must end in acknowledging homosexual activity as morally correct, else they will involve the whole movement in the perjurious administration of an oath openly violated in practice. For in that moral sense, it is not possible to be gay and morally straight at the same time. Thus what the present trustees of the BSA reportedly may do involves rejecting God’s standard for male sexual behavior. And it involves doing so in a way that willfully abandons the straight path blazed by the footsteps of Christ.



By accepting a humanly fabricated redefinition of the moral standard, the BSA will fall prey to the inevitable logic of such idolatry. “Their idols are … the work of human hands … those who make them become like unto them; so do all who trust in them.” (Psalm 115:8) It will speedily become evident that what masquerades as tolerance is actually indoctrination, seeking to mold boys according to the standard the BSA trustees will have raised above God’s standard. For if homosexual activity is morally acceptable as an expression of love and good fellowship, then those who express their love accordingly do what is right.

But the aim of Scouting is to encourage young men to do what is right in various ways. Therefore, once the moral prejudice against homosexuality is regarded as a violation of right, doing things that habitually assault and break down this prejudice becomes part of “moral training.” Just as, on many campuses now, refusal to experiment with homosexuality is frowned upon as a sign of bigotry, so henceforth in Scouting braking down this prejudice would be recognized as a meritorious activity. Though camouflaged in different words there will be a merit badge for this experimentation as part of the regime of homosexual indoctrination. God knows what that will lead to; and given now widely publicized possibilities, so should the BSA Inc.

Right Wing Leftovers - 1/24/13

  • The Christian conservative magazine WORLD notes that while abortion is illegal in South Korea, abortion rates there are “double the U.S. rate.” As we’ve said before, abortion rates tend to be higher in countries where it is criminalized. 
  • Tomorrow, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul and Tony Perkins will speak at the March for Life [PDF], while Speaker John Boehner will send in a video message. 
  • New Mexico Republicans want to prosecute rape survivors who terminate the pregnancy with a felony charge of “tampering with evidence.” 
  • Concerned Women for America claims that feminism has left women “at the mercy of sexually liberated men.” 
  • A very delusional Joseph Farah maintains that Obama “got re-elected because there was virtually no opposition.” 
  • If you ever wanted to learn how to literally wrestle a demon and evade their “fiery darts,” here’s your chance.
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, Thursday 02/27/2014, 12:15pm
Concerned Women for America senior fellow Janice Shaw Crouse is once again saying that she is furious that President Obama would dare criticize the harsh Ugandan law that makes being gay a crime punishable with life imprisonment. In a statement today, Crouse tried to claim that she doesn’t necessarily support the Ugandan law, she just thinks that people are wrong to oppose it. She writes that Obama’s denunciation of the anti-gay law shows that he only cares about “special interest campaigns” and “special rights, not human rights,” and represents “an... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 02/25/2014, 5:55pm
Mario Diaz of Concerned Women for America, still reeling from Virginia marriage equality advocates’ victory in federal court, warns in a blog post today that gay rights gains “are costing us our freedoms.” While Diaz doesn’t exactly explain what freedoms he lost when a judge struck down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage, he writes that the “homosexual lobby” is “corroding our freedom.” He claims to be upset about a pro-marriage equality petition to the appeals court and insists that conservative groups would never ask people to sign a... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Friday 02/21/2014, 5:23pm
Concerned Women For America legal counsel Mario Diaz is not pleased with Christian pundits who have come out in opposition to the new spate of state-level measures that would allow businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples. In a Christian Post column today, Diaz accuses these discrimination opponents of ignoring Jesus’ example (Would Jesus “deliver a blessing” at a same-sex wedding? “I suspect not”). Diaz also expresses concern for gay people themselves, writing that getting married will make it “more difficult to ever escape” their “... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 02/18/2014, 1:06pm
Two members of the feminist punk band Pussy Riot, who in 2012 were sentenced to two years in a penal colony for staging a protest in a cathedral, were detained again in Sochi, Russia, today. The two were released after a few hours, during which they say that they were beaten by police . While people across the world have held up the Pussy Riot prosecution as an example of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s human rights abuses, the group has had some strong detractors in the American right. Just as with Russia’s recent crackdown on LGBT people, the ordeal of Pussy Riot has... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Thursday 02/06/2014, 1:50pm
The Religious Right has perhaps inevitably caught wind of the story of a Florida middle school teacher who was suspended for using explicit lyrics from a Lil Wayne song to teach her students about figurative language. The school district disciplined the teacher, who recognized that the lyrics to “6 Foot 7 Foot” were “totally inappropriate for a school assignment,” but that hasn’t stopped groups like the American Family Association and Concerned Women For America from latching onto the episode as evidence of the evils of rap, feminism, lesbians, and contemporary... MORE >
Peter Montgomery, Wednesday 02/05/2014, 6:54pm
Representatives of the World Congress of Families held a news conference at the National Press Club on Wednesday to talk about their 2014 summit, which will be held in Moscow in September.  The WCF and the Religious Right groups it partners with are ardent promoters of anti-gay legislation worldwide, and they love Russia's anti-gay President Vladimir Putin.  Earlier this week the WCF announced that the opening session would be held in the Congress Hall of the Kremlin Palace, that a special parliamentary session will also be held in the Russian Duma and a special scientific... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 02/04/2014, 1:43pm
It’s that time of year again: Girl Scout cookie boycott season! WorldNetDaily today reports on the right-wing organizations that are boycotting the Girl Scouts for such offenses as tweeting a HuffPost Live video in which someone mentioned Wendy Davis, promoting “ardent feminist” writers, marching in a gay pride parade, and incorporating “labyrinths, global warming, yoga, avatars, smudging incense, Zen gardens and lesbian role models into their teachings.” WND has reported on a variety of activities on the part of Girl Scouts that conservatives and religious... MORE >
Peter Montgomery, Friday 11/15/2013, 5:52pm
As Miranda reported earlier, House Speaker John Boehner’s office stepped in to provide space to the anti-gay Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society for its symposium on what Americans should learn from other countries when it comes to “family policy.” Sen. Mark Kirk, who had originally sponsored the group for a room, withdrew his support last night saying he doesn’t affiliate with groups that discriminate. The Howard Center’s Allan Carlson, who described himself as a historian by training, saw fascism at work: “The parallel I see here is what... MORE >