This week, we experienced a political earthquake. The leaked decision revealed a Supreme Court intent on overturning Roe v. Wade. And the Left came unhinged.
In the process, we got two sneak peeks:
- What the eventual Dobbs decision might look like: The draft was clear, bold and unequivocal in overturning Roe.
- What the Left will do when Roe is overturned: Anything!
And that’s where my urgent concern arises. So far, Planned Parenthood and their allies are simply better equipped for that battle. That’s because the abortion industry is raising money like it never has before!
One Big Tech titan just poured $275 million into Planned Parenthood and their state affiliates. That’s on top of $3.4 billion in annual cashflow for nearly 200 pro-abortion groups around the country.
Abortion groups are about to go hog wild with that money for three things:
- Key state election battles – to get their abortion supporters in office in this crucial, upcoming election
- Ballot measures in pro-life states – to upend pro-life laws that are set to go into effect if and when Roe is overturned
- Bad legislation – to lock down abortion protections in blue and purple states
Yes, the battle is headed to the states. And for 18 years – since we started as Focus on the Family Action – the states have been our prime focus. Electing state leaders. Training state legislators. And serving an alliance of 40 state allied groups.
Critical needs are already taking shape. An allied state leader just told us that they are gearing up for a generational fight, with the abortion industry likely to file a ballot measure on the heels of a Supreme Court decision that lets states decide.
That state illustrates what’s at stake: Within six months, virtually all babies there could be protected OR abortion could be enshrined in the state constitution!
That leads me to an urgent request. Family Policy Alliance needs your financial support for the state-by-state battles ahead.
We don’t need to match every Planned Parenthood dollar. After all, we have the Truth on our side. But we must be competitive! And by joining with thousands of others – each giving something of significance – you will stand toe-to-toe with Planned Parenthood in the most critical battles, state-by-state.
The support of friends like you has helped Family Policy Alliance prepare for this moment for a long time:
- Hosting and serving an alliance of nearly 40 state groups that are deeply engaged in pro-life efforts, state-by-state
- Winning elections – with your help, we don’t just talk about issues, we get in the fray
- Launching AfterRoe.com, a state-by-state guide that maps out where states are and what they need to do to protect life
If you’ve been a part of making that possible, thank you for laying the foundation.
Now, will you equip the pro-life team for winning action? Please join this effort today with your best gift to stand against the onslaught from Planned Parenthood and their pro-abortion allies!
It’s the moment we’ve been waiting for. With God’s help, let’s go win!
President & CEO
P.S. I need you to go big today! We finally have a chance to fully protect life. Your gift, now more than ever, will go to the front lines to save little lives, state by state.
Recently, Congress passed the large omnibus spending bill.
- The Good News: Pro-life Hyde protections remain in important federal spending provisions.
- The Bad News: Harmful provisions under the Violence Against Women Act remained.
Speaking of women, a current U.S. Supreme Court nominee is having a hard time defining what a woman is.
This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings for the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Judge Jackson certainly holds high credentials. However, her answers during the nomination hearings raise concerns on how she will rule as a Justice of the nation’s highest Court. Here are some notable exchanges and information related to this week’s nomination hearings:
What is a woman?
“Can you provide the definition of the word, ‘woman’?” –Sen. Blackburn, TN
“I can’t. Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.” –Judge Jackson
“Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?” –Sen. Blackburn, TN
“Senator, respectfully, I’m not familiar with that particular quote or case, so it’s hard for me to comment whether or not.” –Judge Jackson
Should life be protected?
“When does life begin, in your opinion?” –Sen. Kennedy, LA
“Senator, I don’t know.” –Judge Jackson
“Can an unborn child feel pain at 20 weeks in the birthing process?” –Sen. Graham, SC
“Senator, I don’t know.” –Judge Jackson
How should child pornography be punished?
Sen. Hawley (MO) raised multiple questions related to cases in which Judge Jackson provided lenient rulings on child pornography cases.
Sen. Hawley pointed out that in all child pornography cases in which she had discretion, Judge Jackson “sentenced below the guidelines and below the government’s recommendations.”
In one case, United States v. Hawkins, an 18-year-old uploaded 17 videos and 16 images of child pornography, including an 11-year-old committing a sexual act and being sexually assaulted by an adult male, as well as videos of multiple other minors videoed committing sexual acts.
The federal sentencing guidelines recommended 97 months, up to 10 years.
The “liberal” prosecutor asked for 2 years.
Judge Jackson issued a sentence of 3 months.
Judge Jackson’s response included that she “takes these cases very seriously” and that “sentencing is a discretionary act of a judge…on an individualized basis.”
Judge Jackson has previously argued in a paper at Harvard Law School that the judicial system is “unfair” to sexual predators and questioned whether they should even be imprisoned.
What is Marriage?
When Sen. Cornyn (TX) asked about the infamous Obergefell marriage case’s creation of conflict between religious beliefs and law:
Judge Jackson stated she would not be able to comment as these issues were making their way through the courts.
Note: When previously questioned on rights “not expressly enumerated in the Constitution,” Judge Jackson stated “Obergefell v. Hodges…affirms a constitutional right to marry.”
The nomination of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice reminds us of the impact nine lifetime appointments can have on each of our lives and the lives of future generations. Cases related to life, marriage, religious liberty, free speech, and more are decided by the individuals confirmed to the nation’s highest Court. It is truly a sobering moment, and a strong reminder that elections have consequences that will impact generations.
Our team will keep you updated as the nomination process continues.
For Family and Freedom,
This week, Family Policy Alliance of New Mexico filed a Supreme Court brief in support of Coach Joseph Kennedy – because religious speech should not be singled-out for punishment in a free and diverse society.
Joe Kennedy coached football at the Bremerton School District in Washington State. At the end of each game, he would briefly pray, on his own, at the 50-yard line. Curious about what he was doing, a couple of students came to him and when they learned that he was praying, they asked if they could join. Kennedy responded, “It’s a free country, you can do what you want.” Without the coach’s prompting, more students joined in the post-game prayer and eventually students and coaches from other teams joined in as well.
Nearly half of the team had joined Coach Kennedy when the school suddenly told him that he could no longer pray publicly. Despite initially obeying the order, Kennedy believed it violated his freedoms of speech and religion and therefore, chose to return to his post-game prayer tradition – a decision that eventually cost him his job.
The school claimed that they needed to fire Coach Kennedy so that they would not be in violation of the Establishment Clause, a clause in the First Amendment that prohibits the government from “establishing” a religion. That’s the same clause twisted by the Supreme Court to rule that prayer in schools is “unconstitutional”.
The Supreme Court’s modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause has been based on the idea that religious pluralism requires neutrality. But in reality, the effect at schools like Bremerton School District has not been neutrality, but rather a singling out of only religious speech as the only speech worthy of punishment.
A school should not punish a coach for a brief prayer at the end of a football game. Our constitution does not require us to abandon our religious traditions, and the Establishment Clause does not require schools to fire a coach like Joe Kennedy. But if Coach Kennedy can be silenced, do any of us really have freedom?
We must do better! The brief that we have filed with the Supreme Court calls to question whether the Establishment Clause, created to protect our religious freedom from government involvement, trumps Coach Kennedy’s speech and religious rights to pray briefly at the 50-yard line.
Will you pray with us? Pray that the United States Supreme Court will recognize the encroachment of freedoms of both religion and speech in this case. Pray that their decision will honor the freedoms that our Founding Fathers established and that so many have given their lives to protect. Pray that religious speech will no longer be singled-out as the only speech worthy of punishment.
Despite our nation’s focus on Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, today will be a significant day for U.S. policy and jurisprudence as well. This afternoon, President Biden announced Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as his U.S. Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Stephen Breyer.
If confirmed, Judge Jackson’s decisions will significantly impact life, families, and religious freedom in our country. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled on key cases in each of these areas, and this trend will continue. As an associate justice, Judge Jackson would likely sit on the bench for an important religious freedom case the Court has already agreed to hear in the next term – and a lifetime of a cases on other key constitutional issues that impact everyday life for American families.
Judge Jackson has a background as a policy attorney who was confirmed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. just last year. She has written very few opinions for that court, but unfortunately her record is one of opposing protections for unborn life and religious freedom.
Family Policy Alliance will be closely watching the confirmation process and seeking to understand how Judge Jackson would handle these critical issues.
We will keep you updated on the confirmation process as we assess how a potential Justice Jackson will impact families across America.
Joseph Kohm III
Director, Public Policy
On Monday, Family Policy Alliance and 29 of our state allied organizations filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on a critical religious freedom case.
Just before the holidays, you may have heard that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hold an emergency hearing on the consolidated case against the Biden Administration’s vaccine mandate, which is being imposed on employers with more than 100 employees via the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Working quickly, our alliance’s legal team – led in this case by our allied organization in Texas – put together a powerful brief for the nine justices, who will hear the case on Friday. Here is our message to them:
- The brief articulates the centrality and importance of religious freedom in the United States – and highlights the many challenges this mandate would impose on employers and employees alike.
- The brief points out that this mandate puts employers in the difficult position of determining which employees’ beliefs are authentic and which are not – which is especially challenging in a secular workplace, but also presents challenges for faith-based ministries. The mandate would essentially turn employers into enforcers of a dictatorial, overreaching federal requirement.
- The brief also recounts the history of overreach of the “administrative state” – in this case, OSHA – especially when it comes to disregard for religious liberty. The brief argues that this issue ought to be debated and worked out in Congress or the state legislatures, where religious convictions have historically been given much more respect.
Family Policy Alliance remains deeply committed to advocating for your God-given religious liberty and for settling these issues through the legislative process – just as our Founding Fathers intended. And we are thankful for you and your support that makes possible our advocacy before the highest court in the land.
Standing for the family of believers,
Joseph Kohm, III, Esq.
Director, Public Policy
© 2022 Family Policy Alliance. All Rights Reserved.
Originally Published 1/5/22 at familypolicyalliance.com.
It’s not often that we hear of government bodies agreeing on a decision. But yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a UNANIMOUS judgement in favor of children and religious freedom.
What happened? Here are the facts.
The case: Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
Catholic Social Services (CSS) is a longstanding faith-based nonprofit that serves the foster children of Philadelphia. They exist to help children in need, particularly hard-to-place children, find forever homes. They have many guidelines for the families who are receiving children in their homes – including that there be a married mom and dad in the home.
Their beliefs are essential to their identity and cannot be separated from their work. But the city of Philadelphia thought otherwise.
When the city discovered CSS’s beliefs about marriage, they forced the organization to make a decision: change your beliefs, or the city will stop contracting with you.
CSS chose a third option: seek legal help.
The organization rightly recognized that this was a violation of their constitutionally protected religious freedom, and – represented by our friends at Becket Law – they took that argument to court.
After years of litigation, Catholic Social Services ultimately got their day in court before the U.S. Supreme Court last year. And today, the Justices issued their verdict: Philadelphia violated CSS’s religious freedom.
The implications: good news for children and religious freedom
This decision is good news not only for CSS, but for the many children they serve. When CSS is allowed to participate in Philadelphia’s foster care system, it not only offers a distinctly Christian option, but also increases the sheer number of foster providers – and that matters greatly.
In the U.S., more than 400,000 children in the foster system are waiting for homes. Around 4% of children are adopted within a year of entering foster care, and 85% of children in foster care have at least two placements in their first 12 months. In fact, the foster crisis is so extreme that some states are hosting foster children in hotels and office buildings because there is nowhere else to place them.
Today’s decision is a strong affirmation that foster homes like Catholic Social Services should be able to place children in loving homes while abiding by their religious convictions. Religious freedom is a precious gift afforded to all Americans. The belief that children should be in homes with a married mother and father should not be punished — and the Court affirmed that today.
The decision also reminds us of why the federal Equality Act – which could be up for a vote anytime in the Senate – is unworkable and inadvisable. The Act would redefine “sex” to include a person’s self-declared “sexual orientation and gender identity” throughout federal civil rights law. By doing that, the Act could be used to force foster and adoption agencies into similar dilemmas to Catholic Social Services – something that that the entire Supreme Court rejected today. The Equality Act would threaten religious freedom and the wellbeing of children and must be rejected.
We applaud today’s Supreme Court decision and are thankful for the work of Becket Law representing Catholic Social Services!
Policy and Communications Strategist
P.S. Want to speak out against the Equality Act? Send a message to your Senator now.
“Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.” -1 Peter 2:16
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has only been on the high bench for a month and half; and yet, she has already made her mark on history by voting to uphold the religious freedom in America.
On the eve of Thanksgiving, Justice Barrett was the deciding vote in a narrow 5-4 decision which temporarily blocked New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s attendance limits in houses of worship. In the majority opinion, Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett ruled that limiting churches, synagogues, and mosques to just 10 to 25 worshippers violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
“Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”
In a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch strongly denounced the disparate treatment between houses of worship and other “essential businesses,” noting that while a large New York synagogue in the red zone would be capped at just 10 people, a small liquor store or bicycle shop in the same red zone would have no such restriction. Justice Gorsuch concluded:
“It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques.”
The impact of Judge Barrett’s deciding vote and the high court’s decision in this case quickly rippled from one coast to another – from New York to California. On December 3rd, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a federal judge’s ruling that allowed the State of California to impose harsher restrictions on worship services than comparable secular activities. The restrictions in California remain in place. However, they may not stand when the federal judge applies the new precedent.
Though questions remain about the government’s power to limit constitutional rights during a pandemic, the U.S. Supreme Court has now sent a clear message to our nation’s governors. Though the state may burden the free exercise of religion to further a compelling government interest (e.g. mitigating the spread of COVID), the state may only do so using the least restrictive means available. And under no circumstance should houses of worship be slapped with more severe restrictions than secular businesses, gatherings, and/or activities.
To all the pastors, ministry leaders, and volunteers working faithfully each week to prepare and offer a safe worship environment for your congregants – thank you! As my pastor recently shared, “It is our job to minister to the things that a vaccine cannot help…and to point people to the truth and hope we have in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
To that end, we press on!
Pastor Vince Torres
President & Executive Director
P.S. Our $25,000 year-end challenge grant is well underway, and thanks to the generosity of ministry partners like you, we are very close to meeting our goal. As of today, we have raised $20,827.
If you have not yet given, would you please consider helping us raise the remaining $4,173 today by sending a gift of $50, $100, $250, or $500?
Thank you for your faithful prayers and support!
Today was an exciting day on Capitol Hill. After 30 hours of debate – including a Sunday overnight session – the Senate voted 52-48 to confirm Amy Coney Barrett as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Find out how your state’s two senators voted below.
As my colleagues and I put it in our recent op-ed, Barrett is a unicorn to the Left but the future to us. A woman isn’t supposed to achieve great professional success and raise a large family, and a person of faith isn’t supposed to earn acclaim from legal scholars of every political persuasion and land a seat on the highest court in the land, right? Wrong. As Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, Barrett has not “punch[ed] through a glass ceiling, but a reinforced concrete barrier.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett personifies the extraordinary capability of a woman and the hope of America at this pivotal time in our nation’s history.
The addition of a young, originalist justice to the Supreme Court indeed gives Americans of faith and pro-life values specific hope for the potential undoing of Roe v. Wade.. Barrett’s confirmation also provides optimism for the future of religious freedom in our country and the ability of people of faith to exercise their deeply held beliefs without reprisal.
It is expected that Justice Barrett will sit on the bench next Wednesday (the day after Election Day) to hear oral arguments in the case of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. This landmark case centers on two foster care moms – Sharonell Fulton and Toni Simms-Busch – and the City of Philadelphia. In 2018, the city ended its partnership with Catholic Social Services because the agency would not bow to the city’s demands to change its religious practices and place children with same-sex couples. Sharonell and Toni are both single women of color who have been called to help at-risk children break the cycle of foster care, but today their homes sit empty. They have fostered more than 45 kids between them, and are more than willing to continue this heroic work if the agency that aligns with their faith and values – Catholic Social Services – is allowed to reopen with its mission intact.
In addition to the likelihood of the current Supreme Court affirming laws to protect human life and religious liberty, there is also great reason to hope the addition of Amy Coney Barrett will usher in a return to the Court’s proper role of interpreting laws and the Constitution as written. If the judiciary fulfills its Constitutional mandate instead of legislating from the bench, pro-family, pro-life and pro-religious freedom Americans can expect to be pleased with the outcome.
Even as we celebrate the positive potential outcomes of Justice Barrett’s confirmation, we remain cautious given the unknown outcome of next week’s election. It is wise to acknowledge that the significant gains made possible by the newest Supreme Court justice could be undone if the next president of the United States determines to “pack the court.” Joe Biden has said we’ll “find out after [he’s] elected” what he thinks about court packing. He’s also voiced his intention to assemble a commission to research the issue. These messages provide no comfort to pro-life Americans who know Biden’s position on abortion includes support for codifying Roe v. Wade and if given a chance, will appoint pro-abortion, activist judges. The threat this poses intensifies with the possibility of Democrat leadership growing the number of justices on the Supreme Court with the intention to make it a super-legislature.
Meanwhile, we know President Trump’s record of federal court nominations. He has appointed more than 200 jurists – including three Supreme Court justices – to the federal bench who are committed to interpreting the law and Constitution faithfully. Appreciation is due to President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and all senators who have voted to confirm these individuals – and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in particular.
As we look expectantly to the future of the federal judiciary, we do so prayerfully and hopefully as Election 2020 nears.
External Relations Manager
Here’s how your state’s 2 Senators voted on confirming Justice Amy Coney Barrett:
|Jones, Doug – D||N||Daines, Steve – R||Y|
|Shelby, Richard – R||Y||Tester, Jon – D||N|
|Murkowski, Lisa – R||Y||Fischer, Deb – D||N|
|Sullivan, Dan – R||Y||Sasse, Ben – R||Y|
|McSally, Martha – R||Y||Cortez Masto, Catherine – D||N|
|Sinema, Krysten – D||N||Rosen, Jacky – D||N|
|Boozman, John – R||Y||Hassan, Margaret Wood – D||N|
|Cotton, Tom – R||Y||Shaheen, Jeanne – D||N|
|Feinstein, Dianne – D||N||Booker, Cory – D||N|
|Harris, Kamala – D||N||Menendez, Bob – D||N|
|Bennet, Michael – D||N||Heinrich, Martin – D||N|
|Gardner, Cory – R||Y||Udall, Tom – D||N|
|Blumenthal, Richard – D||N||Gillibrand, Kirsten – D||N|
|Murphy, Christopher – D||N||Schumer, Charles – D||N|
|Carper, Thomas – D||N||Burr, Richard – R||Y|
|Coons, Christopher – D||N||Tillis, Thom – R||Y|
|Rubio, Marco – R||Y||Cramer, Kevin – R||Y|
|Scott, Rick – R||Y||Hoeven, John – R||Y|
|Loeffler, Kelly – R||Y||Brown Sherrod – D||N|
|Perdue, David – R||Y||Portman, Rob – R||Y|
|Hirono, Mazie – D||N||Inhofe, James – R||Y|
|Schatz, Brian – D||N||Lankford, James – R||Y|
|Crapo, Mike – R||Y||Merkley, Jeff – D||N|
|Risch, James – R||Y||Wyden, Ron – D||N|
|Duckworth, Tammy – D||N||Casey, Robert – D||N|
|Durbin, Richard – D||N||Toomey, Patrick – R||Y|
|Braun, Mike – R||Y||Reed, Jack – R||Y|
|Young, Todd – R||Y||Whitehouse, Sheldon – D||N|
|Ernst, Joni – R||Y||Graham, Lindsey – R||Y|
|Grassley, Chuck – R||Y||Scott, Tim – R||Y|
|Moran, Jerry – R||Y||Rounds, Mike – R||Y|
|Robert, Pat – R||Y||Thune, John – R||Y|
|McConnell, Mitch – R||Y||Alexander, Lamar – R||Y|
|Paul, Rand – R||Y||Blackburn, Marsha – R||Y|
|Cassidy, Bill – R||Y||Cornyn, John – R||Y|
|Kennedy, John – R||Y||Cruz, Ted – R||Y|
|Collins, Susan – R||N||Lee, Mike – R||Y|
|King, Angus – I||N||Romney, Mitt – R||Y|
|Cardin, Benjamin – D||N||Leahy, Patrick – D||N|
|Van Hollen, Chris – D||N||Sander, Bernie – I||N|
|Markey, Edward – D||N||Kaine, Tom – D||N|
|Warren, Elizabeth – D||N||Warner, Mark – D||N|
|Peters, Gary – D||N||Cantwell, Maria – D||N|
|Stabenow, Debbie – D||N||Murray, Patty – D||N|
|Klobuchar, Amy – D||N||Capito, Shelly Moore – R||Y|
|Smith, Tina – D||N||Manchin, Joe – D||N|
|Hyde-Smith, Cindy – R||Y||Baldwin, Tammy – D||N|
|Wicker, Roger – R||Y||Johnson, Ron – R||Y|
|Blunt, Roy – R||Y||Barasso, John – R||Y|
|Hawley, Josh – R||Y||Enzi, Michael – R||Y|
President Trump has made his nomination and now it’s time for us to act!
President Trump has been very transparent with all Americans about the type of jurist he would select—one who will faithfully apply the law and protect the Constitution as written. In naming Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee to our high Court, he continues to fulfill his promise to Americans.
Judge Barrett’s record not only demonstrates her faithfulness to interpret the law as written and as its authors intended it—but she has also written extensively about this concept, known as “originalism.” Her professional resume is stellar, leaving no question she is qualified for the position. Her personal life reveals a working mom of seven, including two adopted children and a child with Down Syndrome. And, she’s a woman of deep faith.
In fact, California Senator Dianne Feinstein attacked Judge Barrett for her faith in 2017, and Judge Barrett has already proven she can withstand the brutal attacks of the Senate confirmation process. Senator Feinstein meant it as an insult when she said to Judge Barrett about her faith that “the dogma lives loudly within you.” Yet for all of us who are believers, we want—and are called—to live out our faith in such a way that it’s recognizable to the world around us. Judge Barrett is about to face even more brutal attacks on her faith and reputation than she already has, and she will need her faith to sustain her.
In naming Judge Barrett as his Supreme Court nominee, President Trump has done his part to keep his promise to Americans. Now, the brutal Senate confirmation process will begin, with political shots being fired about the nominee within hours of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death—before Judge Barrett had even been named. We know the vote will be close.
The Left is scared of Judge Barrett because they know she won’t assist in their strategy to make sweeping changes to our laws and Constitution from the bench. And, she may even provide the vote needed on the Court to undo prior bad decisions that did “legislate from the bench,” leaving both legal and real life devastation in their wake—like Roe v. Wade.
Your help is urgently needed to convince the Senate to quickly confirm Judge Barrett as our next Supreme Court Justice. Will you please take 1 minute to send a letter to your Senators? We’ve made it easy through our Action Center.
TAKE ACTION NOW
For law and for life,
Vice President of Strategy
P.S. Every Senator needs to know that the full weight of the American people is behind Judge Amy Coney Barrett—and that voters are watching every senator’s vote. Please email your senators now!
“…and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.” –Deuteronomy 16:18
On Friday, September 19, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, passed away following complications of metastatic pancreas cancer. She was 87. Upon learning of her passing, President Donald Trump said of Justice Ginsburg, “She was an amazing woman” who “led an amazing life.”
The passing of Justice Ginsburg further enflamed what was already an extremely heated election season. Democratic leaders immediately called for a delay in the nomination process until after the election. Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate, however, have stated their intent to commence the confirmation process immediately upon the President’s nomination.
Earlier this week, President Trump indicated that he will announce his Supreme Court Nominee this Saturday at the White House, and according to multiple sources, there are three women at the top of his shortlist.
Meet Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Judge Barrett sits on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. She graduated top of her class at Notre Dame Law School and clerked for the late-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Judge Barrett is a devout Catholic and a married mother of seven children (2 adopted).
Meet Federal Judge Barbara Lagoa. Judge Lagoa currently sits on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. She is a graduate of Columbia Law School, and prior to joining the federal bench, she was the first Hispanic woman to sit on the Florida Supreme Court. Judge Lagoa is a devout Catholic and the married mother of three children.
Meet Judge Allison Jones Rushing. Judge Rushing sits on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. She is a graduate of the Duke University School of Law and previously clerked for Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Judge Rushing is also a devout Catholic and the married mother of one child. At age 38, she would be the youngest confirmed Justice since the early 1800s.
For those committed to the pro-life cause, this nomination represents perhaps the most significant moment in our history since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Some legal scholars suggest that one more conservative Supreme Court Justice may finally pave the way for the Court to overturn Roe (without relying on Chief Justice John Roberts), and thus, overturn one of the gravest human injustices in American history.
Will one of these women be the next Supreme Court Justice? Will one of these women be the vote needed to protect future generations of unborn babies in the womb?
All eyes will be on the White House this Saturday and on the U.S. Senate in the coming weeks.
During this time, I ask you to join me in prayer for our Nation; for our President and members of the U.S. Senate; for these potential nominees and others; and for the upcoming election. While some may use this time to further promote fear and chaos, let us sow hope and faith – knowing that God Almighty is in control, and that we can rest because He never does.
President & Executive Director