Media Center

 

On March 23, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Little Sisters of the Poor’s legal challenge to the Obama administration’s so-called religious “accommodation” to its contraceptive mandate.

March for Life President Jeanne Mancini had the opportunity to speak in solidarity with the plaintiffs.

 

You can read her full remarks here >>>

It is such an honor to stand here with and for the Little Sister of the Poor.

 

It’s hard to imagine how our country’s understanding of religious freedom and the need for conscience protections has changed in such a short period of time. Back in 2010 after the healthcare law was passed many of us attended meetings and spoke on behalf of women like us – women of strong faith; women who are pro-life; women who speak for themselves. Unfortunately, our voices were ignored and groups like the Christian Colleges, the Little Sisters of the Poor and the March for Life were forced by the government to carry drugs and devices that are against what we believe.

 

Like the Little Sisters and Christian Colleges, the March for Life was ordered to carry drugs and devices that can destroy life in our healthcare insurance- commanded to do something that goes against the very reason for which we were founded, to protect and defend life from conception. So like the Little Sisters and Christian Colleges, we also sued the federal government because we had no other options. We thankfully won that suit in the lower court, though the government is continuing to fight it on appeal.

 

The case of the Little Sisters and other religious groups highlights something just as egregious as the mandate itself. The government did allow certain religious organizations an exemption. But the exemption did not include the Sisters, Christian colleges, and other groups.

 

The government does not have the right to declare that serving the elderly poor, or educating students from a religious mission, is supposedly not religious enough to count for exemptions granted to other church groups. With this definition, the government tried to define out of the heart of Christianity all of the religious groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor that serve those in need, educate about a culture of life, and share their faith with the world. In the words of one Christian leader, “even Jesus himself would not be religious enough to receive this exemption.”

 

It is un-American to be forced to participate in things you object to, regardless of what President Obama believes. This is a pivotal moment in US history.

 

But we are not going away and we will not be silenced. We will be here telling the truth about life and about religious liberty.

 

>>>Click HERE to read more about the March for Life’s case against the HHS mandate.

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 22, 2016

CONTACT: Ryan Hughes Shirley & Banister Public Affairs 703-739-5920/800-536-5920 rhughes@sbpublicaffairs.com

Zubik v. Burwell a Pivotal Moment in History for Religious Organizations

Washington, D.C. – On March 23, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Little Sisters of the Poor’s legal challenge to the Obama administration’s so-called religious “accommodation” to its contraceptive mandate. The Sisters are a group of nuns who’ve dedicated themselves to serving the elderly poor. They — along with numerous other religious organizations are challenging their required role in facilitating their employees’ access to free contraceptives, including contraceptives that can function as abortifacients. The stakes of the case extend far beyond access to contraceptives. The Court’s holding could reaffirm America’s historic commitment to religious liberty or restrict its free exercise for decades to come.

“It’s hard to imagine how our country’s understanding of religious freedom and the need for conscience protections has changed in such a short period of time,” said Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life Education & Defense Fund. “Back in 2010 after the healthcare law was passed many of us attended meetings and spoke on behalf of women like us – women of strong faith; women who are pro-life; women who speak for themselves. Unfortunately, our voices were ignored and groups like the Christian Colleges, the Little Sisters of the Poor and the March for Life were forced by the government to carry drugs and devices that are against what we believe.”

“Like the Little Sisters and Christian Colleges, the March for Life was ordered to carry drugs and devices that can destroy life in our healthcare insurance – something that goes against the very reason for which we were founded, to protect and defend life from conception,” Ms. Mancini added. “So like the Little Sisters and Christian Colleges, we also sued the federal government because we had no other options. We thankfully won that suit in the lower court, though the government is continuing to fight it on appeal.”

“The case of the Little Sisters and other religious groups highlights something just as egregious as the mandate itself. The government did allow certain religious organizations an exemption. But the exemption did not include the Sisters, Christian colleges, and other groups.”

“The government does not have the right to declare that serving the elderly poor, or educating students from a religious mission, is supposedly not religious enough to count for exemptions granted to other church groups. With this definition, the government tried to define out of the heart of Christianity all of the religious groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor that serve those in need, educate about a culture of life, and share their faith with the world. In the words of one Christian leader, ‘even Jesus himself would not be religious enough to receive this exemption.’”

“It is un-American to be forced to participate in things you object to, regardless of what President Obama believes. This is a pivotal moment in US history.”

But we are not going away and we will not be silenced. We will be here telling the truth about life and about religious liberty. The March for Life in Washington, D.C., began as a small demonstration on January 22, 1974, the first anniversary of the now-infamous Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and rapidly grew to be the largest pro-life event in the world.  The peaceful demonstration that has followed on this somber anniversary every year since is a witness to the truth concerning the greatest human rights violation of our time, abortion.

Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life Education & Defense Fund is available for commentary. For more information, please contact Ryan Hughes at RHughes@SBPublicAffairs.com or (703) 739-5920.

###

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 16, 2016

CONTACT: Ryan Hughes Shirley & Banister Public Affairs 703-739-5920/800-536-5920 rhughes@sbpublicaffairs.com

March for Life Petitions Senate Majority Leader McConnell to Reject Nominee

Washington, D.C. – On Saturday, February 13th the United States learned of the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In the days that followed, the nation mourned the enormous loss of this man, not only to his family and friends but also to our country. After news broke of Justice Scalia’s death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) released statements defending the rights of all Americans.

As the President announces his choice for nominee to the Supreme Court today, The March for Life Education and Defense Fund has launched a petition to urge Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to reject President Obama’s pro-abortion Supreme Court nominee, and to wait until “we the people” have a voice in November.

“Pro-abortion advocates such as President Obama aim to undo the pro-life state laws that have been passed since Roe vs Wade,” said Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life Education & Defense Fund. “In order to accomplish this, President Obama has said that he will nominate a liberal to the Supreme Court. We urge Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Chairman Chuck Grassley to reject President Obama’s pro-abortion Supreme Court nominee, and to wait until ‘we the people’ have a voice in November.”

The petition can be read below and can be found here:

The American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice. I want to thank you for your promise to stand up for the American people and stop President Obama from placing a pro-abortion advocate on the Supreme Court during his final term of office.

By doing so you not only stand for the American people but also for the U.S. Constitution.

The future of the Supreme Court is at stake, including many cases involving the protection of unborn babies and the safety of women.

I, the undersigned, urge and encourage you to reject President Obama’s pro-abortion Supreme Court nominee, and to wait until “we the people” have a voice in November.

The March for Life in Washington, D.C., began as a small demonstration on January 22, 1974, the first anniversary of the now-infamous Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and rapidly grew to be the largest pro-life event in the world.  The peaceful demonstration that has followed on this somber anniversary every year since is a witness to the truth concerning the greatest human rights violation of our time, abortion.

Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life Education & Defense Fund is available for commentary. For more information, please contact Ryan Hughes at RHughes@SBPublicAffairs.com or (703) 739-5920.

###

 

Hillary Clinton was pressed Monday evening over her support for late-term abortions during a Fox News town hall. Host Bret Baier asked the Democratic front-runner about her position on the controversial procedure. “Do you think a child should have any legal rights or protections before its born? Or do you think there should not be any restrictions on any abortions at any stage in a pregnancy?” he asked. “Under Roe v. Wade, which is rooted in the Constitution, women have this right to make this highly personal decision with their family in accordance with their faith, with their doctor,” Clinton responded. She added, “It’s not much of a right if it is totally limited and constrained.”

“This position is radically out of touch with the American people,” said Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life Education & Defense Fund. “A Marist poll released in mid-January revealed that 8 out of 10 Americans – 80 percent — would restrict abortion, at most, to the first three months of pregnancy. Mrs. Clinton is not alone in assuming such extreme views. A number of months ago a reporter asked Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she would support aborting a seven pound unborn baby. She replied that she does not support any limits on abortion; in other words, ‘yes.’”

“In days past abortion advocates used the phrase ‘safe, legal and rare,’” Mrs. Mancini added. “President Clinton used this term when referring to general policy but today the new normal is abortion, without limits, on demand. This is a significant tactical change. No longer are the pro-abortion forces feigning to be concerned for the mother or the child. There are few doctors in America who would recommend a woman have an abortion within days of birth. The trauma to the mother and the death of a fully viable fetus would be dangerous and deadly.”

The March for Life in Washington, D.C., began as a small demonstration on January 22, 1974, the first anniversary of the now-infamous Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and rapidly grew to be the largest pro-life event in the world.  The peaceful demonstration that has followed on this somber anniversary every year since is a witness to the truth concerning the greatest human rights violation of our time, abortion.

Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life Education & Defense Fund is available for commentary. For more information, please contact Ryan Hughes at RHughes@SBPublicAffairs.com or (703) 739-5920.

 

March for Life President Jeanne Manicini analyzes the Supreme Court’s hearing of Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt in the Hill —>

This week the Supreme Court will hear one of the most monumental cases regarding abortion and women’s health since Roe v. Wade. On the docket is Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt where the Court will weigh in on the constitutionality of health regulations for abortion clinics. The case seemingly pits the pro-life and pro-choice camps against one another, but a closer look at the facts reveal that the Texas law under scrutiny is in the best interest of women’s health.

Click HERE to read the op-ed in its entirety.