The North Carolina Values Coalition Presents:
Event Information:
Join NC Values Coalition for a special evening with featured guests, Lt. Governor Mark Robinson and Retired Army Ranger, Edward Graham. Click here to learn more about the event.
The mission of the NC Values Coalition is to influence public policy and elections in favor of life, family & religious liberty. To learn more about NC Values Coalition and the Celebration of Carolina Values visit ncvalues.org.
Host & Sponsor Opportunities:
Contact Caroline Franken at [email protected] if you are interested in sponsorship and advertising packages for Event Sponsors. If you cannot attend, please consider making a donation to support our work at NC Values Coalition. For additional help or questions, call Mark Bentley at (919) 449-7676 or email [email protected].
The Celebration of Carolina Values 2020
Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Amicus Brief
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT:
This important Supreme Court case brings one of the most significant challenges to Roe v. Wade in years. In short, the issue in question with the case is whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.
Our brief argues: "Abortion terminates the life of an independent human being in the early stages of development. The Court should reject the viability line, step down from its inappropriate role as ex officio medical board, and discard the fallacy that women need access to abortion to participate in public life on an equal basis with men." "It is time for this Court to recognize, respect, and protect the life of every vulnerable, defenseless child developing in the womb of his or her mother."
NC VALUES: Governor Cooper vetoed babies.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 25th, 2021
Julie Scott Emmons
North Carolina Values Coalition
[email protected]
919-813-6490
NC VALUES: Governor Cooper vetoed babies.
(North Carolina Values Coalition's response to Governor Roy Cooper's last minute veto of HB453, the Human Life Nondiscrimination Act)
“It is unfortunate that Governor Cooper missed this opportunity to protect our precious preborn babies who have Down syndrome. Every single person--regardless of how many chromosomes they have—has inherent dignity, worth, and unlimited potential. North Carolina should be a state where differences are celebrated and all babies are welcome. We encourage members of the North Carolina General Assembly to embrace Life and ensure that this legislation becomes law.”
— Julie Scott Emmons, Vice President, NC Values Coalition
"Saving unborn babies who have been diagnosed with Down Syndrome from being targeted for selective abortion based solely on their disability prevents discrimination. Ending that kind of discrimination based on a disability is most certainly not an “unprecedented government intrusion” as Cooper said, because our Civil Rights laws were intentioned to end just that kind of discrimination. The Governor should mind his own ‘unprecedented government intrusions’ in the past year."
— Tami Fitzgerald, President, NC Values Coalition
RALEIGH, NC: Every child should have the chance to live a full, happy life, including persons with Down syndrome. All babies--born and unborn--should be protected from the tragic practice of eugenic abortion.
It is estimated that 70% of all babies with a prenatal diagnosis are aborted, many of whom are the victims of prenatal screening tests that have high false positive rates. Federal laws, such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act specifically protect individuals from discrimination based on race or disability. HB453 simply enshrines this protection for people who have yet to be born.
BACKGROUND:
- 6 states have laws prohibiting abortions motivated by the race of the child (AZ, IN, KY, MS, MO, and TN).
- 14 states, including North Carolina, have laws prohibiting sex-selective abortions (AZ, AR, IL, IN, KS, KY, MS, MO, NC, ND, OK, PA, SD, and TN).
- 9 states have prohibited abortions motivated by a child’s disability (AR, IN, KY, LA, MS, MO, ND, OH, and TN).
- The population of people with Down syndrome in the U.S. is estimated to be over 400,000.
- The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the laws of North Carolina protect against discrimination on the basis of race and disability.
- The Americans with Disabilities Act and numerous state laws prohibit discrimination against individuals on the basis of a “real or perceived physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities”. The ADA also states that it is illegal to “violently harm” a person because of a variety of protected traits, including Down syndrome.
- The Human Life Non-Discrimination Act enshrines this protection for people who have yet to be born.
REQUEST AN INTERVIEW OR COMMENT:
If you would like to discuss these clarifications further or schedule an interview with a representative from NC Values Coalition, we would love to hear from you! Please call or text us at 919-813-6490, or email us at [email protected].
NC VALUES:
Founded in 2011, the NC Values Coalition is a non-partisan, non-profit education and lobbying organization with a statewide grassroots network of North Carolinians who support and advocate for pro-family positions.
###
Fulton v. Philadelphia Amicus Brief
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT:
The Constitution broadly guarantees liberty of religion and conscience to citizens and organizations who participate in public life according to their moral, ethical, and religious convictions. It is not quarantined inside the walls of a church sanctuary. But anti- discrimination laws and policies are increasingly deployed as a weapon attacking traditional religious doctrines about the nature of marriage and sexuality. This discriminatory approach cuts against the very values anti-discrimination laws are enacted to promote—tolerance, diversity, inclusion, equality. Organizations like Catholic Social Services (“CSS”) are excluded from full participation in the public square while the government compels uniformity of thought on controversial social issues. The resulting inequality is alarming.
This Court needs to reaffirm the nation’s commitment to religious liberty by reexamining its ruling in Emp’t Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Religious neutrality is lacking where anti- discrimination laws protect categories defined by conduct that many faith traditions consider immoral. Smith falls short of protecting conscientious objectors and even religious organizations unless the political branches craft exemptions. Moreover, Smith departed from this Court’s longstanding Free Exercise jurisprudence and its time-honored role in protecting religious minorities from majoritarian oppression—the very purpose of the Bill of Rights.
👣The Human Life Non-Discrimination Act
The Human Life Non-Discrimination Act (HB453) prohibits abortions based on race and/or the prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. “All babies−born and unborn− have intrinsic dignity and worth and should be protected from the practice of eugenic abortion in North Carolina,” according to Primary Bill Sponsor, Representative Pat McElraft.
On June 10th, 2021, the NC Senate joined the House in passing the Human Life Non-Discrimination Act (HB453). It now heads to Governor Cooper's desk before it can become law.
We have been so grateful for the role all of you have played in getting the bill this far. Would you consider joining us in praying that governor Cooper will sign this bill into law, and that if he doesn’t, our legislators will be encouraged to stand strong and override his veto?
If you're grateful to the Republicans and Democrats who voted for the Human Life Non-Discrimination Act (HB453), would you take a minute to send them a quick thank you with our click-to-contact tool?
Add signature
Mississippi Department of Health v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT:
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a key passage asserted that “[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” 505 U.S. 833, 856 (1992). The dissenting justices were right when they concluded it is “dubious to suggest” that women have made progress only “in reliance upon Roe” rather than their own “determination to obtain higher education and compete with men in the job market,” in conjunction with “society’s increasing recognition of their ability to fill positions that were previously thought to be reserved for men.” Id. at 956-957 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting). The time has come to expose the “social equality fallacy” that demeans the ability and contributions of women by presupposing they can only achieve equality through the “right” to abortion. Great progress has been made toward the goal of gender equality in the decades since Roe and Casey—independent of access to abortion or contraception.
As one commentator observed nearly three decades ago, “it is an offensive and sexist notion that women must deny what makes them unique as women (their ability to conceive and bear children), in order to be treated ‘equally’ with (or by) men.” Paul Benjamin Linton, Planned Parenthood v. Casey: The Flight From Reason in the Supreme Court, 13 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 15, 46 (1993). Equality is truly possible only “when women can affirm what makes them unique as women and still be treated fairly by the law and society.” Id.; see also David Smolin, The Jurisprudence of Privacy in a Splintered Supreme Court, 75 Marquette L. Rev. 975, 1001-13 (Summer 1992).
Justice Blackmun, the primary author of this Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade, has perpetuated the myth that abortion is necessary to gender equality. His commentary runs like a dark thread through case law, including Roe, Webster, and Casey, degrading the unique role of women in reproduction. Sadly, his derogatory view of women has been echoed by others over decades of abortion litigation. In Roe, he maligned motherhood by complaining that “[m]aternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973). In Webster, this Court upheld a Missouri law that prohibited use of public services and funds for abortion and left intact a preamble affirming the protectable rights of unborn children to life, health, and well-being. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 506 (1989). But Blackmun’s dissent characterizes the plurality as “oblivious or insensitive” to the abortion right he presumed “ha[d] become vital to the full participation of women in the economic and political walks of American life.” Id. at 557 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). In Casey, Justice Blackmun reiterated the theme, arguing that restrictive abortion laws “implicate constitutional guarantees of gender equality” because they “deprive [a woman] of basic control over her life.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 928 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part). He accuses the plurality of “clear[ing] the way again for the State to conscript a woman’s body and to force upon her a ‘distressful life and future.’” Id., citing Roe, 410 U.S. at 153. This paints a bleak, inaccurate picture of the role of women who conceive and bear children.
Urgent: Tell your Elon Officials to Oppose Anti-Religious Liberty SOGI Ordinances
We understand that Elon NC officials are considering expanding the town's nondiscrimination policy to include, among other things, “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI). Following the expiration of HB142 and the state legislature’s failure to make its provision permanent, local governments across the state are considering local sexual orientation and gender identity ordinances that undermine religious liberty. Officials in cities such as Durham, Chapel Hill, and Greensboro have decided to enact such changes, despite the fact that these types of local ordinances violate the State Constitution as well as First Amendment protections in the Federal Constitution for freedom of religion, speech, association and conscience.
Every North Carolinian should be treated with dignity and respect and our laws should protect the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of every citizen, no matter who they are. We should be free to associate with others and form organizations, businesses, and other groups around shared values and beliefs. However, SOGI laws coerce uniformity of thought and speech on beliefs about marriage, sex, and what it means to be male and female. Unfortunately, coercive SOGI laws undermine both fairness and freedom. Elon's proposed nondiscrimination policy would—instead of protecting the vulnerable—actually create conflicts, disputes and victims in unintended ways. Additionally, it fails to exempt churches, religious organizations, Christian schools, and people of faith.
Would you take a minute and use our click-to-contact tool to tell Elon officials to OPPOSE any anti-religious liberty SOGI policies and ordinances?
👣The Human Life Non-Discrimination Act
The Human Life Non-Discrimination Act (HB453) prohibits abortions based on race and/or the prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. “All babies−born and unborn− have intrinsic dignity and worth and should be protected from the practice of eugenic abortion in North Carolina,” according to Primary Bill Sponsor, Representative Pat McElraft.
In doctors’ offices across the state, parents are relying on noninvasive prenatal screening tests that can provide inaccurate results more than 50 percent of the time during the first trimester. According to a recent New England Journal of Medicine study, “A mother’s DNA can alter test results, leading parents — and even their doctors — to believe their babies have major disorders when they are, in fact, healthy. Women facing a positive result from a screen that promises “accurate results, the first time” could have up to a 60 percent chance of a healthy baby.
No one deserves to be discriminated against because of his or her race or disability. This is especially true of unborn children who are being marked for death just because someone has determined that they are the wrong race or have the potential or confirmed diagnosis of Down syndrome.
Add signature
🏃♀️ Save Women's Sports in NC
During their Spring 2019 meeting, the North Carolina High School Athletic Association (NCHSAA) changed their original policy that required an athlete participate in sports based on the sex noted on the student's certificate of birth. They instead voted to allow students to participate based on their preferred gender identity, which a student identifies by submitting a "Gender Identity Request" form.
Girls deserve equal opportunities to experience the thrill of victory. But allowing biologically-born males to complete such a form and compete in girls' sports disadvantages girls and destroys their athletic opportunity.
The science is clear: biological males are generally bigger, faster, and stronger. Biological males have natural advantages too: greater lean muscle, larger individual muscle fibers, larger hearts, increased blood flow, higher ability to take in and use oxygen, lower body fat, less joint stress, and more. These lead to unfair advantages as it relates to strength, speed, power, and performance. No amount of hormone therapy can undo all those advantages either.
According to a recent 2020 poll, 75.46% of North Carolinians agree: allowing biological males to compete in women's sports is unfair. It hurts girls—on and off athletic fields—when biological males participate in women's sports.
If you agree, would you take a minute and use this click-to-contact tool to tell your public officials to vote FOR the Save Women's Sports Act — HB358?
Add signature