Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Concerned Women for America

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Print Friendly

Concerned Women for America (CWA) is a right-wing Christian advocacy group and lobbying outfit based in Washington, DC. With over half a million members, the group bills itself as “the nation's largest public policy women's organization" and boasts "a rich 30-year history of helping members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy."[1] Through grassroots mobilization, publications, and legislative pressure, CWA pushes right-wing viewpoints on social, economic, and foreign policy issues. Affiliated organizations include the Beverly LaHaye Institute, CWA’s “think tank” arm; the CWA Legislative Action Committee, its lobbying arm; and the Concerned Women PAC, which supports political candidates directly.

CWA was founded in San Diego in 1979 by Beverly LaHaye, a social conservative activist and spouse of Moral Majority cofounder Tim LaHaye. LaHaye—who fashioned CWA as a Christian conservative counterweight to left-leaning feminist groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW)—has said that she decided to launch CWA after seeing an interview in which NOW founder Betty Friedan “claimed to speak for the women of America.” According to CWA’s website, LaHaye was “stirred to action” because she “knew the feminists’ anti-God, anti-family rhetoric did not represent her beliefs, nor those of the vast majority of women.”[2]

The group has pushed a plethora of Christian right causes over the years, including criminalizing abortion, banning same-sex marriage, and rolling back sex education for students.  Its work on these issues has at times taken on an international dimension. For example, CWA attracted controversy in 2013 and 2014 for seeming to offer its support for antigay legislation in Russia[3] and for criticizing President Obama’s characterization of the notorious Ugandan “kill the gays” bill as an abuse of “human rights.” (Although the group declined to endorse the Ugandan bill itself, executive director Janice Shaw Crouse saved her vitriol for Obama, writing, “Claiming that homosexuality is a ‘human right’ is an affront—even a mockery—of those Judeo-Christian values that have been the foundation of virtually all Western civilizations across time and cultures.”)[4]

CWA works on array of issues besides traditional social concerns. For instance, among its seven “core issues” is “support for Israel” (the others are “sanctity of life,” “defense of family,” “education,” “religious liberty,” “national sovereignty,” and “sexual exploitation”).[5]

Although CWA is putatively focused on the United States, “support for Israel” has been an official “core issue” since May 2013, when its board of directors unanimously voted to count the “threat of global terrorism and the movement in the Middle East to squelch the nation of Israel” and purported “increased anti-Israel sentiment within our government” among its key concerns. “The biggest catalyst” for the Israel vote, CWA CEO Penny Nance told neoconservative blogger Jennifer Rubin, was that “our Founder, Beverly LaHaye, wanted to codify it in our core values. We have always been supportive but this is more formal.” Mentioning that she had been to Israel recently herself, Nance added, “I now know how absolutely essential support from the U.S. is to the continued existence of Israel and how essential Israel is to stability of the entire region.” Rubin, who dubbed the decades-old CWA “a strong new player in the pro-Israel community,” gushed that CWA’s announcement was “further proof that to be recognized as a conservative leader and to get electoral support from the right these days, Israel is a litmus test.”[6]

As part of its “pro-Israel” advocacy, CWA backed efforts to impose new sanctions on Iran while international negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear enrichment program were underway. “As the administration works to achieve a final agreement we must continue the pressure,” Penny Young Nance wrote in a letter distributed on Capitol Hill by CWA's lobbying arm, adding that the group “reserves the right to include all floor votes in our annual scorecard.”[7] Critics said the sanctions—which were introduced by Sens. Mark Kirk and Robert Menendez and vigorously backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—were actually designed to sink the negotiations altogether. (Despite CWA’s support for Kirk’s sanctions bill, it hasn’t always enjoyed warm relations with the strongly “pro-Israel” senator. After Kirk withdrew his sponsorship for a 2014 CWA event on Capitol Hill under pressure from gay rights groups, for example, the group issued an action alert accusing the senator of squelching free speech to appease “the pro-homosexual, bisexual, and transgender lobby.")[8] CWA has also sent delegations to AIPAC’s annual policy conferences.[9]

CWA has attracted criticism for publishing anti-Islamic materials. According to Think Progress’ Matt Duss, CWA publications have characterized Islam as “a military strategy and a political and socio-economic system” rather than a religion. Duss noted that in several jurisdictions, CWA has lent its organizational weight to support anti-sharia legislation developed by anti-Islamic activist David Yerushalmi.[10] “CWA has eagerly read straight from the Islamophobia playbook, relying on the work of Andrew McCarthy, Frank Gaffney, Nonie Darwish, Robert Spencer, and others,” added The Daily Beast’s Sarah Posner. “But its focus on a biblical mandate leads it to even more alarming levels of Islamophobia, portraying Islam as being in a cosmic conflict with Christianity.” Posner noted that a CWA action alert had urged President Obama to be “pro-Israel” rather than “pro-Islam,” and that an article on CWA’s website had falsely alleged that Obama “avoids traditional Biblical holidays and events, but regularly recognizes major Muslim holidays.”[11]

Although CWA does not reveal its funding sources, it claims over half a million members and states that any monetary contribution automatically establishes membership.[12] The group’s 2012 Form 990 filing reported over $6 million in contributions for CWA proper,[13] while a separate 2012 filing reported over $8 million in contributions for CWA’s lobbying arm.[14]


Share RightWeb

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.


[1] Concerned Women for America, “About Us,” http://www.cwfa.org/about/.

[2] Concerned Women for America, “Our History,” http://www.cwfa.org/about/our-history/.

[3] Peter Montgomery, “Religious Right Leaders Defend Russia's Anti-Gay Law,” Right Wing Watch, November 15, 2013, http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/religious-right-leaders-defend-russia-s-anti-gay-law.

[4] Bryan Tashman, “CWA: How Dare Obama Criticize Uganda's Anti-Gay Law,” February 27, 2014, http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cwa-how-dare-obama-criticize-ugandas-anti-gay-law.

[5] Concerned Women for America, “Our Issues,” http://www.cwfa.org/about/issues/

[6] Jennifer Rubin, “A strong new player in the pro-Israel community,” Washington Post “Right Turn” blog, June 5, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/06/05/a-strong-new-player-in-the-pro-israel-community/.

[7] Penny Young Nance, CWA Legislative Action Committee letter on Nuclear Weapon-Free Iran Act, January 2014, http://www.cwfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/CWALAC_Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Iran-Act.pdf.

[8] Concerned Women for America, “Senator Kirk Needs to Hear from You Today,” November 19, 2013, http://www.cwfa.org/take-actionsenator-kirk-needs-to-hear-from-you-today/

[9] Concerned Women for America, “Mr. President, Israel Matters,” March 25, 2013, http://www.cwfa.org/mr-president-israel-matters/

[10] Matt Duss, “Women’s Group Adopting Pro-Israel Agenda Has A History Of Anti-Islam Activism,” Think Progress, June 10, 2013, http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/06/10/2125361/cwfa-israel-anti-islam/

[11] Sarah Posner, “WaPo Blogger Welcomes Evangelical Islamophobes to the Pro-Israel Tent,” The Daily Beast, June 10, 2013, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/10/wapo-blogger-welcomes-evangelical-islamophobes-to-the-pro-israel-tent.html.

[12] Concerned Women for America, “Give Now,” http://www.cwfa.org/take-action/give-now/.

[13] Guidestar.org, 2012 Form 990 for Concerned Women for America, http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/953/580/2013-953580834-09beb2bf-9.pdf.

[14] Guidestar.org, 2012 Form 990 for Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/953/370/2013-953370744-09c5caea-9O.pdf

Share RightWeb

Concerned Women for America Résumé

Contact Information

Concerned Women for America

1015 Fifteenth St. NW, Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 488-7000




Mission Statement

“The mission of the CWA is to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens—first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society—thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation.”

Board of Trustees (as of 2012)

  • Beverly LaHaye, Founder and Chairman

  • Penny Nance, CEO/President

  • Tanya Ditty

  • Susi Barlow

  • Anne Ball

  • Sharron LaHaye

  • Barrie Lyons

  • Janne Myrdal

  • Lori Scheck

  • Norma Seifert

  • Angel Voggenreiter

  • Lee LaHaye

  • Cherie Short

  • Geoff Putnam

Staff (as of 2014)

  • Penny Nance, CEO/President

  • Janice Shaw Crouse, Executive Director & Senior Fellow

  • Kenda Barlett, Executive Director

  • Mario Diaz, Counsel

  • Shari Rendall, Director of House Legislation

  • Alison Howard, Communications Director

  • Alexandria Paolozzi, Senate Legislative Director

  • Caroline Biggs, Young Women for America Coordinator


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.