UFI

Archive for the ‘Women's Rights’ Category

Hope for the family amid anti-family hate

In Education, Families, father, Feminism, Free Speech, Freedom, Gender Identity, Grassroots, Homosexuality, Human Rights, Marriage, Media, motherhood, Parenting, Religion, Religious Freedom, Religious rights, Same-Sex Marriage, Sanctity of Life, Sexual Orientation, The Family, Values, Women's Rights on November 3, 2015 at 6:41 am

baby-boy-mom-dadby Mekelle Tenney

Last week my husband and I attended the World Congress of Families in Salt Lake City Utah. It was the 9th Congress held since the organizations founding in 1997. With over 3300 in attendance the Congress is the largest pro-family gathering in the world. World Congress of Families is dedicated to the promotion of the natural family. That means that they support marriage between a man and a woman, they are pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-children. The conference was four days of speakers and workshops. The presenters came from all over the world and talked on topics like the importance of marriage, morals and ethics in education, abortion, sex education, child development, and advocating for the family. All the presenters did a fantastic job and my husband and I came away from the conference with a deeper understanding of the current state of the family as well as a greater desire to fight for the family.

The congress received a lot of media attention, some good and some bad. After the first day of the Congress I began to scroll through some of the stories that had been published and came across one from the Daily Beast entitled “Queer Spy at the Anti-Gay Conference”. Considering the nature of the publication I should have ignored the story entirely but we had been enjoying the conference so much and I was upset by the author’s attitude so I opened the article and began to read.

“The registration table at the World Congress of Families conference looks like a church lady convention. Greeting newcomers and carefully distributing name badges and swag is a small army of smiling middle-aged women, all decked out in matching orange polo shirts and varying degrees of frazzled enthusiasm. Their hairstyles and footwear scream “sensible,” and I get the impression that if given enough time, any one of them would eagerly regale me with stories of their kids/grandkids, offer a remedy for stubborn stains, and jot down their favorite casserole recipe.”

The article went on to ridicule the Mormon moms in attendance (though when he used the phrase Mormon mom it was more a stab at all mothers). He noted the “notorious anti-LGBTQ” legislation that the members of the congress had been instrumental in passing. He used phrases like “Christian right global medaling”. And stated that the Congress had disseminated a “US born culture war that’s wreaking havoc on women and queer folks all around the world.” In case you are wondering the term queer refers to “sexual and gender minorities that are not heterosexual or cisgender.”

Naturally my first reaction to this article was anger. I told my husband that the writer was nothing more than a hypocritical jerk who began his article about a conference that was anti-women by making fun of women! Fortunately my husband was the only one to hear this rash reaction. One of the biggest lessons that I learned from the conference was the importance of reacting with love……a phrase I have a hard time with because it gives me the impression of hippies sitting around smoking pot and spouting off bumper sticker sayings such as “all you need is love”. But what I have come to realize is that my reactions reflect directly on the family and the pro-family movement. My actions and comments should never be such in nature that they can be used against the very cause I am trying to defend. Responding with love is in fact one of our most powerful weapons. It sets the tone for the whole movement and will be one of the reasons that the family succeeds. My experience at the conference taught me that.

My husband and I brought our four month old daughter to the conference with us. Before attending we had been worried that our baby would not be welcomed or permitted at the conference. Generally young children are not allowed at conferences because they are loud and disruptive. The situation proved to be just the opposite. I have never been at a place where children were more welcome. Everywhere we went with her we were met with smiles. So many people would stop to tell us how excited they were to see her there, how much fun children are, and how much joy they bring, that it took us twice as long to get anywhere. People from all around the world greeted us and congratulated us on our beautiful daughter. Of the whole conference that had the greatest effect on me. I realized that despite great obstacles the family will succeed. Because as it turns out the “queer spy” was right. The pro-family movement is fueled by an army of happy and enthusiastic individuals. Whose dedication to their families will motivate them to persistently, courageously, and lovingly fight for and defend the family.

Planned Parenthood–Today’s Auschwitz

In Abortion, Child Abuse, Choice, Courts, Diane Robertson, Free Speech, Freedom, Government, Health Care, Planned Parenthood, Sanctity of Life, Values, Women's Rights on October 7, 2015 at 7:46 am

body partsby Diane Robertson

All of the videos about Planned Parenthood have come out publically. Many people have seen them. Congress has investigated. Some states took Medicaid funding away from Planned Parenthood because of this illegal practice. And now, judges are stepping in.

After some states defunded Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood and others sued.

In Utah, Governor Gary Herbert saw the videos and decided that state Medicaid money would be better used at other clinics that service women. Federal Judge Clark Waddoups issued a temporary order to stop the Governor’s directive, and scheduled a hearing for Oct. 15 to consider an injunction that would put the governor’s order on hold pending the outcome of the lawsuit. Judge Waddoups said that it’s in the public interest to maintain the services Planned Parenthood provides.

In Arkansas, Governor Asa Hutchinson decided to withhold Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood as well. Three citizens sued and Federal Judge Kristine Baker issued a preliminary injunction mandating the state to pay for family planning services for these three women. Judge Baker said that if the women went without Planned Parenthood’s services, they would “incur irreparable harm.”

The public does not have a serious interest in the services that Planned Parenthood provides. There are many, many health clinics that provide the exact same services and more. It does not harm Medicaid patients to seek medical care at places other than Planned Parenthood, any more than it harms Medicaid patients to have to use only the providers listed as part of Medicaid services.

States should have the right to decide where tax payer money is being spent without the interference of the federal government. Yet, beyond that, the federal government clearly should not have the power to force states to fund any businesses engaging in illegal practices. The duty of a judge is to stop criminal activity not fund it.

So what can be done? Don’t put up with it. Speak out against these judges. Speak out against abortion. Go to the rallies. Write to your Senators and Representatives. Write to your Governors. Do everything you can to stop the killing and mutilation of the millions of unborn babies Planned Parenthood slaughters every year. Do not be the person standing outside Auschwitz looking at the dead bodies and asking whether or not a crime has been committed.

Truth or Consequences

In Abortion, Abstinence, Child Development, Choice, Courts, date rape, Education, Families, Feminism, Free Speech, Freedom, Human Rights, motherhood, Same-Sex Marriage, Sanctity of Life, Sexual Freedom, Single Mothers, Supreme Court, Transgender, Values, Women's Rights on July 24, 2015 at 9:19 am

choice and consequence 2by Erin Weist

While a multitude of ills befall our world on a regular basis, recently very few things have aroused such passions on an international scale than the issues surrounding marriage & family. Not far behind, and related by nature, is the controversy of abortion. In wake of the recent headlines regarding abortion in the United States I have thought about why this is such a difficult issue to resolve. I feel incredibly strong about the immorality of abortion–that it flies in the face of my faith, my regard for human life and my regard for human choices. But choice is exactly where the difference lies between the two opinions. Pro-abortion advocates have touted for decades that the thing they hold sacrosanct above all else is the ability for women to be able to choose what happens to their body. But I disagree. In fact, I would argue that theirs is nothing more than a hashtag, a P.R. move, and a tightly controlled dialogue that has nothing to do with choice.

Fast-forward several decades into our sexual revolution and you will find a multitude of choices. Choices to engage in sexual activity at nearly any age (not legal at younger ages but unfortunately still made available through chat sites, phone apps and other technological advances), choices to engage with a multitude of sexual partners, and choices to experiment with various gender identities. None of these have been inhibited through legislation, allowing people the option to choose morality or immorality. We have our freedom, we have our choices. In this way I am pro-choice.

The problem is that we’ve forgotten to teach each generation that consequences come as a result of choices. Where I draw the line is when a woman makes those choices and, instead of recognizing the natural consequences that come of engaging in various sexual activities (or even engaging only once!), multitudes of people from school administrators to healthcare practitioners to politicians proclaim that she can continue to choose what will come as a result of her sexual activity.

Now this seems to be basic biology to me: engaging in intercourse leads to pregnancy. So when pro-choice advocates say they want a woman to choose what she does with her body, what they really mean is that she’s already chosen and they want women to not have consequences. They want to undo what’s already been done and be free from natural biological processes.

What a great disservice this has done to entire generations of people! To think that you can make choices and be free from consequences of those choices flies in the face of every natural process on earth! Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. You absolutely cannot expect to act with no repercussions–we reap what we sow. To abandon this basic principle on which the earth turns is complete folly. So what we end up with is a selfish, uneducated populace that doesn’t recognize that the choice that has been made to engage in intercourse has now produced another being who is blameless but regardless must now be considered as part of the equation.

Once a woman is pregnant her choices are not merely her own consideration now. Granted, in the case where a woman is impregnated against her will, there needs to be greater compassion and public dialogue on how to handle such delicate cases, including considerations of how to care for the mother & child in such undesirable pregnancies, legal or criminal action to be taken against the predators, and more.

Many of these issues are far from simple but one thing is clear. Laws are meant to give freedom to live after the pursuit of happiness for all, including curtailing behavior that inhibits anothers’ freedom. Once someone has made a choice that involves another life form, laws need to be crafted to protect that life form and not simply the woman seeking to live without consequence.

Marriage, the Kitchen, and the Bedroom

In Abstinence, Child Development, Cohabitation, Divorce, Domestic Violence, Drug Use, Families, Feminism, Gender, Human Rights, Marriage, Media, Meet UFI, motherhood, Parenting, Research, Sexual Freedom, The Family, Values, Violence, Women's Rights on April 9, 2015 at 9:38 am

woman in the kitchenTashica Jacobson

Laura Bunker’s recent UFI alert struck a cord with me, and I haven’t been able to get her message out of my mind. Not only did it bring up this year’s trip to the UN, which brought up wonderful memories for me, she quoted Kate Gilmore’s shocking comment at the CSW side event.

We discovered that for millions and millions of women that marriage is not much better than an arbitrary detention cell; that the kitchen is a torture chamber; that the bedroom is a site for the gravest of human rights violations.”

While it would be false to say that every marriage and family situation is good, taking the other route and advocating against the marriage institution is even more destructive. I bring up the following points in defense of the institution that can and will bring about the most good for society, if we promote strong marriages and families.

Marriage

Marriage is more than a piece of paper and it’s more than a private relationship, it is a public commitment and responsibility for one another. And it should always be viewed as more than just one individual’s happiness, even though that is part of it.

Marriage promotes many benefits to many different people. It benefits the couple and their children, and it also benefits society. And when marriage is entered into in a responsible way these benefits are even more pronounced.

Married couples are typically better off financially, physically and mentally. And they are able to fully invest in a relationship that is protected by the promise of permanence. Another benefit is pooling: couples bring their abilities, income, and skills together. And then these tools benefit both parties rather than just one individual. Overall happiness is increased by marriage, which in itself promotes positive change in lives.

Children do better when raised by their biological married parents. They do better in school and have better relationships with their parents, while the likelihood of drug use and delinquent behavior decrease.

These benefits then transfer over to society, because when the individual people benefit, the society also improves, and people have more time and resources to devote to bettering the community.

Kitchen

The kitchen is actually my favorite room in the whole house. Do I cook? NO, but it’s so much more than cooking. Growing up, the kitchen was the center of my home. It was where we gathered together at the start of our day and where we finished our day. It was where we greeted each other through the comings and goings. It is one of the things that brought us together as a family.

Research has shown the benefits of the family meals together. These benefits range from better academic performance to lower risk of delinquency and depression. Kathleen Ferrigno, the director of marketing for CASA said, “The magic that happens over family dinners isn’t the food on the table, but the communication and conversations around it.” And the same could be said for the kitchen as a whole. It allows ample opportunity for family members to connect with one another.

Time in the kitchen also allows time for all members to contribute and work together. Family work has changed over time and what used to be time together, is now typically isolation. That is what needs to be avoided when doing kitchen chores. It should be a time to remember your family and the service that you are doing for them and a time to work together. Kitchen chores are one way children can feel like they are part of the family, even if they don’t enjoy completing them.

Bedroom

The bedroom and intimacy shared between husband and wife can be a source of conflict in marriage but we also need to keep in mind that it is also a way to bring a couple together and unite them in a way like no other.

When intimacy is shared within a marriage, with care and concern for the other, it enhances a marriage. And because the couple has already made the ultimate commitment to one anther it provides a safe environment to be vulnerable.

In his book How to Avoid Falling in Love with a Jerk, Dr Van Epp describes the relational aspects of sex. “The primary reason why sex is always relational is because you cannot separate your body from the rest of who you are.”(p.289) meaning that casual sex is not beneficial. Sex needs to be allowed in the context of a relationship with the maximum commitment, which is the marriage relationship.

Marriage actually improves ones sex life and studies have shown married couples are actually more satisfied with their sex life. Access to partner, commitment, exclusivity, all contribute to the increased satisfaction. Care and concern for each other throughout all parts of married life contribute to care and concern in the bedroom.

 All parts of family life play an important role in strengthening the family and society, but they also add to individual safety, security, and happiness. This is why we need to continue to promote healthy families. Despite the opposition married intact families do continue to achieve the best outcomes for individuals.

Rights vs. Laws

In Abortion, Constitution, Courts, Defense of Marriage Act, Democracy, Education, Free Speech, Government, Health Care, Human Rights, Marriage, Non-Discrimination, Parental Rights, Religious Freedom, Same-Sex Marriage, Sanctity of Life, Schools, Sexual Freedom, Sovereignty, Supreme Court, Values, Women's Rights on March 2, 2015 at 7:26 am
 Bill of RightsRebecca Mallory

       No doubt you have witnessed in the past few weeks, months, or years, people from different groups wielding signs declaring their RIGHTS! They have a right to a living wage, they have a right to a job, they have a right to marry someone of their own sex, they have a right to a college education, etc. They are wrong.
In these cases, the only real thing these people have a right to is their “freedom of speech.” No one has a right to a job, wage, education, or health care. Sorry guys. Modern American “education” has failed you. The only rights besides “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are stated in the Bill of Rights which are the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution which have one thing in common: they tell the government what it cannot do to the citizens.
The Bill of Rights, not the bill of laws, not the bill of suggestions, not the bill of hopes, the Bill of Rights details what human beings have rights to, and every one of them limits what the government can do to people. Now, before your blood pressure sky-rockets, let’s look at the difference between rights and laws.

       When the American Founding Fathers gathered in a hot sweltering room in Philadelphia to create the Constitution, they merely had an idea. They wanted to create a land of freedom where men and women could govern themselves without a stifling or tyrannical government. This document was “inspired by God,” and the rights declared therein were created by God. This is easily verified by original documents written by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc.
The United States Code calls them “organic law” which means they cannot be taken away by men. These laws are natural. Rights do not exist just because a politician, or president decrees it. Only in communist or tyrannical regimes is that a question, and it’s only a question because your natural right, your natural yearning, your independence, your freedom, has been taken away from you. The only thing a government can do is take rights away from you.

   If those are rights, then what are laws? Laws are made by men. Many laws are necessary to provide an orderly society but most man-made laws can easily be assessed as politicians denying your right by passing a law which then limits that freedom. If this is done in a democratic way, we can then work to reverse the law, but if you live in a dictatorship, you have no way to deal with it. You are forced to abide with no recourse.

    What about those who live in tyranny? If rights come from government, then people that live in communist countries don’t have the right to be free.  They have the right to live in tyranny because their governments have created it. Their governments have written the laws that say, “You can’t be free, you’re not free, you can’t say what you want, you can’t think what you want.  If we hear about it and we don’t like it, you’re going to prison.”  Really? That’s a right for someone to live that way?

        It’s been fascinating to watch recent laws change on a whim in this country, almost completely circumventing congress or other branches of government. Those pushing a certain agenda change the narrative by screaming that it’s a right! Instead of working through the democratic channels and changing the law set forth by the very system they created!
This is an easy sell because a large number of people are sadly ignorant of how the system works and so their immediate reaction is, “Yeah! It’s my right! Healthcare is my right! I can do what I want! You owe me a big house and nice car! I can abort my baby! It’s my body!” No you can’t. Those are not rights nor ever have been. Those are laws that have been enacted by a relative few in each case. There’s nobody that can grant that right.  You’re not born with it.  Besides, it can be taken away.  If it can be taken away, it’s not a right.  “I have a right to whatever I want.”  No, you don’t.  You have to earn it.

     It’s right there in the Declaration:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Natural law.  We’re born with this.  They are the “right to life, the right to liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.”   The natural state of the human being is yearning to be free and wanting to be happy.  Is that not true, by the way?  In this country you’d have to get people to really stop and think about it, because they accept all this, take it for granted, because it’s all they’ve known. Present this idea to most people around the world and they’ll never believe that such a place exists. Any wonder people risk their lives to get here at any cost?

You may not believe in God which is pretty much a definition of religion or what you believe, right?  Do you believe it’s your right to worship the way you choose? Or do you believe that someone in government permits it? No human being can grant you that right. If you believe rights come from man, then someone could easily declare that everyone belong to the Church of Whatever right now. Fortunately, rights do not come from man.

No group of men will have the power to take away your freedom.  The Founders wrote it so because they understood where our rights came from. It was brilliant.  And from the beginning of the existence of the Constitution of the United States, it’s been argued over, because obviously to big government politicians, dictators and tyrants, etc., this is a problem for them.  That’s why the United States is a target.  People have been trying to defeat the United States forever because when we say it’s an “outpost for freedom,” “it’s a shining city on the hill,” “it’s a beacon.”  It’s the only place.  That’s why everybody wants to come here.

But as exceptional and special as this republic is, it is extremely fragile. The Constitution of this Republic will only work if people are righteous and good; capable of governing themselves. When they can’t and become unruly, flawed human beings step in and chip away at those freedoms under the guise that government will provide everything free and take care of you cradle to grave.

Hopefully you’re smarter than that. Read a little history and you’ll once again discover, it never happens. They can’t do it and they never will. They say they are just trying to protect you, your family and your health but many in government naturally succumb to greed, temptation, power, lust and all by-products of a bloated and out of control government. They may band-aid something temporarily, but here’s a better idea, America. Pick up those “unalienable rights you were endowed by our Creator” and go out and make a better future for yourself and your family. Be exceptional.

(Many of these ideas came from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show on February 13, 2015. It was a brilliant treatise defining rights and laws. You can read the transcript in entirety from his website.) 

Who Should Provide the Care?

In Birth Rate, Breastfeeding, Child Development, Courts, Diane Robertson, Families, Family Planning, father, Government, Health Care, Human Rights, Marriage, motherhood, Parental Rights, Parenting, Single Mothers, The Family, Values, Women's Rights, working mothers on February 25, 2015 at 7:43 am

pregnant and workingDiane Robertson

Last December the Supreme Court heard arguments about the workplace and pregnancy. A pregnant employee wanted UPS to accommodate her pregnancy by switching her to a job where she would not have to lift heavy packages. UPS refused, so the woman took unpaid leave while keeping her health insurance, and later sued in federal court stating that the UPS didn’t adhere to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.

In my home state, a bill has come before the legislature asking that pregnancy and breast feeding be included in the state non-discrimination law. Again the question becomes how much should employers do to accommodate pregnancy and breast feeding.

Along the same lines as the UPS case, new science is warning about the necessity of prenatal care and the possibility that a stressful job during pregnancy could cause a lifetime of health problems for the unborn child.

As the mother of 10 children. I fully understand that pregnant and breast feeding women need care and accommodation. It takes a lot of energy and nutrition to build a person. But who should care for and accommodate women and their children?

The question comes down to this: should the government mandate the care of the mother and baby to the woman’s employer? To me this question is not one of rights and regulations, but one of families.

This week, I read a rather sobering article. It said that 54% of children will not be raised in a home with both their mother and father. Many of these are abandoned mothers left to fend for themselves and their children. The majority of families are not taking care of their own.

This question would not have been asked in the past. In the past, families took care of their own. The father stayed with the mother and worked hard enough to support his family. When a father failed, the woman’s parents, siblings, or other extended family took over this care. I think the care of mothers and children should be on the shoulders of the families.

Instead of mandating that employers provide the needed care for mothers and babies, maybe the government should look at other policies that have encouraged this adult-centric world where sexual desires trump the essential needs of vulnerable women and children. The needs are real.

What do you think? Who should provide the care?

42 Years and Still Fighting

In Abortion, adoption, Child Development, Constitution, Courts, Democracy, Education, Families, Feminism, Free Speech, Government, Health Care, Human Rights, motherhood, Sanctity of Life, Senate, Sexual Freedom, Supreme Court, The Family, Values, Women's Rights on February 2, 2015 at 8:45 am

 

prolife marchErika Walker

In case you missed it, January 22, 2015 was a big day for the issue of abortion for three reasons.

First, on this the 42nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that legalized abortions in the United States, The House of Representative considered a bill that would ban all future taxpayer funding of abortions (H.R. 7).

Second, President Obama issued this celebratory statement:

“Forty-two years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Roe v. Wade, a decision that protects a woman’s freedom to make her own choices about her body and her health, and reaffirms a fundamental American value: that government should not intrude in our most private and personal family matters.

“I am deeply committed to protecting this core constitutional right, and I believe that efforts like H.R. 7, the bill the House considered today, would intrude on women’s reproductive freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restrict the private insurance choices that consumers have today. The federal government should not be injecting itself into decisions best made between women, their families, and their doctors. I am also deeply committed to continuing our work to reduce unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, promote adoptions, and minimize the need for abortion.

“Today, as we reflect on this critical moment in our history, may we all rededicate ourselves to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons.”

It’s clear that President Obama is very strong supporter of abortion. He even goes so far as to call it a “core constitutional right” one that he is “deeply committed to protecting” which gives us Pro-lifers little hope of H.R. 7 becoming a law even if it does pass the House and the Senate. (Update: H.R. 7 passed the House on January 28th.)

However, not all hope is lost. Which brings me to my third reason this was a big day. On this day, more than 500,000 Pro-Life advocates gathered at the National Mall for the 42nd annual March for Life. The turnout was one of the biggest in history, with well over half of the marchers under the age of 30. This year’s march was all about youth activism with many holding signs that read “I Am the Pro-Life Generation”. Indeed the Pro-life movement is gaining energy and ground. Many in this younger generation recognize the value of a life, see abortion for what it truly is, and are willing to fight against it.

Though legislation that favors life will continue to be petitioned, and in many cases, shut down, I have hope in our future because one day, this generation will be our nation’s leaders. And maybe then we can finally right the wrongs of our fathers and overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

http://marchforlife.org/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/22/roe-v-wade-anniversary-march/22157931/?AID=10709313&PID=4003003&SID=i5imkgt4gq00gfu000dth

Media Celebrates “Positive” Abortion Stories, Censors Reality

In Abortion, Feminism, Human Rights, Media, motherhood, Parental Rights, Planned Parenthood, Research, Sanctity of Life, Values, Women's Rights on December 2, 2014 at 9:42 am

woman in tears

Nathalie Bowman

Abortion is alive and well, and the American media is all for it. Katie Yoder, in her article “Media Hype ‘1 in 3 Campaign’ Promoting Abortion, Censor Women Who Regret Their Abortions”, shares how the media is only showing one side of the Abortion story:

“The media are all for giving voice to the voiceless, as long as the message fits their agenda. Case in point: journalists recently rushed to publicize the stories of women who chose to abort–“Media Celebrates “Positive” Abortion Stories, but Censors Reality.” And they did it without a hint of regret.

Dozens of women shared their abortion experiences on Nov. 20 during a live streamed Abortion Speakout hosted by Advocates for Youth’s  1 in 3 Campaign. Participants included Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards, comedian Lizz Winstead and columnist Jessica Valenti. While journalists latched on to the message of women’s lives improving through abortion, they censored the stories that didn’t fit their agenda – the stories of women who regret their abortions.

Half a dozen outlets including The Washington Post and The Daily Beast reported on the event to praise women “who made the best decision” with “no regrets.” But these stories – pushed by the ‘1 in 3 Campaign’ and journalists – ignore the abortion testimonies from women filled with “regret” and “horror” published by the ‘Silent No More Awareness Campaign’. Founder Georgette Forney explained to MRC Culture how these outlets “censor” and “edit” women who regret their abortions. The media are “trying to keep us quiet all the while pretending to be representing women,” she stressed.

The ‘1 in 3 Campaign’ aims to “end the stigma and shame women are made to feel about abortion” by stressing that one in three women will have an abortion during her lifetime (a statistic disputed by the pro-life movement).

Media ONLY Hype ‘Happily Ever After’ Abortions

In her anticipation of the event, The Washington Post’s Diana Reese wrote “This Thursday women will talk about their abortions, and I spoke with two of them….”

Read the full story here

 

Make the Choice

In Abstinence, Birth Rate, Child Development, Cohabitation, Demographic Decline, Divorce, Education, Families, Feminism, Government, Marriage, Parenting, Population Control, Schools, Sexual Freedom, The Family, Values, Women's Rights, working mothers on November 7, 2014 at 9:49 am

mother teaching daughterMekelle Tenney

Over the last 50 years the fertility rate among Americans has dropped from 3.65 to 1.89. The rate of households with one child or more under the age of 18 has also made a significant drop from 48.8% to 32.3%.

In 2010 only 30% of high school girls and 40% of high school boys reported that they believed they would have a fuller and happier life if they were legally married as opposed to cohabitation.

Sixty three percent of high school female seniors and 69% of males agreed that it was a good idea for couples to live together before marriage to make sure that they “get along.”

What exactly are these statistics saying?

  • Children are no longer a priority.
  • Marriage is not seen as a means for a happier and fuller life.
  • Marriage is not essential and shouldn’t be entered into unless you have given the relationship a “test drive”.

In short, family is not worth the sacrifice.

This same sentiment was shared by our President just recently. On October 31 President Barack Obama delivered a speech to a crowd in Rohde Island. President Obama stated,

“Sometimes, someone — usually mom — leaves the workplace to stay home with the kid, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”

The purpose of President Obama’s speech was to promote equal opportunities for women in the work force. Though this statement invokes many different discussions, one stands out. Let’s say that many women do choose to stay at home, they do give up career opportunities. Since when does family not require sacrifice? Are our children not worth it? The idea that we can have a family without sacrifice and work is unrealistic and dangerous. Obama has implied that we do not want Americans to make that choice?

America’s families cannot afford not to. If we are to save the state of our families we must not make decisions for ourselves alone, but for our families. We have all seen this in our lives. We saw our parents sacrifice sleep, personal goals, ambitions, dreams, and desires, all to raise their family. And where this sacrifice was given, the families are closer, stronger and more united. Everyone was blessed.

I believe that the desire to create and cultivate a family is a natural desire. And yet society it telling us not to. Each generation has to decide for itself what its priorities are. What will it be America? Will we choose to make the sacrifice for family?

Are Mothers “Full and Equal Participants in the Economy”?

In Child Development, Education, Families, Feminism, Government, Health Care, Marriage, motherhood, Parenting, Schools, stay-at-home mom, The Family, Values, Women's Rights on November 4, 2014 at 9:07 am

mother teaching her childrenNathalie Bowman

Over the past few days, there has been an uproar among conservative Americans surrounding President Obama’s speech on October 31 at Rhode Island College. After he opened with a few jokes, mentioned going trick-or-treating with Michelle because his girls “are too old” and spent a few minutes extolling the virtues of his administration’s accomplishments, he finally got down to business with this statement,

 “And today, here at RIC, I want to focus on some common-sense steps we can take to help working families right now. In particular, I want to zero in on the choices we need to make to ensure that women are full and equal participants in the economy.”

 OK, that sounds promising-helping women be equal participants in the economy may be a good thing-but as he continued his speech, his point became clear that in order for this to happen, women must be in the workplace, not at home with their children.

 He mentioned parents who “have no choice but to put their kids in cheaper daycare that maybe doesn’t have the kinds of programming that makes a big difference in a child’s development.” Programming? Is that what they do at daycares? Program children? President Obama continues with the infamous statement that has been quoted many times:

 “And sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”

 Ouch. That’s not a choice we want Americans to make? Note that he did not say, “that’s not a choice we want Americans to HAVE to make.” It’s simply not a choice “we”, whoever that is, want Americans to make.

Mom or Pre-school

President Obama continues, “So let’s make this happen.  By the end of this decade, let’s enroll 6 million children in high-quality preschool, and let’s make sure that we are making America stronger.  That is good for families; it’s also good for the children, because we know investing in high-quality early childhood education makes all the difference in the world, and those kids will do better.”

 We are making America stronger by having millions more children in “high quality preschool?” Unfortunately for those children, when the government preaches “high quality early childhood education”, it means more and earlier academics, which is the opposite of what preschool children need for brain development and optimal growth.

 So the goal is to get as many women in the workforce as possible and have the government in charge of daycares and preschools for millions more children, and that goal is better for families?  (If you are not familiar with this speech, see the full transcript here there are also good commentaries here and here)

 Mr Obama, being a stay at home mom is what my life’s purpose is. I am a mother of 8 children. Let me explain why I choose to stay home with them and why that is better for my children, and society.

10 Reasons I choose to be a stay at home mom (in no particular order):

  1. Because I stay at home with my children, nobody else knows them as well as I do, and as a result, I am much better at guiding them in the directions that will help them most. We have wonderful, substantial conversations.
  2. I get to teach my children how to garden, grow their own food, and eat healthy. We love spending time together in the kitchen making yummy and healthy things to eat, and our family dinners are central to our family culture.
  3. I love to slow down and look into my child’s eyes and really see the greatness in them as we spend quality and quantity time together.
  4. As a homeschool mom, I have an opportunity to teach my children many things. We love learning together. I thoroughly enjoy watching my children’s delight at learning something new.
  5. I can care for my children and work from home, scheduling clients according to the needs of my family. I can take time off whenever my family needs me, and I am free to create a small business to help support my family while I raise my children at home.
  6. I teach my children values and principles so when they grow up, they will have a solid foundation to stand on. They will respect, serve and love others as well as live their lives with integrity.
  7. I am free to take them to the park, the museum, or any number of wonderful activities when everyone else is at work.
  8. I am here for my children when they are ill. I have the privilege of nursing them back to health, without the stress of missing work or a deadline.
  9. I love to watch my children in free play and pretending. They are so creative and it’s entertaining to hear their conversations as they work up a new plot. I also love to jump in and play with them. Play is central to their learning when they are little.
  10. I get to spend at least an hour every morning reading out loud to my children. We love our reading time. Reading together is great bonding for a family. We talk about what we are reading and learn valuable life lessons from the characters and situations in the book.

That’s 10 already, and I haven’t even gotten to the most important one, so here it is:

  1. By staying home with my children and creating a family culture of love, respect, learning, understanding, forgiving, working and playing together, I am raising children who will be mature, hard-working adults who love and serve others and positively contribute to society. They will not be dependent on government to take care of them, but instead, will take care of themselves and their families.

 That, Mr. President, is how I choose to be a “full and equal participant in the economy.”  Being a stay at home mom is much more important to me than any “programming” or “education” my children will “benefit” from in government run daycare or preschool. It is also more important than any wage I could earn. Being a mother is the most important job I am doing in order to benefit society and my family. I applaud dedicated mothers everywhere.

Moms, you are doing great work!

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 170 other followers