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.)
Archive for the ‘Women's Rights’ Category
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?
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.
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
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?
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):
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- I am free to take them to the park, the museum, or any number of wonderful activities when everyone else is at work.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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!
As same-sex marriage becomes legal across the country, same sex parenting is entering the picture now more than ever. What is the long term effect on children raised in the LGBT world? What of the women who are used to grow babies and sell them to same-sex couples? Although some gay couples have children from prior heterosexual relationships, many are now wanting to adopt babies specifically produced by other women for them. Is there a possibility of women being turned into breeders so gay men can raise children?
The following article, written by Rivka Edleman, a woman who was raised by a lesbian mother, gives us insight on the subject:
Ruthless Misogyny: Janna Darnelle’s Story and Extreme LGBT Activism
Janna Darnelle’s recent Public Discourse essay, “Breaking the Silence: Redefining Marriage Hurts Women Like Me—and Our Children,” reveals what is behind the heartwarming pictures of gay families from a mother’s point of view. As someone who was raised by a lesbian mother, I would like to weigh in. I will comment not only as a former child who was once all smiles in those pictures, but also as an academic, a woman, a mother, and a feminist.
Darnelle’s essay struck a nerve and went viral. It is not surprising that, within a few hours, LGBT activists had taken up arms against her. Keyboard warriors manned the ramparts. Soon, the usual thugs took up their clubs and pitchforks.
For those of you who avoid the subterranean landscape of online same-sex parenting debates, it is useful to be introduced to Scott “Rose” Rosenzweig, a virulently misogynistic LGBT activist. As soon as Darnelle’s essay was published, Rose went into action, darting from the blog Good As You to other sites in an effort to destroy her personally. (Rose’s obsessive internet commenting has attracted attention at other news outlets as well.) Darnelle’s ex-husband even weighed in. A helpful fellow, he left her personal information in the comments section of several activists’ blogs, including her full legal name.
Janna Darnelle wrote under a pen name in order to protect her family. Unfortunately, her ex-husband’s comments helped Scott Rose embark on a campaign of harassment and intimidation. As I will discuss below, Rose was not content to confine his character assassination to the internet; he has also contacted Darnelle’s employer in an attempt to get her fired.
Readers will recall that Darnelle’s essay discusses her divorce from her ex-husband and her struggles as a single mother to provide a sense of family. Although her conclusions are controversial, her story is well-written and articulate. Sadly, the hate-driven response from extremist LGBT activists and bloggers confirms what many women are beginning to realize. While these activists laud the ex-husband for “living his truth,” they hold women and children in such contempt that they refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Janna’s account of her difficult experiences as a mother. Although they purport to represent the disadvantaged, certain wings of the LGBT-rights movement function as all-white men’s rights groups. In our contemporary climate, these men are allowed to do great harm to women and children with impunity.
Erasing and Exploiting Women
On the most superficial level, what Darnelle described could have parallels in a heterosexual divorce. In most cases, a woman’s standard of living drops significantly after a divorce, while men’s goes up significantly. So, in that sense, there was nothing surprising in Janna’s story: the judge favored the husband, who had a steady high income.
The bloggers and activists who comment at Jeremy Hooper’s Good as You blog have used this judge’s decision to suggest that Darnelle was an unfit mother. Darnelle’s piece did not give details about the family’s custody arrangement, but I have confirmed that the mother has 60 percent custody of the children. This indicates that she has not been found to be “unfit” in any way.
The “unfit mother” trope is very important, because it helps justify taking women’s children, eggs, or the use of their uteri. Darnelle is right. Many families headed by gay male couples are built upon exploitation of women.
Monday morning in the west, we awoke to the good news that the Supreme Court actually sided with Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood!! These companies and other companies that can show “closely held” religious beliefs can opt out of the HHS contraceptive mandate. A win for religious freedom—yes! A sweeping win for religious freedom—no.
The justices limited their ruling to laws made by the federal government. If a state makes a law that limits the religious freedom of business owners, this ruling will not apply. The Supreme Court could have ruled that every American citizen could run their own companies according their consciences. As Matt Walsh put it:
“This ruling is a limited victory for freedom and sanity, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. The justices could have issued a sweeping decision fortifying every person’s right to run their lives and their companies according to the dictates of their conscience, rather than the dictates of an authoritarian government bureaucracy. Instead, they focused the issue down to the specifics of Hobby Lobby’s particular situation, meaning that other companies, businesses, and corporations will still be subject to Orwellian speech infringements.”
And of course, if anyone is still under the belief that Judges aren’t partisan, here is another 5 to 4 ruling along party lines. As is often the norm, more conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and chief Justice John Roberts joined by the most independent Justice Anthony Kennedy ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and the more liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Ruth Ginsburg ruled against Hobby Lobby.
As a conservative, I am quite happy about this ruling and hope and pray that none of the conservative justices retire until after 2016. There is always hope for the future right?
Some in the media will accuse the men who ruled in favor of religious freedom as furthering the war on women and taking away women’s reproductive rights. That is just silliness.
Unlike Justice Ginsburg, who in her dissent lamented: “The 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.” Women need not be concerned with how well they can participate in the economic and social life of this nation. This ruling in no way limits women’s ability to get birth control. Women are still free to purchase any birth control they want. They are still free to apply for work with whatever employer provides the sort of health insurance they want. Women are still free, and now business owners are free from burdensome federal laws that keep them from acting according to their consciences.
We live in an age of entitlement. People believe they are owed things by the government or others. Unfortunately, we live in an age where the government typically agrees with this attitude of entitlement. Regardless of the desires and convictions of anyone else, many people feel what they want is most important and with or without force, those services and goods must be provided to them. These people and the current government want to force everyone else to provide services even if those services violate the deeply held religious convictions of the ones providing. Many of these cases have involved gay rights verses religious rights. The current case awaiting a ruling at the Supreme Court involves abortifacient drugs.
In March, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp v. Sebelius. These cases focus on the HHS mandate portion of the Obamacare law. The HHS mandate requires all employers to supply insurance that covers all contraceptives approved by the FDA as well as sterilizations without a co-pay. Some religions such as the Catholic Church discourages sterilization and contraceptive use. Some FDA approved contraceptives, such as Plan B , are known as abortifacient drugs. One way Plan B works is to prevent an already fertilized egg from implanting by irritating the lining of the uterus. By not allowing a fertilized egg to implant, Plan B causes an early abortion.
The Green family who owns Hobby Lobby and the Hahn family who owns Conestoga Wood contend that being the source of abortifacient drugs for their employees violates their religious beliefs.
To appease religious employers and avoid lawsuits, the Obama administration offered nonprofits an “accommodation,” requiring the insurer to pay for the questionable drugs. Of course, that is simply an accounting gimmick. Employers still remain the legal gateway for their employees to obtain these drugs and Obamacare is still the gateway by which these employees are forced to supply them.
Emily Minick, a senior legislative assistant at the Family Research Council further explains the problems the HHS mandate causes for religious employers and all Americans:
“The HHS mandate is also a slippery slope. The text of Obamacare never mentioned that individuals or family businesses would be forced to provide all government-approved contraceptives and drugs. Rather, Obamacare only required that all health care plans cover ‘preventative care services for women,’ which the Department of Health and Human Services interprets to include the above-mentioned drugs and services. What is to stop a future administration from posting a new blog and interpreting ‘preventive care services for women’ to require all health care plans to cover surgical abortions without a co-pay?”
By not offering strong religious exemptions, the HHS mandate is essentially another attack on religious freedom in America. The first amendment began a Constitutional mandate resulting in a tradition of religious exemptions. These exemptions have always been offered and honored. Through the history of the United States, these exemptions have protected many religious people no matter their religion or sect. Quakers have not had to fight in wars. Muslims have not had to transport alcohol. During prohibition, Catholics and Jews were allowed to use wine for their religious rituals. In more recent times, doctors and nurses have not had to participate in assisted suicides, abortions, and prisoner executions. Pharmacists have not had to distribute abortifacient drugs.
These exemptions have served America well. They have made it possible for many people of different faiths and beliefs to live peaceably under the laws together in one nation. The attitude of entitlement and entitlement laws such as the HHS mandate threatens this. In just a few more days, the Supreme Court will have a decision on these very important cases. Please pray for the justices to continue with the Constitutional mandate of religious freedom for all.
The Commission on the Status of Women (CWS) is a functional commission of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Each year delegates from 45 countries meet at the U.N. headquarters in NY to formulate concrete policies on women worldwide.
Volunteers from United Families International just spent the past week in NYC presenting and assisting delegates in formulating the wording in certain “outcome documents”. The language found in these outcome documents gets used everywhere and becomes known as ‘customary international law’. The phrases in the outcome documents have tremendous influence worldwide. United Families is there to help assure that the critical wording in these documents is family friendly. This is clearly a tough job. While the stated purpose of the conference, based on 8millenial goals (MDG’s), are eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieve a universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality rates, improve maternal health, combat disease like HIV/AIDS and malaria, ensure environmental sustainability, and develop global partnerships, there are many NGO’s that use these goals to push comprehensive sexual education and sexual rights for children.
Carolina-Kawika Allen attended CSW with other UFI volunteers. She states:
“Certain NGOs have more sway and power at the UN. Many are using this power to create temporary fixes with long term devastation and oppression. Let me explain… While here at this conference it is clear to see how the solutions posed by very influential NGOs, promoting terms like, ‘reproductive health care for women and girls’, ‘child sexual rights’, ‘comprehensive sexual education’, etc. are in reality something else entirely.
Take for example the Goliath-NGO, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), with its most recent campaign ‘Exclaim’ for ‘child sexual rights’. Here you find that, and I quote, ‘Young people must be able to explore, experience and express their sexuality. They are entitled to do this in positive, pleasurable and safe ways. To secure young people’s sexual rights we must understand how human rights apply to young people’s sexuality’. Note that they are linking human rights directly with sexual rights, a legal move that is intended to codify sexuality in children, with the intent to eventually become legally binding. This campaign never even specifies how young, and in several places the word ‘child’ is actually used.”
As side event on human sex trafficking of children occurred, language that would have children as young as 5 taught masturbation, children as young as 13 introduced to pornography in the name of “sexual health”, and abortion services provided for every young woman by the age of 15 was being debated. Carolina exclaimed, “I sat in my chair fuming at the idea that the very language being included in these outcome documents were essentially ‘grooming’ children as a sexual predator would groom his victim.”
The term “Family” has become the most controversial word at the U.N. Countries that still believe that strong families are the solution to the MDG goals such as eradicating poverty, and hunger, educating children and stopping the spread of diseases are few and weak. They are mainly African, Polynesian, and Middle Eastern nations. The delegates from these countries are under extreme pressure to give way to the sexual rights agenda of the powerful NGO’s. They need the help of the few family friendly groups such as United Families International to stand strong in favor of the family.
Carolina concludes by calling upon the good strong women of the world to help fight the sexual right’s agenda in order to secure the safety of the child/parent relationship and the safety of children around the world. She declares:
“What I have found is the TREMENDOUS need for women, faithful, family centered, child-protecting, women–women like you and me who aren’t ashamed to claim and fight for their families–women who proudly claim their faith—strong and mighty women, who will fight for their children and the world’s children.”