Posts Tagged ‘women’s rights’

Charmaine Yoest at CPAC

Friday, February 19th, 2010

I had the opportunity to talk to Dr. Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life yesterday afternoon,

I asked her about her about how she was received at Princeton University when she visited a couple of years ago.

She was well received, however, the questions from the audience “showed the lockdown on information women’s studies departments have had on college campuses – the lack of information on women’s options other than abortion.”

For instance, her audience “had not heard arguments on how abortion hurts women.”

To me, it is a non-religious issue. She agreed, and explained that “the data is clear there are so few women who would willingly choose abortion.” We both agreed that the push for abortion lets men off the hook too easily.

I mentioned to Charmaine that local newspapers serving the Princeton area frequently carry advertising offering female Princeton students $10,000 for donating an egg. Charmaine talked about the dangers involved in egg donations, and the risks of complications. Worst yet, it points to “the commoditizing of women.”

I’ll post the YouTube of Charmaine at CPAC later.

What was missing from Obama’s speech

Thursday, June 4th, 2009

obamacairo6-4-9

The speech, which you can read here, was missing a few things:

1. The word TERRORIST. “Violent extremism” doesn’t happen on its own. It’s done by terrorists.

2. Details on closing Gitmo “by early next year.” Surely Pres. Obama realizes that it’s not enough to say “I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.” Where will those terrorists be sent? What will be the international reaction?

3. A firm position on women’s rights. As Peter Ladou said regarding the tepid language on this issue:

Is that a joke?

With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hijab? I would have been much more heartened if the preponderance of the speech had been about how in the 21st century, we CANNOT tolerate the pervasive abuse of our mothers and sisters and daughters.

Most troubling of all, the speech lacked
4. An unequivocal, firm stance on democracy: A “commitment to governments that reflect the will of the people” is not enough. Tyrants since the dawn of history have been summoning the masses to demonstrate their regimes “reflect the will of the people.”

Additionally, the statement, “America does not presume to know what is best for everyone” is equivocating on a moral point. America, from its birth, has been a champion of democracy, and should remain stalwart in its position.