How would you feel if your daughter’s or sister’s boyfriend got her pregnant and then tricked her into taking an abortion-inducing pill?  You should take the question seriously, because this is exactly what happened recently to a young woman in Tampa, Florida.  The boyfriend responsible for forcing the miscarriage of his own child is now being charged with murder.

Make no mistake, though.  Unless we all take stand against this sort of behavior — starting with young men like myself — this type of sad story is likely to repeat itself with growing frequency across America as the administration, liberal courts, and special interest groups (all of whom purportedly support “women’s reproductive health”) pursue their commitment to make contraceptives and abortion drugs more widely available to women at an increasingly young age.  The recent ruling by federal judge Edward R. Korman — ordering the availability of the powerful “emergency contraceptive” pill known as Plan B to women of all ages — will enable situations like this to occur again far too easily.  Specifically, it reduces barriers for so-called boyfriends to simply walk into a pharmacy and acquire powerful, abortion-inducing drugs to use on their girlfriends, no questions asked.

Pimps and rapists have, for many years, abused the over-abundance of contraceptives — thanks in part to groups like Planned Parenthood — to prevent the pregnancies of their prostitutes.  Consequently, pimps can keep even their youngest victims “in business” without inconvenient questions being asked.  Making powerful and potentially dangerous drugs like Plan B even more widely available will only exacerbate the problem.  As CWA’s Dr. Janice Crouse writes:

Judge Korman is a sex abuser’s dream and a victim’s nightmare. Essentially, he creates a brand new avenue for pimps, sex traffickers, and sex predators hoping to hide the evidence of their exploitation. We are removing doctors’ examinations, one of the vital tools used to detect sexual abuse. Now, a young girl afraid she might be pregnant at the hands of her abuser will not have the opportunity to see a doctor who could offer help and protection. Instead, her abuser will feed her Plan B like it is candy. In Thailand, where the morning-after pill has been freely available since 1988, men are the largest purchasers. What is wrong with this picture? It is no secret why Thailand is considered the world’s hot spot for sex trafficking of minors.

As a young guy, I would hate to see a family member or friend coerced, manipulated, or misused, and I suspect you probably feel the same way. Twenty-something guys who oppose victimizing women need to take back the sex culture and remind both society and our leaders that it is unacceptable to treat the ladies we care about like prostitutes.  We must stand up to keep them from becoming victims of the ever-growing sex industry, enablers like Planned Parenthood, and abusive boyfriends.

However much we’d like to deny it, the truth is that young men in my age bracket have far too easy of a time acquiring the tools they need to commit atrocities like the forced miscarriage of an innocent child in Tampa.  Thanks to the efforts of liberal “reproductive health” advocates, you and I need not only keep an eye out for the traffickers, pimps, and rapists — the deceptive boyfriend has now acquired the tools to victimize your daughter, little sister, or friend in the same way, to turn her into his own personal plaything.

CWA’s Alison Howard speaks at the House Triangle before the coalition delivers hundreds of thousands of petitions to the Chinese Embassy.

What if I told you there were millions of girls who were never given a chance to “lean in”? … Left out of the conversation. … Not invited to the table.  What if I told you they were systematically being eliminated not only from the workforce but from life itself?

I didn’t believe it either, until a friend pointed me to a movie that sounds about as “girly” as one can get.  “It’s a Girl.”  Those are words usually met with joyous applause, right?  Wrong.  It’s a Girl is a film documenting how, in many parts of our world, those three words are a death sentence.

Concerned Women for America is made up of over 500,000 members, many of whom were shocked to hear — like you will be — that there are over 160 million missing girls in this world, missing just because they were born female.  It is a sad reality, but in India, China, and many other parts of the world, girls are killed, aborted, and abandoned simply because they are girls.  The United Nations estimates that as many as 200 million girls are missing in the world today because of “gendercide,” the deliberate extermination of girls in favor of boys.  This is the true “war on women” — a long war, rooted in centuries-old tradition and sustained by cultural and government policies that value little boys over little girls.

But thanks to the efforts of a coalition against gendercide, especially that of the newly released It’s a Girl movie and movement, we are no longer uninformed and unaware.

Did you know that India and China kill more females every year than the number of girls born in the U.S in a year?  China also has the highest female suicide rate in the world, with over 500 women ending their lives every day in China according to the World Health Organization.  We have a real human rights problem and are seeing the systematic elimination of women and girls. Concerned Women for America has and will call discrimination out when we see it.  And if we do not join hands on this devastating issue and condemn the sex-selective practices in this world, we will fail future generations of mothers, sisters, teachers, doctors, and leaders.

It is because of this gendercide that we see, in countries like China and India, an unnatural ratio of men to women.  There are 37 million more men than women in each of these countries today, leading to devastating societal consequences.

You can easily see how a rising population of frustrated single men spells trouble.  We’ve seen an increase in the horrors of sex trafficking, forced marriages, and the kidnapping of women.  This is all very, very real for women across those countries.

This is not a Left or Right issue; this is common ground.  Even Hillary Clinton lamented the practice of sex selection in China and India.  All of the talk of reaching across  the aisle for positive change in this world can start right here on this issue.  On Tuesday, April 23, members of Congress, led by Reps. Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) and Jim McDermott (D-Washington) joined with the Coalition Against Gendercide to highlight this tragedy by screening It’s a Girl.

On April 24, I had the honor of speaking at the House Triangle before the coalition delivered hundreds of thousands of petitions addressed to China to the front door of the Chinese Embassy (petitions which the Chinese Embassy refused to receive, by the way).

So how can a girl “lean in” if she can’t even get out?  Protecting a girl in the womb and at birth is the first chance at giving her a fighting chance in this world.  Today, I challenge you to be a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves.  The film, It’s a Girl, is a great tool to help people understand why those are the three deadliest words to hear in many places today.

Encourage everyone you know to see it, and then take action to end this horrific practice.

Feminists are, predictably, having what we in the deep South used to call a “hissy fit.”  They are reacting with rage and bombast to a letter published in The Daily Princetonian that advised coeds not to waste their college years where they are surrounded by a high “concentration of men who are worthy of you.”  Susan Patton, a graduate of the Princeton class of 1977, reminded the students that “the man you marry” will be “inextricably linked” to their future happiness. No. Really?

As a 20-year-veteran of the political arena in Washington, D.C., I have seen several generations of college graduates come to the nation’s capital, where bright and intelligent men and women are overworked and underpaid to pursue their dream of making a mark on the world.  Invariably, they are steeped in the current myths about “establishing their careers” and “becoming financially stable” before even thinking about marriage. When they finally — and belatedly — get around to pursuing a life-time partner, many find, however, a dearth of desirable potential husbands or wives (i.e., eligible in terms of equal/superior intelligence and education with compatible values and good prospects as a friend, mate, and parent). As each year passes, chasing professional advancement, the odds worsen for women of finding Mr. Right, even in this era of supposed gender equity.  The cold hard facts are that men who’ve become established in their professions can usually much more easily than women find a pool of potential mates (usually younger) from which to choose.

Mark Regnerus pointed out in, Premarital Sex in America, there is a two-fold problem for women: First, the young men who chose not to sleep around tend to find a mate early; those who are left carry a lot of baggage from years of promiscuous sex with numerous other girls. Second, it is mainly the guys pushing “casual” sex, but it is the women who pay the larger price in terms of emotional costs, STDs, and the results of increased numbers of partners.

Successful marriages are based on mutual respect and common interests and values. Being “unequally yoked” (whether in intellect, education, faith, status, potential, or prospects) often makes for shaky, dysfunctional, and/or doomed relationships. Nobody wants to go back to the days where women went to college solely for the “Mrs.” degree, but it is foolish for women to ignore the fact that after college they likely will never again be surrounded by as many guys who meet their criteria for marriage.  Nor is it wise for young men to ignore the fact that they will never again have the opportunity to evaluate the characteristics of so many young women and choose one to cherish and grant the privilege of carrying their name, bearing their children, and sharing the ups and downs of life together.

In today’s “hook-up” culture, young men and women have to buck not only the anti-marriage biases of their generation, they also have to buck the “sex without consequences” myths that short-circuits their ability to bond and creates emotional (and often physical) “baggage” that hurts their chances for the happy, fulfilling, life-time marriage that the majority ultimately want.

Here is a personal assessment by my husband of 50-plus years: “I don’t get the controversy today.  In college, I pursued — with great persistence — the girl I wanted to be my wife.  Smartest thing I ever did.  We were both 22-year-old virgins and flat broke when we married fresh out of college; all we had was the $100 my dad gave me as a wedding gift plus $300 my older brother loaned me.  Persevering through the ups and downs, we built a wonderful and meaningful life that has been full of challenges and equally full of passion, joy, and the satisfaction of walking side-by-side, pursuing our career ambitions together, raising two great kids, and now enjoying our seven terrific grandchildren.”

But unborn children need you more.

I thought it would be a lazy Tuesday morning; I thought everything would go smoothly.  But then, “You’ve got Mail!”  And, well, I’ll let you read it for yourself:

“There won’t be as many babies killed this year, but the slaughter is still moving forward.  We have made big strides, but our work isn’t finished yet! … 2013 must be the last year that the … slaughter takes place — and with your help, we can save … lives.  Please donate now — help us stop the senseless slaughter. … Unless something changes, without more help from … defenders like you, this horror will occur again.  Please donate today so that we can ramp up our campaign to stop the slaughter.  This massacre is a terrible price to pay. …”

Despite what you may think, this isn’t from any of the pro-life groups with which you’re familiar.  However, it is a pro-life message … for baby seals.

Don’t get me wrong; I love the adorable baby seals just as much as anyone else, but the Left’s obsession with saving anything but human babies is beginning to wear my patience thin.  I’m tired of hearing the women of my generation being urged to give up their world in order to “save the earth” — “courageously” killing our future in the name of “freedom of choice.”  I’m also tired of hearing about women like 29-year-old Jennifer Morbelli walking into abortion clinics and dying days later from “complications” after having their late-term children ripped from their wombs.

Over 4,000 children are aborted each day in America — over 4,000 children crying, screaming — no, shrieking in horror — for a chance at the same life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that the Left has twisted into a license to kill.  Over 4,000 children a day.  Is this not a “senseless slaughter”?  Is this, too, not a “massacre” in the truest sense of the word?

Groups like PETA bemoan the slaughter of baby seals and condemn the women who wear the furs.  But Left-leaning groups support the slaughter of innocent human children and ignore the women who are forced to wear their decision to abort on their hearts and consciences for the rest of their lives.

Where, oh liberal Left, is your compassion?

This hypocrisy — this cultural insanity — is what first drove me to work with groups like Concerned Women for America (CWA), which was founded after Beverly LaHaye heard NOW’s founder, Betty Friedan, claim to speak for the women of America.

Like me, Beverly knew this Leftist woman didn’t represent her beliefs or those of the vast majority of women.  And they still don’t.  NOW … NARAL … Planned Parenthood and the rest. … They don’t speak for me.  They don’t think for me.

And they shouldn’t speak or think for you.

It’s time to rise up, ladies.  It’s time to stand and take the microphone back from loudmouthed, liberal feminists who hate children.

It’s time to stand with Concerned Women for America.

Seal the deal.  Donate here.  But for pity’s sake, don’t just throw money at the problem.  Get involved in a state chapter of CWA or, if you’re in college, check out Young Women for America.  But whatever you do, do it today.  Because, “unless something changes,” the horror of abortion will occur again … and again … and again.

Today’s guest blogger is Christian Shelby, a volunteer with Concerned Women for America.

Let me just come out and state the obvious: Beyoncé is a talented superstar, but she is also a trashy performer and contributes to the crudity and vulgarity that permeates today’s cultural scene.  In spite of an appearance at President Obama’s second inaugural, which lamentably gave her a respectable aura and a “sort-of-official” stamp of approval, her performance at the Super Bowl is far more typical of her “appeal.”  A quick perusal of pictures that have gone viral from her Super Bowl performance show the anger, crudity, and vulgarity of her performance.

I realize we live in different times, but think back to Lena Horn and Ella Fitzgerald to provide evidence of how far today’s performers have fallen from the class that used to be an essential characteristic of singing stars.  Beyoncé missed a wonderful opportunity at the Super Bowl to elevate popular culture, that she is capable of showing some of the class, and bring some family-friendly entertainment to the Super Bowl, instead of continuing the downward spiral that is so destructive in popular culture.

Beyoncé has always mixed glamour with her trashy look and her music, which has led to confusion about who exactly she is.  On the one hand, she claims to be a Christian, and on the other she is intentionally vulgar in her language and dress.  She is praised for her traditional values about sex, relationships, and family; she is a hard worker and is multi-talented.  Her defenders claim that she is sexy in a classy, tasteful way.  I would argue that they haven’t looked at the pictures very closely.

Obviously, sexy is here to stay, but there is healthy sexuality — that which is naturally exuded — and unhealthy sexuality that is exploitative, flaunting, and deliberately and vulgarly provocative.  Case in point: Beyoncé is on the cover of a recent GQ magazine in a provocative pose, wearing the skimpiest of bikini panties and a cut-off t-shirt that exposes as much as it covers.

Beyoncé is beautiful, talented, and blessed with tremendous influence, but like so many others, she is using the excuse of “artistry” as she takes herself and her fans down instead of lifting them up.  In her Fall-Winter ad campaign for the House of Deréon, the pop star goes for the “biker chick” look with lots of tattoos, partial nudity, and crude poses.  In addition, she joined her mother to launch a kid’s fashion line that spreads the “hooker style” clothing down to toddlers (some reports claim the line was quietly discontinued in December 2012).  In some of her videos, Beyoncé uses gutter language and some critics claim that she is too willing to “go with the flow” to seem “with it” and “cool.”

Her sister, Solange Knowles, who is the designer behind many of the styles that made Destiny’s Child singers (Beyoncé’s original singing group and the back-up singers at her Super Bowl performance) so fashionable, is said to be worried about Beyoncé’s descent into the world of “tacky,” “flashy,” and “lowbrow.”  So, it is not prudish (to anticipate all the criticism bound to come from this article) to hold higher standards for today’s divas; they owe the public at least a facade of decency.

How many times have we heard about our tax dollars paying for government workers who spend their days watching porn at work?

Which city in the United States is home to the most pornography viewers? The answer is Washington, D.C., the seat of the nation’s power players. Do you ever wonder why the Department of Justice does not enforce obscenity laws? Could the viewing habits of D.C.’s denizens influence the lack of enforcement?

The source of this information is PornHub, a XXX website. The New York Daily News carried the story about the study and noted that the rate of online pornography watched in D.C. is 14.18 videos per person in a year. While that may not sound like a lot to some, consider that the D.C. rate is nearly twice the rate of the second highest porn viewing state, Hawaii, where it is 7.57 per person.

We know that not everyone watches pornography, so that means the people actually watching online pornography in Washington are watching a lot more videos than 14.18 each. Who is watching them, and are they doing so at work? Does it influence their work?

How many times have we heard about our tax dollars paying for government workers who spend their days watching porn at work? One Washington Times article lists these agencies that have employees with porn problems: Pentagon, Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Missile Defense Agency. The article quotes a cyber-security expert who warns, “Many pornographic websites are infected and criminals and foreign intelligence services such as Russia’s use them to gain access and harvest data.”

You would think that national security nugget would be a good enough reason for prosecuting obscenity producers and purveyors, but evidently it is not.

In 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder shut down the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, which was established under Pres. George W. Bush’s Administration. A Politico article quoted Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in reaction to this move:

“Attorney General Holder told the Judiciary Committee last year that this task force was the centerpiece of the strategy to combat adult obscenity,” Sen. Hatch told POLITICO in a statement Friday. “Rather than initiate a single new case since President Obama took office, however, the only development in this area has been the dismantling of the task force. As the toxic waste of obscenity continues to spread and harm everyone it touches, it appears the Obama Administration is giving up without a fight.”

According to the PornHub statistics, obscenity blankets Washington. The lack of adult obscenity prosecutions is harming everyone. While the Department of Justice focuses on prosecuting cases of child pornography, those who are watching adult pornography may turn to child pornography when the adult material no longer excites them. If adult pornography prosecutions are non-existent, a gateway to child pornography is left in place to ensnare new viewers.

So, while some of D.C.’s denizens turn a blind eye to punishing the producers and distributors of obscenity, others are glued to their porn-filled computer screens. The key to why obscenity, while illegal, thrives in D.C., and beyond may be one mouse click away on screens hidden behind closed doors and cubicle walls in offices throughout Washington.

Ovulation is not a sexy topic.  But sometimes it’s an unavoidable discussion.  Especially when CNN publishes a study alleging that women tend to support President Barack Obama when they ovulate because — and yes, I quote — “they feel sexier.”

Like wildfire, this study spread across social media.  More than 2,100 mentions were posted on Twitter alone, according to The Daily Caller.  None of them were nice.  I can tell you that women don’t respond pleasantly to the kind of blatant sexism entrenched in CNN’s article.

“As if my ability to make decisions depends on my cycle!” tweeted one female reader.  Another woman wrote, “I think I am done with CNN.”

CNN responded to women’s outrage by deleting the study.  You can still visit the page, but in place of the study is a statement by CNN editors saying, “After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.  We thank you for your comments and feedback.”  No apology, no remorse, nothing.  But can we expect much more from the biased, Left-leaning news outlet?  Of course not!

This was just another bid by an Obama-supporting lapdog to secure women’s vote based on our ovaries.

In the interest of real women, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee conducted its own women’s study two weeks ago.  The number one issue was not abortion and birth control.  In fact, those issues were at the bottom of women’s laundry list of concerns.  Top issues important to women were economic growth, jobs, and the national debt.  Women of this country are looking for a leader who will lift us out of our current economic turmoil and keep us safe abroad.  Women are looking for leadership that we currently don’t have.

Political pundits are going to be shocked come November 6, when women vote with their lady smarts, not their lady parts.

************************

Update: The misogynistic Obama Campaign has released an obnoxious, double-entendre of a Web ad, featuring a woman who looks and acts like an overly immature, tattooed twelve-year-old.  Once again, Obama is reducing women to — do we have to say it again? — “lady parts.”   Well, the pimply faced adolescents over at Obama HQ need to grow up and realize that we think with our brains and act with our hearts — again, “Lady Smarts, Not Lady Parts.”  Obama’s good ‘ol boys may have their minds in the gutter, but our minds are on our pocketbooks.  In every sense of the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid.”  Did they miss the headline about the “gender gap” between Obama and Romney disappearing?  Maybe it’s because we’re not  a bunch of cheap floozies, easily bought with condoms and free pills.

Let’s face it; everyone has something they wish they could say to a younger version of themself.  As a 20-something, I already have an extensive list.  For instance, when you are eight years old, don’t cut your hair up to your chin.  With your curls, it will look awful!  Also, don’t wear that hideous outfit for your sixth grade class picture, and don’t go see that scary movie just because that boy is cute; you won’t be able to sleep for a month!

Then there are the more specific events, the ones where you wish you could just jump into a time machine and change or, at the very least, be able to impart bits of wisdom to your younger, more foolish self.  Those are, more likely than not, moments when you were “following the crowd.” Little did you know that by sitting with your friends while they read a Cosmopolitan (Cosmo) magazine out loud, regardless of the Disney star on the cover, you were really stripping away your innocence, a precious piece of yourself that you could never get back.

Teens are curious.  Most teenage regrets stem from a lethal combination of curiosity and a desire not to seem naïve.  It happened to me when I was younger, and it happens today.  I’m older, wiser, and I hope to help the younger generation avoid the same trap that got me.  Girls gather around to read the latest edition of Cosmo, a magazine that peddles sex tips to minors, who quickly get caught up in explicit descriptions of what can only be categorized as porn.  This magazine places teen pop culture stars like Dakota Fanning, Selena Gomez, and Demi Lavato on the cover of its pages.  Cosmo uses these stars to entice 8-14 year-olds, who are just beginning to blossom into womanhood, to open the lust-filled pages of this magazine.  If I could go back in time and tell my younger self to get up out of that group and walk away, I would.  But, alas, they’ve still not built a time machine.  Disappointing, I know.  So, instead, I’ll do the next best thing; I’ll tell others what I wish someone had told me.

Ready?  Here we go: Ladies, whether you’re my age, older, or younger, stop reading that filth! Don’t fill your heads and thought lives with the pages of Cosmopolitan magazine.  The hyped-up “articles” amount to little more than cheap marketing — shock value, nothing more.  So take your hard-earned money — and what’s left of your innocence — and walk away.  In the long run, you’ll be happy you didn’t trash your mind with explicit porn tips from a magazine who promotes the empowerment of women through “one-night stands.”

What Cosmo doesn’t tell you is that if you follow the advice they give, you’ll end up with the results of some questionable life decisions and more baggage than Louis Vuitton.  Cosmo pushes the whole “FWB” (friends with benefits) angle, where a guy and girl get together without being in a relationship and use one another for sexual “favors,” and it promotes fooling around with guys to gain confidence and experience.  The Bible, a book I trust a ton more than Cosmo, says “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life” (Proverbs 4:23).  Don’t be the girl that fools around with fornication.  In other words, don’t do what married people do until you’re married.  Preserve yourself.  Do not waste your money and time — and don’t throw away your innocence.  Trust me, I’ve heard stories of women who have learned the hard way — horror stories from people who call Cosmo their “Bible” — and it’s not as glamorous as they make it out to be.  As you’re following the “tips” Cosmo gives, you’re playing into a lifestyle that encourages guys to use and abuse you.  The only results this type of lifestyle will yield is men leaving you once they find a “good girl” they want to settle down with.  Yep, I said it.  Act like a Cosmo girl, and they’ll take you to their beds, but they’ll never take you home to their mothers.

Cosmo needs to clean up its act.  Until Cosmo gets cleaned up, we should demand that they give it the Playboy treatment, bagged and placed on the top shelf for an older audience.  Frankly, Cosmo’s content is even more pernicious than Playboy’s.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to tell you that teens, who buy Cosmopolitan magazine, can easily access the little “sealed section” in the back filled with erotic material.  A so-called “warning label” is not sufficient to keep minors from reading the section that is “off limits.”  All adults know that if you tell a child not to do something it makes it that much more appealing.  So control yourselves, ladies.  Next time you are in the hair salon, tanning salon, or waiting in line at the register, remember that it was your brain that helped you make that money, got you that job, and helped you nail the interview.  It wasn’t your sex appeal.  It is God’s great blessing of femininity that enables you to take on the world and grants you worth, not the cheap, smutty facsimile of it that Cosmo peddles.

Thankfully, we’re not a lone voice.  Others have already spearheaded the initiative to bag Cosmo.  Victoria Hearst, a member of the famous Hearst family, who owns the publishing company that distributes Cosmo, met with Concerned Women for America staff to alert us to the need to rally young women to stop supporting this filth.  Former model Nicole Weider has a petition and campaign to spread the word.  Click here to sign the petition, and watch her videos on why Cosmo needs to be bagged.

Together, maybe we can make the need for time machines a thing of the past.

UPDATE: Helen Gurley Brown, the editor of Cosmo — and the woman credited with dragging an originally wholesome magazine into the era of “sexual freedom” — passed away at age 90.  One of the original 60s feminist power brokers, she authored, “Sex and the Single Girl.”  Her contributions to the modern feminist movement cannot be understated.

Many were shocked when President Obama said to an audience in Roanoke, Virginia this Sunday that, “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” But why the surprise? Didn’t the Obama campaign already show its opposition to individual success when it unveiled “Julia,” a picture presentation of how women are better off thanks to President Obama’s policies.

In a slideshow spanning her whole lifetime, Julia comes off less as a successful woman than as a poster child for big government bureaucrats who’d rather have a say in who succeeds and who fails. For every part of her life, there’s no question that someone else makes things happen.

It’s an insult to women everywhere. The campaign stands by their story line. The question is: why does the Obama campaign paint every American with the same brush? Does he think we’re all equally in need of his assistance?

Former First Lady Laura Bush will receive the Alice Award in September from the Sewall-Belmont House, which is a museum “committed to sharing the untold stories of women’s history.” The Alice Award “honors a distinguished woman who has made an outstanding contribution in breaking barriers and setting new precedents for women. Through Mrs. Bush’s commitment to education, health care and human rights, she has made an impact on women’s lives both at home and abroad.”

Isn’t it nice that the Sewall-Belmont House is honoring Mrs. Bush, a former first lady who used her position to enhance the well-being of women around the world?

No, say twenty-two women, including Sonia Pressman-Fuentes, the co-founder of the National Organization for Women. Declaring she is not partisan, Fuentes said, “I’m not complaining that she’s a Republican. I’m complaining that she’s never done anything for women to get this award.”

So, Mrs. Bush has “never done anything for women,” huh?

So, why did the Sewall-Belmont House award Mrs. Bush the Alice Award?

According to the museum’s website, Mrs. Bush:

• traveled to more than seventy-six countries, including historic trips to Afghanistan and helped launch groundbreaking educational and healthcare programs for women
• is an advocate for women’s health
• has been an active participant in campaigns to raise awareness of breast cancer and heart disease, both in the U.S. and around the world
• partnered with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in The Heart Truth campaign and the Red Dress project
• traveled to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Panama to help launch international partnerships for breast cancer awareness and research

Perhaps the letter writers were not aware of all of Mrs. Bush’s efforts to aid women because the liberal media rarely portrays the efforts of those with whom they disagree? Maybe the Sewall-Belmont House recognized Mrs. Bush’s “untold” story?

Fuentes, who served on the museum’s board, said she would not give the award to President or Mrs. Obama either because they have, “disappointed me in terms of women’s rights.” She suggested Senator Barbara Mikulski and Eleanor Smeal as replacements for Mrs. Bush or as additional recipients to Mrs. Bush.  Mikulski and Smeal?

In an interview with Larry King, Mrs. Bush said she does not wish to see Roe v. Wade overturned, a position with which it is safe to say Fuentes would agree. So is Fuentes upset that Mrs. Bush didn’t contradict her husband’s position while they were in the White House? Is that what she means when she mentions her disappointment about women’s rights? Is it that Mrs. Bush didn’t abort her twin girls? With feminists it seems to come down to abortion more often than not.

Fuentes said she cannot recall any major controversies with other recipients, who include Olympia Snowe, Katie Couric, Hilary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. Hmmm, what do those ladies have in common that Laura Bush doesn’t share?

No, the letter from the women blasting the choice of Laura Bush for the award couldn’t possibly be about ideology or partisanship.