You’d think that progressives who say they’re pro-women’s rights would question themselves when their policies clearly have created a gender imbalance with baby girls being aborted at alarming rates in some countries. They’re against it but they don’t even know how to argue against it because they can’t talk about the unborn as deserving of anything but scalpels.
In fact, the clearer it becomes to the world that liberals are leading the world to its ruination, the more outlandish their claims become.
This week, for example, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be discussing bills dealing with International Violence Against Women.
Janice Shaw Crouse of Townhall Magazine writes:
Feminist groups are pushing action on the legislation before the November elections — for obvious reasons. Like so many feminist proposals, the rhetoric sounds great. Is there anybody, other than the jihadists, who is not opposed to violence against women? The problems with I-VAWA are hidden in the fine print under the lofty rhetoric; the agenda is predictable: anything promoting so-called “women’s rights” is a thinly-veiled push for anti-family policies, gender quotas, and, of course, abortion-on-demand, all on a global scale…
Further, the urban myths continue alongside the long-standing practice of feminists equating a lack of “reproductive services” with “domestic violence.” The I-VAWA (Section 3) acknowledges U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325 — which, as those who are knowledgeable about the U.N. recognize, is the section that is cited as mandating the protection of reproductive rights. The I-VAWA would allocate $10 million a year to the United Nations Development Fund for Women, UNIFEM (Section 201), one of the major U.N. agencies devoted to promoting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which prominently feature reproductive and gender rights. First, note that the UNIFEM definition of domestic violence includes “psychological violence perpetrated or condoned by the government of the country in which the victim is a resident” (Section 4). Second, what the American public needs to be aware of is that the U.N.’s interpretation of “psychological violence” includes “mental distress” brought on by lack of access to abortion services.
So the inclusion of money for abortion in a anti-women violence bill must mean that those who oppose funding abortion are pro-violence against women?
The sad part is that is how many pro-choicers truly view pro-lifers.
All you folks advocating for a culture of life are just simply pretending to love babies as cover for actually being pro- violence against women.
And here’s the extra kicker, Dems love putting these in 1) because they can’t get enough of promulgating the culture of death and 2) because they know that most Republicans will have to vote against it so the Dems can say in attacks ads that they voted against funding for abused women.
Read the entire piece at Townhall.