Independent Women's Forum - In the Media > Press Room

Female Factor #6: Is Sarah Palin a Feminist?

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:13:00 EDT

The Female Factor
A timely series of news bytes from the Independent Women's Forum

Conservative commentator Laura Ingraham recently told the Los Angeles Times that, "Sarah Palin represents a new feminism..." The feminist establishment, however, is quick to counter that Gov. Palin is not truly a feminist.

Yesterday, NOW released a plea for support as they struggle to control what a small minority of women believe feminism is. With working-class women flocking to the Palin camp, it appears they are fighting a battle they have already lost. NOW's president, Kim Gandy finds it ironic that the word "feminist" has been spoken in public so many times since the Palin explosion. However, what's ironic, is that a true feminist suddenly arrived on their playground, and because she is a conservative, anti-abortion, pro-gun, mother of five, they don't want to play.

"It is not surprising to see feminist organizations like the National Organization for Women dispute the term ‘feminist' as it applies to Gov. Palin," said Carrie Lukas, IWF's vice president for policy and economics. "After all, groups like NOW have worked for years to redefine ‘feminism' to fit their liberal agenda. Anyone who exposes conservative views is not welcome in their feminist club."

"Whether you agree with her policy positions or not, it seems foolhardy to deny that Gov. Palin represents a strain of American feminism," added IWF's Allison Kasic. "She is a strong-minded, successful, independent woman, and has the potential to hold one of our nation's highest offices. The fact that she's a Republican shouldn't exclude her from being a female role-model or a feminist."

To interview IWF scholars, or to receive an e-mail version of "The Female Factor," contact femalefactor@iwf.org or call Media Services at the Independent Women's Forum at (202) 349-5882.

Female Factor #5: Supporting Big Government Isn't Supporting Equal Pay

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:45:00 EDT

The Female Factor
A timely series of news bytes from the Independent Women's Forum

In an attempt to attract women voters, Senator Barrack Obama has released a campaign advertisement highlighting the so-called "equal pay" issue. In addition to repeating false statistics about differences in women's and men's earnings for the same work (for more on these misleading statistics, see the article"Yesterday's Women for Obama," on IWF's website), this advertisement wrongly equates supporting legislation to change statutes of limitation for lawsuits with support for the basic concept of equal pay.

"It is already the law of the land that men and women must be paid the same when they perform the same work. Everyone supports this basic concept of fairness," said IWF vice president for policy and economics Carrie Lukas. "In this advertisement, Senator Obama attempts to tar those who oppose changing the statue of limitations for filing discrimination lawsuits as being somehow 'against' equal pay for women. That is a ridiculous leap. Surely people can honestly disagree about the appropriate balance between protecting the rights of the accused and the accuser without degenerating into this kind of character assassination."

In addition, Senator Obama supports expanding government's ability to micromanage how compensation packages are arranged in private companies. "This is a bad idea," added IWF's Allison Kasic. "It will reduce workplace flexibility-recognizing that simple fact doesn't mean that I don't believe in equal pay, it just means I don't believe in big brother government."

To interview IWF scholars, or to receive an e-mail version of "The Female Factor," contact femalefactor@iwf.org or call Media Services at the Independent Women's Forum at (202) 349-5882.

Female Factor #4: An Erroneous Sex Education Debate

Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:22:00 EDT

The Female Factor

A timely series of news bytes from the Independent Women's Forum

The Female Factor #4
An Erroneous Sex Education Debate

Opponents of abstinence education have attempted to use Bristol Palin's pregnancy to claim such an approach is a failure and push for comprehensive sex education curriculums. For example, National Organization for Women (NOW) President Kim Gandy wrote: "May I point out that this apparently unplanned pregnancy only highlights the right wing's foolish and dangerous abstinence-only education stance?" Yet this logic suggests that whoever taught Ms. Gandy educators should have taken a different tact when teaching mathematics and statistics.

"One unplanned pregnancy tells us absolutely nothing about the relative effectiveness of one educational theory over another," said IWF vice president for policy and economics Carrie Lukas. "I don't know whether Bristol Palin was taught abstinence-only sex education or not. But regardless of her schooling, her pregnancy doesn't prove that abstinence education doesn't work just as it wouldn't prove that sex education emphasizing contraception doesn't work if that is indeed what she was taught."

"This debate about the content of sex education is a perfect example of why we need greater school choice," added IWF's Allison Kasic. "Ms. Gandy should be free to enroll her children in a school that teaches in the way that she wants, and other parents should also be free to choose schools that reflects their values. There are no one-size-fits-all answers in education, which is why we need to encourage a diverse education marketplace."

To interview IWF scholars, or to receive an e-mail version of "The Female Factor," contact femalefactor@iwf.org or call Media Services at the Independent Women's Forum at (202) 349-5882.

For more information on the Independent Women's Forum, please visit www.iwf.org.

Recent Female Factors

#1 The Mommy Wars
#2 Governor Sarah Palin and the Issues
#3 NOW Needs to Move Beyond Stereotyping
#5 Supporting Big Government Isn't Supporting Equal Pay

The Female Factor #2: Governor Sarah Palin and the Issues

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:41:00 EDT

The Female Factor

A timely series of news bytes from the Independent Women's Forum

September 4, 2008

The Female Factor #2
Governor Sarah Palin & The Issues

As she accepted the vice presidential nomination Governor Sarah Palin brought up many important issues facing Americans, including government spending and energy policy. Unfortunately, much of the media coverage surrounding Governor Palin hasn't focused on her take on those issues. Instead, we've seen personal attack after personal attack in a shameful display of partisanship on behalf of the mass and tabloid media.

"This election should be decided on the issues of importance to Americans, not on political cheap shots," said IWF vice president for policy and economics Carrie Lukas. "From education to energy policy to the economy, there are simply too many important challenges facing our country to get caught up in the politics of personal destruction."

"Whether you agree with her or not, Governor Palin deserves to be judged on merit, just like any other candidate," added IWF's Allison Kasic. "I hope that the media coverage leading up to the November election will give the American public an accurate view of Governor Palin's policy positions so that voters can make an informed choice. We need to move past the personal jabs that have dominated the news in the past few days."

To interview IWF scholars, or to receive an e-mail version of "The Female Factor," contact femalefactor@iwf.org or call Media Services at the Independent Women's Forum at (202) 349-5882.

For more information on the Independent Women's Forum, please visit www.iwf.org.

Recent Female Factors

#1 The Mommy Wars
#3 NOW Needs to Move Beyond Stereotyping
#4 An Erroneous Sex Education Debate
#5 Supporting Big Government Isn't Supporting Equal Pay

The Female Factor #1: The Mommy Wars

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:19:00 EDT

The Female Factor
A timely series of news bytes from the Independent Women's Forum

September 4, 2008

The Female Factor #1
The Mommy Wars

John McCain made a bold political statement last Friday by picking a very little known, dark horse candidate by the name of Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. Unfortunately, since then, many individuals, in politics as well as in the media, have used this opportunity to focus on trivial issues and make personal attacks on Gov. Palin.

"The media spectacle over Gov. Palin reeks of a return to the mommy wars," said IWF president and CEO Michelle Bernard. "It is ridiculous to think that in 2008 with all the progress women have made in every facet of American life that some people have called into question whether a mother of five is capable of serving as vice president. Some mothers choose to stay at home while others choose to work. We should respect mothers regardless of what decision they make on behalf of their family."

"The only thing that matters is if Palin would be a good vice president," added IWF's Allison Kasic. "This election should be about issues, not family matters. Gov. Palin's family should be given the same privacy and respect as the other candidates."

To interview IWF scholars, or to receive an e-mail version of "The Female Factor," contact femalefactor@iwf.org or call Media Services at the Independent Women's Forum at (202) 349-5882.

For more information on the Independent Women's Forum, please visit www.iwf.org.

Media Advisory: STEM Faculty in US Schools Need to Focus on Excellence

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:57:00 EDT

For Immediate Release: Contact: Carol Eberly

August 20, 2008 202-349-5882 or
carol.eberly@iwf.org

STEM Faculty in US Schools Need to Focus on Excellence

IWF Releases New Report that looks Deeper into the Debate over Title IX and whether it should or should not be used to balance gender discrepancies in STEM fields.

Washington, DC - A new report released by The Independent Women's Forum, "Excellence, Not Gender Parity, should be Priority for STEM Faculty," addresses the fact that women have made tremendous progress in academia, but remain a minority of faculty, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) departments.

Gender activists and opportunistic politicians are increasingly trying to interfere in academia in the name of rooting out sexism. At best their efforts are a waste of energy and taxpayer dollars, but at worst they will damage our education system. The goal of our universities shouldn't be to have an equal number of male and female professors - it should be to provide students with the best education by having the best teachers possible.

"It is unlikely that institutional discrimination is the primary cause of the discrepancy between the number of men and women in STEM faculties. Research suggests that women have a greater challenge in balancing work pressures, particularly related to the tenure process. Raising children and individual interests play central roles in generating this outcome," said Carrie Lukas, IWF Vice President of Policy & Economics.

Some of the measures advocated by those who want more "balance" in STEM faculties could have adverse, unintended consequences, including undermining the position of women within faculties and creating reverse sexism, as hiring policies blatantly favor women over their male peers. In addition, some have suggested that the government should use Title IX as a mechanism to increase female representation in STEM faculties, yet this suggestion ignores the significant problems with Title IX's application to athletics.

Schools should work to create a supportive environment that encourages both women and men to fulfill their potential and, to the extent possible, provide flexibility so that those who also have family or other responsibilities can continue to contribute to the important work of the institution. Their goal should be to generate the best, most productive academic departments, not to achieve a politically correct gender balance."

###

If you'd like more information about this topic, or to schedule an interview with Allison Kasic, please call Carol Eberly at 202-349-5882 or email Carol at carol.eberly@iwf.org.

The Independent Women's Forum is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and educational institution. Founded in 1992, IWF focuses on issues of concern to women, men, and families. Our mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responibility, and political freedom. IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited governmnet, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy.

Media Advisory: IWF announces the 2007-2008 Essay Contest winners

Mon, 05 May 2008 12:21:00 EDT

IWF Essay Contest Winners

May 5, 2008

The Independent Women's Forum is pleased to announce the winners of the 2007-2008 IWF College Essay Contest. IWF received hundreds of essays for this year's contest. Full-time, female undergraduate students were asked to submit an essay no longer than 750 words, answering the question: What role should "women's issues" play in the 2008 elections and how do you define women's issues?

The awards include: First Place Award - $5,000, Second Place Award - $2,000, Third Place Award - $1,000, and Ten Honorable Mentions - $250

The winners are:

1^st Place Cassidy Bugos, Christendom College

2^nd Place Lauren Migliore, Kalamazoo College

3^rd Place Sara Elizabeth Walter, Lafayette College

Honorable Mentions:

Ashley Amidon, George Mason University

Kyli Archibald, Hobart and William Smith Colleges

Marina Buryak, Stetson University

Catherine Helsley, Randolph College

Jeanette Moll, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Courtney Parry, Saint Mary's College Notre Dame

Megan Proehl, Ohio State University

Jessica Richman, Stanford University

Morgan Wilkins, Indiana University Southeast

Jiayi Zhou, University of California, Berkeley

Congratulations to all of the winners!

Equal Pay Day has lost relevance

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:29:00 EDT

Equal Pay Day is held annually in April to signify the point into a year that a woman must work to earn what a man made the previous year. According to the 2006 Census Bureau, women on average earn 77 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts however, Carrie Lukas, vice president of policy and economics for the Independent Women's Forum, has an op-ed in today's Baltimore Examiner debunking the myth that discrimination is the cause of the wage gap. As Lukas describes, it's women like her who take into account many factors--not just salary--when pursuing jobs that cause this statistical discrepancy.

Excerpt:

Political experts have just begun to analyze why Sen. Hillary Clinton, considered a shoo-in for her party's nomination just a few months ago, lags behind Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries. Surely one factor has been that compared with the fresh-faced Illinois senator, Clinton seems like an anachronism. She may as well be wearing horn-rimmed glasses and bell bottoms as she attempts to rally the sisterhood to join her in the cause of electing the first female president.

The problem for Clinton is that most women today don't think in terms of gender solidarity. Women take for granted our access to education and job opportunities. The steady march of women into positions of political power reassures most that, regardless of the fate of her candidacy, it's only a matter of time before we have a woman in the Oval Office.

Read the complete article here.

To interview Carrie Lukas or Allison Kasic, please call Carol Eberly at 202-349-5882 or carol.eberly@iwf.org.

Media Advisory: Scared to Death

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:19:00 EDT

For Immediate Release: Contact: Carol Eberly

April 2, 2008 202-349-5882 or
Carol.Eberly@iwf.org

London Authors Come to U.S. to Debunk Al Gore Alarmism

Scares like Global Warming Threaten Civilization

Washington, D.C. - A book that has been touted by Mail on Sunday as a must read for every politician, journalist, and consumer of journalism makes its way to the United States. First released in the UK, Scared to Death, by authors Christopher Booker and Richard North, shows how the major scares of the last two decades follow an overarching pattern, reveals the devastating fiscal repercussions of such scares, and debunks Al Gore's version of global warming while exposing how political forces have driven global warming debates.

Scared to Death tells the inside story of each of the major scares of the past two decades by providing the real facts and demonstrating how these scares have followed a remarkably consistent pattern. It analyses the crucial role played in each case by scientists who have misread or manipulated the evidence; by the media and lobbyists who eagerly promote the scare without regard to the facts; and finally by the politicians and officials who come up with an absurdly disproportionate response. The end result is often that the public pays a colossal price for the scare through misplaced and often ill-conceived legislation that addresses illusory and scientifically unfounded concerns. The book features analyses of all of these scares, among others: Asbestos, Global Warming, Second-Hand Smoking, Lead, and Salmonella.

Sample Questions for Christopher Booker and Richard North:

Scared to Death has aroused a lot of interest in Britain. Why should it be of interest to an American audience?
What is a specific example of one of the scares you describe in your book to show how the experts got it wrong?
So scares, as you say in your book, are costing us the earth, often without our being aware of it?
We hear so much about the consensus among scientists about the grave danger of global warming. Can the public trust these scientists, particular at the prestigious United Nation?

Credentials: Christopher Booker was one of the founders of Private Eye and its first editor. He has a weekly column in the Sunday Telegraph and a regular column in the Daily Mail. He has published several books. Richard North is a political analyst who has been a research director in the European Parliament, and was formerly a nationally known consultant on public health and food safety.

Availability: April 14-17, 2008 in Washington, D.C. and via telephone.

Already released in the UK, Scared to Death has been reviewed or featured in the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, Mail on Sunday, Morning Star, Time Out London, The Scotsman, among other publications.

For more information or to schedule an interview with Christopher Booker and Richard North,
please call Carol Eberly at 202-349-5882 or carol.eberly@iwf.org.

America's Climate Security Act Bad for the Economy

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:25:00 EDT

For Immediate Release:                                                                        Contact: Carol Eberly
March 17, 2008                                                                                         202-349-5882 or
                                                                                                                      carol.eberly@iwf.org

(Washington, DC) - - The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) released a study last week on the economic impact of the America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191), legislation which is designed to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 63 percent by 2050. The study found that this legislation would significantly impede economic growth in the United States.

"This legislation, if passed into law, would cost the United States trillions of dollars in the coming decades and lead to the loss of millions of jobs," said Carrie Lukas, vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum. "The average American family will see their income go down by thousands of dollars and their energy costs soar. Simply put this policy would be bad news for American families."

The numbers in the analysis are staggering. Gross Domestic Product would be reduced by $151 billion to $210 billion by 2020 and between $631 billion to $669 billion per year in 2030. Americans would lose 1.2 million to 1.8 million jobs in 2020 and 3 million to 4 million jobs in 2030. Household income would be reduced by $739 to $2,927 per year in 2020 and $4,022 to $6,752 per year in 2030. Electricity prices would increase by 28% to 33% by 2020 and 101% to 129% by 2030, and gasoline price would increase 20% to 69% by 2020 and 77% to 145% by 2030.

"The saddest aspect of this legislation is that, if the global warming theory and current predictions are correct, than this won't make any meaningful difference in future temperature increases. The economic slowdown will leave us with fewer resources to invest in improving the environment or combating other challenges that may lie ahead," said Lukas. "Policymakers should not lose site of the unintended consequences of policies such as this and focus on ways to improve our environment without sacrificing our economy."

To view the comprehensive national and 50-state reports, please visit www.nam.org/climatechangereport or www.accf.org.

The Independent Women's Forum is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and educational institution. Founded in 1992, IWF focuses on issues of concern to women, men, and families. Our mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy. IWF is home to some of the nation's most influential scholars-women who are committed to promoting and defending economic opportunity and political freedom.

###

For additional information, or to schedule an interview with Carrie Lukas, please contact Carol Eberly at 202-349-5882 or carol.eberly@iwf.org.

Tax Increase Will Make America's Energy Problems Worse

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:24:00 EST

For Immediate Release: Contact: Carol Eberly

February 27, 2008 202-349-5882 or
carol.eberly@iwf.org

Washington, D.C.-Americans frustrated with record high home heating bills and increasing costs at the gas pump may be surprised that Congress is trying to make things worse by passing a bill to raise taxes on energy companies.

"As everyone knows, if you want less of something, you should tax it," said Carrie Lukas, vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum. "The propose tax increases on energy companies will discourage investment in energy infrastructure-that means less energy in the future which means prices will continue to rise."

"This is one of those rare instances when both business and labor groups agree. They recognize that American needs more energy, not new energy taxes that undermine our economy and destroy jobs," said Lukas.

While raising taxes on oil and gas companies, policymakers are considering further subsidizing alternative fuels.

"The government should stop attempting to dictate energy use by subsidizing some energy and penalizing others," said Lukas. "Policymakers should focus on creating a level playing field so that providers can compete and have an incentive to increase the supply of energy regardless of its source."

"Those who suggest that these are tax loop holes that benefit the oil and gas industry should join the movement to simplify the tax code. It would be a great to scrap our complicated tax code and dramatically lower the corporate tax rate, which is one of the highest in the world," said Lukas. "Just eliminating a few deductions for the purpose of punishing a specific industry-in this case energy producers-is bad policy and counter-productive."

Media Advisory: Take Back the Date

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:24:00 EST

**MEDIA ADVISORY**

For Immediate Release: Contact: Carol Eberly

February 12, 2008 carol.eberly@iwf.org or 202-349-5882

"Take Back the Date"

Campaign to rescue romance from radical feminists and their "hook-up culture"

Washington, DC - Radical feminists have hijacked Valentine's Day on college campuses by turning February 14^th into "V-Day." In the process, they are discouraging traditional romance and chivalry on campus. Most people are unaware of the extreme, vulgar behavior that is encouraged on college campuses in the name of V-Day.

"It's a shame that on Valentine's Day, romance is nowhere to be found on college campuses. Instead, the hook-up culture dominates campus social life and campus feminists host events like The Vagina Monologues that reinforce the "women as sex object" mentality," said Allison Kasic, Director of The R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies at the Independent Women's Forum. "The reality is that most students are not satisfied with this situation-they would prefer to go on dates and have lasting relationships, but they find it hard to escape the hooked-up culture."

V-Day is a striking reminder of just how dysfunctional the collegiate dating scene has become. Gone are candlelit dinners and a night out on the town. Dating, in general, is an endangered species on campus and in its place is the hook-up: casual physical encounters ranging from kissing to sex, with no expectation of commitment.

"The research is clear," said Kasic, "The hook-up culture has real harmful effects, especially on women. Women are more physically vulnerable to sex, running the risk of getting pregnancy and are more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases. Many also face emotional distress associated with casual sex-women may tell themselves that it's no big deal, but their bodies and hormones signal otherwise. Many young women are left feeling confused and depressed."

Laura Sessions Steep, author of Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love, and Lose at Both, sums up the hook-up scene in this way, "Love, while desired by some, is being put on hold or seen as impossible; sex is becoming the primary currency of social interaction. Some girls can handle this; others are exhausted physically and emotionally."

Luckily, all is not lost. The power to transform the hook-up culture rests with individual students, and there is no better time to start than Valentine's Day, and Take Back the Date.

For additional information on "Take Back the Date" or to schedule an interview with Allison Kasic or Carrie Lukas, please contact Carol Eberly at carol.eberly@iwf.org / 202-349-5882.

###

Allison Kasic is director of the R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies at the Independent Women's Forum in Washington, DC. Allison Kasic will be available this week for interviews to discuss the problems of the hook-up culture, and the new trend on college campuses of reviving traditional dating and developing real relationships.

Media Advisory: AFGHAN WOMEN DETAIL SECURITY CHALLENGES IN AFGHANISTAN

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:47:00 EST

* * MEDIA ADVISORY * *

For Immediate Release: Contact: Kate Pomeroy
January 23, 2008 202-631-6704 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org

AFGHAN WOMEN DETAIL SECURITY CHALLENGES IN AFGHANISTAN
Visiting leaders join forum to discuss impact on civil society and directions for the future

Washington, DC - The Independent Women's Forum is honored to host a delegation of senior women leaders from Afghanistan. This forum, "Securing Afghanistan: The Role of Women," will give insight into the challenges Afghan women face and how Afghan women can contribute to a more secure Afghanistan.

"As Afghans and the international community become increasingly concerned about Afghanistan's future, we are reminded of how security is a key essential to Afghanistan's long term development," said Halima Karzai, Associate Director for Foreign Policy and International Women's Issues at the Independent Women's Forum.

This forum is free and open to the public/media.

WHEN:          Thursday, January 24, 2008
TIME:            2:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
WHERE:        National Press Club - 529 14^th Street, NW,
                       First Amendment Lounge, Washington, D.C.

Featuring:
Orzala Ashraf, Founder and Senior Advisor for Humanitarian Assistance for the Women and Children of Afghanistan
Shukria Barakzai, Member of Parliament, National Assembly, Afghanistan
Dr. Nadera Hayat Burhani, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Public Health, Afghanistan
Wazhma Frogh, Senior Gender Advisor, Canadian International Development Agency
Shahgul Rezaie, Member of Parliament, National Assembly, Afghanistan

For additional information on "Securing Afghanistan," or to schedule an interview with one of the experts, please contact Kate Pomeroy at kate.pomeroy@iwf.org /202-631-6704.

###

Success in the Global Economy: An Agenda for the 110th Congress

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:26:00 EST

For Immediate Release: Contact: Kate Pomeroy
Date: November 27, 2007 202-631-6704 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org

Success in the Global Economy: An Agenda for the 110th Congress
What does America need to do to succeed in the global economy?

Washington, DC - As a prelude to the 18^th U.S. - China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade meeting in Beijing, the Independent Women's Forum will be hosting a summit titled Success in the Global Economy: An Agenda for the 110^th Congress. This is the second event in IWF's signature series.

Date:              Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Time:               8:00am - 2:00pm

Location:         J.W. Marriott Hotel
                      1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Salon F
                      Washington, DC 20004

This bi-partisan event will highlight some of the most important policy issues affecting the U.S. economy-from globalization and free trade to our tax code and health and retirement programs, to our educational system and regulatory environment. Panelists will identify the key challenges facing our nation and propose sensible, market-oriented policies to enhance U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. Particular attention will be paid to the effects of the emergence of China as a global economic force.

###

If you would like more information about this event, please contact Kate Pomeroy at
202-631-6704 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org.

Chairman Rangel's "Tax Relief" Plan Largest Tax Increase in History

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:36:00 EDT

For Immediate Release: Contact: Kate Pomeroy
October 26, 2007 kate.pomeroy@iwf.org or 202-631-6704

Chairman Rangel's "Tax Relief" Plan Largest in History
Discouraging Work, Slowing Growth, and Reducing Job Opportunities

Washington, DC - Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) has just released a tax proposal that would increase taxes by an estimated $3.5 trillion, making it the largest increase of individual taxes in history.

Among the bill's provisions are dramatic increases in the top marginal rate faced by individual taxpayers. All Americans would be affected by this increase in taxes, but many women would be particularly hurt. This bill would create a significant new marriage penalty and discourage many married women from working.

The higher marginal tax rates would affect not only individual workers, but numerous small businesses that file tax returns as individuals will see their taxes rise. Small businesses play an important role in our economy, driving growth, creating jobs, and encouraging innovation. These punitive taxes will discourage entrepreneurship and impede America's economic progress.

Chairman Rangel's plan would also discourage investment and risk taking by changing the tax treatment on partnerships. Venture capital funds, real estate investment partnerships, and hedge funds play an important role in the creation of new businesses. Levying higher taxes on these partnerships will discourage entrepreneurship, an engine of economic growth.

"This bill is the wrong direction for American women-we need less taxation, not more. High taxes stifle economic growth, reduce job creation, and leave families with less money to spend as they see fit," said Carrie Lukas, Vice President of Policy and Economics at the Independent Women's Forum.

The United States needs tax reform that makes the tax code less complicated and encourages work and investment. IWF believes Chairman Rangel's tax proposal moves in the wrong direction and urges congress to go back to the drawing board.

For more information or to schedule an interview, please contact Kate Pomeroy
at kate.pomeroy@iwf.org or 202-631-6704.

Baucus-Grassley Tax Increase Could Have a Negative Effect on the Economy...

Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT

For Immediate Release:

Baucus-Grassley Tax Increase Could Have a Negative Effect on the Economy...and not just for the rich.

The Independent Women's Forum warns that passage of the proposed Baucus-Grassley tax increase on publicly traded partnerships, which has been introduced before the U. S. Senate (S. 1624), could have a profoundly negative effect on the American economy, and not just for the rich.

Although a tax on equity and hedge funds that go public might appear at first glance to be irrelevant for the vast majority of U.S. taxpayers, this is decidedly not the case. The most immediate impact would be that small fry investors would be denied entry into successful funds when managers refrain from going public to avoid Baucus-Grassley.

Many potentially lucrative IPOs (initial public offerings) which can be sterling investments for retirement simply would not be available for ordinary investors. Thus a tax designed to punish the nation's most successful money managers would affect a far larger segment of the population.

The Baucus-Grassley tax would hinder creativity and stifle the U.S. ability to compete in the global market and ultimately this would have a negative impact in countries around the globe. Only economic expansion keeps unemployment rates low, and this tax would have a dampening effect on economic activity.

Perhaps the most compelling reason to fear this tax, however, is that it is an extremely high tax rate. High tax rates tend to set a precedent and have a trickle down rate effect that could eventually justify higher tax rates on all of us.

Ironically, this tax is not needed. The U.S. tax revenue has set record highs several quarters since the Bush tax cuts have had time to take affect. In addition, the corporate tax base is in no danger of collapsing. It is important, in making any changes in the tax code, to adopt ones that lead to economic expansion, not contraction.

The tax increase proposed by Senators Baucus and Grassley would lead to economic contraction and a slowing of the U.S. economy.

To schedule an interview, please call Kate Pomeroy at 202-349-5889 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org.

The Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficient Act of 2007

Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT

Washington, D.C.-- The Independent Women's Forum argues that the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficient Act of 2007, which has been introduced before the U.S. Senate (S. 1419), is the wrong direction for American energy policy.

Along with promoting more research on bio-fuels, the bill proposes costly, draconian regulations and includes a provision that would allow the president to declare "a temporary national energy emergency which triggers a prohibition on price gouging punishable by federal penalties."

While some on Capitol Hill blame high fuel prices as the result of "gouging" by energy companies, this has by no means been established as a fact. Economics columnist Robert Samuelson, noted that it is "always fun to blame unpopular occurrences on corporate greed."

If passed, this legislation would be an overbearing intrusion into the energy market, and could make energy more scarce in times of emergency. Opponents of the legislation have noted that the Senate hasn't considered such sweeping government intervention since the Carter administration which brought about fuel shortages and gas lines. The legislation is also seen by many as the prelude to a major tax bill on the energy industry later this summer or fall.

To schedule an interview with Michelle D. Bernard or Sandy Liddy Bourne, please call

Kate Pomeroy at 202-349-5889 or email at kate.pomeroy@iwf.org.

IWF mourns the passing of Yolanda King

Wed, 16 May 2007 00:00:00 EDT

The Independent Women's Forum wishes to express our deep sadness on learning of the death of Yolanda King, the oldest child of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Ms. King, who died late Tuesday in Santa Monica, was only 51 at the time of her death. A babe in arms when the King family residence in Montgomery, Ala. was bombed by segregationists, Mrs. King grew into an admired and much-loved woman who followed her own dream and whose legacy would no doubt have made her famous father proud.

An author, peace activist who never wavered from her father's belief in social change through non-violence and actress, who played Rosa Parks in a 1978 mini-series on Martin Luther King, Ms. King was twelve when her father was assassinated in 1968 in Memphis. A piece distributed by WSBTV notes that she loved a particular sermon by her father because it emphasized "the three-dimensions of a complete life," which were self-love, love of others, and love of God. "It is a blending of those three that develops the complete life, as my father did," she told interviewer Mitch Horowitz.

An indomitable woman not cowed by her family's travails, she will be sorely missed. "She was a princess and she walked and carried herself like a princess," the Rev. Joseph Lowery, former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and a close friend of the King family, told the Atlanta Journal & Constitution. "She was a reserved and quiet person who loved acting."

No cause of death has been given yet. Ms. King, who was preceded in death by her mother, Coretta Scott King, leaves behind a sister, the Rev. Bernice A. King, and two brothers, Martin Luther King III and Dexter Scott King. Our deepest sympathy goes to the King family.

Higher Price of Gas Increases Potential for Bad Energy Policy

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT

Washington, DC - The price of gas has risen in recent weeks, and with the summer driving season quickly approaching, it's likely to rise further. This situation creates an opportunity for politicians to push bad legislation under the guise of helping ease the financial burden on consumers. But consumers should be warned that government intervention in the marketplace will create more problems than it solves.

"No one likes to pay higher prices when they go to fill their gas tanks," said Michelle D. Bernard, president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum. "But consumers need to recognize that changes in prices play an important role in energy markets, encouraging people to conserve when supplies are short. Government price controls will stifle this important process and create the potential for gasoline shortages."

The American Council for Capital Formation just released a study examining how proposed legislation to end so-called "price gouging" would have affected the economy and the availability of fuel during devastating hurricanes--including Hurricane Katrina--in the fall of 2005. The researchers estimate that these price controls would have resulted in economic costs totaling $1.9 billion dollars.

"Price controls discourage suppliers from taking the steps necessary to get the product to market during a crisis," explained Carrie Lukas, IWF's vice president for policy and economics. "In an instance like Hurricane Katrina, that would have meant even less fuel getting into the areas most in need, and would have encouraged consumers to hoard the limited resources that were available. This may sound like well-intentioned policy, but it could have horrible effects for our economy and for consumers in a crisis."

###

To schedule an interview, please call Kate Pomeroy at 202-631-6704 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org

The Independent Women's Forum is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Founded in 1992, IWF's mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF fosters greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy. IWF is home to the next wave of the nation's most influential scholars--women who are committed to promoting and defending economic opportunity and political freedom.

Help Boys Achieve Their Academic Potential Through School Choice

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT

For Immediate Release: April 13, 2007

Contact: Kate Pomeroy 202-631-6704 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org

Washington, DC-- For too long, policymakers and the public has accepted the idea that girls are "short-changed" by our public school system. The facts tell a different story. As IWF visiting fellow Krista Kafer reveals in her newly released paper, "Taking the Boy Crisis in Education Seriously: How School Choice Can Boost Achievement Among Boys and Girls," girls are actually outperforming boys in most academic measures.

"Girls surpass boys in reading, writing, civics and the arts. Girls get better grades and more honors; they have higher aspirations, are more engaged in school and are more likely to graduate from high school and college. Boys, on the other hand, are more likely to be suspended or expelled, need special education, smoke, drink and do drugs, repeat a grade, commit suicide, become incarcerated, leave school without attaining literacy, drop out of school or be unemployed. Marginal advantages in math and science for boys pale compared to the sheer advantage girls enjoy throughout school."

Unfortunately, public policymakers have ignored this data and continue to pour resources into programs premised on the idea that girls are uniquely disadvantaged in our public education system. Kafer urges policymakers to end these wasteful programs and instead promote policies that are will benefit all students. In particular, Kafer argues that we need a greater diversity of educational options so that parents can choose schools and programs that meet their children's unique needs.

"There is no one best method of teaching children." "For some children, single sex classrooms will yield the best results, while a different environment will be most suitable for others. Parents are best positioned to know what's best for their child and policymakers should focus on making it easier for parents to choose a school for their child," said Kafer.

Policymakers reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act this year should facilitate the use of innovative school choice programs at the state and local level. "For example, instead of giving states and localities funding for specific activities, policymakers ought to allow states to receive funding as block grants." States could then use the resources as they see fit--hopefully embracing innovative market-based initiatives like charter schools and voucher programs.

"School choice leads to more options and more innovation," said Kafer. "It's the best way to hold schools accountable and to provide the best outcomes for both boys and girls."

For a complete copy of the report please visit: http://www.iwf.org/pdf/IWFPolicyPaper604_web.pdf

For more information or to schedule an interview with Krista Kafer, please call Kate Pomeroy at 202-631-6704 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org

###

DUKE LACROSSE CASE DROPPED

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT

Washington, D.C.--The Independent Women's Forum applauds Attorney General Roy Cooper and the two special prosecutors appointed to the Duke lacrosse case for dropping all charges associated with the case. After a messy year full of procedural errors, media bias, and a chaotic environment on campus, justice has finally been served.

"It is long past due for all charges to be dropped in the Duke case," said IWF vice president Carrie Lukas, "If not for District Attorney Michael Nifong's improper and incompetent behavior throughout the investigation, charges would have been dropped a long time ago."

"Rape is a serious crime, but false rape allegations are also a serious weapon." When someone falsely accuses someone of rape, they don't just cause harm to the accused, but to every woman who has been legitimately raped," said Lukas.

"Perhaps finally the 'guilty until proven innocent crowd' at Duke will finally quiet down," added IWF campus director Allison Kasic. "A disturbingly large majority within the Duke Administration and faculty have laid the lacrosse team out to dry from day one of the investigation."

IWF commentary on the Duke scandal: http://www.iwf.org/news/show/1042.html

Video of IWF's "What Went Wrong at Duke?" panel discussion is available at http://www.iwf.org/video.asp

###

To schedule an interview with Carrie Lukas or Allison Kasic, please call Kate Pomeroy at 202-631-6704 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org.

IWF Applauds College Sports Council

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT

Washington, DC - The Independent Women's Forum applauds the College Sports Council on the release of their new longitudinal analysis of Title IX's effects on college athletics. Looking at 25 years of NCAA athletic participation data, the CSC clearly shows an ongoing pattern of eliminating male teams and roster spots, while women's athletics continue to prosper.

The biggest myth that this groundbreaking study debunks is the idea that Title IX benefits women with no ill effects on men. The study shows that more than 2,200--nearly one-fifth--of men's teams have been eliminated since 1981.

"We all want women to have the opportunity to participate in athletics, but we want male athletes to have opportunities too," said IWF vice president Carrie Lukas. "It is long past due for a law that is equitable to both sexes." The CSC's findings should outrage anyone who cares about equality and fairness," said Lukas.

"This study finally confirms what IWF has said for years: that Title IX has been used as a weapon against male athletes in the name of 'gender equity,'" said director of campus programs Allison Kasic. "Men's teams are in a constant state of decline and some, including men's gymnastics, are on the verge of extinction. The current situation benefits neither men nor women and policy makers should look into serious reform of Title IX enforcement," said Kasic.

To view the study, please visit http://savingsports.org

###

To schedule an interview with Carrie Lukas or Allison Kasic, please call Kate Pomeroy at 202-631-6704 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org

IWF In the News: Celebrate Valentine's Day with a "Certificate of Inequality"!

Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:00:00 EST

This Valentine's Day is the third anniversary of that romantic weekend when San Francisco issued thousands of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

While the California Supreme Court later ruled those marriage licenses void, this Valentine's Day the sweet political protest of marriage inequality will continue, in another form. In Northern California, it's apparently a nearly decade-old tradition for some county clerks to show their support for same-sex marriage on Feb. 14 by issuing certificates of inequality to gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage licenses, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

This year, clerk Freddie Oakley in Yolo County will be one of those handing out the certificates to the would-be husbands and wives, which read in part: "I issue this Certificate of Inequality to you because your choice of marriage partner displeases some people whose displeasure is, apparently, more important than principles of equality."

We suspect that the Independent Women's Forum, which is busy trying to rescue Valentine's Day from feminists, won't find all this very heartwarming, but we're touched.

This article was first published on Salon.com.

IWF Releases Health Insurance that Works

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:00:00 EST

For Immediate Release:                                                               Contact: Kate Pomeroy
January 31, 2007                                                                            202-349-5793 or
                                                                                                     Kate.Pomeroy@iwf.org

Washington, D.C.- A 5-point program to reform the nation's health care system based on ownership, choice, and increased individual control over personal healthcare decisions is being released by the Independent Women's Forum. The report, entitled Five Ways to Improve Healthcare for Women, was undertaken by the IWF, a non-partisan group that studies women's issues, because women make the majority of health care decisions in the U.S and because many women recognize that our flawed, one-size-fits-all system does not, in fact, fit them.

The IWF report calls upon policymakers to "help alleviate the unease in the current healthcare system and prevent a further increase in the number of Americans without health insurance," through the adoption of five reforms:

Reform the tax treatment of health insurance: Today's tax code provides unlimited tax breaks for those who obtain coverage from the workplace but does not extend any comparable tax benefit to those who purchase coverage on their own. The way to solve this problem is through a refundable, advanceable tax credit to individuals who purchase coverage on their own.
Expand coverage options: Individuals should have the freedom to decide the state and regulatory structure under which they purchase their health coverage.
Improve consumer-directed models: Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and other affordable alternative health insurance products should be available.
Allow for greater employee-employer flexibility: Employers would have the option of moving from a defined-benefit system, where the employer sponsors a health plan, to a defined-contribution system, where the employer chooses to contribute to a worker's own health plan.
Reform healthcare entitlement programs: There is no doubt that current entitlement programs threaten to bankrupt our country. Policymakers can start by beginning to transform these entitlements,in this case, Medicare and Medicaid--from defined-benefit to defined-contribution programs along the lines found in the employer based pension system.

For more information or to schedule an interview with an IWF expert, please call Kate Pomeroy at 202-349-5889 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org.

State of the Union Address 2007

Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:00:00 EST

Carrie Lukas writes...

The President's speech was stronger than I expected. He avoided the typical State of the Union laundry list, and focused primarily on broad themes and big issues. He made important calls for spending restraint, entitlement reform, school choice, comprehensive immigration reform, and offered a specific proposal to improve our tax codes treatment of healthcare insurance. Unlike other tedious State of the Unions, he didn't waste time proposing federal programs to reduce steroid use or curb gang violence, which, while they sound nice, are not federal issues. Instead he set a broad domestic policy agenda (that was entirely economic-no social issues discussed at all) and focused on building support for the War on Terror and his foreign policy goals. That's entirely appropriate for a President. He managed to strike a bipartisan, unconfrontational tone, but that also didn't seem like he was cowed by the new Congress or his sagging poll numbers. Overall, a solid showing for the President.

A. Yasmine Rassam writes...

On Iraq, the President was sober and conciliatory. He asked both sides of the aisle in Congress to give his new strategy involving augmentation of the troops in Baghdad and AlAnbar a chance. But he was clear about the context in which the Iraqi operation is playing. Abandoning our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, would lead to a wider conflict in the Middle East and would give our enemies victory in their declared war on our values.

The President spoke of the advances democracy made in 2005 in both Afghanistan and Iraq, with free elections and permanent constitutions, leading AlQaeda and other extremists to strike back in 2006 with the destruction of the golden mosque in Samarra, Iraq�an event designed to foment the sectarian violence that we are witnessing now.

The new strategy in Iraq has two major components: a commitment by the elected government of Iraq to control the violence in Baghdad by confronting violent groups and death squads from both Sunni and Shia extremists; and a commitment by the US to help that process in Baghdad while following up the positive signs in AlAnbar where tribal leaders are increasingly turning against AlQaeda terrorists. Both of these initiatives would require additional troops to give them some permanence.

Above all, President Bush was clear about the overall struggle against both Sunni (AlQaeda) terrorism and Shia (Hezbollah) terrorism: that it would be long-term, strategic, multigenerational. It is the defining struggle of our time and as such deserves the sense of national unity that will ensure victory.

Charlotte Hays writes...
The most beleaguered president in our history went to the Capitol tonight and gave a fine, and at times very fine, State of the Union address. George Bush was gracious to the Democrats and, more surprising, did not show the war fatigue he must feel even more than the rest of us. There was a little too much of a grab bag in the domestic portions of the speech (for some bizarre reason, ethanol is always good for a round of applause), but he didn�t propose a tax hike to pay for health insurance (as I predicted). Quite the contrary, he proposed tax cuts to help the uninsured. Glad to be wrong. But I'll leave the domestic aspects of the SOTU to Carrie Lukas.

Iraq was the overhanging issue of this speech, and on that Bush delivered. This was one of his best speeches on Iraq.

"This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in," he said. "Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory."

The president didn't fall back on irritating and repeated rhetorical devices (such as "stay the course" or referring repeatedly to Saddam as "the dictator"- both of which, of course, are obsolete, as we are changing the course and the dictator has met a richly deserved fate) and his summary of recent history in the Middle East was concise and specific. Is this the first time he has referred to Sunni extremists and Shiía extremists?

Bush can't retreat because he regards the war in Iraq as part of (and a very important part of) a decisive existential struggle--not a matter of polls or scrambling for cover, as the Democrats and some Republicans on the Hill do. David Corn of the Nation predicted that Bush would speak but nobody would listen. I think Corn is wrong. The president used his time well to explain what will happen if we do not follow through:

"If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country... and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens... new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11th and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East ... to succeed in Iraq ... and to spare the American people from this danger.

"This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now."

That was the challenge to those who want to retreat. George Bush got an A tonight.

Allison Kasic writes...
President Bush is to be applauded for pushing several free-market domestic initiatives in tonight's speech. The President's economic points were right on the mark: we need a balanced budget (without raising taxes), earmark reform, and entitlement reform to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Bush's push away from universal health care and toward individual choice is also a move in the right direction. Reducing the tax burden for individual insurance coverage will allow for increased flexibility in our healthcare decisions. Bush drove this point home saying, "we must remember that the best healthcare decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors." That was one of the best quotes of the night. I wish Bush had spent more time devoted to entitlement reform--to push the new Congress to action on Social Security. Otherwise, Bush's attitude toward the new Democratic majority was entirely appropriate. He managed to walk the fine line between being conciliatory and standing his ground (he did an especially good job of this balance in regards to the war on terror).

To schedule an interview with Carrie, Charlotte, Yasmine, or Allison, please email Kate Pomeroy at kate.pomeroy@iwf.org.