Members of MWEG gather at Utah Capitol for training
The leaders of Mormon Women for Ethical Government want to help the women in their organization to take a more active role in all levels of government, and so they're teaching them how to make their voices heard.
That includes at the state level, which is why a group of women gathered recently at the Utah Capitol.
Established in 2016 with fewer than a dozen members, MWEG now has hundreds of members around the nation, including in Utah.
'We want women to be involved civically ... and know that their voices count and make a difference,' MWEG Utah Chapter co-coordinator Melarie Wheat told the Deseret News.
To that end, the group held a 2025 'Day at the Capitol' event at the Utah State Capitol in late January.
Dozens gathered for the event, which featured member networking, presentations on getting involved with government and a tour of the Capitol.
The organization is open to women of all political stripes and religious affiliations, and while many of them are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the group is not affiliated with the church.
There was a lot of energy in the room as new and old members connected. Experienced members mentored newcomers on items ranging from tracking bills of interest to the best ways to contact their representatives.
Several attendees wore purple — the organization's signature color — which is meant to be a reminder of their nonpartisan stance. To that end, MWEG does not endorse candidates or organize campaigns.
Several Utah state lawmakers, including Sen. Ann Millner, R-Ogden, Rep. Verona Mauga, D-Salt Lake City and Rep. Gay Lynn Bennion, D-Cottonwood Heights, spoke to the MWEG members during their visit.
They answered policy questions and shared their stories.
'The most important thing is that we should be serving our brothers and sisters. ... I see big gaps in that for our country and our state where we could be doing better. And so if our government isn't reflecting our values, we should be getting involved,' Bennion told the Deseret News.
The organization admits people from any faith tradition, but all of their members are women.
'(Women) do have different life experiences from men, and it's good for us to be able to be free to discuss those issues and not feel like we need to explain ourselves,' said Wheat.
'Many of us wonder how we can start (in politics),' said Bennion. 'MWEG is a great place for people to start to get involved and to learn about the process and to become more active as citizens.'
This year, the group says it will advocate for legislation that falls into five main categories: democratic institutions, immigration, environmental protection, family and peacemaking.
'Personally, my faith inspires in all of those areas,' said Wheat. 'Especially when it comes to immigration ... and environment and caring for creation.'
This session, Bennion said she is focused on affordable housing and water conservation, pointing to HB99 and HB89, respectively.
Longtime member Rebecca Rogers, a resident of Utah Valley, shared that her interests this legislative session relate particularly to immigration.
'My daughter-in-law is Filipina and she's here, she's a (legal) citizen ... but I think when people are curious or suspicious of Asian people it reflects on her, and it also reflects on my grandson,' Rogers told the Deseret News. She said she is motivated to speak for other people who can't speak for themselves. 'That just brings me to be more (politically) active,' she said.
MWEG's Day at the Capitol came ahead of the group's 2025 conference on March 22.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
She was tortured, yet she still fights for freedom
Editor's note: This is the second in a five-part series on the price of freedom, by exploring the work and experience of Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh. Deseret News Opinion Editor Jay Evensen has known Yunus since 1997, when the world leader first visited Utah. Evensen traveled to Dhaka to speak again with Yunus, entrepreneurs, politicians in the country, and even revolutionaries seeking change, to understand the risks Yunus is enduring and why peace and opportunity in Bangladesh are so important to the United States. DHAKA, BANGLADESH — As I sit across the desk from Aparna Roy Das, the 49-year-old whose political career, like that of her father, has been marred by broken bones, torture and harassment, the question seems so obvious it practically leaps from the walls. Why do you choose to be a politician when there are such dangers? Just a few minutes later, as we discuss whether rival parties and factions might disrupt upcoming elections with more violence, the chants of protesters begin to grow outside the window behind where Das sits at her desk, a window covered in blinds, here in the capital city of Bangladesh. These chants quickly become loud enough to interrupt our discussion. I feel compelled to ask my interpreter, Tathira Baatul, a young research assistant and aspiring journalist, 'Is that a good protest?' 'I'm not sure,' she answers. Such is the rough-and-tumble world of politics in Bangladesh. At the time of this interview, the party to which Das belongs, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, or BNP, was supportive of interim leader Muhammad Yunus' efforts to reform the nation before holding elections. Today, the BNP is restless, urging Yunus to hold elections quickly, ostensibly because it is expected to win popular support. But as the chants rise during our interview in February, Das has just described for us how, for 15 years, she could not use this office because police, presumably operating under Hasina's orders, had destroyed its contents. She also had been tortured. 'Both of my knees were broken by the police during the first strike in 2010,' she said, according to a transcript of our interview, translated and provided to me by Baatul after the meeting. 'And since then, I have been tortured multiple times in police custody and in court. They tortured me from my legs to my head. 'Even now, because of that torture, I am physically unwell, though in terms of mental strength, I remain resilient. I was never able to go abroad for treatment.' She wasn't the first in her family to endure such punishment for political activism. Her mother died last Dec. 29, she tells me, 'because of 17 years of oppression.' 'She spent those years alone, visiting prisons, as someone from our family was always behind bars. She fought against the administration by herself, and after enduring so much, she suffered a stroke.' On the many times her father was arrested, she used to pray he was in jail, because if not, it might mean he had been made to disappear, as too many were during those years. 'He is a freedom fighter, but the kind of brutality he faced was unimaginable,' she said. 'He had even said, holding his chest like Abu Sayed, 'If they are to kill my people, kill me first.'' Sayed was a well-known student activist who was among the first to die during the uprising last summer that resulted in a full-scale revolution in Bangladesh. That resulted in Hasina fleeing to India, after which the students convinced Yunus, Nobel laureate and 'banker to the poor,' to head an interim government. He leads it to this day, despite mounting pressures from political parties and the military. And Das now serves as assistant secretary for marginal manpower development affairs within the BNP. But the question remains. After watching both parents suffer physically and mentally for so many years; after seeing former prime minister and Bangladesh's 'Mother of Democracy,' Begum Khaleda Zia, endure torture; and after having her own bones broken by the blows of state police, is it worth it to continue? Why not pick a safer profession? First, she was born into a political family, Das said. Her father, Gayeshwar Chandra Ray, is a standing committee member of the BNP. 'I have witnessed these things from a young age, as I have seen my parents engaged in politics. Therefore, it was never a question of whether I would join or not,' she said. Later, she grows a bit more thoughtful. 'There is democracy and the right to speak, but this was not the case in our country,' Das said. 'My father endured so much torture, and after he was injured, we didn't know where the police had kept him. It was an extremely frightening day for me because three members of my family were in the hospital, and I couldn't find my father. 'Many people told me not to look for him, because they would arrest me too and torture me, but I wasn't afraid. I was always in the streets. Now, even if I see any injustice in the country, especially from those who want to take everything from Bangladesh, I will protest against them in any way, shape or form that I can. 'If the torture had not happened to my father, but to someone else, I would have done the same thing.' Pericles is quoted as saying, 'Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.' That is especially true for many in Bangladesh, a nation of 171.5 million people that fills a geographical area about the size of Iowa. Since it won independence from Pakistan in 1971, it has struggled to establish democratic traditions, suffering assassinations, coups and despotism. To much of the world, it seems remote and inconsequential. Yet hope flickers strong in politicians such as Das and others who seem strengthened through trials. It is a hope from which the world could learn. It is a hope reflected in the easy smiles I encountered in villages outside Dhaka. It is a hope bolstered by belief, and it is one that has me reflecting on the fragility of freedom. The Bangladeshi economy has grown, despite hardships. The World Bank said Bangladesh had reached 'lower-middle income status' by 2015. GDP grew by 6.4% between 2010 and 2023, and the poverty rate fell from 11.8% to 5% during roughly the same period. Still, that's an international poverty level based on only $2.15 per day. The moderate poverty rate, measured at $3.65 per day in 2017 dollars, is at 30%. Even with rising prosperity, hunger and low wages can bring politics close to everyone. When elections come again, the nation will learn much about itself and how far it has come. It will learn whether the Awami League, the political party allied with now-deposed former prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, intends to be disruptive, or even violent. The party has been outlawed while investigations proceed into violence committed during student protests last summer. Das, who believes interim government leader Yunus has done much to reinstate basic freedoms, answers easily as I ask her what she hopes Bangladesh will be like in 10 or 20 years. 'I want Bangladesh to be a place where everyone can eat, vote and sleep peacefully,' she says. 'I want our daughters to be able to go outside without fear. I dream of a beautiful, just Bangladesh, one where we don't have to live at the cost of others' blood. 'This Bangladesh, which we gained through the sacrifices of millions, must rise again. I want justice for the massacre that occurred at the border between India and Bangladesh. My neighbor should be my friend, but our neighbor harms us. We seek freedom from that harm. 'Above all conspiracies, I want a beautiful Bangladesh.' This is the real answer to the question. This is why she serves. And if that day comes, no one could say people like Das haven't paid the price for it. It takes only minutes for Das and her colleagues in the room to determine that the protests we hear on the street outside are from her supporters. We are in no danger. And yet, I am left pondering how I felt for the brief moment when I didn't know. How would it feel to know they were, indeed, hostile, as Das has had to face so often in her life?
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Where are the compassionate and moderating voices on Trump's travel ban?
Before he secured the Republican nomination for president in 2016, Donald Trump announced that he would seek 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.' Reaction, including from human rights organizations and fellow Republicans, was swift, and, for the most part, was characterized by astonishment, outrage and condemnation. Marco Rubio posted online, 'I disagree with Donald Trump's latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together.' At that time, Trump was an unknown entity in politics, and many believed he would never actually seek to implement the outrageous things he said. Unfortunately, one of Trump's first actions as a newly inaugurated president in January 2017 was to sign an executive order banning nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. This was immediately met with lawsuits and protests. The order was amended two different times in response to court challenges; eventually, a scaled-back version was upheld by the Supreme Court. To their credit, many leaders and members of the president's party were dismayed by this ban at the time. They saw it for what it was — a threat to the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. They could see it as a clear attack on the pluralism that has long guaranteed that our nation — a nation of immigrants — remains a haven for people seeking to practice their religion according to their conscience while also contributing to society. When candidate Trump first voiced his pledge to prevent Muslims from entering the U.S. in 2015, Utah Governor Herbert spoke out strongly against this idea: 'I am the governor of a state that was settled by religious exiles who withstood persecution after persecution, including an extermination order from another state's governor. In Utah, the First Amendment still matters. That will not change so long as I remain governor.' We remember both the early rhetoric of candidate Trump and the later actions of President Trump well. It was shocking and disorienting to watch his efforts to discriminate against others. It was disheartening to watch a political party descend into unchristian and uncharitable legalese, all with the aim to exclude others based solely on their faith or nationality. Mormon Women for Ethical Government was born in response to these efforts. At the outset, MWEG's founders envisioned a small group of women working together through peaceful, faithful, nonpartisan and proactive ways to counteract the unbelievable turn the government was making. But these women were not alone in their desire to take action. They were quickly joined by thousands of other women of faith who were ready to work for a more peaceful, just and ethical world. Over time, MWEG has become a strong voice in advocating for compassionate and moderating forces in government. The organization continues to attract women who want to proactively and peacefully support systems rooted in constitutional principles and the rule of law. We now have women in all 50 states engaging in the political arena as informed and principled citizens. Though much has changed since the formation of MWEG eight years ago, immigration remains a central and divisive issue. Immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, have been victims of dehumanizing language and unfair stereotyping. The current administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport people without due process. It has detained students without cause, deported a man by mistake and refused a Supreme Court order to facilitate his return, attempted to end birthright citizenship, revoked student visas, ended temporary protected status for many, and suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). This week, President Trump signed another proclamation that bans citizens from 12 countries from entering the U.S. In comparison to eight years ago, the large-scale response has been muted or even resigned. As the world has changed and political rhetoric has become ever more extreme, have we changed with it? Do things that were once the source of personal outrage and deep concern still concern us? Has our once-strong commitment to love our neighbor as ourself weakened? And, if we cannot love them, are we at least as committed to maintaining their claim to Constitutional protections as we were eight years ago? As an organization, MWEG is committed to amplifying the best aspects of our Christian faith. That faith is rooted in a gospel of generosity. We are also committed to preserving the Constitution that, among other things, protects our ability, as members of a minority faith, to participate freely in civic life, to express our views and to practice our religion without fear of repercussions. Actions like this ban seem directed at a particular group, but they actually undermine the constitutional rights that protect all of us from government overreach. As citizens of a free nation, we can and should speak out when we see those rights being violated. In 2017, the threat was widely recognized by leaders and citizens from both parties. It is worth contemplating why this is no longer the case.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Ukraine's drone strike on Russia spurs global military rethink, raises U.S. preparedness concerns
Ukraine's drone attack on Russia last weekend was a technological and intelligence game changer. It will reshape not only how the United States bolsters its military, but how the entire world does — allies and adversaries alike. While defense specialists examined the feat in the days since the attack and Ukraine celebrated its success, the question remains: How prepared is the U.S. to use and fend off this emerging tech in warfare? Not well enough, former Utah Rep. Chris Stewart told the Deseret News. Stewart spent 14 years as a pilot in the Air Force and served on the permanent Select Committee on Intelligence while he was in the House of Representatives. He argued that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's attack, which took more than a year and a half to plan, was 'brilliantly planned' and 'brilliantly executed.' It was a 'dramatic event' that will reshape military thinking globally, Stewart said. On June 1, more than 100 Ukrainian drones targeted military airfields and warplanes in Russia that held equipment used in the more than three-year war. Zelenskyy shared a thread online celebrating his military's success in the mission, nicknamed 'Spider Web.' The attack was unique because it demonstrated Ukraine's ability to conduct a successful mission without intelligence assistance, it struck deep into Russian territory, destroyed billions of dollars of Russian equipment and came at a very low cost to Ukraine. The attack consisted of 117 unmanned drones, each with a drone operator. Drones were smuggled into Russia and placed in wooden containers that had remote-controlled lids. The drones then 'took off to strike their targets,' which were at four different Russian airfields, Ukraine's Security Service said. Ukraine said 41 Russian aircraft were hit by their drones, dealing Russia a blow of an estimated $7 billion. Zelenskyy touted that one of the targeted locations was directly next to one of the FSB Russian security service offices and Russia had 'suffered significant losses.' Zelenskyy said Ukraine will continue to propose a 'full and unconditional ceasefire' and work toward peace with Russia, but its June 1 attack may have pushed Russia further away from the negotiating table. Stewart argued that the attack, while largely successful in its goal of targeting some of Russia's prized possessions, is also a 'destabilizing event.' 'It was an attack, direct attack on an asset that Vladimir Putin considers his highest priority and I worry a little bit about the implications of that,' he said, later adding, 'I'm not saying Zelenskyy shouldn't have done it, I'm just saying … one of the outcomes for that is it's going to make … the peace negotiations that are taking place much harder.' President Donald Trump — who was apparently not aware of Ukraine's attack ahead of time — spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. According to Trump, Putin said he would respond to the drone attack. It was a 'good conversation,' but not one that would lead to immediate peace, Trump said. Hours later, Russia struck the Ukrainian city of Pryluky, killing at least five people, including a 1-year-old child. On Friday, Russia launched one of its largest aerial attacks of the war, bombing six Ukrainian regions. The attack included 407 drones and 33 missiles. It killed four people, Ukraine said. As Ukraine balances protecting its front lines and cities, continuing its counteroffensive against Russia and seeking to strike a peace deal, the escalation raises questions about what the recent attack means for the United States and its adversaries. Stewart noted that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been interesting to watch because, in some ways, they are fighting a World War I-style war through trench warfare, but the use of unmanned drones in the battlefield has escalated fighting to World War III-level combat. The drones used by Ukraine aren't 'sophisticated weapons' by any means, Stewart pointed out. They aren't much different than drones seen flying in the park on weekends. However, if they're deployed strategically, they can cause 'enormous damage,' as seen by Russia. 'Last Friday, could you have imagined what happened in Russia over the weekend? And the truth is is no one did. And that's just one example of, we don't know really how this is going to change and be implemented and we're probably not nearly as prepared as we should be,' Stewart said. He also highlighted how Russia and Ukraine have 'leapfrogged' one another throughout the war. If Russia develops a drone with a new capability, Ukraine will develop a superior one weeks later, and so on. The technology itself is rapidly evolving in the war, Stewart said. 'Going back three years, if you had talked about how will drones affect the war in Ukraine, everyone would have shrugged their shoulders and said, 'Well, I'm not sure,' or they would have said, 'Well, probably not a lot,'' he said. 'And the answer to that question is, it impacted it greatly.' During a briefing on Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Ukraine's drone attack 'absolutely does' raise questions about the United States' security. She pointed to Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and the expansion of defense funding to bolster the U.S. military as it examines how to respond to the emergence of drone usage. 'The president has a full understanding, I can tell you because I've spoken to him about it, about the future of warfare and how drones are a big part of that, and I will not get ahead of our policy team, but I think you can expect to see some executive action on that front in the very near future,' she said. Evelyn Farkas, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense, said she believes the United States doesn't have the capability to protect against swarms of drones, should an adversary launch an attack. It's something the Department of Defense would need to look at, both domestically and at its overseas bases, she said. But bolstering U.S. military operations would need to start with production. Most drones are being produced overseas, including by U.S. adversaries like China. 'Now that they've used them to strategic effect, it will be even more urgent for the United States to improve its drone capability and to invest in drones,' Farkas, who is the executive director of the McCain Institute, said. The attack over the weekend proved that while drone warfare is not entirely a new operational tactic, the strategy behind using them changed the game. Stewart argued the attack also proved there are two major issues facing the U.S. as it stands on the sidelines of the current war: drone defense and implementation plans need to be drafted, and the supply chain needs to be less dependent on China. China, Stewart noted, has also been successful in purchasing land near U.S. military installations globally. Commanders have likely spent the last several days reviewing how to protect assets after seeing Ukraine launch drones into Russian bases at a very close range, he said. 'They weren't really particularly worried about the aircraft sitting out on their tarmac, and it turned out they should have been, right?' he said of the Russian military, later adding, 'I think people are looking at that differently now than they were.' The U.S. military has said it must invest in drones, commonly called unmanned aircraft systems or UAS. Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll said in a post online that modernization is critical to U.S. national security. 'Investing in UAS isn't optional — it's essential for battlefield dominance, enhancing precision and protecting Soldiers,' he said. Air Force Gen. David Allvin highlighted the need for technological advancement and investment, pointing to Ukraine's attack. 'In today's environment not every asset must be exquisite/expensive. Look what Ukraine just did,' he said in a post online. 'We can't afford to walk by assets like this that generate lethal effects.' Hoover Institution fellow Jacquelyn Schneider has long argued that the U.S. needs to invest in low-cost technology to advance its military. In a 2023 op-ed, she expanded on her research and argued that the U.S. military has ended up in a paradox. It chased emerging technology that made weapons so expensive that upgrading them would be difficult. It left the Pentagon with a stockpile that was 'neither good enough nor large enough' for its plans, Schneider argued. 'The United States also underprioritized technology that would rein in the cost of logistics, maintenance, and replenishment, opting instead for high-tech weaponry patched together with fragile and outdated software,' she wrote. Schneider said the U.S. needs to 'urgently' prioritize technology that would cut warfare costs and admit it cannot replace all of its systems. High-cost technology should be complemented with cheaper options, she said. 'If the United States hopes to persevere against Russia in the short term and China in the long term, it must consider the economic impact of technology even as it pursues technological advantage,' Schneider wrote. Farkas agreed. The United States has an undeniable issue by having 'very expensive systems that are now vulnerable to foreign drones,' she said. War is a 'great accelerator,' Stewart said of technological advancements. It just depends on if the U.S. military will use it properly, he argued. 'The problem on the defense spending side is, we're just not spending the money we should. The bigger problem is, are we spending it right?' he questioned. 'It doesn't do us much good to buy $50 million Predator drones when we know now that a $500 plastic drone can do nearly the same thing.' Stewart said one of his largest concerns after Ukraine's attack is how the U.S. will respond. It's a pressing issue for the industry and the Pentagon as it grapples with rapidly evolving technology and the price tag of modern warfare. 'Will we spend it in the right way and are we keeping up with technology?' he asked, saying he hopes the administration is prompted to ask those questions after Ukraine's attack.
