It is hard to believe that the national conventions are finally upon us -- it seems like only a decade ago that this presidential election began!

Once again I find myself in the unexpected position of complimenting an evangelical leader, as I did last November, when I expressed cautious optimism for Bill Hybel's statement that the evangelical community was interested in the plight of women in the developing world.

Setting aside any opinion I may have about the candidates' first joint appearance being in a church, I thought Rick Warren produced an excellent forum for all of us to learn more about the candidates for President. Not only were his questions thoughtful and insightful, but he also made a valiant attempt to encourage the candidates to answer fully and "off message." And, perhaps most shockingly in this day and age, he filled the church with polite supporters of both candidates. In other words, he didn't stack the deck.

Unfortunately, Warren did not ask the candidates the question I've been waiting to hear: Would you restore funding to UNFPA to assist in global efforts to promote women and reduce poverty?

To be fair, I don't know if Warren's support for the world's women extends to UNFPA or if he knows about UNFPA -- the global anchor institution for women's health and rights. However, he could have asked, "Is less than 1% of the federal budget an adequate contribution to safe motherhood programs, HIV prevention and girls' access to education around the world?"

Neither Presidential candidate has yet pledged to restore funding to UNFPA. We generated emails from our supporters to both parties asking for support to UNFPA to be included in their platforms. In a hopeful sign, the draft of the Democratic Platform includes the language: We will...reinstate funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). We will expand access to health care and nutrition for women and reduce the burden of maternal mortality. The Republic Platform has not yet been released to the public. Stay tuned . . .

In fact, it's been a pretty good summer for UNFPA. The House Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs allocated a $60 million contribution to UNFPA, approaching the requested $63.5 million which represents the $40 million allocation from the FY08 budget plus 10% of the money the Bush Administration has withheld from UNFPA.

And that brings us back to the presidency. UNFPA is not on the radar screen of either candidate. If the amount of grey matter used on an issue is directly related to its cost to the taxpayers, UNFPA is never going to get a hearing. And yet we know that no economically developed nation in the world excludes the participation of half of its citizens. We know that women are the key to almost all of the advancement of nations yet to be realized. And we know for sure that promoting the health and rights of women is important to Americans. If it's important to a white, American-born male, evangelical Christian (i.e., Rick Warren) and to South Asian, naturalized American Muslim woman (i.e., me!) - who out there could possibly disagree?

The candidates for President should support UNFPA because when women are healthy, more economically stable and more able to participate in society, society evolves to the benefit of all of us. As the United Nations agency that promotes women's health and rights in more than 150 nations around the globe, UNFPA is uniquely positioned to support the world's women.

The men who spoke with Rick Warren Saturday night most certainly gave the impression that they would support the notion that all people are entitled to human rights.

Before you call me crazy, remember that five years ago it would have seemed crazy that the head of an organization dedicated to women's rights and the head of an evangelical church were supporting the same thing.

We're taking out an ad in Roll Call after the conventions to show the candidates that Americans support global women's health. Please sign the ad.