Dads Against the Divorce Industry

DA*DI is devoted to reinstating the societal valuation of Marriage and the traditional, nuclear American Family, with particular emphasis on the essential role of FATHERS.

DA*DI offers contemporary reports and commentary on culture; its aberrations and its heroes.

Exposing CEDAW
The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
By Laurel MacLeod and Catherina Hurlburt
Revised: September 5, 2000

Concerned Women for America strongly opposes the passage of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This treaty is not necessary and would challenge the laws and culture of the United States.

Encroachment Upon Sovereignty
Sovereignty Encroachment
The CEDAW Committee
Treaty Provisions
    The “Family”
    Parental Rights
    Gender Re-Education
    Comparable Worth
    Abortion
    Back-door ERA?
    Homosexual Rights
    Legalized Prostitution
The Fight Against CEDAW
Recreating “Woman”
The U.N. General Assembly adopted CEDAW on December 18, 1979. President Jimmy Carter signed it in 1980. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed it on September 29, 1994, but the full Senate has not ratified it. So far, 165 countries have signed the treaty, legally binding them to implement its provisions.1

According to Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, treaties—along with the Constitution and United States laws—are "the supreme Law of the Land." Our founding fathers believed that any ratified treaty should be constitutional. That is, it should line up with the principles of the Constitution and our republic. CEDAW’s "use of overly broad language … allows the U.N. to invade the most personal of relationships between men and women."2 For example, it would require individual American states to give up authority in family law, allowing the federal government to take over family law.

Therefore, the founding fathers certainly would have rejected it. As President Thomas Jefferson wrote, "If the treaty making power is boundless, then we have no Constitution."3

Regrettably, today’s U.S. Supreme Court does not use strict constitutional interpretation as its measure, and, often, neither does Congress or the president. Therefore, CWA is convinced that, if the Senate ever ratifies CEDAW, the federal government would allow it to supersede all federal and state laws, as evidenced by past federal court rulings.4

The CEDAW Committee
Sovereignty Encroachment
The CEDAW Committee
Treaty Provisions
    The “Family”
    Parental Rights
    Gender Re-Education
    Comparable Worth
    Abortion
    Back-door ERA?
    Homosexual Rights
    Legalized Prostitution
The Fight Against CEDAW
Recreating “Woman”
Part V (Articles 17-22) of CEDAW outlines the creation of a Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women to oversee the implementation of CEDAW in every signatory nation. This Committee consists of "23 experts of high and moral standing and competence in the field covered by the Convention" whom representatives of the Convention signatories elect. This, in essence, places the welfare and well being of American women and families at the mercy of 23 individuals, among whom the United States might not even have a voice.

CEDAW legally binds every signatory country to implement its provisions. After signing, each country must submit an initial report with a detailed and comprehensive description of the state of its women, "a benchmark against which subsequent progress can be measured."5 This initial report should include legislative, judicial, administrative and other measures the signatory nation has adopted to comply with CEDAW. The country must submit follow-up reports at least every four years. Since 1990, a pre-session working group of five Committee members has reviewed these subsequent reports and composed questions to guide the full Committee. After a country’s representative meets with the full Committee, it draws up concluding comments, observations and recommendations.

Treaty Provisions
Sovereignty Encroachment
The CEDAW Committee
Treaty Provisions
    The “Family”
    Parental Rights
    Gender Re-Education
    Comparable Worth
    Abortion
    Back-door ERA?
    Homosexual Rights
    Legalized Prostitution
The Fight Against CEDAW
Recreating “Woman”
Article 1 of CEDAW defines "discrimination against women" as:

"Any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field."6

According to this document, any "distinction, exclusion or restriction" could be changed if a woman claims that such distinctions "nullify her recognition, enjoyment or exercise … of human rights and fundamental freedoms." This language is far too vague and would invite an avalanche of frivolous lawsuits in the United States.

CEDAW’s definition of "discrimination" is all-encompassing and dangerous. It goes beyond trying to establish equality, which U.S. laws already afford women. CEDAW is actually a global Equal Rights Amendment, a tool for radical feminists, who deny any distinctions between men and women.

Redefinition of the Family.

Sovereignty Encroachment
The CEDAW Committee
Treaty Provisions
    The “Family”
    Parental Rights
    Gender Re-Education
    Comparable Worth
    Abortion
    Back-door ERA?
    Homosexual Rights
    Legalized Prostitution
The Fight Against CEDAW
Recreating “Woman”
CEDAW undermines the traditional family structure in the United States and other nations that respect the family. The preamble states, "A change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between men and women." Article 5a would require the United States government to "take all appropriate action" to:

"Modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices … based on … stereotyped roles for men and women."7

The CEDAW committee determines those "stereotyped roles." For example, in its analysis of Denmark, it "noted with concern that stereotypical perceptions of gender role continued to exist in society … [that] kept men from assuming an equal share of family responsibilities."8 In its 2000 review of Belarus, the committee complained that "Mothers’ Day" and the "Mothers’ Award" encourage women’s traditional roles.9 Also, the CEDAW committee urged Armenia to "combat the traditional stereotype of women in the noble role of mother."10 Further, it complained to Luxembourg about its "stereotypical attitudes that tend to portray men as heads of households and breadwinners, and women primarily as mothers and homemakers."11

Parental Rights.

Sovereignty Encroachment
The CEDAW Committee
Treaty Provisions
    The “Family”
    Parental Rights
    Gender Re-Education
    Comparable Worth
    Abortion
    Back-door ERA?
    Homosexual Rights
    Legalized Prostitution
The Fight Against CEDAW
Recreating “Woman”
CEDAW also undercuts the proper role of parents in child rearing. Articles 5 and 16 affirm that in family matters "the interests of the children shall be paramount." Who decides what is in a child’s "best interest"? What penalty would result from violating the "best interest" of the child? This superficial, feel-good statement subordinates every family member, regardless of the issue or circumstance.

Regarding children’s interests, CEDAW conveys that government, not parents, knows best. The Committee derided Slovenia because only 30 percent of children under age three were in day-care centers. The remaining 70 percent, the committee claimed, would miss out on education and social opportunities offered in day-care institutions.12 Its review of Germany urged "the Government to improve the availability of care places for school-age children to facilitate women’s re-entry into the labor market."13

The Committee even seeks to empower governments to usurp parents’ role in teaching values to their children. In its report on Romania, it encouraged "the Government to include sex education systematically in schools."14 It has called for the same action in other countries.

In her book, Ready or Not, Kay Hymowitz rightly criticized the forced maturation of adolescents today:

[The] generation that came of age in the sixties and seventies … hoped that they would demystify sex, free it from the control of church ladies and what sexual reform advocates had long called the "conspiracy of silence." In this new world, sex would be better and so would kids.

So why hasn’t this dream come true? The answer becomes clear enough when you take a careful look at the statements of sex educators, curriculum planners, public health officials. … Information is all these kids need, they say. … So now we have a nation of teenagers who are information rich but knowledge poor.15

Hymowitz cites a 1996 poll by the Ms. Foundation for Women, a feminist group. It found 73 percent of girls think most girls have sex not because they want to, but because that is what their boyfriends want.16 With CEDAW in place, teens around the world will face social pressure like they have never known before.

Gender Re-Education.

Sovereignty Encroachment
The CEDAW Committee
Treaty Provisions
    The “Family”
    Parental Rights
    Gender Re-Education
    Comparable Worth
    Abortion
    Back-door ERA?
    Homosexual Rights
    Legalized Prostitution
The Fight Against CEDAW
Recreating “Woman”
CEDAW mandates gender re-education. Article 10c requires:

"The elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms of education by encouraging coeducation and other types of education which will help to achieve this aim and, in particular, by the revision of textbooks and school programs and the adaptation of teaching methods."17

CEDAW would captivate our children to the Left’s agenda through a U.N. mandate. Single-sex schools could be discouraged and eliminated because their "perspective" on gender is not acceptable to the international government. Taxpayers could be forced to pay the high cost of "gender neutralizing" all textbooks and school programs. America could become a nation of androgynous children who are not allowed to believe that any gender differences exist beyond the external.

For example, the Committee recommended that the Romanian government "place priority on the review and revision of teaching materials, textbooks and school curricula, especially for primary- and secondary-level education."18 It called upon Austria’s government to "integrate gender studies and feminist research in university curricula and research programs."19

In her book, The War Against Boys, author Christina Hoff Sommers argued males and females are significantly different and unequally treated.20 That is, in the United States, girls receive better treatment. In his review of the book, National Review editor Richard Lowry wrote:

Girls get better grades, do more homework, engage in more extracurricular activities, enroll in more advanced-placement classes (and fewer special-education classes), go to college in greater numbers, and so on. This doesn’t mean that girls are academically superior to boys; just that the special needs of boys are being neglected. As competitiveness and individual initiative are discouraged, classroom discipline loosened, and outlets for natural rambunctiousness—e.g., recess—eliminated, schoolboys tend to tune out or turn on (to Ritalin).21

Comparable Worth.

Sovereignty Encroachment
The CEDAW Committee
Treaty Provisions
    The “Family”
    Parental Rights
    Gender Re-Education
    Comparable Worth
    Abortion
    Back-door ERA?
    Homosexual Rights
    Legalized Prostitution
The Fight Against CEDAW
Recreating “Woman”
CEDAW jeopardizes the wage laws that have been set at the federal and state levels. Article 11d requires women receive the "right … to equal treatment in respect to work of equal value." This phrase is a thinly veiled "comparable worth" mandate. Comparable worth actually calls for equal pay for unequal work. This concept wars against our free-market system, where the supply and demand of workers determines the value of a job in a given profession. This respects a worker’s experience, expertise and ability.

Proponents of comparable worth say legislation is necessary to ensure equalization of wages. Feminists claim that a woman earns only 76 cents for every dollar a man earns.22 Yet that figure is skewed because it does not take into account job choice, position, age, experience, education and consecutive years in the work force. Using all women in their calculations distorts the statistics.23 Also, children change the earning equation—many women prefer to put their child’s best interest first and take a cut in hours to invest time in their families.

Further, research from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (Add Health) found that among those ages 27-33 who have never had a child, women earn about 98 percent of their male counterparts’ income.24 There is no wage gap.

The number of American women in "male-dominated" professions has steadily increased since they entered the work force in large numbers during the 1940s.25 Currently, women earn the majority of associate’s and bachelor’s degrees, as well as 40 percent of doctorate’s degrees and more than 40 percent of law and medical degrees.26 The Korn/Ferry executive search firm found that in 1998, 72 percent of corporate boards included women.27

Nonetheless, the CEDAW Committee expressed concern that in Germany "in 1997, although women accounted for 42.1 percent of the gainfully employed population, they comprised 88 percent of the persons working in part-time employment and 55.9 percent of the unemployed. … Those differences are indicative of the persistence of indirect discrimination against women in the labor market."28 Remember, the Committee also called for more child care availability in Germany so women could work. It did not take into account women’s choices not to work or to work part-time in order to spend more time with their children.

Abortion.

Sovereignty Encroachment
The CEDAW Committee
Treaty Provisions
    The “Family”
    Parental Rights
    Gender Re-Education
    Comparable Worth
    Abortion
    Back-door ERA?
    Homosexual Rights
    Legalized Prostitution
The Fight Against CEDAW
Recreating “Woman”
Articles 12 and 14 (section 2b) seek "to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning." This document was written in the late 1970s, and time has shown that "family planning" rhetoric means access to abortion services.

That construction is consistent with feminist thought, which views pregnancy as the only major difference between men and women. In the feminist view, pregnancy hampers women and lessens their ability to compete equally with men, so abortion must be available to all women as an equality measure. Ratification of CEDAW could easily be used to broaden the scope of abortion in the United States and around the world.

In his book, The Long March, author Roger Kimball observed:

In the 1960s sexual liberation suddenly became an everyday fact of middle-class life. This was due partly to the perfection of the birth control pill and other reliable forms of contraception. … What had been a fringe phenomenon became an established fashion; by the late Sixties, it had become a social norm.29

And we have witnessed how that liberal sexual mentality gave birth to the abortion mentality in the 1970s. The advocates that pushed hardest for the "normalization" of abortion now seek to push it on a global level. CEDAW has been a key tool in doing just that.

For example, the Committee recommended that the Romanian government increase efforts to improve women’s reproductive health, including "availability, acceptability and use of modern means of birth control."30 It also complained that "although Ireland is a secular State, the influence of the Church is strongly felt. … In particular, women’s right to health, including reproductive health, is compromised by this influence."31 It decried that, "with very limited exceptions, abortion remains illegal in Ireland" and urged the government "to facilitate a national dialogue on women’s reproductive rights, including on the restrictive abortion laws."32

Back-door ERA?

Sovereignty Encroachment
The CEDAW Committee
Treaty Provisions
    The “Family”
    Parental Rights
    Gender Re-Education
    Comparable Worth
    Abortion
    Back-door ERA?
    Homosexual Rights
    Legalized Prostitution
The Fight Against CEDAW
Recreating “Woman”
The definition of "equal rights" is also a problem area in this document. Who decides what is "equal" and what is a "right"? Article 2 requires each nation that ratifies this Convention:

"(a) To embody the principle of the equality of men and women in their national constitution or other appropriate legislation [emphasis added] … and (c) Establish legal protection of the rights of women on an equal basis with men and to ensure through competent national tribunals and other public institutions the effective protection of women against any act of discrimination."33

In the United States, radical feminists have been trying to pass a federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) since 1970. Their efforts have failed, so they have moved to the state legislatures. But the dream of amending the U.S. Constitution with the ERA has not died. Feminists could use CEDAW to renew the drive for a federal ERA.34

Homosexual Rights.

Sovereignty Encroachment
The CEDAW Committee
Treaty Provisions
    The “Family”
    Parental Rights
    Gender Re-Education
    Comparable Worth
    Abortion
    Back-door ERA?
    Homosexual Rights
    Legalized Prostitution
The Fight Against CEDAW
Recreating “Woman”
The federal ERA was defeated for many reasons. For example, it sought to gender-neutralize society, eliminating distinctions between the sexes. Pro-family advocates feared the ramifications of this far-reaching Constitutional amendment.

Such expectations have now become reality. State ERAs have played a central role in leading courts to allow same-sex "marriage." Ratification of CEDAW—which could force a federal ERA—might be the fast track to federally sanctioned same-sex "marriage."

While Article 1 of CEDAW defines "discrimination against women" as "any distinction, exclusion or restriction mode on the basis of sex," the treaty makes no explicit mention of homosexual or lesbian rights. Nevertheless, the Committee has mandated such rights. In its review of Kyrgyzstan, it expressed concern "that lesbianism is classified as a sexual offense in the Penal Code" and ordered that "lesbianism be reconceptualized as a sexual orientation and that penalties for its practice be abolished,"35 irrespective of the country’s religious or cultural position.36

Legalized Prostitution.

Sovereignty Encroachment
The CEDAW Committee
Treaty Provisions
    The “Family”
    Parental Rights
    Gender Re-Education
    Comparable Worth
    Abortion
    Back-door ERA?
    Homosexual Rights
    Legalized Prostitution
The Fight Against CEDAW
Recreating “Woman”
Article 6 states that countries that have ratified CEDAW "shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution in women." This statement echoes an earlier treaty, the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, which called prostitution "incompatible with the dignity and worth of the human person" which "endanger[s] the welfare of the individual, the family and the community."37 Article 1 of this treaty orders countries to:

"punish any person who, to gratify the passions of another: (1) procures, entices or leads away, for purposes of prostitution, another person, even with the consent of that person; (2) exploits the prostitution of another person, even with the consent of that person [emphasis added]."

Tragically, the CEDAW Committee has deviated completely from the original intention of the document regarding prostitution. Article 11, section 1(c) of the treaty upholds "the right to free choice of profession and employment." The Committee has included "voluntary" prostitution in that "free choice"—to the detriment of needy women around the world. It has called upon China to "decriminalize prostitution,"38 expressing concern that it is often the "result of poverty."39 Also, while it urged Germany "to recognize that trafficked women and girls are victims of human rights violations in need of protection,"40 it also expressed concern "that although they are legally obliged to pay taxes, prostitutes still do not enjoy the protection of labor and social law."41 Even more blatant, its report on Greece stated, "While noting positively the fact that prostitution is decriminalized and instead is dealt with in a regulatory manner, the Committee is concerned that inadequate structures exist to ensure compliance with regulatory framework."42

The Fight Against CEDAW
Sovereignty Encroachment
The CEDAW Committee
Treaty Provisions
    The “Family”
    Parental Rights
    Gender Re-Education
    Comparable Worth
    Abortion
    Back-door ERA?
    Homosexual Rights
    Legalized Prostitution
The Fight Against CEDAW
Recreating “Woman”
Although President Carter signed CEDAW in 1980, and it passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1994, the Senate has not yet ratified this treaty. Much thanks is due to Sen. Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina), chairman of the foreign relations committee. On May 11, 2000, just before Mother’s Day, Sen. Helms introduced a "sense of the Senate" to reject CEDAW because it "demeans motherhood and undermines the traditional family."

Advocates have not ceased in their quest to ratify the treaty, however. On April 12, 2000, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) introduced a "sense of the Senate" to hold hearings and act on CEDAW. S.Res.286 had 34 cosponsors.

The U.S. Constitution allows the president to enter into treaties with two-thirds Senate approval. It also requires the Senate to have a quorum, a majority (51), present to conduct business. Thus, with 51 senators present, CEDAW would need a minimum of 34 approving senators to ratify it.43 You can guess who—depending on whether they survive the next election—would attend the vote were CEDAW to come to the Senate floor.

Sadly, as attorney James Hirsen, J.D., Ph.D., described in one recent example, for some people, rules are meant to be broken. The Senate ratified the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty that delves into our most personal affairs, on April 3, 1992. According to the Congressional Record, only five senators were present. Majority leader George Mitchell conducted proceedings and made the motion to approve the treaty. Another senator seconded the motion, and the chair, Jay Rockefeller, called for a vote. He asked a gallery of empty chairs for any opposition. The treaty passed with "no opposition."44

In addition, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13107, "Implementation of Human Rights Treaties," on December 10, 1998. He then established an Interagency Working Group, with representatives from major federal departments, to implement America’s alleged "obligations" under U.N. treaties on human rights "to which the United States is now or may become a party in the future [emphasis added]."45 This shows how far a president can go in abusing his power.

Recreating “Woman” in the 21st Century
Sovereignty Encroachment
The CEDAW Committee
Treaty Provisions
    The “Family”
    Parental Rights
    Gender Re-Education
    Comparable Worth
    Abortion
    Back-door ERA?
    Homosexual Rights
    Legalized Prostitution
The Fight Against CEDAW
Recreating “Woman”
The gender feminist movement, in its plan to restructure society and enact its legislation—gender re-education, comparable worth, the destruction of traditional family definitions, and a federal ERA—is using a U.N. treaty to mandate its agenda.

Those who advocate most vehemently for CEDAW don’t need the treaty. They already enjoy abundant materialism, opportunities and negligible inequality. Women in the United States have the right to vote. They are fully participating members of society, protected by the federal Civil Rights Code and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as well as state civil rights codes and state employment commissions.

Poor women in developing nations are fighting for the basic needs of everyday life—education and literacy, access to basic medical needs, nutrition, etc. Radical feminists in Western nations are using these women’s disadvantages to push an agenda of sexual and reproductive rights for females as young as age 10. Hiding under the guise of "human rights," and veiling their intentions with appeals for needy women in developing nations, they insist CEDAW is necessary.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is flawed. The U.S. Senate must not ratify it. At its best, CEDAW is unnecessary. At its worst, CEDAW unravels America’s families and forces women to model themselves after global feminists’ ideal image.


End Notes
  1. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), 1979.
  2. James L. Hirsen, Ph. D., The Coming Collision: Global Law vs. U.S. Liberties (Lafayette, LA: Huntington House, 1999), 32.
  3. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Wilson C. Nicholas, September 1803, The Jeffersonian Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnals, 1900), 90, as cited in Hirsen, 23.
  4. United States v. Thompson, 258 F. 257 (E.D. Ark. 1919); United States v. Samples, 258 F. 479 (W.D. Mo. 1919); Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 40 S.Ct. 382 (1920), as cited in Hirsen, 45. In these cases, the judges (U.S. Supreme Court justices in the last case listed) decided that any congressional act that fulfills the provision of a treaty overrides state sovereignty.
  5. CEDAW Reporting guidelines.
  6. CEDAW.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Denmark, A/52/38/Rev.1, paras.248-274 (Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 27 January 1997), para. 265.
  9. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Belarus, CEDAW/C/2000/I/CRP.3/Add.5/Rev.1 (Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 31 January 2000), para. 27.
  10. Susan Jones, "In Defense of Mother’s Day, Senator Blasts ‘Anti-Family’ Treaty," CNS News, 12 May 2000.
  11. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Luxembourg, CEDAW/C/2000/I/CRP.3/Rev.1 (Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 21 January 2000), para. 29.
  12. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Slovenia, A/52/38/Rev.1, paras.81-122 (Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 23 January 1997), para. 104.
  13. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Germany, CEDAW/C/2000/I/CRP.3/Add.7/Rev.1 (Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2 February 2000), para. 28.
  14. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Romania, CEDAW/C/2000/II/CRP.3/Add.7 (Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 23 June 2000), para. 39.
  15. Kay Hymowitz, Ready or Not: Why Treating Children as Small Adults Endangers Their Future—and Ours (New York: The Free Press, 1999), 164-5.
  16. Ibid., 174.
  17. CEDAW.
  18. Concluding Observations: Romania, para. 25.
  19. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Austria, CEDAW/C/2000/II/ Add.1 (Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 15 June 2000), para. 25.
  20. Christina Hoff Sommers, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000).
  21. Richard Lowry, "The Male Eunuch," National Review, 3 July 2000.
  22. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998, as cited in "Catalyst Fact Sheet: Labor Day 1998,".
  23. Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba, Women’s Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America (Washington, D.C.: AEI Press and Arlington, VA: Independent Women’s Forum, 1999), Preface, xii.
  24. Ibid., Summary and Highlights, xvii.
  25. Ibid., 19.
  26. Ibid., 22
  27. Ibid., 19.
  28. Concluding Observations: Germany, para. 25.
  29. Roger Kimball, The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000), 147.
  30. Concluding Observations: Romania, para. 39.
  31. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Ireland, CEDAW/C/1999/L.2/ Add.4 (Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1 July 1999), para. 20.
  32. Ibid., paras. 25, 26.
  33. CEDAW.
  34. Hirsen, 31.
  35. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Kyrgyzstan, A/54/38, paras. 95-142 (Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 27 January 1999), paras. 127-128.
  36. The majority (70 percent) of Kyrgyzstan is Sunni Muslim. Library of Congress, "Kyrgyzstan—A Country Study," March 1996.
  37. Preamble, Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, entry into force 25 July 1951.
  38. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: China, A/54/38, paras. 251-336 (Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 3 February 1999), para. 289.
  39. Ibid., para. 288.
  40. Concluding Observations: Germany, para. 36.
  41. Ibid., para. 39.
  42. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Greece, A/54/38, paras. 172-212 (Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1 February 1999), para. 197.
  43. Hirsen, 25.
  44. Hirsen, 25-26.
  45. Cliff Kincaid and Phyllis Schlafly, "Clinton’s Power Grab Through Executive Orders," 20 January 1999.


Back to DA*DI's Home

Dads Against the Divorce Industry Dads Against the Divorce Industry