DADI.org

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

Comparable Worth.

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.

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:

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.