Posted on 09/12/2002 8:43:36 PM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
| 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.
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 |
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
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.
Kinda like old times eh?
"The Girl on Television Who's so Good-Looking that We've Gotta Watch out for Her Because She's so Good-Looking."
Tuesday mornings just won't be the same.
And the DemocRATS got blown away in the Congressional elections a month later.
I would change the end paragraph to this...
That means that they will be presenting a new and improved edition of... "Tyrannical Koffi Maxwell House Annan RUS."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.