Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human
Rights and Oversight
256 Ford House Office Building,
May 15, 2008
Testimony by:
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D.
Director and Senior Fellow
The Beverly LaHaye Institute
Concerned Women for
H.Res.146 –– Sponsored by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
(D-TX)
Topic: The
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Thank you, Chairman Delahunt
and Members of the committee, for this opportunity to address the Subcommittee
on such an important issue as determining what, exactly, is the
House Resolution 146 states
that the
The problem is that the
The United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1325 refers to numerous United Nations treaties. The
It is important to note exactly WHY the
At the outset, let me state unequivocally that in the
Let’s look specifically at the
problems associated with CEDAW[1] ––
a U.N. treaty that was adopted by the U.N.
General Assembly on December 18, 1979 and signed by President Jimmy Carter in
1980. The Senate Foreign Relations
Committee passed it on September 29, 1994, but the full Senate has not ratified CEDAW.
Thus, while most countries
have signed the treaty –– legally binding them to implement its provisions
–– the
For the
I. CEDAW Supersedes National Sovereignty
A founding principle of the
CEDAW would violate that basic requirement:
·
By Overriding the Constitution: Regrettably, in a national culture where strict
constitutional interpretation is not guaranteed, CEDAW could supersede all federal and state
laws, as evidenced by past federal court rulings.[2]
CEDAW’s language would give that international treaty precedence over the
laws in individual American states. For
instance, its "use of overly broad language … allows the U.N. to invade
the most personal of relationships between men and women."[3]
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 CEDAW. As President Thomas Jefferson wrote, "If the
treaty making power is boundless, then we have no Constitution."[4]
·
By CEDAW Committee Oversight Rulings: 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
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. Numerous of the CEDAW Committee’s rulings
for various signatory countries have been arbitrary and offensive; for
instance, scolding one nation’s husbands for not doing their share of housework
or admonishing another nation for celebrating Mother’s Day.
II.
The Specific Provisions of the CEDAW Treaty are troublesome
The
CEDAW committee determines which roles are "stereotypes” and the
“appropriate action” for “eliminating the prejudice.” 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]
Regarding
children’s interests, CEDAW conveys that government knows best, not parents.
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] The
CEDAW committee’s 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]
·
Usurps Parental Role in Teaching Values to Their
Children –– The Committee even seeks
to empower governments to usurp parents’ role in teaching values to their
children. In its report on Romania and
other countries, it encouraged "the Government to include sex education
systematically in schools."[14]
In her book, Ready or Not, Kay
Hymowitz 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 that 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 feel increased social pressure from
sex educators as well as boyfriends.
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.
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] The committee 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
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, having children changes the earning equation — many mothers prefer part
time work or choose flexible hours, while others jump off the fast track in
order to invest time in their families while their children are young.
Further, research from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth found that there is no wage gap among those
ages 27-33 who have never had a child; women in that demographic earn about 98
percent of their male counterparts’ income.[24]
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 doctoral 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
Universal
access to abortion-on-demand continues to be viewed as essential for women’s
equality. Feminists view pregnancy as hampering women’s careers and lessening
their ability to compete equally with men.
Access to abortion for all women, then, is viewed by feminists as
necessary as an equality measure. Ratification of CEDAW could easily be
used to broaden the scope of abortion in the
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."[29]
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."[30] It
decried that, "with very limited exceptions, abortion remains illegal in
In the
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 special 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 re-conceptualized as
a sexual orientation and that penalties for its practice be abolished,"[34] in
defiance of the country’s religious position and cultural heritage.[35]
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
The Fight Against CEDAW
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. Former Sen. Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina), who
served as chairman of the foreign relations committee for years, led the effort
to block the
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.
Today’s hearing “dips a toe” into the waters
to test whether CEDAW can now be ratified.
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.[42] You can
guess who —depending on whether they survive the next election — would attend
the vote were CEDAW to come to the Senate floor.
Attorney James Hirsen, J.D., Ph.D. described how
some Members get around the rules to impose their minority views on the
majority. 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, according to the official records, with "no
opposition."[43]
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]."[44]
This shows how far a president can go in abusing his power by imposing his will
on the public.
Pushing So-Called
“Women’s Rights” and Quotas
The feminist movement, in its plan to restructure
society and enact its legislation — gender mainstreaming, gender re-education,
comparable worth, quotas, redefining marriage and family, and a federal ERA — is
using a U.N. treaty to mandate its agenda and to establish international quotas
for compliance and implementation.
Those who advocate most vehemently for CEDAW
don’t need the treaty. They already enjoy abundant materialism, opportunities
and negligible inequality. Women in the
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
CONCLUSION:
Mr. Chairman, allow me please to repeat: The
The United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1325 refers to numerous United Nations treaties. The
I have explained WHY the
Again, let me reiterate unequivocally that in the
We emphatically support the human rights of women and
girls. The so-called “Women’s Rights”
movement and “gender-mainstreaming” efforts have policy implications far beyond
human rights concerns.
The issue in regard to the U.N. treaties is a matter
of national sovereignty, a matter of quotas and a matter of the specific
provisions of the various treaties that would challenge the laws and culture of
the
# # #
[1] The author is indebted to former
CWA staffers, Laurel MacLeod and Catherina Hurlburt, whose article, Exposing CEDAW, about the problems
associated with the CEDAW treaty, provided a draft for this testimony. Numerous articles on CEDAW by Janice Shaw
Crouse are at www.cwfa.org and in various publications.
[2] James L. Hirsen, Ph.D., The Coming Collision: Global Law vs.
[3] Hirsen, The Coming Collision,, 32.
[4] Thomas Jefferson, Letter to
Wilson C. Nicholas, September 1803, The Jeffersonian Encyclopedia (New
York: Funk & Wagnals, 1900), 90, as cited in Hirsen, 23.
[6] CEDAW.
[7] CEDAW.
[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. 264.
[9] Concluding Observations of the Committee on the
Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Belarus, CEDAW/C/2000/I/CRP.3/Add.5/Rev.1 (
[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 (
[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 (
[14] Concluding Observations of the Committee on the
Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Romania, CEDAW/C/2000/II/CRP.3/Add.7 (
[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]Hymowitz, 174.
[17] CEDAW.
[18] Concluding Observations:
[19] Concluding Observations of the Committee on the
Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Austria, CEDAW/C/2000/II/ Add.1 (
[20] Christina Hoff Sommers, The War Against Boys: How
Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men (
[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] Furchtgott-Roth and Stolba, Summary and Highlights,
xvii.
[25] Furchtgott-Roth and Stolba, p. 19.
[26] Furchtgott-Roth and Stolba, p. 22.
[27] Furchtgott-Roth and Stolba, p. 19.
[28]Concluding Observations:
[29]Concluding Observations:
[30]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.
[31]Concluding
Observations, Ireland, paras. 25, 26.
[32]CEDAW.
[33]Hirsen, 31
[34]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.
[35]The majority (70 percent) of
[36]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.
[37] 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.
[38] Concluding Observations, China, para.
288.
[39] Concluding Observations:
[40] Concluding Observations:
[41] 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.
[42] Hirsen, 25.
[43] Hirsen, 25-26.
[44] Cliff Kincaid and Phyllis
Schlafly, "Clinton’s Power Grab Through
Executive Orders," 20 January 1999.
JANICE CROUSE