Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Committee Votes for UN 'Women's Rights' Treaty
CNSNEWS.com ^ | 7/30/02 | Jeff Johnson

Posted on 07/30/2002 10:34:07 AM PDT by kattracks

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted Tuesday for ratification of a controversial United Nations treaty opposed by a number of conservative women's groups.

The committee recommended ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) by a vote of 12 to seven. Republicans Gordon Smith (Ore.) and Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) crossed party lines to join all 10 committee Democrats in voting for the agreement.

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), chairman of the committee, said CEDAW "can be viewed as an international bill of rights."

"It sets out basic standards for women's rights, from the right to education to the right to equal employment opportunity to the right to equality under the law in marriage," Biden wrote with committee member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in an op-ed piece published around the country Tuesday.

"Nearly 170 nations have joined the treaty, but the United States stands with the likes of Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, Syria and Somalia in failing to ratify it," he wrote.

But Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), the ranking minority member of the committee, says the treaty is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

"Unfortunately, some are confusing the very clear moral imperative to secure basic freedoms and liberties for women with pretense that a need exists to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)," Helms wrote in a letter to Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) Monday.

"The documented radical agenda of the committee established by CEDAW is undisputed. (Among other things, that committee has directed China to legalize prostitution and has criticized Belarus for establishing Mother's Day.)," Helms added.

"Moreover, there can be no doubt that CEDAW supporters are attempting to use this treaty to advance a radical abortion agenda. This is evident in [CEDAW] committee reports directing Ireland to legalize abortion, and criticizing Ireland for the Church's influence in public policy," he concluded.

Biden and Boxer dismissed Helm's claim.

"Opponents warn that the treaty's call for universal access to family planning is really a disguised call for a right to abortion services. That is a charge with no basis in fact," the pair wrote in their op-ed.

"In 1994, the State Department certified that the treaty is abortion-neutral; that same year, the Committee on Foreign Relations agreed to a proposal, sponsored by Sen. Jesse Helms, making clear that nothing in the treaty shall be construed as creating any right to an abortion," they added.

But Helms chastised the two for invoking his name inaccurately.

"I strongly disagree," he said, referring to the claim that CEDAW is "abortion neutral" because of his amendment. "The negotiated provision of my proposal was so watered-down, that the amendment would not result in CEDAW's radical abortion agenda being eliminated."

Helms noted that, despite the inclusion of a weakened version of his amendment, he voted against ratification of CEDAW in 1994 because of the pro-abortion nature of the treaty.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had written Biden, asking him to delay a vote on CEDAW while the department completes its review of "reservation, understandings, and declarations" the executive branch has with the language of the agreement, as well as its practical application by the U.N. implementation committee.

DOJ pointed to the same two examples Helms mentioned, expressing its reservations about the implementation committee.

"These are but two examples of the instances in which this committee has exploited CEDAW's vague text to advance positions contrary to American law and sensibilities," wrote Assistant Attorney General Daniel Bryant in a letter to Biden Friday.

Having passed the committee, the treaty can now be brought before the full Senate for ratification. A two-thirds majority, or 67 votes, would be required to ratify the treaty. No action is required in the House of Representatives.

Republican observers expect CEDAW to be brought up for a vote prior to the November mid-term elections, in an attempt to embarrass the Bush administration for its reservations about the vague language and implementation of the treaty.

E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.



TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; biden; boxer; cedaw; un; unlist

1 posted on 07/30/2002 10:34:07 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Plain and simple...anything UN = anti-American
2 posted on 07/30/2002 10:35:54 AM PDT by mattdono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Opponents warn that the treaty's call for universal access to family planning is really a disguised call for a right to abortion services.

When you say someone has "passed on", everyone knows knows they mean the person is dead.

When people talking about women's rights mention "family planning" and "reporductive services", everyone knows they are talking about abortion. Just let someone in the senate try attaching a rider to the treaty stating that the senate's understanding of "family planning" does not include abortion and watch how quickly it will be struck down by the same people who deny "family planning" means abortion.

3 posted on 07/30/2002 10:43:53 AM PDT by Brookhaven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RippleFire; Asmodeus; 11B3; Diogenesis; sugar_puddin; shaggy eel; Paleo Conservative; lowbridge; ...
ping
4 posted on 07/30/2002 10:44:02 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas; Carry_Okie
ping
5 posted on 07/30/2002 10:45:49 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamole; Fish out of Water; 2Jedismom; 2sheep; 4Freedom; Aliska; Alabama_Wild_Man; Aquinasfan; ...
ping
6 posted on 07/30/2002 10:51:40 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
But Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), the ranking minority member of the committee, says the treaty is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

No doubt, Giddy Liddy will take the same proud, eloquent stand.

7 posted on 07/30/2002 10:53:38 AM PDT by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mattdono
U.N. seeks to monitor conditions in prisons A high-level body of the United Nations last night brushed aside U.S. objections and accepted a new protocol to the international convention on torture that allows U.N. inspectors to monitor the treatment of prisoners inside the borders of sovereign countries
8 posted on 07/30/2002 10:57:46 AM PDT by USA21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: madfly

It will United Nations the power to come in to America to check on the 'Women's Rights' Treaty
9 posted on 07/30/2002 10:59:33 AM PDT by USA21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
More Marxism in the name of either chivalry or feminism, depending on which side of the floor you stand.
10 posted on 07/30/2002 10:59:54 AM PDT by Harrison Bergeron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The Ten Truths of Tyranny by

Michael Giwer(c) 1994 <9/30

1) Any law the electorate sees as being open to being perverted from its original intent will be perverted in a manner that exceeds the manner of perversion seen at the time.

2) Any law that is so difficult to pass it requires the citizens be assured it will not be a stepping stone to worse laws will in fact be a stepping stone to worse laws.

3) Any law that requires the citizens be assured the law does not mean what the citizens fear, means exactly what the citizens fear.

4) Any law passed in a good cause will be interpreted to apply to causes against the wishes of the people.

5) Any law enacted to help any one group will be applied to harm people not in that group.

6) Everything the government says will never happen will happen.

7) What the government says it could not foresee, the government has planned for.

8) When there is a budget shortfall to cover non-essential government services the citizens will be given the choice between higher taxes or the loss of essential government services.

9) Should the citizens mount a successful effort to stop a piece of legislation the same legislation will be passed under a different name.

10) All deprivations of freedom and choice will be increased rather than reversed.
11 posted on 07/30/2002 11:04:18 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Having passed the committee, the treaty can now be brought before the full Senate for ratification. A two-thirds majority, or 67 votes, would be required to ratify the treaty. No action is required in the House of Representatives.

Not a chance in hell of passage. There aren't THAT many RATS-in-GOP-clothing in the Senate.

Besides, can't Bush "unsign" this treaty right now, thus rendering the Senate ratification meaningless?

12 posted on 07/30/2002 11:13:21 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *UN_List
Index Bump
13 posted on 07/30/2002 11:18:11 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

What does this treaty really look like?

"Womyn have the right to experience any mood at any time for any reason, and men have no right to protest.
"Womyn have the right to cause men to wait as they survey their entire closet full of clothing for hours on end due to the fact that they can find nothing to wear.
"Womyn have the right for one week each month to visit any type of abuse, whether it be physical, mental, emotional or any other type, to any man anywhere without fear of reprisal or punishment.
"Womyn have the right to have the seat of any toilet within their range to be down at all times, except such time as a man urinates in such toilets. A man is under no circumstances allowed to "miss" the toilet and hit the rim, even if he cleans it. Both the crime of leaving up the toilet seat and missing the toilet are punishable by summary execution.
"Womyn have the right to ask questions such as, 'Do I look fat in this?' and, 'Do these pants make my butt look big?' and the like, and men, on pain of death, are required to answer emphatically in the negative.
"Womyn have the right to be free from being ogled by men, regardless of how much, how little or what kind of clothing they are wearing, unless they permit men to ogle them. Womyn are not required to tell men whether they permit such ogling, as men should just know.
"Womyn have the right not to be 'hit upon' by men, unless such action is permitted or desired by the womyn. Womyn are not required to tell men whether they permit such 'hitting,' as men should just know.
"Womyn have the right to equal pay for equal work, and equal treatment in all aspects of life, except during menstration. However, womyn have the right not to pay for their drinks or their dinner, movie, or other entertainment when with a man. Womyn have the right to expect men to open doors, carry heavy objects, kill nasty bugs, drive, fix any appliance and do anything that a womyn risks breaking a nail in the doing.
"When engaged in any conflict, womyn are always right and men are always wrong, regardless of the facts of the situation. Womyn are never wrong, and only apologize at their discretion."
14 posted on 07/30/2002 11:22:44 AM PDT by Conagher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
9) Should the citizens mount a successful effort to stop a piece of legislation the same legislation will be passed under a different name.

That just happened in California, with the anti-SUV law. A little legislative skullduggery took place and the process of passing the legislation was only delayed a couple of weeks.

15 posted on 07/30/2002 11:27:21 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This article was posted on the Home School Legal Defense Association web site on Thursday, July 25, 2002

National Action Alert: CEDAW Vote Postponed Again



On Thursday, July 25, 2002, The Senate Foreign Relations Committee again delayed a scheduled vote on the United Nation's Convention (treaty) on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The vote has been rescheduled for Tuesday, July 30. Chairman Joseph Biden has stated that the vote must come now in committee if the full Senate will have an opportunity to take up the treaty in September. We believe that a majority of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote in favor of CEDAW on Tuesday.

CEDAW represents an astounding transfer of influence over a nation's domestic policy to the United Nations. It is a direct threat to those Americans who respect the traditional family and American way of life. CEDAW is administered by a 23-member committee of experts at the UN. Given the broad language of the treaty to eliminate "stereotypes" and "traditional roles of women," it is conceivable that the freedom of home schoolers could be in jeopardy. Let me illustrate why we are so concerned. In 1999, the CEDAW Committee recommended the decriminalization of prostitution in China. It has expressed concern that Belarus celebrates Mother's Day, and lectured Armenia on the need to "combat the traditional stereotype of women in the noble role of mother." The Committee has stated that too many Slovenian mothers were staying home to raise their children. It has urged the nation of Andorra to order a review of textbooks concerning sex education used by the Catholic schools, given that a majority of young women attend Catholic schools in that country. The Washington Times reports that earlier this year the CEDAW committee criticized Belgium for failing to achieve recommended political quotas for that country. In response, Belgian officials announced a new law reserving 50 percent of all candidate slots for women.

Over 200 years ago, America fought a war so that we could decide issues of domestic policy for ourselves. We should not give this hard-fought right over to anyone other than our own elected representatives. Unlike some other nations, our Constitution places ratified treaties equal to the provisions of our Constitution and its bill of rights. CEDAW represents a direct threat to our nation's sovereignty.

Action Requested

At this time, we urge all HSLDA members to contact the majority leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, and the Senate minority leader, Trent Lott of Mississippi, and tell them that CEDAW should not be considered for ratification.

We also urge everyone to call their Senators and urge them not to ratify CEDAW.

To contact Senator Daschle, Lott and your Senators, you may access their number at www.hslda.org/toolbox , or contact the Capitol Switchboard at 202-225-3121.

Feel free to pass this email around to your friends and family as well. Our sources on Capitol Hill tell us that many Senators are on the fence about CEDAW. We need to convince them how dangerous this treaty really is.

Background

HSLDA Issues Folder on CEDAW
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/issues/U/UN_Women.asp

Washington Post: Senate Panel to Defy Bush, Vote on Women's Treaty
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21765-2002Jul17.html

The Washington Times: Review to 'delay' women's treaty
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020726-27598864.htm

Thank you for standing with us for freedom!
16 posted on 07/30/2002 11:41:59 AM PDT by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

17 posted on 07/30/2002 11:42:17 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
****Besides, can't Bush "unsign" this treaty right now, thus rendering the Senate ratification meaningless? ****

I don't know........but would appreciate a 'ping' if you find out.
18 posted on 07/30/2002 11:45:43 AM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Senators Boxer, Biden et al must realize that this treaty is a completely unacceptable surrendering of the soveriegn rights of this nation to an unelected international committee. There is no way they want this treaty to ever come into effect in this country. They are just counting on the Republicans to have the spine and principles to oppose the treaty and face the inevitable slander they will recieve in the popular press, just before mid-term elections.

Given what I have seen of Republicans recently, I wouldn't bet the farm on them having spine and principles. This treaty will probably pass, and GWB will probably sign it, lest the Pubbies offend the Brain-Dead-Soccer-Mom vote.

Face it, Republicans. You are never going to make serious inroads with the Brain-Dead-Soccer-Moms. Oppose this treaty and explain to the rest of the country why. The only votes you will lose are the votes of people who were going to vote against you anyway.

I mean, they can't vote twice, can they? (On second thought, don't answer that)

19 posted on 07/30/2002 11:58:41 AM PDT by gridlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
You know it's moments like this when I look back on dear old Trent and his mismanagement of the Senate. What a lump of coal in the rough he was, and IS. Well we have Dasshole now. Ever notice that the Dims enact every agenda item they possibly can while the getting is good, and the Republicans claim it will take 45 years to fix things. Wonder which is the winning strategy.
20 posted on 07/30/2002 12:06:18 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly

21 posted on 07/30/2002 12:55:57 PM PDT by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: madfly
,,, and the UN not only remains headquartered in New York, but is being renovated for the long haul. What a total waste of money when this is what's being churned out of this place.
22 posted on 07/30/2002 1:43:25 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
Just let someone in the senate try attaching a rider to the treaty stating that the senate's understanding of "family planning" does not include abortion and watch how quickly it will be struck down by the same people who deny "family planning" means abortion.

That is a great idea! Define "family planning" and expose their true intentions through their reactions.

23 posted on 07/30/2002 2:01:25 PM PDT by Ladysmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
WHY DO WOMEN NEED RIGHTS?Why do senators betray American ideals?
24 posted on 07/30/2002 2:20:47 PM PDT by INSENSITIVE GUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Stop the attacks by the wacko, extreme left-wing, UN-nazis terrorist's on our Freedoms !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

25 posted on 07/30/2002 2:49:32 PM PDT by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
When people talking about women's rights mention "family planning" and "reporductive services", everyone knows they are talking about abortion. Just let someone in the senate try attaching a rider to the treaty stating that the senate's understanding of "family planning" does not include abortion and watch how quickly it will be struck down by the same people who deny "family planning" means abortion.

But ... but ... This can't be true!!


To: Snuffington

Language is important.

Agreed.

the Body Politic
Vol. 01, No. 06 - June 1991, Page 8
Copyright © 1991, 1998 by the Body Politic Inc.


Title X - Quotable Quotes

Read My Lips!

We need to make population and family planning household words. We need to take the sensationalism out of this topic so that it can no longer be usedby militants who have no real knowledge of the voluntary nature of the program but, rather, are using it as a political stepping stone. If family planning is anything, it is a public health matter.

Rep. George Bush, 1969


Most important is that legislation be recognized as ... a health-care service mechanism and not a population control mechanism.

Rep. George Bush, 1970


As we amended the Social Security Act in 1967, I was impressed by the sensible approach of Alan Guttmacher, the obstetrician who served as president of Planned Parenthood. It was ridiculous, he told the committee, to blame mothers on welfare for having too many children when the clinics and hospitals they used were absolutely prohibited from saying a word about birth control. So we took the lead in Congress in providing money and urging -- in fact requiring -- that in the United States family planning services be available for every woman, not just the private patient with her own gynecologist.

George Bush (Foreword to World Population Crisis by Phyllis Piotrow), 1973

8 Posted on 09/09/2000 07:48:03 PDT by Askel5
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | ABORTION AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE | Last ]

See also, Recommendations of the Task Force on Earth Resources and Population (George H. Bush, Chairman) for more Talking Points.

26 posted on 07/30/2002 2:54:27 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Well.....THAT settles it......

If the Terrorist Team of "Biden and Boxer" is FOR it.....
...then Every American should rally against it !! !! !!


Henry might even say so...





27 posted on 07/30/2002 3:02:47 PM PDT by Alabama_Wild_Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
You might also add:

“ Today, Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true, if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond – whether real or promogated – that threatened our very existence. It is then that all the peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing that every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished with the guarantee of their well-being, granted to them by their world government. ”

— Henry Kissinger, 1991


28 posted on 07/30/2002 3:04:42 PM PDT by Alabama_Wild_Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; Anybody
The committee recommended ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) by a vote of 12 to seven.

Where did this come from; what's its history? Did Clintoon sign on to this? First the president has to sign the treaty then it goes to the Senate for ratification. Did the Executive branch get bypassed? That's unConstitional. What's going on?

29 posted on 07/30/2002 3:25:54 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
From the HSLDA today:

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Passes CEDAW

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed this morning, July 30, 2002, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This vote in favor of the treaty was not unexpected. We are pleased that some of the Senators which were "on the fence", came our way in the final hours. We are confident that your calls helped make the difference. The Senate now goes out of session until September. We will be in touch as we work on strategy to see to it that CEDAW is not ratified by the full Senate. Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) has indicated his intention of seeing the treaty ratified this fall. The following Senators voted in favor of the treaty at the Committee level: Biden (DE), Sarbanes (MD), Dodd (CT), Kerry (MA), Feingold (WI), Wellstone (MN), Boxer (CA), Torricelli (NJ), Nelson (FL), Rockefeller (WV), Smith (OR), Chafee (RI). The following voted to oppose the treaty in the Foreign Relations Committee: Helms (NC), Lugar (IN), Hagel (NE), Frist (TN), Allen (VA), Brownback (KS), Enzi (WY).
30 posted on 07/30/2002 4:26:33 PM PDT by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This will come to the President.

Time for a veto.

Will we get it?

Cheers,

Richard F.

31 posted on 07/30/2002 4:36:48 PM PDT by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Long Rant Self Deleted.

Neuter us all at birth and Utopia will be achieved for the NWO.

32 posted on 07/30/2002 4:55:25 PM PDT by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
An agreement to transfere the rights of women to UN legal control.....

Maybe the UN will do as good a job as it did with infectious disease kontrol in sub-Saharan Africa...

Imagine the soveriegn source of all rights comming from the UN .... subject to change without notice....
33 posted on 07/30/2002 4:59:10 PM PDT by martian_22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdf
This will come to the President. Time for a veto. Will we get it?

No, the treaty will not go to the President, and there is no opportunity for a veto. It was signed by a previous President, and will go into effect if it is ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate.

34 posted on 07/30/2002 6:10:43 PM PDT by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
The following Senators voted in favor of the treaty ...Smith (OR), Chafee (RI). RINOs OUT!!
35 posted on 07/30/2002 6:24:05 PM PDT by RFP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
Action BTTT......Let's Roll, Freepers!
36 posted on 07/30/2002 10:40:09 PM PDT by brat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing

Classic - that's a keeper!

37 posted on 07/30/2002 11:10:20 PM PDT by Free_at_last_-2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Free_at_last_-2001
bttt
38 posted on 07/31/2002 7:51:35 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: justshe; Timesink
****Besides, can't Bush "unsign" this treaty right now, thus rendering the Senate ratification meaningless? ****

I don't know........but would appreciate a 'ping' if you find out.

Me too, please...hope so, and sounds likely...or else no possible way the Senate will ratify by a 2/3 vote...

39 posted on 07/31/2002 10:48:51 AM PDT by 88keys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Well, we're going to miss old Jesse in January. But E. Dole will be there to vote opposite of how he would have done on a whole host of important issues. The NC Republicans have already thrown in the towel.
40 posted on 07/31/2002 10:52:06 AM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshe; 88keys
Okay, I did a little digging, and it is true: As long as Bush "unsigns" the treaty before the full Senate votes on it, it's ZESTfully dead, and any action the Senate takes is irrelevant. For plenty of proof, just go to Google and plug in "Bush CEDAW treaty unsign".

And again, I fully believe there's no way 2/3 of the Senate would vote to ratify anyway. You'd need every single RAT plus 16 truly left-wing Republicans, of which there are only two or three IMHO. (There are a lot of RINOs, but RINOs aren't nearly as bad as true leftists.)

Of course, it's also completely unconstitutional. The treaty would require the US to violate states' rights, destroy the First Amendment, force the US to report to the UN on how well we were implenting the treaty's demands (total violation os US soverignty), etc. If it did pass, some group would get a judge to issue an injunction, and it would spend a few years bouncing around the federal courts until the SCOTUS completely slam-dunked it 9-0.

Oh, one more thing: No matter what treaties, UN or otherwise, we may or may not ratify, the simple reality is that if the president wants to withdraw from one or simply ignore it, he can do so and nobody can stop him. This is just what Bush did with the START II treaty. He simply said "we're withdrawing," and that was the end of it.
41 posted on 07/31/2002 6:32:44 PM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Thanks! Appreciate your research!

(checking one 'worry' off my list)
42 posted on 07/31/2002 8:40:19 PM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener
No, the treaty will not go to the President, and there is no opportunity for a veto. It was signed by a previous President, and will go into effect if it is ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate.

Thanks for the correction. But see the posts below. There is still room for the Executive to act here.

I am not so sure about the Senate. I hope either the Senate shows nerve, or, if it seems likely not to, the President steps up to the plate.

Best to you,

Richard F.

43 posted on 07/31/2002 9:29:16 PM PDT by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rdf
I am quitting FR.

Ask the management if you want to know why.

Farewell,

Richard F.

44 posted on 08/01/2002 2:07:02 PM PDT by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: rdf
Here is one last thing, for America and the common good.

Dear Colleague,

On Monday we will have an urgent action alert related to today's Friday
Fax. There is concern in the US Senate that CEDAW may be approaching
ratification. Pro-CEDAW forces are very organized.

I want to point out that the Friday Fax is written not by me but by
Douglas A. Sylva who is C-FAM's Director of Research. He has been writing
it for over a year and I do not know what we would do without him. Doug is
in the current issue of National Review Online with an article on AIDS.

Spread the word.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
President

Goodbye!

Richard F.

45 posted on 08/01/2002 2:15:10 PM PDT by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson