Posted on 08/13/2002 3:25:03 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted out the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, known as CEDAW. Every single Democrat and two Republicans voted in favor of this measure. The two Republicans supporting CEDAW were Sen. Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI), who is consistently at odds with his Republican colleagues, and Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR). Smith is in a tough re-election campaign and Oregon is a very liberal state.
It is encouraging that two moderate Republicans, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), voted against the treaty. That is probably because the treaty would require changes in American law respecting abortion. Several European nations that have abortion restrictions, Ireland, Belgium and Portugal, and Poland, which is seeking entrance to the European Union, have been told that because they ratified this treaty their abortion restrictions are null and void. This attack on their sovereignty is causing major political upheavals in these countries.
President George W. Bush is a strong supporter of the Hyde Amendment, which forbids federal funding of abortion. That law would be struck down by CEDAW. Congress may at last pass a partial birth abortion bill and the president will sign it. But if this treaty is ratified, that law, along with those passed by state legislatures, would be declared null and void. The treaty has language that is interpreted to mean that abortion is a fundamental right for women. So the president's hope that abortion will be eliminated in years to come will not be a reality if this treaty is ratified.
The president has no direct role in the ratification of this treaty. Only the Senate gets to act on the measure. It will take two thirds of those present and voting to ratify. But the president can speak his mind on the treaty. If he urges its defeat, the grass roots will be excited and will get out to vote in this election.
With seven Republicans on the committee voting no, there is reason to hope that the treaty will not get the two-thirds needed for ratification. Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and John Breaux of Louisiana usually vote pro life. They might well vote with the 41 Republicans who usually cast votes in support of the right to life. There are some other Democrats who sometimes vote pro life. It remains to be seen if they will oppose this treaty. But if the president were to come out swinging, asking the Senate to oppose ratification of the treaty, it would almost certainly mean that two-thirds of the Senate would not vote to approve it.
Other measures may be affected by CEDAW. Years ago the states did not ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, despite the fact that Congress extended the ratification period by three years. Well, this treaty may well be the Equal Rights Amendment plus. What the states failed to ratify could be ratified by the U.S. Senate. This is a question of sovereignty. Most treaties do impinge upon the sovereignty of the nation. But this treaty really overrides much of American sovereignty.
The president has an excellent record on pro-life issues. If he speaks out on this issue, he will earn the plaudits of all those who value life.
This is a Congress that can't get around to voting on critical measures, such as prohibiting cloning. But the leadership may find time to vote on CEDAW. Your Senators should know how you feel on this issue. Take no one for granted. But also urge the president to get involved. He has nothing to lose and a lot to gain.
We must retake the Senate. Allowing the Democrats the ability to ratify treaties like this one will mean the death of the Republic.
Looks like the RINO's will have a say in this too Jim.
Torricelli is now vulnerable but, unfortunately, at this juncture I think he will be re-elected. Why? Because he is sure to pull some dirty tricks out of the hat. Also, I fear that Forrester is being advised by the same lunkheads as Brett Shundler. I had some indirect contacts with some of Shundler's campaign (via a friend who knew them) and begged that Shundler call in to the Howard Stern show for just a lousy FIVE minutes. That's all that would have been needed for Howard to have asked his listeners to vote for Shundler. If he had, Shundler would have won. When I got the message back that Shundlers people nixed that idea, I almost put a fist thru my 'puter screen in frustration at the sheer stupidity on their part.
And I fear the SAME THING will be repeated by Forrester. I don't know what goes what goes thru the minds of a lot of these campaign strategists but it must not be much. Calling in to Howard's show does NOT mean the candidate is making an oath to Satan or even approving of a lot of what Howard says. I've heard some folks on this forum says it would somehow "lower" a candidate to call in to Howard's show. Well, I don't think it is any worse than for a candidate to kiss strange babies or a whole plethora of things that must be done to win.
Yeah, perhaps Forrester will keep his "moral purity" by not going on Howard's show but come November he will also have a LOSER tag like Shundler. A tag which could be EASILY AVOIDED by a mere five minute phone call.
Sorry for the rant, but since I am soon planning to write an article about the "Howard Stern Factor" in politics, some of my thoughts on this topic sort of came to the surface.
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.