Thank you for crediting me (July 17 editorial) with blocking
Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Most American women would
thank me for this if they ever read the treaty.
The notion is
ridiculous that American women (the most fortunate class of people
who ever lived) should submit to a treaty that dictates uniform
rules for 130 other nations (all of which treat women worse than the
Ratification would be craven kowtowing to the
radical feminists, exceeded only by the treaty's unlimited capacity
for legal mischief. It would be a massive interference with U.S.
laws as well as with our federal-state balance of
Article 2 states that the
treaty would "eliminate discrimination against women by any person,
organization or enterprise," including "customs and practices," as
well as all "public institutions." This would include mandating the
longtime feminist goal of a gender-neutral military.
11 would chain us to the feminist goal that wages should be paid on
subjective notions of "equal value" (that is, the discredited notion
of "comparable worth") rather than on objective standards of equal
work. It would also require another long-time feminist goal, a
federal "network of child-care facilities."
Article 16 would
require us to allow women "to decide freely and responsibly on the
number and spacing of their children." This is feminist jargon to
lock the United States into a perpetual treaty obligation to allow
abortions at any time for any reason.
On the other hand, this
language would not protect Chinese women victimized by their
government's policy of forced abortions because China takes the
position that it is not "responsible" for a woman to bear more than
To monitor U.S. compliance, Article 17 sets up a
committee of "23 experts." No doubt that means "experts" in feminist
ideology and tactics, such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barbara Boxer
and Patricia Schroeder.
The treaty's international "experts"
have already issued negative reports about the practices of
countries that were rash enough to ratify the treaty. They
criticized Ireland for "promoting a stereotypical view of the role
of women in the home and as mothers," Belarus for "such symbols as a
Mother's Day," Slovenia because "less than 30 percent of children
under 3 years of age were in formal day care." They recommended "the
decriminalization of prostitution in China."
The treaty would
clearly diminish the rights and benefits American women now enjoy,
as well as give extraordinary powers over U.S. laws to busybody
We hope the U.S. Senate will have the
good judgment to leave it in the bottom drawer where it has been for
more than 20 years.
Phyllis Schlafly, Ladue
Whining feminist? Not quite. Concerned young woman?
I am a 21-year-old college student who supports
ratification of the international treaty eliminating all forms of
discrimination against women.
I commend you for the editorial
urging ratification of the treaty banning discrimination against
women. By not signing the treaty, the U.S. holds hands with
countries that we openly criticize for their degrading policies
regarding women. We stand with countries like Iran and Sudan, which
have yet to implement national policies supporting women's
What message is the U.S. sending by not signing this
treaty? The U.S. should be the leading country in promoting human
rights for all citizens. I encourage Attorney General John Ashcroft
to move the treaty to the Senate floor so I can proudly say I am an
American woman who supports all women worldwide in their struggle
for the rights I enjoy daily.
Jennifer Swan, O'Fallon,