As if women don't have enough rights. Now we have CEDAW (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women), also known as the “Women's Bill of Rights.”
It seems, there are those who think this is necessary to ensure the full development and advancement of women, equal to men. When, in reality, especially in the United States, women’s rights are greater than men's, as you will agree as you read on.
If the Senate ratifies it, feminists will have a weapon for federalizing and rewriting all family laws in the United States. This is all we need -- more disintegration of the family and more immorality.
Aside from civil rights issues, CEDAW also affirms women's right to reproductive choice. It is the only human rights treaty to mention abortions. Ah, there's the real objective of this treaty.
In plain English, women should have a right to have their unborn child killed. Countries which already have laws on the book guaranteeing abortion on demand, want to make sure that all other countries sign the pact with satan. Misery loves company.
The truth is that CEDAW is the radical anti-woman treaty that besides killing their own child, seeks to legalize prostitution, end Mother's Day, and violate US sovereignty!
It is coming up for a full Senate vote this fall. Crafted by radical feminists, "CEDAW" was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1979 and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1980.
During Ronald Reagan's Administration CEDAW appeared dead and has lain dormant in the Senate for two decades.
But with a shift of power in the Senate and the Democrats now holding a one vote advantage, CEDAW was revived by the new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden, a Democrat (surprise) and a supposed Catholic. Need I remind you Biden's voting record in promoting abortion is atrocious.
Two weeks ago, Biden rammed CEDAW through the committee 12 to 7. Now, it is only a Senate vote away from becoming U.S. law.
Consider how the 23 "experts" the U.N. selected to oversee the implementation of CEDAW have interpreted it. Belarus was admonished for celebrating "Mother's Day." China was told to decriminalize prostitution. Belgium was ripped for not achieving quotas for women, and responded by reserving 50 percent of all candidate slots for women.
The CEDAW committee rapped the Irish for voting down legalized abortion, attributing it to Church influence in maintaining old "attitudes and stereotypes."
In its 1998 compliance report, cited by the Washington Times, the U.N. experts attacked Croatia's freedom of conscience law, which exempts doctors opposed to abortion from having to perform them, as "an infringement of women's reproductive rights."
Why should the United States, which has saved the world from annihilation over and over again and has given billions of dollars to rebuild countries and to feed and clothe them, sign a global treaty, which would force an ideological conformity on America?
Why does a country, which already has laws against gender discrimination have to sign such a treaty?
As a matter of fact, in the United States, women actually have MORE rights and more power than men. They dictate, who lives or dies. In the past 30 years, women have decreed that 42 million unborn children must be killed and they were killed, even while being born and suffering excruciating pain.
Wow! This is power. And we went along with it. We said, if they want to kill their child, they should have that right.
When women get pregnant, they don't need permission from the father of their child to have their child killed. Makes no difference if married, or not. If the father says no, that's just too bad. He has no rights.
Ah, but the father cannot escape from supporting the child for the next 18 years, married or not, if the mother has a conscience and decides to let her child live.
So, that being the case, it is only fair that the father have equal rights in determining if his child lives, or dies. You can't have it both ways, but women do. The last I heard, it still takes two to tango.
Just recently, such a case was all over the media. Tanya Meyers was given permission by a Pennsylvania judge to proceed with an abortion that another judge had temporarily stopped.
Her ex-boyfriend John Stachokus obtained a temporary injunction forestalling the abortion. He wanted his girlfriend to carry the baby to term and he being the father, would take care of the child. He did not want his child killed.
But, it was ruled that he had no say. He was just the father. So, it is obvious that it is men who do not have equal rights.
I can understand a global treaty for equal rights for men It can be called CEDAM (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Men), or “Men’s Bill of Rights.” Of course that name might not be too popular right now
since it so closely sounds like Saddam. On the other hand, it might curry more notice of the plight of the very men who are willing to give their lives for our country in a possible war in Iraq, but have no say as to the life of their offspring.
A father is supposed to protect his child. Well, so is the mother, but it’s obvious that motherly love and protection has almost come to a screeching halt. Women have swallowed the bait -- hook, line and sinker of radical feminists, that killing certain children, will improve their life, while just the opposite is true. Click: Abortion Vs Childbirth.
What used to be the safest place on Earth, the mother’s womb, is now the most dangerous. Women should not be clamoring for more rights, until they learn how to use what they have, unselfishly.
Over 42 million deaths in the United States alone in the past 30 years, proves this point. Have you ever heard of pro-choice women condemning the amount of abortions being done? They don't even want partial-birth infanticides banned. They don't even want parents to be notified if their young daughter is about to have her child killed. It might make for less abortions being done and feminists want none of that.
This is why they vote for Democratic candidates. This party has no shame and no fear of God. I guess it is true -- birds of a feather, flock together.
Would you believe that there is country, which recently passed a law, that would give the father an equal say if his unborn child lives, or dies? Was it the USA, or some other highly developed country? Wrong, it was that ungodly communist country -- CHINA.
Husbands in China are about to become legally entitled to urge their wives to desist from taking part in planned abortions. The change comes in the new Law on Family Planning and Population, which took effect on September 1st this year.
A husband will, for the first time, be able to seek legal assistance if his wife has an abortion without notifying him, according to the new law.
But, here in the USA, men do NOT have equal rights. The rationale used, is that the organ (uterus) for the developing child is in her body.
She's the one that has to carry her child for nine months and this could be a big drawback for her. It may interfere with her immediate plans.
They say that convenience and worldly pleasures should take precedence over human life, even if that life is their own flesh and blood.
Also, the decision to kill one's child should be the result of the thought process of just one brain, since human life is more expendable than money.
No need to complicate matters by having more input -- after all, we're just talking about the life of a human being. It's not as if it were a divorce settlement, which all parties participate and which brings me to another point.
If we were to take this “own body -- my hardship -- my time” approach, then divorce community property laws in many states should be abolished.
Community property is, "all property, real or personal, acquired by a married person during the marriage." In other words, each spouse owns a one-half interest in any property acquired from the date of their marriage to the date of their separation.
If a husband has a great head on his shoulders for making money and worked 16 hours a day for 30 years and has accumulated millions of dollars, his wife at a divorce settlement gets one-half of everything, even though she never brought in one penny and even though she spent most of her time traveling the world, had maids and had nannies raising their children.
So, in view of husbands having no say as to their child's life, even though the child has one-half of his chromosomes, because the child's life was the result of his wife's fertile uterus, which is in HER body, then, to be fair, the wife should have no say in the divorce settlement, because all the property and monies accumulated were the result of the husband's fertile brain, which is in HIS body. Apparently there's a law that I am unaware, regarding organs -- a uterus trumps a brain?
So, it is apparent that women want to have their cake and eat it too. It reminds me of the saying," what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine."
Am I missing something here? Women, my advice to you, is to quit while you're ahead. Quit before men get fed up with your whining and your “I want more rights, I want more rights” You need more rights like an unborn child needs more Democrats in the Senate.
The part that boggles my mind and it has never addressed is that when a woman gets pregnant, she has already taken advantage of her reproductive rights.
At least, they should be truthful in writing a treaty. Don't words mean anything anymore? To be honest and legal, they should say, “a woman's right to have her unborn child killed." It has nothing to do with “reproductive rights.” When the woman conceives, her reproductive rights are over -- EL FIN, THE END.
Is it possible that in some countries, woman are tied down, or are forced to wear chastity belts, so they can't have sexual intercourse? But, we know that's not the case.
Let's face it, the main purpose of this treaty is to guarantee that unborn children can be killed the world over, at the whim of their mothers.
They can go ahead and write the treaty with all its flawed language. It wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on. Unless the wording is correct, it is a sham. It cannot be enforced.
If the law/treaty is broken, the accused country can say, WE DID NOT interfere with her reproductive rights. She was free to have sexual intercourse and get pregnant anytime she wanted to.
So, if words still have meaning and “is” still means “is,” the accused country should win their case easily, even if represented by a first year law student, or the bag-boy at my supermarket.
So, you feminists, go ahead and embrace this treaty and continue to use all of your sugar coated words for death and you Democratic senators, who act as if there is no God and apparently don't know the meaning of words, thanks to your mentor, Bill Clinton -- vote for it. It is a waste and can't stand the test of time, if the words remain “A WOMAN'S REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.”
Unless, of course, there are still certain countries left over from medieval times, which force women to wear chastity belts, to prevent them from having sexual intercourse and thus they are deprived from getting pregnant. (their reproductive freedom). If this is the case -- then never mind.
Since the senators have just finished their August recess, you probably can't catch them in their state offices.
But you can catch them in Washington this month.
Please call your US Senators now and tell them to vote to oppose CEDAW. Your call WILL help. Believe me, the other side is calling all the time. You can get your senators' phone numbers by going to their websites. While you are there, it would be great if you would also send them an e-mail. Most senators do not respond to regular e-mails. They will just tell you to go to their website to write to them. Click here for webpages of all the senators or use this toll free number for their Washington offices: 877-762-8762