Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

February-25-04

History of CEDAW

The U.S. was active in drafting the Convention and signed it on July 17,1980. It was transmitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in November, 1980. In the summer of 1990, the Committee held hearings on the Convention. At that time, the State Department testified that it had not prepared a legal analysis of the convention to determine how it comports with U.S. law.

In the Spring of 1993, sixty-eight senators signed a letter to President Clinton, asking him to take the necessary steps to ratify the Women's Convention. In June of 1993, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher announced at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna that the Administration would move on the Women's convention and other human rights treaties.

In September 1994, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported out favorably on the Convention, by a vote of 13 to 5 (with one abstention). Unfortunately, this occurred in the last days of the Congressional session, when several senators put a hold on the Convention, thereby blocking it from the Senate floor during the 103rd Congress. When the new Senate convened in January 1995, the Convention was submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations committee for action, where it remained at the end of the 104th Congress in October 1996.

On March 8, 1999, International Women's Day, Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) , Chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, made a statement on the Senate Floor expressing his deep concerns over the increased efforts to bring CEDAW to a hearing and eventual ratification.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), on April 12, 2000, introduced S. Res. 286 in support of CEDAW. S. Res. 286 expresses the sense of the Senate that the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations should hold hearings and the Senate should act on CEDAW by July 19, 2000.

The U.S. has put four reservations, three understandings, and two declarations on the Convention (see "Glossary" for full explanation of these terms). The reservations state that the U.S. is not obligated to any of the following: "Assigning" women to all units of military service (though women are free to participate in any), mandating paid maternity leave (article 11-2-b), legislating equality in the private sector (articles 2,3,5), and ensuring comparable worth(equal pay for work of equal value). The understandings say that the state and federal implementations will be made according to the appropriate jurisdiction, that no restrictions will be made to the freedom of speech, expression, or association under the Convention (articles 5,7,8, 13), and that any free health services to benefit women will be determined by states and not automatically mandated by U.S. ratification of CEDAW(article 12). The declarations made are that the convention is "non self-executing," and that disputes on interpretation of the Convention will be handled on a "case-by-case" (articles 29-2, 29-1).

The Convention needs 2/3 of the votes, or 67 "yes" votes, for the Senate to consent to ratification. Action by the House of Representatives is not required for ratification to international treaties. To date, five states, California, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and South Dakota, have endorsed U. S. Ratification in their state legislatures.



Sources:
"Action Alert"
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs
122 C Street, NW, Suite 125
Washington, DC 20001-2172


National Committee on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (fact sheet).
520 N. Camden Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210-3202


Grassroots organizing packets can be obtained through:
National Committee on U. N./CEDAW
Billie Heller, Chair, UN/CEDAW
520 N. Camden Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210-3202
(310)271-8087


The Working Group on the Women's Human Rights Treaty
Pat Rengel, Amnesty International, U.S.A., (202) 675-8577
Kit Cosby, Bahais of the U.S., (202) 833-8990

Media Resources: Feminist Majority Foundation


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

1/23/2015 #HeForShe Campaign Launches Pilot Effort Aimed at Institutional Equality - The United Nations' gender equality campaign #HeForShe has launched a new program called IMPACT 10X10X10. United Nations Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson, together with UN Women Executive DirectorPhumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, introduced the one-year pilot effort aimed at encouraging corporations, universities, and governments to play an active role in enhancing women's empowerment and equality in Davos, Switzerland today at the World Economic Forum. "Women need to be equal participants in our homes, societies, in our governments, and in our workplaces," Watson said. First introduced in September, HeForShe is a solidarity movement that calls on men and boys to confront gender inequalities that face women and girls globally. . . .
 
1/22/2015 BREAKING: House to Vote on Abortion Coverage Ban - After they were forced to scrap plans for a 20-week abortion ban, House Republican leaders decided late last night to instead ram through a vote today on a different extreme anti-abortion bill. House Republicans are now pushing HR 7, a bill promoted as a ban on federal funding of abortion that would actually prevent women from using their own money to purchase health insurance that includes abortion care. . . .
 
1/22/2015 House Cancels Abortion Ban After GOP Congresswomen Drop Support - House Republicans cancelled plans to vote on a 20-week ban on abortion after Republican Congresswomen removed their names publicly as co-sponsors of the bill. The vote on the unconstitutional 20-week ban had originally been scheduled for today, the anniversary of Roe v. . . .