The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

[Anonymous]

I read an article on the CNN website that is beyond disturbing today.

CEDAW was sdopted by the UN in 1979. 186 member states have committed on paper to establishing equality in health care, education, political participation, employment and marriage and combating gender related violence and sex trafficking. There are 7 countries around the globe who haven't ratified it including: Iran, Palau, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tonga and the United States.

In order for the US to ratify the treaty, two thirds of the Senate must vote in favor of it. It has never made it to floor for a vote. And lest you think that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment provides gender equality here's what Antonin Scalia has to say on the topic in the January 2011 issue of California Lawyer:

"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't".

This is soul-crushing and makes me weep for my daughters. I urge those who feel the same to become active in the renewed effort to pass The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) which was passed in 1972 by both houses of Congress but only ratified by 35 (it needed 38). The states that never saw fit to ratify the ERA include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

I'm especially talking to you Virginia. Make passage of the ERA an important factor in your vote in 2016.

[Anonymous]

Just because of the yawn comment on the Equal Pay thread, I'm bumping this. When Antonin Scalia makes comment like the following, people need to pay attention. If not for themselves then for their daughters or wives. It's ridiculous that we are one of seven countries in the world not to have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination of Women.

"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't". - Antonin Scalia

Are you really comfortable with this comment and position?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because of the yawn comment on the Equal Pay thread, I'm bumping this. When Antonin Scalia makes comment like the following, people need to pay attention. If not for themselves then for their daughters or wives. It's ridiculous that we are one of seven countries in the world not to have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination of Women.

"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't". - Antonin Scalia

Are you really comfortable with this comment and position?

When I read the REST of his comments that you omitted, I am fine with it....

"You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because of the yawn comment on the Equal Pay thread, I'm bumping this. When Antonin Scalia makes comment like the following, people need to pay attention. If not for themselves then for their daughters or wives. It's ridiculous that we are one of seven countries in the world not to have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination of Women.

"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't". - Antonin Scalia

Are you really comfortable with this comment and position?

When I read the REST of his comments that you omitted, I am fine with it....

"You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about."

Legislation can always be rolled back. Why don't women warrant specific mention in the Constitution? We are talking about over half the population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because of the yawn comment on the Equal Pay thread, I'm bumping this. When Antonin Scalia makes comment like the following, people need to pay attention. If not for themselves then for their daughters or wives. It's ridiculous that we are one of seven countries in the world not to have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination of Women.

"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't". - Antonin Scalia

Are you really comfortable with this comment and position?

When I read the REST of his comments that you omitted, I am fine with it....

"You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about."

Here's what Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to say at an event at the National Press Club last April moderated by Marvin Kalb:

"If I could choose an amendment to add to this Constitution, it would be the Equal Rights Amendment," she said.

"What do you mean by that?" asked the moderator, Marvin Kalb.

"It means that women are people equal in stature before the law," she said. "We have achieved that through legislation, but legislation can be repealed. It can be altered. ... That principle belongs in our Constitution. It is in every constitution written since the Second World War."

When her granddaughters pick up the U.S. Constitution, Ginsburg added, she'd "like them to see that that is a basic principle of our society."

[Anonymous]

We’re talking the US Govt. here. Legislation is almost NEVER rolled back.
I think this is a non-issue considering what we are dealing with in today’s world.
And..... I am a woman.

[Anonymous]

1979 eh? What was the United State's position from 1993 - 2001? Surely we could have gotten through with some leadership from a president who's views on women were of history making levels.

[Anonymous]

The ERA???? Wow, feminists need more hobbies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’re talking the US Govt. here. Legislation is almost NEVER rolled back.
I think this is a non-issue considering what we are dealing with in today’s world.
And..... I am a woman.

Did you miss the gutting of the Voting Rights Act that happened two years ago?

[Anonymous]

Hell no. Have you read up on that document? I don't consider unrestricted abortion access a "fundamental human right." I hope we never ratify this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hell no. Have you read up on that document? I don't consider unrestricted abortion access a "fundamental human right." I hope we never ratify this.

Either do I. Killing unborn babies is murder.

[Anonymous]

Did you miss the gutting of the Voting Rights Act that happened two years ago?

It was not gutted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hell no. Have you read up on that document? I don't consider unrestricted abortion access a "fundamental human right." I hope we never ratify this.

Show me what in the document even mentions abortion. You are talking through your ass or another part of your anatomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ERA???? Wow, feminists need more hobbies.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Did you miss the gutting of the Voting Rights Act that happened two years ago?

It was not gutted.

NP. How would you describe what happened?