On November 18, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law held a hearing, “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights: U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).”
Chair Richard Durbin (D-IL) noted that this was the first Senate hearing on CEDAW in eight years and the first time the Judiciary Committee has ever held a hearing on whether to ratify a human rights treaty. Sen. Durbin continued, “CEDAW is the only treaty to focus on the human rights of women. It addresses issues like violence against women, sex trafficking, the right to vote, and access to education. Why do we need it? Because the human rights of women and girls are violated at an alarming rate all over the world. One example: violence against women is at epidemic levels. In south Asia, countless women and girls are burned with acid, including Afghan girls attacked by the Taliban for the simple act of attending elementary school. And literally hundreds of thousands of women have been raped in the Democratic Republic of Congo and other conflict situations…CEDAW is not a cure all…but it’s had a real impact on improving the lives of women and girls around the world.”
Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer discussed the moral leadership the United States has provided around the world in emphasizing the need for ratification of the treaty, also known as the Women’s Treaty. She said, “In my time at the State Department, I have visited scores of countries and met with women from all walks of life, from human rights activists in Russia, to microcredit recipients and small business entrepreneurs in rural South Asia, to survivors of rape and conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In my travels, the number one question I am asked time and time again is, ‘Why hasn’t the United States ratified CEDAW?’ It is understandable that I continue to receive this question everywhere I go. The United States has long stood for the principles of equal justice, the rule of law, respect for women, and the defense of human dignity. We know that women around the world look to the United States as a moral leader on human rights. And yet when it comes to the Women’s Treaty, which reflects the fundamental principle that women’s rights are human rights, we stand with only a handful of countries that have not ratified, including Somalia, Iran, and Sudan – countries with some of the worst human rights records in the world. We stand alone as the only industrialized democracy in the world that has not ratified the Women’s Treaty. And we stand on the sidelines, unable to use the Women’s Treaty to join with champions of human rights who seek to use it as a means to protect and defend women’s basic human rights…Some governments use the fact that the U.S. has not ratified the treaty as a pretext for not living up to their own obligations under it. Our failure to ratify also deprives us of a powerful tool to combat discrimination against women around the world, because as a non-party, it makes it more difficult for us to press other parties to live up to their commitments under the treaty. The United States is firmly committed to the principles of women’s equality as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Our ratification will send a powerful and unequivocal message about our commitment to equality for women across the globe. It will lend much needed validation and support to advocates fighting the brutal oppression of women and girls everywhere, who seek to replicate in their own countries the strong protections against discrimination that we have in the United States. And it will signal that the United States stands with the women of the world.”
Samuel Bagenstos, principal deputy assistant attorney general, Civil Rights Division, noted that “The Department of Justice enforces and administers numerous laws that protect the rights of women and that are consistent with CEDAW.” He explained “The Department of Justice is committed to reducing domestic and sexual violence, and we continue to use the tools that Congress has provided in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) [P.L. 109-162] and subsequent legislation. Since the enactment of this landmark legislation in 1994, the Justice Department has prosecuted more than 2,600 cases under criminal provisions that target domestic violence abusers. These cases often involve the most aggressive and violent abusers who cross state lines to pursue their victims. The Department has also used stronger cyber stalking laws and the latest technology to prosecute cases that would be difficult for the states to pursue…CEDAW addresses the specific challenges facing women who live in rural areas, and the Office on Violence Against Women is addressing many of those concerns. OVW’s [Office on Violence Against Women] Rural Program enhances the safety of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking in rural communities by supporting projects designed to address and prevent these crimes in rural jurisdictions…The administration has also placed a priority on addressing crimes involving violence against women on tribal lands. After extensive consultations with tribal leaders, the Department announced significant reforms and enhanced resources to increase prosecution of crimes committed on tribal lands, with a particular focus on crimes of violence against women and children. The Department is also working diligently to implement the recently enacted Tribal Law and Order Act [P.L. 111-211], a comprehensive bill aimed at improving public safety on tribal lands which, among other things, requires sexual assault protocols in Indian Health Service facilities and training on sexual assault for law enforcement officers serving tribal communities.” Mr. Bagenstos added, “Article 6 of CEDAW specifically addresses the evils of human trafficking – evils that are well known by this subcommittee. The United States has been a leader in addressing this global problem, and, in passing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) [P.L. 106-386], Congress expressly noted the disproportionate impact of human trafficking on women and children…The department has vigorously enforced TVPA to vindicate the rights of women and girls who have been exploited for labor, services, or commercial sex.”
Steven Groves, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, argued against U.S. ratification of the Women’s Treaty, saying, “The United States should become party to a treaty only if membership would advance U.S. national interests. For a human rights treaty such as CEDAW, national interests may be characterized in both domestic and international terms. Only if U.S. membership in CEDAW would advance the cause of women’s rights domestically and further U.S. national interests in the world should the United States consider ratification of the treaty. Domestically, ratification of CEDAW is not needed to end gender discrimination nor advance women’s rights. The United States already has effective avenues of enforcement in place to effectively combat discrimination based on sex. Specifically, in addition to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the United States has in place a wide range of state and federal laws to protect and advance women’s rights concerning their employment, compensation, housing, education, and other areas. Federal laws include, but are not limited to: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of, inter alia, sex and has been interpreted to prohibit sexual harassment or the creation of a hostile working environment; The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, enacted in 1978, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and childbirth; The Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in regard to the compensation paid to men and women for substantially equal work performed in the same establishment; The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing on the basis of, inter alia, sex; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs or activities; The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, enacted in 1974, which prohibits discrimination against credit applicants on the basis of, inter alia, sex; The Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which was intended to improve criminal justice and community responses to acts of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which revised the statute of limitations requirements in equal-pay lawsuits to assist women in recovering wages lost due to discrimination. Taking this extensive legal framework into consideration, it is difficult to imagine how membership in CEDAW will further advance the protections provided to women in the United States. In fact, the protections provided by the U.S. Constitution and existing U.S. law exceed the provisions in the treaty. This legal framework serves as a foundation that can be modified or expanded as necessary through the democratic process.” Mr. Groves added, “Those who say that ratification would allow the United States to claim the moral high ground within the international community – at least in regard to women’s rights – imply that the United States is deficient in protecting those rights, when in truth the United States has been a leader and standard bearer for empowering women. It already holds the moral high ground. Ratifying a treaty merely to score points overseas is not a sound justification for a decision that could have unforeseen or negative domestic ramifications…Moreover, the United States has demonstrated in the past and continues to demonstrate its commitment to women’s rights not just in the U.S., but around the world as well, regardless of the fact that it is not a member of CEDAW. The presence at this very hearing of Ambassador Melanne Verveer, the first Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, is only the latest indication that the U.S. is committed to the political, economic, and social empowerment of women around the globe. Secretary Clinton’s establishment of the International Fund for Women further indicates that the U.S. government is continually formulating programs for the advancement of women’s causes outside of the United States. While everyone may not agree with the policy aims of these programs, these acts by the United States are far more relevant to women in need around the world than U.S. membership in an international convention. In short, to assert that the United States lacks credibility on the issue of international women’s rights due to its non-membership in CEDAW is simply specious.”
Wazhma Frogh, an activist with the Afghan Women’s Network, said, “Afghan women have mobilized under the umbrella of the Afghan Women’s Network (AWN), the organization that I represent here today. This is a network of 65 women’s organizations with 3,000 members. We use international human rights conventions, particularly CEDAW, to integrate women’s voices in Afghanistan’s reconstruction processes and to deliver real change for women every day. Some have asked whether CEDAW really makes a difference in countries that have very poor human rights records. We have proof that it does. This treaty has led to dramatic progress for women, which just a few years ago we did not believe was possible.” Citing a few successes achieved through CEDAW, Mr. Frogh said, “The Afghan Constitution, approved in 2004, laid the foundation for women’s rights in Afghanistan. Women’s groups and activists used CEDAW’s framework to lobby for the inclusion and enactment of Article 22, which states that Afghan women and men are equal before the law. Since the country had no significant history for such an argument to be accepted by the Grand Assembly of elders and conservative elements, CEDAW was the main basis for advocacy.” She added, “No matter how challenging it might seem, we have the experience of working with religious scholars using CEDAW as a driving force for promoting women’s rights. I developed and led a campaign called ‘Media and Mullah’ in which we worked through 300 mosques in five provinces to create public education forums through Friday prayers. Those public education campaigns were mainly developed under CEDAW’s framework for women’s human rights. We compared those rights with Islamic rights, trying to prove that nothing goes against religion if we address women’s human rights in Afghanistan. Just as the terrorists have twisted the religion of Islam to justify heinous acts, we have fought back to reclaim the true spirit of compassion and humanity in Islam. Though it may be surprising to some, religious leaders and scholars around Afghanistan have been our allies and partners in promoting women’s rights. Using CEDAW and the new Afghan Constitution, we adopted the first-ever violence against women law in 2009. Previously, the idea that family violence (husbands against wives) would be illegal was almost unthinkable. Yet, AWN worked with its national and international partners for almost five years to develop and lobby for the Elimination of Violence Against Women Law (EVAW). In a country where violence and discrimination against women are the everyday reality, EVAW enactment was not an easy task. The struggle started right at the doorstep of the Afghan government, the Ministry of Justice. Once again, we used CEDAW’s framework, this time coupled with constitutional guarantees, and lobbied for the government’s compliance with its legal commitments. The changes are dramatic. The law made rape a crime in Afghanistan for the first time. While forced marriages and early marriages are common practice in Afghanistan, the new law nullifies for the first time any under-age marriage or marriages without consent of the girl. Previously, this was commonplace and there were no repercussions. Today, because of CEDAW and this new law, men are actually being brought to court and to jail on a daily basis for violating women’s rights. This new law implements CEDAW Article 16, which calls on governments to eliminate discrimination around issues of marriage.”
Geena Davis, actor and founder of the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, and Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, also testified.
