New study examines negative consequences of U.S. Ratification treaties

For immediate release: May 14, 2009
Contact: Patrick Fagan, PhD – 202-624-3019
Jerry Lyon – 513-733-5775

New study examines negative consequences of U.S. ratification of U.N. treaties

CEDAW, CRC recommendations could void states’ family laws

Citizens for Community Values, in conjunction with Family Research Council and various statewide pro-family organizations, has just released a new study, entitled “How U.N. Conventions on Women’s and Children’s Rights Undermine Family, Religion, and Sovereignty,” by Patrick Fagan, William Saunders and Michael Fragoso. The 36-page study describes the negative consequences of United States ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (“CEDAW”) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”).

Following recent calls to ratify the two treaties by Sen. Barbara Boxer, Amb. Susan Rice, and President Obama, the authors investigated the history of radical decisions made by the U.N. committees charged with offering guidance to nations that have ratified the treaties on their obligations. These recommendations advance an extreme political anti-family agenda harmful to the best interests of societies and states, under the cover of providing review and recommendations. In doing so, these U.N. committees are decisively undermining the sovereignty of state parties to the treaties in matters that have always been within the domestic jurisdiction of individual states to decide.

Examples of recommendations made by those committees include:

  • Legalizing prostitution and elevating it to the status of a profession
  • Diminishing the legal protection of freedom of conscience
  • Diminishing parental guidance for teenagers’ emerging sexuality
  • Promoting access to abortion, contraception, and other “medical” services for children without parental consent
  • Promoting contraceptive use without regard to its social consequences
  • Promoting abortion under the fiction of an international law mandate
  • Demeaning traditional motherhood and those who support it
  • Promoting professional child care for newborns
  • Equating mild spanking of children by their parents with serious physical abuse
  • Objecting to the influence of religion on society
  • Objecting to the protection of rights of religious minorities

If these recommendations were followed, marriage and family would be substantially undermined, as would religious freedom. Should the President sign and the Senate ratify these treaties, family law will be in chaos. The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution makes such treaties the supreme law of the law; thus, all inconsistent state laws would be void. This would “federalize” all family law, which under our federal system is a matter for individual states. It would also lead to endless litigation to try to figure out whether particular excising state laws were, or were not, encompassed within the ambit of these treaties.

While social science has conclusively demonstrated that the married, two-parent family that worships weekly is the healthiest by every measure, the UN CEDAW and CRC committees urge society, in the name of “human rights,” to undertake policies that drive it in the opposite, harmful direction.

Furthermore, social deconstructionists are citing such recommendations in academic journals and in U.S. courts as evidence of emerging international law that, they argue, is binding upon the United States. Any credence the U.S. gives to U.N. committee recommendations only contributes to the argument that the U.S. is bound thereby, and activist judges will surely so hold—unless the U.S. makes clear that it rejects the ideologically driven work of these committees.