WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush has shown his mettle in taking on the terrorists. His consistently high approval ratings are testament to the faith that Americans have placed in his leadership.
An important issue likely to be taken up by the Senate in the near future provides another opportunity for Bush to apply those same leadership skills on behalf of a cause that he feels deeply about: the right to life.
As someone who has spent years in politics, I have heard many campaigning politicians profess to be supportive of the pro-life cause as a ploy to gain support from culturally conservative voters. Their actions once in office however demonstrated that they had no real commitment to the issue.
From the perspective of one who has talked with him, I have no question about the sincerity of the president's commitment to this issue. He is a man of strong religious conviction and that has been exhibited in his strong support of the right to life cause.
Before the Senate adjourned for the summer, its Foreign Relations Committee voted out the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
As is often the case, CEDAW is an example of how misleading titles can be on treaties and legislation.
The treaty would require changes in American law respecting abortion. Several European nations -- Ireland, Belgium, Portugal and Poland among them -- have been told that because they ratified this treaty their abortion restrictions are null and void. CEDAW has language in it that is interpreted to mean that abortion is a fundamental right for women.
If the United States was to give its concurrence to CEDAW, the Hyde Amendment, which forbids federal funding of abortion and Bush strongly supports, would be struck down by CEDAW.
Congress may soon pass a partial birth abortion bill that the president will sign into law. If the CEDAW treaty is ratified, that law, along with those passed by the state legislatures to restrict partial birth abortion procedures, would be declared null and void.
CEDAW's impact will extend beyond abortion. As Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., said a few years ago, "This treaty is not about opportunities for women. It is about denigrating motherhood and undermining the family."
Under Article 5a of CEDAW, the United States government would be required to "take all appropriate action" to "(m)odify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices ... based on ... stereotyped roles for men and women."
Thus, the CEDAW committee that oversees implementation of the treaty in those countries that have ratified it complained to Belarus that "Mothers' Day" and the "Mothers' Award" encouraged women's traditional roles.
Armenia was told to "combat the traditional stereotype of women in the noble role of mother."
This is the kind of nonsense that our country will be subjected to by having ratified CEDAW. We will be legally bound to implement its provisions and the CEDAW committee will establish benchmarks for our country to achieve. We will then be required to report back to them on a regular basis on our progress in meeting them.
Years ago, the states did not ratify the Equal Rights Amendment despite the fact that Congress extended the ratification period by three years. The ERA was controversial and mobilized intense opposition both for and against it.
The amendment and its implications were debated in a vigorous manner throughout the states and when all was said and done, it failed to obtain the necessary support to be enacted. The sweeping provisions of CEDAW deserve a similar vigorous debate and one way to ensure that debate takes place is to have the nation's most prominent leader speak out on it.
When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on CEDAW, every single Democrat and two Republicans voted for it. Seven Republicans voted no, which provides reason to hope that the treaty will not obtain the two-thirds vote needed for ratification.
There are 41 Republicans that usually can be counted to vote against measures to expand abortion rights and several Democrats, namely Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and John Breaux, D-La., who often side with them.
This is an issue in which the president can make a real difference and at a crucial time, given that the elections are approaching. Right now, the conservative grassroots, while appreciative of his leadership in a time of war, are not motivated to troop to the polls this November.
There is a difference between making a few perfunctory statements, and really speaking out on an issue consistently so there is no mistaking that it is important.
The CEDAW treaty deserves close examination and debate by the public, the news media, and politicians. The more the president talks about why the Senate should not provide its concurrence, the more attention drawn to its actual provisions, the more likely that the Senate will fail to muster the two-thirds vote needed to deliver its concurrence.
So, having President Bush take on CEDAW can be, for him, a win-win situation. It can help protect the gains already made for a cause in which he truly believes while serving to bolster the morale of an important element of his party's governing coalition right before an election.
There is no doubt that he has the leadership skills to stop the Senate from voting to give its concurrence. Now, it's just a matter of his willingness to put those skills to work in standing up for American sovereignty.
(Paul M. Weyrich is President of the Free Congress Foundation, a research and education foundation located in Washington, D.C. "Outside View" commentaries are written for UPI by outside writers who specialize in a variety of important global issues.)
