U.S. should sign treaty for the rights of women

While international celebration continues for the liberation of women in Afghanistan, the rape of a 14-year-old girl in Everett last week was a tragic testament to the ongoing violence against women in our own community. This is no time to congratulate ourselves for successful human rights advances on the other side of the world. Here at home, three young men are facing serious legal trouble for allegedly bringing a young girl to their motel room, intoxicating her and subjecting her to violent, repeated sexual assaults that left her hospitalized.

Cases like this are far more common that we would like to believe. A 1996 victimization survey found that one out of six women in the U.S. will be a victim of rape during her lifetime, most likely when she is a child or adolescent. And rape is only the most visible example of the injustices faced by women in America. Domestic violence, inequitable pay and job status, lack of information about safe sex, greater susceptibility to sexually-transmitted diseases — these are the facts of growing up female in the United States, home to the most "privileged" group of women in the world.

What steps is this country willing to take to improve the status of its women and girls? The Bush Administration recommended the ratification of the Treaty for the Rights of Women earlier this year, but opponents have distorted the language of the treaty to suggest it will promote abortion and prostitution. These critics fail to note that the State Department added its own reservations to the treaty in 1994 to make it compatible with existing domestic laws, abortion-neutral and non-self executing. The treaty is supported by more than 160 organizations that include religious groups like the National Coalition of American Nuns. Even Sima Samar, minister of Women’s Affairs in Afghanistan, has personally urged members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to approve the treaty.

Reactions to the treaty on the part of the committee and the Senate itself will allow us to see whether the United States is as committed as it claims to be to protecting the freedoms of women at home and abroad. Although we will not have to change any of our laws to comply with the treaty, the U.S. would be required to submit a report proving that we have worked hard to improve the status of women at home. This is a goal we should not lose sight of as we observe the changes taking place in other countries. Whether we think it is right, men who recently gang-raped a young woman in Pakistan as part of a tribal council punishment got the death sentence. What do rapists get in the U.S.?

Over the past 23 years, the Treaty for the Rights of Women has been fundamental in inspiring change in many countries all over the world, punishing violence against women, promoting girls’ education, and improving women’s health care and working conditions. All women have the right to be protected from infanticide, malnutrition, female genital mutilation, forced early marriage, sexual abuse, sex trafficking and rape.

Let’s just hope that it doesn’t take another local tragedy to illustrate the urgency of this task. Even in America, 23 years is proving to be a costly length of time to postpone women’s human rights.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

A model of a statue of Billy Frank Jr., the Nisqually tribal fishing rights activist, is on display in the lobby of the lieutenant governor's office in the state Capitol. (Jon Bauer / The Herald.
Editorial: Recognizing state history’s conflicts and common ground

State officials seek consensus in siting statues of an Indian rights activist and a missionary.

November 17, 2025: But Her Emails
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, Nov. 18

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Where are cartoons lampooning Kamala Harris?

I agree with a recent letter writer, The Herald Opinion page’s cartoons… Continue reading

Editorial cartoons are satire; it’s to be expected

I have read and sent letters to the editor of The Herald… Continue reading

People should rely on own savings not on goverment assistance

Laudable is the social legislation that provides 26 weeks of subsidies to… Continue reading

Comment: What climate ‘realists’ miss are pledges’ quiet wins

Climate fatalists should consider that nations committed to reductions are meeting their targets.

Comment: Too many kids can’t read; blame lack of spelling tests

Leaving the task to spellcheck holds back kids’ skill and love of reading. Spelling is key to comprehension.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Monday, Nov. 17

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

FILE — President Donald Trump and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick display a chart detailing tariffs, at the White House in Washington, on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. The Justices will hear arguments on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025 over whether the president acted legally when he used a 1977 emergency statute to unilaterally impose tariffs.(Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times)
Editorial: Public opinion on Trump’s tariffs may matter most

The state’s trade interests need more than a Supreme Court ruling limiting Trump’s tariff power.

Comment: Ignoring Trump, stock market believes in climate crisis

Green energy and cleantech indices are outperforming the overall market. You can partially thanks AI’s demand.

Comment: Shutdown raises profile of childcare as an issue

With work requirements on or coming for SNAP and Medicaid, more families will rely on Head Start.

Saunders: Shutdown is over; recriminations for Democrats aren’t

Except for a handful of heroes, the Democrats need to explain why they put so many through this.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.