Ladies Last

Polls currently show that women, who vote less predictably than men, may choose the next president of the United States. In doing so, they will be affecting the fate of women around the world. A look at the last four years gives an indication of what’s at stake.

Earlier this month, the Bush administration rejected a United Nations resolution that would have encouraged the release of women and children hostages and helped prevent acts of rape, sexual violence and sex slavery against hostages. The U.S. was the only member of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women to reject the resolution. Why, in the midst of his so-called War on Terror and during Women’s History Month, would the administration refuse to sign a resolution condemning violence, rape and torture against women hostages?

The government rationalized their refusal by pointing out that the resolution contained language reaffirming the Beijing Platform, an historic agreement on women’s and children’s health and rights reached during a 1995 Beijing meeting that built upon an encounter in Cairo in 1994. During ongoing meetings about this platform over the past few years, Bush officials had failed in their attempts to delete the words “reproductive health” and “condoms” from the document and to restrict teen’s access to sexuality education and services. Because these words were still in the document, the U.S. rejected the resolution.

“This is a devastating blow to women around the world,” said June Zeitlin, executive director of the Women’s Environment and Development Program, in a statement about Bush’s refusal to sign the U.N. resolution. “The actions of the Bush administration mean more women will continue to die because of inadequate reproductive rights and health programs.”

During a teleconference from a meeting of reproductive rights agencies in Chile the day before the UN vote, women’s advocates from around the world blasted the Bush’s administration attempts to stifle international family planning services and his budget cuts in world development programs that will directly impact services available to women in Latin America.

“We see this as a manifestation of a larger war on women’s safety and dignity,” said Kavita Ramdas, leader of the Global Fund. She points out that Attorney General John Ashcroft does not support regulations imposed by former Attorney General Janet Reno to grant asylum to domestic violence survivors. Ashcroft is reportedly reconsidering Reno’s decision in the asylum case of one specific Guatemalan woman, Rodi Alvarado, whose husband has threatened to kill her if she returns home.

Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Bush administration has specifically said it is supporting greater rights for women, reports from Madre and other human rights organizations show otherwise. Fundamentalist practices are reportedly as bad as ever in Afghanistan and political forces poised to take power in Iraq are if anything more regressive in regards to women’s rights than Saddam Hussein’s regime. The crushing poverty and destruction in both countries as a result of the U.S. invasions hits women and children hardest.

Policies on the world stage mirror policies at home in the U.S., where the last four years have seen dramatic changes in reproductive rights, health care, child care and education, and affirmative action. Most recently, with the appointment of federal appeals court judges William Pryor and Charles Pickering, the administration is fostering a national and judicial climate where the separation of church and state becomes almost non-existent. Pickering, appointed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, has called for a constitutional amendment making abortion illegal. And Pryor, appointed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, has called Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.”