A number of international human rights treaties have protocols that States Parties can sign. These optional protocols are separate treaties that can be signed, approached or ratified by countries that are parties to the main treaty. Optional protocols offer individuals the opportunity to file complaints of violation of their rights against a body or to authorize a conventional body to investigate problematic areas. In 1999, the UN General Assembly adopted the CEDAW Optional Protocol (OMI-CEDAW), which came into force the following year. Many opponents of U.S. ratification argue that while CEDAW does not contain the word “abortion,” parts of the convention could be interpreted to undermine existing U.S. abortion law. In particular, some have questioned Article 12, paragraph 1, which states that countries “take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in health care in order to … Access to health services, including family planning services.
Critics also expressed concern about paragraph 1 of Article 16, which requires States Parties to take all appropriate measures to ensure that women have the right to “freely and responsibly decide the number and gap of their children”. Opponents suggest that such a language could lead to the abolition of government laws on the obligation to make parenting, may require federal funds for abortion or require the U.S. government to promote abortion and give you access.74 Two States Parties to the Convention – Malta and Monaco – have expressly stated in their reservations to thisAW that they would not erect Article 16, paragraph 1, point e) as a deposit or susceptibility to the legalization of abortion in their respective countries. Recognizing the concerns of many opponents of CEDAW about the potential impact of the Convention on the privacy of American citizens – particularly with regard to family and parenthood – the Clinton administration proposed to the Convention in 1994 a reservation for “private behaviour”. It states that the United States “does not accept any obligation under the convention to regulate private conduct unless the Constitution and U.S. law are mandatory.” 70 Some supporters of CEDAW oppose the inclusion of the proposed reserve and argue that the United States should strive to comply with the treaty`s gender stereotype provisions. They argue that a private behaviour reserve implies a “lack of political commitment” from the United States and states that it considers CEDAW to be “applicable only in other countries.” 71 Information on the 40th and future session of the Committee is available on the office`s website: www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/cedaw/pages/cedawindex.aspx It has been acknowledged that some rights may take longer than others.