Why are Republicans voting down a UN disabilities treaty?

[Direckshun]

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affa...ail-in-senate-

UN disabilities treaty expected to fail in Senate amid GOP opposition
By Julian Pecquet
12/04/12 05:00 AM ET

Senate Republicans are expected on Tuesday to reject an international treaty affirming the rights of people with disabilities.

Democrats made a last-ditch effort to secure the two-thirds vote for ratification of the United Nations convention, but appeared to be well short of that mark ahead of Tuesday’s scheduled vote.

Conservative activists have come out in force against the treaty, warning it would pave the way for government interference in homeschooling. Supporters of the pact say it would merely extend the rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act to all nations.

“This is about Americans and raising the standard of how we treat Americans around the world,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.).

Democrats would need only 66 senators to ratify the treaty, due to the absence of Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), but Republican votes have been hard to come by.

Thirty-six Republican senators signed a letter to Senate leaders in September promising to oppose any treaty brought to a vote during the lame-duck session of Congress.

Democrats had hoped some of those senators would have a change of heart after the election, and were able to peel off two GOP votes last week when Sens. Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Scott Brown (Mass.) voted to proceed to the disabilities treaty on the Senate floor.

The 61-36 vote to proceed would not have been enough for ratification, however, and three Republicans who abstained from the September letter — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Sens. James Inhofe (Okla.) and Jerry Moran (Kan.) — voted no, further dimming Democratic hopes.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who spearheaded the September letter, is working alongside former presidential candidate Rick Santorum, the Heritage Foundation and the Home School Legal Defense Association to ensure the treaty’s defeat. They warn it would create a U.N. committee that could impinge on U.S. sovereignty.

“Our concerns with this convention have nothing to do with any lack of concern for the rights of persons with disabilities,” Lee said last week. “They have everything to do with protecting U.S. sovereignty, protecting the interests of parents in the United States and the interests of families.”

Opponents of the treaty have also criticized it for not excluding abortion rights.

Democrats say the treaty stays neutral on abortion by calling on governments to offer people with disabilities the full range of family-planning services provided under domestic law.

Conservative groups pressed for the addition of language that would specify that the treaty does not create any new abortion rights, arguing that abortion is often a form of discrimination against people with disabilities.

All nine Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted for language excluding abortion rights when the treaty came before the panel in July. The amendment failed, and only three Republicans — Sens. Dick Lugar (Ind.), John Barrasso (Wyo.) and Johnny Isakson (Ga.) — joined the 10 Democrats on the panel voting for passage.

Democrats were trying Monday to convince on-the-fence Republicans that a “no” vote on the Senate floor would be politically painful.

The treaty has the support of a handful of Republican senators — including former presidential candidate John McCain (Ariz.) and Republican Policy Committee Chairman Barrasso — as well as many advocates for people with disabilities and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) is expected to champion the treaty in a return to the Senate floor Tuesday after denouncing the “scare tactics” used by its opponents in a letter distributed Monday.

Democrats have also roped in former Attorney General and Pennsylvania Gov. Richard Thornburgh, who was President George H. W. Bush’s point man on the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990.

The treaty, Thornburgh said Monday, would cede “no authority to the U.N. over the U.S. or any of its citizens. None. Zero.” He said the U.N. committee’s recommendations would be purely advisory and could not require the United States to change its laws or pass new ones and would not create any legal rights in state or federal courts.

The treaty was negotiated under President George W. Bush and was signed by President Obama in July 2009. It has been signed by at least 153 countries in addition to the United States.

Lee in his letter said the lame-duck session would not be an “appropriate” time for passage of treaties that will become the “supreme law of the land.”

Kerry countered by saying the Senate has passed treaties 19 times during lame-duck sessions. He said the sitting senators, who “did all the work” sitting in on the committee’s markup of the treaty this summer, should be the ones to vote on it.

President Obama, in a statement marking the International Day of Persons with Disabilities on Monday, said U.S. leadership on a key human-rights issue is at stake.

“Ratifying the convention in the Senate would reaffirm America’s position as the global leader on disability rights,” Obama said, “and better position us to encourage progress toward inclusion, equal opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency for persons with disabilities worldwide.”

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Literature

Okay. Fortunately for me, the United States government agrees with me.

I can see that with this measure clearly passing.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I can see that with this measure clearly passing.

This measure failing doesn't mean that we aren't part of the UN.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Literature

That's absurd. There's no regulation that says anything remotely similar to that. In fact, the language is simply using the standard that American family law cases have developed for custody.

Absurd? Who has the last say if a dispute arises as to what's in the best interest of a child?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Absurd? Who has the last say if a dispute arises as to what's in the best interest of a child?

In a custody matter, a judge does. It's absurd for this homeschooling association to be worried that the UN is going to bother away a parent's ability to raise their children in any but a well-established, depraved, abusive manner. They make it seem like the unintended consequence of this treaty is imprisoning in the Hague people who spank their kids. It's absurd. This isn't a custody issue; that statement is a generic well-wishing.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by Literature

In a custody matter, a judge does. It's absurd for this homeschooling association to be worried that the UN is going to bother away a parent's ability to raise their children in any but a well-established, depraved, abusive manner. They make it seem like the unintended consequence of this treaty is imprisoning in the Hague people who spank their kids. It's absurd. This isn't a custody issue; that statement is a generic well-wishing.

Again, if the treaty really doesn't have teeth, why is it so important we agree to it?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Literature

In a custody matter, a judge does. It's absurd for this homeschooling association to be worried that the UN is going to bother away a parent's ability to raise their children in any but a well-established, depraved, abusive manner. They make it seem like the unintended consequence of this treaty is imprisoning in the Hague people who spank their kids. It's absurd. This isn't a custody issue; that statement is a generic well-wishing.

If anyone is worried about UN enforcement of some UN established standard, I'd agree that that's absurd.

I still don't really understand what benefit this treaty would be to us. I'm not necessarily against it. I just don't understand why I should be for it.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by patteeu

If anyone is worried about UN enforcement of some UN established standard, I'd agree that that's absurd.

I still don't really understand what benefit this treaty would be to us. I'm not necessarily against it. I just don't understand why I should be for it.

Well, what is something you are interested in? Progress of civilization? Opportunity for people? Spreading American standards of decency? Business competition? Stability in American foreign policy statements?

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by Literature

Well, what is something you are interested in? Progress of civilization? Opportunity for people? Spreading American standards of decency? Business competition? Stability in American foreign policy statements?

You think everyone wants your standards imposed upon them?

[KC Dan]

Originally Posted by Literature

Okay. Fortunately for me, the United States government agrees with me.

And, they are totally disfunctional - surprise!

[JonesCrusher]

Originally Posted by Literature

Well, what is something you are interested in? Progress of civilization? Opportunity for people? Spreading American standards of decency? Business competition? Stability in American foreign policy statements?

That must be one hell of a treaty. Or were you just going all "merica" on us.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Literature

Well, what is something you are interested in? Progress of civilization? Opportunity for people? Spreading American standards of decency? Business competition? Stability in American foreign policy statements?

I'm interested in preventing Islamist takeovers in Egypt and Syria. I'm interested in preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I'm interested in transitioning from an income tax system to a flat, consumption tax system that helps American companies compete with global competition. Does this help?

Seriously though, I don't know how this treaty is supposed to benefit the US. It can't be as simple as spreading American standards around the world. If it is, what's in it for the countries that are agreeing to adopt our standards?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

You think everyone wants your standards imposed upon them?

Everyone? There's no sense in trying to satisfy everyone.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by KC Dan

And, they are totally disfunctional - surprise!

Possibly, but relatively speaking, they are like the least dysfunctional. This really is a fitting analogy.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by JonesCrusher

That must be one hell of a treaty. Or were you just going all "merica" on us.

Gotta play to your audience.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm interested in preventing Islamist takeovers in Egypt and Syria. I'm interested in preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I'm interested in transitioning from an income tax system to a flat, consumption tax system that helps American companies compete with global competition. Does this help?

Seriously though, I don't know how this treaty is supposed to benefit the US. It can't be as simple as spreading American standards around the world. If it is, what's in it for the countries that are agreeing to adopt our standards?

Maybe they have a bunch of do-gooders at the UN that love disabled people. I don't know. Maybe they just like disabled people. Maybe they get a nice grant for every disabled program they have. Maybe they aren't god-forsaken hell holes and want to help disabled people and think the ADA was a good little model.

The US Chamber of Commerce probably sees it as a way to even up business resources spent on disabled person's accommodations.