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.”

[ForeverChiefs58]

Does it cost our Gov't or taxpayers money?

Hard to imagine anything with the UN doesn't end up costing Americans.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

Does it cost our Gov't or taxpayers money?

Hard to imagine anything with the UN doesn't end up costing Americans.

Im sure its free

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

International treaties should deal with how international politics are run, not how governments run themselves internally.

This.

It looks too much to me like trying to apply US specific ideals to the UN.

“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.).

If this is about Americans, and not the majority of UN nations, then I'd rather we didn't waste more US political resources on this.

[Chief Faithful]

As a home school family and members of the HSLDA we strongly petitioned our Senators to reject the treaty. If you are interested in why you can read the HSLDA position and 10 points of contention at: http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/201205250.asp

My biggests contention is with article 7(2) of the treaty. Currently federal law requires all public schools to provide special access and services to children with disabilities, but does not require these services be accepted. Under this treaty the decision on matters of schooling are determined by government according to the UN directives (another way of saying bureaucrats decide).

Through the HSLDA parents are fighting hard to ensure parents retain ultimate authority of what is best for the child instead of government. This is an issue of maintaining individual freedom.

Currently 35 Senators have promised to support a Constitutional Amendment identifying parents as the ultimate authority over decisions for their children. This assumed parental authority is tradition not law so many in the home school community see this as a fight for their rights.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

I think the interests of the Republican party would be better served if they would pick their battles, rather than opposing things without being able to articulate real and credible reasons for opposing them.

I don't see the harm in ratifying a treaty that was initiated by George H. W. Bush and signed by George Bush. Refusing to do so makes it look like the Republicans are indeed being obstructionist and petulant. It sends the message that they are refusing to support anything that the Obama administration supports. This could very well backfire two years from now in the mid-term elections.

I voted for Romney, and I was despondent when he lost. But it's time to get on with the business of running the country. Pick your battles. Oppose the things that are truly objectionable, and support the things that are benign.

I believe that is the whole point. They believe (and are correct to a limited degree) that being obstructionist and refusing to support anything Obama is for is how to keep their base happy.

I agree with everything you said, but you don't appear to "get" the Rs. Being obstructionist on everything is the goal--it is their entire strategy, not something they are trying to avoid.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I believe that is the whole point. They believe (and are correct to a limited degree) that being obstructionist and refusing to support anything Obama is for is how to keep their base happy.

I agree with everything you said, but you don't appear to "get" the Rs. Being obstructionist on everything is the goal--it is their entire strategy, not something they are trying to avoid.

They....was this ever brought forward in the last 20 years? Maybe a lot of theys out there....Why didnt it get voted on when Reid had the votes before?

[Bo's Pelini]

We shouldn't be in the UN.

Also Republicans should vote down anything Obama wants.

[Chief Faithful]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

International treaties should deal with how international politics are run, not how governments run themselves internally.

Yes! I do not like any UN treaty that supercedes state law giving the power of directive to a UN bureaucrat. Laws like this may seem innocuous, but in reality it creates a foundation of government control that erodes personal liberties.

[Taco John]

Why not vote down anything the UN does and reject it's authority?

[ForeverChiefs58]

So, instead of worrying about actually fixing the deficit, Dems want to spend more...and how does this make sense?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Chief Faithful

As a home school family and members of the HSLDA we strongly petitioned our Senators to reject the treaty. If you are interested in why you can read the HSLDA position and 10 points of contention at: http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/201205250.asp

My biggests contention is with article 7(2) of the treaty. Currently federal law requires all public schools to provide special access and services to children with disabilities, but does not require these services be accepted. Under this treaty the decision on matters of schooling are determined by government according to the UN directives (another way of saying bureaucrats decide).

Through the HSLDA parents are fighting hard to ensure parents retain ultimate authority of what is best for the child instead of government. This is an issue of maintaining individual freedom.

Currently 35 Senators have promised to support a Constitutional Amendment identifying parents as the ultimate authority over decisions for their children. This assumed parental authority is tradition not law so many in the home school community see this as a fight for their rights.

Here's Article 7:

Article 7 - Children with disabilities

1. States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.

2. In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

3. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Chief Faithful

Yes! I do not like any UN treaty that supercedes state law giving the power of directive to a UN bureaucrat. Laws like this may seem innocuous, but in reality it creates a foundation of government control that erodes personal liberties.

Actually, this entire Treaty is based off the Americans with Disability Act. It doesn't supercede any state law. If anything, it reinforces our law. There would literally be no UN bureaucrat with power over your home school.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

So, instead of worrying about actually fixing the deficit, Dems want to spend more...and how does this make sense?

Your post? It doesn't.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Why not vote down anything the UN does and reject it's authority?

Because we like to work with (and take charge of) the international community. At least I do.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

We shouldn't be in the UN.

Also Republicans should vote down anything Obama wants.

Don't do it for Obama. Do it for Bob Dole.