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.”

[Mr. Laz]

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.

Why does it need to benefit us at all?

Why can't it be just good for people across the world?


it doesn't cost us anything ... it doesn't force us to do anything


when disabled American citizens travel the world it would make it a bit easier.


it's just simply disgusting the attitude people have taken ... they don't give a shit about anything or anyone.

[BucEyedPea]

We don't need no stinkin' UN.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

We don't need no stinkin' UN.

weak

so **** helping the disabled because the U.N. has something to do with it?

[ForeverChiefs58]

There are a number of reasons the United States shouldn’t ratify this treaty, not to mention that the US leads the world in how it treats the disabled. As Betsy Woodruff pointed out, being against this treaty does not mean one is against the disabled.


Many conservatives oppose its ratification because of language in Article 4 that refers to economic, social, and cultural rights. The treaty says that each signatory should “take measures to the maximum of its available resources . . . with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of these rights.” Our government, based on the Constitution, defines rights in terms of what the government cannot do to its citizens, not in terms of what it owes them. But the U.N. language emphasizes what the signatories owe to their citizens, what they must do in order to protect these newly enumerated “rights.” In the past, we rejected a treaty that referred to “economic, social, and cultural rights,” while Soviet-bloc countries were quick to embrace such language.

And we haven’t even started on how self-abasing it would be for the U.S. to comply with the treaty. Every four years, we would be required to put together an interagency report on our disability-rights record (a project that would cost millions), and also to send a delegation (usually of at least 20 people) to Geneva to appear before a panel of international disability-rights experts. Panels of this sort often vilify our country’s human-rights record, according to Groves. “I’ve attended these sessions,” he says. “They’re absolutely insulting.” He continues: “We have to go to Geneva for what I call our quadrennial spanking, spending millions in assets and sweat and labor to throw ourselves in front of this committee just to get smacked around and told we’re doing a terrible, terrible job.”

Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.

2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.

3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.

4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.

5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.

6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.

7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.

Additionally, under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.

8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.

9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.

10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.

http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/1...easons-not-to/

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/201205250.asp

[ForeverChiefs58]

Originally Posted by Laz

ENCOURAGES SOMETHING POSITIVE ........

so you want to block something good and that doesn't cost the U.S. anything just on the principle of general U.N. hatred?

listen to yourself

insane

why don't you contact the Disable American Veterans and tell them how wrong they are for supporting ratification?

Disabled American Veterans across the globe wouldn't be helps by ramps etc in foreign countries? Or maybe call Senator Bob Dole and tell him to go get ****ed.

This is wrong. It would cost everybody. If you knew the treaty well enough I would think every American would be against it.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Laz

weak

Not to me.

so **** helping the disabled because the U.N. has something to do with it?

We don't need no stinkin' UN period. For anything, including the disabled. We need to be independent.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

This is wrong. It would cost everybody. If you knew the treaty well enough I would think every American would be against it.

How stupid can you be? It's based off a law that is already in existence in the US -- which means we won't have to do anything more to comply with it. Both Bush presidents were for it. The Senate Foreign Committee that read and discussed it approved it. Bob Dole flew to Chambers to advocate for it.

[ForeverChiefs58]

Originally Posted by Literature

How stupid can you be? It's based off a law that is already in existence in the US -- which means we won't have to do anything more to comply with it. Both Bush presidents were for it. The Senate Foreign Committee that read and discussed it approved it. Bob Dole flew to Chambers to advocate for it.

Did you read post # 94?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

Did you read post # 94?

Yes, I read it when it was first posted in #34 in this thread. If you actually believe that, you're really naive, silly, and attribute a lot of conspiracy to the treaty that shows tremendous ignorance.

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by Laz

ENCOURAGES SOMETHING POSITIVE ........

so you want to block something good and that doesn't cost the U.S. anything just on the principle of general U.N. hatred?

listen to yourself

insane

why don't you contact the Disable American Veterans and tell them how wrong they are for supporting ratification?

Disabled American Veterans across the globe wouldn't be helps by ramps etc in foreign countries? Or maybe call Senator Bob Dole and tell him to go get ****ed.

that's a good way to get banned or worse...

[Fat Elvis]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

There are a number of reasons the United States shouldn’t ratify this treaty, not to mention that the US leads the world in how it treats the disabled. As Betsy Woodruff pointed out, being against this treaty does not mean one is against the disabled.


Many conservatives oppose its ratification because of language in Article 4 that refers to economic, social, and cultural rights. The treaty says that each signatory should “take measures to the maximum of its available resources . . . with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of these rights.” Our government, based on the Constitution, defines rights in terms of what the government cannot do to its citizens, not in terms of what it owes them. But the U.N. language emphasizes what the signatories owe to their citizens, what they must do in order to protect these newly enumerated “rights.” In the past, we rejected a treaty that referred to “economic, social, and cultural rights,” while Soviet-bloc countries were quick to embrace such language.

And we haven’t even started on how self-abasing it would be for the U.S. to comply with the treaty. Every four years, we would be required to put together an interagency report on our disability-rights record (a project that would cost millions), and also to send a delegation (usually of at least 20 people) to Geneva to appear before a panel of international disability-rights experts. Panels of this sort often vilify our country’s human-rights record, according to Groves. “I’ve attended these sessions,” he says. “They’re absolutely insulting.” He continues: “We have to go to Geneva for what I call our quadrennial spanking, spending millions in assets and sweat and labor to throw ourselves in front of this committee just to get smacked around and told we’re doing a terrible, terrible job.”

Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.

2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.

3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.

4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.

5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.

6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.

7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.

Additionally, under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.

8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.

9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.

10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.

http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/1...easons-not-to/

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/201205250.asp

That and homeschoolers were afraid that UN Peacekeeping forces would bust down their doors and call bullshit on Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs.

[ForeverChiefs58]

Senator Lee: “We don’t think that it’s appropriate for the United States to be answering to a U.N. convention based in Geneva, Switzerland, when we are the leader of the world on this issue, as we are on so many other issues,”

"The notion that it might improve travel conditions for Americans traveling abroad is a complete non sequitur, and it has nothing to do with the treaty at all.”

“There is no American living here in the U.S. whose life will change one iota because the United States joins this treaty”

This treaty would cost the taxpayers who fund the government.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...etsy-woodruff#

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

That and homeschoolers were afraid that UN Peacekeeping forces would bust down their doors and call bullshit on Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

see my last post. Our disabled vets are young. It would help them travel easier. For that reason alone, the R's should have passed the bill.

No one needs to travel outside of our country. We've got a lot of places to go here.

[go bowe]

betsy spent a lot of time telling the reader what various articles mean, and she was wrong every time...

her article is just that, an opinion piece from a right-wing magazine...

the facts are that the treaty would cost us nothing and does not require us to do anything...

the reason most r senators voted against it is because they are afraid of being primaried by the extreme right, who are the only ones who actually believe this crap...