Official White House photo
George H.W. Bush signs the Americans with Disabilities Act into law in 1990.
The far-right's reflexive opposition to anything related to the United Nations isn't exactly a new development, but the U.N. Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities seems entirely uncontroversial. It enjoys bipartisan support, with Republicans like Dick Lugar and John McCain arguing it would simply help extend our Americans with Disabilities Act to people around the world.
As Dana Milbank noted yesterday, however, some prominent conservatives still hope to block ratification.
[Former Sen. Rick Santorum], joined by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), declared his wish that the Senate reject the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities -- a human rights treaty negotiated during George W. Bush's administration and ratified by 126 nations, including China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
The former presidential candidate pronounced his "grave concerns" about the treaty, which forbids discrimination against people with AIDS, who are blind, who use wheelchairs and the like. "This is a direct assault on us," he declared at a news conference.
Lee, a tea party favorite, said he, too, has "grave concerns" about the document's threat to American sovereignty. "I will do everything I can to block its ratification, and I have secured the signatures of 36 Republican senators, all of whom have joined with me saying that we will oppose any ratification of any treaty during this lame-duck session."
Ratification on all treaties requires a minimum of 67 votes, and though there appeared to be progress on securing the supermajority over the summer, the lobbying campaign on the right has grown fierce.
Even by contemporary standards, there's just no reason for this. When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the treaty with bipartisan support in July, Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) explained the proposal simply "raises the [international] standard to our level without requiring us to go further."
In other words, we don't actually have to do anything except say we like the treaty -- and then wait for other signatories around the world to catch up to the United States' laws.
But Santorum & Co. don't seem to care. Milbank added:
Their concerns, rather, came from the dark world of U.N. conspiracy theories. The opponents argue that the treaty, like most everything the United Nations does, undermines American sovereignty -- in this case via a plot to keep Americans from home-schooling their children and making other decisions about their well-being.
The treaty does no such thing; if it had such sinister aims, it surely wouldn't have the support of disabilities and veterans groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican senators such as John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), and conservative legal minds such as Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh.
If Lee is right, and the right has locked up 36 senators to oppose the treaty, it will die in this Congress, and proponents will have to start from scratch in the new Congress.
Leave a Comment:
Ah well, Rick doesn't really give a crap; he's just got to say something to keep his name in the news.
Mitt Romney (remember him) campaigned for five years, why can't Santorum? Or anyone else in the Chock Full O' Nuts GOP line-up for Next Empty Headed Penholder Of the United States.
I don't understand the hatred coming from the right. I never will. I was there when we went through all those protests and changes in the 60's & 70's. I thought we were past all that. Apparently not. Very sad to see.
I'm so sick of the conspiracy theories ruling the day with the GOP. Such folks have always been around, on all sides, of course. However, it seems it is legitimized by too many of the GOP leadership these days. You can't have a legitimate discussion of issues and solutions with people who think so many things are a conspiracy. How can you address their fear, not based in reality concerns? You can't.
Maybe there should be a clause for separation of conspiracy and state too...
Considering that WE-the-People are ALREADY legally enjoined, by laws ALREADY on the books in the United States, to everything contained in this treaty, this SERIOUSLY sounds like a case of my dog barking out the window at other dogs walking on the sidewalk out front -- in(s)ane territoriality with ZERO grasp of the concept(s) involved. Barking simply for the sake of establishing an imaginary territory. Although, come to think of it, that behavior tends to be reduced by the spaying and neutering prerequisites for licensing... never mind, let's NOT go there (oh, please, oh, please)...
It is no surprise that all of the comments on this are made by the left. How many of you have expanded your news gathering skills to include more than just what the mainstream media and the current administration have spoon fed you? How many of you take the time to actually examine BOTH sides of the coin with an open mind, some critical thinking, and with coherent thought, rather than just name calling? Better yet, how many of you have READ this treaty?
You all seem to be welcoming the U.N. into our country with open arms. How many people have fought and died to keep our country a sovereign nation? And here you are, defending the loss of our sovereignty.
Our great nation currently has several acts in place to accommodate persons with disabilities. We have the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Air Carrier Access Act, the Voting Accessibility for Elderly and Handicapped Act, Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, the Architectural Barriers Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I could go on, as there are several more laws in place to afford our citizens equal rights and protections.
Please, rather than call names, explain to me how this treaty is going to help anyone? It is simply a way to place us in bed with the U.N. It puts yet another entity in this country to tell us what we can and can’t do.
If you think that changes need to take place in the current laws, then by all means, work to change them. Work to improve them. Don’t decide that our country is too inept to do it ourselves and bring in one more bureaucratic arm to solve a problem that could be improved here at home.
@Paula Faubush -- This treaty doesn't supersede or threaten the current American Disabilities Act in any way; our ratification of it merely commits us to abide by our own law. In fact, the purpose of the treaty is to ostensibly export American standards of respect for the disabled to the rest of the world. The language accompanying the treaty's passage out of Committee states:
“...current United States law fulfills or exceeds the obligations of the Convention.”
Fearfulness seems to have made you see this issue exactly backwards.
The Right Wing is getting away with all this by using religion as their shield. It's self promotion & money they want. But under the religious umbrella people believe anything and support anything!!! These politicians tuck a Bible under their arm and say God a lot and the sheep follow. The Bible was written long ago as a tool to control the masses and it still works today. Brainwashing through fear & guilt. Sad. The Christians need to wake up & make sure they aren't following (what they call) false prophets.
Research is key!!!
Hey Santorum, Fords Theater 1865 called. They are giving you free tickets to a play and you even get to have Abraham Lincoln's seat.
Ok Paula, i like research & critical thinking. And was missing any explanation of the treaty from this article. So off to the treaty i go. Long winded treaty concerning rights. Something caught my eye, had to do with the definition of drug testing. Have you read it?? Can you explain why the GOP want to block it??? After the Romney/Ryan, Murdock, Palin, etc.. Its hard to trust anything the GOP want to do.
@ WowGal and June:
On why the GOP wants to block it: It does nothing for our sovereignty. It tells the parents of kids with disabilities what is best for their child, without regard for the parent that is raising them, knows them, and cares for them. We already have rights in place for our disabled. There is no reason for another group to come in and tell us how things need to be ran.
I fail to understand how a treaty signed by the U.S. is going to change things abroad. If they haven't changed thus far, with 144 other countries having ratified this treaty, what makes you think that it will improve things if we are added to the list?
As the mother of two kids with special needs, I don't agree with this. I homeschool all of my kids, one that has been diagnosed with a language processing disorder, among other problems. These problems weren't being addressed in a public school setting, so we decided to pull her out and educate at home. My oldest daughter is a diabetic and that wasn't being treated at the school, either. If the U.S. ratifies this treaty it would give the authority to require my children be placed back in to the same public school, only to be fighting the same battles that we were before.
I am not fear mongering and saying that this is what would happen. I'm saying that I'm not willing to take the chance, because we all chose to sit by and let someone outside of our elected officials make that call. If something needs to be improved upon, then we, as a nation, need to step up and make those changes.
The treaty also does not define what is considered a disability. It is left up to interpretation. Do you feel confident enough in the U.N. to let them decide when something is a disability or not? That's something I'm not willing to give up to people outside of my own country.
Sounds like a paranoid control freak to me.
What the f*%k?! I can't... I can't even!
OMG, Santorum, Dante Alighieri called... he wants you back in the Eighth Circle of Hell.
The sticking point on this treaty is that parents will no longer have the final say in what is best for their child. The government will determine that. Unless they are in my house raising my child, how would they know what is best for my child/children. Do you really believe that the gov./UN knows what is best?
So . . . in what circumstances is it best for a child to be denied "the inherent dignity and worth and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family" or the "full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children"?
Where did you come up with this RWNJ nonsense? We don't need to make any changes in US law.
What part of "current U.S. laws already meet or exceed the requirements of this treaty" do you not understand?
Or did you fail to read that post?
Ann, I'd like to take a look at the language of the treaty that you interpret to mean that. Can you please point us to it?
I doubt Ann will answer . . . probably just a drive-by trolling.
But her post does make me wonder if she has a disabled child locked in a closet somewhere. Scary thought . . .
Here is a good explaination regarding parental rights. The full text can be found at http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/HSLDA_analysis_UNCRPD_RUDs.pdf
Article 7, Section 2 of the treaty requires that states ensure that “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” The “best interest of the child” standard is one used in American family law. Under current law, however, only if a family is broken by a divorce or if a parent is convicted of neglect or abuse can the government substitute its view of what is best for the child for that of the parent. Parental rights are primary—the government’s judgment is only called upon when it becomes clear that parents are incapable of making decisions for the benefit of their children. In contrast, the UNCRPD enjoins states to ensure that all actions concerning disabled children are made on the basis of the child’s best interest. In order for states to live up to their treaty obligations, they must necessarily make judgments about children’s best interests continuously. Should the government’s assessment of the child’s best interests differ from that of the parents, the government gets to make the decision, not the parents.
It is true that the Foreign Relations Committee sought to address these concerns with an “Understanding” that “nothing in Article 7 requires a change to existing United States law.” However, in context, the term “United States law” is ambiguous. In normal usage, “United States law” refers to federal law while state law is described as “the laws of the several states.” Since this Understanding only addresses “United States law” the supremacy of the treaty over state law is still unaddressed. Of course, the vast majority of the law concerning the rights of parents over the education of their children is found in state law, not in federal
law. This Understanding—as currently written—falls woefully short of providing any assurance to parents that they will remain the primary decision-makers for their children’s education.
'State Party" as defined by the UN does not mean individual states within a country, e.g. US state law vs. US federal law. "State Party" means:
A 'State party' to a treaty is a country that has ratified or acceded to that particular treaty, and is therefore legally bound by the provisions in the instrument.
The basis for this treaty is our American Disabilities Act, and as the language out of Committe states
"...current United States law fulfills or exceeds the obligations of the Convention.”
Therefore, there is no "there, there" in regards to the UN suddenly being able to affect or change US federal or state law.
Jerry, look around you. The Crusades are NOT over. Today they are called THE WAR ON.............(insert anything you want here)
I don't get why Rick Santorum's opinion even matters anymore? He's hasn't been in the Senate since 2006, he didn't even hold any sort of prominent position in the Senate. He failed to get the Republican Presidential nomination.
Newt Gingrich's opinion I can understand somewhat, but Rick Santorum? Yeah he really is Santorum.
People do realize Santorum isn't actually an elected member of government, right? Google it.
Santorumn is BY FAR, the biggest piece of uneducated, mindless CRAP that every claimed to be from PA. If we would have known what a pathetic idiot he was going to become, we would have evicted HIS PARENTS!!
Due to a car accident, I received a bad closed-head injury while in college, and required the assistance of the ADA to return to school quickly. After such an injury, doctors recommend patients return to work or school as quickly as possible to aid the repair of brain pathways, but grades can suffer from slow response time and other temporary difficulties. The ADA allowed me to have scratch paper for tests, extra time when needed, and other simple assistances that got me through an extremely difficult time in my life (when I was first hurt, I was in hospital for almost a month). When I handed one math professor my ADA paperwork on the first day of class, he looked at it, and then asked, "So, what are you doing in my class?" My only response was, "Math." Thanks to the ADA, I didn't have to explain any further than that. When I finally received my degree, it had taken a decade, but my GPA was 3.75. At one point, I had almost failed out. Without the ADA, I might not have been able to return to school at all.
The ADA does not grant people with disabilities unilateral gifts. It simply allows people who have been damaged in some way to compete on a level playing field. It allows people to use what skills they do possess to the best of their ability so that they won't have to take disability, social security, or rely on family. It allows them to be contributing members of society regardless of the damage. Even so, some members of the GOP believe that it "caters to" people with disabilities.
The U.N. Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities was formed back in 2006 under Bush. It isn't something that Obama or the Democrats did unilaterally to remove power from the GOP or America, and Santorum should be truly ashamed for dragging his daughter into the spotlight. Honestly, they probably opposed the fact that the Convention acknowledges openly that women with disabilities are specifically dually discriminated against (Article 6) and that it insists on appropriate voting access for people with disabilities (Article 29).
Here's a link to the Convention in full.
http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
Thank you for telling your personal story so well. Actual personal experience is far better than mere theoretical opining. The GOP noisemakers should be ashamed of themselves.
Thank you, Christine. Congratulations on your degree, too.
Seems like this is just one more example of people like Santorum stepping in and speaking to issues they aren't familiar with or haven't taken the time to fully understand, thus confusing the core truth, exacerbated by a media broadcasting opinions on issues they too have not investigated or bothered to fully understand. Two wrongs don't make them right.
While I am not a Christian today, I was raised in the tradition. I am on my own Spiritual path, in great part in reaction to the abuses of the Church. However, I remain vigilant about those 'false prophets' among us who use and abuse the words of Jesus of Nazareth and other Prophetic Voices to instill fear, cruelty, hatred, bigotry and idolatry. Santorum and his Tea Bagger friends, a Church hiding behind its robes from a millennium of child abuse...tv preachers living in castles from the money of the poor. I will take my own form of gentle Spirituality over the rapacious movements of these modern 'false prophets'. If I was so inclined, I would build a case that this marks the start of the end-times with these anti-Christ figures capitalizing on fear and hatred.
WE NEED YOUR HELP TO PASS THE CRPD The Santorum folks are very organized. The 300+ disability groups, vet groups and others who support the CRPD could use your help. PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS and tell them to vote YES to pass the Conventions on Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD)
I guess it all depends on how they intend to take US out....
Project Dark Zephyr should work very fast. After all over 300 soldiers keeled themselves in 09 alone.
Just continue to deny the syndromes real treatment to kill all the infections in the real AIDS...
Hey...That's been working well for over 30yrs.
Give the masses the wrong treatment? Well they did not trial chemo/Rituximab in all the syndromes to save you money when they could just treat us all with antibiotics and then our own stem cells.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubSnxCr7kz8&feature=share
Because they know as Prof. M. has already told us 80% of the pop.s are infected with the real cause of AIDS...Its your choice people!!!
Of course they could just stick with the criminals and do nothing like MS. who thinks the vectors carrying the real seronegative AIDS don't like dark meat...
The majority of human-biting ticks in the North--members of the blacklegged tick species--cause Lyme disease, but these same ticks do not commonly bite humans south of mid-Virginia.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=124286&org=NSF&from=news
Its funny they don't worry when it just causeing hundreds of syndromes to steal our lives but they pay attention when it could complicate profits---because you can't vaccinate sick babies....
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/13/health/infant-mortality-mississippi/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
GOP joined to accelerate withdrawal from Afghanistan to hang it over POTUS head by next summer. Not as a positive move. Rachel these are Republicans. Just because that say something nice, doesn't mean that they are going to play fair. Don't ask us to trust this group of people. Because we know better.
If you tell me who you voted for, I will tell you who and what you are.
I've learned to stay away from the R's. Their logic is beyond incomprehensible.
Remember Santorum"s "What a snob!" comment on his campaign trail? On second thought, they do make sense. No wonder they don't support education; even to the extent of attempting to end funding for Sesame Street.
The R's wealthy and millionaire candidates and elected public officials support those who are from Wall Street. The R's electorate who come from Main Street vote for those from Wall Street. Then both the D's and the R's (huh?) objected when the R's from Wall Street went after Big Bird from Sesame Street.
I'm telling you: Stay away from those R's.
till, the more so; I stay away from Republicans.
Interesting that a man with a child with a disability could be so heartless. Sadly, his daughter will not live long enough to need these rights. I seriously don't get this man and his insensitivity!!!