Republican opposition downs UN disability treaty

Jeanwah

http://news.yahoo.com/republican-opposi ... itics.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Led by Republican opposition, the Senate on Tuesday rejected a United Nations treaty on the rights of the disabled that is modeled after the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act.

With 38 Republicans casting "no" votes, the 61-38 vote fell five short of the two-thirds majority needed to ratify a treaty. The vote took place in an unusually solemn atmosphere, with senators sitting at their desks rather than milling around the podium. Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, looking frail and in a wheelchair, was in the chamber to support the treaty.

The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, states that nations should strive to assure that the disabled enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as their fellow citizens. Republicans objected to taking up a treaty during the lame-duck session of the Congress and warned that the treaty could pose a threat to U.S. national sovereignty.

"I do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially overzealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe upon American society," said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.

He and other opponents were not swayed by support for the treaty from some of the GOP's prominent veterans, including the 89-year-old Dole, who was disabled during World War II; Sen. John McCain, who also suffered disabling injuries in Vietnam; Sen. Dick Lugar, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee; and former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh. Eight Republicans voted to approve the treaty.

The treaty also was widely backed by the disabilities community and veterans groups.

White House press secretary Jay Carney called the vote disappointing and noted that President Barack Obama had declared, in a written statement read in tribute to Dole just before the vote, that "disability rights should not stop at our nation's shores."

Carney said the White House hopes the treaty can be reconsidered in the next Congress.

Democratic support for the convention was led by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. John Kerry, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, one of the key players in writing the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.

"It really isn't controversial," Kerry, D-Mass., said. "What this treaty says is very simple. It just says that you can't discriminate against the disabled. It says that other countries have to do what we did 22 years ago when we set the example for the world and passed the Americans with Disabilities Act."

In a statement after the vote, Kerry said it was "one of the saddest days I've seen in almost 28 years in the Senate and it needs to be a wake-up call about a broken institution that's letting down the American people."

The ADA put the United States in the forefront of efforts to secure equal rights for the disabled, and it became the blueprint for the U.N. treaty, formally the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The treaty was negotiated by the George W. Bush administration. It was completed in 2006 and Obama signed it in 2009.

The United Nations estimates that 650 million people around the world are disabled, about 10 percent of the world's population.

Kerry and other backers stressed that the treaty requires no changes in U.S. law, that a committee created by the treaty to make recommendations has no power to change laws and that the treaty cannot serve as a basis for a lawsuit in U.S. courts.

They said the treaty, by encouraging other countries to emulate the rights and facilities for the disabled already existing in the United States, would be of benefit for disabled Americans, particularly veterans, who want to work, travel or study abroad.

Supporters also rejected the argument that it was inappropriate to consider an international treaty in a post-election lame-duck session. They said that since the 1970s the Senate had voted to approve treaties 19 times during lame-duck sessions.

But in September, 36 Republican senators signed a letter saying they would not vote for any treaty during the lame duck,

The opposition was led by tea party favorite Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who argued that the treaty by its very nature threatened U.S. sovereignty. Specifically he expressed concerns that the treaty could lead to the state, rather than parents, determining what was in the best interest of disabled children in such areas as home schooling, and that language in the treaty guaranteeing the disabled equal rights to reproductive health care could lead to abortions. Parents, Lee said, will "raise their children with the constant looming threat of state interference."

Supporters said such concerns were unfounded.

"I am frankly upset," said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., "that they have succeeded in scaring the parents who home-school their children all over this country." He said he said his office had received dozens of calls from home-schooling parents urging him to vote against the convention.

The conservative Heritage Action for America urged senators to vote no against the treaty, saying it would be recorded as a key vote on their scorecard. It repeated the argument that the treaty "would erode the principles of American sovereignty and federalism."

gimmesometruth27

these republicans in the senate are an embarrassment to the united states.

it is fucking shameful to vote against a treaty that basically says that you can not discriminate against disabled people. as if discrimination is something that we as americans should get behind and be supporting or something. no wonder the rest of the world thinks we are all insensitive and selfish bastards...

a threat to our sovreignty... :fp:

Jeanwah

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

these republicans in the senate are an embarrassment to the united states.

it is fucking shameful to vote against a treaty that basically says that you can not discriminate against disabled people. as if discrimination is something that we as americans should get behind and be supporting or something. no wonder the rest of the world thinks we are all insensitive and selfish bastards...

a threat to our sovreignty... :fp:

It really is embarrassing.

But hey, playing politics is more important than human rights, don't you know?

My daughter has a developmental disability, and I know several people in my community with kids with Down syndrome as well. Now you'd think these parents would be in support of this treaty. But sadly, these adults are too wrapped up in their politics to put their kids rights first. How pathetic is that?!

riotgrl

NPR ran this story this morning and I was astounded that they were able to terrify parents of home schooled kids like this. It is embarrassing that our Congressmen act like this and that we continue to elect these boobs. I cannot believe that some people are so easily taken in by such nonsense. I have a son with a developmental delay and would hope that he always receive the care, concern and rights to which he is entitled!

brianlux

Even with Dole's support it got voted down... pathetic and sad.

gimmesometruth27

brianlux wrote:

Even with Dole's support it got voted down... pathetic and sad.

these are the same assholes who voted against health care coverage for the sick first responders of 9/11.

unsung

We already have ADA, this story makes the case that the UN law was modeled after it. There is no logical reason for us to participate as we are the leaders on ensuring people with disabilities are treated equally. Anytime an international law/treaty trumps what we have in place it is taking away sovereignty, but I wouldn't expect a group of big government statists to understand that.

riotgrl

unsung wrote:

We already have ADA, this story makes the case that the UN law was modeled after it. There is no logical reason for us to participate as we are the leaders on ensuring people with disabilities are treated equally. Anytime an international law/treaty trumps what we have in place it is taking away sovereignty, but I wouldn't expect a group of big government statists to understand that.

How does it trump what we have in place?

"Kerry and other backers stressed that the treaty requires no changes in U.S. law, that a committee created by the treaty to make recommendations has no power to change laws and that the treaty cannot serve as a basis for a lawsuit in U.S. courts."

gimmesometruth27

this just underscores the fact that republicans think the UN is worthless, and anything that the UN supports treaty-wise they will oppose on grounds of having to play fair with other countries and will justify it by saying it infringes on our freedom... all the treaty does is publicly state that we will abide by what it says and that we are bound to that.

are we not leaders in this world? why the hell would we not agree to it?? how would you feel about your supervisor opposing something that the rest of the employees might want "just because"? leaders play ball. they do not subscribe to the bush doctrine on foreign policy.

Jeanwah

unsung wrote:

We already have ADA, this story makes the case that the UN law was modeled after it. There is no logical reason for us to participate as we are the leaders on ensuring people with disabilities are treated equally. Anytime an international law/treaty trumps what we have in place it is taking away sovereignty, but I wouldn't expect a group of big government statists to understand that.

Did you not read? The ADA put the United States in the forefront of efforts to secure equal rights for the disabled, and it became the blueprint for the U.N. treaty, formally the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The treaty was negotiated by the George W. Bush administration. It was completed in 2006 and Obama signed it in 2009... "It really isn't controversial," Kerry, D-Mass., said. "What this treaty says is very simple. It just says that you can't discriminate against the disabled. It says that other countries have to do what we did 22 years ago when we set the example for the world and passed the Americans with Disabilities Act." The treaty also was widely backed by the disabilities community and veterans groups.

Using the sovereignty arguement (which is full of holes) is just saying that you're a republican and you stand by your people-fearing party, that can't deal with not being in full control of decision making, fear of the UN, fear of the world and fear of those who are different that old white men.

Jeanwah

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this just underscores the fact that republicans think the UN is worthless, and anything that the UN supports treaty-wise they will oppose on grounds of having to play fair with other countries and will justify it by saying it infringes on our freedom... all the treaty does is publicly state that we will abide by what it says and that we are bound to that.

are we not leaders in this world? why the hell would we not agree to it?? how would you feel about your supervisor opposing something that the rest of the employees might want "just because"? leaders play ball. they do not subscribe to the bush doctrine on foreign policy.

Yeah, that's the butt of it - that it's not just the U.S.

Involving the U.N. as well as the rest of the world would mean having to get along. It's all about staying in control, calling the shots, and alienating all classes and groups other than Republican white men in the US. If we think that the election will change anything among congress and their power to compromise, we're sadly not moving anywhere. This is still all about republicans and losing the election and their need to stay in control, stay with tradition and rule the US, especially since they lost!

MotoDC

riotgrl wrote:

"Kerry and other backers stressed that the treaty requires no changes in U.S. law, that a committee created by the treaty to make recommendations has no power to change laws and that the treaty cannot serve as a basis for a lawsuit in U.S. courts."

Then what's the point? This gets to my first question on the topic -- what authority does the UN have in any case to effect any of the language of the treaty, whether in the US or otherwise?

Jeanwah

MotoDC wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

"Kerry and other backers stressed that the treaty requires no changes in U.S. law, that a committee created by the treaty to make recommendations has no power to change laws and that the treaty cannot serve as a basis for a lawsuit in U.S. courts."

Then what's the point? This gets to my first question on the topic -- what authority does the UN have in any case to effect any of the language of the treaty, whether in the US or otherwise?

What is with people? The point is equal treatment for all people are disabled world-wide.

MotoDC

Jeanwah wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Then what's the point? This gets to my first question on the topic -- what authority does the UN have in any case to effect any of the language of the treaty, whether in the US or otherwise?

What is with people? The point is equal treatment for all people are disabled world-wide.

Oh man. It's impossible to have a rational conversation with someone who is so personally invested in a topic. The question I was asking is... what does this treaty do to further the equal treatment for all people are disabled world-wide, given that the treaty can have no impact on legislation or lawsuits?

Jeanwah

MotoDC wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Then what's the point? This gets to my first question on the topic -- what authority does the UN have in any case to effect any of the language of the treaty, whether in the US or otherwise?

What is with people? The point is equal treatment for all people are disabled world-wide.

Oh man. It's impossible to have a rational conversation with someone who is so personally invested in a topic. The question I was asking is... what does this treaty do to further the equal treatment for all people are disabled world-wide, given that the treaty can have no impact on legislation or lawsuits?

Sorry 'bout that. "The ADA (being the Americans with Disabilities Act) put the United States in the forefront of efforts to secure equal rights for the disabled, and it became the blueprint for the U.N. treaty, formally the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The treaty was negotiated by the George W. Bush administration. It was completed in 2006 and Obama signed it in 2009."

So, by enacting the treaty which was brought forth originally by the ADA brings the rest of the world up to the American standard. The treaty has no effect on laws in the US because the ADA trumps the treaty. The UN has no power over the treaty in the US.

brianlux

A vote against this is a vote for cruelty.

redrock

MotoDC wrote:

... what does this treaty do to further the equal treatment for all people are disabled world-wide, given that the treaty can have no impact on legislation or lawsuits?

It does no harm to officially and widely re-affirming your intentions, values and commitments. Reflecting, maybe trying to get back on track with your own actions (government-wise), whilst trying to continue setting the example for other countries (on paper, at least), ensuring that your disabled citizens get the same equal treatment in whichever country they may wish to reside. It's really no skin off their nose. A bit pathetic to vote against, really.

polaris_x

i suspect this is one of those "do anything to screw over this gov't" actions ... the real tragedy here is that this move is not surprising (even with the support of McCain and Dole) ...

and to answer the question: the purpose of the treaty is to put forth the guidelines by which a country will hold itself accountable ... and it's a statement of the value system shared in each country ... look at all the countries that signed onto the nuclear non-proliferation ... the vast majority have no inkling of developing a nuclear arms program ... they sign the treaty as a statement of values ...

blackredyellow

For us citizens of the US, signing this treaty really has no value or point, but at the same time neither does not signing it. All it does is give the anti-UN and xenophobe politicians a chance to play to their base. Pointless political grandstanding to help them look good to those who's support they want.

JC29856

polaris_x wrote:

... look at all the countries that signed onto the nuclear non-proliferation ... the vast majority have no inkling of developing a nuclear arms program ... they sign the treaty as a statement of values ...

good point...look at the countries that didnt sign it!!!!!

polaris_x

blackredyellow wrote:

For us citizens of the US, signing this treaty really has no value or point, but at the same time neither does not signing it. All it does is give the anti-UN and xenophobe politicians a chance to play to their base. Pointless political grandstanding to help them look good to those who's support they want.

it does ... it shows the rest of the world that you don't believe in discrimination against people with disabilities ... at least when the US doesn't sign treaties related to weapons - we know their motivation ... here - there simply is none ...