Republicans insult disabled people

[Sprightly]

The irony here is that this Treaty is George W Bush's baby. It began during his administration and was signed by Obama. It's based on the Americans with Disabilities Act. Therefore, by not ratifying it, we're basically saying that we can't even agree on something as simple as spreading our own values on human rights to other nations. It's the clearest sign that ignorant extremists have taken over the republican party. They should be embarrassed.

What reasons were given for not voting to ratify?

[soulflower]

What reasons were given for not voting to ratify?

Post #1

Read the full article

[Phineas Finn]

What reasons were given for not voting to ratify?

That the convention would allow the U.N. to mandate abortions and infringe upon American law, to name just two -- neither is true.

See: Exec. Rept. 112-6; Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (Treaty Doc. 112-7) -- a 198 page document that was submitted to the Senate by the Foreign Relations Committee on July 31, 2012 and was the basis of Senate debate on the Convention.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/101748081/...oc-112–7

[Sprightly]

Thanks. It starts getting interesting on page 17.

[Jeebus]

let's ignore the wrongs in the world when they don't fit the political agenda of the ignorant.

That seems to be the standard leftist jihadi apologist response every time I point out a Muslim atrocity.

Why so sanctimonious now?

[EmDot]

What reasons were given for not voting to ratify?

Some that I can remember are forced abortions and the UN will be able to remove children from their home. Oh, and forced divorce and remarriage to a same-sex person.

































j/k on the last one.

[flyboy56]

Thanks. It starts getting interesting on page 17.

Definition of Disability
The Convention does not contain an explicit definition of ‘‘dis-ability

Unable to define "disability"? That could leave it wide open to anyones interpretation. Kind of like signing a blank check.

And page 17 adds some good advice from many of America's well known statesmen. Probably good advice.

[Sprightly]

"Should the United States accede tothis treaty, we will be obligated to write a status report every fouryears regarding our disability laws and receive criticism and rec-ommendations from a committee of representatives from countries that have lower standards for the disabled than our own. This un-dermines our sovereignty and our Constitution. According to Arti-cle 35 of the Convention, this report must include a list and de-scription of measures taken to fulfill the obligations of the treaty.We do not know the scope of this report or its financial and laborcosts to the American taxpayer."

------------------

"As noted in hearing testimony, similar committees born of otherUnited Nations conventions have an extensive record of overstep-ping their authority and making recommendations that are con-trary to the interests and values of the United States. For example,the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issueda report in 2008 that addressed issues well beyond the scope of itsmandate, such as U.S policies regarding the death penalty, voting rights, and detention at Guantanamo Bay. The Committee associ-ated with the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Dis-crimination Against Women brashly issued recommendations re-garding the legalization of prostitution, gender quotas, and in-creased termination of pregnancies."

Okay. These seem to be a legitmate concerns.

[Sprightly]

"The very purpose of a treaty is to advance a specific U.S. securityor economic interest, and the United States should only join those treaties that make us a stronger or safer nation. In no way do wetake issue with the goal of promoting higher standards for thetreatment of disabled people. However, this Convention is not es-sential to the security or economic interests of the United States.We firmly believe that the issues concerned in this Convention would be better addressed in a format that would not require theratification of a legally binding international treaty that would carry the same authority as the Constitution."

I agree.

[soulflower]

"Should the United States accede tothis treaty, we will be obligated to write a status report every fouryears regarding our disability laws and receive criticism and rec-ommendations from a committee of representatives from countries that have lower standards for the disabled than our own. This un-dermines our sovereignty and our Constitution. According to Arti-cle 35 of the Convention, this report must include a list and de-scription of measures taken to fulfill the obligations of the treaty.We do not know the scope of this report or its financial and laborcosts to the American taxpayer."

------------------

"As noted in hearing testimony, similar committees born of otherUnited Nations conventions have an extensive record of overstep-ping their authority and making recommendations that are con-trary to the interests and values of the United States. For example,the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issueda report in 2008 that addressed issues well beyond the scope of itsmandate, such as U.S policies regarding the death penalty, voting rights, and detention at Guantanamo Bay. The Committee associ-ated with the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Dis-crimination Against Women brashly issued recommendations re-garding the legalization of prostitution, gender quotas, and in-creased termination of pregnancies."

Okay. These seem to be a legitmate concerns.

The UN can make recommendations. We don't have to listen(have we closed GITMO yet?). This Treaty is more about getting other countries to follow our values so it's strange that we couldn't ratify our own treaty. Somehow I doubt the treaty wouldn't have been ratified if Bush were still in office.

Most of the objections stem from irrational fear of the UN and One-world government conspiracies.

[soulflower]

Jon Stewart: Have Republicans Hit 'Rock Bottom' With Failed United Nations Disability Treaty? (VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2249610.html

[Sprightly]

The UN can make recommendations. We don't have to listen(have we closed GITMO yet?). This Treaty is more about getting other countries to follow our values so it's strange that we couldn't ratify our own treaty. Somehow I doubt the treaty wouldn't have been ratified if Bush were still in office.

Most of the objections stem from irrational fear of the UN and One-world government conspiracies.

Given that I wasn't thrilled about the OSCE monitoring my country's elections, it's not suprising that I agree with the comment.

[jtowne-swim]

My autistic son is not upset. It is a do nothing treaty.

If you where living in some countries your Autistic son would not be educated. This treaty keeps that from happening in those countries that sign.....Our signature helps put the pressure on our allies to treat disabled people as well as we do!

[jtowne-swim]

How have our values helped women in Saudia Arabia or women in China who want to have more than one child?

Funny you mention that....Saudi Arabia will allow pictures of vieled women in text books now.

[jtowne-swim]

What reasons were given for not voting to ratify?

It might mean we abort babies, It would stop home schools and religious schooling. That is what Rick Santorum and company claimed!

[Mom49of4]

If you where living in some countries your Autistic son would not be educated. This treaty keeps that from happening in those countries that sign.....Our signature helps put the pressure on our allies to treat disabled people as well as we do!

I don't believe that it will do that.

[ivanbalt]

Most of the objections stem from irrational fear of the UN and One-world government conspiracies.

The funny thing is the biggest fear of the "one world" is that it will be some non-Christian religion running the world. When in reality, the people "running the world" have no interest in God/religion. Their only god is power or money.

[jtowne-swim]

I don't believe that it will do that.

That is a valid arguement but the non-sense put up by the 38 Senators is not a valid arguement. Are you defending their votes based on their belief of Abortions and the end of Home Schooling and Private schooling? It still remains that in many countries your son would not be educated as they view it a waste of resources. Do you believe those countries are doing the correct thing?

[jtowne-swim]

The funny thing is the biggest fear of the "one world" is that it will be some non-Christian religion running the world. When in reality, the people "running the world" have no interest in God/religion. Their only god is power or money.

Also interesting is that Geroge W Bush played an integral role in this treaty being developed.

[jre]

John McCain is a disgrace to America for voting against this disabilities treaty...McCain's hypocrisy is without limits