CRPD—whatever its intentions—has many troubling aspects.
There is not a clear definition of “disability” in the treaty, which means some committee at the U.N. will decide after ratification who is covered—an example of what is at the heart of the problem. CRPD gives too much power to the U.N., and the unelected, unaccountable committee tasked with overseeing its implementation, while taking power and responsibility away from our elected representatives and, more important, from parents and caregivers of disabled persons.
Another example of this U.N. overreach is the treaty’s “best interests of the child” standard, which states in full: “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” This provision is lifted from the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was also not ratified by the United States Senate. This would put the state, under the direction of the U.N., in the position of determining what is in the best interest of a disabled child, replacing the parents who have that power under current U.S. law.
How would this new standard play out in a battle between a single mom fighting a stubborn school district for special-education services for her disabled child under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? That landmark legislation signed by President George H.W. Bush made it clear that parents—not government officials using a “best interests of the child” standard—are ultimately in charge of their child’s education. Because of the bill, countless parents have won their fights against public schools that failed to provide adequate services for their special-needs child. CRPD could have changed all that.
I also oppose CRPD because our nation has been the worldwide leader when it comes to protecting the disabled. We should be telling the U.N., not the other way around, how to ensure dignity and respect for the disabled.
Finally, the treaty does not accomplish the principle purpose that its advocates say it will. Supporters of CRPD argue that the United States needed to ratify this treaty in order to give our nation a seat at the table in advocating for the plight of the disabled abroad. I believe that CRPD supporters have done a huge service by shining a spotlight on the gross violations of human rights and human dignity in many nations that have a horrible track record when it comes to caring for the disabled. It is also true that disabled Americans—including some of our wounded warriors—face difficulty when they travel abroad.
If I thought for a second that the United States ratifying CRPD would help people in the U.S. with disabilities or people overseas like our Bella, I would support it. But it will not.
However, the United States passing this treaty would do nothing to force any foreign government to change their laws or to spend resources on the disabled. That is for those governments to decide.
The United States—under the Americans with Disabilities Act—is the world’s leader in ensuring that disabled people, whether our citizens or foreign visitors, are able to be productive members of our society. There are no limits to what disabled persons can accomplish, in large part because of our legal protections for the disabled.
If I thought for a second that the United States ratifying CRPD would help people in the U.S. with disabilities or people overseas like our Bella, I would support it. But it will not.

However, the United States passing this treaty would do nothing to force any foreign government to change their laws or to spend resources on the disabled. That is for those governments to decide.

danivon wrote:Ok, so why did 38 Republican Senators vote against ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

It was supported by Bob Dole, as well as organisations that represent veterans. And every living President.

It was negotiated by GW Bush's administration.

It was based on, and in US Law would be no different to, the Americans with Disabilities Act signed into law by GHW Bush in 1990.

So, for the 5 or so Senators it would have taken to switch votes to ratify, what was so much more important than promoting the right of disabled people around the world, and enshrining existing US Law?

bbauska wrote:Odd that this would come up here. Nobody has answered why Reid will not allow Obama's fiscal cliff bill to come for a vote. Personally that is more important to me than the UN.

Doctor Fate wrote:The ADA is overused in the US as it is. It's a law with a heart of gold and feet of rusty iron. Like many well-intentioned laws (like the Clean Water Act), when bureaucrats actually enact it, dumb things start happening.

That said, why would Republicans oppose passing this?

I think we should reflexively oppose anything in the UN that tells/suggests any country do anything with regard to governance. This is the august body that puts regimes that oppress and murder their own people on the Human Rights Commission. The number of outright nonsensical things the UN does is beyond human ability to catalog.

Occasionally, the UN gets something right. However, it has been pretty useless in addressing the world's problems. The only reason to belong to it is the occasionally useful veto.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're all in a huff about. The ADA is our law. It's not a particularly good one, so maybe we should not try and inflict it on everyone else?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The ADA is overused in the US as it is. It's a law with a heart of gold and feet of rusty iron. Like many well-intentioned laws (like the Clean Water Act), when bureaucrats actually enact it, dumb things start happening.

Yeah, disabled access is 'dumb'. I take it then that these Republican Senators support repeal?

That said, why would Republicans oppose passing this?

You did get the bit about how the UN was acting on US legislation, and the convention was pushed for by the USA. Not even under Obama, but under his Republican predecessor. If 'kneejerk anti-UN reaction' is the reason alone, it's dumb reason.

If they get one right, it's no reason to celebrate--or join in.

rickyp wrote:fate

If they get one right, it's no reason to celebrate--or join in.

Its the right thing to do. But don't do it just because its the UN?

Amongst the officially accepted diagnoses of psychiatry is something called Oppositional Disorder.
This is a perfect example of the disorder....

Its this kind of reflexive opposition amongst Republican voters that republican members of Congress and Senators must stick handle. (Those that aren't also subject to the reflexive actions themselves).
Its appalling to read that Bob Dole attended the vote in the Senate, and personally appealed for support - and yet he had to sit in his wheelchair and watch the senseless action take place.