Despite bipartisan support for a United Nations disability rights treaty, a group of Republican lawmakers is holding up U.S. Senate consideration of the matter.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee planned to consider the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities last week, but was unable to after Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and a number of other Republicans reportedly placed a hold on it.
The move effectively squashed efforts by supporters of the treaty to get the U.S. to ratify it before the 22nd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act on Thursday.
While the U.S. initially signed the U.N. Convention in 2009, Senate approval is needed for ratification of the treaty, which calls for greater community access and a better standard of living for people with disabilities worldwide.
The delay comes amid opposition from the Home School Legal Defense Association which is urging its members to tell Congress that the treaty “surrenders U.S. sovereignty to unelected U.N. bureaucrats, and will threaten parental control over children with disabilities.”
In a statement to the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill, a DeMint spokesman said he wanted to delay the treaty over largely similar concerns.
“Sen. DeMint strongly opposes this treaty, as the United States is already the world leader in addressing the needs of the disabled and it’s foolish to think Americans need to sign away our sovereignty to exert our influence around the world,” the spokesman said.
Now, disability advocates are hoping that the treaty may be able to gain committee approval later this week.
“It is disappointing to lose a week,” said David Morrissey, executive director of the United States International Council on Disabilities, which is lobbying for ratification. “We want to keep the momentum.”
Morrissey said that advocates continue to make the rounds on Capitol Hill urging support for the treaty, which he says will allow the U.S. to take on an important international leadership role on disability issues.
More than 165 organizations are supporting ratification, which Obama administration officials said would not require any changes to current U.S. law or infringe on the nation’s sovereignty.
Even with concerns from DeMint and some other Republicans, the treaty enjoys bipartisan support with Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., among the lawmakers backing it.
Idiots – what’s their Dx?
Can you report which Senators support and which oppose it? I mean, is it all Democrats supporting it and all Republicans except John McCain opposing it?
Did the US ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights
of People with Disabilities pass the United States Senate
and House of Representatives? If this piece of legislation
did not pass Congress, the US congressional representatives
and senators created a horrible mistake!
As a registered Republican; I find that when people argue that they are already doing something better than anyone else that it is usually a fallacious arguement when in fact they just do not want to do anything about the issueespecially when it comes to disbalities.
Forgive me the typos on my post. I posted in such a hurry I forgot to proof it before hand.
I hope people will remember Mr. DeMint’s actions when he comes up for reelection in 2016. It’s a sad fact that a few people in the Senate can obstruct decent things with impunity.
DOES ANY ONE KNOW TO BE RATIFIED DOSE THE TREATY HAVE TO BE HEARD IN JUST THE SENATE OR IN BOTH HOUSES? I KNOW THAT WITH LAWS, THEY MUST PASS BOTH HOUSES, THEN GO TO THE PRESIDENT FOR HIS SIGNATURE. BUT I’M NOT SURE ABOUT TREATIES SEEMS LIKE THE PROCESS MUST BE DIFFERENT WITH TREATIES, AS PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS ALREADY SIGNED THIS ONE.
Thank heavens that some of our representatives understand the danger in surrendering the sovereignty of our nation to an international body that has no national interest. There are many, many intended and unintended consequences of becoming entangled in a world government effort. It is best for Americans to concentrate on improving and enforcing our own policies
Does anyone know why the Home School Legal Defense believes this treaty will threaten the parental rights/control of persons with disabilities? Are they also a large lobbying group? Can Sen. DeMint elaborate on his assertion that by signing this Treaty, Americans would be “signing away their sovereignty?” Does Sen. DeMint believe that his holding up this treaty best serves the people he was elected to represent? All rhetorical questions, I know, but when you hold up a treaty such as this, they are the questions you should be ready to answer.
Protip: ratification is Senate and *only* Senate. The House/Representatives has nothing to do with it. As for the sovereignty-worriers: as I mentioned in the previous comment thread*, I’m at a loss to find any portion of the treaty that would impair USian self-governance.
*Here on Disability Scoop, “Disability Rights A Focus in Senate”, my comment of 19 July 2012.
Unless someone can cite me treaty text that clearly impairs USian sovereignty, I’ll apply the same rationale to every report of people with behavior problems. They’re just protecting their sovereignty from being trampled by some overbearing authority who does not represent their personal interests.
I invite all American citizens to learn about the CRPD. This video has a brief overview of the components of the CRPD – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd77CZGYCyw&feature=player_embedded#t=232s
With no required changes in US or state laws, no new cost this treaty will continue the US commitment to people with disabilities here and around the World.
With over 21 Veteran groups and 165 disability groups in support – with letters from both President Bush, Bob Dole and sponsor ship of Committee members Senators McCain (R-AZ), Durbin (D-IL), Moran (R-KS), Harkin (D-IA), Barrasso (R-WY), Coons (D-DE), and Udall (D-NM) we see a treaty that Americas can be proud of. We stand on the cusp of a new decade for people with disabilities and the USA must lead from the front!
Watch testimony and follow this treaty as it seeks to create a new tomorrow for the one billion people with disabilities on our planet. WE NEED YOUR HELP!
By a vote of 13 in favor to 6 opposed the CRPD has moved out of Senate committee to the full floor of the US Senate for ratification.
I am also a registered Republican, and one who came of age during the era of Ronald Reagan, who I still believe to be the greatest president of the second half of the 20th century. I think that this antagonism to any treaty, and to any sort of international agreement, is in contradiction to true Reaganism, and is hindering America’s leadership in the world.
DeMint and the other Republicans who act this way are not exercising good judgment and discernment, but are instead reacting in a knee-jerk manner to anything that involves acting internationally.
This was not Reagan’s way. Look at the actual history. Upon taking office, in 1981 Reagan supported and signed (after Senate ratification) the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which set up a nuclear free zone in Latin America. Later in 1988 he signed the ratification of the UN Convention Against Genocide. Also in 1988, he signed the UN Convention Against Torture (which was ultimately ratified in 19994).
Reagan’s way was to not to simply reject a treaty because it was “international” or had the UN name on it. Rather, Reagan always carefully and judiciously reviewed each treaty for whether it was compatible with US interests, or not. His support for a treaty depended on that, not on simply reacting negatively to treaty-making in general. A case in point is Reagan’s reaction to the two additional protocols to the Geneva Convention (to which the US was already a party). Of the two protocols, Reagan supported one and opposed the other. He opposed Protocol I because it would infringe on American interests, but supported Protocol II because:
” The United States has traditionally been in the forefront of efforts to codify and improve the international rules of humanitarian law in armed conflict, with the objective of giving the greatest possible protection to victims of such conflicts, consistent with legitimate military requirements. The agreement that I am transmitting today is, with certain exceptions, a positive step toward this goal. Its ratification by the United States will assist us in continuing to exercise leadership in the international community in these matters.”- Ronald Reagan
This willingness to support treaties that extended US leadership abilities went the other way around also: when a Republican Senate approved, and President Clinton signed, the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997.
Accordingly, lets be like Reagan in this circumstance. If DeMint and others oppose a treaty which is said (as its supported of both parties do) to apply the ideas of the American’s With Disabilities Act to the international area, and thus expand US influence, and its supporters include bothe Bush 41 (who actually signed the ADA), Bush 43, disabled veteran Bob Dole, and other…. then maybe DeMint and other treaty opponents owe Americans a better explanation as to why this treaty is one a true Reagan Republican would oppose.
Wanting to leverage legislation to the benefit of people with disabilities is most commendable, and to see the Senate take a second look at something in the face of that principle may be cause for askance glances, but the U. N. has activities and initiatives replete with hidden agendas. To take a careful look at those proposals is the best way to make sure some camel is not sticking its nose in the tent. Michael
President George Herbert Walker Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 into law.
The UN treaty is based on the work done by America, the peaceful, democratic leader of human rights.**
It’s unfortunate Congress never ratified the Convention Against Torture or the UN treaty for the disabled.
The ADA set the gold standard for reasonable accommodation. Senator Demint ought to respect the
former President, his legacy, and the ADA. About ten percent of Americans are disabled at some time.
There is a tremendous difference between disabled people. My 22 yr old daughter is less able to read and understand than many of her disabled peers. She is also much more friendly and has very little concept of dangerous situations. Criminals love to take advantage of those who are unable to testify. If the UN really cared about the disabled, they would make crimes targeting people unable to testify a heinous crime with stiffer punishment. And if you are not considered a credible witness how can you give informed consent or sign for a loan?
Not surprised at all. A country like ours didn’t even provide coverage of the Paralympics in London.
It’s about time we brought disability and our treatment of people with them to the fore and give everyone the rights they deserve.
The treaty is opposed because it revokes the rights of US parents to homeschool a child with a disability. As the mother of four boys, two who have Down syndrome, I’m shocked that people automatically accept something as “good” because of it’s title. My boys weren’t learning in public school and my choice to homeschool them was for their benefit. It’s helped them tremendously. Read the treaty. If you want to squash parental rights of children with disabilities, by all means support this.
As a parent of a cognitively disabled child, I genuinely hope the US never ratifies the C.R.P.D. treaty. Parents are the ones who most love their children and should not be superceded in authority by the UN. If the UN wants to encourage countries not to allow physical abuse and neglect, then since that is a proper role for government, the UN can pursue that goal of helping countries pass their own laws which prohibit abuse. Yet, for the UN to have authority to intervene in parent- child situations when they do not agree with legitimate parental choices, is just plain wrong.