In November of 2012, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) said that the Senate would begin consideration of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Fortunately, the left failed to gain sufficient votes for ratification, but that may very well change in the very near future.
The treaty sounds harmless enough – after all, who would not want to protect the rights of the disabled?
Ratification of the Disabilities Treaty is a “warm-up act for other UN treaties, chief of which is the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Small Arms Treaty.
And, like most U.N. treaties, this one has a little more to it than the title implies.
Under the CRPD the U.S. would be required to make regular reports to a “committee of experts,” and I use the term “experts” loosely. These unelected, possibly Communist or Socialist “experts” would have the authority to review our reports and make “suggestions and general recommendation as it considers appropriate.” As we have seen in the past, these demands can and will be outside of the scope of the treaty’s subject matter. They can override national sovereignty in pursuit of social engineering, feminist ideology or merely busybody interference in our country’s internal affairs.
Article 6 (2) requires that all American disability laws be subject to international laws and requires America to comply with another U.N. Treaty on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women which enshrines abortion on demand, homosexual rights and demands for complete disarmament of all people.
Article 7 gives our government the power to override every decision a parent of a disabled child makes by using the caveat “the best interest of the child.” This phase has already been abused by family courts to substitute judges’ decisions for parents’ decisions Transferring the “best interest of the child” to the government or worse, to the United Nations, is beyond stupid.
Feminists already saw to it that this treaty included language in Article 25 that requires signatory states to “provide persons with disabilities” free government provided health care, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based health programs” ( Socialist for Euthanasia).
Wow – I can already see the abuse of that Article. Who wants to put their mentally or physically disabled child into the hands of government bureaucrats to make decisions on whether or not they deserve to live, or have these “experts” order the sterilization of your physically or mentally disabled child for their “own good”? Or decide that a disabled adult deserves to die because the cost of maintaining their lives is too expensive?
When the U.N. approved the CRPD, the U.S. made a statement that the phrase “reproductive health” does not include abortion. But that was just whistling in the wind because international law does not recognize the validity of one nation’s reservations to a treaty ratified by many other nations.
According to Hillary Clinton, when testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on April 22, 2009, the definition of “reproductive health” does includes abortion. Who are you going to believe? A bunch of Socialist you don’t know or our own resident Socialist?
As usual, the treaty is very vague on definitions included within the body of the text. The treaty states that “disability is an evolving concept.” Whoa! That means all those right-wing, conservative Christians who disagree with the United Nations or our own government’s agenda, might just end up on that “disabled” list, putting our lives under control of some third world dictator on the U.N. committee.
This treaty is a broadside attack on parents’ rights to raise their disabled children, and it’s a particular threat to homeschooling families because of the known bureaucratic bias against homeschooling.
The U.S. already has the strongest disability legislation in the world. The idea that the U.N. can provide more benefits or protections for persons with disabilities than the U.S. is way bizarre.
The far left is once again arguing that this treaty will help the rest of the world “catch up” to our standards. Not So! Ratifying this treaty will only put American laws at the mercy of international law which is exactly why it was written and why Obama wants it ratified.
Senate Democrats led by Socialist Robert Menendez (D-NJ) are looking to reintroduce the treaty once again, citing recent Republican losses in the 2012 election, the Gang of Eight Immigration reform, and the Supreme Courts recent gay marriage rulings, as their opportunity to get it ratified.
As one Democratic aide smugly cited: “There comes a point when a lot of these galvanizing issues with a social component, when you’re on the wrong side of too many of them it has an effect… You have voices within [the Republican] Caucus making the case that ‘we need to get our act together’.”
Republican opposition to the treaty seems to be faltering, and the Democrats see many paths to getting the treaty ratified.
It is absolutely critical for people to see this treaty for what it is, which is nothing short of turning our authority as parents and as a nation over to the United Nations. By law, the treaty needs 67 votes to pass which means we need to persuade at least 34 Senators to defeat it. Please contact your Senator today and urge them to vote down this deadly infringement on U.S. sovereignty.
YOUR RIGHTS DEPEND ON IT.