Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Santorum’s new cause: opposing the disabled

Posted by   + Show Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/santorums-new-cause-opposing-the-disabled/2012/11/26/9ab0605a-3829-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html

President-unelect Rick Santorum made his triumphant return to the Capitol on Monday afternoon and took up a brave new cause: He is opposing disabled people. Specifically, Santorum, joined by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), declared his wish that the Senate reject the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities - a human rights treaty negotiated during George W. Bush's administration and ratified by 126 nations, including China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Syria and Saudi Arabia. 425 Comments Weigh In Corrections? Personal Post Dana Milbank Dana Milbank writes a regular column on politics. Archive @Milbank Facebook RSS You may also like... Ruth Marcus Clothes make the woman Richard Cohen When muscle mattered less The former presidential candidate pronounced his "grave concerns" about the treaty, which forbids discrimination against people with AIDS, who are blind, who use wheelchairs and the like. "This is a direct assault on us," he declared at a news conference. Lee, a tea party favorite, said he, too, has "grave concerns" about the document's threat to American sovereignty. "I will do everything I can to block its ratification, and I have secured the signatures of 36 Republican senators, all of whom have joined with me saying that we will oppose any ratification of any treaty during this lame-duck session." Lame or not, Santorum and Lee recognized that it looks bad to be disadvantaging the disabled in their quest for fair treatment. The former senator from Pennsylvania praised Lee for having "the courage to stand up on an issue that doesn't look to be particularly popular to be opposed." Courageous? Or just contentious? The treaty requires virtually nothing of the United States. It essentially directs the other signatories to update their laws so that they more closely match the Americans with Disabilities Act. Even Lee thought it necessary to preface his opposition with the qualifier that "our concerns with this convention have nothing to do with any lack of concern for the rights of persons with disabilities." Their concerns, rather, came from the dark world of U.N. conspiracy theories. The opponents argue that the treaty, like most everything the United Nations does, undermines American sovereignty - in this case via a plot to keep Americans from home-schooling their children and making other decisions about their well-being. The treaty does no such thing; if it had such sinister aims, it surely wouldn't have the support of disabilities and veterans groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican senators such as John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), and conservative legal minds such as Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh. But the opposition is significant, because it shows the ravages of the Senate's own disability: If members can't even agree to move forward on an innocuous treaty to protect the disabled, how are they to agree on something as charged as the "fiscal cliff"? And although the number of senators who actually oppose the treaty - such as Lee, Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Jim DeMint (S.C.) - is probably quite small, Lee's boast of 36 signatures means he has persuaded enough of his colleagues to block action, at least temporarily. (Treaties require a two-thirds vote in the Senate to pass.) Santorum made an emotional appeal, even bringing his daughter Bella, who has a severe birth defect, to the Senate hearing room for the event. "There's no benefit to the United States from passing it," he said, as Bella wriggled in her mother's arms. "But what it does is open up a Pandora's box for the most vulnerable among us: children with disabilities." Yet the opponents couldn't agree on how this box would be opened. "Do I believe that states will pass laws or have to pass laws in conformity with the U.N. edict?" Santorum asked himself. "Do we have to amend IDEA?" the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. "I don't have any fear anytime soon that IDEA will be amended. But I do have concerns that people will go to courts and they will use this standard in this convention." This was contradicted by the next man at the microphone, home-schooling advocate Mike Farris, who pointed out that the document has a provision stating that "you can't go to court automatically. You must have implementing legislation first" - the very thing Santorum says he does not expect to happen. Still, their spurious theory of a U.N. takeover of parenting was enough to lead Lee and Santorum to oppose a treaty that would extend American values worldwide and guarantee disabled people equal treatment, and freedom from torture and exploitation. Santorum justified his opposition by saying that other countries wouldn't actually enforce the provisions. "It does not provide any moral leadership," he said. But in this fight against rights for the disabled, Santorum doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by on Nov. 27, 2012 at 11:36 AM
Replies (11-20):
cjsix
by Member on Nov. 27, 2012 at 1:29 PM
3 moms liked this

 Please read this and click on the link(here)....this Treaty WILL override United States Laws...it will effect your rights as a parent with a disabled child and it WILL effect the rights of All whom are disabled in anyway.

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) poses a serious threat to the right of parents with disabled children to make decisions on behalf of those children regarding their education, medical care, and other areas of life. By introducing the "best interest of the child" principle as a government obligation (Article 7.2), the CRPD places bureaucrats in the position to make the ultimate decisions regarding each child.

You can read the CRPD in its entirety here - but be aware that many of the dangers of this treaty are not readily identified through a simple reading of the text. This is because many of its terms, including "best interest of the child" and "reproductive rights," have been defined by international law and treaty bodies such as the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

 

Also check out the info that is at this link....and please call your senators and ask them to vote against this! We already have laws in place in Our Country to protect those who are disabled both child and adult and we allow the parents to decide what is best as they alone know their child best. Do not let this be taken away.

 

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={97AC9727-7102-4289-82F7-9F6D89D62C83}

LIMom1105
by on Dec. 5, 2012 at 9:07 AM
1 mom liked this

We have laws in this country. It's difficult for people with disabilities to be in other countries though, just because we have laws here doesn't mean this Treaty isn't needed. I don't see how this Treaty would have hurt us as a nation at all. It actually makes us look very backward as a nation while we are "protecting our sovereignty". 

I find it especially bizarre that Santorum is against this, given that he has a daughter with a disability.

Maybe you rejoice in this decision, but it's shameful.

Quoting 29again:

We already have laws on many levels that prohibit the discrimination of disabled people.  There is absolutely NO need for a UN treaty of this nature.  In fact, there is no need for a treaty with the UN on any matter.  They need to just go away.


JustCJ
by on Dec. 5, 2012 at 10:03 AM
3 moms liked this

Yeh just march into that long building over there for a shower and hot meal....

Quoting LIMom1105:

We have laws in this country. It's difficult for people with disabilities to be in other countries though, just because we have laws here doesn't mean this Treaty isn't needed. I don't see how this Treaty would have hurt us as a nation at all. It actually makes us look very backward as a nation while we are "protecting our sovereignty". 

I find it especially bizarre that Santorum is against this, given that he has a daughter with a disability.

Maybe you rejoice in this decision, but it's shameful.

Quoting 29again:

We already have laws on many levels that prohibit the discrimination of disabled people.  There is absolutely NO need for a UN treaty of this nature.  In fact, there is no need for a treaty with the UN on any matter.  They need to just go away.



rccmom
by Gold Member on Dec. 5, 2012 at 10:13 AM


Quoting 29again:

We already have laws on many levels that prohibit the discrimination of disabled people.  There is absolutely NO need for a UN treaty of this nature.  In fact, there is no need for a treaty with the UN on any matter.  They need to just go away.


Yes we do. What about the other countries this treaty seeks to help? Are less deserving of help because they are not in our country?

Billiejeens
by on Dec. 5, 2012 at 10:33 AM
1 mom liked this

You find it especially bizarre, because Santorum understands the bill and you do not.

See how that works.

Quoting LIMom1105:

We have laws in this country. It's difficult for people with disabilities to be in other countries though, just because we have laws here doesn't mean this Treaty isn't needed. I don't see how this Treaty would have hurt us as a nation at all. It actually makes us look very backward as a nation while we are "protecting our sovereignty". 

I find it especially bizarre that Santorum is against this, given that he has a daughter with a disability.

Maybe you rejoice in this decision, but it's shameful.

Quoting 29again:

We already have laws on many levels that prohibit the discrimination of disabled people.  There is absolutely NO need for a UN treaty of this nature.  In fact, there is no need for a treaty with the UN on any matter.  They need to just go away.

 


LIMom1105
by on Dec. 5, 2012 at 11:07 AM
I do understand the bill. You and Santorum have drunk the KoolAid.


Quoting Billiejeens:

You find it especially bizarre, because Santorum understands the bill and you do not.


See how that works.


Quoting LIMom1105:


We have laws in this country. It's difficult for people with disabilities to be in other countries though, just because we have laws here doesn't mean this Treaty isn't needed. I don't see how this Treaty would have hurt us as a nation at all. It actually makes us look very backward as a nation while we are "protecting our sovereignty". 


I find it especially bizarre that Santorum is against this, given that he has a daughter with a disability.


Maybe you rejoice in this decision, but it's shameful.


Quoting 29again:


We already have laws on many levels that prohibit the discrimination of disabled people.  There is absolutely NO need for a UN treaty of this nature.  In fact, there is no need for a treaty with the UN on any matter.  They need to just go away.


 




Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
mustbeGRACE
by Silver Member on Dec. 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM


Quoting LIMom1105:

I do understand the bill. You and Santorum have drunk the KoolAid.


Quoting Billiejeens:

You find it especially bizarre, because Santorum understands the bill and you do not.


See how that works.


Quoting LIMom1105:


We have laws in this country. It's difficult for people with disabilities to be in other countries though, just because we have laws here doesn't mean this Treaty isn't needed. I don't see how this Treaty would have hurt us as a nation at all. It actually makes us look very backward as a nation while we are "protecting our sovereignty". 


I find it especially bizarre that Santorum is against this, given that he has a daughter with a disability.


Maybe you rejoice in this decision, but it's shameful.


Quoting 29again:


We already have laws on many levels that prohibit the discrimination of disabled people.  There is absolutely NO need for a UN treaty of this nature.  In fact, there is no need for a treaty with the UN on any matter.  They need to just go away.






Santorum has a special needs child and he can't wait to do her in....................

Billiejeens
by on Dec. 5, 2012 at 11:37 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting mustbeGRACE:

 

Quoting LIMom1105:

I do understand the bill. You and Santorum have drunk the KoolAid.


Quoting Billiejeens:

You find it especially bizarre, because Santorum understands the bill and you do not.


See how that works.


Quoting LIMom1105:


We have laws in this country. It's difficult for people with disabilities to be in other countries though, just because we have laws here doesn't mean this Treaty isn't needed. I don't see how this Treaty would have hurt us as a nation at all. It actually makes us look very backward as a nation while we are "protecting our sovereignty". 


I find it especially bizarre that Santorum is against this, given that he has a daughter with a disability.


Maybe you rejoice in this decision, but it's shameful.


Quoting 29again:


We already have laws on many levels that prohibit the discrimination of disabled people.  There is absolutely NO need for a UN treaty of this nature.  In fact, there is no need for a treaty with the UN on any matter.  They need to just go away.


 


 


Santorum has a special needs child and he can't wait to do her in....................


His entire life is centered around his wife and kids, but Limom knows more than him.   Sad.

mikiemom
by Silver Member on Dec. 5, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Seriously, I can't argue with crazy. I'm not answering most of the folks that I recognize as unhinged. How can you say the UN is evil that is just well not rational. obviously you did not review the charter I provided.

Quoting 29again:

So, then, you support the UN's CRC?  Really?  You think a board of whoever can tell you better how to raise your child?  And yet, I'm the one buying into so-called conspiracy theories and scare tactics to keep me in line.  And I need to research the UN.  Tell me, who needs to keep me in line, and for what purpose? 

 

(btw, why won't you answer my questions in the other thread?  just curious.)

Quoting mikiemom:

That's exactly what this treaty does. The UN is not evil they do much good around the world. The UN has no intention of ruling your life. You are basing this on scare tactics that are not real - conspiracy theories that are perpetuated to keep people like you in line. Seriously you need to research the UN before you decide they are not needed in this world.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml 

Quoting 29again:

No, actually I believe the UN is evil.  How does one country protecting the rights of the disabled protect their rights in all the other countries?  And if this is the case, then why is this even necessary, since we have had the ADA for a couple of decades, at least.  WE have laws to protect our disabled citizens, why is that not sufficient?  Why are OUR laws not enough to protect disabled people around the globe?  If other countries whose leaders are not so inclined feel the need to be pushed by the UN to do what is right, that is their perogative.  However, the US does NOT need that kind of oversight!  If you want to be controlled by the UN, there are plenty of countries where that could be arranged.  I happen to not want the UN to control my life, tyvm. 

Quoting mikiemom:

The UN carries weight around the world because of the US backing, ratifying this treaty protects disabled people around the globe for the love of pete why are you against that. I think the hatred and vitriol displayed on this issue shows the true heart of the GOP - it is as evil as they come.

Quoting 29again:

We already have laws on many levels that prohibit the discrimination of disabled people.  There is absolutely NO need for a UN treaty of this nature.  In fact, there is no need for a treaty with the UN on any matter.  They need to just go away.

 


 



itsmesteph11
by on Dec. 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM
3 moms liked this

 Lame.  Guess what, some people who have disable kids or are disabled themselves may have been lied to and cajoled into thinking this was a good thing but had they known they would be giving away their rights to the FREAKING UN they would never have given it a second thought.   THAT"S CRAZY! Anyone Republican or Democrat who thinks this was a good treaty is insane.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)