Update: 9:27:12: Last Thursday, the U.S. Senate tried to pass the U.N. Disability treaty by stealth means. Fortunately, Senator Mike Lee was ready for it and announced that he and 36 other senators objected to the treaty.
That was enough to defeat the treaty.
Several U.N. treaties including this one are going to be on the table during the lame duck session between November and January.
On Thursday, Senators Mike Lee and Pat Toomey circulated a letter for senators to sign stating that the “writers of the Constitution clearly believed that all treaties presented to the Senate should undergo the most thorough scrutiny before being agreed upon.”
Senator Dick Durban tried to pass the treaty with only a few people on the senate floor last Thursday evening. He asked that it be passed unanimously. Seriously Dick?
Original Story: Do you want the U.N. deciding how your children are raised? Shall we follow their guidelines which sexualize children as young as five-years old? Would you like Margaret Sanger-style population control because the Marxist U.N. says it is the way to go? If you are an abortion fan, do you want the U.N. deciding how it shall be promoted worldwide?
Do you know that several Senate Republicans are joining with Democrats to pass a treaty that does exactly that?
The first of two treaties, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is parading around as a treaty in support of the disabled. It will be followed by a treaty for the rights of the child.
A Senate committee ratified the first monstrosity in July and put it on the back burner until this month when they suddenly brought it up for a vote before the full Senate.
This treaty not only takes away parents’ rights, it puts U.S. sovereignty in the hands of the Marxist U.N., which is comprised of nations whose values are opposed to ours.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution states that treaties form a part of the Supreme Law of the Land once ratified. This treaty hands sovereignty over our parental rights to the U.N.
Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.
2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.
3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.
4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.
5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.
6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.
7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.
Additionally, under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.
8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.
9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.
10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.
Information on the status of the resolution to stop ratification with information on who to contact can be found here.
Information on U.N. Rights to Your Child.
Read more at Washington Times