Parentalrights.org has made a great argument as to why we should not ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). I have largely incorporated it here at this blog post:
But there is another treaty that has some of the fears that the UNCRC has (and which is generally shared with other UN treaties, too): Loss of sovereignty and answering to foreign agencies! It is a treaty that is likely to have a positive initial impact. It is the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CPRD). Here’s the text and here’s Parental Rights’ legal analysis on portions of it:
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… .” 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 regarding the education of children with disabilities.
Let me add a couple of points here (keep in mind we in the USA do have a federal anti-discrimination law involving disabled people that tries to draw the reasonable balance between ability to work and stereotyping disabled people.):
Article 25 of the CPRD could be construed to require something like Obamacare to mandate all insurers cover all possible disabilities regardless of cost:
States Parties recognize that persons with disabilities have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without
discrimination on the basis of disability. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure access for persons with disabilities to health services that are gender-sensitive, including health-related rehabilitation.
Also see Article 4, Section 1(h):
To provide accessible information to persons with disabilities about mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies, including new
technologies, as well as other forms of assistance, support services and facilities;
This language is potentially pro-abortion:
Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes; (Article 25, section a)
Articles 34 and 35 mandates another UN Committee that the USA has to report to. I will say it again: The Constitution forbids mandated reports to foreign committees! No patriotic American can support that! This is also troubling language:
With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, each State Party undertakes to take measures to the maximum of its available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international cooperation, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of these rights, without prejudice to those obligations contained in the present Convention that are immediately applicable according to international law. (Article 4, Section 2)
Not just rights of disabled people but ALL “economic, social and cultural rights” and “within the framework of international cooperation”, the US would “achiev(e) progressively the full realization of these rights,…” This is a Trojan horse to bring in all sorts of crazy ideas into US law.
Now it is time for readers to consider taking action – contact your Senators:
So please, before closing this email, call your senators and urge them to oppose ratification of Treaty 112-7, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Tell them American law is sufficient to protect these rights, and we do not need to subject ourselves to international rule. Tell them you support the traditional role of parents which this ratification would undermine. Tell them American law protecting the disabled is already the best in the world without surrendering any of our sovereignty to unelected UN bureaucrats.
To reach them you can call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121, or click on your state at ParentalRights.org/States for their D.C. Office direct number.
Then, contact the White House and urge President Obama to withdraw the CRPD from consideration. The White House switchboard is 202-456-1414.
I think Senator Webb is workable – Senator Warner is probably beyond hope other than a vote to criticize him in a future campaign. Senator Webb’s office is 202.224.4024.