US Senate rejects UN treaty on disability rights amid GOP opposition

Posted in the Minneapolis Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of55
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Apr 08

Twin Cities

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 6, 2012
 
Associated Press in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 4 December 2012 18.04 EST

Led by Republican opposition, the Senate on Tuesday rejected a United Nations treaty on the rights of the disabled that is modeled after the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act.

With 38 Republicans casting "no" votes, the 61-38 vote fell five short of the two-thirds majority needed to ratify a treaty. The vote took place in an unusually solemn atmosphere, with senators sitting at their desks rather than milling around the podium. Former Senate majority leader Bob Dole, looking frail and in a wheelchair, was in the chamber to support the treaty.

The treaty, already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, states that nations should strive to assure that the disabled enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as their fellow citizens. Republicans objected to taking up a treaty during the lame-duck session of the Congress and warned that the treaty could pose a threat to US national sovereignty.

"I do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially overzealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe upon American society," said Republican senator Jim Inhofe.

They were not swayed by support for the treaty from some of the party's prominent veterans, including the 89-year-old Dole, who was disabled during World War II; John McCain, who also suffered disabling injuries in Vietnam; Dick Lugar, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee; and former attorney general Dick Thornburgh. Eight Republicans voted to approve the treaty.

The treaty also was widely backed by the disabilities community and veterans groups.

[continued]

Since: Apr 08

Twin Cities

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 6, 2012
 
Democratic support for the convention was led by Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, Senate democratic whip Dick Durbin and Tom Harkin, one of the key players in writing the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.

"It really isn't controversial," Kerry said. "What this treaty says is very simple. It just says that you can't discriminate against the disabled. It says that other countries have to do what we did 22 years ago when we set the example for the world and passed the Americans with Disabilities Act."

In a statement after the vote, Kerry said it was "one of the saddest days I've seen in almost 28 years in the Senate and it needs to be a wake-up call about a broken institution that's letting down the American people".

The ADA put the United States in the forefront of efforts to secure equal rights for the disabled, and it became the blueprint for the UN treaty, formally the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The treaty was negotiated by the George Bush administration. It was completed in 2006 and President Barack Obama signed it in 2009.

The United Nations estimates that 650 million people around the world are disabled, about 10 percent of world population.

Kerry and other backers stressed that the treaty requires no changes in US law, that a committee created by the treaty to make recommendations has no power to change laws and that the treaty cannot serve as a basis for a lawsuit in US courts.

They said the treaty, by encouraging other countries to emulate the rights and facilities for the disabled already existing in the United States, would be of benefit for disabled Americans, particularly veterans, who want to work, travel or study abroad.

Supporters also rejected the argument that it was inappropriate to consider an international treaty in a post-election lame-duck session. They said that since the 1970s the Senate had voted to approve treaties 19 times during lame-duck sessions.

But in September, 36 Republican senators signed a letter saying they would not vote for any treaty during the lame duck,

The opposition was led by Tea Party favorite Mike Lee, who argued that the treaty by its very nature threatened US sovereignty. Specifically he expressed concerns that the treaty could lead to the state, rather than parents, determining what was in the best interest of disabled children in such areas as home schooling, and that language in the treaty guaranteeing the disabled equal rights to reproductive health care could lead to abortions. Parents, Lee said, will "raise their children with the constant looming threat of state interference."

Supporters said such concerns were unfounded.

"I am frankly upset," said Chris Coons, "that they have succeeded in scaring the parents who home school their children all over this country." He said he said his office had received dozens of calls from homeschooling parents urging him to vote against the convention.

The conservative Heritage Action for America urged senators to vote no against the treaty, saying it would be recorded as a key vote on their scorecard. It repeated the argument that the treaty "would erode the principles of American sovereignty and federalism."
Bridgework

Lincoln, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

What positive impact to the US would signing the treaty provide? The answer is none, so why sign it? The Republicans did what they were elected to do in opposing a needless treaty.
Capt Crunch

Fountain Hills, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Nothing that erodes our sovereignty and promotes a world government ever displeases a liberal.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Any organization that lets a 7th century theocracy like Saudi Arabia on their human rights council has no business dictating anything to anyone about human/civil rights.

Since: Apr 08

Twin Cities

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Bridgework wrote:
What positive impact to the US would signing the treaty provide? The answer is none, so why sign it? The Republicans did what they were elected to do in opposing a needless treaty.
I respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree with you in thinking this is a needless treaty. Why should we not sign onto something that benefits the most vulnerable when there's no cost to us in doing so? There was similar resistance to the ADA but thankfully that was passed. I'm a little sickened that we'd be a nation that willingly goes into other nations with military force "for the good of the people" but we would balk at signing onto a treaty that protects those war wounded.
Bridgework

Lincoln, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

ZenBirdist wrote:
<quoted text>
I respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree with you in thinking this is a needless treaty. Why should we not sign onto something that benefits the most vulnerable when there's no cost to us in doing so? There was similar resistance to the ADA but thankfully that was passed. I'm a little sickened that we'd be a nation that willingly goes into other nations with military force "for the good of the people" but we would balk at signing onto a treaty that protects those war wounded.
Zen, there is always a cost and by your own post the treaty is not actually enforceable. It creates an oversight body which can make recommendation, but is supposed to have no power. Who pays for that body, and why bother if we already have the same oversight built into our constitution and laws? The other nations will still go forward with the treaty without the USís involvement.

Since: Apr 08

Twin Cities

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Bridgework wrote:
<quoted text>
Zen, there is always a cost and by your own post the treaty is not actually enforceable. It creates an oversight body which can make recommendation, but is supposed to have no power. Who pays for that body, and why bother if we already have the same oversight built into our constitution and laws? The other nations will still go forward with the treaty without the USís involvement.
Hello, Bridge. Each nation will be held reponsible for its own enforcement as I understand it. The reason we should bother is twofold; it's a simple humanitarian gesture for one, and for another it would foster a better perception of Americans. I truly believe the Senate's rejection of the largely symbolic treaty is being received internationally as a middle finger to the rest of the world. How many senators voted no on this? Just a handful of extremely partisan politicians made the decision that this isn't the right thing to in a lame duck session. That's shameful to me that political posturing weighed so heavily into an ethical decision.

Again, only my humble opinions on a topic that is very personal to me.
starter

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bridgework wrote:
What positive impact to the US would signing the treaty provide? The answer is none, so why sign it? The Republicans did what they were elected to do in opposing a needless treaty.
Did your parents expose you to any religious or "golden rule" type teachings growing up?
Bridgework

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 6, 2012
 
starter wrote:
<quoted text>
Did your parents expose you to any religious or "golden rule" type teachings growing up?
Sure, what part of turning down this treaty applies to that? Will it impact the ADA either way?
Dads Biological Sister

Grantsburg, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 6, 2012
 
Amused Slew wrote:
SO, you're too stupid/partisan to help the world of disabled people, even if it includes American's abroad... Good "job" troll !LMAOROTFU~!
Idiot,

Why is so difficult for you to embrace your idiocy?

Even your cut/pastes are never relevant to any issue that you post them on.

As a Psychotic EVERYTHING you post is a "Defensive Reaction",(Google the expression!) and you use every one of the 12 or so Defenses defined by Professionals to identify Mentally Ill like you that know nothing but "Defensive Reactions".

Nothing you post has EVER had any value, and we are subjected to you working out your Uncle Daddy issues in public on this Forum, to the detriment of we the normal functioning Human Beings.

Isn't there a more appropriate Forum on the Internet for Sociopaths like you to do the "Uh Huh, Yup, Yup, Yup, Uh Huh" babble with others just like you? We know that you in the 10% Defective exist, and always will.

There must be a Home for Psychotics like you on the Internet someplace.

Would you like me to find a "Home" for you on the Internet where you can babble with your Co Defectives?

Signed, Mommy
Moms Biological Brother

Grantsburg, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Dec 6, 2012
 
Amused Slew wrote:
Courtesy of DELICIOUS PhillipKs VodKa and LOTS OF BRAIN DAMAGE ~! LMAOROTFU~!
Slewsie!

What did my sista, your Mommy just say to you!

Leave the Decent people alone. You know that your "condition" leaves you to stupid to engage with "folk" outside the Asylum!

Signed, Uncle Daddy
Bridgework

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Amused Slew wrote:
SO, you're too stupid/partisan to help the world of disabled people, even if it includes American's abroad... Good "job" troll !LMAOROTFU~!
God you are an idiot. The treaty will be there with or with out the US and we already offer the disabled equal rights.
non-starter

Burnsville, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bridgework wrote:
<quoted text>
God you are an idiot. The treaty will be there with or with out the US and we already offer the disabled equal rights.
Actually, in some cases, they have more rights..........
Seattle PD

Grantsburg, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Dec 6, 2012
 
Amused Slew wrote:
<quoted text>God you are an idiot. We provide leadership and pressure to the rest of the free world, the treaty is weakened by our STUPID POLITICAL POSTURING and SO IS OUR REPUTATION !!!
......Public Service Warning.....

One of Seattle's Most Notorious Idiots afflicted with a Pathological Desire for "Little BOI's" has escaped from the Seattle West Insane Aslylum.

Lock your Doors, Lock up your Sons, and lock up your Sheep and Dogs!

This is not a test, the threat is real.

This freak is known to frequent the Local Gay Bars, and the City Parks.....Arm yourselves and be on High Alert!
Bridgework

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Dec 6, 2012
 
Amused Slew wrote:
<quoted text>God you are an idiot. We provide leadership and pressure to the rest of the free world, the treaty is weakened by our STUPID POLITICAL POSTURING and SO IS OUR REPUTATION !!!
Weakened? How was it enforceable in the first place? Just who is our reputation hurt with? We have been killing children, violating nations seventy, arming terrorists, and you think people care that we didn't sign this puff treaty? It is odd that you care about the world's disabled, but shrug off the children killed by US drones. You are sick in the head.
non-starter

Burnsville, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Dec 6, 2012
 
Amused Slew wrote:
Since many of them are veterans and many need more rights to lead a semblance normalcy, that must be your right wing nut hatred of anyone different... GOOD JOB, troll !
I don't recall saying that they didn't need more rights to get along. You keep on putting words in other people's mouths. Try to quiet a couple of the voices in your head, you might not need so many aliases on here.
Bridgework

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Amused Slew wrote:
Since many of them are veterans and many need more rights to lead a semblance normalcy, that must be your right wing nut hatred of anyone different... GOOD JOB, troll !
You are a MORON. Veterans already have full rights.
Bridgework

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Dec 6, 2012
 
Amused Slew wrote:
<quoted text>Well hell, let's keep it up, then... SARCASM !!! Like I said before, you're the problem, with your excuse making, dishonesty, and ignorance...
So you are saying that Obama is a war criminal who has caused the death of 178 children?
non-starter

Burnsville, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Dec 6, 2012
 
Amused Slew wrote:
<quoted text>It's nice you point it out, too bad you seem ignorant that THEY NEED MORE TO GET BY, hater wing nut !
Listen to more of the voices in your left ear, those ones on the right side are a little angry.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of55
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

21 Users are viewing the Minneapolis Forum right now

Search the Minneapolis Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
On Climate, Business as Usual 6 min griddy 1
Will George Bush Ever Paint the Ghost of an Ira... 25 min griddy 1
Inside Paul Ryan, Inside the GOP 41 min griddy 1
LRT 4 deadly weapon assaults in Mpls in 2 days 45 min Ralph 6
EPA stonewalling 47 min Ralph 6
Jews ordered to register in east Ukraine 49 min Ralph 2
Mpls. considers plastic food containers banMpls... 51 min Ralph 5
•••
•••
•••
•••

Minneapolis Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••