Senate rebuffs Bob Dole's appeal for passage disability treaty - page 2

by herring_RN 1,976 Views | 20 Comments Guide

Senate rebuffs Dole's appeal for passage of UN disability treaty By LINDSAY WISE AND DAVE HELLING The Kansas City Star Former U.S. Sen. Bob Dole, his 89-year old body now weakened by age, illness and war injuries, sat... Read More


  1. 0
    This bill required registering children at birth with disabilities or as soon as they are discovered. Physical and mental disabilities. It wants group homes and institutions built and makes these children wards of the state. At which point it is a slippery slope to insanity. A fresh out of college social worker with no child rearing experience already has too much clout in the lives of struggling families and many times in their eagerness mistake abuse for normalcy and normalcy for abuse. We have a gamut of children being left in dangerous situations while many more are ripped from their homes needlessly. This bill empowers the state to dictate what is and is not appropriate care for children with disabilities down to removing children from their homes. Now, it sounds good in theory. Protect the children from being thrust into child labor camps in third world countries...but as a mom of a child with a disability, I will be damned if I allow the state to dictate the health care needs of my son. I am with him daily. I know what his needs are, not some well intended 22 year old that barely has a psych degree and has never even babysat, let alone raised a child, healthy or otherwise. This bill, while well intentioned is not defined enough and removes parental rights. Something that American parents cling to with everything in them.
  2. 5
    Having traveled to other parts of the world I realize how inadequate facilities and amenities are for the disabled. We are fortunate that we had leaders with the foresight to vote on and pass The Americans With Disabilities Act. I was ashamed and appalled by the Senate vote. 126 other countries have seen fit to ratify this treaty. Hopefully, those 38 Republicans will come to their senses in the New Year.
    OCNRN63, tewdles, somenurse, and 2 others like this.
  3. 3
    I'm so sorry. I think you may have been told inaccurate interpretations of the treaty. This is NOT a bill that can possibly affect ANY person living in the United States.
    It will
    It cannot have any effect on people in the United States at all because the Americans with Disabilities Act is already the law.

    Is the below section the part you refer to? All people in most countries are registered at birth. It is called "record of live birth" or "birth certificate". By the middle the 20th century all the United States had a process for registering all votes. The purpose is to ensure all rights of citizenship must be afforded the same for everyone. People with disabilities have the right to an education and participation in their community the same as all people do.
    The child who is not registered at birth is in danger of being shut out of society -- http://www.childinfo.org/files/birth...estenglish.pdf
    I found no mention of "as soon as they are discovered". Somehow you have gotten wrong information.

    Article 18 - Liberty of movement and nationality
    States Parties shall recognize the rights of persons with disabilities to liberty of movement, to freedom to choose their residence and to a nationality, on an equal basis with others, including by ensuring that persons with disabilities:

    1. Have the right to acquire and change a nationality and are not deprived of their nationality arbitrarily or on the basis of disability;
    2. Are not deprived, on the basis of disability, of their ability to obtain, possess and utilize documentation of their nationality or other documentation of identification, or to utilize relevant processes such as immigration proceedings, that may be needed to facilitate exercise of the right to liberty of movement;
    3. Are free to leave any country, including their own;
    4. Are not deprived, arbitrarily or on the basis of disability, of the right to enter their own country.

    Children with disabilities shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by their parents.

    Article 19 - Living independently and being included in the community

    States Parties to this Convention recognize the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others, and shall take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the community, including by ensuring that:

    1. Persons with disabilities have the opportunity to choose their place of residence and where and with whom they live on an equal basis with others and are not obliged to live in a particular living arrangement;
    2. Persons with disabilities have access to a range of in-home, residential and other community support services, including personal assistance necessary to support living and inclusion in the community, and to prevent isolation or segregation from the community;
    3. Community services and facilities for the general population are available on an equal basis to persons with disabilities and are responsive to their needs.

    http://www.un.org/disabilities/conve...tionfull.shtml
    aknottedyarn, tewdles, and Elvish like this.
  4. 2
    This is an article about why Rick Santorum is against this treaty:
    Santorum: UN Disabilities Treaty Would’ve Had Bureaucrats Unseat Parents - The Daily Beast

    Here is a link to the full text of the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (UN Treaty):
    UN Enable - Adopted Articles

    If you click on the above link, scroll up to the top of the page to read the treaty from the beginning. for some reason when you click the link, it brings you halfway into the page at article 33 or 34 and I don't know why. LOL

    I am confused about why people think homeschooling will be taken away, parents will be forced to abort babies who have genetic defects, etc. I consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person, and have not been able to find where in the text people are getting this information.

    Are people just concerned that based on the wording of the treaty, that the government will step in and make amendments to current policy based on this treaty had it been accepted?? I don't see it. I read that the disabled will have equal rights and access to health care to improve, enhance, or even save their lives regardless of disability. Nothing there about abortions.

    There is also nothing there about homeschooling, and several of my fellow homeschool moms were having a stroke over this treaty. All it said was that children would have an equal right and access to public education, just like able bodied kids. It didn't say the government was gonna take your kid away if you homeschool them.

    I have a niece who is disabled and she goes to public school. She gets PT/OT, and speech therapy DAILY (which she needs) and age and cognitive appropriate education, socialization, etc. She wouldn't get that if she was homeschooled, so I get why it is important to have children with disabilities in the public school system. they have access to better care. Insurance only covers so much therapy in a year. Public school picks up where her insurance leaves off.

    I don't mean to chase rabbits here, just thinking out loud. I can't understand what the problem was with the treaty after reading it. Someone who is against it, help me out. I was afraid of it passing because of all the hullabaloo in the homeschool community and some of our elected officials who disagree with it, but after reading it, I am left scratching my head.

    It seems to me, the treaty was trying to put options, choices, and basic human rights into the hands of the disabled and it is modeled after our ADA anyway.
    herring_RN and tewdles like this.
  5. 3
    This treaty, like so many other "issues" that our legislators become involved with, has not been presented as much more than (to paraphrase), "approval equals caring; disapproval is mean-spirited" and becomes yet another political football - Democrat vs. Republican, respectively). Our politicians waste so much time on something that is not needed in the US. That a bazillion other countries signed onto this is of no importance, other than that a bazillion other countries signed onto it.

    Does the US really need to be a part of this?
    Does the US gain from this (other than appearing to "care")?


    With all that is going on (i.e., the nation going broke), why are politicians even dealing with this? If we have any problems (excuse me.... 'issues') involving care of the disabled, we can most certainly and more effectively deal with them right here without some international busybody running the show. This is yet another example of the ruling class doing what it does best:

    1.) Get (re-)elected.
    2.) Spend our money.
    3.) Distract and divide people.
    4.) Look good and be revered while doing so.
    5.) Repeat 1-4 above.
    tewdles, Medic2RN, and DebblesRN like this.
  6. 3
    Quote from Overland1
    This treaty, like so many other "issues" that our legislators become involved with, has not been presented as much more than (to paraphrase), "approval equals caring; disapproval is mean-spirited" and becomes yet another political football - Democrat vs. Republican, respectively). Our politicians waste so much time on something that is not needed in the US. That a bazillion other countries signed onto this is of no importance, other than that a bazillion other countries signed onto it.

    Does the US really need to be a part of this?
    Does the US gain from this (other than appearing to "care")?


    With all that is going on (i.e., the nation going broke), why are politicians even dealing with this? If we have any problems (excuse me.... 'issues') involving care of the disabled, we can most certainly and more effectively deal with them right here without some international busybody running the show. This is yet another example of the ruling class doing what it does best:

    1.) Get (re-)elected.
    2.) Spend our money.
    3.) Distract and divide people.
    4.) Look good and be revered while doing so.
    5.) Repeat 1-4 above.
    My opinion, and it is only mine, is that it is important to us if we travel to other countries that may not have the same standards for dealing with the needs as addressed in our ADA. If you travel with a child who has special needs in some countries they will not be viewed in a positive light. Once, while traveling overseas I asked why I never saw a wheel chair or anyone who had difficulties in shopping areas. I was told that those who needed that kind of support stayed at home. There were no cutout in curbs, no handicap accessible entrances, in general, no support for those who needed a bit of assistance.

    The treaty was to get other countries "up to speed" so there would be those things when we travel to other countries. Other than that perhaps it is a "feel good thing" but I do believe all of our citizens should have the ability to go to other places even if they need some assistance such as handicap accessibility or curb cutouts.

    Dragging a disabled child to the Senate floor, as Santorum did, I believe is the height of disgusting behavior. She was paraded for political gain on the basis of her disability. Senator Dole had reason to be there. He had helped create the ADA in the US on which that treaty was based. The only thing that Santorum did was prove we do have ADA in place. It would be nice if everyplace had that same kind of acceptance. Our failure to pass the treaty is a black eye for all of us.
    herring_RN, Elvish, and tewdles like this.
  7. 3
    While I recognize Republicans have provided an argument to support their obstinance, there's a big difference between a reasoned argument and one that is completely incoherent.

    Lets review the Republican reasoning:

    1) This treaty will have absolutely no effect on America
    2) This treaty threatens the sovereignty of America (this would seem to directly contradict reason #1)
    3) We are already the leader in disability rights (leaders take the lead on issues, they don't refuse to take part in addressing an issue because it won't directly benefit them. If we really are the leaders and other countries follow our lead, then they'll also refuse to take part in improving their disability rights standards).
    4) It's all a plan to take away parental rights and make disabled kids a ward of the state. (The treaty is largely modeled after the ADA which doesn't make kids a ward of the state, this is based on the wording that states the commission must base their decisions on "the best interests of the child", in other words they should avoid making decisions that aren't in the best interests of the child, which seems extremely reasonable. Plus, this actually prevents what republicans are concerned about from happening, taking kids away from parents or making decisions for parents is prohibited if it's not in the best interests of the child. How you get that saying decisions should be "made in the best interest in the child" somehow means that they will be allowed to do just the opposite is perplexing).
    herring_RN, tewdles, and aknottedyarn like this.
  8. 0
    if you had a deaf child and home schooled them, would you like to be told by someone in geneva that you had to adda wheelchair ramp or elevator to your home because it is an "institution of learning". would you like to be told which programs you might educate your children with, from a list of programs "approved" by a council of 3rd world dictator appointees?

    this treaty is a much bigger animal than it is presented as.
  9. 1
    Quote from justashooter
    if you had a deaf child and home schooled them, would you like to be told by someone in geneva that you had to adda wheelchair ramp or elevator to your home because it is an "institution of learning". would you like to be told which programs you might educate your children with, from a list of programs "approved" by a council of 3rd world dictator appointees?

    this treaty is a much bigger animal than it is presented as.
    If something is not needed for ADA here then the treaty would not have changed that.
    MunoRN likes this.
  10. 2
    Quote from justashooter
    if you had a deaf child and home schooled them, would you like to be told by someone in geneva that you had to adda wheelchair ramp or elevator to your home because it is an "institution of learning". would you like to be told which programs you might educate your children with, from a list of programs "approved" by a council of 3rd world dictator appointees?

    this treaty is a much bigger animal than it is presented as.
    I wouldn't, but then again the treaty doesn't do that or anything like it, so I'm not sure what your point is.
    herring_RN and aknottedyarn like this.


Top