Republicans were against treaty since 1+1=3

I have already written about the craziness that surrounded the defeat of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities treaty, but the Boston Globe has a nice roundup of the affair. The people who argued against the treaty were not just wrong they were obviously wrong:

Farris, added to the witness list after Republicans on the committee learned of his objections to the treaty, testified that the treaty was “dangerous” to parents who teach disabled children at home. In a later radio interview, Farris would put his argument in the starkest terms: “The definition of disability is not defined in the treaty and so, my kid wears glasses, now they’re disabled; now the UN gets control over them.”

Kerry sounded sarcastic as he belittled Farris’s claims.

“So you believe that President George Herbert Walker Bush and Attorney General Thornburgh and majority leader Robert Dole, and a bunch of other people, just don’t understand the Constitution or can’t read the law?” Kerry asked Farris.

Farris responded that all of them had “reached incorrect conclusions.”

Senators James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, favorites of the Tea Party, wrote an op-ed for The Washington Times that said the treaty “calls for government agents to supersede the authority of parents of disabled children and even covers abortion.”

Dole and other supporters of the treaty viewed the charges as laughably false. The treaty legislation clearly stated that it required no change in US law, and there were no new abortion rights, they said.

“There are two parties in Washington,” Farris said. There is “the evil party,” meaning Democrats, and “the stupid party,” referring to many Republicans, he said.

And he saw something else. It is, he said, the ideal “wedge issue” for future political campaigns. It also played into fears that the United Nations threatens American sovereignty.

UN spokesman Dan Shepard, asked about Farris’s claim that the UN could dictate American disabilities policy, said it was “absolutely not true . . . it is not like any one swoops in and takes children. The UN doesn’t have an army, it doesn’t make laws for any member state . . .  every member state is sovereign.”

Farris, meanwhile, stood by his assertion that he understood the treaty better than Republican supporters such as Thornburgh. Farris, a graduate of Gonzaga University School of Law, said he has better legal training when it comes to treaties.

“I have an LLM in international law from the University of London,” Farris said, referring to a postgraduate degree that is similar to a master’s program. Asked for details, Farris said he didn’t go to London for the degree; it came in a “distance learning” course and culminated in a proctored exam at a local community college.

Here’s more of Farris speaking against the treaty:

 If we want to live in a Brave New World like that where the bureaucrats and the government and the UN all tell us what to do, fine, but this is the beginning of the end of American self-government if we go here, it’s just crazy, we cannot let this happen.


Every parent with a disabled child is going to be in the same legal position as if they’d been convicted of child abuse. We are taking away parental decision-making power in that area. The other thing that everybody in America will be living under is socialism as an international entitlement. The United States resisted all the UN treaties of a certain category that began being proliferated in the 1960s; the first was the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights. Our country said no that is coercive socialism, we’re not going to do that. So we rejected all those treaties ever since 1966. Yet we’re signing up now for our first economic, social and cultural treaty which means as a matter of international binding law that goes to the supremacy clause level in our Constitution, we’re signing up to be an official socialist nation, cradle-to-grave care for the disabled. Maybe Americans want to do that, but I think we’d want to do it as a matter of domestic law, not as a matter of international law. I personally don’t think that’s any business of Congress to do that sort of thing but I certainly don’t want to be doing it when the United Nations tells us to do it. So those are two big ways it will affect every American and there are more.

He also thinks President Obama will outlaw home schooling. The fact that someone as idiotic as this guy was able to convince enough Republicans to vote against the treaty to defeat says how bad the Republican Party has become. Oh and the Globe article also brings up this:

At a Capitol Hill press conference, Santorum appeared with his daughter, Bella, who was born with a potentially fatal disability. The treaty, Santorum maintained, could prevent parents from having children such as Bella. He said it would put a doctor “in position to say ‘we will do what we believe is in the best interest of your daughter, Bella, which is not to have her have a physical or mental disability that could lead to suffering and death but that person either should have an abortion or should not be given treatment. We shouldn’t be spending resources on a child like that. It is in her best interest not to live with these medical and physical disabilities.’ ”

This is so obviously wrong that people should be laughing at Santorum and yet he came pretty close to winning the Republican nomination for President last year.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: