Senate GOP still heartless

[Touma]

Senate rejects treaty to protect disabled around the world - The Washington Post

The Senate has failed to ratify an international treaty intended to protect the rights of those with disabilities, as a bloc of conservatives opposed the treaty believing it could interfere with U.S. law.

The Senate voted 61 to 38 to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, a tally that fell short of the two-thirds needed to sign on to an international treaty.


The 2006 treaty, which forbids discrimination of the disabled, has enjoyed bipartisan support. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the treaty would encourage other nations to develop the kind of protections the United States adopted 22 years ago with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The international treaty’s thrust, he said, was a message: “Be more like us.”

But the treaty has split Republicans. Among its most vocal supporters were Republican war veterans, including President George H.W. Bush and former senator Bob Dole, who was injured in World War II and made a rare return to the Senate floor Tuesday to observe the vote and lend his stature.

Other conservatives were deeply suspicious of the United Nations, which would oversee treaty obligations. Those who opposed the treaty included former senator and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, the father of a developmentally disabled child who had traveled to Capitol Hill last week to encourage fellow Republicans to vote no.

He and other conservatives argued that the treaty could relinquish U.S. sovereignty to a U.N. committee charged with overseeing a ban on discrimination and determining how the disabled, including children, should be treated. They particularly worried that the committee could violate the rights of parents who choose to home school their disabled children.

“This is a direct assault on us,” Santorum said.

Nations that have signed on to the treaty include China, Iran and Syria. Opponents said that American approval might give the impression that the United States accepts how those nations treat their disabled citizens.

“The hard reality is that there are nation-states, like China, who do like to sign up to these organizations and gain the reputation for doing good things while, in fact, not doing good things,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)

Supporters dismissed those fears as paranoid, noting that the treaty would change nothing in U.S. law without further approval from Congress.

How sad. Nations like Iran and China are agreeing to raise their standards to our levels or higher, and the GOP in the Senate cannot even give it enough support, even though their party was the one that negotiated it.

One more reason the GOP is going to be flushed down the toilet soon.

 

[Eternally Optimistic]

Conservatives have always been generally weary of such treaties, regardless of being good or bad, why is it that surprising the GOP would oppose further internationalism? From the GOP perspective the US does not need a new binding treaty as it already has the ADA. If other countries wish to emulate the US let them. It has less to do I imagine with "heartlessness" than with national sovereignty.

 

[Cute Tink]

Iran and China shouldn't need a UN treaty to treat the disabled as people...

 

[Touma]

Conservatives have always been generally weary of such treaties, regardless of being good or bad, why is it that surprising the GOP would oppose further internationalism? From the GOP perspective the US does not need a new binding treaty as it already has the ADA. If other countries wish to emulate the US let them. It has less to do I imagine with "heartlessness" than with national sovereignty.

If you read the article, you'll notice how it says that this doesn't change US law. It only makes sure that other countries are raisin their standards. I don't see how that infringes on US sovereignty.

 

[questftbest]

The OP's signature says that "Israel is a terrorist state". Absolutely disgraceful!

 

[Eternally Optimistic]

If you read the article, you'll notice how it says that this doesn't change US law. It only makes sure that other countries are raisin their standards. I don't see how that infringes on US sovereignty.

The US signing on or not signing on to the treaty does not impact what other countries decide to do. US support, or now lack of support, does not make China, or Russia, or India, or Korea ratify the treaty or live up to the obligations thereof if they do ratify it.

 

[Touma]

The OP's signature says that "Israel is a terrorist state". Absolutely disgraceful!

That has nothing to do with the article. Please stay on topic.

The US signing on or not signing on to the treaty does not impact what other countries decide to do. US support, or now lack of support, does not make China, or Russia, or India, or Korea ratify the treaty or live up to the obligations thereof if they do ratify it.

No, but it does seem entirely ignorant to vote against a measure that your own party created in order to urge other countries around the world to take better care of their citizens. Why would I want to sign on to an agreement if the people that created voted against supporting it?

 

[Eternally Optimistic]

No, but it does seem entirely ignorant to vote against a measure that your own party created in order to urge other countries around the world to take better care of their citizens. Why would I want to sign on to an agreement if the people that created voted against supporting it?

The League of Nations still existed without US support!

Let's be honest, most of the countries really don't give a (it rhymes with fit) whether the US does or doesn't do this or that, as long as the this or that doesn't directly impact them. The US's move on this matter will not actually change any minds around the world. Any nation that uses the US's opposition as an excuse was never really going to do it anyways, now they just have an excuse. I know Americans like to think others care about what the US does domestically, and to a certain degree I have found some do, most though I have met around the world really just don't.

 

[revanneosl]

The whackjob far right, of which Sen. Santorum is a member, has a whole raft of paranoid delusional conspiracy fantasies about the UN. It's really not surprising that they have behaved in this ignorant way.

 

[Eternally Optimistic]

The whackjob far right, of which Sen. Santorum is a member, has a whole raft of paranoid delusional conspiracy fantasies about the UN. It's really not surprising that they have behaved in this ignorant way.

again why is it ignorant? If the US had no protection for disabled persons I would agree, but the US does, what then is the need for an international treaty to fix/resolve an issue that doesn't exist in the US?

 

[Creech]

Another worthless international treaty.

 

[revanneosl]

It would help boost our image among the international community, who generally perceive us as a country that cares very little for the sick & disabled.

 

[Cute Tink]

It would help boost our image among the international community, who generally perceive us as a country that cares very little for the sick & disabled.

And why do they think that?

 

[revanneosl]

Because of our antiquated system for paying for health care.

In further news, La Santorum has weighed in.

 

[Eternally Optimistic]

It would help boost our image among the international community, who generally perceive us as a country that cares very little for the sick & disabled.

no, no it really wouldn't, nor does not passing it really diminish the US's standing in the world. I guarantee exactly zero people will ask me about this tomorrow at work.

What does hurt the US image is obviously the wars, but also for example, a recent news cast here in Korea about black Friday fights in the US...THAT does make the US look bad. The ADA is quite good, the US is far ahead of many countries in that regard, even without the addition of a treaty.

 

[Creech]

It would help boost our image among the international community, who generally perceive us as a country that cares very little for the sick & disabled.

Do you really think that will change opinions of the United States? If North Korea signed it, would you have a higher opinion of them? I sure would not! It is a total waste of time.

 

[Eternally Optimistic]

Because of our antiquated system for paying for health care.

In further news, La Santorum has weighed in.

that does occasionally come up, though there is a great deal of misinformation about the US health care system in other countries, and vice versa. Also, of all domestic issues I have been asked about in Europe or here, the death penalty is surprisingly high, and even more surprisingly to me, most people who ask me about it will eventually admit they support it and are surprised when I tell them I am against it.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Senate rejects treaty to protect disabled around the world - The Washington Post





How sad. Nations like Iran and China are agreeing to raise their standards to our levels or higher, and the GOP in the Senate cannot even give it enough support, even though their party was the one that negotiated it.

One more reason the GOP is going to be flushed down the toilet soon.

Perplexing...seeing the ways that the U.S has evolved in its views toward the disabled.

 

[Cute Tink]

Because of our antiquated system for paying for health care.

And from what I can see about this treaty, nothing would change on that front. So what is really the point other than a fruitless gesture? Sounds like a waste of time to me when there are more important issues facing us at the moment.

 

[revanneosl]

Diplomacy is, by and large, a series of fruitless gestures that enable the human race to avoid war. We should let no fruitless gesture, especially the ones that cost us not one thin dime, go unmade.