The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said that the failure of the UN disabilities treaty in the upper chamber today is “a wake-up call about a broken institution that’s letting down the American people.”
President Obama signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) brought it to the floor for a vote today despite concerns about sovereignty, parental rights, abortion, and more in the document.
It failed by a vote of 61 to 38, five votes short of the threshold needed for ratification.
In September, 36 senators sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) asking that no treaties be brought to the floor during the lame-duck session.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) called it “one of the saddest days I’ve seen in almost 28 years in the Senate.”
“This treaty was supported by every veterans group in America and Bob Dole made an inspiring and courageous personal journey back to the Senate to fight for it. It had bipartisan support, and it had the facts on its side, and yet for one ugly vote, none of that seemed to matter,” Kerry said. “We won’t give up on this and the Disabilities Treaty will pass because it’s the right thing to do, but today I understand better than ever before why Americans have such disdain for Congress and just how much must happen to fix the Senate so we can act on the real interests of our country.”
Bob Dole, a backer of the treaty, attended today’s vote with his wife, Elizabeth Dole.
“While I believe we must be sensitive to the rights of the disabled, we have many American laws that protect Americans with disabilities,” said Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) after his “nay” vote. “This treaty would threaten U.S. autonomy and give the U.N. undue influence over American policy.”
“The Convention on Rights for People with Disabilities Treaty wrongly attempts to impose standards on other nations through the United Nations and might well have unintended consequences here at home,” said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who also voted against the treaty.
“Ratifying this treaty would have helped open new markets for American businesses that provide goods and services to persons with disabilities,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). “Yet Senate Republicans chose to put partisanship and politics first.”
Patty Murray, D-Wash I think.
Please, it’s D-Microsoft. At least get to know the constituencies around the country…
Kerry can cry me a river.
This treaty would require that specific individuals be documented and tracked by the various governments.
There are numerous examples throughout history wherein so-called undesirables (mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, low IQ, etc.) were specifically identified by governments and targeted for ‘special’ treatment.
That treatment ranged from forced sterilization (in the US) to execution (Europe).
Why in the world politicians are convinced that this time will not end up differently in the long run is totally beyond my comprehension.
Or, to put it more bluntly, if you have a child who is mentally or physically handicapped, do YOU want your child to then have a special folder created and in the hands of an unaccountable federal bureaucracy that can and will overrule your wishes as to how that child is treated?
What does the U.N. have to do with disabilities? The way countries treat persons with disabilities is an internal issue. The same as how a nation treats persons of the female persuasion or persons of nonislamic persuasion.
The U.N. was established to mediate disputes between countries without resorting to war, not to get involved in internal issues.
As long as Saudi Arabia is allowed to prevent women from, well doing anything, and prevent non muslims from building churches etc, Iran is allowed to execute 14 year old girls for the crime of being raped, or Pakistanis are allowed to throw acid on the faces of school girls, I think the U.N. can mind it’s own business regarding how the U.S. takes care of it’s citizens.
And while we’re at it, I think they can find some place a little friendlier to what they want, like maybe Tehran or Riyad to have their meetings. See how many parking tickets they run up there.
^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^
Toomey and Hutchinson were right. We don’t need international oversight over our internal affairs, especially not when none of our citizens’ rights are actually being violated, and would conversely become infringed in some unknowable way at some unspecified future time, possibly without adequate recourse to local jurisdiction. If the UN wishes to become an international busybody, it should try its luck in Iran, Egypt, Saudi, Yemen, China, or Pakistan, or…., and we should cut our “donations” proportionately!
“Mr. Heinz” is a “Progressive”. What did anybody expect? From “activist” to idiot in 40 short years. Who could have guessed? A genetic disorder, no doubt!
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). “Yet Senate Republicans chose to put partisanship and politics first.”
Hey Senator Patty. Are you listening? Because if you are …
choke on it, you sniveling mutt.
John Kerry reminding us again that he is for all intents and purposes a French politician.
I count as one of my saddest days in his 28 years in the senate as any day I have to be reminded that he is still serving in the senate. What an a–hole. And correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t his party have control of the senate? And doesn’t that mean that the vote to not ratify must have had the magic bi-partisan support?