Senator Santorum
opposes ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. His latest comments, an opinion piece in Town Hall, today
-- What the U.N. Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Conceals – expands his previous arguments related to parents’ rights, but makes no new
or convincing points. I am excited. This is my 60th post on the
CRPD. The fact that Senator Santorum is sharing his version of reality with us, once again, must mean that those of us who support ratification are gaining in
momentum, otherwise, Senator Santorum and the rest of the opposition would have
stayed under the radar. I have countered all the points Senator Santorum makes
in his piece in my earlier blog posts. Nonetheless I thought it would make
sense to set up a point-counterpoint framework for everyone on a few points
Senator Santorum makes.
Point/Counterpoint
SS. Embracing the United Nations’ “it takes a village” mentality,
CRPD would empower the federal government to run roughshod over existing laws
that protect parents’ and children’s rights….
The treaty’s
supporters tell us that CRPD simply mirrors the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Don’t buy that. The ADA is very specific and limited in its scope. Anyone
who actually reads the CRPD will see that it is a blunt instrument.
CG. The
ratification package the President sent to the Senate includes three
reservations. One of the reservations deals with federalism, the division of
authority between the federal and state governments. It references the ADA as
our means of complying with the CRPD.
Federalism. To the extent that state and local
governments exercise jurisdiction over issues covered by the convention, U.S.
obligations under the convention are limited to the U.S. government taking
measures appropriate to the federal system, such as enforcement under the ADA,
with the ultimate objective of full implementation of the convention.
So if the Senate ratifies the CRPD,
state laws would not be impacted or need to be changed unless a state’s
legislature decides to amend them.
SS. The ADA carefully defines “disability,” making the scope of
the law clear. The drafters of CRPD, however, specifically rejected a clear
definition of “disability,” asserting that “disability is an evolving concept.”
Really? What will the U.N. consider to be a disability in the future, after we
have ratified the treaty?
CG.
I was there when
the drafting committee was debating whether the CRPD should define disability.
It opted to leave it undefined to give countries maximum flexibility. And, in
2008 the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly voted to clarify the U.S. definition of
disability. Disability is an evolving concept.
SS. Repeatedly invoking “international cooperation,” CRPD
includes a provision that seems to require member countries to help each other
with funding and resources, including the “transfer of technologies.” Will the
United Nations at some point decide to impose CRPD dues on Western countries to
fund the treaty’s implementation? Will it tell treaty signatories that their
patent laws discriminate against the disabled in poor countries and therefore
must be ignored?
CG.
This is a real
stretch. Many of us know that U.S. “dues” to the U.N. are substantial, but
not always paid in full or on time. The CRPD won’t affect that pattern.
SS. The ADA had three specific objects: improve the disabled
community’s access to society at large, prevent discrimination against the
disabled community, and meet these goals in a reasonable, cost-effective way.
Most people remember the first two goals of the ADA and forget the third, but
the third is important. The ADA exempted small businesses and homeowners from
onerous building upgrade requirements and took a forward-looking approach to
improving disability access. CRPD would remove these reasonable accommodations.
And an administration that has already demonstrated its contempt for reasonable
accommodations does not need another tool for imposing costly burdens on small
businesses and families.
CG.
Senator Santorum
says because of the CRPD, the reasonable accommodation requirements and the
exemptions for small business in the ADA will be revised by "administration". He
knows better. It would take an act of Congress, no simple or fast undertaking under
ideal conditions.
SS. Supporters of CRPD praise the ADA as the “gold standard”
of disability laws and then cite it as a reason to adopt the CRPD. This is a
non sequitur; CRPD has nothing to do with the ADA. If President Obama,
Secretary Kerry, and the rest of the American left want to see our gold
standard become the global standard, they can engage foreign governments
directly, right now, to help them improve their laws and modernize their
infrastructure. The United States is already the international leader on the
protection of disability rights. We don’t need to ratify a flawed U.N. treaty
to prove it.
CG. To help other
countries improve their laws and modernize their infrastructure we must ratify
the CRPD. That is, if we want he United States TO REMAIN the international
leader on the protection of disability rights.
The end of the point/counterpoint
Those of us who
support ratification of the CRPD are not “the American left”. We reflect the
entire political spectrum. We believe in the power of universal disability
rights and see how it will make our shared planet a better place to live for
everyone. We do not buy twisted logic, fear mongering, and speculation based on
probabilities so outlandish, the only conclusion you can draw is that they are
politically motivated.
Thank you.
Common Grounder
