Specifically, it is called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). I wrote a post on this same treaty back in December of 2012. We have managed to avoid its adoption until now, but it looks like supporters in the UN and Congress are back, pushing harder than ever. In fact, World Net Daily reports that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted this week to approve the treaty, 12-6. Now it will go before the full Senate for a vote.
The reasons this is a bad treaty are the same ones that made it unacceptable in 2012: the treaty states that the term "disability" is an evolving concept (meaning they can make it whatever they want to control the populace); the UN suggests that there are attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder the disabled from full and equal participation in society (which means they will just have to make those "barriers" go away, won't they?); and this is the most alarming position to me ... 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.
Now, if the recent case of Justina Pelletier doesn't come to mind, then let me jog your memory. WND.com sums up her experience best ... She was "taken into state custody after her own physician’s diagnosis of a health problem was overruled, [and] her parents were told they would no longer be able to determine her treatment and future." Does this sound like she might possibly have been a test case to see how the American public would receive such mandates? If so, the public outcry had to be discouraging to the UN. So maybe that's why there is this sudden and furtive attempt to get the treaty passed while our attention is focused elsewhere?
Remember that it was almost two years before her parents were able to fight through numerous court hearings to get her released back into their custody, and resuming the medical treatment that her own doctors prescribed. Seems to me, that more and more parents would be facing the same struggle against the System in caring for their disabled children. Who, in their right mind, would surrender their parental rights to a global entity?
Apparently 146 countries have already signed this treaty. There is no need for the U.S. to take part because our Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is perhaps the strongest piece of legislation in the world that guards the civil and legal rights of persons with disabilities. It is our domestic and sovereign law that works better for our citizens than anything the global community could dictate.
Here's an additional factor to consider: the UNCRPD requires each nation that adopts the treaty to provide educational benefits to the disabled. The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) fears that the treaty would override states' rights in establishing their education policies, and possibly endanger homeschoolers. As a spokesman for HSLDA told WND, "Remember Justina Pelletier? That’s what happens when the ‘best interests’ of the child are used" as an argument for changes to our sovereign laws.
But just as I pointed out nearly two years ago, it all comes down to this ... as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, treaties may not be consummated with other than sovereign nations. The 1945 ratification of the UN Charter as a treaty is effectively un-Constitutional, because the last time I looked, the UN is not a sovereign nation!
But the recent Pelletier case shows us that they do not intend to give up. The Pelletier family came very close to losing their individual and parental rights. If the Senate decides to take up this treaty during a lame duck session and manages to ratify it in the coming weeks or months, everyone with disabled family members may suffer the same battles. Let your Senators know that we are not easily fooled!
Job 12:23 "He makes nations great, and he destroys them; he enlarges nations, and leads them away."
No comments:
Post a Comment