Another example of how abortion affects every aspect of American politics:
Yet... it was too controversial. The purpose of the CRPD is to "require the rest of the world to meet the standards that Americans already enjoy under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act" (The Hill). The treaty created a United Nations committee that would make recommendation to member countries regarding the rights of the disabled. The committee's recommendations would be non-binding on signatory countries (unless, I assume, countries choose to bind themselves to its recommendations, something the United States would not have done). Signing the treaty, according to supporters, "would allow the United States to serve on the committee to advocate for the rights of U.S. veterans and citizens living or traveling abroad" (The Hill).
Sounds pretty good. Why was it rejected, then?
Opponents, despite the clear non-binding nature of the U.N. committee's recommendations, see the treaty as an infringement on American sovereignty. Pro-lifers (and religious conservatives) have a history of being suspicious of international institutions, so a treaty of this kind sets off alarm bells. They think, apparently, that the international committee's recommendations will be forced upon them legally.
This concern reminds me of objections to the advisory panels that are part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Somehow these advisory panels, charged with making recommendations about preventative care, enhancing efficiency, and controlling medical costs, were transformed into "death panels" with the power to deny specific individuals medical care.
Regarding the CRPD, the treaty is seen as infringing on the prerogatives of American parents to raise their children, particularly disabled children, as they see fit, including using home schooling. Former presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's statement is illustrative:
Beyond stated concerns about funding for abortion and threats to home schooling and American sovereignty, opponents to the treaty may be worried about the soft power of the treaty. The battle over abortion is as much a battle over public opinion as it is over legal requirements. It could be that pro-life activists are worried that a United Nations committee (with an American representative) with the power to engage in empirical research and issue science-based recommendations would a) shift public opinion away from the pro-life beliefs of the treaty opponents, and b) affect policy in ways pro-life activists oppose in other countries besides the United States.
As Michelle Goldberg recounts in her book The Means of Reproduction, pro-life organizations and politicians made strong efforts to oppose and alter the conclusions and recommendations of the United Nations at its 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, and its 1995 Beijing Women's Summit. The recommendations and resolutions of the Cairo and Beijing summits are similarly non-binding on member countries, but have had a strong effect on public and expert opinion and therefore on public policy around the world.
The CRPD, then, for all of its good intentions, is collateral damage in the global culture war over family planning.
Links:
Article in The Hill (December 4, 2012): Senate rejects UN treaty for disabled rights in 61-38 vote
Article in LifeNews.com (December 4, 2012): Senate Defeats CRPD Treaty That Would Promote Abortion
Earlier article in LifeNews.com that raised concerns about the treaty (July 20, 2012): Hidden Abortion Agenda in UN Convention on Disability Rights
Article in The Washington Post (December 4, 2012): Senate rejects treaty to protect disabled around the world
A United Nations treaty to ban discrimination against people with disabilities [the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or CRPD] went down to defeat in the Senate on Tuesday in a 61-38 vote.
The treaty backed by President Obama and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kansas) fell 5 votes short of the two-thirds needed for confirmation as dozens of Senate Republicans objected that it would create new abortion rights and impede the ability of people to home-school disabled children. (Source: The Hill)Note that 61-38 means 61 Senators voted for confirmation of the CRPD. (Treaties, by constitutional requirement, must be passed by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.) The treaty was signed by President George W. Bush, and President Barack Obama, and has been signed by more than 150 countries and ratified by more than 120. Seven Republican Senators, including John McCain, also voted for the treaty.
Yet... it was too controversial. The purpose of the CRPD is to "require the rest of the world to meet the standards that Americans already enjoy under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act" (The Hill). The treaty created a United Nations committee that would make recommendation to member countries regarding the rights of the disabled. The committee's recommendations would be non-binding on signatory countries (unless, I assume, countries choose to bind themselves to its recommendations, something the United States would not have done). Signing the treaty, according to supporters, "would allow the United States to serve on the committee to advocate for the rights of U.S. veterans and citizens living or traveling abroad" (The Hill).
Sounds pretty good. Why was it rejected, then?
Opponents, despite the clear non-binding nature of the U.N. committee's recommendations, see the treaty as an infringement on American sovereignty. Pro-lifers (and religious conservatives) have a history of being suspicious of international institutions, so a treaty of this kind sets off alarm bells. They think, apparently, that the international committee's recommendations will be forced upon them legally.
This concern reminds me of objections to the advisory panels that are part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Somehow these advisory panels, charged with making recommendations about preventative care, enhancing efficiency, and controlling medical costs, were transformed into "death panels" with the power to deny specific individuals medical care.
Regarding the CRPD, the treaty is seen as infringing on the prerogatives of American parents to raise their children, particularly disabled children, as they see fit, including using home schooling. Former presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's statement is illustrative:
“Now, that CRPD is defeated, we know that United Nations won’t have oversight of how we care for our special needs kids. This treaty would have given the U.N. oversight of the healthcare and education choices parents with special needs kids make. Had it passed, CRPD would have become the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, and would have trumped state laws, and could have been used as precedent by state and federal judges,” he said. (Source: LifeNews.com)In addition to concerns over parenting rights, some pro-life advocates read the language of the CRPD, especially the use of the term "reproductive health," as "open[ing] the door to promoting abortion on an international scale" (LifeNews.com):
The International Right to Life Federation says pro-life groups oppose this legislation because it leaves open the potential for the international community to permit sterilization or abortion for the disabled. The terminology, found in Article 25, requires, “free or affordable health care including the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based health programs." . . . Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, has previously noted the pro-life concerns. . . “Translation: the global community could force America to sanction sterilization or abortion for the disabled–at taxpayer expense” he said. (Source: LifeNews.com)From an earlier article in LifeNews.com:
Again, there are echoes of the debate over the ACA and the contraceptive mandate, where any remote connection between taxpayer dollars and abortion was policed strictly and opposed strongly.The inclusion of the phrase “reproductive health” affords an opportunity for abortion advocates to interpret the terms as a euphemism for “abortion rights” and push for nations to legalize abortion based on the treaty. Indeed, this interpretation of “reproductive health” is the position of the Obama Administration. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to this effect, stating “We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health, and reproductive health includes access to abortion.”Unwilling to be explicit and clear about its objectives, the pro-abortion faction within the UN has used the realm of disability rights to provide cover for an attempt to interject the right to abortion into an international treaty. If the US ratifies it, the treaty becomes the law of the land, providing a potential abortion back-up for the day the Supreme Court finally overturns Roe v. Wade.
Beyond stated concerns about funding for abortion and threats to home schooling and American sovereignty, opponents to the treaty may be worried about the soft power of the treaty. The battle over abortion is as much a battle over public opinion as it is over legal requirements. It could be that pro-life activists are worried that a United Nations committee (with an American representative) with the power to engage in empirical research and issue science-based recommendations would a) shift public opinion away from the pro-life beliefs of the treaty opponents, and b) affect policy in ways pro-life activists oppose in other countries besides the United States.
As Michelle Goldberg recounts in her book The Means of Reproduction, pro-life organizations and politicians made strong efforts to oppose and alter the conclusions and recommendations of the United Nations at its 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, and its 1995 Beijing Women's Summit. The recommendations and resolutions of the Cairo and Beijing summits are similarly non-binding on member countries, but have had a strong effect on public and expert opinion and therefore on public policy around the world.
The CRPD, then, for all of its good intentions, is collateral damage in the global culture war over family planning.
Links:
Article in The Hill (December 4, 2012): Senate rejects UN treaty for disabled rights in 61-38 vote
Article in LifeNews.com (December 4, 2012): Senate Defeats CRPD Treaty That Would Promote Abortion
Earlier article in LifeNews.com that raised concerns about the treaty (July 20, 2012): Hidden Abortion Agenda in UN Convention on Disability Rights
Article in The Washington Post (December 4, 2012): Senate rejects treaty to protect disabled around the world
Comments