addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1languagelaunch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinlockm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmobilemoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

The 912 Project-Nebraska Message Board › Families UN Convention Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Families UN Convention Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). PLease call to Stop This Treaty Urgent

Darlene E.
user 14539080
Omaha, NE
Post #: 242
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:
A Danger to Homeschool Families

Michael P. Farris, Esq., LL.M.
Founder and Chairman


HSLDA has written about the threats posed to homeschool freedom by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

However, there is a third dangerous United Nations convention. This is the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).1 President Obama sent it to the U.S. Senate for ratification on May 18, 2012.

CRPD was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 13, 2006, and entered into force on May 3, 2008, after it received its 20th ratification. The Optional Protocol to the Convention went into force on the same day after it received its 10th ratification. The CRPD was signed by President Obama on July 30, 2009. Since it has been sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification by President Obama, the U.S. Senate could vote to ratify this treaty at any time.

CRPD calls for numerous protections for people with disabilities. Many of these protections are included in U.S. law as part of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, CRPD also includes numerous provisions drafted by the United Nations which would concern many U.S. citizens. Like the CRC and CEDAW, if ratified, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would become the supreme law of the land under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI, would trump state laws, and would be used as binding precedent by state and federal judges. Since it is a treaty, the U.S. Constitution requires that it must be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. senators present at the time of the vote, or 67 senators if all 100 U.S. senators were present.

Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

1. Any remaining state sovereignty on the issue of disability law will be entirely eliminated by the ratification of this treaty. The rule of international law is that the nation-state that ratifies the treaty has the obligation to ensure compliance. This gives Congress total authority to legislate on all matters regarding disability law—a power that is substantially limited today. Article 4(5) makes this explicit.

2. Article 4(1)(a) demands that all American law on this subject be conformed to the standards of the UN.

3. Article 4(1)(e) remands that “every person, organization, or private enterprise” must eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. On its face, this means that every home owner would have to make their own home fully accessible to those with disabilities. If the UN wants to make exceptions, perhaps they could. But, on its face this is the meaning of the treaty.

4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church.

5. Article 4(2) requires the United States to use its maximum resources for compliance with these standards. The UN has interpreted similar provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to criticize nations who spend too much on military issues and not enough on social programs. There is every reason to believe that the UN would interpret these provisions in a similar fashion. The UN believes that it has the power to determine the legitimacy and lawfulness of the budget of the United States to assess compliance with such treaties.

6. Article 6(2) is a backdoor method of requiring the United States to comply with the general provisions of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This treaty enshrines abortion rights, homosexual rights, and demands the complete disarmament of all people.

7. Article 7(2) advances the identical standard for the control of children with disabilities as is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the government—acting under UN directives—gets to determine for all children with disabilities what the government thinks is best.

Additionally, under current American law, federal law requires public schools to offer special assistance to children with disabilities. However, no parent is required to accept such assistance. Under this section the government—and not the parent—would have the ultimate authority to determine if a child with special needs will be homeschooled, attend a private school, or be required to accept the program offered by the public school.

8. The United States, as a wealthy nation, would be obligated to fund disability programs in nations that could not afford their own programs under the dictates of Article 4(2). This is what “the framework of international cooperation” means.

9. Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States.

10. Article 25 on Education does not repeat the parental rights rules of earlier human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This is an important omission. Coupling this omission with the direct declaration of “the best interest of the child” standard in Article 7(2), this convention is nothing less than the complete eradication of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.

HSLDA urges homeschoolers and all freedom-loving Americans to contact their U.S. senators and urge them to oppose this dangerous UN treaty.

A Danger to Homeschool Families

Michael P. Farris, Esq., LL.M.
Founder and Chairman­

senators pledging their support http://www.mccain.sen...­
Darlene E.
user 14539080
Omaha, NE
Post #: 257
UN Treaty Mischief on Disabilities
Phyllis Schlafly

The United Nations in collusion with Obama's globalists has cooked up another scheme to slice off a piece of U.S. sovereignty and put us under global government. The plan is to stampede the Senate into ratifying the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD.
This particular piece of globalist mischief had been unnoticed since President Obama ordered U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to sign this treaty on July 30, 2009. Now he is trying to ram it through to ratification.

The notion that the U.N. can provide more benefits or protections for persons with disabilities than the U.S. is bizarre. The United States always treats individuals, able or disabled, rich or poor, innocent or guilty, better than any other nation.

We certainly don't need a committee of foreigners who call themselves "experts" to dictate our laws or customs. But that's what this treaty and most other U.N. treaties try to do.

We already have protections and benefits for persons with disabilities enshrined in U.S. laws, regulations and enforcement mechanisms. Prominent among these laws are the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Fair Housing Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Other laws that benefit persons with disabilities are the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. These federal laws are enforced by numerous federal agencies, particularly the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

The U.N. General Assembly adopted the CRPD on Dec. 13, 2006, and it became part of what globalists euphemistically call international law on May 3, 2008, after 20 nations ratified it. The treaty now has 117 nations that have ratified it.

Under the CRPD, we would be required to make regular reports to a "committee of experts" to prove we are obeying the treaty. The "experts" would have the authority to review our reports and make "such suggestions and general recommendations on the report as it may consider appropriate."

These demands are often outside the treaty's scope of subject matter. They override national sovereignty in pursuit of social engineering, feminist ideology or merely busybody interference in a country's internal affairs.

CRPD's Article 7 gives the government the power to override every decision of the parent of a disabled child by using the caveat "the best interest of the child." This phrase has already been abused by family courts to substitute judges' decisions for parents' decisions and transferring the use of that phrase to the government or to a U.N. committee is the wrong way to go.

The feminists saw to it that this treaty on disabilities includes language in Article 25 that requires signatory states to "provide persons with disabilities ... free or affordable health care ... including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based health programmes." Wow!

When the U.N. approved the CRPD, the United States made a statement that the phrase "reproductive health" does not include abortion. But that's just whistling in the wind because international law does not recognize the validity of one nation's reservations to a treaty ratified by many other nations.

Furthermore, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on record as stating that the definition of "reproductive health" includes abortion. In testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on April 22, 2009, she said: "Family planning is an important part of women's health, and reproductive health includes access to abortion."

After ratification, treaties become part of the "supreme law" of the United States on a par with federal statutes. That gives supremacist judges the power to invent their own interpretations, which some are all too eager to do.

It's easy to predict that some pro-abortion supremacist judges will rule that the CRPD, if part of the supreme law of our land, includes abortion. Several Supreme Court justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have urged us to use foreign law in interpreting U.S. domestic law.

Americans may differ about the legality and the scope of abortion rights, but it's unlikely that any of us want those decisions to be made by a U.N. "committee of experts."

Another problem with this treaty on disabilities is its failure to give workable definitions. When the treaty states that "disability is an evolving concept" that means open sesame for litigation against the U.S.

This treaty is a broadside attack on parents' rights to raise their children, and it's a particular threat to homeschooling families because of the known bureaucratic bias against homeschooling and against spanking. It is clear that both the United States and persons with disabilities are much better off relying on U.S. law than on any U.N. treaty.

Darlene E.
user 14539080
Omaha, NE
Post #: 283
Last night at 9:45 Dick Durbin IL and Tom Harkin of Iowa tried to seek CRPD in for a vote. Mike Lee of UT was their to object. Please call your senators and tell them NO NO NO on its ratification. Did you make your calls?

Darlene E.
user 14539080
Omaha, NE
Post #: 284

“Go have some ice cream!” urged Michael Farris, august chancellor of Patrick Henry College and Home School Legal Defense Association chairman.

It was a pleasant Saturday. As a mom who was a former member of HSLDA, I was ecstatic. And thinking double chocolate.

Earlier that third Saturday of September 2012, at 4:30 a.m., the Senate adjourned to head out to jog campaign trail until November’s lame duck session. Three Republican Senators joined the Democrats to move it out of committee. Congressional daily digests, however, show the Senate never called for a ratifying vote on CRPD, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Like Home School Legal Defense Association many parental rights groups actively engaged against ratification. They called, texted, petitioned alarming concern about potential, global sovereignty over parenting choices of special-needs children, from conception to guardian adulthood.

Some Legislators state that, if signed, the convention would bring up the world’s standards to that of the United States. One Senator who voted the Treaty out of committee, John Isakson (R-GA), told this writer that the treaty was “non-self executing.” In the Senate declaration, he insisted, there exists language that should “create no new obligations or laws” in the United States by the UN.

“Sen. Isakson voted in favor of the Convention in the committee because ratification would signal to the world that the U.S. is committed to continuing its role as the international leader in disability rights,” Isakson’s press secretary Marie Gordon said. “It will not erode our sovereignty.”*

Senator Rick Santorum, father to a special child, begged to differ. For him ratification would give the U.N. controlling oversight over the health and educational choices parents of children with disabilities face. On his activist website Patriot Voices, Santorum wrote, “It is outrageous that the government could tell me and you what is best for our children, particularly when they’ve never met the child.”

Moreover, the Senator averred that under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, if the treaty was passed by the Senate, then it would become the law of the land. The federally ratified treaty would “trump state laws.” This, in itself would rile many a states’ rights conservative.

Director of Communications and Research for, Michael Ramey, questioned Senator Isakson’s counterclaim of self non-execution.

If the treaty is to have no effect, why should we ratify it? And why should other nations of the world take our ratification seriously when it is accompanied by the understanding that we will take no action to apply it in our country? **

For the next month and a half the Senate will finally take action, not on Capitol Hill, but on pivotal, election campaign stops. For now this mom and other concerned parents and special-needs’ caregivers can take a break from D.C. faxes, cell calls, and emails on CRPD. Instead, they can scoop up ice cream.

“Put some toppings on it,” added Chancellor Farris, “Have seconds.”

*”Undue Influence,” J.C. Derrick, posted: August. 14, 2012, 8:00 PM, World Magazine
** “CRPD Passes, Moves to Senate Floor,” Michael Ramey, July 26, 2012 AFR Front Page News

Darlene E.
user 14539080
Omaha, NE
Post #: 298
The senate moved this to the senate floor for debate today. 61 senators voted to move it forward, Ben Nelson being one of them. Please call Senate Johanns and thank him for not voting for this. For the members that live IA Senator Lugar voted for this moving forward. Please call him and ask him to vote NO on this treaty.
Darlene E.
user 14539080
Omaha, NE
Post #: 299
PLease read attached http://www.familywatc...­

Article 7 of the Treaty will give the final say over your child to the government.­
Charlotte J.
Norfolk, NE
Post #: 506
I called both senators today. I don't think it did any good to call Nelson.
Darlene E.
user 14539080
Omaha, NE
Post #: 300
THanks for all your phones. They may be working http://www.parentalri...­

PLease keep making your calls.
Darlene E.
user 14539080
Omaha, NE
Post #: 301
Please call Senator Johanns office and thank him for voting against moving forward on this treaty http://www.parentalri...­. Please continue to call Ben Nelson's office.
Darlene E.
user 14539080
Omaha, NE
Post #: 343

Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy