Quantcast
Opinion

What other say: A troubling vote for those with disabilities

Comments

Return To Article
  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 11, 2012 4:35 a.m.

    This highlights the GOP modus operandi

    - Take a reasonable idea - supporting our laws (Americans with Disabilities Act) around the world
    - look to see if it is supported or introduced by Democrats
    - Inject inflammtory rhetoric which has no basis in fact
    - perpetuate the lies to build a coalition of the uninformed
    - cast a vote, saving America from an imagined dire outcome

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Dec. 11, 2012 6:36 a.m.

    Thanks DN for printing this thoughtful op-ed from another paper. It seems unfathomable that anyone could conjure up reasons to vote against this treaty but somehow some of the senators did just that. I see this Kansas City newspaper is holding their own Senators accountable for their vote by publicly chastising them for their vote. Hopeful all responsible journalists in every city and state will do the same.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 8:10 a.m.

    America could have affirmed its commitment to giving people with disabilities worldwide (including disabled Americans working and traveling abroad) the same rights of access to buildings and transportation that we take for granted through our Americans with Disabilities Act.

    But no.

    Utah Senators Lee and Hatch voted against this eminently reasonable and important treaty, all so that they can keep the UN-hating neo-Birchers of their party happy.

    On Planet Wingnutia they celebrate those "no" votes. Here on Earth, I am deeply ashamed to be a Utahn.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 8:23 a.m.

    Why should this puzzle anyone? They are simply pandering again to the most extreme members of their party whose tinfoil hats are being shorted out by the black helicopters that fly over every night.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 9:18 a.m.

    Lee and Hatch have no morals or ethics.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Dec. 11, 2012 9:22 a.m.

    Apparently, this important vote will be brought to the floor again for Washington legislators in 2013.
    Let's hope that Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee have received the message concerning the major mistake they have made.
    There is no question that they have voted in a very strange and controversial way compared to the majority of the world.
    It would be beneficial for these two men to prove to America and the world that they are not going off the deep end.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 10:09 a.m.

    JoeBlow --

    I agree with your comment!

    - Take a reasonable idea - supporting our laws (Americans with Disabilities Act) around the world
    - look to see if it is supported or introduced by Democrats

    =============

    Right or Wrong,
    Good or Bad,
    simply doesn't matter in congress.

    It's can only be GOOD for America if MY party sponsors it.
    If not, then it's a BAD thing for America.

    Nothing like putting the PARTY ahead of the Country!
    Pathetic!

    Nothing short of Nazi Ghestapo tactics!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 11, 2012 12:05 p.m.

    "Nothing short of Nazi Ghestapo tactics!"

    I think that is a bit strong... more like republican witch trials.....

    And this is not to say a few democrats in their day have acted as weak kneed on issues either. But to say that the world enacting a law that had its birth in the US is a threat to our own ability to govern ourselves... just silly.

    Lets say, just for example that this law had been passed, and some nation thought we were in breach of it - what exactly would they be able to do about it? Really... what are they going to do. issue a letter of reprimand? Good grief, we sent an army into a foreign nation simply because we didn't like their president - the the UN was able to do what about it? China mowed down their own people while protesting for more rights, and the UN did what about it?

    These Senators need to put their big boy pants on and explain to lunatic fringe that everything is going to be ok. McCain has proven himself the biggest of cowards. Anyway.... this is just more of the same cowardice we see from politicians every day.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 12:29 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" luckily for us, they did put Country ahead of party. The UN treaty included laws to create a central database of any person born with a disability. Would you want your grandchild who is born with a diability to be on a UN registry?

    The treaty also grants the UN the authority to determine the care and education for all people on the disabled registry. Do we really want to turn our parental rights over to the UN?

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 1:04 p.m.

    @Red Shirt -- Wrong. Just because Glenn Beck says it turns parental rights over to the UN doesn't mean it does. Do you seriously think anyone would have voted for it if it really did that? Republicans buckled under pressure from people who believe in crackpot conspiracy theories and that's the only reason it didn't pass.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Dec. 11, 2012 1:05 p.m.

    I stated earlier that it would be hard for someone to conjure up reasons to vote against this treaty but I see Redshirt and his friends at the Heritage Foundation have done just that. In a lengthy article found in National Review Online, they spend paragraph after paragraph saying essentially the same thing which can be summed up by this one paragraph:

    "This is their argument, and it’s such a ridiculous argument," says Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation. "The premises are completely unsupportable, The notion that it might improve travel conditions for Americans traveling abroad is a complete non sequitur, and it has nothing to do with the treaty at all." In other words, the treaty does little to nothing for Americans."

    So I guess we should only support international treaties if they can improve upon conditions that already exist for our citizens. Whatever happened to America's desire to change the world for better, not just for our own citizens? Shouldn't we be promoting these rights for citizens everywhere even if our current laws already promote those rights? Isn't that the American thing to do?

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 11, 2012 1:22 p.m.

    @ RedShirt: I suppose you are talking about Article 18, Section 2 - "Liberty of movement and nationality ... 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."

    Um - yeah - all children are (or should be) registered after birth - here in the United States it is called applying for a birth certificate and social security number.

    Throughout the treaty - including Article 24 - Education - where it uses the phrase "States Parties" that means the appropriate agency within the signatory country.

    Article 31 - Statistics and Data Collection says that in order to offer the best services and to make sure the services being offered are appropriate, each country will track data on compliance and effectiveness and, while making sure the data is anonymous, share it with the UN and other countries.

    Nowhere in the treaty does it say anything you think it says. It is written in clear language, it means exactly what it says, there is no hidden agenda.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 1:26 p.m.

    "...Rick Santorum and Glenn Beck...".

    They put their "hysteria" agenda ahead of our country.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 2:06 p.m.

    I guess we can chalk another one up to Glenn Beck for fanning the political flames over nothing, kind of like his "secret" Obam FEMA concentration camps, and mass gun confisgations that also turned out to be false.

    Somedays,
    Glenn Beck just reminds me time and again of the story of the little boy who cried wolf.

    Is it a constant need for attention?, or is seriously doing it just for the money$.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 11, 2012 2:25 p.m.

    "The treaty also grants the UN the authority to determine the care and education for all people on the disabled registry. Do we really want to turn our parental rights over to the UN?"

    Redshirt,

    In my first post, when I wrote

    - Inject inflammtory rhetoric which has no basis in fact
    - perpetuate the lies to build a coalition of the uninformed

    Posts like yours are exactly what I was referring to

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 2:39 p.m.

    To "Kalindra" "LDSLiberal" JoeBlow" and other of your ilk. Read the UN document "Promoting the Rights of Children with Disabilities". They speak of registering kids with disabilities, and keeping databases of disabilities so that they can deploy resources accordingly.

    Again, why do we want the UN to have the authority to determine how we are to be caring for the disabled? Do you trust the UN to know what your disabled child needs?

    Read the UN document. It either adds nothing to US laws or else surrenders power to the UN. Either way, it is not a good law.

    As for what "Kalindra" pointed out. Imagine you are poor and give birth to a disabled child. You give that child up for adoption. Once that child is an adult, a shady lawyer can convince that disabled adult to sue their birth parents because according to the treaty, they were not raised by their birth parents. How much more difficult will it be for teen moms to give up disabled children for adoption?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 2:46 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    Learn to read context, for goodness sake, do I have to be worried that you and your ilk might go crazy and attack friends of mine who work for a sustainability group because you've read Agenda 21?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 4:11 p.m.

    To "atl134" I do read the context of what is being stated. I have not read the UN documents on Agenda 21. You should read teh Democrats Against Adgenda 21 web site. Quite insiteful. That web site is run by an uber liberal who, like you, did not believe what the UN was doing. I have also read some of the Adgenda 21 literature available on the UN web site. Are you saying that I shouldn't read what the UN has published about their own Adgenda 21?

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Dec. 11, 2012 4:19 p.m.

    RedShirt....
    It must be horribly frightening for you to live in a country where, every day of the year, around every corner, someone is out to get you.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 11, 2012 6:08 p.m.

    @ RedShirt: Please quote the exact verbiage that supports your claims. Thank you.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 6:35 p.m.

    I don't understand the point of this editorial. Why would we sign a treaty that we're already in compliance with? What if we did sign it and another country was not in compliance with it? Are we going to go to war with them over it? The editorial and previous posters per usual ridicule Republicans but it seems that this is just a meaningless treaty from a meaningless organization (the UN) that we inexplicably continue to fund with taxpayer dollars.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Dec. 11, 2012 8:42 p.m.

    red state pride - you underestimate the power and influence of the United States. Despite our progressive laws protecting the rights of the disabled, our signature on an international treaty promoting those same rights will add stature to that law and, in turn, put pressure on other governments to follow our lead in providing those same rights to all citizens of the world. It is noble gesture on our part and in keeping with our benevolent pedigree.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 11, 2012 11:06 p.m.

    Redshirt,
    Give it up, we know they put ideology ahead of truth and country. After all, they support BO

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 7:18 a.m.

    Get us out of the UN and get the UN out of our country. They have cost us too much in lives and money!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 7:36 a.m.

    To "Kalindra" you already quoted it. What part of children have the right to " be cared for by their parents" makes you think that it won't take more than a month before a lawyer uses an adopted disabled person to sue the birth parents?

    What part of "Children with disabilities shall be registered immediately after birth" does not sound like a registry. Especially in light of the MONEE database that the UN already maintains on children with disabilities.

    Are you really so blind that you can't see that by signing that UN resolution the US would be giving up freedoms, and the laws it would create are pure foolishness?

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 12, 2012 7:43 a.m.

    Geeesh. The best the conservatives can come up with is, "what's in it for us anyway?"

    Exactly why republicans should NEVER lead this country.

    Really, you all can have the entire south, we definitely learned our lesson and will let you secede without a fight this time. Just send us your tired, poor and disabled since you don't like them.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 12, 2012 9:29 a.m.

    .@RedShirt: Paranoia, parsimonious and persecution toward the weak and unfortunate can boomerang bringing one bad karma; it is best to give a little love and compassion and hope to receive the same in return

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 12, 2012 10:13 a.m.

    To "skeptic" what are you talking about? The US already has enough laws regarding the disabled that the UN resolution does nothing to help them obtain a better life.

    If you want to give love and compassion, why turn to the UN for that, why can't you keep that within you from the time that you were a child?

    Why do you have such a pessimistic view of society that you assume that by NOT passing a law that everybody is evil and will take advantage of the situation? You seem to view the disabled in such disregard that you assume that only by forcing others to help can anything be done.

    Have some faith in humanity, we are not like you. People generally are good and compassionate.

    To "Screwdriver" you can take off the tinfoil hat and turn away from Media Matters, the conservatives are not doing anything like you describe. Conservatives are trying to maintain US sovereignty.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 2:24 p.m.

    Re: "A troubling vote . . . ."

    Not at all.

    A vote either way changes absolutely nothing for Americans with disabilities. Nor, in reality, for citizens of other nations, who observe UN treaties, or not, based on the whim of their political leadership, not on the content of the treaty.

    What it would do is permit UN bureaucrats to meddle in, even oversee delivery of services to Americans and open a door to a corrupt, UN-sponsored [I know, I know, "UN" and "corrupt" have the same meaning, so there is redundancy here] raid on the US treasury in the name of "equalizing" care and services provided elsewhere.

    Who would suffer from the inevitable UN meddling? Americans with disabilities.

    The "no" vote protects Americans, which is the primary purpose of Congress.

    Anything but a "no" vote would be troubling, indeed.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 12, 2012 3:07 p.m.

    Tin foil hat? I don't have to try to communicate a conspiracy theory about conservatives, they are open about their desires. 30 states have filed petitions to secede from the Union.

    Come on redshirt, really.

    The Texas petition claims; “The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights and it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union to protect its citizens and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.”

    I'm just saying go ahead - I certainly will not fight for the south to stay in the union. Be free, secede, PLEASE.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 12, 2012 3:47 p.m.

    To "Screwdriver" sorry, put that tinfoil hat back on. The discussion is the UN resolution that the US turned down, not succession. Lets focus on one topic here. I know liberals tend to wander when they don't have any evidence or proof to back up their claims, so lets focus here and discuss the UN.

    Since you have nothing more to say about that, I will conclude that you now agree with my previous post.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 6:28 p.m.

    Umm, four posts by RedShirt on the Enterprise followed by two more from RedShirt1701 in Deep Space, all similar in tone and content. I think the four comment per person limit here is overly restrictive, but let's play by the same rules, can we? Or at least choose less similar names for our sock puppets. Maybe the DesNews would consider raising the number of comments allowed?

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 12, 2012 8:13 p.m.

    @ECR - are you kidding me? Why don't you tell us which Countries are on the UN's "human rights" commission and tell me how legitimate this organization or any treaty ratified by it is. If you are disabled and gay in Iran you still get executed- no treaty is going to change that.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 13, 2012 8:42 a.m.

    So let me understand this... our responsibilities to our brothers and sisters, particularly those born disadvantaged, ends at the US boarders. Wow..... does the church know that?

    It is a bit scary to think so many put party about country..... but when you see party put ahead of faith.. that really highlights how twisted this whole conversation has become. Or perhaps I missed something when I failed to find anything in scripture or by leaders of any faith that indicate that our responsibilities to our brethren ends at man made boarders.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 13, 2012 8:41 p.m.

    @Utah Blue Devil- some people worship God and others worship at the altar of Big Government. Some people walk the walk while others talk the talk. Signing a worthless UN piece of paper is "talking the talk". Thousands of missionaries of different Christian faiths are walking the walk and helping the disabled in countries all over the world. Before you blame America for failing to sign a worthless treaty maybe you should give thanks to all the people who are putting their money where their mouth is and giving service to the disabled worldwide.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 14, 2012 4:36 p.m.

    red state pride - what the heck are you rambling on about. Of course having missionaries around the world, from many faiths, is a good thing. They are walking the walk... agreed. But giving people legal status so that they can get the benefits needed.... that is hardly a worthless piece of paper.

    What those well intended people can't do is help deal with the issue of child abandonment, or infanticide that is still practiced in some corners of the world. It doesn't help with children with disabilities being used as props for begging schemes. The idea giving these kids a legal status and protection of the law is "worthless paper" really points to where some aspects of our society have gotten. Having legal status is a pathway to get services needed, and protection against abuse. It provides a path for all to live in dignity, and not shoved off into some back corner as we saw in some of the worst examples around the world.

    And the notion that UNICEF is a waste of time and money.... hardly an opinion I share. UNICEF truly walks the walk.