CRPD Treaty Fails Ratification Vote



CRPDPressConference

Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum and HSLDA Chair Michael Farris speaking against CRPD at a press conference last week.

The U.S. Senate failed to reach the 2/3 majority needed to ratify the CRPD Treaty (U.N Convention on the Rights with Persons of Disabilities).  There were 38 Senators who voted no, with 61 Senators voting yes and one abstention.  The treaty needed 66 votes in order to pass.

Here are how the Senators voted:

YEAs – 61

 

Akaka (D-HI)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)

Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)

Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

 

 

NOs – 38

 

Alexander (R-TN)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)

Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)

Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

 

 

Not Voting – 1

 

Kirk (R-IL)

 

 

Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), John Barasso (R-WY), Scott Brown (R-MA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Richard Lugar (R-IN), John McCain (R-AZ), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) were the Republicans to cross over and support ratification of CRPD.  Lugar and Brown have both been defeated and will not return to the Senate.  Out of all of the Republican senators who voted in favor only Senator Ayotte surprised me.  I don’t really know much about Senator Barasso.  Disappointing.

While according to the Constitution this treaty could not legally override our Constitutional rights it would have been misapplied and viewed that way by many legislators and judges.

Former U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum said of this vote:

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.

It is good that the ratification failed.  Frankly it isn’t necessary.  We treat those who are disabled in this country with dignity.  We already have the Americans with Disabilities Act.  We lead the world.  We don’t need the the UN leading us and becoming involved in our domestic affairs.  So while this vote was closer than I would have liked to see it is a win for American sovereignty.

If you like what you read, sign-up to get CT in your inbox!

Comments

  1. Advocate4Equality says

    It is a delusion to believe that we treat those who are disabled in this country with dignity. The ADA had to be enacted (by a Republican president) because of discrimination in a variety of basic and important settings including employment, housing, transportation, and public businesses. Discrimination and a lack of access still persists over 10 years later – unemployment of people with disabilities remains at approximately 70% or up to 90% for minorities with disabilities. While a paycheck doesn’t buy you dignity, it is one factor that many of us in our society value. In the international arena, human rights for people with disabilities are substantially worse. I encourage you to expand your worldview by volunteering with an independent living facility or disability advocacy organization.

    • God-given role of Mother says

      Although not everyone with a disability is treated as well as exptected in America, they are treated far worse in other countries. Even you admitted to that. So because we are already way ahead of other countries on our care and standards for persons with disabilities, there is no need for the ratification. There is definitely no need for the government to have the final say on the care of our children with special needs. We already have laws in place for situations where care is not being done properly or if parents abandon the child with disabilities. If the government approved the treaty for ratification and took over the finals say in the care of a child with a disability, there is no reason to stop them from doing the same for “normal” children. Anyone who doesn’t think they will or that they’ll try is a fool.

      • says

        You misunderstand what was going on. This was an international treaty – that means this had nothing to do with the treatment of the disabled in America, and everything to do with the treatment of the disabled in the rest of the world. From your response, I presume you have fallen for the far-right paranoia that this would somehow over-ride Americans’ rights. First of all, the Constitution guarantees that US law is above any treaty or International law. Period. So no matter what this treaty said, US law would control in America. Second of all, this treaty is basically a re-tread of the the ADA (American’s with Disabilities Act) that was passed in the 70’s and controls in America already, but this was written for the benefit of the rest of the world to get the rights that we Americans already have. That’s it. Period. Nothing about abortion. Nothing about taking away the rights of parents and giving them to the “State”. Read it…I swear – nothing!

      • God-given role of Mother says

        The biggest difference from what I understand is that it would allow the U.S. government the final say on the care of a child with a disability. So, another words, the Senators who voted “yes” don’t believe that our laws are good enough and that parents are not good enough to care for children with disabilities.

      • says

        No under article 7 (as your link to HSLDA completely misinforms you about) gives minors eqaul rights as nondisabled chidren, so for example families wont send their three nondisabaled children to school and keep their one disabled child locked in a room with no chance of a future. The entire CRPD is about equal rights, but everyone on the Right looks at it and sees over reach that isn’t there.

      • God-given role of Mother says

        We already have laws like that in the US, we don’t need those in a ratified treaty. Even if we were to ratify the treaty, we still cannot guarantee that other countries would assume and offer and uphold an equal rights mentality. There is no consequence for them if they don’t, otherwise they would have done so sooner.

      • says

        That means you don’t understand it. This is an international treaty. That’s why it’s from the UN. See, I don’t know what you’ve been told, but the UN and the US are actually not the same thing.

      • God-given role of Mother says

        I am certainly NOT believing blindly. I have read and heard both sides. I’m just sick of the argument being all about the adults and fluffing the aspect of the children. I DO know the difference between the UN and the US and I know that this is an international treaty. However, because of the ratification, it would force the US to change some of their laws, one of those being the final say on the care of children with disabilities (summarization). There is a lot of good in the treaty, but leaving the final say of the welfare of a child up to the government is NOT ok. If they are allowed this, who is to stop them from implementing laws for “normal” children. Do you have a child with a disability, Brett? I do understand what this ratification means and is saying. However, if it was such a good thing, there wouldn’t be such opposition. What I wonder is, why doesn’t the UN put pressure on other countries to bring them up to par with their provisions and their accessibility of facilities and care for persons with disabilities. The US is already many steps ahead of other countries. We are not going to help other countries make better provisions for disabled persons by a ratification of this treaty.

      • says

        You need a super majority to pass the ratification at least 2/3’s and it was to accomplish equal rights outside the US for human beings that are treated as subhuman. It means they have access to education, healthcare, jobs, to travel, vote, and be recognized with the same rights as a nondisabled person.

      • God-given role of Mother says

        The U.S. has no control over how other countries treat their persons and children with disabilities. Scott, do you have a child with a disability or special need?

      • says

        No, but that doesn’t diminish my ability to read and comprehend an act that doesn’t supersede our ADA or allow black helicopters from foreign governments to sweep in and take you to jail or take your child away or tell you how to educate your children or gives out free abortions or take parental rights away or suggest aborting a special needs child during pregnancies. What it does is say that the disabled or special need individuals should have the same rights as everyone else.

      • God-given role of Mother says

        But if you don’t have a child or a friend with a child with a disability, then you won’t be able to fully understand how this would impact families like mine. So, you might understand something in reading, but that doesn’t mean it is the best for families to whom it applies.

      • Argon says

        Bob Dole, who lobbied for the treaty’s passage on the floor of the Senate and many others who know firsthand about disabilities seemed to understand what the Treaty meant for them and their families. And that’s why they supported it. The, ‘you gotta experience it to understand’ argument is a bit dodgy. Doubly so considering the massive drive by disabled individuals and their families to originally pass the US law years ago. Clearly that community felt the need for those rules. You think they’re suddenly turning against those advances because they’re mirrored in a international treaty?

    • Chrysta Sangor says

      Do u really believe that countries like Iran,Syria,Cuba, China & Saudi Arabia voted the right way?Do u know how they treat people? A vote against the CRPD was a vote in favor of people with disabilities and their families.The United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities would deliver a blow to United States sovereignty and federalism and would do nothing to help those who suffer from disabilities in the United States.

  2. says

    Next move for voters: GET RID OF THE RINOs THAT VOTED IN FAVOR.

    Why do we continue to keep getting McCain? I thought Arizona was smarter than that!

  3. Joe says

    You’re just moronic for saying that it’s all good for us not ratifying the CRPD. Setting a standard that apply to the entire world and saying that America chose not to follow by the standards that provides people with disabilities says a lot about our government. No wonder why our democracy right now is purely cracked. CRPD doesn’t take over our ADA since it was a federal law; however, many states chose not to follow through the ADA and gets away with it. Not ratifying the CRPD just gives those moronic people like you to not fully adhere to ADA’s rules and regulations.

  4. says

    Unfortunately your statement “We treat those who are disabled in this country with dignity. We already have the Americans with Disabilities Act. We lead the world.” is ignorant of how people with disabilities truly live in the U.S. Your assumption that everyone living with a disability is treated with dignity would be almost laughable, but your ignorance of the facts is tragic. Seriously, your privilege is showing.

    If the ADA is sufficient why do persons living with disability have higher rates of poverty, unemployment, and less education(http://www.disabled-world.com/disability/statistics/census-figures.php)?( Amongst many other hurdles to a higher quality of life.)

    People living with disabilities are our veterans, our elderly, our children, and our neighbors. Educate yourself (and your readers) with the facts. Let’s be better advocates for Americans with disabilities and the rest of the world.

      • lakevu says

        Certainly not from the Oakie senators who are caving to the extremist tea party.
        These hick senators care more about blocking everything then they do governing for the larger country.

  5. lakevu says

    Teabagging Morons in fear of not being able to homeschool their spawn, which isn’t even an issue here.

  6. says

    I see two important concepts that need to be addressed. First, if there are those with disabilities that are not being treated equally then we have means already in place to address those needs. We don’t need a history lesson to show what used to be wrong or why it was changed. The fact is we already have a means to meet those needs within our society. What we don’t need and I shudder if we ever allow an outside agency controlling our sovereignty. Americans make the choices for Americans. The second concept is equally important. I have a sister with special needs. I do not want the government and especially an agency outside of America controlling her “needs.”

    • says

      Just not true, the CRPD is about equality and not over reach. It’s only 37 pages and it’s an easy read, it says nothing about changing laws in this country and says nothing indicating abortion rights. What it does is give those with disabities the same rights as nondisabaled individuals, and is the first step in disabaled civil rights outside of the US.

  7. says

    Article seven has the children w/ disabilities actions listed. No mention of Parental rights…only the state and the individual….which is someone’s child.
    Article 25 provides free reproductive HC…..nice.

    • says

      You’re so full of it, article seven deals with individual childs rights protected by the state so that they have the same rights as children without disabilities. So if a parent cares for his nondisabled child and chains the disabled child to the wall of their basement it would be ok with you. Article 25 states that a disabled child has the same rights to free or affordable health care at the same standards as nondisabled. You’re mixing up equal rights and turning it into something sinister because you listen to Glenn Beck
      Article 7
      Children with disabilities
      1. States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full
      enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental
      freedoms on an equal basis with other children.
      2. In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of
      the child shall be a primary consideration.
      3. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to
      express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being
      given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis
      with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate
      assistance to realize that right.
      Article 25
      Health
      States Parties recognize that persons with disabilities have the right to
      the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without
      discrimination on the basis of disability. States Parties shall take all
      appropriate measures to ensure access for persons with disabilities to health
      services that are gender-sensitive, including health-related rehabilitation. In
      particular, States Parties shall:
      (a) Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and
      standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other
      persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and
      population-based public health programmes;

      • says

        My concern for children, rights for women, and disabled or special needs individuals doesn’t stop at our borders. I don’t have a xenophobic mindset, especially when there is no risk to the US in cost, changes in our laws, or our sovereignty. This act gave us a chance to set a stepping stone for equal rights around the world and show our exceptionalism. The act is on the web read it yourself as I have there was no threat to the US passing it.

      • God-given role of Mother says

        Then go become and ambassador or work for the UN because you have NO control over other countires and neither does the US.

    • God-given role of Mother says

      “only the state and the individual….which is someone’s child.”
      Well said! I don’t think people are seeing this fact.