Trick or Treaty

It's the latest threat to parents' rights that no one knows about--and yesterday, the Senate moved one step closer to making it the law of the land. Like most U.N. treaties, this one sounds harmless enough. But make no mistake--its innocuous name, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), masks a cunning attack on parental authority, unborn life, and U.S. sovereignty. Of course, this is a favorite strategy of liberal administrations: using treaties to get radical policies through the country's backdoor. In this instance, it would bring our nation even closer to President Obama's apparent goal of putting America under global governance.


As Phyllis Schafly points out, the U.S. already enacted the strongest piece of disabilities legislation in the world. This idea that the U.N. "can provide more benefits or protections for persons with disabilities than the U.S. is bizarre," she writes in an excellent column that debunks the need for such a treaty. "The United States always treats individuals, able or disabled, rich or poor, innocent or guilty, better than any nation." Democrats argue that it would help the rest of the world "catch up" to our standards. But, as Sen. Jim DeMint and others have made clear, the U.S. doesn't need to sign away its rights to provide leadership in that area.

While this is a noble cause that embodies the American ethic--treating people with dignity and respect--it gives the U.N. a profound stake in U.S. law and the rights of people across the country. Specifically, the CRPD takes aim at parents, declaring that an international body--not moms and dads--will be the ultimate authority on issues like education. The treaty slips in phrases like "best interest of the child," which, as Sen. Rick Santorum pointed out with me on last week's radio show, are "red alert alarm words." They mean that government officials or courts will be in the position of deciding what's in your child's best interest--not you. Under CRPD, the government would supersede parents in setting course plans for both gifted and special needs kids. The Homeschool Legal Defense Association is concerned--and rightly so. It maintains that this Convention signals a dramatic turnaround in parental rights.

And, of course, it wouldn't be a U.N. proposal if it didn't include a backdoor to greater abortion access. "The feminists saw to it that this treaty about disabilities includes language in Article 25 that requires signatories to 'provide persons with disabilities... free or affordable health care," Phyllis notes, "including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based health programs.'" Translation: the global community could force America to sanction sterilization or abortion for the disabled--at taxpayer expense! Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) tried to neutralize the threat yesterday during the mark-up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Unfortunately, his amendment (which would have stopped the treaty from forcing abortion policy on countries that sign) was thwarted by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) after a debate that you can watch here.

Although Sen. DeMint managed to delay the CRPD a week, the Committee, including three of its Republicans--Sens. John Barrasso (Wy.), Richard Lugar (Ind.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.)--voted yesterday to send the treaty to the Senate floor, where it could be ratified as early as next week. Between now and then, it is absolutely critical for people to see that what's at stake in this debate, which is nothing short of our authority as parents--and as a nation. By law, the Convention will need 67 votes to pass, which means we need to persuade at least 34 senators to defeat it. Contact your senators today and urge them to vote down this deadly infringement on U.S. sovereignty. Your rights depend on it.