Defeat for UN is Victory for America


Hattip to commenter Greg Mockeridge for bringing this matter to my attention.  Yesterday the Senate defeated by 5 votes the attempt to ratify the UN Convention on Disabilities Treaty.  Go here to read the text.  It is the usual type of windy, gaseous formulation that one expects from the UN.  It is overwhelmingly popular among the permanent government class in most Western nations.  It has been passed by most of the nations of the world.  It will be ignored by most of the nations of the Earth where the rulers are masters at mouthing feel good platitudes while doing as they please.  In the West it will provide jobs for pressure groups through the filing of unending law suits to enforce the terms of this glop of political correctness, socialism, fuzzy thinking and lawyer full employment .  I am opposed to such treaties as a matter of principle.  American rights should be determined by Americans and not by temporary majorities at the UN, that modern Tower of Babel.

The main reason why the treaty failed was abortion.  Among the many twisting and often contradictory provisions was this gem at Article 25 (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;

Reproductive health of course is a euphemism for contraceptives and that form of child murder that goes by the term abortion.    This conflicts with Article 10 of the treaty:

 States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.

Senator Marco Rubio (R. Fla.) attempted to take abortion out of the treaty with this amendment:

The United States understands that the phrase ‘sexual and reproductive health’ in Article 25(a) of the Convention does not include abortion, and its use in that article does not create any abortion rights, cannot be interpreted to constitute support, endorsement, or promotion of abortion, and in no way suggests that abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.

In a party line vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last summer the Rubio amendment was defeated, after Senator John Kerry (D. Mass.) had falsely repeatedly claimed that the treaty had nothing to do with abortion.  Kerry was emoting on the Senate floor yesterday as to how terrible it was that the Republicans were against people with disabilities.  I have a son with autism who is the light of my life.  Pro-aborts like Kerry have no interest in protecting the true rights of people like him, but rather their concern is solely for power.  Without a firm respect for the right to life, the first of the inalienable rights enumerated in our Declaration of Independence, all other rights, real and pretended, are rendered meaningless.

More to explorer


  1. “I have a son with autism who is the light of my life.” Me too. The reason he is capable of a semi-independent life at age 18 is because our family would NOT let the government (medicaid, public schools) determine what treatment and educational opportunities he would receive and what he would not receive. Let’s be clear, when governments speak of the “rights of the disabled” they NEVER, EVER mean that those rights can be exercised (for individuals with developmental disabilities) by the family. Rather, they mean that the government is the party exercising those rights, often against the wishes of the family and often in circumstances where the governmental officials doing the exercising have a direct conflict-of-interest with the interests of the disabled individuals.

    This treaty is thinly-disguised totalitarianism. Pure and simple. Abortion is only part of the problem.

    If the UN (or any modern government) actually cared about the rights of the disabled, abortion after discovery of fetal abnormality would be criminalized in every civilized country – just as abortion based on fetal gender should be criminalized everywhere if any modern government actually cared about women’s rights.

  2. Not only was the treaty deceiptful from a pro-life standpoint, it also sought to usurp parental rights inchoosing the best means of caring for their children, particularly those who are disabled. Another government power grab at the cost of family autonomy.

  3. I do not think it is so much a ‘government power grab’ as a grab by a certain sort of bourgeois which Thomas Sowell referred to as ‘the Anointed’. The trans-national patrician extension of these bourgeois are a menace to the rest of society every place they get the upper hand. Public agencies are an instrument this crew makes use of to harry everyone else. I doubt rank-and-file civil servants are in on the game unless they are the issue of particular programs of indoctrination (e.g. those offered by schools of education and social work).

  4. Anytime an organization that has Iran on its Human Rights Panel comes up with a treaty “protecting” the rights of the disabled, be suspicious; be very suspicious!

  5. If there ever was a reason to shout down and shut down John Kerry’s anticipated nomination for Secretary of State, his support of this treaty is it. HIs swift boat sank a couple of years ago and those who shot him down once are right and ready to reload their torpedo tubes. Anyone who sincerely thinks (think Obama) UN treaties should usurp the US Constitution should sign on with Kerry’s swift boat rimmediately.

  6. When I saw the published U. N. Charter the day after it became a reality, my first comment was that it will be no better than the defunct League of Nations because the structure of the Security Council gave veto power to Communist nations. It will threaten our national sovereignty. So long as good and evil exist in the same world, lasting peace is impossible.

    How would you rate my observation, now that you have seen 50 years of abject failure?

    Booting the U.N. out of America would be a definitive blessing.

  7. I found it quite amazing that while this site claims to be faithful to the pope, it seems that the articles seem to promote a pro US nationalism, (the old “my country right or wrong” position)- under the banner of Catholicism. while we all are citizens of particular a particular country, it is clear from the writings of the new testament and the early fathers… and mothers, that we have no ultimate allegiance to any country. I think that unlike the regurgitated conservative ideology put on this site both Pope John II and Pope Benedict have produced a large body of writings that transcend conservative/liberal dichotomies, and for good reason. There are assumptions, beliefs and positions within both that have important perspectives and applications, but they also “BOTH” have false assumptions, beliefs and positions – especially when taken to extreme and when making ultimate claims – as if their position was the sole protector of truth.
    God alone is absolute truth – and as the Psuedo Dionysius made very clear – God is infinitely beyond our grasp… or our side or any side!!

  8. “found it quite amazing that while this site claims to be faithful to the pope, it seems that the articles seem to promote a pro US nationalism, (the old “my country right or wrong” position)- under the banner of Catholicism.”

    You need to brush up on that reading comprehension. I defy you to find any article on this blog that contends the US should be supported when it is wrong. You will find endless articles critiquing aspects of US foreign and domestic policy.

    “it is clear from the writings of the new testament and the early fathers… and mothers, that we have no ultimate allegiance to any country.”

    Once again reading comprhension. Every Catholic’s ultimate loyalty is to God but in the Catholic view patriotism is good and noble:

    “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesars.”

    Saint Augustine:
    “4. Do not think that it is impossible for any one to please God while engaged in active military service. Among such persons was the holy David, to whom God gave so great a testimony; among them also were many righteous men of that time; among them was also that centurion who said to the Lord: “I am not worthy that You should come under my roof, but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed: for I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goes; and to another, Come, and he comes; and to my servant, Do this, and he does it;” and concerning whom the Lord said: “Verily, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” Matthew 8:8-10 Among them was that Cornelius to whom an angel said: “Cornelius, your alms are accepted, and your prayers are heard,” Acts 10:4 when he directed him to send to the blessed Apostle Peter, and to hear from him what he ought to do, to which apostle he sent a devout soldier, requesting him to come to him. Among them were also the soldiers who, when they had come to be baptized by John,— the sacred forerunner of the Lord, and the friend of the Bridegroom, of whom the Lord says: “Among them that are born of women there has not arisen a greater than John the Baptist,” Matthew 11:11 — and had inquired of him what they should do, received the answer, “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” Luke 3:14 Certainly he did not prohibit them to serve as soldiers when he commanded them to be content with their pay for the service.”

    The Catechism:

    “2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

    2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

    Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45
    [Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46

    The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.”47”

    Pope John Paul II:

    “Patriotism is a love for everything to do with our native land: its history, its traditions, its language, its natural features. It is a love which extends also to the works of our compatriots and the fruits of their genius. Every danger that threatens the overall good of our native land becomes an occasion to demonstrate this love…I belive that the same could be said of every country and every nation in Europe and throughout the world. (Memory and Identity, 65-66)”

    “I think that unlike the regurgitated conservative ideology put on this site both Pope John II and Pope Benedict have produced a large body of writings that transcend conservative/liberal dichotomies,”

    Most of the writings of the Popes have nothing to do with “liberal\conservative dichotomies” as Mother Church, wisely, leaves most political concerns up to the wits of her sons and daughters. There is however, a grave threat to religious liberty arising in this land and it is from the left. Here is a recent statement by Pope Benedict:

  9. Mac,

    I thought the post was about keeping the UN unelected, world government bureaucrats from imposing women’s health (abortion and infanticide, add gun control soon) on the once-self-governing people of the USA.

    You have taken up this burden in common with St. Augustine (see The City of God) who alos had issues with people like David Kontur: “Half-wits we must endure and answer.”

    I prefer Alinsky Rule #5 – “ridicule.” It’s quicker. And, Obama-worshiping imbeciles can’t process facts. “Don’t cast pearls before swine.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: