(IBD) U.N. Disabilities Treaty Would Limit U.S. Sovereignty and Rights of American Familes

Rights: The Senate is considering a treaty which says "disability is  an evolving concept" and which would infringe on U.S. sovereignty and the right  to raise our children as American families see fit.

Those who thought that the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) adequately  guaranteed the rights of the handicapped to have access to all facets of  American life were apparently wrong.

The U.S. Senate is considering ratifying the Convention on the Rights of  Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which President Obama signed in 2009 and which  goes well beyond mandating wheel-chair ramps for public buildings.

CRPD doesn't even bother to adequately define what disabilities it covers but  rather merely says the definition is "evolving," a loaded term that rivals in  its potential expansiveness the phrase "the Secretary shall determine" that is  repeatedly found in the Affordable Care Act.

It's this bad: If the treaty is ratified and becomes the law of the land, it  will be an open-ended invitation to govern us without our consent.

There is no need for us to ratify the CRPD. As Steven Groves of the Heritage  Foundation points out, the U.S. already has in place numerous federal laws to  protect and advance the cause of Americans with disabilities such as the ADA,  the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,  and the Fair Housing Act, among others.

The rest of the world is free to follow our lead.

In a press conference on Capitol Hill Monday, former Senator and GOP  presidential candidate Rick Santorum, the father of a handicapped child, joined  Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in denouncing the CRPD, saying it would open a "Pandora's  box" of legal interpretations resulting in a "direct assault on us and our  families."

They point out that Article 4 of the convention compels member states to  embrace "economic, cultural and social rights" that are rooted in the concept  that government creates rights, as contrasted with the uniquely American view  that rights are inalienable and God-given.

Would that include the "right" to free contraceptives or the "right" to a  living wage? It is an open-ended invitation to tyranny. Is that definition also  "evolving"?

Read More At IBD:  http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/112912-635128-un-disabilit...