United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

I do not write about issues related to my disability because it’s a personal matter. For the record, however, I usually can push my wheelchair to where I need to be. I drive myself to where I need to go. I can get in and out of most public buildings. Many people, including my wife, often don’t think of my disability when discussing day-to-day matters, which is the way I prefer it.

Unfortunately, there are daily reminders that I’m not entirely independent. Often, these reminders take the form of barriers to my full participation in society. Some may sound a bit petty –– an insufficient number of parking places for persons with disabilities (not “disabled parking places,” which a fifth grader can tell you means that that the parking places themselves are disabled). There is a law that figures the proportion of persons with disabilities who may drive or require transportation to the number of able-bodied people for every parking lot serving a building open to the public. It is rarely enforced.

In California, drivers who are not disabled use approximately one third of the placards that identify them a disabled driver. Occasionally, a doctor will shade the truth for a patient, but the majority of those non-disabled drivers with placards obtain them from a family member or relative.

Of course, there are those who don’t bother with going through the hassle of obtaining an illegal parking placard and simply park their car in a space for disabled drivers. When I see this occur, especially by some young person driving a sports car, I occasionally yell at them, “at least you could fake a limp!”

As I said – I can be petty.

One final thing about driving – many large parking lots that the City is supposed to review for conformity with the law include parking spaces for the disabled that are not to specifications. This generally results in parking spaces for disabled persons who are ambulatory and don’t require wheelchair ramps because the spaces are too narrow to extend the ramp or lift and exit the vehicle in a wheelchair without being trapped by another car.

There are other examples, many of which include inaccessible rest rooms, doorways, and stairs in public buildings.

There are little reminders every day, like the curb cuts at intersections in the Gaslamp that are (illegally) too steep and once caused me to flip backwards out of my chair and land on my head in the middle of the street. That concussion was equal in severity to some I suffered while playing college football.

Then there are those who seem afraid that proximity to me and my wheelchair may be infectious somehow and scurry away, furtively glancing back to see if I’m following.

Of course, the antithesis is the overly solicitous stranger who wishes to “assist” me, often by grabbing the wheelchair from behind and pushing. One word – whiplash. Oh, and occasional crushed fingers. Or, detours into lawns or streets.

If you want to help, please ask. I’ll be polite and, on a particularly difficult day, I may even take you up on your offer.

The foregoing was far too much about me. 

This missive is about the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I received an email this morning from The American Association of People with Disabilities. I accept their emails because they only send me something when there is an important issue of which I would ordinarily be unaware until after the fact. Plus, they rarely ask for money.

 It seems like an innocuous group of folks. The have a Board of Directors that has the requisite number of those representing mainstream disability advocacy organizations and those representing corporate America, the latter of which likely funds the organization (it’s a tax write-off as well as a evidence of their corporate citizenship). However, I would rather American Airlines build a plane in which I can reach the first seat while in my wheelchair and hop on instead of all 6’2” and almost 200 lbs of me being lifted by untrained and undersized individuals the three or four feet to my seat and unceremoniously dumping me in the vicinity of said seat. Is it really too much to ask? Apparently, the answer is yes, it is.

But, again, I regress.

President Obama signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009 and sent it to the Senate in May, 2012, were the Foreign Relations Committee considered it’s ratification.

On July 26, 2012, three Republican Senators (Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)) joined the 10 Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to pass the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said the treaty “raises the standard to our level without requiring us to go further. Proponents say it would merely require the rest of the world to catch up to the United States' high standards created by the Americans With Disabilities Act while protecting Americans with disabilities abroad.

However, Neanderthal Republicans on the Committee were concerned with myriad non-issues. Presidential aspirant Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) proposed language saying the treaty “does not create any abortion rights.” All nine Republicans on the panel voted for it.

Democrats said that would have allowed treaty signers to discriminate against people with disabilities — refusing to provide the full range of family planning services under domestic law — in violation of the spirit of the treaty. Instead, Kerry offered an amendment saying the treaty does not address “the provision of any particular health program or procedure,” meaning the treaty doesn't create any new abortion rights beyond the duty not to discriminate against people with disabilities.

The anti-abortion rights Susan B. Anthony List, however, said abortion itself is often a form of discrimination against people with disabilities.

“Ironically, when special needs children are identified in the womb, they often become a prime target for abortion," SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement. "Over 90% of children diagnosed with Downs syndrome in utero have their lives abruptly ended. Abortion in no way promotes the rights and dignity of people with disabilities,”

Republican Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) led the opposition to the treaty, fighting for a reservation to the treaty that would have stated that the United States “does not accept any obligation under the Convention to enact legislation or take other measure in any fashion.” DeMint and other Republicans were allegedly concerned that signing the Treaty, like everything generated by the United Nations, undermines American sovereignty — in this case, a plot to keep Americans from home-schooling their children and forcing an expansion of abortion rights.

The Republican concerns are entirely specious. The treaty requires virtually nothing of the United States. It essentially directs the other signatories to update their laws so that they more closely match the Americans with Disabilities Act. Their concerns, rather, came from the world of U.N. conspiracy theories, black helicopters, and a “new world order.”

If the Treaty did have such sinister aims, it would not have the support of veterans groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican Senators John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), and conservative legal beagles Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh.

Republicans were forced to tread lightly, however, with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), finding it necessary to preface his opposition with the qualifier that “our concerns with this convention have nothing to do with any lack of concern for the rights of persons with disabilities.” Right. He’s worried about the black helicopters.

Senate Republicans on the Committee filed their minority views and a resolution of advice and consent to ratification, including 3 reservations, 8 understandings, and 2 declarations, some of which include:

1.      “This Convention shall be implemented by the Federal Government of the United States of America … to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters … [and limiting] the Federal Government's taking measures … [that] may include enforcement action against state and local actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or other Federal laws …”

2.      “… Individual privacy and freedom from governmental interference in certain private conduct are also recognized as among the fundamental values of our free and democratic society. The United States of America understands that by its terms the Convention can be read to require bro ad regulation of private conduct. To the extent it does, the United States of America does not accept any obligation under the Convention to enact legislation or take other measures with respect to private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”

3.      “The United States of America understands that this Convention, including Article 8 thereof, does not authorize or require legislation or other action that would restrict the right of free speech, expression, and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.”

4.     “ … [W]ith respect to the application of the Convention to matters related to economic, social, and cultural rights, including in Articles 4(2), 24, 25, 27, 28 and 30, the United States of America understands that its obligations in this respect are to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of any such rights insofar as they are recognized and implemented under U.S. Federal law.”

5.     “The United States of America understands the Convention to require the protection of rights of individuals with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including individuals in other protected groups, and does not require adoption of a comparable worth framework for persons with disabilities. OMG! We wouldn’t want to extend “special rights” to the disabled as the Democrats have done with gays!

6.     "The United States of America understands that the Convention is a non-discrimination instrument. Therefore, nothing in the Convention, including Article 25, addresses the provision of any particular health program or procedure (ABORTION). Rather, the Convention requires that health programs and procedures are provided to individuals with disabilities on a non-discriminatory basis.” So, women with disabilities are restricted to the same extent as are other women in Republican efforts to restrict reproductive rights."

The treaty, with the Minority Report and the Republican’s 3 reservations, 8 understandings, and 2 declarations, goes before the full Senate today.

Before you do anything else, tweet or call your Senator – NOW!