Santorum's new hobby: Oppose the disabled!

[questionmark 11,357]

President-unelect Rick Santorum made his triumphant return to the Capitol on Monday afternoon and took up a brave new cause: He is opposing disabled people.

Specifically, Santorum, joined by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), declared his wish that the Senate reject the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities — a human rights treaty negotiated during George W. Bush’s administration and ratified by 126 nations, including China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

The former presidential candidate pronounced his “grave concerns” about the treaty, which forbids discrimination against people with AIDS, who are blind, who use wheelchairs and the like. “This is a direct assault on us,” he declared at a news conference.

Read more

Well...makes sense. As opposing immigrants now leads to election defeats they might as well find a new enemy

[Sir Wearer of Hats 22,919]

What in the name of all that is Holy is wrong with that man?

[Corp 1,426]

So this is a secret plot by the UN to force America to follow it's own laws?

[cormac mac airt 5,174]

Rick Santorum the moron! How many more levels of 'low' can the Republicans have left?

cormac

[F3SS 15,945]

Does this mean that we can't discriminate or that we can't tell them no? Theres a big difference. Because if that's what it is I sure agree that we don't need any more affirmative action policies. Otherwise, it seems ok.

Edited November 27, 2012 by -Mr_Fess-

[Dredimus 1,090]

Im not Santorum fan... but I beg.. please find out WHY he opposes the CRPD and express both sides of it... its not that he opposes it because its about the rights of the disabled.. I mean common sense would tell you that those rights are a given due to the Americans With Disabilities Act passed in 1990...

While the treaty sounds beneficial, Santorum said Monday on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight," it would be harmful because it says the state, not parents, have authority over what is in the best interest of the child.

"This would be something unprecedented in American law, to give the state the ultimate authority as to what is the best interest of your child. Historically, the United States has been very clear, parents, unless they are unfit for some reason, get that decision," Santorum said.

Santorum is the father of a disabled daughter. Three-year-old Bella Santorum was born with trisomy 18, a rare genetic disorder. Santorum said that he worries about what treatments might be available to her if the government were given the authority to say what is in her best interest.

For the love of all that is good, do you think just ONCE some of you people could try to look at both sides of things instead of diving right back into party politics....

http://www.christianpost.com/news/un-disability-treaty-hurts-disabled-santorum-and-critics-argue-85658/

Edit: Added Link

Edited November 27, 2012 by Dredimus

[pallidin 8,389]

Santorum needs to go to a sanitarium.

Edited November 27, 2012 by pallidin

[Jeremiah65 3,062]

Hmmm....this is going to be an odd statement.

I agree with him.

(Waits for everyone to get back in their chairs)

I have long been an opponent of the Nanny state and this is not going to be any less. It is not the business of the state to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their child...it is their child, their flesh and blood.

So what is next down the pike? They just gonna round up all the kids and send them to a "youth camp" to be "properly educated and cared for"?... Don't suppose you recall the "Youth camps and organizations" of a certain leader over in Germany back in the 30's and 40's.

Are you ready to relinquish all authority over how your child is raised, fed, educated and cared for? Thank God my kids are adults now...I would be seething mad if I thought for one minute the State felt it could tell me how to tend to my children...which one was very sick for years but has since recovered. I guess I did what a parent is supposed to do...Took many trips to expensive specialists but we found the problem. Do you think the state is going to invest that much time and effort to child #247,739,918? I don't think so...

Better check up on this folks...this IS NOT freedom.

They can take that part of it and

Edited November 27, 2012 by Jeremiah65

[Gummug 2,063]

Im not Santorum fan... but I beg.. please find out WHY he opposes the CRPD and express both sides of it... its not that he opposes it because its about the rights of the disabled.. I mean common sense would tell you that those rights are a given due to the Americans With Disabilities Act passed in 1990...

For the love of all that is good, do you think just ONCE some of you people could try to look at both sides of things instead of diving right back into party politics....

http://www.christian...cs-argue-85658/

Edit: Added Link

This is such a good post I wish I could hit the like button 50 times for it!

[joc 7,524]

Well...makes sense. As opposing immigrants now leads to election defeats they might as well find a new enemy

Obama opposes this as well.

[cormac mac airt 5,174]

Some might want to actually read the "CONVENTION on the RIGHTS of PERSONS with DISABILITIES" before parroting Rick Santorum's paranoia.

cormac

[F3SS 15,945]

This is such a good post I wish I could hit the like button 50 times for it!

Absolutely. I figured it had more to do with something like that rather than SANTORUM IS OPPOSED TO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND THAT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE BECAUSE HE HAS A DISABLED CHILD WHOM HE IS OPENLY OPPOSED TO. The op here is always the first to point out reactionary statements and unthoughtful ops. I wonder if he'll consider imposing his own bs meter on himself.

Edited November 27, 2012 by -Mr_Fess-

[Rut Roh 201]

Some might want to actually read the "CONVENTION on the RIGHTS of PERSONS with DISABILITIES" before parroting Rick Santorum's paranoia.

cormac

I will when I can get to it but in the interim I think that I will give a pass to Rick "themoron" for his stance on why this might be a bad thing. I mean, it is not as if he has any skin in the fight.....or any experience on the subject. I mean, heck, it is absolutely OBVIOUS that he HATES the disabled and wants them all to just go away along with all their petty insignificant problems. Stupid republicans.

The only one who sounds as if they are parroting is you, IMO.

[cormac mac airt 5,174]

I will when I can get to it but in the interim I think that I will give a pass to Rick "themoron" for his stance on why this might be a bad thing. I mean, it is not as if he has any skin in the fight.....or any experience on the subject. I mean, heck, it is absolutely OBVIOUS that he HATES the disabled and wants them all to just go away along with all their petty insignificant problems. Stupid republicans.

The only one who sounds as if they are parroting is you, IMO.

Like I said, try reading it first instead of accepting Santorum's version of what he says it means. Nowhere in it does it take a parents rights away.

cormac

[Dredimus 1,090]

Like I said, try reading it first instead of accepting Santorum's version of what he says it means. Nowhere in it does it take a parents rights away.

cormac

How about reading article 7 of the act and then viewing the legal standpoint of the language within the act itself. Define "states parties" and then tell me where in any law, legislation, or amendment it says that the government.. any government... has the right to decide the best action for the treatment of my or your child...

[cormac mac airt 5,174]

How about reading article 7 of the act and then viewing the legal standpoint of the language within the act itself. Define "states parties" and then tell me where in any law, legislation, or amendment it says that the government.. any government... has the right to decide the best action for the treatment of my or your child...

I think there's alot of paranoia for the sake of being paranoid going on here. States parties is pretty clearly the representative States/Countries who've signed this treaty. And their responsibility is to enforce the law against the discrimination of people who are disabled. Which means, in short, that disabled people will and shall have the same exact rights as non-disabled people. This is a no-brainer IMO.

cormac

[Dredimus 1,090]

I think there's alot of paranoia for the sake of being paranoid going on here. States parties is pretty clearly the representative States/Countries who've signed this treaty. And their responsibility is to enforce the law against the discrimination of people who are disabled. Which means, in short, that disabled people will and shall have the same exact rights as non-disabled people. This is a no-brainer IMO.

cormac

Your definition of "state parties" is actually the very reason this act should be opposed. You may call it paranoia but some of us view it as another right being stripped away and the government putting itself deeper into the lives of the American people.... you know.. the ones they are supposed to answer to.......

[cormac mac airt 5,174]

Your definition of "state parties" is actually the very reason this act should be opposed. You may call it paranoia but some of us view it as another right being stripped away and the government putting itself deeper into the lives of the American people.... you know.. the ones they are supposed to answer to.......

So you think you should have the right to discriminate against people who are disabled, because that's what you're saying. Doesn't say much good about your character. BTW, this treaty doesn't supercede any anti-discriminatory laws already in effect in the individual countries who've already signed.

cormac

[Dredimus 1,090]

So you think you should have the right to discriminate against people who are disabled, because that's what you're saying. Doesn't say much good about your character. BTW, this treaty doesn't supercede any anti-discriminatory laws already in effect in the individual countries who've already signed.

cormac

Yeah... keep the spin going... utterly hopeless. I don't agree with your attack on this persons view on the dangers of the act in question.. I provided sources and information about the realities of the language presented in the act and your instant reaction is to spin and attack. This is indicative of what is wrong with politics in this country. Thank you for contributing to the problem instead of opening your mind and thinking of a solution.

[cormac mac airt 5,174]

Yeah... keep the spin going... utterly hopeless. I don't agree with your attack on this persons view on the dangers of the act in question.. I provided sources and information about the realities of the language presented in the act and your instant reaction is to spin and attack. This is indicative of what is wrong with politics in this country. Thank you for contributing to the problem instead of opening your mind and thinking of a solution.

I didn't have to spin anything. It's in plain English even my grandson understands. The only spinning here is from people trying to read more into it than what's there.

cormac

Edited November 28, 2012 by cormac mac airt

[Jeremiah65 3,062]

No, it's not about "paranoia"...it is about seeing legal loopholes "so-to-speak" in the language. It is, of course, worst case scenario viewing, but the language is there...or more appropriately "not there".

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.

States shall ensure. What about "parents, with state support...shall ensure". The missing language...is... the parents...

Edited November 28, 2012 by Jeremiah65

[ninjadude 1,043]

Dredimus,

This quote proves how wrong he is. In most states this is ALREADY true. There are child protection laws that specifically state that the "safety and Best Interests of the Child is the PARAMOUNT authority of the state". The "safety" and BIOC being loosely defined and left up to a judge. Paramount means that legally the state can and often does anything, even violate other laws in it's authority. These laws changed about 20 years ago and he's about 20 years out of date.. Maybe not in his state of PA but many other places. If he really wants to campaign against BIOC then I may have to rethink his googly name.

it would be harmful because it says the state, not parents, have authority over what is in the best interest of the child.

"This would be something unprecedented in American law, to give the state the ultimate authority as to what is the best interest of your child. Historically, the United States has been very clear, parents, unless they are unfit for some reason, get that decision," Santorum said.

Edited November 28, 2012 by ninjadude

[joc 7,524]

Dredimus,

This quote proves how wrong he is. In most states this is ALREADY true. There are child protection laws that specifically state that the "safety and Best Interests of the Child is the PARAMOUNT authority of the state". The "safety" and BIOC being loosely defined and left up to a judge. Paramount means that legally the state can and often does anything, even violate other laws in it's authority. These laws changed about 20 years ago and he's about 20 years out of date.. Maybe not in his state of PA but many other places. If he really wants to campaign against BIOC then I may have to rethink his googly name.

In most states? That's like saying 'most people'...please. How about you give us a link to those particular states...all of them...because 'most' is a word that people throw out generally because they have no real information about the subject...yeah.

And besides that...I don't trust the UN...do you?

Edited November 28, 2012 by joc

[acidhead 5,587]

Where did Q go? Anybody sight him recently? I mean, if you are going to go fishing at least come back and check your bait.... reel in your line and call it a day.

lol

[joc 7,524]

Where did Q go? Anybody sight him recently? I mean, if you are going to go fishing at least come back and check your bait.... reel in your line and call it a day.

lol