'A sad day for people with disabilities'

soundoff (13 Responses)

1. edgar
   

   Gun control is not the answer. Connecticut is already one of the toughest states. The way we deal with people who have issues or might have issues needs to be revisited. Children who display behavioral or anti-social tendancies need to be dealt with. Come on – everybody knows by 4th grade or so who is most likely to be a problem to society. People who need to be institutionalized need to be institutionalized! The media never told you that Newtown CT has one of Connecticut's largest old-fashioned mental institutions. It holds a lot people who are criminally insane, etc. It can hold a lot more of them too. This is a sprawling institution with lots of buildings, wards, and empty beds because it is no longer politically correct to house the mentally ill.

   December 17, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
2. gary shell
   

   gun control should be an obvious need. but it's not happening. someone legally wants a gun for protection or for legal hunting? if he/she meets some reasonable crteria, okay. but why is it legal to posess a weapon that can fire dozens of rounds? why does anyone need numerous guns? hundreds of rounds, or thousands?

   i've come to detest the part of our systems that states one has the right to bear arms. i say "no!" we do NOT have the "right" to bear arms. not ethically.

   December 14, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
3. Eileen
   

   I am glad that it was defeated. At least with our country's current laws parents are protected in their right to make decisions about, and participate in, the medical and educational services for their children. This treaty, given the language used, could potentially lead to these rights being seriously curtailed or taken away in favor of whatever the "state" decides is best regardless of the family or individual's wishes. As a teacher who works with students with disabilities and having friends and family members with children with disabilities, I am grateful it didn't pass. Now let's fully support the laws we currently have in place.

   December 11, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
   • James
     

     You're joking.
     Did you even read the Treaty?
     NOWHERE in the treaty does it infringe upon national sovereignty or demand that parents allow the State to step in: and, you must be forgetting, we DO have laws that state that! If the parent is found negligible in the child's care, that child will receive the care he or she needs by becoming a Ward in the State.

     If you truly are a teacher, shame on you. Do your research before you make claims that you cannot back up.
     Stop watching Fox News and receiving blatant propaganda and do the research for yourself.

     Take a look at what the language of this UN treaty has with the American With Disabilities Act of 1990, signed by George H. W. Bush.

     Goodness Gracious.

     December 12, 2012 at 5:58 am |
4. Diane
   

   Having a brother who is disabled and spending my entire career working with the disabled, this really concerns me! I really feel that the problem is that Congress does not seem to do ANY work. I feel sure that most of them weren't even there for the vote. It seems like they go to Washington only for a little while then they leave. How can they get any of the people's business done when they aren't there enough?

   December 10, 2012 at 1:34 am |
5. Raymond
   

   Just listented to Senator Mike Lee, who in response to your clear question kept saying, "just because it hasn't happened before, doesn't mean it's not going to happen". In my opinion, some young Senators and Congressman like him, were raised with values that intentionally obscured the reality of human life, and as a result will exclude a majority of humans from their world view. They need a reality check. Tell him, (them) that just because Santa never personally delivered his little red wagon, that it doesn't mean he never will. Give him a hug and tell him that the boogie man only visits urban areas.

   December 7, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
6. William H Young
   

   Thanks for your coverage of the UN Disabilities Treaty exposing the untruthfulness of at least some Republicans who opposed the treaty's passage.

   December 7, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
7. Mark Meinhardt
   

   Not having read the disabilities treaty I cannot make an educated dicision on this particular treaty. What does concern me about possible U.N. treaties is that if a super majority of our U.S. Senate votes to approve a particular treaty and the President signs off , it then becomes the law of the land. Our Republic has its own constitution and no world body should be able to force its will on our citizens, period.

   December 7, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
   • Tom Baroch
     

     Mark~ People did not do their homework on this... including the Senators and their interns who voted NO. Please read the below. It explains it as well as I ever could. Once passed and fully excepted by a majority of countries, the U.N. then appoints a committee that makes "Non-Binding" recommendations to countries on how to help them manage and become more accepting and non docriminatory towards their disability (physical, sensory,developmental or otherwise) communities................... Which would "likely" (but not always) be largely based on the United State's Americans with Disabilities Act.

     "most Senate Republicans saw it as a threat to American "sovereignty," even though the treaty wouldn't have required the United States to change its laws. When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the treaty with bipartisan support in July, Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) explained the proposal simply "raises the [international] standard to our level without requiring us to go further."

     In other words, we wouldn't actually have to do anything except say we like the treaty - and then wait for other signatories around the world to catch up to the United States' Americans with Disabilities Act."
     By Steve Benen
     Tue Dec 4, 2012 1:00 PM EST "The Maddow Blog"

     December 8, 2012 at 1:34 am |
8. Henry
   

   Anderson,
   thanks for the interviews about the U.N. disabilities treaty. Now it becomes clear to me that the US must not vote for this. As you pointed out it has no legal consequences. The US is paying billions of Dollars to ( the muslim brotherhood) Egypt and Afganistan – do you Anderson know how disabled people are treated there? Why is the US NOT insisting to put the US 'goldstandart' into law in these countries?

   December 7, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
9. Fred Landau
   

   Oh please,can we stop with this notion that the US is a leader in the fight against disability discrimination. I have been trying to get help against an internet company that discriminated and bullied me in August right here in the US, and no one is accepting jurisdiction, saying the internet was invented after the law was passed. I've even tried contacting the White House for help, and nothing doing. Let's get our administrability of this ADA matter together at home, after it being in effect here for two decades, before trying to hold ourselves out as world leaders.

   December 7, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
10. Betty
    

    While some say the senate voting against the treaty regarding disabled persons was a sad day, I say it would be a sad day if a family having a disabled baby would have to register the baby with the government (Article 18)!!

    December 7, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
11. Steve
    

    And who were the fip-floppers, the 8 Senators who said they'd support it but didn't?

    December 7, 2012 at 1:58 pm |