Concerns: UN Convention on Rights of Persons With Disabilities
I am writing to you because I have long respected the work and writings you have done for the Age of Autism website.
I wanted to make you aware of another push coming to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). (The last such push, in December 2012, was voted down). Word is out that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold two hearings on the CRPD, one on October 29 and one on October 31. It appears that the supporters of the treaty will try to push it through very quickly, and likely try to send it to the floor before the end of the year.
This document is concerning on many fronts, but I believe it should be particularly concerning to any parent of a vaccine injured child, or really to anyone concerned about the skyrocketing incidence of autism (as well as a plethora of other serious chronic diseases) in our youth, and a potential link to vaccinations. The fundamental concern with this document is its adoption of the "best interests of the child" standard. With this change in language, courts and government agencies (rather than parents) would be given the authority to decide what is best for children with disabilities. This would come into play with choices about future vaccinations for autistic (and all disabled) children, decisions about medical treatments for autistic (and all disabled) children and school/educational choices.
The CRPD is just the first arm of the "1-2 punch" that is being planned. The second arm will then be ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Once the language is changed to the "best interests of the child" in the CRPD, this will grease the way to ratify the UN CRC, which, of course, is grounded in the same fundamental shift in language and approach to all of the children in the U.S., not just the disabled. Political leaders are leading with the CRPD, I believe, because they feel it stands a better chance at ratification, because parents of the disabled (busy caring for their disabled children) will not have the time to stand up against these plans.
As you know Michael Bloomberg is now pushing for universal vaccinations for all preschoolers. This requirement will be mandated nationally with ratification of the UN CRPD and, ultimately with the ratification of the UN CRC. What is at the crux of this is who determines what is in the "best interests of the child"? Historically, unless proven to be negligent or abusive, this authority has always rested with U.S. parents. With ratification of these two documents above, this authority will be transferred to the U.S. Government, and its health institutions (when it involves medical and health matters).
If you have any questions about this, please feel free to contact me, or to spend some time on this page and its links.
FYI - The site www.ParentalRights.org provides a goldmine of information about the topic of Parental Rights and these two U.N. Conventions. I encourage you to visit the site and educate yourself. For years, the folks at this site have been trying to educate people on this looming threat to the rights of parents in our country. They are dedicated to promoting the adoption of a Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and preventing U.S. ratification of UN Conventions that threaten parental rights.
Karol Henseler Orsborn M.D. is a pediatrician of almost 20 years. She and her husband are the parents of three daughters. In December 2012, she left the field of clinical Pediatrics to devote more time to her family and also to fight attacks upon the family and the parent/child bond, becoming especially prevalent in Pediatrics and society at large.
Our children were abused by school staff in a state that has the strictest laws against staff mistreatment of disabled students. The problem was enforcement and system corruption-- no legal authority would take the mass of medical evidence or witness statements demonstrating that abuse had occurred-- in fact, the same legal authorities aided the school in retaliating against us. I don't see where this treaty addresses those issues.
Does the UN treaty mean we can take school abuse cases to the Hague?
Something tells me... probably not.
Posted by: Out of the frying pan | November 03, 2013 at 06:08 PM
There are a lot of myths out there about this. The main one being that the UN could over ride a parent's rights to act on behalf of their child. That right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. A UN treaty could not do this and the majority of parents that are having their children removed now by CPS don't have a medical team standing behind them to show medical necessity has been determined via choice.
I support this treaty because I know of the horrors individuals with disabilities are being subjected to globally. Do I feel that the UN can or will enforce this? They have yet to do so where its been ratified.
We also reached out to the UN to assist Alex Spourdalakis when he was being denied appropriate medical care and being chemically and physically restrained while in a Chicago, Illinois medical facilty. There was no response from them. A child, in the US, having their civil rights violated based on disabilty and lack of medical choice and no response.
Posted by: Carolyn | November 03, 2013 at 04:42 PM
Senate Hearing on UN Disabilities Treaty November 5 –
Urgent Calls Needed!
October 29, 2013
Dear Friend of Parental Rights,
Last year, your grassroots activism defeated the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). But this treaty has returned. We have been told that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a new hearing on the treaty on Tuesday, November 5. We believe that this hearing marks the start of an aggressive push to ratify this dangerous UN treaty.
The CRPD surrenders U.S. sovereignty to unelected UN bureaucrats and will threaten parental care of children with disabilities. Our nation already has laws to protect Americans with disabilities. This treaty is unnecessary and will hurt families by giving bureaucrats - not the child’s parents - the power to decide what is in the best interests of a child with disabilities.
All 100 U.S. Senators, and especially the Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee, need to hear loud and clear that the United States must not surrender our freedom to the United Nations.
The following Senators are on the Foreign Relations Committee:
Democrats:
Robert Menendez (NJ): (202) 224-4744
Barbara Boxer (CA): (202) 224-3553
Benjamin L. Cardin (MD): (202) 224-4524
Tom Udall (NM): (202) 224-6621
Edward Markey (MA): (202) 224-2742
Chris Murphy (CT): (202) 224-4041
Tim Kaine (VA): (202) 224-4024
Jeanne Shaheen (NH): (202) 224-2841
Christopher Coons (DE): (202) 224-5042
Richard J. Durbin (IL): (202) 224-2152
Republicans:
Bob Corker (TN) (202) 224-3344
Ron Johnson (WI) (202) 224-5323
James E. Risch (ID) (202) 224-2752
Jeff Flake (AZ) (202) 224-4521
John McCain (AZ) (202) 224-2235
John Barrasso (WY) (202) 224-6441
Rand Paul * (KY)
Marco Rubio* (FL)
*These Senators strongly oppose the CRPD. Calls are unnecessary.
Even if your senators are not on the Committee, please take a moment to call their office right now. Your message can be as simple as the following:
“I urge you to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This treaty surrenders U.S. sovereignty to unelected UN bureaucrats and will threaten parental care of children with disabilities. Our nation already has laws to protect Americans with disabilities. This treaty is unnecessary and will hurt families by giving bureaucrats the power to decide what is in the best interests of a child with disabilities, not the child’s parents.”
You can reach your senators by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or by clicking on your state at ParentalRights.org/States to find their contact info.
You defeated the CRPD last year. We can do it again. Please call right now and please also forward this email to your friends. You can visit our CRPD page here to learn more about the treaty and you can read the text of the CRPD here.
For Liberty,
Michael Farris
President
ParentalRights.org
Posted by: Karol Orsborn | October 29, 2013 at 10:02 AM
Posted by: Linda | October 27, 2013 at 02:00 AM
You never want to be in a position where your children can be taken away based on the judgment of a stranger's arbitrary standards. What will constitute neglect? Failing to teach the native language? Failing to teach more than one language? Not speaking proper language in the home? Crumbs in the microwave? Dust in the corners? Too many or not enough pets or doctor's or dentist visits? Too small (or too big) a house? Having to share a bedroom? Not having a computer or TV or internet or...? A child who is over or under weight? Not frequenting the park enough or frequenting the park too much? What about kids who are doing poorly in school? Should those children be taken for their own good so they can earn better grades? In developing countries, what about children who don't have basic necessities, who don't have shoes and live in huts without plumbing or floors, where there may be no schools or schools not up to developing nations' standards. Will they be taken away from their parents for their own good too?
The way to power is to control the children.
Posted by: Linda | October 26, 2013 at 11:35 PM
I just learned from Michael Ramey at Parental Rights the following:
"The latest intel is that the hearings have been pushed back to at least November 5. There is a definite push to get them scheduled, but they won't be next week."
While that is good news, they often try to push items like this through closer to the holidays, when everyone is distracted.
Also, Michael made me aware of a direct link to one of their pages that AoA readers may find the most helpful. It really is a "go to page" for anyone who wants to learn about the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
http://parentalrights.org/crpd
Parental Rights should be updating their site as the date and time to push forward on this nears, so stay tuned to them for further info on how to fight this. And while you are visiting their site, please consider signing their petition to create a Parental Rights Amendment.
Posted by: Karol Orsborn | October 26, 2013 at 04:15 PM
I agree that this is horrifying, though I imagine that most people, believing in good intentions, wont see it that way. T hings are already moving in this direction. Everyone should see the story in Dr. Kenneth Bock's book entitled "Healing the New Childhood Epidemics", in which a family is coerced by their child's school, against their better judgement into giving their child Ritalin or a similar drug for hyperactivity. At age 14 he suddenly died of a heart attack and the coroner noted that he had a typical Amphetamine affected heart. Doctors see so many children being medicated, that they themselves begin to believe that this is normal. They will then see any parent who refuses to go along with some medication as abusive or misguided.
I have heard that a number of doctors are medicating their own children for their behavioral issues. I wonder if they have thought ahead to the future, when the child will not be under their control and will be well-primed in the mode of solving life's problems with substances, medications.
Posted by: Cherry Sperlin Misra | October 26, 2013 at 03:17 PM
Word is out that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold two hearings on the CRPD, one on October 29 and one on October 31. It appears that the supporters of the treaty will try to push it through very quickly, and likely try to send it to the floor before the end of the year.
If anyone knows the bill number: Would you please post it on this board so we can start calling our elected politicos!!!!
Posted by: Paul S | October 26, 2013 at 01:00 PM
what is happening to this world that free choice is been taken away from loving parents who clearly know their children best. Every child is an individual and deserves individual treatment. ALL does not suit ALL. Each of has human rites, the rite to choice. How dare an unknown man who has no knowledge of a case decide on healing for that case. We are too much a nanny state.
Posted by: A homoeopath | October 26, 2013 at 08:23 AM
I think Carolyn Flannery makes a good point. These measures are usually well intentioned and aim to protect children from abuse. I am sure that protecting children from abuse is an aspiration that everybody would share. The problem is that the type of language used leaves the legislation open to abuse. Getting the wording right on these things is critical.
Posted by: Carthage Buckley | October 26, 2013 at 07:44 AM
Thank you for the update on these U.N. conventions. I wish I could say I believed good intentions were behind this generally. The U. N. cannot really guarantee the protections this claims, but this will be used where ever convenient for governments as justification to undermine what little protection of parental rights to best protect their children still operate in the world.
If anyone with a legal background has read the proposed Parental Rights Amendment, Section III concerns me as potentially insuring the opposite of what this amendment intends. For one thing, couldn't government easily claim that vaccine uptake is of the "highest order?"
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | October 25, 2013 at 09:41 PM
Is there a way we can rephrase this to accomplish what is likely the intent of 95% of those backing it. which is protecting children from abuse, while closing the door that would make it possible to be used to force vaccination and other medical procedures on children without consent of the parents?
Posted by: Carolyn Flannery | October 25, 2013 at 03:55 PM
Thank you AoA, I've been trying to get some attention about this for some time. The twisted language on this whole scary thing makes it "appear" to be FOR the rights of children. My left leaning friends have insisted this is only going affect the truly neglected. THIS IS HORRIFYING. They WANT the children to belong to the government, for real. And we are seeing more proof of this as the "common core", another piece of government-sheit rolls out. WAKE up! GET BEHIND taking this down with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ www. parentrights.org It has been their effort that his hasn't already been ratified.
Posted by: Vaccine Injured | October 25, 2013 at 12:31 PM
It's already happening. If a doctor disagrees with how you manage your child's medical conditions, they can report you to CPS or take custody of your child in the hospital and take away your right to make decisions. It's becoming very commonplace. We've been seeing this a lot with our PANDAS children, because the treatments are very cutting edge and somewhat controversial. Many doctors are uncomfortable with treatment plans that might involve long-term antibiotics and immunomodulary treatments, as opposed to psychiatric medications, even if under the care of another physician. Look what happened to Elizabeth Wray at Boston Children's. They disagreed with her parents and treating physicians and refused a hospital transfer, instead taking custody of her for 10 months. Then they put a gag order on the parents and their lawyers, so no one can talk about what happened to her in those 10 months.
http://fightingpandas1.blogspot.com/2012/10/parents-lose-custody-in-battle-over_8.html
Honestly this is my worst nightmare. I'm very cautious with what I share about our treatments for my son, and about what hospitals I take him to.
Posted by: ChrissyD | October 25, 2013 at 10:45 AM
"may God continue to bless the USA"
Bob,
5PM or 1AM GMT, join me in asking for it, please.
Posted by: Linda | October 25, 2013 at 09:58 AM
Horrifying. Simply horrifying. All we can do is call our US representatives to ask them to vote against ratification of these awful treaties. Do it today, and don't delay.
Posted by: Not an MD | October 25, 2013 at 09:37 AM
Frightening .. positively frightening effort to take our most precious resource .. our beloved children .. from us .. their parents .. so that unnamed .. historically unaccountable governmental bureaucrats .. well known for making irresponsible and reckless decisions .. based entirely on what is best for THEM .. allowing THEM to decide what is "in the best interests" of OUR child".
The United Nations seems to be moving in the direction of Chairman Mao's China .. where these types of oppressive governmental policies are common place .. such as .. one child per family.
Indeed ..it has been reported the politically oppressed Chinese family routinely decides to kill their newborn child if the child happens to be female .. and .. the parents are desperate for a male child to continue their name going forward.
I hope I am wrong .. but .. perhaps the UN believes it is their responsibility to "control the world's population" .. and .. having "smaller families" is actually in the "best interest of ALL those children lucky enough to live"?
In the mean-time .. who is defending the Constitution of the United States at those UN "conventions" regarding treaties that ... if signed .. will destroy what little remains of our Constitutionally protected "freedoms and liberty"?
As Ronald Reagan once famously said:
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
God help us all .. and .. may God continue to bless the USA.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | October 25, 2013 at 07:12 AM