Treaty Plants Cede of U.S. Authority
November 28, 2012 - Wednesday
With Democrats so tied up in their Elvis Presley initiative, who knew they'd have time left for actual legislating? Of course, most of us would probably prefer that Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) were debating the King's place on the calendar and not America's place in the global debate over disabilities. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader insists on chewing up valuable time with an issue that America has already addressed better than any nation in the world.
Of course, the timing is no accident. "The globalists have been plotting to use the volatility of this lame-duck session to achieve some of their internationalist goals that they couldn't get passed during the past four years," Phyllis Schlafly warns. "In particular, they would like to lock us into treaties that slice out various parts of our national sovereignty, a concept that they have been trying to promote as obsolete." Their latest attempt is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which claims to lend protection to the world's vulnerable--when in fact, it helps the United Nations gain more influence over U.S. law.
Yesterday, over the Republicans' protests, the Senate voted 61-36 to move the treaty to the floor, where it will be voted on as early as this afternoon. For now, 36 Republicans stand in the way of the two-thirds support the Convention needs to pass. But even a few cracks in that wall of opposition could spell disaster for U.S. sovereignty and parental rights. The fallout would be keenly felt in families with disabled children. As former Senator Rick Santorum, the father of a special needs daughter himself, explained at a special news conference, "CRPD, if ratified, threatens U.S. sovereignty and parental rights, and would effectively put the U.S. under international law when it comes to parenting special needs children. One provision in the treaty would give the government, acting under U.N. instructions, the ability to determine for all children with disabilities what is best for them. I don't know about you, but I believe that in America, that is the parents' job, certainly not the government's."
While some Republicans suggested changes to the treaty, not even their amendments could neutralize its threats to parental authority or U.S. sovereignty. Since the Convention is a global document, U.S. amendments would be non-binding to the other 154 nations that have signed it. What's worse, the treaty doesn't bother to define the word "disabilities," opening the door to even greater overreach by the U.N., which would have the power to dictate how we administer and interpret our laws.
And don't forget the financial costs, Heritage Foundation cautions. "U.N. treaties are always aimed directly at Americans' wallets. This one is no different. The cost of enforcing it is unknown. Not only does the treaty fail to define who is disabled, but it also adds entitlements to whoever that might be." Just what America needs: more debt, less autonomy, and fewer rights for families. Contact your senators and urge them to vote no on CRPD!
JONAH Faces Whale of a Lawsuit from SPLC
With its credibility drying up, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is determined to cement its status as the homosexual movement's greatest ally. Desperate to regain its status in the civil rights debate, the group is following the money to the gay community, where it hopes the partnership will help SPLC regain some of the legitimacy it lost bullying mainstream conservatives. Their latest attempt to claw their way back into the spotlight is a lawsuit aimed at destroying the ex-gay movement. This week, SPLC announced that it is suing a Jewish organization called JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives of Healing) for consumer fraud. They allege that the therapy, which is designed to bring homosexuals out of bondage and into healthy behavior, failed. That's as ridiculous as suing Weight Watchers because they promised you'd lose weight and you didn't! The only people guilty of fraud are the ones who claim people with same-sex attractions can't change.
Like California liberals, who managed to outlaw reorientation counseling for teenagers, SPLC and friends are frantically trying to shut down therapy like this because it disproves their entire argument that homosexuality--like race--is innate and thus, healthy and normal. If men and women with same-sex attractions can be freed, it destroys the Left's foundational concept that gay rights are civil rights. To keep that from happening, groups like the SPLC are doing everything they can to shut down any research or therapy that contradicts their case.
In its lawsuit, SPLC says that reorientation therapy "has no basis in scientific fact." As FRC's Peter Sprigg will tell you, there's an abundance of scientific and anecdotal evidence that the therapies do work--although critics are reluctant to acknowledge it. NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) has cited "600 reports of clinicians, researchers, and former clients--primarily from professional and peer-reviewed scientific journals" which show that "reorientation treatment has been helpful to many." The left-leaning American Psychological Association (APA) says there is "no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed."
But the APA isn't claiming that there's no evidence change is possible--only that the evidence out there is "not sufficiently scientifically sound." In other words, it doesn't meet all the criteria for "gold standard" social science research: random samples, a prospective and longitudinal design, and use of a control group. Of course, a lot of pro-homosexual social science research doesn't meet those standards! And even when studies do meet that criteria (like Mark Regnerus's recent homosexual parenting study), the Left races to discredit them. More and better research would be great--but the same people who say the research is inadequate also adamantly oppose doing more studies on the topic! In this lawsuit, SPLC also strongly suggests that reorientation therapy is not only ineffective, but harmful. What's their evidence for that? Well, it's entirely anecdotal--the same kind of evidence they refuse to accept with regard to the effectiveness of the therapy!
The bottom line is that SPLC doesn't seem interested in helping people. Their actions and bank accounts show that the organization is more interested in profiting from them. If the Left truly had homosexuals' best interest in mind, they would recognize that for many, these attractions are unwanted. For those who struggle, hope is not in limiting avenues for change--but encouraging them.