(no subject)

[hatman]

Here's the list of US Senators who voted against ratifying international standards for disability access, even though it would have cost us nothing and required nothing of us. 61 voted in favor, but we needed 66.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00219

Comments

[seekingferret]

If it's as inert and toothless as advocates claim, what is the advantage of ratifying it?

I ask out of genuine interest. The news stories I've seen have been lacking the necessary depth to actually address the meat of the treaty. I have not seen any convincing arguments in opposition of the treaty, but I am tremendously skeptical that it truly does 'cost us nothing and required nothing of us'.

[hatman]

The short version, as I understand it:

We have the Americans With Disabilities Act, which mandates things like wheelchair ramps and handicapped-accessible buses and such. This is an international treaty which uses that as a model. Signers agree that disabled people have a right to access and that there should be a legal mandate for it.

Since we already have that law in place, it would require nothing of us but our signature. But by signing we would lend the treaty more weight and would acknowledge that we have taken a leadership role in this. We'd be saying that disabled people have rights in other countries, too, and that others should follow the example we set.

What's the argument against it? Because all I've heard is a bunch of utter tripe about the UN wanting to take over our government or something.