U.N. Treaty on Rights of People with Disabilities Could Be 'Ramp to the Gas Chamber'     6/9/2004
By Wendy Wright

Right to lifers kicked out of nongovernment group's caucus.

Nongovernment organizations (NGOs) decided to kick right-to-lifers out of a caucus advising U.N. delegations on a new treaty to protect the rights of people with disabilities. The decision came after the chairman of the U.N. committee that is drafting the treaty unexpectedly announced that the proceedings would be closed to nongovernment representatives, apparently to hurry deliberations by eliminating their input.

Pro-life representatives, which include me for Concerned Women for America, have been advocating that the treaty should protect all people with disabilities, including the pre-born and those targeted for denial of food and fluids.

The caucus of NGOs working together dealt with the chairman's threat by kicking out groups it considered "not aligned" with organizations that represent people with disabilities. It specifically named "right to lifers."

Ironically, John Wayne Cockfield, the representative for the International Right to Life Federation, is a land-mine survivor and double-amputee. He works on behalf of those who, due to medical conditions, are targeted for euthanasia, including pre-born babies.

Both he and Patrick Buckley of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children spoke to the assembly of U.N. delegates, asking that the treaty cover pre-born children and include the right for people with disabilities to food and fluids necessary to sustain life.

The NGO caucus leaders (who are not disabled) were heard strategizing after the chairman's announcement. Complaining that "right to lifers" were allowed on the list of speakers to the assembly, they discussed how to eliminate pro-lifers from the caucus but allow other groups not exclusively made up of people with disabilities.

One of the leaders, the European Union representative for people with disabilities, then presented the decision to the caucus when it met the next morning. Cockfield, a former marine, strongly chastised him in front of the group.

"I am offended," he stated, "that you, who are not disabled, would tell me that I cannot be a part of this group." He also pointed out that if there is no right to life, then no other right to equal access will matter.

"They will build a ramp to the gas chamber," he declared.

And yet, that afternoon at a subsequent caucus meeting, NGO leaders reportedly removed representatives that they did not believe were "aligned" with them.

In the U.N. assembly, several NGOs spoke in favor of retaining Article 8 of the draft treaty. Entitled "Right to Life," it proclaims, "States Parties reaffirm the inherent right to life of all persons with disabilities, and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by them."

China is attempting to limit this right only to those "who have been born and are now living on this earth." Infamous for its forced abortion, one-child population-control program, and the killing of prisoners to sell their kidneys, China argued for this limitation so it could "relieve burdens on society."

While the draft declares protection for life, it takes it away in another section that calls for "sexual and reproductive health services." It defines "reproductive health services" to include abortion.

In a landmark debate over this language during the World Summit on Children in June 2001, the United States asked, "Can anyone explain to me what [reproductive health] services mean?" Canada responded, "I do not understand why the distinguished delegate asks the question, because he knows the answer, but of course it includes, and I hate to say the word, but it includes abortion."

Immediately, several countries demanded that the phrase be deleted from the document they were considering.

The stakes are higher here, though. The document from the child summit is nonbinding, that is, no country is legally required to follow it. In this case, a treaty is being debated and would be legally binding (for countries that ratify it). The words "sexual and reproductive health services" do not appear in any other treaty, and could be used to establish an international right to abortion.

The United States has limited its participation on this treaty to providing technical assistance on the drafting. It is not actively engaged in the public deliberations because, under the Bush administration, it has no intention of becoming a party to the treaty.

The treaty will have far-reaching effects on pre-born babies and others vulnerable to euthanasia. Some U.S. judges, including Supreme Court justices, have based decisions on international law and rulings from foreign bodies of which the U.S. has no part.

Concerned Women for America is participating in these deliberations to keep the treaty from denying rights to those who cannot speak for themselves. We need to ensure that abortion and assisted-suicide advocates do not gain a foothold through ambiguous language in a U.N. treaty. We ask for your prayers to ensure that this treaty will cover all people with disabilities.

Printer Friendly Version