U.N. Treaty on Rights of People with Disabilities Could Be 'Ramp to
the Gas Chamber'
Concerned Women for America ^ | 6/9/2004 | Wendy Wright


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.