{ "id": "R42749", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R42749", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 437539, "date": "2015-01-21", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T19:37:48.379604", "title": "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate", "summary": "During the 114th Congress, the Senate might consider providing its advice and consent to ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD, or the Convention). CRPD, which has been ratified or acceded to by 151 countries, is a multilateral agreement that addresses the rights of disabled persons. Its purpose is to promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by persons with disabilities. \nAdministration and Senate Actions\nMany U.S. policy makers, including President Obama and some Members of Congress, agree that existing U.S. laws and policies are compatible with CRPD. In fact, some CRPD provisions appear to be modeled after U.S. disability laws. The United States has historically recognized the rights of individuals with disabilities through various laws and policies, including the Americans with Disabilities Act.\nIn July 2009, President Obama signed CRPD. The Administration transmitted it to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification in May 2012. Since then, Members of the Senate have taken several actions related to CRPD: \nThe Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (SFRC) held a hearing on the Convention in July 2012 and later that month reported the treaty favorably to the full Senate by a vote of 13 in favor and 6 against, subject to certain conditions. \nIn December 2012, the Senate voted against providing advice and consent to ratification of CRPD by a vote of 61 to 38. The treaty was automatically returned to SFRC at the end of the 112th Congress.\nIn July 2014, SFRC reported the treaty favorably by a vote of 12 in favor and 6 against, subject to certain conditions. \nThe full Senate did not consider providing its advice and consent to ratification. The treaty was automatically returned to SFRC at the end of the 113th Congress. \nKey Issues in the Ratification Debate\nIn debates regarding U.S. ratification of CRPD, the treaty\u2019s possible impact on U.S. sovereignty has been a key area of concern. Critics of the Convention maintain that treaties are the \u201csupreme Law of the Land\u201d under the Constitution, and that U.S. ratification of CRPD could supersede federal, state, and local laws. Supporters assert that CRPD is a non-discrimination treaty that does not create new obligations. They contend that U.S. laws meet, and in some cases exceed, CRPD requirements. Debate may also center on the following issues: \nRole of the CPRD committee. Critics are concerned that recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Convention\u2019s monitoring body, could deem U.S. laws to be in violation of CRPD and presume authority over the private lives of U.S. citizens. Supporters, including the Obama Administration, emphasize that committee decisions are non-binding under international and domestic law.\nPossible impact on U.S. citizens and businesses abroad. Some CRPD proponents contend that U.S. ratification may (1) improve the lives of U.S. citizens with disabilities living, working, or traveling abroad, and (2) \u201clevel the playing field\u201d for U.S. companies that, unlike many of their foreign counterparts, already comply with higher disability standards. The extent to which U.S. ratification of CRPD may positively affect U.S. businesses or disabled U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad remains unclear.\nRole in U.S. foreign policy. Supporters contend that U.S. ratification may enhance U.S. credibility as it advocates the rights of persons with disabilities globally. Opponents argue that existing U.S. laws and policies are robust enough examples of U.S. commitment to the issue.\nAbortion. Some critics worry that the term \u201csexual and reproductive health\u201d in CRPD could be a euphemism for abortion. Supporters note that the word \u201cabortion\u201d is never mentioned in the Convention and contend that no U.S laws related to abortion would be created as a result of U.S. ratification. \nParental rights. Some are concerned that the U.S. ratification may give governments, and not U.S. parents, the right to make educational and treatment-related decisions for their disabled children. Others, including the Obama Administration, hold that existing federal, state, and local laws protect parental rights.\nOther issues that Senators may wish to consider include challenges to evaluating CRPD\u2019s effectiveness, obstacles to CRPD implementation, and the role and participation of civil society in CRPD mechanisms. \nFor information on U.S. efforts to address the rights of persons with disabilities domestically, see CRS Report 98-921, The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Statutory Language and Recent Issues, by Cynthia Brown. An overview of treaty process is available in CRS Report 98-384, Senate Consideration of Treaties, by Valerie Heitshusen.\nThis report will be updated as events warrant.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42749", "sha1": "f3ad9fa123adaed57198dc4b16f906902afe6f20", "filename": "files/20150121_R42749_f3ad9fa123adaed57198dc4b16f906902afe6f20.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42749", "sha1": "8c51aa4695a68aa4c95bb756853ca807144a9e7b", "filename": "files/20150121_R42749_8c51aa4695a68aa4c95bb756853ca807144a9e7b.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2912, "name": "Disability Rights and Benefits" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3241, "name": "Global Health, Human Rights, and Humanitarian Policy" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3605, "name": "United Nations" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc819114/", "id": "R42749_2012Nov28", "date": "2012-11-28", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20121128_R42749_4c956ccb68176927cad2bed922ceedcc43787b34.pdf" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Foreign Affairs" ] }