Columnist Milbank Wrong About UN
Posted: December 6, 2012
Dana Milbank’s column on the U.N. Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities is just plain mean (“Santorum Opposes Disabled,” Nov. 28).
A reflexive suspicion of the U.N. is not unreasonable. An organization that put Libya in charge of the Human Rights Council cannot be trusted. U.N. radicals insert “reproductive rights” into every document they can, always pushing birth control and unrestricted abortion and making them higher priorities than developmental needs such as clean water or food.
Santorum, the father of a disabled child, said, “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.” Why should we trust an unelected, unrepresentative, foreign entity? Democrats support these treaties because they agree with the underlying agenda. They would like to prevent pro-life Christians from home schooling their children and teaching them pro-life views.
Americans should oppose these treaties.
A reflexive suspicion of the U.N. is not unreasonable. An organization that put Libya in charge of the Human Rights Council cannot be trusted. U.N. radicals insert “reproductive rights” into every document they can, always pushing birth control and unrestricted abortion and making them higher priorities than developmental needs such as clean water or food.
Santorum, the father of a disabled child, said, “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.” Why should we trust an unelected, unrepresentative, foreign entity? Democrats support these treaties because they agree with the underlying agenda. They would like to prevent pro-life Christians from home schooling their children and teaching them pro-life views.
Americans should oppose these treaties.
Susan Finlay
Luray
Luray