Despite the fact that the treaty being developed will impact over 650 million people around the world, so far there has been little mainstream media coverage of the latest United Nations meeting to draft the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. I guess that’s because it’s about disabled people.

Associated Press did release a piece today, which was at least an update of the immediately outdated story that Reuters ran a few days ago. But the article failed to outline the concrete problems being worked on in negotiations, and instead focused on the fine work of fiction U.S. mission spokesman Richard Grenell is writing for his children and grandchildren. Grenell is quoted in the AP article:

"The U.S. doesn't support a convention on disabilities because we have the most advanced protection of the disabled with the Americans with Disabilities Act…however, we strongly believe it is important for national governments to raise their standards and enact legislation that would protect their disabled populations."

If you want to know how effective and protective the ADA is, why not ask folks who are supposed to be protected by it. Here’s a spoiler: it’s not that effective.

Grenell’s quote, which is equal parts hypocritical and self-serving, is also completely disingenuous. If the US government really did care about the rights of people with disabilities, and if their legislation really is so much more progressive than anyone else’s (which it actually might be, I don’t know enough about international disability law to say for sure) why are they blocking a treaty that is attempting to enshrine these rights in a legally binding international document? And why hide behind countries like Nicaragua in their opposition?

While I’m quite sure the US government doesn’t care that much about the sexual rights of people with disabilities (and this current administration certainly doesn’t care for the idea that anyone should have access to sexual and reproductive services) it’s likely that the main reason for their opposition has to do not with sex, but with the only things that politicians care about more than sex: money and power. From the AP article:

Last week, MacKay said he was concerned about resistance by the U.S. and six other countries to the monitoring mechanism. Their main objections centered on concerns about an increased burden on regulators and pressure on governments to constantly report back.

Basically, the US wants to make sure that this document won’t force them to start providing any more services than they already provide (or don’t provide, as the case may be) under the ADA. I mean really, Americans with disabilities have the most “advanced protection” around. What more do they want, the right to “experience their sexuality”? Aren’t they ever satisfied?

Read more - AP: UN Convention On Rights Of Disabled Faces Difficulties