State Fire Marshal Urges Everyone To “Have Two Ways Out!”

The Division of State Fire Marshal and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) are teaming up during Fire Prevention Week, October 7-13, 2012, to urge Ohioans to “Have Two Ways Out!” This year’s theme focuses on the importance of fire escape planning and practice, and knowing what to do when the smoke alarm sounds in your home.

“When people die in a fire, there’s usually no working smoke alarm.” said State Fire Marshal Larry Flowers. “In addition to having working smoke alarms, it is extremely important for you to know how to escape quickly from any room in your home.”

Marshal Flowers said fire is unpredictable and moves faster than most people realize. He added that having a tried and true escape plan with two ways out is essential to ensure your family’s safety should fire break out.

The Division of State Fire Marshal offers these tips for planning your family’s escape:

  • Make a map of your home. Mark a door and a window that can be used to get out of every room.
  • Choose a meeting place outside in front of your home. This is where everyone can meet once they’ve escaped. Draw a picture of your outside meeting place on your escape plan.
  • Get out and stay out.
  • Teach 911, and make certain kids know to call form outside the home in a fire emergency.
  • Have a grown-up sound the smoke alarm and practice your escape plan with everyone who lives in your home.
  • Keep your escape plan on the refrigerator and remind grown-ups to have your family practice the plan at least twice a year or whenever anyone in your home celebrates a birthday.
  • Working smoke alarms are also a must. More than 90% of fatal fires in Ohio occur in homes without working smoke alarms. The Division of State Fire Marshal recommends smoke alarms on every level of the home and inside each sleeping area.

    For more Fire Prevention information, please visit the Division of State Fire Marshal website at www.com.ohio.gov/fire.

    Ohio Lawyers and Judges Agree on Issue 2

    This fall, Ohioans will be asked to consider a constitutional amendment to change the way the state draws legislative and congressional district maps. Because of the amendment’s direct impact on the Ohio judiciary, the Ohio State Bar Association opposes passage of the amendment.

    Currently, the Ohio Legislature and the Apportionment Board redraw state and congressional district maps every 10 years to reflect population shifts. The proposed measure would create a 12-person citizen commission consisting of registered voters selected and vetted through a panel of appellate court judges. Further, the proposed amendment could force the Supreme Court of Ohio to select a plan should the commission be unable to come to an agreement, and if a court battle ensued over the proposed commission’s plan, the proposal could force the Supreme Court of Ohio to choose between possibly unconstitutional plans.

    While the OSBA and OJC take no position on the merits of the proposed constitutional amendment on redistricting (i.e., we take no position on whether the legislature, the Apportionment Board, the commission or any other entity should draw congressional district and state general assembly lines), we have deep concerns about requiring judges of Ohio’s Courts of Appeal to vet and appoint commission members, and the proposed amendment’s attempt to force the Supreme Court of Ohio, or any court, to select a proposed commission plan. The proper role for the judiciary is not to develop any redistricting plan, but rather to review such plans should they be challenged in court.

    This proposed amendment:

  • Undermines the important constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers where each of the three co-equal branches undertakes particular responsibilities. This proposal inappropriately takes executive and legislative appointment authority and moves it to the judiciary. This politicizes the judicial branch of government, which must remain independent, fair and impartial;
  • Involves the Chief Justice and the appellate judges in political activity unbefitting their offices because the proposal would not insulate these judges from attempted political influence by interest groups in terms of commission appointments and plan selection; and
  • Places these judges, and Ohio’s judicial branch as a whole, in a potential position of conflict should the proposal become law and should a plan face judicial review.
  • All of this undermines the importance of maintaining a fair, impartial and independent judiciary—a sacred and fundamental principle of our constitutional democracy.

    For these reasons, it is the position of the OSBA (and OJC) that it is inappropriate for the judiciary to be involved in the political process that initiates and proposes political boundaries and that the amendment should not be adopted.

    By directly involving the judicial branch of our Ohio government in the most political of activities, that is, redistricting, the proposed amendment attacks a most fundamental of constitutional safeguards, the separation of powers. Therefore, the OSBA opposes this proposal.

    Greene County Combined Health District Receives $42k in Traffic Safety Grants

    Laurie Fox, Greene County’s Safe Communities Coordinator, announced today that the Ohio Department of Public Safety’s (ODPS) Office of Criminal Justice Services (OCJS) awarded $41,999.99 in federal traffic safety funding to the Greene County Combined Health District’s Safe Communities program for federal fiscal year 2013.

    “Partnerships are critical to the success of any safety effort and we are committed to working with law enforcement and other safety partners to address traffic safety concerns in Greene County,” said Fox. The Greene County Safe Communities Coalition has identified that lack of seat belt use, motorcycle safety and distracted/impaired driving is impacting the safety and welfare of the citizens of Greene County. To save lives and improve the quality of life for our citizens, the Safe Communities Coalition will use the grant funds to increase awareness about distracted and impaired driving in the local high schools, motorcycle safety, and continue to educate the public on the importance of seat belt use through participation in local festivals, school presentations and other programming.

    The funds are passed through OCJS from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to support the efforts of safety partners statewide and focus on traffic safety priority areas such as restraint use, impaired driving, motorcycle safety and youthful drivers. Competitive grant proposals are accepted and reviewed by OCJS. The FFY 2013 competitive grant process solicited grant proposals from state agencies, non-profit organizations, colleges, universities, hospitals, political subdivisions and other interested groups within selected Ohio counties and jurisdictions (based upon the number of fatal crashes).

    For more information about the Office of Criminal Justice Services and statewide efforts to improve safety on
    Ohio’s roadways, log on to http://www.ocjs.ohio.gov.

    On State Issue 1

    Every 20 years the Ohio voters are required to determine whether a Constitutional convention is necessary to revise the state constitution. The language of the Constitution is as follows:

    “At the general election to be held in the year one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, and in each twentieth year thereafter, the question: ‘Shall there be a convention to revise, alter, or amend the constitution[,]’ shall be submitted to the electors of the state; and in case a majority of the electors, voting for and against the calling of a convention, shall decide in favor of a convention, the general assembly, at its next session, shall provide, by law, for the election of delegates, and the assembling of such convention, as is provided in the preceding section; but no amendment of this constitution, agreed upon by any convention assembled in pursuance of this article, shall take effect, until the same shall have been submitted to the electors of the state, and adopted by a majority of those voting thereon.”

    The Ohio Liberty Coalition was asked to provide an analysis of the question: Shall there be a convention to revise, alter, or amend the Ohio Constitution.

    The Ohio Constitution requires this issue to be placed on the ballot every 20 years. The voters of Ohio have said “NO” to this provision every time it has been voted on since 1912. If this provision passes, it will necessitate the nomination and election of nearly 100 delegates to a constitutional convention. The delegates will propose changes to the Ohio Constitution. The proposed changes will then be presented to Ohio voters for their approval or rejection. Voters for nearly century have recognized that such an extreme procedure as a constitutional convention is unwarranted. There are more efficient methods of amending the constitution, for example, through either the popular or legislative initiative process. Further, the constitution will be thoroughly reviewed soon. The Ohio legislature has established a commission, which will meet in November 2012 and offer a report of recommendations to the legislature in January on ways to improve the constitution. Any changes would have to be approved later by voters.

    There are two fundamental questions underlying a voting decision on this issue:

    (1) Is there a need for major reform and revision of the Ohio Constitution?

    (2) Is a constitutional convention the best way to make revisions?

    The answer to both questions is “no.” Our present constitution, though not perfect, well serves the citizens of Ohio. There is no strong popular consensus in favor an expensive, contentious constitutional convention. And there are other less severe ways to make what changes are needed—the initiative process continues to work well and the legislature’s scheduled constitutional review will suffice to consider what changes truly need to be made. There simply is no compelling reason to call a constitutional convention, especially given the existing tight economy and the need for legislative belt-tightening.

    In a letter to Coalition Board President Tom Zawistowskiand, who also is President of Portage Ohio Tea Party, Edward Emsweller, Legal Counsel for the Coalition, further explained why the State Issue 1 is not a good idea.

    Since either “good” or “bad” amendments may be proposed through a constitutional convention, the issue is not the amendments themselves, but rather whether the Article 16, Section 3 (calling of a constitutional convention) method is the best means to effect revisions to the Constitution. The calling of a constitutional convention necessitates a separate election of delegates, requiring an expense not involved in the initiative processes. The expense of this method is its primary negative.

    Moreover, such an expense is unwarranted because of a review of the Constitution to take place later this year. In June 2011, the Ohio legislature established the Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission, a bipartisan group of 12 legislative members and 20 non-legislative members who will serve at least two years. The commission is to meet in November and offer the legislature recommendations for improving the constitution. Any changes would have to be approved later by voters.

    If effective, Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission should be able to solve many of the concerns raised by proponents of Issue 1 are problems like correcting conflicting, outdated and unreasonable laws.

    Ohio Minimum Wage Workers Get A Raise

    Ohio’s minimum wage is scheduled to increase on January 1, 2013 to $7.85 per hour for non-tipped employees and to $3.93 per hour for tipped employees, plus tips.

    The 2012 Ohio minimum wage is $7.70 per hour for non-tipped employees and $3.85 for tipped employees, plus tips.

    On January 1, 2013, the increased minimum wage will apply to employees of businesses with annual gross receipts of more than $288,000 per year. The 2012 Ohio minimum wage applies to employees of businesses with annual gross receipts of more than $283,000 per year.

    The Constitutional Amendment passed by Ohio voters in November 2006 states that Ohio’s minimum wage shall increase on January 1 of each year by the rate of inflation. The state minimum wage is tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for urban wage earners and clerical workers for the 12-month period prior to September. This CPI index rose 1.7 percent from September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012. The Amendment also states that the wage rate for non-tipped employees shall be rounded to the nearest five cents.

    How will this raise effect the economic well-being of minimum wage workers? A full-time employee working 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year made a whopping $16,016 before taxes. This same Ohioan will make an earth-shaking $312 a year more with the upcoming raise. Let’s assume this same employee is a single parent raising one child.
    Before the proposed raise, this single parent’s after-tax income is $11,797 and with the raise, it will be $12,046. Our single parent has reason to celebrate because he/she will have $249 more spending money. Right? Well, not exactly. Before we can determine how much spending money our single parent actual has, we have to deduct the social security and Medicare deductions. Therefore, our single parent’s yearly take-home pay before the proposed raise actually is $10,564, and after the raise, it will be $10,789. Now, our single only has $225 more for consumption. Just for perspective, the poverty line for our single parent is $15,130. Even if our hypothetical single parent get all income tax dollars back at the end of the year, he or she will still be living in poverty throughout most of the year.

    Consequently, minimum wage is not a minimal living income. It is a pay scale to enhance welfare benefits to a livable standard.

    It only gets worse for employees at smaller companies (with annual gross receipts of $283,000 or less per year in 2012 or $288,000 or less per year after January 1, 2013) and for 14- and 15-year-olds, the state minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. For those employees, the state wage is tied to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour which requires an act of Congress and the President’s signature to change.

    GM Welding Innovation Enables More Aluminum Use and Greater Fuel Economy

    General Motors Research & Development has invented an industry-first aluminum welding technology expected to enable more use of the lightweight metal on future vehicles, which can help improve fuel economy and driving performance.

    GM’s new resistance spot welding process uses a patented multi-ring domed electrode that does what smooth electrodes are unreliable at doing – welding aluminum to aluminum. By using this process GM expects to eliminate nearly two pounds of rivets from aluminum body parts such as hoods, liftgates and doors.

    GM already uses this patented process on the hood of the Cadillac CTS-V and the liftgate of the hybrid versions of Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon. GM plans to use this technology more extensively starting in 2013.

    “The ability to weld aluminum body structures and closures in such a robust fashion will give GM a unique manufacturing advantage,” said Jon Lauckner, GM chief technology officer and vice president of Global R&D.

    “This new technology solves the long-standing problem of spot welding aluminum, which is how all manufacturers have welded steel parts together for decades,” Lauckner said. “It is an important step forward that will grow in importance as we increase the use of aluminum in our cars, trucks and crossovers over the next several years.”

    Spot welding uses two opposing electrode pincers to compress and fuse pieces of metal together, using an electrical current to create intense heat to form a weld. The process is inexpensive, fast and reliable, but until now, not robust for use on aluminum in today’s manufacturing environment. GM’s new welding technique works on sheet, extruded and cast aluminum because GM’s proprietary multi-ring domed electrode head disrupts the oxide on aluminum’s surface to enable a stronger weld.

    Historically, automakers have used self-piercing rivets to join aluminum body parts, because of variability in production with conventional resistance spot welding. However, rivets add cost and riveting guns have a limited range of joint configurations. In addition, end-of-life recycling of aluminum parts containing rivets is more complex.

    “No other automaker is spot-welding aluminum body structures to the extent we are planning to, and this technology will allow us to do so at low cost,” said Blair Carlson, GM manufacturing systems research lab group manager. “We also intend to consider licensing the technology for non-GM production in automotive, heavy truck, rail and aerospace applications.”

    According to Ducker Worldwide, a Michigan-based market research firm, aluminum use in vehicles is expected to double by 2025. The material offers many advantages over steel. One kilogram of aluminum can replace two kilograms of steel. It is corrosion-resistant and offers an excellent blend of strength and low mass that can help improve fuel economy and performance.

    According to AluminumTransportation.org, a 5 percent to 7 percent fuel savings can be realized for every 10 percent weight reduction, and substituting lightweight aluminum for a heavier material is one way to do it. Cars made lighter with aluminum also can accelerate faster and brake quicker than their heavier counterparts.

    “GM aims to be an industry leader in mass efficiency,” said Roger Clark, manager of the GM Energy Center. “Many little things can add up to big improvements in fuel economy. Incremental mass reductions, like using welds instead of rivets, can help our customers save at the pump.”

    World Congress Of Families Hails Victory For Natural Marriage In Australian Parliament

    What was supposed to be a historic advance for “same-sex marriage” turned into an ignominous defeat and a victory for marriage and the natural family, when the lower house of the Australian parliament voted overwhelmingly against a gay-marriage bill by a vote of 98 to 42 on September 19th in Canberra. Then on September 20th, a similar bill was defeated in the Senate by 41 votes to 26.

    This means that there will be no change to the definition of natural marriage in Australia.

    World Congress of Families Managing Director Larry Jacobs congratulated Australian pro-family forces on a hard-earned victory, including three World Congress of Families Partners in Australia, the Australian Family Association, Endeavour Forum and Dads-4-Kids Fatherhood Foundation.

    “When the governing Australian Labor Party abandoned its longstanding defense of natural marriage, it was supposed to all be over except for the celebration on the part of homosexual activists,” Jacobs observed.

    “But thanks to the hard work of Australian groups like the National Marriage Coalition, the Australian Family Association, Endeavour Forum, the Dads-4-Kids Foundation, and the intense lobbying of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians in behalf of maintaining the historic definition of marriage, 40% of Labor MPs in the House joined members of the National and Liberal Parties to defeat this step toward the deconstruction of natural marriage,” Jacobs added.

    Earlier this year thousands of pro-family leaders gathered to affirm natural marriage in The Madrid Declaration of World Congress of Families VI (May 25-27, 2012), unanimously adopted by more than 3,200 delegates from 72 nations. The Declaration provides in part:

    “We affirm the natural family to be the union of a man and a woman through marriage for the purposes of sharing love and joy, propagating children, providing their moral education, building a vital home economy, offering security in times of trouble, and binding the generations.”

    “We affirm that the natural family is a fixed aspect of the created order, one ingrained in human nature. The natural family cannot change into some new shape; nor can it be re-defined by eager social engineers.”

    “We affirm that the natural family is the ideal, optimal, true family system. While we acknowledge varied living situations, all other ‘family forms’ are incomplete or are mere fabrications of the state.”

    Jacobs further noted that in the United States, 31 states have now adopted the definition of marriage as “the union of a man and a woman,” all by popular vote. The latest was North Carolina, in May, by a vote of 61% to 39% where WCF Partner, the National Organization for Marriage was instrumental in defending natural marriage. “Every time the people have had a chance to vote directly on the issue, the only definition of natural marriage that protects children has carried decisively,” Jacobs declared.

    The Honorable Kevin Andrews MP, a 3-time World Congress of Families Speaker, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services and author of the new book, Maybe ‘I do’: Modern Marriage and the Pursuit of Happiness, has summarized the key reason for protecting natural marriage in his remarks at the 2012 National Marriage Day Rally at the Australian Parliament. “Hundreds of social science studies reveal that having a mother and a father is the optimal condition for human thriving. We remove this protection at great risk to many, especially children. Marriage must be protected. The future well being of children and society depends on it.”

    Quantitative Easing (QE3): An Analysis

    By Alabama Policy Institute

    Quantitative easing (QE) is a monetary policy tool employed by central banks in many countries; the Federal Reserve (the Fed) is the central bank of the United States. QE is designed to stimulate the economy by injecting a predetermined amount of cash into the monetary market. Through QE, the Fed electronically creates new money and uses it to purchase financial assets from banks and deposits this new money on the banks’ balance sheets.1 Although many refer to this as “printing money,” new, physical money is rarely created as a result of the Fed’s actions. Because this new virtual money is created by the Federal Reserve, the only approved source of currency in the country, it is accepted as legal tender. However, the responsibility of printing physical money is still in the hands of the Treasury Department.2

    By significantly increasing the volume of available dollars, the Fed anticipates that banks will increase the number of loans they make and consequently move more money into the market, prompting economic growth.

    The Fed has already implemented QE twice since the beginning of the financial collapse in 2007. QE1 lasted from November 2008 to the first quarter of 2010. During this period, the Fed initiated purchases of $1.25 trillion of mortgage-backed securities, and $175 billion of government agency debt.3 In November of 2010, the Fed announced QE2, during which the Fed began the purchase of $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities in addition to continuing to reinvest payments on securities purchased during QE1.4

    The Fed announced on September 13th that it was dissatisfied with the economy’s rate of recovery, specifically the slow rate at which unemployment levels are returning to a more normal range5, and would attempt to remedy the stagnated growth by beginning QE3. In this round of quantitative easing, the Fed will purchase $40 billion a month in Mortgage Backed Securities, as well as continue the program dubbed “Operation Twist,” with the purchase of longer-termed securities.6 QE3 is open-ended. In a press release, the Fed stated that it would continue to purchase securities at this rate until it saw the desired results.7

    Policy Considerations

    Under the right circumstances, increasing the supply of money can spur economic growth, but it can also introduce the risk of devaluation of the currency8. QE can mean higher commodity prices and higher inflation. Esther George, president of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, has raised concerns that QE3 has “the potential for igniting inflation.”9 Inflation essentially makes each dollar worth less, and in an economy where wage rates are stagnant, the consequences could be dire10.

    Another concern is that the intended goal of QE to increase the amount of money available to lenders and, ultimately, the marketplace has not been entirely successful. The reason may lie, at least partially, in another program implemented by the Fed. In October 2008, in an effort to deter the fears of depositors, the Fed began paying interest to banks for the funds they keep in reserves.11 While all banks within the Federal Reserve System are required to maintain a certain level of reserves available for depositors who may want to withdraw their cash, they are deterred from keeping excess reserves by other market forces. Absent the Fed paying them interest on all reserves, including excess reserves, banks would be more inclined to loan money in order to increase income from interest payments. The rate of interest paid on bank reserves is currently 0.25 percent.12 That may not sound like much, but the daily federal funds rate has been held between 0 and 0.25 percent for the last several years13. When accounting for inflation, real interest rates are hovering near zero14, so a risk-free 0.25 percent return is actually a bargain for banks. As of August 2012, banks that deposit with the Fed are holding nearly $1.5 trillion in excess reserves, up from close to zero historically.15

    In short, the Fed is incentivizing banks to keep the excess money they receive from QE programs in their reserves in order to collect the interest paid by the Fed. While mortgage rates did decline after QEs 1 and 2, even former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan calculated that, as of July 2012, there was “very little impact on the economy”, adding that he was “very surprised at the data.”16 Former Chairman Greenspan also commented that the effect of the untold trillions of government and Fed spending actually may have had a negative impact on the health of the economy. He posits that the rash of deficit spending and manipulation of the interest rate is crowding out private investments.17

    Conclusion

    If the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve has doubts that quantitative easing efforts have brought about the promised economic stimulus, why is the Fed proceeding with the same old bag of economic tricks? As API has discussed before, there are multiple places where the Fed’s missions and actions are in direct conflict with one another; attempting to push “created” money into the marketplace while simultaneously incentivizing banks not to lend money is yet another conflict that must be seriously reevaluated.

    1 Quantitative Easing, FINANCIAL TIMES LEXICON, http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=quantitative-easing
    2 Kimberly Amadeo, Federal Reserve is Printing Money, http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Federal-Reserve-Printing-Money.htm.
    3 Polyana da Costa, QE1: financial crisis timeline, http://www.bankrate.com/finance/federal-reserve/qe1-financial-crisistimeline.aspx.
    4 Polyana da Costa, QE2: financial crisis timeline, http://www.bankrate.com/finance/federal-reserve/qe2-financial-crisistimeline.aspx.
    5 Press Release, BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, (September 13, 2012) http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120913a.htm.
    6 Id.
    7 Id.
    8 Jeffry Rubin, Quantitative Easing is Just Devaluation, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-rubin/quantitative-easing-isju_b_777970.html.
    9 Don Mecoy, Federal Reserve Official Disagrees with Monetary Policy Decisions, (September 19, 2012), http://newsok.com/federal-reserve-officialdisagrees-with-monetary-policy-decisions/article/3710981.
    10 Wage Growth in the U.S. Will Feel Effects of Great Recession for Years to Come, (April 26, 2012), http://www.conferenceboard.org/press/pressdetail.cfm?pressid=4466.
    11 Press Release, BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, (October 6th, 2008) http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20081006a.htm.
    12 Interest on Balances Maintained to Satisfy Reserve Balance Requirements and Excess Balances, THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, http://www.frbservices.org/files/reserves/pdf/calculating_required_reserve_balances_and_excess_balances.pdf
    13 Federal Funds Data Historical Search, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK, (July 1, 2010-July 31,2012), http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/omo/dmm/historical/fedfunds/ff.cfm.
    14 Rodney Sullivan, Negative Real Interest Rates: The Conundrum for Investment and Spending Policies, http://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2012/07/03/negativereal-
    interest-rates-the-conundrum-for-investment-and-spending-policies/.
    15 Excess Reserves of Depository Institutions, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST. LOUIS, http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCRESNS.
    16 Bruno J. Navarro, Alan Greenspan Sees ‘Two Separate Economies’, (July 12,2012), http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alan-greenspan-sees-two-separate-161122638.html.
    17 Id.

    US Experts Testify on Dangers of Disabilities Treaty

    By Lisa Correnti

    (WASHINGTON, DC – C-FAM) A panel of experts warned U.S. lawmakers this week that the UN Disabilities treaty could threaten the rights of parents and advance abortion rights.

    “This treaty… would allow unelected bureaucrats in Switzerland to determine the meaning of the words ‘disability’ and ‘sexual reproductive health,’ said Congressman Jeff Duncan following a briefing to the House Sovereignty Caucus. “Such ambiguity could lead to frivolous litigation and advancing abortion as a ‘human right.’”

    The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) passed the Senate Foreign Affairs subcommittee in July. An amendment by Senator Marco Rubio clarifying that the treaty cannot be used to advance abortion was supported by all Republicans senators but was defeated when all Democratic senators voted against it.

    Dr. Susan Yoshihara explained to the Caucus how “sexual and reproductive health” was inserted in the treaty despite a lack of consensus. The Director of the International Organizations Research Group at C-FAM participated in the UN negotiations on CRPD.

    “In order to get this term into the Disabilities Treaty, proponents had to circumvent the objections of 23 nations, resorting to such tactics as secret meetings and venues where not all delegations were allowed” she said.

    Some U.S. senators support the treaty on the belief that pro-life protections exist since the term “reproductive health” is mentioned as a category of non-discrimination and not as a right. Dr. Yoshihara cautioned against this false sense of security.

    “This should not allay the fears of pro-life lawmakers or make them think that this treaty will not be used to advance a right to abortion,” she said. “The Women’s Convention, CEDAW, never mentions abortion or ‘reproductive health’ nor does ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], but their committees have pressured more than 90 countries over 120 times to liberalize abortion.”

    Treaty proponents say “reservations” agreed to by the U.S. Senate will protect against any problems. The experts, however, called reservations inadequate. Dr. Yoshihara recalled a U.S. Supreme Court decision (Roper) in which the court “cited a portion of the ICCPR that the United States had specifically rejected in a reservation.”

    Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, warned that the CRPD threatens the rights of parents of special needs children. “Government agents, and not parents, are being given the authority to decide all educational and treatment issues for disabled children.”

    “Signing the treaty is an empty gesture” said Steven Groves with the Heritage Foundation. “Current U.S. law meets or exceeds the provisions of the Convention, and mere membership in the Convention will not convince the international community that America protects the rights of its disabled citizens,” he continued.

    Concerns about the CRPD were expressed by the Holy See delegation when the UN adopted it in 2006. Explaining why they could not support it, the delegation stated, “It is surely tragic that…the same Convention created to protect persons with disabilities from all discrimination in the exercise of their rights, may be used to deny the very basic right to life of disabled unborn persons.”

    The U.S. does not need to ratify the treaty to gain moral authority, noted Rep. Duncan and his co-chair of the Sovereignty Caucus Rep. Doug Lamborn. “America is already one of the world’s leaders in advancing the cause of those with disabilities,” said Lamborn.

    Resistance to the treaty is growing. A letter from congressmen urging senators to reject the CRPD now has 49 signatures.

    Lisa Correnti is Director of Operations at C-FAM. Her article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/).

    It’s Time to Vote! An Evening with Wallbuilders

    Some of you may be familiar with David Barton and his organization, Wallbuilders. They have been working for the past 20 years to preserve the original documents and principles on which this country was founded.

    Some of you saw the video series Building on the American Heritage Series; included in the videos were David Barton and Rick Green.

    The Dayton Tea Party (DTP) is bringing Rick Green to Dayton to talk about our country’s founding, God’s role in our country’s success, and the necessity for us to fulfill our obligation to VOTE.

    This event will be held on Saturday, September 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM. at Crestview Baptist Church, 6600 Salem Avenue (near Union Road). The seating capacity is limited so we will be issuing tickets to ensure we have enough room. The suggested donation amount is $10.00, which you can add below in the sign-up area.

    Plan now to attend. This event is an excellent primer for your children, grandchildren, yourself, your other family members, neighbors – in short, anyone who is concerned about our nation. Mark the date on your calendar and talk to your family/friends.