|
|
|
Proponents of the "Right to Health
Care" (part Two).
Read what proponents have said in 15 brief comments in Part One.
|
-
Renegade Nation or Leader in Human Rights? (Project EINO). CLICK
-
Excerpt from "THE CHARADE OF US RATIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES" By Kenneth Roth. CLICK
-
Excerpt from "THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE" By Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. CLICK
-
Excerpt from "STARK INTRODUCES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE" CLICK
|
|
|
This is a minor excerpt from "THE CHARADE OF US RATIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES" By Kenneth Roth, Chicago Journal of International Law, Fall 2000. [EINO: It's a great article and well worth reading in its entirety.]
For full article CLICK HERE
It is sadly academic to ask whether international human rights law should trump US domestic law. That is because, on the few occasions when the US government has ratified a human rights treaty, it has done so in a way designed to preclude the treaty from having any domestic effect. Washington pretends to join the international human rights system, but it refuses to permit this system to improve the rights of US citizens. This approach reflects an attitude toward international human rights law of fear and arrogance--fear that international standards might constrain the unfettered latitude of the global superpower, and arrogance in the conviction that the United States, with its long and proud history of domestic rights protections, has nothing to learn on this subject from the rest of the world. As other governments increasingly see through this short-sighted view of international human rights law, it weakens America's voice as a principled defender of human rights around the world and diminishes America's moral influence and stature.
The US government's approach to the ratification of international human rights treaties is unique. Once the government signs a treaty, the pact is sent to Justice Department lawyers who comb through it looking for any requirement that in their view might be more protective of US citizens' rights than pre-existing US law. In each case, a reservation, declaration, or understanding is drafted to negate the additional rights protection. These qualifications are then submitted to the Senate as part of the ratification package.
For example, Article 6(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") prohibits the imposition of the death penalty "for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age." n2 To preserve the power to execute such juvenile offenders, the US government insisted on a reservation effectively negating this provision. n3 In taking this extraordinary step, the United States ensured its place with the mere handful of governments worldwide that persist in the barbaric practice of executing offenders who were children when they committed their crimes--such paragons of human rights virtue as Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. n4 Indeed, this US reservation was particularly egregious because it concerned a right--the right to life--from which the ICCPR precludes derogation.
After this exercise of stripping human rights treaties of any protections that might add to US law, the government takes out a sort of insurance policy against the possibility that the Justice Department lawyers might have made a mistake. To ensure that some new hidden right is not lurking in parts of the treaty for which no reservation, declaration or understanding was entered, the US government, first declares that the treaty is "not self-executing," meaning that it has no force of law without so-called implementing legislation. This step is not necessarily objectionable in itself, since it ensures that new rights are endorsed by both houses of Congress through the traditional legislative process, rather than through the unicameral ratification process, which requires the consent of only the Senate. But then, the government announces that implementing legislation is unnecessary because, according to the Justice Department lawyers, all the rights for which reservations, declarations or understandings were not registered are already protected by US law.
The result is that US citizens are left with no capacity to invoke the treaty in the US courts. The non-self-executing declaration precludes stating a cause of action under the treaty, and the lack of implementing legislation means that there is no alternative route to assert a claim. [EINO: Actually human rights law has been invoked in over 150 cases in US court and in none of those thrown out as irrelevant. If the USA is allowed to pretend to support human rights (a pretense dropped during the GW Bush Administration) while justifying that the law does not apply within the USA, why should not any renegade nation claim that it doesn't apply within its borders? They could do so whenever convenient. Thus this stance of the USA is equivalent to dismissing all international law as pointless. And when the USA or any other nation might want international law and protections to be enforced? Well, too bad it has already been thoroughly undermined.]
Washington's cynical attitude toward international human rights law has begun to weaken the US government's voice as an advocate for human rights around the world. Increasingly at UN human rights gatherings, other governments privately criticize Washington's "a la carte" approach to human rights. They see this approach reflected not only in the US government's narrow formula for ratifying human rights treaties but also in its refusal to join the recent treaty banning anti-personnel landmines and its opposition to the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court unless a mechanism can be found to exempt US citizens. For example, at the March-April 2000 session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, many governments privately cited Washington's inconsistent interest in international human rights standards to explain their lukewarm response to a US-sponsored resolution criticizing China's deteriorating human rights record.
The US government should be concerned with its diminishing stature as a standard-bearer for human rights. US influence is built not solely on its military and economic power. At a time when US administrations seem preoccupied with avoiding any American casualties, the projection of US military power is not easy. US economic power, for its part, can engender as much resentment as influence. Much of why people worldwide admire the United States is because of the moral example it sets. That allure risks being tarnished if the US government is understood to believe that international human rights standards are only for other people, not for US citizens.
|
|
This is an excerpt from "THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE" By Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. in The Huffington Post Nov 2008
To read the entire article CLICK HERE
The truth is $25 billion may not be enough to save the auto industry. Worse, other troubled economic institutions may soon surface needing help. At some point Congress is going to run out of enough fingers, toes and elbows to plug the holes in our economic dike. Candidate Obama said he cant bring the change we need on his own. He needs the American people to stay actively involved. At noon on January 20, he will say the following, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." If Barack Obama is going to be a truly transformative President I suggest he also cant bring the change we need, and he wants, with the Constitution as it is.
Because our current economic crisis is forcing us to think outside the box, one topic worthy of renewed discussion is health care. What if the Constitution said: "All citizens shall enjoy the right to health care of equal high quality and the Congress shall have the power to implement this article by appropriate legislation?" Beyond the obvious benefits of greater and better health care itself, imagine the economic consequences: thousands of doctors and nurses being trained; new medical colleges established and older ones expanded; increased medical research; a massive preventive health care industry springing up; new hospitals in needy urban and rural areas with the private sector, federal, state, county and local governments all working cooperatively under the authority granted by the Constitution and Congress. The absence of this human right as a health care constitutional amendment has major economic consequences as well.
Preventive medicine is almost entirely missing from our current health care system, which costs taxpayers billions. How can we afford such a system? Without a constitutional right to health care we already spend nearly twice as much as any other developed nation in the world -about $2.5 trillion or 16% of our GDP -yet nearly fifty million Americans are without health insurance and often receive their care in the most expensive manner possible, in the local hospital emergency room. With a health care constitutional amendment, instead of plugging a hole in the dike, we would be building a wall with a strong and solid foundation. Instead of spending money on more band-aids, a revised Constitution would give direction to a unique American purpose and, over time, solve an historic problem. And with American innovation we could put millions of Americans to work expanding a more balanced economic system on the solid foundation of health care for all. Health care would be a human right protected by the American people in our Constitution.
Congressman Jackson is a seven term Member of Congress serving on the Labor Health and Human Services Appropriations subcommittee. He is the co-author with Frank Watkins of A More Perfect Union, Advancing New American Rights.
|
|
This is an excerpt from "STARK INTRODUCES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE", Thursday, March 3, 2005
For the complete statement and links to the amendment language CLICK HERE
“The health of every American is vital to their unalienable rights of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,’” said Rep. Pete Stark. “To ensure these rights are fully enjoyed, we must be certain that every American can access quality health care - regardless of their income, race, education or job status. This Constitutional amendment is aimed at achieving this fundamental goal.”
Facing skyrocketing costs, many employers are cutting benefits or dropping coverage for their employees, chipping away at the very foundation of health care insurance in the United States. Proposed cuts in Medicaid now endanger coverage for the over 50 million Americans that currently rely on the program for medical care.
“We face a health care crisis where equal opportunity and basic fairness in our nation are at stake,” said Rep. Stark. “I’m frustrated, as many Americans are, that the President and Congress continue to ignore the problems we face. A Constitutional guarantee of health care for all will force Congress to take action to ensure that health coverage is there for all Americans.”
H.J. Res. 30 would amend the Constitution to say “all persons shall enjoy the right to health care of equal high quality.” It would require ratification by three-fourths of the States and so-called implementing legislation must be passed by Congress to ensure compliance with the amendment.
“I firmly believe that until we can guarantee that all people have the right to equal, high-quality health care through the Constitution, the interests of the people will continue to play second fiddle to the corporate bottom-line,” said Rep. Stark. “It’s time we put the health care of the people first. Our Constitution should be amended to promote that common interest.”
|
|
Opposing
|
|
*1 To learn more about the history of education, read the first 60 page section of "School".
*2 National Convention of the Medical
Committee for Human Rights, Chicago, March 25, 1966. |
|
Back to Discussion Central
** Browse the Opponent
Responses |
|
