Cooper asked Lee to give examples how the treaty would change U.S. law, since there is nothing mandatory in the treaty.
Via Mediaite:
Lee cited a provision in the treaty granting international “entitlement rights,” and another provision that he believed would “undermine the rights of parents.” When Lee said that there is an abortion plank in the treaty, Cooper challenged him by saying it only grants the same health care rights to the disabled as everyone else overseas.
Cooper said that the treaty is non-self-obligating, therefore there is nothing mandatory that has to be enforced. Lee insisted it still has an impact, warning about how parts of the treaty could have a long-standing impact on U.S. law.
Cooper challenged Lee to name any other U.S. treaty that has had such an impact. Lee said he “didn’t come prepared to cite Supreme Court precedent on this point,” to which Cooper further insisted that Lee was merely positing “very scary hypotheticals” with no evidence to back up his claims. Cooper repeatedly pushed Lee to name another treaty to impact U.S. law, explaining that Lee arguing the point on the Senate floor should have prepared him for this line of questioning.
Here's the video:
Post a Comment