disenfranchised unedited

My mother was a stay-at-home mom and I spent a lot of time with her when I was little. When election time rolled around she always took me with her when she voted. I remember her picking me up in the voting booth so I could make her selections. This is a strangely poignant memory for me. Her civic mindedness rubbed off on me.

 Although I didn't begin voting until after college, I did begin my political career by protesting and campaigning for favored politicians while I was at the University of Delaware. I have acted on behalf of local, state and national politicians and attempted to influence them ever since. I haven't missed voting in an election since finishing college. It's clear that the political system and voting are very important to me and the country. I'm sure you can understand how the recent events in other states have affected me. I'm so glad I live in little foreword leaning, Democratic Delaware.

 

I was very alarmed when threats to the voting process moved close to home, to the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is joining the growing list of states that are attempting to disenfranchise their populace. Pennsylvania is requiring that all voters provide a different form of picture ID beyond what they've ever had to show. This change will primarily affect the elderly, disabled and poor who don't have the money or means to get the new identification. The methods of identification that have been used for years will no longer be sufficient. Those that will primarily be affected are traditionally Democratic demographic groups.

 

I agree that the current security conscious climate requires additional steps to be taken to protect the voting process. However, this change should not take place a few months before a major presidential election, causing large numbers of people to potentially be unable to vote.

This situation is not unique to Pennsylvania. Texas attempted to pass a similar voter ID law, but it was overturned in appeals court on the grounds that it was unfair to the lower income and minority voters.

 The Republican Party in several other states is taking different measures to block people from voting or to make it more difficult to vote. Ohio is attempting to disallow early voting, an option often used by the Democratic demographic groups. The primarily Republican government of the state passed a law to stop early voting and this issue is currently being fought in the courts. In Florida, Republican officials have attempted to place restrictions on voter-registration drives. Republican-imposed rules made it almost impossible for progressive groups to register new Democratic voters. These restrictions have since been overturned but several months of registration time were lost. Who knows how many people could have been registered to vote during that time? There will be a limited window of opportunity to continue the voter registration drives before the presidential election so Republicans did succeed to a certain extent in their efforts to suppress the Democratic voting effort in Florida.

 I am very disturbed and disappointed that the right of every US citizen to vote has fallen victim to party politics. If a political party cannot nominate a competitive candidate, then please concede the election rather than disenfranchise potential voters.

Mrs. Romney's MS unedited

I was watching the news a few days ago and they were discussing how Romney is defending himself against the accusations that he is out of touch with the experiences of average Americans. Mrs. Romney said that they were very aware of struggle like the average person because they deal with her MS. I know MS is difficult to deal with for anyone, but her statement really got my goat.

I really don't believe that the experiences of a chronically ill multimillionaire are even vaguely similar to the experience of the average person with this illness. Mrs. Romney has practically unlimited resources at her disposal whereas the average person must depend on insurance to meet their health needs. As I've said often before, insurance companies view a patient with chronic illness as someone who will not benefit from many services and treatments because they will show no improvement. Thus these services and treatments are not medically necessary.

For example, Mrs. Romney can afford a home health aide out-of-pocket if there is a problem with the insurance. An average American with insurance receives home health aide service for a limited period of time from the date of the onset of the disease. Someone on Medicare receives this service for an unlimited period of time, but only three times a week. In another example, although physical therapy is known to be beneficial to an MS patient according to doctors and physical therapists, insurance companies find it to be not medically necessary. If the patient cannot afford to pay a physical therapist out-of-pocket or make other arrangements, they will not receive this necessary treatment. These are just two of many examples I could give that show that a patient with unlimited resources has an advantage over someone reliant on insurance, Medicare or Medicaid.

From its initial onset, the progression of MS is different in each patient. The level of disability, the symptoms and the speed at which it progresses varies from person to person. I have the most severe form, chronic progressive multiple sclerosis and I've been dealing with the various symptoms for over 20 years. Clearly from observing Mrs. Romney in her various public speaking events, she has a very mild form.

I don't doubt that Mrs. Romney faces many challenges because of her disease and I don't want to give the impression that I wish her ill. But as a multimillionaire, her experiences cannot compare to those who have the illness but have limited resources. I think Mr. and Mrs. Romney be to find some other way to prove some point of commonality with the average citizen. Their struggles are not mine.