Principles Before Politics
| By User from Fresno, CA - May 18th, 2009 at 4:29 am PDT |
Comments |
Mail to a Friend
Tags: budget, deficit, EQCA, Government, LGBT Caucus, May special election, Progressive, special election
Tags: budget, deficit, EQCA, Government, LGBT Caucus, May special election, Progressive, special election
Below is the text of a letter I sent to members of the LGBT Legislative Caucus and Equality California, in response to an email EQCA sent on May 16, on behalf of the LGBT Caucus which urged "Yes" votes on Propositions 1A-1E.
I am writing to express my disappointment in both EQCA and the members of the LGBT Caucus for the email regarding the May 19 special election. First of all, I want to say that I understand that the propositions on the ballot exist only because California has a totally screwed-up budget process and that these propositions were part of the compromise that finally saw the budget ratified. I appreciate that the LGBT Caucus is probably merely holding up their end of the bargain in urging a blanket "Yes" vote on all the propositions -- at least I hope that is their reason. I also respect the fact that as the primary LGBT-lobbying organization in the state, EQCA has a reciprocal relationship with members of the LGBT caucus and, though without taking an official position on the propositions in question, did the Caucus a political favor by sending this message out to the EQCA listserv.
But now I want to take a moment to hopefully help you to understand my situation, and why I am so tremendously disappointed in both the LGBT Caucus and EQCA for what I believe is ultimately a cynical, political accommodation that will have grievous effects on many families. A simple disclaimer does not absolve EQCA of its social responsibility to the members of the LGBT community who look to them to provide sound political and legislative advice. Nor does being LGBT entitle the Caucus to use an organization like EQCA to facilitate its backdoor political deals.
My daughter, Hope, was born 14 months ago --at 34 weeks, weighing just 5lbs. She wouldn't nurse, she was never awake, she barely moved, she never cried. When she was five days old she was diagnosed, clinically, with Prader-Willi Syndrome, a diagnosis that was confirmed five weeks later via DNA testing. PWS is a genetic disorder of the 15th chromosome, in infancy it causes failure to thrive; from early childhood forward people with PWS have an insatiable hunger as the part of the brain controlling satiety is turned "off" -- they never feel full. In addition there are a myriad of other physical, emotional, and cognitive issues that characterize PWS. Under the Lanterman Act my daughter qualifies for early intervention services. Currently, she receives Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Early Intervention on a weekly basis and within the year will be receiving Speech Therapy as well. At 14 months she does not crawl, has no words, cannot feed herself, and only just began to sit on her own.
Obviously, my objections relate primarily to the Caucus' position on 1D (and 1E), and EQCA's role in advancing that position. I cannot speak to the other Propositions. I realize that they are extremely complicated, I realize that the situation is far from perfect. Frankly, as a proud, bleeding-heart liberal, I'd rather raise taxes.
Proposition 1D would cripple the Family Resource Centers that deliver Early Intervention services to children like my daughter. They may be "temporary" fiscal arrangements, but their consequences are long-term to permanent. I realize that the state of California is in the middle of a financial disaster, I really do. But I also believe that budgets, and in this case -- budget deals resulting in propositions -- are indications of our moral priorities as human beings. Targeting disabled children and their families is shameful.
My family is fortunate--we're educated, we're fairly secure financially, we've got private insurance and a good union (though I am plenty irritated with CTA for backing these measures too). We could cover the costs of our Early Intervention Services if we needed to. We've chosen to go through a First 5-funded agency because we believe that they simply do a better job of working with our special-needs-daughter than private practice did. We are lucky to have that choice, many --perhaps most-- people do not. The overwhelming majority of families that are served through Exceptional Parents Unlimited (the agency that provides our services) are low-income/minority families. Down's Syndrome, Epilepsy, Cerebral Palsy, Autism, Prader-Willi Syndrome, etc...are equal opportunity disabilities. If "D" passes it would not only leave many of these families without the level of services their children need, it would also rob them of the hope that they can somehow still provide for their children the opportunity to reach their full potential as human beings and would serve only to further marginalize already disadvantaged people. Though I am less well-versed in its impact, I know that "E" similarly targets children with mental health issues.
Finally, I need to take issue with some of the comments at the end of the Caucus' message
If standing up for the oppressed, the disadvantaged, and those who cannot stand up for themselves are not the core values of progressives and the LGBT community then I don't know what are. And if mentally and physically handicapped children, and children with mental illnesses are not the picture of "disadvantaged" and in need of progressive advocacy I don't know who is. And as much I, as a married, gay woman, want the march toward marriage equality to accelerate -- I would never, EVER, accept progress on that front if it came at the expense of my child and I resent the invocation of "marriage equality" as reason/excuse to support measures that harm children and families like those I have come to know over the last 14 months. Of course being progressive and being fiscally responsible are not mutually exclusive, but neither is being both of those and also moral, merciful, and humane -- something that neither 1D or 1E can be considered.
I hope that in the future, both the LGBT Caucus and EQCA will put principles ahead of politics.
I am writing to express my disappointment in both EQCA and the members of the LGBT Caucus for the email regarding the May 19 special election. First of all, I want to say that I understand that the propositions on the ballot exist only because California has a totally screwed-up budget process and that these propositions were part of the compromise that finally saw the budget ratified. I appreciate that the LGBT Caucus is probably merely holding up their end of the bargain in urging a blanket "Yes" vote on all the propositions -- at least I hope that is their reason. I also respect the fact that as the primary LGBT-lobbying organization in the state, EQCA has a reciprocal relationship with members of the LGBT caucus and, though without taking an official position on the propositions in question, did the Caucus a political favor by sending this message out to the EQCA listserv.
But now I want to take a moment to hopefully help you to understand my situation, and why I am so tremendously disappointed in both the LGBT Caucus and EQCA for what I believe is ultimately a cynical, political accommodation that will have grievous effects on many families. A simple disclaimer does not absolve EQCA of its social responsibility to the members of the LGBT community who look to them to provide sound political and legislative advice. Nor does being LGBT entitle the Caucus to use an organization like EQCA to facilitate its backdoor political deals.
My daughter, Hope, was born 14 months ago --at 34 weeks, weighing just 5lbs. She wouldn't nurse, she was never awake, she barely moved, she never cried. When she was five days old she was diagnosed, clinically, with Prader-Willi Syndrome, a diagnosis that was confirmed five weeks later via DNA testing. PWS is a genetic disorder of the 15th chromosome, in infancy it causes failure to thrive; from early childhood forward people with PWS have an insatiable hunger as the part of the brain controlling satiety is turned "off" -- they never feel full. In addition there are a myriad of other physical, emotional, and cognitive issues that characterize PWS. Under the Lanterman Act my daughter qualifies for early intervention services. Currently, she receives Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Early Intervention on a weekly basis and within the year will be receiving Speech Therapy as well. At 14 months she does not crawl, has no words, cannot feed herself, and only just began to sit on her own.
Obviously, my objections relate primarily to the Caucus' position on 1D (and 1E), and EQCA's role in advancing that position. I cannot speak to the other Propositions. I realize that they are extremely complicated, I realize that the situation is far from perfect. Frankly, as a proud, bleeding-heart liberal, I'd rather raise taxes.
Proposition 1D would cripple the Family Resource Centers that deliver Early Intervention services to children like my daughter. They may be "temporary" fiscal arrangements, but their consequences are long-term to permanent. I realize that the state of California is in the middle of a financial disaster, I really do. But I also believe that budgets, and in this case -- budget deals resulting in propositions -- are indications of our moral priorities as human beings. Targeting disabled children and their families is shameful.
My family is fortunate--we're educated, we're fairly secure financially, we've got private insurance and a good union (though I am plenty irritated with CTA for backing these measures too). We could cover the costs of our Early Intervention Services if we needed to. We've chosen to go through a First 5-funded agency because we believe that they simply do a better job of working with our special-needs-daughter than private practice did. We are lucky to have that choice, many --perhaps most-- people do not. The overwhelming majority of families that are served through Exceptional Parents Unlimited (the agency that provides our services) are low-income/minority families. Down's Syndrome, Epilepsy, Cerebral Palsy, Autism, Prader-Willi Syndrome, etc...are equal opportunity disabilities. If "D" passes it would not only leave many of these families without the level of services their children need, it would also rob them of the hope that they can somehow still provide for their children the opportunity to reach their full potential as human beings and would serve only to further marginalize already disadvantaged people. Though I am less well-versed in its impact, I know that "E" similarly targets children with mental health issues.
Finally, I need to take issue with some of the comments at the end of the Caucus' message
These aren't perfect solutions, but they are the only viable solutions on the table. Unlike some of the right-wing budget measures that have on previous ballots, none of the initiatives will restrain our core values. The fight for single-payer health care will continue. Improving public education will still be attainable, increased environmental protections will move forward and alleviating poverty will remain a top priority. And, of course, history's long and overdue march toward marriage equality will continue to accelerate.
Being progressive and being fiscally responsible are not mutually exclusive. We must support these budget measures because, if they fail, we will be forced to make even deeper cuts and we will be continually focused on resolving the budget rather than advancing a progressive agenda for this state.
If standing up for the oppressed, the disadvantaged, and those who cannot stand up for themselves are not the core values of progressives and the LGBT community then I don't know what are. And if mentally and physically handicapped children, and children with mental illnesses are not the picture of "disadvantaged" and in need of progressive advocacy I don't know who is. And as much I, as a married, gay woman, want the march toward marriage equality to accelerate -- I would never, EVER, accept progress on that front if it came at the expense of my child and I resent the invocation of "marriage equality" as reason/excuse to support measures that harm children and families like those I have come to know over the last 14 months. Of course being progressive and being fiscally responsible are not mutually exclusive, but neither is being both of those and also moral, merciful, and humane -- something that neither 1D or 1E can be considered.
I hope that in the future, both the LGBT Caucus and EQCA will put principles ahead of politics.
Comments are closed for this post.