Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Categories
- civil rights and civil liberties (13)
- consumer protection (10)
- economic growth and jobs (15)
- education (23)
- environment (10)
- general (2)
- health care (20)
- housing (12)
- labor (16)
- preamble (5)
- safety justice and crime prevention (14)
- social security and the safety net (7)
- taxes and public services (7)
- voting procedures (6)
We should add "gender identity or expression" to the list.
ReplyDeleteAs President Obama says "just words" the democratic party's actions against its disabled population is abhorrent!
ReplyDeleteI am requesting that we add a plank to the the platform insuring the basic civil rights for people with intellectual disabilities in the Commonwealth.
ReplyDeleteWe are the party of civil rights. We are the party that opposes the erosion of civil liberties.
It is time for us to put in our platform affirmation that we we want civil rights for all people.
We have been at the forefront of discrimination on race, gender and sexual orientation.
We in Massachusetts were the first in the Nation to grant same sex couples the right to marry.
It is time for us to take a stand to affirm and enforce the civil rights of people with disabilities.
People with intellectual disabilities have unemployment rates in excess of 80%.
More than 90 percent of people with developmental disabilities will experience sexual abuse at some point in their lives. (Valenti-Hein & Schwartz, 1995).
In Massachusetts we created the first institution in the country to segregate people from our society. In the 1840s we were part of the eugenics movement. A movement that we as a nation did not disavow until the 1930's when Hitler began exterminating Jews and people with disabilities under the mantle of this movement.
That institution is the Fernald School, and it is still open today. It has a sad history of abuse and torture. In the 1950's and 1960's the Commonwealth of Massachusetts along with the Quaker Oats company experimented on the the people who lived in the Fernald School by feeding them radioactive oatmeal to determine iron and calcium absorption.
The Commonwealth has fallen behind many other states in the proportion of institutional to community care of people with disabilities. Nation-wide less than 2% of people with disabilities live in institutional settings and Massachusetts presently hosts six out of the seven institutions left in operation in New England.
Canada and most every other state have no institutions for the warehousing of people with intellectual disabilities.
If you are person with intellectual disabilities in Massachusetts, you are told where to live, who to live with, where to work, and what you can do in your free time. Also, as a person with disabilities you have no control over your money or your life.
It is time for us as democrats to stand up for the men and women in the Commonwealth with intellectual disabilities.
I am requesting that the platform add:
We support the right of self determination for all people, including people with intellectual disabilities to determine their own lives and their own fates.
As a parent and grandparent who has “been through it” - I heartily endorse the efforts to include the “Shared Parenting” plank in the Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform. This fair and necessary treatment of children and fathers in divorce action is the best approach to an historical bad practice in Massachusetts Courts. Informed citizens in the Commonwealth share our concern and approve the legislation that Governor Patrick has agreed to sign. As a member of the Democratic State Committee I urge my fellow members to include the family friendly, society friendly tenet in keeping with the Fathers and Families Shared Parenting bill “providing that both parents are 'fit' to care for the child, there should be no reason why the presumption in the family courts would be anything other than both parents should share equal time.”
ReplyDeleteIt is important to add the words "or gender expression" to every place where the Democratic Platform uses the phrase "sexual orientation," particularly in the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties platform. Many people believe that the term "sexual orientation" includes the group of people whose manner of gender expression does not match their chromosomal sex, but this is not the case. Discrimination on the basis of gender expression needs to be included in all civil rights protections, because this is a group which suffers discrimination in much the same way that gay men and lesbian women have historically suffered and continue to suffer, based on a characteristic that is completely unrelated to performance or merit. Massachusetts has prided itself on being in the forefront of legislation and judicial decisions that protect the LGB (lesbian, gay, bisexual) community, but that is not enough. We need to protect the entire LGBT community (lesbian, gay,
ReplyDeletebisexual, transgender) from discrimination in housing, in employment, in educational opportunity and in provision of health care. This is a growing civil rights movement across the country. Please join me in asking for a correction to this omission from the platform.
From Priscilla M. Leith, Democrat, Newton, Ward 4 Delegate and former President of Massachusetts N.O.W.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see the 2009 Mass. Democratic Platform include the following, under Civil Rights:
We are committed to ensuring full equality for women. We reaffirm our support for the Equal Rights Amendment, recommit to enforcing Title IX, and urge passage of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
For explanation, see attachment. With slight modification, this is the language that was submitted for the 2008 national Democratic Platform. As far as I know, it was approved by the Convention, but I don't have a copy of the final approved version.
Second, altho we have had a Massachusetts ERA since 1976, when it was approved by the voters, the Boston Supt of Schools Carol Johnson was proposing that "the law be changed" to allow separate public schools for girls and boys. She ran into the State ERA, thanks to some of us who objected that this was unconstitutional. The Globe seems to think it is a good idea but refuses to mention in news stories that it would violate the state ERA.
The democratic party should endorse the critical need for shared parenting, and work to enact reforms that will ensure this modernization of our courts.
ReplyDeleteChildren have a critical need for the significant involvement of both parents. Development, happiness, and general well-being are dependent on this. As a vestige from a displaced time, when there is a divorce of parents in Massachusetts, the courts appoint the woman as the temporary primary custodian. The father is then burdened with having to show that he should also be a significant parent in terms of time with the children. This is an emotional nightmare, financial hardship (and often insurmountable barrier), and additional stress for the kids during this difficult transition time.
The above practice is incomprehensible in modern times. Our society has rebuked and banished from our legal system the use of personal characteristics such as gender, race, religion, etc, from decision-making in cases of legal dispute. Having a default that the woman, because of her gender only, is a primary custodian is thus unjustifiable in a modern court.
The most compelling argument against this system, however, is that this is hurting children who are told that one parent is less important than the other.
Legislation needs to be enacted that considers the children’s best interest. This means ensuring that all parents that are fit for parenting are not alienated from their children. The default when there is a divorce of parents must be that both parents will contribute equally to the children’s care and upbringing. Case-specific adjustments can then be made based on the particular circumstances.
This must be done now.
Stephen Wax, MD, PhD
76 Bourne St
Auburndale, MA 02466
As you help shape the upcoming Democratic platform would you please consider a matter that not only affects your local community, but likely one of your neighbors or friends… shared parenting. In a non-binding ballot question in 2004, 85% of the participating voters supported shared parenting. In all 37 legislative districts the vote passed by at least an 80% margin. Shared parenting took more yes votes than any candidate on any ballot.
In 2007 shared parenting legislation was sponsored by 25% of the state legislature. The Governor said he would sign the bill if it reached its desk. Shared parenting was the #1 issue on the Deval Patrick web site. Yet special interests kept the bill from leaving committee. It died without even a vote.
For me, it prevents me from seeing my 14-year old daughter. Before the divorce I was a very involved parent – just ask the Democratic chair of Marlboro, Tom Hill. In fact most of the Marlboro delegates will likely recognize my name from the years I was the registrar of the city soccer league.
Please ask about shared parenting when you speak with other delegates and at this year’s annual convention. Do it for your friend who doesn’t get to see their kid that much anymore. Do it for your child’s friend who doesn’t get too see one of their parents due to a divorce. Do it because it is fair and right. Do it because shared parenting is in the best interest of the child.
If you are interested in a copy of a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, a local study by the Massachusetts Children’s Trust Fund, or the actual results of the 2004 ballot initiative to see how your community voted, email me and I will send you those materials. Just let me know which ones or all of them.
Thank you,
David Rabinovitz
I would like to see the 2009 Mass. Democratic Platform include the following, under Civil Rights:
ReplyDeleteWe are committed to ensuring full equality for men. We affirm our support for passage of a Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against men.
This is a party about equality. Yet we've passed gender-biased domestic violence and family laws.
Why don't we care that women initiate intimate partner violence just as often as men? Or that men make up 1/3 of victims who end up in the hospital? And they report it less.
Why don't we care that in most divorces a parent loses custody of their child, after doing no wrong? Why do we allow family courts to continue to operate without due process?
Yes, our country has a fatherless children problem. Give parents back their rights. Stop the gender-bias!
The arguments put forth by Fathers' rights groups seem, on the face of it, to be reasonable. However, if the aim is to remove the impartial child-centered system that is now in place, we should be very wary of supporting this proposal. Equal parenting by right seems to eliminate the present system of neutral investigation of the family dynamic. Joint custody by right might endanger the health and welfare of the child or, in the case of domestic violence, one or both of the parents as well as the child.
ReplyDeleteThe platform could affirm that the court consider the rights, safety, financial viability and concerns of both parents in the fact-finding process. But make clear that the rights, support and safety of the child are the overriding concern of the court.
I agree with Priscilla M. Leith. But by corollary, does that not mean that she too would support language that men should be equal to women when it comes to domestic issues such as parenting?
ReplyDeleteIf the democratic party truly wants to be the party of equality amongst all, we must finally recognize the injustices in the probate courts and correct them.
I totally disagree with Gae that our current system is child centered and impartial. The current system, in failing to presume that both parents are equally fit, promotes litigation, conflict, anger and hostility. Nothing could be more damaging to these children that the system is looking to protect. I share her concern that children should not be entrusted to violent or incompetent parents. However, just as accused criminals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, should not fathers be presumed competent until proven to be not so? If, custody is granted to women 85% of the time, surely you can't believe that every single one of the men in those cases is dangerous or incompetent? The courts will never order 50/50 custody under the current system. This immediately creates a hostile environment where both parents attempt to paint the other as incompetent in the eyes of the court in order to be awarded custody. Having the parents fight is the worst thing possible for the children. Yet the incentive to fight is strong. The attorneys have a vested interest in prolonged court battles. They will not discourage litigation by suggesting shared custody. Why share custody when you know that in addition to custody and control of your childrens' upbringing, you know that the courts will reward you with a pot of gold in the name of child support and alimony?
The current system, while having noble intentions, does more to damage children than it does to protect them. The current system promotes the removal of fathers from the lives of their children and promotes hostility between divorcing parents and in so doing causes emotional scars on children who have to bear witness to their parents turmoil.
In carrying out it's goal, the courts trample over the rights of fathers to be with their children and over the rights of children to be with their fathers.
S.Gliklich, M.D.