The disabled must be informed voters to protect their rights.

In my country we have a two party system so it is imperative that the disabled know how to separate the wheat from the chaff. This same principle applies to the disabled of any country. They have to be able to tell truth from fiction. This is especially true in election years when fiction may outweigh truth.

It is election year in my country and both parties are claiming to be to be pro disabled. Are they? Their voting behavior doesn't support this claim. Both may have allowed the disabled population to rise unchecked by failing to insure that laws were never fully implemented. Both failed to insure that a 27 year old piece of legislation was never fully implemented. Then 17 years later another act became law but like the first it has never been fully implemented either. This legislation was hailed as our civil rights legislation. We now find it under attack as being unconstitutional. If either of these had been fully implemented then my country could have placed some checks on the now unchecked rise of disability. Does either party really care about the disabled? Interesting facts regarding Disability Rights of both parties in my country. 1. In 1973 the disabled were given a Rehabilitation Act. Then in 1990 we were given a piece of legislation which was hailed as our civil rights legislation. Both pieces came from the same party. 2. Under the Rehabilitation Act the disabled were granted the status of a protected class. Under this same Act an agency was created and mandated to help the most severely disabled gain employment by applying a specific type of help. This never happened. Instead this agency used closure to justify its funding. Such funding policies may insure that the disabled don't receive the help they require. 3. Both parties, in my country should have known this was happening. Instead it appears that both looked the other way by allowing closure based funding to be used. 4. Ironically it is now the same party which proposed both these pieces of legislation which is now attacking the second as being somehow unconstitutional. 5. From 1973 to 1992 one party had control had of both houses. During this time they appear to have done nothing to insure that either act effecting the disabled were properly inforced. 6. From 1973 to1990 the party which proposed both laws had FIVE Administrations. During these administrations it appears to have done nothing to insure that either were fully enforced or properly implemented. 7. The other party states that they can do a better job. 8. What did they do for us when they had a majority in both houses.

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic