Day Two of Voter ID Trial - Stats

Highlights from the ACLU Blog:
The full version of the study is available to the public here.

"Less than 86% of eligible voters in the state hold a form of ID that will qualify them to vote."  

"Roughly 379 thousand Pennsylvanians currently have no valid ID for voting, and no ability to obtain one. 174 thousand of those people voted in 2008."

• 17.2% of women lack valid ID, compared with 11.5% of men
• 18% of Latino voters, compared to roughly 14% of black or white voters
• 18% of voters ages 18-34, or age 75+
• 18.5% of voters with less than a high school education
• 22% of voters earning less than $20 thousand per year

"42% of voters who said they had no access to regular transportation also had no ID that would permit them to vote. Remember, please, that polling places are frequently within walking distance of an individual's home - PennDOT licensing centers are generally not."

"Baretto remarked that any voter who has an ID with a name that is not an exact match with his or her name on the voting rolls is "at risk" come election day."

PA Voter ID Debacle

Pennsylvania's voter ID law is under high scrutiny right now. After the ACLU found that more than 1,000,000 voters in PA were without the proper ID, Harrisburg started scrambling. Even more troublesome is that some older folks were not going to be able to obtain an ID due to lack of official documents that were not available. So this week, presumed to curtail the lawsuits and dispute the intention is voter suppression, the Corbett administration unveiled a new Voter ID that is obtainable with much less stringent conditions.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer,

"PennDot requires Pennsylvania residents seeking a nondriver ID to provide a Social Security card; a birth certificate with a raised seal; a certificate of U.S. citizenship or naturalization, or a valid passport; and proof of residency, such as tax records, lease or mortgage documents, a firearms permit, or utility bills."

Guess what...those forms of ID are the same exact forms of ID voters have always had to show at the polls in order to vote in a precinct in Pennsylvania the first time. In the past, voters could not vote in a precinct until their identity was confirmed via the same IDs that will be required to obtain a new Voter ID. This was only required the first time they voted in that precinct. However, if a voter moved, they would be required to show ID again.

So let's walk through this. According to the Inquirer article, instead of showing the acceptable forms of ID to say three poll workers when a voter signs into to vote, the voter now shows the IDs to one PennDOT employee. This employee then uses the given identification to create a Voter ID with photo that is good for ten years.

Let's presume for a moment, that voter ID fraud actually happened in PA (there is no evidence that is has). How did it happen? Well, since people who have not voted at a precinct before had to present a form of ID (as stated above), the fraudulent voter would have had to stolen or borrowed someone else's social security card, utility bill, birth certificate, etc. etc. The voter would then have presented these IDs to a poll worker while at least two more poll workers looked on. If a poll worker, or anyone else for that matter in the polling location, suspected this person was not who they claimed to be, the vote could be contested and the precinct judge would be required to fill out paperwork.

Now let us look at how this new ID will prevent such fraud from taking place. A potential criminal looking to obtain a fraudulent voter ID will have to steal or borrow someone else's social security card, utility bill, birth certificate, etc. etc. The criminal would then present these IDs to one Pennsylvania Department of Transportation employee. This employee would then create a photo ID that  has the mug shot of the criminal on a legal voter ID that will allow the criminal to commit voter fraud for ten consecutive years until the ID expires. 


Wait...that doesn't seem to prevent fraud at all, does it? 


No, it does not. While many people do have a proper form of ID to present at the polls, requiring a photo ID does not prevent fraud. Ask any underage drinker who cons his way into bars with Fake IDs how easy it is to obtain fraudulent ID. And well, I think this new Voter ID just makes it so much easier to commit fraud because you only have to fake it one time to obtain a ten year ID. 

When Did Football Become God (or My Diatribe about PSU Scandal)

Anyone who knows me well is familiar with my distaste for American football. It’s not exactly the sport itself that I loathe, but its profane power over our culture. I despise how society notoriously reveres the sport with the same devotion as religious convictions. Coaches and talented players are placed on untouchable pedestals for all to idolize.  They are society’s “heroes,” yet so often are perpetrators of criminal and distasteful acts –making more money than Nobel Peace winning scientists. So one can imagine that the Penn State scandal, involving years of an inside cover-up of unspeakable child abuse, simply reaffirmed my disdain for the sport. A lesson learned, I thought perhaps this scandal could redirect the focus back to what universities are truly for – obtaining a quality higher education.

Today, however, another demigod-like supremacy determined the fate of Penn State. The NCAA sanctioned the university with fines to the tune of $60,000,000 and placed limits on athletic participation in the collegiate realm. In addition, PSU has been denied the ability to distribute scholarships. At the time of this writing, it is unclear what kind of scholarships, but the sanctions are presumed to affect only students in the football program.

One might think I am okay with these sanctions. After all, I loathe the fact that football has become more important than education in our society. But what do these sanctions mean for current and future students of Penn State? One can speculate that 60 million dollars is enough to affect tuition rates. This alone is bad for all students, like me. But even more pervasive is that many talented future athletes may no longer afford or desire an education at Penn State. And let us be realistic for a moment. Penn State has notoriously drawn talented musicians into their University because of the infamous Blue Band. Athletic gymnasts have attended PSU because they want to cheer on the Nittany Lions teams. Some students do come to Penn State to play football. But these students are not necessarily tomorrow’s Mozart’s, Mary Lou Retton’s, or Joe Namath’s. Many are tomorrow’s scientists, writers, teachers, therapists, business leaders, and more. These current and future students are the ones who stand to lose the most. What right does the NCAA, an athletic organization, have to punish students of an entire university? Once again, sports – especially football – seem to be in complete control.  How dare an athletic organization take away opportunity for innocent students because of some very bad administration?  The students and current staff and administration of the university do not condone the behaviors of the past football administration. But we certainly are going to pay for those behaviors.

It seems more fitting that the NCAA should take over sports programs when its ethics rules are broken – not destroy programs in their entirety. This punishment is going to trickle down to everyone who attends the university. And the actual criminals, who will surely receive due punishment by the court systems, will be the least affected by the NCAA sanctions.

It seems that the NCAA’s announcements today only strengthen my disdain for organized sports. Way to go, NCAA.

Pennsylvania Unite Against the War on Women

April 28, 2012 10:00 am to 2:00 pm

Pennsylvania State Capitol Steps Harrisburg, PA

Help defend women's rights and pursuit of equality. Join Americans all across the United States on April 28th, 2012, as we come together as one to tell members of Congress in Washington DC and legislators in all 50 states, "Enough is enough!"

All Americans have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, including contraception, without interference from government, business or religious institutions.

Everyone is invited to join, plan, and rally as we unite to demand that every person be granted equal opportunities, equal rights, and equal representation.

RSVP on Facebook

Fighting the War on Women with Facebook and Philosophy

Within the past week, I have been privileged to be part of a growing movement. Facebook can be a wonderful thing for organizing political movements. And this week, I have seen it in action.

The National March Against the War on Women is currently a Facebook initiative that can be found here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/300397393356744/

Women and men all over the United States are banding together for Statewide marches on Saturday, April 28, 2012. We are mad as hell about the current agenda to reduce women to second class citizenry by denying us civil rights - our liberty. Please click the link and join us!

Coincidentally, I had an ethics paper due this week and found a way to work in the subject of employer paid contraception insurance coverage. Below is why the argument on Religious Freedom, doesn't fly. Enjoy.


Contraception and the Liberty of Society

The United States is now embroiled in a battle over government mandated health insurance coverage for contraception. On one side are conservative religious employers claiming a breach in constitutional religious freedom. On the other side is a majority who believe free contraception will benefit society. Both sides claim the opposing stance will cause harm. In his work, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill explains that a person’s behaviors and actions should be allowed so long as they do not cause harm to anyone but the individual, themselves. The problem, however, seems to be determining whom, if anyone, will be harmed. Who, in the battle over contraception, stands to be harmed the most should either side prevail? Using Mill's argument of a person's right to act on their own accord, it is clear that society is at most risk for harm, should the religious employers prevail.

Catholic and conservative religious leaders assert that paying for employee health insurance, that includes free contraceptive services, goes against constitutionally granted freedom of religion. They claim that offering contraceptive coverage to their employees is  against churches’ stance on the use of contraception. On the other side, proponents argue that mandated insurance coverage does not equal mandated use. Furthermore, they state that offering free contraception will have positive social consequences. Proponents cite that increased accessibility will help prevent unwanted pregnancies that often lead to abortions. In addition, they posit that free contraception will decrease the number of children unintentionally born into poverty. Both issues have extreme social costs.

John Stuart Mill affirms that liberal freedoms are central to achieving happiness. Mill’s reflections propose society must allow individuals to make personal decisions, even if the decisions cause self-harm. “The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself” (Mill 5.2). Mill further expresses that we may counsel or advise against behaviors, but that ultimately, society should not impose restrictions or inflict punishment on the behaviors. “Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people, if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct” (Mill 5.2). In the case of the insurance contraception coverage, it would seem the proponents perspective on free contraception leaves conduct up to the individual, which is in line with Mill’s thinking. On the other hand, the religious employers cite that governmental force to offer coverage would cause harm by limiting religious freedoms. Using Mill's thinking, one must determine how freedom to practice religion is limited or harmed by this mandate. Would an individual following conservative religious beliefs be forced to use contraception if their employer paid health insurance offered it? Would religious employers and their staff be limited in any way from practicing personal religious freedoms should their insurance coverage change?

When it comes to arguments such as this, we must decide if harm is imminent. Mill says we should look to “… distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter” (Mill 4.2). This suggests we must determine which option has the potential to provide the most good and which has the potential to cause the most harm. In the case of contraception coverage, the task is to determine which decision will ultimately be better for the good of society. Mill also states that we must be certain not to impose our values on others behaviors, no matter how immoral they may seem. “But neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it” (Mill 4.2). It seems Mill has given us clear guidelines on individual behavior and conduct that does not harm others. We must decide if the churches’ followers, including employers, stand to be harmed by a coverage mandate, as they lay claim. Will conservative church members (some of which are likely employees) be inclined to go against churches’ and their own belief systems? Will otherwise devout people be forced to relinquish moral principles because of health insurance coverage? Mill also says we must decide which act stands to do the most good. We next must then resolve whether free contraception will benefit society. Will reductions in national abortion rates and children born to poverty be good for society? Likewise, will society benefit by allowing religious conservatives to opt out of this coverage mandate? Finally, we must decide which option provides the greatest potential to do the most good for society.

Who, in the battle over contraception, stands to be harmed the most, should either side prevail? It seems clear, using Mill’s rationalization. When one looks at the conservative religious stance, it is difficult to comprehend how anyone could be harmed by a coverage mandate. The mandate does not order people to use contraception. It does not ask religious employers or persons to judge contraception as morally correct. On the other hand, society has nothing to gain and potentially much to lose by allowing employers to opt out. This could set a very dangerous precedent for limiting any medical coverage based on employers' belief systems. An employer, who believes that only prayer can cure cancer, could eliminate cancer treatment coverage. An employer, who believes immunizations are immoral, could refuse coverage causing eradicated diseases, like polio, to become commonplace. The options to limit health insurance coverage based on personal belief systems, are nearly endless.

It is obvious that society will receive the most benefit from free contraceptive coverage. By offering free contraception through employer paid health insurance, fewer burdens are placed on public welfare systems, thus reducing government costs. Rates of children born into poverty, which contribute to many future costs including public welfare, penal systems, and long-term health issues, will decline. Abortion rates will decrease due to better accessibility of contraceptives - a valuable benefit for religious conservatives who speak out against abortion. It appears that conservative religious employers against coverage are merely attempting to impose their own morality on others. Even if the person who chooses to use contraceptives is morally harming themselves, according to Mill, the conservative employers should only attempt to counsel or express dislike for the behavior. If Mill was part of the conversation today, he most certainly would agree; conservative religious employers should not attempt to limit a person's liberty when the choices clearly only affect the individual, themselves.

Works Cited
Mill, John Stuart. "Chapters 4 and 5." On Liberty. 4th ed. London: Roberts & Green, 1869. Web. Retrieved: Feb. 24, 2012.

Autistic Hoya: Tired

Autistic Hoya: Tired: Trigger warning: This is mostly about ableism and a response to other, very triggering things, as well as including lots of direct quotes of...

Emergency Care Centers - Keeping our pets healthy and safe or abusing our furry loved ones?

After experiencing a rather horrible day at a regional emergency care veterinarian's office, I've been thinking about how our pets have no guaranteed quality emergency care options. While most local veterinarians are good doctors, they are not usually available for after hours or holiday care. And when the vets are closed, we have to turn to urgent care centers that seem to have little in mind, other than charging triple and even quadruple fees. 

Why aren't there better options for our beloved pets? No pet owner should ever have to make their pet suffer and die painfully because they can't afford the entire cost of treatment that day. These centers will make no payment arrangements - such as a percentage now, a percentage later. Nor will they consider knocking off a few dollars to save a pets life. They will point you to a credit company who, if approved, charges to the tune of 30% interest. But a lot of people in this economy, don't get approved.

Physician's take the Hippocratic oath. Hospitals generally guarantee emergency care treatment even to those who can pay nothing. But when it comes to our pets, it seems Veterinarian's have no responsibility. We are given no options - pay upfront in cash or watch your furry family member die in agony. And when you cannot pay 100% of the bill, they tell you that there is nothing they can or will do for your pet.  It seems to me this is a form of extortion bordering animal abuse. 

Today's animal advocacy organizations (such as spay and neuter and adoption agencies) should also work towards better and more cost-effective urgent care for our pets. While it's understood medicine costs money, there is very little reason these centers cannot work payment arrangements for a pet who without care, will die. But they won't. And those pet owners must walk away with their suffering pet in hand and watch them die in a cruel and heartless way. 

That is just so wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

anecdote: Our cat Morris had a urinary obstruction - which is fatal within 12-24 hours. We were told that it would cost nearly $2000 for treatment, payable immediately less than one week after Christmas. When I tried to explain we didn't have that much cash on hand, I was told "You need to pay for the procedure or he will die a painful and horrible death." They refused to work out any payment arrangements. They told me I had to "decide" what I wanted to do. But there were no choices given as we simply didn't have that kind of money available. In the end, they agreed to do an outpatient treatment for nearly $500. But they were very sure to tell me multiple times that this would probably not save his life. He is still kicking today. I'm hopeful he will recover albeit touch and go. But I will never ever forget the horrible way I and my beloved, Morris, were treated that day.

1-2-2012 Update - Morris is doing pretty well today. Going to his regular vet for some REAL care at 3:15 EST. Will keep you posted.