GOP's Cheating Ways Resurface n Michigan

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
GOP's Cheating Ways Resurface n Michigan
56
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 12:07am

I received this email and it's about time the GOP answers for their low down tactics that cheat voters out of their right to vote.

...For years, Republicans have engaged in "caging"--challenging the eligibility of voters on election day to suppress turnout and intimidate voters.2 They'll often try to reject voters by claiming they don't live at the address where they're registered. This year, they've taken it to a new low--the chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County, Michigan said last week, "We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren't voting from those addresses."3

In other words, they'll target every voter whose house is on a foreclosure list, and challenge their voting rights on election day. But just because your name is on a list, it doesn't mean that you've lost your home or moved. In fact, many homeowners stay in their homes for months after the foreclosure process has begun, and some people are able to catch up on their payments and reverse the process.4

So why are Republicans illegally targeting homeowners who've had a tough time under Bush's economy? Because they know they're likely to vote for Democrats, and for Obama for President. People who've been hit hard by the economy are less likely to vote for Republicans. This tactic won't just affect struggling homeowners--it will cause longer lines and delays at the polls for everyone that lives in a neighborhood with a high number of foreclosures. And that's the point.

After making the plan public, Michigan Republicans are backtracking and claiming they were misquoted.6 But everything indicates that these are exactly the kinds of tactics they'll use,7 and they're just trying to squash an embarrassing story.8

Similar tactics are being used across the country, but the McCain campaign simply sits in the background, quietly benefiting from voter suppression. The Obama campaign is fighting against this plan in the courts,9 but they need our help to expose these dishonorable tactics and make this a national story.

Calling on McCain to publicly reject these tactics is just the first step in our campaign to shame the Republican Party for attacking the voting rights of struggling homeowners.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-25-2008
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 4:47pm

If a house has been "foreclosed" that means the person has been evicted.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 5:04pm
<< If a house has been "foreclosed" that means the person has been evicted.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2001
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 5:29pm

Newsflash, pharmacies do this with a LOT of medication. I order one of my son's medications from Colorado because the pharmacies here won't order it for me because it is an experimental medication. According to my doctor, there is no way to force a pharmacist to dispense a medication they disagree with.

Photobucket
VJ-Sig
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-16-2008
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 7:04pm

"it is absurd. why do they have the right to take away my right to access medicine? just what this world needs, more pregnant teenagers and unwanted children"


They haven't taken away your right at all.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 7:56pm
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 8:03pm
They didn't say homes that are in foreclosure.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 8:10pm

from the article...


<<In other words, they'll target every voter whose house is on a foreclosure list, and challenge their voting rights on election day. But just because your name is on a list, it doesn't mean that you've lost your home or moved. In fact, many homeowners stay in their homes for months after the foreclosure process has begun, and some people are able to catch up on their payments and reverse the process>>

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 8:27pm
They can while it is in Foreclosure, but once the legal papers are signed and the house is foreclosed, then they have no legal right to live there.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-16-2008
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 8:27pm

"of course there are ways around this. and hopefully it stays that way. i honest do not understand how this can not phase some of you women at all?"


It doesn't phase me because A: I understand my rights stop where another person's begin and B: I've never lived in a town without a Walgreens and CVS on every corner, and C:

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 8:53pm

i did read all of your comment but i am not going to reply to each point because we have talked ourselves in circles before and i see it happening again. am i being overdramatic?yes. but it comes from fear of this...


http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/170885


Editorial: Don't let Bush restrict access to birth control
Low-income women, who can least afford a child, could find it harder to obtain birth control under a proposed rule change by the Bush administration.

Congress passed a law to protect doctors and health care professionals opposed to abortion from employment discrimination. The Bush administration wants to redefine abortion to expand that protection to health care professionals who are also opposed to birth control.


If the administration succeeds and redefines abortion as any attempt to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a uterus, the consequences would be widespread:


n Planned Parenthood would be forced to hire doctors and nurses who refuse to prescribe birth control pills or even counsel patients on all their options. Countless teenagers, low-income women and those without health insurance could be denied help in family planning and preventing pregnancies.


n Health insurance providers could stop covering the cost of contraceptives for many American women even in states that require them to do so.


n Rape victims could be prevented from learning about a drug that would prevent them from being victimized a second time with an unwanted pregnancy.


The Department of Health and Human Services has drafted a rule that expands on Congress's intent to prevent hospitals and clinics that receive federal funds from firing health providers who refuse to perform abortions.


The draft expands the definition of abortion in such broad terms that most methods to prevent pregnancies would be considered possible termination of pregnancies.


Hospitals wanting to continue to receive federal funds would be required to certify that they do not discriminate against hiring health providers who would refuse to prescribe or tell patients about birth control.


This over-expansion of Congress's intent would mean that hospitals and clinics would be forced to hire staff who refuse to perform their job duties.


Members of Congress are lining up in opposition. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are leading the fight; at least 104 House members have signed a protest letter sent to Bush in which they write:


"The regulation's definitions are so broad as to go far beyond abortion politics and threaten virtually any law or policy designed to protect women's access to safe and effective birth control."


The Catholic Church and anti-abortionists have hailed the proposal despite the department's claim that this is simply an attempt to enforce anti-discrimination laws. Even the blind can see through that ruse.


This has nothing to do with job protection and everything to do with forcing an ideology at the expense of women's health.


And this...http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/health/main3380290.shtml