BEAUREGARD: Developmentally disabled still need help
By Renee Beauregard
Published November 11, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.
On November 4, tens of thousands of people with developmental disabilities and their parents, caregivers and advocates stood figuratively on Colorado’s streets with signs that read, “Will Save Lives for 2 Cents.” We put ourselves out there, needing help to provide life-saving services to people with developmental disabilities.
So many of you saw the need and reached out to us - and we are so very grateful to you. But crushingly, the majority of Colorado voters did not support us. The economy has had an impact on everyone, and I understand that. But people with developmental disabilities are least able to recover - because they are not able to get a first job without community support, let alone a second job. Some are unable to feed themselves or get out of bed without paying someone to help them. It is not that they don’t “want” to be self-sufficient - and they have nowhere else to turn.
This week, a mother I know who was the 24/7 caregiver of her son who has a developmental disability died unexpectedly at the age of only 49 years old.
She was an advocate for her son, and for all of the people like my son who have developmental disabilities. Her most dreaded fear has been realized, like so many other parents I know who are also facing the possibility of dying before they know who will care for their children and how the services they need will ever be funded.
As a citizen of Colorado and the mother of an adult with a developmental disability, I want to thank all of you who voted YES on Amendment 51. As the saying goes, “I’ve always depended on the kindness of strangers.” I also want to thank the Rocky Mountain News for supporting 51 and for the kind words you have written and said about the great need to provide services for our most vulnerable citizens. I hope you will continue to write about this problem, and I hope that all the other newspapers in the state that came out for or against 51 will find an affected family today and write about them.
The defeat of Amendment 51 does not mean this enormous problem is going away. To those of you like Rep. Doug Bruce, Rep. Kevin Lundberg, Jon Caldara, Mark Hillman, and the anonymous anti-tax groups and others who said that Colorado simply needs to “reprioritize” where it spends its money and redirect funds to help these people, I am going to call upon you now. Because you believe that Colorado has this money somewhere, and because you made a concerted effort to help defeat Amendment 51 through your words, I look to you now to help find that money. Instead of just saying “no,” please begin to ask the question “how.” I would also call upon Gov. Bill Ritter, outgoing House Speaker Andrew Romanoff and all of our leaders to begin today to help find the funding that is needed to provide these services. This is a priority, and parents and advocates have now done all that was possible to obtain the resources necessary. Parents and advocates worked so hard, with little resources, to try to pass Amendment 51.
President-elect Obama called upon every American to come together and to make some sacrifices in his speech last night. Today is the day to get started. So I am going to ask one more thing of my fellow Coloradans. I ask you to do something wonderful for someone with a developmental disability today and in the coming weeks, months, and years. People’s lives are depending on you, and people like my son are feeling today as though Coloradans just don’t care. I know it is not true, and I ask you to help. Open up a job for a person with a developmental disability today. Offer to help their parents to care for them. Become a mentor, give a hug, or tell a parent you care. But most importantly, please call or write your legislators and tell them to make developmental disability funding a priority.
Renee Beauregard is a resident of Aurora.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Boulder Wildfire
See photos from the Boulder County fire.
-
Legislature Blog
The Rocky's Lynn Bartels and Ed Sealover provide live updates from the Capitol.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's rant on what's next for the Broncos.
-
Live updates
Sign up for mobile alerts and breaking news e-mails to keep up with the latest news.
November 11, 2008
7:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
Renee Beauregard, your problem is that you want the government, through taxation, to care for your child and others like him. It's not the economy, it's the taxation.
It is not the function of government to care for the people but to provide a safe environment for the people. That is, it is alright for the government to have health regulations for restaurants but is not alright for the government to tell restaurants what foods they can and cannot serve. The first is protection, the second is interfering with our right to chose.
Caring for disabled children and adults should be left to charities and voluntary contributions, not the government.
November 11, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
I agree with Mike.
November 11, 2008
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
What a shame. People spend more money on Starbucks each week than this initiative would cost them in a year.
The government can waste $600,000 on a idiotic piece of "art" posing as a horse statue for the airport, while people with disabilities are left to fend for themselves.
The governor and Denver mayor can find time to fly around the country begging for tens of millions of dollars so some fatcat politicians can have a party in Denver, but can't find the time to come up with funding for people that are developmentally disabled.
I'm one of the most ardent opponents to tax increases and government spending around, but there are SOME things that government should be doing..... like national defense and helping the helpless. And I don't know how more helpless a person can be than to be disabled.
Unfortunately, some have become so opposed to senseless government spending and tax increases, that they've now started to oppose all government spending and taxes. Next stop for them.... opposing the military since it requires taxes and spending as well.
November 11, 2008
1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
specialneedsmom writes:
Mike,
It may not be YOUR kind of government but in my world, in my USA, in America, we do take care of our most vulnerable people and don't leave them on corners begging for money. I pray you never need any help Mike - you will learn empathy one day if you do. In the mean time, enjoy your own country where you just take care of yourself and not care about anyone else.
Charities are not able to raise enough money to support people with DD. If you had any idea, any education on this you would know that. But alas, you are stuck in your close-minded selfishness. Good luck with that.
November 11, 2008
1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
deb writes:
For Mike, Roger and people like them, who obviously don't understand...I hope they never have a child in their lives that needs care...much less a child who doesn't have special needs. I WISH that it was mandatory for every citizen to work with people with developmental disabilities so they would *know* what they were talking about. These guys do not! MY son, couldn't EVEN stand on a corner to beg. My Patrick is "profoundly disabled" and crawls around the house, he can't be left alone AND thanks to the Children's Hospital's Orthopaedic Surgeons, he will NEVER walk again! WALK in MY SHOES!
November 11, 2008
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverGirl78 writes:
I am curious about something...it appears (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that Amendment 51 was designed to help people with Down's Syndrome. Is this right?
And if so, I have to ask...aren't most cases of Down's diagnosed in utero and the parents then given a choice of whether to continue the pregnancy? It is my feeling that you should not elect to continue the pregnancy unless you are prepared to handle all of the costs of care yourself. I don't think it's fair to choose to have the Down's child and then turn around and ask the taxpayers to pay for your decision.
November 11, 2008
2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
"My Patrick is "profoundly disabled" and crawls around the house, he can't be left alone AND thanks to the Children's Hospital's Orthopaedic Surgeons, he will NEVER walk again! WALK in MY SHOES!"
Did prenatal tests show anything amiss?
November 11, 2008
3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
kelwimom writes:
Mike and Roger, what charitable organizations would you be talking about? I know of one that gives out up to $2000 one time only. Any others? Because that wouldn't even cover the cost of the ramp needed so my boys can get in and out of our house. Perhaps if i gave you my address you two would be willing to send a check to help pay for widening of the bathroom door so my boys can get in there on their own?
And romanesco: do you really want to go there? few tests show anything like this prenataly, and especially not 20 years ago, just ask any doctor.
November 11, 2008
3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Simmsie writes:
What's your point Romanesco?
November 11, 2008
3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ewood writes:
I quote Mike_In_Hartsel: "Caring for disabled children and adults should be left to charities and voluntary contributions, not the government."
Brilliant, Mike. Let's play a game of "should."
Children "should" not be born with disabilities, Mike. But they are.
Charities "should" rise to the occasion, Mike. But they don't.
People like you, "should" have a heart and a conscience. But you don't.
The government "should" have a clearly defined role. And it does!
Here it is: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,[promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
There is no inconsistency between "general Welfare" (with a capital "W") and Amendment 51.
There "should" be no inconsistency between the position of our Founders and the people who opposed Amendment 51, such as Mike. But there is.
November 11, 2008
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
era writes:
The comments by Mike ("Mike_In_Hartsel") contain so much that is wrong,
on so many levels, that it is hard to figure out where to start.
Renee Beauregard is not asking the government to take care of her child
now. She IS asking the government to do it, however, after she is
disabled or gone, because she does not have funds to provide a
multi-million dollar trust that would make government assistance
unnecessary. Not surprisingly, the majority of parents in her
situation don't.
The contention that charity will do it is ludicrous. "Charity" isn't
going to come up with $180 million, or even 10% of $180 million.
Charities such as The Arc, which advocates for the developmentally
disabled, had to struggle with raising $500,000 to conduct a minimal
campaign for Amendment 51. What The Arc raises through their thrift
stores, would not begin to meet this need.
I imagine that Mike probably knows who Thomas Malthus is, and I am sure
Mike knows who Scrooge is. He might even remember the line, "they had
best hurry up and do it and decrease the excess population."
The most important thing wrong with Mike's defective thinking is this.
In societies that consider themselves "civilized", taking care of those
who cannot take care of themselves (the very young orphaned, the very
old, the developmentally disabled, etc.) is a requirement of being
civilized. Otherwise, we would do as Saddam did: on his drive to
Kuwait: let his soldiers stop to rape the disabled. It is apparent
that Mike has no concept of what constitutes civilization or morality.
I don't find it troubling that people with developmentally-disabled
children asked government for assistance. After all, Colorado is
among the bottom five states in the nation as measured by per-capita
funding for the developmentally disabled. (Source: Coleman Institute.)
What I DO find troubling, is the existence of people like Mike who
are completely unable to put themselves in the shoes of a person who
has a child with a developmental disability.
My advice to Mike is this. If you should fall of a ladder tomorrow
and get a high spinal-cord injury such that you become a quadriplegic,
plan on moving somewhere else. Because Colorado isn't going to help
you, and your insurance company (if you have one) will find a way
to weasel out of it.
November 11, 2008
4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
Ah, CHOICE vs NO CHOICE is what this argument boils down to.
People should help the unfortunate, BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO!!!
That is the fundamental problem when you try to LEGISLATE MORALITY.
We tried to do that with Prohibition; we are still trying to do that with the WAR ON DRUGS.....
But the bottom line is that YOU want ME to do something and if YOU can't have it YOU want to FORCE me to do it...LIMIT MY CHOICES IN THE MATTER...
I don't buy that argument, so did a lot of other people..
Yes, we need to solve the problem, but more government decrees will not do it...( unless you live in a DICTATORSHIP or a KINGDOM )...
Which is why I say NO to most amendments; the proper vehicle to make change is not the state constitution ...
The change has to start with people who are willing to make change because THEY want change ON A PERSONAL LEVEL.
And I am legally disabled....
November 11, 2008
4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ewood writes:
Is that your solution, Punnisher?
That "People should help the unfortunate, BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO!!!"
I think you can do better than that. People are forced to pay taxes every day for things society deems necessary but individuals have a problem with.
Wars in Iraq and subsidies for oil companies, for example.
"I don't want to" isn't an answer to anything. Bottom line: You SHOULD be forced to ante up and be civilized if you choose to live in a society which claims that mantle.
Or, you could suggest a better idea. We'll be waiting.
November 11, 2008
4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
specialneedsmom writes:
Denvergirl,
Did you really just say that out loud? Holy cow,you really did!
OK, let's pretend that wasn't the most offensive thing ever written and answer your question...
Amendment 51 would have supported all people who have developmental disabilities, including people with Down Syndrome. Some of those individuals are people who are, for example, deprived of oxygen at birth due to some complication. Others are born with genetic disorders like Downs and others.
As it stands today, the majority of children who have detectable genetic disorders are aborted as you suggest. The remainder are either 1) not detected or 2) their parents chose to continue the pregnancy. That is maybe about 30% who actually make it to term.
If we are now going to move into the "perfect society based on genetics" discussion then it seems that our society is hopelessly lost. Have you ever known a person with a developmental disability? These are real people, not runts of a litter. These are loving, caring people who add value to society. They deserve support and kindness. The other night on Extreme Makeover Home Edition, a guy with cerebral palsy who was born in Egypt said that he was dumped in the trash can when he was born - literally - but he survived. And now he has a business helping to employ people with disabilities. Are you saying these are wasted lives?
After reading so many posts like yours and Mike's and the punnisher, I am losing faith in humanity. The world you live in is cold, dark and inhumane. Shocking.
November 11, 2008
4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Simmsie writes:
Wow DenverGirl....Keep working for your perfect genetic society. Your attitude is reminscent of Nazi Germany.
November 11, 2008
5:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
"And romanesco: do you really want to go there?"
Yes. I brought this up because if (in modern times, not 20 years ago) a serious defect can be detected early enough (and, it appears that many cannot, as per Karri), it raises serious doubts as to why a mother would want to continue a pregnancy.
Save for one's selfishness to be validated as a parent, or an archaic religious excuse, I cannot think of a reason.
November 11, 2008
7:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
Hey people, what happened is something called REALITY. Deal with it.
My answer when the FORCE PEOPLE gets too great is to call it what it is...
A STRONG-ARM tactic. And that is what trying to force this issue to the Constitution is.
That is why this issue lost. Try this story somewhere else.
You made YOUR choices, you have to deal with the consequences. Guess what?
That is the basic truth EVERYONE has to deal with every day.
Being a member of ANY disabled group just makes that REALITY appear at a very personal level.
Bitter? No, wish it was different? Yes. But wishes are not REALITY. So you do the best you can with what you got.
And deal with REALITY, because REALITY ( and NATURE ) has ways of dealing with people who live in FANTASY...
November 12, 2008
8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
humorist2be writes:
Perhaps you venomous responders didn't notice ... but WE (the majority) VOTED FOR HOPE this national election - NOT your past eight year agenda of hate, anger, fear and greed. I understand you must be frustrated that your message didn't work and your anger (as always) is like a gun shooting buckshot. However, go bully someone else who can fight back ... 51 was about people who through no fault of their own need help. Last time I looked there were plenty of able minded folks working in the financial industry that could use some your "take them out to the woodshed" value babble.
November 12, 2008
8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverGirl78 writes:
Wow, you don't like what I say so you call me a Nazi. Mature.
All I am doing is pointing out the reality of the situation: if YOU choose to have a Down's child, then YOU are responsible for the costs of care. If you can't provide the costs of care, don't have the kid. It's not a Nazi attitude, it's a common sense attitude that asks people not to bring children into the world that they can't afford to support, therefore pushing that burden onto society. It may sound harsh, but it's reality. Sorry.
November 12, 2008
8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Simmsie writes:
Oh DenverGirl:
I never called you a Nazi. I called your attitude reminscent of Nazi Germany. Do you know why? Because they took a popluation, including people with developmental delays, who did not fit their ideal and systematically destroyed them. That is what you are proposing.
What about the teen mom who gets pregnant and needs government support? Should we mandate that she have an abortion? What about a child who suffers from a tramatic brain injury at birth and becomes....what did you call it? A burden to society? Should we just do what they did in Egypt?
Sorry DenverGirl, the world isn't so black and white. A decent society takes care of those who can't.
November 12, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
DenverGirl78 writes:
Simmsie, pay attention to what I'm actually typing. I'm not advocating taking existing populations and exterminating them as the Nazis did. All I'm saying is this: if a pregnant woman learns of a Down's diagnosis and knows that she does not have the financial resources needed to support a person with Down's, then she should terminate the pregnancy. Is not having kids you can't afford really such a radical idea? It seems pretty common sense and responsible to me.
November 12, 2008
3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
kelwimom writes:
Somehow a conversation about providing services for the disabled migrated to abortion?
How did that happen?
Do you all even know what services are for the disabled?
Do you all know what goes on in the day of a disabled child/adult?
I would be glad to share that with you, if you're interested. Maybe visiting developmentalpathways.org or denveroptions.org might help.
November 12, 2008
5:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Simmsie writes:
Hi Denvergirl!
I am paying attention to what you are typing. To quote you said "Is not having kids you can't afford really such a radical idea?"
I ask.....where do you draw the line? You didn't answer my question about the teen pregnancy. Let me ask the question again....
"What about the teen mom who gets pregnant and needs government support? Should we mandate that she have an abortion?"
It seems Denvergirl, if you have that attitude towards everyone who can't afford to have children then your answer would be "yes, we should mandate that the teenager should have an abortion because they will be (and I quote) a burden to society."
Unless Denvergirl, in your opinion, it's only the parents of Down's children who can't afford the care of their child who should have an abortion and then I ask.....what do have against people with Down's Syndrome?
November 12, 2008
6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverGirl78 writes:
You're right - I don't think someone who can't afford children should have them. I'm not trying to mandate that, but I wish it was something more people thought about before they had kids. So, to answer your question about the pregnant teenager, well, ideally, our society would start offering some actually useful sex education vs. this abstinence-only crap, and no teenager would get pregnant in the first place. But if they do, and they want to have the kid, that's their right.
And if someone wants to have their Down's kid, that's their right too. But to do so knowing full well that they don't have the resources to properly care for that child is just plain irresponsible.
Do you disagree, Simmsie?
November 12, 2008
6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverGirl78 writes:
And furthermore, Simmsie, I never "mandated" that anyone have an abortion. Once again - spend a little less time getting hysterical and a little more time on the ole' reading comprehension.
November 12, 2008
6:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Simmsie writes:
Well yes Denvergirl...but I wasn't the one who thought this amendment only applied to Downs Syndrome, did I ?
November 13, 2008
8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverGirl78 writes:
I never said "only" Down's syndrome...you really, really need to learn to read more carefully.
I don't see a point, however, in continuing this discussion.
November 13, 2008
2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
bkvwd57 writes:
Mike_In_Hartsel, roger44 Please tell where these charitable organizations are?
DenverGirl78 #1 no it is not just for people with Down's syndrome, it is for anyone that is developmentally disabled. #2 most parents care for their children until they are unable to due to their own age. #3 most people don't know they are having a child with Down's syndrome until the child is born because the tests you refer to are not done on younger women. So are you suggesting that all women be screened for genetic abnormalities and have abortions if it comes back positive? Well what happens when it is a false positive - OH well! #4 the amniocentesis can cause miscarriage so we risk millions of pregnancies. #5 some children have mental retardation due cerebal palsy this can not be detected by any test until after the child is born. What do you want to do about them?
November 13, 2008
3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
bkvwd57 writes:
The_Punnisher - legally disabled? Are you a diabetic? Alcoholic? Drug addict? all of these fit legally disabled.
A person that is developmentally disabled can not most of the time take care of themselves on their own. So what do we do? Leave them in the streets to die of exposure and hunger? A society/community has an obligation to lift everyone in their society/community up not to relegate them to being second class or forgotten or disposed of. I guess you don't believe in a civilized society.