Bill discriminates against insulin dependent diabetics

Question: When is it OK for the state government to discriminate, without just cause or due process, against a specific class of citizen?

Answer: When the federal government says it's okay.

That is the choice that will face our state legislators now that they have reconvened.

The legislature will discuss a bill, 2009 - H5831 introduced by Representatives Ehrhardt and Newbury; a bill that will virtually deny a person with insulin dependent diabetes (IDD's) from obtaining a commercial driver's license from the DMV that will allow them to drive interstate. The effect of this bill will not only prevent many IDD's from obtaining gainful employment, it will also prevent them from taking the family to Fenway Park, Cape Cod, etc. if they drive a commercially registered vehicle such as a pickup truck or other SUV type vehicle.

In addition it will cause many IDD's who currently hold such a license to potentially lose their job if their job requires interstate travel in a commercially registered vehicle. As we all know, in Rhode Island, a trip to Newport could require interstate travel.

The federal government decided that preventing an IDD from driving commercially across state lines would improve road safety. They concluded this even after admitting that an IDD does not pose any greater risk behind the wheel than any other citizen. They concluded this knowing that people who suffer from narcolepsy, epilepsy or morbid obesity are at far greater risk of having an incident at the wheel than does an IDD. Why then would the legislature seriously consider such a discriminatory act?

Because it can. In 2009, the federal government decided that even though there is no evidence to prove it, the roads would be safer if insulin dependent diabetics could not drive commercial vehicles interstate. To force states to comply with this unilateral, unfounded, precedent-setting act of discrimination, it threatened to withhold federal highway funds from any state not passing legislation such as H-5831. In Rhode Island, that amounts to almost $5 million in year one and over $8 million in year two. Of course, with 13 percent unemployment and a severe economic recession, Rhode Island will not risk that kind of loss. So, the state is about to sell out thousands of its citizens for money. The amount almost doesn't matter, but the principal of allowing our citizens to be extorted for money is undemocratic at its core and just plain wrong on so many other levels.

Paul Caranci

North Providence