Last Night's Autism Debate -- Who Will Win the Special Needs Vote?

The media may be transfixed on "Joe the Plumber" today, but the real winner of last night's debate was autism.

I cannot recall a single disorder ever becoming so prominent in a national election as autism has been in 2008: Not cancer, not AIDS, not heart disease.

Autism was raised on the campaign trail (when Obama, McCain and Hillary Clinton all said it was increasing, and the potential vaccine connection must be researched), it was raised at both conventions, it was raised duing a FOX News interview with McCain and Sarah Palin, and it certainly came up last night at Hofstra University.

Tellingly, autism was brought up, unprompted and somewhat unexpectedly, by one of the candidates: John McCain, who was answering a question about why Sarah Palin would be qualified to step up to the Oval Office, should something terrible happen to him:

She'll be my partner. She understands reform. And, by the way, she also understands special-needs families. She understands that autism is on the rise, that we've got to find out what's causing it, and we've got to reach out to these families, and help them, and give them the help they need as they raise these very special needs children.

"Autism is on the rise, and we've got to find out what's causing it." To most parents of affected children, that was more than music to their ears -- it was a symphony. If autism is on the rise, then its cause is more than genetic. Something has gone terribly wrong, and we need to find out what it is. Now.

McCain's autism remark did not come from nowhere (and he was not confusing autism with Down Syndrome, as many believed).

He brought up autism because it is ubiquitous -- and it never was before.

Autism in the United States today is, simply, everywhere -- even in Sarah Palin's family. Her sister has a son with the disorder.

McCain did not have to be asked about autism to speak about it. All over the country, parents have been reaching out to him and to Sarah Palin (and to the Democrats as well) -- behind the scenes and in public -- telling their stories, pleading for research, begging for help at home and in the classroom. As Senator McCain said:

Town hall meeting after town hall meeting, parents come with kids, children -- precious children who have autism. Sarah Palin knows about that better than most. And we'll find and we'll spend the money, research, to find the cause of autism. And we'll care for these young children. And all Americans will open their wallets and their hearts to do so.

Now, it is certainly debatable that Sarah Palin knows about autism "better than most," and Barack Obama wisely chose to steer clear of that rhetorical iceberg. Instead, he clobbered McCain, who had just publicly vowed to spend taxpayer money on autism research and care (unless he meant that our rapidly emptying American wallets are supposed to cover the whole thing):

I think it's very commendable the work she's done on behalf of special needs. I agree with that, John. I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding, if we're going to get serious in terms of research. That is something that every family that advocates on behalf of disabled children talk about. And if we have an across-the-board spending freeze, we're not going to be able to do it.

Ouch. Obama is right, of course. No one is going to cure autism (or anything) while a mandatory federal spending freeze is in place.

Reaction from autism parents that I know has been mixed, and quite pointed.

Mostly, people were thrilled to see autism placed front and center -- at last -- in the national political dialogue. (I do not recall autism ever coming up in the 2004 or 2000 race, though I could be wrong, and it was certainly never mentioned in elections before then).

There was this, from a father on Long Island:

Autism is now officially included among the major issues of the campaign and the day. The strategy of pushing each campaign to escalate the issue worked and played out in the debate. It reveals a respect that both campaigns have for the autism constituency. The ripple effects downstream in the political world will be interesting to watch. No politician will ignore or dismiss autism.

And this, from a mom in Wisconsin:

The ordinary viewer back home must be asking ...Why do we keep hearing about autism? Why does this disorder get mentioned in the presidential debate if it's nothing new? Especially, if doctors are just finally recognizing something that's always been around. More and more questions about autism are everywhere -.but no one has answers.

And a father in Oregon:

The CDC doesn't even acknowledge the number of autism cases is truly rising. Contrasting that to the way McCain talks is a story in of itself.

Skepticism, however, was keeping close company with appreciation last night. A mother in Manhattan wrote:

"Getting to the bottom of this" means being unafraid of asking tough questions. Are they prepared to DO this? They cannot work on what is causing autism without talking about vaccines, or else we continue to run in place. The government MUST support independent vaccine research now. No more millions down the drain for studies on genetics. That money would be so much better spent supporting autism families in crisis

And this from a mom in New Jersey:

These politicians just woke up and realized that half the country is affected by autism and they better say something? Call the World Wrestling Foundation and get the choreographer on the phone, he may be the only one who can explain this latest development.

Some people thought the Republican team would be better suited to tackle autism head on, like this Democratic dad from Massachusetts:

I'll probably vote for Obama, but I think McCain is the better autism candidate. Why?
He asked for our vote and he promised to get to the bottom of the epidemic. He seems to get it. Obama lumps autism in with the general category of developmental disability, rather than focusing a targeted effort to solve the autism problem and make it disappear. But the issue came up multiple times in a presidential debate, for God's sake!! McCain put the issue on the table and said all the right things -Obama steered away from it and has dodged the issue every time it's been raised. If I were a single issue voter, the choice would be pretty clear.

But a mother from Long Island begged to differ:

They bring up issues when they don't have anything else to say. Palin has VERY little expertise. That fact that her family is in the special needs community is all I have heard. I haven't heard any detailed stories or facts from her or McCain. I haven't seen any proof that she knows crap about autism other than 'I know autism'. Oh, Ok, I'm just supposed to trust that.

There has been quite a bit of debate over Palin's record on special needs children in Alaska. Early reports erroneously stated that she had cut special education funding (she hadn't, the money was moved to another line in the budget).

But skepticism abounds. For example, this attorney (also a Democrat) from Connecticut, who works with special needs children, recently posted the following on her blog:

Gov. Palin's views on this are far outdated. I have traveled to Alaska to give a speech to parents and professionals on the subject of the rights of children with special needs. I was stunned by how far behind the State was from the vast majority of the rest of the country on the education of children with disabilities... I am in regular contact with a colleague of mine who is a Parents' attorney in Alaska, who has had to fight tooth and nail for children with special needs in Alaska simply to secure them the most basic of services that we take for granted here. I for one do not want the rest of the country to use Alaska's system of educating our most vulnerable children as a paradigm.

I also know of autism parents who are suing the Palin administration to get services for their children. But Palin's record is more complex than that.

In fact, in this year's budget, Governor Palin authorized a major increase in funds for "intensive needs" children, (the official Alaska term). When she came to office in 2006, according to the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska was spending just $27,000 a year per child. This year, the budget she signed increased that amount to $49,000, and in three years it will reach $74,000. (So much for spending freezes, but them again, unlike the US, Alaska is awash in cash).

The subject of "intensive needs" and autism came up in another debate as well, back when Palin was running for Governor. And it shed some light on both her ideological, as well as personal motivations. As the Anchorage Daily News reported:

Palin said she wanted to diminish the oppressive hand of government while still providing needed help. Services, the Republican candidate said, shouldn't be dictated by government; ideas should come from the bottom up. Topping her list of social and health priorities: housing, a trained work force and containing costs. She glanced at sheets of notes as she spoke. She also talked about her young nephew, who has autism, describing him as a "red-headed angel."

Most autism parents I know, including Republicans, believe that autism services should most certainly be "dictated" by government, (though they might use a more moderate word, like "mandated," or "required.") So, that statement is sure to cause a certain amount of consternation among "autism voters," if there is such a thing.

Then again, the ADN article included another quote from Palin that might raise some eyebrows among all voters.

During a gubernatorial debate in Wasilla, her hometown in the heart of the Mat-Su Valley, she had this to say:

You will have an advocate down there in Juneau, of course. Certainly people will assume that I am biased toward the Valley in the decisions I make. So be it, because I will be.

Now, some voters might interpret this to mean that Sarah Palin's decisions in Washington -- should she get there -- would be equally biased toward Alaska.

But I know a lot of parents who would be perfectly happy to see a little bias towards autism, as well.

Read more reactions to the Obama-McCain Presidential Debate from HuffPost bloggers

Comments

[Annanoni]

If Palin really is for those with special needs why did she cut the Alaskan budget as reported below by her Special Education Service Agency:
The following is the budget reports provided by the Special Education Service Agency:
In 2007 before Gov. Palin took office the budget was at $8,265,300.
After she took office the budget for special needs in Alaska is now $3,156,000 for the years 2008 and 2009.
This is a cut of $5,109,300.
Did she feel special education did not need this money?????
This is typical of the McCain/Palin ticket, and that is to say a lot but show little. Be smart people do your homework on these two. Don't be fooled by what they say, they will say anything to be elected.

[nowGo4ward]

I believe McCain has met with parents on this issue. He has requested senate hearings on environmental causes of Autism and he has publically expressed the belief that Thimerosal is implicated (I don't know if he believes it is the only problem with our "vaccinate them hard and vaccinate them early" approach). I regret that he didn't meet with Jenny & practitioners using the DAN approach. Maybe none of the presidential candidates will do anything to make biomedical treatments more readily available, which is what I feel is needed most, but public acknowlegement of what has happened will at least lead other parents to educate themselves on how to prevent further harm. I think the only way our children's environment will be cleaned up is by a growing awareness of what is neuroligically and immunologically damaging among the general population and by pressure from that base for our "healthcare" agencies to clean up their act or get out of the way. I plan to vote for McCain. I believe he is at least willng to acknowlege the sources of harm.

[GaryKrasner]

C. Remove the protections from civil lawsuits that vaccine makers obtained under VICP in 1988.

The other answer would be that it is not inconsistent to take the realistic view that spending will have to constrained, and autism research or benefit programs may be affected. Until you actually get ready to write the budget, with input from many budget analysts and policymakers, no President can make any promises on dollar amounts.

The fact that a candidate is making noises to indicate where his priorities lie should suffice.

Which brings me to point number 2, which is that Obama had made an important priority clear: On September 12 in Middletown NJ, Obama stated that he doesn't favor philosophical exemptions. Insufficient public criticism of that statement by activists allowed Obama to avoid having to clarify and possibly back off from that stand. As a result, McCain saw no advantage in besting Obama on that issue, by aligning himself with "parent choice."

Finally, the third point involves the criticism of Palin. It would have been a more complete assessment of her to have noted that as a religious person, and as a mother, and as a pro-family conservative, and as someone less politically inclined to favor the "it takes a village" philosophy, all leads one to believe that she would side with the moral ethic over the utilitarian ethic. The latter ethic favors compulsory vaccination to supposedly ensure public health, over the individual's right to avoid the personal risks of vaccination.

[GaryKrasner]

David Kirby covered a lot of ground in a balanced article. But still, there were a 3 points I thought could have been made---granted they may be deemed partisan.

First, with respect to Kirby's comment:

QUOTE-----"Ouch. Obama is right, of course. No one is going to cure autism (or anything) while a mandatory federal spending freeze is in place."---­--UNQUOTE.

On the surface, it might seem as though McCain may be inconsistent. In other words, how can he be determined to resolve the autism problem without spending money on the problem?

But there are a couple of legitimate answers to that. First, one need not necessarily appropriate money to address every problem. If McCain feels that vaccines are to blame for most autism, then there are a number of measures he can take that wouldn't cost anything. Indeed, they would save the government money. He can, for example, do the following (A to C):

A. Stop rewarding state health agencies who most forcefully compel parents to vaccinate their children. IN OTHER WORDS, remove the MONETARY INCENTIVES in federal grants which provides proportionally greater funding to states with the highest vaccination rates.

B. Stop the CDC from lobbying states to rescind state vaccination exemptions. Instead, make the CDC furnish states with model legislation for philosophical exemption provisions to school vaccination laws.

[lightandlove]

"herd immunity at all costs, no matter what all those are"

I am almost - almost - amused by the appeal to science that those opposed to the 'Mercury Moms' & such folks make ("There is no evidence..."). Science, huh? I'd like to ask them: "When are you going to do the studies that determine how much of the convulsion­s/seizures­/epilepsy in the populace is due to vaccines. And allergies/­asthma/ana­phylaxis. And ADD/ADHD/d­yslexia/dy­spraxia etc. - oh, just call it all PDD-NOS. And type 1 diabetes. And other autoimmune diseases/c­onditions, like lupus, and MS... And if not, why not. And if so, when. And why wasn't it done before yesterday...

Let's face it. They haven't wanted to have to look at all this for one reason and one reason only (well; besides the money; which western med is sure not shy about): it would jeopardize their vaunted vaccine program. Pressure for safer vaccines is a non-starter to them, because vaccines by their nature have a downside; and if we can just keep things quiet a little longer......maybe the Mercury Moms will go away. Or we can shame them into ineffectiveness.

Fat chance, ladies and gents of the white-coated brigade, aka today's priesthood. Those were the days. The operative word here is 'were'.

[lightandlove]

But it's not just the vaccines. We need to pay attention to other factors as well, esp. regarding classic autism as opposed to regressive autism. For example, there is some evidence - and the subject area desperately needs further research - that prenatal ultrasound has been doing DNA damage to the foetus (from its heating factor). This is a major issue. See carolinero­dgers.word­press.com

This whole area needs further study than it has been given. But bottom line: we need to be aware that it's not just the mercury; though it IS implicated (esp. as it's still in the flu vax, which is unconscionably being recommended to pregnant women w/out regard to the thimerosal in most of it). And if we don't get to this research yesterday, the consequences of our oversight will haunt us for years - indeed, for generations.

Thanks to the Mercury Moms et al for being the squeaky wheel that you have been. Keep the pressure up. It's beginning to pay off. And with its payoff, will come payoff also for the whole range of kids with 'special needs', as we awaken to the mistake we have made in leaving our children's health in the hands of the experts, who on the one hand have an agenda: herd immunity at all costs, no matter what all those are; and on the other hand, have allowed practices such as prenatal ultrasound to be continued without the solid research that such an invasive procedure should have called for.

[lightandlove]

"(Yes, much of the mercury preservative, thimerosal, has been removed, but the aluminum and other brain excitotoxins, have not!)"

Well noted, holler4health, about the other ingredient aspects of vaccines. And of specific importance (besides esp. mercury and aluminum) is the MSG/glutamate in some of them. This excitotoxin increases inflammmation found in the brains of children w/autism - and has been found to be what the genes for autism code for. So kids w/these autism genes are being set up for damage by the vaccines they are given; to wit: glutamic acid reduces the a. acid cysteine, which is used to make glutathione, which is needed to remove mercury. So g. acid is precisely what shouldn't be in a vaccine for a child with any of the autism genes, let alone in their food - and if mercury is also present from one of the other vaccines given, the child is being poisoned with the mercury AND being prevented from getting rid of it at one and the same time.

Further: "If the truth comes out, warnings may be needed not only on vaccines, but food items high in glutamic acid, as well as children's chewable medicines and vitamins that have aspartame in them (half of which the body converts to glutamate)." - Carol Hoernlein, an expert on this matter. (msgtruth.org) They couldn't be getting deeper into trouble with the abundance of vaccines they are blithely prescribing if they tried.

[Unfortunate]

Unfortunately McCaine admitted priorly that this was too controversial of a subject to bring up during his campaign (when his numbers were ahead of Obama). So yes he knows how large of a group he can influence by mentioning it NOW when he is behind(at least 2% of the population).
The only people he could have offended back then were lobbyists. If it was too controversial back then it will be too controversial to mention in the White House in the future.
Too little TOO Late?
There IS still time.

[all4ben]

I'm not giving McCain much credit here. He was against more funding at the same time he is for it.

Obama:...I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding, if we're going to get serious in terms of research. That is something that every family that advocates on behalf of disabled children talk about.

McCain...But again, I want to come back to, notice every time Sen. Obama says, "We need to spend more, we need to spend more, that's the answer" -- why do we always have to spend more?

Why can't we have transparency, accountability, reform of these agencies of government? Maybe that's why he's asked for 860 -- sought and proposed $860 billion worth of new spending and wants to raise people's taxes in a time of incredible challenge and difficulty and heartache for the American families.

[akmomm]

I live in Alaska, I am raising a special needs child and I know Sarah personally. She did support an increase in funding for intensive special needs education in the State, but it is true that we are still in a very bad way in terms of services available to our children. Our State has a TEN YEAR waitlist that children must be placed on before they can receive Medicaid assistance! It is my personal opinion that the word "autism" was used in the debate because it was the easiest term to reference. Sarah has been the parent of child of a disabled child for less than a year and has spent most of that time on the campaign trail. I have been advocating and fighting for these families for over a decade. Her role was seriously overstated and I think the expectation that she will focus on autism was too....because it was convenient. But, it's great to see the world of our disabled children in the national spotlight...that's certainly new.

[holler4health]

We don't need more research. We need immediate action. We know what the number one cause of autism is already: Environmental toxicity that overwhelms the God-given genetic ability of some children. Now all we need to do is clean up our environment, and especially our vaccines.(Yes, much of the mercury preservative, thimerosal, has been removed, but the aluminum and other brain excitotoxins, have not!)

It is certainly time for America to protect our most precious resource, our children. I doubt either political candidate, with their ties to industry, will succeed in protecting our nation's youth. YOU MUST PROTECT YOUR OWN FAMILY!

Teresa Holler (www.holler4health.com)

[dylana]

Children with special needs? My 'child' is now 34 years old. More aptly, people with special needs. Obama's stance on working for and with individuals with autism is clear - it was posted on his site long before this last debate. It seemed [to me] someone whispered in McCain's ear that it would be advantageous to mention autism and to hopefully catch the 'autism vote'. My son's plight and our family situation should not pawns in this political ring.

I voted. Obama/Biden.

[justobserve]

That just showed how Obama went into the presidential run with so much thought and he doesn't use people's dired psition for political purpose. He saw what needed to be done and tried to find a solution. McCain and Palin are all about talking points and used people for their own purposed from Soccer moms to Joe sixpack to Joe the plumber, to even her own down syndrome son who is dragged around attending loud rallies. Palin must be some kind of mother to abuse her son that way and some people are even stupid enough to praise her thoughtless act.

[RollingEyes]

I am the parent of a child with autism, and I voted yesterday. Obama.

[jrjoyrae]

I'm a parent with an autistic child... and I'm voting Obama, too...

He clearly outlines his plan to help ASD families here:

www.barackobama.com/pdf/AutismSpectrumDisorders.pdf

And this is one of the MANY reasons he's got my vote!!!

[jrjoyrae]

That would be

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/AutismSpectrumDisorders.pdf

[demfriend]

Where McCain uses the terms special needs and autism to vote pander and little else Obama I believe has a "right heart" on these issues and I can see his being a very vocal proponent of these needs and families. Palin has a special needs child and nephew with autism but neither makes her anymore an authority than the average person and with her background she would use the issues more than help.

[typicalpol]

I believe it when I see it.

McCain is desperate and pandering for votes.

Remember what Bush promised to Unlocking Autism if elected in 2004?

My bet is that which ever candidate gets elected, will end up caving to pharma interests just as Bush did in 2004.

[bluevalentine]

ITA, I want to see someone honestly take this topic on. It truly is amazing tha tit was brought up more than once in a presidential debate. Wonderful indeed, and hopefully a sign of things to come.
BUT

I am NOT holding my breath. Look how long this has been going on, and autism is barely being recognized as a problem. Slowly, the tide is turning, but can we really afford to go another 20 years without a more serious and determined attitude toward autism and it's causes, and dear God, a blessed remedy.

Both candidates have touched on the topic, but it would be nice of either, or both, would get down to some strategic thoughts on what to do. I want to jear these guys talk about autism as if they honeslty KNOW what it is, what it encompasses for so many families. And yes, causation.
And yes, I hope that includes mandatory safety studies on vacciens individually, AND studies on the safety of the synergistic effect of so many different being given at the same time. Our children deserve this. If a child needs a schedule more spread out, then he deserves that, and should not so easily be seen as acceptable collateral damage. This is not unavoidable.

[typicalpol]

How's about no more of these "our way or the highway" top-down government mandates of health cares decisions? What happened to a free country?

The problem with the vaccine connection is the lobbyist ties and the revolving door at the CDC/FDA between their scientists and pharma jobs pump incredible amounts of money into candidates (federal and state level) that it is almost impossible in this environment to achieve changes needed.

There are also problems with fully funding IDEA so that ALL special needs kids (not just ones with autism) get what they need in terms of educational support. I've heard Obama talk about this but not McCain.