Rep. Jennifer Wexton, D-Va., announced Monday she will not seek reelection in 2024 after receiving a new diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy.
Wexton, 55, was initially diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease earlier this year. At the time, she said she was “feeling good” and hoped to continue serving in Congress for many years.
But in a statement on Monday, Wexton explained she wasn’t making the progress she’d hoped for in managing her symptoms and noticed others in her Parkinson’s support group weren’t having the same experience…
…Wexton was first elected to Congress in 2018 when she defeated longtime Republican Rep. Barbara Comstock, ending nearly four decades of GOP control of the North Virginia district.
Hopefully, this starts a trend to step down when you are no longer able-bodied to be a congress person.
I’m sure you didn’t mean for your comment to come across negatively, but “able-bodied” carries some history of stigmatizing folks with physical limitations. If you meant “able to perform their duties as a congress person” then I very much agree; that’s a trend I’d support in spite of a very real concern that it’s only the kinds of people who should stick around that will willingly give up their access and power.
“able-bodied” has always meant able to perform duties
Yes that is exactly what I meant. Historically able-bodied has meant someone who can do the tasks asked of them for the job. This is where “able-bodied sailor” comes from. Not because they are ableist but because they want sailors who can walk on slippery ship decks and lift 50 pounds. With modern technology that’s become more accessible but this is still the title a lot of governments and companies use because able-bodied means able to do the tasks expected of the job, not non-disabled.
So if you prefer I say something else, what would you like me to replace able-bodied with?
I don’t think I have a good answer for you, even having thought about it for some time this morning. It’s a common term in plenty of circles (my father was a coastie) but it’s also something I’ve seen used as vernacular shorthand to exclude. A motivator for my original reply was my desire to clarify the term’s use in this context, but I think I was clumsy with it.
No worries, we are all human and if anyone finds my word choices troubling then I’d want to clarify and potentially change them as well.
Only for Democrats, unfortunately.
It’s an unpopular opinion and even I don’t know how I feel about it, but I almost feel like democrats should run until they get voted out same as Republicans. Because of her being a good person, this seat is now back in contention and the democrats don’t have the incumbent advantage they should. Until everyone is forced to play by the rules, one side playing by the rules and the other not just means that the side that flaunts the rules will win.
That is a concern but the oldest senator is a Democrat, Feinstein. Also, typically, these seats are not really in contention because voters are strictly party-based at this point. So I don’t think Democrats stepping down with medical issues will cause seats to flip most of the time. Those in less stable voting blocks could simply hold their seats.
Essentially, there is a way to look like you are playing by the rules when you aren’t.
Even though McConnell isn’t older, I’d argue he’s a bigger issue because of the power he wields.
That is a valid point about the “Looking like you’re playing by the rules but not really”. It sucks that this isn’t the case though, since this is the first democrat representative for this district in 40 years.