In case people in Massachusetts need a simple voter guide on the ballot questions, let me offer this three-for-three guide.

Question 1 on the November ballot would limit the number of patients that could be assigned to each registered nurse in Massachusetts hospitals and other health care facilities, and that would depend on the facility and unit, with hospitals facing fines for violating the ratios.

Anyone who has spent time in a hospital is very familiar with the nurses as you see them all the time coming into your own room or dealing with something going on in another room. The Doctors come in for a quick check of the vitals the nurses have collected on each patient, ask a few questions based on that, and then, perhaps, adjust treatment leaving the task to make those adjustments  to the nurses after they disappear until the next day. The more patients a nurse has to tend to, the more chance there is that important information the doctors need just won’t be there.

Less nurses means fewer salaries and that becomes profit for management. But reducing the nurses does not reduce the work that needs to be done. Overwork, especially for those with people’s health is concerned, is not good for patients.

It comes down to patients over profits.

Those who oppose Question 1 are the ones looking at the profits.

Question 2 would create a commission that looks into the effects of political spending across the state and would then recommend changes to that practice. The commission would recommend amendments to the Constitution to establish that corporations do not have the same Constitutional rights as human beings.

It would be part of the larger process to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission, 

Question 3 asks the people of Massachusetts to keep the Transgender Anti-Discrimination Law that was passed in 2016 and signed by the Republican governor, Charlie Baker, a law that bans discrimination on the basis of gender identity in places of “public accommodation,” like restaurants and parks.
Sildenafil citrate is viagra buy australia an active agent in Kamagra. As in view over here now buy cialis any medicine, you should not increase the dosage of the medicine. The device cialis get viagra has been proved to increase penis size by 3-4 inches and girth by 20%. online viagra Health conscious men are on the better side of performing well during sexual activities.
A “yes” would keep the current law in place while a “no” would repeal it and would mean the people of the state would be choosing a group of people that would not be equal to everyone else.

It would be the Commonwealth’s instituting Jim crow where it has not existed. And this in a state that has a law that states,

All persons within the commonwealth shall have equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property.

It will mean we prefer to cater to people promoting their religious and political ideas over treating our neighbors as ourselves even if we do not adhere to, accept, or choose to be members of their religious fraternity.

It means we will be granting special rights to those who want us to respect their sincerely held religious beliefs to ignore established law by ignoring the sincerely held gender identity of citizens in the commonwealth.

In the two years since the existing law was enacted there has been no uptick in public safety incidents as a result of it.  Opponents want us to believe there is a monster under the bed. But this is Massachusetts, and we already checked and found there wasn’t.

Remember the people who told us about the end of the world if we accepted Gay Marriage?

They’re back.

So this election day, November 6, remember there are three questions on the ballot, and there are three letters in the word “yes”.

Match them.