When I saw this video of Trump —
I knew we had a very serious problem on our hands. I’ll be honest, I had and continue to have a problem with the framing of “Trump made fun of those defenseless, poor disabled people, how mean is he?”, but that’s a diary for another day. You could also check out this article Paternalizing Disabled People to Protest Donald Trump here.
But let’s not lie to ourselves. This was a very, very bad sign. It demonstrated to all of us that not only Trump, but his voters were seriously lacking in the very basic ability to empathize. That they were bullies that would prey on those who were vulnerable and chortle in glee while doing so. I, as a deaf person, was now in danger. The Nazis went after disabled people first, because they knew we are the most vulnerable, that we were the lest valued, viewed as a burden.
On July 14, 1933, the Nazi government instituted the “Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases.” This law, one of the first steps taken by the Nazis toward their goal of creating an Aryan “master race,” called for the sterilization of all persons who suffered from diseases considered hereditary, such as mental illness, learning disabilities, physical deformity, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, and severe alcoholism. With the law’s passage the Third Reich also stepped up its propaganda against people with disabilities, regularly labeling them “life unworthy of life” or “useless eaters” and highlighting their burden upon society.
(emphasis added)
Now they’re coming for the Americans with Disabilities Act. I found out about this because I’m a member of the National Association of the Deaf -
The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) is the nation’s premier civil rights organization of, by and for deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the United States of America.
Established in 1880, the NAD was shaped by deaf leaders who believed in the right of the American deaf community to use sign language, to congregate on issues important to them, and to have its interests represented at the national level. These beliefs remain true to this day, with American Sign Language as a core value.
The advocacy scope of the NAD is broad, covering a lifetime and impacting future generations in the areas of early intervention, education, employment, health care, technology, telecommunications, youth leadership, and more – improving the lives of millions of deaf and hard of hearing Americans. The NAD also carries out its federal advocacy work through coalition efforts with specialized national deaf and hard of hearing organizations, as well as coalitions representing national cross-disability organizations.
https://www.nad.org/about-us/
I received an email from them about the threat to the Americans of Disabilities Act .
What is the ADA?
https://www.nad.org/resources/civil-rights-laws/americans-with-disabilities-act/
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to private employers and state or local governments as employers. ADA Title I prohibits employers, employment agencies, labor unions and joint labor-management committees from discriminating against persons with disabilities.
and also —
Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) contains provisions that are not covered in other parts of the ADA. These provisions include:
- States cannot claim immunity from ADA-related legal action. Individuals with disabilities may sue any state agency for violations of the ADA, but may not recover money damages.
- Protects individuals with disabilities from retaliation for asserting their rights under the ADA.
- Courts may award attorney’s fees to the prevailing (winning) party in an ADA lawsuit
- Congress is covered by the ADA.
- Other federal and state laws can be stronger and provide greater protections and rights than the ADA.
People with disabilities, along with deaf people, are dependent on the ADA to be self sufficient, to make a living, and to support ourselves in a world that is hostile to those who don’t fit a predetermined mold of human ability. I would not be employed or be able to support my family as a productive member of society without this law.
Our fine, upstanding Republican congress is eager to remove that protection. After all, those poor, benighted businesses, expected to accommodate those according to a law that is only 27 years old! Ayn Rand would weep. We must rid ourselves of the parasites upon society — highlighting their burden upon society..
I’ll let Howard Rosenblaum, the president of the NAD, tell us all about it here. (signed in ASL, captions in English, voicing — I have no idea. I’m deaf. You’ll have to check).
To sum it up,
The ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017, H.R. 620, and the ADA Lawsuit Clarification Act of 2017, H.R. 1493, would limit my civil rights and my ability to access businesses and other places in the same way all other citizens do. If I am denied access to a business or other place, I would have to send a letter notifying the business owner or host of any place that I was denied access and explain how my access was denied.
H.R. 620:
https://dredf.org/2017/04/17/ada-serious-attack-urgent-action-needed/
H.R. 620:
- Removes any incentive for voluntary compliance.
- Requires a person with a disability who encounters an access barrier to send a letter detailing the exact ADA provisions that are being violated.
- Rewards non-compliance by allowing businesses generous additional timelines, even though the ADA's reasonable requirements are already over 25 years old!
- Perpetuates the myth that the ADA benefits unscrupulous lawyers rather than the truth: that the ADA is the most important civil rights law for people with disabilities.
- Ignores the extensive, free educational resources already available today to any business on how to comply with the law.
HR 1493:
www.aapd.com/…
Representative Jeff Denham (R-CA) introduced a new ADA notification bill in the House of Representatives earlier this month. The bill, HR 1493 – ADA Lawsuit Clarification Act of 2017, was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice of the House Judiciary Committee. This bill is similar to HR 620 in that it also removes any reason for businesses to comply with the ADA, allowing them to take a “wait and see” attitude and do nothing until they receive written notice.
Can you imagine how dangerous would that be? Individuals would then lose protection from retaliation. Could you possibly imagine having to put in a request for accommodations without having a lawyer or established legal procedures to protect you? No employee in their right mind would bring a complaint against an employer without any kind of legal protection from retaliation.
Individuals would not be able to receive access to services until after the fact. Imagine being a deaf woman giving birth in the hospital, and they refuse to give you a sign language interpreter, and they say, “write a letter, we’ll take care of this in about a month or so”, while you’re experiencing one of those intense and painful experiences in your life?
Those bills aren’t about cost-saving measures, streamlining the bureaucracy or cutting through red tape.
- Those bills are about intimidating PWD by throwing up another barrier to access.
- Those bills are about “protecting” business from ‘unnecessary regulations”, by giving business permission to rid themselves of a burden.
- Those bills are about telling PWD that we are not valued, that we are not worthy, that it would be better if we just went away and shut up.
- Those bills are a giant, big, huge FUCK YOU to those of us who don’t fit up with some mythical standard of a ideal human being.
Then you’re next.
Don’t think this isn’t about you too? They’re coming for you next. People with disabilities are just the lowest fruit on the tree, and they’re going to practice on us until they get it just perfect, because people convince themselves it’s not happening, then they get used to looking away, and finally they convince themselves that it’s all right and just.
What can you do?
1. Contact your local representative and inform them of your concerns.
2. Contact the Members of the House Judiciary Committee and ask them to protect the Americans with Disabilities Act by opposing both HR 620 and HR 1493.
Monday, Apr 24, 2017 · 7:25:25 PM +00:00
·
melaka
I outlined a more cogent argument here.
1. It opens the person up for retaliative measures, especially at a place of employment. At least with a lawyer, the business knows that they are under a watchful eye and that if they retaliate, they will be caught doing it.
2. It delays the resolution of the problem. The business could try to “wait it out” and delay their response and/or obfuscate.
3. It allows the businesses to shrink their responsibilities for not having a plan in place to provide accommodations if needed.
4. It lends itself to the idea that providing accommodations is a burden and unnecessary.
5. It takes away from the value of the ADA by shifting the focus from providing accommodations to PWD to framing it as a vehicle that allows businesses to be harassed by unethical actors. It devalues the law and weakens it for further assault.