A picture of a young man in a wheelchair with two adults by his side on a baseball field

How One Day at the Ballpark Meant the World to Families With Disabilities

/in , /by Jackie Dilworth

What does a perfect day look like for a family that’s often navigating a world that excludes them? On July 9, families connected to The Arc of Ohio found out, thanks to our national partnership with Lids and the Lids Foundation.

It was a day full of joy, connection, and the kind of belonging that too often feels out of reach. And it all happened because a company chose to step up and demonstrate their commitment to valuing people with disabilities.

The day began at the Lids store in Kenwood Towne Center, where each family was paired with a Lids team member. Together, they picked out hats and shirts, added personal touches with custom stitching, and got to know one another. Lids gave each child a $250 gift card to shop, and it quickly became more than just a shopping trip. It was a chance for kids to feel seen, valued, and empowered.

Then came the main event.

At Great American Ball Park, families got VIP treatment from the moment they arrived. They watched batting practice from the field, met Cincinnati Reds pitcher Brent Suter, and felt welcomed by every staff member they encountered. Before the first pitch, families received gift cards to buy food, thanks to the Reds Community Fund. That small act made it even easier to just enjoy the moment. Then everyone settled into an accessible seating area and watched the Reds take home a win against the Marlins.

It was an evening full of energy and unforgettable moments:

  • A picture of a young man in a wheelchair with two adults by his side on a baseball fieldLogan, who has autism and is non-verbal, lit up as he explored the stadium with his parents and sister
  • Noah, who has cerebral palsy and is non-verbal, beamed as his aide cheered alongside him
  • Coralie, who has Williams syndrome, wore her new Reds cap proudly while enjoying stadium snacks with her mom and brother
  • Daniel and Evie, siblings with autism and Down syndrome, chanted in the stands with their parents
  • And Lids staff laughed, danced, and even went down the giant slide—because the kids asked them to

Jen Powers Alge, a mom and staff member at The Arc of Ohio, shared:
“The families were thrilled to have such an exciting experience. The employees at the Lids store were so warm and fun to shop with. Batting practice had the kids smiling from ear to ear, and the moms and dads were in awe of such a cool, inclusive experience. The Lids Foundation thought of everything to make the day safe, fun, inspiring, and engaging. We are so grateful for the ‘best day ever,’ as one of the kids exclaimed.”

Ted Harton, Senior District Sales Manager at Lids who joined the outing, reflected:
“This experience reminded me what really matters. Spending the day with these families, seeing their love, joy, and strength, was truly inspiring. It was a chance to step outside of the everyday and just be present with people who show us what community and family should look like.”

And while this was a single day, it reflects something bigger. Lids continues to grow its partnership with The Arc, from supporting The Arc@School program to launching an in-store campaign that brings our mission to life in more than 1,000 stores.

Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States, said:
“At a time when too many companies are quietly stepping back from diversity and inclusion, Lids is stepping up and making a real impact. Their support is reaching families nationwide, fueling vital programs, raising awareness, and creating moments of true connection. But this partnership is so meaningful to The Arc and the millions of people with disabilities and their families with whom we advocate. It deepens Lids’ ties to the communities they serve, energizes their employees, and shows their customers what authentic commitment to our shared values looks like. We need more partners who lead with such purpose. Lids is helping to build a more inclusive future for people with disabilities, and we’re proud to move forward together.”

Starting this August, Lids will once again feature The Arc in stores across the country. Shoppers will be invited to round up their purchase to donate to The Arc and customize their gear with The Arc’s logo—another chance to stand with people with disabilities in a meaningful way. See what’s coming this August.

To every family who joined us, and to every Lids employee who made the day so special: thank you. This is what inclusion feels like. And this is what’s possible when we build it together.

A young man with autism standing in front of trees wearing an orange shirt that says "Disability Rights Are Human Rights"

The ADA at 35: A Legacy Worth Celebrating and Defending

/in , /by Jackie Dilworth

Statement from Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States on the 35th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act:

The Americans with Disabilities Act reshaped this country for the better. For the first time, people with disabilities had legal protections against discrimination and exclusion. It created a framework for access and sent a clear message: disabled people belong in every part of community life.

I was a young Senate staffer in 1990 and had the opportunity to work on the ADA. I’ve spent the last 35 years working to uphold its promise. And I’ve never seen a more urgent moment than this one.

In the same month we mark this milestone, the federal government passed a budget that cuts nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid, a program that is the very foundation for inclusion. It helps people live at home, go to school, get basic health care, and contribute to their communities. At the same time, the Department of Education is being dismantled, leading to fewer staff enforcing special education laws. The Department of Energy is eliminating a longstanding rule that ensures new federally funded buildings are physically accessible. And slurs like the R-word are back in mainstream conversation, a huge step backward in basic decency and respect.

These are not isolated developments. Together, they show a national, coordinated pattern of erosion. Protections are being stripped. Services are being cut. And people with disabilities are being pushed back out.

This is exactly what the ADA was meant to prevent. When Congress passed the law in 1990, it found that “discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in critical areas.” The ADA’s purpose was clear: to provide “a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination.” It also set a vision, one that is still relevant today: “equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.”

Yet 35 years later, those goals remain out of reach for far too many. And the very systems meant to protect them are being weakened. It’s no coincidence that disabled people are still fighting for access to education, employment, health care, and opportunity. This world wasn’t built with them in mind—so they’ve had to lead, build, and demand what others take for granted.

So we must ask: Who are we designing our society for? Who do we include, and who do we keep leaving behind? And what are we all missing because of it?

When people with disabilities are not at the table, we lose out on leadership, insight, and solutions. Inclusion is how we build stronger schools, smarter policy, more responsive workplaces, and communities that work for everyone.

The ADA was never the finish line; it was the floor. And right now, that foundation is being weakened by budget cuts, deregulation, stigma, and silence. It’s our job to bring it to life in ways that include everyone.

The Arc and our nearly 600 chapters nationwide are working every day to defend the ADA and build the future it promised. We are fighting for civil rights, community services, inclusive schools, access to health care, and respect. We were there when the ADA was written, advocating side-by-side with self-advocates and families to demand equal rights. And we’ve been there every step of the way since, holding the line, advancing progress, and insisting that the law’s promise becomes real in people’s lives.

Disability is a natural and valuable part of human diversity. It is also the one group any of us can join at any time. That means this fight is not just about disabled people, it is about all of us.

We cannot afford to turn away from these threats. A society that excludes people with disabilities will eventually exclude many more. Inclusion is one of the clearest ways we show who matters in our society. Let’s make sure our actions match our values.

Picture of the front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, DC

Can You Still Choose Your Own Doctor on Medicaid? The Supreme Court Just Made It Harder

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

If you’re on Medicaid, you’re supposed to be able to choose your own doctor. That right still technically exists, but now you can’t go to court to enforce it if states take that choice away. The U.S. Supreme Court made that decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, ruling that Medicaid beneficiaries no longer have an enforceable right in court if they are denied the provider of their choice. This is a big deal, especially for people with disabilities who rely on doctors they trust to understand their complex needs. Here’s what the case was about, what the Court decided, and what it means moving forward.

What Does the Medina v. Planned Parenthood Case Address?

This case asked a simple question: can people on Medicaid sue in court if they’re not allowed to choose their doctor or clinic? Under the Medicaid Act’s “free choice of provider” provision, Medicaid recipients are supposed to be able to go to any qualified and Medicaid-approved provider they choose. But if the ability to bring a lawsuit when their choice of provider is denied is taken away, they can no longer ask a court to step in for a remedy or solution.

What Are the Facts of the Case?

Julie Edwards is a Medicaid recipient with Type 1 diabetes. After being advised by her doctors that pregnancy would pose serious health risks, she sought contraceptive care at a Planned Parenthood clinic in South Carolina. There, she received the care she needed and follow-up treatment for her high blood pressure. She had such a positive experience at the clinic that she wanted to receive all her gynecological and reproductive care there if Medicaid would cover it.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic serves both Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients and provides a broad range of services including contraception, cancer screenings, physical exams, and more. The clinics are known for offering more accessible, timely care—short wait times, same-day appointments, and extended hours—which is especially important for low-income patients, many of whom rely on Medicaid.

But in July 2018, South Carolina’s Governor issued an executive order instructing the state’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to stop making Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. The reason was to prevent the state from “subsidizing” abortion care, even though Medicaid already restricts funding for that service. Two weeks later, Julie and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued the Director of DHHS in federal district court, arguing that South Carolina had violated the federal Medicaid Act by ignoring the “free choice of provider” provision.

Both the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs: Medicaid’s “free choice of provider” provision gives patients the legal right to choose any qualified provider, and that right can be enforced in federal court. South Carolina then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn that interpretation.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Medicaid’s “free choice of provider” provision doesn’t clearly give patients the right to sue if a state blocks their doctor choice. Instead, the Court explained that only the federal government can step in if states don’t follow Medicaid rules, not individual patients. This means if your state tells you that you can’t see a certain doctor using Medicaid, you can’t challenge it in federal court anymore.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. She warned that this decision would cause “tangible harm to real people. At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip…countless other Medicaid recipients around the country of a deeply personal freedom: the ‘ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.'”

The Arc’s Position

The Arc, along with the National Health Law Program and other partners, filed an amicus brief in this case. In it, we explained that, “allowing patients to choose a doctor who they trust and with whom they feel comfortable… is a critical component of patient autonomy, satisfaction, and even health outcomes… freedom of access to qualified providers compliments Medicaid’s primary goal of increasing access to health care for all.” Many people with disabilities need providers who understand their communication style, respect their autonomy, and can provide appropriate accommodations. When states remove that choice, it risks eroding access to quality care.

The Arc’s position statement on Human and Civil Rights states that the rights within federal laws like Medicaid must be protected and enforced by all levels of society. People with disabilities must be able to sue to enforce their rights when a state denies them. In our position statement on Health we add: “All people, including people with IDD, should have timely access to high quality, comprehensive, accessible, affordable, appropriate health care that meets their individual needs.”

How Does This Impact People With Disabilities?

This decision is a serious setback for the disability community and Medicaid beneficiaries nationwide. Many people with disabilities depend on Medicaid for health care, many of whom are unable to obtain coverage elsewhere. Disabled patients often face discrimination in health care settings and need doctors who understand their unique needs and communication styles. Being forced to see unfamiliar providers or providers who lack the training to accommodate disability-related needs can lead to worse care or no care at all. Now, under Medina, if states decide to force people with disabilities who are on Medicaid to use specific providers, patients wouldn’t be able to challenge that in court. The Court’s ruling overturns decades of precedent that protected this right in most lower federal courts.

Bottom line: You’re still allowed to choose your doctor on Medicaid. But if your state takes that choice away, it’s now impossible to fight back in court. People with disabilities deserve more control over their health care, not less.

Further Reading:

Medical equipment hanging on a wall in a medical office

What LabCorp v. Davis Means for Disability Rights and Class Action Lawsuits

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue a ruling in a case that could have had a major impact on how people with disabilities fight discrimination through class action lawsuits. The case, LabCorp v. Davis, involves blind patients who sued LabCorp over self-check-in kiosks that were inaccessible to them. While the Supreme Court ultimately didn’t weigh in on the central legal issue, the case still carries important implications. And the fight for accessible health care and public accommodations and a justice system that works for everyone is far from over.

What Is the LabCorp v. Davis Case About?

This case is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of blind people who cannot access LabCorp’s self-check-in kiosks at their medical offices. While the question before the U.S. Supreme Court was procedural, it went to the heart of how people with disabilities come together to challenge systemic discrimination, and whether class actions will remain a viable tool for enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA requires that health care facilities and any place open to the public must be accessible to people with disabilities.

What Are the Facts of the Case?

LabCorp is a company that provides laboratory services like blood work. Most of their locations now use self-service kiosks for check-in. However, these kiosks are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired patients. A group (or “class”) of blind patients sued LabCorp in a U.S. District Court in California, arguing that the company failed to provide an accessible check-in option for them and therefore violated the ADA. The ADA requires LabCorp’s services to be usable by people with disabilities. LabCorp argued that it did not discriminate because blind plaintiffs could check-in at the front desk instead.

The plaintiffs asked the court to let them bring the case as a class action, representing not just themselves, but all blind people who tried to use a LabCorp location with a kiosk and faced the same barrier. The District Court allowed the class action to proceed. LabCorp appealed, arguing that the class was too broad and included people who weren’t harmed by the inaccessibility of the kiosks, such as blind people who preferred speaking to a front desk attendant. The plaintiffs responded that the harm wasn‘t about personal preference but not having equal access to the same service offered to others.

Before the Court of Appeals could issue a decision, the District Court changed the class definition twice to include only blind people who couldn’t use the kiosks due to their disability. LabCorp didn’t appeal those changes, just the original definition. The Ninth Circuit then sided with the plaintiffs, affirming the original class definition and that the lawsuit could proceed as a class action. LabCorp then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What Did the U.S. Supreme Court Decide?

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the case without ruling on the core issue. That means that the Justices declined to say whether the class action was valid. Why? Because the lower court had already changed the class definition twice and the version LabCorp was challenging was no longer in play. The Supreme Court said it couldn’t make a ruling based on facts that had shifted.

The Arc’s Position

The Arc’s position statement on Human and Civil Rights stresses that the rights of people with disabilities under laws such as the ADA must be protected and enforced. Health care facilities and any place open to the public must be accessible to people with disabilities, including newer technology like the kiosks provided by LabCorp. Class action lawsuits are one of the most powerful ways people with disabilities can challenge discrimination on a systemic basis. If people are denied accessible services, they should be able to seek justice—not just for themselves, but for others facing the same barriers.

How Does This Case Impact People With Disabilities?

Although the Supreme Court did not rule on the key question, the outcome leaves the door open for future disability-related class actions in lower courts. This case highlights the urgent need for accessibility in health care, and how technology can create new barriers if inclusion isn’t built in from the start. Whether it’s checking in for an appointment, applying for a job, or accessing public services, people with disabilities deserve equal access. And when that access is denied, the legal system must be a place where systemic change is still possible.

Picture of a rally in front of the U.S. Capitol with someone holding a "Protect Medicaid" sign

“A Dark Day”: Disability Advocates Respond to House Passage of Budget Bill

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

Today, the U.S. House passed the Senate’s version of the Budget Reconciliation Bill. The legislation now heads to the President’s desk. If signed into law, this bill will result in deep and harmful cuts to the programs that millions of people with disabilities rely on to live, learn, and thrive in their communities.

At a high level, the legislation includes:

  • Nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts, slashing almost 20% of the federal program and jeopardizing coverage for nearly 17 million people
  • Nearly $200 billion in cuts to SNAP food assistance
  • A new private school voucher program that diverts public education funds without guaranteeing protections for students with disabilities

While the bill includes a new option for states to create a new home and community-based services (HCBS) waiver, that provision is far from enough to offset the devastating consequences of these cuts.

For more context on what’s really in this legislation, read our joint piece with the Center for American Progress: “The Truth About the One ‘Big, Beautiful’ Bill Act’s Cuts to Medicaid and Medicare”

Below is a statement from Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States:

“Today is a dark day for people with disabilities and their families. This bill puts essential support at risk for millions. Health care, food assistance, and special education services that people rely on every day are now in jeopardy. It will force states to make impossible choices that could strip people of the services they need to live with dignity, safety, and independence. The harm will be real. Families will feel it in their homes, their schools, and their communities. But we are not giving up. The disability community has fought for generations to be seen, to be valued, and to live freely in our communities. That fight does not end today. The Arc and our nationwide network of advocates will keep going. We will never stop advocating for the policies that people with disabilities deserve.”

Picture of the front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, DC

A Major Supreme Court Win: Discrimination Protections for Students With Disabilities

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case that could’ve shook the very foundation of disability civil rights. The Court ruled that students with disabilities have the right to seek justice for discrimination in schools without facing legal barriers that don’t exist in workplaces, housing, or other areas of public life. Here’s why this case matters and what you need to know.

What Is the A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools Case About?

This case is about whether federal disability rights laws require children with disabilities to meet a strict “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when suing because they experienced discrimination in K-12 public schools. This standard means that families would have to prove that school districts and/or administrators acted with a level of intent beyond negligence or indifference, requiring evidence of dishonesty, ill will, or a conscious disregard for the student’s rights This high standard is not required to prove disability discrimination in any other context, including in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which only require showing that the defendant acted with “deliberate indifference.”

What Laws Protect Students With Disabilities?

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees a free, appropriate public education for eligible students who have disabilities and need specialized instruction and related services. These services are established in an individualized education plan (IEP) that is created by the child’s parents and the school.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination in places that receive federal funding. Most, if not all, public schools receive federal funding. Section 504 requires schools to provide reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations can include allowing a child with diabetes to eat whenever necessary and not be limited to snack of lunch time.

The Americans with Disabilities Act bars discrimination in services provided by state and local governments. Public schools are operated by state or local governments. Like Section 504, the ADA requires schools to provide reasonable accommodations to students with disabilities.

What Are the Facts of the Case?

Ava is a student with epilepsy who needed evening instruction due to her seizures, which are so severe in the morning that she can’t go to school until noon. Due to this delayed start, she receives half the educational time as her peers do. Her parents asked for evening instruction to make up for these lost learning opportunities, but the school district denied their requests. Ava’s parents then sued, alleging violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the ADA.

Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals decided that a school district’s failure to provide reasonable accommodations is not enough to establish a violation of Section 504 and the ADA. Instead, the lower courts look to see if the school acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” This is a hard standard to meet, and is only applied in certain jurisdictions. It is not applied to other ADA or Section 504 claims outside of school settings. After losing at the District Court and the Court of Appeals, Ava appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What Did the U.S. Supreme Court Decide?

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that students should not have to show that a school acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment in order to bring a Section 504 or ADA claim. The Court held that “ADA and Rehabilitation claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.”

The Court explained that the text of Section 504 and the ADA indicate that courts should not apply a higher standard for discrimination in the K-12 education context than they would in any other disability discrimination case. The ADA and Section 504 plainly applies to “qualified individuals with disabilities” without any reference to where the disabled person obtains a covered service. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that students with disabilities “face daunting challenges. . . those challenges do not include having to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof than other plaintiffs to establish discrimination under” the ADA and Section 504.

The Court also refused to consider a sweeping argument seeking to gut federal disability rights laws by requiring people with disabilities to prove intent in every case of discrimination. That position is flatly inconsistent with the law and would have stripped millions of people with disabilities of the protections Congress put in place to prevent systemic discrimination. The very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line.

The Court made clear that schools cannot be held to a lower standard of accountability than other public institutions. Students with disabilities should not have to fight an uphill battle just to hold their schools accountable for unlawful discrimination.

The Arc’s Position

The Arc of the United States has a storied history with federal education laws. In 1971, before federal protections for people with disabilities existed, states were free to exclude children with disabilities from their public schools—and many did. Millions of children were denied an education, not because they couldn’t learn, but because our society didn’t believe they were worth educating. That changed because of federal action. Parents, led by The Arc, fought in court and won. Their victory laid the foundation for the IDEA, which secured the right to a free, appropriate public education for students with disabilities, regardless of the nature or severity of their disability

The Arc’s position statement on education states that all students ought to receive the education to which they are legally entitled; that is a free appropriate public education that includes fair evaluation, the right to progress, individualized supports and services, high quality instruction, and access to the general education curriculum in age-appropriate inclusive settings. All those involved in the education of students with disabilities must ensure that their individualized needs are taken into consideration, that they are challenged and have ambitious goals, and that their families have meaningful participation in the design and monitoring of their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).

The Arc, alongside other disability rights organizations, submitted an amicus brief in support of the disabled student Plaintiff in A.J.T. The brief gave several case examples where a higher standard of proof enabled schools to freely discriminate against students with disabilities.

How Does This Case Impact People With Disabilities?

This case is important to both students and parents of students with disabilities. The ADA and Section 504 provide relief from education-related discrimination, but many courts applied the gross misjudgment standard. This standard made it harder for students to seek relief in federal court. By overturning that standard, the U.S. Supreme Court’s common-sense decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools will allow more disabled people to vindicate their rights in a court of law. The Court restored the full protection of federal disability nondiscrimination law to millions of disabled students. This case was a victory for students with disabilities and their families.

Where Can I Learn More?

AJT v. Osseo Area Schools Case Page

A woman holding a sign that says "I am Medicaid. Don't cut me!" while standing in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC

An Important Update on the Medicaid Fight

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

The Senate just passed the budget bill, and it’s bad. The bill includes:

  • Nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts. That’s about 20% of the federal Medicaid budget. It would cause nearly 17 million people to lose coverage.
  • Nearly $200 billion in cuts to SNAP. Less food assistance means more people will go hungry, including millions of kids.
  • A new private school voucher program that redirects public education funding to private schools. This will make it even harder for children with disabilities to access essential special education services.

Take action now to help us protect the very foundation of care and services!

What’s next? The Senate and the House must agree on a final bill to send to the President for his signature.

“This isn’t over yet, but this is serious, and we need your help,” said Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States. “With your calls, emails, and texts, we can still reach the hearts and minds of members of Congress on what these cuts will mean for people with disabilities and their families.”

We must stop these devastating cuts before it’s too late!

A picture of a mom and her son with IDD

Medicaid Expansion Saved Their Lives, Now Congress Wants to Cut It

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

For millions of people with disabilities and their families, Medicaid isn’t optional. It’s the glue holding everything together. It’s the health care and therapies that help children grow. The prescriptions that manage chronic conditions. The daily support that helps adults with disabilities get out of bed, work, and participate in their communities. The safety net that allows caregivers to keep going day after day.

But now, Medicaid expansion, a part of the Medicaid program that offers insurance coverage for certain people, including people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, is under threat. A federal budget bill moving through Congress proposes nearly $800 billion in Medicaid cuts, with Medicaid expansion directly in the crosshairs.

What Is Medicaid Expansion and Why Does It Matter?

Medicaid expansion, introduced under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), gave states the option to extend coverage to more low-income adults, including people with disabilities, chronic health conditions, and caregivers who had long fallen through the cracks. Many of these people have very low incomes but make just enough to be outside of the Medicaid income requirements. Others have developmental disabilities that do not meet Medicaid’s disability-specific requirements. In the 41 states (including Washington, DC) that adopted it, Medicaid expansion opened the door to health care for millions who had nowhere else to turn.

Who Benefits From Medicaid Expansion?

Some lawmakers claim Medicaid cuts won’t hurt people with disabilities. But these real people share how Medicaid expansion has impacted their lives.

Eri From Massachusetts
A mom and daughter with disabilities“My mother, an early childhood educator who worked with kids with developmental disabilities, died in 2012 because she couldn’t afford her asthma inhalers. By 2014, I was a teenager experiencing homelessness after losing my only caregiver. I had asthma, a severe mood disorder, and undiagnosed autism and ADHD, but I couldn’t afford health care or medication. Once Medicaid expansion happened, everything changed. I was finally able to receive care, go to college, and rebuild my life. Today, I’m employed, commercially insured, and still receive some Medicaid as a working adult with disabilities. I lost my mom before she could be helped, but expansion gave me a second chance. I’m living proof that it works.”

Monika From California
“I’ve never had a job that offered health insurance. And I never earned enough to pay for the high cost of insurance coverage or deductibles. Then Medicaid expansion came, and I finally got answers: my fatigue and severe joint pain were untreated lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. Now I get the care I need, and can keep caring for my dad, who has advanced Alzheimer’s and a brain tumor. My life and my family’s literally depend on Medicaid.”

What Happens If Congress Cuts Medicaid Expansion?

If Congress moves forward with these cuts, millions will lose access to care. Medicaid expansion has helped people:

  • Get diagnosed and treated
  • Access therapies that support their development
  • Learn, work, and contribute to their communities
  • Live safely at home instead of being institutionalized

Without it, we’ll see more uninsured people and more families pushed to the brink. And the people hit hardest? People with disabilities, caregivers, and low-income adults who are already navigating the most.

Is Medicaid Popular?

Yes, and public support is growing. New polling shows that 83% of Americans have a favorable view of Medicaid, up from 77% just months ago. That support only grows when people understand what’s at stake.

Medicaid Is Not a Handout. It’s a Lifeline.

When lawmakers say people with disabilities won’t be affected, they’re ignoring real people like Eri and Monika. People whose lives and futures depend on Medicaid expansion.

Their stories aren’t the exception. They’re reality.

We can’t afford to go backward—not now, not ever. Too much is on the line.

Read. Share. Take action before it’s too late. Urge Congress to protect Medicaid now.

A picture of a brown gavel against a white background

Challenging Segregation of Children With Disabilities in Foster Care

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

In May 2025, The Arc and other disability rights organizations filed an amicus brief in support of the Plaintiffs-Appellants in the case Jonathan R. v. Morrisey. The case is about children with disabilities challenging disability discrimination in a state foster care system, and the ability of the district court to grant them relief.

What Are the Facts About Jonathan R. v. Morrisey?

The plaintiffs are children with disabilities in West Virginia’s foster care system. The plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit claiming that state officials discriminated against them by failing to provide foster care services in integrated settings.

By law, people with disabilities should receive services in the setting that allows them to interact with non-disabled people to the fullest extent possible. This is required by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and reinforced by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Ziming.

The plaintiffs alleged that West Virginia is placing children with disabilities in segregated settings, in violation of the ADA and Section 504. The plaintiffs asked that the court declare the actions of the West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS) to be unconstitutional and that the court grant relief that will reform DHS and ensure that it follows federal disability law. Specifically, the plaintiffs seek what is called systemic injunctive relief, which aims to change the child welfare system as a whole. Systemic injunctive relief focuses on remedying larger issues with a service system, instead of narrow/individual violations of the law.

The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that it did not have the power to grant relief because doing so would put the court in the position of policy maker. The court also held that the West Virginia foster children did not have standing to pursue their claims. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Why Does This Case Matter for People With Disabilities?

Children with disabilities in the child welfare system are entitled to be served in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs, but this is often not the reality. Federal courts have the power to protect the rights of people with disabilities through systemic relief. If the appeals court upholds the district court’s decision, it will make it significantly more difficult for people with disabilities to seek systemic injunctive relief for violations of the ADA and Section 504.

What Is The Arc’s Position?

In our amicus brief, The Arc its and partners explain that children with disabilities in West Virginia’s foster care system are being unlawfully segregated in residential institutions and other types of facilities, instead of receiving services in community-based settings. The plaintiffs have the right to sue under those laws to challenge that segregation in federal court. Because discrimination against people with disabilities often occurs across a system of government services, courts regularly offer systemic relief to end a systemic violation of federal disability rights.

The Arc joined this amicus brief because of our position statement on early childhood services, which states that “substantial research and successful experience have established that early childhood services should be delivered in natural settings and, to the maximum extent possible, with same-aged peers who do not have disabilities.” Additionally, The Arc’s position statement on Human and Civil Rights states that “all people with IDD have the right to accommodations, assistance, and supports they need to exercise and ensure their human and civil rights.” Human and civil rights include the right to justice, equality, well-being, and equality of opportunity.

Courts have the power to grant appropriate systemic injunctive relief when it is necessary to remedy discrimination against people with disabilities.

Where Can I Find More Reading?

Jonathan R. v. Morrisey Case Page

An up close photo of a woman with Down syndrome crying in response to the R-word

The Truth About the R-Word, From the People It Hurts Most

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

The R-word is everywhere again. It’s showing up on social media, in schools, in entertainment, in the media, and in everyday conversations.

People throw it out casually as a joke or a way to tear someone down. But for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), it has never been “just a word.” It’s a slur—a word used to devalue their worth and humanity.

The disability community has fought for decades to end the use of this word. While we’ve made real progress, its resurgence today is a warning: progress is fragile. Every time this word is spoken, it reinforces outdated and harmful ideas about who belongs, who matters, and who is worthy of respect.

This isn’t a minor slip in language. It’s a sign that empathy, dignity, and basic decency are being lost—and that impacts all of us. Choosing not to say the R-word is a start, but it’s not enough. We need more people to understand why the R-word is offensive, why it’s still harmful, and why it must stop.

Listen to people with IDD who have lived with the weight of this word their entire lives.

Why The R-Word Is Harmful: In Their Own Words

“I am one of those people who was called the R-word simply because I was different my whole life. I tried to tell people how hurtful that was, and that my name was Jill, but no one listened. It made me feel so little and useless. Like many people with IDD, I struggled with not fitting in at school and being fired from jobs after high school because of the wrong fit—all while being called the R-word. I wanted to have friends like everyone else, but instead I was made fun of and ignored. I was so lonely and unhappy in those days. But I learned that having an IDD is nothing to be ashamed of. I’m a caring, loving person trying to find her place in this big world.”
— Jill Egle, Louisiana
An up close photo of Shawn, a Black man with a disability
“I have been called the R-word and that makes me feel less than human. It invalidates my experience as a person, and every time I hear that word, it makes me feel like we’re going back to the old days—when they used to use that word to justify putting us in institutions. The R-word Is a dangerous word because it demonizes those who have the disabilities and suggests that we’re not human. I’m scared that they might try to use that word again as a medical term. We cannot let them do that.”
—Shawn Aleong, Pennsylvania
An up close photo of Veronica, a Hispanic woman with a disability
“If you use the R-word, it tells me you don’t care about me or people like me. If you use the R-word, it tells me you don’t really respect me or people like me. If you use the R-word, it tells me you don’t know who I really am or what I can do—but it also tells me all I need to know about you.”
— Veronica Ayala, Texas
An up close photo of Nicole, a White woman with IDD
“Every time I hear the R-word, I want to run, hide, and curl up into a ball. I was bullied and called the R-word from elementary school to early adulthood. I often wished I was normal. My only friends at school were the teachers on the playground. I also grew up with a brother saying the R-word when he would get pissed off, and it took years to get him and others to understand how harmful it is. We need to stop the R-word now more than ever. It’s just as harmful even if it’s not being said to someone’s face. It’s time to demand a world where people with disabilities—visible or invisible—are respected and accepted for who they are!”
— Nicole LeBlanc, Maryland

“The R-word hurts me. I was called the R-word by my school psychologist when I was in kindergarten. They told my parents I would not amount to anything—that I’d always be dependent on someone. Considering where I am today, I would say she was very, very wrong. I am not the only one who has been called this harmful word. Many of us with disabilities still face this same type of ignorance and discrimination.”
— Taylor Crisp, Washington State
An up close photo of Ricky, a Black man with IDD
“Back in the day, people referred to people like me as the R-word. We are not that word. We may all communicate differently and have different needs—that is normal. We also have strengths and values. We fought for many years not just to change the use of the R-word, but also the negative thinking about people with IDD. Using this word goes backwards. The younger generation should go forward. I want to see them have an easier time than I had. It is time to finally bury the R-word.”
— Ricky Broussard, Texas
An up close photo of Charlotte, a White woman with Down syndrome
“As someone born with a disability, it is heartbreaking that the R-word is still being used. People with disabilities have been trying for a very long time to have their inherent worth and value acknowledged by society, and have campaigned for the R-word to be removed from use. It is disgraceful that we still have to ask for basic respect. The R-word is derogatory and dehumanizing. I wish that people would look beyond themselves and see people with disabilities for who we are and the abilities we have, not just our disability diagnoses. We want to be treated with dignity and respect, just like everyone else.”
— Charlotte Woodward, Virginia
An up close photo of Zoe, a Black woman with IDD, with her hands covering her mouth
“The R-word really hurts, even if someone says it as a joke. I’m a person, not a label. I matter, we matter, and everyone deserves to be treated with respect and kindness.”
— Zoe-Rebekah Bostic, Georgia

“I was called the R-word for many years in school, especially on the bus. It meant I was dumb or stupid, and I buried my head in books to deal with it. To hear people use that word is demeaning. There’s no real excuse for it. It’s sad that in our schools, this kind of thing isn’t taught. Before you use it again, you should find out what the word means because you have offended me and hundreds of thousands of people by using it.”
— Chad Widing, Connecticut
An up close photo of Barb, a White woman with IDD
“In high school, I was called the R-word all the time. It made me shrink away—it felt terrible. I can’t believe it’s coming back. I feel very hurt, especially after we fought to get rid of that word. No one should be called it, even if they “don’t mean it.” We are people, just like everyone else.”
— Barbara Coppens, New Jersey
An up close photo of Ray, a White man with IDD
“Back in the 1970s, I was called every name in the book. They called me the R-word, crazy, and other hateful stuff. People told me I didn’t belong in the neighborhood or I didn’t belong at work. That is bullying! It lowered my self-esteem. People who use that word must not have any idea what it’s like to be labeled the R-word. I wish they could walk in my shoes to see how it feels. We need to stop labeling people. We are all somebody. I should be able to freely go into the community without this stigma.”
— Ray Schuholz, Michigan
An up close photo of Sarvesh, a Middle Eastern man with IDD
“The R-word makes me feel sad. I feel that I should speak up and ask people to stop using the R-word. The word is ableist and derogatory. It stereotypes people, promotes institutionalization, and encourages eugenics.”
— Sarvesh Chandran, Arizona

If reading this made you uncomfortable—good. That means you care.

But not saying the R-word isn’t enough.

Some of the people you’ve heard from here—like Jill, Nicole, and Ricky—have helped lead efforts in their states to remove the R-word from laws and policies. Changing laws is an important step, but changing hearts, language, and culture takes all of us.

We need you to say something when others use the R-word.
We need you to share this blog widely.
We need you to be part of the reason this word finally fades from our culture.

The R-word still hurts. But together, we can make sure it has no place in our future.

Note: Throughout this piece, we’ve chosen to refer to the slur in question as “the R-word,” and we’ve capitalized the R to recognize the serious harm the word represents. Naming it this way centers its weight and impact, without unnecessarily repeating a word that has caused so much pain.