Photo of desks in a classroom with dim, moody lighting

Federal Court Blocks Iowa’s Law Banning Masking Requirements in Schools

/in , , , , , /by The Arc

DES MOINES, Iowa — A federal district court today blocked Iowa’s law prohibiting schools from requiring masks. The court ruled that the law violates the civil rights of children with disabilities, including children with underlying conditions, who are more vulnerable to severe illness or death as a result of COVID-19.

The decision makes clear that children have a right under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to equal access to their educations, which for some children with underlying conditions and disabilities, requires that schools implement universal masking requirements.

The district court recognized that “forcing children to bear the brunt of societal discord is ‘illogical and unjust’” and cited data showing that “the current level of the delta variant in Iowa has increased the infection rate and severity of infection. Some public schools in Iowa are experiencing COVID-19 infection rates at upwards of 60 percent that of last year’s total for the entire school year.” The court also cited data showing that the number of children hospitalized due to COVID-19 is also on the rise.

The decision comes in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Iowa, Disability Rights Iowa, The Arc of the United States, and law firms Arnold & Porter and Duff Law Firm, P.L.C. on behalf of The Arc of Iowa and 11 parents of children with disabilities.

The following statements are from:

Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel, The Arc of the United States:

“The court is making it clear that students with disabilities have the right to go to school safely during this pandemic. The Arc will continue fighting to ensure that students with disabilities are able to attend their neighborhood schools alongside their peers without disabilities without putting their health and their lives at risk.”

Rita Bettis Austen, legal director of the ACLU of Iowa:

“We are grateful to the district court for blocking this dangerous law, which put vulnerable kids in harm’s way and violated their civil rights in education. We are relieved that schools across the state will now be able to protect those kids as required by federal law. No parent should be asked to choose between the safety and health of their child and their child’s ability to go to school, but that’s exactly the position that this law put parents across Iowa in.”

Susan Mizner, director of the ACLU’s Disability Rights Program:

“This is a huge victory for our plaintiffs and all parents of children with disabilities who have been forced to choose between protecting the health of their children and ensuring they receive an education alongside their peers. This decision opens the door for schools across Iowa to take basic public health measures to protect their students. It also should send a message to other states that they cannot put politics above the rights and safety of students with disabilities. Disability rights laws were passed precisely for this situation – in which children with disabilities health and education would be sacrificed for the convenience of the majority. Banning the possibility that schools may require masks — in the middle of a pandemic — discriminates against school children with disabilities. All students with disabilities should be able to attend school safely, as federal disability rights laws guarantee.”

Catherine E. Johnson, executive director, Disability Rights Iowa:

“The order entered today restores our students’ with disabilities long-held civil rights of equal access to their education and full inclusion with their general education peers in the school curriculum and all other activities and programs offered by their school. Today is a monumental day for all plaintiffs, as well as all Iowans forced to choose between sacrificing their child’s health or education opportunities. Effective today, parents no longer have to make this impossible choice, their children are entitled to both.”

Photos and videos of some clients, attorneys, and organizational logos available here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-XIhBS5ZyNVRRh9lENyhqMbJi5PLqqky

More details about this case are here: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/lawsuit-challenges-iowa-law-banning-schools-requiring-masks

The decision is here: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/arc-iowa-v-reynolds-order-granting-temporary-restraining-order

This statement is here: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-blocks-iowas-law-banning-masking-requirements-schools

 

A person standing at a voting booth. Next to them is any empty voting station.

Lawsuit Filed Challenging New Texas Law Targeting Voting Rights

/in , , , /by Pam Katz

Today, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (LDF), Reed Smith LLP, and The Arc filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Houston Area Urban League, Houston Justice, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, and The Arc of Texas challenging S.B. 1, a new Texas law targeting voting rights. S.B. 1 includes a series of suppressive voting-related provisions that will make it much harder for Texas residents to vote and disenfranchise some altogether, particularly Black and Latino voters and voters with disabilities.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, argues that S.B. 1 violates the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by intentionally targeting and burdening methods and means of voting used by voters of color.

The Plaintiffs also claim that the law violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act by imposing voting barriers that will discriminate against voters with disabilities and deny people with disabilities full and equal opportunities to participate in the state’s voting programs.

The lawsuit challenges multiple provisions in SB 1, including:

  • Limitations on early voting hours and a ban on 24-hour voting.
  • The elimination of drive-thru voting centers.
  • The prohibition of mail-in ballot drop-boxes.
  • Limitations on the distribution of mail-in ballot applications.
  • Limitations and possible penalties for voter assistants, including criminal felonies.

Read the lawsuit challenging S.B. 1.

“Despite Texas legislators’ repeated and disingenuous attempts to cite ‘voter fraud’ as their reasoning for implementing S.B. 1, it is clear as day that this law was created to suppress votes,” said LDF Assistant Counsel Georgina Yeomans. “Rather than expand voting access, elected officials are making it harder for Texans to vote – especially voters of color, who will be disproportionately burdened. S.B. 1 was intentionally designed to have that effect.”

“Democracy should make it easier for eligible voters to vote, not harder,” said Ken Broughton, managing partner of Reed Smith’s Houston office. “Democracy should also increase voter turnout, not inhibit it. This legislation will prevent many qualified voters from voting because these laws are anti-voter.”

“Voter suppression is a disability rights issue. People with disabilities have the fundamental right to vote and participate in our democracy, but this right has too often been denied. S.B. 1 disenfranchises voters with disabilities and denies them equal access to voting in violation of federal disability rights laws,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Director, Legal Advocacy & General Counsel at The Arc.

“The Houston Area Urban League has a long history of supporting the disenfranchised. Any law that makes it harder for them to have their voices heard under the cloak of rampant voter fraud is disingenuous and contrary to our democracy,” said Houston Area Urban League President and CEO Judson Robinson III.

“The law at its core is anti-democratic and clearly designed to suppress the vote,” said Tina Kingshill, Coordinating Director of Houston Justice. “It will further hinder voting rights of low-income, pre-trial defendants of color unable to post bail who comprise over 70% of local and county jail populations. By prohibiting the expenditure of public funds to facilitate third-party distribution of applications to vote by mail, the law burdens non-profit voter outreach organizations with funding the printing costs of the applications. Many organizations will not have the funds for printing, so essentially the right to request and cast a ballot while incarcerated is taken away.”

“Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated has been fighting for the rights of all U.S. citizens to vote for 108 years. It is our honor and responsibility to continue the fight against oppressive voting laws started by our Founders,” said Delta Sigma Theta President and CEO Beverly E. Smith. “S.B. 1 directly threatens the right to vote of over 20,000 members of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority and their family and friends in Texas, and we are committed to fight against S.B. 1 on their behalf.”

“Texas voters with disabilities are proud to participate in the democratic process and deserve equitable access to the polls, not more barriers,” said The Arc of Texas CEO Jennifer Martinez. “Unfortunately, these same Texans are accustomed to fighting for their civil rights and must continue to do so against the latest voter-suppression measures passed by the Texas Legislature.”

Texas is among more than 40 other states that have enacted legislative efforts to substantially restrict voting access. LDF and The Arc are also involved in litigation challenging Georgia’s restrictive voting law that also discriminates against voters of color and voters with disabilities. Read more here.

Woman on escalator wearing a face mask; she's holding a cell phone in one hand and her suitcase handle in the other

Lawsuit Challenges Iowa Law Banning Schools From Requiring Masks

/in , , /by Pam Katz

Eleven parents of children with disabilities and Iowa disability rights groups have filed a federal lawsuit today challenging an Iowa law that bans school districts from imposing mask mandates in schools. 

The parents and disability rights advocates are taking the action to protect children who are too young to be vaccinated whose disabilities, including underlying health conditions, make them particularly susceptible to severe illness, long haul COVID symptoms, or even death from COVID-19. They argue that the ban on mask mandates discriminates against these students in education, effectively excluding them from public schools and denying them equal access to education. That is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Earlier this year, the Iowa Legislature passed House File 847. It prevents local school districts from requiring anyone to wear a face mask and was signed into law by Gov. Kim Reynolds.

The lawsuit filed today is asking the district court to block the provision of the law prohibiting mask requirements at school as a violation of federal law (ADA and the Rehabilitation Act) and to order the state to allow school districts to adopt mask mandates for their students and staff. 

The clients in the case are The Arc of Iowa and 11 parents of minor children across the state with disabilities whose health could be at risk due to the enforcement of this provision. 

They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Iowa, Disability Rights Iowa, The Arc of the United States, the Arnold & Porter law firm, and the Duff Law Firm, P.L.C. 

 

Charmain Alexander of Urbandale is one of the clients in the lawsuit. Her son, Corban, has asthma. “I am doing this to help create a safe environment not only for my own child but for all children, including those with disabilities and other conditions. You would think that schools would make the safety of their students their top priority, but unfortunately, that is not happening because of this law. 

“It’s important that children have the opportunity to learn in person. I think most parents have seen that over the last year. But what are you supposed to do when you’re in my position and are afraid that if you send your child to school so that they can keep up with their education, you’re afraid that the worst might happen?”

Another client, Heather Preston of Des Moines has two school-age children. One has a rare organ disorder, which her doctor has advised her puts him at risk for serious illness if he contracts COVID. 

“I know that a parent can’t protect their child from all things, but they have a responsibility to protect them from serious safety threats. And for my son, going to a school where not everyone is wearing masks puts him at huge risk. Meanwhile, because of his needs, he needs to be learning in person.

  “It’s terrifying for a parent to have to worry every day about the physical safety of their child, and to have to choose between their child keeping up with their education and their child becoming seriously ill, or perhaps even dying. That’s a choice no parent should have to make. I want my children to come home safe from school.” 

ACLU of Iowa Legal Director Rita Bettis Austen said, “HF 847 is a civil rights violation that puts vulnerable kids in a dangerous situation. We all should be able to agree that it’s not fair to force kids out of school because they have health conditions and disabilities that put them at a higher risk of serious complications from COVID. It’s also not fair to require parents to expose their children to these risks just so they can go to school. We are asking the court to block HF 847 so that our schools will be able to require masks when necessary to ensure an equal education for all kids.

Susan Mizner, director of the ACLU’s Disability Rights Program, said, “Prohibiting schools from taking reasonable steps to protect the health of their students forces parents to make an impossible choice: their child’s education or their child’s health. Students with health conditions or disabilities that make them vulnerable to COVID have a right to attend school without endangering their health or safety. Schools who have children with these conditions have legal obligations under federal disability rights laws.”

“Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, public schools cannot exclude students with disabilities nor deny them equal access to their education or segregate them unnecessarily. Schools are obligated to provide reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures in order to give students with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from their public education,” Mizner said. 

“The COVID-19 pandemic has not absolved Iowa schools from these requirements, and Iowa officials cannot waive these obligations for them,” Mizner said. 

Doug Cunningham, Executive Director of The Arc of Iowa, an advocacy organization for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, said, “This should not be a political issue. It’s an issue that affects the health and wellbeing of the children with disabilities in our state, and I would like to think that all political groups embrace that basic principle.” 

“This law is making it impossible for many students to go to school. I see first-hand how families have to make an awful choice—the health or safety of their child or their education. Being safe at school is a right. Getting an education is a right. I’m hopeful this lawsuit will correct this terrible situation that our state government is creating for nearly any family in the state who has a school-aged child with a condition threatened by COVID,” Cunningham said. 

Catherine (pronounced kath-REEN) E. Johnson, Executive Director of Disability Rights Iowa, said, “Excluding students with disabilities from public education was routine practice prior to Congress enacting federal protections. For more than 40 years, students with disabilities have been protected from discrimination based on disability by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. These federal laws guarantee students with disabilities the right to equal access to a public education alongside their general education peers. HF 847 effectively excludes students with disabilities from public education and denies them equal access, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. We request the court block HF 847 so that public schools can comply with their obligations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and restore our students with disabilities civil rights to equal access to education.”

Other clients have also provided statements:

Erin Vercande of Decorah has a child who has cerebral palsy as well as epilepsy and has strokes. 

“COVID has hit the community of disabled children and their families especially hard. My son loves school. He loves his classmates, teachers, associates, and therapists. He loves and needs the stimulation from the other children at school and all the fun things he gets to participate in. But he’s at risk of serious illness if he gets COVID,” Vercande said. 

“With the mask mandate ban this year and other factors within our school district, my son is currently unable to attend school. The mask mandate ban is in direct violation of precautions recommended by his doctors for him to be able to attend school safely. My son has a legal right to go to school. Our state is denying him, and others like him, that right. My son doesn’t have a voice to fight for his rights. But I do. And I will fight for him and all the other children like him that are being denied that right.” 

Jonathan Craig, a Waterloo father of four children impacted by the ban, said, “Every child deserves an education in a safe environment. As the father of four children, two of whom are immunocompromised and have chronic illnesses, I’ve seen first-hand the devastating effects of what happens when children are not afforded their right to a safe and equitable public education,” Craig said. 

“Because masks aren’t allowed to be required in public schools in Iowa this year, our pediatrician recommended that all four of our children, who are too young to be vaccinated, stay home and learn through virtual learning, as contracting COVID-19 would be life-threatening to our family,” Craig said. 

“Because of my daughter’s physical and developmental disabilities, she isn’t able to engage with virtual learning and we’re heartbroken to watch her fall through the cracks. We’ve seen our son (who has worked incredibly hard to overcome his own learning difficulties) flourish during his years of in-person schooling but he has fallen behind academically and socially since learning behind a screen for eight hours a day,” he said. 

“If school districts could mandate masks the way they were able to last year, it would give kids like mine the chance to have an equitable educational opportunity and we could make the best decisions for our family’s health,” Craig said. 

The complaint can be found here.

A crowd of graduating students against a black backdrop. They are all raising their right arm and turning the tassels on their caps to the other side.

New U.S. Department of Education Regulation Provides Relief to People With Disabilities

/in , /by The Arc

Washington, D.C. – The Arc is pleased that the U.S. Department of Education announced a major step in removing barriers in the path of people with disabilities who pursue an education and career goals. The Arc advocated relentlessly for these changes in response to the outcry from people with disabilities across the country.

The Department’s new regulation will provide important relief to more than 323,000 people with disabilities who have outstanding student loans. These borrowers will receive more than $5.8 billion in automatic student loan forgiveness, without having to jump through bureaucratic barriers to access loan forgiveness. The new policy removes these barriers by automating the process and eliminating burdensome paperwork.

“We are encouraged that The Department of Education is implementing recommendations made by The Arc and other advocates to better serve people with disabilities and get rid of these obstacles to financial stability and achieving goals. This is also a huge step toward making sure that people with disabilities do not risk losing their Social Security benefits if they cannot navigate the bureaucratic discharge process. This change helps ensure that government systems work for people with disabilities,” said Peter Berns, Chief Executive Officer of The Arc of the U.S.

The Arc logo

The Arc and Coalition of Disability and Civil Rights Organizations Urge Court to Allow Britney Spears to Select Her Own Attorney in Conservatorship Case

/in , , , , /by The Arc

Washington, D.C. – The Arc, with a coalition of 25 civil and disability rights organizations, joined an amicus brief filed Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California in support of Britney Spears’ right to select her own attorney for her conservatorship proceedings. The brief also urges the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to ensure Ms. Spears has access to assistance and tools to select her attorney, including Supported Decision-Making.

Ms. Spears is currently under a probate conservatorship and has been represented by a court-appointed attorney for most or all of the 13-year duration of her conservatorship. On June 23, Ms. Spears told the court that she wishes to choose her own attorney. On July 6, Ms. Spears’ court-appointed attorney asked to resign from her conservatorship case.

Often in conservatorships, judges appoint a lawyer to represent a conservatee without allowing the person under conservatorship any say in this decision. The amicus brief argues that the right to choose one’s own attorney is a core element of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and people under a conservatorship should be able to retain this right. The brief also provides background to the court on how Supported Decision-Making could be an effective tool for Ms. Spears to use in choosing her own representation.

Supported decision-making allows a person to retain their legal rights while getting support with decision-making from those they choose and trust. Supported Decision-Making does not require court involvement and can be combined with other legal tools, such as powers of attorney and advance health care directives, that promote self-determination and autonomy.

“For many years, The Arc has advocated for the rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to participate to the maximum extent possible in making and executing decisions about themselves and to ensure their civil and human rights are retained and enforced, regardless of conservatorship or guardianship status,” said Peter Berns, CEO of The Arc. “Ms. Spears has the right to self-determination in selecting her own attorney and The Arc will continue to advocate to ensure such rights—for Ms. Spears and the disability community more broadly—are protected in the courts.”

The United States Capitol Building

Better Care Better Jobs Act Will Make Huge Investment in Disability Services

/in , , , , , /by Pam Katz

The system that provides supports and services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and their families has fallen far short of their needs for decades, and the COVID-19 pandemic exposed and worsened this reality.

The Better Care Better Jobs Act (BCBJA) introduced today will make a huge investment necessary to change disability services into the future. This bill puts into motion the proposals that were included in President Biden’s American Jobs Plan, which prioritizes the crumbling care infrastructure in this country and recognizes the importance of fixing it and building back for the future.

“Every day, people with disabilities are waiting for their lives to start and often going without the supports they need to achieve their goals. Families that want a different life than an institution or nursing home are forced to navigate a patchwork system of supports with waits and no guarantees. Family members are often forced to either quit or limit their job choices to provide care due to lack of services. And the direct care workforce is underpaid and undervalued.

“We are desperately overdue for a huge investment in disability services. The Better Care Better Jobs Act introduced today will be a game-changer and must be enacted quickly for the disability community to be a part of our economic recovery from this disastrous pandemic,” said Peter Berns, CEO, The Arc.

When the BCBJA becomes law, it will provide huge funding enhancements to states which focus on improving and expanding their Medicaid home and community-based services (HCBS) delivery system. The bill would provide funding to expand access to services for people who are currently on waiting lists for these vital services, and create more and better direct care jobs for the paid workforce that provides these services.

Learn more about how HCBS are vitally important to the lives of people with IDD and their families.

A young man sits smiling on a white couch with white blinds in the background. He is wearing a black shirt with the yellow word "ARMY" on it.

Advocates Applaud Full Pardon of Neli Latson, a Young Black Man With Disabilities, After Decade of Injustice

/in , , , /by Pam Katz

After more than a decade of unjust prosecution and abuse in the criminal justice system, Neli Latson, a Black man with multiple disabilities, is finally a free man. Virginia Governor Ralph Northam granted Mr. Latson, 29, a full pardon late Monday.

A young man sits smiling on a white couch with white blinds in the background. He is wearing a black shirt with the yellow word "ARMY" on it.

Mr. Latson, who has autism and intellectual disability, now has the chance to live a satisfying and self-directed life in the community, free from burdensome, unfair restrictions and the constant threat of reincarceration, but unfortunately never free from the painful truth that Black people with disabilities live at a dangerous intersection of racial injustice and disability discrimination. Mr. Latson’s case, which began in 2010, galvanized disability rights activists, bringing national attention to overly aggressive and sometimes deadly policing, prosecution and sentencing practices and the horrifying mistreatment of people with disabilities in jails and prisons.

The Arc has been seeking justice for Mr. Latson for more than a decade. A coalition of nearly 50 advocacy groups and legislators sent a letter to Governor Northam in July 2020 calling for him to grant Mr. Latson a full pardon. With tremendous relief, we thank Governor Northam for issuing the well-deserved full pardon. And on today’s 22nd anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark Olmstead decision, we are even more deeply reminded that people with disabilities are members of the community – not to be shut away and restricted because of their disability.

In 2010, Mr. Latson was an 18-year-old special education student, waiting outside his neighborhood library in Stafford County, Virginia for it to open. Someone called the police reporting a “suspicious” Black male, possibly with a gun. Mr. Latson had committed no crime and was not armed. The resulting confrontation with a deputy resulted in injury to an officer when Mr. Latson understandably resisted being manhandled and physically restrained. This was the beginning of years of horrific abuse in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors refused to consider Mr. Latson’s disabilities, calling it a diagnosis of convenience and using “the R-word,” and rejected an offer of disability services as an alternative to incarceration. Instead, Mr. Latson was convicted, sentenced to ten years in prison and punished with long periods of solitary confinement, Taser shocks, and the use of a full-body restraint chair for hours on end for behaviors related to his disabilities.

Virginia and national disability advocates, including The Arc and Autistic Self Advocacy Network, urged then-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe to pardon Mr. Latson.  In 2015, with bipartisan support from state legislators, Governor McAuliffe granted a conditional pardon. Although this released Mr. Latson from prison, it required him to live in a restrictive residential setting and remain subject to criminal justice system supervision for ten years. The terms of the 2015 conditional pardon meant Mr. Latson could be sent back to jail at any time, causing constant anxiety. Today’s pardon from Governor Northam recognizes Mr. Latson’s success since 2015 and relieves him from that ongoing threat.

“Neli Latson has spent almost his entire adult life entangled in a legal system that criminalized his disability and race. We believe Governor Northam’s full pardon will end this painful chapter of Mr. Latson’s life so that he can move forward. However, it is important to acknowledge that this blatant injustice has caused devastating harm to Mr. Latson and his family. The Arc will always fight for the rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the criminal justice system and against the systemic racism that deepens the indignity. This moment proves that advocacy matters,” said Peter Berns, Chief Executive Officer of The Arc of the United States.

“Justice should never have been delayed for Neli,” said Tonya Milling, Executive Director of The Arc of Virginia. “Yet we are thrilled that his decade-long struggle has finally come to a conclusion, and he will now be able to move forward with all the numerous opportunities that he should have been able to experience all along.

“Archaic and biased systems continue to exist all around us – particularly for BIPOC and other marginalized individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. For many years, The Arc of Virginia has worked both independently and with a broader coalition of advocates, towards desperately-needed reforms in how intellectual and developmental disabilities are viewed and treated in the criminal justice system. In the years since Neli’s unjust conviction, we have seen steps of progress in legislative policy. One example is legislation recently signed into law, that specifies in Code that intellectual and developmental disabilities may be considered at various junctures and touch points of the court system – ensuring that all defendants can be provided every opportunity for fairness and justice throughout the process.

“It is impossible to undo all the harm that was caused to Neli, but Virginia can and must continue working to prevent future harm from being inflicted on individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families. The Arc is wholly committed to continuing our partnership with advocates and legislators, on measures that will ensure justice for all,” said Milling.

“We’re excited that after years of advocacy, Neli Latson will soon be free to engage with the community on his own terms. We recognize that the restrictions he was forced to follow – including isolation in institutional settings – functioned as a form of continued incarceration even after his release from prison. We’re very grateful to the many community members who fought for Neli by writing letters, making calls, and continuing their advocacy even after the initial pardon was issued,” said Sam Crane, Legal Director of Autistic Self Advocacy Network.

 

For more information, contact:

Kristin Wright, The Arc of the United States, wright@thearc.org or 202.617.3271

Tonya Milling, The Arc of Virginia, tmilling@thearcofva.org or 804-649-8481 x.101

Sam Crane, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, scrane@autisticadvocacy.org

A man lays in a hospital bed as an out of focus doctor in the foreground holds a chart

The Arc’s Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling in California v. Texas

/in , , , , /by The Arc

“The Arc is relieved that the U.S. Supreme Court has once again upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and today dismissed the latest attack on the law. The ACA is critical to the lives of people with disabilities and low-income Americans. Without it, millions of adults and children would lose their health coverage, or it would become unaffordable, during an unprecedented time of health risk and uncertainty, as well as economic instability.

“The importance of the ACA is underscored by the pandemic. The public health crisis is a glaring reminder of the inequities in health care and discrimination faced by people with disabilities, other groups that are marginalized, and people holding multiple marginalized identities.

“The Arc and our allies have fought relentlessly to defend the ACA from these repeated attempts to undermine the law and we will continue to fight to preserve this lifeline for people with disabilities. In 2020, The Arc, with a coalition of disability and civil rights organizations, joined an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to uphold the ACA in its entirety. The Arc also provided an amicus brief in support of upholding the law before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019.

“This uplifting moment is about the millions of people with disabilities, their families, and the direct support workforce that rely on the ACA for access to health coverage for preventative care, to maintain good health, and secure vital medical treatment. This moment is about protecting them from discrimination. The lives of people with disabilities have value,” said Peter Berns, CEO of The Arc of the United States.

A person standing at a voting booth. Next to them is any empty voting station.

Georgia-Based Disability Rights Groups Join Fight Against Georgia’s Anti-Voter Law S.B. 202

/in /by The Arc

Three groups joined pending litigation AME Church v. Kemp in an amended complaint that explains how S.B. 202 violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act

ATLANTA — Three prominent Georgia-based disability rights groups have joined the broad-based alliance of Georgia voters, civil rights groups, and activists fighting against the implementation of the state’s unconstitutional and discriminatory Senate Bill (S.B.) 202.

The groups are: The Arc Georgia (an office of The Arc of the United States), Georgia ADAPT and the Georgia Advocacy Office (GAO).

These organizations, whose core missions are to advocate for disability rights and support voters with disabilities, are the first disability rights-specific groups to join as plaintiffs in any of the pending lawsuits against S.B. 202.

S.B. 202 was passed by both houses of the Georgia General Assembly and signed into law by Gov. Brian Kemp all in one afternoon.

In joining AME Church v. Kemp in the amended complaint filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Georgia, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), WilmerHale, and Davis Wright Tremaine, these groups are making it clear that — in addition to targeting Black voters, Latinx voters, other voters of color, new citizens, elderly voters, and student voters — Georgia legislators and the governor have discriminated against people with disabilities.

Voters with disabilities have received scant attention in Georgia’s battles over voting rights but have borne the brunt of historical and continuing discrimination and neglect in all spheres of public life. Rather than celebrating the strong turnout in the 2020 general election and runoffs, S.B. 202 doubles down on making voting even more inaccessible for the disability community.

As detailed in the amended complaint, S.B. 202 unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote of people with disabilities and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, which celebrates its 31th anniversary on July 26, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by imposing voting barriers that will discriminate against voters with disabilities and deny people with disabilities full and equal opportunity to participate in the state’s voting programs.

The amended complaint in full, which also adds the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) as a client, is available here:

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/083_ame_et_al_fac.pdf

Other plaintiffs in AME Church v. Kemp include: Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., Georgia Muslim Voter Project, Women Watch Afrika, and Latino Community Fund Georgia.

“Georgia’s voting process already presented barriers to people with disabilities and S.B. 202 has made the process even more inaccessible in violation of the law,” said Stacey Ramirez, acting state director of The Arc Georgia. “This lawsuit is critically important to the future of over 850,000 Georgian citizens with disabilities eligible to vote who have a fundamental right to participate in our democracy. If this law is not struck down, the walls it puts around our voting rights will be even harder for people with disabilities to scale, and that’s unacceptable.”

To read more about The Arc Georgia’s work, please visit the SPLC’s profile series Battle for Representation. The Arc’s story, released today, is the fourth in the series profiling some of the clients in AME Church v. Kemp. 

The Arc Georgia story is available at:
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2021/05/24/arc-georgia-nonprofit-helps-people-disabilities-cast-ballots-joins-splc-suit-against-voter

“I served in the U.S. Army, giving my body and soul to defend our Constitution. Now, as a Cherokee Two-Spirit disabled vet, and as an ADAPT activist, I joined this lawsuit to make sure every citizen — whether disabled, Black, Native American, Latinx, or Asian — can participate in the sacred act of voting,” said Zan Thornton of Georgia ADAPT.

“Voting is a fundamental right. Access for people who experience disabilities is generally an afterthought if it’s thought of at all. The change in the voting law creates new barriers for everyone but those barriers could be insurmountable for people who experience disabilities,” said Devon Orland, legal director of the Georgia Advocacy Office.

TRANSLATIONS OF THE ABOVE:

  • Plain language available immediately upon request
  • ASL video available shortly upon request

RELEVANT LINKS:

Contact: Graeme Crews
graeme.crews@splcenter.org / (334) 224-0002

Black and white photograph of justice scales sitting on a desk in a courtroom

Civil Rights Groups Secure Federal Approval of Revised Crisis Standards of Care in Arizona

/in /by The Arc

Phoenix, AZ – Today Arizona and national civil rights groups, in close collaboration with the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announce the approval of revised crisis standards of care. These standards determine who does and does not receive care in the event of a shortage of health care resources. The revisions announced today ensure that the standards comply with federal civil rights laws and prevent discrimination in the provision of health care during this pandemic.

The following are the critical updates that were made to prevent discrimination in health-care decision-making:

  • Health care decisions that discriminate against protected groups are prohibited. Triage decisions will be made without discrimination on the basis of individuals’ disability, age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, religion, sex, veteran status, genetic information, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
  • No Exclusions or Deprioritizing Based on Resource Intensity or Diagnosis: An individual can no longer be excluded from, or deprioritized for, medical treatment based on the fact that they might require more time or resources to recover or because of a person’s diagnosis or functional impairment. Rather than making assumptions about a patient’s ability to respond to treatment based solely on stereotypes, medical personnel must perform an individualized assessment of each patient based on the best objective current medical evidence.
  • Resource Decisions Based Only on Short-Term Survivability: Determinations about treatment can only be based on short-term survivability. Since long-term predictions of the outcome of treatment is fraught with speculation, mistaken stereotypes, and assumptions about the quality of life and lifespan of older adults and people with disabilities, they are explicitly prohibited.
  • Reasonable Modifications Required: Hospitals must make reasonable accommodations to the support needs and communication styles of persons with disabilities, and reasonable modifications to the Modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (MSOFA)— or other tools that may be used to prioritize access to medical treatment—to correct against the impact prior conditions may have on the assessment of organ failure scoring. Other reasonable modifications, including modifications to no-visitor policies, may also be required to provide equal access to treatment.
  • Reallocation of Personal Ventilators Prohibited: Medical personnel may not reallocate the personal ventilator of a patient who uses a ventilator in their daily life to another patient whom the personnel deem more likely to benefit from the ventilator in receiving treatment.
  • Blanket Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Policies Prohibited: Hospitals must provide information on the full scope of available treatment alternatives, including the continued provision of life-sustaining treatment, and may not impose blanket DNR policies. Physicians may not require patients to complete advance directives in order to continue to receive services from the hospital.

“Individuals with disabilities have a right to equal access to life-saving treatment. These revised crisis guidelines protect this right, and require that hospitals provide support to exercise this right,” said Steven Schwartz, the Legal Director of the Center for Public Representation.

“Advocates diligently worked for more than a year to ensure older adults are treated with dignity during the pandemic,” said Regan Bailey, Litigation Director for Justice in Aging. “This most recent policy out of Arizona further recognizes that discrimination against older adults has no place in the decision of who gets limited life-saving treatment.  Arizona’s new policy is an important step in eliminating ageism, ableism, racism, and all other forms of discrimination in health care.”

“Today’s resolution makes major progress toward ensuring that people with disabilities have equal access to medical care during the pandemic and beyond,” said Peter Berns, Chief Executive Officer for The Arc. “We will keep fighting for revisions to policies that could mean the difference between life and death for people with disabilities.”

Those involved in the resolution included Arizona and national advocacy groups for persons with disabilities, communities of color, and older individuals: Arizona Center for Disability Law, The Arc Arizona, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, Native American Disability Law Center, Justice in Aging, Center for Public Representation, The Arc of the United States, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

In addition to working with OCR and other entities to revise crisis standard of care policies nationwide, The Arc, the Center for Public Representation, and Justice in Aging have created resources for stakeholders regarding preventing disability and age discrimination in crisis standards of care.