It’s a bad lawsuit. And I think that they have a solid chance of getting something they want out of it. I don’t know if they are going to get 504 overturned entirely. But we might see some changes to it.
Agree - I'm not sure of the likelihood the suit will be successful. But, the fact that it is proceeding at all is alarming. And the potential harms are very real.
I'm confused, all of this is a nightmare but I didn't think the kind of stripping of federal funding from multiple agencies for violations was something that occurred or threatened? The only administration who has threatened to do anything even close is the current one. How can they claim those conditions exist when they don't?
It’s literally the way 504 is written and always has been. It’s really not something that any one else has threatened. But, the actual text says all federal funding. They’re using, what I think is an obscure, but technically accurate argument
That's grrrr, I mean because most parents of needs kids would have been delighted, DELIGHTED, to have the whip hand to that degree over their recalcitrant school districts. The fact that the GOP is now weaponizing what sounds like a proofreading failure to end the entire protection for every student using it is fucking bullshit.
Excellent piece and absolutely chilling. Back in the day before Gorbie, it was weird to wander around Leningrad/Petersburg, because the only disabled people you saw were wounded soldiers. The disabled were hidden.
Good point in focusing on the state's rights aspect of this. If states had retained the constitutional authority of their legislatures to appoint US senators, instead of giving it away in 1913, we might not be having so many of these battles.
It’s exactly what it is. They are using trans people to sneak in what they really want, which is to be able to skirt federal law. I don’t know that they will be successful.
As someone who is disabled due to a serious chronic illness, the risk of this lawsuit is just one more reason for me to very afraid for my ability to survive.
Over the last five years, I’ve been studying our nations history from the perspective of the people we call The Founders. I’ve had a general idea of the ideals & vision of society held by the Founders, but I was shocked just how radical their ideas really were, then, as well now. Consider the idea of Freedom.
Jefferson (as well as Madison, Franklin and Common Law) described Freedom broadly, and comprised of three types - freedom of Mind, of Body and of Property (which didn’t refer to ownership of land so much as the product of a person’s effort, I think). This Freedom, as described in the Declaration of Independence, was universal and absolute; the natural and unalienable human right. And it was of no concern or business of Government except when it led to harm to a non-consenting other. It’s is from this understanding of Freedom that Religious Freedom (& Freedom from Religion) is based on.
My question is how did we begin with this very limited view of government’s regulation of Freedom end up with 1) such broad definitions of harm as to include harm to general moral beliefs of a community; & 2) a clearly defined human freedom being treated as if it only counts if SCOTUS decides that a specific group qualifies for that Freedom?
From my reading of these early views of Freedom and what kind of harm would lead to the need for government regulations, it would seem that any outcomes that essentially limit the Freedom of an another can be harm. When Jefferson is writing about Religious Freedom (ie The State of Virginia, 18. ), he uses as examples of harm “breaking one’s leg”. These are pretty straight forward definitions of harm.
But I think it is fair to consider any action on the part of another/others that somehow interferes with my ability to live as I would normally do so - that is, affecting my ability to function, to interact, work, recreate, socialize without interference caused by someone else’s behavior.
What it wasn’t was “hurt feelings” or “guilt” - those amorphous outcomes Florida Gov DeSantis has based his new regulations of Education, work and language. For instance, we don’t teach Black History in Public Schools that might make a student feel guilty. In addition to reflecting a typical misrepresentation of anti-racist, sexist, and homophobic efforts as having tj di with “hurt feelings” (as opposed to very real, and measurable negative outcomes for political minorities due to hate speech), it makes the notion of Freedom & harm so subjective it’s useless.
So when I read that this lawsuit against Disability Rights could lead to the tossing all rights that protect the disabled, I have to ask, why wouldn’t disabled people have the same rights to Freedom and Liberty as anyone else. If a business makes it impossible for me to enter their premises, that cause of harm that arbitrary harms the disabled people. If my child has a disability, why wills she have the same rights as all students to have safe access to school and classroom. Denying her access is a form of harm that interferes with her education and most likely leads to anxiety and stress, which could make it even harder for her to learn.
These are pretty concrete and provable types of harm. Anytime any group is denied the same Freedom as anyone else, or be subjected to harm in ways unique to their group, government regulation of the harmful behavior is warranted. But the disabled student shouldn’t be able to claim that even though she has equal freedom & no disproportionate negative outcome, the government should get involved because it makes her feel bad to be around kids without disabilities. That is not harm: her feelings are her own.
Now if many of the abled students at school harassed the disabled girl daily, and spread terrible rumors about her, called her names, and got in trouble with the School, to the point that she is having trouble learning and is afraid to go to school, those children’s behavior is causing harm. It’s still a very clear differentiation between harm and something and individual feels or believes on their own.
I have the same problem with the efforts of some to convince the government to regulate birth control. The very idea of this being possible, to impose the moral ideas of a few in the many, seems completely inconsistent with the intended meanings of Freedom. How did we get to a place where SCOTUS justices are actually considering the possibility of making such rulings?
In sum, I’ve seen no evidence that the original intent of the founders was to allow justices to regulate our Freedom of Body when our use of birth control does not harm to anyone else. I know that some would argue that it’s in the best interests of the government to insure that enough children are born each year, but then who defines “enough?” These are highly subjective and often religiously driven efforts to regulate women’s sexual activity - how can they even be a possibility, given the premise that our Freedoms are inalienable, as long as no harm comes to others.
Would there be a problem with implementing this very basic idea of Freedom into our law? It would really be in everyone’s best Interest, at least everyone who wants their own Freedom. As the saying goes, no ones is free of even one person is not free. Why? Because to arbitrarily deny some people their freedom is in fact the arbitrary abuse of power. And once we have shown our acquiescence to the denial of others their natural human rights, there is nothing to stop the same abuse of power to target us. It’s necessary for our rights to be absolute and universal; it’s the only way to guarantee that those rights of Freedom exist for everyone always.
Thank you for both the article and your response. . I’m a Sociologist, and while I tend towards multi-disciplinarian approach, it’s hard to know if I’m reading the literature and implications correctly, so it’s helpful to get your positive feedback.
Any chance we can reassert the original view of Freedom, and get the state out of our free and personal lives unless we cause harm to another. Likewise, would we have a strong case against those in government who want nothing more than to deny those of us who are disabled any kind of support: the harm done to people unable to work or even care for themselves due to disability, most for reasons behind their control, when people or agencies in the government either try to keep them from getting benefits, or does not give them enough support to cover costs, leading to worsening health and well-being.
In my own battles against disability my ERISA Disability provider (UNUM), after they approved the continuation of my ERISA disability coverage at the two year mark, got their reimbursement from Social Security, which I was awarded only 6 weeks after I applied, then at the fourth year review, denied my case despite the fact that there was a negative change in my health/medical tests results - I was worse than before. I had completed all the medical tests considered gold standard for my illness, yet somehow UNUM managed to convince the appeals court (ruled against me 2 to 1) times rule in their favor (the Department of Labor also submitted a friend of the court brief that lent support to my case).
What it seemed to come down to is that two for judges were considers “corporate friendly”. How is that possible? I have yet to come across one instance of the founders arguing that corporations should be given any kind of privileged status by government/judicial system. On the contrary, if one of the purposes of the government is to protect the rights of the people, any preference towards corporations seems inappropriate. Furthermore, how much is the presumed existence of “corporate friendly judges and courts” linked to the partisan control over judicial appointments, especially the Republican Party, whose brand of conservatism is aligned with corporate interests. This hardly seems to reflect Jefferson’s call for “impartially selected” nominees for the judicial system. But it does seem to go hand in hand with the corporatization of our social institutions and government.
If we manage to protect the Constitution from the currents threats posed by our new president and his remaking of our government, I hope we can simultaneously facilitate the improvement of American’s knowledge about the Constitution and how the government was supposed to work. Perhaps then we can recenter our government on the People: that may be the only way we can prevent a return to the kind of political-economic conditions that have made us so vulnerable to anti-constitutional & anti-Democratic Republicanism influences.
Thank you for digging into this - and for explaining clearly the impacts.
It’s a bad lawsuit. And I think that they have a solid chance of getting something they want out of it. I don’t know if they are going to get 504 overturned entirely. But we might see some changes to it.
Agree - I'm not sure of the likelihood the suit will be successful. But, the fact that it is proceeding at all is alarming. And the potential harms are very real.
I'm confused, all of this is a nightmare but I didn't think the kind of stripping of federal funding from multiple agencies for violations was something that occurred or threatened? The only administration who has threatened to do anything even close is the current one. How can they claim those conditions exist when they don't?
It’s literally the way 504 is written and always has been. It’s really not something that any one else has threatened. But, the actual text says all federal funding. They’re using, what I think is an obscure, but technically accurate argument
That's grrrr, I mean because most parents of needs kids would have been delighted, DELIGHTED, to have the whip hand to that degree over their recalcitrant school districts. The fact that the GOP is now weaponizing what sounds like a proofreading failure to end the entire protection for every student using it is fucking bullshit.
Excellent piece and absolutely chilling. Back in the day before Gorbie, it was weird to wander around Leningrad/Petersburg, because the only disabled people you saw were wounded soldiers. The disabled were hidden.
Good point in focusing on the state's rights aspect of this. If states had retained the constitutional authority of their legislatures to appoint US senators, instead of giving it away in 1913, we might not be having so many of these battles.
It’s exactly what it is. They are using trans people to sneak in what they really want, which is to be able to skirt federal law. I don’t know that they will be successful.
As someone who is disabled due to a serious chronic illness, the risk of this lawsuit is just one more reason for me to very afraid for my ability to survive.
Over the last five years, I’ve been studying our nations history from the perspective of the people we call The Founders. I’ve had a general idea of the ideals & vision of society held by the Founders, but I was shocked just how radical their ideas really were, then, as well now. Consider the idea of Freedom.
Jefferson (as well as Madison, Franklin and Common Law) described Freedom broadly, and comprised of three types - freedom of Mind, of Body and of Property (which didn’t refer to ownership of land so much as the product of a person’s effort, I think). This Freedom, as described in the Declaration of Independence, was universal and absolute; the natural and unalienable human right. And it was of no concern or business of Government except when it led to harm to a non-consenting other. It’s is from this understanding of Freedom that Religious Freedom (& Freedom from Religion) is based on.
My question is how did we begin with this very limited view of government’s regulation of Freedom end up with 1) such broad definitions of harm as to include harm to general moral beliefs of a community; & 2) a clearly defined human freedom being treated as if it only counts if SCOTUS decides that a specific group qualifies for that Freedom?
From my reading of these early views of Freedom and what kind of harm would lead to the need for government regulations, it would seem that any outcomes that essentially limit the Freedom of an another can be harm. When Jefferson is writing about Religious Freedom (ie The State of Virginia, 18. ), he uses as examples of harm “breaking one’s leg”. These are pretty straight forward definitions of harm.
But I think it is fair to consider any action on the part of another/others that somehow interferes with my ability to live as I would normally do so - that is, affecting my ability to function, to interact, work, recreate, socialize without interference caused by someone else’s behavior.
What it wasn’t was “hurt feelings” or “guilt” - those amorphous outcomes Florida Gov DeSantis has based his new regulations of Education, work and language. For instance, we don’t teach Black History in Public Schools that might make a student feel guilty. In addition to reflecting a typical misrepresentation of anti-racist, sexist, and homophobic efforts as having tj di with “hurt feelings” (as opposed to very real, and measurable negative outcomes for political minorities due to hate speech), it makes the notion of Freedom & harm so subjective it’s useless.
So when I read that this lawsuit against Disability Rights could lead to the tossing all rights that protect the disabled, I have to ask, why wouldn’t disabled people have the same rights to Freedom and Liberty as anyone else. If a business makes it impossible for me to enter their premises, that cause of harm that arbitrary harms the disabled people. If my child has a disability, why wills she have the same rights as all students to have safe access to school and classroom. Denying her access is a form of harm that interferes with her education and most likely leads to anxiety and stress, which could make it even harder for her to learn.
These are pretty concrete and provable types of harm. Anytime any group is denied the same Freedom as anyone else, or be subjected to harm in ways unique to their group, government regulation of the harmful behavior is warranted. But the disabled student shouldn’t be able to claim that even though she has equal freedom & no disproportionate negative outcome, the government should get involved because it makes her feel bad to be around kids without disabilities. That is not harm: her feelings are her own.
Now if many of the abled students at school harassed the disabled girl daily, and spread terrible rumors about her, called her names, and got in trouble with the School, to the point that she is having trouble learning and is afraid to go to school, those children’s behavior is causing harm. It’s still a very clear differentiation between harm and something and individual feels or believes on their own.
I have the same problem with the efforts of some to convince the government to regulate birth control. The very idea of this being possible, to impose the moral ideas of a few in the many, seems completely inconsistent with the intended meanings of Freedom. How did we get to a place where SCOTUS justices are actually considering the possibility of making such rulings?
In sum, I’ve seen no evidence that the original intent of the founders was to allow justices to regulate our Freedom of Body when our use of birth control does not harm to anyone else. I know that some would argue that it’s in the best interests of the government to insure that enough children are born each year, but then who defines “enough?” These are highly subjective and often religiously driven efforts to regulate women’s sexual activity - how can they even be a possibility, given the premise that our Freedoms are inalienable, as long as no harm comes to others.
Would there be a problem with implementing this very basic idea of Freedom into our law? It would really be in everyone’s best Interest, at least everyone who wants their own Freedom. As the saying goes, no ones is free of even one person is not free. Why? Because to arbitrarily deny some people their freedom is in fact the arbitrary abuse of power. And once we have shown our acquiescence to the denial of others their natural human rights, there is nothing to stop the same abuse of power to target us. It’s necessary for our rights to be absolute and universal; it’s the only way to guarantee that those rights of Freedom exist for everyone always.
Thank you for the comment. You are absolutely correct! No notes. Beautifully written.
Thank you for both the article and your response. . I’m a Sociologist, and while I tend towards multi-disciplinarian approach, it’s hard to know if I’m reading the literature and implications correctly, so it’s helpful to get your positive feedback.
Any chance we can reassert the original view of Freedom, and get the state out of our free and personal lives unless we cause harm to another. Likewise, would we have a strong case against those in government who want nothing more than to deny those of us who are disabled any kind of support: the harm done to people unable to work or even care for themselves due to disability, most for reasons behind their control, when people or agencies in the government either try to keep them from getting benefits, or does not give them enough support to cover costs, leading to worsening health and well-being.
In my own battles against disability my ERISA Disability provider (UNUM), after they approved the continuation of my ERISA disability coverage at the two year mark, got their reimbursement from Social Security, which I was awarded only 6 weeks after I applied, then at the fourth year review, denied my case despite the fact that there was a negative change in my health/medical tests results - I was worse than before. I had completed all the medical tests considered gold standard for my illness, yet somehow UNUM managed to convince the appeals court (ruled against me 2 to 1) times rule in their favor (the Department of Labor also submitted a friend of the court brief that lent support to my case).
What it seemed to come down to is that two for judges were considers “corporate friendly”. How is that possible? I have yet to come across one instance of the founders arguing that corporations should be given any kind of privileged status by government/judicial system. On the contrary, if one of the purposes of the government is to protect the rights of the people, any preference towards corporations seems inappropriate. Furthermore, how much is the presumed existence of “corporate friendly judges and courts” linked to the partisan control over judicial appointments, especially the Republican Party, whose brand of conservatism is aligned with corporate interests. This hardly seems to reflect Jefferson’s call for “impartially selected” nominees for the judicial system. But it does seem to go hand in hand with the corporatization of our social institutions and government.
If we manage to protect the Constitution from the currents threats posed by our new president and his remaking of our government, I hope we can simultaneously facilitate the improvement of American’s knowledge about the Constitution and how the government was supposed to work. Perhaps then we can recenter our government on the People: that may be the only way we can prevent a return to the kind of political-economic conditions that have made us so vulnerable to anti-constitutional & anti-Democratic Republicanism influences.