Equal Protection
National Public Radio did a story today on the . The intent of the bill is to undo some of the damage done to the Americans with Disabilities Act by the federal courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court. As the article explains, courts have narrowed the definition of "disability", excluding many people from the law's protection because they have impairments that can be ameliorated with the help of drugs or medical devices. To borrow the article's example, a person with diabetes is not considered disabled if an insulin pump alleviates the symptoms of the impairment.
This kind of strained reasoning is indicative of society's misguided impulse to assess disability on the basis of, dare I say, freakishness. People in wheelchairs, people who are blind or deaf, people who talk to the voices in their heads; their obvious otherness makes it so easy for society to label these people as disabled. But when the distinction isn't as apparent, as is the case with most hidden disabilities, we become much more diffident. The legalistic notion that this person or that person isn't "disabled enough" is not so different from whistling while passing the graveyard; it allows us to ignore some uncomfortable truths. It allows us to ignore the fact that many perfectly normal-looking people can have significant impairments that can dramatically affect one's life. It allows us to ignore the fact that the gulf between disability and so-called "normalcy" isn't as wide as we might imagine (or hope).
The notion that some disabilities can be made to simply go away is a fiction and almost childish in the wishfulness it conveys. Diabetes can be managed with drugs in the same way my condition can be managed with a wheelchair. But in both cases, the underlying impairments and their complicating factors remain. The person with diabetes just looks more able-bodied. And in this culture, looks are everything.
• Visit
Comments
Disability shouldn't be defined by your impairment at all - it's the social, physical and attitudinal barriers constructed (sometimes by the courts, ironically) that prevent us from fully participating in society on equal terms that is the salient point. But when you've got legislators who aren't themselves Disabled, what do you expect?
Thanks for blogging on this. I've been writing a great deal about the ADA Restoration Act (including more details on the Stephen Orr court case you obliquely refer to) at I've also been linking to any blog posts I can find around the web (click on "On the ADA Restoration Act" from the top navigation bar at reunifygally), and will be linking to you within a few hours, after I get home.
Thanks for blogging on this. I've been writing a great deal about the ADA Restoration Act (including more details on the Stephen Orr court case you obliquely refer to) at I've also been linking to any blog posts I can find around the web (click on "On the ADA Restoration Act" from the top navigation bar at reunifygally), and will be linking to you within a few hours, after I get home.
As far as I can tell, your observation that ADA coverage at present is based mostly on visibly obvious and uncorrectable "freakishness" is right on point. If you aren't outwardly strange or visibly limited enough, there is no protection. On the other hand, if you would be a real "freak" but have learned to hide it, or found medication to control it, there is no coverage. Indeed, under those circumstances, you can be discriminated against precisely BECAUSE you need treatment and would be obviously freakish (or dead) without it.
For an example of this last point, please look at my website, which deals with my recent conflict with the Kansas Supreme Court over my application for licensure as an attorney. You won't have to read any more than the majority and minority reports of the Board of Law Examiners to see that I was denied because of the often-reported "Catch-22:" My disabilities (Asperger's Disorder and a history of Bipolar Disorder) have been under very good control for more than 20 years. Therefore, I was silently denied ADA protection. However, my application for licensure was denied because 1) I still have the diagnoses and 2) I still need maintenance treatment.
I'm looking for a lawyer to take my case before the U.S. Supreme Court. I'm also doing all I can to support the ADA Restoration Act.
the most common neurological disorder challenging people nowadays globally is epilepsy.
however it is barely ever mentioned by the powers to be, no foundation into the research of the condition exist to my knowledge on a serious basis in the uk , and anyone who wants to help is all to often made to be quiet, or ignored. as a nation of apparently modern age open minded people, we all to often behave like we are in the crusades, with a negative attitude similiar to what the romans applied to the lepers , stoning , burning , and crucifiction. -- we do the same , thats correct we do! we would prefer a able person over a disabled person to work as a secretary or factory worker for example ! and if we are honest , i am sure there is a large proportion of the population who would agree with me. or if they are blinded disagree with me? i am not to judge, i only want to state the obvious. we should be ashamed at how we treat our own fellow people. excuses like its all the foreigners fault is a major mis-act and excuse on our part to run away from the issue. i beleive the oxford dictionary calls this cowardice. since when are the british people cowards? why have we become cowards? my parents and grandparents would have been shocked at how we behave nowadays to our own kin who are disabled! i am almost ashamed to call myself british in the evidence of social neglect and discrimination to our fellow disabled people. since when is it something to be proud of as a british person, when we see our own people go out and deliberately seek out disable people to ridicule, abuse, neglect, and all to often to beat nearly to an inch of death. a example i know of a old blind man. im sure we are all proud to be british, but are we proud for what we are starting to becoming? a nation of negligent , discriminatory , misled people? i think not. let us do something about it and try to change, to better ourselves, and be proud to call ourselves british again. what do you say? or shall we just ignore our evils?
The only reason for limiting the definition of disability is to limit the number of claims. What is at issue is whether there was discrimination, not "how disabled" someone might be. It seems absurd to me that lawyers spend time deciding whether the claimant fits a legal definition rather than deciding whether or not discrimination has occurred. As far as I understand it other European countries do not include a definition of disability in their DDA type legislation.
Ian,
You could try and contact the Washington Lawyer's Committee (https://www.washlaw.org) and see if they're interested in taking it on.
~miika