New Horizons Un-Limited Inc. New Horizons Un-Limited Inc.
On October 27, 2004 President Bush signed the Assistive Technology Act of 2004, which will ensure that individuals with disabilities throughout the US and its territories have access to the technology they need for independence in school, their homes, the workplace and the community. Every state and US territory has an Assistive Technology Act Program (AT Program) funded under the provisions of the Technology-Related Assistance Act of 1988. Legislation supporting the State AT Programs was scheduled to sunset on September 30, 2004, thereby eliminating federal funding for these important programs. The AT Act of 2004 supports the continuance of State AT Programs and eliminates the sunset provision. To locate the AT program that serves your area, visit the following NHU resource page: www.new-horizons.org/adpcen.html.
As of yet, the Federal hate crime statute does not cover people with disabilities. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (LLEEA) (S. 966 / H.R. 4204) will strengthen the Federal hate crimes statute by permitting Federal involvement in the prosecution of bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's disability, gender or sexual orientation. It also authorizes resources for states and localities to assist in prosecution of such crimes. If you would like this ammendement passed, contact your Members of Congress and ask for their support of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (S. 966/ H.R. 4204) as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. If you, personally, have a disability and have been the victim of a hate crime, or know anyone with a disability who has, be sure to include your personal story. To find contact information for your representatives, visit Congress.org and type in your zip code.
In a welcome, but surprising announcement, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, albeit narrowly (5-4), that states failing to make their courthouses accessible to people with disabilities can be sued for damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This ruling is a significant break from recent decisions that have weakened individuals' rights to sue states for damages. The case, Lane v. the State of Tennessee, brought to question the inaccessibility of Tennessee's courthouses, when George Lane, a criminal defendant who used a wheelchair, had to crawl up several flights of stairs to reach his hearing. Despite this victory however, the majority, voted not to extend this ruling to the overall provisions of Title II of the ADA, limiting this ruling only to State courthouses. While this ruling is a step in the right direction, it is clear that barriers remain in ensuring Americans with disabilities are afforded equal access in all areas of life. To become involved in the movement to protect individuals' rights under the ADA, contact ADA WATCH via e-mail at info@adawatch.org.
The Senate recently passed S. 622, the Family Opportunity Act, a Grassley-Kennedy-Baucus bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide families of disabled children with the opportunity to purchase coverage for their child with a disability under the Medicaid program. This bill will give states the option of allowing families with disabled children to buy into Medicaid and pay on a sliding scale while continuing to work. In the past, many parents were faced with the decision of continuing to work and going without the comprehensive coverage provided by the Medicaid program or forcing their family into poverty so to qualify for the program. This bill would give these families access to such medical necessities as physical therapy and medical equipment, without having to face poverty. To learn more about this bill, visit Thomas and type S. 622 in the Bill Number box.
Hundreds of advocates attended the April 7, 2004 Senate hearing on the institutional bias currently plaguing the long-term care system. Upon testimony from several key disability community members, there was great enthusiasm for both of the bills. This hearing was a big step towards the passage of these two bills. In an effort to build on the momentum of the hearing, ADAPT encourages you to conntact the Sentate Finance Committee and your Congressional Representatives. Thank them for the hearing and let them know what MiCASSA (S. 971) and Money Follows the Person (S. 1394) means to you. Contact information for your representatives is available at www.vote-smart.org.
As the 108th Congress enters its second session, reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program remains on the agenda. When reauthorization is again considered, it will be important that the new law establish policies that reflect both the intention and desire of people with disabilities to work and the reality that some individuals may have significant work circumstances requiring long-term assistance.
Read the rest of NCD's op-ed piece on-line at http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/news/op-ed04-453.html.
Americans with disabilities and their families have expressed that lack of Transportation is a major issue. The Paralyzed Veterans of America is asking for your input regarding the House Transportation Equity Act.
The House Transportation Equity Act (H.R. 3550) was introduced by Representative Don Young (R-AK) on November 20, 2003. The Act would authorize funds from $125 to $175 million annually over six years for Federal aid for highways, highway safety programs, transit programs, and other purposes. It includes the New Freedom transportation program in Sec. 3018 of the Act. The Paralyzed Veterans of America, on behalf of the disability community, are drafting suggestions for report language for Sec. 3018 and would like input from a wide range of people.
Ideas that have been gathered thus far include:
If you would like to add to the discussion, please e-mail your ideas and suggestions to Maureen McCloskey of the Paralyzed Veterans of America at maureenm@pva.org.
Following are excepts from an action alert from Families USA:
In early March the Senate released its budget resolution - the first legislative step in setting federal budget parameters for the coming years. The resolution proposes cutting Medicaid by at least $11 billion over five years.
If these cuts will affect you or your loved ones, you are encouraged to contact your two U.S. Senators today and ask them to oppose the Medicaid cuts called for in the Senate budget resolution. If the budget resolution ends up containing such cuts, urge your Senators to VOTE NO on final passage. To find out how to contact your U.S. Senators, visit: www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.
Why are these cuts bad news? Most states are still suffering from the recession and facing continued Medicaid cuts. On top of that, the $10 billion in extra federal Medicaid help that was provided to the states starting on April 1, 2003, expires on June 30, 2004. When it expires, many states are expected to make new cuts. In addition, the new Medicare prescription drug law unexpectedly increased Medicaid administrative costs for a number of states. The Senate budget resolution does nothing meaningful to help reduce the number of uninsured through other programs or proposals. Instead of helping the states and reducing the number of uninsured, the Senate Budget Committee's proposal to cut $11 billion is certain to increase the number of uninsured Americans and lead to further cuts in the quality of care to our nation's nursing home residents, people with disabilities, and millions of low-income children and their mothers. There are other serious problems with the Senate budget proposal. To read an excellent analysis of the Senate budget situation from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, visit: http://www.cbpp.org/3-4-04bud.htm.
Let your U.S. Senators know your concerns today!
At its January meeting, the Access Board unanimously approved new guidelines covering access to facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The approved rule overhauls the existing ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), which were published in 1991. It also updates guidelines for federally funded facilities required to be accessible under the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA). Both the ADA guidelines and the ABA guidelines, which the Board updated jointly to make them more consistent, specify access in new construction and alterations and provide detailed provisions for a wide range of building elements and spaces. For further information, including background materials, visit the Board's website at www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/status.htm.
President Bush's most recent budget has significantly cut the funding commitment to Money Following the Individual Rebalancing Initiative. This initiative is designed to give people in need of long-term care, the choice to receive care in their own homes in the community, rather than a nursing home. According to a release issued by ADAPT, President Bush's FY 2005 budget has no funding for Money Following the Individual Rebalancing Initiative in FY 2005 and instead of the $1.75 billion that was in the proposed 2004 budget, incentive funding has been reduced 70% to only $500 million for FYs 2006-2009. This is a major pull back from the President's rhetoric about a major commitment to changing the institutional bias. This bill, along with the Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act (MiCASSA), (S. 971) need attention. Contact the following Senators today and urge to them to have a hearing on MiCASSA, Money Follows the Person and the institutional bias in the Medicaid program.
(Senator Grassley is the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baccus is the top democrat on the Committee.)
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
United States Senate
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1501
Phone: 202-224-3744
Fax: 202-224-6020
http://grassley.senate.gov/webform.htm
The Honorable Max Baucus
United States Senate
511 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2602
Phone: 202-224-2651
Fax: 202-224-4700
http://baucus.senate.gov/emailmax.html
National Council on Disability Statement on Tennessee v. Lane:
Access to Government Services for People with Disabilities at Stake
WASHINGTON-On January 13, the Supreme Court of the United States will conduct oral argument in Tennessee v. Lane (02-1667). Few cases are more compelling than a person in a wheelchair who has to crawl up the courthouse steps to participate in court proceedings, as did the plaintiff in this case. The National Council on Disability (NCD), in first proposing and then drafting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), worked closely with Congress in crafting Title II of the ADA to prevent just the type of discrimination experienced by Mr. Lane.
In 1998, George Lane and Beverly Jones brought a lawsuit against the State of Tennessee under Title II of the ADA alleging that several courthouses in the state were inaccessible to people who use wheelchairs. Title II prohibits governmental entities from denying public services, programs and activities to individuals on the basis of their disability. In addition, it provides that people who have been discriminated against on the basis of disability can seek damages from governmental entities, including states. The state of Tennessee argued that it was protected from ADA lawsuits by the Constitution, which grants sovereign immunity to states from damage suits brought by individuals.
Much is at stake in Lane. The courts of appeals are deeply divided about the constitutionality of the damages remedy under Title II and about the basic question of whether the power of Congress to override sovereign immunity should be determined for Title II overall or only for certain applications. Limiting the Title II remedy to recognized constitutional violations or to violations based on the Due Process Clause would impose arbitrary limitations on the reach of the remedy because it would exclude situations where Congress was well within its power to legislate under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and where the states have demonstrated a record of invidious discrimination on the basis of disability. Not only would such a ruling weaken the effectiveness of Title II by eliminating the ability of plaintiffs to obtain damages against the states, it would eliminate one of the fundamental bases of congressional power to require the states to provide access to public facilities. While there are two other possible sources of congressional power to require access-Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, based on the Spending Clause, and injunctive actions against state officials based on the Commerce Clause-these sources of congressional power are also under attack and subject to many of the same theoretical debates about the federalism framework that have deeply divided the current Court. Thus, the result in Lane could have implications far beyond the damages remedy and even beyond Title II itself.
According to a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in this matter, "In Title II, Congress formulated a statute that, much like federal laws combating racial and gender discrimination, is carefully designed to root out present instances of unconstitutional discrimination, to undo the effects of past discrimination, and to prevent future unconstitutional treatment by prohibiting discrimination and promoting integration where reasonable." As such, DOJ concludes that "application of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act to States and their subdivisions falls squarely within Congress's comprehensive legislative power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit, remedy, and prevent violations of the rights secured by that Amendment."
NCD's policy paper, Tennessee v. Lane: The Legal Issues and Implications for People with Disabilities discusses the case and the constitutional and policy issues it raises. The paper examines the Lane case in the context of the recent trend in Supreme Court decisions limiting the power of Congress to regulate the states. It is clear that the Supreme Court should decide that Title II does override the states' sovereign immunity and that these plaintiffs can seek damages from the State of Tennessee.
A decision is expected by July 2004.
|
Home / Disability News / NHU Quarterly Newsletter |
| Share Your Knowledge! / NHU Community Discussion Board / E-mail Us | |
| About NHU / Announcements and Features / Contribute / What's New? / Site Plan |