- JezikAfrikaans Argentina AzÉrbaycanca
á¥áá áá£áá Äesky Ãslenska
áá¶áá¶ááááá à¤à¥à¤à¤à¤£à¥ বাà¦à¦²à¦¾
தமிழ௠à²à²¨à³à²¨à²¡ ภาษาà¹à¸à¸¢
ä¸æ (ç¹é«) ä¸æ (é¦æ¸¯) Bahasa Indonesia
Brasil Brezhoneg CatalÃ
ç®ä½ä¸æ Dansk Deutsch
Dhivehi English English
English Español Esperanto
Estonian Finnish Français
Français Gaeilge Galego
Hrvatski Italiano Îλληνικά
íêµì´ LatvieÅ¡u Lëtzebuergesch
Lietuviu Magyar Malay
Nederlands Norwegian nynorsk Norwegian
Polski Português RomânÄ
Slovenšcina Slovensky Srpski
Svenska Türkçe Tiếng Viá»t
Ù¾Ø§Ø±Ø³Û æ¥æ¬èª ÐÑлгаÑÑки
ÐакедонÑки Ðонгол Ð ÑÑÑкий
СÑпÑки УкÑаÑнÑÑка ×¢×ר×ת
اÙعربÙØ© اÙعربÙØ©
Domov / Albumi 349
Ustvarjeno / 2013 / Teden 29 / četrtek
ADAPT (1171)
This page continues the article from Image 1176. Full text is available on 1176 for easier reading.
ADAPT (1176)
ADAPT OF TEXAS 1208 MARSHALL LN AUSTIN TX 78703-4027 SEE ABLE'S PRODUCT & SERVICE GUIDE - STARTING PAGE 9 New York Able THE NEWSPAPER POSITIVELY FOR, BY & ABOUT THE DISABLED JUNE 1999 VOL. 5, NO. 1 [Headline] THOUSANDS RALLY IN DC [Subheading] Activists Gather as Supreme Court Examines ADA By T.K. Small A rally of more than 3,000 people with disabilities, committed to preserving the scope of the American with Disabilities Act, descended upon Washington in the shadow of the U.S. Capital on May 12. The rally was organized by American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today (ADAPT) and a broad coalition of national and local disability rights groups, including New York's Disabled in Action, who had 39 members travel down to Washington. The experience was empowering and eye opening for many members in our group," said Anthony Trocchia, an organizer of the New York City" contingent. The rally featured two noted politicians: Governor Richard Thornburg (R) of Pennsylvania and U.S. Senator Tom Harkins (D) Governor Thornburg began his re-marks by quoting what former President George Bush said as he signed , the American with Dis-abilities Act (ADA) "Let L3 the shameful wall of dis- i crimination come tum-bling down." Other speakers included Justin Dart, Bob Y. Kafka, Mike Auberger and civil rights leader Wade Henderson. "People have rights, not states," said Dart. "America stands for freedom — for all people...Distinguished Justices, listen to the heart of America. Free our people." The rally was prompted by a number of cases before the Supreme Court, most notably Olmstead v. L C. & E. W. The Supreme Court has been particularly active this term, reflecting the fact that the full dimensions of the ADA remain uncharted after nearly 10 years on the books. There have been five cases heard in all four of in which the court is being asked to determine the basic scope of how far the ADA can be used in protecting people from discrimination in employment. In the Olmstead case, the Supreme Court will address the _ states' responsibility for providing treatment in the most integrated setting, as required by Title II of the ADA, for two women from Georgia with mental retardation and mental illness. The case is seen as a potentially defining point in disability law because the State of Georgia is arguing they can simply ignore the integration requirements of the ADA because it is too expensive. "If the court can't recognize these basic human rights, we must continue to fight," said Stephanie Thomas, national Adapt organizer. "Victory will be ours." The case is part of the continuing struggle over the meaning of the sweeping yet vague dis-ability law Arguments given for the State of Georgia describes the Justice Department regulation as an unwelcome and unauthorized Federal intrusion into state prerogatives. People with disabilities have described the case as the Brown v. Board of Education of the disability rights movement. In addition to rallying in support of the ADA, the gathering marked the beginning phase of ADAPTs effort in getting the Medicaid Community Attendant Services & Supports Act (MiCASSA) introduced into the current session of Congress. The legislation, if approved, would give the individual the right to choose whether financial aid would be spent in an institution or unity-based set-ting. Copies of the revised legislation were given to everyone, and they were encouraged to speak to their elected officials. [image] [image caption] Disability advocates march in a "Don't Tread on the ADA" protest. [text continues] Sen. Harkin, who began his speech in sign language, inspired the audience with the message that the "time for MiCASSA is now! Don't take "No" for an answer." "The 'Don't Tread on the ADA' rally concluded with all participants marching in single file from the Capital building over the Supreme Court. Six people wearing black hats and carrying a coffin led the march. There was also a large wooden cross with a wheelchair hanging from it. When the thousands assembled at the Supreme Court, there was chanting and cheering for equal rights. Next came a heartfelt rendition of "We Shall Overcome," followed by a moment of silence for the 467 who die each day in institutions.
ADAPT (1177)
ADAPT (1184)
[title] ADAPT Attendant Services Victories (as of August, 1999) HCFA simplified the Medicaid waiver process to take about 60 days. The total number of Medicaid waiver slots has drastically increased. The Medicaid Personal Care Option now covers cognitive tasks, in addition to physical tasks. Under the Health Care Finance Administration, HCFA, rules for the Personal Care Option, people can self-direct their assistance; however states' rules may vary. This spring the Clinton Administration's budget included funding to allow the Personal Care Option to cover folks whose incomes are up to three times the SSI level (approximately $1,500). The "cold bed rule" which said states could only write Medicaid slots equal to or less than the number of empty beds in nursing homes. For two years finning, Health and Human Services has funded grants to states for transitioning people out of institutions. The elimination of the Boren Amendment. The University of California at San Francisco study of the institutional bias in Medicaid regulations, including hearings in five states and the recently released final report. Introduction of MiCASA and the hearing on FIR 2020. HCFA is now providing Medicaid Home and Community Based Services, HCBS, Primer and technical assistance and best practices assistance for the states. The Rehabilitation Services Administration requires Centers for Independent Living to report on efforts to assist people getting out of institutions. (Call your RSA regional office for results.) HHS Secretary Donna Shalala has agreed to meet with ADAPT twice a year. HHS has funded a Durable Medical Equipment pilot project with four Centers for Independent Living. ADAPT and HCFA have held round one of regional meetings.
ADAPT (1185)
Disability policy know no party affiliation. We must solidify our base of support and expand it to new members. Let's never make disability a partisan issue. So go out and visit your representatives and your Senators. Keep the message simple and straight forward. Share your experiences. Tell your story. Together we will move forward. Together we will make change happen. And together we'll make personal assistance services available to all who need it. Thank you.
ADAPT (1173)
DON'T TREAD ON THE ADA Civil Rights not States Rights [graphic of a foot print on the disability American flag. text surrounding it says Real Choice] [Heading] Integration not Segregation [Subheading] What is Olmstead v. LC & EW? On April 21, 1999, the Supreme Court heard oral arguements in a Georgia lawsuit known as Olmstead v. LC& EW. It involves two women with mental disabilities, who wanted to live in the community, not in a state institution. They sued Georgia and won in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and now live free in the community with appropriate services. Tommy Olmstead, Georgia's Commissioner of Human Services has challenged this, and the lawsuit was argued on April 21 before the Supreme Court. The lawsuit has raised enormous concern in the disability community, because of its potential to strip the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) of a basic civil rights provision, known as the "integration mandate". [Subheading] Why is ADAPT at the Supreme Court? ADAPT, a national grassroots disability rights group, is holding a rally and march to the steps of the Supreme Court, to show support for the "integration mandate" of the ADA, and for plaintiffs Lois and Elaine. The ADA is a civil rights law, and it's fundamental purpose is integration. [Subheading] Title II of the ADA applies to public services offered by state and local governments. It says that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in" or "be subjected to discrimination" by a Government program or service. Integration NOT Segregation MAY 12.1999
ADAPT (1175)
[graphic footprint on an American disabilities flag] [Heading] Don't tread on the ADA [Subheading] Integration NOT Segregation Join ADAPT and THOUSANDS OF DISABILITY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS for a day supporting disability rights and opposing the "Olmstead vs L.C. and E.W." threat to community living. Support the ADA's "Most Integrated Setting" mandate -the peoples' right to choose where we live and receive support services. Send a message to the Supreme Court Justices, Congress and the Clinton Administration. Where: Supreme Court Steps 1 First Street N.E. - Washington, D.C. When: Wednesday, May 12th, 1999. Arrive 11:30 am, Begin noon. For Information, call (512) 442-0252 or (303) 733-9324 adapt@adapt.org ACTION REMINDER - ADAPT National Action May 8th through May 13th
ADAPT (1178)
ADAPT (1185)
Disability policy know no party affiliation. We must solidify our base of support and expand it to new members. Let's never make disability a partisan issue. So go out and visit your representatives and your Senators. Keep the message simple and straight forward. Share your experiences. Tell your story. Together we will move forward. Together we will make change happen. And together we'll make personal assistance services available to all who need it. Thank you.
ADAPT (1186)
Doc-06-93 01:00P We spend over $50 billion a year on long-term care services, that's a lot of money. But only 20% of that goes to community living. Well, I say, at the very least, we need a level playing field. We have to find a way to let the money follow the person so each person can be free. We need to create systems that have people with disabilities at the center, in control of services of their own choice. We need to replace the medical model of service delivery with the independent living model that is what people want, and let us be clear it saves money. And we need to convince all those in this capitol and in state capitols and in corporate boardrooms around the nation one simple fact: self determination is in America's self interest. I know for many of you here today, this is not a matter of developing policy it is a literal struggle for your lives, and the lives of your friends and colleagues. I know many of you have lived in institutions yourselves. You know the frustration, you know the indignity, you know the anger that comes from not living free lives in the community Let me say this to each one of you: Your struggle for freedom has not been in vain. Your fight to gain the attention of those of us here in Washington is working. But our work isn't done. We need to educate. We need to say no to legislating by fear and anecdote. And we need to remind our elected officials that we still have promises to keep. And let's remember this isn't about Democrats vs. Republicans.
ADAPT (1187)
Yes to inclusion. Yes to independence. Yes to empowerment. And that means yes to personal assistance services. Americans with disabilities deserve first-rate personal assistance services, not second class status. And that is why all of us who fought so hard for the ADA arc watching the Supreme Court for their decision in the Olmstead case. Let me make my position on that case crystal clear to you. I believe that any person who receives Medicaid funding for long-term services has the right to receive those services in the most integrated setting appropriate to his or her needs. And I believe that the ADA clearly protects that right. Keeping a person in an institution when that person is able to live in the community is discrimination, plain and simple. We all hope the Supreme Court agrees. Make no mistake about it, we have made tremendous progress toward the goal of eliminating unnecessary institutional living and expanding community-based support. In addition to the ADA, our state institutions are a case in point. In 1968, only thirty years ago, our state institutions were bulging with over 228,000 men and women with disabilities. Now those same facilities house a little more than 57,000 people. This is undeniable progress for which we should all be proud. But many of those remaining 57,000 people and thousands more in nursing homes are still in institutions because of misguided federal policies. That is wrong, and it must change.
ADAPT (1188)
[title] "Don't Tread on the ADA" Rally May 12, 1999 I am proud to be with you today. Because I know I am with some of the greatest architects for civil rights and social justice in America today. I want to specifically acknowledge great leaders such as Dick Thornburgh, Justin Dart, Pat Wright, Mike Auberger, Paul Marchand and Stephanie Thomas, and all the other tremendous advocates gathered here today. With your ideas your energy and your commitment, you have torn down the walls of exclusion. You have broken down the barriers of segregation. And you've built stronger communities and a better America for ALL. When I look out at so many familiar faces, and many great friends, I'm reminded of our past shared struggles, our setbacks and our victories on the road to freedom for people with disabilities. I'm reminded of the power we have as an organized force in tearing down the barriers. And I am reminded of how proud I am to have been to be by your side as we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. And , and then protected the ADA, IDEA, and our fragile network of community based services and supports from those who would attack them. But we are not here today to talk about yesterday. We're here to talk about tomorrow. We here to talk about the future. And we are here to say loud an clear: We aren't going back. We are going to keep moving forward. And the key to moving forward and building a better America for all is to keep saying yes.
ADAPT (1174)
THE NEW YORK TIMES NATIONAL WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1999 [Headline] States Limited on Institutionalization [Subheading] U.S. Disabilities Act Requires Medical Justification Court Says By LINDA GREENHOUSE WASHINGTON, June 22 — Isolating people with disabilities in big state institutions when there is no medical reason for their confinement is a form of discrimination that violates Federal disabilities law, the Supreme Court ruled today. The 6-to-3 decision, in a case brought against the State of Georgia by two women with mental impairment, was a substantial victory for a disabilities rights movement that has looked to the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 as a tool for breaking down institutional walls that separate people with serious mental and physical problems from the larger community. The ruling affirmed, in most respects, a decision last year by the Federal appeals court in Atlanta, which held that states have a duty under the 1990 law to provide care in group homes when medically appropriate. In 1994, the Federal appeals court in Philadelphia, in the only other appellate decision on the subject, reached the same result. The Supreme Court's decision six months ago to hear Georgia's appeal in this case alarmed advocates for people with disabilities, who feared that the Court might steer the law in the opposite direction and reverse the nationwide trend toward deinstitutionalization. An unusually vigorous grass-roots campaign sprang up around the case, leading 15 of the 22 states that had originally supported Georgia to disavow the state's position in the Supreme Court. The case involved a 1995 lawsuit filed on behalf of Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson, both of them mentally retarded and mentally ill, who sought state care outside the Georgia Regional Hospital, where they had lived off and on for years. Both remained in the hospital for several years after state doctors had concluded that they could be more appropriately cared for in small group homes. In some respects, the decision today was the Court's first rather than last, word on the subject, and it may require more cases to clarify the full dimensions of the ruling. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's majority opinion held that states' obligation to care for people in small, neighborhood based settings was limited to some degree by available resources. States are not required to close their big hospitals — which, the Court emphasized, may still be appropriate for some people — or to create group home programs that they do not now have. (In fact, though, every state now has such a program.) The decision interpreted a regulation that requires states to make "reasonable modifications" in their programs to avoid discriminating against people with disabilities, while at the same time providing that states need not make "fundamental" alterations. Justice Ginsburg said that if a state "were to demonstrate that it had a comprehensive, effectively working plan for placing qualified persons with mental disabilities in less restrictive settings, and a waiting list that moved at a reasonable pace not controlled by the state's endeavors to keep its institutions fully populated, the reasonable modifications standard would be met." [image] [image caption] Associated Press. The Court heard the case of Elaine Wilson, left, and Lois Curtis, mentally impaired women who sought care outside a state hospital. That interpretation did not give the states enough leeway to satisfy the three dissenting Justices. Justice Clarence Thomas joined in a dissenting opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia, said the decision imposed "significant federalism costs" and failed to "respect the states' historical role as the dominant authority responsible for providing services to individuals with disabilities." Justice Thomas predicted that states would "now be forced to defend themselves in Federal court every time resources prevent the immediate placement of a qualified individual." He said that rather than addressing discrimination in any conventional sense, the majority was imposing its own "standard of care." [pulled quote] States must provide care in group homes when appropriate. [text resumes] The majority opinion was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy concurred in a separate opinion, noting that "the depopulation of state mental hospitals has its dark side" and warning that the decision should not be interpreted "to drive those in need of medical care and treatment out of appropriate care and into settings with too little assistance and supervision." Justice Breyer also signed that part of Justice Kennedy's opinion. While the decision, Olmstead v. L.C., No. 98-536, referred throughout to mental disabilities, the ruling also applies to the states' obligations to people with serious physical disabilities. The decision interpreted Title II of the disabilities act, which prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against people or excluding them from programs "by reason of" their disabilities. A regulation issued by the Attorney General at Congress's direction, after the law's adoption, provides that "a public entity shall administer services, programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities," with "integrated setting" defined as "a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with nondisabled persons to the fullest extent possible." Georgia argued that the two mentally impaired women involved in the case did not come within the disabilities law's protection because they had not been subjected to discrimination, which the state defined as unequal treatment. Justice Ginsburg said today that in the context of the Federal law, "unjustified isolation, we hold, is properly regarded as dis-crimination based on disability." ”Institutional placement of per-sons who can handle and benefit from community setting perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that per-sons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life," Justice Ginsburg continued. She added that "confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, educational advancement and cultural enrichment." One of the two plaintiffs lives today in a three-person group home, and the other lives in her own apartment, with supportive services. Ira Burnim, the legal director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, an organization here that coordinated Supreme Court briefs on the women's behalf, praised the decision. "This is the first time the Court has announced that needless institutionalization is a form of discrimination," he said in an interview, adding that the disabilities rights movement had been work-ing toward this goal for 30 years.
ADAPT (1179)
[added text lays over the document reading This Victory by ADAPT] [original document reads] Supreme Court of the United States Olmstead, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Human Resources, et al [illegible] by zimring, guardian [illegible] and next friends [illegible] Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District No 98-[illegible] argued April 21, 1999--Decided June 22, 1999 In the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Congress described the isolation and segregation of individuals with disabilities as a serious and pervasive form of discrimination. 42 U. S. C. 12101 (a) (2), (5). Title II of the ADA, which proscribes discrimination in the provision of public services, specifies, inter alia, that no qualified individual with a disability shall, "by reason of such disability," be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, a public entity's services, programs, or activities. 12132. Congress instructed the Attorney General to issue regulations implementing Title II's discrimination proscription. See 12134 (a). One such regulation, known as the "integration regulation," requires a "public entity [to administer...programs...in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities." 28 CFR 35.130 (d). A further prescription, here called the "reasonable-modifications regulation," requires public entities to "make reasonable modifications" to avoid "discrimination..on the basis of disability" but does not require
ADAPT (1180)
[added text lays over the document reading This Victory by ADAPT] [original document reads] Supreme Court of the United States No. 98-536 Tommy Olmstead, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Human Resources, et al., Petitioners v. L. C., by Jonathan Zimring, guardian ad litem and next friend, et al. On writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [illegible date] Justice Ginsburg announced [illegible] and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts [illegible] with respect to Part III-B, in which O'Connor, Souter, and Breyer, joined. This case concerns the proper construction of the anti-discrimination provision contained in the public services portion (Title II) of the Americans with Disabilities Act [illegible] Stat. 337, 42 U.S.C. 12132. Specifically, we confront the question whether the [illegible] may require placement of persons with mental disabilities in community settings [illegible] in institutions. The answer, we hold, is a qualified yes. Such action is in order when the State's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with [text cuts off] [text resumes] For the reasons stated we conclude that, under Title II of the ADA, States are required to provide community-based treatment for persons with mental disabilities when the State's treatment professionals determine that such placement is appropriate, the affected persons do not oppose such treatment, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities. The judgement of the Eleventh Circuit is therefore affirmed in part and vacated in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.