JFActivist

House and Senate Both Consider Legislation to Protect Students with Disabilities from Abusive Seclusion and Restraint

From an House Committee on Education and Labor Press Release (12/9/09):

Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Protect Children from Abuse in Schools

Legislation will, for the first time, address seclusion and restraint in schools; Embodies principles set by Obama administration

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Reps. George Miller (D-CA) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) today introduced legislation that would, for the first time, protect all children in schools from harmful uses of restraint and seclusion. The legislation embodies principles outlined in a letter U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent to Miller today. U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) is also expected to introduce companion legislation today in the Senate. The lawmakers unveiled the bill at a press conference this morning; click here to watch (67.4 MB file).

A U.S. Government Accountability Office report released last spring exposed hundreds of cases of schoolchildren being abused as a result of inappropriate uses of restraint and seclusion, often involving untrained staff. In some cases, children died. A disproportionate number of these victims were students with disabilities.

“Something is very wrong when our children are at risk in their own classrooms,” said Miller, the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee who requested the GAO’s investigation. “In some cases, the abuses these kids are suffering are nothing short of torture inflicted at the hands of the very staff we entrust with their safety. Today is a critical first step toward finally ending this nightmare of abuse and ensuring that all classrooms are safe for students, their teachers, and the entire school communities.”

“As a parent, when I send my son Cole to school, my husband Brian and I send him with the expectation that he is safe from danger. We entrust him to teachers, principals, and aides. And we know those school personnel have done an outstanding job to help him and keep him safe. Yet, we know this has not been the case for other children, particularly children with disabilities who are the most vulnerable and need the most protection,” said McMorris Rodgers, a member of the House Education and Labor Committee and vice chair of the House Republican Conference. “I’ve looked into this and have come to the conclusion that there is a lack of training. As difficult situations arise, teachers or principals just don’t know what to do. The legislation that we are introducing today gives states the needed guidance and resources to enable teachers and school personnel to handle difficult situations in the most positive manner possible.”

“The tragedies associated with the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint are not only unacceptable, they are unconscionable,” said Dodd.  “There is no place in our schools for what amounts to torture, and we need clear standards for the use of tactics that lead to the physical and psychological abuse of children.  This legislation will set clear guidelines so that children and educators alike can be sure of a safe learning environment.”

>>> For the Full Release

>>> For an H.R. 4247 Fact Sheet

>>> For the Text of the Bill-H.R. 4247

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                  

December 9, 2009

DODD INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO PROTECT SCHOOLCHILDREN FROM HARMFUL RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) today introduced legislation to prevent the harmful use of seclusion and restraint on students. The Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act would help ensure the safety and security of both teachers and students by preventing and reducing the use of restraint and seclusion techniques in schools. The legislation, which was also introduced in the House of Representatives today by Congressman George Miller (D-CA), would also provide proper training for school personnel who impose these techniques, in order to ensure the safety of students and educators alike.

Dodd wrote and helped pass legislation to protect children from the misuse of restraint and seclusion in most hospitals and residential facilities after an 11-year-old boy from Portland, CT died from being improperly restrained in a psychiatric hospital in 1998.

“The tragedies associated with the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint are not only unacceptable, they are unconscionable,” said Dodd.  “There is no place in our schools for what amounts to torture, and we need clear standards for the use of tactics that lead to the physical and psychological abuse of children.  This legislation will set clear guidelines so that children and educators alike can be sure of a safe learning environment.”

 “Children should not be abused under the guise of discipline, but time after time, we’ve heard horrific accounts of what is nothing less than torture in classrooms at the hands of untrained staff,” said Congressman Miller. “It is unbelievable that children have protections against harmful restraint and seclusion in other facilities, but not in school where they spend the majority of their time. Senator Dodd and I both know it is necessary to help set the important minimum health and safety standards to stop these horrific abuses. ”

The Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act will:

• Prohibit the use of restraint and seclusion in schools unless the student’s behavior poses an immediate danger of physical injury and less restrictive interventions would be ineffective.
• Prohibit the use of any mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, or physical restraint that restricts air flow to the lungs, and any other aversive behavioral intervention that compromises health and safety.
• Require adequate training for school personnel imposing restraint and seclusion.
• Require immediate parental notification and a school debriefing following each incident of restraint or seclusion.
• Require states to create a state plan that incorporates the minimum standards and report annually on the number of incidents of restraint and seclusion.
• Provide competitive grants to assist with developing and implementing the state plan, providing training and certification to school personnel, and implementing positive behavioral supports to further prevent restraint and seclusion.
•   Instruct the Department of Education to conduct and provide to Congress a national assessment which analyzes data on restraint and seclusion and effective practices in preventing and reducing incidents.   

Dodd is a senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee and chairman of its Subcommittee on Children and Families. Congressman Miller is the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.

 

Bipartisan Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Protect All Children in Schools from Abuse

Press Release from Congress (12/7/09):

Bipartisan Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Protect All Children in Schools from Abuse

Legislation will, for the first time, prevent harmful restraint and seclusion in classrooms

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Wednesday, December 9, U.S. Reps. George Miller (D-CA) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) will hold a press conference to introduce new legislation to protect all children in schools from misuse of restraint and seclusion. Miller is the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee and a member of Democratic leadership, McMorris Rodgers is a member of the Committee and the Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference.

 

This legislation is the first national effort to prevent and reduce harmful restraint and seclusion in schools. A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office investigation found hundreds of allegations that schoolchildren have been abused, and some even died, as a result of the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion in classrooms; a disproportionate number of them were children with disabilities. Yet unlike in hospitals, and other medical and community-based facilities that receive federal funding, there are currently no federal policies that prevent the misuse of restraint and seclusion in schools. State regulation and oversight varies greatly; many states provide no guidance or assistance regarding these behavioral interventions.

 

WHO:             U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee

U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), a member of the House Education and Labor Committee and Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference

                        Families of children who have been the victims of harmful restraint and seclusion in classrooms

                        Additional participants TBA

 

WHAT:          Press Conference to Introduce Legislation to Prevent Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools

 

WHEN:          Wednesday, December 9, 2009

11:00AM EST

 

WHERE:       Education and Labor Committee Hearing Room

                        2175 Rayburn House Office Building

                        Washington, D.C.

 

NOTE TO MEDIA:   Members of the press interested in attending this event must RSVP to Melissa Salmanowitz at Melissa.Salmanowitz@mail.house.gov or 202-226-0853. Television cameras planning to cover the event must arrive no later than 10:30 am for setup.

 

This press conference will be webcast live from the Education and Labor Committee website at http://edlabor.house.gov

Remarks of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas E. Perez at His Installation Ceremony

From the Department of Justice:

Remarks of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas E. Perez at His Installation Ceremony
Friday, November 13, 2009 

I have to begin by thanking Attorney General Holder for the opportunity for this homecoming. It's an honor to have been appointed to lead the Civil Rights Division after having dedicated so many years to it. I also have to thank you for constantly reminding all of us that the Division is a priority for you and for the President.

(Thanks to other program participants) 

I was in a meeting recently with representatives from some civil rights organizations, and one of them relayed to me a story that struck a chord. They were talking to the editorial board of a prominent newspaper about the Administration's commitment to revitalizing the Civil Rights Division, and a member of the board posed a question: Why do we still need a Civil Rights Division? 

In 2009, nearly 50 years removed from the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964; nearly a century and a half removed from the emancipation proclamation; and a year after the American people unwaveringly sent an African American family to the White House -- why do we need a Civil Rights Division? 

It's an interesting and provocative question. 

We have undeniably come a long way. An entire generation has passed since our nation's leaders recognized the injustice of legal segregation. Women outnumber men in the workplace. We have an African American President, a Latina Supreme Court Justice and a female Speaker of the House. My parents probably couldn't have imagined any of it, but my children are growing up to know nothing else. 

There are some out there who think the task is complete, who would like to close the book and say we've fulfilled the promise of equal opportunity and justice for all. 

And my job security aside, I wish they were right. I wish that last year's historic election were the culmination rather than a checkpoint along the way. 

But, as the late Senator Ted Kennedy often reminded us, Civil Rights are truly the unfinished business of America. Perhaps as much as any time in the last half century, we still need a Civil Rights Division. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote from a narrow cell in Birmingham City Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." 

And when three men are driven from their burning home by a neighbor because of the language they speak and the color of their skin, as recently happened in case that came across my desk, that is certainly a case of injustice and it is certainly a threat to justice nationwide. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because, as President John F. Kennedy said as he introduced what became the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "...this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free." 

And when our LGBT brothers and sisters are not afforded the same protections under the law as the rest of us, they are not free, and therefore our nation is not entirely free. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because, as Hubert Humphrey said: "The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped." 

And in 2009, despite great gains, too many reside in the shadows. Too many people of color find themselves powerless in the face of discriminatory housing and lending. Too many individuals with disabilities still struggle to access the basic services the rest of us take for granted. Too many students still lack the quality education all children are guaranteed by law. Too many new Americans who came to this nation seeking the same freedom and opportunities that our parents, and our grandparents sought, find themselves the targets of bigotry and hate.
We need a Civil Rights Divisions to bring these people out of the shadows. We need a Civil Rights Division to back up our nation's promise of equal justice for all. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because on the night that Barack Obama was elected the nation's first African American president, four men on Staten Island set out to assault African Americans in retaliation. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because extremists still think it's their prerogative to murder a doctor because he provides a service with which they do not agree. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because while we all thought we had long ago left behind the ways of the Jim Crow south, we read just last month in the newspaper about a Justice of the Peace who took it upon himself to decide that blacks and whites should not marry. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because when the federal government comes into a community to right a wrong, our presence and our moral and legal authority make a huge difference and have a unique capacity to effect positive, lasting change. 

We need a Civil Rights Division because it is the moral compass of our nation. It backs up with actions the promises made on paper by our nation's civil rights laws. It serves as a guiding light as we navigate new paths on the road to equal justice. 

The question is not "Why do we need a Civil Rights Division?" 

Rather, the question we should ask ourselves is this: What does civil rights mean in the 21st Century? 

I've had quite a bit of time to ponder this question. 

Civil Rights in 2009 and beyond means continuing to combat the sort of blatant discrimination that persists, but also tackling the more subtle, and equally dangerous, discrimination that festers in so many of our institutions. 

It means addressing the vast injustice done by the explosion in subprime lending and the subsequent foreclosure crisis, which, though it has touched every corner of our nation, has disproportionately impacted people of color and threatened the stability of their communities at far greater rates than their white counterparts. Unscrupulous lenders all too frequently have the corrosive power of fine print to trick hardworking people and tear apart communities. We have fair lending and fair housing laws on the books. We must enforce them fairly and aggressively and independently. 

Civil Rights in 2009 means working to create services, programs and public facilities that are accessible to individuals with disabilities, recognizing that they have a vast contribution to make to our society and our communities that can only be maximized if they have equal access. It means recognizing that segregating people with disabilities in institutions is every bit as bad and illegal as segregating children of color in inferior schools. 

It means understanding how the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks has subjected the Arab-American and Muslim-American communities to an unjustified backlash, and working to be sure we don't fall into the trap of believing that we either protect our national security and safe streets OR we protect civil rights. We can and must do both. 

Civil rights in 2009 means understanding that civil rights are human rights, and we are citizens of the world who must set the proper example for others. It means taking partnership to new and unprecedented levels - partnership with sister agencies, state and local governments, and, where appropriate, with private attorneys and non-profits, all the while remaining aware of the independence that we must maintain. 

It means recognizing where our laws fall short, and working to fill the gaps. In this nation today, hardworking LGBT individuals are not even protected by our nation's civil rights laws, and have no legal recourse against discrimination in the workplace. It is fundamentally unfair for my sister in law who is straight to enjoy protections against discrimination in the workplace, while my sister in law who is a lesbian has no protections. Civil Rights in 2009 means expanding the universe of individuals who are protected by the law. The recent enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Protection Act was a good start in that direction. 

Civil Rights in 2009 means restoring and transforming the Civil Rights Division - not in an effort to re-create the Civil Rights Division of an earlier era, but rather to prepare ourselves to tackle the challenges before us today, and to ensure we are nimble enough to address the challenges on the horizon. 

In short, the Civil Rights Division is open for business. Our job is to enforce the civil rights laws - all the laws. Civil Rights Enforcement is not like the buffet line at the cafeteria. You can't pick and choose which laws you like, and which ones you don't. We will enforce all the laws in fair, aggressive and independent fashion, and we will use all the tools available to us. 

I would like to close by noting that we are at a critical turning point. Just a year ago we all were basking in the glow of President Obama's election. To be sure, it was a spectacular achievement for a nation with such a long and complicated history of race relations. But as we look back over the history of the advancement of civil rights in our nation, each moment of great progress has been followed by periods of great challenge. 

Thomas Jefferson wrote of the great self-evident truth - that all men are created equal, but it would be nearly a century before slavery was abolished in the land of the free. 

Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and later spoke of a new birth of freedom at Gettysburg, but the great promise of those moments was followed by decades of legal segregation, discrimination and hate.
In 1963, Dr. King wrote "we have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights." He and his fellow "drum majors for justice" helped secure those rights with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act the following year. And yet, today, 45 years later, injustice persists. 

We have made great progress. But as we pass each benchmark, we must turn to face the new challenges ahead. 

I am excited about what lies ahead, and I appreciate the sacrifices that my wife and children make day in and day out to enable me to take on these responsibilities. I know success will not be easy, but it is a great privilege to have been given this opportunity to return to my roots at the Civil Rights Division and to help lead it into its latest chapter in this epic story.

SC: Sex Assault Scandal Breaks while State Increases Funding for Institutions

From Patricia Harrison (11/20/09):

At yesterday's South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs Commission meeting, a spokesperson objected to Whitten Center being referred to as an "institution."  She claimed that Whitten Center should be called a "Gated Community" instead - no joke, she really said that.

I am all for families having a choice of safe residential options, including well run ICF/MRs, but here's some history on this particular "gated community" and what South Carolina is doing to force people who have disabilities into facilities like this:

Here's a report at http://www.goupstate.com/article/20081121/ARTICLES/811211009?Title=Whitten-Center-liable-in-sex-assaults

Whitten Center liable in sex assaults

Caregiver pleaded guilty to attacking 3 mentally handicapped clients

By Robert W. Dalton

Published: Friday, November 21, 2008 at 3:15 a.m.

Officials at the Whitten Center didn't believe John Doe when he told them he was being sexually assaulted by Daniel Maxwell Bradley, a caregiver at the Clinton facility for the mentally handicapped. They said Doe had a history of making false claims against employees.

That all changed when the FBI came knocking at the door, and agents didn't come empty-handed. They had photographs, taken by Bradley and shared on the Internet, of the assaults.

Bradley eventually pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting three residents...

Just last week, CMS approved an increase in reimbursement rate beginning Jan 1, 2010 of 70% for respite services provided to waiver participants who "choose" to receive their respite services in ICF/MR's like Whitten.  SCDDSN and CMS eliminated an option, which cost less than 1/3 the daily rate of ICF/MR services, where waiver participants could receive respite services at home for less than $70 a day.  CMS approved the elimination of some home based services and the reduction of others that the State claimed were required due to budget reductions.  BUT SCDDSN transferred more than $31 million of funds generated by the Recovery Act (federal stimulus funds) to a rainy day fund in July and about half the stimulus funds they will receive this year will be transferred to that rainy day fund, while home based services are being slashed and more people will be forced into these "gated communities."  This change in the MR/RD Medicaid waiver was approved by CMS, despite the fact that they knew about the failure to use tens of milions of dollars allocated to provide services and the failure of the State Medicaid Agency to protect residents of residential programs from abuse, neglect and exploitation, which was reported by the SC Legislative Audit Council:
 
http://lac.sc.gov/Reports/2008/DDSN.htm
 
When one parent asked the Chairman of SCDDSN this summer to please prevent these cuts and to maintain her son's home based services, the Chairman compared the parent's request to her own son's request that Santa Clause bring him a four wheeler for Christmas:  "Somebody's got to pay for it" she told the parent.
 
And 2009 is the Year of Community Living?  If you're as appalled as I am about CMS approving these changes, please contact your representatives in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to share your opinions.  Ask them to require South Carolina to comply with Olmstead and to give the new director of SCDDSN the funds she needs (which are now sitting in a rainy day fund) to run the agency and to protect people like Billy from these "Gated Communities."

-Patricia L Harrison

Video Relay Abusers Indicted

From Jenifer Simpson (AAPD):

Abuse of Telecommunications Relay Services Fund: Advocates Applaud Fed Crackdown

The US Department of Justice indicted abusers of the telecommunications relay services fund November 19, 2009 and has advocates applauding enforcement of disability laws.  The DOJ charged twenty-six people with engaging in a scheme to steal more than $50 million from the Video Relay Service (VRS) program.  VRS is one form of relay service that allows people with hearing disabilities who are sign language users to make phone calls through interpreters and using web cameras, at no cost to the user. The VRS program reimburses companies that provide this service, and is funded by fees assessed by telecommunications providers to telephone customers. The FCC, the US Postal Service and the FBI were all involved in this enforcement effort. Users of VRS need this form of accessibility to make phone calls! The bad apples have to go!

 

DOJ press release

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/November/09-crm-1258.html

 

FCC release

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294764A1.doc

 

Legal Times

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/justice_department/

 

BBC-UK

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seehear/2009/11/us_video_relay_services_defrau.html

 

CBS News

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/19/eveningnews/main5713910.shtml

 

CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/19/deaf.fraud.indictments/index.html

 

Deafnet news

http://www.deafhh.net/wp/2009/11/19/twenty-six-charged-in-nationwide-scheme-to-defraud-the-fcc%E2%80%99s-video-relay-service-program-arrests-made-in-nine-states/ “

 

TERPlink blog

http://www.terplink.com/profiles/blogs/my-reply-to-the-cbs-article

 

National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) Sued for Refusing to Accommodate Law School Grad who is Blind

Press Release

National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) Discriminates Against Blind & Low Vision Law School Graduates

A suit filed November 3, 2009 in Federal court alleges that The National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) discriminates against blind and low vision law school graduates.

November 3, 2009

OAKLAND, Calif. - A suit filed today in Federal court alleges that The National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) discriminates against  blind and low vision law school graduates. The suit charges that the  NCBE is violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act  (ADA) and California's civil rights law by denying accommodations on  the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) and the Multistate Professional  Responsibility Exam (MPRE) to a law school graduate who is blind.

The Plaintiff is represented with the support of the National  Federation of the Blind ("NFB") by Labarre Law Offices, P.C., in  Denver, CO, and by Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP, in Baltimore, MD.  The Plaintiff is further represented by Disability Rights Advocates  (DRA), a non-profit law center that specializes in civil rights cases  on behalf of persons with disabilities, based in Berkeley, CA.

The NCBE provides standardized examinations for the testing of applicants for admission to the practice of law. Two of the tests it controls, the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) and the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) are required for admission to the bar by most states. The California Bar examination has two sections; a California section and the MBE. Although both parts of the exam are administered by the California State Bar, the NCBE controls the type of accommodations each state can offer test takers with disabilities for the MBE portion of the bar exam.

Even though the California State Bar is a named Defendant in the suit, they have offered to provide the Plaintiff with all the accommodations she requested for the California section of the bar examination. However, the NCBE refuses to allow the California Bar Examiners to give the Plaintiff certain of the accommodations that she needs on the MBE portion of the bar exam. The California State Bar is fulfilling its legal obligation and is only named in the complaint as an indispensable party. Plaintiff hopes that the lawsuit will convince the NCBE to follow the California State Bar's example and provide the requested accommodations on the MBE portion of the barexam.

The NCBE has also denied Plaintiff the accommodations at issue on the MPRE exam.  This is a separate exam that bar applicants need to pass to be admitted to practice.  The ACT is also named in the complaint since it administers the MPRE examination for NCBE and is thus also an indispensable party.

The Plaintiff Stephanie Enyart is a law school graduate who is legally blind and requires accommodations to take the MBE and MPRE. She has requested to take the exams on a laptop computer equipped with screen reading (JAWS) and screen magnification (ZoomText) software. Ms. Enyart has relied on this combination of assistive technology as an accommodation on her exams throughout law school and in her current legal work.

The NCBE has refused to allow Ms. Enyart these reasonable accommodations for the MBE and MPRE on several occasions during the past years. In recent discussions with Plaintiff's counsel, the NCBE has indicated that it will continue to deny Ms. Enyart her requested accommodations.  Instead, the NCBE has offered alternative accommodations that are not suited to Ms. Enyart's disability and are not effective. The NCBE's denials of accommodations are preventing Ms. Enyart from obtaining admission to the bar, impeding her career.

Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), supporting the lawsuit, said "Too often law students who are blind or have low vision have to prolong their prospects for licensing while they fight to get the same accommodations they've had throughout their educational history. Those that opt to settle for inadequate accommodations usually struggle to pass or sometimes do not pass at all. Those who control admission to the practice of law must obey the law."

Janice Ta, President of the National Association of Law Students with Disabilities (NALSWD), which expressed support for the lawsuit, said "The legal profession must recognize and be prepared for the spectrum of conditions and disabilities that law students have. Testing entities need to be open to a wide range of accommodations. But we find that time and again they don't seem to understand their obligation for providing individualized accommodations and adaptive technologies that reflect the way real law students with disabilities get tested, study, and make their way around the world."

CONTACTS:

Chris Danielsen, Director of Public Relations, NFB, (410) 659-9314, ext. 2330

Scott Labarre, Labarre Law Offices, P.C., (303) 504-5979

Daniel Goldstein, Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP, (410) 962-1030

Larry Paradis, Disability Rights Advocates, (510) 665-8644

>>> For More

Obama deserves praise for signing hate crimes law

From the LA Times  (11/3/09):

Obama deserves praise for signing hate crimes law

By Kathi Wolfe

As a legally blind lesbian, I celebrated on Oct. 28 when the president signed the Matthew Shepard and James Boyd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act...

...In 1999, Eric Krochmaluk, a man with intellectual disabilities from Middletown, N.J., was kidnapped, choked, burned with cigarettes and abandoned in a forest...

...No one will be prosecuted simply for exercising the freedom of speech. And that is how it should be, even if that speech is ugly and bigoted.

But once someone commits a violent crime against us because of who we are, that person's bigoted intentions ought to be penalized. Judges and juries, at sentencing, often take into consideration the frame of mind of the criminal. They should do so with these crimes, too. The community has a right to say that bigoted violence is especially corrosive.

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act won't end bias-based crimes. But it will put everyone on notice that such crimes will not be tolerated.

And for those of us who are vulnerable, it makes us a little less fearful today than we were yesterday.

That's something that all Americans should celebrate.

1 in 10 People With Disabilities Have been Victims of a Hate Crime

From the Guardian (11/4/09):

Charity says 9% of disabled people have been victims of hate crime
Leonard Cheshire Disability included question on disability-related crime after high-profile incidents in which disabled people had been targeted
by Peter Walker

Almost one in 10 disabled people in the UK have been the victim of a hate crime, according to a leading disability charity.

For the first time, the 2009 version of an annual survey carried out by Leonard Cheshire Disability asked respondents whether they had faced a crime which they felt was motivated by their disability, with 9% saying they had.

"Even without a comparison for previous years, this is a shocking figure," said Eleanor Gore, from Leonard Cheshire, who compiled the review. "It's often hard to know how big a problem disability hate crime is as it tends to be very under-reported, and sometimes police and councils don't recognise it properly."

The charity said it had included the question after high-profile incidents in which disabled people had been targeted, notably the case of Fiona Pilkington and her 18-year-old daughter, Francecca. In September, an inquest jury criticised police and a council in Leicestershire for failing to help Pilkington after her family suffered years of abuse from gangs of youths. Pilkington killed herself and Francecca by setting the family car alight in a layby near their home...

>>>For the full article

Insurers Wrongfully Deny Disabled Workers Claims

From the LA Daily Journal (10/12/09):

Ill Workers Denied Benefits Face Fight Alone

By Evan George

... An investigation by the Daily Journal, which included a review of 576 lawsuits filed in federal court in California against the seven largest disability insurers, found:

Insurance companies regularly deny, or terminate, benefits to people even after they are found disabled by the federal government and approved for Social Security checks. The companies hire contract doctors who routinely reject the opinion of treating physicians without ever having seen the patients.

Some insurers provide incentives to employees to deny and terminate claims, tying performance evaluations to meeting money-saving goals.

No regulatory agency has taken responsibility for these cases. Consumers who complain to the Department of Insurance are ignored or told to contact the federal Department of Labor because workplace benefits are controlled by federal laws. But the Department of Labor does not investigate, or track, the complaints either. Officials say the only thing the law provides is the chance to sue in federal court.

Those who choose to fight the insurance companies wait years. Plaintiffs waited two years and eight months on average from the time they became disabled before their cases resolved, the Daily Journal found. One man has been waiting 10 years for benefits.

In nearly half the cases reviewed by the Daily Journal that reached court, judges find that the insurance companies had no basis to deny benefits. Judges who consider the companies' patterns of practice side with workers even more often, one survey found, nearly 70 percent of cases.

Because federal law does not allow for any damages, there is no peril for the insurance companies to repeatedly deny legitimate claims. Judges often find that the insurers wantonly denied or arbitrarily stopped paying benefits to disabled workers. Yet the most the companies will have to pay is the original amount, plus, in some cases, legal fees.

"There is really no downside for an insurance company to cut these people off," said Alice Wolfson, an attorney who chairs the board of the nonprofit United Policyholders. That group advises consumers who have trouble getting any kind of benefit from insurance companies.
Wolfson said the insurance companies bank on many people giving up after a claim is denied the first or second time.

"Some people will get lawyers and some will fight," she went on, "but then the company still has a choice to settle the case for pennies on the dollar."... 

>>> For the Full Article

President Obama Signs Hate Crimes Law Protecting People with Disabilities

From CBS News (10/28/09):

Obama Signs... Hate Crimes Bill

President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed and celebrated hate crime legislation that extends protection to people based on sexual orientation, sealing a long-fought victory to gay advocates...

The new law expands federal hate crimes to include those committed against people because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also loosens limits on when federal law enforcement can intervene and prosecute crimes, amounting to the biggest expansion of the civil-rights era law in decades.

...Obama said in East Room reception, surrounded by joyous supporters, "No one in America should be forced to look over their shoulder because of who they are, or because they live with a disability."

..."We must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits; not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear," Mr. Obama said...

>>> For the Full Article
>>> For an (uncaptioned) video of President Obama's comments
>>> For the White House transcript of President Obama's full Comments