Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 It is hard to believe that someone who uses a wheelchair himself would be fighting to get rid of accessability. Please take the time to read this. I think we should really express our opinions on this. Abbott stories Disability act lawsuit sparks dissent Some legislators say they'll ask attorney general to change his position on the law By Ball Austin American-Statesman January 10, 2004 State legislators say they want Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to stop his office's efforts to strike down part of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Last month, Abbott came under fire for arguing that Title II of the law, the section that requires public entities to provide equal access to buildings and services, is unconstitutional. Advocates for people with disabilities said they expected more from Abbott, who has used a wheelchair since a 1984 accident. Now several Texas legislators say they want to meet with Abbott to ask him to change his position on the law. " I think very highly of him personally, but he's wrong about this, " said state Rep. Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin. Abbott said he's doing exactly what he was elected to do. " Personally, there is not a stronger supporter of the ADA than I, " Abbott said. " Personally, there may not be a person who needs public buildings to be accessible more than I. . . . As the attorney general, I have the legal obligation to defend the State of Texas when it is sued in court. " The debate stems from a lawsuit mired in federal court. In 2002, two advocacy groups sued the state, claiming that Texas is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by not providing help to enough people with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Abbott's lawyers defended the state, in part, by claiming that the law is unconstitutional. If Abbott wins in court, Texas no longer will have to follow the federal law that requires states to provide equal access to buildings and services. That includes making buildings accessible to people with disabilities, providing sign language interpreters and providing Braille ballots. Critics call Abbott's stance hypocritical because he has personally benefited from the disabilities act. On Friday, more than 40 people gathered near the Texas Supreme Court building, holding signs and chanting, " ADA today, ADA tomorrow, ADA forever. " Naishtat attended the rally. " People are very, very angry about this, " said Bob Kafka, an organizer for the advocacy group ADAPT who uses a wheelchair. " This hurts real people. " Abbott said his disability has nothing to do with the way he does his job. " That's offensive, " he said. " They think that just because I'm in a wheelchair, I should ignore the law and come down on their side. " Rally organizers said they'll fight to preserve Title II. Advocates are planning e-mail, telephone and letter writing campaigns. They also said they might stage protests during Abbott's public appearances. Legislators said Abbott's office should pursue other legal options. " To think we are regressing in how we treat each other, our brothers and sisters, is just outrageous, " said state Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, D-Austin. Texas is among a number of states challenging the constitutionality of the law. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Tennessee v. Lane, which also centers on whether Title II is consti- tutional. aball@...; 912-2506 Disabled Texans deserve better from their state officials- [Opinion] Elliott Naishtat- SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN Austin American-Statesman Friday, January 9, 2004 Just when we thought Texas could do no worse in its treatment of our most vulnerable citizens, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott proves us wrong. In an attempt to preclude the state from having to provide services to people with disabilities -- services they are entitled to under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) -- Abbott is claiming the ADA is unconstitutional and that states cannot be required to comply with it. Signed into law in 1990 by the first President Bush, the ADA prohibits discrimination based on a person's disability. Considered the most comprehensive legislation for people with disabilities ever passed in this country, the ADA lays a foundation of equality for disabled people and extends to them civil rights similar to those made available on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin and religion through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Accordingly, the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in private sector employment, state and local government activities, and public accommodations and services. Title II of the ADA stipulates that " no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity. " This is the section of the act that our attorney general seeks to overturn. Texans should be appalled at the lengths our state's top legal defender will go to keep the state from having to provide to people with disabilities access to services in compliance with this federal law. Abbott took this stance in response to a class-action lawsuit filed in 2002 on behalf of more than 25,000 individuals with disabilities who have been languishing, many for years, on waiting lists to receive home or community-based services. The class action alleges that the state violates the ADA by not adequately funding services to people with disabilities, resulting in many of these individuals being forced to live in institutional settings, often against their will and best interests. If Abbott has his way, the state will no longer be required to comprehensively address the needs of the disability community. This year, facing a $10 billion shortfall and in the name of " no new taxes, " the Texas Legislature passed a budget with deep cuts to programs serving children, the elderly and people with disabilities. Budget cuts and policy decisions that were made guarantee that fewer people in need will receive crucial health and human services, and waiting lists will continue to grow. Now Abbott wants to go one step further and take away civil rights protections that were signed into law at the largest bill signing ceremony ever held on the White House lawn. Abbott's approach of shirking the state's responsibility to provide access to services for all citizens is not only wrong, it sends a strong message to individuals with disabilities: You do not deserve the same rights as everyone else. I do not believe this is the message most Texans like to hear. What is perplexing is that Abbott is not challenging the part of the ADA that bars discrimination by private interests. In other words, Abbott agrees that private entities should continue to be required by law to provide access to individuals with disabilities, but public entities, including state and local governments, should not. Since when are civil rights protections important in relation to the private sector, but not the public sector? Abbott's response: The office of the attorney general is trying to protect the state's interests, namely, its limited financial resources. Once again, the issue is state money, or the lack thereof. If Abbott prevails in his attempt to exclude state governments from having to comply with Title II of the ADA, areas other than waiting lists for people with disabilities in need of home and community-based services could be impacted. For example, Title II could no longer be used to force modifications of governmental buildings and facilities so that they are accessible to people with disabilities. But for the ADA, how many public schools, university classrooms and laboratories, public restrooms, libraries, museums, city halls, buses, trains, courthouses and capitols would still be inaccessible to disabled people? Rather than facing up to the state's responsibility to provide access to people with disabilities per federal law, rather than striving to generate new revenues to help cover the costs, our leadership seeks to dismantle the very legislation that mandates the above. The attorney general's action is a blatant attempt to reinstate discrimination as yet another way to avoid the state's obligation to provide services to its most vulnerable members. Texans should be embarrassed that one of our statewide elected leaders would do this. Naishtat, a Democrat, represents Austin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 It is hard to believe that someone who uses a wheelchair himself would be fighting to get rid of accessability. Please take the time to read this. I think we should really express our opinions on this. Abbott stories Disability act lawsuit sparks dissent Some legislators say they'll ask attorney general to change his position on the law By Ball Austin American-Statesman January 10, 2004 State legislators say they want Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to stop his office's efforts to strike down part of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Last month, Abbott came under fire for arguing that Title II of the law, the section that requires public entities to provide equal access to buildings and services, is unconstitutional. Advocates for people with disabilities said they expected more from Abbott, who has used a wheelchair since a 1984 accident. Now several Texas legislators say they want to meet with Abbott to ask him to change his position on the law. " I think very highly of him personally, but he's wrong about this, " said state Rep. Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin. Abbott said he's doing exactly what he was elected to do. " Personally, there is not a stronger supporter of the ADA than I, " Abbott said. " Personally, there may not be a person who needs public buildings to be accessible more than I. . . . As the attorney general, I have the legal obligation to defend the State of Texas when it is sued in court. " The debate stems from a lawsuit mired in federal court. In 2002, two advocacy groups sued the state, claiming that Texas is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by not providing help to enough people with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Abbott's lawyers defended the state, in part, by claiming that the law is unconstitutional. If Abbott wins in court, Texas no longer will have to follow the federal law that requires states to provide equal access to buildings and services. That includes making buildings accessible to people with disabilities, providing sign language interpreters and providing Braille ballots. Critics call Abbott's stance hypocritical because he has personally benefited from the disabilities act. On Friday, more than 40 people gathered near the Texas Supreme Court building, holding signs and chanting, " ADA today, ADA tomorrow, ADA forever. " Naishtat attended the rally. " People are very, very angry about this, " said Bob Kafka, an organizer for the advocacy group ADAPT who uses a wheelchair. " This hurts real people. " Abbott said his disability has nothing to do with the way he does his job. " That's offensive, " he said. " They think that just because I'm in a wheelchair, I should ignore the law and come down on their side. " Rally organizers said they'll fight to preserve Title II. Advocates are planning e-mail, telephone and letter writing campaigns. They also said they might stage protests during Abbott's public appearances. Legislators said Abbott's office should pursue other legal options. " To think we are regressing in how we treat each other, our brothers and sisters, is just outrageous, " said state Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, D-Austin. Texas is among a number of states challenging the constitutionality of the law. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Tennessee v. Lane, which also centers on whether Title II is consti- tutional. aball@...; 912-2506 Disabled Texans deserve better from their state officials- [Opinion] Elliott Naishtat- SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN Austin American-Statesman Friday, January 9, 2004 Just when we thought Texas could do no worse in its treatment of our most vulnerable citizens, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott proves us wrong. In an attempt to preclude the state from having to provide services to people with disabilities -- services they are entitled to under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) -- Abbott is claiming the ADA is unconstitutional and that states cannot be required to comply with it. Signed into law in 1990 by the first President Bush, the ADA prohibits discrimination based on a person's disability. Considered the most comprehensive legislation for people with disabilities ever passed in this country, the ADA lays a foundation of equality for disabled people and extends to them civil rights similar to those made available on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin and religion through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Accordingly, the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in private sector employment, state and local government activities, and public accommodations and services. Title II of the ADA stipulates that " no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity. " This is the section of the act that our attorney general seeks to overturn. Texans should be appalled at the lengths our state's top legal defender will go to keep the state from having to provide to people with disabilities access to services in compliance with this federal law. Abbott took this stance in response to a class-action lawsuit filed in 2002 on behalf of more than 25,000 individuals with disabilities who have been languishing, many for years, on waiting lists to receive home or community-based services. The class action alleges that the state violates the ADA by not adequately funding services to people with disabilities, resulting in many of these individuals being forced to live in institutional settings, often against their will and best interests. If Abbott has his way, the state will no longer be required to comprehensively address the needs of the disability community. This year, facing a $10 billion shortfall and in the name of " no new taxes, " the Texas Legislature passed a budget with deep cuts to programs serving children, the elderly and people with disabilities. Budget cuts and policy decisions that were made guarantee that fewer people in need will receive crucial health and human services, and waiting lists will continue to grow. Now Abbott wants to go one step further and take away civil rights protections that were signed into law at the largest bill signing ceremony ever held on the White House lawn. Abbott's approach of shirking the state's responsibility to provide access to services for all citizens is not only wrong, it sends a strong message to individuals with disabilities: You do not deserve the same rights as everyone else. I do not believe this is the message most Texans like to hear. What is perplexing is that Abbott is not challenging the part of the ADA that bars discrimination by private interests. In other words, Abbott agrees that private entities should continue to be required by law to provide access to individuals with disabilities, but public entities, including state and local governments, should not. Since when are civil rights protections important in relation to the private sector, but not the public sector? Abbott's response: The office of the attorney general is trying to protect the state's interests, namely, its limited financial resources. Once again, the issue is state money, or the lack thereof. If Abbott prevails in his attempt to exclude state governments from having to comply with Title II of the ADA, areas other than waiting lists for people with disabilities in need of home and community-based services could be impacted. For example, Title II could no longer be used to force modifications of governmental buildings and facilities so that they are accessible to people with disabilities. But for the ADA, how many public schools, university classrooms and laboratories, public restrooms, libraries, museums, city halls, buses, trains, courthouses and capitols would still be inaccessible to disabled people? Rather than facing up to the state's responsibility to provide access to people with disabilities per federal law, rather than striving to generate new revenues to help cover the costs, our leadership seeks to dismantle the very legislation that mandates the above. The attorney general's action is a blatant attempt to reinstate discrimination as yet another way to avoid the state's obligation to provide services to its most vulnerable members. Texans should be embarrassed that one of our statewide elected leaders would do this. Naishtat, a Democrat, represents Austin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 This man sounds like he's ashamed or embarrassed about being disabled and because of that or some misguided pride he wants to hurt a lot of people who could benefit from this law. Amy Abbott stories Disability act lawsuit sparks dissent Some legislators say they'll ask attorney general to change his position on the law By Ball Austin American-Statesman January 10, 2004 State legislators say they want Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to stop his office's efforts to strike down part of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Last month, Abbott came under fire for arguing that Title II of the law, the section that requires public entities to provide equal access to buildings and services, is unconstitutional. Advocates for people with disabilities said they expected more from Abbott, who has used a wheelchair since a 1984 accident. Now several Texas legislators say they want to meet with Abbott to ask him to change his position on the law. " I think very highly of him personally, but he's wrong about this, " said state Rep. Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin. Abbott said he's doing exactly what he was elected to do. " Personally, there is not a stronger supporter of the ADA than I, " Abbott said. " Personally, there may not be a person who needs public buildings to be accessible more than I. . . . As the attorney general, I have the legal obligation to defend the State of Texas when it is sued in court. " The debate stems from a lawsuit mired in federal court. In 2002, two advocacy groups sued the state, claiming that Texas is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by not providing help to enough people with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Abbott's lawyers defended the state, in part, by claiming that the law is unconstitutional. If Abbott wins in court, Texas no longer will have to follow the federal law that requires states to provide equal access to buildings and services. That includes making buildings accessible to people with disabilities, providing sign language interpreters and providing Braille ballots. Critics call Abbott's stance hypocritical because he has personally benefited from the disabilities act. On Friday, more than 40 people gathered near the Texas Supreme Court building, holding signs and chanting, " ADA today, ADA tomorrow, ADA forever. " Naishtat attended the rally. " People are very, very angry about this, " said Bob Kafka, an organizer for the advocacy group ADAPT who uses a wheelchair. " This hurts real people. " Abbott said his disability has nothing to do with the way he does his job. " That's offensive, " he said. " They think that just because I'm in a wheelchair, I should ignore the law and come down on their side. " Rally organizers said they'll fight to preserve Title II. Advocates are planning e-mail, telephone and letter writing campaigns. They also said they might stage protests during Abbott's public appearances. Legislators said Abbott's office should pursue other legal options. " To think we are regressing in how we treat each other, our brothers and sisters, is just outrageous, " said state Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, D-Austin. Texas is among a number of states challenging the constitutionality of the law. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Tennessee v. Lane, which also centers on whether Title II is consti- tutional. aball@...; 912-2506 Disabled Texans deserve better from their state officials- [Opinion] Elliott Naishtat- SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN Austin American-Statesman Friday, January 9, 2004 Just when we thought Texas could do no worse in its treatment of our most vulnerable citizens, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott proves us wrong. In an attempt to preclude the state from having to provide services to people with disabilities -- services they are entitled to under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) -- Abbott is claiming the ADA is unconstitutional and that states cannot be required to comply with it. Signed into law in 1990 by the first President Bush, the ADA prohibits discrimination based on a person's disability. Considered the most comprehensive legislation for people with disabilities ever passed in this country, the ADA lays a foundation of equality for disabled people and extends to them civil rights similar to those made available on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin and religion through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Accordingly, the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in private sector employment, state and local government activities, and public accommodations and services. Title II of the ADA stipulates that " no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity. " This is the section of the act that our attorney general seeks to overturn. Texans should be appalled at the lengths our state's top legal defender will go to keep the state from having to provide to people with disabilities access to services in compliance with this federal law. Abbott took this stance in response to a class-action lawsuit filed in 2002 on behalf of more than 25,000 individuals with disabilities who have been languishing, many for years, on waiting lists to receive home or community-based services. The class action alleges that the state violates the ADA by not adequately funding services to people with disabilities, resulting in many of these individuals being forced to live in institutional settings, often against their will and best interests. If Abbott has his way, the state will no longer be required to comprehensively address the needs of the disability community. This year, facing a $10 billion shortfall and in the name of " no new taxes, " the Texas Legislature passed a budget with deep cuts to programs serving children, the elderly and people with disabilities. Budget cuts and policy decisions that were made guarantee that fewer people in need will receive crucial health and human services, and waiting lists will continue to grow. Now Abbott wants to go one step further and take away civil rights protections that were signed into law at the largest bill signing ceremony ever held on the White House lawn. Abbott's approach of shirking the state's responsibility to provide access to services for all citizens is not only wrong, it sends a strong message to individuals with disabilities: You do not deserve the same rights as everyone else. I do not believe this is the message most Texans like to hear. What is perplexing is that Abbott is not challenging the part of the ADA that bars discrimination by private interests. In other words, Abbott agrees that private entities should continue to be required by law to provide access to individuals with disabilities, but public entities, including state and local governments, should not. Since when are civil rights protections important in relation to the private sector, but not the public sector? Abbott's response: The office of the attorney general is trying to protect the state's interests, namely, its limited financial resources. Once again, the issue is state money, or the lack thereof. If Abbott prevails in his attempt to exclude state governments from having to comply with Title II of the ADA, areas other than waiting lists for people with disabilities in need of home and community-based services could be impacted. For example, Title II could no longer be used to force modifications of governmental buildings and facilities so that they are accessible to people with disabilities. But for the ADA, how many public schools, university classrooms and laboratories, public restrooms, libraries, museums, city halls, buses, trains, courthouses and capitols would still be inaccessible to disabled people? Rather than facing up to the state's responsibility to provide access to people with disabilities per federal law, rather than striving to generate new revenues to help cover the costs, our leadership seeks to dismantle the very legislation that mandates the above. The attorney general's action is a blatant attempt to reinstate discrimination as yet another way to avoid the state's obligation to provide services to its most vulnerable members. Texans should be embarrassed that one of our statewide elected leaders would do this. Naishtat, a Democrat, represents Austin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 This man sounds like he's ashamed or embarrassed about being disabled and because of that or some misguided pride he wants to hurt a lot of people who could benefit from this law. Amy Abbott stories Disability act lawsuit sparks dissent Some legislators say they'll ask attorney general to change his position on the law By Ball Austin American-Statesman January 10, 2004 State legislators say they want Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to stop his office's efforts to strike down part of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Last month, Abbott came under fire for arguing that Title II of the law, the section that requires public entities to provide equal access to buildings and services, is unconstitutional. Advocates for people with disabilities said they expected more from Abbott, who has used a wheelchair since a 1984 accident. Now several Texas legislators say they want to meet with Abbott to ask him to change his position on the law. " I think very highly of him personally, but he's wrong about this, " said state Rep. Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin. Abbott said he's doing exactly what he was elected to do. " Personally, there is not a stronger supporter of the ADA than I, " Abbott said. " Personally, there may not be a person who needs public buildings to be accessible more than I. . . . As the attorney general, I have the legal obligation to defend the State of Texas when it is sued in court. " The debate stems from a lawsuit mired in federal court. In 2002, two advocacy groups sued the state, claiming that Texas is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by not providing help to enough people with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Abbott's lawyers defended the state, in part, by claiming that the law is unconstitutional. If Abbott wins in court, Texas no longer will have to follow the federal law that requires states to provide equal access to buildings and services. That includes making buildings accessible to people with disabilities, providing sign language interpreters and providing Braille ballots. Critics call Abbott's stance hypocritical because he has personally benefited from the disabilities act. On Friday, more than 40 people gathered near the Texas Supreme Court building, holding signs and chanting, " ADA today, ADA tomorrow, ADA forever. " Naishtat attended the rally. " People are very, very angry about this, " said Bob Kafka, an organizer for the advocacy group ADAPT who uses a wheelchair. " This hurts real people. " Abbott said his disability has nothing to do with the way he does his job. " That's offensive, " he said. " They think that just because I'm in a wheelchair, I should ignore the law and come down on their side. " Rally organizers said they'll fight to preserve Title II. Advocates are planning e-mail, telephone and letter writing campaigns. They also said they might stage protests during Abbott's public appearances. Legislators said Abbott's office should pursue other legal options. " To think we are regressing in how we treat each other, our brothers and sisters, is just outrageous, " said state Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, D-Austin. Texas is among a number of states challenging the constitutionality of the law. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Tennessee v. Lane, which also centers on whether Title II is consti- tutional. aball@...; 912-2506 Disabled Texans deserve better from their state officials- [Opinion] Elliott Naishtat- SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN Austin American-Statesman Friday, January 9, 2004 Just when we thought Texas could do no worse in its treatment of our most vulnerable citizens, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott proves us wrong. In an attempt to preclude the state from having to provide services to people with disabilities -- services they are entitled to under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) -- Abbott is claiming the ADA is unconstitutional and that states cannot be required to comply with it. Signed into law in 1990 by the first President Bush, the ADA prohibits discrimination based on a person's disability. Considered the most comprehensive legislation for people with disabilities ever passed in this country, the ADA lays a foundation of equality for disabled people and extends to them civil rights similar to those made available on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin and religion through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Accordingly, the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in private sector employment, state and local government activities, and public accommodations and services. Title II of the ADA stipulates that " no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity. " This is the section of the act that our attorney general seeks to overturn. Texans should be appalled at the lengths our state's top legal defender will go to keep the state from having to provide to people with disabilities access to services in compliance with this federal law. Abbott took this stance in response to a class-action lawsuit filed in 2002 on behalf of more than 25,000 individuals with disabilities who have been languishing, many for years, on waiting lists to receive home or community-based services. The class action alleges that the state violates the ADA by not adequately funding services to people with disabilities, resulting in many of these individuals being forced to live in institutional settings, often against their will and best interests. If Abbott has his way, the state will no longer be required to comprehensively address the needs of the disability community. This year, facing a $10 billion shortfall and in the name of " no new taxes, " the Texas Legislature passed a budget with deep cuts to programs serving children, the elderly and people with disabilities. Budget cuts and policy decisions that were made guarantee that fewer people in need will receive crucial health and human services, and waiting lists will continue to grow. Now Abbott wants to go one step further and take away civil rights protections that were signed into law at the largest bill signing ceremony ever held on the White House lawn. Abbott's approach of shirking the state's responsibility to provide access to services for all citizens is not only wrong, it sends a strong message to individuals with disabilities: You do not deserve the same rights as everyone else. I do not believe this is the message most Texans like to hear. What is perplexing is that Abbott is not challenging the part of the ADA that bars discrimination by private interests. In other words, Abbott agrees that private entities should continue to be required by law to provide access to individuals with disabilities, but public entities, including state and local governments, should not. Since when are civil rights protections important in relation to the private sector, but not the public sector? Abbott's response: The office of the attorney general is trying to protect the state's interests, namely, its limited financial resources. Once again, the issue is state money, or the lack thereof. If Abbott prevails in his attempt to exclude state governments from having to comply with Title II of the ADA, areas other than waiting lists for people with disabilities in need of home and community-based services could be impacted. For example, Title II could no longer be used to force modifications of governmental buildings and facilities so that they are accessible to people with disabilities. But for the ADA, how many public schools, university classrooms and laboratories, public restrooms, libraries, museums, city halls, buses, trains, courthouses and capitols would still be inaccessible to disabled people? Rather than facing up to the state's responsibility to provide access to people with disabilities per federal law, rather than striving to generate new revenues to help cover the costs, our leadership seeks to dismantle the very legislation that mandates the above. The attorney general's action is a blatant attempt to reinstate discrimination as yet another way to avoid the state's obligation to provide services to its most vulnerable members. Texans should be embarrassed that one of our statewide elected leaders would do this. Naishtat, a Democrat, represents Austin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.