[NABS-L] Federation Philosophy and Reproductive Rights

Wed Mar 3 07:40:46 UTC 2021

Hello Cricket and Justen,

We can all agree that more types of articles like the one Justen submitted
to the Braille Monitor are needed.  The more we respectfully talk about
these type's issues the better. I prefer research numbers don't  lie.

Cricket about the training centers, I was just trying to tell Justen don’t
deny someone service because they're rich. If they are blind they are blind
and qualify for the service that was specifically intended for them.

About the tax credit and credit just for being blind the same could be said
about affording to travel. We have high expenses in general in life as a
blind person. The logic is the same for both issues just that one is more
important than the other that’s why it gets more support.  I don’t disagree
with the credit. I was just using it as an example, and I was pointing out
that some NFB members fought against it back in the day and didn’t want it
even though it’s helpful just like a discount for travel fair. Looking
forward to your article about this subject in general.

Justen to your point about blindness agency’s yes, it’s true that we have
specific needs. The same is true about money and specialized discounts
blind people out of all the disabilities in the disability community have
it the worst.  We face a specific obstacle such as a 70% unemployment rate
which means less money than are brothers and sisters in the other
disability categories. The logic is the same for both issues just that one
is more important than the other that’s why it gets more support.

About societal adaptations, that’s the problem “our NFB philosophy does
make room for societal adaptations, but I kind of feel like it’s only those
which are truly necessary.” Who’s to say which societal adaptations are
truly necessary? I hope it’s not someone that has great blindness skills
making that decision because most people don’t even have average skills
compared to someone like an LCB, CCB or Blind INC instructor. That person
would be pushing their beliefs on other blind people since they can do it;
everyone else should be able to do it. It’s something I like to call
advocate bias or advocacy bias. I feel like the NFB only cares about an
issue if they look really bad not supporting it or an issue that effects a
national officer personally. It takes them forever to change their ways.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on each issue guys.

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 7:32 PM Justin Salisbury <PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu>
wrote:

> Hi Aaron,
>
>
>
> Mahalo for unmasking yourself. It’s good to know that it’s a friendly
> person on the other end.
>
>
>
> I recognize that the topic of whether or not reproductive rights should
> exist can be one that leads to a lot of debate. I am attempting to use
> reproductive rights as an application area to which we can apply Federation
> philosophy. I believe that doing so pushes us to think analytically about
> our philosophy and determine exactly how it relates. I think people could
> take lots of little pieces of that article and sort them as indicators of
> pro-life tendencies or as indicators of pro-choice tendencies. In fact,
> some people would say that using the term “pro-life” instead of
> “anti-choice” reveals a person’s political orientation, as well.
>
>
>
> In my work in blindness rehabilitation, whether I am teaching cane travel,
> home management, or braille, I am frequently pushing people out of their
> comfort zones. I recognize that, in order to join this conversation, almost
> anyone must step out of their comfort zones. Very few of us find it within
> our comfort zones to discuss reproductive rights in an open forum. I am
> grateful to those who are willing to do it, and, to all those who are not
> comfortable saying anything just yet, I respect that.
>
>
>
> About separate agencies for the blind:
>
> Blind services are most efficiently provided in dedicated agencies. We
> need a lot of specialized services that most other disability groups do not
> need. Who else needs to learn how to walk with a long white cane? Who else
> needs to learn to read braille? Who else needs to advocate for the removal
> of bright yellow traffic signs that say “Watch for the Blind” just like you
> warn drivers of a deer crossing? Who else needs a refreshable braille
> display? The services that we need are so specialized that it is simply
> more efficient to put everyone providing those kinds of services in one
> self-contained staff unit, where everyone understands blindness. If any one
> person in the blind agency doesn’t understand blindness, they are the weak
> link, and any negative attitudes about blindness that they have will be the
> limiting factor on how successful that agency will be. When you can focus
> on a distinct group of staff for a blind agency, then you have the best
> ability to teach them about blindness so that the agency or training center
> becomes the best possible incubator for positive attitudes about blindness.
>
>
>
> As for tax benefits, yes, there are themes like the ATAA, which helps
> shift the process of acquiring the technology onto the individual consumer
> by offering a tax credit for access technology that we need to buy. It’s
> like allowing us to provide one piece of our own vocational rehabilitation,
> so that we can go out and get what we need. My understanding is that we are
> hoping that it will be more efficient for us to allow people to make their
> own choices about what will help them function best.
>
>
>
> If you look at the income tax piece, with the higher standard deduction
> for the blind, that basically means that we will get taxed on a little bit
> less of our income versus a sighted person in the same situation as us.
> Part of the justification for something like that, as I’ve heard it, is
> that there are a lot of little costs that we, the blind, incur related to
> making our world accessible to us. Maybe we pay for cabs that we would not
> have otherwise needed. Maybe we hire readers to read our mail. Maybe we
> hire readers to help us fill out inaccessible job applications or accompany
> us to medical appointments to fill out paperwork. Maybe we buy a new cane,
> magnifying glasses, or some other equipment that helps us access our world.
> My understanding is that the differential on our standard deduction, which
> I think is an extra $2000 for a single person, is basically the amount of
> money that we think a blind person would have spent in an average year on
> those extra blindness-related costs.
>
>
>
> About the societal adaptations, I think our NFB philosophy does make room
> for societal adaptations, but I kind of feel like it’s only those which are
> truly necessary. I like having braille next to a hotel door before I try to
> open that door. I want the braille to be the same place the ADA tells us
> that signs should be located. I’m not big on having braille on the door
> itself because I don’t want to be groping all over the door looking for the
> sign. I want to find the handle, then reach to the standardized place where
> the sign is supposed to be. If you want a good example of a societal
> adaptation that I don’t think we need, consider truncated domes at
> intersections. Those are expensive, annoying for wheelchair users, and
> totally not necessary. If we hit them, we know what they mean, but, when we
> receive good travel training, we learn how to travel in a way that does not
> leave us dependent on those truncated domes to know when we arrive at a
> street.
>
>
>
> Aloha brother,
>
>
>
> Justin
>
>
>
>
>
> Justin Mark Hideaki Salisbury
>
> he/him/his
>
>
>
> Phone: 808.797.8606
>
> Email: President at Alumni.ECU.edu
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-salisbury
>
> ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin_Salisbury
>
>
>
>
>
> “Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. You cannot un-educate
> the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who
> feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore.”
>
>
>
> Cesar Chavez
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Blind allday <blind247365 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 02, 2021 7:54 PM
> *To:* Justin Salisbury <PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu>
> *Cc:* National Association of Blind Students mailing list <
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [NABS-L] Federation Philosophy and Reproductive Rights
>
>
>
> Hello Justen,
>
> What I meant when I said
>
> “I think you were trying to be controversial but at the same time not be
> controversial.”
>
> It starts with the intro of your article from the editor.
>
> “Here is what he has to say about the controversial subject of
> reproductive rights and issues we should consider as Federations:”
>
> The issue in your article isn’t if people are prolife or pro-choice which
> is where the controversial part comes in. You didn’t say how you feel
> either way. The only thing that comes close to touching the subject is when
> you said
>
> “I personally know many people who were born blind, and I can say with
> certainty that my life is better because they are in it. If they had been
> sacrificed, euthanized, aborted, or whatever someone would call it, I would
> not have been able to benefit from the positive contributions that they
> have brought into my life.”
>
> The part of you not trying to be controversial is the main point of your
> article which is not women should have the choice to make whatever decision
> they want but can’t independently because everything is inaccessible and
> Societal attitudes about blindness get in the way, which I believe that
> most people would not disagree with that. Those two main factors
> prohibiting women to independently make whatever decision they want. Not
> which decision they should choose but the decision to independently choose.
>
> To your point when you said
>
> “One common idea in NFB philosophy, so far as I understand it, is that it
> is counterproductive to have special discounts for the blind for services
> that everyone may access. For example: transit fares. In the US, you can
> often find some kind of discounted fare on a bus or train if you have a
> disability, but even someone as wealthy as Jim Givens, a blind guy who
> happens to be CEO of Goodwill Industries International, a very wealthy
> conglomerate of subminimum wage sheltered workshops, can go to an Amtrak
> (train) counter, and get a discounted fare just because he is blind. I
> doubt he takes Amtrak because he makes so much money as the Goodwill CEO,
> but he could. The system is not set up for poor people to be able to get a
> discounted Amtrak fare; it is about blindness. This kind of program can
> contribute to a perpetuation of negative attitudes about blindness. This
> kind of logic, in my opinion, would likely be applied to any kind of
> healthcare to basically say that blind people shouldn't be given a special
> blind discount for healthcare, but if there are healthcare programs for
> low-income people, those should be equally accessible for us.”
>
> The analogy I am going to make is a little different but why does the NFB
> want special departments to service the blind inside or beside the main
> vocational departments across the country? They’re sending the message that
> blind people are different from other people with disability’s based solely
> on blindness.
>
> Imagine Jim Givens being denied acceptance to LCB, CCB or Blind INC
> because he is rich and can afford to be carried everywhere if he wanted to
> as a way of travel and could pay people to do everything for him.  I doubt
> he would do this, and I doubt the LCB, CCB and blind INC would deny   his
> acceptance, but it is good to know and to have those three centers for
> everyone in place if ever needed.
>
> To your last point
>
> “The NFB has also spoken up about taking away the waiting period for folks
> approved for disability benefits through the Social Security Administration
> to get their first checks and to get their healthcare plans that come with
> that.”
>
> This is a great thing but it’s counterintuitive do we want help because of
> our blindness or don’t we? I remember reading that people inside the NFB
> didn’t want a tax credit because it was a handout. They also didn’t want
> braille on hotel doors. The NFB and ACB philosophy are both right and
> wrong. Society has to adapt to us, and we have to adapt to society to an
> extent. Blindness is both a characteristic and handicap.
>
> It’s Aaron Espinoza. Blind All Day is to pay homage to my obsession to all
> things related to blindness.
>
> Blind247365
>
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2021, at 1:29 PM, Justin Salisbury <PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Blind Allday,
>
> I'm not sure who you are, but it's good to meet you. It kind of reminds me
> of how, growing up in a small town where everyone knows everyone, we would
> often wonder who it was in the Santa suit or dressed up at the haunted
> house.
>
> I don't exactly know how someone would try "to be controversial but at the
> same time not be controversial."
>
> I think it's great that the Royal National Institute for the Blind is
> working on an accessible pregnancy test. I am really coming to appreciate
> the job they've done with the Pen Friend 3. I wonder if mainstream testing
> technology can be made available and affordable in a way that gives a
> clear, unambiguous result that is also nonvisually accessible. It may help
> everyone, not just the blind.
>
> Since I'm not sure if you live in the US, I figure it might help to give
> the context that there are already programs to help give reproductive
> healthcare to low-income people. A big one here is called Planned
> Parenthood. We could work to help make sure that these services are
> accessible to the blind, especially since many of us are low income.
>
> One common idea in NFB philosophy, so far as I understand it, is that it
> is counterproductive to have special discounts for the blind for services
> that everyone may access. For example: transit fares. In the US, you can
> often find some kind of discounted fare on a bus or train if you have a
> disability, but even someone as wealthy as Jim Givens, a blind guy who
> happens to be CEO of Goodwill Industries International, a very wealthy
> conglomerate of subminimum wage sheltered workshops, can go to an Amtrak
> (train) counter and get a discounted fare just because he is blind. I doubt
> he takes Amtrak because he makes so much money as the Goodwill CEO, but he
> could. The system is not set up for poor people to be able to get a
> discounted Amtrak fare; it is about blindness. This kind of program can
> contribute to a perpetuation of negative attitudes about blindness. This
> kind of logic, in my opinion, would likely be applied to any kind of
> healthcare to basically say that blind people shouldn't be given a special
> blind discount for healthcare, but if there are healthcare programs for low
> income people, those should be equally accessible for us.
>
> The NFB has also spoken up about taking away the waiting period for folks
> approved for disability benefits through the Social Security Administration
> to get their first checks and to get their healthcare plans that come with
> that. In this case, it appears that we are supporting the existence and
> availability of healthcare to anyone who qualifies as someone with a
> disability, which includes us. This is a little bit broader than just equal
> access, it's also about making sure that we can get the healthcare we need
> through this disability-related, income-restricted program. At some point,
> in the words of Dr. Jernigan, we need to find enough food to keep body and
> soul together.
>
> Hope that helps!
>
> Justin
>
>
> Justin Mark Hideaki Salisbury
> he/him/his
>
> Phone: 808.797.8606
> Email: President at Alumni.ECU.edu
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-salisbury
> ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin_Salisbury
>
>
> “Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. You cannot un-educate
> the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who
> feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore.”
>
> Cesar Chavez
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blind allday <blind247365 at gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2021 3:06 PM
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list <nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >
> Cc: Justin Salisbury <PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [NABS-L] Federation Philosophy and Reproductive Rights
>
> Hello Justin, A couple things about your article.It's mostly about women
> facing accessibility barriers, which is true. I believe the RNIB is working
> on an accessible pregnancy test.
> Can you explain  why you believe in the following    "Blindness should not
> prevent someone from having the same access to reproductive healthcare that
> would be available to their sighted counterpart. If sighted women can
> access the online healthcare information system, blind women should have
> equal access. If sighted patients can fill out the paperwork privately,
> blind patients should be able to do the same. For affordability, I am not
> sure that we should offer a disability discount, but there are funding
> mechanisms to help low-income patients receive care, and they are
> disproportionately used by blind patients; thus, we may have an incentive
> to support those funding mechanisms because of their disproportionate
> impact on our community. Any access barrier related to blindness should be
> toppled."  Especially about you not believing in a disability discount but
> supporting a general discount.  The rest of your article is just preaching
> to the choir about blind people being equals  and having the same rights as
> anyone else which is true. I think you were trying to be controversial but
> at the same time not be controversial.
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2021, at 10:09 AM, Justin Salisbury via NABS-L <
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I want to share with everyone a piece that I was fortunate enough to
> publish in the March issue of the Braille Monitor. I am hopeful that it
> will lead to meaningful reflection and discussion. Don't feel like you
> cannot disagree with me, but, if you do, please explain why in a way that
> will not scare off someone who might be brand new to our mailing list.
>
>
>
> Some of us may have heard people say something like "I am a member of the
> National Federation of the Blind; therefore, I am 100 percent pro-life," or
> "I am a member of the National Federation of the Blind; therefore, I am 100
> percent pro-choice." I contend that the Federation philosophy is not
> inherently pro-life or pro-choice, but there are perhaps meaningful
> applications of our philosophy in the area of reproductive rights.
>
>
>
> Here it is:
>
>
>
> https://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm21/bm2103/bm210314.htm
>
>
>
> Aloha,
>
>
>
> Justin
>
>
>
>
>
> Justin Mark Hideaki Salisbury
>
> he/him/his
>
>
>
> Phone: 808.797.8606
>
> Email: President at Alumni.ECU.edu<mailto:President at Alumni.ECU.edu>
>
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-salisbury
>
> ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin_Salisbury
>
>
>
>
>
> "Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. You cannot un-educate
> the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who
> feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore."
>
>
>
> Cesar Chavez
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> NABS-L mailing list
>
> NABS-L at nfbnet.org
>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> NABS-L:
>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/blind247365%40gmail.com
>
>