[NFBEspanol-Talk] Fwd: Section 504: Both Sides Got It Wrong, selective focal photo of crayons in yellow box

[nfb frida]

Sección 504: Ambos lados lo hicieron mal

Si crees que voy a dejar pasar a los republicanos por intentar eliminar la
Sección 504, estarías equivocado. Los amigos deberían poder señalar cuando
sus amigos hacen cosas tontas y seguir siendo amigos, pero antes de volver
a la mesa de castigos para una charla seria con los conservadores, hablemos
del proceso de pensamiento liberal equivocado que hizo de esto un problema
en primer lugar.

¿Qué es la Sección 504? La Sección 504 de la Ley de Rehabilitación de 1973
es una ley de derechos civiles que prohíbe la discriminación basada en
discapacidad. Se aplica a programas y actividades, tanto públicas como
privadas, que reciben asistencia financiera federal.

Aquí hay algunas protecciones bajo la Sección 504: • Educación: Los
estudiantes con discapacidades tienen derecho a una "educación pública
gratuita y apropiada" (FAPE), lo que puede incluir adaptaciones como tiempo
adicional en exámenes, asistencia tecnológica o instrucción especializada.
• Empleo: Los empleadores que reciben fondos federales no pueden
discriminar a personas calificadas con discapacidades en la contratación,
despido, promoción, capacitación u otras acciones laborales. También pueden
necesitar proporcionar adaptaciones razonables para permitir que los
empleados desempeñen sus funciones. Esto no debe confundirse con la Sección
501, que solo se aplica a empleadores federales. • Atención médica: Los
hospitales y proveedores de salud que reciben fondos federales deben
proporcionar comunicación efectiva con pacientes con discapacidades, lo que
puede incluir la provisión de intérpretes o dispositivos de asistencia.
Tampoco pueden negar servicios ni proporcionar una atención inferior basada
en la discapacidad de una persona. • Accesibilidad: Los programas y
actividades que reciben fondos federales deben ser accesibles para personas
con discapacidades. Esto puede incluir accesibilidad física (como rampas,
baños accesibles) y accesibilidad en la comunicación (como proporcionar
información en formatos alternativos).

Una nota sobre la historia bipartidista Mis críticos se molestan cuando
señalo que legislaciones clave sobre los derechos de las personas con
discapacidad fueron aprobadas bajo presidencias republicanas. Aquí hay un
resumen: • Ley de Rehabilitación de 1973: Presidente Richard Nixon • Ley de
Educación para Individuos con Discapacidades de 1975: Presidente Gerald
Ford • Ley de Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990: Presidente George H.W.
Bush • Ley de Enmiendas a la Ley de Americanos con Discapacidades, ADA, de
2008: Presidente George W. Bush

Esto no significa que las administraciones demócratas no hayan hecho
contribuciones a los derechos de las personas con discapacidad. En 1965,
Lyndon B. Johnson introdujo Medicaid y Medicare como parte de las enmiendas
a la Ley del Seguro Social. En 1968, sentó las bases para la ADA con su Ley
de Barreras Arquitectónicas. Si bien la Ley de Rehabilitación fue firmada
bajo Nixon, las regulaciones de la Sección 504 se finalizaron bajo la
administración de Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton firmó la Ley de Incentivos
para el Trabajo y la Mejora de Oportunidades Laborales en 1999.

¿Por qué la lección de historia? Mis críticos liberales suelen ser
perezosos y ni siquiera podrían enumerar la mitad de las contribuciones
legislativas de su propio partido. Ahora al menos tendrán algunos ejemplos
nuevos para agregar al argumento de que el Partido Republicano de hoy es
diferente al de antes. Es cierto, pero lo mismo ocurre con el Partido
Demócrata.

Texas v. Becerra Aquí hay dos puntos clave en juego. Primero, Texas v.
Becerra es una demanda presentada por 17 estados contra el gobierno
federal. Los estados están impugnando una reciente regulación del
Departamento de Educación que incluye la disforia de género en la
definición de discapacidad bajo la Sección 504 de la Ley de Rehabilitación.

La administración de Biden nunca debió haber incluido la disforia de género
en la Sección 504. Si una persona ya está angustiada por quién es, no
parece apropiado que el liderazgo demócrata agrave su angustia al asociarla
con las connotaciones negativas de las discapacidades. Pero al hacer esto,
la administración de Biden podría amenazar con retener fondos federales a
instituciones educativas que no estén dispuestas a acomodar a estas
personas.

No voy a perder el sueño por el acceso igualitario a los deportes en las
escuelas cuando las familias todavía tienen que demandar a los distritos
escolares para que proporcionen habilidades básicas a sus hijos ciegos,
como aprender a leer.

Miembros del Partido Republicano, ¡¿qué demonios?! Sé que es un error que
estados como Louisiana, Alabama y Virginia Occidental se sumen a esta
demanda cuando no pueden permitirse rechazar dinero de ninguna fuente.

El segundo punto clave de la demanda es el desafío constitucional a la
Sección 504. Los demandantes argumentan que la Sección 504 es
inconstitucional porque excede el poder del Congreso bajo la Cláusula de
Gasto de la Constitución.

El gobierno no debería utilizar fondos federales para regular políticas
locales sobre identidad de género. Crea un precedente peligroso, pero
eliminar por completo la Sección 504 también traería consecuencias nefastas.

Pensamientos finales Es agotador molestar a ambos lados del espectro
político. A veces tenemos que ver las cosas como realmente son, y este es
uno de esos problemas donde ningún lado ha actuado con lógica.

Si estuviera en una posición de poder, mi prioridad sería ayudar a las
personas trans con discapacidades a obtener los recursos que necesitan para
sobresalir en la vida en cualquier campo que los motive. No es que no me
importe la crisis de identidad de alguien, pero la sociedad estadounidense
no ha avanzado tanto como para ignorar la falta de igualdad en educación,
empleo y atención médica para personas cuya discapacidad no puede curarse
con una cirugía.

Eliminar la regla que incluyó la disforia de género en la Sección 504
podría parecer un retroceso para la comunidad LGBTQ, pero también demuestra
cuánto ha avanzado en ser escuchada. Si la comunidad de personas con
discapacidad recibiera la mitad de esa atención, podríamos tener una
oportunidad real de nivelar las condiciones de igualdad. Además, una vez
que se ha dado un paso, no se puede deshacer por completo.
No creo en repartir trofeos a cada participante. Una competencia saludable
es algo positivo. No creo que necesitemos una diversidad de voces para
generar las mejores ideas. Hay idiotas cuyas voces preferiría escuchar en
dosis más pequeñas, pero si los republicanos realmente quieren que las
personas asuman una mayor responsabilidad personal, dejen de generalizar.
Expandan las oportunidades para que más personas con discapacidades salgan
de nuestros hogares y se integren en la sociedad. Podrían sorprenderse con
la forma en que esto reduce la cantidad de cargas fiscales y aumenta el
número de contribuyentes. sLa Riviera de Medio Oriente no se va a pagar
sola.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Alpidio Rolon <alpidio at attglobal.net>
Date: Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 10:29 AM
Subject: Section 504: Both Sides Got It Wrong,selective focal photo of
crayons in yellow box
To: Frida Aizenman <nfbfrida at gmail.com>


Buenas tardes Frida:


El siguiente artículo pudiera ser de interés.

Section 504: Both Sides Got It Wrong
[image: selective focal photo of crayons in yellow box]

If you think I’m going to give Republicans a pass for attempting to
eliminate Section 504, you would be wrong. Friends should be able to point
out when friends do dumb things and stay friends, but before we go back to
the woodshed for a special brand of coming to Jesus with conservatives,
let’s talk about the misguided liberal thought process that made this an
issue in the first place.
What is Section 504?

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a civil rights law that
prohibits discrimination based on disability. It applies to programs and
activities, public and private, that receive federal financial assistance.

Here are some protections under Section 504:

   - Education: Students with disabilities are entitled to a “free
   appropriate public education” (FAPE), which may include accommodations like
   extra time on tests, assistive technology, or specialized instruction.
   - Employment: Employers receiving federal funds cannot discriminate
   against qualified individuals with disabilities in hiring, firing,
   promotion, training, or other employment actions. They may also need to
   provide reasonable accommodations to enable employees to perform their job
   duties. This should not be confused with Section 501, which only applies to
   federal employers.
   - Healthcare: Hospitals and healthcare providers that receive federal
   funding must provide effective communication with patients with
   disabilities, which may include providing interpreters or assistive
   devices. They also cannot deny services or provide lesser care based on a
   person’s disability.
   - Accessibility: Programs and activities receiving federal funding must
   be accessible to people with disabilities. This can include physical
   accessibility (e.g., ramps, accessible restrooms), as well as communication
   accessibility (e.g., providing information in alternative formats).

A Note on Bipartisan History

My critics get all hot and irritated when I point out landmark disability
rights legislation was passed under Republican presidencies.

Here’s a recap:

   - Rehabilitation Act of 1973: President Richard Nixon
   - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975: President Gerald
   Ford
   - Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: President George H.W. Bush
   - ADA Amendments Act of 2008: President George W. Bush

This is not to suggest Democratic administrations never made contributions
to disability rights. In 1965 Lyndon B. Johnson introduced Medicaid and
Medicare as part of amendments to the Social Security Act. In 1968 he laid
the groundwork for the ADA through his Architectural Barriers Act. Since
we’re talking about Section 504, even though the Rehabilitation Act was
signed under Nixon, Section 504 regulations were finalized under Jimmy
Carter’s administration. Bill Clinton signed into law the Ticket to Work
and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999.

Why the history lesson?

My liberal critics are often lazy and couldn’t even list half the
legislative contributions they could claim under their own party. Now at
least they’ll have a couple new examples to add to the tired argument that
the Republican party today is different from the Republican party of back
then. True, but then, so is the Democratic party.

The Democratic party of today is supposedly more diverse and inclusive, but
like we explored in my controversial post last week,
<https://joeorozco.com/people-with-disabilities-need-to-stop-being-political-pawns/>
 their definition of “diversity” never quite reached disabilities. It’s
like getting all dressed up and having nowhere to go. The party, as it
were, literally left without you.

I find it interesting that no disability rights legislation was signed by
our country’s only minority president. If that’s inaccurate, sound off in
the comments, but for now it’s enough to acknowledge disability rights have
benefited from bipartisan contributions. Republicans are not the evil
scourge sent here to deprive us of all civil rights, no matter what the
slew of social media blips would have you believe.

Except, there’s the matter of this lawsuit…
Texas v. Becerra

There are at least two items at play here.

First, Texas v. Becerra is a lawsuit brought by 17 states against the
federal government. The states are challenging a recent rule issued by the
Department of Education that includes gender dysphoria in the definition of
disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

To keep everyone on the same page, gender dysphoria is defined as the
distress a person experiences due to a mismatch between their gender
identity-their personal sense of their own gender-and their sex assigned at
birth.

The Biden administration should have never wrapped gender dysphoria into
Section 504. If the individual is already distressed about who they are, it
hardly seems empowering for Democratic leadership to compound their
distress in the negative connotations associated with disabilities, but by
taking the Section 504 approach, the Biden administration could threaten to
withhold federal funding to any educational institutions unwilling to
accommodate these individuals.

I confess I have little to no sympathy on this point. The debate over which
bathrooms should be accessible to which genders seems highly insulting when
people in wheelchairs still have to worry about whether they can get into
the bathroom at all. I’m not going to lose sleep over equal sports in
schools when families still have to sue school districts to get them to
provide basic skills for their blind children like learning how to read.
It’s far too common for schools and employers to claim they just don’t have
enough money to accommodate disabilities, but they somehow find the means
through diversity initiatives to soothe someone’s discomfort with how they
were born?

In a system perpetually plagued by limited resources, one would think we
would prioritize the people for whom no degree of distress will yield
change. In many cases the woman in the wheelchair and the little deaf boy
can’t just undergo treatment to walk and hear again.

In the aftermath of the George Floyd tragedy it was common to hear people
say that it was not that other people’s struggles didn’t matter. It’s just
that in that moment in time, it was black people whose homes were on fire.
So when is someone finally going to get around to attending to the
smoldering homes of people with disabilities? Those social fire trucks keep
driving past us to tend to the needs of every other neighborhood.

I condemn violence or persecution against trans people. Discrimination of
any stripe is deplorable, but find your transportation to equality on a
different vehicle. The short bus you never spared a second glance is
already full. Our trans people with disabilities won’t be able to advocate
for their rights if we can’t properly show them how to write.
My Fellow Republicans, What the Hell?

No, seriously! What the hell are states like Louisiana, Alabama, and West
Virginia doing joining this lawsuit when they literally can’t afford to
turn away money from any source? I was dreading looking at the list for
fear of finding Mississippi joining the fray, but apparently Mississippi
had enough God-given common sense to realize it is not intelligent to cut
off their nose to spite their face. I mean, you need all the help you can
get to raise test scores, and if a little federal funding helps your
children with disabilities get ahead in life, so much the better. This
truly is a case of it not paying to be a part of the “cool kids.”

The second item of concern from the lawsuit is the constitutional challenge
of Section 504. According to the plaintiffs, Section 504 is
unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power under the Spending
Clause of the Constitution.

Think of it this way: If your schools get federal funding, you can’t
discriminate against children with disabilities. However, if the government
redefines “disability” to include gender dysphoria and threatens to take
money way because the schools aren’t letting students use bathrooms that
coincide with the student’s gender identity, then the federal government
has gone well beyond the funding’s original intent. It’s like saying the
federal government will give schools money for textbooks but only if the
schools agree to follow a specific dress code.

And you know, I can’t say I disagree. The government should not weaponize
federal funds to regulate local policies on gender identity. It creates too
much of a slippery slope, but outright eliminating Section 504 creates
equally daunting consequences.

The Trump administration can’t bemoan our country’s embarrassing education
rankings and allow a section of our party to sue for the elimination of a
means to give students with disabilities what could be their only shot at
equal education. Equal access to education is not a handout. It’s an
investment in the team to help every player pull their weight on the field.
What the student chooses to do with that education after they graduate is
their prerogative. Sure, some students will squander their privilege, but
last I checked, stupidity is not unique to people with disabilities. It
will cost significantly less to properly prepare students with disabilities
for a future with potential than it is to fail them early and create a
dependency on government assistance.

If employers receive federal funding, they had damn well better be hiring
applicants with disabilities. No one’s arguing employers should take
unqualified workers, but doing business with the government means opening
themselves to accepting government standards. If that doesn’t suit the
employer, don’t take the federal aid, but we both know the contracts are
too lucrative for the bottom line to pass on an opportunity that could give
employers a competitive edge. The amount spent on a few accommodations will
be outweighed by the profit those accommodations facilitate.

Accessibility is a perplexing area. We’re back to that whole business of
common sense. Curb cuts do not just benefit people in wheelchairs. They
also benefit people with strollers, cyclists, and even those damn grocery
carts people have gotten into the habit of hauling around and leaving in
random places. You know who gets just as excited about audio description as
blind people? Sighted ones! Text-to-speech helps people with dyslexia, and
universal design principles like lever door handles, larger fonts, and
adjustable desks have been known to help the public at large. Please spare
me the false narrative that accommodations are an undue burden when many of
these accommodations have proven equally helpful to everyone.

This whole business reminds me of the abortion debate. On a personal level,
pro life, all the way, but until hard core evangelical conservatives stop
shaming pregnant women and do more to create a feasible support system to
raise or adopt children, we do not get to claim the moral high ground to
preach condemnation against anyone’s choice.

Similarly, until educators, employers, and medical providers largely stop
viewing disabilities as a condition to be pitied, we need mechanisms in
place like Section 504 to help students grow up to become fully literate
and informed citizens. We can’t create an equal playing field when there
are teachers who refuse to introduce Braille until the student loses all
functional sight. We can’t build self-sufficiency when a school district’s
default answer to reading print content is to hire paraprofessionals. As
long as persons with disabilities continue to be treated as an
afterthought, we will never persuade employers to give candidates with
disabilities as much consideration as our peers.

Section 504, before gender dysmorphia, did not create government overreach.
Institutions could tailor solutions to the specific need, provided the
approach was not discriminatory. Section 504 as it exists now admittedly
expects specific outcomes, but the millions of people with disabilities
should not be punished for the ideological agenda of a previous
administration.
Final Thoughts

It’s exhausting, pissing people off on both sides of the aisle. Sometimes
we have to see the nonsense for what it is though, and this is one of those
issues where neither side has put their best foot forward.

Were I in a position of power, my priority would be helping trans people
with disabilities get the resources they need to excel in life in whatever
field inspires their drive. It’s not that I don’t care about someone’s
identity crisis, but American society has not advanced so far that we can
look past the lack of equality in education, employment, and healthcare for
people for whom a disability cannot be cured with a surgical procedure.

Cut out the rule that made gender dysmorphia a thing in Section 504. It
might feel like a step backward for the LGBTQ community, but the fact
Section 504 was modified in this manner goes to show that the community has
come along way in being heard. If my disability community could get half
that positive reception, we might actually have a shot at leveling the
playing field. Besides, once a step has been taken, it can’t be fully taken
back.

I don’t believe in handing out trophies to every participant. Healthy
competition is a good thing. I don’t believe that we need a diversity of
voices to yield the best ideas. There are morons out there whose voices I
would rather hear in smaller doses, but if Republicans genuinely want
people to assume greater personal responsibility, throw down the big brush.
Expand the opportunities to get more people with disabilities out of our
homes and into the general public. You might just be surprised at the way
you start to reduce the number of tax burdens and increase the number of
tax payers. The Riviera of the Middle East is not going to pay for itself.