[NABS-L] Federation Philosophy and Reproductive Rights

Wed Mar 3 03:31:58 UTC 2021

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<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

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<mailto: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<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

-----Original Message-----
From: Blind allday <blind247365 at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org>>
Cc: Justin Salisbury <PRESIDENT at alumni.ecu.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:President at Alumni.ECU.edu%3cmailto: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<mailto: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