IT HAS BEEN JUST A YEAR SINCE I STARTED THIS JOURNAL AND I HAVE HAD A GREAT RESPONSE , INTEREST AND INPUT FROM ALL WHO HAVE HONORED ME WITH THEIR READING MY THOUGHTS AND WORDS
I HAVE MADE SEVERAL NEW FRIENDS AND HAVE GATHERED SOME VALUABLE INFORMATION MORE FOR MY SELF THAN FOR ALL WHO READ AND SOME MORE CONTROVERSIAL THAN OTHERS
I WILL CONTINUE TO POST WHAT I FEEL IS IMPORTANT AND HOPE THAT ALL OF YOU WILL NOT BE PUT OFF BY SOME OF IT THE FIRST IS AN EXERPT FROM A MOM WHO POSTED ABOUT JUDGE ALITOS VIEWS ON THE - ADA- AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT I FEEL ITS IMPORTANT AS PEOPLE WHO HAVE DISABILITY IN THEIR LIVES EVERYDAY THAT WE ARE AWARE THAT THE DECISIONS MADE IN PLACES LIKE THE STATE CAPITAL , WASHINGTON DC ,OR THE SUPREME COURT CAN DIRECTLY AFFECT OUR HOUSEHOLDS AND WE NEED TO BE INFORMED .
I think this information should be shared with other consumers and parents. I listened to the Alito hearing and I was struck by how callous his remarks were regarding "little people" such as persons living with disabilities. Here is the information:
Memo from ADA Watch RE: National Coalition on Judge Alito's Troubling Disability Rights Record
Dear Editors/Writers:
It may be hard to believe, but one area of Judge Samuel A. Alito�s record remains unexamined by most major media: his views on the rights of Americans with disabilities.
A close look at Judge Alito�s opinions and writings makes it clear that he would like to reverse the historic gains of people with disabilities. He has relied repeatedly on a cramped vision of congressional authority to protect the rights of all citizens, and he has routinely ignored the factual record of discrimination and abuse of people with disabilities.
We ask that you review the facts below and share with your audience this further reason why Judge Alito should not be confirmed as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.
� In Pirolli v. World Flavors, Inc., in 1999, Alito wanted to
dismiss the discrimination claim of a man with mental disabilities because his lawyer used incorrect language in the legal papers. The man�s coworkers had forcibly sodomized him with a broom, stuffed him into a garbage can, beat him and made humiliating remarks about his disability. Fortunately, the other Third Circuit Court of Appeals judges disagreed with Alito's callous approach.
� In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, Alito
wanted to deny a court hearing to a woman who claimed the school reneged on promises to provide her with special seating and other accommodations for her disabilities. Alito's fellow Third Circuit judges said the standard of evidence that Alito wanted her to meet was so restrictive that "few if any cases would survive" motions to dismiss.
� In Sabree v. Houstoun, Medicaid recipients challenged
Pennsylvania's failure to provide community-based intermediate care facilities for individuals with mental retardation. In a precedent-shattering verdict, the trial court ruled that the recipients had no right to go to court to enforce the requirements of the Medicaid Act. The Third Circuit reversed that ruling, declaring that they did. In Alito�s opinion, however, he noted that "the analysis and direction of the District Court may reflect the direction that future Supreme Court cases in this area will take..." This raises an ominous possibility for the direction of Alito�s Supreme Court.
� In Adapt v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Alito held that a federal agency could not be sued for failing to enforce its own regulations on making housing accessible and adaptable for people with disabilities - even though HUD officials had admitted widespread compliance problems.
� In Doe v. National Board of Medical Examiners, Alito's
narrow reading of the Americans with Disabilities Act allowed the board to "flag" the test score of a candidate who had received accommodations during the licensing exam because of his multiple sclerosis. Such flags raise the likelihood of discrimination. Congress meant the ADA to cover broad circumstances and did not spell out every specific practice that it might prohibit.
Many more cases illustrate Judge Alito�s disregard for the claims of Americans with disabilities, and we invite you to examine them yourselves: Chittister v. Department of Community & Economic Development, Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, Helen L. v. DiDario, Three Rivers Center for Independent Living v. Housing Authority of Pittsburgh, and Katekovich v. Team Rent A Car of Pittsburgh, Inc.
These cases and others indicate that Alito's confirmation would put at risk the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); the Olmstead et al v. L.C. decision against institutionalization; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; the Fair Housing Amendments Act; the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); and other laws and precedents of great importance to people with disabilities.
For these reasons, a coalition of hundreds of national, state and local organizations concerned with these rights has united to oppose Judge Alito's nomination. They include ADA Watch/NCDR, ADAPT, the Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Judge David Bazelon of the Center for Mental Health Law, the Disabled Action Committee, the National Association of People with AIDS, the National Association of Rights Protection and Advocacy, the National Council on Independent Living, The Polio Society, the World Association of Persons with Disabilities and many more.
Please consider an editorial joining with these Americans in speaking out against the nomination of Samuel A. Alito to the Supreme Court. We would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Sincerely,
Jim Ward
Founder and President
ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20004
Cell: 202-415-4753
Email: JimWard@adawatch.org
ALSO THERE HAVE BEEN MANY INQUIRIES AND COMMENTS ABOUT THE REGIONAL CENTERS I HAVE A LOVE HATE RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS AGENCY-- THEY SHOULD BE OUR BEST ADVOCATE YET THEY CAN BE THE MOST FRUSTRATING TO DEAL WITH. I HAD ANOTHER MOM WRITE ME AND GIVE ME THIS INFO
A comment has been posted to the Journal:
DAKS OPEN DOOR-JOURNAL
REGIONAL CENTERS AND VENDOR
Comment from: parca1234
"Dear Cindy,
I totally agree with you and have been trying to make changes for 3 years now. Inland is one of the "corrupt" regional centers in Southern California. Here is some information you probably don't know:
Of the 21 regional centers, 11 are considered corrupt.
There are regional center personnel taking money to place clients
There are regional center personnel giving their friends all the services
Some consumers get much, much more while others are overlooked because they have no one to fight for them
Homes are going broke and regional centers vendor their friends
Some careproviders get special attention, one-to-one funding, etc. while others are forced out of business for speaking up
Vendors are favorites of regional center personnel
I am trying to collect stories and make this corruption known. Please spread the word and send me your information.
Thanks,
PARCA (people against regional center abuses)." 
WELL I HOPE THAT I WILL CONTINUE TO GET MORE INPUT AND INFORMATION FROM THOSE OF YOU WHO READ BECAUSE THE POINT OF THIS JOURNAL IS TO ESTABLISH A NETWORK FOR PARENTS TO HELP EACH OTHER -- I WANT THIS TO BE AN EXTENTION, OF A PART OF WHAT THE CENTER WILL BE ABOUT; REFERENCE AND RESOURCE. I WELCOME ALL INFORMATION WHETHER ITS SOMETHING I UTILIZE IN OUR FAMILY OR NOT-- I ADMIT I AM WEAK IN THE DAN PROTOCOL {DEFEAT AUTISM NOW}{WHICH IS A NUERO-BIOLOGICAL APPROACH} BUT I THRIVE FOR ANY OR ALL INFO PRESENTED
ONCE AGAIN THE INTENT IS TO HELP OTHERS FIND WHAT WORKS FOR THEM IWTH THEIR FAMILIES AND IN THEIR HOMES JANUARY 2006 IS IN THE BOOKS LETS LOOK FORWARD TO THE REST OF WHAT 2006 CAN BRING TO US ALL!
No comments:
Post a Comment