Congress: The best friend of the disabled since 1990

As I searched the New York Times website I came across an article which particularly grabbed my attention. The name of the article is Congress Passes Bill With Protection for Disabled. Why did this capture my interest? Well simply because I consider the subject of disabilities a very sensible and controversial one. The article goes on to narrate the events that took place in congress and some background history on this piece of legislation.

Last Wednesday congress provided its final consent, to what the New York Times describes as a major civil rights bill. The bill expanded protection for people with disabilities and it overturned many recent Supreme Court decisions. One interesting thing that popped out is the fact that the bill was passed in the senate by unanimous consent. This is something that rarely happens. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives as well on a voice vote, leaving the final say on President Bush. According to the White House President Bush will approve this bill just like his father approved a similar bill named Americans With Disabilities Act back in 1990.

The article goes on to explain the feud between Congress and the Supreme Court over this decision. According to Representative Steny H. Hoyer, the Supreme Court misinterpreted their objective back in 1990. The Supreme Court had eliminated protection for many individuals whom congress wanted to protect with the Americans With Disabilities Act. So to clarify things this new bill was passed, which allowed for a broader coverage.

Why was this broader coverage needed? Well the article ends explaining this. It goes on to say that the better people are able to handle their disability the more likely they will no longer be covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act. For example here in Texas a federal judge said a worker that had epilepsy was not to be considered disabled because he was taking the proper medication to reduce his attacks. The bill’s idea is to protect people like this, who are disabled but are able to control their disability. Just because they are disabled in a “controlled environment” doesn’t mean they are no longer disabled.

Articles URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/washington/18rights.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=washington&adxnnlx=1221857776-8l+QcpBqJqOzFZ1Ig7at4g

Julio Fonseca