We Need To Keep House Members From Signing On As Co-Sponsors, ask Senators Kennedy and Kerry to oppose.
Rep. Frank (D-MA) has re-introduced a bill to limit lawsuits taken to address the conditions in or the closure of ICF/MRs. His revised bill applies to any agency or organization that receives Federal funds, including the Protection and Advocacy ("P&A") Network and the Justice Department. Specifically his bill will allow guardians (acting on behalf of people with disabilities) to "opt-out" of class actions affecting intermediate care facilities.
Upon learning of the bill, representatives from The Arc, Disability Law Center, Mass. Families Organizing for Change, and Mass. Advocates Standing Strong met face to face with Congressman Frank and explained not only our united opposition to this bill, but national opposition from The Arc U.S., Disability Policy Collaboration, among many other groups in other states.
In response to our discussions, Frank made a minor change, but the key language within the bill and the source of our concern remains intact – it provides pro-institution family members/guardians their own special veto power to single-handedly block the right of a judge to order complete relief on any subject without the case being even filed or heard in court.
Why the Bill Hurts People With Disabilities
1. It Blocks the Ability of Advocates to Protect People in ICF/MRs from Abuse and Neglect.
The bill would stop Protection and Advocacy ("P&A") agencies, the Justice Department, legal aid programs, or any other agency or organization receiving federal money from taking legal action opposed by family members or guardians. In abuse and neglect cases brought by protection and advocacy organizations and federal civil rights agencies, judges would be prevented from fixing problems across an entire institution. In improving unhealthy living conditions, addressing insufficient staffing or inadequate health services, or promoting community integration, judges need to have the freedom to look at the big picture. No family member or guardian should be permitted to restrict the right of the court before the case is even heard.
Family members or guardians may "opt-out" for a variety of different reasons. These might include: a reluctance to "rock the boat" by being involved in an adversarial relationship with service providers; fear of retaliation upon their loved one; a distrust of the legal system; a lack of interest in ICF/MR conditions (more likely in the case of legal guardians appointed who are court-appointed and who are not family members) or an incorrect or misguided view of the facts. In these cases, the judge would be unable to act to protect the rights of people with disabilities who are connected to those family members or guardians.
2. The Bill Is Unnecessary.
This bill is a solution in search of a problem. Pro-institution family members regularly participate in lawsuits about ICF/MRs, either as parties or by requesting to "intervene" in a pending case as an interested party. This bill does not give notice to pro-institution family members of a right to ask permission to intervene.
Instead, it allows pro-institution family members their own special veto power: to single-handedly block the right of a judge to order complete relief on any subject without the case being even filed or heard in court. This would stop both the Justice Department and Protection and Advocacy agencies from getting complete court orders against institutions to improve physical conditions, stop abuse and neglect, or promote community integration.
3. The Bill Opens a Pandora's Box of Potential Amendments to Class Action Laws.
By changing well-established laws related to civil rights class actions, the bill opens the door to potential amendments designed to erode the rights of class action plaintiffs on a wide variety of civil rights issues.
4. The Bill Elevates the Interests of Pro-Institution Guardians and Family Members Over People With Disabilities.
The bill places the interests of pro-institution family members over the interests of the person with a disability. If the resident of an ICF/MR wishes to live in the community and the pro-institution family member opposes this, for whatever reason, then the resident is forced to remain in the institution and the judge is unable to even look at the merits of his or her situation.
5. The Bill Will Block Efforts to Promote Community Integration.
Given that Massachusetts has six of the seven institutions in New England and a desperate need for more community services, this bill is counterproductive. Pro-institution parents and guardians already have the right, in some situations, to choose an ICF-MR for a person with a disability. In addition, residents of former state schools in Massachusetts have additional rights protected by regulations and a Final Decree that guarantees them lifetime services.
To balance these interests, advocates need to be able ensure that states promote community integration and do not direct all resources to costly institutions. This bill would block complete relief in cases brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act to promote community integration.
THE GOAL:
To prevent members of Congress from signing onto the bill.
ACTION NEEDED:
Use The Arc Action Center Links below or phone federal officials and ask them not to support this bill which is a direct slap in the face of people with disabilities and their rights. We have set up custom messages according to the recipients. Our tool is limited to # of custom messages so we have divided the 7 congressmen/woman who have YET to commit to co-sponsorship into two messages.