Hope Left for VAWA?

By Megan Cutter, Worker and Immigrant Rights Intern

Last year, for the first time since its origin in 1994 the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was not reauthorized. Partisan politics in the House of Representatives kept the traditionally uncontroversial Act from approval, allowing it to expire. In a blog post last week, the Center for American Progress articulated the gravity of this issue, “The expired law leaves victims, domestic violence shelters, and law enforcement across the country wondering why a law that has previously sailed through Congress…has become the latest representation of partisan gridlock.”

The 2012 version of VAWA included protections for three groups whose specific needs had not been addressed in previous years. It would have extended domestic violence protections to 30 million LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants, and Native American women. Although the bill passed quickly in the Senate, it was voted down in the House because many Republicans considered it to be politically motivated.

When the House of Representatives drafted their own bill that did not include these additional provisions, it failed in the Senate. The end result was the expiration of VAWA.

While that is depressing news, in recent weeks discussions in Congress have prompted optimism. Republicans in the House have been quoted saying that if the Republican leaders allowed the original, broader bill to come to the floor for a vote.

Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) have unveiled a new version of VAWA which is almost exactly the same as last year’s proposal. The major difference is that it eliminates the protections for undocumented immigrants. Leahy has assured the media that that issue will be addressed in the immigration reform bill currently in the works in the Senate.

An article for the Huffington Post earlier this week noted that, “So far, the silence from the House Republican leadership has been a troubling sign that they may once again put VAWA and the protection of millions of women at risk.”

Hopefully, in the next few weeks Republicans in the House can come together to support the protection of women from domestic violence.

The “Olmstead Decision” 12 Years Later

By Janie Qu, Caring Across Generations Intern 

Twelve years ago this month, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the seminal case Olmstead v. L.C. The plaintiffs were Lois Curtis (diagnosed with schizophrenia) and Elaine Wilson (diagnosed with a personality disorder). Both women voluntarily admitted to Georgia Regional Hospital at Atlanta (GRH) initially for psychiatric treatment. Although their treatment professionals eventually concluded that both women were fit to leave the hospital and continue treatment in a community-based program, they remained institutionalized at GRH. Seeking rightful placement in community care, Curtis sued state officials. Wilson later joined her suit with an identical claim.[1]

In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled against the state of Georgia and affirmed the right of individuals with disabilities to live in their communities. The Court established that mental illness is a form of disability and therefore covered under the Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Title II of the ADA protects any “qualified person with a disability” from being denied participation in or the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a “public entity,” which includes state and local governments. The Court also declared that unjustified institutional placement of a person with a disability is a form of discrimination and that “confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals.”[2]

At its heart, Olmstead was a triumph for human dignity and a civil rights victory. In fact, the ruling is often referred to as the Brown v. Board of Education of the disability rights movement.  Prior to the 1960s, Americans with disabilities were forced against their will into state-run institutions and nursing homes, often for life, and kept in appalling and inhumane conditions.[3] Olmstead asserted finally that the civil rights of peoples with disabilities are violated when they are unnecessarily segregated from the rest of society. Moreover, Olmstead brought to focus community-based care, which actually saves states an average of $93,000 in Medicaid costs per person with an intellectual disability.[4] However, not all states have been timely in complying with Supreme Court guidelines since the ruling, and as states face budget shortfalls amid the current economy, Medicaid services including community-based care programs are often the first to go.

What surprised me most about Olmstead was that it happened as recently as 1999. It was not until we were on the threshold of the new millennium that the United States Supreme Court ruled that peoples with disabilities have the right against forced institutionalization. To me, it is an important reminder that despite how far we have advanced in our technology and understanding of each other and the world around us, there are still fundamental battles to be fought and their victories carefully protected.

As for the original Olmstead plaintiffs, Lois Curtis now rents her own home and is finally able to able to live a meaningful life, contributing as a member of society through advocacy and art. After winning her right to community-based care, Elaine Wilson enjoyed an active and social life in the community and dedicated herself to advocacy.  Sadly, she passed away in 2004 at 53.

Olmstead Anniversary Event on Capitol Hill

At the Olmstead Enforcement Update Hearing last week, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez shared the stirring testimony of a woman whose son benefited directly from Olmstead’s legacy:

“In my view, it is good for all of us to be able to see that people with disabilities are a part of our society and belong to us. We can respect them, admire them, interact with them, have admiration and compassion for some of the challenges they face – and we can be inspired. People with disabilities are part of us – and should not be put in isolation, unseen and unappreciated.”

---

[1] OLMSTEAD V. L. C. (98-536) 527 U.S. 581 (1999), Cornell University, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-536.ZS.html.

[2] About Olmstead, ADA.gov, http://www.ada.gov/olmstead/olmstead_about.htm.

[3] “The Disability Rights and Independent Living Movements,” NCIL, http://www.ncil.org/about/WhatIsIndependentLiving.html.

[4] “Modernize Medicaid to better support people with disabilities”, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/169259-modernize-medicaid-to-better-support-people-with-disabilities