Writing in the Denver Post, Susan Thornton says the town of Palmer, Colorado, is to be congratulated for taking steps on its own to improve recreational access for people with disabilities rather than waiting for revisions to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Parker is facing up to the unhappy reality confronting communities across Colorado: More soldiers are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan with disabling injuries; families who have children with special needs want recreational services for them; and the senior population of the metro area will increase. Parker should be given high marks for planning today for the future.

Writing in the Progressive magazine, Kathi Wolfe urges Senate passage of the ADA Amendments Act, a compromise between the disability and business communities that was approved last month by the House with broad bipartisan support.

People with disabilities don’t want special rights. We want equal rights. And we want to be given a chance to work if we can do the job.

That should not be too much to ask.

From Scripps News, Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Dan K. Thomasson, former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service, questions whether people with disabilities will actually benefit from the cost required to upgrade the American with Disabilities Act. He notes that accommodations are costly and often remain unused by those whom they are supposed to benefit.

For the life of me, I can’t understand how those benefits can be measured monetarily. Yes, no one is really willing to risk the wrath of the ADA lobby to do much arguing against this or to say that economically the requirements sometimes don’t seem to make much sense when considering the lack of utilization of current improvements or most likely of future enhancements mandated under the new proposals.

Take one that would require witness stands in courtrooms to be outfitted with lifts or some other way of making them wheelchair-friendly. Most times courts have placed wheelchair-bound witnesses in a position where they can be heard by the jury, the lawyers, and the judge. There is no cost or loss of dignity in this. (more…)

From the Washington Post:

Thanks to a “remarkably cooperative effort by businesses and advocates of protections for the disabled,” an effort to expand ADA protections has passed the House and is expected to clear the Senate soon. The measure will recognize civil rights for people with disabilities, and instruct the Supreme Court to interpret the definition of disability more broadly. The changes will provide more opportunities for people with disabilities to seek protection without putting an undue burden on employers.

Although President Bush has expressed concerns that excess litigation may ensue, he is unlikely to veto the bill, nor should he.

By David Briggs in the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Critics worry that the new rules are vague and expensive. But the greater moral cost would be to turn our backs on the growing number of Americans with disabilities, particularly war veterans.

… How about this time, before we listen to special-interest groups making narrow appeals to our personal economic stake, we inventory all the ways others have served us in our time of need? And then ask how we are passing on the gifts we have been given by showing consideration to our neighbor?

See also:

House right to expand the scope of the ADA, in the Jackson, Tennnessee, Sun

From Workforce Management magazine:

Legislation to amend the Americans with Disabilities Act, supported by both business and disability advocacy groups, won the overwhelming support of two House committees this week and could soon get a vote on the House floor. The House Education and Labor Committee approved it by a vote of 43-1, and the House Judiciary Committee, 37-0.

See earlier post here.

From National Public Radio:

There’s expected to be a highly unusual outbreak of bipartisanship in Washington today. If all goes well, it will result in a major piece of civil rights legislation. Two groups that had been at odds, people with disabilities and American businesses, have put aside their differences to design a bill that now seems on an improbably fast track through Congress.

Joseph Shapiro reports that the two groups have compromised on a definition of disability that is a little more narrow than some people with disabilities had wanted. If all goes smoothly, the bill could reach President Bush’s desk by July 26 — the 18th anniversary of the day his father signed the original Americans with Disabilities Act.

Shapiro interviews a man with muscular dystrophy who was found by General Motors to be too disabled to perform the job for which he was hired. When the man sued to challenge GM’s withdrawal of the job offer, GM argued that he wasn’t disabled enough to be covered under the ADA.

See also this version of the story.