Here is a list of Democrats opposing Americans with Disabilities Act

[NCDem777]

Or as I call it, a list of Democrats who need primaried

Ami Bera (D-Calif.)
Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)
Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.)
Scott Peters (D-Calif.)
Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.)
Terri Sewell (D-Ala.)
J. Luis Correa (D-Calif.)
Thomas Suozzi (D-N.Y.)
Jim Costa (D-Calif.)
Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.)
Henry Cuellar (D-Texas)


And I know, a bunch of people will be screaming about how I'm about how I'm demanding "purity." To that I have to ask: Could you imagine a bunch of Dems saying that we should roll back to the Civil Rights Act because some white folks are mildly inconvenienced? Could you imagine Dems saying that it should be legal to discriminate against LGBT people?

This is one of those things that is non-negotiable. If you support gutting civil rights laws for the disabled or anyone else, you're in the wrong party.

[Bengus81]

1. You saying these Dems would want the Disabilities Act tossed in the dumpster,or some parts of it?

This is hard to believe...........

[Caliman73]

2. Can you give context on this?

I am not aware of and have not been able to find the information on those politicians voting against or speaking against the ADA.

[NCDem777]

4. I will let Tammy Duckworth give the context

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-is-on-the-offensive-against-americans-with-disabilities/2017/10/17/f508069c-b359-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html

HR 620 would basically make enforcing the ADA impossible

And here is the source for my list of the Dirty Disabled Hating DINO's

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr620

[Caliman73]

10. Thank you.

This is definitely troubling. It looks like it was introduced in 2017. Any idea where it is in process? There were also mark ups.

[NCDem777]

12. It just exited committee and may be voted on in the next week

[hedda_foil]

38. Here's Bob Casey's full statement explaining why it's a bad bill.linked from propublica

Casey Statement on House Judiciary’s Decision To Advance Civil Rights Gutting Legislation
Tweet
Facebook
PRINT
EMAIL
Casey Statement on House Judiciary’s Decision To Advance Civil Rights Gutting Legislation
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Bob Casey released the following statement following the House Judiciary Committee’s decision to advance H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017:

“Today, the House Judiciary Committee moved to gut the rights of people with disabilities to have equal access to restaurants, hotels, theaters, ball parks, web sites, and all places and services to which all non-disabled citizens have access. In 1990, Congress, through the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), affirmed the civil rights of all people with disabilities to have access to all businesses and services offered to the public. Those offering services to the public have had 27 years to make their services accessible to all. H.R. 620 would further delay making services and settings accessible and remove the incentive to make businesses and other public entities accessible for people with disabilities. Good legislation would provide support to help businesses comply with the ADA. I stand with the over 250 disability groups that oppose this approach and will fight to protect the civil rights as enshrined in the ADA.”


https://www.casey.senate.gov/newsroom/releases/casey-statement-on-house-judiciarys-decision-to-advance-civil-rights-gutting-legislation

[Yonnie3]

3. Source?

I looked up Ami Bera and found this at: https://bera.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-ami-beras-statement-on-the-ada-education-and-reform-act

Sacramento, CA – Congressman Ami Bera (D-CA) released the following statement on the ADA Education and Reform Act:

“The ADA Education and Reform Act would give small businesses a reasonable time to fix violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rather than immediately face lawsuits, small business owners should be given time to actually fix what’s wrong so they can improve access and better serve all members of our community. Americans with disabilities face real challenges every day, but too often, small businesses are unaware their stores are not up to code. This bill is commonsense legislation that is consistent with the spirit of California state law. I fully support the ADA and if any business fails to comply with its provisions, there should be consequences.”

[SCantiGOP]

5. Thanks, Yonnie

this pretty well shows that the OP was meant to be misleading and inflammatory.

[NCDem777]

8. A six month waiting period for civil rights. I'd call that inflammatory

[Yonnie3]

13. I understand your point.

Do you understand mine?

[Blue_true]

21. Your OP was misleading.

I know small business people that are very liberal. The issue though is that making access renovations to buildings can put a crimp in their budgets, particularly in big cities where the business people may not own the building. Some landlords require purchase of $3-4 million dollar insurance policies before a person can even change a light socket, such policies run $700-$1000 per month in big cities, add that to $5,000 per week payrolls, $1200 per week payroll tax, $2500-$4000 per week rent, $250 per week electric utility bill, and other bills, makes coming up with $1,000-$3,000 on demand difficult. A better solution is to code the business owners, give them a timeframe within which to fix the problems and progress check them monthly to insure they are on track, sort of like what Bera suggested.

[NCDem777]

22. It's been law for 27 years

and there is free government help.

If they have been flouting the ADA for decades, another 6 months won't help.

[GeorgeGist]

40. What part of ... have had 27 years to make their services accessible to all...

did you not understand?

[Blue_true]

41. What part of most small businesses are less than 2 years old didn't you understand? nt

[fifthoffive]

91. Then they should have been aware

Those businesses needed to account for the ADA in their business plans.

[Yonnie3]

9. I read the links later provided.

An opinion piece and a list of supporters of a modification to the ADA.

I might even agree with the opinion piece, somewhat.

A list and sweeping declaration is indeed "misleading and inflammatory."

[NCDem777]

16. The modification would all but kill it. It would be toothless.

Therefore it follows that anyone who supports this "modification" opposes the ADA,

Could you imagine a Dem supported a bill "modifying" the Civil Rights Act in a similar manner to help some perpetually aggrieved white whiners?

[Yonnie3]

23. I have yet to form an opinion.

Your OP didn't provide any information.

Now, you want to convince. If you included the information, I would have gone and looked at it and we probably wouldn't have had this discussion.

I spent many years as an engineer in a manufacturing facility which tried to comply fully with ADA and other sometimes conflicting regulations. Every year the compliance needs changed or were interpreted differently so we had more work to do. To say we had 27 years to comply is misleading.

I will read the bill and form my own opinion.

[mythology]

35. It's not analogous to compare the Civil Rights Acts and the ADA

You don't have to literally complete new construction to let black people in.

It takes time and money to make a space ADA compliant. That isn't to say it doesn't need to be done, both morally and legally, but I can see situations where it's not feasible to make a space compliant overnight. There needs to be a mechanism to ensure it happens (both in cases where the owner doesn't want to and where they just procrastinate on it).

[thucythucy]

53. Here's what DREDF--a preeminent (and very progressive)

disability rights group has to say about this:

"Big business is trying to bamboozle the House and the American public into supporting an unnecessary law misleadingly titled the “ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017” (H.R.620) that would make it even harder for disabled Americans who have been “holding it,” waiting to use the same restrooms, shop at the same department stores, and eat at the same restaurants as our non-disabled friends and family members, for almost 30 years!

They say the law is needed to help local “mom and pop” shops, while behind the scenes, powerful trade associations for wealthy corporations—everything from multinational hotel chains to big box stores and corporate coffee shops—are pulling the strings in an effort to gain support for regressive rollbacks to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). This opens the door to not only dismantling the ADA, but other civil rights laws as well."

I posted a link to the DREDF (Disability Rights and Education Defense Fund) in my post below.

The GOP inspired "ADA Reform" is about as progressive as their "tax reform" legislation.

Just another giveaway to corporate America, this time at the expense of people with disabilities.

[thucythucy]

58. Have you looked at the other links provided--

links to disability rights groups and allies up in arms about this?

Here's one, for starters:

https://dredf.org/2018/02/07/urgent-save-ada-house-will-vote-next-week-h-r-620/

I thought the Tammy Duckworth statement was pretty compelling as well.

[NCDem777]

6. It's not as though businesses haven't had 27 years to get up to code

and plenty of FREE resources offered by the government to help.

Oh wait.

It's not as though businesses don't know. It's that they don't WANT to know.

[NCTraveler]

14. "It's not as though businesses haven't had 27 years to get up to code"

Can you see how extremely flawed that comment is?

Similar to the topic line in your op.

[NCDem777]

17. It's been law for 27 years

and businesses have had free government help for all that time.

How much of a bigger grace period could they need?

Does a business get to whine that they "didn't know" about fire safety codes?

[NCTraveler]

27. You really don't see how flawed your comment is?

Just like the topic line of your op.

You have followed up that flaw with a second one here. Well done.

[thucythucy]

56. Suppose, instead of disability access, we were talking fire codes.

It can be a very expensive proposition for a new business to meet fire and safety codes. Should "small" businesses be allowed a six month grace period after opening, to install smoke alarms, CO2 alarms, make sure fire exists are cleared, etc.?

Even if the codes have been in effect for decades, and thus anyone going into business should be well aware of what compliance entails?

[NCTraveler]

70. I was just recently given ninety days to bring ourselves...

Up to code with respect to local fire code. I’ve owned the business for fourteen years.

[thucythucy]

74. Wow. Were you not aware of the code

or did it suddenly change?

[BoneyardDem]

34. EVERY business is at least 27 years old?

yo do realize that some ADA building code requirements don't apply to every business...right?

I work with City building officials and many of your statements up thread (such as govt assistance for any business to install ADA standard building items) is a bunch of malarky. I think you are trying to stir a pot....and that shit stinks.

[Autumn]

24. Yes because small businesses have been on top of fixing violations of the ADA for the last 27 years.

They only needed 27 years and 6 moths to comply.

Stores are very aware, they just think they can get away with not complying

[R B Garr]

42. Most on that list are from New York or California. There are a lot

of minority-owned small businesses in both states. Many are driven out of business because of renegotiating leases in a burdensome real estate market. Some of my favorite places are no more because they couldn't keep their lease.

Let's not knee-jerk every single thing just because it supports primarying Democrats who don't put Vermont politicians No. 1.

[Autumn]

43. We have those who don't comply here and in places other than NY or CA. Gutting

the teeth of the legislation and giving them 6 moths longer for them to voluntarily comply is nonsense. Unlike some I'm not one to knee jerk over any politician, Vermont or New York. YMMV. Issues and a politicians stand are what's important to me.
If a Civil Rights Act for people with disabilities is going to be burdensome for any business that's something that that business owner has to deal with, not the person with disabilities.

[R B Garr]

44. The posted list shows places in California and New York,

the two most expensive real estate markets nationally.

Most of those small businesses weren’t around 27 years ago.

To see such glee over Democrats being primaried based on distorted and unsubstantiated events makes it look like more empty Revolution tactics. Thanks for explaining that was not the case here.

[Autumn]

45. If they have been there a year or two they have had time to comply, I haven't seen any glee. YMMV nt

[R B Garr]

46. Yes, as long as Democrats are primaried, it doesnt matter

what the actual facts are. Small businesses are just an excuse. Hmm, it is starting to sound like a
Revolution tactic after all...

[Autumn]

47. Letting politicians know that they can't roll back Civil Rights is something to get behind

The OP mentioned that gutting Civil Rights should be non-negotiable, I agree 100% with that. As any decent person should. I have seen no one getting hung up on primarying anyone, well at least not people discussing issues.
Perhaps reminding those politicians that Civil Rights are non negotiable will be enough of a reminder of the needs and problems facing disabled people.

[R B Garr]

48. More of the thread shows the OP to be misleading

and inflammatory. The “issue” of primarying Democrats seems to be the issue. Thank goodness the statements from the politicians themselves show proper context. Primarying Democrats just for the smear affect is very transparent.

[Autumn]

50. I will defer to what Tammy Duckworth had to say about it instead of the opinions of

posters in a thread, she's well aware of the challenges facing we disabled Americans. Thanks for your input anyway.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-is-on-the-offensive-against-americans-with-disabilities/2017/10/17/f508069c-b

At the signing ceremony, President George H.W. Bush noted that before the ADA, “tragically, for too many Americans, the blessings of liberty have been limited or even denied. The Civil Rights Act of ’64 took a bold step towards righting that wrong. But the stark fact remained that people with disabilities were still victims of segregation and discrimination, and this was intolerable.” Bush declared, “Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.”

Decades later, the forces of discrimination are working hard to rebuild that wall. Led by the hospitality and retail industries, special interests want to shift the burden of ADA compliance away from business owners and onto individuals with disabilities. They’re backing a bill that has already passed the House Judiciary Committee, the so-called ADA Education and Reform Act, which would reward businesses that fail to comply with the law. The bill would allow businesses to wait until they are notified of their failure to meet legal obligations before they even have to start removing barriers that prevent Americans with disabilities from leading independent lives.

This offensive legislation would segregate the disability community, making it the only protected class under civil rights law that must rely on “education” — rather than strong enforcement — to guarantee access to public spaces. As the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Rights Task Force and other civil rights organizations wrote in opposing this bill, “We know of no other law that outlaws discrimination but permits entities to discriminate with impunity until victims experience that discrimination and educate the entities perpetrating it about their obligations not to discriminate.”

For decades, from enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through passage of the ADA, Congress has worked to enshrine the principle in law that no American should be denied access to a public space because of who they are, be it their race, nationality, religion, gender or disability. The ADA Education and Reform Act betrays this bipartisan legacy.

[R B Garr]

51. I didnt see anything about primarying Democrats

because they chose to interpret things differently. Maybe she advocated driving Democrats out of office, but I didn’t see it in there.

[Autumn]

54. Of course she said nothing about primarying Democrats, neither did I. One can discuss the

issue of some Democrats wanting to gut a Civil Rights Act without suggesting that those Democrats be primaried. My opinion is that anyone who wants to open a business should be aware of the ADA and plan from there. After all the ADA has only been in place for 27 years. Democratic politicians should never agree to gut this very important Civil Rights Act.

[R B Garr]

67. Yes, that should be an awareness of a cost of doing

business, but California and New York are not going to drop off the earth and there are realities politicians have to face for their constituents. I doubt this fits entirely into the evil corporations/capitalists scenario.

[Autumn]

68. It fits into the category of gutting a Civil Rights Act, gutting the ADA harms actual people.

I have seen no one refer to it as an evil corporations/capitalists scenario. The reality is every single one of those Democrats have constituents that are disabled, it's not just business who are their constituents.

[R B Garr]

69. New York and California are both very liberal states.

Lecturing people who are more progressive than the rest of the country is more about putting notches on belts.

Laugh all you want to over the cost of living in those states, but it’s a real problem. Primarying people over every interpretation is a Revolution tactic. California is very liberal.

And I bet those small business owners have families with all kinds of needs. Now we’re into just making stuff up to justify outrage. What I read from the Democrats didn’t sound like they were trying to subvert the law.

[thucythucy]

57. No, it shows that lots of people, even progressive Democrats, don't understand what the ADA is

or how it works.

Here's a link from DREDF, which has been at the forefront of the struggle for disability rights, since the late 1970s.

https://dredf.org/2018/02/07/urgent-save-ada-house-will-vote-next-week-h-r-620/

I don't support immediate talk of primaries, but this issue definitely needs more attention from progressives everywhere.

I'm talking about not losing a civil rights law that took decades to bring about, that's been on the books for twenty-seven years, and the gutting of which has been at the top of the GOP wish list ever since it was passed in 1990.

[R B Garr]

65. The politicians targeted are from California and New York,

both very liberal states. Not every politician ignores their constituents.

This OP does look to be inflammatory.

[thucythucy]

75. Upstate New York

is VERY conservative. Definitely entire counties (like Hamilton County) that are Trump territory.

Likewise, not every district in California is liberal.

And when it comes to people with disabilities, yes, very often they are ignored by politicians.

This is a bad bill, drafted and supported by reactionaries. It's distressing to see that even people who think themselves our allies don't understand the terms and importance of the ADA.

Check some of the links provided in this discussion and see for yourself.

[R B Garr]

79. I am very familiar, too, with the ADA

over many many years. Spare the lecture. I am not disabled, but I’ve seen the many improvements that have been done because of the ADA over literally decades. I studied the closed caption requirements.

This thread is almost a week old. You can scoff all you want to, but this OP picked the most liberal and most expensive states to make an example of. I’ve seen the work done in California. To attack California is bull.

[thucythucy]

86. Who's "attacking California?"

The OP pointed out that certain Democrats are--for reasons I personally can't fathom--voting for a bill that will gut the enforcement provisions of the most important civil rights legislation ever passed to protect people with disabilities. The Democrats in question represent districts in New York and California. I pointed out that as liberal as those states are, there are areas within them that are quite conservative. Are you disputing that?

And so what if the thread is a week old? The bill is now before the Senate. Is there some kind of time limit on when we can protest the passage or potential passage of reactionary legislation?

The work you cite that's been done is BECAUSE of the ADA. If the ADA is gutted, you can bet that companies who have opposed taking part in this progress (Greyhound is a perfect example) will call a quick halt to any accommodations they don't feel they need to make.

I AM disabled, and this bill is a threat to what I and many others have worked for for the past three decades. Sorry if being "lectured" about this annoys you.

[R B Garr]

87. Ive seen the ADA work done in my state for decades.

Decades.

I’ve already said I don’t trust the OP’s call to have Democrats primaried just to put notches in belts of a “revolution”, and that’s what this looks like.

We’ve already exhausted this thread. I already said the OP doesn’t have links. This is not a very viable thread. It is not substantiated. The person I responded to has...never mind.

[thucythucy]

89. I posted links for you to look at.

And I've said I don't think calling for Dems to be primaried at this point isn't a good strategy.

I'm not responsible for who has or has not responded to you.

And again, the "ADA work done" in your state is precisely because there was an ADA in place to make such progress happen. It didn't just drop out of the sky. And now that work is being threatened, which is why I and others in the community are sounding the alarm.

Sorry if this rubs you the wrong way. It's my rights and the rights of countless others being threated, is all. So I can understand, if not entirely agree, with the anger evident in the original OP.

[R B Garr]

92. I KNOW all about the ADA. I have seen the work done on

the ADA for decades. Decades. I’ve seen the work done. I’ve seen the contractors working. I have seen City departments come out and make ADA improvements. For decades I’ve seen it.

This thread is exhausted. I don’t need your lectures. California is a very progressive state.

[R B Garr]

93. LOL, and it looks like you are the one rubbed the wrong

way. It is just bizarre that you insist on making this on the merits of the ADA when it is not about that.

[thucythucy]

59. You're saying there's a direct link between the ADA

and "some of (your) favorite places" going out of business?

Sounds to me like you're scapegoating a minority community--people with disabilities--for unrelated problems with the real estate market.

The overwhelming majority of support for this "reform" comes from Republicans, while most Democrats are opposed--even those not from Vermont.

Doesn't that tell you something?

[R B Garr]

64. I doubt the spirit of the law is to bankrupt people

and bankrupt small businesses and drive them out of business.

The politicians listed aren’t Republicans. It said to primary Democrats.

California and New York are the main targets, both very liberal states. I’m not scapegoating anyone, but not every politician ignores their constituents.

[thucythucy]

73. There are some purple districts

in California and New York, even some red districts where "taking a stand against guvmint regulation" might be a popular thing.

The ADA specifically excludes small businesses from its mandates. It was written that way precisely so mom and pop operations wouldn't be affected. Even for larger concerns, compliance must be "readily achievement" and not cause "undue hardship" on the company or entity in question.

You seemed to be blaming the ADA for hurting small businesses, when time and again it's been shown that hasn't been happening.

I don't like the part of the OP that calls for primaries. First, I'd like progressives in those districts to voice their concerns about their representative voting for something that's been on the KGOP hit list for decades.

[R B Garr]

82. Putting notches on the belts of the Revolution

isn’t a priority.

I’m not even going to go back and look at this thread, but small businesses were mentioned as being affected. Do you live in California?? I do, and I’ve seen lots of work done on the ADA, so lecturing a progressive state is truly senseless.

[thucythucy]

88. No one is "lecturing the state."

I'm not even sure how that's possible. States are geographic and political entities, and generally don't have ears to listen or mouths to respond.

Small mom and pop businesses are generally exempt from the ADA. Title I, Section 101.B notes that in any employment discrimination case (as an example) "the nature and cost of the accommodation needed under this act" must be weighed against "the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the provision of reasonable accommodation." And so a mom and pop hamburger stand might not have to comply with the law, while McDonalds would.

You've seen "lots of work done on the ADA" because people have worked hard to do it. Accommodations and access don't just magically appear. They are the result of activism and sacrifice on the part of many many people. Like the folks in ADAPT, who say in at McConnell's office to prevent the repeal of Obamacare ADAPT also opposes this bill.

The fact that a (small) number of Democrats is siding with (the vast majority of Tea Party Republicans) to pass this bill is a huge disappointment. And I'll speak out in any way I can to try to keep it from happening, and to protest it if and when this awful law is passed.

[R B Garr]

90. I KNOW people have worked hard on the ADA.

I was one of them. I already said I have a lot of exposure to the ADA and all the fitting work it has provided for DECADES! Decades.

Really. Decades.

This thread is exhausted. Spare the lectures. It is not s viable thread. Just throwing out names and attacking people is pointless.

[thucythucy]

94. You're obviously not reading the OP

the links or my posts.

No one is saying California isn't a progressive state.

No one is saying a lot of work hasn't been done--thanks to the ADA.

But the ADA is a federal, not state law. And it's about to be gutted. And, evidently, there are some Democratic representatives seem to be fine with this.

The work you've seen done "for decades" is a direct result of changes in the law forcing those changes.

We saw what happened when the Voting Rights Act was gutted. People then said, "We've made so much progress," and the Supreme Court ruled the law was no longer needed. The result--almost instant action on the part of conservatives to suppress the vote, to disenfranchise the people the Voting Right Act was drafted to protect.

The same thing will happen when the ADA is gutted.

Really, you must be deliberately trying to misunderstand the point being made.

[R B Garr]

95. You are just talking to yourself at this point.

This thread is totally lame for the reasons stated over and over and over.

How frigging lame to attack people for the OBVIOUS. I KNOW about the merits of the ADA.

I’ve KNOWN the merits for decades. I’ve seen the work done. It benefitted one property where I lived. Etc, etc, etc.

This thread is really really past its sell by date. Move on or start another thread.

[thucythucy]

96. Still not getting it.

Still not reading.

Still not understanding.


Bye.

[R B Garr]

97. Same to you. How ludicrous and pathetic to

convince yourself that others don’t understand the ADA. Ridiculous.

I’ve seen the ADA up close for DECADES. Seriously. Really really.

Bye!

[gratuitous]

28. This statement is pretty weak

The requirements under the ADA have been known for years, which seems a reasonable time. Small businesses want to keep dragging their feet for another six months, or a year, or five years without consequence for non-compliance.

If you're running a business, it's up to you to know and follow the laws. If you can't do that, maybe you should update your business plan or not try to run a business? You want to try to concoct another statement, Rep. Bera? Because this one just doesn't cut it.

[thucythucy]

60. Thank you!

It's so discouraging to see so many on DU willing to toss our rights under the bus.

[Laffy Kat]

7. Inexcusable.

On edit: Why so many from CA?

[loyalsister]

66. Clint Eastwood

He has been lobbying to gut the ADA after he got sued for violations.

[hardluck]

72. Because of the ADAs interaction with a CA statute

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act provides a $4,000 penalty per violation of the ADA whereas the ADA only provides injunctive relief. This has incentivized the mill type approach to litigating the ADA, where a single law firm will file hundreds of lawsuits per year. The strategy is to file a ton of lawsuits, send out a settlement demand of around $15,000, and negotiate a quick settlement of around $8,000 - $10,000, knowing that the business will settle because it is cheaper than litigating the case.

The alternative for the business is to fix issue, then file summary judgment as they have now mooted the ADA claim. But this will run $30,000-$50,000 in attorneys fees, thus the quick sertlement. This change to the ADA would add a safe harbor provision allowing the businesses time to fix the issue without an actual lawsuit and thus avoiding the settlement costs while still gaining compliance with the ADA. The downside is it will deincentivize lawyers from suing under the ADA thus reducing compliance with the ADA.

Seems to me there should be governmental ADA inspections just like fire or building code inspections with fines and requirements to bring the buildings up to code, but instead we chose a private attorney general means of enforcing the ADA.

[NCTraveler]

11. You aren't demanding purity.

Simply being deceptive.

I don't like that they are supporting this. They should be called and lobbied.

"Here is a list of Democrats opposing Americans with Disabilities Act"

That is simply not an accurate statement.

Read the bill. I would vote no on it. That said, it is giving small business the opportunity to make good outside of almost immediate legal action. That isn't a bad thing. I would still vote no as these things should be cared for up-front by business owners. It should be a part of their original thought.

[NurseJackie]

25. Thank you! You're correct... the post is deceptive and misleading.

"Here is a list of Democrats opposing Americans with Disabilities Act"
That is simply not an accurate statement.

Correct! You've called it as you see it, and I happen to see it the same way. It's total BS. It's divisive and things like that weaken our party.

[NCDem777]

33. I call it like it is

HR 620 would make the ADA unenforceable. So it would kill the ADA which has long been a masturbatory fantasy of Losertarians and Ayn Rand worshippers

[thucythucy]

61. Here's what DREDF (Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund)

has to say about this.


https://dredf.org/2018/02/07/urgent-save-ada-house-will-vote-next-week-h-r-620/

This is a bad bill, and it's sad to see some (few) Democrats are supporting this GOP effort.

Here's a more detailed critique of this "reform," also from DREDF.

https://dredf.org/hr620/

[Blue_true]

15. Can you provide more information?

There are some very surprising names in your list. Why do they oppose renewal? Do they feel the proposed bill does not do enough for people with disabilities? Need more context.

[NCDem777]

19. They support HR 620

which would give businesses a 6 month grace period, in addition to the 27 years and free government help they've already had and make it incumbent on the disabled to educate people on our civil rights. It would make the ADA a soggy paper tiger.

No other group has to deal with that.

[Blue_true]

29. Do you recognize a couple of things?

First, big business have things like ramps and door controls, as well as toilet stalls. Second, a small business owner most likely HAS NOT owned the business for 27 years, the vast majority have not owned the business for more that 3 years. I say code them, give them a few months to fix problems and monitor them until they have the problems fixed.

[NCDem777]

32. And small businesses have help from the government

if they choose to make themselves aware.

Here's what'll happen: The businesses will get their "grace period" do nothing, complain that they need a bigger grace period. Within which they will continue doing nothing.

Kinda like Disney getting copyright law extended so they can keep Mickey Mouse. Only people are actually harmed

[BoneyardDem]

36. not all...almost none get financial help from the Govt...they get info.

you are still misleading.

95% of new start ups (unless they are in a home) don't even own the business location, but lease. The property owners/landlords get to do the installs....have you ever heard of any landlord working at the speed of lightning to pay for any repairs and fixes their tenant might need?

[Blue_true]

37. Most landlords force the tenets to make and pay for the improvements.

In addition to forcing the tenets to buy insurance before anything is done. When a small business in a large city is running $25,000-$35,000 in expenses per month, coming up with $1500-$3000 on demand is difficult for some, especially if they have not yet had time to build a brand.

[Demsrule86]

18. What are you referring to?

[Demsrule86]

20. I read this very carefully...this has been around since September.

The GOP owns the House. I would imagine that the Dems allowed their people to vote for it for political reasons as it was going to pass no matter what. The big fight will come in the Senate. And we may lose. We have no power to really stop anything the GOP won't join us in stopping. Thanks Sarandon and others who think" tearing it down" and harming Americans is the way forward. Blame the Republicans. It is because of them such a bill even exists. Better hope and pray we get the House in 18 and the Senate too...at least by 20 or it will get so much worse.

[DinahMoeHum]

26. TRASHED. This is misleading.

Please provide us a link next time. Thank you.

[Caliman73]

39. It is actually not misleading. It is lacking context and explanation but not misleading.

Looking at the context provided in my response #2 with responses #4 and #38, you get a clearer picture about the concerns regarding this legislation. It does look to delay implementation of the ADA's penalties and puts more power into the DOJ lead by Jeff Sessions, who couldn't care less for disabled people, for implementation.

The Original OP was vague and too emotionally charged but it wasn't inaccurate.

[thucythucy]

63. Thank you for taking the time

to look into this in greater depth.

Here's another good sum-up of why this is a bad bill.

https://dredf.org/hr620/

[Caliman73]

71. Yes, it certainly looks like a bad bill.

The ADA is not a perfect set of legislation and there have been people who have abused some of the recourse in the laws but this certainly looks like a bill that seeks to undermine the core of the law. There are people who say that the regulations are onerous and expensive, especially to smaller businesses, but as many on here have said, the laws have been in place for close to 30 years and are usually a mandatory part of every business plan when people are going to be dealing with the public, or hiring employees. I am not against reviewing and weighing the cost v benefit of regulations, but I have to say that "reform" bills introduced by Republicans are almost certainly designed to disadvantage vulnerable people for the benefit of moneyed interests.

[guillaumeb]

30. 5 from California?

None from Illinois.

Recommended.

[crazycatlady]

31. I've worked in non ADA compliant buildings

My understanding of the current ADA is that new commercial buildings had to be accessible but existing ones were grandfathered.

Two campaign offices I've worked on were non ADA compliant (in both cases on an upper floor with no elevator). In both cases, the office space was at a discounted rate and I'm not sure if the campaign could have afforded market rate. Campaigns are also unique in that most of their leases are less than a year.

Also many small businesses with storefronts don't own the space, they lease it. Perhaps the building owners are the ones to go after, not the tenants.

[Cha]

49. No.. there's a difference between "purity"

and tearing down Dems.. especially Hillary. And, this.

ETA to add.. I see some of them have reasonable explanations why they voted against it.

[thucythucy]

52. Here's the DREDF (Disability Rights and Education Defense Fund) take on this:

https://dredf.org/2018/02/07/urgent-save-ada-house-will-vote-next-week-h-r-620/

If DREDF opposes it I think it's a safe bet to say it's a very bad idea.

[thucythucy]

55. Thank you for posting this.

The alarm bells are going off at all the disability rights groups I know: DREDF, ADAPT, the IL Centers....

It's important that people understand what this is really about.

On the other hand, talking about primary challenges has evidently struck a nerve, which you might have avoided.

Hopefully we can sway these votes before any of that becomes an issue.

[thucythucy]

62. Here's some more detail on why this bill is a bad idea:

https://dredf.org/hr620/

[Starry Messenger]

76. Jackie got an angry letter from me this weekend.

I was shocked and beyond pissed.

[thucythucy]

77. I would urge anyone living in one of those districts

to please contact their representative and urge them to vote NO on this bill.

The links I provide elsewhere in this discussion will give you reasons why this is a bad bill.

The GOPs "ADA reform" is akin to their "tax reform"--just another scam to enrich their donors.

EVERY disability rights group I'm aware of opposes this bill. That DREDF opposes it speaks volumes to me, considering that the folks at DREDF have been fighting the good fight for disability rights since the 1980s.

Please, if you're in one of the districts listed above, take the time to make a phone call. Someday you or someone you love may become disabled--in which case you'll want and need the protections offered by an undiluted, un"reformed" ADA.

Thank you.

[wasupaloopa]

78. 2018 is not the year for that.

We are not in power. Even if you primary them and win some but let the repub win some we are still out of power.

That means two more years sitting on our thumbs.

Nothing will change if we are not in the majority

[NCDem777]

80. 2018 is not the year Dems need to be betraying the disabled either

Dems have enough issues with disabled voters. Don't need to be siding with rethugs

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. Preach it! They *all* need primarying...

[NCDem777]

84. Out of curiosity

if a bunch of DINO's signed onto a Republican bill to restrict gay rights based on a ridiculous stereotype, would you support them?

[Kaleva]

83. Many businesses think there is a grandfather clause but that's no longer true

"When the first ADA standards were introduced in 1991, existing small businesses and some public buildings were allowed to avoid complying unless they added new construction or renovated their properties. In 2010, the updated regulations removed the “grandfather clause.” While you didn't have to instantly meet the 2010 standard, your property did have to meet the 1991 regulation.

The “Safe Harbor Rule” requires compliance

Meeting only the 1991 standard is called the Safe Harbor" rule. As the 2010 regulations rolled out new requirements for new structures, parking lots, and even sidewalks, your established business is only required to upgrade to the 2010 standard if you undergo renovations. However, the person filing a drive-by lawsuit probably doesn't know or care if you are legally in compliance with either standard. "

https://www.karlinlaw.com/blog/2017/08/what-is-the-grandfather-clause-re-ada-compliance.shtml

"The ADA does not have a provision to "grandfather" a facility but it does have a provision called “safe harbor” in the revised ADA regulations for businesses and state and local governments. A "safe harbor" means that you do not have to make modifications to elements in an existing building that comply with the 1991 Standards, even if the new 2010 Standards have different requirements for them. This provision is applied on an element-by-element basis. However, if you choose to alter elements that were in compliance with the 1991 Standards, the safe harbor no longer applies so the altered elements must comply with the 2010 ADA Standards.

A “safe harbor” does not apply to elements that were NOT addressed in the original 1991 Standards but ARE addressed in the 2010 ADA Standards. These elements include recreation facilities such as swimming pools, play areas, exercise machines, miniature golf facilities, and bowling alleys. On or after March 15, 2012, public accommodations must remove architectural barriers to these elements listed above are subject to the new requirements in the 2010 Standards when it is readily achievable to do so."

https://adata.org/faq/my-building-grandfathered-under-older-ada-standards-or-do-i-need-comply-new-2010-ada-standards

[Exotica]

85. Your list is wrong

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/h80

Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) voted No
Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) voted No
Thomas Suozzi (D-N.Y.) voted No

Jim Costa (D-Calif.) did not vote

12 Democrats voted to pass it

these 7 you did correctly list

Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.)
Ami Bera (D-Calif.)
Scott Peters (D-Calif.)
Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.)
Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)
J. Luis Correa (D-Calif.)
Henry Cuellar (D-Texas)

but forgot these 5

Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.)
Kurt Schrader (D-Oregon)
Bill Foster (D-IL)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Norma Torres (D-Calif.)


More Dems not voting

Karen Bass (D-CA)
Joe Courtney (D-CT)
Theodore Deutch (D-FL)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)

[thucythucy]

98. Thank you for the correction.

Best wishes.

[Ms. Toad]

99. Please include, in your OP, the context.

When asked, you provided a link to an article behind a paywall.

This has not, to my knowledge, been a hot topic for discussion - and I, personally, have no idea why you are talking about a law that was passed decades ago and which was (in the most recent congressional action) strengthened against loopholes created by the courts.

Of course Civil Rights are non-negotiable - but your post is a non sequitur. And given the gross exaggerations of the sky falling I frequently run across on DU, I'm not inclined to go chase down a basic explanation that should be included in a post like this.