|
(lest we forget 9/11/2001)
Table of Contents
-
Embryonic Stem Cells Aug 2001
-
supreme Court and ADA July2002
-
Law for Disabled Puzzling Nov 2001
HISTORY OF ARTICLES
(lest we forget 9/11/2001)
(August 1, 2001)
Embryonic stem cell (ESC) research
debate- a life and death issue for the disabled
The embryonic stem cell debate and how it impacts the disabled in
Rockland County
Bill Mullin
Embryonic stem cells have generated great excitement in
medical science and great angst in Washington, D.C. These cells, which may
grow into any cell or tissue in the body, are extracted from the inner mass
of an embryo when it is just a tiny cell, small enough to fit on the tip of
a needle. Scientists regard these cells as the building blocks of a new era
of regenerative medicine, in which the human body will someday be used to
heal itself and hopefully some of you. These cells may help repair damaged
tissues and organs, or grow new ones. Scientists believe it will someday
bring treatments for many neurological conditions, such as Parkinson’s,
Alzheimer’s, spinal cord injury, brain trauma, Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS)
and much more. Adult stem cells from our own body’s show great promise but
not as promising as pluripotent embryonic stem cells.
On one hand, the opponents believe the benefits to others, whatever they
may be, cannot justify the destruction of a human life. The research draws
intense criticism from religious conservatives and abortion opponents
because the embryos, which they believe are human life, are destroyed and
discarded at fertility clinics when they are not used by prospective
parents. Many conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians believe this
is immoral and sinful. They fear if U. S. tax dollars are used to fund
embryonic stem cell research it will lead to what they refer to as a
“slippery slope”, which may lead to euthanasia and permissive attitudes
toward the abortion of abnormal or imperfect fetuses. I respect people who
feel this way on truly moral grounds.
On the other hand, I vehemently, disagree with the politicians who would
use this issue for political gain. As an individual with a spinal cord
injury I have followed this type of research for fifteen years, since fetal
tissue was first used in Mexico on Parkinson’s sufferers back in the
mid-eighties. I believe the research delays have kept me paralyzed. Seventy
percent of the American people want (NIH), the U.S. National Institute of
Health to fund this urgent research. The stem cells are from in vitro (IVF)
fertility clinics and are
now being discarded, thrown away, when not used by future parents. One
ESC can grow and multiply indefinitely, making only a limited number
necessary for researchers needs. Should they not be used for the greater
good of all mankind to extend lives and relieve suffering?
Eighty Nobel Laureates have petitioned Pres. Bush to lift the moratorium
on embryonic stem cell funding. Pres. Clinton lifted the existing ban on
funding before he left office. The religious community is not uniformly
against embryonic stem cell. While opposition from Catholics and Evangelical
Christians has been highly publicized, ethical thinkers from other major
world religions, including Judaism and Islam, affirm the moral acceptability
of embryonic stem cell research. Within the Catholic Church there are
diverse opinions. Conservative politicians such as Sen. Orin Hatch rep (Neb)
and Sen. Strom Thurmond rep (SC), former Sen. Connie Mack rep (FL) changed
their minds and publicly support NIH funding of ESC research, Sen.
Thurmond’s son has juvenile diabetes and Sen. Connie Mack’s family has been
ravaged by cancer. The English Government and much of Europe and Asia have
approved this ESC research and continue to study stem cells and the
potentially enormous benefits to those serious diseases, perhaps even total
and permanent cures for some of earth’s most deadly afflictions. The U.S.
could lag behind the rest of the world in regenerative medicine, a field
many medical scientist believe is the future of medicine. The brain drain of
American researchers is a real possibility. Some researchers have already
left the United States.
Supreme Court and the Americans with Disabilities Act
“The court’s current term
probably will be remembered as the
disabilities act term for the number of cases dealing with the
civil rights law” said Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
The court heard four cases involving the 1990 Americans with
Disabilities Act in the term that ends the week of 06/24/2002. All four
rulings went against the disabled.
After losing a string of disability rights cases in the U.S. Supreme Court
in the past three years, disability activists are wondering whether it’s
time to turn to Congress for help. Congress passed the landmark 1990 statute
to ensure equal access to jobs and public accommodations for chronically ill
and disabled people. In recent years, the court has acted in a number of
cases to limit the scope of the ADA in the workplace. The Court has been
weakening aspects of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in favor of
11th Amendment states rights. The current Supreme Court has a
majority of conservative members and their rulings have had an adverse
effect on the interests of the disabled community. The justices are favoring
management to the growing alarm of the disabilities community. The
philosophy and past rulings of the Supreme Court Judges and federal court
judges are extremely (no pun intended) important to people with
disabilities. Through the coordination of ADA Watch, disability rights
organizations across the United States are joining together to oppose the
U.S. Senate confirmation of Jeffrey Sutton who has been nominated by
President Bush to become a federal court judge in the U.S. 6th
Circuit Court of Appeals. Sutton is known for his work towards weakening the
Americans with Disabilities Act and other civil rights laws in several
recent Supreme Court cases. For information go to
www.ncil.org/sutton.htm or
AD Watch.
Under the ADA, an
individual with a disability is a person who has a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a
person who has a history or record of such impairment, or who is regarded by
others as having such impairment. The ADA bans an employer from
discriminating against an “individual with a disability” who, with
“reasonable accommodation,” can perform the essential functions of the job.
The statute also says that a reasonable accommodation may include
reassignment to a vacant position. Employers can defend their decision not
to make an accommodation by showing it would create an “undue hardship” on
the operation of the business.
The high court, beginning with a critical trio of rulings in 1999, has
focused primarily on the definition of disabled in the context of workplace
challenges. The court has consistently given a narrow interpretation to
employment rights provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
of 1990 law that prohibited discrimination against the disabled in
employment and government programs and services.
Recent Supreme Court rulings on ADA
Sutton et al. v. United Air Lines, Inc.
No. 97-1943. Argued April 28, 1999--Decided June 22, 1999Twin sisters Karen
Sutton and Kimberly Hinton, both regional airline pilots based in Colorado,
sued after United rejected their job applications because they are extremely
nearsighted. The sisters have 20-200 vision when not wearing glasses or
contacts, but 20-20 vision when wearing them. The court ruled 7 to 2
that the sisters are not protected by the law (Sutton vs. United Air Lines,
No. 97-1
Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
No. 97-1992. Argued April 27, 1999-Decided June 22, 1999. Vaughn
Murphy of Manhattan, Kan., sued after United Parcel Service in Topeka,
Kan., fired him from his job as a truck mechanic because he has high blood
pressure, although he controlled his condition with medication. The
Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 that Murphy is not protected by the law (Murphy
vs. UPS, No. 97- 1992).
Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg
No. 98-591. Argued April 28, 1999--Decided June 22, 1999. Hallie
Kirkingburg worked for a supermarket chain as a truck driver before
he was fired for failing a Department of Transportation vision test. He is
almost blind in one eye. A veteran driver, Kirkingburg had an impeccable
driving-safety record. The court ruled unanimously that he is not
protected by the law (Albertson’s vs. Kirkingburg, No. 98-591).
TOYOTA MOTOR MFG., KY., INC. v. WILLIAMS
No. 00—1089. Argued November 7, 2001–Decided January 8, 2002
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Kentucky woman with crippling carpal
tunnel syndrome wasn’t a disabled worker under the Americans with
Disabilities Act because she is still able to care for herself off the job.
The 9-0 ruling was a victory for employers trying to limit the impact of the
ADA. The case was decided with remarkable speed and unanimity by a Court
that’s struggled with the recent wave of ADA cases.
US AIRWAYS, INC. V. BARNETT
April 29, 2002 No. 00-1250. In US Airways v.
Barnett, No. 00-1250, the justices, for the first time, examined the meaning
of “reasonable accommodation” under the provisions of the ADA governing
private employers. The Barnett case asked the high court whether employers
must make a requested accommodation even if it conflicts with an
employer-established seniority system. In answering generally no, the
justices articulated a rule that will have implications beyond workplace
seniority systems, say employment litigators and scholars. . The U.S.
Supreme Court continued to narrow the Americans with Disabilities Act,
ruling that, in most cases, employers don’t have to disturb an established
seniority system to accommodate the needs of a disabled worker
CHEVRON U.S. INC. v. ECHAZABAL
No.00-1406. Argued
February 27, 2002 -- Decided June 10, 2002. In another setback for
disabled-rights claims in the workplace, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
unanimously that employers can reject applicants for jobs that would
endanger their health. The case involved Mario Echazabal, who
worked for contractors at Chevron’s El Segundo
refinery for 24 years and sought a job with Chevron, which would have
offered more security and benefits. The company turned him down, saying a
medical exam, which Echazabal disputes, showed liver
damage caused by hepatitis C that could lead to a lethal reaction to
refinery toxins.
BARNES v. GORMAN
No.01-682. Argued April
23, 2002 -- Decided June 17, 2002
The Supreme Court agreed 9-0 that a paraplegic man injured while being taken
to jail in Kansas City, Mo., was not entitled to $1.2 million in punitive
damages. The ruling, which is not limited to the ADA, bans cash awards under
laws that involve federal grants that do not spell out whether punitive
damages are allowed. The decision still allows lawsuits against boards and
agencies that accept federal money. They may be forced to pay actual damages
and make changes in accommodations but cannot be penalized with punitive
damages awards, the large dollar verdicts intended to punish behavior and
deter others. The case is Barnes v. Gorman, 01-682, 06/17/2002. Jeffrey
Gorman, who uses a wheelchair, had been arrested for trespassing at a
country-western bar called Guitar and Cadillacs. He claims officers removed
him from his wheelchair, propped him on a bench in the van and tied him with
his belt. During the trip to the jail, he fell and injured his shoulder and
back. The court’s ruling does not affect the $1 million in compensatory
damages Gorman won from the police department.
Disability and Business Technical
Assistance Centers (DBTACs) / Washington Post/ NYTimes / NCIL / ILUSA /
NYSILC ADAWATCH
(November 2001)
The Rockland Independent Living Center in collaboration with the
Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association,
sponsored a workshop on how to make
buildings, parking lots and other public areas accessible for handicapped
residents that drew 60 contractors, municipal officials and advocates for
people with disabilities. (11/15/01).
read article below
DOMINIC MARINELLI EPVA
Law for disabled remains puzzling
By RANDI WEINER
THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: Nov. 16, 2001)
The Americans With Disabilities Act became federal law more than a decade
ago, but its details remain unfamiliar to a lot of the people entrusted with
its enforcement.
Dominic Marinelli, director of advocacy for the government relations
staff of the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association, said yesterday that the
biggest problem with ADA compliance is "a lot of people think they know it,
but when you really get involved with details like plumbing fixtures,
there's a lot of confusion."
Marinelli and labor attorney Joel Greenwald were featured speakers at one
of the first workshops in Rockland that focused on building codes and the
ADA.
More than 60 people, including municipal code enforcers, building
designers, people with disabilities and contractors, were invited by
workshop sponsor Rockland Independent Living Center to discuss what,
exactly, the ADA law demands and how best to supply it. The workshop was in
the field house at Rockland Community College — a building being renovated.
"Oftentimes, we encounter a lot of ignorance among the villages and
municipalities ... over the ADA and the need for all of government to be
accessible to people," said Lorraine Jackson-Ordia, executive director of
Rockland Independent Living Center. "This is being held so that there could
not be any excuses."
The federal government in the 1980s began requiring public buildings to
be accessible to all citizens, including those with physical limitations.
The ADA became law in 1990. Among other provisions, the law requires that
any building built after 1990 be accessible with elevators and ramps, that
parking areas be set aside for people with physical limitations, that
sidewalks have curb cuts into the street and that public meetings include
aids for deaf and blind residents if requested.
The law also mandates that any time a public facility built before 1990
is significantly altered, it must be made accessible.
Stephanie Soto, a systems advocate trainee for the Rockland Independent
Living Center, estimated that only about 20 percent of Rockland's public
areas are completely accessible. Soto said that she is often kept out of
restaurants, stores and other public buildings by steps that her wheelchair
cannot climb or narrow doors and aisles too crowded with merchandise to
allow her to pass. She said she had moved recently from West Haverstraw to
Spring Valley because she could not get around in northern Rockland.
She attended the workshop in order to see what is required by the ADA so
that she is certain when she talks to the management of places she is unable
to visit.
"They need more education," she said. "They think they are in compliance,
but they're not. They don't have the full law. They don't know the
measurements."
Manny Carmona, who has been a code enforcer with the Village of Spring
Valley for five months, said the workshop gave him the federal information
that would supplement his village code regulations.
"We need this stuff," he said. "It helps us enforce the codes."
Michael LaFalce and Anthony DiPaola, building designers with Rhinebeck
Architecture and Planning in Rhinebeck, said they design a lot of schools
and school renovations, so found the workshop informative.
"New York State will be adopting a new building code in 2002, and we were
interested in how ADA would be responding to that," DiPaola said. Both men
routinely attend workshops on building codes, but said this was the first
they have attended specifically on the ADA.
ADA was designed for handicapped residents, but accessible buildings are
an advantage to able-bodied citizens, said Bill Mullin, a member of the
Rockland Independent Living Center.
"Accessible apartments are great for elderly people. They're safer
because there is more room. Ramps are easier for them to climb than steps,
and easier for women with baby strollers," he said.
Wendy MacDowell, owner of Lady Locksmith in Nyack and one of the workshop
attendees, said that ADA is about giving all residents the freedom to move
around independently.
"It makes me angry when older people can't open doors, can't get out of
buildings. What if you have arthritis and you can't turn a round door
handle?" she asked. "Twenty years from now, I'm going to be the little old
lady with arthritis who can't turn the knob, who can't see."
|
|
