This may help.

ISM

-----Original Message-----
From: Majordomo List Server [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Stephanie Thomas
Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 6:30 PM
To: micasa-list
Subject: Talking Points on Olmstead


ADAPT's Talking Points on the Olmstead case

Federal Courts should not be telling our state what to do...

This is a civil rights case, not federal courts telling states what to do.
The ADA is a civil rights law which protects against discrimination based on
disability.  The case is about people not being forced into segregation.

The ADA, under Title II - State and Local Government, says "a public entity
[the state/DHS/etc.] shall administer services, programs and activities in
the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified
individuals with disabilities."  The purpose is to break down barriers to
integration.

Just as a state cannot decide its best people of color go to this set of
schools and anglos go to this other set, you can't decide people with
disabilities must be in institutions.

This is a civil rights issue, not a states' rights issue.

This will bust the bank...

There are protections built into the ADA for the state as well.  The ADA
says states do not have to incur undue financial and administrative burdens.

Community based services are, on average in our state and nationally, half
the cost of institutional services.  (sources: Commissioner's Bost's
testimony to Appropriations and Nat. Conf. of State Legislatures report on
Personal Assistance Services)

This is really about moving the money from the "left pocket"
[institutional/nursing home line item] to the "right pocket" [community
based service line item].

States are already providing services in an institutional setting and
spending state dollars -- "most integrated setting" says that an individual
with a disabled family member can choose to have these same dollars provided
in a community setting instead.


We will have to do anything any disabled person wants...

The ADA does not mandate the provision of any services whatsoever, however,
once a public entity decides to offer the service, then the service must be
offered -- if appropriate to the individual -- in an integrated setting.
This is just another stab at mass deinstitutionalization...

This is about giving people and their families a choice.  The ADA does not
prohibit separate programs and services, but it does prohibit forcing
segregation.

The issue of  "most integrated setting" comes up only when there are several
settings where a person's needs could be met appropriately.  Whether or not
the person chooses "the most integrated setting" is up to that person, since
there are people who may believe the institution is more appropriate to
their needs.

Other points...

Supporting Georgia, Olmstead, supports the perpetuation of unnecessary
segregation, rather than offering people a choice.

The "most integrated setting" approach allows the dollars to follow the
individual and gives person, instead of government, the choice.

Historically people with disabilities were hidden away in institutions,
thought to be incapable, our current long term care system is an outgrowth
of these attitudes.  Services need to catch up to the times.

People with disabilities want to:  1) control and direct their own lives, 2)
make decisions for themselves, 3) be allowed to take risks and even fail, 4)
participate in and contribute to community life, 5) take responsibility for
their actions.


Twelve of the 22 states signed on to the original amicus brief came off or
declined to sign onto the last round of briefs...  Coming off are Alabama,
California, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, Utah
AND FLORIDA the state which started the whole campaign came off.

(Staying on are Colorado, Hawaii, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada (the new
coordinator of these states effort), South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and
Wyoming.)

Four states came on late: Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Washington,
but Minnesota has since come off the brief after it was filed with the court
Feb. 4th)