Category: Uncategorized

When floodwaters swept through the Texas Hill Country, they arrived with little warning and immense force. Entire neighborhoods were submerged, roads erased, lives upended. Camp Mystic, once a place of summer songs and sunlight, became the site of unimaginable grief. In Kerr County and beyond, families faced the loss of homes, livelihoods, and loved ones.

Yet amid this devastation, a quiet resilience has surfaced. In the days that followed, people have stepped forward—bringing food, offering shelter, lending tools, and standing alongside neighbors in need. These gestures of support, echoed across communities, are helping to shape the long path to recovery.

Rescue crews from Texas and beyond came together, searching for the missing and offering comfort to families in grief. Volunteers arrived from nearby towns and distant states, bringing their skills, compassion, and willingness to help. Fire departments joined hands with nonprofits, while small businesses, national organizations, churches, and individuals all found ways to contribute. Each played a role in easing the burden and beginning the work of recovery.

H-E-B (H-E-B), one of the first to respond, brought mobile kitchens and committed $5 million in disaster aid. H-E-B is a Texas-based grocery chain known for its strong local presence and community focus. World Central Kitchen (www.wck.org) quickly followed with warm meals and on-the-ground support. Samaritan’s Purse (www.samaritanspurse.org) organized volunteers for clean-up and repair, bringing much-needed tools and hands. Airbnb also opened up emergency stays for displaced families and emergency responders. Each contribution reminds us that, while storms isolate, recovery connects.

As the floodwaters recede, the challenges ahead are clear. Communities must now find ways to rebuild homes, restore daily routines, and strengthen preparations for future storms. These are not simple tasks, and the path forward will take time.

Even in the face of uncertainty, some things remain certain. People will keep coming together, offering support in ways both large and small. Acts of generosity and compassion will continue to guide the recovery. Healing will not wait for the final brick to be laid; it will begin alongside the rebuilding.

Support and Recovery Resources

If you are looking to support recovery or access assistance, the following organizations are actively serving flood-affected communities:

• World Central Kitchen – Providing meals and food distribution for impacted areas.
• Samaritan’s Purse – Mobilizing volunteers for clean-up and home repair.
• Community Foundation of the Texas Hill Country – Supporting local nonprofits with direct relief funding.
• Central Texas Flood Recovery Fund (OneStar Foundation) – 100% of donations support relief and rebuilding efforts in 21 affected counties, including Kerr, Travis, and Williamson. Funds assist with housing repairs, community stabilization, and infrastructure recovery.

The days ahead may not be easy, but they will be shared. That alone is its own kind of promise. The work of recovery will not be quick, nor will it be simple. Homes must be rebuilt, daily life restored, and new safeguards put in place for the future.

Yet, one truth has already emerged: no one is walking this path alone. Neighbors are lifting each other up, organizations are stepping in with resources and care, and communities are finding strength not just in rebuilding structures, but in renewing connections.

The days ahead will require patience, compassion, and persistence. Yet they will also bring opportunities to reaffirm what binds us together. In every shared task and every helping hand, hope is taking root. And that, more than anything, is the promise that will carry Texas and every other State forward.

Individuals with disabilities in the United States have relied on federal protections to support meaningful participation in community settings and publicly supported services.

These protections help to remove barriers and promote access to education, employment, health care, transportation, and civic engagement. As of mid-2025, these legal frameworks remain in place. However, the systems responsible for putting them into practice are experiencing increasing pressure. Access continues to be supported in law, but the way it is provided is shifting.

One of the most significant legal foundations is Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This federal civil rights law prohibits discrimination based on disability in any program or activity that receives federal funding. This includes public schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, public transportation systems, and most state and local government services. Section 504 was the first federal statute to establish disability as a protected class. It also laid the groundwork for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which later expanded accessibility requirements into the private sector.

In 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released updates to the regulations under Section 504—the first comprehensive revisions in fifty years. These updates clarified expectations for medical providers, expanded the availability of accessible diagnostic equipment, and set standards for websites and mobile applications funded by HHS. They also emphasized the importance of providing services in community-based settings whenever possible.

Shortly after the new regulations were finalized, 17 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit challenging their validity. While the original complaint questioned the constitutionality of Section 504 itself, that argument was later withdrawn. The broader challenge, however, continues. Now known as Texas v. Kennedy, the case could influence how disability protections are interpreted and applied in the context of health and human services. Though the full legal impact remains to be seen, the case reflects broader implications for how inclusion is supported through policy and administrative systems.

Outside the courtroom, accessibility concerns remain active in education, digital services, and other public programs. In K–12 schools, students with disabilities may receive services through an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or a 504 Plan, depending on their circumstances. These plans are intended to support learning through accommodations such as assistive technology, modified instruction, or additional time on assessments.

Implementation, however, varies across districts. Some schools face staff shortages or funding limitations. Others struggle to deliver supports consistently, especially for students whose disabilities are not immediately visible, such as ADHD or anxiety. Disciplinary practices can also disproportionately affect these students, further complicating their access to education.

Digital accessibility presents another growing area of concern. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, online platforms have become essential for work, education, public services, and health care. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 provide an international standard for designing websites and digital tools that are usable by individuals with a wide range of disabilities.

Yet compliance remains uneven. Many public websites, including those managed by government agencies and educational institutions, do not meet even basic accessibility criteria. This can limit access to information and services, particularly for individuals using screen readers, voice navigation, or captioning.

Beyond education and digital spaces, several services that support participation are experiencing reductions. In some states, public universities have scaled back disability resource centers or reduced staff dedicated to arranging accommodations.

Recent reductions in funding for Medicaid and Affordable Care Act enrollment programs have made securing health coverage and related support more difficult for some people with disabilities. At the same time, budget pressures on public transit systems have led a number of agencies to scale back or reassess paratransit services—the specialized transportation option for riders who cannot use regular fixed-route buses.

While these trends and their visibility may emerge gradually, their combined impact builds steadily over time. When access becomes inconsistent, individuals may encounter greater difficulty pursuing education, maintaining employment, or staying engaged in their communities. Public programs that once provided consistent support may no longer be fully equipped to meet current needs. As gaps widen, the responsibility to navigate barriers increasingly falls to individuals and their families.

Several federal agencies share responsibility for enforcing accessibility laws. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces Section 504 in schools (under the Department of Education) and in health programs (under HHS). The Department of Justice covers the Americans with Disabilities Act’s public side—state and local services (Title II) and public accommodations (Title III)—while the EEOC oversees employment protections (Title I). Although each agency investigates complaints and monitors compliance, heavy caseloads and limited resources often slow their work.

When oversight is limited, protections that exist in law may not always result in access in practice. Many people find themselves repeatedly self-advocating to secure supports that should already be in place. This dynamic may affect legal safeguards and pose additional challenges for individuals aiming to engage and equally participate.

Recent legal, educational, digital, and service developments are reshaping the concept of accessibility. Access is shaped not only by national policies but also by the resources, funding, and priorities of local organizations. While some regions have made progress through inclusive practices, others continue to face obstacles. In this context, individuals, families, and community groups play an important role in identifying gaps and promoting more inclusive approaches.

Differences in accessibility can limit opportunities for education, work, healthcare, and civic engagement. Focusing on policy outcomes, rather than just their original aims, helps uncover and close these gaps. Ongoing partnerships between decision-makers, service providers, and local communities are essential for making lasting improvements.

In practical terms, this means designing support systems with inclusion in mind from the start, applying universal design principles at every stage. Regular public feedback and advocacy enable timely adjustments, keeping these systems responsive to diverse and evolving needs.

Section 504 and the ADA have established a strong foundation for inclusion, yet evolving regulations, judicial interpretations, and shifts in funding point to opportunities for strengthening support. True inclusion is achieved when environments and services are designed from the outset to be accessible to people of all abilities, eliminating the need for specialized adaptations.

Fostering an environment where people of all ages, backgrounds and abilities can participate without special adjustments is key. Cultivating sustained collaboration among policymakers, service providers and community members—supported by regular public input—helps keep programs attentive to diverse needs. When inclusive design principles inform choices and feedback from those most affected is genuinely considered, the spirit of legal protections can find practical expression in everyday settings.

Each July, Disability Pride Month offers an opportunity to recognize the contributions of people with disabilities and to reflect on the importance of inclusion. It marks the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), signed into law on July 26, 1990, which expanded access to employment, transportation, and public spaces.

The theme for this year’s Disability Pride Month, “We Belong Here, and We’re Here to Stay,” was chosen by self-advocates and reflects a message of belonging and continued presence in all areas of community life.

As public awareness of the month has grown, a broader range of perspectives about its significance has emerged. For some, it serves as a time of affirmation and visibility. Others engage with it more cautiously, due to personal experiences and differing ways of identifying with disability.

Multiple Views on Disability Pride

The concept of pride means different things to different people. Some individuals view Disability Pride Month as an opportunity to celebrate identity, challenge stigma, and share achievements. It can also be a time to highlight continued efforts to expand access and remove barriers to participation and inclusion.

For some individuals, the concept of disability pride may not align with their personal experiences or perspectives. Experiences such as exclusion, institutional living, or limited opportunities can influence how people relate to the idea. Some may view disability as just one part of their lives, rather than a central aspect of their identity. Others may choose not to use the language of pride, preferring words or perspectives that better reflect their own experience.

These varied perspectives reflect the range of experiences among people with disabilities. Recognizing this diversity can support more inclusive conversations and a broader understanding of individual experiences.

Learning from History

Understanding the history of disability can help inform ongoing efforts to support inclusion. For many years, people with disabilities were separated from public life.

In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities were frequently placed in residential facilities that were separated from the broader community. These settings often lacked the resources and oversight needed to provide safe or meaningful care. Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, New York, became a widely recognized example of such facilities.

Opened in 1947 as a state-run facility for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities, Willowbrook was originally designed to accommodate approximately 4,000 residents. By the late 1960s, it housed more than 6,200 individuals (Goode, Hill, & Reilly, 2013).

Conditions began to attract national attention in the early 1970s when reports from staff, family members, and media investigations described overcrowded wards, unsanitary living conditions, and inadequate medical and educational services (Goode, Hill, & Reilly, 2013).

Many residents spent their days in large, open rooms with minimal stimulation, few personal belongings, and little access to individualized care. Chronic under-staffing made it difficult to maintain basic hygiene or provide consistent support. Poor sanitation and the use of shared facilities contributed to the widespread transmission of infectious diseases such as hepatitis (Goode, Hill, & Reilly, 2013).

In 1972, journalist Geraldo Rivera aired a televised report that documented the conditions inside Willowbrook State School. The footage revealed the overcrowded and unsanitary environment in which residents lived, drawing national attention and public outrage. The broadcast sparked widespread public concern and prompted legal action from families and advocacy groups.

In response, a consent decree was issued, mandating that the state reduce the number of residents at Willowbrook and take steps to improve conditions. These developments marked a turning point in public oversight of institutional care. Willowbrook was officially closed in 1987.

Its legacy influenced policies emphasizing community-based alternatives and person-centered supports (Goode, Hill, & Reilly, 2013).

Progress in Law and Education

Laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) helped encourage more inclusive practices and improve access. The ADA prohibited discrimination and required accessibility in public and private spaces. It also created more opportunities for individuals with disabilities to access services, take part in community life, and participate in areas such as employment, education, and transportation.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) built on earlier legislation to ensure that students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education tailored to their individual needs. The law promotes inclusion by supporting the education of students in their local neighborhood schools whenever possible.

It requires the development of individualized education plans, or IEPs, to guide instruction and support. IDEA also includes transition services to help students prepare for life after graduation, including further education, employment, and independent living.

In this context, inclusion refers to creating environments where people with disabilities can take part in various activities on an equal basis with others. Participation involves the ability to engage in aspects of community life such as education, work, public events, and decision-making.

These laws made lasting contributions, although implementation continues to vary depending on location and resources.

Current Considerations

Access to healthcare, education, and community supports remains essential for many individuals with disabilities. Medicaid, for example, provides health coverage and also funds services that support independent living.

Recent policy discussions and budget decisions are raising questions about the long-term consistency of these supports. Shifts in Medicaid or special education funding will affect how individuals with disabilities receive care, access learning, or remain engaged in community settings.

These changes emphasize the importance of deliberate planning and continued effort to ensure that individuals with disabilities have the support and resources needed to fully participate in their communities.

Reflecting on Past, Present, and Future

Disability Pride Month is more than a recognition of progress. It serves as a time to reflect on the lessons of history and the ongoing challenges facing people with disabilities. The legacy of exclusion and institutional care reveals how earlier systems often failed to meet individual needs, and why inclusion, respect, and personalized support remain essential.

Legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has expanded access and opportunity. However, current debates surrounding education, funding, and long-term services suggest that legal protections alone are not enough. Meaningful inclusion requires continuous attention, consistent advocacy, and a willingness to confront persistent barriers.

This month offers an opportunity to consider where gaps remain. True belonging is built not just through policy, but through everyday actions, equitable practices, and environments that welcome all individuals.

The theme, “We Belong Here, and We’re Here to Stay,” carries both strength and intention. It honors the presence and contributions of people with disabilities while raising an important question. What must decision-makers, educators, service providers, and community leaders do to ensure that inclusion and belonging are not limited to a single month, but become a lasting commitment?

References

Goode, D., Hill, B. K., & Reilly, S. (2013). A history and sociology of the Willowbrook State School. American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

In May 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposed a change to how it applies accessibility requirements under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The proposal, submitted quietly to the Federal Register with little public attention, would remove a long-standing rule that ensures new construction projects funded by the agency are accessible to people with disabilities.

Although this may seem like a narrow or technical change, it raises important questions. How should access be addressed in publicly funded infrastructure? And what does this shift signal about the federal government’s approach toward access and inclusion?

A Quiet Rule with Wide Implications

The Department used a procedural tool known as a direct final rule, which allows for quicker implementation by shortening the public comment period. This approach is typically reserved for routine, noncontroversial updates. In this instance, however, the rule rescinds 10 C.F.R. § 1040.73, a regulation that has served as a foundation for promoting accessible design in DOE-funded projects for decades.

The Department argues that the rule is outdated and overlaps with other federal obligations. However, it has not specified what mechanisms will take its place. This lack of clarity has prompted concern from legal experts and advocates for equitable access, who worry that eliminating this rule without clear alternatives may lead to gaps in enforcement and inconsistent design practices.

What Projects Could Be Affected?

The Department of Energy supports a wide array of infrastructure projects, including:

• Federal buildings such as offices, research labs, and military facilities;
• Community structures like public schools, parks, and libraries funded through energy efficiency grants;
• Electric vehicle charging stations across interstate corridors;
• Technology campuses, including smart housing developments and net zero energy facilities;
• Renewable energy sites, such as wind farms and battery storage centers; and
• Commercial ventures supported by DOE’s loan and innovation programs.

Many of these projects involve collaboration with other federal or state entities that must still comply with Section 504. However, without this DOE-specific rule, standards could become less consistent, particularly in projects where the Department plays a leading role.

The Broader Impact: Education, Workforce, and Opportunity

Beyond physical infrastructure, changes to how accessibility is enforced can ripple across other sectors. Education and workforce development are closely tied to federal investments in clean energy, science, and emerging technologies. DOE-funded research hubs, training centers, and STEM outreach programs often take place in or depend on accessible facilities.

If accessibility standards are relaxed or inconsistently applied, students and job seekers with disabilities may face barriers to participating in programs designed to prepare them for careers in high growth fields. This includes apprenticeships in green technology, technical education in energy systems, and workforce training tied to national climate goals.

For educational institutions, especially those receiving DOE support for energy upgrades or innovation partnerships, uncertainty about federal accessibility requirements may lead to confusion or unintentional noncompliance. The result could be a missed opportunity to create environments where all learners and workers succeed.

Beyond Energy: Housing, Healthcare, and Transportation

DOE’s influence also extends indirectly into sectors like housing, healthcare, and transportation, areas that are deeply interconnected with infrastructure policy.

Clean energy initiatives often support new residential developments and retrofitting programs. If accessibility guidance becomes weaker or more fragmented, housing projects aiming to meet sustainability standards may fall short in meeting the needs of older adults, residents with mobility challenges, and other disability-related needs.

Healthcare facilities, especially those modernized through energy efficiency incentives or located in federally supported innovation zones, also stand to be affected. Accessible design in clinics, community health centers, and wellness hubs is essential for equitable health outcomes. Even small shifts in regulatory expectations can influence how these spaces are built and who can use them comfortably.

Transportation is another closely related sector. The buildout of electric vehicle infrastructure, an area where DOE plays a central role, must consider how drivers and passengers with disabilities can access, use, and benefit from these technologies. Without clear accessibility standards, these networks risk becoming uneven and unintentionally less welcoming or accessible to some users.

Innovation, Speed, and Public Access

The DOE’s proposal comes at a time of heightened attention to clean energy, artificial intelligence, and modern infrastructure. As the federal government moves quickly to meet climate and technology goals, agencies are under pressure to streamline processes and deliver results.

The drive to move quickly may help explain the decision to revisit long-standing regulations. However, the Department has offered limited explanation—describing the rule as unnecessary without presenting a clear alternative. This leaves some uncertainty about whether accessibility is receiving adequate attention amid the push for faster progress.

Is This a Singular Move or a Signal to Others?

So far, no other federal agencies have proposed similar changes. However, some observers note that the DOE’s approach could set a precedent. If this method of adjusting access protections is viewed as acceptable, it could lead to similar changes in agencies overseeing housing, transportation, education, or labor.

Whether this concern materializes may depend on legal interpretations, the degree of public engagement, and how strongly inclusive infrastructure continues to be valued in policy decisions.

It is worth noting that Section 504 remains in force as federal law. The DOE is not attempting to eliminate that law but to alter how it is applied within its programs. Whether that approach will withstand legal and policy review remains to be seen.

How You Can Stay Involved

Even though the formal public comment period has ended, there are still ways to engage:

• Share your perspective with elected officials to emphasize the importance of inclusive design in public projects;
• Support organizations that promote access and equal opportunity in education, employment, housing, and public services; and
• Stay informed about legal updates and watch for responses from other federal or state agencies

States also have the authority to exceed federal minimums. Many already do, particularly in areas like education, transportation, and healthcare, setting a higher bar for accessibility and inclusion.

Inclusion as Infrastructure

The Department of Energy’s proposal may not immediately reshape public construction, but it reflects a shift in how one federal agency views its role in promoting access. Whether this turns out to be a narrow administrative change or part of a broader trend, it invites reflection on the values embedded in our public infrastructure.

Accessibility goes beyond design—it signals who is included and supported. As federal investments shape the future of public spaces, services, and workplaces, it’s important to consider not just how quickly progress happens, but who that progress serves. Looking ahead, how can efforts to expand and modernize infrastructure also reflect a commitment to inclusion? Prioritizing accessibility from the outset offers a practical way to support broader participation and ensure that progress benefits as many people as possible.

In June 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed updates to the regulations governing how federal contractors fulfill their responsibilities under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

These proposed changes are intended to bring current regulations in line with recent legal interpretations, including developments in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a 2023 Supreme Court ruling. While administrative in nature, the revisions could influence how employers approach disability-related hiring and inclusion practices.

Context: Section 503 and Its Regulatory Framework

Section 503 prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities. In 2014, regulations were strengthened to encourage more proactive inclusion, including:

• A 7% utilization goal for employing people with disabilities
• A requirement for employers to invite applicants and employees to self-identify voluntarily as having a disability
• Regular evaluations of recruitment and outreach efforts as part of a broader affirmative action program

These tools were designed to help employers assess their efforts in creating more inclusive workplaces and to support data-informed policy development.

Summary of the Proposed Changes

The proposed changes would:

• Eliminate the 7% utilization goal for hiring individuals with disabilities;
• Remove the requirement that employers invite individuals to voluntarily disclose disability status; and
• Revise enforcement procedures to reflect the withdrawal of Executive Order 11246, which previously guided broader affirmative action efforts.

The U.S. Department of Labor notes that these steps are intended to ensure consistency with the ADA’s limitations on disability-related inquiries before a job offer is extended. The proposal also reflects new legal guidance that emphasizes the need for agencies to base rules on clear statutory authority.

Exploring the Potential Impacts

The proposal to revise Section 503 regulations has a range of implications—some immediate and operational, others more gradual and cultural. While the stated goal is to align the regulations with the ADA and recent legal interpretations, the effects will vary depending on an organization’s role, its workforce, and its existing inclusion practices.

1. Considerations for Federal Contractors

Contractors may welcome reduced administrative burdens, particularly those related to data collection, reporting, and analysis tied to utilization goals and self-identification forms. The proposed changes mean contractors will no longer need to apply the 7% benchmark to job groups or track disability representation in a formal, statistical way.

However, the absence of specific benchmarks or data may also leave contractors with fewer tools to evaluate the effectiveness of their outreach and hiring practices. Many organizations have used utilization goals as a planning and accountability mechanism. Without them, determining what constitutes “sufficient effort” toward affirmative action may become more subjective, especially during compliance reviews.

Contractors may also need to revise or discontinue internal processes related to disability disclosure, training, and auditing that were previously built around the 2014 framework.

2. Considerations for Individuals with Disabilities

One of the more nuanced implications relates to workplace culture and employee experience. The self-identification process—though voluntary—has allowed individuals with disabilities to signal their need for accommodations or to participate in initiatives designed to promote accessibility. Removing this process could reduce opportunities for proactive engagement.

At the same time, some employees may view the change positively, especially those concerned about privacy or stigma. Removing invitations to disclose a disability may feel more respectful of personal boundaries, particularly in early stages of employment.

Still, the broader effect could be a reduction in data-driven efforts to identify and remove workplace barriers—leaving inclusion progress harder to measure or target.

3. Considerations for Advocacy and Civil Rights Organizations

Advocacy groups may see the rollback of structured inclusion goals as a step away from formal accountability. While the ADA prohibits discrimination, affirmative action rules like those in Section 503 have offered a way to move from compliance to progress. Removing these elements could prompt advocates to explore new strategies, such as voluntary benchmarks, organizational partnerships, or transparency tools that don’t rely on regulatory mandates.

This moment may also encourage a closer look at how to uphold individual rights under the ADA while supporting broader inclusion efforts. Is it possible to measure inclusion without reliable data? And how can organizations make progress without clear benchmarks?

4. Considerations for Federal Oversight and Enforcement

For the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), which enforces Section 503, the changes will likely result in a shift from data-based evaluations to more qualitative reviews.

Without statistical goals or self-identification data, the agency may place greater emphasis on contractors’ outreach narratives, accommodation policies, and workplace accessibility efforts.

This could create more variability in compliance assessments and increase the importance of documentation and engagement practices. OFCCP reviewers may need to adapt their tools and training to ensure consistency and fairness in evaluations.

5. Considerations for Broader Workplace Inclusion

While the proposed changes apply to federal contractors, their symbolic impact may be felt more widely. Without formal inclusion benchmarks, some may see this as a shift away from focused inclusion efforts. As a result, some organizations might reduce similar practices on their own, while others may decide to keep or strengthen them through internal policies.

The result may be a more decentralized approach to inclusion—one that depends on each employer’s priorities rather than federal expectations. This may increase variation across industries and regions in how inclusion is addressed.

What to Expect Moving Forward

The implications of these changes will take time to unfold. Much depends on how the final rule is written, how contractors choose to respond, and whether new tools or frameworks emerge to fill the gap left by rescinded requirements. The U.S. Department of Labor has invited public comment, opening a critical opportunity for stakeholders to shape the outcome.

Opportunity for Public Feedback

As the Department of Labor moves forward with its proposed revisions, it has opened a public comment period to gather perspectives from individuals, employers, advocacy organizations, and others with a stake in inclusive employment.

This is a valuable moment for stakeholders to reflect on what these changes might mean in practice. If you have thoughts on how the removal of goals and self-identification processes could affect inclusion, participation, or access to workplace accommodations, you are encouraged to share them.

Submit a comment on the official rulemaking page:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/01/2025-12233/modifications-to-the-regulations-implementing-section-503-of-the-rehabilitation-act-of-1973-as

Clear, thoughtful comments—especially those grounded in lived experience or organizational practice—can help shape a rule that respects legal boundaries while continuing to support equity in employment for people with disabilities.

Inclusion is about creating environments where every individual, regardless of their background, identity, or ability, is valued. It ensures that everyone has the opportunity to fully participate and contribute. It emphasizes the importance of recognizing that all individuals deserve to be seen, heard, and respected.

Unity, on the other hand, refers to the collective strength that emerges when we come together, despite our differences. It is the power of cooperation and understanding, built on mutual respect. Through unity, we can achieve goals that surpass what any individual could accomplish alone.

As I sit here on this Independence Day, reflecting on what freedom really means, I think about our country—where we’ve been, where we are, and where we want to go. In uncertain times, it’s easy to feel divided, but the essence of this day calls for unity. America has faced hard times before, and we have always come together to move forward. It is that spirit of unity and collective effort that gives me hope today.

Independence Day serves as a powerful reminder of the ideals upon which our nation was built: freedom, opportunity, and the conviction that every individual deserves a voice.

What significance does this hold for each of us?

In America, the concept of freedom was intended to be all-encompassing. Liberty—the ability to shape one’s own life and make decisions—was never meant to limited or to be a privilege reserved for a select few. From the beginning, our nation envisioned a place where everyone had the opportunity to build their lives, free from unnecessary barriers. This vision is still a work in progress. And when it comes to disability, inclusion, and access, we still have a long way to go.

There are several groups for whom the ideals of freedom and opportunity remain challenging to fully access. People with disabilities, for example, often face barriers that limit their ability to fully participate, from inaccessible public spaces to fewer opportunities in education and employment.

People from marginalized racial and ethnic backgrounds may also face challenges like biased practices, challenges within the justice system, economic hardships and disparities. Immigrants, especially those without legal status, might experience a sense of being disregarded as they navigate concerns about deportation and the potential for being excluded from essential services and protections.

People who identify as LGBTQ+, especially transgender and nonbinary individuals, often face ongoing challenges in gaining recognition and ensuring their safety. They may struggle to live authentically in environments where their identities are not fully understood or accepted. This can lead to feelings of being unsupported or marginalized in both personal and public spaces.

These groups, along with others, still face challenges in areas where the ideals of fairness and opportunity remain unfulfilled. Though their voices carry weight, they are not always fully heard or respected. It is crucial to listen and support their efforts for greater inclusion, understanding, and access to opportunities, so that the values of freedom and opportunity can be more widely shared.

Reflecting on inclusion and disability, I’m reminded that real freedom isn’t just about having a voice—it is about making sure everyone’s voice is heard and that everyone has the chance to fully participate. We live in a country that promises opportunity, but for many that promise still feels out of reach. True freedom isn’t just about removing barriers—It is about creating conditions where everyone can live with self-respect, choice, and the opportunity to succeed.

Inclusion: A Cornerstone of Our Shared Ideals

Inclusion is a key part of the American ideal of freedom. For freedom to be meaningful, each person must have a place in the community, the opportunity to contribute, and the assurance that their rights are protected. America’s strength lies in its ability to be inclusive—to invite people from all walks of life into the shared experience of building a better future

This means recognizing that freedom can’t exist if we don’t make room for everyone. It is not enough to simply allow people to be present; we must actively embrace them, creating spaces and systems that acknowledge their worth.

When we talk about disability, inclusion goes beyond just making places physically accessible. It is about changing our mindset. When people with disabilities are included in every part of life—whether in schools, workplaces, or the arts—we enrich our environment. Their ideas and talents add depth and richness to our culture. True inclusion as I have written in this space numerous times is a commitment to valuing every person. Only through inclusion can we make sure that everyone has the chance to live in a place where they are seen, heard, and valued.

Access: A Path to True Participation

Access is a vital part of what makes freedom meaningful. Without access, independence remains out of reach. For people with disabilities, access is about the ability to participate fully. While we have made progress with ramps, accessible restrooms, and closed captions, there are still many barriers that go unnoticed by those who don’t face them. These obstacles, whether in public spaces, transportation, or technology, continue to limit opportunities for many.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was a milestone in our history, promising greater access for people with disabilities. Yet there is still much work to be done. It is important that we continue to look at our spaces and systems through an inclusive lens, ensuring they are truly accessible for everyone. This is more than a legal requirement—it’s about creating a community where no one is left behind.

Participation: The Heart of Belonging

Beyond access, freedom means participation. It’s about being an active part of our shared experience, making decisions, and contributing in meaningful ways. We can’t claim to value independence if we don’t also value the participation of everyone, including those with disabilities. The voices of people with disabilities and other marginalized and under-served groups must be heard, not just in policy discussions, but in everyday conversations.

In education, we know that when students with disabilities receive the right support, they succeed. The 504 Plan has allowed many students to get the accommodations they need to thrive in school. Yet, we need to go beyond just providing accommodations—we must create environments where inclusion is a natural part of the process.

This approach can also apply to the workplace and beyond. When businesses and communities adopt inclusive practices, they don’t just meet legal standards—they unlock new ideas and creativity. Empowering people with disabilities and other groups to take part in all aspects of life benefits everyone.

Finding Strength in Unity

In these uncertain times, it is easy to feel divided, but now more than ever, we need to remember that we are stronger when we come together. We have overcome challenges before, and we have found a way to move forward, united by our shared commitment to freedom and opportunity for all.

This Independence Day, as we think about the freedoms we hold dear, let’s also remember that true freedom means creating space for everyone to participate, regardless of ability. Inclusion isn’t just about making room for others—it is about recognizing that each person has something valuable to contribute to our shared progress.

Let’s use this day as a reminder that our strength lies in our unity and our commitment to a future where everyone has the chance to live with dignity and contribute to our community. This is the kind of freedom that ensures the promise of America belongs to all of us. True independence means making sure everyone can take part in the conversation, that everyone has access to the tools and opportunities they need to succeed.

As we reflect on this Independence Day, how can we come together to help shape a future where freedom is not just an ideal, but a lived reality for everyone? What steps can we take to ensure everyone feels included, valued, and empowered to participate fully in the experiences around them? This is the kind of freedom we should all aspire to.

Disability rights and history are not merely a record of laws and policy changes; they represent the ongoing struggle of individuals fighting for fairness, access, participation, and inclusion. Access means ensuring people with disabilities can fully use services, spaces, and opportunities without barriers. Participation emphasizes the right to be fully involved in all aspects of life, from education to employment.

Inclusion goes beyond mere presence, ensuring that individuals with disabilities are valued and supported, with the same opportunities as everyone else. These principles are the foundation of the disability rights movement and continue to guide efforts toward creating environments where all individuals, regardless of ability, can fully engage and succeed.

This account highlights moments where key events have opened doors that were once closed. While progress has been made, much more remains to be done to ensure equal opportunities for all (Shakespeare, 2020).

In the 1960s and 1970s, people with disabilities began to raise their voices in a way they had not before. They were not asking for special treatment—they simply wanted to be treated the same. They wanted the chance to go to school, work, and to live in the community just like everyone else.

Frustrated by their exclusion, they voiced their demands clearly. This marked the beginning of the Disability Rights Movement, a key moment when individuals with disabilities began to assert their rights, and change gradually began to take shape (Stone, 2023).

One of the most significant early victories came in 1973 with the passage of the Rehabilitation Act, particularly Section 504. This landmark piece of legislation prohibited discrimination against people with disabilities in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.

For the first time, the U.S. government recognized that people with disabilities have the same rights to fully participate as people without disabilities or many, this law marked a significant step forward, offering hope and proving that the fight for rights could lead to meaningful change. For example, it ensured that people with disabilities could access public buildings, like schools and workplaces, without barriers (Barnartt, 2001).

Another significant moment came in 1975 with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), which later became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Before this law, children with disabilities were often kept out of public schools or placed in separate, isolated institutions.

They had little to no access to a proper education. The EHA changed that. For the first time, it guaranteed that every child, regardless of their disability, had the right to attend public school and receive an education in the least restrictive environment. It was not just about education; it was about inclusion, equality, and giving every child the same opportunity to succeed (Stone, 2023).

One of the most powerful actions that defined the movement was the Section 504 Sit-in at the San Francisco Federal Building in 1977. After Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act passed in 1973, its implementation was delayed, leaving millions of people with disabilities without the protections the law promised. In response, over 150 activists organized a 28-day sit-in to demand that the government fully implement the law. They barricaded themselves inside the building, refusing to leave until their demands were met.

Their actions drew national attention and ultimately forced the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to implement the regulations (Hahn, 1985). This sit-in was a vivid demonstration of the power of direct action, and it is widely considered a turning point in the disability rights movement.

The struggle did not stop there. Protests and sit-ins became a hallmark of the movement in the following decades. For example, ADAPT (Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit), an organization formed in 1983, staged numerous protests demanding accessible public transportation.

In 1990, activists famously blocked streets in Washington, D.C., calling for the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These protests were critical in pushing the disability rights agenda into the public eye, forcing lawmakers and the broader population to confront issues of accessibility and inclusion (Stone, 2023).

The momentum continued to grow, culminating in the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on July 26, 1990. When the ADA was enacted, it marked a turning point. The law made discrimination against people with disabilities illegal in public spaces, workplaces, and schools.

For the first time, disability was recognized not as something to be overlooked, but as a civil rights issue. The passage of the ADA resulted from years of relentless effort by advocates, some of whom had been fighting for change for decades. The ADA was not merely a law—it was a powerful statement that all individuals, regardless of ability, deserve fair treatment and opportunities (Shakespeare, 2020).

However, as progress advanced, new challenges arose. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), passed on July 3, 2025, poses a serious threat to the gains made in disability rights. The bill will enact cuts Medicaid and CHIP funding by over $1 trillion by 2034, which would directly impact millions of people with disabilities who depend on these programs for essential care.

Medicaid is a key source of funding for home- and community-based services (HCBS), which support individuals with disabilities in living independently within their communities. Without these services, many may face the difficult decision of moving into residential care or other long-term facilities, which could limit their independence and choices.

The bill also introduces new work requirements and documentation rules for Medicaid, making it even harder for people with disabilities to access the care they need. Individuals will have to prove they are working, volunteering, or enrolled in school for a certain number of hours each month in order to keep their benefits.

This is a huge problem for many people with disabilities who face barriers to work, whether it’s due to their condition, transportation issues, or the lack of accessible job opportunities. The new paperwork requirements could also put additional strain on people already struggling to get the care they need.

Rural hospitals are an additional area of concern. While the OBBBA allocates funding to support these hospitals, it falls short of compensating for the substantial Medicaid cuts outlined by the bill. Many rural hospitals provide critical care to a large number of individuals with disabilities, and without adequate financial support, these institutions may be forced to close.

The closure of rural hospitals would severely restrict access to healthcare, making it more difficult for residents to receive necessary care. The Medicaid cuts exacerbate these challenges (Shakespeare, 2020). With fewer hospitals, individuals would be forced to travel long distances for care, a significant hurdle due to limited transportation options. Many, particularly those with disabilities, would lose access to essential services. The Medicaid cuts would further strain resources, complicating the ability of providers to meet the needs of these communities.

As the challenges to access grow, the ongoing struggle for disability rights becomes even more critical. The history of disability rights has been shaped by individuals standing up for what is right and pushing for change, often in the face of significant obstacles.

Key milestones, such as the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, the EHA, and the Section 504 Sit-in, have each advanced access and participation for people with disabilities. The passage of the OBBBA, however, reminds us that the work is far from finished. While it is important to celebrate past achievements, we must remain aware that new challenges continue to arise.

Advocating for policies that protect the rights of people with disabilities and ensure that they have access to the care, education, and opportunities they deserve remains crucial. The victories achieved so far are important and critical, but they mark only the beginning of the ongoing fight for disability rights.

In conclusion, we should and must ask: How can we protect the progress made in securing the rights of people with disabilities from policies that may reverse those gains? What steps can we take to close the gap between legal advancements and real-world access, especially in rural and underserved communities? And as the political and social landscape changes, how can we work together to create a future that includes everyone? The path forward is in our hands—and it starts with action.

References

• Barnartt, S. N. (2001). Disability, Civil Rights, and Public Policy: The Politics of the ADA. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
• Hahn, H. (1985). The Politics of Disability: A Political Analysis of the Section 504 Sit-In. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 12(4), 380-398.
• Shakespeare, T. (2020). Disability Rights and Wrongs Revisited. Routledge.
• Stone, R. (2023). The Disability Rights Movement: From Charity to Confrontation. Routledge.

Congress has passed a broad, Republican-backed budget bill that includes substantial tax cuts and major reductions to federal programs such as Medicaid and SNAP.

While much of the public discourse has focused on fiscal implications, the human impact of this legislation—particularly on individuals with disabilities—is profound and far-reaching.

With the bill awaiting the President’s signature, this is a key opportunity to understand the legislative process, the bill’s projected effects, and the role of public advocacy in shaping federal policy.

From Bill to Law: What Happens Now?

Having cleared both the House and Senate, the bill moves to the President. If signed, it becomes law. If vetoed, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

Even after a bill becomes law, public engagement remains critical. Federal agencies will interpret and implement the law through regulatory processes, and the public can submit feedback during designated comment periods. These rules often determine how legislation functions in practice—and how its effects are felt in daily life.

What the Bill Will Do

This legislation initiates significant changes to federal spending, especially in health care and social safety net programs.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill will reduce federal health-care spending by approximately $1.1 trillion over the next decade, with more than $1 trillion of those reductions affecting Medicaid.

As the primary source of coverage for many low-income individuals and people with disabilities, Medicaid funds critical services such as in-home care, personal care attendants, assistive technology, and transportation.

Cuts of this magnitude are expected to impact health care delivery broadly, including in rural areas and community health centers. For people with disabilities, the consequences could be especially disruptive, threatening services that support independence.

The CBO projects that 11.8 million people could lose health insurance by 2034 due to Medicaid eligibility changes. With the expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits and new marketplace restrictions, that figure may reach 17 million.

Medicaid currently serves nearly one in five people and is the main payer for long-term care. It also covers roughly 40% of all births in the United States.

In addition, the legislation’s projected $3.3 trillion increase to the federal deficit over ten years could trigger automatic spending cuts under the PAYGO law. Although some programs are exempt, Medicare is subject to annual reductions of up to 4%, which could amount to $45 billion in 2026 alone and nearly $490 billion over a decade. These cuts may reduce provider participation, raise premiums, and limit access for older adults.

The bill also alters the Medicare Savings Program enrollment process, potentially disqualifying up to 1.3 million individuals and increasing their out-of-pocket costs.

For People with Disabilities, the Stakes Are Especially High

For many individuals with disabilities, Medicaid is more than a health insurance program—it is a foundational support system. It enables autonomy, employment, and community participation. The proposed reductions risk undermining these supports and reversing progress toward equality and inclusion.

However, this community has historically demonstrated its ability to influence public policy through organized advocacy.

A Legacy of Advocacy: Changing Policy Through Action

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted in 1990, was the product of sustained grassroots organizing. A defining moment came during the “Capitol Crawl,” when activists scaled the steps of the U.S. Capitol to demand access and equal treatment under the law.

In 2017, a high-profile attempt to repeal the ACA and cut Medicaid failed in large part due to public mobilization—particularly from disability rights organizations such as ADAPT. Protests, sit-ins, and direct advocacy helped shift both public opinion and legislative outcomes.

These examples highlight a recurring truth: collective action can change the direction of national policy.

What You Can Do Now

Despite the bill’s passage through Congress, there remain multiple ways to engage and influence its implementation:

• Participate in Rule-making: Submit public comments during regulatory drafting periods to help shape how the law is applied.
• Support Future Legislative Fixes: Advocate for amendments or follow-up legislation to mitigate harmful effects.
• Join Advocacy Organizations: Support groups such as The Arc, National Disability Rights Network, ADAPT, and similar organizations that are actively organizing responses.
• Educate and Mobilize: Share reliable information within your community and promote civic engagement.

The Process Isn’t Over—And Public Voices Still Matter

The bill’s passage marks a major policy shift, but it is not the final chapter. The direction of federal policy is continually influenced by community input, civic participation, and sustained advocacy.

The disability rights movement has consistently demonstrated that change is possible. Through collaboration and persistence, individuals have transformed public systems to become more equitable and responsive.

This is a critical moment to stay engaged, foster informed dialogue, and work to protect essential services. Effective policy should reflect the diverse needs of the people it serves—and that starts with ensuring everyone has the opportunity to be heard and included.

In the end, access and inclusion are not only goals of public policy—they are essential to its legitimacy and success.

Language draws lines across how people are seen and understood. It can build connection or create distance. The words chosen to describe someone are never neutral. They reveal how society assigns value, how belonging is extended or withheld. A single word can offer dignity or diminish it.

Over the years, terms like physically challenged, differently abled, and diverse-ability have emerged, each coined with the intention of sounding more inclusive and respectful than the last. These phrases are usually introduced with good intentions. The hope is often to shift attention toward ability, to offer encouragement, or to distance the speaker from outdated or clinical language. Despite these motivations, the results are often mixed.

When language avoids directly naming a condition or identity, it risks sending a different kind of message—one that suggests discomfort, denial, or even shame. Replacing direct terms with softened alternatives may sound kinder, but it can create confusion or distance instead of clarity and connection. Euphemisms rarely reduce stigma. More often, they reflect the speaker’s unease rather than the needs or identity of the person being described (Dolmage, 2014).

In response to stigma and exclusion, person-first language gained popularity in the 1980s. This approach encouraged saying “person with a disability” instead of “disabled person,” placing the individual before the condition. It was meant to restore dignity in systems that often reduced people to labels or diagnoses. For many, this change felt necessary and became common in education, healthcare, and public institutions (Snow, 2007).

Organizations like the American Psychological Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continue to recommend person-first language as a respectful practice, especially in professional and academic settings (APA, 2019; CDC, 2021). The goal is to recognize people as whole, complex individuals—not just defined by their physical, mental, or psychological conditions.

However, not everyone agrees with this approach. Some individuals and communities have questioned whether separating the person from the condition truly respects their dignity or instead suggests the condition should be hidden.

This concern led to the rise of identity-first language, which views conditions as part of a person’s identity rather than something separate. For example, saying “autistic person” instead of “person with autism” reflects the belief that autism shapes a person’s experience and sense of self, rather than being just a condition they have (Botha et al., 2021).

The discussion becomes even more complicated when euphemisms like “special needs,” “handi-capable,” or “differently abled” are used. While often intended to empower or include, these terms can have the opposite effect. They tend to overlook real barriers, minimize struggles, and hide the need for real change. In doing so, they risk erasing rather than affirming the people they describe (Dolmage, 2014; Snow, 2007).

Preferences around language vary widely. Some people feel strongly about using identity-first language. Others continue to prefer the person-first model. Many shift between the two depending on context, audience, or mood. What matters most is not enforcing a single standard, but making space for individuals to define themselves on their own terms. Respect begins with listening and continues with honoring what people say about their own identities.

Language has the power to signal belonging—or to subtly mark someone as “other.” It can make people feel seen, or reduce them to a single facet of their experience. At its best, language affirms identity with honesty and respect. Language, on its own, cannot remove physical, social, or institutional barriers. It will not undo decades of exclusion or discrimination. Still, it plays a powerful role in shaping perception. Language influences policy, education, healthcare, and access. It determines who gets counted, who gets support, and who gets left out (APA, 2019; CDC, 2021).

The words we choose matter. They set the tone for relationships, environments, and entire systems. Thoughtful language isn’t judged by perfection; it’s about being open, paying attention, and asking others what they prefer instead of assuming.

There is no one-size-fits-all phrase. Language evolves—just like identity. True respect isn’t found in a fixed guideline or glossary. It’s built through conversation, through listening with intent, and by making space for people to define themselves in the words that feel most true to who they are.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2019). Guidelines for bias-free language: Disability. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/disability
• Botha, M., Hanlon, J., & Williams, G. L. (2021). Does language matter? Identity-first versus person-first language use in autism research: A response to Vivanti. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(11), 4329–4331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04858-w
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Communicating with and about people with disabilities. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/disability-and-health/articles-documents/communicating-with-and-about-people-with-disabilities.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/materials/factsheets/fs-communicating-with-people.html
• Dolmage, J. T. (2014). Disability rhetoric. Syracuse University Press.
• Snow, K. (2007). People first language. Disability Is Natural. https://www.disabilityisnatural.com/people-first-language.html