Conservatives In Congress-- From Both Parties-- Decide To Beat Up On Disabled People

James Langevin (D-RI)

Jim Langevin (D-RI) is kind of a middle of the road Democrat. Generally speaking, he's not a progressive but he's certainly not a Blue Dog. When he was a 16 year old boy scout he was injured in a gun accident which left him paralyzed. He was elected to Congress in 2000, the first quadriplegic to ever serve in Congress. Far right Texas Congressman Ted Poe offered a bill that puts the Disability Rights Section of the Department of Justice in jeopardy. So Langevin offered an amendment to remove the requirement that a person who claims discrimination must first provide written notice that allows 60 days for an owner to acknowledge receipt of the complaint and 120 days to demonstrate substantial progress in removing the barrier before legal action may be pursued. Basically he was trying to keep the feasibility of law suits for people with disabilities who get illegally discriminated against by businesses.

And sure, the greedy asinine Republicans were almost all gung-ho to pass Poe's bill without Langevin's amendment. So they voted Langevin's amendment down Thursday before heading off for another nice vacation. It failed 188-226. I was happy to see 15 Republicans get in touch with their souls and vote against what Ryan and McCarthy were demanding of them. Most of them are vulnerable Republicans in swing districts or Republicans who have decided to just abandon the whole fucked up Trump-enabling Congress--

• Barbara Comstock (VA)
• Ryan Costello (PA)
• Brian Fitzpatrick (PA)
• Rodney Frelinghuysen (PA)
• Gregg Harper (MS)
• John Katko (NY)
• Peter King (NY)
• Leonard Lance (NJ)
• Dave Reichert (WA)
• Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL)
• Chris Smith (NJ)
• Fred Upton (MI)
• Kevin Yoder (KS)

The only Republicans who don't fit either category but who voted NO were Jim Sensenbrenner (WI) and Glenn Thompson (PA). Nice-- whatever the motivation. But it didn't help because, as usual, Ryan and McCarthy know exactly which Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party to go to when they need to find some sellouts. These were the Blue Dog and New Dem sell-outs this time, mostly the usual suspects:

• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
• Lou Correa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Bill Foster (New Dem-IL)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Kathleen Rice (New Dem-NY)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog), who Schumer picked to be the next senator from Arizona
• Norma Torres (New Dem-CA)

Maybe you don't get why this is a big deal-- and why we need to make sure Blue Dog and New Dem nominees don't get the Democratic nominations anywhere-- so let's turn to... Teen Vogue. They get it. "The bill," wrote S.E. Smith, "which has been introduced and went nowhere before, would change the way that access to public accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is enforced. Disabled people argue this legislation will introduce substantial barriers to accommodations. Proponents say the legislation is necessary to curb so-called 'drive-by' lawsuits that spuriously target businesses for purported ADA violations. Disability rights have been under threat from the Trump administration: Last year’s attacks on health care put disabled people in the crosshairs; proposed changes to Medicaid would radically limit access to needed health care; the Department of Education has rescinded certain guidance on disability and civil rights; and Jeff Sessions suggested, in reference to the opioid crisis, that people can take aspirin."

The ADA is a landmark piece of bipartisan legislation that affirms and protects the civil rights of disabled people. H.R. 620 specifically takes on Title III, a section that gives disabled people the right to sue public accommodations (like restaurants, hotels, and movie theaters) that don’t comply with the ADA’s accessibility requirements. When you hear “ADA,” you may think of wheelchair users who need ramps, lifts, and accessible bathrooms. But it applies to other disabilities too, as in the case of the complaint against Netflix by the D/deaf and hard of hearing community because the service wasn’t fully captioning its content.

“It's largely up to disabled folks to enforce the ADA by filing lawsuits when businesses violate our civil rights,” disabled attorney Matt Cortland tells Teen Vogue. Historically, the Department of Justice has also mounted suits under the ADA when doing so could expand access for a broad class of people.

Though businesses have been required to provide accommodations for nearly 30 years, they don’t always comply, as social worker Vilissa Thompson tells Teen Vogue. During a layover last year, Thompson entered a supposedly accessible bathroom stall with a door that couldn’t close around her chair. “The attendant who was with me had to stand in front of the door to be a cover of sorts while I had to do my business.”

Disabled people sometimes have to sue for the right to go to the movies, go grocery shopping, or have a fun night out with friends. Some people claim businesses are being plagued by bogus lawsuits filed by disabled people who are greedy for cash. This ignores a couple of things: Filing suit is expensive, and furthermore, ADA suits only entitle disabled people to legal fees and injunctive relief-- addressing the accessibility failure in question. And the legal system already has measures in place to address frivolous lawsuits, up to and including bar action against attorneys who engage in bad faith litigation.

So which shithead candidates are running this year as New Dems and Blue Dogs? Most candidates try to hide it but if you go to the Blue Dog and New Dem websites you get lists of their endorsees. I'm sure if you ask them if they would support the rights of disabled people, 100% of them would say they do. But I guarantee you, if they get into Congress, they'll be leaned on by their corrupt corporate campaign contributors and they'll soon be looking for rationales for living the rest of their professional lives on the Dark Side. That's what being a Blue Dog or a New Dem is all about. Unless you want to sink America into a Trumpazoid swamp, don't support or even vote for any of these:

And below are the New Dems who the Blue Dogs haven't formally endorsed, at least not yet. These days there are basically no substantive differences between the Blue Dogs and the New Dems. Most New Dems are also Blue Dogs and most Blue Dogs also join the New Dems. They should just formally merge and call themselves what they are: the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, bought and paid for by Wall Street.

• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
• Greg Stanton (AZ)
• Dave Min (CA)
• Harley Rouda (CA)
• Hans Keirstead (CA)
• Lauren Baer (FL)
• Jason Crow (CO)
• Elissa Slotkin (MI)
• Angie Craig (MN)
• Dean Phillips (MN)
• Mikie Sherrill (NJ)
• Susie Lee (NV)
• Chrissy Houlahan (PA)
• Jana Lynne Sanchez (TX)
• Dan Kohl (WI)

Rhode Island Congressman Jim Langevin On Same Sex Marriage: "Separate But Equal Is Not Equal"

For as long as I can remember, Rhode Island has always been one of the most staunchly Democratic states. Although Vermont (with 68%) and Hawaii (at 72%) gave Obama larger majorities in 2008, Rhode Island (63%) beat out his home state of Illinois (62%), Biden's Delaware (62%) and blue, blue Massachusetts (62%). The House members from Rhode Island could well have been outspoken progressive champions; but they haven't been. Patrick Kennedy and Jim Langevin have been moderates-- right in the center of the Democratic caucus. Now that David Cicciline, who had been the first openly gay mayor of Providence, has replaced Kennedy we'll have to see if he turns out to be the kind of fighting progressive heavily Democratic districts like his will support. So far his voting record shows him as the 72nd most progressive member of the House, a moderate. At least Cicciline won't be a moderate on equality for the LGBT community. Langevin always has been-- until now. In fact Congressman Langevin (110th most progressive) is known as a bit of a social conservative, especially bad on Choice and just so-so on gay equality.

This morning Congressman Langevin told us he has come a long way on this issue:

“My position has evolved as I have witnessed the impacts of current policies that do not offer marriage equality and from my belief that our civic institutions cannot have different sets of rights for different groups of citizens. Separate but equal is not equal. This is the only fair and responsible approach that ensures equal protection under the law while respecting the separation of church and state. This is an opportunity for Rhode Island, with our proud history of tolerance and freedom, to lead once more in taking on one of the great civil rights tests of this generation.”

Same sex marriage is on the front burner in Rhode Island right now. The state's openly gay House Speaker, Gordon Fox (D-Providence), says he's “doing everything in his power” to move forward legislation that would allow LGBT couples to marry. It has already passed the Judiciary Committee and tomorrow the state Senate will begin debate. Langevin, wrote a heartfelt and courageous OpEd in the Providence Journal Saturday:

Throughout my career in public service, I have strongly opposed discrimination based on sexual orientation at both the state and federal level, co-sponsoring the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and hate crimes legislation, and supporting efforts to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

While those topics have been controversial, they never elicited the intensely passionate and emotional debate that occurred as our nation began struggling with the question of same-sex marriage. For many years, I supported civil unions as a reasonable way to achieve consensus on a divisive issue, providing rights and protections to same-sex couples while respecting the deeply held beliefs of those not comfortable with the idea of marriage rights.

Then, three years ago, I attended the commitment ceremony of a longtime staff member and his partner of nine years. Before their friends and family, they professed their love, commitment and respect for each other. Their sentiments were just as moving, heartfelt and sincere as any of the vows I had heard at other weddings, yet I realized that their union would not be treated the same under the law. That difference struck me as fundamentally unjust, and I began to challenge the wisdom of creating separate categories of rights for certain groups of citizens. I began to see that civil unions fell short of the equality I believed that same-sex couples deserved.

As the debate about same-sex marriage continues in Rhode Island and in Washington, I have taken time to reflect carefully on my own position. Based on my own experiences and my firm belief that all Americans should be treated equally under the law, I am now convinced that affording full marriage equality rights to same-sex couples is the only fair and responsible approach for both Rhode Island and the nation. If our nation expects to provide equal protection to all, then our civic institutions must reflect that noble goal.

As a U.S. representative, I take seriously my constitutional responsibility to protect the rights and liberties of our citizens. Marriage equality is consistent with that view because it safeguards basic civil rights and provides appropriate legal protections so that all loving and committed couples may care for each other. At the same time, our nation’s fundamental freedom of religion dictates that religious institutions should be allowed to define marriage as they deem appropriate. The marriage-equality legislation before the General Assembly respects the important separation of church and state by not requiring religious institutions to change any of their practices or standards relating to marriage.

The members of the General Assembly now have a historic opportunity. As a former member of that body, I understand the challenges they face, but this is a time for leadership.

During my time as a state representative, I remember talking with my father about pending legislation to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, which was highly controversial at the time. While I greatly valued his thoughtful and balanced perspective, my father was certainly no social activist. He was just an ordinary man who had grown up through the civil-rights movement and always believed it was fundamentally unjust to treat people differently because of their race. When I told him I had decided to support the non-discrimination legislation, he expressed his pride in my decision because it showed that I viewed issues of fairness and justice as he did. And he was convinced that, in the same way racial discrimination became a shameful part of our history, one day our nation would look back in disbelief at a time when we denied our fellow citizens basic civil rights based on their sexual orientation. I now believe that day is within our reach.

As the General Assembly considers this important topic, I ask lawmakers and all Rhode Islanders to honor our state’s founding principles of tolerance and freedom and to support marriage equality in our state. It’s time to do the right thing.

This comes as a big boost to advocates for equality because the popular Langevin, a devout Catholic, has been known as someone who has always leaned conservative on divisive social issues. In some ways it's even more meaningful than the expected support from progressive U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed and represents the evolution of the American public in general.

[F]or the first time in American history, same-sex marriage has more support than opposition, a massive shift from the first time GSS asked the question just 22 years ago, when more than three-quarters of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and only 12.4 percent supported it.