eugenics

Second Disability History Webinar

~ wheelhelmina ~ Leave a comment

You might be wondering why I failed to write about the second edition of the Southeast ADA Center‘s The History of Disabilities webinar series, which was slated for January 25, 2018. (My thoughts about the first webinar can be found here.) I tried to sign in for 20 minutes before I gave up; I don’t know why I can’t get along with Blackboard. Fortunately, the transcript is available online. (A recording of the webinar is also available, but the audio was awful.)

Having left the Civil War behind, Dr. Larry Logue describes the progressive era in the second edition. He notes that although progressives did not necessarily agree on the cause of America’s problems, they did agree on the need for evidence-based solutions run by the government. They proposed two options to resolve the problem of disability: prevention and rehabilitation.

Prevention, as many disability historians will recall, was ugly. The early 1900s saw the rise of eugenics. I’m sad to say the first eugenics statute was implemented in my home state, Indiana. Generally, these statutes allowed for the sterilization of individuals with disabilities, and especially those with intellectual disabilities. According to Dr. Logue, more than half of American states also forbade individuals with disabilities from marrying. Immigrants with disabilities were turned away at Ellis Island and other points of entry. Another element of prevention, Dr. Logue notes, was assimilation. The early 1900s included the push for oralism, led by Alexander Graham Bell. Deaf students were forbidden from learning in sign language, and were forced to lip read and attempt speech. Deaf identity was suppressed until the 1970s. Interestingly, many eugenics statutes remained on the books until the 1970s, as well.

Rehabilitation was an option for individuals who could be put to work and take their place in an organic society. Again, America saw soldiers returning from World War I and recognized that the burden of disability should not necessarily be borne by those soldiers who fought for the public good. As such, some people with disabilities were placed in unskilled jobs for industrial partners. Soldiers who could verify their disabilities also received a pension. Dr. Logue refers to the situation as “the individual/medical model with government funding.”

In sum, I enjoy the way Dr. Logue puts together his presentations and assembles different historical components of each era. But I really hate the delivery method. Southeast ADA Center, please fix it!

The Left Advocates Discrimination on Basis of Disability

~ wheelhelmina ~ Leave a comment

Last week Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed House Enrolled Act 1337 into law. Pro-abortion advocates on the left instantly began howling that Pence, a cold-hearted Republican, is encroaching on women’s rights. However, many of the same advocates refused to acknowledge that the Act forbids discrimination on the basis of disability. Indiana Code 16-31-2-1.1(1)(K) now provides:

That Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because of the fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or any potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.

Those on the left argue that Pence and fellow Republicans are using these protected classes to further their agenda, without actually caring for members of those classes. To their credit, I don’t know that parents traditionally opt for abortion based on factors like ancestry. However, mothers do regularly abort fetuses with diagnosed disability.

The numbers are startling. For example, 87% of fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted.  Another site puts the number at 92%.  If this is not obvious discrimination against the disability community, I don’t know what is. And I am horrified that local disability organizations are more interested in pushing a liberal agenda then celebrating steps taken by the General Assembly to reject eugenic ideals.

Many expect that the new law will not stand up to judicial scrutiny. We shall see.  But I am jubilant that Indiana, the first state to adopt eugenics laws, is now on the forefront of protecting disabled fetuses. (I’m experiencing a bit of schadenfreude, too, now that liberals have been cornered into choosing which traditional voting block – e.g., fertile women or people with disabilities – to which they will pander.)