I ask a lot of leading and rhetorical questions, so I want to note that my questions today are in earnest. If you know more about the topic than I do (and you probably do!) please leave a comment or send me an email with your thoughts.
A lot of people are concerned about the way a new law in Texas regulating abortion has been structured. Individuals are responsible for enforcing regulations of medical care by reporting anyone who assists someone accessing forbidden types of care. People who report their neighbors for violating the law are rewarded with $10k.
Is there a significant difference between this new law in Texas and how enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act works?
The first difference that jumps out for me, because every article mentions it, is that in Texas someone can be taken to court for driving someone to a clinic or giving them a ride home after a procedure. In ADA lawsuits people don’t sue restaurant suppliers or the people washing the dishes.
In both cases we could theoretically create rules around certain types of behaviors and then enforce them like we do for other similar rules. Medical care and building codes are highly regulated. There are already systems in place to ensure compliance with these regulations.
If you know anyone who’s ever opened a restaurant or renovated a home, you know there are tons of rules to be followed and multiple inspections before the space can be used. Facilities like medical offices and restaurants are inspected regularly. Employees need licenses and certifications — for handling food, practicing medicine, styling hair, etc — that hold them to behavioral standards. These standards are upheld systematically.
Yet we have certain regulations that are intended to be upheld by the public. The system is to enforce them only when a complaint is made and an individual can prove that a violation has occured. Regulations around universal design and dilation and curettage are enforced by the public, with assistance from the court system.
The other difference is that this new law in Texas defines the amount of the reward: $10,000.
With ADA violations the financial reward is determined by a judge, with no guarantee of any reward for the person reportig the violation and also no cap on how large a reward can be.
While I know little about the US legal system, I understand that it’s a separate logical system, completely apart from morality.
Legally, you can’t argue a point because it’s right or just. You have to make a case through legal precedents. It all goes back to what some monarch decided about somebody’s goats back in the year 1215 because we have a system based on English common law.
A building inspector certainly knows more about building safety than I do, so why is it my responsibility to enforce the laws that make it safe for people to inhabit a building?
Why would it be my responsibility to take my neighbors to court for driving someone to a medical appointment? The practice of medicine is regulated by the government. If something is unsafe and illegal, why aren’t the regulatory bodies taking responsibility for our safety?
Why do we have building inspectors and medical boards if they’re going to expect the public to enforce the regulations that are in place to keep us safe?
How do lawmakers choose which laws are appropriate to be enforced by the public while others are enforced by professional bureaucrats?
The police can require someone to testify if they have information that’s essential to an investigation. However, in these instances, the regulatory agents have access to all of the information and resources required to enforce laws without our assistance.
They could enforce the laws, yet they choose to structure things so we’re encouraged to spy on our neighbors and report them to the authorities. About whether or not they have wide enough doorways. About their doctors appointments.
These things aren’t secret. I can’t always figure out those electronic medical records systems, but the people working to oversee the safety of medical care are trained in how the heck you log in and access the information you’re looking for. I don’t have the ADA memorized, but building inspectors know exactly what the requirements are.
Why allow the bureaucratic agents we pay to enforce our laws to shirk their duties? If the city approved my building permits, inspected my building, and gave me the go-ahead to open, I’d assume my space met the legal requirements. It feels twisted that after jumping through all of those bureaucratic hoops, you can still end up being sued for having a space that doesn’t meet legal requirements.
California has set up a separate, optional, inspection for ADA compliance. The goal is not to ensure universal access to public facilities. The goal is to protect businesses from lawsuits.
If we can report cab drivers for assisting people in accessing medical care, why can’t we include building inspectors in ADA lawsuits?
Okay, that’s a leading question, but I mean it. Is it time to start taking building inspectors to court?
According to Glassdoor, building inspectors earn around $56k a year. I bet they’d start enforcing the ADA pretty quickly if they were held responsible for each non-compliant building they approved. Why shouldn’t they be responsible for ensuring buildings they approve meet standards set by federal law?
I’m sure we can think of other people who are essential actors in allowing people to violate the ADA.
If something is important, if it’s a matter of public safety, why would the government just hope people follow the rules and rely on members of the public to report issues?
Were people alarmed by the government asking people to report their neighbors for a financial reward when they passed the ADA in 1990? It seems like a particularly strange enforcement mechanism in the era of concern about socialist secret police, but I was in first grade so I have no memories of the conversations at the time.
You probably know that it was just mental illness awareness week (there’s also a month and a day). My corner of the internet has been inundated with posts enouraging people in need of support to reach out and ask for help.
It can feel like a cruel joke to be told to ask for help, as if help is out there just waiting for you. The vast majority of the time, “help” is a six month waiting list, help is an involuntary 72-hour hold followed by absolutely nothing, help is $125 an hour out of pocket, help is the rumor mill swirling, help is people stepping back instead of supporting you.
My ex cites her experience going to the ER for psychiatric care at my…urging? demand?…as one of the most traumatic experiences she’s gotten through. We were lucky in terms of people naive enough to invite authorities into our personal lives: she didn’t get fired, she had health insurance that covered her care, we didn’t have kids and thus couldn’t be declared unfit parents.
Calling 911 to get help for a mental health crisis can be deadly. Because of mandatory reporting laws, calling a crisis hotline or talking to a trusted professional can lead to the police showing up at your door if you indicate you have a plan to harm yourself or someone else in the near future.
If you’re looking for support, Project Lets has resources for finding support that’s accessible and noncarceral.
If you’re too exhausted and disguisted from past attempts to try to reach out for help again, I see you.
Texas SB8 (the abortion bounty law) seems to have been written by people who thought Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” was a good idea that only lacked a significant profit motive. One of the worst (besides the whole purpose of controlling women’s bodies) tricks is that a plaintiff who sues somebody under the law for suspected facilitation of abortion is guaranteed $10,000 if they win, plus costs. If the Uber driver successfully defends himself against a charge of knowingly assisting a women access her rights, he cannot recover his legal costs of defense. Just bringing enough losing suits could bankrupt a provider with successful defenses.