Autistic Grievance

The revolution of disability rights began in 1972 with the expose of Willowbrook State School – the derelict of the department of Education [or health services]. 

There was a public outcry to the horrific child abuse occurring there that brought to light the inhumane conditions in the  institutions of mammoth custodial industry for ‘mentally ill and retarded’, and Congress reacted by a number of Acts [1] attempting to humanize the handling of the institutionalized population. The prejudice against ‘mentally ill and retarded’ however did not cease or even diminish, and the Acts and subsequent Congressional Amendments, doubtlessly influenced by the lobbyists of the special interest industry which was rapidly remaking itself, made sure that ‘these people’ do not go free.

A citation from Emory Law Journal – Disability Constitutional Law [2] –“The ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] has been a transformative statute, opening up opportunities in public and private life for people with disabilities. And the gains it has helped secure for people with mental disabilities in employment, independent living, and other areas should not be trivialized. But the unfortunate reality is that the omnibus civil rights approach has not worked as well for people with mental disabilities, who still remain the most stigmatized population of people with disabilities”.

These Congressional Acts while securing important rights for Disabled [now a unified group] had all included a loophole language that allowed to perpetuate the exemption of these rights to a rapidly growing group of people reclassified by the American Psychiatric Association as “mentally dysfunctional and ill”. 

The Judicial Branch also did its part in securing important ADA rights for Disabled while simultaneously preserving the broadly outlined rational interest of the states. Two cases in particular became seminal and to this day stand as a precedent for the courts to follow:  Cleburne v. Cleburne Inc. in 1985 [3] – which eased the restriction on custodial industry [citing the integration into community] while at the same time effectively stipulating that the denial of the 14th amendment’s rights to ‘mentally retarded’ by the state actors is an exemption not requiring Federal scrutiny, and in 1999 Olmstead v. L.C.  –  by elaborating ADA conditions of exclusion for specific groups of disabled people as reclassified per the far reaching psychiatric expertise [4].  In both cases decided by the Supreme Court the judicial prejudice against people with mental disabilities was on display and was preserved in the law.

The Cleburne case in particular became an impenetrable bulwark against any legal attempts by “mentally retarded”  to regain the ‘equal protection rights’ granted by the 14th Amendment, and to resist discrimination and societal bias. Ironically with brush strokes this Supreme Court decision had simultaneously denied these rights not only to “mentally retarded” but also by association to all the Disabled, as well as reinforcing the same for the aging, the mentally ill, and the infirm!

We cite from a dissenting opinion of Justice Marshall in Cleburne v. Cleburne Inc.   – “Far from the few benign laws the majority relied on, there is an unmentioned history of segregation, discrimination, eugenics, forced sterilization, and denial of rights of citizenship to those with mental disabilities”.

Let us examine where we stand today in regard to these issues in general, and specifically as it applies to autism.

Our Slogan – Return our Freedom – Return our Rights!

NEXT: “autism solution” of today