Thread by @SaveOurSSLCs

OPPOSE #HB3080 ! Filed by Rep. @StephanieKlick would close the Austin State Supported Living Center (?!) + all TX SSLCs. Despicable land grab; would leave 1,000s of "least of these" #IDD medically fragile, behaviorally challenged people w/o APPROPRIATE care.

@StephanieKlick PLEASE do the right thing by our people! OPPOSE #HB3080 & save desperately needed ICF care! @SaveOurSSLCs

@joethepleb

@RepToniRoseTX

@RepJamesFrank

@GinaForAustin

@travisfortexas

@RepRickMiller

@candynoble

@TerryforTexas

@StephanieKlick @joethepleb @RepToniRoseTX @RepJamesFrank @GinaForAustin @travisfortexas @RepRickMiller @candynoble @TerryforTexas #Olmsteadʼs majority and concurring opinions go to great care to stress that “institutions” such as
ICFs/IID are a critical part of a range of services that a state must provide to meet the needs of
the diverse community of people with #IDD

Olmstead recognizes that there are
individuals who desire and require a higher level of care for whom “institutions” must remain
available. Olmstead also states that the wishes of individuals are paramount in determining
residential placement.

The importance of individual choice, including for some the choice of “institutional” care, is
repeated throughout #Olmsteadʼs majority opinion as follows:

“Such action is in order when the Stateʼs treatment professionals have determined that community
placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not
opposed by the affected individual...

...and the placement can be reasonably accommodated taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities.”

“But we recognize, as well, the Statesʼ need to maintain a range of facilities for the care and treatment
of persons with diverse mental disabilities, and the Statesʼ obligation to administer services with an
even hand.”

“We emphasize that nothing in the ADA or its implementing regulations condones termination of
institutional settings for persons unable to handle or benefit from community settings...

Nor is there
any federal requirement that community-based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire
it.”

“As already observed...the ADA is not reasonably read to impel States to phase out institutions,
placing patients in need of close care at risk...Nor is it the ADAʼs mission to drive States to move
institutionalized patients into an inappropriate setting...”

“For other individuals, no placement outside the institution may ever be appropriate...for these
persons, 👏institutional 👏settings 👏are 👏needed 👏and 👏must 👏remain 👏available.”

“For these reasons stated, we conclude that, under Title II of the ADA, States are required to provide
community-based treatment for persons with mental disabilities when the Stateʼs treatment
professionals determine that such placement is appropriate...

...the affected persons do not oppose
such treatment, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the
resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities.”

Justice Kennedy states in Part I of his concurring opinion, which Justice Breyer
joined:

“It would be unreasonable, it would be a tragic event, then, were the American with Disabilities Act of
1990 (ADA) to be interpreted so that States had some incentive, for fear of litigation...

...to drive those in
need of medical care and treatment out of appropriate care and into settings with too little assistance
and supervision.”

Kennedy then quotes from the majority opinion:
“Justice Ginsburgʼs opinion takes account of this background. It is careful, and quite correct, to say
that...

...it is not “the ADAʼs mission to drive States to move institutionalized patients into an
inappropriate setting...”

Kennedy concludes:
“In light of these concerns, if the principle of liability announced by the Court is not applied with
caution and circumspection...

...States may be pressured into attempting compliance on the cheap,
placing marginal patients into integrated settings devoid of the services and attention
necessary for their condition.”

#Olmstead embraces options. Its careful and responsible findings respect the diversity
inherent in the community of people with #IDD and seeks to ensure that all people
receive safe, appropriate, and individually-driven choices.