8/11/26 - Access or coercion, medical or political, casual or cutting?
Hello there!
I can't really see a common theme in today's links. But all three struck me as offering novel arguments to old debates. And that's always worth something.
A Fear-Mongering Law for Locking up Disabled People Falls Apart in New York
Alex Green, (Un)Hidden - August 3, 2026
"On a host of other issues, from transportation to housing and health care, the study’s authors noted that coercive treatment works no better than voluntary treatment and the only reason that it works at all is because it use services that are available voluntarily but far too inaccessible for people to know about and access. The result is that the authors of the report rightly call for expanding access and awareness to voluntary services in lieu of having to resort to arresting disabled people and dragging them into a lifetime of court-ordered monitoring just to let them know those programs exist."
The usual disability rights arguments against legally required treatment or supervision of disabled people are that it is: a) a violation of human rights, and b) ineffective as well. It seems that a lot of the people who have seen some improvement since being forced into treatment actually could have had the same services and improvement if they had known about them, or understood better how to access them. So, why not just do a better job of funding and giving physically or mentally disabled people easy access to support services they can choose voluntarily? I think it's because controlling and confining disabled people scratches an itch a lot of people have – especially when we are in any way disturbing or upsetting. Somehow, effectively assisting us the way we actually want isn't enough to satisfy that craving for control, or quiet the anxieties people have about us.
What’s Wrong With You? vs. What Happened to You?
Jim & Pat 4 Inclusion, Nothing About Us Without Us - June 4, 2026
"Since Robert Kennedy Jr. took over the Department of Health and Human Services, critiquing any aspect of American healthcare feels risky. But unlike RFK, I’m not advocating dismantling public health infrastructure. I don’t want to stigmatize people who find medication helpful ... I want more resources, not less. I want well-funded, well-educated providers who can take their time unpacking patient trauma, informing them of treatment side effects, and offering alternatives. I don’t want to take away good treatment. I want to make sure the treatment each patient receives leads to actual health and well-being."
Two things worth highlighting here. First is that it simply seems like common sense to at least recognize people's social and economic circumstances among the factors that influence their mental health, alongside chemical imbalances and other more purely medical conditions. The other, and to me even more interesting point in this piece is that its authors acknowledge how awkward it has become to criticize traditional, mainstream mental health professions – or any medical field – from a disability perspective when a separate social/political movement is busy undermining mainstream medicine for different reasons, from different perspectives. Some disabled people I'm sure agree with MAHA and RFK Jr. about a lot of things. Disabled peoples' politics are all over the map. But longstanding problems of medical ableism predate MAHA, and don't overlap much with RFK Jr's current priorities. Unfortunately, there is a risk right now that any substantial challenge to mainstream medicine could be mislabeled as MAHA, and either embraced or rejected for the wrong reason. Addressing that issue directly in this article was the right thing for the authors to do.
Why the R-Word Is the Defining Slur of the Trump Era
Sadie Dingfelder, NOTUS - August 9, 2026
"Eventually, the word became so widespread that it lost its moorings to intellectual disability and became a catch-all insult for anything considered stupid, uncool or embarrassing. Often, kids who used it weren’t consciously trying to mock people with intellectual disabilities. But the slur depended on the shared assumption that being likened to someone with an intellectual disability was inherently degrading ... This fact isn’t lost on the intellectually disabled. Even when the R-word is not being aimed directly at people with intellectual disabilities, it’s still hurtful, says Madeline Stuart, a model with Down syndrome. 'Jokes are meant to be funny, so if you are using this word, you are making us feel like we are the joke,' she told me via email."
I can't think of a better explainer for otherwise progressive people – especially social media influencers and commentators – who still use the R-word. I have a few in mind. I don't know if they would all take the time to read this piece with an open mind. But historical background, linguistic explanations, and personal quotations feel a lot more effective than the typical "woke" or "it's not polite" arguments that tends to be what people think we care about most.
Disability Thinking Weekday is a Monday-Friday newsletter with links and commentary on disability-related articles and other content. You can help promote Disability Thinking Weekday by forwarding it by email or posting on your social media. You can also comment by sending me an email at: apulrang@icloud.com. Collected comments are shared on the first of each month. A free subscription sends a newsletter to your email each weekday. Benefits of paid subscription include:
- A monthly recap with links to all of the previous month's shared articles, organized by topic.
- Listing as a supporter, and a link to your website if you have one.
- You can recommend one disability-related article for me to share per month in a weekday post.
Use the buttons below to start a paid subscription or make a one-time donation.
I am so grateful for your help and engagement, in whichever forms you choose!
Free subscribers: 1,285
Paid subscribers: 52