• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Apparently, wheelchair ramps are woke and have to go.

Hamish Howl

Hamish Howl

Horrible Bastard
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
56,571
Reaction score
65,488
Location
Tucson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov www.federalregister.gov

1) The clause in 10 CFR 1040.1(a) stating, “or when the delivery of services is affected by the recipient's employment practices.” Importantly, the rescission of this clause in no way disturbs the following clauses stating that, “under section 504, all grantee and subgrantee employment practices are covered regardless of the purpose of the program” and, “Employment coverage may be broader in scope when section 16, section 401, or Title IX are applicable.” As to these undisturbed clauses, it is further noted that the employment practices covered by DOE's section 504 regulations at subpart D are not affected by this direct final rule. Additionally, the remedies available under section 16 and section 401 are not exclusive to subpart B of 10 CFR part 1040, and thus, do not prejudice any other legal remedies available to any persons alleging sex discrimination in a programs authorized by the Federal Energy Administration Act or the Federal Energy Organization Act that are not covered by 10 CFR part 1040. Finally, the coverage of employment under title IX, which is enforced by DOE regulations at 10 CFR part 1042, is not affected by this direct final rule.
Click to expand...

Now, here's the fun part. 10 CFR part 1040:

he purpose of this part is to implement Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-352; section 16 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended, Pub. L. 93-275; section 401 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-438; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, Pub. L. 92-318, Pub. L. 93-568 and Pub. L. 94-482; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, Pub. L. 93-112; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Pub. L. 94-135; Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-284; and civil rights provisions of statutes administered pursuant to authority under the DOE Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91, so no person shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex (when covered by section 16 and section 401), handicap, or age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be subjected to discrimination under, or be denied employment, where a primary purpose of the Federal financial assistance is to provide employment or when the delivery of services is affected by the recipient's employment practices (under section 504, all grantee and subgrantee employment practices are covered regardless of the purpose of the program), in connection with any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Energy (after this referred to as DOE or the Department). Employment coverage may be broader in scope when section 16, section 401, or Title IX are applicable.
Click to expand...

Which means this:

www.respectability.org

Public Comment Period Closes on Proposed DOE Rule Change Affecting Building Accessibility Protections - Disability Belongs™

According to Regulations.gov, 20,711 public comments were submitted in response to the rule on new construction requirements.
www.respectability.org www.respectability.org

If the proposed changes move forward, newly constructed or renovated federally funded buildings may no longer be required to meet specific accessibility standards such as the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). This could mean that features like ramps, elevators, accessible restrooms, and other elements that support equitable access would not consistently be included in federally funded projects.


The DOE published two Direct Final Rules (DFRs) on May 16, 2025. In the rule rescinding 10 CFR 1040.73, which addresses accessibility in new construction, the agency noted that Section 504 already prohibits discrimination based on disability in federally funded programs and activities and expressed the view that additional construction-specific requirements may be redundant.


The DOE stated, “Given the general prohibition on discriminatory activities and related penalties … DOE finds these additional provisions unnecessary and unduly burdensome.”
Click to expand...

Wheelchair ramps are "burdensome."

This is what MAGAs voted for.
 
Hamish Howl said:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov www.federalregister.gov



Now, here's the fun part. 10 CFR part 1040:



Which means this:

www.respectability.org

Public Comment Period Closes on Proposed DOE Rule Change Affecting Building Accessibility Protections - Disability Belongs™

According to Regulations.gov, 20,711 public comments were submitted in response to the rule on new construction requirements.
www.respectability.org www.respectability.org



Wheelchair ramps are "burdensome."

This is what MAGAs voted for.
Click to expand...

Will be interesting to see how Texas Governor Maggot Abbott, who is wheelchair-bound, responds to this.
 
Hamish Howl said:
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-in-federally-assisted-programs-or-activities
Now, here's the fun part. 10 CFR part 1040:
Which means this:

https://www.respectability.org/2025/06/doe-rule-change/
Wheelchair ramps are "burdensome."
Click to expand...
They can be.

As a long-time Union Steward, I have considerable practical experience with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the related rules and regulations. Demanding that all areas be made wheelchair friendly is a non-starter. The question has always been where to drae the line.

Hamish Howl said:
This is what MAGAs voted for.
Click to expand...
That's true.

Are you approving or disapproving.
 
Hamish Howl said:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov www.federalregister.gov



Now, here's the fun part. 10 CFR part 1040:



Which means this:

www.respectability.org

Public Comment Period Closes on Proposed DOE Rule Change Affecting Building Accessibility Protections - Disability Belongs™

According to Regulations.gov, 20,711 public comments were submitted in response to the rule on new construction requirements.
www.respectability.org www.respectability.org



Wheelchair ramps are "burdensome."

This is what MAGAs voted for.
Click to expand...

Why?

(alright, probably rhetorical - thanks for the heads-up)
 
Jay59 said:
They can be.

As a long-time Union Steward, I have considerable practical experience with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the related rules and regulations. Demanding that all areas be made wheelchair friendly is a non-starter. The question has always been where to drae the line.
Click to expand...
In this case, it is "the entirety of new DOE construction."

And also our courthouses, for example, do not contain any areas which cannot be accessed with a wheelchair. You argument is absolute bullshit.
Jay59 said:
That's true.

Are you approving or disapproving.
Click to expand...
Disapproving. There is no point to this whatsoever except to **** with disabled people.
 
No ramps where I live, but never a problem getting a lift when needed.
 
Jay59 said:
Demanding that all areas be made wheelchair friendly is a non-starter.
Click to expand...
Until someone lands in a wheelchair.
On this ONE subject you shouldn't care about whether this idea fits within your political viewpoint, the idea of removing wheelchair access ANYWHERE should be an abhorrent idea to you no matter what your politics.
If it isn't abhorrent to you I think that speaks loudly, very loudly, to how you view all things through a political spectrum. Period.
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
Until someone lands in a wheelchair.
On this ONE subject you shouldn't care about whether this idea fits within your political viewpoint, the idea of removing wheelchair access ANYWHERE should be an abhorrent idea to you no matter what your politics.
If it isn't abhorrent to you I think that speaks loudly, very loudly, to how you view all things through a political spectrum. Period.
Click to expand...
Some people are just bad.
 
Hamish Howl said:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov www.federalregister.gov



Now, here's the fun part. 10 CFR part 1040:



Which means this:

www.respectability.org

Public Comment Period Closes on Proposed DOE Rule Change Affecting Building Accessibility Protections - Disability Belongs™

According to Regulations.gov, 20,711 public comments were submitted in response to the rule on new construction requirements.
www.respectability.org www.respectability.org



Wheelchair ramps are "burdensome."

This is what MAGAs voted for.
Click to expand...
We've seen how Trump has difficulty navigating ramps. They must be abolished.
 
Jay59 said:
They can be.

As a long-time Union Steward, I have considerable practical experience with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the related rules and regulations. Demanding that all areas be made wheelchair friendly is a non-starter. The question has always been where to drae the line.


That's true.

Are you approving or disapproving.
Click to expand...
The ADA allows for accommodation for existing buildings. For instance, if a ramp can’t be installed for a business, service can be provided by other means, such as curb side delivery. The “burdensom” test is not new.

UFAS are just one part of accessibility standards and codes, including state and local.

No design professional will abandon accessibility standards.
 
Give these assholes a minute, they’ll get back to wanting to lock disabled people up in homes and keep them out of the public eye.

They don’t see them as worth anything.
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
Until someone lands in a wheelchair.
On this ONE subject you shouldn't care about whether this idea fits within your political viewpoint, the idea of removing wheelchair access ANYWHERE should be an abhorrent idea to you no matter what your politics.
If it isn't abhorrent to you I think that speaks loudly, very loudly, to how you view all things through a political spectrum. Period.
Click to expand...


As I gently work my way to 80, I am more and more aware of the 'traps' that are invisible to AB's (able bodied).

Ramps suck. It's better for me to do stairs

This is not political.

Although in America everything becomes political. I guess its an excuse so you don't have to be 'nice'.

God help being 'nice'.
 
NJBob said:
How about accessible restrooms? Should those be eliminated as well?
Click to expand...
Where did mention eliminating anything? My comment was solely speaking about the people where I live, who help one another without being divided by political views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom