Only about 14% of the first shots distributed to long-term care facilities have gone into someone's arms via the federal pharmacy partnership, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“You presume that EVERY ID individual is qualified to work in Community Employment. That is NOT SO. ”

1. "14 (c) has created significant barriers to the organization in terms of advancing legislative goals, creating strategic partnerships, and increasing employment opportunities within the AbilityOne program." For whom will this legislation increase employment opportunities? You presume that EVERY ID individual is qualified to work in Community Employment. That is NOT SO. Does this legislation contain one bit of testing or Evaluative Criteria to determine who is or who is not qualified to work in a Community Setting? It does not. How then can you make such uninformed statements without obtaining those facts?

2. "A growing number of key decision makers and stakeholders view 14 (c) as a discriminatory labor practice, causing people with disabilities to be isolated, segregated and lacking in upward mobility".....Really? How Trumpian of you to say that. You might want to know that The United States Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) issued a report on this subject; parents and other influential people were PREVENTED from issuing a minority or opposition report, espousing the above points. Does that sound to you like "overwhelming opposition" to 14 (c)? I can tell you personally that overwhelming opposition has amassed to your position from various Special Needs, Medical, Law, and Psychological Community Professionals. I advise you and your Board to tread lightly before you make such irresponsible statements that lack factual foundation. Americans are not stupid. They can see through Bluster. They can see through an argument that has no factual basis. Does that sound vaguely familiar after what all of us just went through? Fact and Truth prevailed then. It will prevail now. You offer no factual basis for your opinion.

3. Further, your "discriminatory labor practice" argument has two answers:

A. WC's are not "Sweatshops", plain and simple, as many legislators and your "Key" people have obviously wrongly opined. Indeed, they are honorable workplaces, with all employees under constant supervision. Worktimes are usually from 10 am to 3 p4m with an hour for lunch. Socialization at lunch between employees is encouraged, which is vital. Weekly wages are between $60.00 and $200.00. At ISP conferences, employees are asked if they want to stay in the WC or enter into the Community. CHOICE is the watchword. All conferences are accompanied by a 25 to 30 page report, which codifies the events at the conference. By the way, I would encourage you to visit a WC. I promise you will be enlightened.

B. Your position about discrimination is unconstitutional, in light of the ID individual's choice to remain at the WC. Think about it. What you are supporting is de facto mandating that every ID individual work in a Community Setting without an equal mandate of every Employer to accept ALL ID Individuals for employment and mandate specific care programs (training, distribution of meds during the day, eating facilities, etc). Sounds like a denial of 4th Amendment Equal Protections to me … how about you?

You should also know that the Moms and Dads of this world who have ID individuals are not taking this lying down. We plan a massive Social Media campaign against any and all groups who oppose the concept of Choice of Workplace for our Children, and we will be sure to let those businesses with whom you are affiliated and those others who are in favor of the repeal of 14 (c) know of your position, and the devastation it will cause if adopted. In the Spring, a number of us will be traveling to Washington with our children to see the House and Senate members. We would be pleased to pay you a visit.

“Back then it was believed—no doubt correctly—that a federal minimum wage would cause many disabled persons to become unemployable. An exception was thus created. A limited number of employers would be permitted to obtain certificates authorizing them to pay disabled persons something less than the minimum wage. Under current law, how much less depends upon stringent tests of each such employee’s productivity, which must be conducted every six months,” Heriot wrote.

Further, she wrote, keeping Section 14(c) would allow disabled persons to choose to work in “sheltered workshops,” which hired the disabled for jobs they can handle at a reduced pay. As Heriot noted, it is entirely optional for the disabled to take the reduced pay for protected jobs. They are also free to find employment for minimum wage and higher where they would work alongside nondisabled persons.

Some disabled persons will be able to compete with nondisabled persons for the same jobs, but others will not, Heriot insisted. She noted that the Commission’s report “waits till page 99 (by which time nearly all Members of Congress have stopped reading) to mention that 98 per cent of the members of the public who submitted comments to the Commission support the continuation of Section 14(c).”