Five GA Republicans Oppose Americans With Disabilities Restoration Act

Last Wednesday, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill that would overturn a series of Supreme Court decisions that have narrowed the definition of disability under the American With Disabilities Act of 1990.

The ADA Restoration Act (H.R.3195), which restores the original intent of the ADA by clarifying that anyone with an impairment, regardless of his or her successful use of treatments to manage the impairment, is entitled to seek a reasonable accommodation in the workplace, received 402 votes in favor and 17 votes against [Source: United States House of Representatives, Roll Call #460, June 25, 2008]. Five of those seventeen “nay” votes came from Georgia Republicans.

Paul Broun, Jack Kingston, John Linder, Tom Price and Lynn Westmoreland voted against the legislation that specifically:

  • Amends the definition of disability so that individuals whom Congress originally intended to protect from discrimination are covered under the ADA;
  • Prevents the courts from considering the use of treatment or other accommodations when deciding whether an individual qualifies for protection under the ADA; and
  • Focuses on whether individuals can demonstrate they were treated less favorably on the basis of disability.

The original ADA passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 1990 and was heralded by Republican and Democratic leaders as the “emancipation proclamation” for people with disabilities.

The ADA Restoration Act of 2008 is supported by a variety of advocacy groups and organizations such as the American Diabetes Association and the American Association of People with Disabilities.


  1. kendrial says:

    Ok ,so let me get this straight. I have a hearing disability but I get a hearing aid to solve the problem and I am still given rights under the ADA. Why wouldn’t Republicans voted against this? It just seems like additional govt. waist to me.

  2. Romegaguy says:

    Paul Broun would have voted for it if it made it illegal for people with disabilities to masturbate

  3. J Konop says:

    Bottom line no tax or spending bill should pass unless Congress can demonstrate to the American people a way to pay for it. Congress is like the person who bought a home on low interest only teaser rate knowing you can afford the future payment. The sad part is the liability in this case will be strapped on the backs of our children!

  4. Bill Simon says:

    Dang…Doug brought us a really good link…not that that’s surprising, but, let’s ask a DEM like Andre:

    Andre, do YOU think Website-managers/owners should be REQUIRED by federal mandate to make their sites accessible to the blind and deaf (for those sites that play video)?

  5. GOPeach says:

    Rome –

    What the hell is wrong with you?

    You said life beings at ejaculation and now you are talking about Mexican masturbation???
    Have you been to the eye doctor lately?
    I bet you are about to go blind.

  6. bowersville says:

    Barry Fleming, did you see this vote by Paul Broun? Maybe you did, I don’t know because I trashed your last two mailers with out reading them.

    Paul Broun can’t do anything right, just ask Fleming. If this vote by Broun isn’t in a negative hit piece from Fleming, don’t worry, it’s coming to a mail box near you.

  7. Tekneek says:

    Yes, we should leave it up to individuals and their businesses as to whether they will open up opportunities for the handicapped. Why did ADA even get proposed? Let alone ever pass? Could it be that private industry was NOT handling it well on its own?

    Just like there should not be any discrimination regarding gender, race, or religion, there should not be any discrimination on the basis of a disability. I can agree that there have been some abuses of the act in the past, but to say that it served no useful purpose is naive.

  8. BubbaRich says:

    I agree, Tekneek. I’m not sure why Doug wants to tell blind people to go to hell. I suspect he and Bill Simon were against requiring ramps or other access into public buildings, but civilization seems to have held up against that amazing removal of our rights. I even got to use a lot of those ADA access methods, walking on my horribly broken leg last year. I think Doug is doing the more efficient thing, offering to carry me up the stairs and read horribly-designed webpages to blind people.

  9. Doug Deal says:


    Then let us all appoint you in charge of telling everyone else how and when they must help those in “need”. I am very tall, will you tell car manufacturers to spend billions of dollars to accomodate my size. I also get migraines from flourescent bulb, yet that’s all we will be able to buy in a couple of years. How about forcing light manufacturers to invent some new type of lighting out of the ether by some certain date.

    Where are these lines drawn? Who defines reasonable accomodation? You liberals always want OTHERS to bear the burdens of these great schemes and then you then have the gaul to pat yourselves on the back for them.

  10. BubbaRich says:

    The law actually specifies what the protected classes are. You and the nutcases who are “allergic to wifi” are out of luck.

    The law decides where to draw the line, and how to define reasonable accomodation. Although they can leave some space for courts to make final decisions. That’s how it works in our system. You are free to do as you are doing, trying to convince enough people to help you tell people in wheelchairs to go to hell because it’s too expensive for your tastes.

  11. Doug Deal says:


    Charming as ever. As usual, your side loves to drop the insults at the first sign of losing an argument, which not coincidentally is often times the first words out of your mouths.

    I will take the victory and move on.

  12. BubbaRich says:

    Heh. Nice, Doug! You even get to ignore the fact that there is an obvious answer to your rhetorical questions!

    If you feel insulted by something in that post, you can mention what it was that insulted you. You did say that accomodations for the handicapped are too expensive for our society, and you weren’t very clear where you draw the line. You asked who decides, and I told you. Obviously every handicap can’t be overcome to go every place, but it’s the duty of the legislature (and the courts, as much as the legislature delegates to them) to decide where the line is drawn. You’re unhappy with where the line is. What line would you have in its place? Who would you let decide?

Comments are closed.