What Olmstead is Not

(1) What Olmstead is Not:

"Olmstead" is not a federal act or statute. Rather, it is a U.S. Supreme Court decision which reinforced the rights of individuals with mental retardation and their parents and guardians to choose the residential setting that is best for these persons.

(2) How Olmstead is misused:

In support of their objective to downsize and close ICF/MR (Intermediate Care Facilities for the Mentally Retarded), certain advocates are emphasizing portions of the Court's opinion regarding "unjustified institutionalization" and ignoring important parts of the Court's decision.

Olmstead Decision -- VOR Press Release

VOR Applauds
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Favor of Choice
Wednesday, June 23, 1999

Quoting VOR's Amicus Curiae brief, the Supreme Court yesterday in Olmstead v. L.C. and E.W. held that "Each disabled person is entitled to treatment in the most integrated setting possible for that person--recognizing that, on a case-by-case basis, that setting may be an institution."

In the 6-3 ruling, the Justices ruled that unjustified institutionalization is discrimination, bust also emphasized that "nothing in the ADA or its implementing regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons unable to handle or benefit from community settings." The decision is a victory for VOR and other organizations that support choice in residential settings, and discourages advocates in support of total deinstitutionalization.

Media coverage highlighting the increasing need for more effective federal and state protections...

Media coverage highlighting the increasing need formore effective federal and state protections in the ever-expandingcommunity system of care for people with mental retardation

Download:
VOR's Abuse and Neglect Document

Maryland: Parent testimony (2006)

Testimony for Public Forum
Before: Administration on Developmental Disabilities
By: Mary Lou Chandler, Parent, Salisbury, MD
Re: Maryland Disability Law Center (Maryland's Protection and Advocacy System)
Date: July 10, 2006

To Whom It May Concern,

I am a parent and legal guardian of a thirty-eight year old resident of Holly Center, ICF/MR in Salisbury, MD.

I strongly disagree with the agenda of the MDLC and the MD DD Coalition – close State Residential Centers.  I find it outrageous that these agencies receive Federal dollars to promote an agenda that is not supported by MANY taxpaying citizens.  These agencies do not represent my daughter and her rights to continue to receive care in the most appropriate setting – Holly Center.

Ohio: OLMR (statewide family association) testimony (2006)

OLMR Response to the State Plan for the Ohio Legal Rights Service, Ohio's Protection and Advocacy System

Sonya Mawhorter, Executive DirectorOhio League for the Mentally Retarded (OLMR)
June 2006

The Ohio League For The Mentally Retarded (OLMR) is a consumer organization representing over 7000 Ohio citizens with disabilities and their family/caregivers.

We are pleased to have an opportunity to offer input into the state plan for the Ohio Legal Rights Service (OLRS), Ohio’s Protection and Advocacy system. We will provide some background in our comments, as well as make some recommendations.

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania League of Concerned Families of Retarded Citizens (2006)

Testimonial from Pennsylvania
by Bert springstead, President
Pennsylvania League of Concerned families of retarded citizens
VOR Board Member

May 15, 2006
Pennsylvania Protection and Advocacy (PP&A) is required to protect and advocate the rights of people with mental retardation.  However, as the father of a son with mental retardation and statewide advocate for VOR’s position regarding choice, I am well aware of the hundreds of families of people with mental retardation within Pennsylvania who are extremely concerned about PP&A’s calculated selection of rights it will and will not protect.  More specifically, families are troubled by PP&A’s callus disregard for people with mental retardation and their families when, as primary decision makers, they seek to exercise their right to choose services provided by an ICF/MR instead of a community-based setting.  The string of consistent examples over the course of more than fifteen years that contributed to that conviction include: