Commentary Human Rights

The Alabamification of America, Take Two: An Agenda of Which Even the Bishops Should be Ashamed

Pamela Sumners

The right wants to allow a boss or a corporation to claim “religious” or “conscience” reasons to roll back equal rights. As a native Alabamian, I am hearing some thundering hooves over some bridges at Selma. Religion and “conscience” and employers' and property owners’ rights were justifications for discriminating against black people in this country from the founding of the republic until the Civil Rights Act was passed. Now they are coming for you.

You ought to know you’re in a bad spot when you begin an opinion piece with: “You really can’t make this stuff up.” This is not the first time I have written that sentence opening an opinion piece in Missouri.

Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass what NARAL has called the “Let her die” bill—a bill that would allow any doctor or nurse to refuse to participate in an abortion that is necessary to save the woman’s life in an emergency. This—in the name of “conscience.” Fortunately, the United States Senate has so far refused to go along.

But Missouri’s own Republican Senator Roy Blunt has tacked an amendment to a transportation bill (of all things) that would undo the Obama Administration’s no co-pay birth-control ruling, following the furor generated by right-wing media, some conservative archbishops, and Tea Partiers about extending this simple preventive care. In fact, Roy Blunt has vowed to work to get the entire new health reform law scrapped by the Senate.

Meanwhile, back at the Show-Me State ranch, five separate bills have been introduced to nullify the federal health care reform law. Four other bills attempt to protect the “conscience” rights of hospital corporations–whether they are religiously-affiliated or not, whether they are public or private, nonprofit or for-profit–to refuse to provide contraception, abortion, or in-vitro fertilization. And that’s not all. These bills are written so broadly that they would allow insurers, networks of insurers, and HMOs to invoke their “consciences” as reasons to refuse treatment or insurance coverage for basic reproductive health care for women.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Enough is enough. Missouri already outlaws public funding for abortion. Missouri already has the fourth most comprehensive restrictions on abortion among all 50 states. Missouri state medical schools are forbidden from teaching abortion procedures to med students. Missouri has a broken system for minors who need a judge’s permission to get an abortion because of their inability to involve their parents. The Missouri General Assembly has received an “F” grade from NARAL Pro-Choice America for the past 21 years—the only state in the union to hold that distinction.

Now state senator John Lamping, an alleged “moderate,” had his way 5-2 in a Missouri Senate committee on Valentine’s Day. According to Lamping’s bill, corporations are people—with consciences. I wish this were true as to HMOs and insurers, but it’s just not.

What Lamping would allow is a real mind-bender: You will no longer have to do your job if you’ve got a little moral quibble with a customer or patient who came to a place of public accommodation where you work (like coming to a pharmacy and finding the pharmacist who abhors birth control or anti-depressants—who should just find a different job that fits with his scruples, by the way).

What Lamping also would allow: it doesn’t matter what a woman, her sexual partner, or her husband thinks about birth control. A hospital employee’s boss, an HMO, an insurer, can make her decisions about birth control or abortion for her—based on the boss’s or corporation’s “conscience.” A woman can die, for all Mr. Lamping cares, for all the Senate Committee cares—because there is no exception for a medical emergency to save a woman’s life. It doesn’t matter if she had a wanted pregnancy that went tragically wrong and might kill her. It’s so comforting that cool-thinking characters like the moderate John Lamping or an HMO, CEO, COO, or CFO can acronym-validate its own “moral” choices, isn’t it? Far better that a dispassionate corporate entity make our moral choices for us than a messy woman or her messy family.

Isn’t it adorable that a boss or a corporation can claim “religious” or “conscience” reasons to roll back equal rights? As a native Alabamian, I am hearing some thundering hooves over some bridges at Selma. Can you hear them, too? Don’t even try to tell me that religion and “conscience” and employers’ and property owners’ rights were not justifications for discriminating against black people in this country from the founding of the republic until the Civil Rights Act was passed.

You watch—you watch these Tea Partiers, and their alleged “moderate” election-year turnout tools, like Mr. Lamping. You think all civil rights are not on their radar? You think Rand Paul, running off at the mouth about a restaurant owner’s “free market” right to discriminate against anyone whose money isn’t good enough for him, was an isolated Kentucky accident? They are here, and they are coming for: vagina-Americans, black and brown people hanging out without papers, black and brown people who’ve lived here for 80 years without proper papers while (heavens!) voting, people who aren’t rich enough, white enough, or whatever enough. This is an agenda cloaked in conscience, and even if 20 bishops swear to it, they should be ashamed.

People like Roy Blunt or John Lamping just don’t want to say what “get your grimy federal hands off all minority or powerless or vagina-endowed or melanin-toned Amarikkun rights” means. I know. I know the Alabamification of America, circa 1960s, when I see it. I hope you’re watching, too.

Roundups Politics

The House Freedom Fund Bankrolls Some of Congress’ Most Anti-Choice Candidates

Ally Boguhn

With the 2016 election cycle underway, the political action committee seems to be working tirelessly to ensure the House Freedom Caucus maintains a radical anti-choice legacy.

In its short existence, the House Freedom Caucus (HFC) has made a name for itself through endless efforts to push Congress further to the right, particularly when it comes to reproductive health. Now with the 2016 election cycle underway, the caucus’ political action committee, the House Freedom Fund, seems to be working just as tirelessly to ensure the caucus maintains a radical anti-choice legacy.

Since its founding by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) in January 2015, the group of ultra-conservative lawmakers that make up the caucus has ballooned from just nine members to at least 36 members, as of October 2015, who have confirmed their own inclusion—though the group keeps its official roster secret. These numbers may seem small, but they pack a punch in the House, where they have enough votes to block major legislation pushed by other parts of the Republican party.

And now, the group is seeking to add to its ranks in order to wield even more power in Congress.

“The goal is to grow it by, and I think it’s realistic, to grow it by 20 to 30 members,” Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ), one of HFC’s founding members, told Politico in April. “All new members.”

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

While the caucus itself reportedly does not endorse candidates, its unofficial PAC has already thrown money behind defending the seats of some of the group’s most notoriously anti-choice members, as well as a few new faces.

According to OpenSecrets.org, the Center for Responsive Politics’ campaign finance database, thus far in 2016, the House Freedom Fund has invested in seven congressional candidates currently vying to keep a seat in the House of Representatives: Rep. Rod Blum (R-IA), Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA), Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), Rep. Scott Desjarlais (R-TN), Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ). The PAC’s website also highlights two candidates hoping to move from their state legislatures to the House: Republican Indiana state senator Jim Banks and Georgia state Senator Mike Crane. The PAC is also backing the Republican candidate for Florida’s 2nd Congressional District, Mary Thomas; and Republican candidate for North Carolina’s 13th Congressional District, Ted Budd.

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), who won a special election in early June to replace former House speaker John Boehner, also received funding from the PAC. He joined the House Freedom Caucus that same week.

The Republican Party actively works to deny access to virtually all forms of reproductive health care, so it is not surprising that the candidates supported by the House Freedom Fund, whose confirmed members are all members of the GOP, share similarly radical views on reproductive rights and health.

Here are some of the House Freedom Fund’s most alarming candidates:

Rep. Rod Blum

Rep. Blum, a freshman congressman from Iowa, considers his opposition to reproductive choice one of the “cornerstones” of his campaign. “It is unconscionable that government would aid in the taking of innocent life. I strongly oppose any federal funding for abortion and I will vote against any of our tax dollars flowing to groups who perform or advocate abortions on demand,” asserts Blum’s campaign site. The Hyde Amendment already bans most federal funding for abortion care.

Blum spent much of his first year in the House attempting to push through a series of anti-choice bills. The representative co-sponsored the medically unsupported Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would have enacted a federal ban on abortion at or beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy, in January 2015. He signed on as a co-sponsor for the failed Life at Conception Act, a so-called personhood measure that would have granted legal rights to fetuses and zygotes, thus potentially outlawing abortion and many forms of contraception, in March of that year. That July, Blum co-sponsored the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015, which would have stripped the reproductive health organization of all federal funding for one year so that Congress could investigate it in the wake of the Center for Medical Progress’ (CMP) discredited videos smearing the provider. 

Blum’s co-sponsorship of anti-choice legislation was accompanied by a long series of like-minded votes throughout 2015, such as a January vote in favor of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015, which, among other things, would have made the Hyde Amendment’s annually renewed ban on most federal funding for abortion care permanent. He also voted to block Washington, D.C.’s Reproductive Health non-discrimination law, and in favor of a measure allowing states to exclude from Medicaid funding any health provider that provided abortions, as well as other anti-choice measures.

Blum’s brief time in Congress has been marked by such extremism that Emily’s List, an organization that works to elect pro-choice women, put Blum on their “On Notice” list in July 2015, signaling their intention to prioritize unseating the Iowa Representative. “In less than five months into the 114th Congress, we have seen Representative Blum lead the crusade to restrict women’s access to healthcare, most notably when he cosponsored a national abortion ban,” explained the organization in a press release on its decision to target Blum. “It’s clear that Congressman Blum is more focused on prioritizing an extreme ideological agenda over enacting policies that benefit more women and families in Iowa’s First Congressional District.”

Rep. Dave Brat

Rep. Dave Brat gained notoriety for his win against incumbent representative and then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2014, a victory considered one of “the biggest political upset[s] in recent memory.” Like many of his HFC colleagues, Brat has co-sponsored several pieces of anti-choice legislation, including the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in 2015 and the Conscience Protection Act of 2016, which claimed to “protect” against “governmental discrimination against providers of health services” who refuse to provide abortion care. Brat’s voting record in Congress earned him a 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee.

In April of this year, the Virginia representative signed on to a letter with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and other anti-choice legislators, such as House Freedom Fund candidate Rep. Meadows expressing “serious concerns” about the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to update the label of abortion drug mifepristone to bring it in line with scientific research and evidence-based medicine. Though medication abortions are safe and result in complications in fewer than 0.4 percent of patients, the lawmakers nonetheless claimed that the regulation change could be dangerous, noting that the drug was originally approved during the Clinton administration and demanding a list of information about it.

In the wake of the deadly shooting at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood facility in November, when the alleged shooter parroted the same violent rhetoric about the reproductive health organization popularized by the CMP’s discredited videos, many in Congress called for the panel investigating Planned Parenthood to be disbanded and for lawmakers to distance themselves from the videos. Brat, however, saw no reason the anti-choice violence should affect the conservative crusade to shut down access to reproductive health care. “Principles are principles,” Brat said at the time according to the Huffington Post. “They don’t change on a news cycle.”

Rep. Tim Huelskamp

Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp has been an anti-choice advocate since graduate school, when, according to the biography provided on his website, he was “active in assisting women in crisis pregnancies” while working toward a doctoral degree at American University. His advocacy continued as he made his way to Congress, eventually leading him to become the congressional “Pro-Life Caucus” whip.

Though he has cast plenty of anti-choice votes, the congressman’s most notable moment when it comes to reproductive rights may be a 2012 speech on the House floor, in when he compared abortion to slavery and accused Planned Parenthood and the Obama administration of being racist. “Perhaps the biggest war against our liberties is the war that is being waged against those that are not here today, the unborn,” claimed Huelskamp. “Besides slavery, abortion is the other darkest stain on our nation’s character and this president is looking for every way possible to make abortion more available and more frequent. And he wants you to pay for it. Even if you disagree with it.”

Huelskamp went on to falsely accuse Planned Parenthood of targeting people of color. “I am the adoptive father of four children, each of them either Black, Hispanic, Native American, and I am incensed that this president pays money to an entity that was created for the sole purpose of killing children that look like mine; a racist organization and it continues to target minorities for abortion destruction,” said the congressman. “Shame on this president and shame on that party.”

It wouldn’t be the last time Huelskamp exploited race in order to promote his anti-choice agenda. In 2015, the Kansas Representative lashed out at those who accepted awards from Planned Parenthood, tweeting that they were supporting a “racist” agenda.

Rep. Mark Meadows

Rep. Mark Meadows, who has a 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee, co-sponsored anti-choice measures such as the House’s 2015 fetal pain bill, the 2015 Life at Conception Act, and the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2016 (PRENDA). He also once badgered a pregnant doctor testifying during a House committee hearing about the importance of offering maternity coverage through the Affordable Care Act. However, the congressman’s recent vendetta against Planned Parenthood stands out the most.

In July 2015, in the wake of CMP’s deceptively edited videos, Meadows latched onto the discredited films in order to justify defunding Planned Parenthood. “In addition to cutting funding for abortion providers, I strongly urge Congress to investigate the legality of the practices engaged in by Planned Parenthood,” said Meadows at the time.

In September, as Congress faced the looming threat of a possible government shutdown if they didn’t pass a budget bill, Meadows exploited the opportunity to push for Planned Parenthood to be defunded, no matter the cost. With the South Carolina congressman leading the charge, pressure from conservatives to pull funding for the reproductive health-care provider played a role in prompting then-House Speaker John Boehner to resign his position. Meadows was a co-sponsor of the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015, which passed in the House as part of a compromise to narrowly escape the shutdown. 

But Meadows’ quest to attack Planned Parenthood didn’t end there. In September, the congressman also participated in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s hearing to “examine the use of taxpayer funding” by Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, a sham hearing used by the GOP to repeatedly push misinformation about the organization.

Rep. Scott Desjarlais

Rep. Scott Desjarlais, a medical doctor, is perhaps best known for his attempt to pressure his patient, with whom he was having an affair, into having an abortion when she became pregnant. While the congressman has repeatedly run on his anti-abortion credentials, his divorce papers also revealed he had supported his wife in having two abortions. Politico‘s Chas Sisk labeled DeJarlais  “the biggest hypocrite in Congress.”

Desjarlais made headlines again in 2015 for voting for a later abortion ban. A spokesperson for the Tennessee Republican told the Times Free Press that the vote was in accordance with the congressman’s record:

“Congressman DesJarlais was proud to vote in favor of this legislation,” said his spokesman Robert Jameson, who added that DesJarlais has maintained a “100 percent pro-life voting record” during his five years in Congress and “has always advocated for pro-life values.”

Indiana State Sen. Jim Banks

Indiana state Sen. Jim Banks (R-Columbia City) is one of the few candidates backed by the House Freedom Fund that has yet to win federal office, but his time in the state legislature has given him more than ample opportunity to demonstrate his opposition to reproductive health and rights.

Banks’ campaign website highlights the candidate’s “pro-life” position as a key issue for his race for the House, providing an extensive record of his anti-choice credentials and claiming that he is “running for Congress so that northeast Indiana continues to have a strong voice for innocent lives in Washington, D.C.” That page includes a laundry list of campaign promises, including amending the U.S. Constitution to give a fetus legal human rights, which could outlaw abortion and many forms of contraception; banning federal funding for abortion, though such a ban already exists; eliminating federal funding for any organization that performs abortions domestically or abroad; and opposing any change to the Republican platform on abortion.

The state senator’s site goes on to suggest that “it has been far too long since the Supreme Court discovered that women have a ‘right’ to have an abortion,” lamenting that much of the anti-choice movement’s work to shutter access to abortion in state legislatures hasn’t been replicated on a federal level and promising to address the issue if elected.

Included in his anti-choice resumé is a note that both Banks and his wife have been working in the movement to oppose choice since graduating college, when the two joined Focus on the Family, an organization that has spent millions of dollars promoting its extreme agenda, even devoting $2.5 million to run an anti-abortion ad during the 2010 Super Bowl. The two also worked together on the Allen County Right to Life Board of Directors, and Banks’ wife, Amanda, remains the board’s vice president.

But most extreme of all was the legislation Banks spearheaded while in the state legislature, which included several targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) measures. Most recently the state senator sponsored Indiana’s SB 144, a bill that would modify the state’s 20-week abortion ban to outlaw the procedure once a fetal heartbeat could be detected, typically around six weeks’ gestation. In a statement on the bill, Banks claimed the law was needed because it “would protect unborn Hoosiers’ right to life and also includes important women’s health protections.”

Commentary Human Rights

The Catch-22 of Hiding Your Mental Illness

Katie Klabusich

By staying silent, even for good reasons, we unintentionally perpetuate the assumptions that mental illness equals disruptive behavior, potential violence, and a hostile work environment, because most people aren’t given the opportunity to personally experience a mentally ill person being competent.

“But you don’t seem sick.”

It’s delivered with the tone of a compliment almost every time. I don’t seem like the kind of person who has a mental illness: someone broken and unstable, borderline competent at best. Or two. Or three. With a fourth diagnosis pending. I seem capable and intelligent and professional—all words that, according to depictions put forth by society and the media, don’t sync with the phrase “mentally ill.”

Many of us whose conditions don’t require treatment that causes extended work absences, like periodic hospital stays, remain hidden for personal and career reasons. We rightly fear retribution or discrimination at work, and being seen as broken or incompetent in our personal lives. But by staying silent, even for good reasons, we unintentionally perpetuate the assumptions that mental illness equals disruptive behavior, potential violence, and a hostile work environment, because most people aren’t given the opportunity to personally experience a mentally ill person being competent. Instead, they’re left with media and fictional depictions that paint us as dangerous and volatile, thus further incentivizing us to stay hidden.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

“So, what do you have?”

If this question were asked by loved ones who wanted to learn what I need, rather than being unhelpful bystanders by asking unnecessary, potentially harmful emotional labor of me, I would respond with kindness. But this is the sort of question asked by everyone from potential partners to employers and contractors who want to know what they’re getting into by inviting me into their lives. When I answer that I have been diagnosed with extreme, disability-level attention deficit disorder (ADHD), dysthymia (intermittent, chronic depression), anxiety, and likely post-traumatic stress disorder, people cringe because that’s more than a mouthful. Even people who incorrectly assume those are all fixable conditions that I can get over or learn to live with think—and say—things like: “Wow, that’s…a lot.”

Having to repeatedly disclose, educate, make promises about our competency, and ask for understanding from those around us are some of the things that are actually a lot for people with mental illnesses. We cannot constantly shoulder this along with our already packed schedules balancing doctors’ appointments, trips to the pharmacy, and tracking medications and side effects. And those are the mere inconveniences (and expenses) for those of us who have access to decent mental health care. The Affordable Care Act reduced insurance discrimination, but has left predictable, sizable gaps in care for many of us, according to the National Institutes of Health and backed up by reporting at The Washington Post, U.S. News and World Report, USA Today, the New York Times, Newsweek—name the outlet, it has likely published on it over the last four years.

The hurdles that are more challenging to report on because they are cultural and systemic are the myriad ways disclosing our mental health conditions can affect how we are treated in personal relationships as well as the workplace.

As I dealt with poverty over the years, my friends and family—and even my employers in the service industry—mostly attributed my struggles with timing and economic issues in the country at large. I was committed to the “making it work” life philosophy. I woke up every day and begrudgingly grabbed my bootstraps and pulled till I fell down. People said things like “Oh, she always lands on her feet!”—as though that’s effortless, not a perpetual conscious effort to never burn bridges and be a reliable employee. I maintained my competent reputation, one I depended on to make sure I always had enough work to pay rent. I couldn’t have risked taking time off to see doctors and therapists, even if my insurance before the ACA would’ve covered it.

For a long time, I also didn’t want to be officially labeled “mentally ill.” The reality of a “permanent record” may be overblown by our grade school experiences, but the concept is still very much true thanks to employee reviews, medical records, and the like. Once you’re labeled, you’re labeled. There’s no guarantee, even if you like your current boss, that you’ll like their replacement and you risk co-workers finding out and treating you like you’re broken or possibly dangerous.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) may require “employers to provide reasonable accommodations” for those of us who are qualified to do a job, but that requires disclosing diagnoses with massive stigma to potential and current employers. It also often requires having a diagnosis that’s recognized as a disability under the law.

The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) guidelines say: “A reasonable accommodation may be obtained for any condition that would, if left untreated, ‘substantially limit’ one or more major life activities, which include brain/neurological functions and activities such as communicating, concentrating, eating, sleeping, regulating thoughts or emotions, caring for oneself, and interacting with others.” However, the diagnoses that come with federal disability status—major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia—are typically more recognizable as conditions requiring accommodations. My “less serious” conditions have been easily brushed off by employers and contractors. Everyone has been distracted, felt sad, and been nervous before a presentation, leading many to think my ADHD, dysthymia, and anxiety are passing rather than constant. Sure, I have easier days and rougher days, but I don’t “get over it” and there’s no magic cure—trust me, I’ve looked for one. It’s a long road to a modest level of wellness and some days it straight-up sucks.

Because my conditions are ongoing, and federal law says I don’t have to experience symptoms while I’m actively being treated for my illnesses in order to receive “reasonable accommodations,” it shouldn’t matter if I never feel anxious or nauseated or dizzy. But, I have yet to have an employer or contractor who cared that the EEOC recognizes the way a cubicle setting around other people or required, unnecessary, near-constant engagement with co-workers causes me to basically feel like I’m coming apart at the seams.

“A condition does not have to result in a high degree of functional limitation to be ‘substantially limiting,’” according to the EEOC. “It may qualify by, for example, making activities more difficult, uncomfortable, or time-consuming to perform compared to the way that most people perform them.”

Under this interpretation, I would also seem to qualify for accommodations to mitigate medication side effects that cause about 45 minutes of dizziness in the morning and difficulty focusing even with treatment. When I was working jobs without paid time off, the need for mid-morning breaks to lie down and ride out side effects would have been laughed off. So, instead, I, like many others, stayed hidden.

Eventually, my day-to-day frustrations felt impossible to hide. Talking about my anxiety on Twitter became a coping mechanism. And once I started the process of seeking treatment I realized how complicated and hard it was; I found a lot of relief writing about it openly through the feedback from others who feel less alone, weird, and overloaded with self-blame.

This has gone hand-in-hand with my transition to freelance work. When I’m at home, I can work from my bed and not have much disruption in my schedule. This would be impossible in any typical work environment. I can eat on a schedule dictated by my medications (some have to be taken on an empty stomach, others with food); take a nap if nightmares kept me up; shut off communication to keep from being overloaded; and somewhat control my schedule to make time for doctors’ appointments. I fear new medication side effects less because I don’t have to worry whether or not I’ll be able to drive to or from work, sit up for a full eight- to ten-hour day, or be extremely thirsty. Drinking water constantly also means a stretch of frequent bathroom trips—less of an annoyance at home.

Working from home can’t solve all my problems, though, because I still have to work with and for other people. I can’t tend to every need, for example; I had to reschedule my psychiatrist and therapist last week to write on deadline. Even as a freelancer, I’ve heard plenty of microaggressions and ableist comments: “Why is that taking you so long?”—with no words of appreciation for how much more quickly my neurobiology processes other tasks. I’ve had my need to turn off communication when no tasks were scheduled for one contractor so I could meet other deadlines held against me. For some, having a message app on constantly might not cause problems; for me, it created a perpetual spike in my anxiety.

Still, I was held accountable for someone else’s inability to plan ahead, rather than given an apology for an attempt to interrupt me while I was tending to other work. Because I don’t “seem sick,” and I do good work, I’m expected to go above and beyond to take on tasks that aren’t in my job description or overload myself.

As a consequence of staying hidden, our performance and participation at work and in life suffer even while we manage to “pass” and be seen as “fine” or “normal.” And because we suffer in silence, should any additional complication or symptom—or simply our finally having had enough of dealing with being miserable—lead us to finally seek care, we can have trouble being believed. We experience the ultimate Catch-22: We are seen as just capable enough that we aren’t believed, while being criticized or ostracized when we can’t conform to neurotypical (not affected with a developmental disorder) culture.

This can even bleed over into our doctors’ offices; most screening questions from primary care physicians (still the gatekeepers in our insurance-based medical system) center around symptoms that cause life disruptions. If we have managed too well for too long, no matter how we felt internally, we can be brushed off or receive inaccurate diagnoses. Nearly every conceivable iteration of this has happened to me. I’ve had misdiagnoses, missed diagnoses, revised diagnoses and had to plead my case to get someone—anyone—to maintain my prescriptions after a move while I shopped for a psychiatrist in my new area.

There is no easy fix for these challenges and discrimination; culture change through awareness, education, and workplace trainings will take time and we have to demand them. We need better enforcement of existing EEOC guidelines and ADA law as well as a concerted effort from employers to provide better working conditions. Company-wide flex time, work from home options, and paid personal leave are all policies typically thought of as “family-friendly” that would help everyone and make accommodations largely unnecessary. When everyone can take the time they need, those whose flexibility requirements are tied to a mental illness wouldn’t stand out or be subject to disciplinary action if they chose not to disclose their condition. And as more of those of us who do choose to disclose come forward about our lived experiences, we become a powerful advocacy bloc able to insist on more inclusive, supportive workplace policies.