“Care is an organizational structure needed to keep our nation running.” “Care work makes all other work possible.”

Care is an organizational structure needed to keep our nation running. It’s, by definition, infrastructure.

Source: Molly Doris-Pierce on Twitter

Putting care—not just care work, but care—at the center of our economy, our politics, is to orient ourselves around our interdependence.

Source: The Year That Broke Care Work | The New Republic

care work makes all other work possible

Source: Care for All Agenda

I added those quotes to my Just Sayin’ collection in a new section on care.

I love how the Biden administration is centering care and pushing for HCBS (Home and Community Based Services) funding, especially after an administration that centered cruelty and left the HCBS system on the brink of collapse.

President Trump and Sen. McConnell’s relief bills contained no funding for HCBS, leaving the system on the brink of collapse. The most recent relief bill, the American Rescue Plan, contains $12 billion for HCBS, and advocates weren’t even certain the money would be in there until late in the process. Historically, home care and disability services in general simply haven’t been a priority, under Democrats and Republicans. Under President Joe Biden, that appears to have changed, as $400 billion is more than any of the advocates I spoke to had hoped for or expected.

Source: Biden Plan Would Allow People Needing Care to Stay at Home – The American Prospect

Deinstitutionalization and HCBS services are the biggest priorities of the neurodiversity and disability rights movements. That $400 billion is desperately needed.

Interdependence and care are good framing and good centering. Design is tested at the edges, where care is most needed. This $400 billion is a very welcome recognition of all that. Cheers to all the advocates and policy workers who got us to where this is even a possibility.

I’ve been rabbitholing, lately, on eugenics, particularly on what I call the cradle-to-grave eugenics of our current systems, contrasting that with the bioarchaeology of compassion and care. During my journey, this line jumped out to me as a disabled and neurodivergent parent of disabled and neurodivergent kids:

“[O]ur system punishes you for not practicing eugenics by not providing a social safety net.”

By not providing care.

When care is not infrastructure, when we are not oriented around our interdependence, we generate ableism and eugenics.

But if you’re killing an entire person to get rid of a non-communicable health condition, maybe think on why you’d feel the need for that. Is it for the good of the child? Is it for the greater good? How do you define that? Maybe it’s because our current system places greater value on a certain type of person? Maybe it’s because our system punishes you for not practicing eugenics by not providing a social safety net.

Source: Neoliberal Eugenics 1: Selective Abortion – Leslie’s Blog

What will future archaeologists of our care make of us? Let’s unlearn the individualism myths and politics of resentment engrained in us, center care, and celebrate our interdependence.

The notion of disability in our society is underscored by a bizarre conception of “independence”.

It is time to celebrate our interdependence!

Source: The Myth of Independence: How The Social Model of Disability Exposes Society’s Double Standards » NeuroClastic

We are dying for you to widen your lens.

Republicans have balked at the idea that infrastructure encompasses caregiving. “We’re up against a gender and racial bias that this work is not worth as much as the rubber, steel and auto work of the past century,” Mary Kay Henry, president of SEIU, told The Washington Post. “The key job right now is we have to in the public imagination and in the congressional debate widen the lens, so that people understand that investment in caregiving is an investment in infrastructure.”

Source: Biden Plan Would Allow People Needing Care to Stay at Home – The American Prospect

Previously:

Cradle-to-Grave Eugenics: Selective Abortion, Assisted Suicide, and Structural Ableism

Because before we talk about death with dignity for disabled and ill people, we need to achieve life with dignity for disabled and ill people.

People don’t make the choice to die in a vacuum. Many of the worst parts of living with a disability — Isolation, being homebound, being a burden that family has to struggle to care for — those are all failures in disability service delivery, not things inherent to the condition.

Source: Sara Luterman of The NOS-Letter

But this concept of “dignity” still comes with an ableist miasma.

Remember that our judgments about the quality of life have nothing to do with the value of life.

By claiming there is no “quality of life” for a person who must have carers, who can’t work, or who may otherwise not be accepted by society, they also claim there is no value to their lives. However, if you talk to disabled and neurodivergent people, they don’t seem to be of that opinion. Not one bit.

Whatever our societal notions of quality are, they have nothing to do with how much a person values their own life or even how valuable their lives are to society.

Source: Neoliberal Eugenics 2: Euthanasia – YouTube

Transcript: Neoliberal Eugenics 2: Euthanasia – Leslie’s Blog

A recent Jacobin article on assisted suicide—that doesn’t mention ableism by name once—has socialists sounding like capitalists, joined in ignorance of disability, neurodiversity, and the social model. A thread among disabled and neurodivergent people discussing the article brought to my attention these two videos on neoliberal eugenics that socialists and capitalists and all those in between need to view.

So much disability activism has to focus on proving our lives are valuable.

If I may jump back to babies, I think many parents, when they elect to abort disabled babies, do so because they had specific ableist ideas about who their child would be before it was ever born. They can’t live with the perceived loss of these imaginary opportunities.

Too many parents aren’t ready to change their conception of what a life “ought” to be and have a restrictive notion of parenting that doesn’t respect their child’s autonomy.

Source: Neoliberal Eugenics 2: Euthanasia – YouTube

Truth, truth, and truth.

If a baby is born disabled (or LGBT), many parents think they must “mourn” the loss of hypothetical “perfect” child rather than accept their child for who they really are.

Don’t mourn for us. And don’t eliminate us from the gene pool. Even if value of life arguments don’t move you, we’re here for reasons.

But if you’re killing an entire person to get rid of a non-communicable health condition, maybe think on why you’d feel the need for that. Is it for the good of the child? Is it for the greater good? How do you define that? Maybe it’s because our current system places greater value on a certain type of person? Maybe it’s because our system punishes you for not practicing eugenics by not providing a social safety net.

Source: Neoliberal Eugenics 1: Selective Abortion – Leslie’s Blog

“Maybe it’s because our system punishes you for not practicing eugenics by not providing a social safety net.”

Oh how I feel that line. Our system forces you into continuous ableist dehumanization of yourself and your kids to access a bad semblance of the right to learn differently, work differently, and live differently. From selective abortion to assisted suicide, the process is cradle-to-grave.

What you can’t know unless you have #disability is how all the paperwork chips away at your soul.

Every box you tick, every sentence about your “impairment” and “needs” becomes part of the narrative of your identity…

— Gill Loomes-Quinn (@GillLoomesQuinn) April 9, 2018

Via:

Previously,

Google, Autism Speaks, and NAUWU

Even Google fails to Google Autism Speaks (or show the slightest awareness of the neurodiversity and disability right movements) before partnering with them in eugenics and abuse against a neurominority.

https://www.newsweek.com/autism-speaks-partnering-google-cure-autism-sparks-backlash-1580272

Last time I wrote about Google, they were silencing marginalized voices and disrespecting NAUWU principles (Nothing About Us Without Us). Partnering with Autism Speaks is a move to be expected of such an organization.

If Google had autistic employees advising on this, it wouldn’t have happened. Do they not have a Neurodiversity ERG to consult? Did they fire all the ethicists who can see eugenics when it’s right there in their face?

That Twitter thread is full of resources on the problems with Autism Speaks and examples of the rhetoric we autistic people face when warning about Autism Speaks.