Rights & Civil Liberties

Federal law prohibits any state or federal ban on gender-affirming medical care — including hormone therapy and surgery — for adults when prescribed by a licensed healthcare provider. This position also bans forced detransition and requires insurance plans, including Medicaid and Medicare, to cover gender-affirming care.

Federal prohibition on bans of gender-affirming care for adults; ban on forced detransition; insurance coverage mandate

No state or federal law may prohibit adults from accessing gender-affirming medical care — including hormone therapy, surgical interventions, and related treatments — prescribed by a licensed healthcare provider; no government actor may compel an individual to detransition, discontinue gender-affirming care, or revert to a prior gender expression; private health insurance, employer-sponsored insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare must cover gender-affirming care under the same terms and cost-sharing applicable to other medically necessary care; enforcement includes a private right of action against insurance plan violations and state prohibition enactments.

Every major medical association — including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and Endocrine Society — recognizes gender-affirming care as evidence-based, medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria. Over 20 states have enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors; some have extended those restrictions to adults or created chilling effects on adult care access. The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Skrmetti (2025) permitted Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors under rational basis review, exposing adult care bans to the same legal theory. While RGHT-BODS-0004 protects the right to access gender-affirming care generally, this rule adds specific enforcement mechanisms not covered there: the insurance coverage mandate, the forced-detransition prohibition, and individual private rights of action against violating entities. Cross-reference: RGHT-BODS-0004 (right to gender-affirming care); RGHT-EQTS-0005 (Equality Act); RGHT-STAS-0002 (statutory LGBTQ+ protections).

This position requires Congress to pass the Equality Act — comprehensive federal legislation that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations, education, and jury service. It closes the gaps in current law that leave LGBTQ+ people unprotected in large parts of the country.

Equality Act: comprehensive federal LGBTQ+ non-discrimination statute covering employment, housing, credit, public accommodations, education, jury service, and federally funded programs

Congress must enact comprehensive federal legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations, education, jury service, and all federally funded programs; the statute must include a private right of action with compensatory and punitive damages and mandatory fee-shifting to prevailing plaintiffs; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act may not be used as a defense against third-party discrimination claims under this statute; enforcement through both the Department of Justice and private plaintiffs is required.

The Equality Act, introduced in multiple congressional sessions, would provide comprehensive federal LGBTQ+ non-discrimination protection. RGHT-STAS-0002 codifies Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) across existing statutes; the Equality Act goes further by creating an affirmative, standalone non-discrimination framework that explicitly covers credit (Equal Credit Opportunity Act), jury service, and all federally funded programs — domains not covered by the existing statutory framework. LGBTQ+ people, and especially transgender people, face documented discrimination in mortgage lending and credit access. The jury service provision prevents the exclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals from jury pools based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The RFRA bar codifies the principle in RGHT-RELS-0006 in the specific discrimination context: one person's religious exercise does not authorize harm to third parties in the marketplace or government programs. Cross-reference: RGHT-STAS-0002 (Bostock codification); RGHT-RELS-0006 (no religious exemption harming third parties); RGHT-EQTS-0001 through 0004.

This position guarantees every person the federal right to update the gender marker on their passport, Social Security records, and all other federal documents by self-attestation alone — no surgery, hormone treatment, or court order required. Federal agencies must process these updates within 30 days.

Federal right to update gender marker on all federal documents by self-attestation; no surgery, hormone treatment, or court order required; 30-day processing standard

Every person has a federal right to update the gender marker on passports, Social Security records, and all other federal documents by self-attestation alone, without requirement of surgery, hormone treatment, physician certification, or court order; states receiving federal funding must process gender marker updates on birth certificates and state identification documents within 30 days of request without imposing surgical or medical requirements; denial, delay beyond 30 days, or imposition of medical requirements constitutes a federal civil rights violation enforceable through a private right of action.

The Biden administration updated State Department and Social Security Administration policies to allow gender marker updates without surgery and introduced an X gender marker option — policies that the Trump administration reversed in 2025. State policies vary dramatically: some allow easy self-attestation while others require surgery or court orders. RGHT-IDNS-0002 establishes the general principle of no abusive barriers; this rule converts that principle into specific, actionable legal standards: the legal standard is self-attestation, the processing timeline is 30 days, and federal preemption ensures consistent protection regardless of state of residence. The combination of federal document rights and federally conditioned state document rights closes the gap between constitutional principle and practical access. Cross-reference: RGHT-IDNS-0001 through 0003 (identity rights); RGHT-BODS-0007 and 0008 (no sterilization requirement); RGHT-EQTS-0005 (Equality Act).

This position requires government agencies to obtain a warrant before accessing data from smart home devices — like voice assistants, security cameras, and smart thermostats. It also prohibits device manufacturers from voluntarily sharing user data with the government, and gives people the right to sue if this rule is violated.

Warrant requirement for government access to smart home and IoT device data; prohibition on manufacturer voluntary disclosure; private right of action

Government agencies must obtain a warrant based on probable cause before accessing data generated by smart home devices — including voice assistants, smart thermostats, security cameras, health monitors, and any internet-connected device in or near the home; device manufacturers and service providers must not voluntarily disclose smart home device data to government actors without legal process; upon receiving any government request for smart home data, the manufacturer must notify the device owner within 30 days unless a court orders delayed notification for a stated period of time; a private right of action for unlawful government access or unauthorized manufacturer disclosure applies.

Smart home devices generate an unprecedented record of life inside the home: conversations, movement patterns, health metrics, daily routines, visitor presence, and sleep patterns. Law enforcement has obtained voice assistant recordings through manufacturer subpoenas and voluntary disclosure. The Supreme Court's holding in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), established that using technology to detect activity inside a home without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment; smart home device data is far more revealing than thermal imaging and requires no less protection. The third-party doctrine as currently interpreted might allow manufacturer data disclosure without constitutional barrier (see RGHT-TECS-0003); this rule ensures that the home's constitutional privacy floor — the strongest protection in Fourth Amendment doctrine — applies to data generated within the home regardless of the service provider relationship. Cross-reference: RGHT-TECS-0002 (digital warrant requirement); RGHT-TECS-0003 (third-party doctrine reform); RGHT-PRIV-0001 (explicit right to privacy).

This position requires Congress to pass a federal law making clear that public school employees may not lead, sponsor, or conduct prayer or religious instruction during school activities. Students retain the right to pray privately, but no government employee may pressure or encourage religious activity during the school day — and anyone harmed by violations can sue in federal court.

Statutory codification of Establishment Clause prohibition on school-sponsored prayer and religious instruction; student private religious expression protected; private right of action

Congress must enact a federal statute codifying that public school employees acting in their official capacity may not lead, sponsor, encourage, or conduct prayer, religious devotion, or religious instruction during school activities or school-sponsored events; school districts must not schedule mandatory or de-facto-compulsory religious events; student-initiated, privately organized, genuinely voluntary religious expression during non-instructional time is fully protected; the statute must include a private right of action for students and families affected by violations, with mandatory fee-shifting to prevailing plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court's decisions in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) established constitutional prohibitions on school-sponsored prayer and Bible reading. The Court's decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) — which held that a football coach's post-game prayers on the field were protected private expression — has created doctrinal uncertainty enabling school officials to blur the line between government-sponsored and private religious exercise. Statutory codification with a private right of action closes the enforcement gap: students and families must have a federal remedy when school officials violate Establishment Clause principles without relying solely on constitutional litigation costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and years to resolve. The protection of student-initiated voluntary prayer is explicit: the platform's position is freedom of religion and freedom from religion, not hostility to religious practice. Cross-reference: RGHT-RELS-0001 (freedom of religion); RGHT-RELS-0002 (freedom from religion); RGHT-RELS-0006 (religious exemptions and third-party harm).

This position prohibits granting religious exemptions from laws — including anti-discrimination laws and healthcare mandates — when those exemptions would shift a burden or harm onto someone else. The right to religious freedom ends where it forces other people to pay the price for your beliefs.

No religious exemption may impose costs on a third party: exemptions from anti-discrimination law, healthcare mandates, or public accommodations obligations prohibited when a third party bears the burden

Religious exemptions from generally applicable federal laws — including anti-discrimination laws, healthcare coverage mandates, and public accommodations obligations — must not be granted when the exemption imposes a material cost, burden, or harm on an identifiable third party; the government's compelling interest in protecting third parties from discrimination, denial of healthcare, or unequal treatment in the public marketplace outweighs any claimed burden on the exemption-seeker's religious exercise when the cost of that exercise falls on someone else; RFRA may not be invoked as a defense against claims brought by or on behalf of a harmed third party.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, requires that government actions substantially burdening religious exercise must satisfy strict scrutiny. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014), the Supreme Court held that RFRA permitted for-profit employers to claim a religious exemption from the ACA contraception coverage mandate, effectively requiring employees to bear the cost of their employer's religious beliefs. In 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023), the Court held that a web designer's First Amendment rights permitted refusal to serve same-sex couples. These decisions opened a path by which religious exercise claims systematically eliminate the civil rights of third parties. The principle that RFRA was not intended to be used as a sword against third parties is well-established in the legislative history; this rule codifies that principle into statute. Cross-reference: RGHT-RELS-0003 (religion not an excuse for abuse); RGHT-SPHS-0003 (religious freedom not a license to discriminate); RGHT-EQTS-0005 (Equality Act RFRA bar).

This position prohibits federal money from being used for religious education, worship, or proselytizing at faith-based organizations. Any religious group receiving federal funds for social services must offer a secular (non-religious) alternative to anyone who requests one, without penalty or delay.

Strict scrutiny for government funding of religious institutions; prohibition on direct funding of religious education and worship; secular alternative requirement for social services

Federal funding to religious institutions must not be used for religious education, proselytization, or worship activities; religious organizations receiving federal social services funding must offer a meaningful secular alternative to any beneficiary who requests one, provided without delay, penalty, or stigma; religious schools receiving federal funds through voucher or school choice programs must comply with all federal non-discrimination requirements applicable to public schools as a condition of receiving those funds; a private right of action is available to beneficiaries denied secular alternatives or subjected to proselytization in federally funded programs.

The Supreme Court's decisions in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) and Carson v. Makin (2022) have progressively required that states funding private secular schools also fund private religious schools, substantially narrowing Establishment Clause limitations on government funding of religion. Federal Charitable Choice provisions enacted since 1996 nominally require secular alternatives for social services recipients; in practice, secular alternatives are often unavailable, underfunded, or geographically inaccessible. This rule addresses the gap between nominal compliance and genuine alternatives, and ensures federal money does not pay for religious instruction or condition the receipt of social services on exposure to religious activity. Non-discrimination conditions on voucher-funded religious schools ensure that federal education funding does not subsidize discrimination against LGBTQ+ students, students with disabilities, or students of other faiths. Cross-reference: RGHT-RELS-0001 (freedom of religion); RGHT-RELS-0002 (freedom from religion); RGHT-RELS-0006 (third-party harm from religious exemptions).

This position bans federal law enforcement from using facial recognition to identify people in public spaces without a specific warrant naming the person being sought. It also places a moratorium on all state and local law enforcement use of facial recognition for identification until federal standards are established, and gives people the right to sue if they are wrongfully identified.

Federal law enforcement ban on facial recognition for identification in public spaces; moratorium on state and local use pending federal standards; private right of action

Federal law enforcement agencies must not use facial recognition technology to identify individuals in public spaces absent an individualized warrant based on probable cause specifying the person sought; a moratorium on all state and local law enforcement use of facial recognition for identification is imposed until Congress enacts minimum accuracy, bias auditing, due process, and transparency standards; any government entity using facial recognition for identification must publish annual accuracy and demographic-disparity audits; individuals identified through unlawful use of facial recognition have a private right of action for damages and injunctive relief.

NIST's Face Recognition Vendor Testing program has documented that facial recognition systems produce error rates disproportionately high for Black individuals, women, and dark-skinned people. Multiple wrongful arrests attributable to facial recognition misidentification have been documented, including Robert Williams (Detroit, 2020), Michael Oliver (Detroit, 2019), and Nijeer Parks (New Jersey, 2019). At least 24 cities and several states have enacted local bans on government facial recognition use. While RGHT-TECS-0007 prohibits mass real-time biometric scanning of public spaces and requires an individualized court order for biometric identification generally, this rule adds specificity for facial recognition: a categorical law enforcement ban without warrant, an affirmative moratorium on state and local use pending federal minimum standards, and mandatory public accuracy audits as a condition of any permitted use. Federal standards prevent a patchwork in which residents of states without bans remain exposed. Cross-reference: RGHT-TECS-0007 (mass biometric surveillance prohibition); RGHT-TECS-0002 (digital warrant requirement); RGHT-TECS-0009 (compelled biometric unlock).

This position prohibits the government from forcing anyone to unlock their phone or device using a fingerprint, face scan, or other biometric identifier without a warrant. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination — which protects people from being forced to give up passwords — applies equally to biometric unlocking.

Fifth Amendment protection against compelled biometric device unlock codified; statutory right to deletion of biometric data; private right of action

No government actor may compel an individual to unlock a device using a biometric identifier — fingerprint, face scan, iris scan, voice print, or any other biometric authenticator — without a warrant supported by probable cause; the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to compelled biometric authentication equivalently to compelled passcode disclosure; individuals have a statutory right to demand deletion of biometric data held by any commercial entity that collected it, exercisable at any time; requests for deletion must be honored within 30 days; private right of action for compelled biometric unlock without warrant and for failure to delete on request.

Federal courts are split on whether the Fifth Amendment protects against compelled biometric device unlock. Some courts have held that compelling a fingerprint unlock is a non-testimonial physical act; others have held that compelling a face scan is testimonial because it asserts that the depicted face belongs to the defendant. This split requires legislative resolution — the constitutional protection must apply identically regardless of whether the authenticator is a numeric passcode, fingerprint, face, iris, or voice. Compelled biometric authentication is more intrusive than compelled passcode disclosure because the biometric credential is tied permanently to the body and cannot be changed if compromised. The right-to-deletion provision complements RGHT-TECS-0007 (biometric consent) by ensuring collected biometric data cannot be retained indefinitely after its stated collection purpose expires. Cross-reference: RGHT-TECS-0007 (mass biometric surveillance and consent); RGHT-TECS-0008 (facial recognition ban); RGHT-PRIV-0001 (right to privacy).

This position prohibits federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies from conducting ongoing or bulk surveillance of domestic political organizations, advocacy groups, religious institutions, unions, or civil society groups based on their political or religious viewpoints. This kind of surveillance — used historically against civil rights organizations — is banned.

Prohibition on programmatic surveillance of domestic political, advocacy, religious, and civil society organizations without individualized warrants

No federal law enforcement or intelligence agency may conduct programmatic, ongoing, or bulk surveillance of domestic political organizations, advocacy groups, religious institutions, labor unions, or civil society organizations on the basis of their political viewpoint, religious beliefs, or advocacy activities; any surveillance of such an organization must be authorized by an individualized warrant based on probable cause of specific criminal activity, not association with a disfavored viewpoint; infiltration or informant placement into domestic organizations on a viewpoint basis is prohibited; confirmed violations trigger a private right of action and mandatory congressional notification within 30 days.

The FBI's COINTELPRO program (1956–1971) systematically surveilled, infiltrated, and disrupted domestic civil rights, socialist, and anti-war organizations through techniques that would have been clearly unconstitutional if applied to individuals. Since 2001, documented surveillance programs have targeted Muslim mosques and organizations, Black Lives Matter, environmental advocacy groups, and anti-war activists without individualized criminal predicate. The First Amendment protects the right to hold political and religious beliefs and to organize collectively; programmatic surveillance of organizations on the basis of their viewpoint is incompatible with those protections and chills political participation. RGHT-TECS-0004 reforms FISA and Section 702 for foreign intelligence collection; this rule applies the same individualized-warrant requirement to domestic law enforcement and makes explicit that organizations — not only individuals — are entitled to Fourth and First Amendment protection from surveillance. Cross-reference: RGHT-TECS-0004 (FISA reform); RGHT-SPHS-0002 (protest rights); RGHT-PRIV-0001 (right to privacy).

This position requires Congress to repeal the law that allows employers to pay workers with disabilities below the federal minimum wage — in some cases just pennies per hour. This subminimum wage, which dates to 1938, must be phased out over three years, with support to help affected workers and employers transition to full-wage employment.

Abolish Subminimum Wage: Repeal Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act

Congress must repeal Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act — which since 1938 has permitted employers holding "special wage certificates" to pay workers with disabilities below the federal minimum wage, in some cases as little as pennies per hour — and must: (1) establish a 3-year phase-out period during which: (a) no new Section 14(c) certificates may be issued; (b) all existing certificates must be reduced to no less than 50% of the applicable minimum wage in year 1, 75% in year 2, and 100% in year 3; (2) appropriate $2 billion over 5 years for transition support, including: supported employment conversions, job coaching, individualized placement services, and capacity grants to states to expand competitive integrated employment infrastructure; (3) require all states receiving Section 14(c) transition funds to demonstrate annual progress toward competitive integrated employment for workers previously in subminimum wage settings; (4) establish a private right of action for any worker paid below minimum wage under a Section 14(c) certificate, with back pay, treble damages, and attorney's fees; and (5) direct the DOL to audit and prosecute any employer that continues to use subminimum wage structures through misclassification or informal arrangements after the phase-out period.

Approximately 120,000 workers with disabilities are employed at subminimum wages under Section 14(c) certificates, with some earning as little as $0.25 per hour.^[10] Studies consistently show that workers with disabilities in competitive integrated employment earn more, report higher job satisfaction, and achieve greater community integration than those in sheltered workshop settings.

This position requires the Social Security Administration to process all new disability benefit claims within 90 days. People waiting for disability benefits often wait years while facing financial ruin; this position mandates adequate funding to clear that backlog and sets monthly accountability deadlines to keep it cleared.

Eliminate SSDI Processing Backlogs

Congress must appropriate sufficient funding to the Social Security Administration to: (1) resolve all initial SSDI and SSI disability claims within 90 days of application — the SSA must publish monthly data on average processing times by state and adjudicator and must cure any office exceeding 90 days within one year; (2) resolve all appeals at the hearing level within 180 days — eliminating the multi-year backlogs that currently leave hundreds of thousands of applicants waiting years for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge; (3) hire and train sufficient ALJs and staff to maintain these timelines on an ongoing basis; (4) require that no AI system, automated scoring tool, or algorithmic model may deny a disability claim or override medical evidence without human review by a qualified disability adjudicator — AI tools may be used to assist but not to make final determinations; (5) require SSA to provide applicants with a written explanation of any denial, including the specific medical evidence considered and the specific findings made, sufficient for the applicant to meaningfully appeal; and (6) establish a private right of action for any applicant whose claim is not adjudicated within the required timeline, with a right to mandamus relief in federal district court to compel timely action.

As of recent years, the SSDI appeals backlog has exceeded 1 million pending cases, with average wait times of 18 months or more for a hearing.^[11] Disability determinations are often made by state Disability Determination Services agencies without the applicant's treating physician being consulted.

This position eliminates the abrupt cutoff in Social Security disability benefits that punishes disabled workers for earning above a set monthly threshold. Instead of losing all benefits at once for earning a modest amount, benefits would phase out gradually — encouraging work without putting people at financial risk.

Eliminate the SSDI Earnings Cliff

Congress must reform the Social Security Disability Insurance earnings rules to eliminate the "earnings cliff" that punishes disabled workers for earning above the Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA) threshold: (1) replace the current SGA cutoff — which abruptly terminates benefits when a disabled worker earns above approximately $1,550/month — with a gradual benefit phase-out under which SSDI benefits are reduced by $1 for every $2 earned above SGA, similar to the Social Security retirement benefit structure; (2) extend the Trial Work Period from 9 months to 24 months, during which a disabled worker may test their ability to work without any reduction in SSDI benefits; (3) permanently extend Medicare continuation coverage for SSDI recipients who return to work for up to 5 years — eliminating the fear of healthcare loss as a barrier to employment; (4) establish automatic benefit reinstatement — without a new application — for any former SSDI recipient whose disabling condition recurs within 5 years of returning to work, effective within 30 days of the recurrence; and (5) require SSA to provide every SSDI recipient who expresses interest in work with a written, individualized "work incentive counseling" plan from a Benefits Counselor, at no cost, detailing exactly how earnings would affect their specific benefits.

The SSDI earnings cliff creates a strong disincentive to work: a disabled person who earns $1 above the SGA threshold risks losing hundreds to thousands of dollars in monthly benefits and Medicare coverage. Surveys of SSDI recipients consistently identify fear of losing healthcare coverage as the single largest barrier to returning to work.

This position converts the federal vocational rehabilitation program — which helps disabled people find and keep jobs — into a guaranteed entitlement. Currently the program can close to new applicants when it runs out of money; under this position, every eligible disabled person who applies must be served.

Vocational Rehabilitation as an Entitlement

Congress must convert the federal-state Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program from a capped grant program that can close to new applicants when funding is exhausted — known as "order of selection" — into a full federal entitlement, ensuring that: (1) every disabled person who applies for VR services and is determined eligible receives an Individualized Plan for Employment within 90 days, with no waitlist or order of selection permitted; (2) VR services must include: vocational counseling, job skills training, assistive technology, supported employment services, post-secondary education support, and on-the-job training; (3) the individualized plan must be developed jointly with the applicant and must reflect the applicant's own employment goals — VR counselors may not steer applicants toward lower-wage or less-skilled employment based on assumptions about disability; (4) VR must coordinate with SSDI work incentives, Medicaid, housing, and transportation services so that entering employment does not cause the loss of other essential supports; and (5) Congress must appropriate sufficient funds to serve all eligible applicants, with automatic baseline funding increases tied to the number of working-age people with disabilities in each state.

Every year, state VR programs close to new applicants because they exhaust their federal allotment, leaving eligible disabled workers on waitlists for months or years. VR programs that successfully place workers in competitive integrated employment generate a return to the federal government that far exceeds the cost of services through increased tax revenues and reduced benefit payments.

This position requires Congress to fund supported employment programs — which provide ongoing job coaching and workplace support for people with the most significant disabilities — at a minimum of $1 billion per year, adjusted for inflation. These programs help disabled people maintain meaningful employment in their communities rather than in segregated settings.

Full Funding for Supported Employment Programs

Congress must: (1) appropriate a minimum of $1 billion annually — indexed to inflation — for the Supported Employment Services program under the Rehabilitation Act, providing ongoing job coaching, natural supports, and workplace accommodations for people with the most significant disabilities; (2) require all state VR agencies to offer supported employment as a service option to every eligible individual for whom competitive integrated employment is a goal — supported employment may not be available only as a last resort; (3) define supported employment services to include: job development, job placement, initial skills training, on-site job coaching, benefits counseling, transportation coordination, and long-term support for the duration of employment — with no arbitrary time limit on support services; (4) require supported employment providers to track and publicly report placement rates, employment retention at 6 and 12 months, wages, and community integration outcomes — broken down by disability type and demographics; (5) prohibit VR agencies from counting placements in sheltered workshops or enclaves — segregated settings — as supported employment outcomes; and (6) fund a National Center for Supported Employment Best Practices to disseminate evidence-based models, train providers, and evaluate program quality.

Supported employment consistently produces better outcomes for workers with significant disabilities — including those with intellectual disabilities, psychiatric disabilities, and traumatic brain injuries — than traditional pre-employment training or sheltered workshops.

This position requires Congress to fund enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) at a minimum of $250 million per year, enabling the Justice Department to investigate discrimination against disabled people and take legal action against violators. Stronger enforcement means the law's promise of equal access is actually kept.

Strengthen ADA Enforcement

Congress must strengthen enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act by: (1) appropriating a minimum of $250 million annually to the DOJ Civil Rights Division for ADA enforcement, including: pattern-or-practice investigations of state and local governments, public accommodations, and employers; proactive compliance monitoring; and a national ADA complaint intake and resolution system with 180-day resolution targets; (2) establishing statutory damages of $50,000 per violation — plus attorney's fees and costs — in private ADA Title III (public accommodations) lawsuits, replacing the current regime of injunctive relief only that makes individual enforcement economically nonviable; (3) prohibiting "drive-by" demand letter abuse by requiring all pre-litigation ADA demand letters to include a 90-day cure period and prohibiting any demand for monetary payment before a court has found a violation; (4) requiring all public entities with budgets exceeding $5 million to publish an annual ADA Transition Plan — documenting accessibility barriers, timelines for removal, and progress — and conditioning federal grants on Transition Plan compliance; (5) extending the ADA statute of limitations to 4 years for structural and systemic violations; and (6) establishing criminal penalties for willful, repeated violations of ADA accessibility requirements by public entities.

The ADA was enacted in 1990, yet structural inaccessibility remains pervasive — including in federal, state, and local government facilities, public transit, and digital infrastructure. The absence of statutory damages in ADA Title III cases means that most accessibility violations are not worth litigating unless an advocacy organization brings the case, leaving the vast majority of violations unremedied.

This position requires all federal poverty reduction programs to explicitly include disabled people, who face poverty rates roughly twice the national average. Every poverty-related bill must include a disability impact assessment, and programs must be designed to serve people with disabilities effectively.

Disability-Inclusive Poverty Reduction Goals

Congress must establish that all federal poverty reduction goals, programs, and metrics must explicitly include disabled people — who face poverty rates approximately twice the national average — by: (1) requiring all poverty reduction legislation to include a disability impact assessment — produced by CBO or a designated Census Bureau partnership — that projects effects on poverty rates for working-age adults with disabilities, disaggregated by disability type, race, gender, and geography; (2) directing all federal agencies administering poverty-related programs — including HHS, SSA, HUD, USDA, and DOL — to collect and publish annual data on program participation and outcomes disaggregated by disability status, using consistent definitions; (3) requiring that any federal anti-poverty goal — whether in legislation, executive order, or agency strategic plan — be expressed as a specific target for disability-inclusive poverty reduction, not just aggregate poverty reduction; (4) prohibiting the design of any new means-tested federal benefit program that creates an earnings cliff, asset test, or other provision that operates as a disproportionate barrier to people with disabilities — all new programs must include a disability impact analysis before enactment; and (5) directing the Census Bureau to include disability status as a required disaggregation in all official poverty reporting, including the Supplemental Poverty Measure.

People with disabilities face poverty rates approximately double the national average — consistently 25–27% for working-age adults with disabilities compared to 12–13% for non-disabled adults.^[12] Mainstream poverty policy and programs often exclude or undercount disabled people, both in design and in outcome measurement.

This position converts Medicaid home and community-based services — like personal care, home health aides, and supported employment — from a limited waiver program with long waitlists into a guaranteed right for every eligible disabled person. No one should wait years on a list for the support they need to live in their own home.

Home and Community-Based Services as a Medicaid Entitlement

Congress must convert Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) from a waiver program with enrollment caps and waitlists into a mandatory Medicaid entitlement by: (1) establishing HCBS — including personal care, home health aide, supported employment, adult day services, respite care, and assistive technology — as a mandatory benefit available to all Medicaid-eligible individuals who meet the institutional level-of-care standard, with no waiting lists, enrollment caps, or waiver slot limitations; (2) appropriating $150 billion over 10 years to states to expand HCBS capacity and workforce — conditioned on states demonstrating annual reductions in institutional placements and waiting list elimination; (3) implementing the Olmstead decision (Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 1999) in full — requiring all states to maintain and implement comprehensive, effectively working plans for placing qualified individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate; (4) guaranteeing every Medicaid LTSS beneficiary the right to receive services in the setting of their choice, with a legal presumption in favor of community-based over institutional settings; (5) requiring all states to achieve a minimum 60% HCBS share of total Medicaid LTSS spending within 5 years as a condition of federal matching funds; and (6) establishing a private right of action for any Medicaid-eligible person denied HCBS due to a waitlist or enrollment cap, with a right to mandamus relief compelling timely service provision.

An estimated 700,000+ people with disabilities are on Medicaid HCBS waiver waitlists nationwide, some waiting over a decade for services that would allow them to live in the community.^[19] The Olmstead decision was issued in 1999; more than 25 years later, states continue to institutionalize people with disabilities through resource starvation of community services.

This position reforms guardianship law — the legal process that removes a person's right to make their own decisions — by requiring courts to try all less restrictive alternatives first and to review every guardianship at least once a year. Full guardianship must be a last resort, and people subject to it retain the right to vote and the right to legal counsel.

Guardianship reform: supported decision-making as preferred alternative; guardianship imposed only as last resort with annual review; ward retains right to vote and right to counsel

Full guardianship — the legal elimination of an individual's decision-making authority — must be imposed only as a last resort when all less-restrictive alternatives, including supported decision-making arrangements, representative payee, healthcare proxies, and limited guardianship, have been considered and found inadequate; courts must appoint counsel for any person subject to a guardianship proceeding before a determination is made; all existing guardianships must be reviewed annually; persons under guardianship retain the right to vote, the right to marry, and the right to petition for restoration of rights; any guardian must report annually on the ward's condition and living circumstances and must obtain specific court authorization before restricting visitation or communications; private right of action for guardians who violate retained rights.

Guardianship strips the "ward" of legal capacity to make their own decisions about finances, healthcare, and living arrangements, transferring that authority to a court-appointed guardian. Guardianship abuses are well-documented: the 2021 Britney Spears conservatorship case brought national attention to how the system can enable long-term exploitation and control. Research by the National Council on Disability has found systematic problems including inadequate counsel, lack of regular review, and failure to consider less-restrictive alternatives. Supported decision-making — in which a person with a disability makes their own decisions with support from a trusted network — is recognized as a viable alternative under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Annual review ensures that restrictions justified at one point in time do not persist indefinitely after circumstances change. The right to vote is retained regardless of guardianship status: the right to participate in democratic governance is not forfeit by disability and must be explicitly preserved. Cross-reference: RGHT-DISS-0006 (ADA enforcement); RGHT-DISS-0010 (ADA Title III reform); RGHT-DISS-0011 (Olmstead enforcement).

This position strengthens ADA protections in places open to the public — like stores, restaurants, and medical offices — by eliminating the loophole that allows businesses to escape liability for accessibility barriers simply by promising to fix them after being sued. It also adds minimum monetary damages so that lawsuits to enforce the law are financially viable.

ADA Title III reform: eliminate notice-and-cure defense for architectural barriers; add statutory minimum damages; strengthen private right of action

The ADA Title III private right of action must be strengthened by: eliminating the notice-and-cure defense that allows places of public accommodation to avoid liability for architectural barriers by promising future remediation only after being sued; adding statutory minimum damages of not less than $4,000 per violation to make individual private enforcement economically viable without requiring proof of individualized harm; establishing a rebuttable presumption that documented architectural barriers constitute violations; and providing mandatory fee-shifting to prevailing plaintiffs; these reforms apply to all places of public accommodation including digital and web-based services.

ADA Title III, which requires places of public accommodation to be accessible to people with disabilities, provides only injunctive relief for private plaintiffs — no compensatory damages — and many courts have recognized a notice-and-cure defense by which businesses escape all liability simply by promising to fix a barrier after being sued. This structure requires disabled people to personally encounter barriers, file expensive litigation, and receive no financial remedy — an arrangement that provides weak deterrence and places the entire enforcement burden on disabled individuals. California's Unruh Civil Rights Act ($4,000 minimum damages) has produced more accessible facilities than states relying on ADA Title III alone. Statutory minimum damages and mandatory fee-shifting are essential to make private enforcement viable alongside underfunded DOJ enforcement. Extension to digital and web-based services addresses the ADA's pre-internet origins and the documented inaccessibility of many commercial websites and apps for blind, deaf, and motor-impaired users. This rule adds specificity to the general ADA enforcement strengthening in RGHT-DISS-0006. Cross-reference: RGHT-DISS-0006 (ADA enforcement broadly); RGHT-DISS-0011 (Olmstead individual enforcement).

This position gives disabled people who are unnecessarily kept in institutions — or stuck on waitlists for community services — the right to sue states directly to compel placement in community settings. It also requires the federal government to regularly audit states' compliance with their legal obligation to serve disabled people in the least restrictive setting.

Olmstead enforcement: individual right of action against states failing community integration obligations; mandatory HHS compliance reviews; binding corrective action plans

Disabled individuals who are unnecessarily institutionalized or placed on Medicaid HCBS waitlists in states that have not met their Olmstead integration obligations must have an individual right of action in federal court to compel community placement; the Department of Health and Human Services must conduct mandatory Olmstead compliance reviews of all states every three years; states found in violation must produce a binding corrective action plan with benchmarked timelines and milestones subject to court enforcement; states persistently failing Olmstead obligations face suspension of a portion of federal Medicaid administrative funding until compliance is demonstrated; private right of action available without exhausting administrative remedies.

The Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), established that the ADA requires states to provide services "in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual," prohibiting unnecessary institutionalization. Twenty-five years after Olmstead, enforcement remains inconsistent: DOJ settlement agreements — the primary enforcement mechanism — are reached only after years of litigation and cover only states that have been sued. Approximately 700,000 people with intellectual and developmental disabilities remain on HCBS waitlists. RGHT-DISS-0008 addresses the funding structure (converting HCBS to an entitlement); this rule addresses the enforcement mechanism when states fail to provide community integration even within available funding. The combination of individual right of action and mandatory federal oversight creates the institutional pressure necessary to shift states from waitlist management to genuine community integration. Cross-reference: RGHT-DISS-0008 (HCBS entitlement); RGHT-DISS-0006 (ADA enforcement generally); RGHT-DISS-0010 (ADA Title III reform).

This position eliminates the $2,000 asset limit on SSI (Supplemental Security Income) eligibility, which has not been updated since 1989 and prevents disabled and elderly people from saving any money without losing benefits. Eligibility must be based only on income and disability status — saving a small emergency fund should not disqualify anyone.

SSI Recipients May Not Be Penalized for Saving Money — Asset Limits Must Be Eliminated

The $2,000 individual / $3,000 couple asset limit for Supplemental Security Income eligibility — unchanged since 1989 and worth a fraction of its original value in real terms — must be eliminated entirely; SSI eligibility must be based solely on income and disability status. In the interim, asset limits must be immediately indexed to inflation from their 1989 levels (approximately $4,800 individual / $7,200 couple in 2024 dollars) and then phased out over five years. The SSI marriage penalty — under which two SSI recipients who marry lose 25% of their combined benefits — must be eliminated; marital status may not affect SSI benefit calculations. ABLE accounts must be expanded to allow contributions from any source without affecting SSI eligibility. Any reduction or denial of SSI benefits based on assets or marital status contrary to this provision must be subject to individual appeal and private right of action for retroactive payment; willful implementation of an asset or marriage penalty in violation of this rule by a federal official is subject to criminal penalties.

The SSI asset limit effectively prohibits disabled people from saving for emergencies, car repairs, or educational expenses that could increase their economic independence. The $2,000 individual limit was set in 1972 and last raised to $3,000 for couples in 1989; it has not been adjusted for inflation since. At 2024 inflation-adjusted values from 1989, the limits would be approximately $4,800 individual and $7,200 couple. The marriage penalty imposes a direct financial cost on marriage between two SSI recipients, undermining family formation and economic cooperation among disabled people. Cross-reference: RGHT-DISS-0002 (SSDI adjudication backlog); RGHT-DISS-0003 (SSDI earnings cliff); RGHT-DSBL-0004 (work incentives without loss of healthcare).

This position requires the Justice Department to fully enforce the Supreme Court's Olmstead decision, which says states must serve people with disabilities in the most integrated community setting appropriate to their needs. Every state must have a binding plan — with annual benchmarks — to move people from nursing facilities and psychiatric hospitals into community-based settings.

States Must Transition People With Disabilities From Institutions to Community Settings

The DOJ must fully enforce the Supreme Court's Olmstead decision requiring states to serve people with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs; every state must submit and execute a comprehensive Olmstead transition plan with binding annual benchmarks for moving people from nursing facilities, psychiatric hospitals, and intermediate care facilities into community-based settings. The CMS must require states to spend Medicaid home and community-based services (HCBS) dollars at a ratio of at least 75% community-based to 25% institutional by 2030; states that miss benchmarks must develop corrective action plans or face Medicaid funding reductions. Waiting lists for HCBS Medicaid waivers must be eliminated within five years. Disabled individuals placed on HCBS waiting lists in violation of an approved transition plan have a private right of action for injunctive relief and compensatory damages; state officials who knowingly falsify compliance benchmarks are subject to criminal penalties under federal fraud statutes.

Over 600,000 Americans with disabilities are on waiting lists for home and community-based Medicaid services. Institutional care costs Medicaid 3–4 times more than equivalent community-based care. The Supreme Court's Olmstead decision (1999) held that unnecessary institutionalization violates the ADA integration mandate; twenty-five years later, enforcement remains inconsistent and waitlists persist. This card establishes the 75% HCBS spending ratio metric and binding annual benchmark requirement; RGHT-DISS-0011 separately addresses individual right of action and mandatory HHS compliance reviews. Cross-reference: RGHT-DISS-0008 (HCBS as Medicaid entitlement); RGHT-DISS-0011 (Olmstead individual right of action and HHS compliance reviews).

This position requires every state and local government that receives federal funding to submit a plan identifying all accessibility barriers and eliminate them within ten years. Annual progress reports are required, and the Justice Department must be funded to enforce compliance.

Federal Funding Recipients Must Achieve Full ADA Accessibility Within Ten Years

Every state and local government entity that receives federal funding must submit a Transition Plan to the DOJ within one year certifying current ADA Title II accessibility compliance and identifying all structural barriers; all identified barriers must be remediated within ten years with annual progress reports. The DOJ Civil Rights Division must be funded for dedicated ADA Title II enforcement including: proactive compliance reviews of all federally funded transit systems, courts, schools, and public accommodations every five years; a public complaint portal with 90-day resolution targets; and automatic referral to DOJ for any entity that fails two consecutive annual progress reports. Individuals with disabilities have a private right of action for injunctive relief and attorney fees without exhausting administrative remedies; willful noncompliance by a government entity receiving federal funds is subject to criminal referral and suspension of federal funding.

Thirty-four years after the ADA's passage, many public transit systems, sidewalks, and government buildings remain inaccessible to wheelchair users. ADA Title II applies specifically to state and local government entities and requires them to operate programs and services in an accessible manner; enforcement has been chronically reactive, relying on individual complaints rather than proactive compliance monitoring. ADA Title III (private places of public accommodation) is separately addressed in RGHT-DISS-0010. Cross-reference: RGHT-DISS-0006 (strengthen ADA enforcement broadly); RGHT-DISS-0010 (ADA Title III reform); RGHT-DISS-0011 (Olmstead enforcement).

This position guarantees that any person receiving SSDI or SSI who starts working again keeps their full Medicaid and Medicare coverage for at least five years, regardless of how much they earn. The current system — which can strip disabled workers of healthcare coverage after earning even modest wages — is eliminated.

Disabled Workers Must Not Lose Medicaid or Medicare When They Return to Work

Any person receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or SSI who begins or resumes employment must retain full Medicaid and Medicare eligibility for no less than five years regardless of earnings; the "benefits cliff" — under which disabled workers can lose healthcare coverage upon exceeding modest earning thresholds — is eliminated. SSDI earnings limits must be indexed to 60% of median wage and adjusted annually; SSI earned income disregards must be updated to reflect current cost of living. The Social Security Administration must proactively notify all SSDI and SSI recipients of work incentive programs and provide individualized benefits counseling before any benefits are reduced or terminated due to work activity. Any wrongful termination of healthcare coverage in violation of this provision is subject to private right of action for reinstatement and damages; SSA officials who knowingly fail to provide required notification before benefits termination are subject to administrative penalties and criminal liability for willful violations.

The fear of losing Medicaid coverage is one of the primary barriers preventing people with disabilities from entering or re-entering the workforce. The current system creates a hard healthcare cliff: disabled workers who exceed the Substantial Gainful Activity threshold may lose Medicare after an extended period, and SSI recipients may lose Medicaid eligibility if income or resources exceed program thresholds. This risk of losing healthcare coverage deters work even when earning more would improve net financial position. This card addresses healthcare coverage retention; RGHT-DISS-0003 separately addresses the smooth phase-out of SSDI cash benefits. Cross-reference: RGHT-DISS-0003 (SSDI earnings cliff — smooth phase-out of cash benefits); RGHT-DSBL-0001 (SSI asset limits).

This position requires Congress to pass a federal shield law protecting journalists from being compelled to reveal their confidential sources or unpublished materials. This protection covers independent and non-traditional media, not just major news organizations, and applies unless the government proves the information is essential to a specific criminal investigation and cannot be obtained any other way.

Federal reporter shield law: journalists may not be compelled to reveal confidential sources or unpublished materials; covers independent and non-traditional media; private right of action

No federal court, grand jury, or government agency may compel a journalist to disclose a confidential source, unpublished notes, draft materials, or newsgathering communications unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the information is essential to a specific criminal investigation, is not obtainable by any other reasonable means, and that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in a free press; shield protection extends to journalists regardless of employment or institutional affiliation, including independent, freelance, and digital journalists and bloggers engaged in journalism as a regular activity; a private right of action for unlawful compulsion applies, with mandatory fee-shifting.

No federal reporter shield law exists. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have some form of shield protection, but federal courts are not bound by state shield laws. Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed journalists repeatedly to compel source disclosure in leak investigations, chilling investigative journalism on national security and government misconduct. The Free Flow of Information Act has been introduced in multiple congressional sessions without enactment. The Supreme Court's ruling in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), held that the First Amendment does not create an absolute privilege to refuse grand jury testimony but left open a qualified privilege that Congress has never codified. A federal shield law with a qualified privilege and clear and convincing evidence standard provides meaningful protection while preserving access to information essential for serious criminal prosecutions. Extension to independent and digital journalists is essential: the most significant investigative journalism today routinely occurs outside traditional institutional news organizations, and a shield that protects only employees of large newspapers would exclude the outlets most vulnerable to retaliation. Cross-reference: RGHT-SPHS-0006 (government surveillance of journalists); RGHT-TECS-0005 (NSL gag orders); RGHT-SPHS-0001 (anti-SLAPP).

This position requires government agencies to obtain a warrant with special court oversight before surveilling a journalist's phone records, emails, or digital accounts. After surveillance ends, the journalist must be notified in writing within 90 days — unless a court orders continued secrecy — and government officials who conduct illegal retaliatory surveillance of journalists face criminal penalties.

Warrant requirement and special master review for government surveillance of journalist communications; criminal penalties for retaliatory surveillance

Government agencies must obtain a warrant with special master review before conducting any surveillance of journalist communications, phone records, email, or digital accounts; the target must be notified in writing after surveillance concludes, within 90 days, unless a court issues a specific non-disclosure order supported by written findings of ongoing operational necessity; government officials who authorize surveillance of journalists in retaliation for news coverage, source protection, or publication of newsworthy information are subject to criminal prosecution and civil liability; evidence gathered through unlawfully authorized journalist surveillance is suppressed in all related proceedings; the special master must be a retired federal judge with press law experience.

The Department of Justice obtained phone records of Associated Press journalists in 2013 without notification, raising serious press freedom concerns. In 2021, it was reported that the DOJ had obtained records of New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN reporters under national security subpoenas issued under the Trump administration. The Attorney General's Guidelines on domestic operations include some protections for journalist records, but these are internal policy rather than binding law, can be changed by any administration, and provide no remedy when violated. Statutory warrant requirements with special master review remove the ability of any administration to surveil the press unilaterally or in retaliation for coverage. Criminal penalties for retaliatory surveillance are necessary to deter politically motivated targeting of journalists reporting on government misconduct — a deterrent that administrative guidelines do not provide. Cross-reference: RGHT-SPHS-0005 (reporter shield law); RGHT-TECS-0004 (FISA reform); RGHT-TECS-0002 (digital warrant requirement); RGHT-TECS-0010 (domestic organization surveillance ban).

This position requires that vital records — like birth certificates and marriage licenses — be obtainable at any courthouse or government records office, not only the specific location that originally issued them. People should not have to travel long distances to one particular office just to get copies of their own documents.

Vital records obtainable at any courthouse or records office not only the issuing location

Vital records obtainable at any courthouse or records office not only the issuing location

Source: DB entry CIV-VTL-001, status: MISSING. Pending editorial review.

This position eliminates the requirement that people travel to the specific courthouse or office that issued their vital records in order to obtain copies. Access to one's own government documents should not depend on geography or the ability to travel.

No requirement to travel to the issuing courthouse to obtain vital records

No requirement to travel to the issuing courthouse to obtain vital records

Source: DB entry CIV-VTL-002, status: MISSING. Pending editorial review.

This position establishes that accessible vital records include marriage licenses, name changes, birth certificates, death certificates, and related civil documents. All of these are essential records that people have a right to obtain easily.

Vital records access includes marriage licenses name changes birth certificates death certificates and related civil ...

Vital records access includes marriage licenses name changes birth certificates death certificates and related civil documents

Source: DB entry CIV-VTL-003, status: MISSING. Pending editorial review.

This position requires that certified copies of vital records be available through multiple channels — online, by mail, and in person. People should be able to get official copies of their own documents in whatever way is most accessible to them.

Certified vital records must be easily obtainable online by mail and in person

Certified vital records must be easily obtainable online by mail and in person

Source: DB entry CIV-VTL-004, status: MISSING. Pending editorial review.

This position requires that vital records sent by mail must be delivered using certified, trackable mail with confirmation of receipt. This protects people from losing irreplaceable legal documents to unreliable mail handling.

Mailed vital records must be sent by certified trackable mail with delivery confirmation

Mailed vital records must be sent by certified trackable mail with delivery confirmation

Source: DB entry CIV-VTL-005, status: MISSING. Pending editorial review.

This position requires Congress to pass a federal law guaranteeing the right to abortion through fetal viability — generally 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy — without state interference, mandatory waiting periods, or medically unnecessary requirements. After viability, abortion must remain available when the pregnant person's life or health is at risk, as determined by their physician.

The Right to Abortion Must Be Codified in Federal Statute With No Gestational Limit Before Viability

Congress must pass federal legislation establishing a statutory right to abortion that: protects abortion access through fetal viability (generally 22–24 weeks) without state interference, restrictions, mandatory waiting periods, or medically unnecessary procedural requirements; protects abortion access after viability when the life or health of the pregnant person is at risk, with the treating physician's medical judgment as the governing standard; prohibits states from criminalizing patients, physicians, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, or anyone who assists a person in obtaining an abortion; prohibits states from imposing TRAP laws (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) that have no legitimate medical justification and function solely to restrict access; and creates a federal cause of action for individuals whose abortion rights are violated by state action. Traveling across state lines to obtain an abortion is a federally protected right; interstate enforcement of state abortion bans is preempted. Enforcement includes criminal penalties for state actors who violate the federal preemption and a private right of action for patients, providers, and assistants subjected to state prosecution or civil liability.

The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, allowing states to ban the procedure entirely. As of 2024, more than a dozen states have near-total abortion bans in effect. Cross-reference: RGHT-BODS-0001 (bodily autonomy); RGHT-BODS-0009 (Comstock Act repeal); RGHT-STAS-0003 (statutory reproductive rights).

This position requires full enforcement of the ACA contraception mandate with no exemptions — every FDA-approved contraceptive method must be covered by health insurance without any cost to the patient. It also requires the FDA to pursue over-the-counter access to hormonal contraception and provides federal funding to expand access for people without insurance.

Access to Contraception Is a Federal Right and Must Be Fully Covered Without Cost-Sharing

The ACA contraception mandate must be fully enforced with no religious or secular employer exemptions that shift costs to employees; every FDA-approved contraceptive method must be covered without cost-sharing by all health plans. The FDA must approve over-the-counter access to hormonal contraception without prescription where medically supported; federal funding for FDA OTC contraception approval processes must be prioritized. Title X family planning funding must be restored to inflation-adjusted levels; Title X grantees may not be required to withhold abortion referrals and may not be penalized for being part of a health system that provides abortion services. States may not restrict Medicaid family planning coverage or impose waiting periods on contraception prescriptions. Emergency contraception must be available in all hospital emergency departments and must be offered to sexual assault survivors. Enforcement includes civil penalties against noncompliant insurers and employers, a private right of action for employees denied contraception coverage, and federal withholding of Medicaid reimbursements from states that unlawfully restrict family planning coverage.

The Supreme Court's 2022 Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters decisions eroded the ACA contraception mandate by allowing employer religious exemptions. Title X funding has been repeatedly cut or restricted, reducing access to contraception for low-income patients. Cross-reference: RGHT-BODS-0002 (contraception rights); RGHT-RELS-0005 (RFRA not a sword).

This position establishes a federal right to access IVF (in vitro fertilization) and other assisted reproductive technologies, and prohibits states from banning or criminalizing IVF. Laws that treat fertilized embryos as legal persons — which could expose IVF providers and patients to criminal liability for embryos that do not survive the process — are prohibited.

In Vitro Fertilization and Assisted Reproductive Technology Must Be Protected as a Federal Right

Federal law must establish the right of individuals and couples to access in vitro fertilization (IVF), intrauterine insemination, and other assisted reproductive technologies; states may not ban, criminalize, or impose restrictions on IVF that have no legitimate medical basis. Legislation that confers legal personhood on embryos at fertilization — which would expose IVF providers and patients to criminal and civil liability for embryo loss during standard medical procedures — is prohibited. Health insurance plans covering 50 or more employees must cover at least three IVF cycles per patient; Medicaid must cover fertility treatments for eligible patients. Fertility preservation — including egg and embryo freezing — must be covered for patients undergoing cancer treatment or other medical procedures likely to impair fertility. Enforcement includes criminal penalties for state officials who enforce embryo-personhood laws against IVF providers, and a private right of action for patients denied legally required insurance coverage.

The Alabama Supreme Court's 2024 ruling declaring frozen embryos to be legal persons resulted in IVF clinics temporarily halting services in the state. IVF is cost-prohibitive for most Americans, with a single cycle costing $12,000–$20,000 and no insurance coverage in most states. Cross-reference: RGHT-BODS-0001 (bodily autonomy); RGHT-REPR-0001 (abortion statutory right).

This position requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations — like modified duties, seating, and hydration breaks — to pregnant and postpartum workers, with full enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Employers must also provide a dedicated, private lactation space with paid break time — separate from restrooms — for nursing parents.

Pregnant and Postpartum Workers Must Have Enforceable Rights to Accommodations and Lactation Breaks

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act must be fully enforced; employers must provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant and postpartum workers including modified duties, seating, hydration breaks, and schedule modifications; the EEOC must proactively audit compliance in industries with high rates of pregnancy discrimination including food service, retail, and healthcare. Employers must provide dedicated, private, non-bathroom lactation spaces; paid pump breaks of at least 20 minutes every three hours for the first year after birth; and lactation accommodations that do not reduce the employee's earnings. Pregnancy discrimination — including failure to hire, demotion, forced leave, and termination — is subject to enhanced civil penalties, full back pay, and compensatory damages; a private right of action must exist without an administrative exhaustion requirement. Criminal penalties must apply to employers who engage in systematic, willful pregnancy discrimination affecting multiple employees.

Pregnancy discrimination charges filed with the EEOC have increased significantly over the past two decades. Black women and women in low-wage jobs face the highest rates of pregnancy discrimination. Cross-reference: RGHT-EQTS-0002 (sex discrimination); labor and workers' rights pillar (workplace protections).

This position requires Congress to declare Black maternal mortality a federal public health emergency and fund a sustained response — including mandatory anti-racism training for obstetric providers receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding, full Medicaid coverage of doula services in all 50 states, and 12 months of postpartum Medicaid coverage. Black women in the United States die from pregnancy-related causes at a rate roughly three times higher than white women.

The Federal Government Must Treat Black Maternal Mortality as a Public Health Emergency

Congress must declare Black maternal mortality a federal public health emergency and fund a sustained national response that includes: mandatory implicit bias and anti-racism training for all obstetric providers receiving Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement; full Medicaid coverage of doula services in all 50 states; expansion of Medicaid postpartum coverage to 12 months in all states; funding for community birth centers in underserved areas; and collection and public reporting of maternal mortality data disaggregated by race, ethnicity, and insurance status. Full practice authority for certified nurse-midwives must be established in all 50 states, removing physician supervision requirements that restrict access in rural and underserved areas. Hospitals with documented racial disparities in maternal outcomes must develop and implement equity plans as a condition of continued Medicare and Medicaid participation. Enforcement includes federal withholding of Medicare and Medicaid funds from non-compliant hospitals and a private right of action for patients harmed by documented, race-correlated deviations from the standard of care.

Black women in the U.S. die from pregnancy-related causes at approximately three times the rate of white women. The U.S. has the highest maternal mortality rate among high-income countries. Cross-reference: RGHT-EQTS-0001 (racial equality); healthcare pillar (right to care, Medicaid expansion).

This position requires Congress to pass the Equality Act, amending major civil rights laws to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, education, federal funding, and jury service. Current law leaves LGBTQ+ people without clear federal protection in many of these areas.

Federal Law Must Prohibit Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in All Public Life

Congress must pass the Equality Act to amend existing civil rights statutes — including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Rehabilitation Act — to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in: employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, education, federal funding, and jury service; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act may not be used as a defense to discrimination claims under the Equality Act; religious organizations that operate public accommodations, receive federal funding, or employ workers are subject to non-discrimination requirements; the Equality Act must apply to all employers regardless of size with no small-employer exemption; enforcement must include EEOC authority, DOJ authority, and a private right of action with full remedies including compensatory and punitive damages.

The Supreme Court's 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision held that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but this protection does not extend to housing, public accommodations, or other contexts. No comprehensive federal law prohibits LGBTQ+ discrimination in housing or public accommodations. Cross-reference: RGHT-EQTS-0005 (Equality Act in equality protections family); RGHT-STAS-0002 (statutory LGBTQ+ protections); RGHT-RELS-0006 (RFRA may not be used to harm third parties).

This position requires all health insurance plans — including Medicaid and Medicare — to cover gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and surgical care. Denying coverage specifically because a treatment is gender-affirming is prohibited as sex discrimination, and states may not criminalize or restrict healthcare providers who offer this care.

Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming People Must Have Full Access to Evidence-Based Healthcare

Gender-affirming healthcare — including hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and surgical care — must be covered by all health insurance plans including Medicaid and Medicare; coverage denials based on the gender-affirming nature of the treatment are prohibited as sex discrimination under Section 1557 of the ACA; states may not criminalize, restrict, or penalize healthcare providers who provide evidence-based gender-affirming care to minors or adults, parents who support their minor children's access to gender-affirming care, or individuals who travel across state lines to obtain gender-affirming healthcare; anti-trans legislation that restricts gender-affirming care for minors without individualized medical determination is preempted by federal law; decisions about appropriate care must be made by patients, families, and licensed healthcare providers — not legislators; insurance plans may not impose categorical exclusions for gender-affirming care; enforcement includes criminal penalties for state officials who prosecute federally protected healthcare access and a private right of action for individuals denied coverage or care.

Major medical associations including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association support access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. More than 20 states have passed legislation restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors. Cross-reference: RGHT-BODS-0004 (right to gender-affirming care); RGHT-BODS-0010 (adult care prohibition and insurance mandate); RGHT-EQTS-0005 (Equality Act).

This position prohibits conversion therapy on minors — any practice by a licensed provider, religious counselor, or other professional that attempts to change a young person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Licensed practitioners who engage in conversion therapy on minors face loss of their professional license and civil liability.

Conversion Therapy Practiced on Minors Is Prohibited and Constitutes Child Abuse

Any practice, treatment, or sustained effort by a licensed mental health provider, religious counselor, or any other person in a professional or quasi-professional capacity that seeks to change, suppress, or eliminate a minor's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression is prohibited and constitutes a form of child abuse; licensed practitioners who engage in conversion therapy on minors must have their licenses revoked and are subject to criminal prosecution; federal funding — including Medicaid, CHIP, and any federally funded program — may not be used for conversion therapy for any person of any age; adults who voluntarily seek conversion therapy from a licensed provider must receive a written disclosure that the practice has no scientific basis and is opposed by all major medical and mental health associations before any services begin; providers who misrepresent the efficacy of conversion therapy are subject to FTC fraud enforcement; interstate commerce in conversion therapy services and materials targeting minors is prohibited; enforcement includes criminal prosecution of violating practitioners and a private right of action for individuals harmed by prohibited conversion practices.

All major medical and mental health associations — including the APA, AMA, and AAP — have condemned conversion therapy as ineffective and harmful. Conversion therapy has been linked to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide among LGBTQ+ youth. Cross-reference: RGHT-BODS-0006 (bodily autonomy family ban on conversion therapy).

This position requires Congress to fully codify the right of same-sex couples to marry in federal law with real enforcement mechanisms, beyond the current Respect for Marriage Act. Federal law must affirmatively require all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and no civil marriage license may be denied based on sex, sexual orientation, race, or religion.

Same-Sex and Interracial Marriage Must Be Fully Protected in Federal Law With No Religious Exemption for Civil Marriage

The right of same-sex couples to marry must be fully codified in federal statute with enforcement mechanisms beyond the Respect for Marriage Act's recognition framework; federal law must affirmatively require all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples regardless of state constitutional provisions; no civil marriage license may be denied, delayed, or conditioned based on the sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity of either applicant; county clerks and other civil officials who refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples are subject to removal from office and personal civil liability; federal benefits — including Social Security survivor benefits, federal employee spousal benefits, military spousal benefits, immigration spousal rights, and tax treatment — must be fully available to same-sex spouses on equal terms with opposite-sex spouses; the Respect for Marriage Act's exemption allowing religiously affiliated organizations to deny services to same-sex married couples must be narrowed to exclude any organization that receives federal funding; enforcement includes DOJ authority, removal proceedings for non-compliant civil officials, and a private right of action for couples denied marriage licenses or federal benefits.

The Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, cited reasoning that legal scholars warn could be used to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision establishing same-sex marriage rights. Cross-reference: RGHT-EQTS-0001 through 0004 (equality protections); RGHT-RELS-0006 (RFRA may not be used to harm third parties).

This position requires federal civil rights law to override state laws that ban transgender people from using bathrooms consistent with their gender identity, categorically exclude transgender girls from women's sports without individualized medical assessment, or restrict or criminalize gender expression. Federal civil rights law must serve as a floor that no state may fall below.

Federal Law Must Preempt State Laws That Target Transgender People for Exclusion and Stigmatization

Federal civil rights law must preempt state laws that: prohibit transgender individuals from using bathrooms or facilities consistent with their gender identity in schools, government buildings, or public accommodations; categorically exclude transgender girls and women from women's sports without individualized, medically supervised assessment; restrict or criminalize drag performances, gender expression, or public acknowledgment of LGBTQ+ identities and relationships in public schools; or require school personnel to disclose a student's gender identity or chosen name to parents without the student's consent where such disclosure could endanger the student; transgender students must be permitted to use their chosen name and pronouns in all school records and settings; schools that require use of legal names or biological sex designations against a student's wishes are subject to loss of federal education funding; enforcement includes DOJ preemption authority, loss of federal education funding for non-compliant schools, and a private right of action for transgender students and individuals harmed by preempted state laws.

As of 2024, more than 20 states have enacted laws restricting transgender participation in school sports, and multiple states have enacted restrictions on bathroom access. Research shows that LGBTQ+ youth who have their identity affirmed at school have significantly better mental health outcomes. Cross-reference: RGHT-IDNS-0004 (gender marker rights); RGHT-EQTS-0005 (Equality Act).