CHANGE ARCHAIC LANGUAGE REFERRING TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (H 4396)

By Bob Katzen

The House 155-0. approved and sent to the Senate a bill that would modernize and remove archaic language in state laws to reflect the evolution of terminology relating to persons with disabilities.

Changes include replacing “handicapped persons” with “persons with disabilities,” replacing “the mentally retarded” with “persons with an intellectual disability,” replacing “retarded children” with “children with an intellectual disability” and replacing “disabled American veterans” with “American veterans with disabilities.”

Supporters said the primary objective of the bill is to identify and eliminate outdated, archaic language from the General Laws of Massachusetts and replace it with more respectful, person-first language. They noted that once the archaic language was found, they contacted the relevant state agency or office to confirm that the bill would have no unforeseen consequences, such as impacting funding or access to services.

“Today with the passage of this legislation, the commonwealth is taking a critical step toward fostering inclusivity and upholding our long-held principles of dignity and respect for all who call the commonwealth home,” said Rep. Mike Finn (D-West Springfield), a lead sponsor of the bill. “We can all celebrate that it is long past time for the commonwealth to update its General Laws, ensuring that no individual is subjected to negative and harmful language.”

“Removing out-of-date, antiquated and offensive language from the Massachusetts General Laws to describe people with disabilities is an important step in ensuring that our values, as a commonwealth, are also reflected in statute,” said Rep. Jay Livingstone (D-Boston), House Chair of the Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities. “As legislators, it is our job to help make sure that people with intellectual or developmental disabilities feel included, accepted and embraced for who they are, and this is an important step in doing so.”

(A “Yes” vote is for the bill.)

Rep. Christine Barber Yes Rep. Mike Connolly Yes Rep. Paul Donato Yes Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven Yes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.