Overview
Title
To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to revise references in such title to individuals with intellectual disabilities.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 1022 wants to change old, not-so-nice words to nicer ones when talking about people with intellectual disabilities in some special rules for Washington, D.C. This is to make sure everyone uses respectful words!
Summary AI
H. R. 1022, titled the “Words Matter for the District of Columbia Courts Act,” proposes changes to title 11 of the District of Columbia Official Code. The bill aims to update outdated language by replacing terms like “substantially retarded persons” with “persons with moderate intellectual disabilities” in various sections related to the jurisdiction of different courts, such as the United States District Court, the Superior Court, and the Family Court. This change is intended to ensure more respectful and accurate language describing individuals with intellectual disabilities.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The bill titled "Words Matter for the District of Columbia Courts Act" seeks to amend specific sections of the District of Columbia Official Code to update the language used to describe individuals with intellectual disabilities. Introduced in the 119th Congress, the legislation primarily focuses on revising outdated terms to reflect language that is more respectful and currently accepted.
General Summary of the Bill
This piece of legislation proposes replacing outdated and potentially derogatory terms in the District of Columbia Official Code. Specifically, it amends sections covered by the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, the Superior Court, and the Family Court. Phrases such as “substantially retarded persons” are to be replaced with “persons with moderate intellectual disabilities.” This change aims to align legal terminology with modern standards for language and respect.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill addresses an important legal and ethical issue by updating terminology to reduce stigma and promote dignity for individuals with intellectual disabilities. However, the bill primarily focuses on these linguistic changes without providing a broader context or explanation about why such updates are prioritized at this time or how they align with broader policy goals. Furthermore, it does not address other potentially outdated language elsewhere in the District of Columbia Official Code. The complexity of the bill’s language, particularly the legal references, may also limit understanding among those without a legal background.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill’s impact on the public centers around promoting dignity and respect. By updating legal language, the legislation could contribute to reducing stigma associated with outdated and offensive terminology. Using respectful language in law can influence societal attitudes and norms, encouraging more inclusive and respectful interactions across various public and professional settings.
There is less direct, immediate effect on the everyday lives of most individuals. Those not familiar with the legal system or the specific terms being replaced might not notice the change directly. However, over time, as language in legal contexts becomes more respectful and current, it can have a positive ripple effect on societal perceptions of individuals with intellectual disabilities.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For individuals with intellectual disabilities, this bill could positively impact their sense of dignity and self-worth, as being referred to by respectful and modern terms in legal documents increases recognition of their rights and respect within society. Families and advocates for individuals with intellectual disabilities might find this change encourages broader societal shifts towards more inclusive and respectful communication.
Legal professionals, judges, and other stakeholders in the legal system may need brief adjustments to ensure compliance with the new language. However, since the bill does not entail structural changes to law practice but focuses on terminology, such adjustments are likely to be minimal and straightforward.
Overall, while the bill represents a small yet meaningful step towards linguistic modernization and respect within legal terminology, it also highlights potential opportunities for broader reviews and updates of language within the legal framework.
Issues
The amendments in Section 2 replace outdated and potentially offensive terminology with more current terminology for individuals with intellectual disabilities. This could be seen as a critical update to ensure respectful language in the legal code, promoting dignity and reducing stigma (Legal/Ethical).
Section 2 focuses on terminology updates without broader context or explanation as to why these changes are prioritized now. It lacks information on whether there are accompanying changes in policy or support for individuals with intellectual disabilities, which may raise questions about the intent or comprehensiveness of the bill (Political/Legal).
The bill could be considered a missed opportunity to review other potentially outdated language in the District of Columbia Official Code, as mentioned in the issues for Section 2. This could limit the effectiveness of the bill in achieving linguistic modernization in the wider legal code (Legal).
The text in Section 2 assumes familiarity with specific sections of the District of Columbia Official Code, which may make it difficult for those outside the legal or legislative field to fully understand the changes being proposed. This could limit public comprehension and engagement with the bill (Political/Legal).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that this piece of legislation will be officially known as the “Words Matter for the District of Columbia Courts Act.”
2. References to individuals with intellectual disabilities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section makes changes to the wording used in the District of Columbia Official Code by replacing outdated terms like "substantially retarded persons" with the more current and respectful term "persons with moderate intellectual disabilities" across different jurisdictions, including the United States District Court, Superior Court, and Family Court.