Overview
Title
To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to revise references in such title to individuals with intellectual disabilities.
ELI5 AI
S. 3698 is a bill that wants to change some old and not-so-nice words about people with certain disabilities in a law book to make them nicer and more respectful. It's like using kinder words so that everyone feels respected and included.
Summary AI
S. 3698 proposes changes to the language used in the District of Columbia Official Code to update terms referring to individuals with intellectual disabilities. The bill seeks to replace outdated terms like “substantially retarded persons” with more current and respectful terminology such as “persons with moderate intellectual disabilities” across various legal sections. It was introduced by Senator Moran with Senator Casey and reported without amendment on September 10, 2024.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Words Matter for the District of Columbia Courts Act," seeks to amend Title 11 of the District of Columbia Official Code. Its primary goal is to update the legal language concerning individuals with intellectual disabilities. This change involves replacing outdated and potentially offensive terms with more current and respectful language. Notably, the bill suggests replacing the phrase "substantially retarded persons" with "persons with moderate intellectual disabilities" across several legal sections. Sponsored by Mr. Moran and Mr. Casey, the bill has been reported without amendment by Mr. Peters from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Significant Issues Addressed
One of the main issues addressed by this bill is the use of language in legal documents that relates to people with intellectual disabilities. Historically, certain terms have been used that today are widely considered disrespectful and inaccurate. This reform seeks to remedy that by adopting language that better reflects contemporary understanding and sensitivity. However, while the updated terminology is a step forward, it's vital to consider whether these changes fully align with the most accepted practices in speaking about intellectual disabilities and whether they meet the expectations of inclusivity.
Another point of interest is that while the bill addresses language revision, it lacks detailed discussion on other potential impacts or provisions. There's no mention of the financial or administrative implications of implementing these changes, which could be a consideration for how these amendments play out in real-world legal and bureaucratic scenarios.
Broader Public Impact
From a broad perspective, this bill emphasizes the importance of language and the influence it holds in shaping societal attitudes. Updating legal language to be more respectful has the potential to foster a climate of dignity and respect toward individuals with disabilities. For the general public, such changes can educate and encourage more thoughtful and inclusive discourse.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For individuals with intellectual disabilities and their advocates, this bill represents a positive development. It recognizes the need to treat all people with dignity and to eliminate words that perpetuate stigmas or misconceptions. Legal professionals, courts, and governmental entities involved in the implementation of these changes may face the task of adjusting to the new terms and ensuring consistency across legal documents and communications.
Educational institutions and media reporting on judicial matters may also be affected as they interpret and relay the significance of these linguistic shifts to their audiences. Lastly, this may prompt a broader reevaluation of language across various sectors and settings, inspiring similar initiatives aimed at fostering more inclusive environments.
Issues
Section 2 highlights a significant legal and ethical issue by replacing outdated and potentially offensive terminology ('substantially retarded persons') with 'persons with moderate intellectual disabilities'. While this is a positive step for inclusivity and sensitivity, it assumes the new terms are universally accepted and may still warrant further review to ensure they align with current best practices and are not inadvertently exclusionary.
The bill’s focus on updating language in legal documents (Section 2) underscores the importance of continuously evolving the legal terminology to reflect modern understanding and respect for individuals with disabilities. This speaks to broader social and ethical considerations regarding how individuals with disabilities are described and understood within legal frameworks.
While the bill's intention in Section 2 to change terminology is clear and legally straightforward, there may be lingering concerns about whether the lack of budgetary impact analysis could inadvertently overlook financial or administrative implications of implementing these language changes across various legal documents.
Section 1, which only provides the short title of the Act ('Words Matter for the District of Columbia Courts Act'), lacks detail on specific provisions or impacts of the Act. This absence of detailed context makes it challenging to fully assess the bill's broader implications or potential areas of concern, such as administrative burden or cost.
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 first section of the bill establishes its short title, which is 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 District of Columbia Official Code by replacing outdated terms that refer to individuals with intellectual disabilities with more respectful and accurate language, specifically updating phrases to "persons with moderate intellectual disabilities" in multiple legal sections.