Advocates share tips on how to respectfully interact with people who have disabilities
There's a huge chance you or someone you know has some sort of disability. The number of Americans who have disabilities is on the rise.
Tuesday is Disability Advocacy Day in Minnesota, so WCCO found out how to respectfully interact with people who have disabilities.
Crowds filled the Minnesota Capitol rotunda on Tuesday as they showed the power of people with disabilities.
Mao Yang, a loyal WCCO viewer, wears a crown as a conversation piece; she says it makes people see something other than her disability.
"I wish that people knew we are just like everyone else," Yang said. "We just want to go out in the community and have jobs and be productive citizens."
The number of people with disabilities is growing because of diseases and an aging population. One in four people now have a disability.
"When you hear the word disability, what comes to mind? Targets — because people either want to take advantage of us, or they think of us as weaklings," Rochelle Launer said.
The community showed their strength, expressing how complicated it was for many to even get to the capitol, saying transportation is huge and so is communication.
Krista Jacobson, who has cerebral palsy, says she wishes people would interact with people with disabilities "just like anybody else."
"It doesn't matter that I am in a chair. Don't treat me like a little kid," Jacobson said.
"Ask them how they are, and then ask them if they mind if you ask why they are in a chair because it's about consent," Yang said.
"Don't disregard the disability, but don't just see them as a person with a disability, see them as a person," Launer said.
She added not to stare too.
"I almost feel like I am at a museum," Launer said.
But they recommend seeing and listening.
"I am an open book, I want people to understand," Jacobson said.
They say their hope is that people will hire more people with disabilities and make more doors and spaces accessible.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's proposed parks cuts rankle Republicans
The Big Story President Trump's proposed cuts to the National Park Service (NPS) are troubling some Republicans. © iStock The Trump administration has proposed a 30 percent cut to the park service's operations and staffing budgets. In addition, the administration's budget calls for transferring some park service sites to the states — a provision that is sparking particular ire from the GOP. Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) told The Hill the administration's proposed cuts were 'concerning.' 'We want to have some discussions on it and exactly how it's going to affect the park service and exactly what units the states are going to take over management. … We need more information,' added Simpson, who chairs the House appropriations subcommittee in charge of funding the NPS. Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who described himself as a 'strong supporter' of national parks, said he wants 'to make sure they're adequately funded.' He said the congressional appropriations process will 'sort all this out.' During a recent Senate hearing, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also expressed concerns about the administration's 'skinny budget' where some of the NPS cuts and the plan to move some parks to the states were floated. 'It's hard to square it with the claims that DOI [the Interior Department] is focused on fostering the American economy,' Murkowski said. During the same Senate hearing, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said he doesn't want to get rid of park rangers or firefighters. At the same time, Burgum said he does think the NPS budget can be reduced by eliminating office workers, including those working in human relations and information technology. Read more at Welcome to The Hill's Energy & Environment newsletter, I'm Rachel Frazin — keeping you up to speed on the policies impacting everything from oil and gas to new supply chains. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will affect the energy and environment sectors now and in the future: 'Ticking time bomb': Ocean acidity crosses vital threshold, study finds The deep oceans have crossed a crucial boundary that threatens their ability to provide the surface with food and oxygen, a new study finds. California scientists sound alarm on role of pesticides in raising resistance to antifungal drugs The proliferation of new fungicides in the U.S. agricultural sector may be raising resistance to critical antifungal medications in humans and animals, infectious disease experts are warning. Bipartisan lawmakers seek to reverse Trump's staff cuts at program that helps Americans afford heat, air conditioning A bipartisan set of lawmakers is introducing a bill that seeks to reverse the Trump administration's staffing cuts at a program that helps Americans afford heat and air conditioning. What We're Reading News we've flagged from other outlets touching on energy issues, the environment and other topics: In Georgia, Republicans Vote to Kill Green Jobs but Face Little Fallout (The New York Times) US solar energy growth to slow as Washington priorities shift (Reuters) On Tap Upcoming news themes and events we're watching: What Others are Reading Two key stories on The Hill right now: Pam Bondi's brother crushed in DC Bar Association election Brad Bondi, the brother of Attorney General Pam Bondi, overwhelmingly lost his bid to lead the D.C. Bar Association in a race with record turnout, the organization announced Monday. Read more RFK Jr. fires CDC's independent vaccine advisors Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he is removing every member of the independent panel advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccines, an unprecedented escalation in his quest to reshape the agency. Read more Opinions in The Hill Op-eds related to energy & environment submitted to The Hill: You're all caught up. See you tomorrow! Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
America Has Theories on Whether Trump-Elon Musk Feud Is All Fake
After President Donald Trump's beef with Tesla CEO Elon Musk practically broke the internet, Americans are wondering if all the drama was meant to deflect from one crucial piece of legislation: Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Act. Others, however, don't think the president is smart enough to pull it off. Let's get into it. After passing in the House by the skin of it's teeth, the GOP spending bill is headed to the Senate, drawing mixed reviews from Democrats and Republicans alike. With major cuts to Medicaid– which Trump promised he wouldn't do– questionable AI regulations, permanent taxes cut to the wealthy, adding trillions to the national debt and much more, Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Act is anything but beautiful, and more folks should be paying attention. But alas, they're not… And after last week's blow up between him and Musk, many online have theories that the Trump and Musk battle got people watching the wrong fight. 'This Trump-Musk fight seems like a distraction,' @d_originalone noted on June 5. Another user pointed out the suspicious timing of the feud coinciding with the bill. 'Elon Musk sitting on Epstein information and only releasing it because him and trump aren't friends makes him just as disgusting as Trump,' @namenonew started. 'It's all a distraction & greed tactic folks.' Even CNN host Audie Cornish noted 'there's a billion-dollar bill at stake—but all eyes are on the fight between two billionaires.' She continued, 'Medicaid, SNAP, and foreign policy are all in the balance, yet headlines focus on Musk and Trump.' 'Who gives a rat's ass bout a fake feud between 2 Nazis,' @kenyadad12 boldly tweeted before adding the real concern should be 'this bill GOP pushing through that will allow trump to ignore contempt orders from the courts.' Although many are convinced Trump's alleged scheme is to divert Americans from the dangers of the tax bill with the drama of the century, there's no way to exactly know if that's the president's real plan. But, you can't put anything past the man, who is known for his antics and divisive nature. On TikTok, @omekongo listed Trump's travel ban to 12 different countries, a recent abortion directive endangering pregnant people nation-wide and most importantly, that 'big, ugly tax bill' as reasons for Trump's alleged smoke and mirrors trick on America. Other folks online don't want to give Trump and Musk any credit for allegedly scheming to deter from the real issues plaguing the country. 'There's no master plan, no distraction; they're just impulsive fascist idiots,' @LivForJReeves10 said on X. @trustno1evah on TikTok said no matter how hard Trump might try to pull the wool over Americans' eyes, they're not doing a good job at it. 'This Trump and Musk fallout is all a staged LIE,' she said. The bill itself is over 1,000 pages long, tackling any and everything under the sun while still checking off key points in the MAGA rulebook, 'Project 2025.' With legislation this long and tedious, it's not shocking Americans won't be able to digest the full impact the bill will have on their lives. In fact, even House Republicans like Ga. Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene and Neb. Rep. Mike Flood admitted to skimming over key points in the vital tax legislation. If the very people elected to read and review proposed legislation have confessed to being unaware of the very small, fine print, then Americans should probably be paying even closer attention to what's at stake.
Newsweek
40 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Warns Supreme Court 'Fans the Flames'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a warning about the nation's highest court in her latest dissent over the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)'s access to Social Security systems. Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court's public information office email for comment. Why It Matters Jackson, the newest justice on the bench, warned that conservative justices are rushing to assist President Donald Trump's administration in the ruling handed down last week. Her warning comes as public trust in the Supreme Court remains low—the Pew Research Center found in August 2024 that a majority of American—51 percent—view the court unfavorably, while only 47 percent view the court favorably. Until 2022, Americans viewed the court favorably for decades. What to Know The court allowed DOGE, the task force aimed at cutting federal spending, to gain access to Social Security Administration (SSA) records last Friday. The relief came after U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander blocked the task force from gaining access to the systems over concerns about privacy implications. The court's three liberal justices dissented, with Jackson raising concerns about the court's ruling. When deciding questions like whether to grant or block an order issued by a lower court, the court assesses several factors including whether the applicant would face irreparable harm by allowing the stay to continue. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks during a confirmation hearing on March 22, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks during a confirmation hearing on March 22, 2022. MANDEL NGAN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote that the government did not substantiate its stay request "by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm" if the court allowed the block to stay in place awaiting a final verdict. Jackson said the only "urgency" underlying the application is the "mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." "That sentiment has traditionally been insufficient to justify the kind of extraordinary intervention the Government seeks," Jackson wrote. "But, once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." Jackson is "clearly expressing her frustration with the use of the shadow docket to make public policy, something the Court's conservatives have been increasingly willing to do," Paul Collins, professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Newsweek. "Public trust in the Court has fallen significantly in recent years, and Justice Jackson is likely linking the decline in public support for the Court to the growth in the use of the shadow docket," Collins said. Jackson issued a similar warning in the case Noem v. Doe in May. The case dealt with whether the administration could end a program giving residency to several countries facing domestic turmoil. She wrote the court "botched" its assessment and required "next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm." What People Are Saying Collins told Newsweek: "I think Justice Jackson's interpretation that the Court is rushing to side with the Trump Administration is a reasonable read of things. However, this probably has more to do with ideological alignment with the goals of the Trump Administration than with a particular affinity for President Trump. For instance, the Court's conservatives also sided with the Trump Administration in a case that would have required DOGE to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests." SSA Commissioner Bisignano to Newsweek via X last Friday: "The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts wrote on X on Friday: "MAJOR UPDATE: The Supreme Court just handed DOGE the keys to all the sensitive personal information Social Security has on file — your income, benefits, health records, and more. Why do Donald Trump and his cronies need access to millions of Americans' private data? It's absurd." What Happens Next Several pieces of Trump's agenda are facing legal battles, and the Supreme Court will continue playing a major role in determining whether his policies are constitutional or not moving forward. This has major implications for economic, immigration and social policy moving forward.
