A house divided against itself cannot stand.
When Abraham Lincoln included these words in a speech to the Republican Convention of 1858, even his friends found them inappropriately radical. And then history proved him correct.
More than 150 years later, the U.S. has united on the issue of Lincoln’s day. Yet we still see the House divided ... and the Senate, and the Supreme Court. Except on one issue.
Back in 2010, Congress passed Rosa’s Law, which required the substitution of the words “intellectual disability” for “mental retardation” in federal laws. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court echoed this sentiment in both the majority and minority opinions on a case regarding a Florida law on determining intellectual disability for death row inmates.
While the decision in the case was divided 5 to 4, the consensus of the justices was that it is no longer acceptable to use the term “mental retardation” in their legal opinions. Advocacy groups like the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and The Arc (both of which ironically used to have the word “retarded” in their names as well) have long championed the use of diagnostic terms that avoid stigma. Any term that is used as an insult in the school yard, they’ve suggested, should not be used in official language.
The Supreme Court’s change follows the shift of Congress. The most recent versions of the coding and diagnosis lists published for physicians and psychiatrists have changed to intellectual disability as well. Though this may make it seem like the Supreme Court is behind the times in its decision, in the past, the Court has often served as the tipping point for creating widespread change in the use of new and more appropriate terms.
The case that was the catalyst for the change in the court’s language reflected another widespread shift in how we approach intellectual disabilities. In the case Hall v. Florida, the Court found the State of Florida violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment in ordering the death sentence for an inmate who had an intellectual disability.
Appellant Freddie Lee Hall challenged his death sentence for a 1978 murder with the argument that Florida law prohibits the death penalty for a person with an intellectual disability. The state of Florida argued Hall did not meet the definition of a person with an intellectual disability, defined as an IQ of 70 or below. The court ultimately agreed with professionals who testified in the case that the classification for an intellectual disability must account for other factors, such as adaptive functioning and the margin of error on IQ tests.
The outcome of the case shows us one important thing. While we might still be divided on how we define an intellectual disability, our house is united in the belief that the people who fall into this category should be treated with dignity, both in language and in action.
P.S.: Lincoln lost the 1858 election.
Tara Kiene is the director of case management with Community Connections Inc.
