Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/04/2026 9:16:33 AM PDT by willk
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., introduced legislation last week that would significantly expand rights for the homeless and overhaul how the government treats Americans living on the streets by siphoning billions from defense spending.
The "Unhoused Persons Bill of Rights" calls for government-led intervention to end homelessness over the next three years and introduces more than a dozen protections for homeless people.
If passed, Tlaib's legislation would include freedom of movement for homeless people in public spaces, affordable housing, "livable" wages, universal healthcare and panhandling.
Under the resolution, homeless individuals would have the "right to uninhibited access" to public parks, transportation, facilities, sidewalks, buildings, restrooms and other spaces — meaning they could legally set up camp in such public spaces.
Specifically, homeless individuals would be given protections against "banishment" from private property, which the Michigan Democrat's measure characterizes as a violation of an individual’s "fundamental civil and human rights."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
The courts had almost nothing to do with ending asylum for the seriously mentally ill.
It was Congress, encouraged by JFK, who enacted a presumption for treatment in nonexistent community facilities, and Reagan who finished the job by executive order.
When judges release seriously mentally ill people from confinement, they are mostly following the law your representatives made.
The courts had almost nothing to do with ending asylum for the seriously mentally ill.
It was Congress, encouraged by JFK, who enacted a presumption for treatment in nonexistent community facilities,
Wasn’t JFK’s sister lobotomized?
“Wasn’t JFK’s sister lobotomized?”
That is common knowledge.
The states were hugely in favor of closing asylums to save money and trouble*.
*They were often poorly maintained and inadequately run. Target often deservedly so for class action law suits.
Make this Tlaib creature homeless
Yes I think that’s true.
“The courts had almost nothing to do with ending asylum for the seriously mentally ill.”
Several landmark court decisions severely restricted the ability of states to confine individuals against their will, acting as a major legal force behind the shrinking of asylum populations:
Lake v. Cameron (1966): A D.C. Court of Appeals case that established the concept of the “least restrictive setting,” requiring that patients be placed in the least restrictive environment available, rather than automatically in a hospital.
O’Connor v. Donaldson (1975): The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of family/friends. This legally ended the practice of “warehousing” people with mental illness simply because they were in need of care.
Olmstead v. L.C. (1999): The Supreme Court ruled that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), people with mental disabilities have the right to receive care in community-based treatment settings rather than institutions whenever possible.
In this case I think they’re attempting to turn the money spigot on for their wealthy contributors.
The best form of savage justice would be a bunch of bums camp in her front yard.
Every Democrat that espouses this idea needs to come face to face with the law of reciprocity and consequences.
Nonsense.
There is no objective definition of how much of other people's money should be spent on your troubles.
My original psych training included work in a State mental hospital. Yes, it's nowhere you would ever want to be. But it was warm in the winter, three meals a day, meds to push the demons away, and some protection from self and others.
Three shifts a day, seven days a week. For a job no one wants to do.
What do you expect?
Lawsuits? Ridiculous!
This is the same problem as Florida nursing homes. There's a law in Florida about nursing home residents "rights".
Medicaid pays $68/day for three shifts, seven days a week.
What do you think you can provide for $68/day?
If you say so.
However if its a job no one wanted. That kind of says they were maybe not inadequately but indifferently run!
Back in the 1960s\1970s I was always seeing law suits rightly or wrongly against state mental hospitals. I also remember seeing newspaper accounts of the states continuing cutting the budgets of this institutions.
Of course maybe your experience was the exception!
Of course those hospitals were sued all the time, for not spinning straw into gold.
Have you ever been locked in with raving violent schizophrenics for eight or twelve hours? Try it before you get judgmental about a job nobody wants to do.
Having the patients freeze to death on subway grates or get raped in homeless encampments isn’t really an improvement.
Bring back vagrancy laws. Keep em moving. I remember when major American cities like DC were safe, clean, and wonderful to explore. Many of you, if not most, were not even born when that was the case. Yes I am that old.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.