References
- ADA Amendments Act of 2009, Pub. L. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (2009) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12010–12213).
- Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213).
- Aquinas, T. Summa Theologica.
- Adler, M. D. (2000). Expressive theories of law: A skeptical overview. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 148, 1363–1501.
- Asch, A. (1989). Reproductive technology and disability. In S. Cohen & N. Taub (Eds.), Reproductive laws for the 1990’s (pp. 70–128). Clifton, NJ: Humana Press.
- Asch, A. (2000). Why I haven’t changed my mind about prenatal diagnosis. In E. Parens & A. Asch (Eds.), Prenatal testing and disability rights (pp. 236–259). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
- Bagenstos, S. R. (2009). Law and the contradictions of the disability rights movement. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Baxter v. State, 354 Mont. 234, 224 P.3d 1211 (2009).
- Befort, S. F. (2010). Let’s try this again: The ADA amendments act of 2008 attempts to reinvigorate the “regarded as” prong of the statutory definition of disability. Utah Law Review, 2010, 993–1028.
- Berman, H. J. (1958). The nature and functions of law: An introduction for students of the arts and sciences. St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.
- Brest, P. (1976). The Supreme Court, 1975 Term—Foreword: In defense of the antidiscrimination principle. Harvard Law Review, 90(1), 1–54.
- Disability Rights Amici. (January 6, 2017). (Not Dead Yet, Adapt, Association Of Programs For Rural Independent Living, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Center For Disability Rights, Disability Rights Center, Disability Rights Education And Defense Fund, National Council On Independent Living, New York Association On Independent Living, Regional Center For Independent Living, And United Spinal Association), Amicus Brief in Myers v. Schneiderman.
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Regulations to Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, Appendix: Interpretive Guidance On Title I Of The Americans With Disabilities Act.
- Funk, D. A. (1972). Major functions of law in modern society. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 23, 257–306.
- Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006).
- Murphy v. United Parcel Service, 527 U.S. 516 (1999).
- Myers v. Schneiderman, 140 A.D.3d 51 (A.D.N.Y. 2016); 30 N.Y.3d 1 (2017) (affirmed); 30 N.Y.3d 1009 (2017) (rehearing denied).
- Press, N. (2000). Assessing the expressive character of prenatal testing: The choices made or the choices made available? In E. Parens & A. Asch (Eds.), Prenatal testing and disability rights (pp. 214–233). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
- Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub.L. No. 93-112, § 504, 87 Stat. 344, 394 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (2006).
- School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987).
- Sunstein, C. R. (1996). On the expressive function of law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 144, 2021–2053.
- Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999).
- Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002).
- Schiltz, E. R. (2014). Finding common ground in the disability rights critiques of selective abortion. In R. West, M. Esser, & J. Murray (Eds.), Search for common ground on abortion: From culture war and reproductive justice (pp. 117–142). London: Ashgate Publishing.
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).
- Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997).
![Supercharge Your Next Research Paper: Research and write your next paper with Jenni AI.]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/112444/Skyscraper-humanities.png"})