Essay
Kirsten Hillery
Model Legislature 2024
HF 5487 Pro-Con Essay
Pro-Con Essay
Most of us read a newspaper, magazine, or book every day; however, reading often isn’t
as easy for those who are blind or print disabled. HF 5487 would bring legislation to Minnesota
not only ensuring that more resources are accessible for blind and print disabled persons but also,
more importantly, that the growing number of people who need accessible resources are aware of
them. This bill would give responsibility to the Department of Education for bringing awareness
to and educating people about the resources available for blind and print disabled persons. One
focus of this bill is to create a fully accessible online website to provide a large body of information
on the statewide services, resources, and publications that are available yet not well known. This
bill will also encourage communication between departments, bringing more factors into
consideration for those who are blind. Lastly, this bill would help us prepare for the future;
according to an article from JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) in 2015
there were just over a million people blind in the US, but this number is predicted to grow to
over 2 million by 2050, demonstrating the growing need for access to resources for the blind.
Overall, HF 5487 seems like a no-brainer, providing more resources to blind people, whose
population is predicted to double in just 35 years, as well as increasing communication between
departments and educating society about the resources available for blind and print-disabled
people so that they can better contribute to society. HF 4587 would make a world of difference
for those who are blind and print-disabled.
HF 4587 would provide more resources to blind people, but in the process, it could add to
current workloads. This bill might be unnecessary as some resources are already available for
blind and print disabled persons such as the “Minnesota Braille and Talking Book Library” and
some blind and print disabled people may have someone who can read materials to them.
Another piece to consider is that this bill only directly benefits a small percentage of the
population and some might believe that the time and attention should be put towards something
else. A most critical aspect of this bill is that as it is currently this task would be added to current
positions as it has no funding and so would be added to other projects. Overall, arguments
against HF 4587 include that as it has no funding it would be added to current workloads and that
there are already some resources for the relatively small number of people who are blind or print
disabled.
Pro: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/2523780
Con: https://education.mn.gov/mde/fam/mbtbl/
