WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

PS 324

“Para enmendar los Artículos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 y 17 de la Ley 238-2004, según enmendada conocida como Ley de “La Carta de Derechos de las Personas con Impedimentos” a los fines de adoptar el término de “diversidad funcional” y sustituir la palabra “impedimentos” o “impedidos”, conceptos que resultan discriminatorios para esa población; y para otros fines relacionados.”

2025-2028 Session

Puerto Rico bill replaces "disability" terminology with "functional diversity" across disability rights law to reduce discriminatory language and stigma.

Comisión no recomienda aprobación de la medida
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · PS 324

Legislative bill overview

Bill PS 324 proposes amending Puerto Rico's 2004 Law on Rights of Persons with Disabilities by replacing terminology such as "impedimentos" (impediments) and "impedidos" (impaired) throughout the law with "diversidad funcional" (functional diversity). The bill aims to modernize the legal language used to describe people with disabilities to reduce perceived discrimination embedded in the terminology.

Why is this important

Language shapes how society perceives and treats marginalized groups. Replacing deficit-based terminology with neutral descriptors like "functional diversity" can reduce stigma and promote dignity for people with disabilities. However, the practical impact depends on whether the terminology change translates into actual improvements in services, accessibility, and rights enforcement rather than remaining symbolic.

Potential points of contention

  • Semantic vs. substantive change: Critics may argue that renaming does not address underlying systemic barriers, accessibility gaps, or resource allocation issues that affect people with disabilities in Puerto Rico
  • International terminology alignment: "Functional diversity" differs from disability terminology used in international frameworks (UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities), potentially creating confusion in legal harmonization
  • Implementation costs and priorities: Resources spent on comprehensive legal revision across 17 articles could be allocated to direct services, infrastructure improvements, or enforcement of existing rights protections

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.