Picture of woman with a disability in the shower as people watch her

It's a crime when strangers watch other women shower...

but the Obama Department of Labor is forcing me to let them in!

Under proposed rules by the US Department of Labor, people with disabilities - like me - will be forced to give strangers the keys to our homes, bring them into our bathrooms and let them see us naked.


How many people do you want watching you in the shower?



I doubt you would want strangers coming into your home and watching you shower. Perhaps you think that - because I have a disability - I don't care who sees me naked or I am used to it, and it doesn't matter. Well frankly, it does!

Like everyone else, I want privacy. I don't want just anyone to see me naked, but the Obama administration thinks that the government, specifically the Department of Labor, should have control over that decision. Not me!

I have just a few trusted attendants who work with me.  They aren't actually family members - but we are just like family.  But the Department of Labor is establishing rules which will force me to cut their hours and bring strangers into my home to help me with my most personal care.

It's women's history month and we are celebrating the accomplishments of the women's rights movement. When I was a young girl, feminists were fighting for the right to control their own bodies.  As a woman with a disability – I am still fighting the same fight, demanding that I should make these decisions - and not the government. 

It seems ironic that I'm fighting against progressives!  I'm sure they never even considered what these rules would mean to me, as a woman with a disability. It probably never even occurred to them that they would be taking away my privacy. That these rules would undercut my right to make decisions about who touches my body. And who sees me naked.


I was asked to participate in this project to help people really understand what implementation of these proposed changes means. We realized that in trying to maintain some level of discretion, we weren't getting the point across.  This website is intended to help educate people about how changes to the companionship exemption will affect people with disabilities. We will drive the point home - in pictures - so people can truly understand this issue.

Other women – rightfully – become upset when they realize that a stranger is watching them in the shower. They feel vulnerable. They feel violated. They call the police because it's a crime. I think what the Obama administration is proposing to do to me is a crime. And because the police have no jurisdiction on this issue, I am pleading with you to help.

Learn more about this issue on this website and take action to support my right to control my body and decide who touches me, and sees me naked.

4 Responses so far.

  1. Heidi says:

    If you look, you can see so many negative things will come about because of progressives. They do not really care, they just look as if they do. This is just one example. And believe me, they don't care that you don't like this.

  2. This is not a policy that is just impacting women. ALL individual deserve the right to control who comes in their home. I'm guessing that those in the Department of Labor who are promoting this rule change have never talked to, our listened to, a person with a disability who requires personal attendant care. We are approaching Easter, and I can hear a voice crying, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

  3. Pez says:

    The President has ordered changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)to Domestic Service which, if put into effect, will seriously reduce the take-home pay of countless numbers of homecare workers such as I and make the lives of the people with disabilities we assist less manageable.
    The changes would require the payment of minimum wage to homecare workers and mandate that homecare workers must receive time and a half pay for every hour over 40 hours per week of work done. Medicaid would bear most of the burden.
    This sounds like it would be a major victory for me and my fellow homecare workers, right? But there's one big problem: where is the money to pay for this? If the law says we can't work without minimum wage or time and a half pay but the money's not there, then we won't be allowed to work those hours!
    That means, instead of increasing our take-home pay, the proposal will slash all hours beyond 40 per week of our pay. For me, that's 416 hours and $4,742.40 per year I will lose.
    My fellow workers who currently put in 84 hours per week will suffer a 44 hour loss -- over half their pay!
    Healthcare insurance will also be more precarious since it's based on the number of hours worked.
    In fact, home care agencies, to make sure they don't have to pay overtime, will likely split workers' hour in half and hire someone else to work the other half. I would be reduced from working 48 hours per week to just 24 and make healthcare even harder to get!
    As a result, many workers will be forced to seek out second or third to make up the loss.
    And, for the people we assist, their lives will be harder. They will likely bear the cost, through higher co-pays, of any over time that's paid. And they will either endure a reduction in homecare hours or will have to deal with more workers. That means more poorly paid people in their homes with even less incentive to do a good job. Care receivers who can't afford the higher co-pays will be forced to hire nonprofessionals or ask family members to quit their jobs to stay at home and assist them. Many people with disabilities have a hard enough time right now managing their assistants. The added strain will cause many to just give up and move into nursing homes.
    Who benefits from this proposal? Certainly the nursing home industry. Also the homecare unions which will receive more dues-paying members even as all the members' average standard-of-living declines. Even the most poorly-paid worker in a closed shop is required to turn over at least $25.10 per month in union dues. That's a windfall for union coffers even as the average standard of living of the workers plummets.
    What can we do? We can demand that, before this proposal is put into effect, funding for it be allocated and in place to begin payment immediately. Finding this money won't be easy. The federal government is 16 trillion dollars in debt (that's $16,000,000,000,000: a lot of zeros!) The states and municipalities aren't doing much better. But, until we are shown the money, this proposal is nothing but a shell game which promises a reward but leaves us worse off than before.
    Please, my brothers and sisters, before too many of you fall for this pie-in-the-sky scheme, we must see the money.
    Right now the rule change is before the White House Office of Management and budget. Common sense would tell them not to release the rule change which would allow it to take effect. But politics may prevail ahead of common sense. Contact the White House: 202-456-1111. Tell them, before they end the minimum wage and overtime exemption, first SHOW US THE MONEY!

  4. Unknown says:

    I would rather work 40 hours a week than to have my aunt deal with significant changes in her care. She is the reason i have a job. Are we not dealing with a pay freeze here already? Now who is going to want to work in home care with all of these cuts? Home care is already saving the nation tons of money by keeping people out of nursing homes!!! Informal care will soon be unheard of because of all of the political nonsense. Obama needs to go sit in someones house for a day and see how difficult it is already on people with limitations. Why is it necessary to cause more barriers for them? Their vulnerability is at risk even more. Are we not supposed to try to make these people less vulnerable? I can see abuse rising if this stuff goes through.

Leave a Reply