HR-3420-119
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Sponsored by Pete Sessions (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would amend more than a dozen federal statutes to replace the terms "mentally retarded" and "mental retardation" with "intellectual disability" and "individuals with intellectual disabilities." The changes would apply across laws covering Medicaid, Medicare, military family healthcare, criminal justice, child nutrition, housing, and civil rights of institutionalized persons. The bill explicitly states it would not change any program's coverage, eligibility rules, rights, responsibilities, or definitions — only the terminology used.
Who benefits
People with intellectual disabilities and their families, who would no longer be described by a term widely considered stigmatizing in medical and social contexts. Disability advocacy organizations that have long sought this change. Healthcare providers, social workers, and legal professionals who use federal statutes and prefer terminology consistent with current clinical standards (the DSM-5 adopted "intellectual disability" in 2013). Federal agencies that administer affected programs and must align regulatory language with statutory text.
Who is hurt
No group is directly harmed in a material or financial sense. State governments may face indirect administrative burden if they voluntarily update their own laws and regulations to align with the new federal terminology, though the bill explicitly does not compel them to do so. Legal practitioners working with existing case law, contracts, or regulations that still use the old terms may encounter a transitional period of terminological inconsistency until agency regulations are updated.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that "mental retardation" is a clinically obsolete and socially harmful term that the American Psychiatric Association, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, and Rosa's Law (2010) have already replaced in other federal contexts. They contend that federal law should reflect current medical standards and the dignity of the people it serves, and point to broad bipartisan sponsorship — including members from both parties — as evidence that this is a straightforward modernization with no substantive policy trade-offs.
Opponents argue
Opponents could argue that piecemeal terminology updates create legal ambiguity during the transition period, as courts, contractors, and state agencies must reconcile newly amended statutes with unamended regulations, prior case law, and state codes that still use the old terms. They might also contend that congressional time and resources spent on purely linguistic changes could be directed toward substantive improvements in services and funding for people with intellectual disabilities, where documented gaps in care remain significant.