Expectant Mother Parking vs. Accessible Spaces?

Accessible Parking is Not A Convenience, It’s A Civil Right

 

By Christina Clift

You might have noticed in some parking lots across Memphis and beyond, a trend has started to appear: designated parking spaces for expectant mothers placed right next to store entrances. At first glance, these signs may seem compassionate or even progressive. After all, pregnancy can be exhausting, uncomfortable, and physically demanding. However, when these spaces are added at the expense of accessible parking for people with disabilities, the result is not inclusion—it’s exclusion.

Accessible parking spaces exist for a specific and legally defined reason. They are not “close parking,” “special treatment,” or a courtesy extended by a business out of kindness. They are required to ensure that people with disabilities can safely and independently access goods, services, or possibly employment. When those spaces are reduced, replaced, or informally repurposed, people with disabilities are the ones who pay the price.

 

“Being pregnant doesn’t mean you should be entitled to extra perks or treated like an invalid, you’re just pregnant,” said Katina Johnson, a mother of four. “I see people getting out of vehicles parked in accessible parking spaces that don’t look like they have anything wrong with them. If they don’t have a disability then that’s wrong. People shouldn’t use these spaces just because they want a parking space close to the door. There are people with disabilities that really need those spaces.”

It is important to be clear: some pregnant women absolutely have disabilities. Pregnancy can worsen existing conditions or lead to complications that significantly limit mobility, stamina, or balance. In those cases, individuals may qualify for accessible parking and should be encouraged to speak with their healthcare provider. Doctors—not businesses, not store managers, and not sign manufacturers—should not be  the ones who determine whether someone meets the medical criteria for a disability parking placard or license plate. That system already exists, and it works when followed correctly.

The problem arises when pregnancy itself is treated as a blanket justification for special parking access. Pregnancy, by definition, is temporary. Disability is not always temporary, and for many people, accessible parking is the difference between being able to enter a building independently or not being able to enter at all. Creating “expectant mother” spaces by converting or crowding out accessible parking ignores this reality and undermines the purpose of those spaces.

Many businesses that install pregnancy parking signs do so without understanding accessibility requirements. Federal law sets minimum standards for the number, size, location, and signage of accessible parking spaces. These spaces must be closest to accessible entrances, include eight foot access aisles for mobility devices, and be clearly marked for use by people with valid placards or plates. When a business swaps an accessible space for a pregnancy-only space—or squeezes both into the same area—it risks violating both the letter and spirit of the law.

Even when pregnancy parking is added elsewhere in a lot, it often creates confusion and resentment. People with disabilities are frequently questioned, confronted, or judged for using accessible spaces. Adding more unofficial “priority” categories reinforces the harmful idea that disability must be visible, extreme, or comparable to another condition to be valid. That mindset hurts everyone.

If businesses truly want to support pregnant customers, there are better and more inclusive solutions. They can add general courtesy spaces that do not replace accessible parking. They can offer curbside pickup, delivery options, benches near entrances, or flexible assistance from staff. These approaches expand access without taking it away from someone else.

At Disability Connection Midsouth, we believe the answer to access challenges is not competition—it’s expansion. The solution is not fewer accessible parking spaces but more of them. Parking lots should be designed with the understanding that accessibility benefits everyone: people with disabilities, older adults, parents with strollers, and yes, pregnant individuals who may need extra support.

Accessible parking is a civil right rooted in independence and equal participation in community life. Treating it as optional or interchangeable sends the wrong message. Compassion should never come at the expense of equity.

We urge businesses, planners, and community members to pause before celebrating pregnancy-designated parking spaces. Ask whose access is being reduced, whose needs are being deprioritized, and whether the decision aligns with true inclusion. When we protect and expand accessible parking, we build communities that work better for everyone.

The Hidden Costs of Blindness

The Hidden Costs of Blindness — Beyond What Meets the Eye

By Kendra Brown, DCM Independent Living Specialist
Living with blindness or low vision has costs far beyond what many people notice at first glance. For a parent raising kids, those costs can intensify and affect nearly every aspect of daily life: from routine expenses (transportation, healthcare, assistive devices) to less obvious ones (lost income, extra care time, limited mobility).

The economic weight of vision loss and blindness in the United States is substantial, reaching an estimated $134.2 billion annually according to research cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This staggering total is primarily driven by $98.7 billion in direct costs, which encompass essential medical care, specialized vision services, and the expenses associated with nursing home care.

Beyond these immediate medical expenditures, the nation incurs an additional $35.5 billion in indirect costs. These figures represent the broader economic impact of the condition, including lost productivity due to reduced labor force participation and the significant value of unpaid or informal care provided by family and friends. When viewed on an individual scale, these collective expenses translate to an average annual burden of approximately $16,838 for every person living with vision loss or blindness.

Extra Financial Strain for Blind or Low-Vision Families (“The Disability Squeeze”)

One report from the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) describes what they call the “disability squeeze” — the economic strain many blind or low-vision (BLV) people experience: (The American Foundation for the Blind)

• In a 2023 survey of 288 BLV people, 80% reported having out-of-pocket disability-related expenses, with the average annual out-of-pocket cost around $6,743. (The American Foundation for the Blind)

• Many respondents reported unmet needs: 68% had at least one unmet disability-related need (e.g., assistive devices, accessible transport), and 39% said they struggled to make ends meet because of disability-related costs. (The American Foundation for the Blind)

• Around 25% said they cut back on essentials — like food — because of these costs, and 26% reported going into debt because of disability-related expenses. (The American Foundation for the Blind)

For a family with children, such financial strain can be even harder: when a substantial portion of income goes to disability-related costs, there’s less left for children’s needs — school supplies, healthy food, clothing, childcare, emergencies, etc.

Why Raising Kids as a Blind or Disabled Parent May Cost Even More

When a parent is blind or visually impaired and raising kids, several overlapping cost factors emerge or increase:

• Assistive technologies and aids: Devices, mobility aids, screen readers or other adaptive tech, and regular maintenance — many blind adults rely on these long-term.

• Health and supportive services: Frequent medical or optometric and ophthalmologic visits, possible home care, special services for children (transportation, supervision), etc.

• Reduced ability to work or lower earnings: As documented, blindness often leads to reduced labor force participation or employment at fewer hours, less pay, or unemployment — which reduces household income. (CDC)

• Informal caregiving burden: For children especially, the parent or other family members may need to spend additional time or hire help for childcare — which adds costs or reduces available time for paid work.

• Household-level income shortfall plus extra expenses means less disposable income to meet both disability-related and children-related needs.

One broader analysis, not limited to blindness but to disability in general, estimates that households with a disabled adult need on average 28% more income —~$17,690 more per year — to maintain the same standard of living as a comparable household without a disabled member. (The Century Foundation) This helps illustrate the gap many disabled families face.

Government Support — Helpful, But Often Not Enough

There are programs meant to help, but data suggests they often fall short of fully covering the real added costs.

• For working-age adults who are blind and receive disability benefits via Social Security Administration (SSA), the average monthly benefit amount (per data from December 2023) is around $1,537 per month (mean), median $1,410/month. (researchondisability.org)

• Even with SSI/SSDI and other support, many BLV families still report out-of-pocket disability-related expenses and unmet needs. (The American Foundation for the Blind)

Given how frequently BLV respondents in surveys report spending ~$6,700 each year out-of-pocket — or cutting back on essentials — it becomes clear that government support often does not fully offset the added cost burden of blindness and parenting.

What These Challenges Mean in Real Life — For Blind Parents Raising Children

Based on the data and reports cited above, a blind or visually-impaired parent might realistically face a relentless financial squeeze that ripples through every aspect of a family’s life. It begins with the heavy burden of extra out-of-pocket expenses, where specialized medical care and essential assistive devices can drain hundreds or even thousands of dollars from the budget each year. This strain is further intensified by a reduced capacity to earn, leaving the household with significantly less income to cover basic living costs and children’s expenses.

As a result, parents are frequently forced into making impossible choices, weighing the need for life-altering specialized equipment against fundamental essentials like food, clothing, and school supplies. This precarious balance creates a high risk of debt, food insecurity, and housing or hygiene hardships, leaving many basic needs unmet for both the parent and the child. Ultimately, the constant cycle of stress and financial instability does more than just deplete a bank account; it can deeply impact children’s long-term well-being, limiting their educational opportunities, extracurricular activities, and the overall stability they need to flourish.

Why It’s More Than Just Money

Beyond these direct costs, the impact of living with a visual impairment extends into the very fabric of daily life, beginning with the significant time investments required for routine tasks. Blind parents often find that activities others might take for granted—such as navigating new environments, preparing children for school, or coordinating specialized care—demand much more time and meticulous planning. This lack of time is often compounded by limited professional flexibility; work hours may be fewer or less stable, which makes long-term financial planning and career progression significantly harder to achieve.

The intersection of this financial strain and the demanding nature of caregiving responsibilities often takes a profound mental and emotional toll. The resulting chronic stress can diminish a parent’s overall quality of life and their capacity to provide emotional support, creating a heavy burden for the entire family. Furthermore, these challenges frequently limit access to the broader community. Due to mobility barriers, the high cost of specialized services, or a lack of accessible transportation and childcare, both parents and children may miss out on the extracurricular activities and social opportunities that are vital for development and connection.

What Could Help — Policy Implications and Community Support

Given these challenges, several steps could significantly improve the situation for blind parents with children:

1. Increase financial supports — disability benefits sometimes don’t match real costs; more targeted subsidies for assistive technologies, childcare, transport would help.

2. Accessible childcare and education services — ensuring local childcare, after-school programs, and schools are accessible and can support parents with disabilities.

3. Employment supports and accommodations — programs like the Ticket to Work Program (through SSA) aim to help blind and disabled adults re-enter the workforce under more flexible terms. (Choose Work!)

4. Awareness and community resources — many needs go unrecognized; communities, nonprofits, and social agencies can help by offering adaptive parenting resources, peer support, and financial counseling.

5. Policy reforms to better reflect real costs — analyses like the one showing BLV households spending 27% of income on disability-related expenses suggest that cost-of-living adjustments for disability benefits are overdue. (The American Foundation for the Blind)

Final Thoughts: A Reality Often Unseen

Being a parent is challenging for anyone — but when a parent is blind (or otherwise visually impaired), those challenges can multiply in often invisible ways. Beyond the love, care, and dedication required to raise children, blind parents may also carry the burden of extra expenses, reduced income, and hard trade-offs that many don’t see or understand.

Yet, with clearer awareness of the numbers — the $134.2 billion national burden, the $6,700 average out-of-pocket costs for BLV people, the need for 28% more income for disabled households just to maintain a standard of living — we can begin to understand just how steep the climb can be.

If we care about equity and supporting families, we must recognize: raising kids under disability isn’t just a personal challenge — it’s a structural issue that calls for better policies, community support, and real investment.

Progress at MATA?

Riding the Road to Transit Equity in Memphis

By Allison Donald

Public transit in Memphis has long reflected scarcity—of funding, trust, and consistent leadership. For riders, that scarcity shows up in missed connections, long waits, and limited options that shape daily life. Recent updates from MATA Trustee Rodrick Holmes signal movement in a more responsible direction, but progress alone does not equal transformation. Memphis needs a transit system that is affordable, accessible, and reliable for all.

For tens of thousands of Memphians, riding MATA is a necessity, not a convenience. It’s the mother rushing to a second job, the student racing to class, the father relying on MATAplus for critical appointments. These rides are lifelines—but they have been fragile for decades.

Buses fail to show on time. Shelters are very few in our city and offer little protection from the heat, the cold and a hard rain. Routes are limited. Schedules are unpredictable. These gaps are not minor inconveniences—they limit opportunity, drive up traffic congestion, overload parking and reinforce inequality.

Some improvements are worth noting. The Free Fare Pilot has increased ridership 18% overall according to the Daily Memphian (12/2/2025). This has shown that removing fares expands access to jobs, education, and essential services. Fifteen new vans for MATAplus riders help address delays, buses have been revitalized, shelters built, and customer service staffing increased with de-escalation training.

These changes matter—but they are incremental. Paratransit (MATAplus) riders still face delays, and fixed-route service remains limited in coverage and reliability. Staffing shortages, aging infrastructure, and limited fleet capacity continue to restrict access. 

“Due to capacity constraints I am now having to pay extra money for rides,” explains MATAplus rider Kendra Brown, “because I cannot get a ride on a consistent basis.”

Her experience shows that gaps in service don’t just inconvenience riders—they have tangible financial and life consequences.

Some operational decisions illustrate both caution and vulnerability. Holmes canceled previously ordered buses after staff found them mechanically unsound. Expansion slowed, but unsafe vehicles were kept off the road. Safety matters—but deferred investment continues to constrain the system.

“It is encouraging,” said Organizer Ron Davis, who has worked so riders voices are heard by the MATA management, “that Mr. Holmes is working with community partners and his staff to change the narrative regarding MATA.” 

Building a truly equitable system requires organized, sustained community engagement. More than 40,000 Memphians signed up for the new payment system a year ago. The 40k Strong campaign, a movement designed to center the stories of riders themselves, is looking to include all the potential daily bus riders in the area. 

Holmes’ updates at City Council committee meetings are one opportunity for accountability—but participation cannot stop at observation. Riders, advocates, and residents must attend the monthly City Council committee meetings when Holmes presents MATA updates and push for concrete outcomes.

Better Transit for a Better Memphis invites community members to join the Transit Equity Team. Help monitor policy decisions, advocate for sustained investment, and ensure that riders—especially those most affected by disinvestment—remain at the center of every conversation. Your involvement is essential.

February 7, 2026, will be Transit Equity Day in Memphis. This is not symbolic. It is a day to demand that public transit be treated as essential infrastructure and a civil right. Showing up, in person or virtually, transforms acknowledgment into accountability.

Public transit is more than moving people. It is connection, opportunity, and the backbone of a city that values all its residents. The 40,000-strong movement shows that Memphians care deeply about a system that works equitably. The future of Memphis transit depends on who engages, who holds decision-makers accountable, and who refuses to accept incrementalism over equity. Progress is happening—but without sustained, organized advocacy, it will not deliver true justice.

For ongoing advocacy, resources, and updates, visit Disability Midsouth.

MATAplus Must Change

MATAplus Must Change

Planning progress for MATA includes upgrades to the paratransit system.

By Allison Donald and Tim Wheat

Using MATAplus in Memphis should feel like freedom for people with disabilities, not a fight. For too long, the disabled community in Memphis has dealt with a frustrating and often unreliable transportation system, one that asks people to plan their lives around a reservation system that’s frankly insulting in its inefficiency. While MATA “Ready-Ride” is able to schedule on-demand transportation, MATAplus still requires people with disabilities in Memphis to schedule rides three-days in advance. Federal law requires “next-day service,” but MATAplus is so mired in illegal capacity constraints on the system that they don’t even try to follow the federal regulations. - Read more about Capacity Constraints - 

The most immediate and critical change the Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) must enact is a shift to next-day paratransit service. It’s the top priority, a matter of human dignity and equal access. Asking a person to call three days in advance for an essential ride is a fundamental barrier to employment, healthcare, and social engagement. This lack of equitable service is an additional hurdle to the disability community and a harm to social determinants of health. Poor access to transportation isolates our community and expands the costs both individually to people with disabilities and the costs to the community.

In a world where on-demand ride-sharing services exist, a three day wait for a vital public service is unacceptable. Advances in transportation in the past 40 years have left people with disabilities behind. There are not equal options of accessible taxis or Lyft and Uber. MATA needs to find the operational will to ensure that people can book a ride today for tomorrow. That basic request is not just reasonable, it is our civil right. 

However, it is not just the reservation system that harms the Memphis community and stagnates MATA’s service. Consulting firm TransPro’s assessment revealed a crippling inefficiency where a vast majority of trips were made with only one passenger on the vehicle. Because ADA-mandated paratransit is designed as a shared-ride service, MATA’s operational inefficiency represents a severe failure, driving up the cost per trip and contributing to the system's overall fragility. 

Achieving this level of service requires a cultural and administrative overhaul, beginning at the very top of the paratransit division. MATA must resist the urge to fill the crucial role of Paratransit Director with a long-time MATA administrator who is steeped in the agency's existing, failing protocols. This position demands an outsider, a proven leader with extensive experience specifically managing and modernizing paratransit operations in a metropolitan area. This individual must possess a deep understanding of ADA compliance, eligibility and, crucially, a user-centric approach to service delivery. Their mandate should be clear: modernize the system and prioritize the rider experience, not just the budget.

The agency also needs to stop operating in a vacuum when it comes to the community it serves. A vital partner for this shift is Disability Connection Midsouth (DCM), an organization staffed by people with disabilities who inherently understand the daily challenges of navigating Memphis. MATA should formally include DCM in the paratransit eligibility and service appeal process. When a person’s application is denied, they deserve a fair and informed review. Having DCM on the appeals committee would ensure that lived experience and a non-agency perspective guide decisions, adding a layer of transparency and empathy that is currently lacking. 

Furthermore, DCM must be brought in to revamp MATA’s travel training programs. Their expertise in independent living skills, including training on navigating transportation options, makes them an invaluable resource for teaching people how to use the fixed-route services when possible, which benefits both the rider and the paratransit system's capacity. Collaborating with DCM is a necessary step to embed genuine community input and expertise into the fabric of MATA's services.