To the Least of These
Here is what the law does, said plainly: it favors the corporation over the disabled. The immortal entity that cannot suffer is handed more standing than the mortal one who can. I believe the inverse — and I believe the inverse is the just one.
The scale, as it's built
Stand the two of them next to each other and weigh what the law protects. On one side, the Super-Citizen: immortal, un-imprisonable, incapable of grief, of pain, of a body — a reification, rights without wounds. On the other, the Biological Citizen: the disabled human, the one who can be held, hurt, denied, and worn down — the one with a pulse. Now watch which one the statute rushes to shelter. The wallet with no body gets the speech, the standing, the deference; the body with no wallet gets the form to fill out. That is not an accident of the law; it is the shape of it.
Why the inverse is the just one
Because the capacity to suffer is the whole reason law exists. A statute that shelters a thing which cannot be harmed is protecting nothing; it is spending its force where no force is needed. The Inviolability Test already said it in the curator's own Notice: if the entity cannot suffer, the entity cannot speak. The corollary is this page: if the human can suffer, the human is where the price goes. Legitimacy is measured at the bottom of the scale, never the top. A law is only as just as its treatment of the one who can least defend against it.
To the least of these goes the price
It's an old measure, older than any of these corporations — whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me (Matthew 25:40). Read it as a budget line and it's the whole argument: the price — the priority, the protection, the public money — goes to the least of these, or the system isn't just; it's only efficient. This is biblical even to the atheist: you don't need the scripture to run the math, but the scripture ran the math first. The measure of a civilization is what it spends on the person who can give it nothing back. Everything else on this site — prisons, not pools; fund it, don't jail it; the floor, not the wage — is that one line, applied.
The law spends its strength defending the thing that can't bleed. Invert it. To the least of these goes the price.
And the studies don't argue
The moral case doesn't need the evidence — but the evidence keeps arriving on the same side anyway, which is the tell of a true thing. Prevention is cheaper than the cage and the bed both; a warm pool is the cheapest health in America, cited primary-source; the floor costs less than the confinement it replaces (the reverse-prison math). Fund the vulnerable and the ledger agrees with the gospel — the rare case where mercy and arithmetic point the same way. (0g, kept honest: "the studies" names the standing evidence base this house already cites on its linked pages, not a single named paper; any specific citation gets a primary-source pass before it ships. The moral claim stands on its own; the receipts are a bonus, not a bluff.)
Labeled opinion, in the curator's voice, argued about a structure — never about a soul; the humans inside every institution are not the target, the scale is. It descends from the Inviolability Test / the McKendry Doctrine and Corporations Aren't Real; the dignity floor (the one you don't get to vote on) is underneath all of it. One argument, zero lies. ;