Center for American Progress

The Top 5 Ways Project 2025 Would Hurt Disabled People
Report
Part of a Series
In this article
A group of people on motorized wheelchairs ride down a sidewalk in Yuma, Arizona.
A group of people on motorized wheelchairs ride down a sidewalk in Yuma, Arizona, November 7, 2022. (Getty/Sandy Huffaker)

This issue brief is part of a series from the Center for American Progress exposing how the sweeping Project 2025 policy agenda would harm all Americans. This new authoritarian playbook, published by the Heritage Foundation, would destroy the 250-year-old system of checks and balances upon which U.S. democracy has relied and give far-right politicians, judges, and corporations more control over Americans’ lives.

Authors’ note: The disability community is rapidly evolving to using identity-first language in place of person-first language. This is because it views disability as being a core component of identity, much like race and gender. Some members of the community, such as people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, prefer person-first language. In this column, the terms are used interchangeably.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025—a 900-page authoritarian playbook for a far-right presidential administration—will radically harm disabled people across the United States.1 As the disability community continues to grow in the United States due to an aging population, long COVID, and other factors,2 it is important to evaluate how Project 2025’s agenda would specifically affect disabled people, who make up at least 28.7 percent of the U.S. population.3

This field is hidden when viewing the form

Default Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

Variable Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

Project 2025’s far-right, undemocratic plans4 will dismantle protections and services for disabled people across the country. Executive action could bring many of these plans to fruition swiftly. Below are five ways in which Project 2025 would harm the disability community.

1. Project 2025 plans to eliminate the rights of and protections for disabled students

Disabled students rely on the enforcement of specific federal laws and regulations in order to obtain an equitable education in the least restrictive setting. Project 2025 proposes multiple structural changes that would directly affect students with disabilities.

Moving the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services to HHS

The U.S. Department of Education was created to strengthen the federal commitment to ensuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual and to help “improve the coordination of Federal education programs.”5 By eliminating the department and segregating Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services programs6 to various agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),7 Project 2025 would make it much more difficult to coordinate a knowledge base and resources. It would also be harder to ensure that disabled students receive a free, appropriate public education in the most integrated setting, as promised by the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 19758 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004.9

Eliminating earmarked funding for special institutions

Project 2025 intends to eliminate earmarked funding and thus strip disabled people of access to valued educational institutions,10 possibly including the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, the American Printing House for the Blind, and Gallaudet University.11 These institutions provide disabled students with education and support when they can’t receive an equitable education in mainstream public schools.

Redistributing public school funding into K-12 education savings accounts and converting most IDEA funding into a no-strings formula block grant

States or families would likely pay more due to unregulated allocation and use of IDEA funding under Project 2025.12 IDEA authorized the federal government to pay 40 percent of the average per-student spending for special education services.13 However, current funding is at less than 13 percent.14 Under Project 2025, schools would receive funding from individual student savings accounts managed by nonprofits.15 It is unclear whether these schools would be required to abide by IDEA16 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.17

Rescinding equity in IDEA regulation

Project 2025 would eliminate the equity requirements in IDEA.18 This would negatively affect data tracking and funding to address racial segregation and stigmatization issues that students of color often face within special education programs.19 In 2018, Trump administration Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos decided not to implement an Obama-era rule to standardize the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection survey data on students of color in IDEA programs. Her decision ensured that the government and the public could not track and address the inequities that students of color faced in schools.20 Project 2025 intends to continue those efforts to hamstring the Department of Education’s data collection. It also intends to remove the 15 percent reallocation of IDEA Part B funding to institutions, which addresses discrepancies around the overrepresentation of students of color in special education​ and around the rate of discipline—including suspensions—of students with disabilities. 21

2. Project 2025 would enact major cuts to key health coverage programs and services

If enacted fully, Project 2025 would worsen the already fragile state of care for disabled people,22 making it significantly harder for disabled people to receive the care and support they need.

Threatening Medicaid

Project 2025 would slash funding and services by converting Medicaid funding to block grants or per capita caps, thus restricting the amount of money states would have to spend on Medicaid.23 Project 2025 would also make it harder for states to provide essential home- and community-based services for people with disabilities.24 Most egregiously, Project 2025 would set time limits on Medicaid coverage or arbitrary lifetime caps on benefits, which could put millions of Americans at risk of losing coverage.25 Project 2025 would also attempt to introduce failed policies such as work requirements for Medicaid eligibility.26

Repealing Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug prices

Project 2025 would fully repeal the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).27 If this occurs, up to 18.5 million Medicare Part D enrollees could face increased out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs.28 People on Medicare would lose the financial security provided by the IRA’s annual and monthly out-of-pocket caps, and Medicare would once again be banned from negotiating lower prices directly with drug companies.29

Separating the subsidized ACA exchange market from the nonsubsidized insurance market

Project 2025 intends to separate nonsubsidized Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans from subsidized plans and to provide “market regulatory relief” from ACA regulatory mandates.30 In other words, it would strip consumer protections from people who buy insurance on their own. This would allow plans to revert to discriminating against people with preexisting conditions; setting lifetime caps on coverage; charging people more or denying them coverage altogether based on their medical history; or excluding benefits for basic services such as mental health care or maternity care.31

Losing access to choice and privacy

Project 2025 would reduce health care choice—including with regard to reproductive health care—by effectively banning abortion medication, which is used for a range of medical conditions that affect the disability community. It would also reduce health privacy by requiring HHS to force each state to surveil “how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method.”32 Project 2025 also advocates for tracking comparisons between live births and abortions across demographics, potentially targeting marginalized communities.33

Restructuring the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Project 2025 would reduce the size of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and split the agency in two, jeopardizing its ability to mitigate pandemics by limiting its scientifically based public health recommendations and guidelines. The changes would decrease the CDC’s role in tracking disease outbreaks and recommending masking or clean air initiatives to reduce the spread of respiratory illness, in addition to limiting access to public health data. This would put disabled people, who tend to have weaker immune systems and complex medical needs, at higher risk.

3. Project 2025 would create even more barriers to employment for disabled workers

According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates, 7.6 million workers identified as disabled in September 2024.34 Project 2025 could eliminate basic worker protections for people with disabilities.

Eliminating Employment Information Report data collection

Project 2025 intends to remove the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) enforcement capacity of antidiscrimination laws by making it impossible to demonstrate how an employer’s workplace policies and practices can harm workers. Eliminating Employment Information Report data collection35 would weaken the EEOC’s authority to file, mediate, and settle discrimination lawsuits against employers on behalf of workers.36

Limiting EEOC consent decrees

By prohibiting the EEOC from entering into consent decrees,37 Project 2025 would make workplaces less safe for disabled employees. Currently, the EEOC can file a suit against a company that it has found to have likely violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If found guilty, an employer may be forced into a consent decree,38 which would require them to change policy and practice to prevent future harm and to report on their efforts.39 Consent decrees may also provide financial settlements to affected employees.40 Limiting the ability of the EEOC to use consent decrees would reduce the federal government’s power to address discrimination against disabled workers.

Eliminating the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs was created after executive orders directed the U.S. Department of Labor to administer nondiscrimination and affirmative action provisions41 and consolidated multiple agencies’ equal employment opportunity contract compliance enforcement powers.42 Project 2025 intends to eliminate the office,43 pushing much of the burden of compliance enforcement onto the EEOC, which, as stated above, would lose much of its enforcement ability.

Limiting ADA protections for women

While Project 2025 affirms that pregnancy-related disabilities are protected under the ADA, it specifically states that employers would not be required to provide health insurance benefits for “elective abortions.”44 However, “elective” remains subject to interpretation and creates ambiguity in situations where medical intervention may be necessary. Providers fear that postponing care could result in negative health outcomes or even death.45Project 2025 also explicitly states the intention to misuse an outdated statute called the Comstock Act to achieve a backdoor, nationwide abortion ban by inhibiting the transfer of medication abortion via mail.46 Banning medication abortion would worsen preexisting health care disparities, particularly for disabled pregnant people, and create insurmountable barriers to care.47

4. Project 2025 would restrict disability and other social benefits

Overhauling the VA claims process

Project 2025 would automate the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claims process48 and make it more difficult for veterans to obtain disability benefits.49 The VA assigns disability ratings based on the severity of a veteran’s medical condition and uses those ratings to calculate benefits.50 Project 2025 would reduce the number of medical conditions that service members can claim to qualify for their disability rating.51 With this change, veterans currently eligible for a rating but who have not yet made claims could be denied benefits entirely.52 Veterans who have made claims and been granted a disability rating could see their VA benefits decreased.53 Automating claims could also increase denial rates54 and place a heavier administrative burden on veterans.55

Restricting SNAP and increasing work requirements

Even with the restrictive definition of “disability,”56 the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides about 4.1 million disabled people57 with essential nutrition assistance. Disabled individuals are more likely than nondisabled workers to work part time58 and to engage in contract work59 and have significant barriers to obtaining eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).60 This leaves many disabled people unable to access disability special rules around work requirements.61 Project 2025 intends to eliminate “work requirement waivers” for states,62 putting disabled people who aren’t receiving SSI or SSDI or who aren’t classified as disabled by the VA at risk of losing their eligibility.

5. Project 2025 would reduce the ability to enforce the ADA

Project 2025 proposes that the federal government stop using “disparate impact” regulations in assessing discrimination and cease bringing lawsuits that challenge the standard’s constitutionality.63 The disparate impact regulations from the U.S. Department of Justice seek to ensure that “programs accepting federal money are not administered in a way that perpetuates the repercussions of past discrimination” in employment, education, housing, and other areas.64Discontinuing the use of disparate impact rules would make it harder for the federal government to enforce civil rights protections under the ADA, for example.

Conclusion

Project 2025 takes a wrecking ball to federal measures that address real issues disabled people face in accessing critical supports and services. If even only some of the policies outlined here are fully enacted or required by executive order, disabled people would face insurmountable hurdles to living and participating in their communities.65

The authors would like to thank Will Roberts, Andrea Ducas, Emily Gee, Weadé James, Jared Bass, Alan Cohen, Jill Rosenthal, and Kate Kelly for their guidance and reviews. Thanks also goes to the Legal, Editorial, and Art teams for their guidance. Thanks to Haley Norris for their assistance in fact checking.

Endnotes

  1. Kevin Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2023), available at https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf.
  2. Kennedy Andara, Anona Neal, and Rose Khattar, “Disabled Workers Saw Record Employment Gains in 2023, but Gaps Remain,” Center for American Progress, February 22, 2024, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/disabled-workers-saw-record-employment-gains-in-2023-but-gaps-remain/.
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Disability and Health Data System (DHDS): Disability status and types among adults 18 years of age or older, 2022,” available at https://dhds.cdc.gov/LP?CategoryId=DISEST&IndicatorId=STATTYPE&ShowFootnotes=true&View=Map&yearId=YR7&stratCatId1=CAT1&stratId1=BO1&stratCatId2=&stratId2=&responseId=Q6DIS1&dataValueTypeId=AGEADJPREV&MapClassifierId=quantile&MapClassifierCount=5(last accessed October 2024).
  4. Will Ragland and Joe Radosevich, “Project 2025: The Plan to Seize Power by Gutting America’s System of Checks and Balances,” Center for American Progress, July 8, 2024, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025-the-plan-to-seize-power-by-gutting-americas-system-of-checks-and-balances/.
  5. Department of Education Organization Act, Public Law 96–88, 96th Cong., 1st sess. (October 17, 1979), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/3402.
  6. U.S. Department of Education, “Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)” (Washington: 2024), available at https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/osers.
  7. Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, pp. 326–327.
  8. Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Public Law 94-142, 94th Cong., 1st sess. (November 29, 1975), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-89/pdf/STATUTE-89-Pg773.pdf.
  9. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Public Law 108-446, 108th Cong., (December 3, 2004), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-108publ446/pdf/PLAW-108publ446.pdf.
  10. Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 327.
  11. U.S. Department of Education, “Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Summary” (Washington: 2024), available at https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/overview/budget/budget25/summary/25summary.pdf.
  12. Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 326.
  13. Katie Graves, “Funding Falls Short for Students with Disabilities,” National Association of Elementary School Principals, November 20, 2023, available at https://www.naesp.org/blog/funding-falls-short-for-students-with-disabilities/.
  14. Office of U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, “Van Hollen, Huffman Introduce Bill to Fully Fund Special Education,” Press release, July 10, 2023, available at https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-huffman-introduce-bill-to-fully-fund-special-education.
  15. Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 322.
  16. U.S. Department of Education, “Sec. 300.101 Free appropriate public education (FAPE),” available at https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.101 (last accessed October 2024).
  17. U.S. Department of Education, “Protecting Students with Disabilities,” available at https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/individuals-disabilities/protecting-students-with-disabilities (last accessed October 2024).
  18. Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 336.
  19. Hani Morgan, “Misunderstood and Mistreated: Students of Color in Special Education,” Voices of Reform 3 (2) (2020): 71–81, available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED610548.pdf.
  20. Valerie Strauss, “DeVos moves to delay Obama-era rule on minority special-education students,” The Washington Post, February 26, 2018, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/02/26/devos-delaying-obama-era-rule-on-minority-special-education-students/.
  21. Nancy O’Hara and Julie Bollmer, “Equity Requirements in IDEA” (Rockville: IDEA Data Center, 2017), available at https://www.ideadata.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018-05/IDC_Equity_Comparison.pdf.
  22. David Blumenthal and others, “Mirror, Mirror 2024: A Portrait of the Failing U.S. Health System” (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 2024), available at https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024.
  23. Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 466.
  24. Ibid., p. 468.
  25. Ibid., p. 468; Natasha Murphy, “Project 2025 Medicaid Lifetime Cap Proposal Threatens Health Care Coverage for Up to 18.5 Million Americans,” Center for American Progress, June 20, 2024, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025-medicaid-lifetime-cap-proposal-threatens-health-care-coverage-for-up-to-18-5-million-americans/.
  26. Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 468; Lily Roberts, “Work Requirements are Expensive for the Government to Administer and Don’t Lead to More Employment,” Center for American Progress, April 23, 2023, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/work-requirements-are-expensive-for-the-government-to-administer-and-dont-lead-to-more-employment/.
  27. Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 465.
  28. Nicole Rapfogel, “Project 2025 Prescription Drug Plan Would Increase Costs for as Many as 18.5 Million Seniors and Others with Medicare,” Center for American Progress, June 13, 2024, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025-prescription-drug-plan-would-increase-costs-for-as-many-as-18-5-million-seniors-and-others-with-medicare/.
  29. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Medicare Drug Price Negotiation,” available athttps://www.cms.gov/inflation-reduction-act-and-medicare/medicare-drug-price-negotiation (last accessed October 2024).
  30. Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, pp. 469–470.
  31. Nicole Rapfogel and others, “5 Ways Project 2025 Puts Profits Over Patients,” Center for American Progress, September 4, 2024, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-ways-project-2025-puts-profits-over-patients/.
  32. Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 455.
  33. Ibid., pp. 455–456.
  34. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Table A-6. Employment Status of the Civilian Population by Sex, Age, and Disability Status, Not Seasonally Adjusted,” Press release, October 4, 2024, available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm.
  35. Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 583.
  36. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “EEO-1 (Employer Information Report) Statistics,” available at https://www.eeoc.gov/data/eeo-1-employer-information-report-statistics (last accessed October 2024).
  37. Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 587.
  38. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Standards and Procedures for Settlement of EEOC Litigation,” available at https://www.eeoc.gov/standards-and-procedures-settlement-eeoc-litigation (last accessed October 2024).
  39. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “SmartTalent to Pay $875,000 to Settle EEOC Sex Discrimination Lawsuit,” Press release, August 7, 2024, available at https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/smarttalent-pay-875000-settle-eeoc-sex-discrimination-lawsuit.
  40. Julia Métraux, “Project 2025 Would Make Workplace Discrimination a Lot Easier,” Mother Jones, August 19, 2024, available at https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/08/project-2025-eeoc-disability-workplace-discrimination-justice-department-consent-decree/.
  41. U.S. Department of Labor, “History of Executive Order 11246,” available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/about/executive-order-11246-history (last accessed October 2024).
  42. U.S. Department of Labor, “History of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs,” available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/about/history (last accessed October 2024).
  43. Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 582.
  44. Ibid., p. 585.
  45. Phoebe Petrovic, “When Do Doctors Consider Abortions to Be Medically Necessary?” PBS Wisconsin, June 7, 2022, available at https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/when-do-doctors-consider-abortions-to-be-medically-necessary/.
  46. Roberts and others,Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 594.
  47. Sabrina Talukder, “The Sweeping Consequences of the Far Right’s Plan to Effectuate a Backdoor National Abortion Ban in Project 2025,” Center for American Progress, June 17, 2024, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-sweeping-consequences-of-the-far-rights-plan-to-effectuate-a-backdoor-national-abortion-ban-in-project-2025/.
  48. Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 648.
  49. Colin Seeberger, “Project 2025’s Plan To Gut Checks and Balances Harms Veterans,” Center for American Progress, August 22, 2024, available at project-2025s-plan-to-gut-checks-and-balances-harms-veterans.
  50. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, “About Disability Ratings,” available at https://www.va.gov/disability/about-disability-ratings/ (last accessed October 2024).
  51. Seeberger, “Project 2025’s Plan To Gut Checks and Balances Harms Veterans.”
  52. Ibid.
  53. Ibid.
  54. Ibid.
  55. Justin Schweitzer and others, “How Dehumanizing Administrative Burdens Harm Disabled People” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2022), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/how-dehumanizing-administrative-burdens-harm-disabled-people/.
  56. U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, “SNAP Special Rules for the Elderly or Disabled,” available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility/elderly-disabled-special-rules (last accessed October 2024).
  57. U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, “Yearly trends SNAP household by demographic and income characteristics,” available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/SNAP-household-trends (last accessed October 2024).
  58. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics Summary,” Press release, February 22, 2024, available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm#:~:text=Workers%20with%20a%20disability%20were%20more%20likely%20to%20be%20employed,part%20time%20for%20economic%20reasons.
  59. Diane Winiarski, “Employment Trends For Those With Disabilities: Narrowing the Gap,” Forbes, April 1, 2024, available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianewiniarski/2024/04/01/employment-trends-for-those-with-disabilities-narrowing-the-gap/.
  60. Schweitzer and others, “How Dehumanizing Administrative Burdens Harm Disabled People.”
  61. Ashley Burnside, “SNAP Time Limits Can Reduce Access for Disabled People,” The Center for Law and Social Policy, April 25, 2023, available at https://www.clasp.org/blog/snap-time-limits-can-reduce-access-for-disabled-people/.
  62. Roberts and others, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 299.
  63. Ibid., p. 583.
  64. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, “Title VI Legal Manual (Updated): Section VII- Proving Discrimination- Disparate Impact,” available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7 (last accessed October 2024).
  65. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336, 101st Cong., 2nd sess. (July 26, 1990), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-104/pdf/STATUTE-104-Pg327.pdf.

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

Authors

Mia Ives-Rublee

Senior Director, Disability Justice Initiative

Casey Doherty

Policy Analyst, Disability Justice Initiative

Team

Disability Justice Initiative

We promote policies to ensure disabled people of color and those most marginalized by ableism and other forms of oppression can participate in the economy and democracy.

Explore The Series

The far right’s new authoritarian playbook could usher in a sweeping array of dangerous policies.

Previous
Next
This field is hidden when viewing the form

Default Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

Variable Opt Ins

This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.