JoeAnne Miller opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it dismantles foundational protections under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and could lead to widespread lending discrimination. The commenter specifically highlights the removal of disparate impact considerations and the threat to Special Purpose Credit Programs as harmful to civil rights and underserved communities.

Jacalyn Dinhofer opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it dismantles foundational protections under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and would lead to widespread lending discrimination. The commenter specifically highlights the removal of disparate impact considerations and the threat to Special Purpose Credit Programs as harmful to civil rights and underserved communities.

Justin Kreiser opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it would dismantle foundational protections under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and lead to widespread lending discrimination. The commenter specifically highlights the removal of disparate impact considerations and the threat to Special Purpose Credit Programs as harmful to civil rights and underserved communities.

M'Linda McGuire opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it dismantles foundational protections under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and could lead to widespread lending discrimination. The commenter specifically highlights the removal of disparate impact considerations and the threat to Special Purpose Credit Programs as harmful to civil rights and underserved communities.

Ben Hoffman opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it dismantles foundational protections under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and would lead to widespread lending discrimination. He specifically highlights the removal of disparate impact considerations and the threat to Special Purpose Credit Programs as significant setbacks for civil rights and fair access to credit.

Sassan Dehghan opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it dismantles foundational protections under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and removes critical civil rights tools like disparate impact analysis. The commenter contends that the rule would facilitate widespread lending discrimination, harm communities historically denied access to credit, and eliminate beneficial Special Purpose Credit Programs.

Brittney Hammock opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it dismantles foundational protections under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and would lead to widespread lending discrimination. The commenter specifically highlights the removal of disparate impact considerations and the threat to Special Purpose Credit Programs as harmful to civil rights and underserved communities.

Barbara Spencer opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it dismantles foundational protections under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and would lead to widespread lending discrimination. She specifically highlights the removal of disparate impact considerations and the threat to Special Purpose Credit Programs as harmful to civil rights and underserved communities.

Cherie Gaston opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it dismantles foundational protections under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and would lead to widespread lending discrimination. The commenter specifically highlights the removal of disparate impact considerations and the threat to Special Purpose Credit Programs as harmful to civil rights and underserved communities.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it dismantles foundational protections under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and would lead to widespread lending discrimination. They specifically highlight the removal of disparate impact considerations and the threat to Special Purpose Credit Programs as significant setbacks for civil rights and fair access to credit.