Over the years, much has been accomplished in the area of severe disabilities--by professionals, academic scholars, parents of persons with disabilities, and self-advocates. It was not that long ago that children with severe disabilities were most likely to be excluded from school altogether or, if they received an education at all, it was far away and separate from where their nondisabled peers attended their neighborhood schools. Adults with severe disabilities were almost certainly condemned to spending the rest of their lives in institutions unless their families absorbed the personal and financial costs of keeping them at home--until the inevitable time when an institution finally did become the only option for an adult requiring care who survives parents and even siblings. In developed countries today, most parents or relatives of someone with a disability or professionals whose work is focused on disabilities have never experienced that dismal past and cannot imagine a world where young children would be denied services and even a decent place to live simply because they fall outside the range of acceptability of what is "normal." In less than four decades, debates over institutionalization, educability, aversives, and exclusion have been replaced by debate about issues such as what is meant by inclusion and/or the least restrictive educational environment, which interventions are most effective with challenging behavior, and how best to support friendships and social relationships for persons with disabilities at all ages. This article presents the author's response to Rud Turnbull's essay and focuses on freedom, fairness, and justice for severe disabilities. Turnbull's contributions to fighting the good fight over the years are significant, including providing expert input for federal legislation regarding restraint and seclusion, end-of-life decision-making, child abuse.