I'm going to add something, and I think Rosel could add to it as well. Something that's very important to understand is with regard to part of the criteria that judges use to understand who can give consent and who can tell the truth.
Also, how do we talk about consent? When we talk about telling the truth, we understand that some women aren't able to, and then judges, the law and past jurisprudence have told some women that they may be suggestible or may not be credible witnesses. If you can't make sense of the time.... We think about women with brain injuries, for example—who are women with disabilities—and time can sometimes get muddled. The experience is still there; however, currently, the way our criminal courts understand what's happening, makes them not to be seen as credible. They're seen as maybe being suggestible, especially for women with intellectual disabilities, or if they have mental health issues, schizophrenia or other disabilities.
I think it's important to go back to what Bonnie said. The reality of the needs of women with disabilities is that they are numerous, and not every single woman will need the same thing.
When we think about the highest number of sexual assaults, and violence in general, it is towards women with intellectual disabilities. However, they are now believed, which is the case for all women, but especially for them, and there are legal ways that criminal courts have made that happen.