I believe the best way to to protect those who are the most in need is to make them a protected class. The United States has made progress towards reducing discrimination towards people of color, women, people of uncommon or "foreign" religion, people who don't feel they fit in the traditional gender binary, and people of non-hetero sexuality. It's true that it hasn't been perfect, maybe not even good, but that doesn't mean it's time to stop expanding those protections. In time of economic turmoil and high inflation, it's people living below the poverty line or surviving without having a home who gets left behind the furthest. In many places they're treated horribly with discrimination and hostile architecture that leaves them with nowhere to even get a night's rest without being cold and uncomfortable. They need help, and the only way to fully get rid of these issues is to make it part of our highest law.

Yes, it would likely mean higher taxes. But is that any reason not to provide for those who need it the most? The millions of people who are living paycheck to paycheck and maybe don't know if they'll get to eat tomorrow? Who sleep on the cold asphalt because there isn't even a bench that isn't spiked or uncomfortably shaped to keep them off of it? Who can't keep clean because they don't have access to more than hand soap and a sink? It shouldn't be any question at all. I know it may be a bit of a wordy read, but I appreciate you taking the time to even just to skim through it.

Amendment XXVIII – Protection Against Economic Discrimination and Public Hygiene

Section 1. Individuals experiencing homelessness or living below the federally defined poverty line shall be recognized as a protected class under the law.

Section 2. Discrimination on the basis of housing status, income level, or employment instability is prohibited in employment, housing, education, access to public accommodations, and public services.

Section 3. No person shall be denied dignity, safety, or fundamental human rights on account of their financial status or living conditions.

Section 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 5. Architecture and public facilities deemed by an unbiased third party or an impartial public survey to be hostile—defined as being designed to prevent comfortable rest, impose unnecessary difficulty in use, or require payment for essential needs (e.g., hygiene facilities such as restrooms and showers)—shall be prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, public seating, rest areas, and sleeping accommodations. Any such features intended for use by the general public must be replaced with inclusive, comfortable, and accessible alternatives that do not restrict the manner in which they can be used.

Section 6. Any state, local, or municipal government, or any business serving the general public, that is found in violation of Section 5 shall be held financially accountable. Penalties shall include fines proportionate to the discomfort or harm caused to the public, especially those experiencing homelessness or poverty, as well as a mandatory replacement and improvement of the offending architecture or facilities.

Section 7. All municipalities shall be required to provide publicly accessible restrooms and showers for the free and unrestricted use of all inhabitants and visitors. These facilities must be constructed in sufficient number, relative to the municipality’s population size and land area, and placed in locations convenient to public access. Entry to such facilities shall not be restricted by monetary or other limiting criteria, except temporarily during cleaning or emergency maintenance. Facilities must be maintained in safe, sanitary condition and adequately stocked with essential hygiene supplies, including but not limited to: hand soap, fresh clean water, basic toiletries, menstrual hygiene products (such as tampons and pads), adhesive bandages, clean towels, shampoo, and body wash or other appropriate cleansing agents. Facilities must be regularly cleaned, restocked, and inspected to ensure ongoing compliance.

I do believe that it needs to be an amendment. With modern politics being so radicalized as they are now, it wouldn't surprise me if a future administration needing to "cut spending" overturned something like this if it was a regular federal or state law, or if businesses lobbied to have it overturned.