As a member of the blind/low vision community myself, I've already seen two distinct reactions. Thankfully, the much more minority reaction is along the lines of "just use VoiceOver and open the phone app, this is obviously for your security."
To be fair, I have to imagine that whether this was intentional or not, it likely does have to do with new security isolation in iOS. I could even possibly imagine it was intentional, with the justification being the very argument made above - "as long as there's a way to do it without vision, even if sub-optimal or outright ridiculous, it's accessible" (an argument I've dealt with countless times in my work in the tech industry). Apple definitely has shifted a lot of their focus to security, especially with the whole app store lawsuit issue, so it wouldn't surprise me if they're tripling down on the secure OS idea (so as to make their argument against sideloading stronger) while simultaneously allowing some issues to be de-prioritized or even have features outright pulled in the name of that security.
The issue is that accessibility and security are naturally at odds. Accessibility is designed to, well, give you access to things; security is designed to protect things from (undesired) access. Google has had issues with apps misusing the Android accessibility APIs for malware purposes, and they've hugely struggled with how to balance those two needs. Given that there are also some legitimate apps that use the accessibility APIs (macro engines, password managers, etc.) apps asking for accessibility permission is unfortunately not uncommon, so it's still a method of infiltrating a device. Of course I'm going to be biased as an accessibility advocate and a savvy user who knows how to protect himself online, but I can still acknowledge the challenges of building something that is actually secure. ("As soon as you offer an option to override security, malware scam callers will instruct un-savvy people to turn on that option...")
