The panel shall be composed of 15 members, as follows:The differences here are the more specific language that focus on ASL and not "visual languages." However, the change from 13 members to 15 members stem from the adding of (see 'K') two adults with a hearing loss that use other visual communication modalaties (non-ASL) who are to be appointed by the Governor.
(A) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses auditory-oral language, appointed by the Governor.
(B) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses ASL, appointed by the
Governor.
(C) An educator of the deaf in an auditory-oral educational setting, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.
(D) An educator of the deaf an ASL education setting, appointed by the Senate
Committee on Rules.
(E) A parent representative of a child who primarily uses auditory-oral communication methods, appointed by the Governor.
(F) A parent representative of a child who primarily uses ASL appointed by the
Governor.
(G) A representative of a nonprofit organization that services primarily auditory-oral learners, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(H) A representative of a nonprofit organization that services primarily ASL learners appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(I) A researcher engaged in the study of auditory-oral communication for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, appointed by the Governor.
(J) A researcher engaged in the study of ASL and communication modalities for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, appointed by the Governor.
(K) Two adults who are deaf or hard of hearing, and who primarily use other visual communication modalities, appointed by the Governor.
(L) An audiologist who specializes in evaluating and treating infants, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(M) A physician who specializes in pediatric otolaryngology, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.
(N) The Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his or her designee, who shall be an ex officio member.
(2)At least five members of the panel appointed by the Governor, one member appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules, and one member appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, shall be deaf or hard of hearing adults.
Will this be enough or will the anti-AB2072 crowd want the whole enchilada? This has been an ongoing participatory process between stakeholders and the California legislature through the continuing changes of the bill through admendments and changes or omittances of certain languages or words in the bill. This whole process has been more than fair. It's a democracy in action where citizens have a voice by participating. The job of the California legislature isn't to contact all potential interested parties whenever a bill comes to the floor. Do you realize how many bills that come to the floor each week? Rather it is the job of interested stakeholders and individuals to pay attention to bills introduced to the floor that may have an impact on them.
18 comments:
which r u a round whole or a square peg mike?
me keep trying to figure it out
i know i know its up to the eye of the beholder but i am still just crazy confused by ur constant spinning
re: the whole enchilada - me want it all - the babies deserve to be well fed eh
and also:
"It is better to shoot for the stars and miss than aim at the gutter and hit it."
some of ya were all mighty eager to accept AB 2072 as it was - lord how she is starting to shine and look mighty pretty with all the good advocacy that has been on the ground - YA HOO
"jump at de sun" Zora Neal Hurston's momma told her children - you might not reach it but at least you'll get off the ground
peace
patti
It should be enough to satisfy them! I think it is very fair at this point. In term of defining ASL, that part is a joke to me. Many people say they use ASL, but in reality they do not. All in all, this addition of two additional person on the panel who uses visual language pretty much makes the panel holding fairer representation to create a new pamphlet.
*doing the hokey pokey*
That's what it's all about!
;)
The many of us accepted the bill in its concept and agree that audiologists must have a roll in this as well. We didn't say it was a bad bill. We said it was a good bill and we expected that it'll get amended along the way, and it did, and it continues to do so. We saw this as an opportunity to increase the visibility of ASL while anti-AB2072 sought to try and shut down the AB2072 bill from the beginning. That's the major difference. And, yes, they wanted the whole enchilada from the beginning and deny all of the necessary information parents would need about their deaf/hh child in order to make an informed decision. We're for informed decision, and if parents decide to go for cochlear implant or forego ASL for aural and oral approaches or prefer SEE then they have that right to make that informed decision and I'm alright with that. We're not in their shoes and we do not have that right to decide for them.
I don't think that many people really understood how the whole legislature thing was designed to allow the public the opportunity to comment and help with the language of the bill. It is common for bills to get amended several times before finally accepting them and signed by the Governor.
Look at AB2000 on rabies shot requirements for dogs belonging to dog owners. Both AB2000 and AB2072 were introduced almost at the same time and both were amended several times so far with AB2072 amended a few more times more than AB2000.
The funny thing is that many Deaf people turned this into a protest when the California legislature process is designed to allow public input. No one was denied an opportunity to offer inputs for suggestions on language changes and such.
Yup, that is what the whole legislative process is all about! I don't think most of them understood how the legislative process worked.
I'm wondering why there aren't any hosannas and hallelujahs from the opposeAB2072 group yet - they got what they want. they participated in the process. they were heard. how about a public letter thanking Tony Mendoza's aides for listening to them and amending the bill to support ASL? I'm one of those who thought the bill was fine with "visual languages" as I understand the difference between ASL and manually coded English systems.
I'm eagerly waiting to see how the ASL-using representatives on the panel to develop the information brochure conduct themselves and collaborate with the other stakeholder members. I hope that the governor and other legislators pick good people who will represent us positively.
I am glad to know that the Legislators and State Senators recognized and welcomed the diversity of the communication modes into the panel. The 15-members to involve the panel is fair and accurate.
Martin Luther King would have wanted to see that way.....
Aren't you happy, P. Durr?
Heye Anony -
thank you so much for your concern for my happiness.
im being serious here - even if u weren't
nah i ain't happy yet about the bill cuz i be aiming for the stars (see me Deaf cinema comment up at the top) where i signed off with me real name but dont know how to stop the google log in from always calling me by Deaf cinema - geez
i am HAPPY about all the positive and productive and progressive advocacy to come from the oppose 2072, DP3, and CNDIAS and many other groups and individuals - YA HOO yellow shirts
but i will do a couple of verses of hallieuja for the changes recently made
i still got a mighty issue with MUST SEE AUDIOLOGIST - cuz aint much choice in a MUST SEE
the pamphlet - ill do me jig and dance once we see the final product eh?
but yep i do see that we r pretty dang close to the whole enchilada
and again and always for me the GREATEST Victory of this whole thing is that Deaf folks got busy and made a significant and important difference
oppose 2072 folks ya all rock!
re: what mlk would have wanted to see - we r getting there anony
we r getting there
for anything u have done to help MLKs vision and dream of folks being judge by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin or the workings of their ears and mouths - i do thank ya
if u havent contributed nothing - let me give ya a little pinch ; )
peace,
patti (aka p.durr) and deaf cinema via this dang log in thingy
We're getting down the homestretch-- only this week is all that's left for the CA legislature to vote on any bill this year.
redhead,
You can click on 'Anonymous' and put your name handle at the bottom of your comment. One way to get around the log-in thingy.
Ann_C
the bill does not say "must see" an audiologist. after the newborn hearing screening, conducted by an audiologist, the follow-up appointment can be with either an audiologist, OR an Early Start Provider. I see this as an opportunity for "D"eaf people to network with their local Early Start programs and get to know each other. that way, education and information can flow both ways. the "D"eaf community can be doing a lot more to educate audiologists on Deaf Culture and ASL. Collaboration is the key. Just as you don't want the choice to be only an audiologist, I don't want the only choice to be a culturally "D"eaf, ASL using person without any qualifications.
Right, there is no "must see" audiologist. It's something that is procedural based on EHDI. Before EHDI, not all babies were tested and the result was lag in language development and misdiagnosis. There's no way around it. Before EHDI, many babies were not known to have hearing loss, babies were misdiagnosed as having mental retardation, etc. We need diagnosis of hearing loss ergo, audiologist, it is. No way around it, Patti.
Also another way around Google sign in is using Name/URL like I do. ;)
Many thanks Ann_C for the tip
so is the Anonymous below u (not sure if its the same Anonymous above me or above the other anonymous or a new Anonymous - shall we form a CA group - commentors anonymous group?) but the anony below ya - is it true what that person is saying
is it an EITHER OR? audiologist for follow up or Early start Provider - parents can choose????
i thought it was both
re: a person without qualifications - what the heck would be the purpose of that?
mike re: the rabid dogs legislation - nice example luv
peace
patti
Hello ,
Here what l read the bill AB 2072 through www.leginfo.ca.gov/,
1. I read 8 pages and do NOT see the words " must see " the audiologist !
2. Does the audilogist give out the information ? Here what I found on page 2 and 3 .
Requires that a parent of a newborn or infant identified as deaf or hard of hearing must be provided specified information. The information must be provided:
A. By an audiologist immediately upon identification of a newborn or infant as deaf or hard of hearing. The audiologist shall not inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option beyond the scope of his or her practice.
B. By a local provider for the Early Start Program.
Hope y'all have a good day !
GoatMan aka Travis
Heye GoatMan Travis
my read of that language in the bill is YES the parent(s) gotta see the audiologist to get the pamphlet AND they gotta see the local Early Start Program provider
Ann_C explained her understanding of the process over at the People of the Eye candyland thread - not sure if she wants to copy and paste it here but it she seems to see this wording to mean -
parents gotta see BOTH and this is post the initial screening / identification in the hospital
to me its a bit unclear the whole process
looks like a minimum of three evaluations of the babies hearing according to the larger CA early detection law and amendments via AB 2072
the audiologist is REQUIRED - not a choice
not an option
not even an exemption for folks who might be opposed to any medical intervention past the initial screening for religious or cultural reasons - NOPE do not pass go - go straight to the audiologist
i dont support BANNING parents from going. i dont oppose encouraging parents to go - i just got a problem with a state govt REQUIRING parents to go
re: "unbiased" karen m. had some interesting things to say about that over at people of the eye also
peace
patti
Hiya Patti ,
Thanks for replied to my comment .
From what l see , your trying to bring the bill about the eye over to here , so lets leave that aside for now .
Speakin of " the audiologist is REQUIRED " , if that in case , so what your tryin to say ? What your concern about the audiologist ?
GoatMan aka Travis
Just wanting to seek further clarification from those that say that the baby should not be required to see an audiologist.
If they do not see an audiologist, then who will do the testing on the baby's hearing? Before the newborn hearing screening requirement, there were many babies that got behind in their language development simply because the parents did not know that the baby was deaf or hard of hearing. They usually had to wait until they were like two years old and a pan gets dropped on the kitchen floor which should have started the baby but didn't and that's when the parent realizes the baby may not be able to hear and that is two valuable years of potential language development lost.
That being the case, if an audiologist does not do the newborn hearing screening test, then who does?
I fully support all newborn hearing screening tests so that the parent can start researching all their options to make a fully informed decision sooner. But if you don't want an audiologist, then who?
These anti-AB2072 people are a very strange lot who seem to have an aversion toward audiologists. Yet the majority of people identified with hearing loss belong to the mild to moderate hearing loss range than those with severe to profound. Audiologists are there for a reason.
Heye Vanhallian -
a previous CA law enforces the testing of babies in the hospital
AB 2072 is an add on of additional audiology evaluation and treatment and getting the pamphlet which they also get from the Early Start program and then there is to be another audiology testing at 3mo. too
if i follow the bill correctly
by the way today i just learned from a bunch of mothers that the baby has to be sedated for this in-depth audiology evaluation
i dont know if mike was referring to me as a "strange lot" person but my opposition to the REQUIRED audiology visit is....
if the baby is screened in the hospital and found to be Deaf (this is already CA law) then shouldnt the follow up visit for more in-depth evaluation, treatment and pamphlet be a CHOICE, an OPTION
ya know how u all L O V E the options - why aint it my option. if the first screening says Deaf and I prefer to see a bi-bi specialist to get the pamphlet - cant i have that OPTION?
i agree that early detection is important
just not sure why the next step MUST be an audiologist and why the bill says "evaluation and TREATMENT"
goal is to give the babies fully natural and accessible language (so they dont have to work for their words) as well as English so dB is not as important unless of course u r trying to augment and re mediate via artificial means which indeed is your choice. just dont think state govt should be REQUIRING that u should have to go to the audiologist and not someone who specializes in getting language into the kiddies eyes / hands
am i kokonuts?
peace
patti
Hiya Patti,
I read your recently comment for Vanhallian .
Speaking of " ya know how u all L O V E the options - why aint it my option. if the first screening says Deaf and I prefer to see a bi-bi specialist to get the pamphlet - cant i have that OPTION? "
Why didnt the anti-ab2072 try to work it out . I mean , if I was anti-ab2072 and I would say " okay , lets accept the bill and need to work with them . Try to solve few issues and ask for some requests etc . And they prolly will add bi-bi specialist to the ab2072 instead of tryin to kill the bill , oppose the bill , etc " What kind of behavior is that ?
Have a good day !
GoatMan aka Travis
Post a Comment