Remember AB2072...?

Remember AB2072?  That was three years ago when the brouhaha started.

Remember the veto of that bill and the reason why?  Refresh your memory here.  And how that bill could have created a path to have a California law recognizing ASL as a valid option for language and communication access?

Remember how happy those culturally deaf protesters were when AB2072 was vetoed by the governor of California?

Do you also remember in the AB2072 bill it referred to California's Department of Education as one of the multi-agency that support the Early Start Program?  And how they would provide a packet of information on "Communicating with Your Child" with information about local, state and national resources and how the Dept. Health Care Services web site provides links to local, state, and national resources regarding deaf and hard of hearing children as stated in the bill ?

Remember in 2010 the year when AB2072 came out in California the Department of California did not have a position statement on language access for students who are deaf and hard of hearing? Do you realize that the CDE has now posted their position statement on their website two days ago?

Do you realize in their position statement what the Department supports in terms of language and communication access?

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to make informed decisions about the language(s) they will use in raising their children.

and

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to make informed decisions about the communication tool(s) they will use in raising their children.

and more importantly on the choices,

Believes that parents should not be compelled to choose between spoken and signed language. They may choose to use both.

Remember those who were against the AB2072 bill stated their reason why?

The opposition argues that the focus of this bill about "communication options" is misleading and picking one option over another would only rob the child of the ability and opportunity for full language acquisition.

Do you want to read California Department of Education's position statement on language access again on the parents' right to make an informed decision regarding their deaf or hard of hearing child on language choice and communication access?

Remember how happy those deaf protesters were when AB2072 was vetoed the one opportunity on creating a path to have a California law recognizing ASL as a valid language option as a beginning foundation? How does that reconcile with the fact today that CDE now supports the right of deaf and hard of hearing children to have early access to a complete language, visual OR spoken, from birth? This mean CDE would support a deaf child with a cochlear implant or a hard of hearing child with a hearing aid to have early access to the spoken language only. Or that a child can visually sign in SEE. Even CUED speech would be a valid option. CDE position statement does not say they support early access to a complete visual language (i.e. ASL) which is what NorCal wanted in the first place.  Instead, CDE supports early language access either visual OR spoken, OR both.

Here's the funny thing if not ironic by now was that in the beginning the Deaf Newborn Identification and Advocacy (DNIA) strongly recommended changing the Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening program by putting the Early Start under the California Department of Education.

Early Start should be under the state entity that is best fitted to provide oversight and coordinate early intervention services: The California Department of Education (CDE). The Department of Developmental Services (DDS) should not be involved at all, unless a child in a particular case is developmentally disabled.

And

The CDE should be the entity responsible for designing an appropriate resource guide-handbook...

The DNIA states that ASL should only be the first option from the start along with reading and writing English with an emphasis on shifting away from the ear and the spoken language (i.e. aurally and orally) and that they are to be secondary in a deaf or hard of hearing child's life. But the CDE,

Emphasizes that the purpose of Early Start for children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing is to ensure that these children acquire age appropriate language skills to enable them to do well in school and career.

Nothing is said that ASL should be the language of choice for deaf or hard of hearing children but rather that the language could either be spoken OR visual, OR both as determined by their parents when they make their informed decision.

How does it feel to have a hole in your foot now that California Department of Education has solidified their position on language access for students who are deaf and hard of hearing, and Early Start?  Sounds like both CDE and DDS are very much in the same camp regarding their positions and philosophies for deaf and hard of hearing children.

Ain't that wonderful?

Adult Cyberbullying

Believe or not the term cyberbullying is just not for kiddies but even among adults who behave exactly what kids would do online, plus some more. You can have an adult bully or a child bully. Being bully knows no age-limit. And if an adult can be a bully, so can one be an adult cyberbully as well.

Cyberbullying does not just apply to children. There are adult groups dedicated to harassing and defaming others as well, along with websites created online specifically to make fun of and demean individuals. These people can be found in communities linked to blogs and chat rooms and they use the disguise of “anonymity” to harass their prey. 

Definition: "Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phone and pager text messages, instant messaging (IM), defamatory personal Web sites, and defamatory online personal polling Web sites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others." – Bill Belsey, Cyberbullying Expert  

Common Variations:  Cyber Bullying; Cyberbullying; Cyber-Bullying; Cyberstalking; and Cybermobbing.
 

There is a new non-profit organization against adult cyberbullyg called Civil Nation whose aim is to take

"....a stand against online hostility and adult cyberbullying. Its focus is on advancing the full capability of individuals to communicate and engage in cyberspace in a responsible and accountable way. A strong supporter of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, CiviliNation believes that free speech is enhanced through civil dialog and a rational exchange of information and ideas. By fostering an online culture in which individuals can fully engage and contribute without fear or threat of being the target of unwarranted abuse, harassment, or lies, the core ideals of democracy are upheld."

In the deaf culture world they, too, also have their share of adult cyberbullies who consistently and constantly go on the prowl to find deaf individuals (not public figures but private) and concoct justifications or excuses to make sustained and continued attacks on a regular or semi-regular basis in the effort to defame, make fun of, make hostile remarks, harass, demean, use online threats of exposing identities, call names and/or participate in online activities with one or more people in the effort to get individuals fired or in trouble at work over a matter of disagreements of opinions.  An example of that actually happened during the AB2072 protest (read the comments) . Sometimes you have certain people who like to lay low and get other cyberbullies to do their bidding by directing them or make suggestion about certain individuals because of their dislike or strong disagreement with their opinions or stances.

Cyberbullies come in all forms and shape, and age, too. "Cyberbullying" is not a word reserved only for kids but for adults, too, who behave just like what kids would do. And that is being a cyberbully.

Erroneous and dishonest blogging by CAM

I "supported" the AB2072 bill predicated on the fact it was supposed to help inform parents make an informed decision regarding their deaf children identified with hearing loss. And that was the aim of this bill. But during the whole legislative process of adding new amendment after new amendment it became increasingly convuluted as I have said before near the end of the whole process. The bill was important that it also gave greater recognition to ASL as I have said repeatedly in my blogs and that it'd be a plus for pro-ASL organizations for a legislative body to recognize ASL as a language on paper for the first time. But with the increasing complexity added to the bill through amendments I made my point on August 26, 2010 about the bill in my blog the bill's diverging from its original intent (i.e. all communication options) when I published CAA's letter to Tony Mendoza for all to see:

All in all, the continual adding of admendments and other changes in the bill in order to placate Deaf protesters' demands have gotten to the point where their actions have helped vulgarized the bill's original intent. Even the protesters were still not satisfied. From the gist of it legislators seemed to have lost sight for the rest of the children who are mostly hard of hearing or have a hearing loss only in one ear that audiologists frequently diagnose than those who are profoundly deaf. That's what seems to be missing here.

CAM gets it wrong in her recent blog about me.

Candy (Gina Sutton) and Mike McConnell verbally supported this bill saying parents should have full access to information but yet were perfectly okay with the original bill minimizing the information on ASL which was expected of them as they are supporters of oralism.

My "verbal support" of the bill was based on as long as parents make an informed decision regarding all communication options (which includes ASL) then I have no problem with their decisions. This has been my stance for years if you had bothered to do any proper research. The bill's intent was to inform parents of all communication options available. I applauded that ASL was included later on in the bill. Nothing was said about minimizing the information on ASL. In fact, I pointed out that information available to parents should be made equally so in an unbiased manner of all communication options (i.e. visual, auditory and language options) on August 10, 2010.

In other words, this pamphlet MUST provide benefits and risks for the ASL option as well as for any options described in it. And in an unbiased manner, too. It'd be foolish and folly to think that ASL will be excluded from the risk part if every other options must describe the benefits and risks when everything is of equal weight and value in terms of information provided for the parents....in an unbiased manner.

Also, CAM, where did I say that I said that governor Schwarzenegger did the right thing? That's rather puzzling if not dishonest coming from you to say that. Making things up are you? All I did was that I outlined the governor's reasons for not supporting the bill and that his reasons aligned closely to that of CAA's reasons for dropping their support against the bill in my most recent blog about the veto. In my blogs I understood some of CAA's points on why they withdrew their support for the bill. I haven't even pointed out whether I supported the governor's veto or not. Either you are not reading my blogs right, you have not read them at all or that you are purposely making things up along the way for whatever reasons. In this case about Arnold you are making things up.There is no back-pedaling on my part since I've made no statement about Arnold's veto.

Until you provide the links on exactly what I said and where it'd be best to properly make your arguments based on those actual facts and comments rather than make things up along the way as you are wont to do. Until you do your recent blog has no standing, truth or validity regarding me or my blogs.

A quick analysis on the vetoed AB2072 bill

After reading the governor's letter on why he choose to veto the AB2072 bill I noticed three things he mentioned why.

1. The formation of an advisory committee would possibly be a duplicative work of other state programs.

2. The use of advisory committee would be quite biased.

3. And lastly use of an advisory committee would represent a significant workload which will require fiscal resources that the state is already short on.

In one paragraph near the end he stated that there are other resources and efforts being done by state agencies and departments that already try and get the information out to the parents with children identified with hearing loss. In fact, the CAA pointed this out in a letter to Tony Mendoza as seen in the first page, fifth paragraph:

Additionally, existing Health and Safety Code, Article 6.5 Section 124119.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 106, related to newborn and infant hearing screening, already provides for the dissemination of this information to parents. The Federal government already sponsors unbiased brochures, which are updated annually, by professionals in the area of communication options for the deaf and hard of hearing. These brochures can be provided to Californians at no cost. Further, there is really no reason, in our view, for such a broad expansion of this program in these difficult times.

This letter is very similar to the governor's own responses for his reason on vetoing the bill. Despite that, with the state continuing budget cuts will likely affect state organizations that are funded and supported through state grants in order to continue with their operations. With the governor vetoing the AB2072 bill means that ASL will not be recognized as a language in the state of California. And because of that pro-ASL deaf organizations who rely on state grants to help work with children and parents with hearing loss may be at risk. Had a similar bill to that of AB2072 with the inclusion of ASL that gets signed by the governor would have undoubtedly raise in recognizing ASL as a language and thereby have a greater chance of surviving any fiscal cuts via through grants to those organizations in California.  So, who really got hurt here?

The Deaf Dr. Evil Plot......exposed!

Interesting to see the responses in Dianrez's recent blog. One thing I'll have to correct her is her assumption that my recent video was about saving face. Hardly. If she had bothered to pay close attention it was about the ridiculousness of assuming that my quote "Heh heh...my plan is working flawlessly" is meant that I'm somehow planning to "hurt" or "destroy" the Deaf community like some people actually believed here, here, here and most recently today seen here, for example just to name a few. In fact, some people were already proposing these wild conspiracy theories at the very beginning that there were these "super-secret" meetings between me, Barry, Paotie, and whoever else. Before I even started doing the whole Dr. Evil routine quote.

That conspiratorial thinking probably started about more than two years ago when Barry first came on the blogging scene in 2008. So, if people were willing to believe some conspiratorial nonsense about us conspiring together for the ultimate destruction of the Deaf community, I decided to have some fun beginning in Paotie's blog in June 2008 doing the whole Dr. Evil act. And again here. I repeated that again probably 3 or 4 times in my blog as well. If people desperately wanted to believe in their own conspiracy theories about me and other Deaf, deaf, hh people getting together to conspire to "hurt" or "destroy" the Deaf community, I decided to play along since they desperately wanted to believe in it anyway.

Get it? I hope you do, Dianrez.

Hence with all the recent conspiratorial nonsense thrown about at me as seen in my blog comments lately were probably manifested as a result of my Dr. Evil comment started over two years ago and have since floated throughout the minds of many Deaf readers up to today. Which is why I keep saying, "Remove those insipid thoughts of any lingering conspiracy theory about me. You'll sleep better at night." In other words, you'd be playing yourself for a fool to even suggest such that there is such a plot on taking down the Deaf community. It's just plain common sense.

And, Paotie, I know you're laughing already.

So, the big secret is out! Only that I didn't need to explain all this to you, Dianrez, since the very notion that I'm out to "hurt" or "destroy" the Deaf community would have been absurd to you in the first place. Right? Yet, somehow I have the feeling you didn't quite understand all that simply because of the fact of you calling me out as "saving face" in my latest video vlog which was totally incorrect. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to this whole "Dr. Evil" scenario I played with the pinky finger in the lips thing on several occassions over the last few years but it's certainly not about saving face. It's about the ridiculousness of how some people actually believe in this whole conspiracy nonsense from the very beginning. Even some "leaders" fell for that nonsense, too. Sure. We expected that people would because they wanted to desperately believe in that.

About Barry and to help calm the nervous minds out there.

The first time I heard of Barry was back in early 2008 when he did his first blog. I enjoyed and liked his philosophy on many things, and so naturally I saw the things he said and agreed with many things on what he said. I think it was the fact that I publicly agreed with him in his blog comments did people began to speculate about us. And since people were already into this conspiratorial thinking mode that somehow we were in collusion on the planning for the ultimate destruction of the Deaf community, the DBC, AFA, Deafhood, and whatever-Deaf-organization-you-can-think-of! Sorry to disappoint you folks but that's pure bunk. Stop being so paranoid as I have said. We do have strong opinions about some of these Deaf organizations, the Deaf "leaders," their way of doing things, and differences in our philosophies, and so on. That pretty much sums it up. But just because we disagree strongly with other notable Deaf people doesn't mean we're out to destroy the Deaf community. That's pretty much common sense right there and I shouldn't even have to explain all this, either, incredibly so.

I decided to sign since I have discussed this before elsewhere on the ridiculousness of that assumption. I see paranoia and suspicion as an ongoing problem in some segments of the Deaf community. Just a tiny fraction, mind you, of those who are actively connected to the internet. This sort of paranoia could be seen in several articles on the AB2072 issue by invoking Godwin's Law along with eugenics and the Nazism labels in articles written by Deaf supporters of AB2072! I blogged about that saying it doesn't make any sense to use Nazi analogies and people shouldn't be using Nazi labels in such a way within the Deaf community. It reflects poorly on them in my opinion. And by pointing that out it's not attacking the Deaf community as some people are wont to believe but about how those articles reeked a sense of desperation.

I'm curious now. Exactly what was Dianrez's view of using Nazi analogies in those articles at the height of the AB2072 brouhaha? Did she at all speak up on that? She was strangely quiet about that over the past several months. Dianrez, was it appropriate to use those Nazi-labels, connotations and or implications in those AB2072 articles written up by Deaf people, even by the chapter president (Sacramento) of CAD in order to advance their cause?

Have a good night, folks. Sweet conspiratorial dreams.

The role of audiologists

From American Speech-Language-Hearing Association they produced a 2007 position paper called "Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs" that was adopted by a joint committee on infant hearing. Below is the position statement:

The Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) endorses early detection of and intervention for infants with hearing loss. The goal of early hearing detection and intervention (EHDI) is to maximize linguistic competence and literacy development for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Without appropriate opportunities to earn language, these children will fall behind their hearing peers in communication, cognition, reading, and social-emotional development. Such delays may result in lower educational and employment levels in adulthood (Holden & Diaz, 1998). To maximize the outcome for infants who are deaf or hard of hearing, the hearing of all infants should be screened no later than 1 month of age. Those not passing screening should have a comprehensive audiologic evaluation no later than 3 months of age. Infants with confirmed hearing loss should receive appropriate intervention no later than 6 months of age from health care and education professionals with expertise in hearing loss and deafness in infants and young children. Regardless of previous hearing-screening outcomes, all infants with or without risk factors should receive ongoing surveillance of communicative development beginning at 2 months of age during well-child visits in the medical home (American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] Medical Home Initiatives, 2002). EHDI systems should guarantee seamless transitions for infants and their families through this process.

This was a 2007 position paper where a number of revisions were made to improve it from the 2000 position paper. One thing that was updated can be seen on page 2 in the Early Invention section:

• Early intervention services for infants with confirmed hearing loss should be provided by professionals with expertise in hearing loss, including educators of the deaf, speech-language pathologists, and audiologists.
• In response to a previous emphasis on “natural environments,” the committee recommends that both home-based and center-based intervention options should be offered.

And on page 3 on Communication that was updated for 2007:

• Families should be made aware of all communication options and available hearing technologies (presented in an unbiased manner). Informed family choice and desired outcome guide the decision-making process.

Throughout the position paper it brings up sign language several times such as this one on page 23.

Early intervention professionals should follow family-centered principles to assist in developing communicative competence of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing (Baker-Hawkins & Easterbooks, 1994; Bamford, 1998; Fischer, 1994). Families should be provided with information specific to language development and access to peer and language models as well as family-involved activities that facilitate language development of children with normal hearing and children who are hard of hearing or deaf (Marschark, 1997; Thompson, 1994). Depending on family choices, families should be offered access to children and adults with hearing loss who are appropriate and competent language models. Information on spoken language and signed language, such as American Sign Language (Pollack, Goldberg, & Caleffe-Schenck, 1997) and cued speech, should be provided.

And then we get to what the role is for audiologists from the National Joint Committee on Infant Hearing 2007 Position paper on EDHI programs. The National Joint Committee is a multidisciplinary committee.

An audiologist is a person who, by virtue of academic degree, clinical training, and license to practice, is qualified to provide services related to the prevention of hearing loss and the audiological diagnosis, identification, assessment, and nonmedical and nonsurgical treatment of persons with impairment of auditory and vestibular function, and to the prevention of impairments associated with them. Audiologists serve in a number of roles. They provide newborn hearing-screening program development, management, quality assessment, service coordination and referral for audiological diagnosis, and audiological treatment and management. For the follow-up component, audiologists provide comprehensive audiological diagnostic assessment to confirm the existence of the hearing loss, ensure that parents understand the significance of the hearing loss, evaluate the infant for candidacy for amplification and other sensory devices and assistive technology, and ensure prompt referral to early intervention programs. For the treatment and management component, audiologists provide timely fitting and monitoring of amplification devices. Other audiologists may provide diagnostic and auditory treatment and management services in the educational setting and provide a bridge between the child/family and the audiologist in the clinic setting as well as other service providers. Audiologists also provide services as teachers, consultants, researchers, and administrators.

The position paper also states at the end in the document (page 32) on who adopted the position statement by naming joint committee members (and please note the bolded words).

Joint committee member organizations that adopt this statement include (in alphabetical order): the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, the American Academy of Audiology, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, the Council on Education of the Deaf (see individual organizations listed above), and the Directors of Speech and Hearing Programs in State Health and Welfare Agencies.

What's interesting is to see that members of this joint committee include the Council on Education of the Deaf, and Alexander Graham Bell Association of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
with names like:

Beth S. Benedict, PhD
Galluadet University
Washington, DC

Bobbie Scoggins, EdD
Sioux Falls, SD

Judy Harrison, MA (AG Bell Staff)
Washington DC

Recognize Bobbie Scoggins? She is the president of NAD. And you have a representive of Gallaudet University that adopted the position paper as well along with a representative from AG Bell on the role of audiologists.

I think the audiologists' role seem to be well defined here as seen in the position paper along with some broad defining roles added to it. I think the CAA has a legitimate concern over the revised August 20th AB2072 bill from that of the August 17th bill which they accepted seeing how their role as audiologists was compromised in this most recent AB2072 bill revision. There should be some flexibility to what an audiologist can do along what it cannot do rather than assuring that they be completely constrained.

Now, I've read Marla's Musings seeing how she seemed have twisted some words regarding CAA, the Mendoza letter and the audiologist's role. Some responses had no real bearing on the role of audiologists since for infant hearing screening they help ensure early intervention through referrals to early intervention specialists, including access to ASL. Regardless, I think this will get addressed soon enough.

Oral Deaf Man Criticicizes Other Oral Deaf Man for Using His Voice

It was pretty incredible, bold, and foolish at the same time for Tim Riker (chapter president (Sacramento) of California of the Deaf) to criticize and demean a deaf man, John Fortius/Fortias, as seen in his response to my blog yesterday for using his voice in show of his support of the AB2072 bill on June 23, 2010 at the California Senate Health Hearing.

(Tim Riker) - I was a little disappointed with one of the supporters of AB 2072 who testified because his voice was unintelligible. If he had known ASL and used an interpreter, perhaps the audience would have understood everything he said and Senator Alquist wouldn't have interrupted him several times. Maybe his parents were misinformed or information about ASL was withheld by the audiologists, physicians, and his private oral school. I can see why they would withhold or distort this information; it would negatively impact their cash flow. We can't turn back time to correct this egregious mistake, but it's not too late to learn ASL and there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him.

Since Tim Riker didn't say exactly who but there is only one man who used his voice and supported the AB2027 bill in the video recording of the meeting and that was John Fortius, a volunteer deputy district attorney in Stanislaus County. Tim Riker can only be talking about John Fortius. There can be no other person he could be talking about except John Fortius.

What is galling and irresponsible for Tim Riker is to criticize without any merit saying that John Fortius' (profoundly deaf since birth) speech was "unintelligble." Tim Riker's comment was done in poor taste. It was rather unprofessional for Tim Riker to use his position as chapter president of CAD to go after another deaf man for using his voice when in fact he also used his voice on that same day as well. It is rather an unsavory move for him to use his position to try and convince many others of that false claim in order to push his ASL agenda and lob a few conspiracy bombs about audiologists while he's at it.

Tim, I can tell you for a fact that John Fortius' speech was indeed intelligible and was understood for perhaps 98% to 99% of his speech. Mind the fact that were two unofficial transcripts (see below) that recorded all of his speech that day. Also, one ASL interperter was able to interpret what he said as seen in the video starting at 20:48. I was able to understand most of his speech just by listening to the recorded video. And he spoke fine to me. There is no need to get into details on how his voice sounded like which is, of course, not like what a hearing person's speech would sound like. His speech was "unintelligble" only to Tim Riker who is deaf and uses a hearing aid. Perhaps he should consider the fact about his own hearing loss and the limitation of how he can discriminate another person's speech? Perhaps he could not understand John Fortius' speech because he has a deep voice? Tim Riker needs to understand that some deaf/hh people are able to hear better when people's voices are in the higher frequency range than lower ones like men's voices. Or vice versa. Or that some deaf/hh people can hear very well in both the higher and lower frequency range of a person's voice. In this case, it was only Tim Riker who could not understand him while everybody else could to one degree or another.

Secondly, Senator Alquist did not interrupt John Fortius "several times" as Tim Riker tried to put it. In fact, she only interrupted him once to ask him to speak from his heart and not look at his notes. That can be seen in the video. You can also see that in the transcript, too. How disengenuous of Tim Riker to say those things in order to push his ASL agenda while as chapter president of CAD, no less. He even contributed to a heavily biased "eugenics" article called California Eugenics-Style Bill Creates Uproar Among the Deaf Community. Anything to do to push an agenda, eh? Kick another deaf man down for using his voice and then try and prop him up saying that the Deaf community would welcome him?

Nice move.

Here's the unofficial transcript below and in the video John Fortius begins to talk at 20:48:

JOHN FORTIUS: Good afternoon, my name is John Fortius, I am 32 years old, and I have been profoundly deaf since birth. I’m here today in support of this bill. At a young age, when my Mom found out that I had lost my hearing, she decided that she was going to do the oral-auditory approach, and this in part because she had prior training to my birth, she had a speech pathologist. As a result of her guidance and some education through oral-auditory school, I was mainstreamed in preschool and on. Some of my [accomplishments] since then, is I was an honor roll throughout high school, I was a sport athlete and captain, graduated with honors from Williamette University in Salem, Oregon. Was a college football player, and just a year ago, I recently graduated from law school. And continuously, from the time that I graduated from college, I’ve been continuously employed when not in school. Just most recently I have been working as a deputy district attorney in Stanislaus County as a volunteer. Currently–

SEN. ALQUIST: And why are you supportive of the bill?

FORTIUS: Why am I supportive of the bill?

SEN. ALQUIST: Yes, that’s why you’re speaking now.

FORTIUS: It gives people an opportunity–a chance to [pause] have, potentially, a more, what I believe would be a more [unintelligible] life. It would allow them to be just like anyone else. I’m the first to admit, I am not–I’m going off my speech–I’m the first to admit that I am not part of the Deaf Community. I have–I don’t associate with it, but I am an advocate of you know, just the best thing–the best course of action, whatever that might be–for disabled people. And so that is a big part of why I’m here today. And–

SEN. ALQUIST: Just speak to me.

FORTIUS: What’s that?

SEN. ALQUIST: I like what you’re saying. Don’t look at your notes. Just–why are you supportive of the bill?

FORTIUS: OK, basically, what I’m getting from, is when we’re faced with such an important decision in our lives, when is not being fully informed the best solution? And it’s logical, it’s common sense, and I believe seriously that being fully informed in any big decision in your life is very important, and so that is a big reason of why I’m here today in support of this bill.

SEN. ALQUIST: Thank you very much.

FORTIUS: Thank you.

This transcript follows almost exactly in another unofficial transcript as well which goes to show that John Fortius' speech was indeed quite intelligible that day.

My advice to you Tim Riker? Leave out your business of criticizing other deaf or hard of hearing people's speech and their choices to use them or not. Not doing so will make you look bad as chapter president of CAD.

And lastly, Tim Riker complained that I used his name without permission of which I find humorous.

Next, this blog is offensive to Deaf people and my name was used without my permission.

No permission is required or needed in this case. Tim Riker gave his name and spoke at the June 23, 2010 AB2072 Senate Health hearing which was captured and recorded on video for the public made possible by California taxpayers. This means that the mentioning of his name in that video and what he said are now a matter of public record and for public consumption. What I did was copy the verbatim part of Tim Riker's comment in one of the transcripts. It's all part of the public record, Tim. No permission is required.

I support both John Fortius and Tim Riker's use of their voices regardless of the situation when there are interpreters available. I'm not in the position to criticize other deaf/hh people choice's to use their voice or sign using ASL or SEE (or whatever). The important point here is that deaf/hh people have the right to decide which methods to use to communicate. For Tim Riker to criticize another deaf man's use of his voice is a serious step back on CAD's own credibility as an organization. This time, I and many others doubt Tim Riker's sincerity after he criticized and demeaned John Fortius by saying this:

...there are many in the Deaf community who will welcome and support him

Really, Tim? After what you have done so far? Unity for whom now?

*shakes head*

Why did CAD chapter president use his voice at AB2072 hearing?

I've waited to see if anybody had actually objected to Tim Riker, the chapter president of the California Association of the Deaf (Sacramento chapter), who used his voice at the AB2072 Senate Health Hearing on June 23, 2010 instead of signing in ASL as seen in the Calchannel.com (June 23) along with a partial transcript below on what he said which starts at 31 minutes and 40 seconds into the video:

Tim: Good afternoon, my name is Tim Arthur (actually, it's Tim Riker), I’m the president of the California Association of the Deaf, Sacramento chapter. I graduated from Georgetown University, and this fall, because of all this, I’m looking forward to starting my masters’ in public policy. We are opposed to the bill as it is currently written, but we’d like to see an amendment that would work for the best interest of deaf children and the parents. First of all, I wanted to thank you for the positive changes to the current mark up language of the bill, and it means progress, but the language of the bill still needs a little bit more work to make it so that we can really put the focus on the deaf children and getting the parents access to the information that they need. I wanted to point to a 2003 state senate resolution number 20, it formally apologized for the outrageous attempt to *socially engineer people out of *existence. The regional version of Mendoza’s AB 2072 bill leads us towards a slippery slope of *eugenics. So the proposed amendment is a very good step in the right direction. It is fair, if we have a few changes to the amendment. The proposed amendment by the health committee, it still threatens the fundamental values of a deaf education and language development, by giving audiologists the power to discriminate information for which they are not trained or licensed. The audiologists’ training gives them the buyer that’s inherently unacceptable, if the audiologist ought to have a role, it must only be to identify that child is deaf, as soon as possible, and then refer the parent to an appropriate professional or entity with a focus on the educational aspect of raising a deaf child. That needs to be determined by the panel of people who are, represented by people involved with the...

How come no outrage from people in the Deaf community for Time to use his voice when the issue was about getting ASL into the spotlight? With Tim Rikier's refusal to sign and use of his voice, was it to try and appear more "intelligent" and more "educated" hoping that linguicism would prevail on the part of the committee looking favorably at Tim's pleas and be impressed with him?

A) When a Deaf person is able to speak English with his voice, or write excellent English, he gets lauded as intelligent and well educated. This person is considered successful in life.

B) When a Deaf uses ASL (no matter how fluently), but writes mediocre English, and cannot speak English, he is considered intellectually inferior, ill-educated, and guaranteed to fail in life.

On linguicism:

SCENARIOS:

Two persons are talking. During the course of this conversation, one of the persons is assessing the other’s wealth, quality of education, status in society based on the other person’s use/choice of language or dialect.

A) If the other person shows an excellent command of English, the assessor assumes he is quite well-educated, possibly from a wealthy family, which then indicates an elevated status in society.
B) If that other person shows poor command of the English language, or uses another language, the assessor assumes that he’s ill-educated, poor, possibly from a ghetto and therefore from the lower classes in society.

What I don't understand is that since Tim Riker is deep within the world of Deaf culture and community as chapter president of CAD he uses his voice.... instead of signing using his proud and preferred language, American Sign Language. I kind of wondered what exactly was Tim's strategy in doing that. What was his goal to use his voice that day as chapter president of CAD? There were voice interpreters there that day and would have interpretted his signing yet he choose to use his voice that day, on live tv, in front of thousands of Deaf people tuning into the AB2072 soap opera. Not one single outcry from a Deaf person, community or group objecting or asking why he used his voice instead. Not one (as far as I can tell so far).

Why the silence? Is this another example of hypocrisy at work?

Now, I'm in favor of a person in choosing how one prefer to communicate. I won't discriminate anybody for doing that. It's really none of my business. There were ASL interpreters available for both voice and ASL translation at the meeting it wouldn't matter to me. I am not opposed to Tim or anybody else who choose to use his/her voice or sign. I'm just noticing the obvious disconnect between what Deaf people say about using voice over ASL when it comes to choice. And it's usually a negative one.

Now, when I choose to use my voice at Gallaudet University's first ever blog/vlog conference where it had ASL and voice interpreters, and real time captioners available for the live internet audience, I had gotten a few grumbling complaints and objections from some Deaf people saying what I did was rude and so on. And of all places on the sacred grounds of Gallaudet University did I dare use my voice in front of Deaf people. Oh well.

What I'm presenting here or trying to say is not about the complaints per se although I am wondering about that too but it's the irony in seeing a chapter president of CAD who is Deaf use his voice in front of thousands on live streaming tv (which is now recorded for history) in order to elevate the status and use of ASL. Did he unwittingly lowered the status of ASL as not important and choose to use his voice instead? Did he unwittingly elevated the use of voice over ASL that day? Those are the interesting questions I have here.

ADDENDUM: If you have no objection (I don't) to Tim Riker's using his voice then you should have no objections to Brenda Brueggemann, who is deaf and knows ASL, using her voice at Gallaudet University's 2006 graduation commencement speech?

ADDENDUM #2: In a blog called Random Thoughts and Musings by Moi blogger discussed the Breuggemann's use of her voice and agrees strongly that she shouldn't have used her voice and that it was plainly wrong. Oh really?

People in our community are free to choose what language they want to use in various situations - I absolutely agree with that. Dr. Brueggemann's choice, however, went far beyond the bounds of diversity and was, in my view, a grave offense. I took great affront at her choice that day...

Too bad this blogger doesn't know the true reason why Brueggemann decided to use her voice in an email exchange that Brueggemann and I had at the time. I wonder how this blogger feels about Tim Riker's use of his voice being that he's a chapter president of CAD? In both situations both had ASL interpreters at the time with the exception of Gallaudet University that had both an ASL interpreter and real time captioner for the large video screen at the graduation ceremony.

Related blog - Voice is way, way better than ASL!

California Academy of Audiology responds to blog readers' comments on AB2072 bill controversy

An email was sent to me today from the CAA in regards to my yesterday's blog in the effort to answer many of the readers' responses. They asked me to do this and so I am putting this email response in my blog. No names will be divulged here so please DO NOT ask me for them! The CAA's responses are below and answers some of the responses/questions seen yesterday in my blog comment box.

Hi Mike,

I and my board read your blog and the comments to yesterday’s post. We would like the opportunity to respond. Please let your readers know it comes from the CAA board of directors and legislative committee..do not use my email as it is from work…

1. Anonymous asked about the decibel level of the second screening….This pamphlet is to be given out at the diagnosis of hearing loss, not the outpatient screening. Some babies who fail the outpatient screening just have fluid in their ears etc. and just need time or medical treatment to resolve. We are being asked to hand this out to ALL children who have permanent hearing loss, of any kind and any degree…so yes even parents whose child has a mild loss or unilateral loss will be required to get this pamphlet and have ALL of the options for communication reviewed with the family.

2. Linda should know that we actually did not amend the language form the 17th…We actually endorsed that language and asked the author to go back to it. We did not take it as a gag order as to discuss all forms of communication options IS in our scope of practice…we objected to the August 20th amendments that was given to the author from legislators and the opposition, NOT CAA.

3. This is not about screenings..Please read the bill..it is about children diagnosed with hearing loss, any kind, any degree.

4. We are not even going to address the cochlear implant concerns as that is NOT a communication option…it is a device that is surgically implanted and is not part of this bill and will/should not be a part of the pamphlet…

It saddens us that the DHH community has such misinformation about our profession and our training. One of the biggest problems we feel the bill does not address is our families who use total communication as their option..they were not even included in the negotiations or the panel..We believe the panel and the costs incurred but the State is not necessary as there are pamphlets out there that are non biased and include all options, including ASL and SEE sign. We also believe at this point the bill is so far from its original intent that we cannot support, nor do we think given the polarizing options on the panel that the process will be arduous.
As audiologists we are trained in spoken speech and language development as well as different sign languages, including ASL. Some audiologists’ practices are not diagnostic but actually are educational and or rehabilitative only, and work with families in the development of spoken and visual language. It is referred to as aural rehabilitation, or in the case of a child, habilitation.

Because we too felt this bill was getting into a political battle rather than about communication and educational choices we asked to be removed as the primary pamphlet distributors and asked that the educators hand out the pamphlet but we would be happy to answer questions regarding anything in the pamphlet or direct the parent to the appropriate agency or reference material. This was rejected by the author…….Hope this clears up some of the misconceptions….

Thanks for your efforts and your fair representation of the facts……We hope this answers at least some of your readers questions…Thanks for asking!

If you have questions or comments and would like to direct them at CAA use their contact page to submit your questions or comments.

Thank you!

California Academy of Audiology Official Letter to Mendoza on Opposing AB2072

Yesterday I contacted the California Academy of Audiology (CAA) using their official email address and soon was able to get a few responses from them today regarding their recent change on why they now oppose the AB2072 bill. I was given an official CAA letter that was sent to Assembly Member Tony Mendoza on August 23, 2010 explaining why they changed their support for the bill. This is letter is already public since it was given to Assembly Member Tony Mendoza. And so I am making this available to my Kokonut Pundit readers and to the public the opportunity to read this letter and to have a digital copy. To view the letter click on the link below:

CAA Official Letter to Assembly Member Tony Mendoza

Some Deaf leaders and protesters like Ella and others incorrectly stated that the CAA's complaint was because their role would be restricted. Rather it's the opposite with the potential of going beyond the scope of their profession or a patient's needs.

An audiologist forced to review and counsel all available communication options with parents of children with varying degrees and causes of hearing loss would be tantamount to a cardiologist discussing with parents a heart transplant for a child found to have a heart murmur or an ophthalmologist counseling parents regarding the option of a seeing eye dog for their child who needs glasses.

Other protesters or those who are against the bill as a whole continue to make wild claims that audiologists are there to take advantage of and make money via commissions to get kids their cochlear implants. Not only is the claim irresponsible but downright false. Audiologists diagnose more children that are hard of hearing (mild to severe hearing loss) than those with profound hearing loss. Those with profound bilateral hearing loss (90 db or greater) are more likely to be candidates for cochlear implants. Only a small percentage of these kids actually get to the point of qualifying for a cochlear implant.

From the Help Kids Hear organization's website:

- Over 1 million children in the U.S. have a hearing loss.
- 5% of children 18 years and under have hearing loss.
- 1 in 22 infants born in the U.S. has some kind of hearing problem.
- 6 in every 1000 infants born in the U.S. has some degree of hearing loss.
- 1 in every 1000 infants born in the U.S. has a severe or profound hearing loss.

This means that about 4.3 million babies are born each year in the United States using current birth rate. This give us an approximate figure of 26,000 babies born each year with some degree of hearing loss (mild to moderate hearing loss) while some 4,300 babies born each year with severe or profound hearing loss. Since April 2009 roughly 41,500 adults and 25,500 children have received cochlear implants in the United States ever since 1980 when the first cochlear implant was performed. From January 2008 to April 2009 there were approximately 2,228 children (from age 1 to 17 years old) implanted (25,500 - 23,272 = 2,228) with a cochlear implant.

Children must have profound bilateral hearing loss at 90db or worse while adults require at least a 70db or worse in both ears (bilateral) as a start according to a few insurances' requirements. Not all children are born with bilateral hearing loss (both ears) but many are born with hearing loss only in one ear.

In a 2006 survey some 73% of the people were identified with hearing loss in both ears while 22% of the people identified had hearing loss only in one ear only according to a 2006 survey using 43 states and 3 U.S. territories. With a sample size of 5,127 people in this study it can be seen as a representative number for the rest of the U.S. population of people with hearing loss where approximately 73% of those with hearing loss have bilateral hearing loss while approximately 22% have unilateral hearing loss in one ear only. We can clearly see those with hearing loss can either be a bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. From that revelation you have to take into account that there are those who are born with unilateral hearing loss. Children with unilateral hearing loss cannot qualify for a cochlear implant.

All in all, the continual adding of admendments and other changes in the bill in order to placate Deaf protesters' demands have gotten to the point where their actions have helped vulgarized the bill's original intent. Even the protesters were still not satisfied. From the gist of it legislators seemed to have lost sight for the rest of the children who are mostly hard of hearing or have a hearing loss only in one ear that audiologists frequently diagnose than those who are profoundly deaf. That's what seems to be missing here.

AB2072 votes officially confirmed

Just as I thought.

It was 23 Ayes and 11 Noes. The bill will go to Assembly either on August 26 or shortly after that. And then when all good and dandy the bill will go to the Governator's desk for his signature. And the rest will become history.

BILL HISTORY
2010
Aug. 24 In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 26 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
Aug. 24 Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 23. Noes 11.)

Which means only 6 Senators did not vote out of 40 Senators. I'd say with all the amendments and changes the people have mostly been heard. And this will be the first time that ASL is to be recognized legally in a bill with the Governor's signature. People need to move on and take the time and plan for this by seeing this as a huge opportunity to help ASL be recognized for parents of deaf and hard of hearing babies. After all it is the parents who must decide for their babies. No one else owns their babies. Not even Deaf organizations or Deaf people. Some of these Deaf groups, organizations or people have for the longest time had this sense of "ownership" or "entitlement" over babies born with hearing loss. That attitude simply need to be dropped. Many of us has been saying that for awhile. It'd be better to show the positive side of ASL rather than get all ugly and call people "Nazis" or accuse them of "eugenics" in the worst way. All that posturing simply backfired dramatically in the worst way and it can only paint them in the public eye with more negative images seeing them as "extremists." I can only imagine what Senators may have been thinking when they got this flyer in their inboxes. Or the public reading an article about the bill and protest for the time and not know anything about Deaf culture or ASL and read those Nazism remarks. If anything I'd say the whole protest took on a rather sloppy approach.

It's one thing to protest and make your case known but it's another to hurl insults, lob accusations and use Godwin's Law to try and link Senators as if they were a bunch of Nazis. Not cool. Not smart. And it won't win any hearts this way.

Anyway, this bill is a step closer to get the Governator's famous signature.

AB2072 Passed!

With 22 ayes and 11 nays, with 7 senators not voting via several sources. Although I hear it may be correct at 23 ayes and 11 nays. It will ultimately be confirmed on the vote number in the next day or so on the California Legislature website for the AB2072 bill and read what the status has to say for the next step.

Rejoice this news since this is an opportunity to see greater promotion of ASL and an increase in ASL visibility for parents to see regarding their child with a hearing loss. This bill increases the possibility of ASL exposure rather than diluting it. But I'm thinking next will be a protest on the capital steps of California by anti-AB2072 protesters who were against this bill all along regardless of the numerous admendments or convuluted changes per their requests. Like I said, some want the whole enchilada and nothing more.

AB2072 bill update - ASL support increases

Compare this earlier bill to a recently updated amended version where the word "ASL" is used exclusively without the words "visual languages" along with adding an additional 2 more members to the panel, and a requirement that at least 5 of the panel members must have a hearing loss:

The panel shall be composed of 15 members, as follows:
(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.

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.

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.

The reality of hearing loss in the U.S. and the AB2072 bill

In one video skit as part of the continuing anti-AB2072 bill protest a voice interpreter can be heard saying the baby has a "moderate to profound hearing loss" but the caption says "moderate to severe hearing loss" around the 1:11 time stamp mark. Which is it? Moderate, severe or profound hearing loss for this baby (doll)? The skit then proceeded to give the baby (doll) a "cochlear implant" as a solution for the baby's hearing loss though we don't know if the baby has, figuratively speaking, a moderate, severe or profound hearing loss. Pretty desperate into trying to lump moderate to profound hearing loss category into this cochlear implant issue when it's the 90 db or more is the required hearing loss amount (profound hearing loss) for a cochlear implant eligibility. Had they said profound hearing loss then I'd be more forgiving in this video but moderate to profound? What a confused bunch we have there in the attempt to disinform the population about hearing loss and cochlear implant.

The reality is that cochlear implant only goes to those children with 90 dB hearing loss or greater (along with the requ...isite word discrimination scores) according to some insurance agencies.

According to the CDC moderate hearing loss typically range from 41 to 70 dB while severe hearing loss range from 71 to 90 dB. And profound hearing loss is greater than 90 dB. So, no, babies with moderate or even profound hearing loss cannot qualify for a cochlear implant while most babies with profound hearing loss cannot qualify for cochlear implants unless they at have at least 90 dB average hearing loss.

Approximately 70% of people with hearing loss are those with mild to severe hearing loss while the remaining 30% are those with profound hearing loss based on a 2006 survey using 43 states and 3 U.S territories. Meaning that perhaps from this study we can infer that more babies are born with mild to moderate hearing loss than those born with severe to profound but more studies are needed to confirm that.

Some 73% of the people identified had hearing loss in both ears while 22% of the people identified had hearing loss in one ear only according to a 2006 survey using 43 states and 3 U.S. territories. With a sample size of 5,127 people this study can be seen as a representative statistics for the rest of the U.S. population of people with hearing loss. We also can see that not all babies are born with hearing loss are in both ears. You have to take into account those born a hearing loss in only one ear, too.

The AB2072 bill is about presenting a pamphlet to parents whose baby was identified with a hearing loss whether it's in one ear or two ears and help them on their path to make an informed decision on what to do next. This bill is not about forcing parents into getting a cochlear implant or other options of modes of communications and ignoring ASL. Even though the bill does present 5 potential opportunities to put ASL in the spotlight.

Round Peg in a Square Hole - "Wrong Street"

Click here to enlarge.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us

AB2072 bill - more potential ASL support than thought.

In the most recent amended AB2072 bill as of August 17, 2010, in the panel members designation section starting on page 3, the bill recommends in setting up a panel that consists of 13 members of which possibly up to 5 members with ASL (i.e. visual language instead of "visual communication") background or experiences could be appointed to the panel. That's more than a fair share in seeing that ASL gets represented fairly on the panel (see the bolded words below) where the panel is to help produce an unbiased informational pamphlet. Even with the fact that 3 of the 5 could be appointed by the Governor. So, please, let's not get into what's fair or not fair here or other "wild-eyed" conspiracy claims that this bill tilts favorably to the medical establishment. It clearly does not.

The panel shall be composed of 13 members, as follows:

(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 visual language, including, but not limited to, 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 in a visual language, including, but not limited to, 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 visual language, including, but not limited to, 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 visual language, including, but not limited to, 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 visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL, and communication modalities for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, appointed by the Governor.

(K) An audiologist who specializes in evaluating and treating infants, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.

(L) A physician who specializes in pediatric otolaryngology, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.

(M) The Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his or her designee, who shall be an ex officio member."

AB2072 bill - less power to audiologists

Let me turn the table and say that the greatest irony are those who are against the AB2072 bill (as of August 17, 2010). Today, at the Capital in Sacramento, California there will be a protest mostly by Deaf people who are against this bill believing this bill will give more power to audiologists.

That's not true.

There are certain languages in the bill that restrict what audiologists can or cannot do. From the latest bill modification as of August 17, 2010 on page 3 (note the bold black word):

The pamphlet shall be provided:

21 By an audiologist immediately upon identification of a
22 newborn or infant as deaf or hard of hearing. The audiologist shall
23 not inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option beyond
24 the scope of his or her practice.

The key legal word in this bill is "shall" which is a directive and not a word that provides an option. It is a command. An order. A non-directive word would be "should," "may," "might," or any other similar words. I do a lot of environmental writings on environmental recommendations and I am carefull to be mindful of certain "legally bound" words and the biggie one is the word "shall" which is a directive that cannot be bargained with. It is simply a legal command.

In this case, in the bill the state issues a legal command to audiologists that they "SHALL NOT inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option." This legal requirement does not give the audiologist the option on whether to communicate or not toward a particular communication and/or language option. They simply do not have this option, period. It is a legal requirement given by the state of California to the audiologists that their role is not to communicate or counsel parents of deaf children about a particular communication option. That is not their role now. The bill actually reduces the audiologists' role and power on how to deliver those communication options to parents of deaf/hh babies.

Right now we are seeing that some Deaf people want to protest against this bill believing it gives more power to audiologists on informing parents of deaf/hh babies on which communication options are better. Heck, they should be rejoicing that audiologists' role and power will be reduced in this bill.

Now, that's the greatest irony of all.

Audiologists will soon be powerless to do what they want to do on informing parents about communication and lanbguage options. Instead, they will soon be legally required to give parents of newborn babies identified with a hearing loss an approved informational pamphlet that discusses communication and language options, and more with thanks to the AB2072 bill. Parents will no longer be in the dark on this issue. They will have a chance to be fully informed in their decision process.

AB2072 passed. No longer in APPR suspense file.

News going around that the AB2072 bill already passed today (10 - 1) and is now out of the APPR. Suspense File - which was never "suspended" in the first place. Next, the bill will go to the Senate floor next week for the vote and once that gets passed it will go to the Governator's desk for his signature.

Now, there are talks about getting Edwin Black involved again, which didn't help much like the last time, because this "suspend" crowd really want to see this bill suspended permanently and are desperate for any kind of help to stop this bill. They want the whole enchilada instead. Once this bill finally passed and signed then it's a victory for all future parents of babies born with hearing loss get the necessary and full information on all communication options. But the real question after that is will we see a street protest if this bill passes the Senate floor and heads to the Governor's desk for his signature? We'll probably know this answer within the next week or so.

Stay tuned.....

Meanwhile, enjoy this, er, suspenseful classic tv show The Twilight Zone with an episode called "Eye of the Beholder" Part I, II, III and IV. All of them captioned. Kind of like the AB2072 bill story plot. Wait til the final wrapping comes off and it comes out beautifully but those who are against it sees it as an ugly result in this final treatment. And then we have the chase scene, too. Does that remind you of something? Enjoy!

AB2072 on APPR. Suspense File does not mean "suspended"

A recent DCARAVLOG video signed the word "suspense" as in "suspend." It's not quite the word nor the same thing.

The AB2072 bill is currently placed in the APPR suspense file because staffs think this bill will cost the state more than $150,000 to implement.

... the so-called "suspense file" is a method by which both fiscal committees in each house automatically hold bills with a dollar value in excess of $150,000 so that each bill may be prioritized on their fiscal and policy merit. Then, on one single day, all fiscal bills are dispensed with and are either passed out of committee and sent to the Floor for vote, or held due to cost or policy concerns (ultimately rendering the bill "dead" for the year.) The "suspense file" process is nerve-wracking for lobbyists and legislators, as it is highly secretive, and one does not know until the minute the bill is announced whether or not it is going to be passed to the Floor or if it is headed to the "suspense" graveyard.

The filing of AB2072 is merely a fiscal response to the cost of this bill and goes before the fiscal committee. It's the fiscal implications of this bill that's in question, not necessarily the policy. A collection of these bills in the Suspense File will get voted on whether for a bill to continue or allow it to die. One thing for sure, this bill is certainly not "suspended" nor dead. It will get voted on. We'll know by tomorrow, August 12th, the hearing date.

What are the "risks" for ASL option in the AB2072 bill?

Ok. Like I said before, many of us already know the benefits of ASL but what many people have not really touched upon at all is the risks of using ASL. Yesterday I blogged about the AB2072 bill with its new language regarding the risks and benefits of each communication option in the bill which raised the question exactly what would the risks be for an ASL communication option (i.esigning option)? It's like during an interview you give everything positive about yourself but the table gets turned when the interviewer asks you to describe the negative part about yourself. This is exactly what I was getting at in my blog yesterday. Nothing puzzling about it. It just raises new questions on the "risk" part of ASL in the AB2072 bill that requires that information in a future pamphlet for parents of babies born with a hearing loss.

Let's help with the "risk" part for this future pamphlet on the ASL option for parents of babies born with a hearing loss. Tell the readers here in the comment section on what those risks may be. Please, no descriptions or comments on the advantages or benefits for ASL since we already know that. What I and many others are interested in are the risks description part. I will use my descretion as a moderator to include only comments that discuss the "risk" part of the ASL communication option (i.e. signing). I will also delete comments that do not follow my request. You've been warned! Discuss only the risk part, please.

Let's the commenting start!

ADDENDUM: No "jokey" risk comments, too. Just as the AB2072 would request risks and benefits for oral or other communication options as part of the information packet in a pamphlet so will the outline be required for the ASL option, too, on risks and benefits. The focus here is on "risks."