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 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.