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?

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.

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 - risks and benefits for ASL option

If you haven't read the updated and revised AB2072 bill that came out last week in the effort to help provide crucial information for parents of babies born with hearing loss by providing:

an unbiased, comprehensive, evidence-based informational pamphlet for newborns and infants identified as deaf or hard of hearing about visual and auditory communication and language options including, but not limited to, American Sign Language (ASL), and Listening and Spoken Language, that is sufficient to allow a parent to make an informed decision on which options to choose for his or her child.

Well, that's good and dandy. And just to be fair for each of the visual, auditory and language options the pamplet must also provide risks and benefitis for each of the option provided, including ASL seen on page 3 of the bill.

The pamphlet shall contain both benefits and risks of all options.....

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.

We already know the benefits but what are the risks for the ASL option? I could probably name a few potential risks in using the ASL option. Although I'm surprised nobody even saw this little line regarding the "benefits and risks" that must be described for each option. This should get interesting on what ASL stakeholders will say about this one. It'll be equally interesting to see exactly what the risks are for the ASL option coming from ASL stakeholders, too, who will undoubtedly be a part of this pamplet development in an advisory stakeholder panel.

My, my...a can of worms from this bill? A conundrum? A new warning label for the ASL option from ASL stakeholders?

AB 2072 - passed

Great news. AB 2072 bill passed by the Health Senate Committee with a 5 to 1 vote, along with 2 abstaining. It now goes to the Senate which I'm sure they'll recognize this bill as a bill that empowers parents to make an informed decision.

This is about letting parents make the decision and not the government. No government or any other entity or agency will be doing the decision for parents. This is about empowering parents in making their own decision where an agency or government says, "Here you go, you decide." This exactly how it should be done rather than a government making the decision for parents of newborns diagnosed with hearing loss. The best way to lose your independence is when a government ends up making decisions for you. This would be an example of interfering into people lives rather than helping them make their own decisions for a change provided that they are given adequate and proper information so they can make an informed decision. Once a government starts to make decisions for parents of newborns diagnosed with hearing loss would be the day when the government practices communism.

However, this bill would force audiologists to provide information given to them on ALL communication options, including ASL. If there are biased audiologists out there who do not favor ASL they would soon be forced to provide parents the various communication methods and shall include ASL. The audiologists do not decide for the parents. The government does not decide for the parents. State, regional or local agencies do not decide for the parents. Advocacy groups do not get to decide for the parents of newborns diagnosed with hearing loss such as CAD, CENIAS, NAD, DBC, NORCAL, DCARA, Deafhood Yoga, and any other organizations. The sole decision makers are the parents. This is what the Senate will recognize and understand.

AG Bell on AB2072

The AB 2072 bill is about choices, obviously. It discusses that parents of newborns with hearing loss get information that covers,

American Sign Language(ASL), Total Communication, Cued Speech, and Listening and Spoken Language communication options for children with hearing loss, including, but not limited to, information about deaf and hard-of-hearing organizations, agencies and early intervention centers, and educational programs.

The problem is that those who oppose this bill often spend more time going after AGBell and other similar organizations rather than to focus and promote ASL itself. AGBell has a position paper written up some 5 years ago on their position on ASL.

AG Bell acknowledges that a chosen approach depends on culture, family interests, and desired communication outcome. AG Bell believes that the language and communication approach chosen should be based on an informed decision made by the child’s parents/family and based on their own unique circumstances.

With respect to American Sign Language (ASL), AG Bell acknowledges ASL as a language in and of itself. AG Bell also recognizes ASL’s importance in Deaf culture as a unique feature, and a language that many take pride in learning. AG Bell does not believe that ASL should be prohibited or restricted as a choice, nor does AG Bell advocate against learning ASL as part of a child’s overall development if that is what the child’s parents desire.

Regardless of chosen language or communication approach, AG Bell believes that families should have early access to professionals with specialized education and training in the desired language or communication method."

Again, it's about parental choice but parents need to be informed of all communication options, including ASL, the educational choices and the many services and advocacy groups on hearing loss that are available to the parents. AGBell believes in choices and believes that the AB2072 bill is about that in a letter to Tony Mendoza.

AG Bell believes that the language and communication approach chosen should be based on an informed decision made by the child's parents/family and based on their own unique circumstances. Regardless of chosen language or communication approach, families should have early access to professionals with specialized education and training in the desired language or communication outcome.

AG Bell believes it is important that organizations that advocate for or work with individuals with hearing loss work together to broaden health care providers' understanding of all communication methods so that upon identification, unbaised information about all options can be made available to parents and their children.

Senator Elaine K. Alquist who is the chair in the Senate Health Committee wrote up an analysis (on June 9, 2010) on the AB2072 bill, deafness, the issues involved, and about the deaf culture and community. This analysis has a firm grasp of everything. Senator Elaine K. Alquist makes a conclusion and recommendation to the committee (note the bolded portion):

Both supporters and opposition to this bill agree that any information provided to parents of deaf children should be unbiased, based on scientific facts, and come from a reliable, neutral third-party source. To address this, the committee suggests amendments to require that either DDS or CDE develop or approve the use of standardized, objective pamphlet of information about communication options for children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, that is sufficient to allow the child's parents to make an informed decision. This information shall be decided upon by the department in conjunction with a stakeholder panel, comprised of representatives of the various communication options. The cost for developing the pamphlet and conducting the stakeholder panel shall be covered through the development of an additional state fund to accept private donations for this purpose. The provisions of the bill shall only be made operative after sufficient funds have been collected to cover necessary expenses.

Both parties agree that information ought to be in an unbiased format and that stakeholders in each of the communication option shall be a part of helping the development of this pamphlet for parents of newborn babies diagnosed with a hearing loss.

No conspiracy theories.

No AGBell boogie monster under the bed.

No Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies in the attempt to label this bill and Tony Mendoza.

And none of the eugenics stuff that Edwin Black erroneously tried to infer about the Deaf community and culture's own future.

Just a straight up bill that is designed to help parents make an informed decision regarding their child diagnosed with a hearing loss.

If you disagree, disagree on the merit of the argument itself and not about trying to concoct some "end of the world" scenario here. The bill does include ASL as one of the many communication options whether used alone or in conjunction with other options. So, that is an important step. The ASL community will still have a stake in this once this bill is signed by the governor which, ironically so, at one time played a deaf and mute hit-man for a mob in a 1973 movie "The Long Goodbye."

When anti-AB2072 group uses Nazi labels

A new article in The Cutting Edge came out late yesterday about California's AB-2072 bill where it laboriously use Nazi examples and labels about that bill. This bill is about allowing parents of newborns diagnosed with hearing loss be given information on communication and educational options where it does include ASL as one clear option. It's a resource that will allow parents make an informed decision after doing their research and who to contact. When people use Nazi examples or references inappropiately as an argument it's called Godwin's Law or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies. Drenching it with words like "eugenics" and "Nazi-style" elimination won't win the argument. Especially when you throw in conspiracy theories and accusations against other organizations. It'll simply marginalize certain Deaf groups even further onto the fringe by those who opposed AB-2072 bill whenever Nazi references are used. This bill gives parents the necessary resource and power to make an informed decision and by no one else.
I think this is a good bill. It's an opportunity to capitalize ASL even further once passed.

A poll: Do you approve AB2072 bill?

Here's a poll on California's AB2072 bill. Below is a video about what AB 2072 is about.






Warning: This poll is not a scientific poll.