AB 2072: Plant a Seed, Part Two

This is a continuation of  “AB 2072: Plant a Seed”.  Please read “AB 2072: Plant a Seed, Part One” before continuing here.

A parent of a deaf child who supports AB 2072 stated in a 4-30-2010 email that regarding ulterior motives behind the bill as to why DHH groups were not consulted:

3.    “Last minute voting?  Really?  We all knew that the bill was going to the floor on Thursday.  In fact, Mendoza was contacted several days before by many individuals to delay it.  During their Wednesday meeting with Mendoza their lobbyist also asked for a delay.”

“I was told that there was a strong presence from a variety of groups at the hearing.”

“The opposition has hired a lobbyist (Richard Polonko).  Assembly Member Tony Mendoza (author of the bill) has been having meetings with the opposition and their representatives.  He met with NORCAL, IMPACT, GLAD, and a few other groups this week.  He will be meeting again next week with them.”

“The best part of this bill not dying is that it is forcing them to come to the table and work with us.  We’ve wanted collaboration for sooo long.”

“Based on last Wednesday meeting, I’m not sure they’re willing to partner.  At this time, they want only I communication option.  While I don’t believe in 1 communication option, the bill is fundamentally about giving the parents information and ultimately parent choice.”

“I’m hoping and desiring a working relationship can be formed but they do not want that yet.  Here’s hoping to the future.”

The opposition comprised of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Coalition (DHH) claims that options do not work. They claim that language acquisition (ASL/Bilingual) works and should be the focus before any other tools are added on. They want information to show pros and cons and what works and how to use it.

The supporters of AB2072 indicated that they only want every parent to be well informed of all options available. They’re not out to push any one ideology on parents, rather they want parents to be aware of all language/communication/tools that are available for all deaf/hoh children.

It is apparent that one option only is not a realistic approach towards parents.  It is also unrealistic to expect that a deaf child will respond to one and same communication mode/  language the same as another deaf child may.  To say all communication options means only one option, the oral route, is simply NOT true.  NCHAM  and supporters of AB 2072 have never said that.  ASL is one of the options included in this bill.  That means any audiologist or related professional cannot leave out any option and that includes ASL when presenting written material to the parents.

On the other hand, the brochure itself does need to reflect more equal representation of all options, not just a mere blurb of a few sentences to describe an option.  Cochlear implants and hearings aids option should explain that a deaf toddler isn’t going to magically start talking like his hearing peers, that the “how” part, the parent-child commitment to AVT or speech therapy is a must for a child to successfully listen and communicate, that frequent mappings are necessary with CI’s, etc.  The ASL option should explain that it is a recognized, legitimate visual language with its own syntax, grammar and qualifiers and that it is a part of a rich Deaf culture.  That ASL’s “how” part involves a family commitment to learn baby signs together and acquire ASL through ASL classes, deaf mentors and community as the child grows up, along with an emphasis in reading and writing English. The other options of Cued Speech and Total Communication also need separate explanations with the “how” parts.  Karl White of NCHAM has indicated that he is willing to listen to new ideas and input from the deaf community, that maybe he can implement such suggestions for the NHSP program literature.

How can the opponents and supporters of AB 2072 come to the table?

Not with inflexible demands, not with one brochure that reflects an obvious oralist bias, and certainly not with the smear campaigns we’ve been witnessing online on both sides recently.

There’s a weed-choked garden for you, folks. Where‘d those weeds come from, dam**t?!

Umeusnthem.  That’s right, read it slowly, U…me…us…n’… them.  Yup.

Since the written materials will not be funded by the state as indicated in the bill (state of California is already bankrupt), perhaps DHH can raise funds through the deaf community and print their own brochure about the ASL option to be distributed along with the national brochure?  Would AB 2072 supporters be amenable to allowing more than one brochure to be included in a distribution packet for parents?

A double-delight  rosebush there… a purple hydrangea here.

In this issue the parents are being viewed as the adversaries, how about regarding them as allies and treating them with respect? They are the ones who carry the tremendous responsibilities of raising their children, not the deaf community.  In return, how about AB 2072 supporters listening to ASL advocates’ concerns?

Yellow bearded iris there…orange California poppies here.  (Sorry, couldn’t resist that one.)

A garden grows with flowers of every variety and color.  A sight  for sore eyes.

You get the idea.

For the reader, tend your garden. Weed out the assumptions and the dogmas so that the truth will stand out.

Plant a seed and watch it grow.

This article is co-authored by Candy of candysweetblog.wordpress.com and by Ann_C of Ann_C’s ireflections09.wordpress.com.

Please note: You can post a comment under Ann_C’s blog.  Note that the authors have been respectful to both sides of this issue, so any name-calling, personal attacks, or smear campaigns towards anyone will be deleted.  Please stick to the subject of the blog, thanks.

Advertisements

169 Responses to “AB 2072: Plant a Seed, Part Two”

  1. RussellE Says:

    Excellent blog. We had a brocher printed by handsandvoices.org when we discovered our child is deaf. It felt like a red carpet front of me with unbaised resources on the brochure. I knew parents will feel without at lost of resources. I see more parents here using sign language than I see in California. This is what ab2072 about.

  2. White Ghost Says:

    Hiya…..there you are the dreamgirlz. Well done, dreamgirlz! Just visited Shel’s blog….pretty lame….You know many deaf parents deaf infant/s have made their own decisions not to use the CIs and the audiologists….respect their decisions. It’s their responsibility.

    Just got off from RLM’s latest blog…”Shocking Revelations About Similar Groups for AB 2072 and AZ’s new law.” Boy, he forgot all about California’s Prop 187! Go to google and you’ll find out! His blog is now the worst and lame of all the time. Boo-hoo.

  3. theHolism Says:

    Exactly. A well written blog. Especially appreciated the part, “They’re not out to push any one ideology on parents, rather they want parents to be aware of all language/communication/tools that are available for all deaf/hoh children”.

    You know, there are always two types of people. One that truly understand the importance of planting seeds and the hard work that’s involved. This option will always prove to be rewarding. The other side either do not know how plant seeds or don’t like the hard work that’s involved. Instead they buy all the food they need or want.

    As a farmer and gardener I do see the bill as a seed and know it’s going to be a good thing. Thanks for sharing.

  4. Karen Mayes Says:

    Hmmm… I do appreciate hearing all the sides and of course both sides have valid points.

    In my opinion, the bill is fine, except for the flow of information, between the medical organizations and the cultural organizations. One thing that gets me to thinking… I see that there’s still some confusion over “culture”. The bill is heavily medical-driven, with ASL thrown in, to balance out. So the cultural approach vs the medical approach appears to be a big issue. I have raised this issue last year or so, noticing that cultures appear to be built around the physical attributes. So it is not an exception for the Deaf culture… that the culture is built around deafness. Either way the bill is passed or not, it could be seen as a blessing in disguise… it could open up more opportunities for the deaf community, cultural-wise.

  5. White Ghost Says:

    Karen M. —

    I honestly don’t think many parents are looking for the “cultural” organizations first. They would want to look for the medical organizations first and the upmost. Of course, they would get confused about the “culture” because of the various organizations that have their own different cultures. For instance, we have so much different culture from the “cued speech’s” culture. How can we be the same deaf culture? Impossible! Make sense, Karen?

  6. Karen Mayes Says:

    WG, yes, I understand. That’s why I said that there seemed to be a conflict over this bill… because of the cultural aspect not being in the bill. Parents would automatically look for “fixes”, as we all know… I can’t blame them. I’d do the same thing also if I were the hearing parent of a newly diagnosed child… I’d look for anything that would enable the child to function in the hearing world, no question about it. The deaf community, hmmm… especially for the ASL advocates, I feel that the bill MIGHT open up new avenues for them… more education about ASL, etc. Ahhh… nothing is fixed in cement, huh? That’s why sometimes when the failures appear to be paramount… when we forget that when one door is closed, another door opens…

    I learned a new tidbit last week about NYS. Last year there was a bill proposed that the medical organizations informed the parents of only ONE school… New York State School for the Deaf and Blind, in Rome, NY, and there was objections to it because the bill did not include 10 other schools/programs such as Rochester School for the Deaf, Lexington school for the deaf, Millneck, etc. So the bill died. No bill this year as far as I know.

  7. I oppose AB2072 Says:

    The bill holds no one accountable for the oversight of the material. No accountability means no transparency. Suppose a for profit group decides to put out the info and includes token mentions of the communication options but promotes theirs more. Who wins? Steering and manipulating parent choice happens when there are no standards, no defined procedures, and no accountability agency. All “free to the state”.

    Really this allows for those with the most cash to “plow the field” with those “free to the state” seeds.

  8. I oppose AB2072 Says:

    Also ASL/English includes both written and SPOKEN English if desired. So to agrue that ASL/ English is the only option the opponents want is not grounded in fact. On the other hand, the oral only groups who authored the bill have never included ASL into their programs and discourage parents not to learn it. Therefore, they are encouraging only One option that being listening and speaking.

    Next if the oral only authors of the bill wanted collaboration and “coming to the table”, they would and should have done it and called for such collaboration. Instead they write a bill
    leaving out many groups of Stakeholders.

    Mendoza knows that the Senate needs to see he is trying to work with all the Stakeholders. His political ploy to make it look like he has tried is only a fascade.

    The saying is true: “Politics and Money” corrupt.

    Be careful what you are buying. Nothing is for free.

  9. Tara Says:

    You outlined the problem with this bill beautifully.

    You clearly pointed out how the “Let Them Hear Foundation” creates materials for NCHAM.

    You again pointed out that the State of California is bankrupt, thus unable to fund the written materials required by this bill.

    A simple search of the LTHF website shows it to be a medical-focused organization. Here is an excerpt: LTHF strives to help hearing-impaired individuals to H.E.A.R.. In pursuit of this objective, we provide: Hearing services for patients, specifically those lacking adequate access to funding and healthcare resources. Education for professional and public sectors per hearing healthcare issues and practices. Access development for under-served individuals through insurance advocacy and overseas medical missionary efforts. Research relating to functions and diseases of the ear, with an emphasis on innovative treatment development.

    The words: hearing services, healthcare resources, insurance advocacy, diseases of the ear, innovative treatment development, medical missionary efforts, and so on clearly shows LTHF’s goals. This is NOT an educational nor an unbiased organization committed to providing information. This organization actively promotes ONE viewpoint – treating and curing the medical condition of deafness.

    Now, this is the organization that has developed a brochure of balanced communication option for parents? Why? It doesn’t fit in with their goals. Since the State of California is bankrupt and cannot fund anything, where is the oversight? Where is the transparency? Who will ensure that LTHF, NCHAM, and whoever else is involved in developing the materials include all stakeholders?

    Do we trust special interest groups who will directly profit off one option to develop information for parents? Frankly, I don’t.

    This bill is unacceptable because it takes away all power from the State of California and puts it in the hands of special interest groups.

    Again, thank you for demonstrating so clearly what’s wrong with this bill.

  10. Candy Says:

    Tara, read everything again carefully. NCHAM turned down the brochure created by LTHF. And then read what was done to include people from all communication modalities to develop the current brochure. The brochure is far from perfect.

  11. Shirley Frelich-Egbert Says:

    Here is an excellent article: Hearing Professionals vs the Deaf Community: California’s AB2072 by a mother of two hearing children who sign, member of Hands and Voices, ASL student at Portland Community College. She’s has friends with cochlear implants, and plans to send her son to Tucker-Maxon.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-39784-Portland-Special-Needs-Kids-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Hearing-Professionals-vs-the-Deaf-Community-Californias-AB2702

  12. Tara Says:

    You said, “LTHF asked NCHAM to show them what they needed and committed funds to print hundreds of thousands of brochures. A committee was pulled together on all deaf and hard of hearing modalities, people beyond reproach, with decades of experience. The committee members represented the most unbiased of programs, the high-water mark of all language modalities. The new brochure was created.”

    Who was on this committee? Which organizations were included? When did committee meetings take place? Is this still ongoing since the “brochure is far from perfect.”

    If the brochure is far from perfect, then what will be used if AB 2072 passes and is signed into law? By the way, AB 2072 does NOT say who will develop written information on communication options, only that it will be developed “at no cost to the State of California.”

    Again, this bill takes away all oversight, transparency, and decision making from the State of California.

  13. Spencer Says:

    There is no such thing as cued-speech culture. If you look at the definition of “culture,” you’ll understand why, White Ghost.

  14. White Ghost Says:

    Spencer!

    I am not that stupid. Everybody are different. Don’t expect that the deaf people are in the same culture. Cued Speech has their own culture.

    Go look it up in the google and type it up Cued Speech Association.

    Nice try, tho.

  15. ireflections09 Says:

    Has anyone really checked out the current California Code of Health and Safety’s Section 124119.5? I’ll quote what is the relevant part pertaining to this issue below:

    124119.5. Parents of all newborns and infants diagnosed with a
    hearing loss shall be provided written information on the
    availability of community resources and services for children with
    hearing loss, including those provided in accordance with the federal
    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et
    seq.), through the reporting and tracking system followup procedures.
    Information shall include listings of local and statewide nonprofit
    deaf and hard-of-hearing consumer-based organizations, parent support
    organizations affiliated with deafness, and programs offered through
    the State Department of Social Services, Office of Deaf Access,
    State Department of Developmental Services, and the State Department
    of Education.

    Please note that “written information on the availability of community resources and services for children with hearing loss” says NOTHING about the different communication modes/ languages for deaf newborns/ children. Just “community resources and services”, period.

    For the hearing parents of a newly diagnosed newborn, they’re usually clueless as to what are the actual communication modalities for a deaf child in the first place, so information explaining all of those modalities need to be presented first, then give the parents a listing of resources in their area.

    As Hallie Morrow wrote in her reply to NCHAM about California’s not participating in NCHAM’s state insert program for state EHDI progams, “This information is provided to the hundreds of families of infants identified with hearing loss through the Newborn Hearing Screening Program and can be tailored to each child’s specific situation.”

    “…can be tailored to each child’s specific situation.”

    One wonders here if the parents may not be getting all the information on all options because the state is “tailoring” the info to their child’s needs. The state should not be controlling which parents get what info, based on their child’s needs.

  16. I oppose AB2972 Says:

    Candy…I am not sure where you got your information, but the fact of the matter is that NCHAM and Let Them Hear did not pull in ASL/English Stakeholders in the creation of the brochure called “Communicating With Your Child”. This brochure was first displayed at the 2009 EHDI conference. It was highly criticized for its content. In fact the original brochure showed a woman signing “bug” which also looked very much like “orgasm”. The ASL/English Stakeholders immediately let NCHAM (Karl White, director) know this was not acceptable. The Stakeholders also sat and explained to the EHDI directors what was wrong with the brochure. Instead of taking the input and working together with ALL of the Stakeholders, Karl White and Let Them Hear replaced the picture with a man signing “water”. Little did the ASL/English Stakeholders know that this brochure was then going to be used in 30 other states. This was only discovered recently.

    Where is the transparency? Where is the working in collaboration? It did not happen. And it will not happen if AB2072 is passed.

    It really isn’t that difficult to see what is taking place.

  17. Candy Says:

    I intend to comment on a lot later tonight. I quickly checked the comments here and was on my way out. Saw this comment by “I oppose AB2972” (I’m sure that was a typo) but what caught my eye was the “bug” sign and the “orgasm” sign. My husband just walked by and I asked him what the sign was for “bug” and he signed it (exactly how I sign it) and then, I asked him what the sign was for “orgasm”, he laughed and said it’s the same. lol I don’t think I had a good chuckle in a while. Seriously, we all know what is shown on the illustration isn’t always nice to look at and we all know there are regional signs. I’m curious, how do you sign bug in California? Anyway, I will be back tonight to comment in response to some of the comments. Thank you for the laugh (I’m sure we all need it). 😉

  18. Spencer Says:

    White Ghost–to be labelled a culture, a group of people must have their own language, set of behavior, certain things are passed from generation to generation, and a common bond. Cued speech users do not have their own language and do not pass anything from generation to generation. They may have a common bond and perhaps similar sets of behavior, but they do not have a culture of their own. It’s impossible for cued-speech users to have their own culture since they use the language of the majority–in America, that means English.

  19. Spencer Says:

    Candy–bug is a duplicated sign–the movement is duplicated. With orgasm, the movement is made only once. One minor change, huge difference! 😉

  20. Candy Says:

    Tara,

    The following members were selected as participants to the committee in charge of making the brochure unbiased:

    1. Rich Harward: Utah State EHDI Coordinator, and parent of deaf daughter

    2. Gayla Hutsell: Indiana State EHDI Coordinator
    3. Elizabeth Seeliger: Wisconsin State EHDI Coordinator
    4. Jeff Hoffman: Nebraska State EHDI Coordinator and President of the Directors of Speech and Hearing Programs of State Health and Welfare Agencies (DSHPSHWA) – all of EHDI programs

    5. Leeanne Seaver: Executive Director of Hands and Voices, and parent of a deaf son

    6. Joni Alberg: Executive Director of Beginnings for Families of Children Who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing

    7. Ron Benham: Part C Coordinator, was President Part C organization,and MCH Director for Massachusetts

    8. Lisa Kovaks: Chapter President of Indiana AG Bell chapter and Chapter President of Indiana Hands and Voices chapter, and parent of a deaf son

    9. Renee Polanco: Los Angeles Unified School District Teacher of the Deaf – Deaf individual

    10. William Eiserman, NCHAM
    11. Lenore Shisler, NCHAM – fluent signer
    12. Joy Kearns, Let Them Hear Foundation
    13. Karl White, NCHAM

    I’ll answer your other questions in a moment

  21. Candy Says:

    Again, some of the excerpts below are in the body of the post. I will post here again. This was the answer Karl gave me when I asked him further questions regarding the committee:

    The CWYC brochure was developed initially in response to requests from State EHDI program coordinators—so they were heavily represented on the original committee. It was developed particularly for parents, so they were also included….some who had selected spoken language and some who had selected ASL for their children. The two family support organizations represented on the committee (Hands & Voices, and Beginnings for Families of Children Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing) serve all families and are very much in tune with their needs and desires. We weren’t trying to exclude anyone, but you can’t have a representative of every organization that has an interest in this topic or the committee would so large and unwieldy that you would never get anything done. For example, we didn’t include AG Bell, National Cued Speech Association, Parent Training and Resource Centers, Family Voices, American Academy of Pediatrics, Deaf Bilingual Coalition, etc etc. When we had the first draft we distributed it to many many people at the 2009 EHDI meeting including people from NAD and ASDC (as well as many others) and asked for feedback and told them we would adjust and refine if they gave us specific suggestions. Many people have told us they though the brochure was wonderful, but almost no one has given us suggestions for changes.

  22. Candy Says:

    Tara, the answer to your last question can be asked at the meeting with Mendoza. That is, if you’re on the front line along with the other oppositions.

    Funding by a Federal Grant was obtained by LTHF and they were willing to modify the brochure to meet NCHAM’s request for an unbiased brochure.

    Finally, you said: Again, this bill takes away all oversight, transparency, and decision making from the State of California.

    There is NO transparency or oversight in section 124119.5 as Ann_C indicated above.

    Have you seen the original code section 124119.5? Compare that to the first AB2072 (which is to modify that section). Also, note that the second amendment to AB2072 got away from section 124119.5. The second amended AB2072 calls for a NEW addition to the section. Which is section 124121.

    You will not find section 124121 in the Health and Safety Code Article 6 Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening, Tracking and Intervention Program.

    I do not see anywhere that says that the original AB2072 which covers section 124119.5 will be removed. It is not being modified anymore because there is a new section. I’m guessing that 124119.5 is going to remain as is.

    The new section which is in the latest AB2072 amendment (124121) is more specific, covering the critical time period where parents are shocked to learn that their child is deaf at an audiologist office or at a related professional’s office. The initial contact. The most important time of all is where parents should be told what is available. The parents need to know right away that there is something they can do! This will relief some if not all of the anxiety a parent might have at the initial contact. Parents are not going to make a decision right away. They’ll do their homework and make their own decision based on informed unbiased materials both written and electronically.

    However, there is also a second step:

    (2) By a local provider for the Early Start Program,
    provided for pursuant to the California Early Intervention Services
    Act (Title 14 (commencing with Section 95000) of the Government Code) upon initial contact with the parents of a newborn or infant newly diagnosed with a hearing loss.

    To see the current section 124119.5, look at the health code section here:

    http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/getcode.html?file=./hsc/124001-125000/124115-124120.5

  23. Candy Says:

    I Oppose AB2972, I believe my response to Tara also answers what you brought up.

    Spencer, not necessarily. I have witness a variety of movements in the orgasm sign. I’ve seen it used in one movement or more. I’ve seen it used in an exaggerated manner. It’s like the word “no”. It can be used in so many ways to emphasize something or not. 😉 But, seriously when one looks at a brochure without the movement itself, you can’t expect it to look the way you want it to look. For a moment here, I thought there was a different sign for ‘bug’ in California.

  24. Deafchip Says:

    This blog is one of the most ridiculous blogs I have ever read!

    You support the idea of putting American Sign Language in the category of communication options. How could you agree with that? I find that way beyond my comprehension.

    That shows me you have been difficult to understand the difference between language and communication.

    Opponents of AB2072 have a lot of respect for English Language while the supporters of AB2072 don’t for American Sign Language.

    The supporters of AB2072 recognize American Sign Language as a member of the non-language group of communication options rather than a language.

    Therefore, AB2072 is linguicism!

  25. Candy Says:

    Deaf Chip, communication and language go hand in hand.

    California Codes Health and Safety Code Section 124115-124120.5 mentions “communication” all over. It’s been around for a long time and no one has ever complaint about it.

    You can’t have communication without language.

  26. Valhallian Says:

    DeafChip, you’re confusing me here, if you say ASL is not a communication option, then what would you call it? As it appears that you are also saying that every other language that exists on this planet is not a communication option either.

  27. Deafchip Says:

    Candy and Valhallian,

    I am not talking about general, I am talking about the specific case, AB2072 as well as other bills or laws similar to it.

    Is English language a communication option? Of course it is not. Cued Speech, Total Communication, SEE, Signed English, AVT, and oral program are part of the English language; however, are not independent language, just communication tools (artificial methods).

    They put ASL in the category of English’s communication options. It is wrong, plain wrong. Emphatically, ASL is not part of English language but is an independent language.

    Therefore, ASL and English language should be treated equally.

  28. Valhallian Says:

    DeafChip, I agree that they should be treated equally, just like with any other communication option. Now would you kindly point out exactly where in the bill it says that they are NOT treated equally?

  29. Candy Says:

    Valhallian, I believe DeafChip covered that in one of his recent vlogs. Maybe you can understand better where he’s coming from.

  30. Candy Says:

    But, there’s no “communication options” in the bill although in the definition portion it says “specified communication options” so…I thought communication options is good. It covers everything and not necessarily limits parents to only one choice but one or more.

  31. Deafchip Says:

    Valhallian,

    I am not sure I get your point about “just like with any other communication option.” It is too vague, it could be anything. I believe we should focus on language opportunities for Deaf babies and children.

    The bill mentioned audiologists and did not say anything about a specific position of other professionals. That is a RED FLAG! To my understanding, the brochures (heavily emphasized on CI, other communication options including one small piece of information, American Sign Language) were developed by the very same people if not all who have lobbied for a vote on AB2072 bill.

  32. Deafchip Says:

    Candy,

    I am flabbergasted and thanks for promoting my vlog!

  33. White Ghost Says:

    Deafchip

    You have made Chip,Sr. and Dale very, very confusing. Do parents of deaf infant/s want some information from the audiologists first and the upmost? Of course! They want some demographics first of all. They want to know about their infant/s’ decibels. They want some answers! They NEED audiologists. They DO NOT want deaf or hearing professionals first!

  34. Candy Says:

    DeafChip, if it helps others see both sides and where they’re coming from. You’re welcome, anytime. Looking at things at every angle enables one to see things better.

    Valhallian asked you a very good question and you could not answer it. It is not vague at all. In fact, your video pretty much says a lot about it.

  35. Deafchip Says:

    WG,

    Chip, Sr and Dale (my distance cousins) understand very clearly. Audiologists provide the result of hearing test for verification. I have no problem with that at all.

    I disagree that Audiologists should discuss with parents about communication options. It is appropriate that Audiologists should refer parents to qualified specialists and professionals who are recognized and respected by Deaf community. Of course, bilingualism is the best approach for Deaf babies. Communication options (part of English language) are within Bilingualism. There is no subtractive decision for parents and their Deaf babies.

    I do not believe in gambling on Deaf baby’s life. It is like parents are forced to make a decision by gambling on their child’s future. Very few babies are lucky but most don’t. They end up being clients of mental health, on social welfare, vulnerable and so on.

    Hearing babies do not have that and most of them are better off because there is NO communication option package for them in the health system at all. Why don’t Deaf babies have that opportunity? It looks like the opportunity that is a FORBIDDEN ZONE WHERE DEAF BABIES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE!

  36. Michael Sidansky Says:

    Greetings folks,

    There were some arguments over whether bias exists or otherwise. I hope this clears couple of things. I also hope

    “Funding by a Federal Grant was obtained by LTHF and they were willing to modify the brochure to meet NCHAM’s request for an unbiased brochure.”

    You need to understand that I, as deaf individual, view this phrase with the same fear a black person would if the sentence reads:

    “Funding by a Federal Grant was obtained by KKK and they were willing to modify the brochure to meet Anti-Defamation League’s request for an unbiased brochure in treatment of black individuals.”

    The simple fact is no matter what you do, the notion that LTHF and other such Fountains controls the information in the brochure is enough for the ASL/Sign language community against this bill. In spirit of respect, LTHF should end their support of the bill and work toward compromise that makes every deaf individual happy.

    “Finally, you said: Again, this bill takes away all oversight, transparency, and decision making from the State of California.

    There is NO transparency or oversight in section 124119.5 as Ann_C indicated above.”

    Actually, by not assigning the responsibility of providing the information to a specific individual, there is a degree of transparency because deaf and oral coalitions has the same access to the families.

    What this bill tries to do is ensure that the audiologists, lacking linguistic and educational background of all spectrum of deaf culture, are the gatekeepers of the information. If anything, we should amend the AB 2072 to ensure that only audiologists who took an appropriate linguistic classes along with deaf education/special education classes are allowed to make such decisions.

    “I do not see anywhere that says that the original AB2072 which covers section 124119.5 will be removed. It is not being modified anymore because there is a new section. I’m guessing that 124119.5 is going to remain as is.
    The new section which is in the latest AB2072 amendment (124121) is more specific, covering the critical time period where parents are shocked to learn that their child is deaf at an audiologist office or at a related professional’s office. The initial contact. The most important time of all is where parents should be told what is available. The parents need to know right away that there is something they can do! This will relief some if not all of the anxiety a parent might have at the initial contact. Parents are not going to make a decision right away. They’ll do their homework and make their own decision based on informed unbiased materials both written and electronically.”

    That is indeed what parents should be doing, but in this case- psychologically, the doctor is wrongly considered to be an authority in linguistics and education of all children. You wouldn’t trust your audiologists to determine the best school for your hearing children as well as language they should speak. How can you expect us to do any less?

    Also I would like to point out that your list of individuals who were selected to make the brochure unbiased are sadly anything but.

    Members of EHDI are automatically disqualified because, after visiting some websites, all I see are limited options aiming toward oralism. This is the strongest evidence of bias.

    1. Rich Harward: Utah State EHDI Coordinator, and parent of deaf daughter.

    Hearing individual and what communication method does the deaf daughter utilize? I figure that this is a fair question considering that’s what we’re discussing now.

    2. Gayla Hutsell: Indiana State EHDI Coordinator

    Again, hearing individual who’s not even from California.

    3. Elizabeth Seeliger: Wisconsin State EHDI Coordinator
    (See #2)

    4. Jeff Hoffman: Nebraska State EHDI Coordinator and President of the Directors of Speech and Hearing Programs of State Health and Welfare Agencies (DSHPSHWA) – all of EHDI programs

    (See #2)

    5. Leeanne Seaver: Executive Director of Hands and Voices, and parent of a deaf son

    Hearing person and what communication options does the deaf son utilize?

    6. Joni Alberg: Executive Director of Beginnings for Families of Children Who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing

    Hearing individual whose website has a very onerous view of language options.

    Let me show you the differences-

    For ASL:
    PARENT TRAINING
    If parents are not deaf, intensive ASL training and education about deaf culture is desired in order for the family to become proficient in the language.

    For Oral:
    PARENT TRAINING
    Parents need to be highly involved with child’s teacher and/or therapists (speech, aural habilitation, etc) to carry over training activities to the home and create an optimal “oral” learning environment. These training activities would emphasize development of listening, speech reading and speech skills.

    Now- in ASL, the word “intensive” is used v.s. Oralism’s “highly involved” is just one example of such bias. (In case you didn’t catch on, “highly involved” is a softer word than “intensive” and is less likely to scare the parents off from a certain communication option.

    7. Ron Benham: Part C Coordinator, was President Part C organization,and MCH Director for Massachusetts

    8. Lisa Kovaks: Chapter President of Indiana AG Bell chapter and Chapter President of Indiana Hands and Voices chapter, and parent of a deaf son

    I guess I shouldn’t ask, but what communication options does the deaf son utilize?

    9. Renee Polanco: Los Angeles Unified School District Teacher of the Deaf – Deaf individual

    Just about the only deaf individual on committee. Hurray for a token deaf person on committee.

    10. William Eiserman, NCHAM (hearing individual)
    11. Lenore Shisler, NCHAM – fluent signer (Only one who is from the looks of it)
    12. Joy Kearns, Let Them Hear Foundation (hearing individual)
    13. Karl White, NCHAM (Hearing individual)

    Going through the list, there is only one deaf person and one signer on the committee of thirteen people without any participants from NAD, NorCal Center, or any other prestigious deaf agencies out there.

    Can you honestly tell me there is no bias here?

    “DeafChip, I agree that they should be treated equally, just like with any other communication option. Now would you kindly point out exactly where in the bill it says that they are NOT treated equally?”

    The sheer fact that the “unbiased” brochure you’ve developed is done with only one deaf person on committee of thirteen people is enough to illustrate the notion that we are treated as anything but equals in the passage of the bill.

    Now, I don’t expect to change anybody’s mind on this matter, but I do hope that there are clear examples of bias on this bill and, for once, it isn’t coming from the sign language community.

    Good day,

    Michael

  37. Michael Sidansky Says:

    Argh, I just realized I trailed off after the second sentence “I also hope…” and jumped in the middle of the argument.

    What I meant to say was “I also hope that the views of the sign language community are more clearly illustrated through this post and that all of our future dialogues will actually incorporate every members of the community and philosophies as opposed to a single coalition with a singular mindset.”

    Good day,

    Michae

  38. Candy Says:

    Michael,

    The brochure isn’t even mentioned in the bill. However it was suggested to be used as one or more “written” information. This part isn’t really set in stone, in my opinion.

    LTHF is not comparable to KKK at all. Far from it. So that argument is meaningless to me. There need to be respect by different organization that has different mission statements.

    Since the brochure supposedly will be used, the need to understand how it came to be is brought up here.

    There is nothing that dictates that this brochure cannot be revisited nor is there anything that says that one cannot add other materials to make the whole written potion more unbiased.

    Dr. Karl White did indicate:

    The CWYC brochure was developed initially in response to requests from State EHDI program coordinators—so they were heavily represented on the original committee. It was developed particularly for parents, so they were also included….some who had selected spoken language and some who had selected ASL for their children. The two family support organizations represented on the committee (Hands & Voices, and Beginnings for Families of Children Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing) serve all families and are very much in tune with their needs and desires.

    So, I understood the original intend of the brochure. At least they tried to representation of all modalities included.

    This bill is much more unbiased than the NBSP reform that is in progress. The reform is explained by Ella Lentz at her youtube video account name ASLElla. The title, I believe, is: Californians, Oppose AB2072!

    In that video she explained the reform currently being developed. It involves ASL as language acquisition at the start. Until the child is fluent in ASL, all other communication tools will then be added at a later time. That is not unbiased, Michael.

    This is why these group of people are upset because it clashes with their goal to have language acquisition via ASL/BiBi over all other modalities.

    There are possible solutions as it relates to the brochure itself. The bill is fine as it is.

    Anyone who is against this bill are essentially against the right of parents to choose. They need to also understand that NHSP reform in progress is extremely biased.

  39. Candy Says:

    “written potion” should be written portion

    “At least they tried to representation of all modalities included.” should read: At least they tried to include representation of all modalities.

  40. Candy Says:

    And, Michael, I agree with your last statement. That is sorely needed.

  41. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “In that video she explained the reform currently being developed. It involves ASL as language acquisition at the start. Until the child is fluent in ASL, all other communication tools will then be added at a later time. That is not unbiased, Michael.”

    It is rather unbiased when you realize the irony that the hearing children are encouraged to learn sign language at early age as language acquisition method which will enable them to gain language at much earlier age than they would through auditory means. What Lentz is saying here is merely what many infant professionals are encouraging young hearing babies to do so.

    I myself had a language and could communicate with parents at the age of 9 months thanks to sign language. Same is true for my brother and sister.

    This is what Lentz and the Sign Language community is striving to do- ensuring each individual has language at the earliest possible age and then go from there.

    Isn’t that what we all should be doing anyway? Aspiring to ensure our babies gain a language at the earliest possible age regardless of their hearing prowess?

  42. White Ghost Says:

    Michael….

    “I also hope that the views of the sign language community are more clearly illustrated through this post and that all of our future dialogues will actually incorporate every members of the community and philosophies as opposed to a single coalition with a singular mindset.”

    Well done, Michael. That’s true.

  43. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “LTHF is not comparable to KKK at all. Far from it. So that argument is meaningless to me. There need to be respect by different organization that has different mission statements.”

    You’re right. I overstepped my boundaries there. I was merely trying to explain the trigger sign language community has when it comes to oralism and their philosophies.

    Unfortunately, we cannot be held entirely responsible for possesing this trigger. After all, Alexander Graham Bell, the father of oralism in America and the founder of AGB Foundation (which is has one of their current member overseeing the release of this “unbiased brochure”), was an ardent supporter of eugenics.

  44. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “Michael….

    ‘I also hope that the views of the sign language community are more clearly illustrated through this post and that all of our future dialogues will actually incorporate every members of the community and philosophies as opposed to a single coalition with a singular mindset.’

    Well done, Michael. That’s true.”

    Quote me all you want, but the sad thing is while you may besmirch sign language community for not working with your foundations, the same is true in this case where you chose to push this bill through without the support of many prestigious deaf groups in California.

    Pardon my frankness, but you don’t have the high ground here.

  45. Valhallian Says:

    it appears that we all may be looking at different versions of the bill, cuz some people are saying “specified communication options” whereas the version I saw said “all communication options” Other people are saying audiologists only, but the version I saw said “audiologists and related professionals” which could mean far more than just an audiologist and because that was not specifically defined, it could also mean teachers, advocates, etc the way I saw it.

    It appears we are talking about two different versions of the bill and could someone kindly copy and paste the exact version of the bill that was passed recently so that we can all be sure which version of the bill it is that we are looking at. As there have been different versions due to amendments, let’s get to the bottom of this and take a look at the exact version that was recently passed.

  46. Ann_C Says:

    Michael,

    “Isn’t that what we all should be doing anyway? Aspiring to ensure our babies gain a language at the earliest possible age regardless of their hearing prowess?”

    Only if the parents choose to do so. The Deaf community is not the one raising this deaf child. That is why AB 2072, if enacted into law, will insure that parents are informed of all options, including ASL. Currently, some parents in California may not be getting the information on all options, and one of those dropped options could be ASL even.

  47. Michael Sidansky Says:

    it appears that we all may be looking at different versions of the bill, cuz some people are saying “specified communication options” whereas the version I saw said “all communication options” Other people are saying audiologists only, but the version I saw said “audiologists and related professionals” which could mean far more than just an audiologist and because that was not specifically defined, it could also mean teachers, advocates, etc the way I saw it.

    That is the thing- audiologist should be stricken from the bill.

  48. White Ghost Says:

    Valhallian —

    If you have not seen a brochure from California if it signs by Governor to become a legal, here it is….

    http://www.communicatewithyourchild.org/brochures/cwyc_english.pdf

    Those brochures were from Rachel, cochlearimplantonline.com

    I believe she has some connections in California somehow.

  49. Ann_C Says:

    Valhallian,

    On this part two, click on the “all options” link to get a look at AB 2072. I have checked the CA Assembly legislation site, and verified that this link is current, reflecting the latest amendments on April 27th.

    Ann_C

  50. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “Only if the parents choose to do so. The Deaf community is not the one raising this deaf child. That is why AB 2072, if enacted into law, will insure that parents are informed of all options, including ASL. Currently, some parents in California may not be getting the information on all options, and one of those dropped options could be ASL even.”

    You are absolutely correct that the dropped options could be ASL.

    However, ASL users prefer the status quo to your bill. Does that not speak volumes?

  51. Michael Sidansky Says:

    White Ghost writes
    “Those brochures were from Rachel, cochlearimplantonline.com”

    Ann_C writes:
    “1. “I can assure you that CI companies have never contacted me and I’ve never gotten a dime from them. They really have nothing to do with this bill and I’m not even sure they know about it.” ”

    Just saying.

  52. White Ghost Says:

    Michael….

    “….. philosophies as opposed to a single coalition to a singular mindset.”

    That’s the main problem.

    See?

  53. Ann_C Says:

    Michael,

    As often is the case, it is an audiologist who tests the baby’s hearing and gives the test results to the parents. The parents will immediately want to know what they can do for their child, so it behooves the audiologist to have written material about the different communication modalities from ASL visual language to TC to Cued speech to listening and spoken language. The hearing parents are usually clueless as to what modalities are out there, they’ve been hearing all their lives and know nothing about deafness.

    This bill will insure that ALL these communication options, not just listening and spoken language only, will be presented to the parents.
    I agree that audiologists and other related professionals should take some courses or seminars to understand Deaf culture and the visual language of ASL, that is a negotiation point that the opposition can strive for, if only they will come to the table and collaborate.

  54. Ann_C Says:

    If the deaf community wishes to maintain the status quo, we will continue to see audiologists favoring the oral route.

  55. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “Michael….

    “….. philosophies as opposed to a single coalition to a singular mindset.”

    That’s the main problem.

    See?”

    So amend the bill to ensure that audiologists in California now have to take several different classes, in terms of linguistic and educational developments of the deaf, to understand all aspects of communications of the deaf (and that these classes must be taught by deaf individuals)including ASL classes then we will have no arguments here.

    That is, of course, if you want to keep the pretense of upholding various philosophies as opposed to a “singular mindset”.

    After all, your coalitions strongly believes that the audiologists should be the gateway to deaf children’s linguistic and educational future… they might as well learn a thing or two about them, no?

  56. Valhallian Says:

    Michael, a lot of your points are indeed quite valid, but one thing you need to realize. Who is it that determines that a newborn is deaf or has some form of hearing loss? An audiologist, what other professions also measure hearing loss? I cannot think of any.

    If it said audiologists only, then I would have a problem with that, its the fact that it also says related professionals that puts me at ease, especially because that in itself is not specifically defined in this bill.

    Additionally, if this bill passes, and an audiologist passes out information that does not cover all communication options, they would be violating state law and be subjected to license disciplinary actions, which also include revocation. This is actually a blessing in itself when you look at it this way ya know? Simply because it gives us grounds to hold them accountable for their actions.

  57. Valhallian Says:

    I clicked on the “all options” link as Ann suggested recently. Let’s look at what it says and I’m copying and pasting that in here.

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

    SECTION 1. Section 124121 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
    to read:
    124121. (a) Parents of all newborns and infants diagnosed with a
    hearing loss shall also be provided written or electronic information
    on 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 information shall
    be provided:
    (1) By an audiologist or other related professional at a followup
    appointment after diagnosis with a hearing loss.
    (2) By a local provider for the Early Start Program,
    provided for pursuant to the California Early Intervention Services
    Act (Title 14 (commencing with Section 95000) of the Government Code)
    upon initial contact with the parents of a newborn or infant newly
    diagnosed with a hearing loss.
    (b) Neither the state nor an Early Start Program provider shall
    incur any cost for the implementation of this section.

    Now, this is a little different from the version that I saw, instead of saying “all communication options”, this one actually specifically lists ASL in its lists of communication options. This is a win situation for the ASL culture, as it did not state that in its current law.

    It also states “By an audiologist or other related professional at a followup
    appointment after diagnosis with a hearing loss. ” Any other related professional at a follow up appointment after diagnosis with a hearing loss, what this means is any related professional after the audiologist has determined the hearing loss. This could even include organizations such as GLAD, NORCAL, etc. That being the case, this is also a win situation for the ASL culture.

    Additionally, this law also means that audiologist MUST tell the parent about ASL too. This is a win for the ASL culture.

    Now it also says “by a local provider of the Early Start Program”. now I do not have the time to research into this part, but I would imagine that such organizations as GLAD, NORCAL, etc could actually apply to become a local provider of the Early Start Program? If so, this is also a win for the ASL culture. Now, if anyone can show me where these organizations would be prohibited from being a local provider of the Early Start Program, as if that is the case, then granted, shit should indeed hit the fan until this aspect is changed.

  58. Candy Says:

    Valhallian, here is the link. Note that there’s the original bill, and three amendments. Note the different section too. I tried to explain that up there but…you can see that for yourself.

    http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/Bills/AB_2072

    Be sure to check the Health and Safety Code, link is in one of my comments above.

    I’ll be back…

  59. Ann_C Says:

    Michael,

    I agree with you about audies’ trainiing should include some classes/seminars about Deaf culture and ASL. They would also have to take courses about total communication and Cued speech as well, since they are also mentioned as options. Fair’s fair, ya know.

    Plant a seed…

    Valhallian,

    Thanks for covering the violation of state law as I was gonna cover that, but you said it well.

  60. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “This bill will insure that ALL these communication options, not just listening and spoken language only, will be presented to the parents.
    I agree that audiologists and other related professionals should take some courses or seminars to understand Deaf culture and the visual language of ASL that is a negotiation point that the opposition can strive for, if only they will come to the table and collaborate.”

    Take the initiative then, but do make ASL classes a requirement for audiologists and seminars will just not do.

    If you want to have us on your side, you’ll have to try harder. What is currently happening is not winning the sign language community over.

    “If the deaf community wishes to maintain the status quo, we will continue to see audiologists favoring the oral route.”

    Ouch, let me clarify what you’re saying. Your philosophies aren’t supported by the deaf community? Then why are you doing this in the first place? For the parents or deaf children?

    You do realize that each deaf person with CI, hearing aids, and regardless of communication options they use… is part of the deaf community.

    Therefore you are classifying us as whole. If so, then who is “we” here? What aspect of “we” is pushing for this? All I see are good hearted, but misguided hearing individuals who think they know what the best approach to something they have little to no understanding about.

    The sign language community, on the other hand, has a pretty good idea of what is the best for deaf children (early language acquisition which sign language has, over and over, been exhibited as the best used method if you want to communicate with children as early as 9 months old) and it is becoming painfully obvious that you are not acting in the best interest of deaf community as whole because you are not acting in interest of us regardless of language methods we chose (oral or ASL).

    What deaf community is asking and trying to do is to change the status quo ourselves. Let us, as a community, determine the best way to go forth with this.

    This is something that I don’t see happening with AB 2072. You said as much, Ann_C.

    (I have yet to refresh the page so I’m sure there are array of responses before me that I have yet to make a point about).

  61. White Ghost Says:

    Michael —

    Agreed with you on May 4 at 7:19 PM.

    I truly think that NCHAM or LTHF (?) should provide some classes/seminars as Ann_C. mentioned on May 4 at 7:40 PM.

    I am not sure if it’s CDC’s umbrellas.

  62. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “Michael, a lot of your points are indeed quite valid, but one thing you need to realize. Who is it that determines that a newborn is deaf or has some form of hearing loss? An audiologist, what other professions also measure hearing loss? I cannot think of any.”

    In what world does a man with a measuring stick implies he understands everything he measures?

    The phrase imples that every kid who goes around and measures lizards and random bugs is a zoologist.

    I think you would agree that this is not even close to being true. Yet, the same thing is happening with the bill.

    All the audiologist is qualified to do, other than knowing about various of listening devices and various of auditory issues, is say “Your baby is deaf” or “Your baby is hearing”.

    They are really not the to go person to talk to parents about the deaf child’s educational and linguestic future.

    I should know. I’ve met my share of audiologists.

    This is why the status quo is preferable to the goals of the bill.

  63. Spencer Says:

    Thank you, Michael. You said exactly what I wanted to say. I want to drop another “penny in the pot.”

    A group of white people would not dare try to get together and develop a law to “assist” the Black people living here in America. Hell, no! Any committee that has to do with Black Americans probably ensures that most, if not all, committee members are Black themselves. This is an extreme example, but this is exactly what is happening with AB 2072 and other such committees, laws being proposed, etc. These committees should be comprised of DEAF people, not hearing people. DEAF people that use ASL, Cued Speech, CIs, Oralism, and so forth should be a major part of this committee, not the other way around.

    This is where AB2072 was seriously flawed to begin with.

  64. Valhallian Says:

    Michael, help me understand this better, what exactly about this bill is it that is not winning the sing language community over?

    I know see the amended version as it does not list all communication options, but it actually lists ASl before it lists any other communication option. The way I see this, this actually strengthens what the sign community wants.

    You say, we continue to see audiologists favor the oral route, if they that and do not say anything about ASL, they actually are in violation of state law if this passes. Additionally, the law also states other related professionals, as well, so this isn’t limited to just audiologists.

    Now that I think about it for a moment, is it possible that organizations such as GLAD, NORCAL, and other organizations may not like this because they may be required by law to discussing listening and speaking options in addition to what they tell them about ASL? Help me understand this better, as I do not know the answer to that.

    You are absolutely right in that ASL would help with language acquisition at an early language and I totally agree with you on that. But surely, you must realize that we cannot force hearing parents that have no idea of ASL to utilize that concept. Certainly, we can educate them, but we cannot say, you don’t know rubbish about deaf babies and this is what you need to do and I know this because I am deaf. Rest assured, that will not win them over, it would actually drive them away and unfortunately this appears to be done over the country, as we have seen in Milwaukee not too long ago. Right concept, but wrong strategic approach. This bill actually paves the way to the right strategic approach the way I see it. It actually requires every single parent in the state of California to become aware of the ASL option and can you honestly tell me when this has ever happened? you and I both know the answer to that is its never happened, until now if this bill actually passes.

  65. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “Agreed with you on May 4 at 7:19 PM.

    I truly think that NCHAM or LTHF (?) should provide some classes/seminars as Ann_C. mentioned on May 4 at 7:40 PM.

    I am not sure if it’s CDC’s umbrellas.”

    Thank you, but I (and my apologies for not clarifying earlier) am saying that this should be a prerequisite in medical schools across California and 3 classes must be taken if audiologists with a degree from out of state wish to work in California.

    If the coalitions pushing for this is so committed to making it a health issue, then it should find a reasonable place in medical school’s curriculum. This includes ASL class(es because I’ve never seen a person learn signs to the sastifactory of sign language community in a single class).

  66. Ann_C Says:

    Michael,

    I was born profoundly deaf, and was raised oral in a hearing family. My preferred language is spoken English and I wear HA’s. Candy can fill you in on her background, which is different from mine. Dunno if you’ve been on DR much, but I’ve been around on DR for over 3 years. I’ve nothing against ASL and know that some deaf ppl prefer it over spoken English. One thing I’m not, and that’s hearing.

    Yes, I’m well aware that oral deaf is part of the deaf community as well, although there are some deaf ppl who don’t think I belong. That’s the reason I’m here, to say that yes, oral deaf do belong here as well. Just because I speak doesn’t mean I’m not deaf.

    First of all, you were the one who mentioned that the deaf community prefers the status quo over the bill, I wasn’t the one who brought that up. I was pointing out that if the deaf community wishes to maintain the status quo, all of us will know that many audiologists who are well trained about oral methods will continue to give parents the oral option only. (To be fair, there are deaf audiologists who feel that ASL should also be presented as well.) This bill, if enacted into law, will make sure that audies or other first contacts must present all four modalities, which INCLUDES ASL.

    Lastly, the deaf community may think they know what’s best for deaf babies, but they don’t raise them. The parents do. Which is why the parents need to learn about all the communication options to make an informed decision.

  67. White Ghost Says:

    Michael,

    I strongly believe that audiologists should have gotten the license (including some classes and seminars) and sign the code of ethnics contract from the state’s mental health or health committee.

  68. Candy Says:

    Valhallian, I am getting that the opposition do not like this bill for several reasons. The bill conflicts with the NHSP reform currently in progress currently, They were not consulted about the bill, and the brochure in question. This is what the unnamed source related to this California Coalition of Agencies Serving Deaf and Hard of Hearing (CCASDHH or DHH) related to me. Additionally, “lots of Questions and not a lot of answers”. We are seeing other reasons for objection elsewhere. If you go to oposeAB2072.com you will see several letters from different organizations outlying the reasons for their opposition.

  69. Ann_C Says:

    Spencer,

    Hearing parents of deaf children also need to be on such a committee, their input can be valuable also. They have firsthand experience of what they were told about their deaf child and what materials were actually given to them. The deaf community has as much to learn from them as well the parents to learn from the deaf community.

  70. Candy Says:

    My background is listed in ‘So, you wanna know who i am?’ page on on my blog.

  71. Michael Sidansky Says:

    Valhallian, I’m more than willing to continue this discussion, but I have been neglecting my work.

    Expect a response from me sometimes this evening, but a brief answer to your questions is that, while I agree that there are factions that have scared hearing people away through methods you described, what is essentially happening now with the bill is what you’re doing with us.

    “We know better. We’re educated hearing people and ASL is rubbish. We know better because we have audiologists on our side”

    I am sorry to say this, but sign language community is justified in their fear when it comes to the passage of the bill.

    It has less to do with what it says, but who is sponsoring it. The brochure was sponsored and made by people involved in cochlear implants industry.

    It’s all about who gets to them first. Audiologists are historically the worst people to go to for advices on deafness. (One of those things where you’d have to be deaf to understand).

    We are afraid that deaf individuals’ rights to choose their futures and language are being abolished by “hearing professionals know the best”.

    We are afraid that the passage of the bill will institutionalized the notion that each deaf baby must go through rather invasive head/brain surgery, and place a piece of magnetic hearing aids in their head that they will carry with them throughout their entire life. Furthermore, such surgeries are not as safe as doctors claim because there have been people who have suffered and are still suffering from the results.

    Oralism is a teaching that, more commonly than not, associated with CI.

    I remember a Seinfield episode where Seinfield went to a Bris. There were much cringing and hilarity that went on, but the point is: notion of bris makes even the most hardened of us a bit uncomfortable.

    Imagine how we’d feel if CI is institutionalized the same way Bris is.

    This is what we feel will happen if audiologists is the first person approaching a family who just had a deaf baby.

    These are our fears and the amendments you’ve included really aren’t enough to allay them.

    There are deaf interests group who have bills in mind and have been working on it. Talk to them. Talk to Sheri of NorCal. Talk to GLAD.

    There are deaf coalitions working in the best interests of deaf and hard of hearing people as well as the parents.

    The question is: Do you trust us, the deaf community, to act in everybody’s best interests?

    (Ok, now I have to get back to work?)

  72. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “Hearing parents of deaf children also need to be on such a committee, their input can be valuable also. They have firsthand experience of what they were told about their deaf child and what materials were actually given to them. The deaf community has as much to learn from them as well the parents to learn from the deaf community.”

    Agreed. So why wasn’t the deaf community invited to discuss this bill before you push it through to Assembly’s Health Commission?

    A single deaf person teaching at LA’s DHH program doesn’t count.

  73. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “Hearing parents of deaf children also need to be on such a committee, their input can be valuable also. They have firsthand experience of what they were told about their deaf child and what materials were actually given to them. The deaf community has as much to learn from them as well the parents to learn from the deaf community.”

    Also, Spencer did mention that deaf community should take up the majority of the committee. The seats left vacant will naturally be filled in by those parents.

    Ok, back to work I go!

  74. Valhallian Says:

    Candy, I went to that website you mentioned. I did not go back to reach each and every single version of the bill and its amendments. But some of the letters at the website ya mentioned went on to say that parents should not have to select just one option and others said that ASL should be added to the language.

    I see that in the current bill as it is, ASL has indeed been added, as I said earlier, its list first of all the communication options. Secondly, I did not see anywhere in the latest version where must must choose one communication choice.

    That being the case, this now has me even more confused cuz what this is now telling me is that they have been listening to what the signing community has requested. They request that parents not be limited to one choice, and they got that. They requested that ASL be added to it they got that? It appears to me that this ASL community has been “heard” and it is reflected on the amendments. They still not happy, what gives?

  75. White Ghost Says:

    I know, Valhallian, I know!

    1. They are targeting who? AUDIOLOGISTS. That’s the big problem. Plus they truly want the deaf professionals to be in the bill.

    2. They want to optimize the visual language acquisition on newly diagnosted infants the first and the upmost. That’s all.

    Well? You are scratching your head…..so am I.

  76. Valhallian Says:

    Michael, I have not been to an audiologist in over twenty years and I do not even bother to wear a hearing aid as I know it will not help me, nor will I ever get a cochlear implant either. I could not comment on how an audiologist would work these days if their professions have changed that significantly since then.

    I actually work with parents of deaf children that were outfitted with CI’s and yet some of these children were later rejected by CI’s programs that promote listening and speaking alone. Does that bug me?, hell yea! But what caused that? They were NOT fully informed at the time.

    Which is why I am seeing that this bill would actually help these parents become fully informed. Do I agree with you that many deaf people in the signing community know what they are talking about? Yes I do. But do they have the right to force other hearing parents what to do about their children? No they do not.

    Now lets flip the coin here for a minute, suppose we let the opponents of this bill have it their way entirely, do you seriously think that these people would explain to parents about listening and speaking techniques? Not likely. Do you think they would explain to them the benefits that some deaf people get with CI’s? Likely not, therefore these parents would not be fully informed either.

    Now I am not here to promote CIs or listening/speaking techniques, but I can say that it does indeed work for some people. It is just not a one size fits all solution. If I were to pick a single organization to determine what should be said in this bill. It would likely be the Hands and Voices organization. While I do not know much about them, but I do know that they support all communication options equally as far as I understand it.

    Now let’s look at this from the bill.

    (1) By an audiologist or other related professional at a followup
    appointment after diagnosis with a hearing loss.

    The way I see this, based on my own experiences and nothing else, my experiences with audiologist never ever got to a point where they tell me what communication options I should take. They only measured my hearing and devised the hearing aid to best suit my hearing frequency levels and THAT WAS ALL….. NOTHING ELSE.

    They never were once involved with my speech lessons, etc. But then again, its been over 35 years since I had speech lessons so I don’t know if that has changed. That being the case, the way I saw it, this is where the “other related professional at a followup appointment after diagnosis with a hearing loss”
    comes into the equation. I am taking this to mean that it is the audiologist that determines whether or not the baby is deaf and then it is the related professional that then goes over the communication options with the parent as well.

    It is their job to tell the parent the best way that their child can actually hear again, and it appears that the CI is the best way to go in making them hear again. Its my understanding that they work significantly better than hearing aids in a lot of ways. Again, I am not promoting CIs here just stating what I saw the audiologist job as being.

    Or are you telling me that audiologists are now strictly listening and speaking therapists too these days? and they actually participate in, for example, AVT sessions? Do they actually spend all day with the students working on the AVT method? Cuz my thinking is that is actually the related professional that does that.

    What these parents also need to be told, if they choose this avenue, is that it is a very committed process, they cannot just dump their kid in a program and expect it to be done that simply. They have to be personally involved with every step of the way and dedicated to it on a 24/7 basis. And that is the reason why it has failed many people, because of the fact that the parents would not as committed as they should have been, or when they realize how big the commitment was, they gave up. These people need to be told of that and this bill would allow the ASL supporters to explain all this to them! and then let them make the decision on their own as a fully informed parents, keywords being FULLY INFORMED!!!!!!!!!

  77. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “They still not happy, what gives?”

    Honestly, (and this is an opinion of mine. I don’t speak for the deaf community on this one) I am not happy we have been left out of process and feel like we’re being pandered to. We are not happy because the lack of oversight in terms of who is distributing the brochures. The brochures can be changed. All it has to do is mention asl in a single sentence to meet its criteria before elaborating on the wonders of other methods.

    I am not happy that audiologists are the gatekeepers of deaf children’s linguestic and educational future.

    I am not happy that those who pays for brochures and other kits will come from special interests groups and is therefore biased with one view no matter how anybody dresses it up as.

    I am not happy that the bill was created solely by special interest groups that aren’t predominately deaf.

    Heck, there was only one token deaf person on a committee to keep the bill unbiased.

    That’s like saying NAACP with only one black person on the committee of 12 white people speaks for the entire black community.

    But most of all, I am upset that a bill which tried to pass itself off as deaf friendly with full support of the sign language community was anything but.

    The bridge was burnt and the zeal to pass the bill in spite of everything isn’t going to help us rebuild it.

  78. Candy Says:

    Valhallian,

    Exactly what I’m thinking too. I suspect it’s something more deeper that they’re not letting on.

    Did you view Ella Lentz Video link I provided above? I’m thinking it could be that they felt that this AB2072 would destroy all the work they have done on the NHSP reform because what they wanted would be in violation of the bill.

    However, they could offer their philosophy for ASL as language acquisition as part of the information included within the materials as indicated in the bill. Allow the parents to be informed and subsequently let them decide.

  79. Michael Sidansky Says:

    (1) By an audiologist or other related professional at a followup
    appointment after diagnosis with a hearing loss.

    The way I see this, based on my own experiences and nothing else, my experiences with audiologist never ever got to a point where they tell me what communication options I should take. They only measured my hearing and devised the hearing aid to best suit my hearing frequency levels and THAT WAS ALL….. NOTHING ELSE.

    That is the status quo as of now. This bill changes that and gives them much more to do. This is what we don’t want to see happen.

  80. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “What these parents also need to be told, if they choose this avenue, is that it is a very committed process, they cannot just dump their kid in a program and expect it to be done that simply. They have to be personally involved with every step of the way and dedicated to it on a 24/7 basis. And that is the reason why it has failed many people, because of the fact that the parents would not as committed as they should have been, or when they realize how big the commitment was, they gave up. These people need to be told of that and this bill would allow the ASL supporters to explain all this to them! and then let them make the decision on their own as a fully informed parents, keywords being FULLY INFORMED!!!!!!!!!”

    Agreed, but this bill isn’t the best way to do it. It essentially puts the information in the hands of oralism foundation, hearing aids, and CI industries.

    We want equal access and say on the brochures. That isn’t happening if the other side is footing the bill.

  81. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “Or are you telling me that audiologists are now strictly listening and speaking therapists too these days? and they actually participate in, for example, AVT sessions? Do they actually spend all day with the students working on the AVT method? Cuz my thinking is that is actually the related professional that does that.”

    What’s more, there are very limited clarifications on what “related professionals” entails and therefore is a open question for years to come upon the passage of the bill.

    Audiologists are the only ones that is clearly defined in the bill and that is not who we want to control the flow of the information. Especially since CI and hearing aids industry along with oralism foundations are footing the bill.

    Deaf Community has been left out of the process from the start of this bill and we can be expected to be left out of everything else deaf related in California upon the passage of the bill.

  82. Ann_C Says:

    Michael,

    “It has less to do with what it says, but who is sponsoring it. The brochure was sponsored and made by people involved in cochlear implants industry.”

    Clarification needed here: the bill or the brochure?

    We have already mentioned about the brochure, “not with one brochure that reflects an obvious oralist bias”, as stated above. We’re both in agreement on that, I believe.

    The bill was initiated by parents of deaf children, not CI companies or oral organizations. See Part One of this article, about what an unnamed source with AB 2072 supporters wrote:

    1. “I can assure you that CI companies have never contacted me and I’ve never gotten a dime from them. They really have nothing to do with this bill and I’m not even sure they know about it.”

    “I know they (opponents of AB 2072) are trying to figure out the driving force of this bill and its really simple…unbiased info, printed in the family’s language to help them navigate through this new journey…When I found out my child was deaf I couldn’t get my hands on enough information and our state provided only 1 piece of information & only agreed to 1 educational approach. I hope people understand that CI co’s have never been spoken to about this.”

    The AB 2072 supporters HAVE been trying to get the DHH coalition’s attention, but DHH coalition members have refused. As you may be well aware, there were two previous legislation attempts and the DHH coalition said No both times, without even coming to the table to negotiate points, period. Takes two to tango, folks.

    As for the fear of the deaf community, it is understandable. There have been years of hearing oppression, I will grant that. But try to understand the parents’ point of view:

    Imagine the fear of a hearing parent of a newly diagnosed deaf child.

    Not a clue as to what to do.

    That’s why they need to get all the information available on the different communication modalities out there for deaf children. And that includes ASL.

    If we allow the status quo (as you’ve said), the CI “bris” and oral option will continue to be the one and only option presented by most audiologists.

    The deaf community is in a weed-choked garden with all these fears, assumptions, and NO’s. Trust has to start somewhere, that seed needs a chance to grow, and the law may just provide that opportunity.

  83. Valhallian Says:

    Well Michael, who is to say that organizations such as DBC cannot help foot the bill, I have agreed with their concept, but I just did not agree with their tactics.

    Help me understand this, since when have audiologist have been the gatekeepers of deaf children’s linguistic and educational futures. It has been my think that was the role of the related professional as audiologist only measure their hearing loss, if that has changed over the years, would you kindly point me in the right direction as to where I can read about that?

    If it wasn’t those letters opposing that led to the amendments where ASL was specifically added, then where did that come from?

    I know that we live in a society where money can really go a long way, which is why lobbying is a multi-billion dollar business, if not a multi-trillion dollar business if you look at it from a worldwide point of view when it comes to legislation. Unfortunately, there really isn’t much we can do about that either.

    Could it be that it was a special interest group, as you eloquently put it, that got the bill started, but they are not getting what they originally asked for, as ASL has been added as an option. The big question I want to know, is who was it that convinced whatever legislator to have it amended to where ASL was added?

    We live in a capitalistic society where it has basically become a “money talks, bullshit walks” scenario. Nothing is free in life anymore. Whats wrong with the signing community banding together and pony up some money each to come up with brochures to go against the brochures of these special interest groups. Get these brochures to the audiologist and they will be required by law to pass these along to parents as well. Designing a website doesnt cost that much money either.

    But you’re absolutely right that someone is footing the bill of the brochures, as the state says they will not pay for it. Heck that state probably isn’t far from bankruptcy either. However, if it were actually the state that was paying for it, you would likely be seeing equal access here, but the state is broke and nothing you can do will fix that. However, what the signing community can do is to actually to get their brochures out to the audiologists and related professionals.

    If other groups are going to pay for their brochures, then wouldn’t you say that the same should apply to every other group. The problem was that in the past, they likely could not get audiologists to hand out ASL brochures and this bill would actually MANDATE them to do so. Therefore, this is somewhat of a coup d’etat for the ASL community the way I see it.

  84. Michael Sidansky Says:

    Just read an article that was infinitely more articulate than anything I’ve said today. The excerpt reads

    “When all of this is taken together, then, it is not all surprising that I’ve taken an interest in California’s AB2072. AB2072 is a bill, proposed by Norfolk’s Assemblyman Mendoza, that amends “Section 124119.5 of the Health and Safety Code.” It changes what information is given to parents whose children are diagnosed as deaf or hard-of-hearing, and demands that this information needs to be given to the parents by an audiologist, or other related professional. The bill, which just passed the Health Committee on 4/26, is supported by the California Speech-Language Hearing Association, the California Hospital Association, AG Bell and California Academy of Audiology, and is being touted by supporters as giving families more information on all the communication options available. “Who isn’t in favor of more options and information?,” they ask.
    The question is misleading, however, because the opposition isn’t upset that parents will be given extra information, they just object to how that information is going to be presented, and by whom. The worry is that audiologists, who are trained to diagnose and “treat” hearing loss with hearing aids and cochlear implants, aren’t the most unbiased resource for parents who have just been told that their child cannot hear. Medical professionals, oral educators and Speech pathologists all view hearing loss as something to be “fixed” (surgically or otherwise), so that children can become “normal.” According to the author of the bill, thanks to “new developments in Cochlear Implants, more profoundly deaf children are able to hear and speak and can be completely assimilated into society,” and it is just such language that angers the bill’s critics so.”

  85. Michael Sidansky Says:

    Valhallian- In response to your otherwise misleading, but accurate portrayal, I can clearly say there is an economic injustice in the passage of the bill.

    “Help me understand this, since when have audiologist have been the gatekeepers of deaf children’s linguistic and educational futures. It has been my think that was the role of the related professional as audiologist only measure their hearing loss, if that has changed over the years, would you kindly point me in the right direction as to where I can read about that?”

    “But you’re absolutely right that someone is footing the bill of the brochures, as the state says they will not pay for it. Heck that state probably isn’t far from bankruptcy either. However, if it were actually the state that was paying for it, you would likely be seeing equal access here, but the state is broke and nothing you can do will fix that. However, what the signing community can do is to actually to get their brochures out to the audiologists and related professionals.”

    I’m sorry, but it sounded like you just agreed with me a bit there. By saying that we would likely be seeing equal access if the state supplies the brochures. By saying that the passage of the bill will cause inequality in terms of information is reason enough to stop the passage of the bill which presents itself under the guise of equality.

    Also, your statement is bit ironic because you think that I haven’t been clarifying the change in role of audiologists in our everyday lives (when that hasn’t happened because the AB 2072 hasn’t been passed), but agree that the billion dollars industry will go all out when it comes to investing the money on brochures and essentially controlling the information.

    Who do you think will be providing the information? This is the change in the system that none of us want to see.

  86. Michael Sidansky Says:

    (Sorry. Spell check and some corrections)

    Valhallian- In response to your otherwise misleading, but accurate portrayal of what we can or can’t do upon the passage of the bill- I can clearly say there is an economic injustice in the passage of the bill.
    “Help me understand this, since when have audiologist have been the gatekeepers of deaf children’s linguistic and educational futures. It has been my think that was the role of the related professional as audiologist only measure their hearing loss, if that has changed over the years, would you kindly point me in the right direction as to where I can read about that?”
    “But you’re absolutely right that someone is footing the bill of the brochures, as the state says they will not pay for it. Heck that state probably isn’t far from bankruptcy either. However, if it were actually the state that was paying for it, you would likely be seeing equal access here, but the state is broke and nothing you can do will fix that. However, what the signing community can do is to actually to get their brochures out to the audiologists and related professionals.”
    I’m sorry, but it sounded like you just agreed with me a bit there. Through saying that we would likely be seeing equal access if the state supplies the brochures. By saying that the passage of the bill will cause inequality in terms of information is reason enough to stop the passage of the bill which presents itself under the guise of equality.
    Also, your statement is bit ironic because you think that I haven’t been clarifying the change in role of audiologists in our everyday lives (when that hasn’t happened because the AB 2072 hasn’t been passed), but agree that the billion dollars industry will go all out when it comes to investing the money on brochures and essentially controlling the information.
    Who do you think will be providing the information? This is the change in the system that none of us want to see.

  87. Michael Sidansky Says:

    Also I need to point out that our signing community can’t compete when it comes to money. It’s just a sad truth which is why we would rather the bill fail than cater to special interest who we don’t believe have our best interests in their heart.

  88. Valhallian Says:

    Michael, let me state that I agree with a lot of your points and there will indeed be points where I am in agreement with you. Its just that I find it hard to believe that audiologists would be the gatekeepers of the linguistic and educational process of deaf children. It is still my opinion that would be the related professionals and not the audiologist that handle this aspect, which also include ASL teachers, ASL linguists, ASL advocates and the like.

    What I do know is that there is a serious lack of information going to these parents when it comes to ASL and that is because of the way the laws are right now as it is. It was, and still is, my opinion that this bill can actually help increase the exposure of ASL to these parents. Defeating this bill would only take away that opportunity wouldn’t you say?

    These brochures that support the billion dollar industry as you say, will still go out to these parents, whether or not this bill passes. If this bill fails, then the opportunity to even be able to get ASL exposure to these parents will have been lost, as it already has been before this bill has even come into place.

    Ok, suppose the opponent gets what they want, who is going to pay for those brochures? the state? not likely. I cannot stand here and believe that these legislators have totally ignored the ASL community, otherwise we would not be seeing ASL added into this bill in an amendment.

    Now will the legislation listen to every single deaf person and every single deaf organization, not likely, altho I wish the federal government would listen to my one and only statements, cuz if they did, I would be paying significantly less taxes. 😉

  89. Michael Sidansky Says:

    Ann_C said:

    “It has less to do with what it says, but who is sponsoring it. The brochure was sponsored and made by people involved in cochlear implants industry.”

    Clarification needed here: the bill or the brochure?”

    Brochure. The AB 2072 opens the floodgates of the information provided by special interests groups. Somebody here pointed out that the brochure which will be used was written by somebody within the CI industry.

    “The AB 2072 supporters HAVE been trying to get the DHH coalition’s attention, but DHH coalition members have refused. As you may be well aware, there were two previous legislation attempts and the DHH coalition said No both times, without even coming to the table to negotiate points, period. Takes two to tango, folks.”

    Actually, that is something of lie and manipulation of information as presented. We were never for the bill and tried to point few things out.

    Plus, I love it how you keep referring to us as “D/HH coalition” which implies that you are up against the entire deaf community when you actually have some on your side. Doesn’t this bother you a bit,
    Valhallian?

    I keep presenting this as a sign language community and you presented it as if you were passing the bill against the will of the entire deaf community when the only people will be affected is the deaf community.

    You are implying that nobody from Deaf/Hard of Hearing coalitions is on your side. That is enough reason to back off from the bill and let the deaf and hard of hearing coalitions actually do what we feel is best for our community.

    “Imagine the fear of a hearing parent of a newly diagnosed deaf child.

    Not a clue as to what to do.

    That’s why they need to get all the information available on the different communication modalities out there for deaf children. And that includes ASL.”

    There are informations out there on different communication modalities. If anything, all this discussion has done is point out that essentially nothing will change except that special interest groups are supplying the brochures and the audiologists’ are, according to the bill as the only named source other than “related professionals”, the person best suited to provide such information.

    This is why I, along with many others, are against AB 2072 as it stands.

  90. Michael Sidansky Says:

    Apologies. I keep forgetting to check my spelling before submitting my comments.

    Ann_C said:
    “It has less to do with what it says, but who is sponsoring it. The brochure was sponsored and made by people involved in cochlear implants industry.”
    Clarification needed here: the bill or the brochure?”
    Brochure. The AB 2072 opens the floodgates of the information provided by special interests groups. Somebody here pointed out that the brochure which will be used was written by somebody within the CI industry.
    “The AB 2072 supporters HAVE been trying to get the DHH coalition’s attention, but DHH coalition members have refused. As you may be well aware, there were two previous legislation attempts and the DHH coalition said No both times, without even coming to the table to negotiate points, period. Takes two to tango, folks.”
    Actually, that is something of lie and manipulation of information as presented. We were never for the bill and tried to point few things out.
    Plus, I love it how you keep referring to us as “D/HH coalition” which implies that you are up against the entire deaf community when you actually have some on your side. Doesn’t this bother you a bit,
    Valhallian?
    I keep presenting this as a sign language community and you presented it as if you were passing the bill against the will of the entire deaf community when the only people will be affected is the deaf community.
    You are implying that nobody from Deaf/Hard of Hearing coalitions is on your side. That is enough reason to back off from the bill and let the deaf and hard of hearing coalitions actually do what we feel is best for our community.
    “Imagine the fear of a hearing parent of a newly diagnosed deaf child.
    Not a clue as to what to do.
    That’s why they need to get all the information available on the different communication modalities out there for deaf children. And that includes ASL.”
    There are information out there on different communication modalities. If anything, all this discussion has done is point out that essentially nothing will change except that special interest groups are supplying the brochures and the audiologists’ are, according to the bill as the only named source other than “related professionals”, the person best suited to provide such information.
    This is why I, along with many others, am against AB 2072 as it stands.

  91. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “Michael, let me state that I agree with a lot of your points and there will indeed be points where I am in agreement with you. Its just that I find it hard to believe that audiologists would be the gatekeepers of the linguistic and educational process of deaf children. It is still my opinion that would be the related professionals and not the audiologist that handle this aspect, which also include ASL teachers, ASL linguists, ASL advocates and the like.”

    Perhaps so, but unless they are clearly defined… it doesn’t look to be the case.

    “What I do know is that there is a serious lack of information going to these parents when it comes to ASL and that is because of the way the laws are right now as it is. It was, and still is, my opinion that this bill can actually help increase the exposure of ASL to these parents. Defeating this bill would only take away that opportunity wouldn’t you say?”

    Have you seen brochure as presented? http://www.communicatewithyourchild.org/brochures/cwyc_english.pdf

    I’d be shocked if anybody walked away saying “I want to teach my baby sign language!” after reading it. ASL was a single blurb in a brochure that dealt more with hearing aids, CI, and oralism.

    You’re absolutely right in saying the brochure already goes out to people, but the state is essentially abdicating its responsibilities when it comes to the needs of linguistic minority. We do not believe our interests are represented here.

  92. Valhallian Says:

    Michael, a couple years ago, I had written a blog posting that was titled, “the hard left, moderates, and the hard right” and unfortunately I have let my domain name registration lapse due to not having enough time to be a blogger.

    It is not a good assessment on your part to say that one is against the entire deaf community just because they do not agree with someone else that is deaf too. What I am is a moderate, and I would imagine that is what about 80 percent of the deaf community is too, 10 percent would be on the hard left and 10 percent would be on the hard right.

    I will state that while I love the ASL language, I do support the right to all communication modes. As I know for a fact that I have no right whatsoever to impose upon a parent of a deaf child what they should do with their child. I will share what I know and I will explain my preference for the combination of English and ASL.

    But it is also just as the saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink it.”

    I do understand that many others are against AB 2072, but there are also many others within the deaf community that support it. Who is to say which side is right? That is the beauty of living in this country, the freedom of speech.

    Would I try to alter the language in this bill? Perhaps just a little, but not a whole lot, but do I have the clout to do so? Nope. Do I see this as an improvement over the existing laws when it comes to exposing ASL? Yes.

    You all have the right to oppose this bill and to try to get it to fail. If you do succeed in getting this to fail, what are your chances if getting an opposing type of bill passed? Unfortunately slim to none, because you will have those special interest groups with their high priced lobbyists going against you.

    These interest groups, if any were involved, likely paid top dollar for their lobbyists, yet ASL WAS ADDED TO THIS BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Then what happens if the bill fails? ASL is still not mandated by the state to be passed along to parents of newborn deafies. Who loses? the ASL community, and that, my friend, is the logic I am looking at.

  93. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “Ok, suppose the opponent gets what they want, who is going to pay for those brochures? the state? not likely. I cannot stand here and believe that these legislators have totally ignored the ASL community, otherwise we would not be seeing ASL added into this bill in an amendment.”

    State may not pay for it, but California does have a responsibility to ensure that all of minority’s interests are served to the best of their abilities.

    That is not the case this time.

  94. Valhallian Says:

    now that looks like a brochure that an audiologist would give it, specifically about hearing aids and cochlear implants. As that is what they do and it covered all 4 communication options and I did not exactly see how they specifically favored one communication option over another.

    If an audiologist did not promote listening devices, then why even bother taking audiology tests? There are deaf people in the ASL signing community that absolutely love to listen to music, is that a bad thing?

    Now show me a brochure that related professionals in the state would be handing out about specific communication modes. That’s my argument here. If it were a brochure that specifically covered listening and speaking and did not cover the other communication options, that would be a violation of this state law if it passed.

  95. Michael Sidansky Says:

    Ironically enough, I consider myself to be a fairly moderate deaf individual as well. Yet, when moderate deaf individuals such as Sheri Farinha is overwhelming against the bill somebody has to stop and take a look.

    Through responses to this blog, we have witnessed that the community pushing for the bill are doing so without any honest dialogue with those they consider to be members of the deaf community (whereas I’d rather classify us as sign language community) so it lends to the notion that they didn’t even intitate the dialogue with the deaf members within their own coalitions. If they have, disregard this comment, but I have not seen any evidence otherwise thus far.

    I have cited that this bill was put forth with the best of intentions, but we all know where good intentions leads us to.

    There are better ways to strengthen communication rights of deaf individuals and this isn’t it.

  96. Michael Sidansky Says:

    By the way, I am Democrat and believe the role of states in our union should have a hand in our lives.

    Better the devils we have some measure of control over than the devils we can’t. (I know the saying is “better the devils we know than the devils we don’t”, but that isn’t the case this time)

    Off topic- California really needs to get rid of Prop 13. Maybe they’d have some more money to spend.

  97. Valhallian Says:

    Ok let’s look at why she is overwhelmingly against the bill? What was her reasoning? was it because she was not consulted? If so, that does not cut it for me. If it were another reason, then I would love to see it.

    You are absolutely right that there are better ways to strengthen communication rights of deaf individuals, especially when it comes to communication access.

    Sure, we have the ADA law, which has helped significantly, but is it good enough? Nope, I still see sooooooo many people being denied interpreters in hospitals, courtrooms, police stations, etc. Does this mean we should repeal the ADA law? nope, cuz it would also mean us losing our relay services, including VRS. We also get interpreters in many places that we would have not gotten before as well. But yet, it is still not good enough.

    What I would love to see happen is to see the U.S. Congress pass a federal bill, perhaps titled “Communication Access for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People Act” but do you know what the biggest problem in doing this would be?

    We would be seeing people preferring ASL over everything else. We would be seeing people preferring communication access needs that relate to senior citizens that are losing their hearing due to their aging process and do not not sign language, the whole nine yards and no one would be agreeing on anything. Why is that?…..simply because we all are so divided amongst ourselves.

    Just imagine the power that we would have if we all banded together and united to support one cause only, communication access for ALL deaf and hard of hearing people that includes every single communication option needed. If we get hard righters or hard lefters going against this, it only complicates this whole thing, simply because they are only thinking for themselves and no one else. Need I say more here?

  98. Valhallian Says:

    heh Michael, I enjoy this conversation with you as we are able to discuss our points like rational adults, however, if we discussed our political affiliations and our reasons for it we would be opening a huge can of worms here and going way off topic 😉

    Unfortunately I am not too familiar with Prop 13 as I do not reside in CA. No offense intended, but I would never want to reside in CA. Granted its a great place to visit and I love visiting there, but its not a place that I would want to live in. Massive traffic jams and high state taxes just do not cut it for me 😉

  99. Michael Sidansky Says:

    I was preparing an response regarding the brochure, but since this site apparently doesn’t let me post any links-

    “now that looks like a brochure that an audiologist would give it, specifically about hearing aids and cochlear implants. As that is what they do and it covered all 4 communication options and I did not exactly see how they specifically favored one communication option over another.”

    This is the brochure entitled “Communicate with your child”. Not “Assistive hearing options”.

    Even then, the brochure refers us to their websites. When in there, I found several of services for the deaf. None which supports ASL (this includes a list of services under the heading “Learning About Hearing Loss” , “Finding Other Families Like Yours”, and “Getting Services for Your Child”.

    Under all this, only CSDR and CSDF are known to support sign language. By manipulating information, they are effectively shutting entire coalition of services out there that favors ASL or other communication options.

    As matter of fact, the website the brochure sent me to an exerior link out of the website under the heading “Learning more about communication options”

    Where is the passage of the AB 2072 that says the website it refers you must also include several of agencies that endorses sign language and other communication options?

  100. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “heh Michael, I enjoy this conversation with you as we are able to discuss our points like rational adults, however, if we discussed our political affiliations and our reasons for it we would be opening a huge can of worms here and going way off topic ”

    Likewise Val (do you mind if I call you Val?) and I’ll refrain from introducing my political affilictions (Obama rocks) after this sentence.

    I have no personal beef with you, but you have to understand… I’m pretty much into this until the end of the fight (and I’m just not referring to this blog)

    you’re absolutely right, we need to strengthen ADA, but it doesn’t mean we need to abolish it in order to do so.

    But imagine ADA getting off the wrong foot by catering to the moneymaker as opposed to actually serving the need of disabled individuals?

    Wouldn’t you agree we would need to get rid of it then start anew?

    In this case, we’re trying to stop it before it gets off the ground.

    (Jeez, I swear I’m the only person who can waste the entire day arguing the passage of California prop with somebody who’s not even from California…)

  101. Valhallian Says:

    Michael, look at the first paragraph of the bill, as a matter of fact, I’ll copy and paste it here. See where it refers to deaf and hard of hearing organizations, and that’s where I saw GLAD, NORCAL, etc. coming in here.

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

    SECTION 1. Section 124121 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
    to read:
    124121. (a) Parents of all newborns and infants diagnosed with a
    hearing loss shall also be provided written or electronic information
    on 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 information shall
    be provided:

  102. Valhallian Says:

    Michael, no problem with calling me Val, as long as not the references to the girl’s name heh. Correct me if I am wrong here, but its my understanding that this is the 3rd attempt at writing such a bill like this after the first two have failed. You would think many of the legislators will give up trying after the third attempt, at least for this year as they have other matters that they need to focus on too. So ASL loses out for another year.

    Ok let me ask you this out of fairness. Suppose you were the only person in the entire state of California that can write this bill and it gets automatically approved, exactly how would you write it?

  103. Deafchip Says:

    Hi commenters,

    Michael S. I enjoy reading your discussion. I am glad you’re involved in addressing our concerns about the bill, AB2072. I know it’s time consuming.

    Years ago, in Ontario, we thought the model similar to AB2072 was good and fair. Now it isn’t good because it only looks good on the paper. It is one of the worst models we’ve seen. It has been manipulated and abused by medical specialists for many different reasons including money.

    Too many non Deaf professionals have been involved in dealing with parents of Deaf babies. Where the hell are Deaf professionals? The system systematically prevents the employment opportunities for Deaf people.

    Many parents who want to have the best of both worlds for their children are forced not to use sign language, or they will lose AVT program. A few parents are braving enough to express their concerns. We just found out that they do not even know what their rights are. They thought medical specialists are experts, and they easily believe in them.

    Bilingualism (English/ASL) that includes communication options is far better than disorientating subtractive concept of communication options.

    AB2072 is a rotten seed! It has to be killed.

  104. Michael Sidansky Says:

    What they didn’t tell you that the deaf community within California are trying to craft a bill of their own and the so-called coalations the opposition created are mostly from out of state and serving their own interests.

    This is why they failed two times. Third time looks to be a charm for them, but I’m hoping it’s more akin to 3 strikes, you’re out.

    I have no hand in this and it would be lucrious for me to even begin to pretend I could write the bill now, but I will tell you what should be done and what should be included in the bill.

    State must oversee the writing of such brochures and fund it to ensure impartiality.

    If brochures are provided, then all of group’s interests must be served on the brochure and the link it connects us to (which, as I pointed out, isn’t happening now. If anything, it’s the biggest insult to the community as whole).

    But I, exhibiting my bias, would emphasize ASL as one of many options largely because it is the only language that is honest with our identity. We cannot hear and therefore need to communicate in a way where we will not have to pretend we are capable of understanding everything we heard (Through hearing aids and/or CI).

    Even lip reading is a poor method where we understand 40% of what is being said at the best of times.

    Visual language is the only way to go and therefore ASL should be in the forefront of all of our communication options. Not the other end of spectrum because it is an ideology that is based on teaching us in the area we are weakest at.
    Best analogy I can think of is- It’s like making a midget play basketball. He can do it, but everybody’s lying if they tell him he can make a future out of it.

    Now, this is just me, but my ideal bill would incorporate all of these things.

    There are many within deaf community who will disagree with me on both ends, but this is where I’ve always stood.

    It’s like I said, this isn’t the way to go.

  105. Michael Sidansky Says:

    Argh! Sorry for the double posts. Spell and grammar checks. Y’all know the drill…

    What they didn’t tell you that the deaf community within California is trying to craft a bill of their own and the so-called coalitions the opposition created are mostly from out of state and serving their own interests.

    This is why they failed two times. Third time looks to be a charm for them, but I’m hoping it’s more akin to 3 strikes, you’re out.
    I have no hand in this and it would be ludicrous for me to even begin to pretend I could write the bill now, but I will tell you what should be done and what should be included in the bill.

    State must oversee the writing of such brochures and fund it to ensure impartiality.

    If brochures are provided, then all of group’s interests must be served on the brochure and the link it connects us to (which, as I pointed out, isn’t happening now. If anything, it’s the biggest insult to the community as whole).

    But I, exhibiting my bias, would emphasize ASL as one of many options largely because it is the only language that is honest with our identity. We cannot hear and therefore need to communicate in a way where we will not have to pretend we are capable of understanding everything we heard (Through hearing aids and/or CI).

    Even lip reading is a poor method where we understand 40% of what is being said at the best of times.

    Visual language is the only way to go and therefore ASL should be in the forefront of all of our communication options. Not the other end of spectrum because it is an ideology that is based on teaching us in the area we are weakest at.

    Best analogy I can think of is- It’s like making a midget play basketball. He can do it, but everybody’s lying if they tell him he can make a future out of it.

    Now, this is just me, but my ideal bill would incorporate all of these things.

    There are many within deaf community who will disagree with me on both ends, but this is where I’ve always stood.

    It’s like I said, this isn’t the way to go.

  106. Michael Sidansky Says:

    Oh, forgot to mention I’d also incorporate all of deaf organizations on the website that the said brochure manufactored by state links to and divide it up by catagories (education, family, advocates, etc) as opposed to methods and communication choices.

    I would also make sure everybody has equal access and the powers to determine the deaf child’s future ultimately lies with the parents.

    Don’t think I missed anything this time…
    (and yes, this si why I’m not writing any short of bill anytime soon)

  107. Michael Sidansky Says:

    Again, I want to emphasize I speak for myself and not the greater deaf community. If there are better options that come along, I would be for it.

    I just demand accountability, inclusion, and ensuring that the people who are engaging in dialogue with parents about their children’s linguistic and educational futures actually have background in and an intimate understanding or knowledge of deaf world. (This immediately bars audiologists. All they can do is try to “fix” ears and all of our abilities to hear and that’s where their responsibilities end)

  108. Valhallian Says:

    Well Michael, that is exactly what I was afraid of, it being 3 strikes and you’re out and then ASL will likely not be brought into the legislation for quite some time. I would imagine that you know our how country system works when it comes to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The legislative branches create the laws and the judicial branches enforce it.

    Now I do not know how many legislators there are in the entire state of California, but if this bill gets passed and it gets shown that the the law actually is not being followed to the letter, i.e. not explaining to all parents about the ASL option, then what happens?

    Because there is a complaint that the law is not being followed , it gets brought into the judicial branch for further interpretation of the law and how many judges does it take to get it interpreted in your favor?

    Just one judge!

    just one judge, at least for each appeal until it gets brought to the state supreme court, where there is more than one.

    Wouldn’t you think it may be easier to convince a judge as opposed to a large group of legislators? I don’t have a clue what lobbyists would charge, but for some reason I would imagine hiring a top notch lawyer would be cheaper than hiring some lobbyists. Heck, you might even be able to find some good lawyers willing to do it on a pro bono basis.

    Mike, this isn’t about trying to convert your opponents into playing your game as that isn’t likely to happen, it is about playing their game and actually beating them at it!!!!

    And this is one potential way of doing so. Ya gotta be an optimist, not a pessimist.

  109. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    Couple of points here:

    You said: “What they didn’t tell you that the deaf community within California are trying to craft a bill of their own and the so-called coalations the opposition created are mostly from out of state and serving their own interests.”

    “Deaf community” is not defined. Using generalizations ain’t work in legislative processes. Therefore, the claim that “the deaf community was not consulted” as a basis for opposing the bill is nothing but silly farts of desperation.

    Additionally, since the so-called opposition claims to be in the process of crafting a bill that represents the “deaf community”, you again have another problem: numbers. You have no qualified way to assess the number of California residents who are part of the “deaf community” to sufficiently stake a claim that any bill impacting the “deaf community” is truly representative of the “deaf community’s” wishes or whatnot.

    Moreover, you support the above with your statement, “I’d rather classify us as sign language community”.

    You also said: “We cannot hear.” Who is “we?” The “deaf community”? Again, generalizations.

    You also said: “an ideology that is based on teaching us in the area we are weakest at.”

    This is a political claim. It is not based on anything but political dogma. The “signing community” enjoys a rich culture of signing deaf people; however, you’re again regressing to generalizations and stereotyping. Children with residual hearing often can and do quite well with hearing aids and/or CIs, regardless of ASL background or not. Your statement is a political statement, which is fine and dandy with the notable exception that you again assume the “deaf community” agrees with your claim, which I seriously doubt.

    You said: “I love it how you keep referring to us as “D/HH coalition” which implies that you are up against the entire deaf community ”

    See the above comments about generalizing “deaf community.”

    You said in regards to the ADA: “Wouldn’t you agree we would need to get rid of it then start anew?”

    It may warm the cockles of your left ear to know that there ARE Republican judges who loathe the ADA, so you may get your wish one day and the ADA could be struck down. And then you’d kiss interpreters good-bye. Kiss closed-captioning good-bye. Kiss VRS programs good-bye. Kiss interpreter educational programs good-bye. Kiss “deaf bilingual education” good-bye.

    You said: “Under all this, only CSDR and CSDF are known to support sign language.”

    The bill is NOT about the “support of sign language.” The bill is ABOUT ADDING “sign language” to the roster of services audiologists and other professionals refer to parents with newly diagnosed hearing loss. Additionally, if AB 2072 fails, then ASL would be ELIMINATED from the California lawbooks.

    You also said: “linguistic minority”. Once again, you generalize between various “communities”. I do not agree that there is a “linguistic minority”, and neither do many in the “deaf community.”

    You said: “California does have a responsibility to ensure that all of minority’s interests are served to the best of their abilities.” Again, you generalize. “Minority interests.”

    Now, about costing California money. As it stands right now, if AB 2072 is passed, then there will (or ought) to be an increase of some kind in terms of enrollment at ASL programs such as CSDF. Which means what? More money for more students, teachers, faculty, support staff, auxillary services, blah blah blah blah. So, in essence, AB 2072 would increase awareness and probably would result in MORE students being in enrolled in ASL programs; so, true – the bill would probably raise the cost of education in California, at least initially (over time, with increased enrollment, there should be a corresponding decrease in the overall cost of educating children via bilingual processes). If you want to claim AB 2072 would require more money from California taxpayers, fine with me – the same argument will be applied to any “Deaf Babies” bill that your coalition attempts to pass through the legislature.

    It is also possible that with the defeat of AB 2072, further cuts into deaf services across California may result – as we’ve seen with some ASL programs at universities across the country. AB 2072 would reaffirm that ASL is a legitimate option/choice/language (whatever you wanna call it), so to reject AB 2072 essentially means to eliminate a golden opportunity for bilingual deaf education proponents and their advocacy.

    Finally, I appreciate your comments, however, I remind you of what a Pyrrhic Victory is, and if your coalition defeats AB 2072, as Ann_C’s post above says, “Be careful for what you wish for.”

    Indeed.

    :o)

    Paotie

  110. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    You wrote: “Also I need to point out that our signing community can’t compete when it comes to money.”

    Who’s fault is that? The state of California? Audism?

    Nah. It is the fault of your coalition’s leaders. Instead of, like .. harassing and stalking specific organizations, bloggers/vloggers, and uttering slurs against “oral” and “hearing” people and audiologists, they should’ve been collaborating with audiologists, educators, and most importantly, the community.

    That has not happened. Blame your coalition’s leaders – not “hearing” people and “oral” deaf people, and audism, and whatever else you dream up when a fly lands in your Deaf soup.

    I also remind you that such a statement reflects your deficit thinking as per the definition of your coalition’s leaders.

    🙂

    Paotie

  111. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    You wrote: ““Help me understand this, since when have audiologist have been the gatekeepers of deaf children’s linguistic and educational futures.”

    What I like about AB 2072 is the fact it creates accountability not just for audiologists but also for Deaf professionals who may lie, manipulate, and purposefully withhold information about AVT, for example, from parents.

    Like, as we’ve seen with your coalition’s leaders. I presume that is primarily why they hate AB 2072.

    🙂

    Paotie

  112. Paotie Says:

    Spencer ..

    You wrote: “These committees should be comprised of DEAF people, not hearing people. DEAF people that use ASL, Cued Speech, CIs, Oralism, and so forth should be a major part of this committee, not the other way around.”

    Great! I agree with you. SOME professionals, such audiologists AND hearing parents, in conjunction to your above list would work for me.

    So long as it is representative of the deaf population in California. Which means what? Mostly oral deaf and oral deaf programs on the committee. You’d have a much smaller role for an ASL person on such a committee. But fear not, if you have confidence in the abilities of your ASL leaders, they should be able to collaborate and communicate effectively.

    But, I ain’t seen not a one ASL leader demonstrate an ability to collaborate – only protests caused by their own silly farts. So, good luck with that.

    🙂

    Paotie

  113. Michael Sidansky Says:

    To clarify, I was pointing out that every member of deaf community (meaning those who are deaf regardless of their language and/or communication philosophies) within California should be the main stakeholder in the passage of any bill that directly affects deaf and hard of hearing communities in California.

    Anytime I said we are, by large, against the bill I was mainly referring to the sign language community because I know I don’t speak for the oral community.

    And regardless of your claims, deaf community is as real as Latino community, Black community, and so on. We exist and are mobilizing against the bill.

    “This is a political claim. It is not based on anything but political dogma. The “signing community” enjoys a rich culture of signing deaf people; however, you’re again regressing to generalizations and stereotyping. Children with residual hearing often can and do quite well with hearing aids and/or CIs, regardless of ASL background or not. Your statement is a political statement, which is fine and dandy with the notable exception that you again assume the “deaf community” agrees with your claim, which I seriously doubt.”

    This statement proves that you have not spoken to too many members of the “deaf community” in California and I have pointed out that language acquisitions have garnered more successes when the babies are taught sign language rather than through verbal communication (at least until they’re 3 years old) in the hearing world. Do you honestly think the same doesn’t apply to the deaf person if not moreso? The truth is you cannot accurately identify how much a child with CI can understand until after the age of three. What I am proposing to do is simply teach them all sign language so that they will have language regardless of how much they are capable of hearing with or without CI’s.

    I think we’ve gone bit beyond “political claim” here.

    The biggest source of frustration of education within the deaf community is that their language acquisition has come far too late in their lives (4-6 years old in many cases) and that valuable time is missed. I have witnessed several deaf individuals with CI’s and without face similar educational barriers.

    “It is also possible that with the defeat of AB 2072, further cuts into deaf services across California may result – as we’ve seen with some ASL programs at universities across the country. AB 2072 would reaffirm that ASL is a legitimate option/choice/language (whatever you wanna call it), so to reject AB 2072 essentially means to eliminate a golden opportunity for bilingual deaf education proponents and their advocacy.”

    That is just untrue and you couldn’t be more misinformed. While I am not certain what place ASL has in California in terms of legal rights and laws, but eliminating AB 2072 would ensure that the status quo is maintained.

    The entire point of AB 2072 is that the state of California will now be no longer responsible for providing the information to the parents and that the special interests will be catering to the parents directly. If you checked the website on the brochure, you’ll see exactly what their intents are and exactly what information LTH foundation is leaving out.

    Out of curiosity, how do you define linguistic minority? To me, they are simply defined as a group of people that communicates using a certain language that the majority of the people in the country don’t communicate in, but do share your views.

    Moreover, our rights will continue to be the same as always. According to ADA (which I don’t want to remove no matter how you framed my comments), deaf individuals has the mandate to determine their choices of communication and how they prefer to communicate lies with the deaf people. So your interpretation of what would happen if AB 2072 fails are completely out of bounds with progresses that deaf community and sign language community has made thus far.

    Ultimately, it’s like I mentioned before and I will mention this again… we prefer the status quo to this bill. The implication that stopping the bill will destory everything we’ve built thus far in California is just untrue.

    The discussion at hand is simply: Do we want the special interests group to control the flow of information through the means of brochure specifically designed to cater to certain philosophy to vulnerable parents of deaf children by making the audiologist (the person I pointed out to be the least qualified P.O.C.) the only clearly defined person of contact?

    My answer is no. My reasons? I believe I’ve cited them all. I’ve even cited my political philosophies that serves as a background to the rationalization that state should be involved in promoting the information as opposed to surrendering all of their powers and hand them off to LTH and similar foundations.

  114. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “Who’s fault is that? The state of California? Audism?”

    Actually, CI and hearing aids industry are basically an economic machine unto themselves. Which coalition do you think they will be inveitably backing?

  115. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    Last comment here for me. You wrote: “ASL users prefer the status quo to your bill. ”

    That is inherently false. I have seen many ASL deaf people support AB 2072.

    I also wanted to point out that the people benefitting most from opposing AB 2072 – your coalition – has the most to benefit if they pass a separate bill for “Deaf Babies.”

    They DO NOT want to help the deaf community. Or even the signing community. As proof that they do not care about the community, why is NAD attempting to shove “audism” into dictionaries when MANY ASL deaf DO NOT AGREE with the term? Oh yah. I forgot – NAD is fee-paying membership entity and NOT the deaf community.

    Same for CAD/DBC – your coalition.

    🙂

    Paotie

  116. Michael Sidansky Says:

    ““Help me understand this, since when have audiologist have been the gatekeepers of deaf children’s linguistic and educational futures.”

    What I like about AB 2072 is the fact it creates accountability not just for audiologists but also for Deaf professionals who may lie, manipulate, and purposefully withhold information about AVT, for example, from parents.

    Like, as we’ve seen with your coalition’s leaders. I presume that is primarily why they hate AB 2072.”

    Actually, no. It creates the pretense of accountability. If you decide to go to the link on a brochure called communicate with your child (which only has one page dedicated to actually “communicating with your child” by the way), it leads you to a site where they promote a singular communication choice and you have to scan the site for another communication options. When you find it, you’ll see that they are referring you to another site.

    What I propose is that State of California keep their responsibilities and doesn’t lose it to the highest bidder.

  117. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    You said: “Actually, CI and hearing aids industry are basically an economic machine unto themselves. Which coalition do you think they will be inveitably backing?”

    Didn’t NAD once describe CIs as “genocide”? Why would any reasonable CI company person or audiologist approach NAD or CAD or DBC and seek to collaborate?

    Huh?

    Likewise, perhaps the groups that set up AB 2072 were paying due diligence to YOUR group’s claims that deafness is NOT a medical model, so your coalition simply defined themselves right on outta the equation, right, homie?

    And you’re upset ‘cos your coalition wasn’t contacted?

    🙂

    Paotie

  118. Michael Sidansky Says:

    Paotie, are you even from California?

    You said, “That is inherently false. I have seen many ASL deaf people support AB 2072.

    I also wanted to point out that the people benefitting most from opposing AB 2072 – your coalition – has the most to benefit if they pass a separate bill for ‘Deaf Babies.'”

    Any of them from California? Even so, do they know who is funding the bill? Do they know that the state is no longer the source of information upon the passage of the bill, but the special interests are?

    Are you implying that the deaf coalitions within California and United States does not want to help the deaf community? Are you serious?

    That is the entire reason for their existence.

  119. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    You said: “What I propose is that State of California keep their responsibilities and doesn’t lose it to the highest bidder.”

    Recall the recent controversy surrounding the case of a young girl with cochlear implants (Missoula Moanings): a judge ordered a young girl to continue wearing her CIs. As many people have expressed outrage at that ruling, they have also raised the issue of the government’s role in dictating to parents how to raise their children. Those who opposed the judge’s decision would be the first to remind you they do not like the judge tellin’ parents how to raise a child.

    With your coalition’s addition of “ASL first/Optimal Language”, it was no different than the judge’s ruling that the CI girl HAD to wear her CIs.

    🙂

    Paotie

  120. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    You wrote: “special interests are?”

    DBC/CAD/coalition is a special interest. Your point is what? You’re outnumbered?

    Awww, geez. Too bad.

    🙂

    Paotie

  121. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    You also wrote: “Are you implying that the deaf coalitions within California and United States does not want to help the deaf community?”

    Not at all. Only the CAD/DBC.

    You and your generalizations.

    🙂

    Paotie

  122. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “Likewise, perhaps the groups that set up AB 2072 were paying due diligence to YOUR group’s claims that deafness is NOT a medical model, so your coalition simply defined themselves right on outta the equation, right, homie?

    And you’re upset ‘cos your coalition wasn’t contacted?”

    This bill is educational bill under the guise of health bill.

    And yes, I am upset that our coalition wasn’t contacted.

    We didn’t define ourselves out of equation. That’s like saying that there is no difference between various of races, but allow for the notions of hate crimes and certain minority rights even through each coalitions stresses equality.

    Deaf people are simply there any time there is bill being passed involving deaf people as we should be.

    This is wrong, how?

    And you yourself have admitted that the bill was written and almost reached Health committee without our knowledge.

  123. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    You wrote: “We didn’t define ourselves out of equation. That’s like saying that there is no difference between various of races, but allow for the notions of hate crimes and certain minority rights even through each coalitions stresses equality.”

    What? Your point is completely irrelevant. The HEALTH committee, shouldn’t you praise them for NOT including your CAD/DBC groups out of due diligence? Just because YOU believe something doesn’t mean ev’rybody else gots to believe it, too, homie. You also presume that a separate, educational bill that favors ASL will be passed.

    So, my question is this: why not allow AB 2072 AND then attempt enacting a separate, educational bill? One could reinforce the other, yes?

    Huh?

    Of course, this presumes your coalition could pass such a separate educational bill, especially one written much like the “ASL first/Optimal Language” demand. Good luck with that one – you’re gonna need it.

    🙂

    Paotie

  124. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    You also wrote: “Deaf people are simply there any time there is bill being passed involving deaf people as we should be.”

    How does AB 2072 impact deaf people? I thought we were only talking about parental choices and children with hearing loss. How is AB 2072 related to “deaf people?”

    🙂

    Paotie

  125. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “Recall the recent controversy surrounding the case of a young girl with cochlear implants (Missoula Moanings): a judge ordered a young girl to continue wearing her CIs. As many people have expressed outrage at that ruling, they have also raised the issue of the government’s role in dictating to parents how to raise their children. Those who opposed the judge’s decision would be the first to remind you they do not like the judge tellin’ parents how to raise a child.

    With your coalition’s addition of “ASL first/Optimal Language”, it was no different than the judge’s ruling that the CI girl HAD to wear her CIs.”

    All I have done is constantly stated that we do prefer status quo to this bill. That is not to say that status quo has flaws, but when it comes to information… it shouldn’t be in hands of any one special group.

    “DBC/CAD/coalition is a special interest. Your point is what? You’re outnumbered?

    Awww, geez. Too bad.”

    And you’re mistaken in believing that everybody’s interests are best served with this bill and we are far from outnumbered.

    Let me copy and paste a list of everybody against this bill.

    AB2072’s Long List of Opponents
    •Alice Obray, Deaf Consumer
    •Audism Free America
    •Ajani Symmonds, Professional
    •Barbie Gomez, Educator
    •Bethany Razo, Deaf Consumer
    •Bobbie Beth Scoggins, President, National Association of the Deaf
    •Bobby Cox and James Tranovich, Brilliant Echo
    •CAD Chapter, Palm Springs
    •CAD Chapter, Sacramento
    •California Association of the Deaf
    •California State University, Fresno, Dr. David Smith, Dept of Communication Disorders
    •Caryl Merritt, Parent
    •Cheryl Bella, Parent
    •Cynthia Ross, Educator
    •Danica Dicus, professional
    •Danielle Reader, Parent
    •Daria Smith, Educator
    •Darrell Utley, Parent
    •David Eberwein, Deaf Consumer and Educator
    •Deborah Hamm, Parent
    •Deborah Hamm, Educator
    •Deborah O’Willow, Educator
    •Donald Grushkin, Deaf Consumer and Educator
    •Don Baer, business owner, Deaf Consumer
    •Don Lee Hanaumi, Parent
    •Dragonsani Renteria, Professional, DeafVision, Inc.
    •Dr. David Corina, Sign Language Research lab, UCDAVIS
    •Dr. Roz Rosen, Director, National Center on Deafness, California State University, Northridge
    •Ed Kelly, OCDEAF
    •Eileen Tumasian, Deaf consumer
    •Ella Mae Lentz, Deaf Consumer, Business Owner
    •Elaine Gray, Deaf consumer
    •Elizabeth Hoffman, Educator
    •Eric Uldrick, Professional
    •Erika Thompson, Educator
    •Ginny Paja-Nyholm, Deaf consumer
    •Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness
    •Holly Benedict, Educator
    •Holly Savage, Deaf Consumer
    •Ida Goldkorn, Educator
    •Igor Billis, Deaf Consumer, Professional
    •Ivanetta I. Ikeda, Deaf Consumer, Professional, Educator
    •James B Roth JR, Deaf Consumer
    •James Brune, Executive Director, DCARA
    •Jane Marie Whitney, Deaf Consumer
    •Jayne Bustamante, Parent
    •Jeannie Leighton,Professional
    •Jennifer Ann Cook, Professional
    •Jennifer L. Hale-Thomas, ASL Interpreter/Transliterator
    •Jennifer Mantle, Professional
    •Jennifer Weiler, Certified Sign Language Interpreter
    •Jesse Lewis, Deaf, Hard of Hearing Service Center, Fresno
    •Jessica Hurd, Deaf Consumer
    •Joe Dannis, CEO of Dawn Sign Press
    •Joan Valdez, Educator
    •John Arce, Professional
    •John Egbert, Founder, Deaf Bilingual Coalition
    •Jon Savage, Deaf consumer
    •Jordan Lopez, Professional
    •Judith G. Fruge, Ph.D.
    •Julianna Fjeld, Tri-GLAD
    •Julie Lovejoy, Educator
    •Julie Rems Smario, CEO, DeafHope
    •Kelly Linhard, Professional
    •Ken Arcia, Deaf Consumer
    •Kevin Croasmun, Deaf Consumer and Educator
    •Kim Nobriega, Professional Sign Language Interpreter
    •Korie Vannerus, Educator
    •Kristen Marie Weiner, Deaf consumer, professional, educator and a business owner
    •Krystal Ogard, Educator
    •Larry Forestal, PhD
    Lecturer/Coordinator, American Sign Language and Deaf Studies
    School of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences
    College of Health and Human Services
    San Diego State University
    •Laura Symmonds, Professional
    •Lauren Maucere, Deaf Educator
    •Lauren Maucere, Parent
    •Lea Karin Huff, Professional
    •Leslie Birchell, Parent, Professional Advocate
    •Leslie Brito, Professional
    •Lisa Price, CODIE
    •Liya Yihedgo, Parent
    •Luis Villa, Deaf Consumer
    •Lynnette Williams, Deaf Consumer
    •Mark Bella, Professional and Parent
    •Marsha Helmuth, Parent
    •Mathew Call, Professional
    •Maxie B. Goldberg, Deaf Consumer
    •Melvin Patterson, Professional
    •Michael Luna, Professional
    •Michael X. Baer, Parent
    •Michelle Berke, Professional
    •Michelle Gringas, Deaf Consumer
    •Michelle Kresse-VanCamp, Deaf Consumer
    •Michelle Nemechek, Deaf Consumer
    •Michelle Spence, Professional
    •Munira Virji, Deaf Consumer
    •Nathalie Belanger, Professional
    •Neil Thompson, Deaf Consumer
    •Norman Chan, Deaf Consumer, Professional
    •Patricia Melvin, Educator
    •Pearlene Utley, Parent
    •Peggy Huber, CI & CT
    •Purple Communications
    •Ramy Bustamante III , Parent
    •Rebecca Gleicher, Parent
    •Rene Visco, Parent
    •Richard Bernard, Grandparent, Educator
    •Richard Bonheyoe, Deaf Consumer
    •Richard Ray, Deaf Consumer
    •Ritchie Bryant, Deaf Consumer and Educator
    •Robert & Amy Marin, Proud Parents
    •Robert Burnett, Deaf Consumer
    •Robert Daniels, Professional
    •Robin Horwitz, CEO, Convo Communications
    •Rodney Ewan, Educator
    •Sally Garza, Deaf Consumer
    •Sam Whittle, Jr, Deaf Educator
    •Sandra Ammons, Parent
    •Scott K Hostetler, Professional
    •Sheri Farinha, CEO, NorCal Services for Deaf & Hard of Hearing
    •Sin-YiKo, Educator
    •Stacy Gough, Educator
    •Stan Booth, Parent
    •Steve Longo, Professional
    •Susan Gonzalez, Esq.
    •Tamara L. Collins
    •Tara Holcomb, Parent
    •Tony Ronco, President, IMPACT, statewide Parents
    •Theresa Grushkin, Elementary School Teacher and Parent
    •Tim Riker, Deaf Consumer and Consumer Advocate
    •TinaJo Breindel, Parent
    •Tonya Nourse, Deaf Consumer, Parent
    •Vadim Milman, Deaf Consumer
    •Vincent Cossio, Educator
    •VRSCA, Sharon Hayes, Chair
    •William A. Blais, Educator
    •Zibby Bayarsky, Parent

    And I can say that CAD/DBC are only interested in serving our community to the best of our abilities as we have always done.

  126. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “So, my question is this: why not allow AB 2072 AND then attempt enacting a separate, educational bill? One could reinforce the other, yes?

    Huh?”

    Ultimately, we don’t believe this bill serves the best interests of deaf babies mainly because it makes the audiologists the P.O.C. for the deaf person’s linguestic and educational future.

    Something that is not part of their job description to begin with.

    Nor do they have the educational background to carry it out.

    Plus they would be catering to the wealthy special interests’ interests and ultimately hand out misguided (that’s the word here.) information on what is indeed the best for deaf babies.

  127. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    You wrote: “And you’re mistaken in believing that everybody’s interests are best served with this bill and we are far from outnumbered.”

    Yup. AB 2072 benefits the deaf community, notably the ASL community. And if you weren’t so outnumbered, then why all the pissin’ and moanin’ and whinin’ about losing the first two stages of this bill, about “special interests”, and about this and that and all the rest as your coalition’s leaders have done?

    You also said: “And I can say that CAD/DBC are only interested in serving our community to the best of our abilities as we have always done.”

    Yes. I would agree. Hard to do much with such limited skills and abilities.

    🙂

    Paotie

  128. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “How does AB 2072 impact deaf people? I thought we were only talking about parental choices and children with hearing loss. How is AB 2072 related to “deaf people?””

    You do realize that deaf babies become deaf adults themselves, right?

  129. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    You wrote: “Ultimately, we don’t believe this bill serves the best interests of deaf babies mainly because it makes the audiologists the P.O.C. for the deaf person’s linguestic and educational future.”

    Fair enough. In my estimation, the worst thing that could happen to a parent is for a Deaf advocate to lie, manipulate and deceive parents about bilingual education, ignore a child’s residual hearing, and ultimately only serve a special interest group (such as CAD/DBC). I’ve seen plenty of lying and manipulation on the part of not just CAD/DBC members but also teachers of the Deaf.

    So, I disagree. A Deaf professional is inherently BIASED (remember ya’ll always whinin’ about “unbiased” and “objective”), so therefore, should NOT be a P.O.C.

    🙂

    Paotie

  130. Michael Sidansky Says:

    In what way does AB 2072 benefits deaf community? I’ve categorically pointed out the reasons it doesn’t benefit the deaf community ad nauseam.

    All I’ve seen you say is that we will now have a law passed with “ASL” on it when that really isn’t what we’re fighting for here. Not at this time.

  131. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    You wrote: “You do realize that deaf babies become deaf adults themselves, right?”

    That is irrelevant.

    Unless you’re opposing the bill so you can create an educational bill that forces children to become “Deaf” by way of being legislated into deaf schools to save ASL culture.

    Otherwise, your point is irrelevant.

    🙂

    Paotie

  132. White Ghost Says:

    “I have seen many ASL Deaf people support AB 2072.”

    Raising my hand, raising my hand! I’m one of ’em.

    Michael…don’t you forget that there was 57-7 at the assembly floor.

    Paotie….your’e doctor and I need some funny medicine. BTW, congrats for getting Tim Tebow. Not bad for Big 12 guys on uno, dos, and tres at the NFL Draft. 😉

    HaHaHa! 🙂

  133. Ann_C Says:

    Lol, Tebowed into Paotie country. Watch out!

  134. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “Fair enough. In my estimation, the worst thing that could happen to a parent is for a Deaf advocate to lie, manipulate and deceive parents about bilingual education, ignore a child’s residual hearing, and ultimately only serve a special interest group (such as CAD/DBC). I’ve seen plenty of lying and manipulation on the part of not just CAD/DBC members but also teachers of the Deaf.

    That’s up to you. That isn’t what this bill is doing. It is doing what we believe it shouldn’t be doing.

    We aren’t passing anything that says we are the point of contact.

    We are just pointing out that this is not the best way to do this and we don’t want the state out of the way to cater to the highest bidder.

    You do realize that GLAD and NorCal and DCARA are frequently the point of contact for parents with deaf children? CAD isn’t necessarily amongst them.

    I know little about DBC so I’ll stay quiet on that matter, but I am reasonably certain that your characterization of the entire deaf community is grossly exaggerated.

    Thank you, White Ghost, for that troubling reminder of what happened 2 wks ago.

  135. White Ghost Says:

    One more thing…..Oh..there she is!

    Here she is…..oh my god! She’s coming here on this Saturday!

    Oh Shit!

    Really she is….

    BETTY WHITE is here!

    Watch out!

  136. Paotie Says:

    Ann_C ..

    “Lol, Tebowed into Paotie country. Watch out!”

    LOL. I know! When he was drafted, I was like .. UT-OH!

    Hiya White Ghost!

    😛

    Paotie

  137. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “That is irrelevant.”

    It’s not. No matter what transpires in the future, the babies will always be deaf.

    We are pushing for a fair and balanced way of educating the parents. What is transpiring upon the passage of the bill is not for all of the reasons I’ve stated.

  138. White Ghost Says:

    “CAD isn’t necessarily amongst them.”

    Well, they have to roll their sleeves to work on the by-laws.

    Good-Bye, Deafhood from the by-laws.

  139. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    You wrote: “you do realize that GLAD and NorCal and DCARA are frequently the point of contact for parents with deaf children?”

    Right. So then your groups ought to create some really cool, nifty literature – maybe even a really neato video – and disperse it to audiologists, hospitals, ENT specialists, and blah blah blah blah blah blah about bilingual education.

    Real simple, dude. All you gotta do is network with ’em audiologists (what all ya’ll should’ve been doin’ from day one) but since all ya’ll be hatin’ on ’em, that’ll probably never happen.

    Huh?

    Don’t blame the audiologists for not representin’ ASL sufficiently to your tastes when your groups have, collectively, attempted to define themselves as haters of all things audiological.

    🙂

    Paotie

  140. Michael Sidansky Says:

    ?? In that phrase, I was saying that CAD isn’t amongst the organizations that are P.O.C. for parents with deaf babies. Beyond that, I’m not sure what you’re saying.

  141. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    You wrote: “No matter what transpires in the future, the babies will always be deaf.”

    That is irrelevant.

    🙂

    Paotie

  142. Michael Sidansky Says:

    “Right. So then your groups ought to create some really cool, nifty literature – maybe even a really neato video – and disperse it to audiologists, hospitals, ENT specialists, and blah blah blah blah blah blah about bilingual education.”

    I believe it is being done, but we want the state of California to be in the game to keep things evenhanded and audiologists are simply not as well informed as they should be on all of communication options. What we’re trying to say is they should keep doing the job they’re best suited for- medical stuff.

    Therefore, they should not be P.O.C. on children’s linguestic and educational futures which is what will happen upon the passage of the bill.

  143. Ann_C Says:

    “We are pushing for a fair and balanced way of educating the parents.”

    According to Ella’s Californians, Oppose AB2072 vlog, she relates an
    ASL-first-then-other-options approach to parents on NHSP reform “in the works”. I wouldn’t consider this approach a “fair and balanced way of educating parents”.

    That view is indeed biased. Too focused on the “deaf babies” part, never mind the parents.

  144. White Ghost Says:

    Michael May 5th at 6:31PM

    It was from Candy’s blog, “Hysteria Propaganda Twists Sane AB2072” or OrangeJuice’s blog. I could not remember which one…..

    There was a list that was opposed to AB 2072, attended the health committee meeting on 20 April just before they headed to the Assembly floor.

  145. Candy Says:

    Michael, As echoed by several commenters here, audiologists are already POC..the first ones. Might as well have them supplying materials by mandates which includes ASL and other communication options. If anyone can’t see that this is a win win then, they’re fooling themselves. The NHSP reform currently in progress probably consist of committee members from the signing community and does not represent the whole deaf community in CA. In that case, it is even more biased. From what was shared with me, it does appear to be the case.

    It is clear what the DHH wants. And that is very biased.

  146. Paotie Says:

    Ann_C ..

    I’m outta here.

    Thank you for allowing me to comment.

    Be well and keep on truckin’ ..

    🙂

    Paotie

  147. Ann_C Says:

    Michael,

    Again, we’ve gone over that audiologist point and have agreed that audies could use some training via ASL classes and seminars on Deaf culture, in order to understand and present the ASL option better. That would have been a good negotiation point had the DHH coalition come to the table to discuss the bill, but not. Previous legislation attempts to include the coalition have been rebuffed each time, now the AB 2072 supporters are expected to treat the DHH coalition with kid gloves?

    The first P.O.C. is the audie usually. He’s the one who conducts the hearing tests and gives the test results to the parents. Parents will be anxious about what they can do for their child. Ya want to leave ’em in the lurch waiting for a Deaf expert to show up? Deaf expert is just as biased as the audie trained only about oral options.

  148. Valhallian Says:

    Michael, that was quite an impressive list of people that you listed as being opposed to the bill. However, a question does come to mind, how many of the actually read the actual amended text version of the bill? Or did most of them just listen to others and simply jump on a bandwagon without knowing all the facts? as we all know that frequently happens in deaf communities unfortunately.

    Then you say, “All I’ve seen you say is that we will now have a law passed with “ASL” on it when that really isn’t what we’re fighting for here. Not at this time.”

    What exactly is it that you are fighting for? I had asked earlier if you would write the bill yourself how you would write it and you said you had no hand in this and would not even attempt to write it yourself. Now I am not trying to jump to conclusions here, but that statement could actually lead one to believe that you don’t even know fully what you are fighting for ya know?

    Many of us have read stories and blogs about what many of these people are fighting for and they are issues that seriously divide the deaf communities, simply because they do not necessarily address communication options outside of ASL.

    I, and many people do realize that CI, listening and speaking is not a one size fits all model for everyone, but guess what? neither is ASL. Which is why we need to focus on all communication options.

    Additionally, when you say a law with ASL on it isn’t really what you’re fighting for, but reality is one needs to learn to walk after they have passed the crawling stage, before they can run. They cannot just jump to the running stage from the crawling stage as toddlers. It appears that this is what his group is trying to do here and they just don’t realize the fact that how the bill is written as it is now may not be 100% what they want but its a HUGE step forward. Take it as the “walking stage” where you then then learn to run!

    People need to stay away from those the crave attention by standing on soapboxes and giving out false information or misrepresentation, as that it what is unfortunately misleading others to hop aboard. This is very common in deaf communities, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it!

    What these people need to do instead is to print out exactly what the amended version of the bill that was passed says and read it with their own eyes, and learn to understand it without being influenced by others.

    Once they have done that, then tell me what they think is wrong with it. They are overlooking things that are obviously issues that have been told directly to them by others. For example, People keep harping on the fact about audiologists and what they are totally overlooking here id the fact that this bill also included related professionals (which can also work in their favor big time).

    Ok so if they want audiologists out of the equation, ok then answer me this, pray tell, who will tell these parents that their babies are actually deaf and back it up with proof? If its not an audiologist, then what profession?

  149. Michael Sidansky Says:

    Val, I thought I cited what I would like to see in my ideal bill.

    Ann_C says: “Deaf expert is just as biased as the audie trained only about oral options.”
    So you’re basically saying that you want them to trade one bias for ‘nother? Really?

    Ann_C says: “That view is indeed biased. Too focused on the “deaf babies” part, never mind the parents.”

    That’s the other sticking point in the debate. I thought this was about the deaf babies themselves and the best way for the parents to get the information to supply the deaf babies with what is the best for them.

    Am I wrong?

    An excerpt from an article I stumbled upon-

    “If the bill’s author wanted more support from the Deaf community, they could easily have been included, but AB2702 isn’t supported by any organization with ties to Deaf culture. Besides which, it is a poorly written bill, vague in its wording, and purports to cost nothing to taxpayers, the state, hospitals, or Early Start programs, which makes me wary of it all on its own.”

    Plus you’ve all heard my comments on the special interests that will fund the bill.

    Related professionals are too vaguely written for any of us to concede the point.

    THe bill states that the information will be provided
    (1) By an audiologist or other related professional at a followup
    appointment after diagnosis with a hearing loss.

    In related professionals, we are reading that as largely the medical and it will be most likely how that will be interpreted. Plus the information will be provided at a “follow up” appointment which makes the notion that ” the worried parents” will get the information on spot all the more misleading.

    The only acceptable source of information, in my eyes, comes from “Early Start Programs”, but why not refers to them in eternity? (Hope this answers your question on who I’d like to refer them to)

    Also, the state will not provide sufficient oversight. You’ve all seen me point out that the website provided in the brochure that will be distributed upon the passage of the bill will not provide information on several of communication options or all of deaf/hh agencies.

    These are not a “soap box” comments. These are realistic concerns that need to be addressed. I’ve noted that many of you agree that audiologists needs better understanding of deaf babies’ linguistic and educational future, yet it isn’t happening even if the bill is ultimately passed.

    All we’re doing is putting the information in the hands of people who we believe, through misinformation and limited understanding, will more often than not lead the parents down paths that could make the future of deaf and hard of hearing infants considerably worse.

  150. Valhallian Says:

    Mike, I do not even think that audiologist should even be considered in the linguistic and educational aspect of deaf babies whatsoever, therefore they do not need to get training in that area. There job should be as simple as the title of there profession, audiology, and nothing else. The linguistic and educational aspect of deaf babies should come from the related professionals. Which is exactly why the bill says “at a followup appointment after diagnosis with a hearing loss.” What this means is that once an audiologist tells them that their baby is deaf or has a hearing loss, then they go to another related professional after that. It’s as simple as that.

    I was not referring to you when I mentioned the soapbox, but I just used that term as opposed to naming specific people directly and I have no intention of naming people specifically. Its just that when I read the amended bill with my own eyes. I see it as a huge improvement over the previous law and for others to be told different is what confuses me. Lots of them, unfortunately, do not understand the legislative or judicial process well enough to actually try to see the big picture. I am not claiming to be an expert, but I know enough about it to see how it works.

    What they need to realize is this, special interest groups will likely never ever go away, therefore there is no chance of trying to make them go away. Lobbyists likely will never go away either. Instead of trying to make them go away, try to play their game and beat them at their own game. Its as simple as that.

  151. Paotie Says:

    Michael ..

    You wrote: “In related professionals, we are reading that as largely the medical and it will be most likely how that will be interpreted. Plus the information will be provided at a “follow up” appointment which makes the notion that ” the worried parents” will get the information on spot all the more misleading.”

    First, I interpreted “related professionals” to include Deaf experts. If you do not, I understand that but again, your complaint regarding “related professionals” is the same as your complaint with regard to audiologists.

    Regardless, the bill ain’t perfect and will continue to be a work in progress.

    Anyway, even if AB 2072 is rejected, it will take your coalition YEARS to enact its own educational bill, what with numerous lawsuits, legal challenges, and blah blah blah blah. So, reject AB 2072 all you like.

    You also said: “I’ve noted that many of you agree that audiologists needs better understanding of deaf babies’ linguistic and educational future, yet it isn’t happening even if the bill is ultimately passed.”

    How do you know? You said yourself your group was “already” preparing literature to disperse to audiologists and the like, so what’s your complaint?

    🙂

    Paotie

  152. RLM Says:

    First of all, White Ghost (never reveal hir true name, why?????) was largely incorrect on the claims of my RLMDEAF blog to be one of most worst and lame deaf blog found now on Google. I recently looked up the Google with the search for RLMDEAF blog and worst and lame. I found nothing about my blog being lame and worst within the Google search engine – http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=RLMDEAF+blog+and+worst+and+lame+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=RLMDEAF+blog+and+worst+and+lame+&gs_rfai=&fp=e028a1e21e3138d8

    White Ghost wasn’t honest with all of you so far.

    I am seeking the legal suit against White Ghost for the character defamation, slander and fabrication if I find out of hir own true name.

    You are surely a coward yourself by hiding behind the name alias, instead of revealing who you are. U think that I never find out about your smear campaign. I do!

    Robert L. Mason (RLM)
    RLMDEAF blog

  153. RLM Says:

    Here is White Ghost’s comment posting on this blog entry –

    White Ghost Says:

    May 3, 2010 at 1:45 pm
    Hiya…..there you are the dreamgirlz. Well done, dreamgirlz! Just visited Shel’s blog….pretty lame….You know many deaf parents deaf infant/s have made their own decisions not to use the CIs and the audiologists….respect their decisions. It’s their responsibility.

    Just got off from RLM’s latest blog…”Shocking Revelations About Similar Groups for AB 2072 and AZ’s new law.” Boy, he forgot all about California’s Prop 187! Go to google and you’ll find out! His blog is now the worst and lame of all the time. Boo-hoo.

  154. White Ghost Says:

    RLM —

    I don’t understand you at all. You’re threatening me. You have no right to control my freedom of express. I did not destroy your personal lives. Remember you blogged about the girl with CI on the weekend of the Super Bowl. You were very upset about her essay because of her CIs.

    Overall, I don’t understand you at all. I lost my respect for you. I learned my lesson from you and you’re shutting me up and controlling me. Thanks to you. I promise you that I will ever visit nor comment your blog from now on.

  155. White Ghost Says:

    I mean to say “I promise you that I will ever NEITHER visit nor comment your blog from now on. “

  156. Ann_C Says:

    RLM,

    I don’t think you have much basis for a lawsuit. WG was merely expressing her dislike about your blog article, she was not personally attacking you. Take a look at deafchip’s “one of the most ridiculous blogs I’ve ever read” comment here about my article. Is that defamatory? No, deafchip just doesn’t like my article. He was not personally attacking me, as he was expressing his opinion about the article. He has a right to express his opinion.

    You’re gonna get some criticism whenever you publish something online, goes with the territory. Grow a thick skin.

  157. Michael Sidansky Says:

    Thought he articulated himself better than I did here. Hopefully you’ll see why I opposed the bill along with couple of additional things I missed such as the passage that states

    “Neither the state nor an Early Start Program provider
    shall incur any cost for the implementation of this section.” Which implies that only people responsible for the cost is limited to even narrower field of players. Mostly noticable the foundations listed in Matt Ellis’ vlog.

    Also, just so you know… the current law states:

    124119.5. Parents of all newborns and infants diagnosed with a hearing loss shall be provided written information on the availability of community resources and services for children with hearing loss, including those provided in accordance with the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq.), through the reporting and tracking system followup procedures. Information shall include listings of local and statewide nonprofit deaf and hard-of-hearing consumer-based organizations, parent support organizations affiliated with deafness, and programs offered through the State Department of Social Services, Office of Deaf Access, State Department of Developmental Services, and the State Department of Education.

    Written information on the availability of community resources and services including
    • those provided in accordance with IDEA
    • listings of local and statewide nonprofit deaf and hard-of-hearing consumer-based organizations
    • parent support organizations affiliated with deafness
    • programs offered through the State Department of Social Services, Office of Deaf Access, State Department of Developmental Services, and the State Department of Education

    Information to be provided
    • through the reporting and tracking system followup procedures.

  158. Michael Sidansky Says:

    See why we prefer the status quo to this bill?

  159. Candy Says:

    RLM, every individual who spend their time online in forums, blogs, what-have-you are entitled to remain anonymous. Go check out EFF.org.

    I agree with WG, your posts are often-times lame. It doesn’t make sense. You can’t sue people because they consider your posts lame. Learn from it and continue to improve on it.

  160. Valhallian Says:

    hmm interesting how his blog that was posted right after this blog has more views, but only has two comments, one of which was his own. That tells you a lot about lameness. Some people do get a kick out of reading about lame stuff but won’t admit it, its why National Enquirer makes millions, but many people won’t admit to buying them. 😉

  161. Ann_C Says:

    Michael,

    Yeah, I see what you mean about the “status quo”.

    See http://candysweetblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/what-it-is-all-about-the-truth-behind-opposing-ab2072/ about what is REALLY the status quo. 😉

  162. White Ghost Says:

    Hey RLM —

    See? You won the The Golden Raspberry (Razzie) Award, for being the Worst Blogger! Yay! Congrats!

    Your’e the star!

    😉

  163. Spencer Says:

    WG–Immature comments like this only discredit you even further.

  164. White Ghost Says:

    Spencer….

    I find you not very funny person……..you considered that Saturday Night Live crews are immature like me….

    😉

  165. ireflections09 Says:

    Spencer,

    Where’s your sense of humor?

    Do you think RLM was mature about threatening WG with a lawsuit on the basis of what she wrote? She did not personally attack him, she expressed her dislike of his article. He took her dislike of his article as a personal insult. There’s a difference between Ridor calling a blogger a “f**ktard” versus Ridor saying,”Oh, pooh-pooh your story” for example. Which is the immature comment?

  166. Spencer Says:

    There was nothing funny about WG’s comments. She has made alot of rude comments, especially targeting RLM. I’m just tired of seeing that.

  167. White Ghost Says:

    Really? Rude? You want me to shut up about my views, opinion, perspective about RLM’s blog? I rarely made very, very, very few comments at RLM’s blog.

    I feel having no freedom from you will be prevail. You happy? You like Ridor’s insults on people better than mine. That’s fine.

  168. Spencer Says:

    I never said anything about Ridor–that’s clearly your issue, WG.

    I just think it’s immature and a waste of time to insult others. It isn’t relevant to the discussion.

  169. Ann_C Says:

    Spencer,

    FYI it was me who mentioned Ridor as an example, not WG.

    You’re the one harping hot air.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: