I've been asked by some people on what I thought of AB 2072. I admit I did not take a peek on this subject until now. Instead of listening to secondary sources such as GLAD (Greater Los Angeles of the Deaf) and DCARA (Deaf Counseling, Advocacy & Referral Agency). Instead I went directly to the source, that of http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2072_bill_20100405_amended_asm_v98.html.
Upon reviewing it several times I saw absolutely nothing wrong with it. I then took the time to try and understand why GLAD and DCARA were against this bill. The only reason seem to be selfishness. In GLAD's web site seen at www.gladinc.org, they quoted, "This law would replace deaf/hard of hearing consumer organizations with early education centers on the list of resources for parents and families of newborns identified with hearing loss". End quote.
This is nothing more than selfishness on their part. The hard truth is they are trying their hardest to remain a closed society, perhaps because it is the only way they know how to survive and it's beginning to show.
This bill is actually a great opportunity for us to tell the parents what we want them to know, at no cost to our deaf community! I mean, how is it a bad thing? It's free advertisement! This bill will force all medical service providers to provide ALL information on communication options as well as resources for deaf infants and children. I see this bill as a great opportunity for us to reach out and show the parents what we want them to know about us, our language and culture.
The notion of going against this bill puzzled me because it'd only show the world that we're a closed society and we are so afraid of options. The parents will learn about all other options anyway, with or without our blessings, due to the information age we live in. I know I already explained this in my earlier vlog on 'closed society' so I do not need to repeat myself here. The fact is, the parents will learn all about other options anyway so stopping this bill won't do us any good. Instead of whining about this bill I think we ought to play it smart by allowing this bill to pass and then hold them accountable if they do not provide adequate information about ASL, deaf culture, deaf schools and deaf studies.
The bottom line is, with this bill we have a unique opportunity to tell the parents what we want them to know about us.
I've taken action and wrote letters to every assembly member in California and told them why I thought they should support this bill. It's my hope that you will do the same. For email addresses, go to GLAD's web site posted above and you'll find everybody's email addresses.
Regards,
Barry
AB 2072 is not 100% good, it about 90 to 95% good and 5 to 10% need to be fix. You not read careful!
ReplyDeleteReally? Kindly show me the 5% to 10% that are not good and I'll gladly go over them.
ReplyDeleteThe old law requires that the audiologist provides written material from different sources like Deaf Advocacy and Parent groups for Deaf kids that advocate either ASL or Oralism. This new bill ELIMINATES that. Read the bill and it is crossed out. What does that mean? That means the audiologist will decide what material to give the parents of a newborn Deaf child. An audiologist which has no training in Deaf Ed will deciding what material a parent of a Deaf newborn will get. That means if the audiologist is pro Oral they can just give materials only about oralism approach and not be required to give them materials about both oralism and ASL.
ReplyDeleteJordan, that's what some deaf people want us to believe. The fear factor isn't going to work. This bill will not eliminate deaf advocacy sources provided they do not provide biased information. Get it? It is the "biased" sources that they are determined to eliminate and that in itself spooked capital "D" society. As I pointed out, information age will always defeat a closed society and this is one more proof in the pudding.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, I already stated that I've read the bill. And I like what I saw.
http://totalcapitol.com/?bill_id=200920100AB2072 <--- "by an audiologist" Would a audiology tell a parent it's ok for their child to be deaf without hearing aids/Cochlear... And they function just as well off of ASL?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.communicatewithyourchild.org/brochures/cwyc_english.pdf <---- tell me this isn't biased?
deafA, with this bill it is not up to an audiologist to decide what information he or she want to provide the parents. This bill would require them to provide ALL options on the table. Right now, without the bill, an audiologist has all the liberty to choose as they see fit (biased). But after this bill pass they won't be able to any longer because the State law would be violated if they did. This bill is by far better than what is currently happening. Do yourself a favor and watch video comment #8 by Michael Gallangher under my vlog at Deafvideo.tv. They want such bill in Maryland and you Californians don't want it?
ReplyDeleteOne more thing deafA. In the event an audiologist fails to provide a parent with full and complete information showing all communication options, it'd give us the legal means to file a lawsuit for violation of State law. Without this bill, you would have no legal grounds to fight back. I mean, look at what happened for the past 20 years. You guys could not take a single audiologist to court for their biased views. With this bill, the entire game would change.
ReplyDeleteAlso I think you are misinformed. You don't realize that this bill isn't a new law. You think it is a new law. There is already a law requiring the audiologist to provide all information. This bill is not a new law proposal. It is an amendment to current law to CHANGE it to eliminate the requirement that they provide resources from other groups who specialize in different approaches.
ReplyDeleteJordan,
ReplyDeleteIf you watched my video comment #40 to Rialynn under my vlog at Deafvideo.tv you will see that I said that this bill was like an amendment to an existing law. Either you were not paying attention or you love to assume.
This bill law does not eliminate anything from existing laws. It adds, not subtract, something to the existing law. I don't know how many times I am supposed to say that I've read the bill but I've read it numerous times today and I'm not seeing anything different each time I read it. And I still like what I read.
The cross-out lines you spoke of is the amendment they made in that proposal. It does not cross out an existing law. They took some things out that they were going to propose but decided not to follow through with them. They do not have the kind of power to cross-out existing laws. It does not work that way. I know because I've worked on several legislative bills in my time and I understand the process that's involved.
You are making things up as you go, probably out of anger but the proposed law does not say anything about giving audiologists the power to decide what material to give the parents. This is where you're trying to distort the truth using using scare tactics.
If you will read the bill with me, it says "This bill would also require that parents of a newborn or infant diagnosed with a hearing loss receive WRITTEN information on ALL communication options for children with hearing loss by an audiologist OR other related professional...".
Since when does "ALL" mean "selective"? Today, before this bill becomes a law, an audiologist could simply issue an oral recommendations and say whatever they please. With this bill, the game changes. They would be required to provide written information with ALL communication options for the parents to consider.
You made things up when you said that this bill would give audiologist all the power to decide what material to use. All communication options mean exactly that, ALL. Now don't bother me with fictional stuff. It just won't fly.
Sorry Jordan, your distorted information don't belong here. Go ahead and create your own blog and make your invalid argument some where else. We're going to stick to facts here under my blog. Thanks!
ReplyDelete> In the event an audiologist fails to provide
ReplyDelete> a parent with full and complete information
> showing all communication options, it'd give
> us the legal means to file a lawsuit for
> violation of State law. Without this bill,
> you would have no legal grounds to fight
> back.
There are no stated penalties to audiologists failing to provide information.
Audiologists will likely give out whatever they receive. This makes it the responsibility of the deaf community to blanket all audiologists with info as well as AGBell will, which will be expensive to the deaf community.
Thank you again for letting me respond, even tho we disagree on the issue.
Thank you Linda. Appreciate your insights on this matter. From my experience I have never seen a legislative bill that would define penalties for violations. When a State law becomes effective the State fully expect people to follow it. Violations of any State laws would either prompt felony or misdemeanor, and more often than not, termination of employment or have their license revoked. I do not know what California's laws is like but this rule applies to anybody that choose to violate a State law and are held accountable.
ReplyDeleteI've worked on several civil bills in my time and I've never see a language that included details on penalty. In most case, when a bill becomes a law, it gives us the legal grounds to file a lawsuit in the event of violation, something Californians do not have today.
What the audiologists will likely give out or not is a hypothetical question. What I'm excited about is this bill will require them to provide written information on ALL communication options. Get this... no longer able to do it orally and get away with crime. They have to write that information down for all parents, something that's not done today.
I certainly like the idea of giving the deaf community the responsibility to blanket all audiologists with information and learn to compete against any other organizations, namely AG Bell. I love to compete and it shows. I've never been shy when it came down to competition so I don't understand why some of you are spooked by this bill.
Thank you for hearing me out as well.
Take care,
Barry
Hi again,
ReplyDeleteIt seems that my first comment didn't make it, so please let me try again.
It is important to note that when they amended AB 2072, they changed it so that it is to be implemented at no cost to the State of California. (see the last line in the bill: "It would also specify that the state shall not incur the cost of or implement this bill.")
That is why I am talking about the bill costing both AGBell and the deaf community to make it all happen (implement it), with AGBell having the advantage of being able to pass the costs of making and distributing their materials on to the device manufacturers who already subsidize the organization in its outreach efforts.
Thanks again for letting me clarify.
AB 2072 says it is:
ReplyDeleteAn act to add Section 124121 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to public health.
...so maybe the penalties are set up in the Health and Safety Code?
Do you know anything about that kind of stuff?
Linda, I think something's wrong with the posting system. I authorized all of your comments to be posted here but yet I'm not seeing everything here. I hope they'll eventually show up like one of your comment showed up about 15 minutes later.
ReplyDeleteStay tuned.
Your comments finally showed up. Weird but I'm glad they are here.
ReplyDeleteI do see the portion where it says that the law will be implemented at no cost to the State and I can understand why. There are already resources out there that are already in business of providing information for parents of deaf infants. They did not want to form a new agency that would replace existing agencies as GLAD and DCARA were afraid of.
The way I see it is all audiologists and other related professionals would be obligated to gather all communication options and put them in writing before presenting the information to parents of deaf children. That's why I said we have the unique opportunity to provide them with information we want them to use. Failure to do so would violate this State law, assuming this bill becomes a law. We could easily argue in the court of law and say they failed to follow the law because they did not include ALL communication options. I see this bill as a mechanism to hold them accountable, something we simply can't do today.
I hear alarms all over the place on AG Bell and their financial resources but it does not intimidate me and I don't think it should intimidate you or the rest of the deaf community. The name of the game has always been 'creativity' and it will always be that way. I just don't envisioning AG Bell as the giant and ourselves as little guys and I don't think anybody should. After all, it's not AG Bell that we need to convince. I see the parents as the game, not AG Bell. Maybe it's the strategist in me that see things differently but at least I didn't sit back and allowed the chip to fall wherever it wanted to.
Thanks again for your input.
Hi again Linda. That's correct. If this bill passes it's going to be amended to Section 124121 under Health and Safety Code. It's quite possible we might find language on penalties for violations there but I doubt it. I could be wrong but it's common knowledge that a state law is a law and any violation would fall into a category whether it be misdemeanor or felony. It might be worth looking into though.
ReplyDeleteBarry
Hello Barry, I just found this blog by simply searching "AB 2072", and one of those results shown your blog. I never know that you had a blog!
ReplyDeleteI am a grade 11 student, who is serious about education. So I really appreciate for your time and effort to write blogs and make vlogs at DeafVideo.TV.
I have been meeting many of children with variety of communication methods for each one.
Anyways, that is not a point. I finally found the bill by searching with my best friend, Google.
As you can see, in the bill.
This bill would, instead provide that the written information
shall be on ALL communication, options for children with hearing
loss, and that the information shall be provided to parents when
their newborn or infant fails the hearing screening, at a followup
appointment to diagnose a hearing loss, and at entry into the Early
Start program. It would also specify additional items of information
to be provided pursuant to these requirements.
I completely agree with you. Once it says "All communication options", then ASL MUST be included. Then, decisions are up to parents.
I see many "all communication options" in many parts of the bill.
I better stop writing the blog, because I am sure you already getting tired reading those SAME comments... Haha.
Sincerely,
Riley
In this AB2072 amended bill, the terminology of “communication options” opens the floodgate to everything instead of focusing on language. All deaf children have a linguistic human right to acquire a natural language. In America, deaf children have the human right to be lingual in ASL and English. Forces out there are unfriendly to ASL that we make the State aware of the persisting damage. We want to change the focus on how we provide the services from fixing the ears to raising the WHOLE child with research-based information disseminated by the state with trained professionals and educators. Right, to prevent Deaf children access to visual language and delay their language acquisition IS a crime, and it is still happening daily in the name of “communication options.” “Communication options” implies the way it is presented on this bill that technology could be considered an option. However, the word, technology is not a language nor does it guarantee acquisition to language. The originators of the bill have HUGE ties to the cochlear implant industry and their therapies go along with the implant in hopes that a child acquires speech. We have parents steered into a “communication option” especially when parents are vulnerable during early diagnosis and tend to make quick decisions based on recommendations by those in the medical field. It is unfortunate most medical professionals have little, if any, training in language acquisition through ASL and understand a bit about what it means to be Deaf. This will continue to happen if AB2072 is passed.
ReplyDeleteTJ,
ReplyDeleteSorry but your comment is a reflection of same old illusion I keep hearing again and again. Nothing new there.
First thing first. Stick to facts, please.
Communication option means exactly that. Communication makes no reference to a particular language. Communication means several things. 1) Language. 2) Device. 3) Mechanism.
What's the primary language of this nation? English language, of course! That's the goal of our society.
Next question. What device? VRS, VCO, TTY, text mail, hearing aid, cochlear implant, etc;
What mechanism? Sign language (ASL, SEE, PSE, CUED, Total Communication)
That's called option.
You only want us to focus on language but failed to realize that there are so many different ways to acquire and use a language. You're being naive for thinking that the world's problem would be solved if we only focused on language itself. Sorry but it does not work that way.
What's a natural language to you may not be natural to others so who are you to determine what's natural for every deaf child? I've met some deaf children who simply choose to speak (orally) rather than sign so who am I to say that they are wrong and that it's not their native language.
Show me a single professional related service that has denied a deaf child from acquiring a language? I know I'm in it for a long wait because you won't find a single case. The reason is simple. The professionals meant well when they provide service to help the deaf child and their parents. So, no crime committed here except in your head.
The real reason you guys are afraid of the bill is because this bill would require DCARA and GLAD to include ALL communication options when they present written information to the parents of deaf children. This problem was created when DEAF powerhouse pushed every imaginable agencies to add ASL as part of the option. They, in turn proposed a bill requiring everybody to include ALL communication options, posing the same challenge back to you and your people including DCARA and GLAD to include ALL communication options. And you guys did not want it and decided to bail out. It's a taste of your own medicine.
Now how do you think the legislative branch are going to interpret it? They, without any doubt, would see it as confusing message coming from our deaf community. We wanted to force them to add ASL as part of the option and then when such policy is enforced upon us we don't want it.
It also mean one other thing. You deaf people do not seem to place much confidence in ASL. You guys do not seem to believe that ASL is capable of competing against other options. Meaning? ASL can not stand on its own ground and can not compete. Unfortunately, that's the message you are sending out.
Barry
An update has been added into AB 2072 Bill; From the look of it they added new language in (a) section. Read below.
ReplyDeleteSECTION 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 information on all 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 the Early Start Program, provided for pursuant to the California Early Intervention Services Act (Title 14 (commencingwith Section 95000) of the Government Code) when a newborn and infant enters the program and when the newborn and infant is referred to the program by a state agency.
(b) The state shall not incur any cost, nor shall the state be involved in the implementation of this section.
Hello, please me give lenguage of spainish AB 2072. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI tried to convert the bill into Spanish but this posting would not let me post it. Weird. Will keep trying.
ReplyDeleteI am in favour of it and am at a loss trying to figure out why so many are dead against it. I want ALL options made available to the parents. I'm profoundly deaf, not sure about you, but I know I am fully literate thanks to SEE.
ReplyDeleteI have a quick question... are you deaf yourself sir? I couldn't find out on your 'About Me' section. It's obvious that you are interested in D/deaf issues, but if you yourself are not deaf, then is it possible that you are somewhat biased? I'm hearing, but I am doing a project on Deaf Issues on Wednesday (May 26th) with a major focus on AB 2072, as it's a very current Deaf issue. It seems to me that the truth lies somewhere between the two opinions. Is it not possible that, although an audiologist has to give all options concerning communication, they can write their suggestions in such a way as to give preference to oralism? But I do agree with the notion that manualism will work for some, whereas oralism will work for others. You don't have to reply to this, just putting forward what it seems like to me.
ReplyDeleteHi Mattea,
ReplyDeleteThe answer to your quick question is yes. I was born deaf to a very large deaf family containing deaf parents, deaf grandparents and at least nine deaf aunts and uncles. According to our family genealogy and history I'm carrying the 7th generation deafness label with two of my deaf boys carrying the 8th label. Deafness runs very deep in my family lineage. You did not find the 'deafness' information in 'about me' page because I don't make a big deal out of it.
As for the whereabout of the truth I can safely tell you that it's always found in the center.
Read the bill and you will see that audiologists are required to give all options concerning communication options, in writing therefore they can no longer write down their suggestions in such manner that would favor one option over another. To do so would be a violation of the law if this bill becomes the law.
Some deaf people are worried about biased audiologists because they do not specialize in deaf language and culture nor do they specialize in deaf education. What they failed to realize is audiologist is a specialist that focus on one's ability to hear and detect their degree of hearing losses. That's the first step we all take in order to determine our hearing losses. In short, we can't avoid them. It's like going to the hospital without seeing the doctors. Audiologists do not have the jurisdiction to decide what's best for a deaf child. Their role is to detect level of hearing losses and provide information on communication options and assistive devices.
I hope this opposed AB 2072 video will be add in AB 2072 options for a hearing parents to watch and will understand very clearly! I love that video very much!!!
ReplyDeleteI am very grateful to see a your perspective in print and ASL. I am a hearing pediatrician who has worked closely with the signing Deaf Community for many years. I have been involved with Newborn Hearing Screening both at the state level and at the national level. I use ASL everyday in my life. I read the law, and felt that it was actually a positive step for the reasons that you site. The fear that many have about audiologists giving limited information to parents is well-founded. It is the reality already. This law provides an opportunity to require less bias and more comprehensive information exchange with parents of newly identified deaf and hard of hearing babies. That is exactly what the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing has in their policy (see www.jcih.org/jcih2000.pdf). It explicitly includes ASL and deaf role models as important information to share with parents. This is in the policy because culturally deaf people(Jay Innes and Beth Benedict both of Gallaudet) have worked hard to be part of the process and be on these mostly hearing committees. I am sure it is difficult to be that one or two people surrounded by hearing people who do not intuitively understand your perspective. However, such partnerships are essential to having laws and policies work for us - those who value ASL and the collective wisdom of the Deaf Community. I understand the historical trauma and oppression that leads to fear reactions. But we must acknowledge the fear and take rational steps toward changing the status quo. Involvement and partnerships between deaf and hearing people is the way I've seen hearing people be educated, and deaf people succeed in becoming part of the process and achieving their goals on a national and policy level. Many deaf people complain about the decisions hearing people make for them. That's a good first step. I challenge deaf people to work with these same hearing people on the issues to bring about change within the system. You will be surprised how many "Hearies" are actually well- intentioned, despite their ignorance.
ReplyDeleteThank you Julia. That was a very insightful and helpful comment. Really appreciate them and yes, I totally agree with you. The bottom line is, numerous "Hearies" actually meant well. After working with them for the past 25 years it is also my testament. In short, I know this for a fact.
ReplyDeleteThank you again for posting here.
I was born a hearing person and became profoundly deaf at age 9.
ReplyDeleteI went to the School for the Deaf and basically grew up with deaf culture. I was a student at Gallaudet when I was 16 years old and what I saw there was both fascinating and somewhat disgusting.
After watching your video I was amazed that your line of thinking has always been on track with mine and I no longer feel like a lone person pissing in the wind as to the mass ignorance of many deaf peopole and their closed society.
Access to information is the key to making correct choices for yourself.
Over the years I have tried to explain to my deaf friends how the world is forever changing and if they dont change they will miss the Boat, train, etc
Not being a relegious person also gave me the insight of human history as how the church has set back civilization for who knows how many centries due to DOGMA.
Here seems to lie the key to the basic problem of Deaf Society. DOGMA
It befundles me how the deaf Society can shun the hearing world when it was the kindness of the hearing world that gave them their language (A.S,L.) their schooling, their education, their equal rights, their free telecommunications etc then have them turn and bite the hand that helped them because of DOGMA.
Anyway keep up your good work and lead the way. Maybe someday a little light will come on in their heads and they will see the big picture.