The AB 2072 oppositions are now trying to say they won the battle at the Senate hearing. It was interesting because at the end of the day the opposition side came out slowly and appeared unsure of themselves, desperately trying to save their own faces. The latest messages seem to be that they managed to squeeze in their own amendment and it passed in their favor.
According to them, their hired lobbyst told them that they basically hijacked the bill and took over. All of suddenly they found a reason to celebrate.
My question is, if what they were saying were true then why did Senator Romero voted against the bill at the end of the day? Initially Senator Romero took sides with the opponents of the bill and spoke against the bill. And yet at the end of the day she voted against the bill. If the turn of event actually favored the people that opposed the bill initially then surely Senator Romero would have voted 'yes' for it but she didn't. She didn't. She didn't. Anybody want to try and answer this one?
Regardless, I'll shed several important facts here. 1) The bill passed the hearing stage. The information given to the parents will still include ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS. That was the opponents' main sticking point. Don't tell me you forgot. They wanted to kill the bill because of it. 2) The audiologist will still be the source for parents to receive written information from. And according to the Senators at the hearing they acknowledged parents' rights to discuss options with audiologists if the parents sought to discuss the matters with them. The Senators realized they do not have the power to place 'gag orders' on audiologists. Of course, the opposition side did not tell you this.
Victory for those who opposed the bill? Could not help it but felt sorry for the desperate party. In case you are still confused, kindly do yourself a favor and ask Senator Romero why she voted against the bill at the end of the day.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Saving Faces on AB 2072
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
They wasted a several months fighting against the bill without being aware that the bill already had been revised/re-tinkered twice or so before the hearing? So correct me if I'm wrong...
ReplyDeleteThey came to throw the bill away, not DIRECTLY insisting to revise the bill in the very first place so therefore they officially lost. So please kindly correct me if I'm so wrong...
We didn't see "CHANGE THE BILL CHANGE THE BILL" on the piss-yellow shirts and not a single of them supported the bill at all. They went very extreme and persistant to get the bill to be thrown away for good. So please eloquently correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway- that's still great that there will be ALL communication methods to be put on the table and shout at last. I wish the California parents and their deaf babies the best with the better qualities of life- regardless of which communication method they'll pick for their children.
-Laura
You're right, VooDoo Island.
ReplyDeleteThey wasted several month fighting this bill while they could have worked on changing the bill.
They were on verge of losing the battle and then all of suddenly they wanted to change the bill and claim victory.
Like you, I wish the California parents and their deaf babies the very best regardless of communication methods they may choose for their children.
Thanks for stopping by.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe opponents of AB 2072 made a logical political strategy by attempting to kill the bill to FORCE Rep. Tony Mendoza to COMPROMISE and NEGOITATE or we would be stuck with this illogical bill.
ReplyDeleteWHY Rep. Mendoza have to do the bill which duplicate the "already existing the workable system" comes with the newborn hearing screening and referrals?
We need to help the emotionally vulnerable parent of deaf child from making the lifetime mistake for the deaf child's educational option.
Every of us know the specific role of professionals is to keep their job definition clearly.
Audiologists' job are to screen and identify the newborn hearing status. That is it!
Same thing with ASL interpreter(s) is to convey ASL and spoken language back and forth, instead of interjecting the personal thoughts or comments.
That's what we are quite concerned about too many audiologists turn to the unethical behaviors of pushing and pushing the CI devices and personal ideology like the Cued Speech upon parent of deaf child in name of "medicine miracles".
RLM
That's right, Ben, according to the latest explanation offered by Ella. Ella acknowledged the fact that they had to work with the new amendment because they'd lose out if they continued to oppose. In short, they did not have a choice.
ReplyDeleteSaw Tayler's blog just now. Apparently they worked up a new amendment and did not tell the live stream viewers. Regardless, Ella pretty much summarized it up and acknowledged pros and cons. She is still not happy with the new bill but she realizes that it was a way for her to save face by trying to work with them. No longer hearing her saying "kill the bill" because she clearly said in her video that if they did not compromise then they'd lose out. She does not have a choice. She had to compromise so I thanked her for that. I did not think she had the courage to tell the truth but apparently she did.
Regardless of whatever happens, one thing won't change. Access to all information on all communication options will remain the same. That will not change and it's been the opposition's sticking point since day one. They can not change it and they realize that now. It don't matter who hands out the information. The ultimate point here is, parents will have access to written information showing ALL communication options.
This victory belongs to the parents of deaf children and deaf children themselves. Kudos to everybody that fought to support the bill.
Thank you RLM. Did not know you had the courage to come in and leave a comment here. Glad to see you here.
ReplyDeletePlease read my comment to Ben in this thread. I just viewed Ella's vlog and read Tayler's blog and made this comment afterwards.
You could make the argument and credit the opposition side for trying to kill the bill in order to force Rep. Tony Mendoza to compromise.
Regardless, in Ella's vlog she clearly acknowledge the fact that there were stuff in the "new" amendment that she did not like but had no choice but to work with the bill instead of killing. She clearly said that the opposition side would lose out if they didn't compromise. In short, the kill the bill was a sincere effort and it failed. But these people had enough brains to know when to concede and begin working with the bill. Knowing when to stop and where to stop is a level of maturity so I left a comment under Ella's vlog and thanked her for it.
I agree with the need to help the emotionally vulnerable parent of deaf child from making the lifetime mistake for the deaf child's educational option. I am with everybody on that point.
The underlying sticking point started when Ella and the opposition group decided to oppose "all communication options". Their tone have changed drastically since then. But then they didn't have a choice. Ella pointed that out and said they would lose out if they didn't cease from trying to kill the bill.
Don't know if you had access to an interpreter during the hearing but I did. The Senators also acknowledged the fact that they could not stop audiologists from discussing certain issues with the parents if the parents sought after their advice. In short, they did not have the jurisdiction to place 'gag order' on audiologists.
Better yet, secure a hard copy of the transcript and read it for yourself. In essence they gave the audiologists the leeway because it was within the parents' rights to discuss anything they wanted with the audiologists.
Really, all one has to do is look at my poll and see that the majority of the votes (that came from mostly through Deafread) voted "No" on not approving the AB 2072 bill. They clearly did not want this bill despite that ASL was already included in the bill as one of the many communication options for parents to read and understand, and eventually make an informed decision for their deaf/hh newborn babies. They simply wanted no part of this bill rather than saying it's an opportunity to help amend the bill to clarify it better. They wanted the bill off the table. We saw those protesters. We saw how they attacked AG Bell, and other supporters. We saw how they tried the Nazism and eugenics route with the help of Edwin Black who has mysteriously disappeared from the radar. They wanted no part of that bill even though in the bill it eventually included ASL. Ella looked more like resigned than happy that this bill passed the committee. It'll be interesting to see how this will evolve over the next few weeks or so and whether the "kill the bill" will continue or not.
ReplyDeleteWatch the blogs and YouTubes. Will they now finally focus on the positives on ASL or will they continue to attack AGBell and other similar organizations for supporting this bill?
Interesting times, folks. Interesting times.
Ok, RLM is right about audiologist's part. I had encountered with the one of them telling me to forget CI- simply after I asked him what did he THINK of CI. I was surprised when he told me that and even shared the horrid story of CI to my hearing husband. I did saw with my own eyes so...yes, audiologist should not be in any position to give any information/resource of communication methods. So like I had stated in FB's deafhood? No Thanks' page about Health Department's resource department's manager's responsiblity to give out some resources to new mothers of deaf babies. Also NO ONE is in the position to use their mouths to give pros and cons of each communication method to the parents of deaf babies until the parents carefully research, study and compare for a good while and are ready to ask the resource manager, audiologists, other parents of deaf babies, schools,etc etc. Makes sense? No? Yes?
ReplyDeleteThe first bill you support got DUMPED! You were right, the Senators are not stupid. The new bill look much better than the old one.
ReplyDelete-- chuckle --
ReplyDeleteThis is a win-win for the interested parties.
Edward,
ReplyDeleteThat's a false statement. Regardless, the underlying sticking point I supported was parents' access to ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS. That language is still there and it has not changed. It never mattered to me who hands out the information who were in charge of the materials. I was interested in making sure that ALl COMMUNICATION OPTIONS stayed there and it did.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete> My question is, if what they were saying were true then why did Senator Romero voted against the bill at the end of the day? Initially Senator Romero took sides with the opponents of the bill and spoke against the bill. And yet at the end of the day she voted against the bill. If the turn of event actually favored the people that opposed the bill initially then surely Senator Romero would have voted 'yes' for it but she didn't. She didn't. She didn't. Anybody want to try and answer this one?
ReplyDelete[Raises hand and waves wildly] Oh! Oh! I know! Call on me, please!
For the same reason that the yellow shirts lined up at the end and said they opposed the bill, "in its current form."
Notice that caveat.
My understanding was that Senator Romero continued to vote "nay" in support of the "not in its current form" votes of the opposition. That is, to show her support of the yellow shirts that there are still enough problems with the bill that it should not be allowed to go forward until it IS fixed.
> ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS. That was the opponents' main sticking point.
Nope... Most of the folks I talked to just seemed to think that once you put "options" up there, hearing parents could more easily be steered to the "oral-only" option, so it was a combination of fake "options", and the traditional ease with which the oral-only option has gotten sold to parents.
> I supported was parents' access to ALL COMMUNICATION OPTIONS. That language is still there and it has not changed.
Actually, I think it may be changing to something more like "all language and communication options"... Haven't seen the final language in the bill, but I think that change made the cut before the hearing...
BBF, My yellow shirt is in the wash today. ;-)
- Linda
Barry,
ReplyDeleteWhat the heck! I came here to inform you what I had have heard. I just wanted to share with you What I HEARD! Some adjustments being made to the amendment. That's all!
Seemingly, you jumped the gun telling me not to make a fool of myself! Eh!?!
Yes, I do need to read the transcript one day soon when it becomes available. I do not know what exactly did they do to the bill. I do not know what changes they had made.
However, I must say that I am not happy with the wordings, "Audiologists, and other related professionals". They need to be specifically defined. That's all I care, really. Not the WHOLE thing -- but that little sentence found in the bill.
I want to congratulate both sides and this is an excellent political lesson for those involved.
ReplyDeleteAn advice, numbers does play a big role here and try to get all people who are D/deaf into one camp which has big numbers. You will be surprised how far you can go. Once the D/deaf community is divided and the numbers are low.
I believe things will get better in the long term because of the experience that AB 2072 gave to the Deaf community is about how to get the legislators to vote on your behalf.
Politics is a game and if you play by their rules and you will see so much accomplished.
Exactly my sentiment Teri.... what the heck!?!? LOL. You came to inform me on what you heard thinking I did not know what I saw when I watched the live stream hearing with my own private interpreter. You're either naive or you really think I'm stupid. LOL.
ReplyDeleteInitially everybody said that there were minor changes made to the bill and then you said there was a major change. And then you admitted you did not know exactly what was said on the floor or exactly what changes were made. Heck, you ought to hold your guns until you know exactly what happened. (chuckling here again)
Look who's jumping the gun here? I'm glad you agree to read the transcript one of these days.
Much of what Ella and her group are saying still does not make sense. Their stories did not match what we saw on the live stream so we're waiting for hard copies of the transcript to see if there is any truth to their stories. Enough lies and myths were spread by these same people so we don't know what to believe any more. It'd help if you refrained from assuming until you know for sure. I'd welcome your input if you had watched the hearing but you didn't. I spoke out because I watched the entire footage and had the luxury listening through my very own interpreter. I didn't wait for somebody's blessing so I arranged to have an interpreter by my side when the hearing started.
Regardless, one thing won't change. All communication options. That was the language they wanted to kill and they failed because the language is still there. That's all I care about but yet I see shameful behavior coming out of the opposition group trying to distort their loss and make it sound victorious. Hog washes. That's what it is. Hog washes. You folks lost. The 'all communication options' is still there and it'll still be there when the Governor signs the bill.
Thank you.