NOTE: there is a new version of the AB 2072 bill up now which addresses some of the problems that i listed below – i have added NOTES in PURPLE for changed parts
for the latest version of the AB 2072 bill (aug 20) see
since we all have gone round this mulberry bush a few too many times – im gonna speak bluntly here to make sure ya all can hear me
AB 2072 chucks!
it includes programs, services, approaches that EXCLUDE natural and fully accessible LANGUAGE
denying a child access to a fully natural and accessible language ain’t cool folks
plain and simple
in fact it has detrimental results folks (see ICED Vancouver 2010 New Era agreement)
in fact it has been called a dismal failure in one congressional report (See Babbidge report)
in fact denying a child the right to a FULLY NATURAL and ACCESSIBLE language has been referred to as a crime against humanity and linguistic and cultural genocide in some quarters (see Skutnabb-Kangas, Lane, Cummins, and more)
in fact in many testimonies of folks who have endured Oral / Aural ONLY or speech with supplemental sign system ONLY programs have testified to the child abuse-like and restrictive nature of these “educational” approaches
No child should have to WORK for their language when they got a perfectly good, natural, whole, functional, useful, classy, cool, sweet, beautiful, awesome language at their fingertips
and of course – no child in the U.S. of A should be denied the right to learn English – i ain’t advocating for that and i don’t know anyone who is.
we r simply saying – don’t deny Deaf children the right to a fully natural and accessible language (ie ASL) and also English
Whereas the EXCLUSIONARY folks say Deaf babies and infants must have the “option” of having to work and labor and be tested and prod and physically altered to get access to English. No ASL allowed here folks.
See the “option” school near you folks
to find out more about “Option” Schools that exclude the option of a natural and fully accessible language go to: http://auditoryoralschools.org/default.aspx
go to their page on Communication Options (download your own copy!) at:
now we could pick apart the latest lamest version of AB 2072 to be circulated – but why should we have to pull out the self-evident?
Why should we have to state the obvious problems
[well i guess for some folks it is necessary – Hi Barry, Gina, Mike, MM, RR, Ann_C and Russell and all you other “anonymous” folks. i see ya)
“This bill would require that the informational pamphlet be provided to parents of all newborns and infants identified as deaf and hard of hearing by an audiologist immediately upon identification of a newborn or infant as deaf or hard of hearing, and by a local provider for the Early Start Program upon initial contact with the parents of a newborn or infant newly identified as deaf or hard of hearing.”
ok so the previous existing law (Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening, Tracking, and Intervention Act) already requires that babies and infants be tested / screened re: being Deaf or Hearing
So what does it mean that an audiologist must IMMEDIATELY give this brochure? Are the audiologists now going to be sent to the hospital maternity ward?
is it now a crime to have a Deaf child – u gotta be put into a SYSTEM and REQUIRED to report to an audiologist who’s “scope of practice” is fixing the ear and the lips? hmmmm
and who pays for this mandatory audiologist visit?
Why an audiologist?
ain’t they even a wee bit worried about the Dept of Justice suit against Cochlear Americas for doing kickbacks with doctors, audiologists, etc
Scope of Practice is out now
Evaluation and Treatment by audiologist is in now
This bill would require the informational
pamphlet to be made available in Cantonese, English, Spanish, and Vietnamese, and be made available on the department’s Internet Web
site and the Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Board’s Internet Web site, as prescribed.
– HEY why doesnt it require that this pamphlet be made available in American Sign Language on DVD (it is amended now to have an ASL (with English captions) on its website but no take home or mailed out DVD version
The fund shall contain donations that have been
collected and deposited for the purposes of this section, as well as any federal funds made available for purposes of this section.
Notwithstanding Section 16305.7 of the Government Code, the fund shall also contain any interest and dividends earned on moneys in the fund.
No entity may contribute moneys to this fund that participates in a lobbying activity or has a financial relationship or any other conflict of interest, with, any appointed panel members, or that stands to benefit financially from the outcome of the pamphlet development. No state funds shall be used to implement this section.
– HEY why is this bill’s implementation gonna be dependent on the kindness of others – ya know gotta have handouts and donations to finance this state requirement – huh?
And whose got the bucks to develop, translate, print, and distribute this pamphlet? Nothings for free folks hmmm could it be the oral / aural only original sponsors (see below for the listing) of the bill and the audiology association and medical association that originally sponsored this bill
unbiased – my …..
And why did the part about no $$ from groups that engage in lobbying or have a financial relationship or other conflicts of interest with panel members or might profit from this bill get STRICKEN OUT
Reading glasses anyone?
Thinking caps anyone?
A New “no entity clause” is back in now:
or individual may contribute moneys to this fund that has a
commercial interest related to communication options, or
products for the deaf or hard of hearing. A donor shall disclose any
commercial interests at the time the donor's donation is remitted to
the State Treasury. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to
preclude a tax-exempt non-profit organization, qualified under
Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code from donating to
“The audiologist shall not inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option beyond the scope of his or her practice. “
Check out what the “scope of practice” is for an audiologist and you will see they are ANYTHING BUT NEUTRAL AND UNBIASED.
They in fact have a license to fix and TREAT the Deaf baby and infant – that is what they are there for. So why have they been the chosen one – the state mandated ones to be providing “unbiased” information
good bloody question!
See the Reader family‘s experience with audiologists and the scope of their practice
Why isnt the original mandate of the parents seeing the Early Start Program sufficient – HUH HUH HUH?
If there is a problem with the Early Start Program and their materials – FIX that!
Scope of Practice is out now but evaluate and TREAT are in and getting the pamphlet from an audiologist is still MANDATED – no other OPTION Is allowed – like say getting the pamphlet from a bi-bi specialist
The stakeholders panel – omg what a recipe for disaster
Would make for a GREAT REALITY TV program – might even help CA with its deficit if they could get a big TV channel to carry it.
Still might be a drama fest
New bill version upped the panel from 13 members to 15 (2 Deaf / HH Adults who use other visual communication modalities)
just the access issues alone r gonna make this panel pretty dang interesting – i envision CART, ASL interpreter, Oral interpreter, and PSE interpreter
Tower of Babel for the babies
the newly added “stakeholders” to the panel – geez how did you guys get in? audiologist and doctor who specialize in pediatric otolaryngogly
now there are 2 more new ones – “other communication modalities”
“An audiologist who specializes in evaluating and treating infants, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.”
TREATING Folks – part of their “scope of practice” – it aint just about identifying and screening now. (See #7 – on)
“scope of practice” is out but Treating is in still
Who is missing from the panel? bilingual / dual language experts
KINDA IMPORTANT AIN’T it????
not sure why the “other visual modalities” got added in but no bi-bi specialist is listed
Visual language is used throughout the bill – definition please
if they honor the use of the word LANGUAGE – then SEE, PSE, TC, Cued speech or any other sign SYSTEM used to represent English visually do NOT qualify under VISUAL LANGUAGE – instead VISUAL LANGUAGE should only refer to fully natural signed languages with their own grammar etc
why are they not saying NATURAL SIGNED LANGUAGES in the bill?
huh, huh, huh?
BIG RED FLAG – why o why has after any mention of VISUAL LANGUAGE is this phrase added “including, but not limited to, ASL,” been added to five of the stakeholders panelists to be appointed
HUH HUH HUH? Why add the “not limited to ASL” oh cuz they aim to stake and stock (oh stock hmmm) the deck, the panel with folks re: Visual Language who really only know about signed systems or other coded systems that are somewhat visual based. Gosh forbid if we have even just ONE solitary ASL and English expert on that panel
so why dont all the auditory-oral representatives also have a , “not limited to ENGLISH” after them huh huh huh?
the “other visual language” clauses are OUT – got the boot – ya hoo
for some reason im just kinda doubtful that the CA legislature knows what and why its doing what its doing
go back to the original source folks – De nile (denial) ain’t just a river in Egypt
this bill was designed of by and for the oral / aural only folks (with or without sign systems) to push for the use of aggressive and artificial means that deny Deaf infants and babies the right to a fully, natural language
Note: by oral / aural only folks – i dont mean the byproducts of those programs – the byproducts and alumni that are true to being oral / aural only are oddly mute on this subject so far.
the original sponsors of AB 2072 are:
* California Coalition (private schools and programs)
* CCHAT Center
* Echo Horizon School
* Jean Weingarten Peninusla Oral School
* John Tracy Clinic
* Auditory Oral School of San Francisco
* American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
* California Academy of Audiology
* California Association of Private Special Education Schools
* California Hospital Association
* California Speech-Language Hearing Association
options that exclude ain’t cool
and that me friend is why AB 2072 chucks
aren’t ya all tired of going around the mulberry bush?
PS: big thanks to Deafster for having sent me the latest version of the AB 2072 bill