California’s AB2072 : Disfranchisement the Deaf Community.
*** Latest News ****
California Assembly passed AB2072 with 47 to 7 votes. 20 had abstained.
It was voted early in this morning (California time) in a closed meeting with repeated requests for captioning and ASL interpreter during the political process.
Ella Mae Lentz created a vlog with a summary excerpted below:
“Disaster this morning at CA Assembly. They rushed AB 2072 through Assembly despite the OpposeAB2072 Coalition meeting with bill author Tony Mendoza yesterday. Worse still, they did not even consider THE COMMUNICATION OPTION OF CAPTIONS nor ASL interpreter! No captions were provided despite calls in before the Assembly to add captions and they scrambled to get an interpreter and luckily Norcal was able to provide them with one. “
The whole political process is simply…. disfranchising the Deaf Community, Deaf professionals, Linguistics knowledgeable of American Sign Language, Deaf Educators, and many people who wanted to be a part of the process.
Assemblyman Tony Mendoza was been contacted several times from the community, and there was a lack of collaboration or dialogue. That is disfranchisement.
What is disfranchisement/disfranchising?
disenfranchise [ˌdɪsɪnˈfræntʃaɪz], disfranchise
vb (tr)
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) to deprive (a person) of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) to deprive (a place) of the right to send representatives to an elected body
3. (Business / Commerce) to deprive (a business concern, etc.) of some privilege or right
4. to deprive (a person, place, etc.) of any franchise or right
This definition is best explained about a person has no right to vote. We, Deaf citizens are allowed to vote. That is not the issue.
The main issue is we are not being part of the bill writing process, not inviting us to have a dialogue, not allowing us to make amendments, and or not allowing us to have an input. The worst part, not having an access to the whole process except the people who oppose the bill were opposing on the ’sidelines’, and yet, the bill was rushed to the assembly floor and have this passed.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Why Assemblyman Tony Mendoza is so dead set to push the bill so fast, without including Deaf Community to work together?
Disfranchisement.
The possible next step is to prove that the Deaf Californians are disfranchised from the political process, especially this kind of bill. It may call for the legal action.
Best,
Amy Cohen Efron
April 29th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
You are getting this information from watching Ella’s vlog, only one source and already jumping to conclusion. You need to find out more.
Don’t take a person’s word for it each and every time. Clearly Ella was very upset and you can see that when she started to refer to Mendoza in a derogatory way and started in on the Goldman/CI and the profiting rant. I will reserve my opinion/judgement until I see more facts from both sides.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Candy,what you are doing is resorting to ad hominem rhetoric.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Whoa! I just taw Ella’s vlog. What the world have Goldman Sachs do with the AB 2072 bill? I am laughing because we JUST saw Goldman Sachs testifying at the Capitol Hill the other day. That’s funny. I guess they’re hoping the CI corporations will lose $$$ via Goldman Sachs. That’s not going to happen. They will find a way to transfer the $$ to another financial contractor. They will know what-to-do. They also aren’t that dumb.
No big deal.
April 29th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Hi Amy. I understand the argument you made on ‘disfranchisement’. However such argument has no legal grounds and I’ll tell you why if you’d like to know.
Deaf people were involved. There are evidence of that. However when you spelled ‘deaf’ you are making reference to the fourth or fifth definition in the dictionary, that of Deaf culture and language. The law does not require anybody to identify deaf people by their choice of language or communication methods.
Time for legal action, not.
Barry
April 29th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
It must be remembered that this isn’t the first time this kind of action has happened. Thousands of examples of this have occurred since Milan 1880 when hearing people and the professionals advising them have passed resolutions without including input or participation from all of the d/hh community.
This impacts us more than the legislators, and is wrong on this basis. This must be stopped and the entire system made more sensitive to the very people that are affected.
April 30th, 2010 at 12:14 am
Candy, you clearly don’t know Amy well. She is a woman that does her research and knows her stuff. She would not post a blog without finding the facts.
April 30th, 2010 at 12:26 am
Amy, I have not had the time to read up on all blogs that either support or oppose this bill. I want to make it very clear there that I am not either supporting or opposing this bill right now as I am not fully informed on it right now.
However, an area does seem confusing to me and I would like further clarification from you or any other commenter. But first, let me copy and paste what this bill was supposed to do. If I have the wrong version or do not have the most recently amended version, then please say so. But My questions and views are based on the version below.
“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 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.”
Now what confused me is that in past history, as I saw it, was that many deaf people were complaining that it was primarily oral or listening/speaking only approaches that were primarily given to parents of deaf babies. This bill specifically states being provided information on ALL communication options, which means that ASL information must be included by state law.
Additionally, all parents must be given information about all deaf organizations as well. This, as I see it, could actually potentially increase opportunities for ASL as well cuz this would mean that all parents of deaf children in the state of California would know about GSLAD, NORCAL, and the like. I would imagine that many parents of deaf babies did not get that information in the past.
I also saw a couple blogs where some people felt that audiologists would have “control” of this. But let’s face it, they do need an audiologist to tell them that their baby is deaf. Yes, that is true, but based on this, if the audiologist actually withholds information, for example, giving information only on listening/speaking, but not on ASL. That audiologist would be violating state law and could potentially be grounds to lose their license to practice audiology.
Additionally, it says “audiologist, or other related professional”, I did not see where “other related professional” is specifically defined. Could this also mean just about any professional that works with deaf babies, which includes ASL teachers, ASL advocates, etc., in addition to related professionals in other communication options.
The Early Start Program would also be required by this law to provide information on all communication options, including ASL. I am somewhat assuming that they may not have provided enough information on ASL in the past. This bill should change that.
I am quite confused as to why this upsets a lot of deaf people. Now keep in mind, all my views are based solely on the version that I am seeing above, and it does appear to me that it benefits the ASL population more than it hurts them. Now my question is this, was there an amended version to this that was passed that I may have overlooked? I am still trying to understand why so many people are upset over this.
Again, I am neither supporting or opposing this bill, I’m just trying to understand this better and understand why this is so controversial in the deaf community before deciding whether to support or oppose this.
April 30th, 2010 at 3:38 am
Hi there everyone,
Thank you for bringing this up, Amy. I also appreciate the comments. My name is Julie Rems-Smario. I am on the board of California Association of the Deaf. Like many of you, I was very confused about AB2072 until I attended the assembly health committee on April 20th. It became clear to me about what was going on. At that point I realized that I want to communicate with my esteemed Deaf Californians and allies about facts of what is going on. It is like looking the fish in muddy waters. I think I managed to catch quite a few fish for my hungry schema.
For starters, I realize that all the sponsors of this bill were not Deaf stakeholders. The group include John Tracy Clinic, San Francisco Aural School, Oralingua, JW Penninsula School of Oral Deaf, and so forth. Furthermore, California Schools for the Deaf (Riverside and Fremont) were not included.
None of the eight Deaf advocacy agencies were included. The the office of the Deaf California Coalition which consists of the eight sister advocacy agencies was not contacted.
Only reason why we found out about this bill is because one of the assembly members who is close to Sheri Farinha, the CEO of NorCal Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, to ask her if she was aware of this AB2072 She said no! Then Sheri alerted the Deaf community. This happened shortly before the bill was due for the assembly health committee hearing on April 20th.
The reason why Sheri was alarmed is because this is the California Coalition’s third attempt to write the bill. Twice before this same group of sponsors tried to write up the same bill with different assembly members in northern California and both assembly members contacted Sheri to see NorCal Deaf Center would support it. Sheri responded that the deaf community (professionals, educators, stakeholders etc) has not been invited to be involved with the process of the bill. Out of respect for the Deaf people, both assembly members dropped the bill.
The bill would have been effective if California Coalition had contacted the Deaf-run agencies and both Schools for the Deaf to come up with a winning approach together as a team of Deaf adults,parents of deaf babies, teachers, and audiologists. Just imagine a bill sponsored by NorCal Center of the Deaf, California School for the Deaf, John Tracy Clinic, San Francisco Aural School, etc. We want to do it the right way together inclusively and respectfully.
BTW I want to share that California Association of the Deaf is undergoing changes. We are currently revising both our mission statement and bylaws. You can get all the updates at our website. It includes a press release about AB2072 so you can be in the loop. http://www.cad1906.org/content/action-alert-ab-2072
April 30th, 2010 at 3:39 am
PRESS RELEASE AS OF APRIL 29, 2010
ASSEMBLY PASSES AB 2072-NEWBORN HEARING SCREENING BILL, DENIES THE DEAF ACCESS TO PROCEEDINGS
Sacramento, CA – This morning, the California Assembly passed AB 2072 a newborn hearing screening bill sponsored by Assemblymember Mendoza (D-Norwalk) which states the bill will have audiologists and other related professionals then local Early Start providers give parents written and electronic information about communication options.
Even though, AB 2072 is a bill about Deaf and hard of hearing people, the Assembly was not able to provide captioning for the live broadcast because Assemblymember Mendoza was not willing to allow a week to get this Americans with Disabilities Act accommodation set up. American Sign Language interpreters were provided but that still did not allow deaf and hard of hearing people the ability to access the proceeding.
After a newborn infant is tested positive for being deaf, the infant is referred to an audiologist within three months for additional tests to confirm the results. The purpose of the bill is to have the audiologists and other related professionals whose job and training involves selling hearing aids and cochlear implants serve as the first information gatekeeper with parents of deaf children. The bill is not clear about who will develop and provide funding for the written and electronic communication which will be provided to the parents. Neither California state nor the Early Start providers will be responsible for the implementation or funding of AB 2072.
AB 2072 is sponsored by the California Coalition, a group of private schools which support the oral education method and receive funding from the Oberkotter Foundation, an organization with over $120 million which supports the oral education method. During 2008, the Oberkotter Foundation spent over $20 million supporting oral education, professional training, and marketing to parents, educators, healthcare workers, and audiologists.
During the Assembly Health Committee hearing on April 20, 2010, Karl White, the Director of the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management (NCHAM) located at Utah State University told members that there is a brochure and website which is being used in 30 states. Although NCHAM will be responsible for distributing the brochure, the funding for it comes from Let Them Hear Foundation which receives funding from the Oberkotter Foundation for this purpose. Go and review the media materials provided by NCHAM, and the link to the brochure with six different languages.
The opposition of AB 2072, which includes California Deaf Newborn Identification and Advocacy, a citizens advisory group comprised of Deaf consumers, parents of Deaf infants and children, California educators, Deaf service providers, and researchers, believes this bill is flawed because it is biased toward one communication option, listening and speaking. Besides the ambiguity in the language of the bill and lack of accountability, AB 2072 will make audiologists, ENTs and supporters of the listening and speaking communication option as the gatekeepers of information for parents.
CEO Sheri Farinha of NorCal Services for Deaf & Hard of Hearing based in North Highlands, California, said, “Having audiologists as the people giving information to parents about communication options is like having a used car salesman provide people with transportation options; it’s going to be biased and parents are not going to be able to make the best choices for their Deaf children.”
THE RESULT ON VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS: 47 AYE
7 NAY
20 ABSTAINED
Go and check out on http://www.opposeab2072.com for more details.
PRESS RELEASE AS OF APRIL 20, 2010
The Health Committee voted YES on CA AB 2072, sending to the Assembly floor. The result on the vote was as follows:
AYE – 10
NAY – 4
NOT VOTING – 5
ACTION ALERT:
Join CAD to oppose Assembly Bill AB 2072: 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. Please send letters to Members of the Assembly Health Committee listed below on or before Tuesday, April 20, 2010 when they will consider this new bill.
Assembly member Mendoza (D) of Norwalk introduced a bill called AB 2072. The bill will be heard by the California Assembly Health Committee on Tuesday, April 13, 2010. The Assembly Health Committee Members will vote to either to support or oppose this bill.
WHAT IS AB 2072?
Existing law (the Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening, Tracking, and
Intervention Act) requires every general acute care hospital with licensed perinatal services to offer every newborn a hearing screening test and provide written information on the availability of community resources and services for children with hearing loss to their parents.
The California Early Start Intervention Services Act (known as the Early Start program) provides various early intervention services for infants and toddlers who have disabilities to enhance their development and to minimize the potential for developmental delays.
This bill provides 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 follow-up 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.
Click here for BILL NUMBER: AB 2072
Login to post comments
April 30th, 2010 at 5:27 am
“Even though, AB 2072 is a bill about Deaf and hard of hearing people, the Assembly was not able to provide captioning for the live broadcast because Assemblymember Mendoza was not willing to allow a week to get this Americans with Disabilities Act accommodation set up. American Sign Language interpreters were provided but that still did not allow deaf and hard of hearing people the ability to access the proceeding.”
More reasons to learn ASL… I do not want to depend on machines (and people who handle machines.) What a disppointment for deaf people who did go to oral-only approach.
April 30th, 2010 at 5:32 am
Oh, I think the only think the only option they left out is the option of having no cochlear implant/hearing aids. That’s it is ok to let the child be deaf and learn ASL.
April 30th, 2010 at 6:45 am
Oh, I think the only option they left out is having no cochlear implant/hearing aids. That’s it is ok to let the child be deaf and learn ASL.
April 30th, 2010 at 7:39 am
Julie,
I wanted to thank you for providing so much information. I learned few things from it. However it does not change the fact that there is an opportunity for us to prepare a beautiful advertisement package and place ASL in a competitive environment. No where does it say that we’re not allowed to.
The real fear seem to be this…. they have more resources and funds than we do therefore we’re going to lose out. That’s the mentality I sense here. My experience in the marketing department taught me to know that competition is a good thing. It’s not a bad thing. It brings the best out of us and that’s what I wanted to see in our community. I also know, from experience, that people with least amount of resources and funds do not lose out. Underdogs in the advertisement world often wins and those that do knows the importance of strategic planning and they understand the name of the game. The name of the game is CREATIVITY. There’s a unique opportunity right now and as a community we need to realize this, quickly. The sooner the better but if you guys want to drag your feet around like that then the prospect does not look good.
Take care.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:04 am
Spencer, if Amy did her homework and received other information besides the video that Ella made, then she need to cite it.
Julie Rems-Smario, as I understand DHH coalition had its meeting with a sponsor (another assemblyman) with Mendoza and they refused to be flexible. They still want one option whereas the bill is looking at all options. BTW, I have this information from a source whom will remain unnamed at this juncture.
Angela, basically you’re right. The opposed advocates just only want ASL as language acquisition. They claim they know whats best for the parents’ deaf child because they’re deaf. But, I’m sure we also have others who are also deaf and wear CI who will also say that because they are deaf and wear CI, they also know whats best for parents’ deaf child. All options is much more fairer and unbiased.
Also, BTW, I have been getting a lot of emails due to my blog and I was told that the supporters are thrilled that DHH came to the table, they have wanted that for so long. All eyes are on DHH Coalition, can they make it work? Can they be flexible? There will be another meeting next week, lets hope that everyone can get to an agreement that is more FAIRER and UNBIASED.
*Bowing out*
April 30th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Are not CAD and NAD doing their jobs? The decision in CA may be the domino effect to many other states’ similar bills eventually. Wake up and take drastic and SMART actions!!!! Thank you
April 30th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
And you don’t think deaf people should suggest parents how to raise a deaf child? There’s nothing wrong with people being proud of being deaf. Why can’t they tell parents not to worry about their hearing so much?
April 30th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Angela, I think it is ok for anyone to offer recommendations/suggestions on views based on experience. That’s fine.
I do not think it belongs in the Bill itself. The Bill AB2072 should be unbiased because there are more than one options that works.
You’re right there is nothing wrong with ppl being proud of being deaf. Parents in general do not appreciate other “expert” telling them what to do. They just want all information to make THEIR OWN decision.
April 30th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
ummm, no one ever said they wanted to tell parents what to do. Audiologist tell parents all the time to take action NOW for CI. Isn’t that telling them what to do and biased? IF you don’t think so, then I don’t think telling parents to be proud deaf and teach them ASL NOW is biased and telling them what to do either.
April 30th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Whether you agree or disagree with the contents of the bill…ASL supporters were not involved in this at all. This is B.S….if a bill is going to affect a group of people, they need to be involved in it.
This is VERY dangerous….I did not even hear about AB 2027 until 2-3 weeks before the vote…I wrote some letters stating that I do not like things being voted on REGARDING ME without my knowledge.
This was a sneaky maneuver….and total B.S.
I am definitely going to be watching at the Senate level.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
This is what I am wondering now. If people are saying that in the past, audiologist only told parents about CI’s & listening/speaking communications and nothing else. If this bill gets passed and signed by the governor, wouldn’t that make it a violation of state law if the audiologist continued to preach on CI & listening/speaking options and nothing else, therefore subjecting the audiologist to disciplinary action regarding their license, which include revoking it?
I can understand some people may feel bummed about not being a part of the discussions within the state legislature, but it happens. Heck, I am not a part of Congressional discussions and they likely won’t allow me to be a part of their discussions, yet they raise my taxes and I don’t agree with it. But what can I do about that?
If it does turn out that the state is allowing one communication option to have significantly more exposure than other communication options, that actually opens the door to litigation the way I see it.
Perhaps the attention should be focussed on getting the actual information needed on ASL that will be passed along to parents because this bill actually makes it a law that parents get information on all communication options.
Let’s look at the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and probably still continues to this day in some areas. Most hearing parents of deaf children likely got all kinds of propaganda on oral communications, and little or no propaganda on ASL communications. This bill actually changes that the way I see it, cuz it requires parents to get info on ALL communications.
It appears that this bill will pass whether some people like it or not. It may be a wise move for this coalition of ASL based organizations and people to start discussing what information related to ASL they would like to to be printed on this information or propaganda that all audiologists in the state will be REQUIRED BY LAW (if this passes and gets signed) to give to all parents of deaf children whether they like it or not. If they prefer the listening/speaking approach, they are still required by law to give these parents information on ASL too.
April 30th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Angela, you’re right, some audiologist do give out one option but not all do. There are audiologist who will tell parents TC is best. Other audiologist will say CI is best, and so on. You get the picture, I hope? Ella Lentz made a video where she explained the goal of NHSP in CA, she wanted to have the Newborn Hearing Screening Program in CA to be reformed. They wanted to have it set up where all deaf children be taught ASL first. After the kids are fluent in ASL, they can add in other tools. There is nothing wrong with it except it should not be mandated. Because not all parents agree with it and they do have that right. This bill protects ALL modalities of communication options. It protects those parents who opt for ASL, it protects parents who opts for CI, etc. The bill is not about what is better or what works. The bill is about making sure all parents are given information on all options which includes ASL/bibi, CI/AVT, Cued Speech etc. After all, there are more than one way to be deaf.
April 30th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
The same group of people involved in NHSP reform in CA are the very same who are opposing the bill. I suggest you read my blog to understand where I am coming from. You may not agree, and that is ok.
April 30th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Whats more, I was told by a very reliable source that on 4/22/2010, everyone knew that the vote will take place on 4/29/10 even Ella and all the ASL opposition. They all knew.
April 30th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
*ASL supporters who oppose the bill (not, ASL opposition).
April 30th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
What happened to all of the other comments here?
May 1st, 2010 at 9:28 am
About deaf with CI — sorry, they already have someone speaking out for them. Hearing people who support CI and oral-only
May 1st, 2010 at 9:31 am
Candy, that’s not what I mean. I do not mean “they will give out one option”
I mean they will FAVORED one option. Even with this bill, they still FAVORED it, and treat the rest as “blah, blah, blah” because of the law
May 1st, 2010 at 10:12 am
What are the legal arguments or bases that can be used to initiate a legal action against the State of California? I ask because I could not think of anything that violates any laws in the state or the state and federal constitutions. Just because a group of people is not involved directly in the legislative process is not enough to initiate a legal action. That is because these people already have the representatives in the process.
I also am not pleased to see that some groups of the deaf people were not invited to the process of amending the current law. But then, I have a theory why they were not invited. It is possible that the organizations supporting the original bill concluded that it might be impossible to reach a compromise with the organizations that opposed the original bill. Very often during any political process, compromises have to be made between the parties that do not wholly agree on the issues. But, the position of the organizations and people opposing the bill apparently was not flexible enough to accommodate the wish of the organizations and people supporting the bill. It all takes a look at the rhetoric and language that the opponents used to vilify the supporters of the bill. How can the supporters work with the opponents if they continue to be vilified?
The technologies for hearing including cochlear implant continue to improve. These technologies enable some or few parents and their deaf and hard-of-hearing babies to forgo the need to have ASL for communication and language development. Some or few oralists who grew up without the technologies (say, before 1990) were amazed at how effective these technologies are. They wished that these technologies were available to them when they were young. Should the parents of deaf and hard-of-hearing babies be informed of an option where they can use the technologies without including ASL in the communication and language development? The supporters of the original bill would answer affirmatively and I agree with them (I am all for parental rights). But, it is pretty obvious that the opponents do not want the parents to know that such option exists and based on my observation, they refuse to be flexible enough to allow such option to exist. Herein lies the conflict.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
May 1st, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Do people even know the con of having hearing aids/ cochlear implants. Lifetime attachment to to machine. Cost of batteries, upgrades, etc. Plus more discriminations toward deaf people who don’t use CI/HA in workplace and school.
May 1st, 2010 at 1:40 pm
And, they will not be able to function without ASL if their processor got lost or something.
May 1st, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Angela,
The AB 2072 is NOT about what works and doesn’t work, it’s about allowing parents a choice of options, not just one option only.
The parents can choose more than option, if they believe the child will benefit from more than one option. For example, parents can choose CI and AVT for their child, and also ASL.
May 1st, 2010 at 4:01 pm
So you mean, no one has to put pro/con of other options?
oh and is it true that a parent can’t change her mind after she make her choice. I don’t know what the deal with that or what it mean.
May 2nd, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Amy
Thank you for putting out the facts re: disenfranchisement in CA
Julie, Shari, Ella and all the other CA folks who are working hard to show the truth behind this situation – THANK YOU for all u r doing
what can we do to help and be of support?
Issues as i see them are:
- audism – the belief that to hear and speak is superior to being Deaf is written all over this bill
- linguicism – the belief that one language (in this case English) is superior to another (in this case ASL)
the options the bill is proposing should be broken down to:
English only and bilingualism /biculturalism
the English only options (oral / aural only, CI/AVT, Cued Speech, SEE, etc) are routed in exclusionary practices – they exclude ASL diligently
the Bilingual / Bicultural option includes ASL (a natural and fully accessible language for Deaf children) and English (written, spoken, etc)
it does not EXCLUDE
so where is the options in the oral only repetoire?
Why are NOT Deaf folks – the product of Deaf education and “early interventions” not being consulted????
why are meetings behind closed doors?
what’s wrong with this picture?
thank u again amy
peace
patti
PS: the Holism – u sure u dont want to try to sell us some holy water while u r tooting ur horn as a good and “effective” salesman? You forget that most of us are the products of “effective”ness and we are very aware of your track record
May 2nd, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Let’s make it simple for the sake of everyone’s confusion about this bill. I support AB 2072 and I’m willing to make a donation to establish a new non-profit program for early sign language acquisition in the State of California franchising sister organizations as GLAD, NORCAL, etc. to meet parents about the benefits of Sign Language as bilingual approach.
My son’s first language was ASL. Now, he’s bilingual. Parents will be motivated to learn sign language and accessibility to take courses/training, etc. just like in Arizona for the last couple of years.
May 2nd, 2010 at 4:39 pm
No, not true that a parent can’t change her mind. Choice doesn’t mean that parents HAVE to go with only one option, they can choose another or use a combo of two options, if they believe it will help their child.
As I said above, AB 2072 is NOT about pro’s and con’s, not about what works or doesn’t work, it’s about giving parents information about all options, including ASL.
May 2nd, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Hey Russell E.!
Nice to seeing you to stop by and left a comment right here.
Did you see Carl S. aka Kalalau52’s vlog, “Tony Mendoza and Deaf Bunny Scandal?” He was talking about you!
Mr. Badu Bhatt from “Seinfeld” said that Carl S. is a very, very, bad boy. He was doing his finger wiggly — back and forth.
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm/73763584/nm0313364
Sorry if it’s the off of the point, Amy.
May 2nd, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Sorry, here is the right link….
http://ubereye.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/dream-cafe.jpg
You can see Badu Bhatt’s finger wagging.
May 2nd, 2010 at 9:42 pm
hi russell
ill take your donation – how much is it for?
thanks
peace
patti
May 3rd, 2010 at 11:07 am
Patti,
My donation is four digits plus free web hosting and web content. Testimodals on videos of babies who are deaf or hearing.
Everything has to be professional and unbaised.
It’s a no brainer to sieze the moment with AB 2072.
May 3rd, 2010 at 11:17 am
White Ghost,
I’m aware of it and take it as a grain of salt. It’s a smear tactics…it will not help at all. They just throwing dirt without compromising about AB 2072. It’s like having a long term relationship when you decided to break up, he or she reacts like there’s no tomorrow.
People are smart enough to know the difference.
Thanks for your concern.
May 3rd, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Russell E!
You’re welcome!
Kalalau52 continues to talk about you….the latest:
“Russell Errigo’s Business License: Deaf Bunny”
I just don’t understand about him for doing the motivation speaker on “Hate Crime.”
Sorry,again, Amy if this is the off-the-point. I won’t do it again.
May 3rd, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Russell
four digits
oh that is too low my friend
i have seen ur websites and hosting – oh dear no thanks – i dont think the mommies and daddies would like for the “unbiased” material to be associated with such a sponsor or financier.
Of course we could all just google the word “oral” images or video and be shocked out of our pants.
best wishes with trying to get something going with ur 4 digits.
re: the bill – there is a discussion going on over in Shel, Deaf Canadian’s vlog in which Shel is contributing to the discourse in-depth in case folks care to stay on topic
Amy – i too apologize for going off topic a bit. I was hoping for a better offer, dang.
Much peace
Patti
May 4th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Patti,
Then, why can’t you do it? Hosting cost 4 bucks a month and printing full color high quality tri fold brochure cost 500 bucks for 10,000 prints. This packet goes to all hospitals and audiologist.
Did you know that audiologist agree signing as early language helps to expedite the speech skills. Have you asked them,yet?
If no one is doing it, then I’ll do it right after the govenor signs the bill.
May 4th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
no more chit chat from me as this is Amy’s blog and she done good
as have all the CA folks who have been standing tall and working hard on this one
(and since i dont really understand who i am supposed to have asked yet???)
thanks again amy and adios R
peace
p
May 5th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Deaf leaders failed to read Assembly rulings about interpreter. It is required to asK for interpreter in advance of 4 days ahead. They did not bother to look up Assembly rulings and demanded interpreter in last minutes…
May 14th, 2010 at 6:26 am
Silentone15 ,
I agreed with you , was thinking same thing . Why didnt they ask for interpreter in advanced of 4 days ahead or so ?
GoatMan aka Travis
June 24th, 2010 at 2:42 am
I am aware that this will upset you…but where does it end?
Should deaf, dumb, blind, quadriplegic, special needs humans be making decisions about what the rest of us do?
If you say yes…then should humans “limited in intellectual or emotional development” be allowed to care for children by themselves??? or drive??? or fly airplanes???
There is a difference between being a hateful and prejudiced mean person and realizing the limitations of certain individuals.
Having said that…I am certain that deaf humans can be taught to read and vote…I “can hear”, and I only vote by reading who or what needs to be voted on…the deaf are no different!