Miss-Delectable
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 17,160
- Reaction score
- 7
Deaf activists oppose California bill that would develop brochure for parents - McClatchy Network - Kentucky.com
It's strong language to accuse a state assemblyman of pushing a "eugenics" bill that could threaten deaf people.
But in an emotionally charged fight, California deaf activists have invoked the word as they battle a bill that could pass the state Legislature within a week.
Tony Mendoza, a Democrat from Artesia, near Los Angeles, said he has been surprised at how vehement deaf opposition is to his Assembly Bill 2072.
The proposal's intent, he said, is to create a 13-person panel to develop an informational brochure to be given to every deaf newborn's parents.
Right now, Mendoza said, the distribution of information is "very haphazard."
Parents have complained to him, he said, that they were not briefed on various options to try to help their child develop speech during the critical years up to age 5.
The brochure would explain a range of options, Mendoza said, including "cochlear implants," high-tech devices surgically implanted and also worn outside the ear that allow the brain, with training, to hear degrees of sound.
Mendoza said that he realizes that his bill has touched a raw nerve within the deaf culture - a community that rejects deafness as a defect, and embraces American Sign Language as a full language best learned starting at infancy.
"There is no cure for deafness. Accept that, please," said Sheri Farinha, chief executive officer of NorCal Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
Farinha and others say that deaf groups were not consulted during the bill's drafting. And they're upset that the 13-member panel includes only two specific spots for deaf people.
Mendoza said that he's reached out to activists, but he feels "they've chosen not to be at the table."
Farinha and activists with the California Association of the Deaf, which also opposes the bill, said they're suspicious that the bill's real aim is to promote implants.
They object to the inclusion of medical specialists on the panel who they suspect will promote the devices heavily.
They point to a private foundation's brochure for parents of newborns that was considered a possible model for California's own pamphlet.
It features implants prominently and includes only three sentences on sign language.
The emphasis on the importance of trying to get children to hear - by implanting devices - the activists say, is for them an echo of a bitter past.
They're reminded, they say, of a time when followers of eugenics - a belief that some races are inferior - advocated against the disabled having children.
Implant manufacturers "exploit grieving parents," Farinha also said, as she spoke through an interpreter.
She thinks implants offer parents "false hope" that their children will hear and speak fluent English and won't need sign language.
She knows frustrated teens, she said, who want to learn sign language late because implants didn't help them communicate as well as they thought.
Licia King, a supporter of Mendoza's bill, has a different story.
The Orangevale parent of 6-year-old deaf twin girls said it was a family friend - not health professionals - who first told her about implants.
She said the twins each had their first implant done at age 1, and last year, after years of training in a special school, they exceeded state academic standards in a regular kindergarten.
"It is a miracle," King said. She said that, so far, the girls are very verbal, and one of them is interested in music.
King said she appreciates the concerns of deaf activists who want to protect sign language, but she believes parents have a right to a choice.
"I would have been one very angry, angry, angry parent,"she said, "had I found this out too late."
Mendoza said he's trying to work on amendments to the bill to reach consensus before it goes to the Senate floor for a vote. The Assembly has approved it.
It's strong language to accuse a state assemblyman of pushing a "eugenics" bill that could threaten deaf people.
But in an emotionally charged fight, California deaf activists have invoked the word as they battle a bill that could pass the state Legislature within a week.
Tony Mendoza, a Democrat from Artesia, near Los Angeles, said he has been surprised at how vehement deaf opposition is to his Assembly Bill 2072.
The proposal's intent, he said, is to create a 13-person panel to develop an informational brochure to be given to every deaf newborn's parents.
Right now, Mendoza said, the distribution of information is "very haphazard."
Parents have complained to him, he said, that they were not briefed on various options to try to help their child develop speech during the critical years up to age 5.
The brochure would explain a range of options, Mendoza said, including "cochlear implants," high-tech devices surgically implanted and also worn outside the ear that allow the brain, with training, to hear degrees of sound.
Mendoza said that he realizes that his bill has touched a raw nerve within the deaf culture - a community that rejects deafness as a defect, and embraces American Sign Language as a full language best learned starting at infancy.
"There is no cure for deafness. Accept that, please," said Sheri Farinha, chief executive officer of NorCal Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
Farinha and others say that deaf groups were not consulted during the bill's drafting. And they're upset that the 13-member panel includes only two specific spots for deaf people.
Mendoza said that he's reached out to activists, but he feels "they've chosen not to be at the table."
Farinha and activists with the California Association of the Deaf, which also opposes the bill, said they're suspicious that the bill's real aim is to promote implants.
They object to the inclusion of medical specialists on the panel who they suspect will promote the devices heavily.
They point to a private foundation's brochure for parents of newborns that was considered a possible model for California's own pamphlet.
It features implants prominently and includes only three sentences on sign language.
The emphasis on the importance of trying to get children to hear - by implanting devices - the activists say, is for them an echo of a bitter past.
They're reminded, they say, of a time when followers of eugenics - a belief that some races are inferior - advocated against the disabled having children.
Implant manufacturers "exploit grieving parents," Farinha also said, as she spoke through an interpreter.
She thinks implants offer parents "false hope" that their children will hear and speak fluent English and won't need sign language.
She knows frustrated teens, she said, who want to learn sign language late because implants didn't help them communicate as well as they thought.
Licia King, a supporter of Mendoza's bill, has a different story.
The Orangevale parent of 6-year-old deaf twin girls said it was a family friend - not health professionals - who first told her about implants.
She said the twins each had their first implant done at age 1, and last year, after years of training in a special school, they exceeded state academic standards in a regular kindergarten.
"It is a miracle," King said. She said that, so far, the girls are very verbal, and one of them is interested in music.
King said she appreciates the concerns of deaf activists who want to protect sign language, but she believes parents have a right to a choice.
"I would have been one very angry, angry, angry parent,"she said, "had I found this out too late."
Mendoza said he's trying to work on amendments to the bill to reach consensus before it goes to the Senate floor for a vote. The Assembly has approved it.
Not in this lifetime, but I do see where that is coming into play at times.
