Deaf advocates rally against Mendoza screening bill

[Miss-Delectable]

Capitol Weekly: Deaf advocates rally against Mendoza screening bill

AB 2072, sponsored by Assembly Member of Tony Mendoza, has met with serious criticism and opposition from deaf-advocacy groups, including the National Association of the Deaf, American Society for Deaf Children, California Association of the Deaf and several others. They believe the bill both inspires disdain against learning American Sign Language and treats California’s deaf children as a commodity.

The bill passed in the Senate Human Services Committee on Wednesday. It would have every hospital with licensed perinatal services offer every infant a hearing test, then provide information on community resources to the parents of the diagnosed child. AB 2072 would also allow parents with a diagnosed deaf child to get an appointment from an audiologist and receive information about treatment.

The bill is supported by a group called the California Coalition, which includes audiologists and two schools focusing on teaching deaf children to listen and talk, Oralingua and CCHAT. It’s also supported by several outside organizations, including Disability Rights California. It was heard by the Senate Health Committee on Wednesday, though the outcome of a vote wasn’t known as of press time.

Many in the deaf community, led by a group called the California Deaf Newborn Identification Advocacy Stakeholders, see the bill as a move against American Sign Language, in favor of surgical, hearing aid, or ‘oralist’ solutions to deafness. They note that AB 2072’s supporters, such as Oralingua and CCHAT, are for-profit organizations, and not advocates for the deaf and ASL. Opponents have also argued that the bill as written is basically a promotion for coclear implants, which won’t benefit all-hearing impaired children, and can come at the expense of deaf children learning sign language early in life.

Numerous organizations have attacked AB 2072 as commercializing the treatment of the deaf, not providing parents enough information to make an informed decision, and playing into the pockets of audiologists and oralist schools. The fact that no information from deaf-advocacy and consumer-advocate groups would be distributed to the parents is seen as a move by audiologists to gain more customers.

In 2008, the California Coalition, then called OptionSchools attempted to have similar legislation introduced by Assembly Member Dave Jones, but he turned them down. State Senator Pat Wiggins was also approached by OptionSchools in early 2009, but did not give them support.

 

[jillio]

Many reputable organizations are expressing concern with this bill. And yet, there are those that refuse to see the implications.

 

[kokonut]

Senator Alquist, chair, had this to say:

Alquist: Thank you. We have 5 members here, that establishes the quorum. So this means that we will be able to vote on this bill when we are through with the discussion on the last bill which was speaker Perez, and then all the bills that will follow. Some of the conclusions we came to, and the process that we used, number 1, we decided that the authority for this procedure needs to be within the department of DDS, Department of Developmental Services, rather than the Department of Education. The reason I have this strong belief, is because I think DDS is best qualified in a timely, and I know that you all don’t agree with me. I believe that DDS is best qualified to be of support in these beginning years, with a child who is deaf. Second, what the bill really does, is to say that there needs to be a brochure that is better than the brochure put out by the federal government. A brochure that gives unbiased, and complete information, on all the options in one pamphlet, available to parents who, all of a sudden, don’t know where to go and want to know what options they have. It does not exclude anything, it would be objective, and this advisory committee would be established in a way that no one group would be in majority, and that there would be fair and equal balance for all people, including with American Sign Language. Which we know is in great use, and extremely valuable. I do believe that on a brochure, and we sort of crunched the time so that what we’ve said to Mr. Mendoza is that, okay, we’re going to establish this advisory committee, whatever recommendation comes out from this committee will be given to DDS. DDS will still have the authority to put in the brochure, and I will be peering over their shoulders as a good Greek yaya, a Greek grandmother, I will look to see that it is fair, objective, and that it is information that parents can use. Now, on this committee will be representatives from American Sign Language, also representatives from those who believe in Cochlear Implants, and those who believe in anything else that has to do with helping parents figure out how to best help their children. Because it is the parents’ responsibility, with good information, to do that. We have said to assembly man Mendoza, that should the bill become law, and I have no idea if it’s getting out of this committee, it may die in this committee, but I do think the issue needs to be resolved in a fair way, for the sake of the babies.

That, should the bill get out of committee, should it get out of both houses, should it be signed into law, those are a lot of shoulds, that there would be 12 months, during which, a source of funding would need to be established, which is not in conflict with any view. So it would have to be, not in conflict, with the result of then, then within another 12 month period, creating the brochure. We don’t want any conflict of interest, we want American Sign Language, we want those who believe in Cochlear, and everyone else to be able to look at this and say, yes, this benefits babies. This effects their quality of lives, this helps parents, who may not know where to go, get good information. And I would say, that if the brochure is objective, which it will be, should all the shoulds fall into place, if the information is objective, then we shouldn’t be concerned so much with who hands the brochure out. We may disagree on that, but I have a strong feeling about that, I’m also a former teacher, a former school counselor. And like you, I want what is in the best interest of the families, and of the babies, who will become adults, and we need them to function well in our society.

Holism: Complete Transcript of AB 2072 Hearing

The bill will pass and eventually signed, imo.

 

[jillio]

And that is exactly what the deaf advocates are asking for. Assurrance that information will be distributed with equal value.