I can't decide whether I created a ruckus or whether it was already there unnecessarily...could someone please tell me what is wrong with this? I think it's pretty remarkable if you ask me...(thanks for the link:-)) We're lightyears away from anything like this in Italy..
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
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 be provided written or electronic information from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders on American Sign Language (ASL), Total Communication, Cued Speech, and Listening and Spoken Language 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 at a follow up appointment after diagnosis with a hearing loss.
(2) By a local provider for the Early Start Program, provided for pursuant to the California Early Intervention Services Act (Title 14 (commencing with Section 95000) of the Government Code) upon initial contact with the parents of a newborn or infant newly diagnosed with a hearing loss.
(b) Neither the state , nor an audiologist, nor an Early Start Program provider , shall incur any cost for the implementation of this section.
Why all the fuss?
10 comments:
Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought -- "Why the fuss?" It doesn't seem like it's pushing anyone's agenda at the expense of anyone else's, just mandating some uniformity. I guess some people are concerned that any mandated contact with an audiologist is a promotion of oralism, and it's true that audiologists are more concerned with providing access to sound than total language acquisition. On the other hand, just about *every* identified child is going to be referred to an audiologist immediately anyway (and only a really radical "no sound, no voice, only sign" proponent would be opposed to this), so an audiologist is a logical point-of-contact for disseminating this information. Anyway, thanks for inviting the comments and making room for the discussion.
The fuss is that they didn't like those big bad audiologists being the first/primary sources of education/contact because they (those horrible, mean audiologists) view deafness as a pathology, and not something that should be celebrated. They want all deaf babies to have ASL from the start, and not be concerned with things like cochlear implants.
Although they SAY they want neutral info being given to parents, they really only want ASL info being given to them.
Yea..all ado about nothing.
However, recently the Senate Health Committee had a meeting to try to get some collaboration and amendment added so that the bill would have collaborative effort in it. AB2072 proponents still got what they wanted, but what was added/modified was to change the oversight from Dept Health to Dept of Education, add the wording: ASL instead of visual language and to clarify audiologists role to only give out information. So, all in all, I think it's a win win for everyone. The amendment has yet to appear pending rules and appropriation committee's approval and then it goes to the Senate for a vote on the floor and then finaly to Arnold for his signature.
Bottom line, ensuring all parens are given information on all communication options (including ASL) still stands.
It is a good bill, I agree! :)
Sorry Candy, it's not quite that simple.
Resolution of Differences
If a bill is amended in the second house, it must go back to the house of origin for concurrence, which is agreement on the amendments. If agreement cannot be reached, the bill is referred to a two house conference committee to resolve differences. Three members of the committee are from the Senate and three are from the Assembly. If a compromise is reached, the bill is returned to both houses for a vote.
Governor
If both houses approve a bill, it then goes to the Governor. The Governor has three choices. The Governor can sign the bill into law, allow it to become law without his or her signature, or veto it. A governor's veto can be overridden by a two thirds vote in both houses. Most bills go into effect on the first day of January of the next year. Urgency measures take effect immediately after they are signed or allowed to become law without signature.
Thank you, anonymous for being specific. I'm not well versed with all the details of where the bill goes.
Here is my latest blog posting -
http://robertmason.blogspot.com/2010/06/radical-founding-fathers-mcconnell.html
Candy,
We know that you are not well versed with all the details of where the bill goes.
And also we know that you are not well versed with all the aspect of the AB2072 Bill and yet you go around tell the public what you are assuming. That is not very smart thing to do.
Candy, please be humble.
Anonymous, I have backed up everything I said with documents. I am not from California, ergo, I don't know too much about their legislative process but I do know a lot about the bill because not only did I spend a lot of time reading, researching, double checking facts, but also received a lot of excellent information from several people. I am humble, as you can see, I thanked you for providing information about where the bill will be going next. :)
The problem with people is if they don't like the bill and they don't agree with the bill, they are entitled, however, for some reason they felt they had to resort to childish behavior. All they had to say was, I disagree and I would have respected that.
Candy,
Your source is Barry Sewell, Mike McConnell, White Ghost. They are not from California and you are not from California.
These people are not reliable.
Candy,
Just so you know there is more than one Anonymous on this site. I gave you the info on where the bill will go but that is all. Like what you have to say, keep us informed where ever you live.
Post a Comment