AB2072 passed

It's comical that now some deaf people who opposed AB2072 are claiming victory!

That shows how cognitively dissonant they are. They lost. They don't EVEN know why they really oppose it - they have their ulterior motive which is "don't make them hearing.. make them go to deaf schools... learn ASL... anything else is bad..."

"Moving this to the Dept of Education and away from Disabilities or Mental Health...wherever it resided before."

But you see, deafness IS a disability that deserves special intervention. The earlier, the better the intervention is - no matter what the approach is.
 
netrox said:
It's comical that now some deaf people who opposed AB2072 are claiming victory!

That shows how cognitively dissonant they are. They lost. They don't EVEN know why they really oppose it - they have their ulterior motive which is "don't make them hearing.. make them go to deaf schools... learn ASL... anything else is bad..."

"Moving this to the Dept of Education and away from Disabilities or Mental Health...wherever it resided before."

But you see, deafness IS a disability that deserves special intervention. The earlier, the better the intervention is - no matter what the approach is.
Click to expand...

Just quoting it so that people will have to read it twice :D
 
netrox said:
It's comical that now some deaf people who opposed AB2072 are claiming victory!

That shows how cognitively dissonant they are. They lost. They don't EVEN know why they really oppose it - they have their ulterior motive which is "don't make them hearing.. make them go to deaf schools... learn ASL... anything else is bad..."

"Moving this to the Dept of Education and away from Disabilities or Mental Health...wherever it resided before."

But you see, deafness IS a disability that deserves special intervention. The earlier, the better the intervention is - no matter what the approach is.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a disability but the real issue is education and the kids will be better off for it.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Here is a simple question so I'd understand both sides better.

For those who are anti-AB2072, would you okay the bill if 80% of the brochure starting from the beginning talked about ASL, Deaf culture, and deaf schools?
Click to expand...

I would like to see language that would provide for equal representation of options, and that limits the audis scope of practice. I would like to see the remainder of this bill moved from one of medical to educational.
 
faire_jour said:
It's crap and it makes you look like a fool. If you start with that garbage, even if you have good points, people won't listen.
Click to expand...

Hahah, but the people that count did! You are not really listening to something that is also good for your child and is aligned with what you want for her. I am spending too much time with you as it is all right there.
 
netrox said:
It's comical that now some deaf people who opposed AB2072 are claiming victory!

That shows how cognitively dissonant they are. They lost. They don't EVEN know why they really oppose it - they have their ulterior motive which is "don't make them hearing.. make them go to deaf schools... learn ASL... anything else is bad..."

"Moving this to the Dept of Education and away from Disabilities or Mental Health...wherever it resided before."

But you see, deafness IS a disability that deserves special intervention. The earlier, the better the intervention is - no matter what the approach is.
Click to expand...

Interventions do not necessarily fall under the auspices of mental health or medicine. That holds true for all disabilities, not just deafness. Particularly early intervention programs. They should be under the auspices of education.
 
Tousi said:
Hahah, but the people that count did! You are not really listening to something that is also good for your child and is aligned with what you want for her. I am spending too much time with you as it is all right there.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think that they didn't get what they wanted, because what they wanted was to kill the bill.

Perhaps there are been some changes, but no one has seen them yet and I doubt they were of any consequence.
 
faire_jour said:
I disagree, I think that they didn't get what they wanted, because what they wanted was to kill the bill.

Perhaps there are been some changes, but no one has seen them yet and I doubt they were of any consequence.
Click to expand...

Like Tousi said, you are not really listening. You are approaching this from the me vs. them perspective.
 
jillio said:
I would like to see language that would provide for equal representation of options, and that limits the audis scope of practice. I would like to see the remainder of this bill moved from one of medical to educational.
Click to expand...

Senator Gloria Romero addresses this in her comments and thoughts regarding the bill. She notices, or actually stated she knows for sure that there is an indisputable involvement with audiologists and fiscal revenue associated with the enactment.
 
faire_jour said:
I disagree, I think that they didn't get what they wanted, because what they wanted was to kill the bill.

Perhaps there are been some changes, but no one has seen them yet and I doubt they were of any consequence.
Click to expand...

So you are saying they, AFTER dropping the KILL THE BILL stance, making some inroads, AND leaving your ALL OPTIONS intact, are not doing enough? Well, there's still time to negotiate/refine, etc that will be good for all.
 
naisho said:
Senator Gloria Romero addresses this in her comments and thoughts regarding the bill. She notices, or actually stated she knows for sure that there is an indisputable involvement with audiologists and fiscal revenue associated with the enactment.
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw that in the video. I was happy to see her make that clear. Now, lets get it transferred to black and white in the bill itself.
 
netrox said:
But who is to decide what's best? Parents or you?
Click to expand...

Parents are not being denied the opportunity to decide what they think is best. The issue is whether they are being given information from an objective source that actually allows them to make that decision vs. being given information from a biased source that prevents them making a fully informed decision.
 
Tousi said:
So you are saying they, AFTER dropping the KILL THE BILL stance, making some inroads, AND leaving your ALL OPTIONS intact, are not doing enough? Well, there's still time to negotiate/refine, etc that will be good for all.
Click to expand...

They only dropped it after they lost the vote.
 
Interesting to a change in direction from those who were vociferously against this bill. The one lone Senator, Glorio Romero, voted against this bill is the same person who lobbied for the anti-AB2072 crowd on their behalf. Now, if the anti-AB2072 crowd is crowing victory for having to somehow changed some of the amendments then why did Senator Romero voted against the bill in the first place? If the changes were "successfully" made in the amendment to the satisfaction of anti-AB2072 protesters why did Romero voted against the bill?

It doesn't make sense. The only thing that make sense on their sudden turnabout is to save face by declaring this a victory even though their own "lobbyist" Senator Romero voted against the bill in the first place.

This is a bill that's worth saving. It's a bill worth the effort in getting down the specifics so that all parties could adequately agree to the changes or additions, and move forward. This is an opportunity for ASL supporters and I recognized that ever since this controversal bill came to my attention. It simply makes sense to provide information on ALL communication options for parents of newborn babies diagnosed with hearing loss.
 
faire_jour said:
They only dropped it after they lost the vote.
Click to expand...

Again, why does that matter? The point is, they got the attention they needed to get the bill revised. How, when, and why is not the issue, unless you are looking at this from a standpoint of doing battle just to prove your superiority to the advocates. That is what got the audis in trouble in this bill. Take a lesson from them.
 
kokonut said:
Interesting to a change in direction from those who were vociferously against this bill. The one lone Senator, Glorio Romero, voted against this bill is the same person who lobbied for the anti-AB2072 crowd on their behalf. Now, if the anti-AB2072 crowd is crowing victory for having to somehow changed some of the amendments then why did Senator Romero voted against the bill in the first place? If the changes were "successfully" made in the amendment to the satisfaction of anti-AB2072 protesters why did Romero voted against the bill?

It doesn't make sense. The only thing that make sense on their sudden turnabout is to save face by declaring this a victory even though their own "lobbyist" Senator Romero voted against the bill in the first place.

This is a bill that's worth saving. It's a bill worth the effort in getting down the specifics so that all parties could adequately agree to the changes or additions, and move forward. This is an opportunity for ASL supporters and I recognized that ever since this controversal bill came to my attention. It simply makes sense to provide information on ALL communication options for parents of newborn babies diagnosed with hearing loss.
Click to expand...

It makes plenty of sense. Take the time to educate yourself on the sequence of events.
 
Back
Top