Mendoza Legislation AB2072 Nudges California Back to Eugenics

Do you honestly think the audiologists will include ASL, Baby Sign, and/or School for the Deaf as options along with CI, cued speech or oral approach in their brochures to parents of Deaf child?

The answer is NO! I am telling you the truth based on true stories by two of my friends.

They told me that they went to two different audiologists in different cities because they had Deaf babies. Their audiologists did NOT offer ASL, mainstream program or school for the Deaf as options! One of my friends asked her audiologist about ASL, mainstream program and school for the Deaf and she told her that they were not included.

My second friend asked his audiologist about these three approaches and knew what his audiologist did. He got out of his office and called the Ontario Ministry of Health about the options in the reception area! My friend got so disgusted by what was going on until the audiologist came back to tell him that the options could be included.
 
Royale said:
Do you honestly think the audiologists will include ASL, Baby Sign, and/or School for the Deaf as options along with CI, cued speech or oral approach in their brochures to parents of Deaf child?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what the bill is? It requires them to provide all information.
 
Did there list of the name who are in charge of creating this bill? what kind of a majority of what kind of those people are?

No I have not look at the list because I am tired.
 
Audiologist probably eventually get around to discussing communication options.... after they fit HA/CI. Is there a time limit for them? are they going to discuss something they are not an expert on or just hand out papers? Hey, I even wanted doctors to talk about ASL to parents during checkup, but people told me that doctors do not need to be discussing this sort of thing (but at the same time, they do discuss childrearing and upbringing the child during well baby checkup).
 
Last edited:
When the bill was written, it had oralism in mind. These people think their solution to their original "4th grade reading" problems of deaf people is CI and AVT. I think parents should see a counselor or some kind of social worker soon as they find out their child might be deaf, to let them know what are the next steps, what they can do in the meanwhile while waiting for confirmation that they are deaf, etc.
Click to expand...
It DOES seem that a lot of parents chose oral only based on the assumption that oral kids are higher acheiving.
They think deaf=ASL methodology, and that ASL and Deaf Schools have caused the low reading levels. They don't realize that deaf=ALL deaf kids. They also don't realize that a big part of the supposed higher acheivment levels have to do with a lot of kids coming from very high overacheiver families.
Hearing parents really do need intense counseling. So many decisions are based on the grief that hearing parents have of having a kid with disabilites. " Oh oral only means my little kid won't need "special needs" stuff.
And Wee Beastie, I think a binder filled with information and life stories would be AWESOME!
 
The bill (AB2072) is actually an amendment to an existing law and makes it better because the State was getting sued occasionally. The bill simply mandates that all communication options will be provided to all parents' babies with hearing loss. The audiologists license will be ripped or he/she be censured if he/she does all the things the bill's detractors say he/she will really do. Can't get any simpler than that. The legislators HAVE to pass this bill for the reason stated above.
 
what they were suing about? No CI? AVT? are they suing about the Audiologist? TOD? (at least I know who, I thought maybe the organization). I can't imagine hearing parents suing over ASL. It's just not their nature in my opinion. I mean they will regret it, but I just can't imagine they would sue the state over it (they wouldn't sue oralism either after they regret, but before, they probably would).

They find oralism more at stake than ASL.

--->IMHO <----
 
Bottesini said:
Parents who were not getting complete information, and felt they were given bad advice.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right, Botti, under the current law and AB2072 is an amendment to that law, shoring it up. Thank you
 
A said:
what they were suing about? No CI? AVT? are they suing about the Audiologist? TOD? (at least I know who, I thought maybe the organization). I can't imagine hearing parents suing over ASL. It's just not their nature in my opinion. I mean they will regret it, but I just can't imagine they would sue the state over it (they wouldn't sue oralism either after they regret, but before, they probably would).

They find oralism more at stake than ASL.

--->IMHO <----
Click to expand...

Has it occurred to you that maybe an ASL advocate sued? I don't know the facts but that seems just as logical...
 
Maybe. I don't know. But I thought Mendoza said he made the AB2027 bill because he felt deaf children are falling behind.I don't remember reading about parents are suing. Unless you are trying to say hehe wanted to keep the old bill because children are falling behind but amend it because people are suing. It is also logical they may not be suing about ASL because I've heard about people complaining that audiologists don't mention CI (The ones where I live do not specialized CI at all. you have to drive about three hours) It could be anything.

Or they could be suing that the TOD are biased.
 
A said:
Maybe. I don't know. But I thought Mendoza said he made the AB2027 bill because he felt deaf children are falling behind.I don't remember reading about parents are suing. Unless you are trying to say hehe wanted to keep the old bill because children are falling behind but amend it because people are suing. It is also logical they may not be suing about ASL because I've heard about people complaining that audiologists don't mention CI (The ones where I live do not specialized CI at all. you have to drive about three hours) It could be anything.

Or they could be suing that the TOD are biased.
Click to expand...

No, most of what you are saying has nothing to do with the bill. This is not about what works, educationally. It is only about providing parents with ALL communication options which includes ASL, oralism, AVT, Cued, etc and let the parents decide which options or combination of options they would like for their child. That is all, nothing more.
 
If you can find me informations what inspired him to have this bill introduced and passed, It will help me. Because I am not finding anything really other than word of mouth. While it make sense, but I don't know the background or history of this bill. While it does sound fine that the audiologist hand out brochures and all but I think there are deaf professionals who need to be heard and know what this bill is about than I do.

I do know that audiologist can be very biased with their own opinion. I once ask an audiologist who fit HA only about CI. He told me not to get the permanent type.. and that I should try the removable type.( He had the right idea because I was an adult and it may not have worked out for me but it turn out ok.) I could easily sue him for that if it was my child and I was living in CA. Unless they aren't require to include CI vs. HA in the bill.. just communication options. -----> http://www.communicatewithyourchild.org/brochures/cwyc_english.pdf (keep in mind, this pdf is not in page number order. You have to print it out and fold it or something.)
 
Last edited:
If the bill required specific referral information to be included in the binder distributed to parents, such as referrals not just to surgeons, etc., but to bi-bi schools, TOD's, deaf advocates, etc. then I could see where it would be helpful. But it would have to be much more specific than it is now.
 
Back
Top