Friday, June 25, 2010

Analysis of the Original Supporters of AB2072

Why were the original supporters OK with the original AB2072 before it was amended with 3 demands made by the coalition who worked with the health committee in the Senate. Let's see why....


RLM said...

Not able to view your entire video. It got stopped.

TKY you for the vlog posting.

I am going to post the blog posting this weekend about Joseph Kennedy and the AB 2072 bill to make the same parallel what the California Coalition tried to do. Okay?


Deaf Tea Lady said...

Shoot. I viewed it and it did briefly pause but continue after a sec or two.

Ok. Will keep eye on your next blog.

Candy said...

The original AB2072 was never meant to be passed as it is. If you had read all of my posts regarding this you will notice that the backing of AB2072 only wanted two things: to make sure parents get ALL communication option as information (including ASL) and that they wanted a collaborative effort. They knew that the bill needed additional amendments in order to have a collaborative effort. They sought collaborative effort. They had NO intention to pass the bill as it is. Read my plant a seed post and other post related to this, you'll see that I've repeatedly said, collaborate with them, work with them and be creative! It was my message to them (Which I had gotten from Elisa Roche (one of parent who approached Mendoza to write the bill) to encourage opposition to work with Mendoza to improve the bill. And, since the meeting prior to the Senate Health Commitee, the came up with three things, CDE as oversight, ASL instead of visual language and clarification on audiologists role. So, they were very happy because that bill now has a collaborate effort in it. That is the part many deaf people seem to not realize or understand that the bill was never meant to be passed originally in the original state. That is why we said it is a good bill to improve on. It did not needed to be killed, but improved on and that is EXACTLY what Mendoza wanted.

Deaf Tea Lady said...


were you aware there was an AB2072 committee working with the committee to revise the bill? Instead, Mendoza re-wrote it in its entirety. The 3 demands were requested to be amended after the deaf committee read the new bill which fit more with how it should be to start with.

It is true many bills get revised or re-written before they go on floor for vote. It is from experience that deaf voice often get ignored in favor of the medical perspective, and we couldn't be sure that the bill would be rewritten or go on the floor as is and voted. The latter was too scary. We had to act as if the bill would be as is to make sure it didn't happen.

Don G. said...

Gina (Candy) -- You are backpedaling so hard and fast, you are leaving a dark black strip behind you a mile long.

For two months, you have been all "AB 2072 is perfect!" and "DID YOU READ THE BILL?" and now you are saying AB 2072 was never meant to be passed as is? And, you are conveniently forgetting that Mendoza REFUSED to work with us to amend his bill, because he was (presumably) deep in the pockets of AGB/OptionSchools.

Get a grip, girl! You need to be honest with yourself (and us)!

Candy said...

Deaf Tea Lady,

The bill still has the same premises as the original, to ensure that every parent receive information on all communication (and language)options.

Just wait till the amended comes out, and then we can discuss it. the original purpose of the bill is still intact - the idea that all parents will receive informaton on all communication (and ASL as language acquisition)options. The rest are added in to ensure collaborative effort in the bill itself, a compromise. I am aware that there's a switch from DHH to CDE and wording ASL instead of visual language and clarification of audiologists role to be limited in just passing out information on all communication/language options.

At this point, NONE of us has any idea what the final amended bill will look like, except those that currently are part of the re-writing of the bill.

So, yeah, until then, I'm sure we will have more to discuss.

Candy said...


You obviously did not read my post carefully, because if you had you will see indication that I knew the bill needed to be amended by collaborative effort. Read my post and you'll see that. Read the comments I made to many, especially Tina Jo and Michael Sidansky in the beginnning. I said: Collabaorate! Work it out! and be creative! Because I knew the supporters HAD to have a bill that has input from everyone, including the stakeholders. If you remember, I posted about Elisa wanting collabaoration, the reason for it was to ensure some sort of compromise that will produce amended bill. You just have to read my post and comments I made and obviously you did not. *shrug*

I can go back and point to many things I said that will show that I did saw the bill as a good bill to work from, was it perfect as it is in its original form? No. But, that would take up so much space, Actually maybe that would be a good blog post for me to do because clearly many did not read my post carefully nor did they read every comment. I know, it was like a LOT and hard to follow, so I guess I will excuse you for that. ;)