Thursday, August 26, 2010

Interesting Twist About Latest AB 2072 Bill

There are interesting twists within the latest AB 2072 bill. The audiologist lobbying group are lobbying against the current AB 2072 bill to show the TRUE COLORS among the California Coalition. Those audiologists do NOT want to be restricted in any way to fatten their sale commissions for getting deaf babies and kids on the assembly line to be branded with CI.

Someone like Miss Kat's Parents, Gina Sutton aka Candy, Mike McConnell, Barry Sewell, Russell the Deaf Bunny and Eddie Raynon are really CLUELESS about the real purpose and intention why the AB 2072 bill introduce to the California Legislature.

Here is the e-mail exrpect from the Deaf California -

Assembly Rules has confirmed that they are expecting to find an interpreter for
tomorrow and are waiting for confirmation from the interpreting agency.
Rene Bayardo (aide to Mendoza) states that 2072 will probably be voted on tomorrow
morning, with a high degree of probability, if the interpreter is confirmed.
The audiologists assoc's lobby is probably attempting to sway members to vote no.


  1. Ha,
    If the audiologist lobby group kill the bill, wonder what those deaf detractors - Mike McConnell, Candy Sutton, Barry Sewage, Richard Roehm, Ann C., Karen Mayes and the likes say about that.

    It is all about money, not morality. These deaf detractors just don't get it.

  2. AB2072 Opposition and Supporters:


    California Coalition (source)
    American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
    California Association of Private Special Education Schools
    California Coalition
    California Hospital Association
    California Speech-Language Hearing Association
    deaf Defractors Association

    OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/24/10)

    ASL Presents LLC
    California Academy of AUDIOLOGY
    California Association of the Deaf
    California Association of the Deaf, Sacramento Chapter

  3. Bill or not, the true colors of the opponents were vividly shown to the public and will be used against them in the future like deaf schools closing, ASL & Deaf studies classes disappearing from colleges and universities, and farming up new enablements of ignorance.

  4. The Richard Roehm

    check this out:

  5. read CA Academy of Audiology letter to Mendoza---the one who use gang outfit to represent State of California---senators were proudly to welcome him as Assemblyman. Anyway, I almost spit my diet coke while reading the letter because the audies said they cousel parents re; appropriate educational and treatment options. Kidding me? They never counseled my parents appropriate education for me. They pushed hard for my father to send me to public school with deaf/hearing classes...treatment option? joke...forced me to use hearing aids..had my dogs chew them two or three times...surprised I was not hang in the tree from my father. Education? audies were always ecastic when I could identify few words---same words for many that an education? I am glad audies wrote a letter...showed true color and hope Mendoza will put his gang activity aside and realized that Deaf community was telling the truth all along---the real evil mask of audies.


  6. Robert:

    They changed their stance due to not wanting to be the ones to refer people on ASL, etc.. They believe since their focus is on the medical side, the patients would be best served by being referred to advocacy agencies, etc.

    A hypothetical scenario: You visit a doctor for an ailment (let's pretend it is cancer). Of course, you are going to listen to the doctor when he/she tells you about chemotherapy, radiation treatment, etc. He/she is an EXPERT in that (or at least trained). Would you turn to the same doctor for advice on group counseling? Now, for a generic referral, yes. The doctor could say "I'd recommend you get in touch with the state palliative care agency, they have lists of counseling centers, etc". I would expect ANY doctor to do that.

    BUT suppose you press the doctor, and they finally relent and say "Oh, go to XYZ counselors"..You go, and are shabbily treated, or it's a for-profit group, etc. At any rate, you are now unhappy and feel like you're not being treated properly. Unfortunately, many people would then turn around and try to sue the DOCTOR as well as the group. That is a reason malpractice insurance is so high. And therefore, medical professionals don't like to venture out and give specific referrals outside of their field of specialty, preferring instead to just give someone a starting point. A specific referral, passing out brochures, etc. could imply "endorsement" of that specific agency, and that's where they could be found liable.

    That, based on what I read on the California Academy of Audiology's site and their letter, is the main reason for not supporting this. They want it amended to remove the responsibility of referring someone other than medically (such as to a specific ENT Surgeon, which would make sense if they feel that person is more qualified to diagnose or treat a diagnosis).

    So please, do not lump me into the group you consider to be clueless. For the most part, I've stayed out of the AB2072 debate, don't drag me into it. I'm only responding here because you named me specifically along with several others (and you spelled my name wrong again too, not to be mean).