Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disability Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers bill recognizing right to use preferred communication methods for people with communication disabilities
Summary
HB1215 would amend RSA 171-A to confirm a person’s right to use preferred augmentative and alternative communication (including spelling-to-communicate); proponents described life-changing results while opponents (and some experts) urged safeguards to avoid facilitated-communication errors and to ensure independent communication and training standards.
Representative Kofalt introduced House Bill 1215 to affirm an individual’s right to use a preferred method of communication, including augmentative and alternative communication methods such as spelling-to-communicate and rapid prompting methods. The sponsor said the bill is modeled on other state statutes but narrowed to avoid unintended consequences while preserving access and dignity for people with communication disabilities.
Committee members and witnesses focused heavily on the technical distinctions between facilitation-dependent methods and approaches that can become independent modes of communication. Representative Sher and others asked whether the bill should explicitly exclude facilitated communication (which has a controversial scientific history) or whether it should require safeguards to verify independent communication. The sponsor acknowledged the controversy, said many families report life-changing benefits, and agreed to work with members on language such as “including but not limited to” and clearer references to independence and training.
Karen Rosenberg of the Disability Rights Center supported the bill in principle but urged amendments that emphasize the individual’s right to independent communication and ensure that institutions and service providers focus on the person’s expressed wants and needs rather than parental preferences. Other witnesses asked the committee to broaden the covered populations beyond statutory “developmental disability” language to include acquired communication disabilities such as traumatic brain injury and asked the committee to consider who must provide training and what qualifications should be required.
Several members asked for draft amendments to address: (1) an inclusive definition clause before enumerating methods; (2) clarifying whether ‘‘reasonable efforts’’ create open-ended obligations for libraries or small providers; and (3) whether the bill should refer to persons with “communication disabilities” rather than only “developmental disabilities.” The sponsor indicated willingness to work with committee members and to circulate suggested language.
What's next: The sponsor will share amendment language and supporting materials; committee members asked for follow-up from the sponsor and from the Disability Rights Center to refine statutory definitions.
