Replies

Deaf babies deserve no less than Rush Limbaugh***The scandal is that neither Congress nor the executive branch supports parents who choose hearing for their baby. Government maintains deafness, while the rest of society acquiesces. This is because of the activism of the deaf community, whose view is that deafness is a lifestyle, not a medical affliction, even though they insist that they are covered by the ADA.

From Congress to newborn wards, parents and policy-makers face deaf activists who extol the virtues of living deaf. Meanwhile, implant surgeons are labeled "profiteers" and anti-deaf "bigots," and accused of genocide. Some are so besieged they dare not even offer patients the option of an implant. Meanwhile, we swallow the myth that keeping a baby deaf is morally and medically equivalent to letting the baby hear.***

As one who has studied sign language (SEE) and can 'get by' in a conversation, it is sad to see this development over the last 20 years. The adult deaf have no idea how they are marginalizing their children in society. It's not unlike parents who might say no to a prosthetic device for their handless child that would allow the child to function normally in society - i.e., get a good paying job, go on the internet, pay bills, etc. I have the same problem with deaf parents who reject a 'total communication' approach for their children in school - limiting their child to ONLY Ameslan.

Though I do not consider sign language (even ASL) to be a 'foreign language' (as it is a form of interpreted English), it is certainly an interesting course of study. The difficulty with taking the courses is that it is almost impossible for the hearing (except those raised by or living with the deaf) to become proficient enough for such jobs as medical, legal, diplomatic, etc. interpretation. And since most Americans don't live with the deaf, there is little chance to converse and hone skills.