Autism Reform fights to protect the rights of underserved children with autism. When it became known that The Children's Partnership wrote to support SB 1050, the following electronic mail was sent:
MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.146 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:21:10 -0700
(PDT) In-Reply-To: <CAK4ptZ0bdxsZT2Z3ntyMc-gMBJdvTg4Phx0Ce4Aw6drQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK4ptZ0bdxsZT2Z3ntyMc-gMBJdviBfPTg4Phx0e4Aw6drQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:21:10 -0700 Delivered Message-ID: <CAK4ps=f
JO2NH7MmUak2KC7WaXkDvh=U6LGKr8HhBBTYbzcA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Misplaced Support for SB 1050.
From: Special Needs Families <specialneedsca@gmail.com>
To: jkattlove@childrenspartnership.org, wlazarus@childrenspartnership.org,
llipper@childrenspartnership.org, aalexandar@childrenspartnership.org,
kanthony@childrenspartnership.org, ktesta@childrenspartnership.org,
khamilton@childrenspartnership.org, lhan@childrenspartnership.org,
bmorrow@childrenspartnership.org, gpuddefoot@childrenspartnership.org,
csebastian@childrenspartnership.org, cspencer@childrenspartnership.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd3b1da6ada04cab80863
--000e0cd3b1da6adac104cab80863 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dear Ms. Kattlove,
We, the people of California, sent letters and documents to request Governor Brown
to veto SB 1050. Yours and your organizations support of SB 1050 is grossly
misplaced (http://www.childrenspartnership.org/storage/
documents/News/Press_Release/SB_1050_vetoed_-_Statement_from_Jenny_Kattlove.pdf).
The language of SB 1050 is a regurgitation of bad legislation that I and
other parents in the trenches, have been able to put a stop to since its
inception in 1994. We willcontinue to fight against proposed legislation
that masks as a "collaboration" of some ambiguous "members of a task force"
to "deem eligible" the children who will receive autism treatment. Governor
Brown and his administration were prudent in his determination that telehealth
services will not carve out one disability and that such an arrangement of
a "disease-specific task force set forth in statute does not appear to be
warranted" (read enclosed Governor statement).
Perhaps you and your organization need to pay attention to the voices that
continue to go unheard here: https://autismreform.tripod.com/home.html In
your statement, Ms. Kattlove, you wrote that the Children's Partnership will
"continue to work to ensure that underserved children receive the health, dental,
and other support services through the wise deployment of telehealth services."
SB 1050 was NOT going to help the underserved, and neither was SB 764. Please abide
by your commitment to protect the underserved by supporting bills that are NOT
smoke and mirrors. Please study "ARC et al. v. DDS et al." and be cautious about
alleged "collaboration" legislation that grants all the power of "deeming
eligibility" of autism or other disability treatment and services to some
undefined "task force" that we the people cannot penetrate such as the
"EIBT Committee Meetings" under DDS's territory of the San Joaquin Valley
of California.
Please do not support legislation such as SB 1050 or SB 764) that will actually
give a wide-berth of power to DDS and Regional Center, only to make the same
mistake as in "ARC et al. vs. DDS et al." The Court, in fact, granted the
Association of Retarded Citizens their injunction and found the "activities"
of DDS and regional center to be a violation of the laws and regulations
that DO protect underserved individuals.
Your organizations support of SB 1050 was grossly misinformed.
Yours respectfully,
Concerned and Relieved Parent and Advocate of the Truly Underserved
_________________________________________________________________________________
Received: by 10.147.85.3 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:03:09 -0700 Delivered Message-ID: <CA4sDptZ0bd2Z3ntyMc-
gMBJdviBfPTg4Phx0Ce4Aw6drQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Misplaced Support for SB 1050.
From: Special Needs Families <specialneedsca@gmail.com>
To: wlazarus@childrenspartnership.org, llipper@childrenspartnership.org,
aalexandar@childrenspartnership.org, kanthony@childrenspartnership.org,
ktesta@childrenspartnership.org, khamilton@childrenspartnership.org,
lhan@childrenspartnership.org, jkattlove@childrenspartnership.org,
bmorrow@childrenspartnership.org, gpuddefoot@childrenspartnership.org,
csebastian@childrenspartnership.org, cspencer@childrenspartnership.org
Dear Ms. Lazarus,
Your letter of support sent to California's Governor Brown urging him to sign
Senate Bill 1050 autism telehealth taskforce is misinformed.
(http://www.childrenspartnership.org/storage/documents/Advocacy/Letters_of_Support/
TCP_SB_1050-_Gov_Brown.pdf)
The dangerous partnership of DDS and one regional center has been demonstrated
in ARC et al. vs. Department of Developmental Services et al., disguised
as some telehealth initiative, is simply a desire to control the funding of
intensive evidence-based autism treatment, segregating and isolating low
functioning autistic children from those who will become tax paying citizens.
Please reconsider your support of SB 1050 by reviewing the following website
information at https://autismreform.tripod.com/home.html
Unlike The Children's Partnership, parents fighting for access to expensive
evidence-based treatment, are, contrary to your support letter, not going to
be aided by any telehealth opportunities. Low income and indigent families
who are of "color" are NOT given information from DDS or Valley Mountain
Regional Center regarding the intensive ABA services that are actually
available to them. There is a federal class action going on to give such
families access rights that they, DDS and regional center, are, in effect,
denying EVERY day.
What makes The Children's Partnership believe that a bill/law for
telehealth services will give us more access when they won't even "tell" us
about autism treatment services?
What research has TCP done to evaluate the comments, opinions, and
struggles of families who are denied such information at the outset of their
child's assessment for services? Telehealth will NOT bridge the gap between
agencies and consumers who NEED services.
It will entrench it deeper.
Yours respectfully,
Concerned Parent