What's happening on legislation I've commented on recently?
I see that House State Affairs took the anti-blue badge bill (HB 1237) that I wrote on last night out behind the woodshed and drowned that bag of unwanted kittens on a 12-0 vote to defer the bill to the 41st day.
In speaking with people involved with the measure, I don't think this was unexpected. However, it doesn't sound like they're ready to cry uncle yet. Watch for it to come back either later this session, or to show up in a rewritten form in 2008.
--
And as I'm writing this, HB 1234, the bill to mandate that disability related language in state law is to be of a people-first format (which I slammed for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that nationally, the disabled community is NOT in agreement on it) has been deferred to the 41st day on a 8-4 vote.
What I did hear the legislators expressing is that they would support a resolution encouraging that state agencies use the terminology. I'd agree and disagree with that to a point.
What it should NOT be is a resolution asking specifically for "people-first language." Instead, it should express the legislature's desire for state agencies to use the terminology acceptable to each constituency group they serve in the disabled community.
And that will be "people-first language" for some, and others can be called whatever they'd prefer.
Just as I suspect it is now.
In speaking with people involved with the measure, I don't think this was unexpected. However, it doesn't sound like they're ready to cry uncle yet. Watch for it to come back either later this session, or to show up in a rewritten form in 2008.
--
And as I'm writing this, HB 1234, the bill to mandate that disability related language in state law is to be of a people-first format (which I slammed for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that nationally, the disabled community is NOT in agreement on it) has been deferred to the 41st day on a 8-4 vote.
What I did hear the legislators expressing is that they would support a resolution encouraging that state agencies use the terminology. I'd agree and disagree with that to a point.
What it should NOT be is a resolution asking specifically for "people-first language." Instead, it should express the legislature's desire for state agencies to use the terminology acceptable to each constituency group they serve in the disabled community.
And that will be "people-first language" for some, and others can be called whatever they'd prefer.
Just as I suspect it is now.
Comments