HB1215

Waypoint supports House Bill 1215, relative to supporting the preferred method of communication for individuals with developmental disabilities, contingent on the adoption of the proposed amendment discussed at the hearing by Karen Rosenberg, from the Disability Rights Center, NH (DRCNH). DRCNH recommended amending the bill to clarify that the intent of the bill is to ensure individuals with disabilities can communicate in their preferred way and maintain independent communication - be it augmentative and alternative communication, sign language, assistive technology, or other communication systems. Waypoint also supports a proposed amendment that would broaden the scope of individuals and programs that support people experiencing communication challenges. These clarifications ensure the law remains person-centered and adaptable to evolving communication technologies and individual needs. Research consistently shows (see sources below) that access to preferred communication methods improves autonomy, safety, educational engagement, and health outcomes for individuals with developmental disabilities, while also strengthening relationships between individuals, caregivers, and service providers. Supporting communication access within residential, educational, and community service settings aligns with New Hampshire’s commitment to dignity, inclusion, and self-determination for people with disabilities. Supporting publications: - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11043277/ - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07434618.2025.2504497 - https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00179

I am in favor of allowing individuals to choose their method of communication because all people know matter their disability should be given access to choice. My son is a unreliable speaker and I advocate for his right for a voice because he can't reliably speak for himself.

I support allowing disabled persons the ability to commute in the way of their choice.

HB 1215 is about whether we are willing to challenge our assumptions and truly listen when someone finds a reliable way to communicate. My daughter uses Spelling to Communicate. Before she had access to spelling, many people — including her school — assumed she could not do math. Through spelling, she began solving math problems in her head. She has identified artists of paintings we had never discussed and revealed interests and humor we did not know were there. The barrier was never her intelligence. It was motor control. A close friend’s son, when he first gained access to a letterboard, spelled words none of us will ever forget: “Everything that comes out of my mouth is shit. Don’t listen to anything that I say. Listen to what I spell.” That is not a child without language. That is a child whose body could not reliably express what his mind already knew. Spelling gave him a pathway to express his authentic thoughts — thoughts that were always there. Humans thrive in connection, and language is how we connect and come to understand one another. Communication is a human right. We cannot deprive someone of that right simply because they access it differently. HB 1215 affirms that in New Hampshire, we are willing to listen.

Dear Senator Abbas, Senator Sullivan, and Committee Members, I am writing in strong support of HB 1215, which affirms the right of individuals with developmental disabilities to access and use the communication method that works for them. This bill is critically important for nonspeaking individuals whose primary barrier to communication is not language or cognition, but motor planning and sensory-motor differences. For many of these individuals, spelling-based communication methods such as Spelling to Communicate (S2C) are the only functional way they can express complex thoughts, knowledge, and personal identity. Recent efforts by professional organizations, particularly the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), have sought to discredit spelled communication and to pressure state agencies into denying funding for these services. ASHA is a private professional membership organization. It is not a regulatory body, not a civil rights authority, and not a governmental agency. Its policy positions represent professional opinion, not legal or scientific determinations, and should not be used to restrict public access to communication. ASHA’s opposition is largely based on historical concerns about facilitated communication, a different method involving physical manipulation. S2C does not involve physical guidance of the speller’s hand and is based on motor learning principles that address apraxia and motor initiation challenges. Conflating these methods is scientifically inappropriate and results in policy decisions based on outdated or misapplied assumptions. ASHA frequently claims that S2C is “not evidence-based.” However, the absence of large randomized controlled trials does not constitute evidence that a method is invalid. Many widely accepted AAC and educational interventions lack such trials and are funded based on functional outcomes, clinical judgment, and family reports. Emerging research, including eye-tracking studies, suggests that nonspeaking individuals using supported spelling demonstrate independent letter selection, directly challenging claims of spelling partner authorship. Most importantly, thousands of nonspeaking individuals report that spelling-based communication is how they finally gained access to education, self-advocacy, and meaningful participation in their lives. Denying or defunding this access causes real harm, including loss of communication, emotional distress, behavioral regression, and increased isolation. ASHA has neither consulted with these Spellers (those who communicate through spelling) or their families nor taken their lived experience into account as part of their decision-making process regarding their position. This is unethical in light of the potential damage their opposition causes to nonspeakers. HB 1215 is not about mandating a specific method. It is about protecting the fundamental right to communication, honoring parental choice, and ensuring that disabled individuals are not silenced by professional gatekeeping. Communication access is a civil right. HB 1215 is a necessary step toward protecting that right in New Hampshire. Respectfully, Beth Frede S2C Practitioner, New Hampshire

Written Testimony in Full Support of HB1215 – “Grace’s Law” Relative to Supporting the Preferred Method of Communication of an Individual with Developmental Disabilities Dear Members of the Family Law Committee, I am writing today as a mother in full support of HB1215, known as “Grace’s Law,” which affirms the right of individuals with developmental disabilities to use their preferred method of communication in all settings—not just at home, but anywhere they go. I am speaking not only for my own child, but also advocating for others in the same situation who are unable to do so—now and in the future. As a mother, I know that communication is not limited to spoken words. Individuals who are developmentally disabled have thoughts, feelings, opinions, and needs just like anyone else. When a person cannot vocalize those thoughts, it does not mean they do not exist. Denying or dismissing a person’s preferred method of communication is, in effect, denying their freedom of speech and their right to equality. Alternate forms of communication must be recognized as valid and equal to vocal speech. These include, but are not limited to: Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) techniques and devices Independent use of letterboards and independent typing-based communication Sign language and other non-verbal gestural systems Speech-generating devices and other assistive technologies The ask of this bill is small, but the impact will be enormous—not only for my family, but for countless others across our state. When my daughter was young, she was diagnosed with Atypical Rett Syndrome. Along with the developmental declines that come with this diagnosis, she experienced a seizure. About a month later, my daughter went from saying phrases like “see puppies” and “kitties” to only being able to say “mummummum.” Overnight, her ability to verbally ask for what she wanted and needed disappeared. Like many parents, I adapted. My daughter began using gestures and icon- and picture-based communication systems. These methods allowed her to express herself, but they were often not recognized or respected by others. I repeatedly heard people say, “Use your words,” even when there were no spoken words available to her. Each time, she was silenced again. As she grew, she began communicating through gestalt language—phrases taken from movies, television shows, and others around her. While this was another way for her to communicate, it required patience and understanding from those listening. Too often, that patience was not given. As time has gone on, her speech has continued to decline. Today, she relies on her preferred methods of communication: an AAC device, icon- and picture-based systems, and gestures such as yes/no responses and pointing. These are how she tells us what she wants, what she needs, and who she is. It is critically important to me, as a mother, that these forms of communication are recognized and supported in group homes, schools, and public institutions within the state service delivery system. Communication access should not depend on where my daughter is or who is around her. This is not about special treatment—it is about dignity, equality, and freedom. I am a mother to a daughter who deserves to be heard. HB1215 ensures that individuals like my daughter are not ignored, dismissed, or silenced simply because they communicate differently. “Grace’s Law” affirms a basic human right: the right to communicate. I urge you to fully support HB1215. Respectfully submitted, Angela Fletcher Mother, Advocate, and Legislative Liaison

Please support this common sense bill. No one should ever be held back from communicating via the method that works best for them. Currently there seems to be turf issues with some professionals trying to discredit positive means of communication because they are not well versed in the helpfulness of those methods. My son was introduced to a spelling method at age 30 that has opened up a whole new world of communication for him. How I wish he had access to this support earlier in his life. No one should be held back from valid communication due to professionals who are unaware of or insecure about methods that they are not trained in.

I am the father of an autistic nonverbal "speller' young adult male . My son has been working with a "speller" advocate for over 2years now and ,with his instructor's help , we are now learning that our son has much to say. My wife and I had been told since our son was 4 years old that he would never develop speech and likely would be profoundly intellectually disabled for his entire life with no more than a 4 years old intellect. It was because he could not speak that his physicians and others assumed that he then was permanantly intellectually disabled and treated him as such. Through my son's S2C( Spell to Communicate) communications partner we have for the first time in our son's life had hope that he might in fact gain a method of full communication. We are learning that he is in fact very intelligent but has been locked in a shell of a body with no means of telling those around him that he understands all that everyone has been saying to him for all of these many years and has learned and has more knowledge by simply listening.. Please support this Bill . If this law had been in effect while my son was in the school system 20 years ago ,my son might now have the full ability to effectively communicate . Parents now should have S2C and other augmentative communication resources available as a resource for their sons or daughters and inclusion in their school's Individual Education Plan. This Bill would give them the right to ask for these resources and insist that school systems provide this opportunity which my son never had.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.