Beth Frede

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 Conflating these methods is scientifically inappropriate and results in policy decisions based on outdated or misapplied assumptions.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