Senate Bill 562 creates a new section of Florida Statutes establishing a “Communication Bill of Rights” for individuals with disabilities. The bill states that people with disabilities have the right to communicate in their preferred manner and bars state agencies, schools, and health care providers from restricting or denying access to preferred alternative communication methods. It identifies examples of protected methods, including augmentative and alternative communication devices, letterboards, typing-based communication, sign language, nonverbal gestural systems, and speech-generating devices or other assistive technologies.
The bill also sets out specific rights for individuals with disabilities, including the right to have preferred communication methods recognized and supported in educational, health, and public settings; access to speech-language therapy and communication support; reasonable access to trained staff in public facilities and programs; and freedom from bans or restrictions on preferred methods. It requires the Agency for Persons with Disabilities to adopt rules, create training for direct support professionals, educators, and health care staff, and establish a Communication Rights Advisory Board to advise on implementation and compliance. The board would include members with disabilities, family members or guardians, professionals, and disability advocacy representatives, and would be repealed in 2029 unless reenacted.
The bill would affect Florida agencies, schools, and licensed health care providers by imposing affirmative duties to accommodate and support communication choices of individuals with disabilities. It also creates an enforcement mechanism requiring the agency to accept reports of violations and authorizes a civil penalty of $500 per violation, in addition to other applicable administrative actions under existing law. In practical terms, the measure expands statutory protections around assistive communication and could require policy changes, staff training, and compliance procedures across public and health-related settings.
Because no committee transcripts or votes are provided, there is no recorded legislative debate or voting history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly protective of disability rights and focused on access, autonomy, and anti-discrimination in communication. Any contention would likely center on implementation burdens for schools, agencies, and providers, the scope of what counts as a recognized alternative communication method, and how to balance a person’s preferred method with clinical, educational, or safety considerations.
This bill would create s. 393.0665, Florida Statutes, adding new legal duties for state agencies, schools, and health care providers to respect and support the communication preferences of individuals with disabilities. It would require the Agency for Persons with Disabilities to promulgate rules, develop training, establish an advisory board, and create reporting procedures, while also authorizing civil penalties for violations. The measure would therefore expand statutory protections for assistive and alternative communication and impose compliance obligations on public and licensed entities serving people with disabilities.
No committee transcripts or votes are available, so there is no recorded debate to summarize. The bill’s text reflects a generally supportive and rights-expanding approach toward disability access, autonomy, and communication inclusion. On its face, it appears designed to protect individuals with disabilities and to standardize accommodations across public, educational, and health care settings.
The bill text does not include recorded objections, but likely areas of contention would involve the operational burden on schools, agencies, and health care providers; the cost and scope of required staff training; and how to determine whether a communication method is evidence-based or professionally recognized. Another possible point of dispute is the bill’s requirement to support a person’s preferred communication method unless another method is agreed upon by the individual or guardian, which could raise questions in cases involving minors, guardianship, clinical judgment, or safety concerns.