This paper addresses questions raised about the validity of facilitated communication with autistic individuals and others having severe disabilities and offers examples from the authors' program to support the validity of facilitated communication. Published studies showing a high rate of unfounded claims of abuse under facilitated communication as well as undue influence by the facilitator are critiqued. A lack of studies of facilitated communication in natural settings is noted. Examples are given of individuals who, with the aid of facilitated communication, communicated information the facilitator could not have known. A current study comparing communication about weekend happenings with later parental reports notes a 66 percent rate of accuracy by students using facilitated communication (compared to 100 percent accuracy by verbal peers). While more research in natural settings is encouraged, schools are urged not to eliminate the only means of communicating these students have. (DB)