I am familiar with Michelle Dawmson's perspective from her many postings on the Net. While I cannot debate her own personal experiences (of which ABA is not one; she is too old to have gone through Canada's fledglinfg ABA programs). Ms Dawson is not autistic full-blown, she is very HFA. I concur that for those indivisduals who are so HFA that they can survive in a regular ed classroom with mods/accoms ABA is indeed innapropriate and overkill.
Ms Dawson is part of a group of HFA's/Aspies who have created an internet ":group" dedicated to p[reserving their "culture" at all costs. Anyone (parent, professional, etc.) who dares to suggest that autism is something to be either prevented or remediated is the enemy, and they work very hard to defend their own right to be different. Again, for those people who are so high on the Spectrum that they can survive our society without major assistance I will tend to agree that tolerance for the difference is indeed a worthy goal. They do not, however, have the right to speak for persons who are so debilitated by autism that they are not only functionally helpless, but are actually a danger to themselves.
The best analogy I can think of to compare this situation to are the deaf individuals who are militantly against cochlear implants for children to give some semblance of hearing to those who would otherwise be in a silent world.
What Michelle and others like her should truly be advocating for is the deliniation of persons on Spectrum ionto those who absolutely deserve intensive treatment intervention and those who are high-functioning enough to decide for themselves whether they would like to remain as they are or get the quality of help needed to achive a more "level" existance.