Neidle, Kegl, Bahan, Aarons, & MacLaughlin 1997 argues that rightward WH-movement in ASL constitutes a counterexample to claims by Kayne (1994) that all phrasal projections exhibit specifier-head-complement order and that syntactic movement is leftward. Petronio & Lillo-Martin 1997, although not adopting Kayne's antisymmetry framework, offers a critique of our analysis and a proposal involving leftward WH-movement. Here, we argue that Petronio and Lillo-Martin's interpretations of the data are incorrect and that their analysis cannot account for the facts of the language. We therefore maintain our position that ASL WH-phrases move rightward in ASL, and that universal grammar must allow the option of rightward movement.