tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-267541792024-03-06T21:25:10.411-08:00BastardGrannyAnnieAll things about adoptee rights as seen through Granny Annie's eyes.Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-61631653964887943882011-12-03T09:24:00.001-08:002011-12-03T09:27:07.516-08:00NOVEMBER 15TH: NOT A RED LETTER DAY FOR EVERY ILLINOIS ADOPTEE<span style="color: #674ea7;">NOVEMBER 15TH : NOT A RED LETTER DAY FOR EVERY ILLINOIS ADOPTEE</span><br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;">Illinois adoptees all over the country are celebrating since November 15th. On that date, the new Illinois Adoption Act of 2010 went into effect. Most Illinois adoptees will now be able to request and receive an unaltered copy of their original birth certificates. It’s been a long time coming. Our original birth certificates have been impounded and sealed since 1946. I wholeheartedly rejoice with my fellow adoptees.</span><br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;">At the same time, though, I ask you not to forget some adopted citizens whose birth parents do not want them to receive any identifying information. Under the new adoption law, birth parents have been given an option to file a Denial Form which instructs the state to continue to keep the original birth certificates of their “children” under lock and key. The State will honor each and every one of these Denial Forms, and as a result, some adopted citizens will NOT get an original birth certificate any time soon. The most they can receive is an altered obc, with all identifying information redacted. A Denial Form acts just like a blackball.</span><br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;">As of this writing, at least 305 birth parents have filed Denial Forms. I understand that this number seems tiny compared to the multitude of adoptees who are now applying for their original birth certificates. But please don’t brush these blackballed adoptees aside as being merely a tiny statistic on a page of numbers, so miniscule that they can be easily overlooked.</span><br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;">All of these blackballed adoptees are real people, alive and well and living among you all: your mail carrier, a colleague at work, your son’s piano teacher, a neighbor serving in Iraq, a best friend of your sister- in-law, or maybe one of your cousins. The only “crime” these blackballed adoptees are guilty of is being the subject of their birth parent’s Denial Form. </span><br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;">There is another appalling section in the new adoption law; it spells out what to do with the blackballed adoptees in the future. The legislators wanted to show their “compassion” for them so they enacted a plan that permits the blackballed adoptees to come back and try again - in 5 years! That will be in the year 2017. How’s that for compassion?</span><br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;">And what happens in 2017 if the birth parents’ Denial Forms are still in effect? Well, the State, in its overwhelming benevolence, will give the blackballed adoptees yet another chance to come back - after another 5 year wait- which pushes them forward into the year 2022.</span><br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: #674ea7;">This outrageous treatment of blackballed adoptees is unconscionable and unjust. We can only have a truly wonderful celebration when our legislators see fit to amend the new adoption law so that ALL adopted people can get copies of their unaltered original birth certificates, with no strings attached. For now, please keep these blackballed adoptees in your thoughts.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-60974499091025646692011-06-01T08:02:00.000-07:002011-06-01T08:03:29.491-07:00GIVE ADOPTEES ALL RIGHTS, OR NONE<u>USA TODAY</u>, June 1, 2011<br />
<br />
Give adoptees all rights, or none<br />
<br />
I am a senior citizen who was adopted at birth. I have lived more than six decades without knowing who my birth parents were. I understand what it feels like to be discriminated against by the state because I was adopted. I know how frustrating and humiliating it feels to have my own identifying information withheld. Yet, I do not support New Jersey's bill. <br />
<br />
If Gov. Chris Christie signs it, birth parents who gave their children up for adoption before the law was enacted will have the right to withhold their names from the birth certificates. All the birth parents would need to do is file an affidavit of disclosure, within the year, requesting the state keep their identities secret. If this bill passes, the birth mother's right to veto will ultimately trump the adoptee's right to get that information.<br />
<br />
Six states have granted adoptees unconditional rights to birth information. If it works for them, surely it can work in New Jersey.<br />
<br />
Anita Walker Field; Skokie, IlGrannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-45909244766209880712011-05-20T09:29:00.000-07:002011-05-30T17:42:55.859-07:00N.J. ADOPTEE BIRTHRIGHT BILL: THE "RIGHT TO KNOW" v "THE BALANCE OF RIGHTS"I have been reading editorials from various New Jersey newspapers supporting the New Jersey Adoptee Birthright Bill, A1406. The bill has passed both houses and now has only one more hurdle. A1406 awaits Governor Christie’s signature in order to become the law. <br />
<br />
These editorials shout out how good it is that adoptees will finally have the “right to know.” So many citizens now agree that it’s a good thing for adoptees to finally be able to see their original birth certificate and learn about their past and so they cheer for A1406. <br />
The supporters of the bill say that one of the reasons why A1406 is a good bill is because it contains a “balance of rights.” If Gov. Christie signs the bill, birth parents will get a new right, in law, to veto the issuance of an original birth certificate to their “adult children.” All the birth parents need to do is file an affidavit of disclosure, within the year, requesting that the state keep their identities secret. The affidavit insures that these birthparents will retain their anonymity from their adult adoptees. This request is accomplished by preventing their adult children from receiving an original birth certificate, even though original birth certificates will soon be issued to the other adopted adults in the state. Here’s how it will work.<br />
<br />
When a birthparent files the veto, the adoptee is automatically bumped off of the “Right to Know” list. The adoptee’s name will then be indelibly inscribed on “The Right NOT to Know” List, meaning that he or she will not receive an unaltered original birth certificate like the other adoptees. These adoptees will receive only an amended document of their original birth certificate with all identifying information whited-out. <br />
<br />
It’s impossible for me to accept the reasons that legislators, the media, lobbying groups, adoption agencies, attorneys, major church organizations, et.al, give for insisting that the adoptee’s “right to know” has to be somehow balanced with the birth mother’s new right to remain anonymous. These groups chose to wear blinders or else they are ignorant about the original intent of sealed records. They are revisionists, rewriting history. For their own personal interests, they have found it expedient to elevate birth mothers to the top of the food chain – something that never happened. Ask any first mother how she was treated at the time she relinquished her child. <br />
<br />
This revisionist version of history says that promises and assurances were made to first mothers long ago that their identities would be kept secret from their children forever. Now that the state is getting reading to unseal most original birth certificates, it believes that it must uphold these long-ago “promises”. And the way they will do that is to snuff out an adoptee’s right to know. <br />
<br />
The irony of the situation is that the birth certificate is sealed only upon the decree of adoption, not upon the birth mother’s relinquishment. A child relinquished but not adopted has an unsealed birth certificate. If protection of the birth mother was intended, the original birth certificate would be sealed upon the termination of her legal relationship to the child, not at the beginning of the legal relationship of the adoptive family.<br />
<br />
If truth be told, adoptive parents were relieved that birth certificates were sealed because many of them were afraid that the birth parent might locate them a few years later and grab their child back. I know my mother was always afraid that “that other family” as she called them, might kidnap me. (Could that have been her conscience bothering her?)<br />
<br />
The adoptive family was considered sacred in law - the forever family - and no outsider should ever be let in. What better way to accomplish this than to impound and seal in perpetuity all birth records.<br />
<br />
It is readily apparent that our birth records were not sealed to protect our first parents from anything. Therefore, there should be no acceptable reason today for the state to give any birth mother a new right, in the law, to keep her identity a secret from her child. Furthermore, the state has no business upholding promises made between private parties.<br />
<br />
<em>In 1999, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that birth mothers have no constitutional guarantee of privacy regarding the fact that they relinquished a child, despite promises they may have received that their identities would be protected. [Doe v State of Oregon, 164 Or.App. 543, 993 P. 2nd 833, 834 (1999).</em><br />
<br />
If the state wants to restore the “right to know” to its adopted citizens, then it must guarantee, through legislation, that 100% of the adopted men and women will receive the same right. It is the civil and human right of every adoptee in the state to be able to request and receive an unaltered, original birth certificate, with no vetoes or other conditions tacked on.<br />
<br />
The New Jersey Adoptee Rights Bill, A1406, does not guarantee the “right to know” to each and every adopted person in the state. The bill adds to the adoption law a new “right” allowing first mothers to keep their identities secret from their own adult children at the expense of their adoptee’s “right to know.” <br />
<br />
This bill is flawed, and I would urge the governor to veto it. It is not a true Adoptee Birthright bill – by any means.Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-72907759219187278192011-05-07T19:30:00.000-07:002011-05-07T19:30:39.041-07:00VOTE NO TO NEW JERSEY ADOPTEE BIRTHRIGHT BILLURGENT: STOP NJ A1406/S799 - FLOOR VOTE SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, MAY 9, 2011. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Distribute Freely<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
BASTARD NATION ACTION ALERT!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
STOP DISCLOSURE VETO/WHITE OUT LEGISLATION IN NEW JERSEY!!!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
ASK THE NEW JERSEY ASSEMBLY: VOTE NO ON A1406/S799<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Read full text of A1406 here.<br />
<br />
Read full text of S799 here<br />
<br />
A1406 (companion to S799 already passed in the NJ Senate) is scheduled for a floor vote on MONDAY MAY 9, 2011. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Please contact Assembly members immediately and urge them to VOTE NO ON A1406/S799. (Contact information below.) If you are from or in New Jersey or have a New Jersey connection, mention it in your communication.<br />
<br />
Be sure to put: "Vote No On Adoptee Birthright Bill "in the header<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Bastard Nation's letter to the Assembly is here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A1406/S799 is: restrictive, discriminatory, creates a new, special and temporary ”right” for "birthparents," and exempts the state's adopted adults from equal protection and treatment regarding the release of the government-generated public record of their births.<br />
<br />
THE BILL<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*includes a 12- month open enrollment period, starting after the Department of Health releases regs for A1406/S799 implementation, that allows "birthparents," to file disclosure vetoes (DV) before obcs, past and future, are unsealed<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*authorizes the state to replace the original birth certificat, of those subjected to the DV with a mutilated copy of the obc with all identifying information, including the address of the parent(s) at the time of birth (if it appears on the cert) deleted.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*requires "birthparents" who file a disclosure veto to submit a family history and a possibly illegal intrusive medical form to activate the veto.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*requires "birthparents" who file a "contact preference form," which, in fact, acts as a disclosure veto, to fill out the same family history and possibly illegal intrusive medical history form to activiate the veto.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*seals by default all "safe haven" birth certificates, even though most "safe haven" babies are born in hospitals to identified mothers.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*requires adoption agencies and adoption lawyers to receive a written veto status report from the state before they can release identifying information to adoptees<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*requires the state to mount an "information" campaign to inform "birthparents" of their "protection" options<br />
<br />
A1406/S799 IS NOT AN OBC ACCESS BILL. <br />
<br />
A1406/S799 IS NOT ABOUT RIGHTS.<br />
<br />
A1406/S799 IS ABOUT PRIVILEGE<br />
<br />
Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization opposes legislation that denies any adult adoptee access to his or her own original birth records on par with all other citizens. Please let the Assembly know that this issue is not about relationships between adoptees and their "birthparents." It is about basic human and civil rights. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Passage of bad legislation is New Jersey could easily undermine efforts of dedicated reformers who are holding the line for adoptee rights in other states.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
New Jersey's A1406/S799 is an abomination in light of the restoration of the right of original birth certificate access to all persons adopted in Oregon, Alabama, and New Hampshire, and Maine. Adult adoptees and all who support adoptee rights should stand united for unrestricted access laws and not sell out just to get a bill passed! Disclosure veto legislation is unethical and unjust!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Please e-mail the New Jersey Assembly today and urge members to VOTE NO ON A1406/S799.<br />
<br />
CONTACT INFORMATION<br />
<br />
(write one letter, cut and paste for all)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
AsmAlbano@njleg.org, AsmMilam@njleg.org, ASmDeAngelo@njleg.org, AsmGusciora@njleg.org, AsmChivukula@njleg.org, AsmEgan@njleg.org, AsmBarnes@njleg.org, AsmDiegnan@njleg.org, AsmCoughlin@njleg.org, AsmWisniewski@njleg.org, AsmCryan@njleg.org, AsmGreen@njleg.org, AsmMcKeon@njleg.org, AsmCaputo@njleg.org, AsmCoutinho@njleg.org, AsmBurzichelli@njleg.org, AsmMainor@njleg.org, AsmODonnell@njleg.org, AsmPrieto@njleg.org, AsmRamos@njleg.org, AsmGiblin@njleg.org, <br />
<br />
AsmSchaer@njleg.org, AsmJohnson@njleg.org, AsmMoriarty@njleg.org, AsmWilson@njleg.org,AsmGreenwald@njleg.org, AsmConaway@njleg.org, ASmConners@njleg.org, AsmHolzapfel@njleg.org, AsmWolfe@njleg.org, AsmRible@njleg.org,AsmOScanlon@njleg.org, AsmThompson@njleg.org, AsmBiondi@njleg.org, AsmAmodeo@njleg.org, AsmPolistina@njleg.org, asmbramnick@njleg.org, AsmDiMaio@njleg.org, AsmPeterson@njleg.org, AsmChiusano@njleg.org, AsmBucco@njleg.org, AsmCarroll@njleg.org, AsmDeCroce@njleg.org, AsmWebber@njleg.org, AsmDancer@njleg.org, AsmMalone@njleg.org, AsmSchroeder@njleg.org, AsmRumana@njleg.org, AsmRusso@njleg.org, AsmDelany@njleg.org, AsmRudder@njleg.org, AsmRumpf@njleg.org,<br />
<br />
AsmFuentes@njleg.org, AsmDiCicco@njleg.org, AswWatsonColeman@njleg.org,<br />
<br />
AswQuijano@njleg.org, AswStender@njleg.org, AswJasey@njleg.org, AswTucker@njleg.org, AswSpencer@njleg.org, AswRiley@njleg.org, AswQuigley@njleg.org, AswRodriguez@njleg.org, AswOliver@njleg.org, AswEvans@njleg.org,AswPou@njleg.org, AswVainieriHuttle@njleg.org,<br />
<br />
AswVoss@njleg.org, AswWagner@njleg.org, AswLampitt@njleg.org,<br />
<br />
AswAngelini@njleg.org, AswCasagrande@njleg.org , AswHandlin@njleg.org, <br />
<br />
AswCoyle@njleg.org, AswMunoz@njleg.org, AswMcHose@njleg.org, AswVandervalk@njleg.org,<br />
<br />
AswGove@njleg.orgGrannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-56981786779798855492011-03-08T11:58:00.000-08:002011-03-11T07:59:30.361-08:00<b>CONDITIONAL OBC BILLS</b><br />
<b></b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>MARCH 8, 2011</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Caveat: This list is a “WORK IN PROGRESS.” There are so many changes made so quickly each day in the various legislatures that I cannot vouch for its 100% accuracy on any given day after it has been posted. However, I will try to keep this list as up-to-date as possible.</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<u>Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization</u> opposes each and every one of these access bills that have been filed in their respective legislatures this session. We oppose them because they all put conditions & restrictions upon how and from whom an adoptee can obtain his original birth certificate. In each bill, the state retains power over some adoptees. Not one state restores to all adoptees their civil right to request and receive their obcs with no conditions and no falsifications. <br />
<br />
The states reported here are: ARIZONA, CONNECTICUT, GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WISCONSIN.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>ARIZONA – SB 1595</b><br />
<br />
SB 1595 is similar to Texas in that it allows an adult adoptee to obtain a copy of his or her certified birth certificate if the adoptee provides the following: a) the name of the adoptee’s biological mother b) the adoptee’s date and place of birth; and c) payment of the applicable fee.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.azleg.gov/search/oop/qfullhit.asp?CiWebHitsFile=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1595p.htm&CiRestriction=%22SB+1595%22">http://www.azleg.gov/search/oop/qfullhit.asp?CiWebHitsFile=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1595p.htm&CiRestriction=%22SB+1595%22</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>CONNECTICUT – BILL 890</strong><br />
<br />
<b>ATTENTION: 3/10/11: A </b><strong>substitute Bill 890</strong> <b>has now been sent to the House Judiciary Committee. This is a clean bill. Supporters are asking everyone to write to the Judiciary Committee in support of this bill.</b><br />
<br />
<b><em> ) On and after October 1, 2011, regardless of the date parental rights were terminated, any adult adopted person, twenty-one years of age or older, or if such person is deceased, an authorized applicant, as defined in subparagraph (D) of subdivision (3) of section 45a-743, may apply for and receive a copy of (1) the person's sealed original birth certificate or record pursuant to section 7-51, as amended by this act, and (2) any contact preference form attached to the sealed original birth certificate or record pursuant to section 7-51, as amended by this act. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit such person's or authorized applicant's access to information pursuant to this part.</em></b><br />
<br />
This bill would provide adult adopted persons, twenty-one years of age or older, whose adoptions were finalized after October 1, 2012, with access to their biological parents' health information and information in the person's original birth certificate or record. This is a prospective bill and it contains a third-party disclosure veto.<br />
A hearing was held on February 8, 2011<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgasubjectsearch/subbills.asp?subj_code=100358">http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgasubjectsearch/subbills.asp?subj_code=100358</a><br />
<b>GEORGIA – HB 65</b><br />
<br />
This bill was sponsored by Rep. Tom McCall, and it has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.<br />
<br />
The bill calls for nonidentifying medical information contained in adoption records be open to certain persons for purposes of providing medical treatment and diagnosis. A House Second Readers session called for Jan/26/2011. There is no report yet on this action<br />
<a href="http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/sum/hb65.htm">http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/sum/hb65.htm</a><br />
<br />
<b>HAWAII –</b><br />
<br />
A clean bill was filed, but as of this writing, but very quickly it has been amended or changed in some way so that it is no longer an unconditional access bill.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>ILLINOIS - HB 1255</b><br />
<br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>This bill is meant to be a “trailer bill” –a bill that is written to clean up errors that have been discovered in a recently passed piece of legislation, i.e.: HB5428 that was passed into law in May, 2010. </b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>Upon a first reading, there appeared to be in this bill a significant change who can be issued an obc. The Summary of the Bill states:</b><b><br />
</b><br />
<b>“Provides that the Registry may not release identity information when a birth parent is deceased and when the deceased birth parent's Birth Preference Form indicates that the birth parent did not allow the release of identifying information and did not want to be contacted by the birth child after the child attains the age of 21.”</b><br />
<br />
<b>I have been told by an associate of Representative Feigenholtz that this is an error, it should have not been in the bill and that it needs to be rewritten. BN will be watching and waiting for the correction. Several members of BN read this first page Summary and understandably reported that the conditions for releasing obcs had been changed from last year. Hopefully, this section of the Bill Summary will be removed as soon as possible.</b><br />
<b></b><b><br />
</b><b>Several things were targeted for “fixing,” </b><b><br />
</b><br />
<b>There is a provision in the new law that allows adoptees born after 1946 whose birth parents are already deceased to obtain their obc before next November if there is a death certificate on file for the birth parent who filed the denial/request for anonymity with the Registry. The newly passed law said that a death certificate could be filed by a "surviving relative" of the birth parent in order to get the obc before next November. But, when IDPH legal took a look at the bill, they decided that "adoptees" were not "technically" "surviving relatives" of birth parents. According to the legal dept., once relinquishment papers are signed, adoptees and birth parents are, technically, no longer relatives.</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>The new language in the vital statistics act makes sure that while the original birth certificate will not be available for inspection (i.e. sealed) until the adoptee reaches the age of 21, thereafter its status depends on the new law and not the previous vital statistics provisions.</b><br />
<b></b><b><br />
</b><b>The final provision needing “fixing” in HB 1255 is the new Birth Parent Preference Form to ensure that all birth parents can use the form to express an interest in contact, even if pre-1946 birth parents have no say in the release of their identifying information</b><br />
<b></b><b><br />
</b><b><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=84&GA=97&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=1255&GAID=11&LegID=57230&Sp">http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=84&GA=97&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=1255&GAID=11&LegID=57230&Sp</a></b><br />
<b>ecSess=&Session=</b><br />
<br />
<b>INDIANA – HB 1255</b><br />
<br />
<b>This Bill passed the full House on February 20, 2011. It was sponsored by Representatives Karickhoff, Riecken, Welch, and Klinker. </b><br />
<br />
HB 1255 concerns access to identifying information for adoptions. It repeals, effective July 1, 2012, provisions applicable to adoptions finalized before January 1, 1994, that prohibit the release of identifying adoption information unless a consent to release the information is on file. It also provides that, beginning July 1, 2012, identifying adoption information may be released unless a nonrelease is on<br />
<br />
file, regardless of when the adoption was filed. (Under current law, this provision applies only to adoptions filed after December 31, 1993.) <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/HB/HB1201.2.html">http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/HB/HB1201.2.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>MISSOURI – HB 427</b><br />
HB 427 was sponsored by Representative Barnes.<br />
<br />
For adoptions completed after August 28, 2011, the bill: <br />
<br />
(1) Requires the juvenile court to provide each birth parent with a confidentiality preference form prior to the entry of any adoption decree;<br />
<br />
<br />
(2) Requires, if a birth parent objects, the juvenile court to provide the form to the State Registrar, to be filed with the original birth certificate of the adopted person;<br />
<br />
(3) Allows any adopted person who is at least 18 years of age, born in Missouri, and who provides proof of identification or the adopted person's descendants if the adopted person is deceased to obtain a copy of the adopted person's original birth certificate unless the birth mother or birth father has objected. If a birth<br />
mother or birth father has objected, the person can request the Department of Social Services, the child-placing agency which processed the adoption, or the juvenile court personnel to make reasonable efforts to notify the birth mother and birth father of the request for its disclosure. The requestee may be charged for<br />
the actual costs of attempting the notification;<br />
<br />
(4) Requires, if the birth mother and birth father consent to the release of the original birth certificate, the Department of Social Services, the child-placing agency which processed the adoption, or the juvenile court personnel to obtain a copy of a notarized form signed by the birth mother and birth father, if known, giving consent to release the original birth certificate;<br />
<br />
(5) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate cannot be released if the birth mother and birth father cannot be located or if they do not consent to its release. Another request for the release can only be made until at least three years after the original or any future request; and<br />
<br />
(6) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate can be released upon the birth mother's and birth father's death.<br />
<br />
<br />
For adoptions completed on or prior to August 28, 2011, the bill:<br />
<br />
<br />
(1) Allows any adopted person who is at least 18 years of age, born in Missouri, and who provides proof of identification or the adopted person's descendants if the adopted person is deceased to obtain a copy of the adopted person's original birth certificate unless the birth mother or birth father has objected. If a birth<br />
mother or birth father has objected, the person can request the Department of Social Services, the child-placing agency which processed the adoption, or the juvenile court personnel to make reasonable efforts to notify the birth mother and birth father of the request for its disclosure. The requestee may be charged for the actual costs of attempting the notification;<br />
<br />
(2) Requires, if the birth mother and birth father consent to the release of the original birth certificate, the Department of Social Services, the child-placing agency which processed the adoption, or the juvenile court personnel to obtain a copy of a notarized form signed by the birth mother and birth father, if known, giving consent to release the original birth certificate;<br />
<br />
(3) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate cannot be released if the birth mother and birth father cannot be located or if they do not consent to its release. Another request for the release can only be made until at least three years after the original or any future requests; and<br />
<br />
(4) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate can be released upon the birth mother's and birth father's death.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB427&year=2011&code=R">http://house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB427&year=2011&code=R</a><br />
<br />
<b>NEW JERSEY A1406 & S799</b><br />
<br />
As of this writing, New Jersey is close to voting on A1406, companion bill to S799 which already passed in the New Jersey Senate. Bastard Nation believes that these two bills are restrictive, discriminatory, create a new, special and temporary “right” for “birthparents” and exempts the state’s adopted adults from equal protection and treatment regarding the release of the government-generated public record of their birth. This bill contains:<br />
<br />
A 12 month enrollment period that allows birthparents to file disclosure vetoes before obcs, past and future, are unsealed.<br />
<br />
An “authorization for the state to replace the obc, of those subject to the Disclosure veto, with a mutilated copy with all identifying information deleted.<br />
<br />
Requires birthparents who file a disclosure veto to submit a family history and a possibly illegal intrusive medical form to activate the veto.<br />
<br />
Requires birthparents who file a “contact preference form” which in fact acts as a disclosure veto, to fill out the same family history and possibly illegal intrusive medical history form to activate the veto.<br />
<br />
Seals by default all “safe haven” birth certificates even though most of these babies are born in hospitals to identified mothers.<br />
<br />
Requires adoption agencies and lawyers to receive a written veto status report from the state before they can release identifying information to adoptees.<br />
<br />
Requires the state to mount an “information” campaign to inform birthparents of their “protection options.”<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp">http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>NEW JERSEY A3672/S2586 (Alternative Bill)</b><br />
<br />
These two bills, backed by the NCFA, the NJ RTL and the NJ ACLU, are even more restrictive. These bills call for a new Confidential Intermediary System. Supporters of AB 3672 claim that their bill provides protections against unsuccessful reunions and unwelcome upheaval.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp">http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp</a><br />
<br />
<b>NEW YORK – A02003, S0143</b><br />
<br />
A02003 enact a Bill of Adoptee Rights clarifying language and procedures for obtaining birth certificates ad nmedical histories of adoptees. <br />
<br />
S01438 Enacts bill of adoptee rights clarifying language and procedures for obtaining birth certificates and medical histories for adoptees<br />
<br />
<a href="http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A02003%09%09&Summary=Y&Text=Y#jump_to_Text">http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A02003%09%09&Summary=Y&Text=Y#jump_to_Text</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>OKLAHOMA – HB 1748</b><br />
<br />
Since 1939, the adoption act was vague enough to allow judges to open adoptees’ records when they wanted to. This new is all about medical records. <br />
HB 1748 wants to weigh the rights of adoptees to their medical information against birth parent privacy.<br />
Whichever side the judge thinks - wins. This new bill now puts birth parent privacy into the statutes when it was never there before. <br />
The bill was passed 12 -0 out of the Human Services Committee.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1748">http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1748</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>TEXAS SB 287</b><br />
<br />
SB 287 has been introduced into the legislature by Senator Lucio. It is really more of the same as is already written into current Texas Law.<br />
This bill contains both a contact preference form and a disclosure veto which act alike – both forbidding issuance of an obc. The contact preference form contains 6 options for birth parents, only two of which are choices that give the adoptee permission from the birth parent to issue an obc.<br />
Also, the bill contains a section which allows an adoptee to have a copy of the obc, w/out court order, if he/she can produce the names of both birth parents.<br />
The bill has not been acted upon in either House as yet<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB287">http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB287</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>VIRGINIA – HB 1868</b><br />
<br />
As of February 23, 2011, the bill passed in both houses of the legislature with nearly unanimous vote in both houses.<br />
<br />
Essentially, the bill requires that adoptees may only receive their obc by order of the Commissioner of Social Services or order of a circuit court.<br />
NOTE: The original bill, before amendments, provided for the release of identifying information about an adult adopted person's birth parent or parents, unless the birth parent or parents can show good cause why such information should not be disclosed. This section was removed by a House amendment saying identifying information can come only by order of the Commissioner of Social Services or by order of a circuit court.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=111&typ=bil&val=HB1868&Submit2=Go">http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=111&typ=bil&val=HB1868&Submit2=Go</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>WASHINGTON – SB 5178</b><br />
<br />
The State of Washington filed yet another restrictive bill, SB 528, in the Washington State Senate. The sponsors are Senators Carrel and Stevens. The bill has been assigned to the Committee on Human Services & Corrections. A first reading was scheduled for January 17, 2011.<br />
<br />
<br />
SB 5178 removes a phrase from the current law: ““For adoptions finalized after October 1, 1993.” This single change holds great meaning for adopted adults. It means that an affidavit of nondisclosure for post ’93 birthparents will now be extended backwards to adoptions before 1993 as well. This change gives more birth parents special rights to refuse adult citizens access to their own birth documents. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5178&year=2011">http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5178&year=2011</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>WEST VIRGINIA – HB 223</b><br />
ARTICLE 23 WILL CHANGE THE VOLUNTARY ADOPTION REGISTRY.<br />
§48-23-503. Cases where disclosure of identifying information cannot occur; exception.<br />
<br />
(a) In any case where the identity of the birth father was unknown to the birth mother, or where the administrator learns that one or both of the birth parents are deceased, this information shall be shared with the adult adoptee. In these kinds of cases, the adoptee will not be able to obtain identifying information through the registry, and he or she would be told of his or her right to pursue whatever right otherwise exists by law to petition a court to release the identifying information.<br />
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this code to the contrary, in addition to the disclosure procedures provided in this article, an adoptee who is eighteen years of age or older may petition a court to release the names of the adoptee’s birth parents who are not registered in the voluntary CONDITIONAL OBC BILLS<br />
<br />
<b>WISCONSIN - ASSEMBLY BILL 12 </b><br />
This bill was filed on February 2, 2011; Introduced by Representatives KESTELL, MILROY, STONE, BARCA,BERNARD SCHABER, BEWLEY, BROOKS, D. CULLEN, DANOU, JORGENSEN, KESSLER, LEMAHIEU, PASCH, RIPP, SHILLING, SEIDEL, SINICKI, TURNER and VRUWINK. It is cosponsored by Senators LAZICH, JAUCH, LASSA and OLSEN. The bill has been referred to Committee on Children and Families.<br />
In this bill, an adoptee can petition for restoration of birth parents’ names of birth certificates provided that birth parents and adoptive parents agree<br />
Under current law, at the time a person is adopted the state registrar must prepare a new birth certificate for the adoptee unless the adoptive parents or the person being adopted objects. The new birth certificate must contain, among other information, the names and personal information of the adoptive parents, unless the court’s order of adoption indicates otherwise. When a new certificate is issued, the original certificate is impounded and may be accessed only by court order, with permission of the birth parents, or for processing purposes of the state registrar.<br />
<br />
This bill allows an adult who has been adopted to petition the court to order the state registrar to prepare a new birth certificate based on information on the person’s original birth certificate if the person did not have the opportunity, at the time of the adoption, to request that a new birth certificate not be prepared; any adoptive parent who is alive and who is named on the person’s birth certificate does not object to the removal of his or her name from the birth certificate; and any birth parent who is alive and who is named on the person’s original birth certificate does not object to the restoration of the information on the person’s original birth certificate. Under the bill, if the court finds that all of those circumstances apply, the court must grant the petition. The state registrar must issue a new birth certificate. <br />
<a href="http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2234intr.htm&yr=2011&sesstype=RS&i=2234">http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2234intr.htm&yr=2011&sesstype=RS&i=2234</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
.Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-912075211217196092011-02-08T08:55:00.000-08:002011-02-08T08:55:06.749-08:00CT Bill 890 - OpposeThis is a reprint of a blog by Marley Greiner from THE DAILY BASTARDETTE at http:bastardette.com. It says it all. <br />
<br />
Grannie Annie<br />
<br />
<br />
Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization, is the largest adoptee civil rights organization in the United States. We support full, unrestricted access for all adopted persons, upon request, of their own true, unaltered original birth certificates (OBC). We oppose HB 890, a bill that would prospectively the OBC to adoptees, with disclosure veto restrictions, to persons 21 years of age or older, whose adoptions were finalized on or after October 12, 2012.<br />
This bill is scheduled to be heard tomorrow, February 8, 2011 by the Select Committee on Children. <br />
<br />
Bastard Nation. opposes HB 890, and urges you to vote Do Not Pass. <br />
<br />
HB 890 creates a nonsensical tiered discriminatory system of OBC access for Connecticut adoptees based on their date of birth, date of their adoption finalization,and their birthparent consent. <br />
<br />
HB 890 ignores thousands of the state's adopted population who will still be unable to acquire their OBC, while at the same time creates a new class of adoptees not even born yet, who can acquire their OBCs unless their birthparent(s) object.<br />
<br />
HB 890 creates a prospective new special "right" for birthparents that enables them to bar their adult offspring from acquiring their own birth certificates, a right that no other parent has.<br />
<br />
In sum, HB 890 reinforces out-dated adoption secrecy. It does nothing to restore the right of unrestricted OBC access that all Connecticut adoptees enjoyed until 1974. It makes adoptee access to their own birth certificates a state/birthparent conditioned privilege separate and unequal from the right enjoyed by Connecticut's not adopted who can acquire their own birth certificates unhindered.<br />
<br />
Please vote DO NOT PASS on HB 890, and support a bill that mandates equal OBC access, without conditions, to all Connecticut adoptees, past, present, and future. <br />
<br />
Sincerely yours,<br />
<br />
Marley E. Greiner<br />
<br />
Executive Chair<br />
<br />
Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights OrganizationGrannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-82871726209483018432010-11-28T20:10:00.000-08:002010-11-28T20:10:53.577-08:00DON'T COPY ILLINOIS sIllinois has a new adoption law. It was signed into law on May 21, 2010. I have blogged many times about the dangers of HB 5428, but it passed into law anyway. It’s a done deal now. So why, you might wonder, are so many of us still writing about this terrible law? Why do we continue to warn you about it? We lost, so why don’t we just move on?<br />
<br />
Here’s why.<br />
<br />
In an article in the Nov. 27th N. Riverside Suburban Life, Representative Sara Feigenholtz said, <br />
<br />
“Illinois is the 10th and largest state in the nation to enact such a law, according to Feigenholtz. She said she believes “all eyes are on Illinois” now to see how the legislation pans out. It is her hope that Illinois’ example will serve as a catalyst for other states to take similar action.<br />
<br />
“I’m working on doing a film on the Illinois experience so we can help states large and small,” said Feigenholtz.”<br />
<br />
Since Rep. Feigenholtz managed to foist this beastly law on Illinois, she’s developed what we used to call a “swelled head.” Not satisfied with botching up Illinois for years to come, she is now setting her sights on “helping” other states. Run for the hills if she comes to yours.<br />
<br />
I used to call her the Adoption Maven of Illinois because she is adopted and she has owned adoption in our General Assembly for a long time. Lord help us, now Sara wants to become the Adoption Maven of the United States. <br />
<br />
Please don’t ever compare Illinois to any of the six Free States where adoptees can get their original birth certificates with no conditions or restrictions. KANSAS, ALASKA, OREGON, ALABAMA, NEW HAMPSHIRE and MAINE are the Free States. No adoptee in any of these states has to worry about Denial Forms or Disclosure Vetoes. They don’t exist in the Free States. Instead, every adoptee is treated equally with their fellow adoptees and they are also treated equally among all the citizens of their state. <br />
<br />
Don’t be fooled by Representative Feigenholtz and her gang. They can blab forever about how wonderful Illinois’ new law is, but no matter what they say, they can never say that Illinois is a Free State. Under the new Illinois law, BIRTH PARENTS ARE ALLOWED TO FILE DENIAL FORMS WHICH WILL RESULT IN ADOPTEES NOT GETTING THEIR ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATES. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYm-MWiTIeqMlKs7LLpVD_XgCriyyHKdPhwDTNtbEIguCU_RGAm7vhOId4CU3IrRNdX7idZ6lkNx7Ouhm1bUbVqHRuL9WoeKghR2R7-u-I9aHkSF0Pr1W4s4EMRNjA9QI-hG2K/s1600/cartoon+angry+old+woman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYm-MWiTIeqMlKs7LLpVD_XgCriyyHKdPhwDTNtbEIguCU_RGAm7vhOId4CU3IrRNdX7idZ6lkNx7Ouhm1bUbVqHRuL9WoeKghR2R7-u-I9aHkSF0Pr1W4s4EMRNjA9QI-hG2K/s1600/cartoon+angry+old+woman.jpg" /></a>LISTEN TO GRANNIE ANNIE. </div><br />
DON'T COPY ILLINOIS.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
.Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-44785376559192819702010-08-16T09:10:00.000-07:002010-08-16T15:15:35.005-07:00Remember Gavi<div style="text-align: center;">August, 2010</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">IN BLESSED MEMORY</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">GAVI, BELOVED BASTARD GODDESS</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">Gabriela Maxime Ze'eve Person - Amy Lynne Akins</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">1968 - 1997</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">Rest in Peace</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>Let My Bastard People Go!</strong></div><div style="text-align: center;">It is apparent</div><div style="text-align: center;">I have Two Parents</div><div style="text-align: center;">Big Brother Makes Five</div><div style="text-align: center;">But He's so Jive</div><div style="text-align: center;">He Says Two Parents</div><div style="text-align: center;">Are not alive!</div><div style="text-align: center;">Where can they be?</div><div style="text-align: center;">Where did they go?</div><div style="text-align: center;">Big Brother Does Not Know!</div><div style="text-align: center;">Let my Bastard People Go!</div><div style="text-align: center;">Let my Bastard People Go!</div><div style="text-align: center;">Let My Bastard People Go!</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">by Gavriela Person</div>Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-48421319555329859392010-07-19T20:57:00.000-07:002010-07-19T21:34:30.252-07:00EBD REPORT: ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACKEVAN B. DONALDSON ADOPTION INSTITUTE:<br />
FOR THE RECORDS II: An examination of the History and Impact of Adult Access to Original Birth Certificates. (July 16, 2010)<br />
<br />
<strong>ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK</strong><br />
<br />
WOW! After separating the wheat from the chaff from the EBD's latest report, I found two major contradictions right on page one of their report that astound me. They can't help but cast a dark shadow over the rest of the material in this report.<br />
<br />
<strong>ONE STEP FORWARD</strong><br />
<br />
"EVERY STATE SHOULD RESTORE UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATES FOR ALL ADULT ADOPTEES, RETROACTIVELY AND PROSPECTIVELY."<br />
<br />
<strong>TWO STEPS BACK</strong><br />
<br />
"CONFIDENTIAL INTERMEDIARY SERVICES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE THROUGHOUT ALL STATES, EVEN AFTER ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATES ACCESS IS RESTORED."<br />
<br />
"A NATIONAL ADOPTION REGISTRY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED TO ENABLE ALL ADOPTED PERSONS AND THEIR BIRTHPARENTS, NO MATTER WHERE THEY RESIDE, TO PARTICIPATE."<br />
<br />
How in the world can EBD recommend a National Adoption Registry and a CI system in their Top Five Recommendations and a few pages later, in the body of the text, tell us what we already know - how woefully inadequate these alternatives have always been. We all know about Registries and CI Programs which were started over 30 years ago to try and keep adoptees "in line." These search and reunion systems were supposed to appease adoptees who dared to speak out about the civil and human rights of all adopted adults. EBD, how can you possibly recommend them today? <br />
<br />
Later in the text, you yourselves write about the inadequacies of these alternatives:<br />
<br />
"Proponents of unsealing OBCs to adult adoptees hold that other alternatives - such as mutual consent registries and confidential intermediary services - are costly and generally do not work. The evidence indicates the least effective are mutual consent registries, which have a very low rate of matches...<br />
Confidential intermediary services are costly and do not give adopted adults either the power to control the process or to continue searching if the parties being sought are not readily found."<br />
<br />
So why do you recommend them?<br />
<br />
You all at EBD know that we already have an International Adoption Registry, the ISRR, which serves anyone around the world and is free besides. We don't need no stinkin' National Adoption Registry!<br />
<br />
By advocating for a National Adoption Registry, the EBD gives opponents of open records an excuse to drag their feet on passing open records bills. EBD is advocating for that very alternative it said doesn't work. HUH?<br />
<br />
Ditto for CI Systems, another excuse to drag feet. Your report recommends, right up there in the Top Five Recommendations, that Confidential Intermediary Systems should continue, even after OBCs are issued. Yet everyone at EBD knows perfectly well that CI Systems, every last one of them, are an anathema to transparency and openness. Why on earth would you condone a system that is fueled by confidentiality and secrecy? Why do you support a system whose one and only goal has always been to help adoptees search for birth records while at the same time "protecting" the needs of the birth mother's confidentiality and anonymity?<br />
<br />
It just doesn't compute. You've shot yourselves in your collective "foot."<br />
******************************************************************************************<br />
<em><span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of any organizations to which I belong.</span></em>Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-437735039633899082010-06-30T10:52:00.000-07:002010-06-30T10:54:25.592-07:00<span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-size: large;"> I REPLY TO "ANONYMOUS" </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-size: large;"> re: DEFORMERS DO THE DARNDEST THINGS</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">I could not fit this answer into the comment section so I've opened another blog instead. I'm in blue.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Okay, so if I am following you. You worked to get records opened in Illinois for 20 years.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: blue;">No, you are not following me. I worked to get records opened in Illinois for 5 years.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">And you failed. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">Yes, we failed in IL. Deformer Sara Feigenholtz passed a different bill. But I don’t have to tell you what it says. You can just go to the text and read all 74 pages by yourself. Remember, if you don’t know a word, you can sound it out.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: blue;"></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">So you want our endorsement because you want another 20 years of no records for anyone?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">Hell no, I don’t want your endorsement. Who are you and who do you represent? I never accept anyone’s endorsement who signs themselves “anonymous.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;">I mean, I just want to be clear here. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">You are not clear here. I think you didn’t read beyond the first few paragraphs. (Was it too hard?) In Oregon, Alabama, New Hampshire and Maine, all (Don't forget; all = 100 %) adoptees have their full rights to their obcs. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">You are against most adoptees getting their rights? </span><span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">WRONG! I am for all adoptees (Remember: (all = 100%) getting their rights.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: blue;"></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">I believe the executive chair of Bastard Nation used a tiered system to get her rights. Why did she not stand in solidarity with those that had not been given their rights? Why do you rail against arbitrary discrimination and yet at the same time take advantage of it?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">Our exec chair speaks for herself and she can be reached through BN at www.bastards.org I do know that she has single handedly done more to bring our goal to a reality than you and all of your anonymous friends put together.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">How are we supposed to take you seriously when you also rail against people fighting for unconditional access?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">Who are these people that I am supposedly fighting against? I have never railed against anyone who supports unconditional access. Name some names, anonymous.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Like you did with the folks you belittled for lobbying state legislators for unconditional access?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">HUH? What are you talking about? I’ll say it one more time. I have never belittled anyone for supporting UNCONDITIONAL access.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: blue;"></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">I mean WTF? </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">Right back at you.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">You are against people lobbying for unconditional access, you are against the Green Ribbon campaign, so much so that you want to put discord as a tag-line in your email. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">I did not put a ‘DISCORD” against The Green Ribbon campaign. What is a “discord?"</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"></span><span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">My colleague and I put a DISCLAIMER on our website and on our newsletter so that our organization, IllinoisOpen, www.ilopen.org would not be confused with any other adoptee group with a similar name. We never said anywhere that we were automatically against the Green Ribbon Campaign or what it stands for. All we wanted to do was to make sure that people knew we were two different groups. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
<span style="color: blue;"></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">The disclaimer was added only after an adoptee wanted to send us money. We have no treasury, we are purely voluntary, and we collect NO dues, donations, or other gifts of any kind. The person in question was confusing us with another organization, associated with Green Ribbon, that was soliciting for funds at that time, Adoption Reform Illinois. We wanted no problems about the possibility of us accepting money that was earmarked for another group.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">You want to stop everyone from moving forward so we can admire how you have failed for 20 years?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">I used to teach reading. If you were in my class, I would give you an F for comprehension and criticial thinking. I would write across your paper, “Are you sure you read the entire passage? Did you skip over the part about Oregon and Alabama and New Hampshire and Maine</span><span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Have you ever considered getting therapy? </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">Have you?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Because, you crazy.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">I believe the correct way to write that sentence is “you are crazy.” Sorry, another F.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"></span>Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-54195551193486684482010-06-29T20:29:00.000-07:002010-06-29T20:29:25.657-07:00DEFORMERS DO THE DARNDEST THINGS: OPEN LETTER TO ANONYMOUS<br />
<br />
On July 28, someone called "A<span class="goog-spellcheck-word">nonymous</span>" replied to my blog "<span class="goog-spellcheck-word">Deformers</span> do the <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">Darndest</span> Things." I had so many things to reply that I decided to open up this new blog to discuss the things He/she brought up:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">"Everyone (whether labeled a "reformer for a "<span class="goog-spellcheck-word">deformer</span>") agrees that, ideally, access to records for adult <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adooptees</span> should be unrestricted. What's your solution? What's your strategy? In which state(s) have you made this happen?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">The <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">internet</span> abounds with armchair quarterbacks on this topic. Only a handful are actually having an impact -- whether all at once or incrementally. Meanwhile, millions are dying "left behind."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Dear Anonymous,</span><br />
<br />
I don't agree with you that <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">deformers</span> believe in access to records for all adult <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span>. If they did, they would work to support every good bill that comes along and they would oppose every bad bill that pops up. They would not change the good bill into something they didn't really believe in, would they?<br />
<br />
I am not an armchair quarterback who sits at Starbucks and criticizes the plays. I am an active player in the game and I have made an impact in the arena of equal rights for <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span>. I have been a player for 20 years now.<br />
<br />
My solution is nothing new. My solution and my ideals are at the very backbone of the adoption reform movement for at least 30 years. My solution is to get bills passed that will restore to adopted adults their unconditional right to access their original birth certificate, without any strings attached.<br />
<br />
My first five years I worked strictly in Illinois where I reside. My first activity was in the summer of 1996. I got together with other Illinois <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span> on the Internet to fight the Uniform Adoption Act (The <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">UAA</span>) which had come to our state.<br />
<br />
If you don't remember, the <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">UAA</span> was an abominable piece of legislation that legislators, attorneys, agencies and social work professionals were proposing throughout the country. If the <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">UAA</span> had passed, all of our original birth certificates (<span class="goog-spellcheck-word">obcs</span>) would have been sealed for 99 years!<br />
<br />
I guess in those days Illinois lawmakers actually paid attention to us because in the fall of 1996, I received a letter from Representative Patricia <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">Lindner</span>, sponsor of the bill. She wrote that after listening to all of the opposition across the state, she had decided NOT to propose the <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">UAA</span> in Illinois.<br />
<br />
So now we were on a roll and several of us decided that we didn't want to stop now - we wanted to continue on working to try to capture the gold - an unconditional open records bill. (that's what we called it in those days.)<br />
<br />
We spent hours every Sunday in different libraries around the state, painfully writing our bill. Every word was analyzed and re-analyzed. We <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">sweated</span> over each sentence. We poured over each paragraph. It was our labor of love. When we were finished, we had a beautiful, 3-page pure "open records" bill.<br />
<br />
When our two companion bills came back from Legislative Publishing, we were in heaven. <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">HB</span> 343 and its companion bill SB 600 were now official.<br />
<br />
As we began to lobby for our bill, we of course began to run into opposition. At a meeting of the Adoption Committee of the Chicago Bar Association an attorney told us we should fix up the Adoption Registry instead. And that must have planted some seeds in people's brains because when the <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">deformers</span> got through with our bill, <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">HB</span> 343 had been turned into The Adoption Registry and Medical Information Exchange, passed into law in 2002. Our original bills had died in committee.<br />
<br />
I had my fill of Illinois and so turned my efforts to the national scene. I became a life-time member of Bastard Nation: The <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">Adoptee</span> Rights Organization. I attended the <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">Chgo</span> convention where the idea for a ballot initiative in Oregon began. After we all went home, about 3 weeks later, Helen Hill (a <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">BN</span> member) was posting to us all her ideas for running a ballot initiative in Oregon.<br />
<br />
<span class="goog-spellcheck-word">BN</span> was intimately involved with the campaign for Measure 58. It consumed us for almost 2 years. We all helped out in so many ways and we were ecstatic when it passed overwhelmingly on Nov. 3, 1998. Two years of court battles ensued, but in May, 2000, the law went into effect. <br />
<br />
If you have any doubts about Bastard Nation's close involvement with Measure 58, please read Prof. E. Wayne Carp's book, <em>Adoption Politics: Bastard Nation & Ballot Initiative 58</em>. c2004.<br />
<br />
Next came Alabama. A member of <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">BN's</span> Executive Committee, Dr. David <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">Ansarti</span>, a resident of Alabama, joined his hands and <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">BN's</span> with the grassroots group AWARE, and by summer of 2000, Alabama passed an unrestricted law.<br />
<br />
Then came New Hampshire. Bastard Nation member Janet Allen was elected to the New Hampshire State Legislature. She toiled for almost 3 years and it paid off. In 2005, New Hampshire became another state with open records.<br />
<br />
Maine came in 2009. <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">BN</span> was not involved directly with this state, but we do believe that all of the work that we did in the other states surely had an influence on other states then and now.<br />
<br />
During this entire 10 year period, <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">BN</span> also worked to keep restrictive bills from passing and we have been pretty darn successful at that too.<br />
<br />
You ask what my strategy is. I can send you to our <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">BN</span> website to read our goals - <a href="http://www.bastards.org/">http://www.bastards.org/</a>.<br />
My personal strategy is too long to write here. I'll try to summarize and give you the top two points that would be part of my strategy.<br />
<br />
Most important - you absolutely must have a very powerful and influential sponsor. Sometimes it takes a long time to either find one or develop a relationship with the right one. <em>The sponsor needs to be totally committed to passing your bill and totally committed to seeing it all the way through.</em><br />
<br />
Once your find a solid sponsor, you have to develop your core group who are dedicated enough to hang in to the very end. No giving up and no giving in. A core group must be totally in agreement as to the goals of the group. The sponsor and every member of the core group must be in harmony as far as passing only an unconditional bill.<br />
<br />
All members must be on the same page as far as what they will do if their bill gets deformed. They must be in agreement that if any restrictions get added and it looks as if they can't get rid of them, then they will pull the bill rather than send on a bill over which they no longer have absolute control. There must be a really firm covenant between sponsor and core group.<br />
<br />
With the above two strategies, you won't get a <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">deformer</span> bill in your state.Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-4885405922311374182010-06-27T19:42:00.000-07:002010-06-27T19:42:18.844-07:00DEFORMERS DO THE DARNEST THINGS<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;"> </span></div></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;"> <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">DEFORMERS</span> DO THE <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">DARNDEST</span> THINGS</span></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAN2jEVwcyDAFVLagCHhv8KL4V9YZ3K8KAx-FdNnQH_zXr1hsXe72eECdiBVNeufc_nasvxhv9F6GKhQtgA-BCxnyi4l2kV65u7itujrqtLscqjv6Haa8bUX__z2oWdhywOcuq/s1600/doopey.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" ru="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAN2jEVwcyDAFVLagCHhv8KL4V9YZ3K8KAx-FdNnQH_zXr1hsXe72eECdiBVNeufc_nasvxhv9F6GKhQtgA-BCxnyi4l2kV65u7itujrqtLscqjv6Haa8bUX__z2oWdhywOcuq/s200/doopey.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><em><span style="color: #b45f06;"><strong><span class="goog-spellcheck-word">Deformers</span>: <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">Adoptees</span> who have "just given in. They support bills that fall short of being unconditional birth certificate access for all adopted adults.</strong></span></em></div></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Social change is traditionally a very slow process. <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">Adoptee</span> rights are no exception. But no matter how long it takes, it is vital that we continue to pursue the goal of UNCONDITIONAL access to birth documents for ALL <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span>. A defeat in one state is never a reason to stop reaching for our goal in other states.</span></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Historically, there are many groups who oppose our objectives of unconditional access to original birth certificates: Right to Life organizations, church groups, adoptive parents associations, attorneys, bar associations, the ACLU, adoption agencies, the <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">NCFA</span> and other lobbying groups, and many state legislators. Even the courts are not on our side. The judges almost never rule in favor of issuing an original birth certificate to an <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptee</span> unless it is a case of imminent life or death.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Considering all these big and powerful groups pointing their guns at us, we "old-timers" can pat ourselves on the back.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="310" ru="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLGbWjmFBOKWtZzMfIBGuAUyhTDEslI_QSbOLmGcZvwuOy2E3U_Lsiw2VUTi7YT9ym1u3ISSnleADBfNQAfg4I3yxKUcCh1n50MyuiaMbVQH9ntgv8y2ObvelbPWO6E6fOOVHt/s320/NW+08-095+Old+Timers+Oil+8x8.jpg" width="320" /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Pure civil rights bills for <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span> have been passed in four states since 1998: Oregon (Ballot Initiative, 1998), Alabama (2000), New Hampshire (2005) and Maine (2009). Kansas and Alaska had the good sense to never seal their adoption records. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia; font-size: large;">Facing so much opposition wherever we turn, we used to be able to always depend upon two special groups to always work with us - birth mothers and <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span> themselves. We "old timer" <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span> are still around and we are still fighting for equal rights for every <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptee</span>. Our goal - we will not leave one <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptee</span> behind.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia; font-size: large;">But a new group of <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span> has come onto the scene. They are impatient with what they call our slow progress. They are eager to get a bill passed. They will trade away the civil rights of many <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span> in order to pass a conditional bill which is centered on <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptee</span> searches and reunions. In fact, this is how Registries and Confidential Intermediaries were born. These programs were offered up by the states as alternatives to bills that sought to unseal original birth certificates and some <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span> jumped right onto the search and reunion bandwagon.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia; font-size: large;">These new groups of <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span> started out in the back rooms of politician's offices. They were on the spot when a bill was in trouble. They would come forward to offer alternatives and compromises in an effort to keep a bill alive. They told everyone that it was wise to take baby steps first because in the long run they would reach the goal sooner. We tried to tell them that a civil right is not a civil right at all unless it covers 100% of the people. But their battle cry is "Something is better than nothing."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia; font-size: large;">They think they are adoption reformers. They are not!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia; font-size: large;">They are ADOPTION <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">DEFORMERS</span> and it is most discouraging to see them moving into the center ring. No longer do they wait for a good bill to be proposed and then wait in the wings to see how it is faring. Now-a-days, <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">deformers</span> are actually authoring bills which contain all sorts of conditional access alternatives: disclosure vetoes, contact vetoes, white-outs, contact preference forms, black-outs, tier systems. registries, sandwich bills, intermediary systems, and all sorts of mixed-up combinations, all of which, in one way or another, pit birth mother against <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptee</span> and all of which deprive some <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span> of getting their original birth certificate.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuZAScWaVvfhSQNOfizhBuKSEy9g__W4qZflLp0tvn1KWWEPF_NAkEYewFCI-Oc-8pdCK8Wyx99RXJoApEckWQA2jcd0eJ7XURBPP7nJ-f_hyi6QY9t-UeDfyVqAfOcvNh25zj/s1600/cartoon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" ru="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuZAScWaVvfhSQNOfizhBuKSEy9g__W4qZflLp0tvn1KWWEPF_NAkEYewFCI-Oc-8pdCK8Wyx99RXJoApEckWQA2jcd0eJ7XURBPP7nJ-f_hyi6QY9t-UeDfyVqAfOcvNh25zj/s320/cartoon.jpg" width="275" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">The new Illinois <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">deformer</span> law has a provision for the left-out <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span>, the ones against whom birth mothers file a denial form which prohibits the state from issuing them an original birth certificate. They get to come back in five years and try again. If their birth mothers still want their denial form enforced then these <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span> must wait yet another 5 years. Altogether, these <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span> may have to wait 10 years to try and get an original birth certificate.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">But wait a minute! Illinois <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span> born before January 1, 1946, can get their original birth certificates today. Those born after January 1, 1946, will have to wait until November 15, 2011, to see if their birth mothers have filed denial forms. And Representative Sara <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">Feigenholtz</span> has the nerve to call this new law an equal rights bill for <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span>. It it weren't so sad, it might be laughable</span></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><span style="color: #e69138; font-size: large;"><em><strong>"Today, we're opening a new chapter in adoption history in Illinois where we can finally say that all families are created equal."</strong></em></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="color: #e69138; font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;"><strong>[Representative Sara <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">Feigenholtz</span>, The Illinois Observer, May 21, 2010. "Representative Sara <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">Feigenholtz</span> to Grant Illinois <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">Adoptees</span> Original Birth Certificates Gets Governor Pat Quinn's Approval."]</strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span class="goog-spellcheck-word">Deformers</span> pretend to be concerned about restoring a statutory right to all adopted men and women but if they can make a fast "deal" - they'll trade in poor old grandma.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;">One huge shock recently is that the 38-year-old American Adoption Congress ( <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">AAC</span>) has gone "<span class="goog-spellcheck-word">deformer</span>." Their shameful mission statement on <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptee</span> rights legislation reads:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #e69138; font-family: Georgia;"><em>"American Adoption Congress supports state-by-state legislative efforts to obtain access for adult <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span> to their original birth certificates. <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">AAC</span> prefers unrestricted access to this document for all adult <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">adoptees</span> but will accept compromise legislation if, in the opinion of <span class="goog-spellcheck-word">AAC</span> and local supporters, such a compromise is necessary to obtain the greatest access for the greatest number of adopted persons."</em></span><br />
<span style="color: #e69138; font-family: Georgia; font-size: small;">[http://www.<span class="goog-spellcheck-word">americanadoptioncongress</span>.org/state.<span class="goog-spellcheck-word">php</span>]</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia;"></span></span><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Don't let the deformers persuade you that passing a true adoptee rights bill cannot be accomplished. Recently, both New Hampshire and Maine had problems with getting their bills through the first time out. Supporters of the bills pulled the bills rather than allow them to continue on through the legislative process. The supporters were not willing to take a chance on passing a bad bill. So, they came back the very next year and the good bills were passed in both states. Today, 100% of adopted citizens in Maine and New Hampshire get their original birth certificate exactly as all the non-adopted citizens do</span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">.</span></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCpWsbZJQHOSJf_mWqzcxFvpoo_nXmRtoFzyitYiMskWq8FeXa-07qrvQZUt-hHsJ-FGOiRoSkKTBJ6Y_wzxuwHJjgpGoVNypTZQE6rP-11AMsg5lsR-vju1KZjC7KCFPa5UKt/s1600/little+engine.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="background-color: blue; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"></span></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCpWsbZJQHOSJf_mWqzcxFvpoo_nXmRtoFzyitYiMskWq8FeXa-07qrvQZUt-hHsJ-FGOiRoSkKTBJ6Y_wzxuwHJjgpGoVNypTZQE6rP-11AMsg5lsR-vju1KZjC7KCFPa5UKt/s1600/little+engine.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="294" ru="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCpWsbZJQHOSJf_mWqzcxFvpoo_nXmRtoFzyitYiMskWq8FeXa-07qrvQZUt-hHsJ-FGOiRoSkKTBJ6Y_wzxuwHJjgpGoVNypTZQE6rP-11AMsg5lsR-vju1KZjC7KCFPa5UKt/s320/little+engine.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Why not get </span><span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">on board.</span></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-88149600129466373202010-05-19T20:30:00.000-07:002010-05-19T20:30:35.597-07:00<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue;">THE SOUNDS OF SILENCE</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue;">"fools" said I, "you do not know</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue;">Silence like a cancer grows.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue;">Hear my words that I might teach you,</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue;">Hear my words that I might reach you,"</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue;">But my words like silent raindrops fell,</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue;"> And echoed</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue;"> In the wells of silence."</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small;"><em>By Paul Simon "Sound of Silence"</em></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdJ7R9q2q9YVcdJmLXGTIp2RgbyxZnz6pbirxvbKSn4xX8p97y41Iv2rScBMv6HYWISUMqTPcIpjN2vo5e2OsBmxRWEm9BCVXw76C30BwmXV8inZcRe4ezCji9dKYaAAW7u1UT/s1600/4ripple_growing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdJ7R9q2q9YVcdJmLXGTIp2RgbyxZnz6pbirxvbKSn4xX8p97y41Iv2rScBMv6HYWISUMqTPcIpjN2vo5e2OsBmxRWEm9BCVXw76C30BwmXV8inZcRe4ezCji9dKYaAAW7u1UT/s320/4ripple_growing.jpg" width="320" wt="true" /></span></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div align="left" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="color: blue;">REPRESENTATIVE SARA FEIGENHOLTZ (DEM - CHGO)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">What do you to have to say about the insult that was sent out in an Email post dated April 26th under your official Email address - the letter that referred to us as "ungrateful bastards."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">LEGISLATORS</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">HB 5428 says adoptees whose birth parents signed denial forms may come back and try again in 5 years. What will you say to the adoptee who comes back 5 years later and tells you that his or her birth mother died two years ago?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">What will you tell the adoptee who was born on January 2, 1946? Why can't he or she get a birth certificate just like the adoptees born on January 1, 1946? How are they different?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">DEFORMERS</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">You say that somday you will revisit the situation of the adoptees whose birth parents filed a Denial Veto against them. Do you have evidence that any other deformer law has ever been revisited by the deformers and changed to encompass all adoptees in the state?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">STATE OF ILLINOIS</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">Homeless children need your help. Adopted adults do not. What makes you think they do?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Why are you in the adoption search and reunion business?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Why can the State ever uphold an implied agreement between two parties when the agreement violates a third party's civil rights?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Why are you hiding underneath the skirts of birth mothers? Why do you use them as an excuse to keep the records sealed?</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">ILLINOIS ADOPTEES</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">Where are you all? Why don't you speak out about your own civil and human rights that are being held hostage by the State? Don't you care what happens to the adoptees in your state?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwkHokBMXDC0XO-F8_TKsDPd3DTuJIW48luLa_ySDjylDwwjYSS67Ept1-jkRvmHNQ_vLn9Tqth5KU7MECgi30Rmb-3b6f6Z6y8Bad9Nrzff2MrgWbNWqTFVo_p63EE5HEeGL2/s1600/silent-crowd.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: blue;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwkHokBMXDC0XO-F8_TKsDPd3DTuJIW48luLa_ySDjylDwwjYSS67Ept1-jkRvmHNQ_vLn9Tqth5KU7MECgi30Rmb-3b6f6Z6y8Bad9Nrzff2MrgWbNWqTFVo_p63EE5HEeGL2/s320/silent-crowd.jpg" width="320" wt="true" /></span></a></div>Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-61633343885039718062010-05-07T18:34:00.000-07:002010-05-07T20:24:12.926-07:00Illinois HB 5428 - The Aftermath<div align="center"></div><span style="font-family:lucida grande;"><em>*I am angry</em></span> at a state that still wants to maintain its control over adopted adults.<br /><br />*I am angry at a state that continues to dictate who can and cannot get their birth certificate.<br /><br />*I am angry at a state that creates a new law that gives birth parents the right to veto adoptees' requests for their original birth certificate.<br /><br />*I am angry at a state that treats adoptees differently in the law because of the circumstances surrounding our births. If not for being born out of wedlock, we would have our birth certificates.<br /><br />My granddaughters often say to one another: "You're not the boss of me." This is how I see my relationship with the state.<br /><div align="left"><br /><br /></div><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 240px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5468719059720424546" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc-6pLEo1L0nGw-Rv1h1EXBIqANYCqxd0NBZA0TEV3dGbFvqm7mqoDE0AGrOnSpbkTIBmj2VHNI84R80OzF_qu7y749-WjcdvU0vMKx1glada72P1uIos2P87jFsuePGjswauU/s320/girl+boss.jpg" /><br /><span style="font-family:lucida grande;">HB 5428</span> is a bill that I hate and so do many other adoptees; yet it is loved by thousands more. I ask myself, "What separates us?<br /><br />I'm a purist. I believe that the state should restore to all adopted adults their right to access their original birth certificate at the same time and in the same way = the way that non-adopted citizens get their birth certificate and not in the ways outlined in HB 5428.<br /><br />So long as the state has control over even one adopted adult, the state is in essence still controlling all of us. It is way past time for the state to get itself totally out of our lives. When we reach the age of maturity, just give us our birth certificate and our adoption documents and kick us out of the system. Do that and you will be giving us the biggest gift of all - the chance to be just anonymous citizens of Illinois.<br /><br /><br /><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 129px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5468718579153120322" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7FpJQxltCugJIRe1adsRLZiKTkcVPToP6Vq2uQ61WYe55C9iHiuryusOgw4D-tWqtAPF4NaJxnCkrc7yPzW19pGSZQdOh-B7b3rSO5udeoSOt1sUBYnyhwe-DEGsD0OdMknnc/s320/crowds+horiz.jpg" /><br /><div align="center"></div><div align="center">FROM PREMISE TO LAW</div><div align="center"> </div><div align="left"></div><div align="left">Birth mothers irrevocably relinquished us to a new life at least 21 years ago. Allowing them to have any say over us at this state of the game is ludicrous. Yet here comes the state, HB 5428 in hand, giving birth mothers a legal right to exercise authority over our lives today, actually creating a new legal tie between us. That state says that there has always been a premise that birth parents were promised anonymity by the state. Now the premise has become a law.</div><p>The irony here is that there never were any promises or contracts or agreements concerning anonymity made between the state and birth parents. It is a big lie. But for a lot of reasons, too complicated to go into here, the state needed reasons for keeping our records sealed. So the state began telling this lie every time adoptees raised a voice in protest.</p><p>"OH NO," says the state. "We promised birth parents that we would keep their identities <em>secret from their offspring and we must uphold this promise."</em> Tell it enough times and people start to believe you.</p><p>I always thought that when birth parents relinquished their children to adoption, it was irrevocable. It was a "forever" act on their part. After 30 days, the adopted child is legally the child of his/her adoptive parents - forever.</p><p><em><span style="color:#c0c0c0;"><span style="font-family:courier new;"><strong>FINAL AND IRREVOCABLE CONSENT TO ADOPTION</strong></span> </span></em></p><p><span style="color:#c0c0c0;"><strong><span style="font-family:courier new;">I, .....(relationship, eg., mother, father, relative, guardian) of .....,</span> <span style="font-family:courier new;">a ...male child, state:</span></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Courier New;color:#c0c0c0;"><strong>That such child was born on ..... at .....</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Courier New;color:#c0c0c0;"><strong>That I reside at ....., County of ..... and State of .....</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Courier New;color:#c0c0c0;"><strong>That I am of the age of ..... years.</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Courier New;color:#c0c0c0;"><strong>That I do hereby enter my appearance in this proceeding and waive service of summons on me.</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Courier New;color:#c0c0c0;"><strong>That I do hereby consent and agree to the adoption of such child.</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Courier New;color:#c0c0c0;"><strong>That I wish to and understand that by signing this consent I do irrevocably and permanently give up all custody and other parental rights I have to such child.</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Courier New;color:#c0c0c0;"><strong>That I understand such child will be placed for adoption and that I cannot under any circumstances, after signing this document, change my mind and revoke or cancel this consent or obtain or recover custody or any other rights over such child. That I have read and understand the above and I am signing it as my free and voluntary act. </strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Courier New;color:#c0c0c0;"><strong>Dated........ [750 ILCS 50/10]</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family:lucida grande;">HB 5428 has set a new precedent by changing the rights of birth mothers. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:lucida grande;">I wonder ----- How much litigation will stem from HB 5428?</span></p><p><span style="font-family:lucida grande;">I wonder ----- Is it really legal for a state to honor or uphold a promise made between private citizens when this promise stomps on a third person's constitutional, civil, and human rights?</span></p><p><span style="font-family:lucida grande;">I wonder ----- Now that the state has created a new law for birth parents, what other new laws may follow? I've got a really great idea for a new law.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:lucida grande;">Why not write a bill in which all non-adopted citizens must have parental permission to get their birth certificates. How would that go over with the general public? <strong>Do you see how absurd this whole situation is? Why should any adult need permission from a parent before accessing a birth certificate? It's stupid! </strong>But it is exactly what is going to happen after 5428 becomes a law.</span></p><p></p><p></p><div align="left"><br /><br /></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><br /><br /></p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><p><br /><br /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><br /></p><ul><br /><br /></ul><span style="font-family:lucida grande;"><br /><br /><br /><p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><p><br /><br /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><br /></p>Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-21971415511895433952010-04-29T18:32:00.000-07:002010-04-29T20:47:42.932-07:00ANOTHER OPEN LETTER TO REPRESENTATIVE SARA FEIGENHOLTZ<span style="color:#000000;">Dear Representative Feigenholtz:</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">I was horrified to read the ugly reply to Lori Jeske's email post to you on April 26, 2010. How in the world can you, an elected public official, condone such an outrage as this post? Didn't they teach you anything in politician school?</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>From Lori to Representative Feigenholtz:</em></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>The bill and your efforts to pass this bill are inhuman. This bill will prove to a huge population of citizens that Democrats should no longer govern the State of Illinois. It is with deep regret, as a Democrat, to see this bill and your inability to stand up for ALL citizens in the State of Illinois.</em></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>Lori Jeske, Spokane, WA</em></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">We will never know for certain if you, in a temper fit, fired off the nasty reply below, or if it was someone in your office who is authorized by you to answer your mail. Either way, Representative Feigenholtz, you are ultimately responsible for what is sent out from your state contact Email address.</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>From: Sara</em></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>To: Lori Jeske</em></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:00 PM</em></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>Subject: Re: HB 5428</em></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>Thank you so much for your kind remarks about HB 5428.</em></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>We will pay for your travel expenses if you will come here and start working on a new bill that completes the effort so that all adoptees get their obc. Are you ready to move to Illinois and sacrifice your life to work for adoption reform for the next fifteen years in the frigid winter tundra of Illinois?</em></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>Would you consider giving Representative Feigenholtz the key to your (delusional) Eutopian worldwhere all ungrateful bastards think it's easy to pass a bill that makes everyhone happy AND CAN ACTUALLY PASS? Pass a law? what a concept!!</em></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>Many Illinois born 65+ year old adoptees will get their birth certificates BEFORE THEY DIE -- very soon.</em></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>We wil tell them that you would prefer to throw good under the bus while waiting for perfect and that you think they should wait a little longer. Good luck in Washington State with your efforts. We can hear the unsealing now........</em></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>NOT.</em></span><br /><br /><em>[reprinted with permission of Lori Jeske]</em><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">Didn't you know how much opposition there was to HB 5428? It's true that Illinois adoptees had very little chance to write to you before this because frankly, Sara, you kept this bill a secret from us just as long as you could. So perhaps you've been insulated from our opposition to HB 5428. Nevertheless, I would have expected a seasoned public servant such as yourself to be able to control your temper (or that of a staff member) when answering the mail, even from your opponents.</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">We in Bastard Nation call ourselves Bastards - with a capital B. We reclaimed the name of Bastard which had been placed on us by those who would attempt to shame us for our parents' marital status at the time of our births. We use this name because we see nothing shameful in being adopted nor in having been born out of wedlock. We use it to take the sting out of the shameful name-calling of yesteryear.</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">What unbelievable irony it is that you, an adoptee yourself, or one of your co-workers, would hurl the term bastard at us in the "old-fashioned" way. </span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">And then, you coupled it with a very special adjective resented by so many adoptees over the years - "ungrateful." This incredible insult, "ungrateful bastard," is the last straw! This time you or someone who works directly for you has sunk to an all time low. We won't forget. And neither should you. </span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">BTW, I have lived in the frigid white tundra of Illinois all my life. I work well in the cold weather so I guess I have good qualifications. Believe me. One phone call or one Email back in icy January or snowy February and my colleagues and I would have been elated to work with you and your staff to pass a bill that would help all adoptees attain equal rights. It would have been a labor of love.</span><br /><br /><div><span style="color:#000000;"></span></div><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;"></span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"></span>Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-13893032342107041422010-04-15T19:07:00.000-07:002010-04-15T19:56:01.607-07:00Adoptees & Free Speech<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidh78splq8v3u3lYMIj3v-3Z_BiaK9DWt_zYkpNyl5IqdRNF2iwgs6HsDQWwkSHqtfEQTT1YiUa1crRvYTeTmT-CTb-x2fm1dQsY7ZDtothLoBrBGfPWnxzeS93_Tlr4LKOuU3/s1600/free_speech_cartoon.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 138px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 200px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5460560260138057154" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidh78splq8v3u3lYMIj3v-3Z_BiaK9DWt_zYkpNyl5IqdRNF2iwgs6HsDQWwkSHqtfEQTT1YiUa1crRvYTeTmT-CTb-x2fm1dQsY7ZDtothLoBrBGfPWnxzeS93_Tlr4LKOuU3/s200/free_speech_cartoon.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><div><div><span style="font-size:85%;color:#6600cc;">It's starting again. Deformers who want to pass conditional access legislation love to throw tomatoes at those of us who do not agree with them. When we wipe off the tomatoes and still speak out, they tell us we don't really understand what's going on in their state and therefore, we should zip it.</span></div><br /><div><span style="color:#6600cc;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You don't tell me what to say and I don't tell you. Adoptees do not all belong to one huge fraternity. We have not taken an oath of allegiance to each other. We have never sworn to uphold any "party line." We are individuals who happen to have been adopted. </span><br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size:85%;color:#6600cc;">If I believe that an adoptee rights bill is a bad one, I will speak out. It doesn't matter in which state this is happening. What matters is that my conscience tells me that this is a bad bill and so I will continue to respectfully and publically state my opposition in any public forum of my choosing.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:85%;color:#6600cc;">The U.S. Constitution guarantees that we are able to travel freely between states. Our ideas and words must be able to freely cross all state borders as well.</span></div><br /><br /><div><span style="color:#6600cc;"></span></div><br /><br /><br /><div><span style="color:#6600cc;"></span></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div></div>Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-55132352831740896092010-04-10T07:50:00.001-07:002010-04-10T07:59:39.086-07:00IL HB 5428 DO NOT PASSURGENT ACTION ALERT – ILLINOIS HB 5428<br />PLEASE FORWARD FREELY <br /><br />Illinois HB 5428, the bill that is supposed to help adoptees get their obcs, but doesn’t - is on the move again. It was rushed through the House and passed on the House floor by a vote of 74 – 67. Now it’s going quickly through the Senate. It must be stopped right now in the Judiciary Committee.<br /><br />The Illinois Judiciary Committee has scheduled a public hearing for HB 5428. It will be held on Tuesday, April 13, at 2:30 pm in Capitol 400, Springfield, IL. We hope that some of you will be able to attend and speak to the committee. This will be our opportunity to speak out and talk directly to these senators. <br /><br />If public speaking isn’t your thing, then please consider coming anyways because we really need to have the committee members look out into the audience and see a lot of people who object to this bill. Your very presence in that room is extremely important!<br /><br />We are also asking everyone to write and/or call the committee members before the hearing on the 13th. (Contact Information below) <br /> <br />The only way for Illinois to be a truly open state some day is to stop conditional legislation such as HB 5428 from getting a foot in the door now. We want a state where every single adoptee is free to request his obc, with no restrictions or alterations. We want a state where adoptees will be equal among themselves as well as with all other non-adopted citizens. <br /><br />We need an unconditional bill to accomplish this goal. HB 5428 won’t help. It is a conditional bill (see specifics below) which will keep some adoptees locked out of the system for good.<br /> <br />The legislators will not revisit adoptee problems any time soon if they can get HB 5428 in the law now. History has proven this to be true.<br />The legislators do not care about the percentage of adoptees whose birth mothers will file a disclosure veto and keep them from getting a birth certificate. If the law makers really cared, they would change this bill right now so that 100% of Illinois adoptees could get their obcs. The legislators have absolutely no incentive to come back again another year – and they won’t. <br /><br />Here is the law from Oregon. It is simple, to the point, and does the job. This is the kind of law we want but we will NEVER get it if HB 5428 passes.<br /><br /><em>“Upon receipt of a written application to the Illinois Dept. of Public Health, any adopted person 21 years of age and older born in the State of Illinois shall be issued a certified copy of his/her unaltered, original and unamended certificate of birth in the custody of the Dept. of Public Health, with procedures, filing fees, and waiting periods identical to those imposed upon non-adopted citizens of the State of Illinois.”</em><br /><br />The State of Illinois must no longer be allowed to honor an archaic sealed records law enacted in 1946 that took away from 100% of the adoptees their right to access their original birth certificate without restrictions or falsifications. Now, in 2010, we want the State of Illinois to restore that right to 100% of the adoptees in the state. We want all adoptees to be equal to all other adoptees and to all of the non-adopted citizens when it comes to accessing their birth certificate.<br /><br />WHAT ARE SOME SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO HB 5428?<br /> <br />1. HB 5428 would give birth parents a right to stop an obc (original birth certificate) from being issued to their adoptee. Any birth parent would have an entire year to file a Denial Form. The bill details several ways in which the state will advertise the new bill to try to reach as many birth mothers as possible and let them know about their new option to file a denial form. And remember, these are the very same birth mothers who irrevocably relinquished all legal rights to their children decades ago.<br /><br />2. The state will allow birth parents to legally veto an obc. Therefore, it follows that the state is actually transferring to birth parents a part of its statutory authority to issue official birth certificates. Birth parents have no legal standing in the law and must not be given any such standing.<br /><br />3. This bill would permit the state to white-out historical birth information from either a copy or an original document that the state officially issues – both unacceptable.<br /><br />4. The bill would divide adoptees into two arbitrary categories: those born before January 1, 1946, and those born after. The adoptees born before this date would be allowed to get their obcs without any restrictions or falsifications. Those born after Jan. 1, 1946 will comprise the pool of all adoptees who will be eligible for a birth parent veto.<br /><br />5. This bill will cost the state a lot of money and the state is nearly broke; it’s laying off teachers and closing public schools right now.<br /><br />6. HB 5428 is a search and reunion bill – not an adoptee civil and human rights bill. If adoptees want help from the state in search and reunion matters – then let the social workers and the searchers write a separate bill. Search and reunion issues do not belong in a bill to own one’s birth certificate.<br /><br />7. HB 5428 is a birth mother- rights bill – not an adoptee civil and human rights bill. Birth parents have no standing in the law and should not be given standing in an adoptee bill. If birth mothers want the state to protect their anonymity, then let them write their own bill. <br /><br /> The archaic 1946 law should be repealed. In its place a new and simple law can then be enacted, one similar to the states of Oregon, Alabama, New Hampshire, and Maine. Kansas and Alaska never sealed their records and adopted adults in those states have always been able to freely access their birth certificate. Unsealing obcs for all adoptees can be done very easily. Just ask anyone from these 6 states. They have been no litigation, no birth parent uprisings, no citizens coming back to the legislature demanding that the law be changed, and no social upheaval, as some had predicted. <br /><br />You can read the full text at: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=76&GA=96&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=5428&GAID=10&LegID=50466&SpecSess=&Session=<br /><br />Status of the bill : http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=5428&GAID=10&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=50466&SessionID=76&GA=96<br /><br />IllinoisOpen Organization<br />www.ilopen.org<br /><br />Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization<br />www.bastards.org<br /><br />Questions? Please write to anita5000@comcast. net or obc@ilopen.org<br /><br /><br />CONTACT INFORMATION<br /><br />We are very much aware that some of these email addresses may not be correct. It is extremely difficult to get any senate email addresses. They “don’t want them to be given out.” So please do the best you can and try and get through to as many as possible. <br />A short phone call to the senator’s office is an excellent alternative. FAX’s are good too. <br /><br />ILLINOIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE<br />REPUBLICANS<br />KIRK DILLARD<br />Phone 217-782-8148 FAX (630)-969-1007<br />http://dillard.senategop.org/index.php/contact-us-mainmenu-3<br />template<br /> <br />RANDALL M. HULTGREN<br />Phone 217-782-8022 FAX (217)-782-9586<br />senatorrandyhultgren@gmail.com.This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it <br />MATT MURPHY<br /><br />Phone 217-782-4471 FAX (847) 776-1494<br />http://www.murphy2010.com/connect.aspx<br />DALE A. RIGHTER<br />217 – 782-6674 FAX (217)-235-6052<br />template on personal page<br />http://www.dalerighter.com/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=1&Itemid=3<br /><br /> <br />DEMOCRATS<br /><br />WILLIAM R. HAINE<br />217-782-5247 FAX (217) 782-5340<br />whaine@senatedem.state.ilga.gov<br /><br />TERRY LINK<br />217-782-8181 FAX (847-735-8184)<br />senator@link30.org or<br />tlink@senatedem.state.ilga.gov<br /> <br />MICHAEL NOLAND<br />217-782-7746 FAX (217) 782-2115<br />mnoland@senatedem.state.ilga.gov<br />KWAME RAOUL<br />217-782-5338 FAX (773) 681-7166<br />raoulstaff@gmail.com or<br />kraoul@senatedem.state.ilga.gov<br /><br />IRA SILVERSTEIN Co-Sponsor of bill<br />217-782-5500 FAX (217-782-5340)<br />isilverstein@senatedem.state.ilga.gov<br /> <br />DON HARMON<br />217-782-8176 FAX ( 708) 848-2022<br />dharmon@senatedem.state.ilga.gov.<br />A.J.WILHELMI Chief Sponsor of the bill<br />217-782-8800 FAX (815) 207-4446<br /><br />http://ajwilhelmi.com/ajwilhelmi/?page_id=42 <br />campaign page template or<br />awilhelmi@senatedem.state.ilga.gov<br /> <br />Representative Sara Feigenholtz (D-Chgo) is the main sponsor of the bill in the House of Representatives.Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-68443226210408138692010-04-06T07:44:00.000-07:002010-04-06T07:58:48.461-07:00<span style="color:#000099;"><br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#990000;">HOW A BILL BECOMES A LAW – IN ILLINOIS</span></strong> </span><br /><br /><br /><span style="color:#000099;"></span><br /><p><span style="color:#000099;"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 200px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 132px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5457036416027139074" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq59e2hlRV2KNQBECzBPIw5RDSbbZHvdbl6qLx5BXGttvWNUJxDd2s1PQMhaO-C_McTAvQCZRt20NTdD2qWxWNL5IpeO6HLkRTQIa9J9oebA0rfUmjTVVKvadwfNUaSHHWP49H/s200/secret.jpg" /><br />Illinois HB 5428 is a 72 page bill that purports to give adopted adults access to their original birth certificate. This bill deals with a very controversial law that has been debated back and forth for over 40 years:<br /><br /><em>Should the State of Illinois continue to honor a sealed records law enacted in 1946 that took away from adoptees their right to access their original birth certificate without restrictions and falsifications?</em><br /><br />The sponsor of HB 5428 is of course Representative Sara Feigenholtz (Dem-Chgo).The thrust of the bill is to give obcs to some adoptees, some of the time. But this bill contains a birth parent denial form masquerading as a Contact Preference Form. It has a section on when identifying information can be redacted. It splits adoptees into two distinct groups: those born before Jan. 1 and those born after this date and each group is treated differently.<br /><br />Representative Feigenholtz knows that there is a very strong and out-spoken contingency in Illinois as well as around the United States that believes ALL adopted adults must have equal access to their obcs.. IllinoisOpen Org. and Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization are two such groups. They do not accept compromises, restrictions, or falsifications. So the problem for Representative Feigenholtz became – how to keep this bill out of those brash adoptees’ hands until it’s too late for them to act.<br /><br />Representative Feigenholtz and her cronies began by building up an invisible wall of silence and secrecy around her and the bill.<br /><br />Tracking the bill was made harder by giving the bill a "generic" name; a name that wouldn't call attention to itself as being about adoptee rights or birth certificates. HB 5428 is titled "Adoption Registry - Info - No Sunset."<br /><br />There were no press conferences called, no press releases sent out, and no newspaper articles written about this bill. Silence was maintained on the Internet too. Nothing on FaceBook or MySpace and no twitters or blogs. </span></p><span style="color:#000099;"><p><br /><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>But the most surprising thing of all –there is nothing at all on Sara’s official website at http://www.staterepsara.com/index.php?pageId=4 She writes about lots of her legislation, but not one word about a bill called HB 5428.</strong><br /></span><br />Representative Feigenholtz did not play on an even field. She kept all info about the bill on her side while the public didn’t even get into the ball park. There were no opportunities for the public to read about the bill and conversely, no opportunities for the legislators to hear any feedback from Illinois adoptees.<br /><br />What really makes me the angriest is that there were no public hearings called by the Adoption Reform Committee. Oops, did I forget to tell you who is the Chairperson of this committee? Why it’s Representative Sara Feigenholtz, of course.<br /><br />Normally a public committee hearing is scheduled by the sponsor so that both supporters and opponents can come to Springfield to testify before the Committee. Both oral and written testimony is accepted. When a lot of people show up from one side or the other, it often has a lot of influence with the committee. New amendments are deleted or added, wording is changed, and alterations are often made to whole sections of the bill following the public hearing . Legislation is not supposed to be discussed only in the smoke filled back rooms that Cook County is so famous for.<br /><br />The silence worked for Representative Feigenholtz. At the end of the day, HB 5428 passed on the floor of the House by a vote of 74 Yes to 39 NO. The bill is now in the Senate awaiting a committee assignment.<br /><br />Usually, Representative Feigenholtz would call a press conference to announce and celebrate her victory. After all, this is the first time an adoptee rights bill has actually passed in the full House. Lesson Number One in politics: Keep controversial bills far away from the media.<br /><br />Since we uncovered the news of this bill, we have been blogging, twittering, calling, writing and faxing our legislators and media all around the state. It is imperative for us to inform the public about the bill’s very existence and of course, express our opposition to it.<br /><br />And finally our efforts have begun to bear fruit. Last week, Mary Lynn Fuller, Co-Founder of IllinoisOpen Org, had her Letter to the Editor published in both the Champaign News Gazette and The Paxton Record. Yesterday (Monday) Triona Guidrey had one letter in the Chicago Sun Times and one in the Chicago Daily Herald. At last! The bill is beginning to take on an identity to go with its number. </p><p><br />Talking and writing about a bill validates its existence Now that we have been instrumental in getting this bill some publicity, it’s no longer just a number– it’s a real adoptee bill, it’s actually written down, it’s terrible, and it’s really very important to oppose it.<br /><br />So everyone – keep on writing! Continue to break Representative Feigenholtz’ sound barrier!<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#660000;">WHY HB 5428 IS NOT A GOOD BILL AND SHOULD NOT PASS</span></strong><br /><br />1. HB 5428 would give birth parents a right to stop an obc (original birth certificate) from being issued to their adoptees. . Birth mothers would have an entire year to file a Denial Form. Remember, these are the very same birth mothers who irrevocably relinquished all legal rights to their children decades ago.<br />2. The state would be transferring a part of its statutory authority to issue birth certificates to Illinois citizens by allowing birth parents to have a legal role in who does and who does not get an obc.<br /><br />3. HB 5428 has provisions in it where the state can actually redact all identifying information from some adoptees' original birth documents. The bill would permit the state to white-out historical birth information from either a copy or an original document that the state officially issues – both unacceptable.<br /><br />4. The bill would divide adoptees into two categories: those born before January 1, 1946, and those born after. The adoptees born before this date would be allowed to get their obcs without any restrictions or falsifications. Those born after Jan. 1, 1946 are the ones whowill be eligible for a birth parent veto.<br /><br />5. This bill would have to have a fiscal note. Illinois is laying off teachers because it can't pay them. It's outrageous to think of the state spending even one dollar of taxpayer's money on a year-long campaign to tell birth mothers of their new "right" to file Denial Forms. This unique campaign is spelled out in the text of the bill.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p></span>Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-4551197754781095112010-04-02T19:22:00.000-07:002010-04-02T20:57:40.541-07:00<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">STOP ILLLINOIS HB 5428</span></span><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0pADQX5TCrm5S8OsoHeAh9n_I4Lki-kAxByeJI95axoRy4FBDySkzvJyKXtEQkl6eDoQjkOF_RinWuOjpheWj62MJ4mv3nuFSLlrToa9CN78dmTmpt6YdlOqTZj6G3pCrnhAG/s1600/outrageous.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 250px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 320px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5455751576315513490" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0pADQX5TCrm5S8OsoHeAh9n_I4Lki-kAxByeJI95axoRy4FBDySkzvJyKXtEQkl6eDoQjkOF_RinWuOjpheWj62MJ4mv3nuFSLlrToa9CN78dmTmpt6YdlOqTZj6G3pCrnhAG/s320/outrageous.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><br />There is a very bad adoptee rights bill going through the Illinois General Assembly. HB 5428 has already passed the House of Representatives and is in the Senate Assignments Committee now, awaiting a referral to a regular committee.<br /><br /><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;">1.HB 5428 would give birth parents a right to stop an obc (original birth certificate) from being issued to their adoptee. Any birth parent would have an entire year to file a Denial Form. Remember, these are the very same birth mothers who irrevocably relinquished all legal rights to their children decades ago.<br /><br /></span><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;">2. HB 5428 has provisions in it where the state can actually redact all identifying information from some adoptees' original birth documents.<br /><br /><br />3. The bill would divide adoptees into two categories: those born before January 1, 1946, and those born after. The adoptees born before this date would be allowed to get their obcs without any restrictions or falsifications. Those born after Jan. 1, 1946 will comprise the pool of all adoptees who will be eligible for a birth parent veto.<br /><br /></span><span style="color:#3333ff;">4. This bill would have to have a fiscal note. Illinois is laying off teachers because it can't pay them. It's outrageous to think of the state spending even one dollar of taxpayer's money on a year-long campaign to tell birth mothers of their new "right" to file denial forms. This campaign is spelled out in the text of the bill.<br /><br /><br />5. HB 5428 would also need new monies in order to print all of new forms that the bill calls for. Money will also be needed to hire people to manage the several layers of new red tape that is written into this bill.<br /></span><br /><br />We must stop this bill in its tracks. HB 5428 has already passed in the House, which means it's half-way home. The bill's sponsor, Representative Sara Feigenholtz (Dem-Chgo) put this bill on a fast track in order to keep the bill hidden from the public.It was kept so quiet that it did not even have a public hearing to accept oral and written testimony from the citizens of the state. Not one word about the bill was ever written about or talked about in the IL media. I guess that's what the reps do with a contentious bill.<br /><br />Tracking the bill was made difficult by giving the bill a "generic" name; a name that wouldn't call attention to itself as being about adoptee rights or birth certificates. HB 5428 is titled "Adoption Registry - Info - No Sunset."<br /><br />Ironically, I read about the bill on March 18 or 19th, a day AFTER the bill passed on the House floor. I opened one of my Google Alerts and what do I see but a link to the <em>St. Louis Post-Dispatch Newspaper </em>- yep, that's St. Louis, MISSOURI. I understand that some folks in southern Illinois read this newspaper. But it sure is odd that this is the one and only place the bill has received any publicity. If this were such a wonderful bill, I would expect Representative Feigenholtz to have called a press conference to announce that her bill had been approved by the House of Representatives.<br /><br />The best thing that could happen to this bill would be for it to be pulled. Since I don't envision Representative Feigenholtz doing anything of the sort, the next best thing could happen in the Assignments Committee. This committee could chose not to release this bill, and the result would be a dead bill in June.<br /><br />If the bill does get a referral to a Senate Committee, then this will be the next place to kill the bill. We'll keep you informed.<br /><br />Please write a short letter to the members of the Assignments Committee, asking them to keep this bill out a Senate Committee until the legislative session is over. You can also write to the sponsors of the bill in the Senate. Ask them to please revisit and reconsider the ramifications of HB 5428. Ask them to change the bill so it becomes a true adoptee rights bill.<br /><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;">CONTACT INFORMATION</span><br />ASSIGNMENTS COMMITTEE MEMBERS<br />Senator James F. Clayborne, Jr. jclayborne@senatedem.ilga.gov,<br />Senator Don Harmon dharmon@senatedem.ilga.gov<br />Senator Louis Viverito, lviverito@statedem.ilga.gov<br />Senator Kirk Dillard senator@kdillard.com<br />Senator Dale Righter drighter@consolidated.net<br /><br />SENATE SPONSORS OF HB 5428<br />Senator A. J. Wilhelm awilhelmi@senatedem.ilga.gov<br />Senator Ira Silverstein isilverstein@senatedem.ilga.gov<br />Senator Iris Martinez imartinez@senatedem.ilga.govGrannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-36476935341271243682010-03-21T20:12:00.000-07:002010-03-21T20:13:46.614-07:00ILLINOISOPEN ORGANIZATION<br />http://www.ilopen.org<br /><br />BASTARD NATION: THE ADOPTEE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION<br /> www.bastard.org<br />___________________________________________________________________ <br /><strong>PRESS RELEASE</strong><br />March 22, 2010<br />For Immediate Release<br /><br />CONTACT INFORMATION<br /><br />Anita Walker Field, 1-847-677-0594 <br />Marley Greiner, 1-614-571-2999<br />Mary Lynn Fuller, 1-217-722-4814 <br /><br /><strong><br />ADOPTEE RIGHTS SQUASHED AGAIN IN NEW ILLINOIS BILL – HB 5428. </strong><br /><br />On March 19, 2010, The Illinois House of Representatives passed a bill that purports to give all adopted adults access to their original birth certificates. On March 23, 2010, HB 5428 GOES TO THE SENATE, awaiting committee assignment.<br /><br />Under HB 5428, birth mothers will be allowed to file affidavits of denial – meaning that a birth mother can veto an adoptee’s right to access his or her original birth certificate.<br /><br />THIS IS A DANGEROUS STEP TO TAKE. IT CREATES AND CODIFIES A NEW RIGHT THAT HAS NEVER BEFORE BEEN IN OUR ADOPTION ACT. <br /> <br />2. Allows the state to delete a variety of identifying information from official documents, depending upon a birth mother’s response. <br /><br /><strong>We believe:<br />HB 5428 needs to be amended in the Senate so that it would restore to ALL adoptees access to their original birth certificates, without any restrictions, such as prior parental approval. If that cannot happen, then HB 5428 must be pulled or left to die in committee.</strong><br /><br />Text of Bill: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09600HB5428lv&SessionID=76&GA=96&DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=5428&print=trueGrannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-89469832469007405322010-02-15T08:43:00.000-08:002010-02-15T08:47:58.131-08:00South Dakota SB 152- Do PassACTION ALERT- Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization<br /> <br />SOUTH DAKOTA –SB 152 – Unconditional Access to OBC's - Vote Yes<br /> <br />SB 152, a 100% unconditional open records bill, will be voted upon on the floor of the South Dakota Senate on TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2010.<br /><br />Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization, urges everyone to write to the Senators of South Dakota immediately and ask them to vote YES on SB 152, which will give all adoptees equal rights. SB 152 will allow any adoptee 18 years or older to obtain a copy of that person’s original birth certificate upon written application, with no conditions or restrictions.<br /> <br />SB 152 is sponsored by Senators Adelstein, Jerstad, and Merchant and Representatives Lederman, Feinstein, Lust, McLaughlin, and Sly. <br /> <br />The bill was heard first by the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. The only change made in committee was omitting a contact preference form in the bill. It was felt that this form was not necessary to the bill. The Senate committee passed the bill with a vote of 4 to 2.<br /> <br />Help make 2010 the year South Dakota goes over the top! Please bombard the senators with your letters of rousing support!. You can read the bill at:<br /> <br />http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=SB152SHE.htm<br /> <br /> <br />CONTACT INFORMATION<br /><br />South Dakota has made it very easy for everyone to write.<br /> <br /> http://legis.state.sd.us/email/LegislatorEmail.aspx?MemberID=30s:<br /> <br />Go here to get started: Start out with first Senator on the list. Put SB 152 in your email subject line. Write your letter or attach it, click Send, and then in the Drop Down Box, choose next Senator in line and click Send, etc... It’s like an easy cut-&-paste arrangement. All you need is one letter.<br /> <br />PLEASE FORWARD FREELY.Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-32529714479566356172010-01-10T19:51:00.000-08:002010-01-10T21:14:48.085-08:00<span style="color:#3333ff;">ILLINOIS SAFE HAVEN: REVISED, REVISITED, REPULSED</span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho58AMnKEAtlxwPhfN7gLDyar5TIEtHIell-9zkmPzQ8VsAtO5qfJHnqJ0zF1WyNw0rXHhosaW2bhZqPy57YCqjJajzngqfBvi23Ufn9DYamqzOEzUCHLXft306GG84aDR0VaW/s1600-h/demons+of+stupidity.bmp"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 184px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 200px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5425326349827488114" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho58AMnKEAtlxwPhfN7gLDyar5TIEtHIell-9zkmPzQ8VsAtO5qfJHnqJ0zF1WyNw0rXHhosaW2bhZqPy57YCqjJajzngqfBvi23Ufn9DYamqzOEzUCHLXft306GG84aDR0VaW/s200/demons+of+stupidity.bmp" /></span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;color:#3333ff;"></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;color:#3333ff;"></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;color:#3333ff;"></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;color:#3333ff;">Illinois has gone and done it. They enacted a new amendment to their Infant Abandonment Protection Act on January 1, 2010. Illinois changed its law so that infants 30 days or less can be anonymously dropped off at a state designated safe haven. The previous law allowed infants up to 7 days old to be dumped. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#3333ff;">Ten years ago, the safe haven provisions were mandated for infants 72 hours old or less. Today there are 23 states, including Illinois, which have safe haven laws to "protect" babies up to 30 days of age. And listen to this. Some states go higher: Indiana 45 days; Kansas 45 days; New Mexico 90 days; North Dakota 365 days - yes, a whole year; South Dakota 60 days; and Texas 60 days.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#3333ff;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#3333ff;">Pardon me for being cynical, but I think that this latest round-up of older babies is to bolster the inventories of adoption agencies and attorneys. Prospective adoptive parents with big bank accounts are waiting in long lines for infants.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#3333ff;">First of all, I do not support any Safe Haven law because I do not believe that the state should sanction the abandonment of children. That said, I am very angry that instead of trying different methods of protecting both mother and child, the state decided to expand its program by upping the age limit to 30 days.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#3333ff;">It is my opinion that mothers of babies 2 or 3 or 4 weeks old should not be allowed to use the safe haven act - ever.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#3333ff;">Dumping a baby anonymously and getting away with it all started in Texas with what we now call the Baby Moses Law. Their law said that infants up to 3 days old could be abandoned legally to a safe haven, where the mother need not identify herself at all; she could just leave the infant and disappear into the ether.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#3333ff;">These original infant protection bills were enacted to prevent mothers from leaving their newborns in smelly garbage Dumpsters and on cold bathroom floors. Women who throw away their newborn babies are extremely mentally disturbed. They are so paralyzed by the crisis that their minds abandon all logic. Their capacity to reason has been so severely diminished that saving the life of the newborn is not uppermost in their minds. They don't care about criminal penalties. What they want is something - anything - to "make it go away."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#3333ff;">In literature there is a writing technique called "Deus ex machina." In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insolvable crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. Today the term is still used for cases where an author uses some improbable plot device to work his or her way out of a difficult situation and make everything come out alright.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#3333ff;">In the beginning, well intentioned but short sighted community members and good hearted but vulnerable legislators came together and came up with a deus ex machina ending for the problem of young women murdering their newborns. They put together a stupid plan that was supposed to save the infant. At the same time, however, the plan throws away the mother. Under all safe haven laws, the mother is quite dispensable; it's okay to discard her.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#3333ff;">Illinois' new amendment gives a new mother an extra gift of time - 30 days. "To Keep or Not To Keep" - that is her question. Remember, children who are legally abandoned under the safe haven laws have their genetic, medical, and ethnic histories stolen from them at the front door of the safe haven.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#3333ff;">What are social service agencies and adoption agencies and child welfare agencies for if not to help the confused or overwhelmed mother with a 2 or 3 or 4 week old baby? What about faith based organization or your pastor? Maybe the mother will benefit from parenting classes or a mother's helper. For some, counseling sessions may be the answer. Or possibly the baby may need to be placed into foster care temporarily. And of course, there is always adoption. These mothers already have many different options for help and a safe haven drop should never be one of them. These mothers should not be allowed to legally abandon a baby!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#3333ff;">The Safe Haven motto throughout the United States has become " ...if it only saves one baby," probably one of the most successful and oft-repeated sound bytes ever heard in the adoption world. That motto created gale force winds which blew up tidal waves of infant protection laws. It drowned our nation in illogical and shameful safe haven acts. But hey, who doesn't want to save a baby?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#3333ff;">Every time I pass through the portals of my local hospital, I see this Illinois Safe Haven sign posted at the entrance and I think, "That's one more mother we didn't save."<br /></span><br /><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh99KCnno4Qb-P0P-cJ2sTxOPeAAx3FWIIp41E3gJRJtrWjr7elbgDCGIEKQ9zz_ZaSNDAE2md-LaxAp8E3CfMsnv-wo08Wou38QEVAGf9TXJYb0m_w24GILeALsmh9IPo6XFYk/s1600-h/Il+safe+haven+logo.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 200px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 172px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5425325629645236962" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh99KCnno4Qb-P0P-cJ2sTxOPeAAx3FWIIp41E3gJRJtrWjr7elbgDCGIEKQ9zz_ZaSNDAE2md-LaxAp8E3CfMsnv-wo08Wou38QEVAGf9TXJYb0m_w24GILeALsmh9IPo6XFYk/s200/Il+safe+haven+logo.jpg" /></a><span style="color:#3366ff;"> <em>I found my statistics at the government website, <a href="http://www.childwelfare.gov/">http://www.childwelfare.gov/</a>. They are good through July 2007 but it's the best I could do without a very tedious and time consuming search reading all the states' laws. I think I can assure you, though, that any states that have amended their law since 2007 have only amended them up in age. No state that I'm aware of has actually lowered the age limit.</em></span></div><br /><div><em><span style="color:#3366ff;"></span></em></div><div><em><span style="color:#3366ff;">I have not found very much record keeping from safe haven advocates. Probably the one person who has kept the most comprehensive statistics on Baby Dumps is Marley Greiner, Chair, Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization.</span></em><br /></div><div><em><span style="color:#3366ff;"><a href="http://bastardette.blogspot.com/">http://bastardette.blogspot.com/</a></span></em></div><br /><div><br /><br /></div><br /><div></div>Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-60438133554833593342010-01-02T16:15:00.000-08:002010-01-02T16:17:29.042-08:00Illinois Safe Haven Law<div align="center">Illinois has made some changes in its Abandoned Newborn Protection Act. The new law provides that “newborn infant” means a child who a licensed physician reasonably believes is 30 (instead of 7) days old or less. This law went into effect on January 1, 2010.<br /><br /><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;">Ode to Illinois<br /><br />30 days hath the mothers<br />To dump your sisters or your brothers.<br />Most of the states have only seven<br />But not here in Baby Dump heaven!<br />It’s 30 all the time here. No line. </span></div>Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-87642923546800043782009-11-03T09:27:00.000-08:002011-12-01T07:35:54.892-08:00Black Market, 1945 Illinois Adoption Act & Sealed Records<div align="left">
<span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: 78%;"><span style="color: #6600cc; font-size: 85%;"><strong>ILLINOIS: A BLACK MARKET HAVEN</strong></span><br /><span style="color: #3366ff;">When Jacob Kepecs, executive director of the Chicago Jewish Children's Bureau was asked why that agency placed </span></span><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: 78%;"><span style="color: #3366ff;">only 12 children for adoption in 1944, he replied: “We don't have them to place. The black market gets them.”</span></span><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: 78%;"><br /><span style="color: #3366ff;">Up until 1945, the Illinois Adoption Act was woefully weak and unregulated. Back then, any person at all could “facilitate” an adoption: an attorney, a doctor, a social worker, a taxi driver, a midwife, a judge, a nurse, your next door neighbor - it didn’t matter. If you knew of a baby who needed to be adopted out, you could just go ahead and find a family who wanted that baby, go to court, and the judge would almost always grant the adoption. The absence of specific adoption regulation in Illinois was a magnet for criminals who made money from selling babies. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div align="left">
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><br />In 1944, Illinois statistics revealed that of the 2,680 adoptions in Cook County, only about 680 were investigated by social agencies. What about the other 2,000?<br /><br />The primary intent of the 1945 Illinois adoption reform legislation was to do away with the rampant illegal baby selling racket in Illinois – the black market. </span><span style="color: #000099; font-size: 85%;"><strong><span style="color: #333399;">1945</span><span style="color: #333399;"> </span>ADOPTION REFORM LAW</strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;">A report commissioned by the Illinois State House of Representatives in May, 1945, concluded that “It would appear from a study of the statutes that the majority of the states have decided, especially in recent years, that the interests of the child are best upheld by a more considered and complex proceeding, with the added safeguard of having the records closed to public inspection.” </span></div>
<div align="left">
<br />
A variety of social work organizations, state public health departments, adoption agencies and civic groups throughout the state wanted to clean up the black market adoption of babies. They believed that the only way to get rid of the racketeers was to make some important changes in the Illinois adoption law.<br />
<br /></div>
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><div align="left">
<br />
It’s interesting to note that this report states that an added safeguard would be closing the records to PUBLIC INSPECTION. It does not say to close them to adoptees! As a matter of fact, to this day in Illinois, all non-adopted citizens’ birth certificates are closed to public inspection. The difference between them and us is that their birth certificates are made available to them upon request, while ours are not..<br />
<br />
As a result of the hue and cry from the social work community, legislators began working on a bill to add major amendments to the Illinois Adoption Act. In May, 1945, the bill was filed in the Illinois General Assembly that contained four new procedures for adoption practice which would give the well-meaning social work community almost total control over adoption proceedings.<br />
<br />
1) Social investigation of the adopting home and the children.<br />
2) Six months’ resident period in the adopting home before signing the final decree.<br />
3) Consent for adoption to be signed in the presence of a licensed agency or clerk of the court.<br />
4) Sealed adoption records which would remain confidential.<br />
<br />
According to The Illinois Children’s Home and Aide Society, “74 per cent of the 1943 adoptions in Illinois were not arranged by licensed welfare agencies…the majority of Illinois adoptions are the sordid negotiations of a few unscrupulous doctors and lawyers, and of unlicensed ‘homes’ and pseudo social agencies of well meaning but uninformed people who strove to befriend an unmarried mother.”<br />
<br />
<br />
Mrs. Marion K. Craine, regional representative of the state department of public welfare reported that there were many adoption cases in which they had reason to believe that large sums of money changed hands, but these cases were hard to prove because you could be sure that the individuals involved would always protect each other. Mrs. Craine said that “there is no way to control this practice until Illinois has more adequate laws for protection of the child.”<br />
<br />
Mrs. Florence Fifer Bohrer of Bloomington, president of the Illinois League of Women Voters in 1945, called Illinois ‘the Gretna Green or Crown Point’ for hasty adoptions for illegitimate children whose mothers knew how easy it was to get rid of them here.’”<br />
<br />
“Illinois has become a state for hasty adoptions for orphaned children by couples who cannot qualify as satisfactory parents under the laws of their own states,” declared Joel D. Hunter, superintendent of the United Charities.<br />
<br />
The Rev. Vincent Cooke, speaking for Catholic Charities said, “Do you believe you can eliminate all the world’s evils merely by passing more laws against them?” </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
Mrs. William B. Walrath from The Cradle Society noted, “We passed a law once to make people stop drinking. But did they?”<br />
<br /></div>
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><div align="left">
<br />
John C. Slade, a prominent Chicago attorney who led the opposition, said “It seems to me this is a question of the social workers wanting to substitute their judgment for that of the courts and the judges.” He objected to the proposed changes because he felt that the new legislation would imply that duly elected judges were not competent to decide on the fitness of adoptive parents and this he found to be unacceptable.<br />
<br />
Attorney Slade continued, “One of the most dangerous features of the amendment is the requirement that the written reports of the investigations be made a part of the records of all adoption proceedings. It would be a vicious thing to attach to the child a permanent record of the details connected with his birth and background. Nothing could provide a more prolific storehouse of ammunition for future troublemakers and busybodies than the contents of such reports.”<br />
<br />
<br />
Adoption attorneys believed that the existing act was just fine the way it was because they felt that it encouraged adoptions and promoted the welfare of orphans and dependent children. Therefore, they concluded, the new proposed amendments to the law were “in direct conflict with the purpose and spirit of the current adoption act.” </div>
<div align="left">
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><br />Despite its critics, the Illinois Adoption Act of 1945 was approved by the House, 127-4. The Senate concurred with a vote of 41 -0, and in June, 1945, Governor Green signed the bill into law. While making some inroads into reform, the social workers lost their most important battle, that of securing for themselves exclusive investigating rights in all adoptions. The final bill allowed County Judges to appoint any one to make the investigation during a 6 month probationary adoption period.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000099; font-size: 85%;"><strong>GRANNY ANNIE’S THEORY<br />HOW TO TURN LOSS INTO VICTORY</strong></span> </div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
<span style="color: #3366ff;">Granny thinks that during the early years of the 1940s, unscrupulous attorneys and doctors began to see the handwriting on the wall. Adoption reforms were coming and they feared that these reforms could put a dent in their lucrative baby-selling business. So the baby sellers put on their thinking caps and Eureka! They found "an out" - it was called SEALED RECORDS</span><span style="color: #3366ff;">. </span></div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
<span style="color: #3366ff;">In particular, the attorneys and judges hooked onto the all important phrase: "<em>All records pertaining to an adoption shall be impounded by the clerk of the court and shall be open for inspection only upon specific order of the court."</em> This new idea could help the black marketeers continue to operate in the lassie faire atmosphere they loved so much and that had prevailed up to now.</span></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="color: #3366ff;"></span></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="color: #3366ff;"></span></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="color: #3366ff;">Unscrupulous baby sellers saw the beauty of the sealed records section - for them. Granted, they would have to put up with the law's new rules of record keeping. But the black market folks also knew that no one was ever going to lay eyes on these records . They could continue to promise people anything that would make them happy and at the same time continue their baby-selling business as usual. </span></div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
<span style="color: #3366ff;">How ironic it is that Illinois added a sealed records clause to its adoption act as a way to help bring about reform measure to the practices of adoption. It was part of a plan to keep the black market out of Illinois. Instead, it has helped dishonest lawyers, doctors, agencies and other individuals who have vested interests in adoptions to carry on with their criminal activities for 65 years now.</span></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="color: #3366ff;"></span></div>
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><span style="color: #6600cc;"><strong><span style="color: #333399;">LISTEN TO GRANNY. SEALED RECORDS ARE A LICENSE TO LIE.</span></strong></span></span></div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<span style="color: #000099;"><strong>Resources</strong></span><br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;">Chicago Daily Tribune Newspaper articles. ProQuest Historical Newspapers Chicago </span></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><br />May 6, 1940. “Nab 2 Women in Trailer Camp for Baby Quiz”<br />May 7, 1940. “ List 1,922 ‘Baby Farm’ Girls”<br />May 28, 1941. “Lawyer Admits Handling Baby Home Adoptions.”<br />July 12, 1944. “Assert Illinois Laws Aid Black Mart in Babies”<br />July 13, 1944. “Council Head Assails State Adoption Law.”<br />July 14, 1944. “Adoption Laws Permit Rackets, Hunter Asserts.”<br />July 30, 1944. “The Adoption Racket”<br />January 3, 1945. “Loopholes in Adoption Law Cited in Battle for Revision.”<br />January 31, 1945. “Present Adoption Law Adequate, Says Cradle Head”<br />February 7, 1945. “Veteran Attorneys Oppose Adoption Law Amendments”<br />February 16, 1945. “Fight Foreseen on Adoption Law Proposals.”<br />February 17, 1945. “Illinois Judges Redraft Code for Adoptions.”<br />April 5, 1945. “Senate Group Approves New Adoption Bill.”<br />June 12, 1945. “Adoption Bill is Approved by House, 127-4.”<br />May 27, 1947. “Adoption Bill Called Invasion of Family Right.”<br /><br />May, 1945. Publication No. 69. Adoption Laws. Report Pursuant to Proposal No. 209. Sponsored by Representative Ben S. Rhodes. Research Dept. Illinois Legislative Council, Springfield.</span></div>
</span></span></span><span style="font-size: 85%;"><span style="color: #000099;"><strong>Social Workers v Attorneys</strong></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;">Giving over total control of adoption procedures to the social work community was abhorrent to the attorneys and judges. They were determined never to give up exclusive investigative powers to professional social workers. They believed that the power belonged to them. </span>Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26754179.post-73061740314304464542009-08-12T18:41:00.001-07:002009-08-12T18:46:40.755-07:00Adoptees & the "Birther" movement<span style="color:#993399;">I wrote this letter to the editor in reply to an Op/Ed piece in the Chicago Tribune about the "birthers" movement. They"birthers" are the kooks who think President Obama cannot be president because he doesn’t have a “proper birth certificate.”</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="color:#993399;">Don’t worry, all you vigilant “birthers.” I can assure you that President Obama’s credentials are as good as gold. Here’s why. He has a United States of America passport.<br /></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#993399;">We adoptees are intimately acquainted with getting a passport. Our original birth certificates were ordered impounded and sealed in perpetuity on the day our adoption was finalized. So we don’t have the ordinary means of proving our birth when applying for a passport.<br /></span><br /><span style="color:#993399;">I guarantee one and all that if President Obama did not have an acceptable, genuine, 100% authentic original birth certificate – any ordinary worker at any passport office in our country (including Hawaii) would have caught up with him years ago. The feds just don’t give out passports to anyone who asks. You do it their way, or you stay home.<br /></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#993399;">I am an adoptee and a survivor of “Sorry! Bad Birth Certificate – No Passport for You” experience, and let me tell you, it’s not a pretty story.<br /><br />I was denied a passport in 1993 because the old Certificate of Birth that had been handed down to me by my adoptive parents wasn’t sufficient. It didn’t say where I was born.</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="color:#993399;">So I set out on a 2-week odyssey to somehow adequately prove my place of birth. The feds gave me choices. First choice was to produce an Adoption Decree, which ironically, is one of the documents that is impounded and sealed forever upon adoption. That left me with three other choices and these were only to get a black-cover, temporary, 1-year passport. In order to get this, I would have to produce a family bible, school records, or I could produce someone who had witnessed my birth. Being adopted, these choices were not really swell options for me.</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#993399;">With 3 days to go, the state of Illinois came to my rescue. They did whatever it is they do that enabled them to issue me an Amended Birth Certificate. This is a document for adoptees. It’s a mish-mosh of information mostly attesting that I am the biological child of my adoptive parents. But it was my golden ticket for a passport. I was born in Chicago, Illinois, says my Amended Birth Certificate. And that was good enough for the passport office.<br /></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#993399;">So President Obama, just renew your passport every 10 years and you’ll be fine. And birthers, why don’t you just give up already and go away!<br /><br /></span>Grannie Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08961647803071602014noreply@blogger.com4