NOVEMBER 15TH : NOT A RED LETTER DAY FOR EVERY ILLINOIS ADOPTEE
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Saturday, December 03, 2011
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
GIVE ADOPTEES ALL RIGHTS, OR NONE
USA TODAY, June 1, 2011
Give adoptees all rights, or none
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.
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.
Six states have granted adoptees unconditional rights to birth information. If it works for them, surely it can work in New Jersey.
Anita Walker Field; Skokie, Il
Give adoptees all rights, or none
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.
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.
Six states have granted adoptees unconditional rights to birth information. If it works for them, surely it can work in New Jersey.
Anita Walker Field; Skokie, Il
Friday, May 20, 2011
N.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.”
This bill is flawed, and I would urge the governor to veto it. It is not a true Adoptee Birthright bill – by any means.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.”
This bill is flawed, and I would urge the governor to veto it. It is not a true Adoptee Birthright bill – by any means.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
VOTE NO TO NEW JERSEY ADOPTEE BIRTHRIGHT BILL
URGENT: STOP NJ A1406/S799 - FLOOR VOTE SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, MAY 9, 2011.
Distribute Freely
BASTARD NATION ACTION ALERT!
STOP DISCLOSURE VETO/WHITE OUT LEGISLATION IN NEW JERSEY!!!
ASK THE NEW JERSEY ASSEMBLY: VOTE NO ON A1406/S799
Read full text of A1406 here.
Read full text of S799 here
A1406 (companion to S799 already passed in the NJ Senate) is scheduled for a floor vote on MONDAY MAY 9, 2011.
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.
Be sure to put: "Vote No On Adoptee Birthright Bill "in the header
Bastard Nation's letter to the Assembly is here.
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.
THE BILL
*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
*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.
*requires "birthparents" who file a disclosure veto to submit a family history and a possibly illegal intrusive medical form to activate the veto.
*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.
*seals by default all "safe haven" birth certificates, even though most "safe haven" babies are born in hospitals to identified mothers.
*requires adoption agencies and adoption lawyers to receive a written veto status report from the state before they can release identifying information to adoptees
*requires the state to mount an "information" campaign to inform "birthparents" of their "protection" options
A1406/S799 IS NOT AN OBC ACCESS BILL.
A1406/S799 IS NOT ABOUT RIGHTS.
A1406/S799 IS ABOUT PRIVILEGE
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.
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.
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!
Please e-mail the New Jersey Assembly today and urge members to VOTE NO ON A1406/S799.
CONTACT INFORMATION
(write one letter, cut and paste for all)
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,
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,
AsmFuentes@njleg.org, AsmDiCicco@njleg.org, AswWatsonColeman@njleg.org,
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,
AswVoss@njleg.org, AswWagner@njleg.org, AswLampitt@njleg.org,
AswAngelini@njleg.org, AswCasagrande@njleg.org , AswHandlin@njleg.org,
AswCoyle@njleg.org, AswMunoz@njleg.org, AswMcHose@njleg.org, AswVandervalk@njleg.org,
AswGove@njleg.org
Distribute Freely
BASTARD NATION ACTION ALERT!
STOP DISCLOSURE VETO/WHITE OUT LEGISLATION IN NEW JERSEY!!!
ASK THE NEW JERSEY ASSEMBLY: VOTE NO ON A1406/S799
Read full text of A1406 here.
Read full text of S799 here
A1406 (companion to S799 already passed in the NJ Senate) is scheduled for a floor vote on MONDAY MAY 9, 2011.
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.
Be sure to put: "Vote No On Adoptee Birthright Bill "in the header
Bastard Nation's letter to the Assembly is here.
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.
THE BILL
*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
*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.
*requires "birthparents" who file a disclosure veto to submit a family history and a possibly illegal intrusive medical form to activate the veto.
*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.
*seals by default all "safe haven" birth certificates, even though most "safe haven" babies are born in hospitals to identified mothers.
*requires adoption agencies and adoption lawyers to receive a written veto status report from the state before they can release identifying information to adoptees
*requires the state to mount an "information" campaign to inform "birthparents" of their "protection" options
A1406/S799 IS NOT AN OBC ACCESS BILL.
A1406/S799 IS NOT ABOUT RIGHTS.
A1406/S799 IS ABOUT PRIVILEGE
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.
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.
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!
Please e-mail the New Jersey Assembly today and urge members to VOTE NO ON A1406/S799.
CONTACT INFORMATION
(write one letter, cut and paste for all)
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,
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,
AsmFuentes@njleg.org, AsmDiCicco@njleg.org, AswWatsonColeman@njleg.org,
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,
AswVoss@njleg.org, AswWagner@njleg.org, AswLampitt@njleg.org,
AswAngelini@njleg.org, AswCasagrande@njleg.org , AswHandlin@njleg.org,
AswCoyle@njleg.org, AswMunoz@njleg.org, AswMcHose@njleg.org, AswVandervalk@njleg.org,
AswGove@njleg.org
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
CONDITIONAL OBC BILLS
MARCH 8, 2011
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.
Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization 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.
The states reported here are: ARIZONA, CONNECTICUT, GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WISCONSIN.
ARIZONA – SB 1595
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.
http://www.azleg.gov/search/oop/qfullhit.asp?CiWebHitsFile=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1595p.htm&CiRestriction=%22SB+1595%22
CONNECTICUT – BILL 890
ATTENTION: 3/10/11: A substitute Bill 890 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.
) 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.
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.
A hearing was held on February 8, 2011
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgasubjectsearch/subbills.asp?subj_code=100358
GEORGIA – HB 65
This bill was sponsored by Rep. Tom McCall, and it has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
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
http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/sum/hb65.htm
HAWAII –
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.
ILLINOIS - HB 1255
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.
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:
“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.”
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.
Several things were targeted for “fixing,”
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.
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.
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
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=84&GA=97&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=1255&GAID=11&LegID=57230&Sp
ecSess=&Session=
INDIANA – HB 1255
This Bill passed the full House on February 20, 2011. It was sponsored by Representatives Karickhoff, Riecken, Welch, and Klinker.
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
file, regardless of when the adoption was filed. (Under current law, this provision applies only to adoptions filed after December 31, 1993.)
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/HB/HB1201.2.html
MISSOURI – HB 427
HB 427 was sponsored by Representative Barnes.
For adoptions completed after August 28, 2011, the bill:
(1) Requires the juvenile court to provide each birth parent with a confidentiality preference form prior to the entry of any adoption decree;
(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;
(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
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;
(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;
(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
(6) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate can be released upon the birth mother's and birth father's death.
For adoptions completed on or prior to August 28, 2011, the bill:
(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
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;
(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;
(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
(4) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate can be released upon the birth mother's and birth father's death.
http://house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB427&year=2011&code=R
NEW JERSEY A1406 & S799
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:
A 12 month enrollment period that allows birthparents to file disclosure vetoes before obcs, past and future, are unsealed.
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.
Requires birthparents who file a disclosure veto to submit a family history and a possibly illegal intrusive medical form to activate the veto.
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.
Seals by default all “safe haven” birth certificates even though most of these babies are born in hospitals to identified mothers.
Requires adoption agencies and lawyers to receive a written veto status report from the state before they can release identifying information to adoptees.
Requires the state to mount an “information” campaign to inform birthparents of their “protection options.”
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp
NEW JERSEY A3672/S2586 (Alternative Bill)
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.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp
NEW YORK – A02003, S0143
A02003 enact a Bill of Adoptee Rights clarifying language and procedures for obtaining birth certificates ad nmedical histories of adoptees.
S01438 Enacts bill of adoptee rights clarifying language and procedures for obtaining birth certificates and medical histories for adoptees
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A02003%09%09&Summary=Y&Text=Y#jump_to_Text
OKLAHOMA – HB 1748
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.
HB 1748 wants to weigh the rights of adoptees to their medical information against birth parent privacy.
Whichever side the judge thinks - wins. This new bill now puts birth parent privacy into the statutes when it was never there before.
The bill was passed 12 -0 out of the Human Services Committee.
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1748
TEXAS SB 287
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.
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.
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.
The bill has not been acted upon in either House as yet
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB287
VIRGINIA – HB 1868
As of February 23, 2011, the bill passed in both houses of the legislature with nearly unanimous vote in both houses.
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.
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.
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=111&typ=bil&val=HB1868&Submit2=Go
WASHINGTON – SB 5178
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.
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.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5178&year=2011
WEST VIRGINIA – HB 223
ARTICLE 23 WILL CHANGE THE VOLUNTARY ADOPTION REGISTRY.
§48-23-503. Cases where disclosure of identifying information cannot occur; exception.
(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.
(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
WISCONSIN - ASSEMBLY BILL 12
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.
In this bill, an adoptee can petition for restoration of birth parents’ names of birth certificates provided that birth parents and adoptive parents agree
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.
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.
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2234intr.htm&yr=2011&sesstype=RS&i=2234
.
MARCH 8, 2011
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.
Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization 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.
The states reported here are: ARIZONA, CONNECTICUT, GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WISCONSIN.
ARIZONA – SB 1595
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.
http://www.azleg.gov/search/oop/qfullhit.asp?CiWebHitsFile=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1595p.htm&CiRestriction=%22SB+1595%22
CONNECTICUT – BILL 890
ATTENTION: 3/10/11: A substitute Bill 890 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.
) 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.
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.
A hearing was held on February 8, 2011
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgasubjectsearch/subbills.asp?subj_code=100358
GEORGIA – HB 65
This bill was sponsored by Rep. Tom McCall, and it has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
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
http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/sum/hb65.htm
HAWAII –
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.
ILLINOIS - HB 1255
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.
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:
“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.”
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.
Several things were targeted for “fixing,”
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.
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.
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
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=84&GA=97&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=1255&GAID=11&LegID=57230&Sp
ecSess=&Session=
INDIANA – HB 1255
This Bill passed the full House on February 20, 2011. It was sponsored by Representatives Karickhoff, Riecken, Welch, and Klinker.
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
file, regardless of when the adoption was filed. (Under current law, this provision applies only to adoptions filed after December 31, 1993.)
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/HB/HB1201.2.html
MISSOURI – HB 427
HB 427 was sponsored by Representative Barnes.
For adoptions completed after August 28, 2011, the bill:
(1) Requires the juvenile court to provide each birth parent with a confidentiality preference form prior to the entry of any adoption decree;
(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;
(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
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;
(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;
(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
(6) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate can be released upon the birth mother's and birth father's death.
For adoptions completed on or prior to August 28, 2011, the bill:
(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
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;
(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;
(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
(4) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate can be released upon the birth mother's and birth father's death.
http://house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB427&year=2011&code=R
NEW JERSEY A1406 & S799
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:
A 12 month enrollment period that allows birthparents to file disclosure vetoes before obcs, past and future, are unsealed.
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.
Requires birthparents who file a disclosure veto to submit a family history and a possibly illegal intrusive medical form to activate the veto.
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.
Seals by default all “safe haven” birth certificates even though most of these babies are born in hospitals to identified mothers.
Requires adoption agencies and lawyers to receive a written veto status report from the state before they can release identifying information to adoptees.
Requires the state to mount an “information” campaign to inform birthparents of their “protection options.”
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp
NEW JERSEY A3672/S2586 (Alternative Bill)
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.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp
NEW YORK – A02003, S0143
A02003 enact a Bill of Adoptee Rights clarifying language and procedures for obtaining birth certificates ad nmedical histories of adoptees.
S01438 Enacts bill of adoptee rights clarifying language and procedures for obtaining birth certificates and medical histories for adoptees
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A02003%09%09&Summary=Y&Text=Y#jump_to_Text
OKLAHOMA – HB 1748
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.
HB 1748 wants to weigh the rights of adoptees to their medical information against birth parent privacy.
Whichever side the judge thinks - wins. This new bill now puts birth parent privacy into the statutes when it was never there before.
The bill was passed 12 -0 out of the Human Services Committee.
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1748
TEXAS SB 287
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.
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.
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.
The bill has not been acted upon in either House as yet
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB287
VIRGINIA – HB 1868
As of February 23, 2011, the bill passed in both houses of the legislature with nearly unanimous vote in both houses.
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.
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.
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=111&typ=bil&val=HB1868&Submit2=Go
WASHINGTON – SB 5178
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.
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.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5178&year=2011
WEST VIRGINIA – HB 223
ARTICLE 23 WILL CHANGE THE VOLUNTARY ADOPTION REGISTRY.
§48-23-503. Cases where disclosure of identifying information cannot occur; exception.
(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.
(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
WISCONSIN - ASSEMBLY BILL 12
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.
In this bill, an adoptee can petition for restoration of birth parents’ names of birth certificates provided that birth parents and adoptive parents agree
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.
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.
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2234intr.htm&yr=2011&sesstype=RS&i=2234
.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
CT Bill 890 - Oppose
This is a reprint of a blog by Marley Greiner from THE DAILY BASTARDETTE at http:bastardette.com. It says it all.
Grannie Annie
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.
This bill is scheduled to be heard tomorrow, February 8, 2011 by the Select Committee on Children.
Bastard Nation. opposes HB 890, and urges you to vote Do Not Pass.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sincerely yours,
Marley E. Greiner
Executive Chair
Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization
Grannie Annie
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.
This bill is scheduled to be heard tomorrow, February 8, 2011 by the Select Committee on Children.
Bastard Nation. opposes HB 890, and urges you to vote Do Not Pass.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sincerely yours,
Marley E. Greiner
Executive Chair
Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization
Sunday, November 28, 2010
DON'T COPY ILLINOIS s
Illinois 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?
Here’s why.
In an article in the Nov. 27th N. Riverside Suburban Life, Representative Sara Feigenholtz said,
“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.
“I’m working on doing a film on the Illinois experience so we can help states large and small,” said Feigenholtz.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
LISTEN TO GRANNIE ANNIE.
DON'T COPY ILLINOIS.
.
Here’s why.
In an article in the Nov. 27th N. Riverside Suburban Life, Representative Sara Feigenholtz said,
“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.
“I’m working on doing a film on the Illinois experience so we can help states large and small,” said Feigenholtz.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
LISTEN TO GRANNIE ANNIE. DON'T COPY ILLINOIS.
.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Remember Gavi
August, 2010
IN BLESSED MEMORY
GAVI, BELOVED BASTARD GODDESS
Gabriela Maxime Ze'eve Person - Amy Lynne Akins
1968 - 1997
Rest in Peace
Let My Bastard People Go!
It is apparent
I have Two Parents
Big Brother Makes Five
But He's so Jive
He Says Two Parents
Are not alive!
Where can they be?
Where did they go?
Big Brother Does Not Know!
Let my Bastard People Go!
Let my Bastard People Go!
Let My Bastard People Go!
by Gavriela Person
Monday, July 19, 2010
EBD REPORT: ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK
EVAN B. DONALDSON ADOPTION INSTITUTE:
FOR THE RECORDS II: An examination of the History and Impact of Adult Access to Original Birth Certificates. (July 16, 2010)
ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK
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.
ONE STEP FORWARD
"EVERY STATE SHOULD RESTORE UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATES FOR ALL ADULT ADOPTEES, RETROACTIVELY AND PROSPECTIVELY."
TWO STEPS BACK
"CONFIDENTIAL INTERMEDIARY SERVICES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE THROUGHOUT ALL STATES, EVEN AFTER ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATES ACCESS IS RESTORED."
"A NATIONAL ADOPTION REGISTRY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED TO ENABLE ALL ADOPTED PERSONS AND THEIR BIRTHPARENTS, NO MATTER WHERE THEY RESIDE, TO PARTICIPATE."
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?
Later in the text, you yourselves write about the inadequacies of these alternatives:
"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...
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."
So why do you recommend them?
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!
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?
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?
It just doesn't compute. You've shot yourselves in your collective "foot."
******************************************************************************************
This blog is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of any organizations to which I belong.
FOR THE RECORDS II: An examination of the History and Impact of Adult Access to Original Birth Certificates. (July 16, 2010)
ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK
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.
ONE STEP FORWARD
"EVERY STATE SHOULD RESTORE UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATES FOR ALL ADULT ADOPTEES, RETROACTIVELY AND PROSPECTIVELY."
TWO STEPS BACK
"CONFIDENTIAL INTERMEDIARY SERVICES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE THROUGHOUT ALL STATES, EVEN AFTER ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATES ACCESS IS RESTORED."
"A NATIONAL ADOPTION REGISTRY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED TO ENABLE ALL ADOPTED PERSONS AND THEIR BIRTHPARENTS, NO MATTER WHERE THEY RESIDE, TO PARTICIPATE."
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?
Later in the text, you yourselves write about the inadequacies of these alternatives:
"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...
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."
So why do you recommend them?
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!
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?
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?
It just doesn't compute. You've shot yourselves in your collective "foot."
******************************************************************************************
This blog is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of any organizations to which I belong.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
I REPLY TO "ANONYMOUS"
re: DEFORMERS DO THE DARNDEST THINGS
I could not fit this answer into the comment section so I've opened another blog instead. I'm in blue.
Okay, so if I am following you. You worked to get records opened in Illinois for 20 years.
No, you are not following me. I worked to get records opened in Illinois for 5 years.
And you failed.
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.
So you want our endorsement because you want another 20 years of no records for anyone?
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.”
I mean, I just want to be clear here.
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.
You are against most adoptees getting their rights?
WRONG! I am for all adoptees (Remember: (all = 100%) getting their rights.
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?
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.
How are we supposed to take you seriously when you also rail against people fighting for unconditional access?
Who are these people that I am supposedly fighting against? I have never railed against anyone who supports unconditional access. Name some names, anonymous.
Like you did with the folks you belittled for lobbying state legislators for unconditional access?
HUH? What are you talking about? I’ll say it one more time. I have never belittled anyone for supporting UNCONDITIONAL access.
I mean WTF?
Right back at you.
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.
I did not put a ‘DISCORD” against The Green Ribbon campaign. What is a “discord?"
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.
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.
You want to stop everyone from moving forward so we can admire how you have failed for 20 years?
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
Have you ever considered getting therapy?
Have you?
Because, you crazy.
I believe the correct way to write that sentence is “you are crazy.” Sorry, another F.
re: DEFORMERS DO THE DARNDEST THINGS
I could not fit this answer into the comment section so I've opened another blog instead. I'm in blue.
Okay, so if I am following you. You worked to get records opened in Illinois for 20 years.
No, you are not following me. I worked to get records opened in Illinois for 5 years.
And you failed.
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.
So you want our endorsement because you want another 20 years of no records for anyone?
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.”
I mean, I just want to be clear here.
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.
You are against most adoptees getting their rights?
WRONG! I am for all adoptees (Remember: (all = 100%) getting their rights.
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?
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.
How are we supposed to take you seriously when you also rail against people fighting for unconditional access?
Who are these people that I am supposedly fighting against? I have never railed against anyone who supports unconditional access. Name some names, anonymous.
Like you did with the folks you belittled for lobbying state legislators for unconditional access?
HUH? What are you talking about? I’ll say it one more time. I have never belittled anyone for supporting UNCONDITIONAL access.
I mean WTF?
Right back at you.
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.
I did not put a ‘DISCORD” against The Green Ribbon campaign. What is a “discord?"
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.
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.
You want to stop everyone from moving forward so we can admire how you have failed for 20 years?
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
Have you ever considered getting therapy?
Have you?
Because, you crazy.
I believe the correct way to write that sentence is “you are crazy.” Sorry, another F.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
DEFORMERS DO THE DARNDEST THINGS: OPEN LETTER TO ANONYMOUS
On July 28, someone called "Anonymous" replied to my blog "Deformers do the Darndest 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:
"Everyone (whether labeled a "reformer for a "deformer") agrees that, ideally, access to records for adult adooptees should be unrestricted. What's your solution? What's your strategy? In which state(s) have you made this happen?
The internet 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."
Dear Anonymous,
I don't agree with you that deformers believe in access to records for all adult adoptees. 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?
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 adoptees. I have been a player for 20 years now.
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.
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 adoptees on the Internet to fight the Uniform Adoption Act (The UAA) which had come to our state.
If you don't remember, the UAA was an abominable piece of legislation that legislators, attorneys, agencies and social work professionals were proposing throughout the country. If the UAA had passed, all of our original birth certificates (obcs) would have been sealed for 99 years!
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 Lindner, sponsor of the bill. She wrote that after listening to all of the opposition across the state, she had decided NOT to propose the UAA in Illinois.
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.)
We spent hours every Sunday in different libraries around the state, painfully writing our bill. Every word was analyzed and re-analyzed. We sweated 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.
When our two companion bills came back from Legislative Publishing, we were in heaven. HB 343 and its companion bill SB 600 were now official.
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 deformers got through with our bill, HB 343 had been turned into The Adoption Registry and Medical Information Exchange, passed into law in 2002. Our original bills had died in committee.
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 Adoptee Rights Organization. I attended the Chgo convention where the idea for a ballot initiative in Oregon began. After we all went home, about 3 weeks later, Helen Hill (a BN member) was posting to us all her ideas for running a ballot initiative in Oregon.
BN 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.
If you have any doubts about Bastard Nation's close involvement with Measure 58, please read Prof. E. Wayne Carp's book, Adoption Politics: Bastard Nation & Ballot Initiative 58. c2004.
Next came Alabama. A member of BN's Executive Committee, Dr. David Ansarti, a resident of Alabama, joined his hands and BN's with the grassroots group AWARE, and by summer of 2000, Alabama passed an unrestricted law.
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.
Maine came in 2009. BN 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.
During this entire 10 year period, BN also worked to keep restrictive bills from passing and we have been pretty darn successful at that too.
You ask what my strategy is. I can send you to our BN website to read our goals - http://www.bastards.org/.
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.
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. The sponsor needs to be totally committed to passing your bill and totally committed to seeing it all the way through.
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.
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.
With the above two strategies, you won't get a deformer bill in your state.
On July 28, someone called "Anonymous" replied to my blog "Deformers do the Darndest 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:
"Everyone (whether labeled a "reformer for a "deformer") agrees that, ideally, access to records for adult adooptees should be unrestricted. What's your solution? What's your strategy? In which state(s) have you made this happen?
The internet 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."
Dear Anonymous,
I don't agree with you that deformers believe in access to records for all adult adoptees. 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?
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 adoptees. I have been a player for 20 years now.
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.
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 adoptees on the Internet to fight the Uniform Adoption Act (The UAA) which had come to our state.
If you don't remember, the UAA was an abominable piece of legislation that legislators, attorneys, agencies and social work professionals were proposing throughout the country. If the UAA had passed, all of our original birth certificates (obcs) would have been sealed for 99 years!
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 Lindner, sponsor of the bill. She wrote that after listening to all of the opposition across the state, she had decided NOT to propose the UAA in Illinois.
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.)
We spent hours every Sunday in different libraries around the state, painfully writing our bill. Every word was analyzed and re-analyzed. We sweated 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.
When our two companion bills came back from Legislative Publishing, we were in heaven. HB 343 and its companion bill SB 600 were now official.
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 deformers got through with our bill, HB 343 had been turned into The Adoption Registry and Medical Information Exchange, passed into law in 2002. Our original bills had died in committee.
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 Adoptee Rights Organization. I attended the Chgo convention where the idea for a ballot initiative in Oregon began. After we all went home, about 3 weeks later, Helen Hill (a BN member) was posting to us all her ideas for running a ballot initiative in Oregon.
BN 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.
If you have any doubts about Bastard Nation's close involvement with Measure 58, please read Prof. E. Wayne Carp's book, Adoption Politics: Bastard Nation & Ballot Initiative 58. c2004.
Next came Alabama. A member of BN's Executive Committee, Dr. David Ansarti, a resident of Alabama, joined his hands and BN's with the grassroots group AWARE, and by summer of 2000, Alabama passed an unrestricted law.
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.
Maine came in 2009. BN 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.
During this entire 10 year period, BN also worked to keep restrictive bills from passing and we have been pretty darn successful at that too.
You ask what my strategy is. I can send you to our BN website to read our goals - http://www.bastards.org/.
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.
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. The sponsor needs to be totally committed to passing your bill and totally committed to seeing it all the way through.
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.
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.
With the above two strategies, you won't get a deformer bill in your state.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
DEFORMERS DO THE DARNEST THINGS
DEFORMERS DO THE DARNDEST THINGS
Deformers: Adoptees who have "just given in. They support bills that fall short of being unconditional birth certificate access for all adopted adults.
Social change is traditionally a very slow process. Adoptee 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 adoptees. A defeat in one state is never a reason to stop reaching for our goal in other states.
Considering all these big and powerful groups pointing their guns at us, we "old-timers" can pat ourselves on the back.
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 adoptees themselves. We "old timer" adoptees are still around and we are still fighting for equal rights for every adoptee. Our goal - we will not leave one adoptee behind.
But a new group of adoptees 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 adoptees in order to pass a conditional bill which is centered on adoptee 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 adoptees jumped right onto the search and reunion bandwagon.
These new groups of adoptees 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."
They think they are adoption reformers. They are not!
They are ADOPTION DEFORMERS 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, deformers 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 adoptee and all of which deprive some adoptees of getting their original birth certificate.
The new Illinois deformer law has a provision for the left-out adoptees, 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 adoptees must wait yet another 5 years. Altogether, these adoptees may have to wait 10 years to try and get an original birth certificate.
But wait a minute! Illinois adoptees 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 Feigenholtz has the nerve to call this new law an equal rights bill for adoptees. It it weren't so sad, it might be laughable
[Representative Sara Feigenholtz, The Illinois Observer, May 21, 2010. "Representative Sara Feigenholtz to Grant Illinois Adoptees Original Birth Certificates Gets Governor Pat Quinn's Approval."]
Deformers 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.
One huge shock recently is that the 38-year-old American Adoption Congress ( AAC) has gone "deformer." Their shameful mission statement on adoptee rights legislation reads:
"American Adoption Congress supports state-by-state legislative efforts to obtain access for adult adoptees to their original birth certificates. AAC prefers unrestricted access to this document for all adult adoptees but will accept compromise legislation if, in the opinion of AAC and local supporters, such a compromise is necessary to obtain the greatest access for the greatest number of adopted persons."
[http://www.americanadoptioncongress.org/state.php]
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
.
Why not get on board.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
THE SOUNDS OF SILENCE
"fools" said I, "you do not know
Silence like a cancer grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you,
Hear my words that I might reach you,"
But my words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed
In the wells of silence."
By Paul Simon "Sound of Silence"
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."
LEGISLATORS
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?
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?
DEFORMERS
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?
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Homeless children need your help. Adopted adults do not. What makes you think they do?
Why are you in the adoption search and reunion business?
Why can the State ever uphold an implied agreement between two parties when the agreement violates a third party's civil rights?
Why are you hiding underneath the skirts of birth mothers? Why do you use them as an excuse to keep the records sealed?
ILLINOIS ADOPTEES
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?
Friday, May 07, 2010
Illinois HB 5428 - The Aftermath
*I am angry at a state that still wants to maintain its control over adopted adults.
*I am angry at a state that continues to dictate who can and cannot get their birth certificate.
*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.
*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.
My granddaughters often say to one another: "You're not the boss of me." This is how I see my relationship with the state.
HB 5428 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?
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.
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.
*I am angry at a state that continues to dictate who can and cannot get their birth certificate.
*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.
*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.
My granddaughters often say to one another: "You're not the boss of me." This is how I see my relationship with the state.
HB 5428 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?
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.
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.
FROM PREMISE TO LAW
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.
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.
"OH NO," says the state. "We promised birth parents that we would keep their identities secret from their offspring and we must uphold this promise." Tell it enough times and people start to believe you.
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.
FINAL AND IRREVOCABLE CONSENT TO ADOPTION
I, .....(relationship, eg., mother, father, relative, guardian) of ....., a ...male child, state:
That such child was born on ..... at .....
That I reside at ....., County of ..... and State of .....
That I am of the age of ..... years.
That I do hereby enter my appearance in this proceeding and waive service of summons on me.
That I do hereby consent and agree to the adoption of such child.
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.
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.
Dated........ [750 ILCS 50/10]
HB 5428 has set a new precedent by changing the rights of birth mothers.
I wonder ----- How much litigation will stem from HB 5428?
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?
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.
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? 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! But it is exactly what is going to happen after 5428 becomes a law.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
ANOTHER OPEN LETTER TO REPRESENTATIVE SARA FEIGENHOLTZ
Dear Representative Feigenholtz:
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?
From Lori to Representative Feigenholtz:
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.
Lori Jeske, Spokane, WA
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.
From: Sara
To: Lori Jeske
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: HB 5428
Thank you so much for your kind remarks about HB 5428.
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?
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!!
Many Illinois born 65+ year old adoptees will get their birth certificates BEFORE THEY DIE -- very soon.
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........
NOT.
[reprinted with permission of Lori Jeske]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
From Lori to Representative Feigenholtz:
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.
Lori Jeske, Spokane, WA
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.
From: Sara
To: Lori Jeske
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: HB 5428
Thank you so much for your kind remarks about HB 5428.
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?
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!!
Many Illinois born 65+ year old adoptees will get their birth certificates BEFORE THEY DIE -- very soon.
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........
NOT.
[reprinted with permission of Lori Jeske]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Adoptees & Free Speech
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
