Cook County Birth Certificates

One of these things is not like the others...

We all know what an original birth certificate looks like and what information it contains. Ditto for an amended certificate for those of us who were adopted.

Cook County, Illinois, is now issuing something brand new, a computer print out they are calling an “abstract.”In April, 2008, my cousin went down to the Cook County Department of Vital Statistics to get a copy of his son’s birth certificate. His son is not adopted. My cousin was given a computer print-out that looked just like this.

________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

_
Certificate of Vital Records
Certificate of Birth
Birth Number

Name:
Date of Birth:

Sex:
Place of Birth:
Date Filed:

Date issued:

This is to certify that this is a true and correct abstract from the official record filed with the Illinois Department of Public Health.

DAVID ORR, Cook County Clerk
[Note: This document has the embossed seal of the county court and the county clerk’s signature.]_______________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Wanna play a game of “WHAT’S MISSING?”

My cousin certainly did. He asked the clerk what happened to all the other information. In particular, WHERE ARE THE PARENT’S NAMES? The clerk told him that if he wanted any more information, he would have to write to the Illinois Department of Public Health in Springfield.

I taught in the Chicago Public Schools for about a million years and I’ve registered hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of youngsters. Every registration week, the one thing that was always hammered into our heads was to be absolutely sure to get an authentic birth certificate or incur the wrath of the entire Board of Education. To register a child with a bogus certificate, from the US or any other country, was like a Class One Felony. You were in big trouble. In my day these computer print outs would not have been considered to be authentic birth certificates.

We were also under strict orders never to be fooled and take hospital certificates instead of the real thing. But you know what? Hospital certificates contain more data on them than this new shortened version being used by Cook County.

And most important of all, we had to establish that the person registering the child was indeed this child’s mother. We could do that by reading the birth certificate and then requesting ID information from the parent. Not hard to do and makes sense, don’t you think?

Chicago, being the third largest city in the United States, does a booming business in birth certificates every August and September. We are a city of immigrants whose first language is not English. Advertisements in English and Spanish appear routinely on TV and radio, in the newspapers, and even on benches and billboards - all reminding parents: “You must present your children’s birth certificate in order to register them for school."

In my day, the kindergarten rooms would be standing empty if parents carried in this latest Cook County document and tried to register their children for school.

It used to be that the Chicago public schools, together with the County, worked to make it as easy as possible for parents to get their children’s birth certificates. The quickest way was to go downtown to the Cook County Dept. of Vital Statistics and apply in person. Shucks. In Cook County, you can even get a copy of your birth certificate at any currency exchange in the county. But writing a request to the Board of Health in Springfield is a very long and cumbersome way, fraught with bureaucratic obstacles, to obtain the needed certificate in time for the opening of school. Especially for parents who do not speak much English.

I am perplexed. I really wonder why Cook County is looking for ways to shorten birth certificates by eliminating so much information from them.

Will the person who dreamed up Cook County’s short-cut to birth certificates please stand up and tell us – WHY?

OF BLESSED MEMORY...........


GAVI, BELOVED BASTARD GODDESS



GAVRIELA MAXIME ZE'EVE PERSON



aka Amy Louise 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 (1968 - 1997)

SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING

SOMETHING IS BETTER

THAN NOTHING!

YOU THINK?

SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING is an idea that has been raising its ugly voice in civil rights issues for a long long time. Opponents of unsealing original birth documents have persistently and relentlessly echoed this phrase, SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING.

The SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING concept has been spoon fed to the general public as well as to us adoptees as “the Compromise of Choice.” The people who are serving up this distasteful fare have the audacity to try to put the blame on us, adoptees who believe in equal rights for ALL adoptees. We believe that not one single adoptee should be left behind. We do not adhere to the policy of SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING.

“Shame on you,” the deformers tell us. “You want to deprive access to birth documents to 97% of the adoptees because you don’t like the amendments to our bill. Have you no heart? You want elderly folks to go to their graves not knowing the identities of their birth mothers because you cannot accept any restrictions on our bill.”

NO, NO, NO. We don’t want to deprive any adoptee of his or her original birth certificate. We want 100% of the adoptee population to be able to access their original documents of birth. Put the blame right where it belongs – on the STATE.

Don’t you see? It’s the state’s fault. They are the ones who are trying to force you all into supporting a bill that will deny an original birth certificate to possibly 3% or more of the state’s adoptee population. They are the ones who are attempting to pass a bill that would cause little old adopted grannies and grandpas to go the Great Beyond without knowing their original identities. It is the state who could live very comfortably with a law in which adopted adults would not be treated equally.

The well known author Anna Quindlen told the story about a young mother who asked her for advice. What, the young mother wanted to know, was she to do with a 7-year-old who was obstreperous, outspoken, and inconveniently willful? "Keep her," Ms. Quindlen replied.... “The suffragettes refused to be polite in demanding what they wanted or grateful for getting what they deserved. Works for me.”

Works for me too. It’s time to be obstreperous, outspoken and inconveniently willful.

Say NO to the state. Don’t accept their restrictions. Tell the state that SOMETHING IS NOT BETTER THAN NOTHING. Say NO and if the politicians refuse to accept your terms, then walk away. Kill the bill. Withdraw your support. Wait for the next legislative session where you can start over with an empty slate or a different sponsor or different leadership Shout it to the rafters of the State House. SOMETHING IS NOT BETTER THAN NOTHING.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. If birth mothers feel that they aren’t getting a square deal or that their rights are being trampled, then let the birth mothers get together, form organizations, and file a bill that would give them their “rights.” It’s up to them to take care of themselves, not the state.

The one and only time I ever saw or heard a “gathering of birthmothers” fighting for rights was in Oregon on November 1, 1998, the Sunday before Measure 58 was to be presented to the electorate for a vote. Over 500 birthmothers signed a full page advertisement in Portland’s main newspaper, the Oregonian. ALL 500 birth mothers signed their names and messages of support for ADOPTEE RIGHTS in this unique full page ad. Take a minute right now to look at it. It’s quite remarkable! You can find it at: http://www.plumsite.com/oregon/oregonian-ad.html

So where should we point our finger? Who’s guilty?

The state will agree to deny an original birth certificate to possibly 3% or 4% or 5% or more of adoptees.

The state doesn’t care about Grandmother Goodfellow’s death bed wish to know who she really is.

The state actually believes that it’s morally acceptable to pass a law under which all adopted individuals will NOT be treated equally.

It is THE STATE. The state goes to great extremes in order to preserve its 60 year old law of sealing adoptee’s original birth records forever. During the last decade, progress has been made in repealing this ancient law and too many legislators don’t like this. So the state fashions restrictive amendments to access bills which trample the rights of all adoptees, young and old and in the middle. The state wants you to believe that SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING.

MICHIGAN HB 4896 – BAIT & SWITCH

BAIT & SWITCH – MICHIGAN STYLE

The original Michigan HB 4896, filed in March, 2008, was such a good bill. It would have allowed adopted adults to access their original birth certificates, unconditionally and without falsifications. It contained a non-binding contact preference form. The bill had no strings attached. It was heard in the House Children & Family Services Committee on March 5, 2008 and passed by a vote of 5-3.

However, on the way to the House Floor, HB 4896 was amended. The original intent was gutted.
Here is how HB4896 looks now:

1) Adoptees may request their original birth certificate from the Department of Human Services. Their request must be accompanied by a copy of clearance from a central adoption registry.[note: see HB 6287]

2) A Confidential Intermediary may request the original birth record of a client. The birth record will be marked “sealed record only.”

3) This amendatory act (HB 4897) does not take effect unless House Bill No.6287 is enacted into law.

See complete text at http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billengrossed/House/htm/2007-HEBH-4896.htm

House Bill 4896 passed on the floor of the House on June 27, 2008.

And the original supporters of HB 4896 cheered.

A brand new companion bill to HB 4896, HB 6287, has been filed and is now making its way very quickly through the halls of the House.

The strings are all attached in this bill. And remember, the amended HB 4896 (HB 4897) cannot go into effect unless House Bill No.6287 is enacted into law.


HB 6287 will establish a central adoption registry to control the release of identifying information.

Forms will be developed for “former parents” to use to consent to, deny, or revoke a consent to or denial of, the release of identifying information.

The sponsors of this bill have the audacity to continue to use the term contact preference form. A true contact preference form does not legally bind the filing of any form with the issuance of an original birth certificate. This is not the case in HB 6287. What the lawmakers are calling a contact preference form in this particular bill is in reality a disclosure veto or an Affadavit of Nondisclosure.

HB 6827 even provides a form for “adult former siblings” to use to provide notice of the death of a former parent and to consent to the release of the ”adult former sibling's” name and address to an adult adoptee.

Complete textofHB6827
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/20072008/billintroduced/House/pdf/2008-HIB-6287.pdf

And the original supporters of HB 4896 are also cheering on HB 6827.






How much better it would have been if Representative Lisa Wojna, sponsor of the original bill, and her supporters, had pulled their original HB 4896 when the talk of amendments began. The bill should have been killed right then and there!

True, there would be no adoptee rights bill this year in Michigan but there would be the opportunity to try again next year with a clean slate!

Instead, the Michigan people who worked so very hard on the original HB 4896 have given up the fight to have a true adoptee rights law in their state. They have become “Deformers.”

The term “Adoption Deformers” is a phrase coined by Bastard Nation Founder and Executive Chair Marley Greiner. Deformers are adoptees who want us to proceed in baby steps. They ask us to accept compromise bills which contain parental restrictions, disclosure vetoes, contact vetoes, redactions, or confidential intermediary systems in place of unsealing birth records to all adopted individuals in the same way as all non-adopted citizens get their birth certificate.

Deformers claim that these conditional access bills have a better chance of being passed and that is reason enough to grab them. Deformers say that legislation which gives some adoptees access to their original birth certificate is “better than nothing.” They tell us,”It’s the best we could do. It’s all we could get.” They hope that conditional access legislation will serve as an intermediate step to someday getting true adoptee rights legislation. And in the meantime, they tell us, some adoptees will receive their original birth records.

History knows better! Once laws are passed, legislators are very reluctant to revisit the same issue again any time soon. They believe they’ve “fixed the problem” and they want to move on to other issues – not go backwards. Even if some lawmakers do revisit the original issue in the future, there is no indication that they would be more inclined to openness than before the conditional access legislation passed.

Bottom Line: The MICHIGAN BAIT & SWITCH BILLS do not treat all adopted adults equally because “former parents” will be able to block the issuance of an original birth certificate to the adoptee. Some adoptees will be more equal than others in Michigan.

ADOPTEE RIGHTS LEGISLATION: THE BIG LIE

NO COMPROMISING

Compromises are on my mind these days. Illinois State Representative Sara Feigenholtz is asking adoptees to compromise and support her bill, HB 4623, which contains a disclosure veto. State Representative Wojna from Michigan is getting ready to introduce two new adoptee rights bills that both contain disclosure vetoes. She has convinced the original supporters of the bill that the only way to get anything passed is to compromise. Representative Feigenholtz says the same thing.

I got to thinking about Oregon’s Measure 58 ballot initiative. It didn’t compromise, did it? Still the Oregon voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of adoptee rights.


I looked at Measure 58 again and the light bulb went on. The really important reason the Oregon electorate approved Measure 58 is because it was presented to the voters as a single issue, without any compromises or birth mother confidentiality clauses. The Oregon voters were asked to say YES or NO to this one sentence:

“Upon receipt of a written application to the State Registrar, any adopted person 21 years of age and older born in the State of Oregon shall be issued a certified copy of his/her unaltered, original and unamended certificate of birth in the custody of the State Registrar, with procedures, filing fees, and waiting periods identical to those imposed upon non-adopted citizens of the State of Oregon.”


YES or NO? That’s it. What could be easier! There were no confidentiality issues to cloud Oregon’s ballot. There were no compromises offered. No “ifs”, “ands,” or “buts”. It was a single issue to be answered Yes or No. And the YES’s won. If ballot initiatives patterned after Measure 58 were allowed in all states, I believe that they too would be victorious.

Unfortunately, we adoptees cannot look to ballot initiatives to solve our issue. Only half of the states allow them. The financial issues are overwhelming and they carry many complicated rules and regulations which pretty much puts them out of our reach. So we have to look to the state legislatures to make changes.

But the legislators in most states don’t want to address that single issue that was victorious in Oregon. Instead, they want to offer adoptees a compromise. Oh joy! A compromise!



Our great country was founded on compromise. At The Constitutional Convention, James Madison of Virginia received the title of "Father of the Constitution" with his speeches, negotiations, and “attempts at compromise. “

The very structure of our government was agreed upon in the great compromise of 1787. The number of members and duties of both the House of Representatives and the Senate were hammered out in this compromise.



We are steeped in the paradigm of compromise. We are taught from a very young age that we must give a little to get a little so that no one loses everything. We learned at our mothers’ knees that we cannot have our own way all the time. And that’s all well and good.

So here we are. Us. We. Bastards. How do we fit into this paradigm? We are asked to agree to compromise with the state on adoptee rights legislation and when we say NO, we are scorned. We are belittled. We must be left-over radical Commie-Pinkos because we are not conforming to the good old American principle of compromise.

The reality of the issue is that we Bastards will only deal in truths; we will never agree to a compromise which is based upon a lie. But that’s exactly what the state expects us to do. The state expects us to enter into a compromise that is based on the MYTH that birthmothers were promised confidentiality. I call this myth THE BIG LIE. Remember, if you repeat any lie long enough and loud enough, it will eventually become “the truth. “

The state wants us to agree to honor
the birth mother myth. The state actually wants us to buy into THE BIG LIE. The state’s compromise is for adoptees to agree that the adoption act should give all birth mothers an option to deny the issuance of adoptees’ birth certificates; a restriction based upon THE BIG LIE.




If we will agree to this compromise, says the state, then it will agree to give something to us. The state will change its sealed records law to enable some adopted adults to get copies of their birth certificate. If only we’d be reasonable and compromise, says the state, everyone could be satisfied. After all, compromise is the “American Way,” isn’t it?

How slick. How insidious! The state insists that we must agree to honor a premise that we know to be false. We refuse because we will not give validity to their myth. If we did consent to the state’s compromise plans, we would be planting roots for THE BIG LIE right inside the state’s Adoption Code; roots that were never there to begin with.

SO WHAT ABOUT ALABAMA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND MAINE


The legislators in Alabama, New Hampshire, and Maine didn’t believe THE BIG LIE. These lawmakers believed that the time had come for adopted adults to be able to access their birth certificates like all other citizens of the state. Very importantly, these state legislators understood that birth records were not sealed to protect the privacy of birth mothers. They knew that birth certificates were never sealed at the time of birth parent relinquishment but only upon the finalization of an adoption. They could see how these facts didn’t fit together with THE BIG LIE. And these lawmakers chose to go with the facts instead of THE BIG LIE.

Thus, Alabama, New Hampshire, and Maine agreed to issue original birth certificates to all adopted adults, unconditionally and without any falsifications. Adoptees in these states, recognizing the emotional issues involved, agreed to include a voluntary, non-binding contact preference form for birth mothers to use as a private and respectful way to communicate with adoptees. Both sides agreed that either 18 or 21 years of age would be a good age to begin accepting requests from adoptees. Both sides agreed to the procedures that each state would use to issue the certificates.

Now these are compromises made in Heaven!

“Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.”
… Franklin D. Roosevelt

Birth mothers were promised confidentiality at the time they relinquished their children.

Unsealing birth certificates to adopted adults will cause higher abortion rates and lower adoption rates.

If adopted adults learn their birth mother’s true identity, the adoptees will stalk them and force themselves on their birthparents.

Birth mothers’ rights to anonymity trump adoptees’ rights to know the truth about themselves.
Don’t search for your birth mother because she’ll slam the door in your face.

Birth mothers don’t want to remember their painful pasts.

Adoptees are just not interested in finding their first parents.

Adoptees are psychologically challenged. They have more difficulties in dealing with their emotional problems than non-adoptees.

An adoptee who searches for a birth parent takes a big chance of wreaking havoc on his or her Forever Family.

Unsealing birth certificates to adopted adults will harm the institution of adoption and harm the lives of many innocent people.

BUDDAH taught:

Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. [paraphrased]

DEAL OR NO DEAL

HB 4623, WHERE ARE YOU?

Illinois HB 4623, the compromise birth certificate bill that does not treat all adopted adults equally, has been revived to live another day.

A QUICK REVIEW

On March 13, 2008, HB 4623 whizzed through Sponsor Representative Feigenholtz’ Adoption Reform Committee by a vote of 8 -1. And just imagine! It was sent on to the House for a first reading on that very same day in March. In April, it had a short second reading. Now, according to the rules of the General Assembly, it was time for the bill to stand before the entire House of Representatives for a vote.

The bill received three different deadlines to come to the floor of the house for a vote and as each deadline rolled around, the bill received yet another extension. The third extension came on the last day of the official House Session, May 30th. But this time the bill was rereferred to the Rules Committee where according to House Rules it will remain potentially viable until the November veto session, when its sponsors are allowed to bring it back to the floor of the House for a vote.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

During this summer interval House rules allow sponsors to amend and alter the bill in any way they see fit in an effort to garner enough votes for passage. Summer is the time for negotiations, especially for contentious bills such as HB 4623. The politicians and their flunkies will not take the bill back to the public. Why should they? We already had our chance at the super speedy hearing held back in March.

This summer interval when the bill stays in the Rules Committee is like “Let’s Make a Deal.” I’ll vote for your bill if you vote for mine. Favors are called in and leverage is applied.

When a bill is rerefered to the Rules Committee, it does not need to go through any more committee hearings or any short House readings. HB 4623 may very well have been chopped to pieces and completely rewritten. But no matter. The bill can still go directly from Rules back to the floor of the house for a vote during the veto session. No more input or votes needed from committees. No more input needed from opponents or supporters. No more publicity needed!

Just schedule the bill and then vote as quickly and as quietly as you can.

This is all kosher, folks. It’s part of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

PREDICTIONS

I continue to oppose HB 4623 because it is a compromise birth certificate bill. It does not treat all adopted adults equally. Some adoptees will get left behind. Of that I’m certain. And I’ll bet the farm that we won’t recognize any “new and improved” version of HB 4623 that comes through now. It won’t get better; it can only get worse.

I predict that there will be more restrictions and conditions added to the new and improved version of HB 4623. I predict confidentiality for birth mothers will be granted for longer time periods. This in turn would create even more tiers of adoptees who can or cannot request an original birth certificate. And I also predict that birth mothers will be granted even wider powers and more options for preventing the state from issuing an original birth certificate to adoptees.

SO WHAT DO WE DO NOW?

A little bit of schmoozing with lawmakers during the summer may pay dividends when the November Veto Session comes around.

“It will not always be summer: build barns.”… Hesiod

Many state offices are now dark. Everybody down in Springfield has gone fishing or they’re out on the golf course. But that doesn’t mean that they aren’t working. Almost all of the members of our House Representatives keep an office open year round in their hometowns and here is where you can reach them during the summer recess. Plan to contact your representative. You’re a constituent, after all!

Telephone for an appointment. When you meet your representative find out what her or his position is on adoptee rights in general and on HB 4623 in particular. Exchange viewpoints. Look for some common ground. It helps any negotiations when you can first find some part of the bill upon which you can both agree.

Just keep your goal in mind. You’re there to remind your representative about the failure of HB 4623 to address the rights of all adopted adults. Explain how the bill compromises our rights. Tell your rep what a true adoptee birth certificate bill should be like. Urge him or her to vote NO to HB 4623 in the veto session so that next year we can write a true adoptee birth certificate bill; one which will unseal original birth certificates for all adopted adults, unconditionally and upon request. Also, be sure to leave some literature about the bill. A single page Bullet Point Sheet is good.

If making a personal visit to your representative doesn’t work for you, why not try a telephone conversation. Ask for a few minutes when he or she has time to chat with a constituent. Follow the same guidelines as above. Then follow up by mailing him or her some printed material.

If you prefer to communicate with your rep by mail, then by all means, go ahead and write. But please remember to keep it short and sweet. Long and detailed personal histories and pages of explanations about HB 4623 will probably be sentenced to the shredder. Very few legislators want to wade through some lengthy legislative packet, beautiful and informative as you know it to be.

Write to the media. Any time is a good time to get your opinions into the newspapers. Most of us who write may never see our letters in print. But if even one of us gets a letter into one newspaper – just think of how many people you are reaching. So I urge everyone to write to their local newspapers because your letter could be that “one.” Watch your newspapers for any sort of related adoption stories. Often you can piggyback on them. These articles can be your foot in the door.

And while you’re at it, why not write to lots of the state representatives.

And don’t forget to blog, blog, blog.

It’s not over till the fat lady sings. And this fat lady ain’t singin’!

CONFIDENTIAL INTERMEDIARIES FOR EVERYONE

"Confidential Intermediary: Marriage"
Illinois Adoption Act 750ILCS 50, Section 18.12

Legislative Intent: The General Assembly recognizes that it is the basic right of all persons to apply for and receive, uncondtionally, at the age of majority, a license to wed. The General Assembly also recognizes that there are circumstances under which a parent of the bride or groom may have compelling reasons for forbidding the marriage. In an effort to balance these interests, the General Assembly supports the public policy that a marriage license shall be issued to petitioners only after all parents have signed an Affidavit of Approval of Marriage.

Section 18.12 (a)


Any couple wishing to enter into the holy state of matrimony shall first petition the esteemed state of Illinois for a Marriage Confidential Intermediary .(MCI) The court will appoint a state sanctioned social worker to be the couple’s Marriage Confidential Intermediary. (MCI)The couple will pay a $250 filing fee to the court, $1000 to the Midwest Confidential Intermediary Marriage Agency, and must show receipt from an authorized jeweler that a diamond engagement ring of no less than 1 caret has been purchased.











Section 18.12 (d)

The MCI shall have the duty of inspecting all public and private information databases and gathering detailed information concerning any previous marriages and divorces of the bride and groom. Relationships of one year or more with a member of the opposite sex will be examined and recorded. Relationships of one month or more with a member of the same sex shall be noted with a red flag. The MCI shall also report any broken engagements, including the size of the diamond in the engagement ring and who kept the ring.

The MCI will make certain that a registered birth certificate is on file for each applicant. Additional, twelve (12 ) of the bride and groom’s genealogical family trees going back at least 4 generations, must be submitted. Adoptees – don’t even bother!

The MCI will scrupulously study all medical histories of both parties. The MCI will rate each petitioner on a Marriage Confidential Intermediary Medical History Information Exchange Scale (MCIMHIES) that will document any history of mumps, measles, chickenpox, whopping cough, or sexually transmitted diseases. One point shall be assigned for each disease. The MCI shall have the authority of the state to subpoena medical records from all doctors who have ever treated the couple.








The total medical scores are as follows:
0 – 1 A marriage made in heaven
2 -3 Risky business
4 + Not a chance.
.
The MCI will look through all criminal court records for the past 20 years and will report all indictable offenses. A separate report will be filed for any jail sentences served. Both Parole Officers and cell mates will be interviewed by the MCI.
The initial MCI investigation shall be deemed “concluded” after 6 months or 50 typed pages in the file, which ever comes first.

Section 18.12 (f)
The MCI will contact the natural parents of the bride and the groom.





Each parent will be presented with the MCI Top Secret Marriage File (MCITSMF) to scrutinize. The MCI will explain to the parents that upon completion of reading the MCITSMF, they will have 3 options to choose from:

1) This parent does not approve of the wedding. No marriage license shall be issued. Case closed.



2) This parent has concerns or issues about this marriage and therefore the petitioning couple will have to attend MCI counseling sessions 3 times/week for three months at the Midwest Confidential Intermediary Marriage Agency


If there is a blue moon during any of these months, the petitioners shall have to complete one extra month of counseling. . At the end of the sessions, the parent may then chose to agree or not agree to the marriage and a license will be issued or be withheld accordingly.

3) When all four parents agree to the marriage, they will sign an Affidavit of Approval of Marriage. At such time, the state will issue a marriage license to the petitioners.


4) All four parents must agree on the marriage before a license can be issued. Should any of the parents be deceased, the oldest sibling in that person’s family will be designated “in loco parentis” and will cast his/her vote in place of the deceased parent. The oldest sibling will be required to fill out the Marriage Confidential Intermediary Permission to Issue Marriage License Form (MCIPIMLF) as well as show proof of a score of at least 1300 on the SAT exam. If there are no living siblings, then the duty will fall to the Dali Lama.

Section 18.12 (i)

At the conclusion of the MCI investigation, All INFORMATION in the MCI Top Secret Marriage File (MCITSMF) shall be impounded and sealed for 199 years.

Any couple who marries without express permission from the MCI will be charged with the felony criminal charge of “Marrying An Unacceptable Person” and each party shall be subject to a fine of not less than $10,000. If convicted of the felony criminal charge, the bride and groom must serve a sentence of one year as volunteers to help build the George W. Bush Presidential Library.


Any clergyperson who officiates as an unofficial wedding will be subject to a misdemeanor charge of “Marrying a Couple Who Does Not Have an MCI Marrying License.” The collection plate for six consecutive Sunday services will be turned over to the state as a fine for this offense.

Any MCI who does not abide by all of the regulations of the MCI Secrecy Laws shall be subject to the felony criminal charge of “Spilling the Beans.” Imprisonment will be for the rest of his or her natural life.

Withdrawal of Bastard Nation from "A Day for Adoptee Rights"

June 1, 2008

Re: Withdrawal of Bastard Nation from A Day for Adoptee Rights

The Executive Committee of Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization announces with regret the withdrawal of our organizational co-sponsorship and official participation in A Day for Adoptee Rights, (DAR) scheduled for July 20-25 during the National Conference of State Legislature's annual meeting in New Orleans. We had planned to hold a "Bastard Boot Camp Teach-In" on July 20, participate in the protest on July 22, and help staff the DAR space inside the Mariol Convention Center July 23-25.

We sincerely regret any inconvenience or discouragement this decision may cause.

As of this writing the event itself has not been canceled, only Bastard Nation's co-sponsorship and participation. Please check the DAR website for updates on the status of the event. http://adopteerights.net/nulliusfilius/

Bastard Nation has been concerned for some time about the cost effectiveness of the project. While many people exhibited an interest in attending all or part of the event, the number of people who actually registered or made a serious commitment to attend was minimal. There were also hidden costs at the convention center, of which DAR and BN were not aware of until recently, which put our participation extremely over budget.

Bastard Nation believes that the Day for Adoptee Rights project is a sound idea. There is no dispute between BN and DAR. We have concluded that this is not the time or place for Bastard Nation to take part in a Day for Adoptee Rights. The cost of the event this year spiraled and did not balance with the number of participants coming forward to show our strength to the politicians who hold the keys to the records cabinets. Bastard Nation is an all volunteer organization that works on the foundational financial principle of bringing you the best bang for your buck. Spending several thousand dollars in member dues and donations on a project that at this point was sputtering is fiscally irresponsible, movement careless, and takes time and funds away from legislative and educational activities that can make a direct difference now.

Moreover, we are concerned with the unsolicited and unwanted participation of Abrazo Adoption Agency in San Antonio, Texas. Unknown to DAR and BN until just a few days ago, Abrazo has been raising funds for the event in DAR's name. http://apps.facebook.com/causes/85456?recruiter_id=15092383
These funds went and continue to go directly to the agency, raising huge ethical issues for Bastard Nation and the equal access movement. Records and identity access is about our rights and has no connection with the marketing schemes of adoption agencies. BN has a long-standing, hard-line policy of accepting no support from the adoption industry. Bastard Nation and the adoptee rights movement in general cannot and should not be co-opted or used by the adoption industry to promote its own agenda. We disavow all industry involvement in our work. Any entanglement with the adoption industry endangers the integrity and credibility of the adoptee rights movement.

Although BN solicited funds for our specific DAR activities, the only official fundraising site for DAR is on the DAR site. Do not send funds to any other solicitor.

Bastard Nation is in the process of working with the Country Inn and Suites by Carlson to release the rooms in our reserved block. We will personally contact everyone who registered under our agreement with the hotel about the procedure for you to cancel room reservations should you desire to do so.

We greatly appreciate the work that volunteers from Bastard Nation and A Day for Adoptee Rights have put into this event. Without them and you there is no movement. We applaud your enthusiasm, commitment and we look forward to future activities to restore our rights.

Please write to our Executive Chair, Marley Greiner (maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net) if you have any questions.

Yours in Bastardy,

The Bastard Nation Executive Committee

Anita Walker Field
Patricia Marler
Marley Greiner, Executive Chair

THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE

THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE




GRANNY’S NOTES ON THE ILLINOIS CONFIDENTIAL INTERMEDIARY LAW

I have recently read two of the most enlightening, scathing, and sorrowful blogs written by Triona Guidry, an Illinois adoptee who describes her botched Illinois Confidential Intermediary Search and the inhumane treatment she received from those very people entrusted by our state to manage the CI program. You can read her blogs, “Caveat Emptor on Confidential Intermediary Programs” and “Case Closed! Another Adoptee Becomes A Confidential Intermediary Statistic” at http://73adoptee.blogspot.com. Bottom line, the CI’s “accidentally” revealed Triona’s private identifying information to her anonymous birth mother, without Triona’s permission.

Triona relates the painful personal details of what happens when a state uses a law ostensibly to help adopted adults find some truth about themselves. But in reality this very same law allows the state to operate in secrecy, and in Triona’s situation, with out any accountability, transparency, or humanity.

The Illinois Adoption Registry (a gigantic flop) and the Illinois Confidential Intermediary Law ( a gigantic sham) were very cleverly constructed to give adoptees the appearance of receiving help from the state while at the same time making sure that any identifying information to be forthcoming would be carefully monitored and totally controlled by the state.










The Confidential Intermediary Law is a state owned and operated program that appoints social worker-nannies to adoptees to try and locate their birth parents. Nanny gets to read all our adoption documents and our original birth certificate but she must never show them to us or even tell us about them. The overriding rule governing the entire CI system is that no identifying information will ever be issued to any adoptee UNLESS THE BIRTH MOTHER CONSENTS.

Yet they call it a law for adoptees. How clever is this!

GRANNY’S MEMORIES


I signed up with the CI program in 1994, about two years after its inception. I understood from Day One that only my CIs would be given access to my adoption file and my original birth certificate in order to locate my birth parents. It was also made clear to me that all adoption documents as well as all identifying information discovered by the social workers would always be kept secret from me. I accepted this stipulation because I was dazzled by the prospect of possibly locating some birth relatives. The thought of an adoptee controlling her own destiny was unheard of to me. I was so dumb back then that I didn’t think an adoptee could ever ask for her original birth certificate.

Midwest Adoption Agency holds a total monopoly over the management of the CI program in the entire State of Illinois (How sweet is this). In fact, Midwest’s owners, Gretchen Schulert and Nancy Golden, were assigned by the court to be my very own Confidential Intermediaries.

When I was signing on, I was told in a sales talk by Ms. Schulert and Ms. Golden that the beauty of the CI program was that CIs had the full power of the courts behind them. CIs could go where others couldn’t. The CIs could present a court order for information which otherwise would not be given out to adoptees. In other words, the CIs had super powers.

I fell for it – hook, line and sinker. If these people could get their toes into doors that had been slammed in my face, then it was worth the money. I signed on the dotted line and wrote a check for $500. I also had to pay an additional $220 to file my petition with the Cook County Circuit Court, a fee that has subsequently been waived.

My search seemed to have its roots in Indiana. CI Nancy Golden wanted to obtain an Indiana birth certificate of a woman she thought might be my birth grandmother. Indiana told her to get lost. Her super powers didn’t extend into any other state. How naïve I was to ever believe that a confidential intermediary or even a judge in one state might issue any type of order to a judge in another state regarding the release of information.


Indiana’s solution for me was to apply for a Confidential Intermediary in Indiana and pay all their fees. Then and only then would an Indiana CI go to court and act on my behalf to try and obtain the desired document. Of course, the Indiana CI would only share the information on the document with my Illinois CI. The CI system reminds me of a typical “old boys network.” They sure do stick together!

By this time Ms. Golden decided that the Indiana woman in question was not a birth relative so I declined Indiana’s offer to join their CI program.

Somewhere towards the end of that first year, I began to really sour on the program. I continued to do my own searching all the while the CIs were working on my case. I shared all of my resources and information with them. But I needed feedback from them, too, and I didn’t get it. Now it finally sunk in just how stinky the CI system really is. It doesn’t give adopted men and women a chance to make any personal decisions regarding their search. By this time, I wanted to be able to make my own judgments about where and how to proceed with the search. But I could not to do this.

In 1996, after two years, the Confidential Intermediary Nancy Golden dismissed my case, declaring it unsuccessful.

Another two years later, in January, 1998, I decided I would have to go to court. I SUCCESSFULLY petitioned the Circuit Court of Cook County, pro se, to release to me copies of my entire adoption file as well as my original birth certificate. The day I actually held these records in my own hands was one of the most empowering days of my life!

By then I had already figured out that the information in these records would more likely than not turn out to be falsified or non-existent - and I was right. Nevertheless, these were my documents, I owned them, and the very fact that they were altered tells its own story.

SO YOU WANT TO SEE YOUR CI FILE?

Any searching adoptee will tell you that there is no clue too small to be considered. Ninety-nine people can look at a set of facts and reach the same conclusion. Then along comes one other person who uses the same raw data but looks at it in a totally different light and draws a different conclusion. I wanted to look at all of the raw data gathered by my CIs. Maybe I could be that hundredth person.

In April 2001, I wrote to Nancy Golden at Midwest Adoption Agency requesting a copy of my confidential intermediary file. I presented as evidence Judge Stephen Yates’ written order releasing to me copies of all of my adoption documents and my original birth certificate. I wanted to prove to the CIs that I was now in possession of all information considered by the state to be identifying.

I also pointed out to Ms. Golden that in 1998 when my case was dismissed, there was NO PROVISION in the current CI law that mentioned any instructions as to the disposition of the CI file at the conclusion of an investigation. At the time of my request, April 2001, there was still no provision for the disposition of closed CI files. [This “forgotten” hole was subsequently plugged up in a 2004 change to the CI law.]

I received a letter back from Kathleen Hogan Morrison, Attorney for Midwest Adoption Agency, who also happens to be one of the original authors of the Confidential Information law. It was her legal opinion that the Illinois CI law does not permit CIs to ever release any data that they collect during a search. She did not address the fact that the law as written at that time contained no provisions for completed CI investigations.

The section of the law that Attorney Morrison referred me to states that any CI who improperly discloses information identifying a birth parent shall be “liable to the birth parent for damages and may also be found in contempt of court.” She continued to site the law, which says: “(2) Any person who learns a birth parent’s identity, directly or indirectly, through the use of procedures provided in this Section and who improperly discloses information identifying the birth parent shall be liable to the birth parent for actual damages plus minimum punitive dames of $10,000.” [750 ILCS 50/18.3a.) (Emphasis is Attorney Morrison’s)

Ms. Morrison concluded her letter with this paragraph:

“Ms. Field is incorrect in her assertion that ‘the legal barrier of confidentiality has been lifted.’ In fact, confidentiality continues. Neither Midwest Adoption Center nor any Confidential Intermediary has the right to share identifying information about other people, which may or may not be in the Confidential Intermediary file. The prohibitions and sanctions set forth in Sections 18.3 (a) are intact. The Confidential Intermediary file may not be released to Ms. Field.” [Emphasis is mine]


THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE

Triona’s blogs will describe to you how her Illinois CIs “accidentally” gave out Triona’s personal & identifying information to her anonymous birth mother - without Triona’s permission! I was appalled to hear this. So I went back to reread the appropriate sections of the IL Confidential Intermediary law. Maybe things had changed since I went through it. But there it was, staring me in the face, Section 18.3. (1)

Any confidential intermediary who improperly discloses confidential information identifying a sought‑after relative shall be liable to the sought‑after relative for damages and may also be found in contempt of court.

Notice that only the sought-after relative can claim damages if a CI improperly discloses confidential information. Not the adoptee! And believe me, I looked carefully for any section that might deal with any legal recourse adoptees might have. There is none!

The Confidential Intermediary Law is accountable only to the state and to the birth mothers.

So what happens to Triona? Where are any adoptee protections in this law? We are out in the cold.

“Aw gee, we’re sorry,” they told Triona. But do they really care? OF COURSE NOT. After all, Triona isn’t a sought-after relative.




Yet they continue to call this a law for adoptees. When pigs fly!






CAVEAT EMPTOR


So now I add my caveat to Triona’s. Be very certain of what treatment you can live with before you sign on with the CIs. Ask yourself if you can give up complete control of your search to a third party who is prevented by law from telling you any identifying information about yourself. Remember, your confidential intermediaries will arbitrarily tell you only those facts they want to. And they will arbitrarily withhold from you any facts that they want to. And you can bet the farm that the Confidential Intermediary law itself as well as Midwest Adoption Agency and its lawyers will support all of these decisions!

GRANNIE ANNIE’S
TOP TEN LIST
THE CHICAGO BAR ASSOCIATION

10. Why do some Illinois State Representatives tell me that in order to get legislative approval for any adoptee rights bill, and in particular HB 4623, (a bill to give some adopted adults their original birth certificate) it must first pass muster with the Chicago Bar Association?

9. Why does the Chicago Bar Association ALWAYS oppose the unconditional issuing of original birth certificates to adopted men and women?

8. Are you all adoptive parents?

7. What legal right, duty, or hold does the bar association have over adopted adults?

6. Are the members of the Chicago Bar Association smarter than members of adoptee rights organizations?

5. Does the Chicago Bar Association have more experience being adopted than members of adoptee rights organizations?

4. Is the bar association afraid that the legislators aren’t smart enough to present a bill that is legal?

3. Are you all birth mothers or birth fathers?

2. Why is the Chicago Bar Association special in the eyes of the lawmakers? Why did you get a heads up on the date and time of the Wednesday, March 13, 2008 hearing on HB 4623? Representative Sara Feigenholtz scheduled a hearing AND VOTE on HB 4623 but did not let the public know until just hours before the hearing was set, thus effectively preventing the public from expressing its opinions on this bill. Does she like you better than she likes me?

AND THE NUMBER ONE QUESTION FOR THE CHICAGO BAR ASSOCIATION IS

1. WHAT’S IN IT FOR YOU?

ILLINOIS: IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED

BASTARD NATION: THE ADOPTEE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION
P.O. Box 1469
Edmond, OK 73083-1469
415-479-3741
http://www.bastards.org/


PLEASE DISTRIBUTE FREELY

ILLINOIS ACTION ALERT

URGE THE ILLINOIS HOUSE TO VOTE NO ON HB4623.

HB 4623, sponsored by Representative Sara Feigenholtz, is a dangerous bill and must be voted down. Sometime during the month of April, the Illinois House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on HB4623. We do not know what day the bill will get to the House floor, so we must ACT IMMEDIATELY in order to let our voices be heard. {Please see easy Contact Information below}

IF PASSED INTO LAW, HB 4623 WOULD…

1. …..give birth parents 6 months after the bill is passed to file “Denial of Information” forms with the Adoption Registry. Any adoptee whose birth parent files a “Denial of Information” form will NOT receive an original birth certificate. This section includes a 6 month advertising campaign to let birthmothers know their choices.

2…..define three different classes of adult adoptees, those born before 1946, those born between January 1, 1946 and January 2009, and all prospective adoptions.

3.…..give all prospective birth parents 21 years in which to file a Denial of Information Form. Current law requires them to file a denial within 6 months.

4.…..give birth parents 5 options that range from contact to anonymity to choose from.

5.…..permit redacting ( or whiting-out) an official document.
6.…..codify "anonymity" for the first time.
7.…..make all of the birth parent options go through the Illinois Adoption Registry where the concerns are related to searching rather than to civil rights.
8…..allow for the possibility of adoptees receiving copies of birth certificates with birth parent names removed as well as the adoptee's name.
9.…..grant access veto powers to birth parents who relinquished all legal rights to the adoptee as a child.

PLEASE E-MAIL, WRITE, CALL, or FAX THE MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IMMEDIATELY. TELL THEM THAT HB4623 IS A SERIOUSLY FLAWED BILL WHICH MUST BE VOTED DOWN SO THAT A TRUE ADOPTEE RIGHTS BILL CAN BE WRITTEN AND FILED IN ITS PLACE.


WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE BILL NEEDS 70+ VOTES IN ORDER TO PASS OUT OF THE HOUSE. WE MUST PUT AN END TO IT RIGHT IN THE HOUSE WHERE IT BEGAN!


Background
HB 4623 began back in January as a shell bill purportedly to make changes to the IL CI system. On Monday, March 10th, Rep. Feigenholtz announced her new OBC search bill, HB 4623. On Tuesday, March 12, the shell bill was transformed into the new 77 page OBC search bill. On Wednesday, March 13th, the new bill went straight to the House Adoption Reform Committee, of which Rep. Feigenholtz just happens to be chair. That very same day, the committee voted 8-1 vote to pass the bill. The new 77 page bill was only put up on the IL website hours before the hearing so there was no time for interested parties to testify. No wonder the committee passed the bill; even they didn't have time to read all 77 pages.


This bill has been rejected by many adoption reform coalitions, including Illinois Open.

The 77 page complete text of the bill is at
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=51&GA=95&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=4623&GAID=9&LegID=35302&SpecSess=&Session=
Bastard Nation: http://www.bastards.org/
Illinois Open My Space http://www.myspace.com/illlinoisopen
Illinois Open web page http://www.ilopen.org/
Adoption Reform Illinois Resource Page: HB 4623 opposition coalition letter to legislators and media http://www.73adoptee.com/2008%20open%20letter.pdf

CONTACT INFORMATION – Cut and paste
eacevedo@hdsmail.state.il.us,Repdistrict3@yahoo.com,repbassi@aol.com,strepmbeaubien@aol.com,rep@pbellock.com,rep_berrios@yahoo.com,bobbiggins@comcast.net,wbblack@cooketech.net,ilrepmikeboland@aol.com,mikebost@midwestmail.com,rbradley@hdsmail.state.il.us,dan@repdanbrady.com,rbrauerr@housegopmail.state.il.usJBROSNAHAN@PRODIGY.net,burekdj@legis.state.il.us,Chapalaviali@legis.state.il.usrepcolvin@sbcglobal.net,coulson@earthlink.net,tom@tomcross.com,Repcurrie@earthlink.net,mdavis@hdsmail.state.il.us,williamd@legis.state.il.us,Lisadugan@sbcglobal.net,kendunkin@msn.com,joe@josephdunn.com,Reddyunit1@aol.com,sara@staterepsara.com,bobflider@repflider.com,mflowers@hdsmail.state.il.us,Jack@JackFranks.org,mystaterep@aol.com,staterepPaul@sbcglobal.net,staterepgordon@sbcglobal.net,st.rep.graham@sbcglobal.net,julie@juliehamos.org,hannig@hdsmail.state.il.us,hoffman@legis.state.il.us,strephow@legis.state.il.us,n.jakobsson@worldnet.att.net,staterepchuck67@aol.com,kevinjoyce35@aol.com,rkosel@aol.com,Repkrause@aol.com,Reploulang@aol.com,davidleitch@ameritech.net,dstrct50@aol.com,repmendoza@aol.com,judybe@ameritech.net,mmadigan@housedem.state.il.us,sidneymath@email.msn.com,brandy@ivnet.com,karenmay58@aol.com,mmcauliffe20@yahoo.com,kevmac37@sbcglobal.net,jmcguire86@sbcglobal.net,jhmeyer@gmail.com,repdavidmiller@aol.com,repmitchell@earthlink.net,repjmitchell@cin.net,moffitt@grics.com,repmulligan@USA.net,ruthmunson@ruthmunson.com,repmeyers@mccomb.com,enekirtz@repnekritz.org,osmondjoann@aol.com,CGMORROW11132@aol.com,poer@housegopmail.state.il.us,70thdist@pritchardstaterep.com,johnjmillner@aol.com,cyberelm@earthlink.com,leader@mcleodusa.net,repreitz@egyptian.net,Kelly38@sbcglobal.net,robertbobrita@aol.com,chapin@chapinrose.com,kathy@kathyryg.org,jmsacia@aeroinc.net,skip@saviano.com,ilrep49@sbcglobal.net,rslone@bwsys.net,repscully@sbcglobal.net,mks@winco.com,sommer@mtco.com,staterepsoto@aol.com,stephens@apci.net,ilhouse51@sbcglobal.net,jiltracy@jiltracy.com,rkurtz@mc.net,pverschoore@legis.state.il.us,RepWait@aol.com,washington60th@aol.com,jimwatson@localnetco.com, repwinters@aol.com, kyarbrough@hdsmail.state.il.us,


For a comprehensive list of all 118 members of the House of Representatives, please go to:

http://www.ilopen.org/

REPLACE ILLINOIS HB 4623

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FORWARD

NEW BILL NEEDED TO REPLACE ILLINOIS HB 4623

HB 4623 is a flawed bill. I oppose it in the hope of being able to see it changed into a bill which we can all be proud of; a bill that will serve all adopted men and women equally.

HB 4623 - A FLAWED BILL

• HB 4623 allows birth parents to have the final “say” in whether or not an adopted adult can have his or her original birth certificate. These are the very same birth parents who relinquished all legal rights to their biological offspring at least 21 years ago.
• Adopted adults whose birth mothers file a “Denial of Information Request” will not be able to receive a copy of their original birth certificate.
• In prospective adoptions, birth parents will have 21 years after they legally relinquish their offspring to decide whether or not to file a denial of information.


• This bill gives birth parents the option of being “legally anonymous,” a very dangerous precedent to set.


• HB 4623 will divide adoptees into three different groups: 1) those born before 1946; 2) those born between 1946 and 2009; and 3) all prospective adoptions after 2009. Each tier of adoptees will be treated differently under HB 4623.


• The bill continues to treat adopted adults as “children belonging to the state.” It requires all adoptees to use the Illinois Adoption Registry to manage their private and personal affairs. Adopted adults do not need any assistance from an Adoption Registry if they are truly on a par with non-adopted citizens.


• The bill proposes redacting (or whiting-out) of an official document.
  

I do not wish to be a naysayer or a spoiler who wants to prevent any adopted adults from receiving their original birth certificate. Believe me, I’m an adoptee and I know what it feels like to be kept in the dark by the state for decades. It breeds shame

My goal is for every single adoptee in Illinois to be able to request and receive, unconditionally, their original birth certificates. I want every single adoptee in Illinois to be completely severed from any state control when they become adults. I don’t want to leave even one adoptee behind in the clutches of the state.

The only way to accomplish this really modest goal is for the legislators to vote down HB 4623 as quickly as possible. Then we can go right back to the table and work together to write a new bill that will restore the civil and human right of all Illinois adopted adults to access their original birth certificates without bureaucratic restraint or third party interference.

A NEW BILL

All adopted adults, upon reaching the age of majority and upon written request, shall be able to request and receive a copy of their original birth certificate without any restrictions or falsifications on the certificate, in a manner identical to that of all other non-adopted citizens of the state.

• 
  A new and improved bill would be one in which no anonymity forms would be allowed. There could be a respectful non-binding contact form for birth parents to use if they wish.
• A new and improved bill would set all adopted adults forever free from government interference with their private lives.
• In a new bill, birth parents would not be able to “rule” their biological offspring for the rest of their lives.
• A new and improved bill would prevent the state from establishing a new category in the law – one in which the state would give birth parents an assurance of anonymity from their biological offspring.
• A new and improved bill would not need any assistance from the Illinois Adoption Registry or the Confidential Intermediary System. A new bill would issue original birth certificates to adopted adults in the very same way all other citizens get their certificates – from the Departments of Public Health of the Departments of Vital Statistics – NOT via an adoption registry. Adopted adults do not need any assistance from an Adoption Registry if they are truly on a par with non-adopted citizens.
• A new and improved bill would cut all ties between every single adoptee and the state when the adoptee reaches the age of majority.
• A new bill would never try to balance adoptee rights with birth parent rights.
  

Writing a bill to help some adoptees isn’t just, it isn’t fair and it isn’t the right thing to do. It takes the same amount of work and energy to help ALL adoptees as it does to help only some of them.

So let’s do it.

Please take just a few minutes to help all adopted adults. You can write to your representative in the Illinois House of Representatives and let him or her know that you believe HB 4623 is a damaged bill and that it must not be allowed to pass in the House. Instead, a new bill must be crafted to take its place, one that will treat all adopted adults equally.

You can find out who your representative is, please go to

http://www.elections.il.gov/districtlocator/SelectSearchType.aspx