BASTARD NATION ACTION ALERT!
STOP DISCLOSURE VETO/WHITE OUT LEGISLATION IN NEW JERSEY!!!
ASK THE NEW JERSEY ASSEMBLY HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE:VOTE NO ON A1406/S799
DON’T LET PASSAGE OF BAD LEGISLATION IN NEW JERSEY THREATEN EFFORTS IN OTHER STATES FOR TRUE EQUAL ACCESS FOR ADULT
A1406 (companion to S799 already passed in the NJ Senate) is scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Human Services Committee on June 14.
Please contact committee members immediately and urge them to VOTE NO ON A1406/S799. See contact information below.If you are from or in New Jersey or have a New Jersey connection, be sure to mention it in your communication.
Be sure to put: “A1406 – opposition ” in the header
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 before obcs, past and future, are unsealed
*authorizes the state to replace the original birth certificate, 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 an intrusive and probably illegal medical and family history form to activate the veto.
*requires “birthparents” who file a “contact preference form” to fill out the same intrusive and probably illegal medical and family history form.
*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 ABOUT RIGHTS.
A1406/S799 IS ABOUT PRIVILEGE
Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization opposes legislation that denies any adult adoptees access to their own original birth records on par with all other citizens. Please let the Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizen Committee know that this issue is not about relationships between adoptees and their “birthparents.” It is about basic human and civil rights and the relationship between adoptees and the STATE of NEW JERSEY.
The New Jersey state government should not be in the business of denying adult adoptees access to their own birth certificates in a misguided attempt to appease a mythical adversarial standoff between adoptees and birthparents.
Inclusion of a disclosure veto in this bill, even within the 12-month “window of opportunity” perpetuates the violation of adoptee rights by making unaltered birth certificate access a privilege not a right.
Forcing “birthparents,” under certain circumstances, to submit mandatory health and family history information to the state is intrusive and probably illegal.
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 Senate and urge them to VOTE NO ON A1406/S799
READ THE FULL TEXT AT: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/A1500/1406_I1.PDF
The New Jersey Leg page has no list of email addresses, You need to go to each individual Rep member page and use the template http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/abcroster.asp
Human Services Committee:
Vainieri Huttle, Valerie – Chair
Rodriguez, Caridad – Vice-Chair
Angelini, Mary Pat
Biondi, Peter J.
Coutinho, Albert
Fuentes, Angel
McHose, Alison Littell
O’Scanlon, Declan J.
Tucker, Cleopatra G.
Wagner, Connie
Proponents of A1406/S799 have asked supporters to sent letters of support to Gov. Chris Christie now. We urge you to do sent letters of opposition. Send letters no more than 250 words at this template: http://www.state.nj.us/governor/contact/
or contact him at:
Office of the Governor
PO Box 001
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-292-6000
Bastard Nation has submitted opposition testimony to the Human Services Committee, but will ot post it until after the hearing. We have also sent a letter to Governor Christie.
Unfortunately, this blog is not describing the bill correctly.
SCS 799/1399 would restore the right of adult adoptees to access an uncertified copy of their original birth certificate, upon request. In addition, the bill would give the same right of access to direct descendants of deceased adoptees as well as the parents of adopted minors.
SCS 799/1399 would also allow these same individuals to obtain family history (e.g. medical, cultural and social history) information concerning the adopted person from the agency or intermediary who facilitated the adoption.
For birth parents seeking anonymity, SCS 799/1399 would grant those who relinquished a child for adoption prior to the bill’s enactment the right to request that their name and address as recorded on the original birth certificate be withheld from the uncertified copy released to the authorized requester. To honor the request for non-disclosure, birth parents would be required to file a family history form within a 60 day period. Availability of the non-disclosure option would expire at the end of a 12 month period following approval of the regulations, not enactment of the bill.
During the period in which existing birth parents who relinquished before the bill’s enactment may request non-disclosure, adult adoptees would be able to request from the agency or intermediary that facilitated their adoption, any available nonidentifying family medical history information concerning the adopted person.
For any birth parent seeking to voice their preference regarding possible contact by their adult children, SCS 799/1399 would allow birth parents to file a contact preference form at any time. This form would indicate a preference for direct contact, contact through an intermediary, or no contact at this time. The bill would require a birth parent to file a family medical history form along with the contact preference form.
Birth parents filing a family medical history form along with their request for non-disclosure or contact preference form would be requested, not required, to provide updates to the family medical history form every 5 or 10 years, depending on their age.
Contact me with specific questions about the bill before you contact your legislator. I want you to understand what this bill does and more importantly, what it DOES NOT do.
Thanks for posting this, Birthright Blogger. However, you have proven my point. This flawed bill does not restore the pre-sealed 1940 right of New Jersey adoptees to their own OBC. It is not a rights bill, no matter how proponents frame it. The bill privileges some adoptees over others, and on top of it, extorts medical histories from women in order to get the state to do their wishes. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
This bill is not what the adoptee rights movement is about. If the bill becomes law, those who get their OBCs will do so on the backs of those who don’t. Not one bastard should be left behind.
And what about the entire safe haven class? Don’t they count?
Bills like this have grave consequenes for the rest of the country.
I do not know why you call this an Adoptee’s Birthright Bill when what you have said here clearly shows it is not. It is not a birthright if it requires birthmother permission or can be vetoed by anyone. It is a favor granted, “mother, may I” bill. As Marley said, your own words quoted below show the fatal flaws of this bill.It needs to die so a clean bill can be introduced again in NJ.
A simple bill allowing adoptees to request their own OBC like any non adopted person for a nominal fee would cost the state nothing. This mess with all the convoluted collection and distributing medical information, bookkeeping and paperwork involved, plus the cost of publicizing it to birthmothers in the closet will cost the state plenty at a time when Gov. Christie is slashing funding for everything including schools and libraries. As a NJ resident, I resent money being wasted on such a useless and patronizing bill.
Birthright blogger wrote:
For birth parents seeking anonymity, SCS 799/1399 would grant those who relinquished a child for adoption prior to the bill’s enactment the right to request that their name and address as recorded on the original birth certificate be withheld from the uncertified copy released to the authorized requester. To honor the request for non-disclosure, birth parents would be required to file a family history form within a 60 day period. Availability of the non-disclosure option would expire at the end of a 12 month period following approval of the regulations, not enactment of the bill.
Dear BD –
You are making a number of assumptions.
Let’s start with Safe Haven. The bill defaults the birth mothers of safe haven babies as electing the non-disclosure provision. However, the bill gives them the right to rescind this condition by language that grants birth mothers of the past to rescind their request for non-disclosure.
Next, medical histories.
Wow… extorsion. Great fiction! We all know that any health history in adoption files is pretty limited, and of course, outdated. How many young women had medical conditions in their teens or early 20’s? I’m sure you understand. The provisions in the bill where medical history is REQUIRED is ONLY when a birth mother elects non-disclosure. No specific medical history is required. The ONLY thing a birth mother must do is to RETURN THE FORM FILLED OUT TO THE BEST OF HER ABILITY. This is no different than what any person does when they visit the doctor’s office for the first time. If a birth mother doesn’t want to share any medical information that could save the life of her relinquished child (unlikely), she can return the form indicating that their are no health concerns – and her identity will not be released. Far from extorsion.
Next… updating medical histories.
The language is explicit: birth mothers will be REQUESTED (read: not required) to update medical history every 5 of 10 years depending on their age. This is unenforceable and there are no penalties. However, if there are birth mothers willing to do this, why not create a channel of communication?
Finally, the non-disclosure provision will last 12 months. After which the NJ bill will in effect be a clean bill. Future relinquishing birth mothers will not have the right to non-disclosure and birth mothers of the past will lose this right. Based on other states, we believe that less than 100 of 150,000 sealed records may unfortunately be a victim of a birth mother electing non-disclosure.
Sounds like a pretty good deal for adoptees to me.
We aren’t making assumptions, Birthright Blogger I’ve read that bill more times than I care to think about. The bill is not a rights bill, but adoption industry bill that privileges some over others. Out the door, promoters accept the industry’s argument of anonymity and it’s downhill after that.
Are you aware of the growing activist “birthmother” (and I use that term advisedly) contingent that are vocally opposing this bill due partially to the medical history requirement. A mother’s medical history is NOT the business of her children dept or relinquished. Such a provision has no business in a records access bill–or eve a faux access bill. And why would anyone in their right mind turn over medical information about themselves to any state agency?
You write: “Based on other states, we believe that less than 100 of 150,000 sealed records may unfortunately be a victim of a birth mother electing non-disclosure.”
That proves it’s not a rights bill. 100 people may be left behind. What do you tell them . Sorry. You have no rights. If you’re on that side, this is not a good deal, and you’ve sealed their records forever. Shame on New Jersey.
Birthright blogger wrote:
“The provisions in the bill where medical history is REQUIRED is ONLY when a birth mother elects non-disclosure. No specific medical history is required. The ONLY thing a birth mother must do is to RETURN THE FORM FILLED OUT TO THE BEST OF HER ABILITY. This is no different than what any person does when they visit the doctor’s office for the first time. If a birth mother doesn’t want to share any medical information that could save the life of her relinquished child (unlikely), she can return the form indicating that their are no health concerns – and her identity will not be released. Far from extorsion.”
Let’s look at this amazingly twisted bit of apologetics. First of all, it is spelled “extortion”. Spell check is your friend. And if the closet mommy is required to return the medical form on condition of blanking out her name on the OBC, extortion is what it is.
But, you say, the closet mommy gets a health history form, but can return it blank and still have her identity removed from her kid’s OBC? Is that spelled out in the advertising for this wonderful “service” to mothers? Do all these mothers know they can just write “no medical history” on the form and still get their miserable secret kept by the state? Better let people know, this is the first I have heard of that fantasy.
When I fill out a similar form for a new doctor, I am assured that only the doctor and his office staff see it, and they have a reason to know the information written there. I am also quite comfortable sharing all medical history with my children, and have, including my relinquished son. I would have no objection to any of them seeing my formal medical history either. Unlike some mothers, I am not concerned about lawsuits or privacy laws.
However. this form goes to some as yet unnamed state agency that has nothing to do with medical care, and passes though who knows how many hands before it reaches the adoptee. If the mother can lie or return a blank form, the whole concept is a sham anyhow.
I would find it very likely that a mother cold enough to deny her child his birth certificate and her identity would not care about sharing “life-saving medical information” through a third party either. Why would she?
This bill has more holes than a swiss cheese, and is dishonest in what it purports to do and who it serves. The mechanics of putting it into effect are cumbersome and impractical.
The more you try to explain and support it, the deeper hole you dig.
Marley and all,
You know I would LOVE clean legislation, across the board for everyone.
I would like to know other than Alaska and Kansas, which of the other states who NOW have clean access, did so without a registry, intermediary program, or anything else being in place PRIOR to the enacting of a clean bill?
If I have checked my history correctly, ALL of them had enacted some OTHER type of legislation prior to having a clean bill enacted.
First off, the comment I removed posted by Roberta was a duplicate.
Now to reply to Roberta: As I wrote on another blog, I intend to reply more at length when my fingers recover from poison ivy. In the meantime, for Roberta: state-run reunion registries and CI programs developed in states years, even decades ago. They are not relevant to today’s battle. We have four “new” stats with clean laws. There is no reason whatsoever for any state to settle for anything less than unrestricted access.
BTW, NCFA support registries. Do appeasers really want to be on NCFA’s side.