Doncha love hyperbole?
It is way too long to respond to as a comment, so I’m putting it up here as a separate entry. It’s like a big circle jerk. I have no idea why I’m doing this other than to show you what we’ve been dealing with over the last few weeks with the CARESTAS.
Anonymous’ comments are in bold, mine not. Anything that was quoted from the original post is noted as from me.
I had some trouble with cutting and pasting and fonts, but I think it’s OK now.
Why do you and all the negative people look at everything as “the glass is half empty”. Is that the way you live your life. It’s sad. This bill is very good and with a little more fine tuning, will give access to over 99% of adoptees. Why do you keep whining about current language when you full well know it will be tweaked ( its only on its 3rd round). Is it because you have a dark ulterior motive and are trying to manipulate others?
And just how would 99% of
A third round? In most states a third round is usually the end of the line.
Records are whatever birth records that the Department of Social Services has on file. Records are lost for everyone. Adoptees are not unique in that way. The vast majority of birth records are on file either in your county of birth or in common DSS files or both.
CARE has repeatedly refused to say what records they are talking about. They have waffled on whether they only want the original birth certificate, the entire adoption file, or something else. Equal access activists want the obc—like everybody else has. We do not ask for special rights or rules—unlike apparently CARE and its special rights statist cronies. The adoption file contains confidential information regarding information on finances, mental health counseling and sexual encounters that the adoptee or anyone else should not be allowed to access without consent While those documents may be interesting to some, they are not legal documents like a state-issued birth certificates. In
1) how many records they have,
2) how many adoptee requests have been made for records,
3) how many birth parents responded to the notification
4) how many birth parents failed to respond, said giving records were ok and how many said NO
You can find the latest statistics here:
There have been just 15,191 adoptee requests which is 3.5% of the total number of adoptees in the 3 states. That is a large and statistically significant sample size. That means the data from these three states is a reasonable approximation of what can be expected in CA. If you don’t understand Statistics, there is not much I can do about that. Based on how the latest CA AB372 is written, only the actual responses during the 6 month period that said “NO” would be denied access. Only 101 out of 15,000 requests came back “NO”. That is about .66% which means that 100-.66 = 99.34% of the requests would have been allowed in CA under the current AB372 language and that is the intent.
In the states mentioned above, (you left out
(Quote from Bastardette): The egregious veto and government tracking of women says it all. Name changes, maternity homes, deaths, movement from listed homes, movement across state and county lines says it all. Permitting rape, incest, religious and “personal reasons” exemptions says it all.
Please turn your brain ON and Victim’s role OFF and say something meaningful! The government TRACKS everyone! Do you really think this will change how the government tracks people? It tracks men just as much as women? The credit card companies and 100’s of private companies track people too and the government has access to their records.. If you drive, the DMV tracks you. If you work the IRS and State, SS, Medicare etc. track you. If you die you are recorded. If you own property you are tracked. Do you really think they focus on women?
While an over-reaching government may indeed track “everyone” (that in itself is questionable, but we won’t go there for now.) The government doesn’t track down women or men to get their individual consent to release the vital records of their adult offspring to those offspring. The government, with few exceptions (parole specs, for instance, or TROs with just cause) does not monitor or control who associates with whom.
AB 372 specifically tracks down first parents, supposedly promised “confidentiality” or as the adoption industry likes to say ”anonymity” in adoption with a return receipt certified letter. Now, if I lived with somebody who got one of those letters, I’d be mighty curious as to why the government was looking for my wife, mother, daughter, or friend. And what about letters those go to the wrong addresses? I can just picture that lovely domestic scene. Asmb. Ma mentioned an idea the other day about notice by publication. Let’s see, we won’t give your kid your name without your consent, but we’ll publish your name in the paper for everybody to read.
Why is the State of California hiding under the skirts of mothers?
If you knew anything about politicians you would know language like “Rape, Incest etc.. are only there for political purposes. What difference does it make? You must have lots of problems to get hung up on VERY TYPICAL things or it’s a strategy by you to manipulate others. Which is it?
That simply is not true. If you knew anything about
The intent of the AB372 is NOT to kick out everyone where the parent is dead or can’t be found. Be real! It will be revised as it has 3 times and fine tuned to make sure that if the government makes a “best effort” to locate the birth parent during the 6 month period, the records will be released. Even the language now requires they use the “best available address” which could be argued means whatever the government has access to. If the government uses the “best” than far less than 1% of people can be found and of course they need a death clause. Complaining about a few wording problems when the bill is the best possible given privacy laws and AD908 obligations is insincere and you know it.
Why should the government be looking for anybody? It’s not the government’s business.
Instead of venting like a victim, why don’t you list any concerns about specifics in a way that is sensible so it can be seen as input to the fine tuning process. A bill goes through many adjustments and POSITIVE suggestions are good. If you didn’t have an ulterior motive (which I believe you do), you would offer constructive criticism and make suggestions as to plugging problem areas. Why are you so angry? How about being genuine and authentic and just saying what you really feel? Then turn off the emotional BS and use your brain to help adoptees rather than just doing damage.
“(1) shall be sent to the BEST available address for each birth parent who is listed on the original birth certificate.”
And what government in what universe are you talking about?
If they can’t, the records will be released because the birth parents privacy expectation and the AD908 contract obligation can’t carry over after a “best effort and reasonable” attempt to locate the parent has failed. Get with it!
Speak English please.
What is wrong with you? You are so angry. Get a life and stop playing victim!!! You sound ridiculous. You can’t even explain yourself. You are so angry and so deeply sunk into your victim role, you think others understand your twisted assumptions. How about explaining like an intelligent person trying to communicate.
Hey, I’m not the one who’s angry. You’re the one coming over here shaking your your spleen at a bunch of lowly dumb bastards. If you had a blog—and maybe you do—I’d not come over to your space and go into a hissy. The only thing to be angry about is bullshit deformers jumping into bed with the adoption industry. And being lectured by people who have no idea what side is up.
(Quote from Bastardette)AB 372 is a straight Mother May I bill on steroids rooted in reunion. And notice that the medical exception doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the veto decision of parents.
BRAIN ON – VICTIM ROLE OFF PLEASE! “Mother May” – Come on get off your victim’s soap box! The current law and doctrine put “medical necessity” above privacy. Duh!
And how many people have a medical necessity? And if so, there is no guarantee that a court will buy it. There are plenty of adoptees with life-threatening situations who are denied requests.
(Quote from Marley) This bill would take away the rights that some adoptees have now of getting their records through the courts,. How does this bill effect the 10 open counties Haven’t heard a word about that. Care to explain?
No it doesn’t. It does not modify existing law unless it is specific. The medical necessity clause doesn’t change what a judge can do.
Still not an answer. And since you’re anonymous your opinion doesn’t count much. You’ve said elsewhere you don’t even have a dog in this fight. Let’s hear it from lawyers and judges. How does AB 372 affect the 10 Open Counties?
Isn’t it funny how deformers call those of us who stand for equal rights and principle victims, while they’re claiming victim need? That’s how bullies attempt to disempower their enemies when they’re scared. Are you a Republican?
BTW, we’ve listed many positive suggestions, but the hacks in CARE don’t CARE. Cal Open for instance has talked to Anthony Pico and Asbm. Ma til’ the cows come home. AB 372 is all she and CARE can come up with? Why are the people who have actually gotten unrestricted access are passed into law the bad guys? Why are we the ones who don’t’ know what we’re talking about.
We’re not the ones running around adoptees are dyin’ and making movies about elderly, and dying adoptees. We’re not the ones who said that the legislature doesn’t want to hear about rights. They want to hear about needs.
“An abomination” – Get real!
Does your boss at at Rural Community Health know you’re sending anonymous posts to blogs on your company account?
ADDENDA: I KNEW I forgot something! I suppose the State of California will tack a hefty fee on each bastard who requests their “file” (whatever that may be) to save the taxpayers their hard earned money.