HB 162, the clean OBC access bill already passed by the Pennsylvania House, has gone done to defeat under Disclosure Veto. Sen. Mensch offered an incredibly ugly amendment which passed that “opens a window” of three years for a birth parent to file a disclosure veto. If it is filed, the OBC remains sealed. If one is not filed for three years, then the OBC is available. Continue Reading →
HB 162 is being heard Tuesday September 16 in the Senate Committee on Aging and Youth. This is a clean bill that will restore the right of access without restriction to all Pennsylvania-born adoptees to their original birth certificates. The bill has already passed the House and is now being challenged by Catholic Charities, the ACLU and anti-abortion groups in the Senate. It is imperative that Pennsylvania legislators know that OBC access is a civil right that must be restored to all adopted adults. Continue Reading →
This is the testimony in support of PA HB 162 I submitted for the March 18, hearing before the Senate Committee on Aging and Youth. I am re-submitting it for the hearing scheduled for September 16, 2014 with an addenda regarding arguments about abortion brought forward by Catholic Charities. Continue Reading →
I understand that Goldberg is pandering to the adoptive client crowd and its fan base, but why bother? I mean, who cares? And it’s particularly insulting since Massachusetts, no matter what you hear from its homegrown adoption deformers, is not a free state. OBCs between July 17 1974-January 1, 2008 are still held hostage by the state. If adoption is going to be a pandered dear-to-the-heart object in Goldberg’s campaign, then why not say as Treasurer she’ll support and work hard to loose those records from the greedy hands of the state. State Treasurers do have political pull after all. Continue Reading →
I like the idea of a birthmother tea. I imagine proper women in white gloves and pill box hats perched at well-appointed card tables sipping Lady Earl Gray from finely painted china cups, delicately munching scones with strawberry jam while they discuss Downton Abbey. Continue Reading →
My boyfriend, G, was one of the Kent 25. The 25s’ names were never released, but we knew who they were.
G is listed in FBI records as a high school student. He was not. He was an Army veteran, discharged 7 months earlier after a turn in Germany. Even though thousands of miles away from Viet Nam, the Army had taught G to hate the war. Continue Reading →
It is basically a registry that now has automatic redactions, further restrictions on access and is based on the premise that one can get their OBC only if their parent has contacted the registry, joined it (hoops and hoops) and given their consent for release. If only one parent contacts and gives consent, then the other parent is automatically redacted. A parent can deny access completely and can redact. I could go on but it is just awful. Continue Reading →
I fear I am not a good note taker or conference blogger, but I tried to get a couple lines in about most of the panels I attended. My own panel, Roundtable on Wayne Carp’s Jean Paton and the Struggle to Reform American Adoption was held late Saturday afternoon. Members included Marianne Novy English, U. of Pittsburgh, Elizabeth Samuel, University School of Law, and of course Wayne, all discussing Jean Paton. My presentation was “A Radical Looks at a Radical.” It’s in pretty rough form, but if I ever get around to fixing it up I’ll post it here. Continue Reading →
Yesterday James introduced GreenPartyAdoptionReform.com and its platform which reads in part:
Due to current laws millions of adults that were adopted as children are now being denied access to vital records regarding their births. This is a basic human right that Green Party should be committed to help in abolishing the secrets and lies that surround many adoptions around the world by creating necessary transparency between adoptees, their mothers and adoptive parents. Continue Reading →
Opposition testimony from Denise St. Clair, NCALP: “We can conceive of no benefit for adoptive children through such a change. The vast majority of stakeholders with whom we have discussed this issue do not support this process change. In fact, Section (not listed) does not eliminate the potential that other men who do not receive notice may claim paternity or putative father status to the child and register as provided for notice is not received. If the goal is to decrease the chance that a potential father may appear late in the game, we are not sure that this provision will have that effect. Putative or legal fathers who are not so identified will still have the opportunity to take measures to protect their rights–as they should” Continue Reading →