…aren’t necessary.

This is taken from CARE’s action alert for SB 372. (emphasis mine).

AB 372 will give hundreds of thousands of adult citizens adopted in California (who currently have no hope of ever having their own original birth record) an opportunity to know their original identity. Many of these citizens will die out of the system in the coming years. To oppose this legislation is to literally oppose their ability to have this record at any time in the foreseeable future. The opposition to this legislation is coming from many people who have no skin in the game. Adoptees from other states, birthparents from other states, adoptees who already have their records, are not the ones who should be influencing this decision.

Does this mean CARE is ready to boot its leaders and out-of-state advisory committee members?

4 Replies to “SOMETIMES WORDS….”

  1. Let’s be perfectly clear, there absolutely are Bastards who do not have access to their records who oppose their bill. I’m one of them.

    But having one’s information, whether via a state process or through personal search (and still not having access to the state held documentation) is not a prerequisite qualifier for speaking out on this proposed legislation. For CARE to write off those who have accessed their information one way or another is a false form of attempting to cleave off some mythical high ground they clearly do not hold.

    Not having one’s records is no criteria for having “skin in the game.” As BB Church has
    clearly pointed out,
    the pool of people directly affected is far larger than CARE is willing to acknowledge.

    I may be an Ohio Bastard, but I know firsthand what it means to be left behind and locked out by “compromise” legislation. I live with the consequences of that daily.

    I know firsthand what it’s like to have to beg judges for access.

    If CARE thinks they have nothing to learn from the experiences of those who live under the consequences of “compromise” legislation, they might want to reconsider.

    There are plenty of us who have become inadvertent experts in what the consequences of “let’s get whatever we can and come back for the rest later” means in practice- it means some number of us are screwed.

    But then, CARE not being the least bit interested in hearing from voices of direct experience (or researching even prior CA history) is pretty much par for the course at this point, and certainly fits their broader pattern.If they don’t think what happens in California will matter to others in other states again, they underestimate the national significance of the precedents being proposed in their bill. (Come on, proposing age 25? You think that little “gem” alone won’t reverberate around state to state?)

    There are concrete reasons many of us find AB 372 an unfolding disaster.

    We are adopted people of conscience, unwilling to settle for legislation predicated on the notion that any percentage of adoptees are simply expendable, written off as the simply screwed and screwable.

    Do they not understand the simple idea that one set of adoptees’ records cannot come at the direct cost of another set of adoptees’ records?

    Not that the proposed bill even ensures that SOME will gain access, to my reading, it looks more like what little access CA adopted people currently have would be gutted by AB 372.

    But then I suppose in the rush to get something, ANYTHING passed, actual people and their actual needs be damned.

    CARE wants to be able to say they passed a bill, never mind whether it actually ends up helping or hurting adopted people.

    Then they wonder why we oppose the legislation…? Honestly!

  2. As a non-Californian adoptive parent with no skin in the game (my son has his OBC, courtesy of a civilized Third World nation), I’m sure CARE* would object to me voicing an opinion on the subject. I can only wonder, however, whether I should also keep to myself my opinions on race, as a member of the white majority.

    Only an idiot would refuse to recognize that what happens in CA may affect what happens elsewhere.


    * Not to be confused with the international aid organization which should take action to prevent this group from capitalizing on the original’s goodwill.

  3. This reminds me of what the clerk at the records bureau said to me and my daughter when we were trying to access her OBC and a copy of my surrender documents. “You’ve found each other, now. Why would you want these documents?”


  4. As a San Francisco born bastard (yes, both illegitimate, and adopted), presently domiciled outside of CA, who has obtained non-ID info, after waiting over half a year on SF Human Services Agency. And as one who currently has petitioned the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Unified Family Court, for my Order of Adoption, and Original Birth Certificate, I view CARE’s and Assembly Member Ma’s effort as more probably backed by the adoption industry.

    From Assembly Member Ma’s memo to CalOpen & CARE refers to “stakeholders”, rather than constituants. Interesting choice of words. Additionally, compare the introduced version of AB 372, with the March amended version, which save for the age of 25, and still removing birth parents names from the OBC, was almost worth supporting, then the bait and switch tactic of another amendment approved just two weeks prior to the judiciary committee. The latest amemdment containing a veto clause.

    Lastly, lets not forget about the dinner party. Oh, you didn’t get an invitation? Try It must be nice having all these adoptee’s willing to spend another $99 per plate towards Assembly Member Ma’s 2010 campaign.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *