SB23 Update: Passes out of Senate Committee with Amendments

This morning SB23--now Sub(stitute) Bill 23, sailed through the Ohio Senate Medicaid, Health, and Human Services Committee, 8-0.

No substantive changes to the bill were made, but several amendments were added  to clarify procedures in the original bill. The sub bill is not online as of this writing, but should be available on the SB23 page shortly.

Sub 23:

• Removes the 90-day deadline for the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) to mail the contents of an adoption file to the requesting adoptee.  The original bill time-framed the response window to 90 days, but ODH, fearful of  the time it will take to process the large influx of requests  it expects  immediately after the bill becomes law, asked that the time frame be removed

• The Ohio Department of Jobs and Family  Services (ODJFS) will create the contact preference form  (cpf))as opposed to ODH, designated in the original bill.

• Requires any previous release of information forms on file under current law to be released with the adoption file.

• Deletes relatives "by marriage" from the definition of lineal descendant.  (Ex: .the adult child of a deceased adoptee can request the file, but his or her spouse cannot.).

• Removes a provision prohibiting a birthparent from including identifying information in a social or medical history form..

• Removes provisions requiring ODH to review any social/medical history forms and attempt to identify and remove inaccuracies . ODH argued rightfully  that it is in the business of collecting information, not ferreting out inaccuracies in that information. ODH also pointed out the amount of time such ferreting would entail.. 

• Clarifies that contact preference forms and social and medical  history forms are to be considered part of the adoption file, and  as such are not public records.  That is, the cpf, just as the OBC, will not be available for public perusal.

Sub23 will now be sent to the Rules Committee and then on to the Senate floor for a full vote.

Since Sub 23 and HB61 are somewhat different,   if  Sub 23 passes in the Senate, the bill will be returned to the House for concurrence, then sent again to the House floor for a final vote.

If passed, then on to Governor John Kasich for his signature.

HB63 and Sub23 does the following:

• Ohio adoptees adopted  January 1, 1964 -September 18, 1996, at the age of 18, can access, without restriction or condition  their OBC upon request, starting one year from passage date.  (Records are already accessible to all pre-1964 adoptees and to most adoptees post September 18, 1996. see below)

•  Ohio birthparents  can, but are not required, to file a contact preference form specifying if and how they would like contact.  

• Ohio birthparents can, but are not required, to put on file an updated medical history for the adopatee.

Neither bill addresses the Disclosure Veto added to Ohio access law in 1996 that authorizes birthparents to bar OBC access for those whose adoptions were processed after September 18, 1996. .  Veto language for '96ers remains in the law and the handful of DVs on file remain in place; thus making it impossible for Ohio to become a truly free state.

Disclaimer:  This is not a Bastard Nation bill.

ROAR 2013 should published an update shortly.

SB23 Report: Senate Committee Hearing, April 17, 2013

I'm late in getting this posted, but I wanted to file a short report on the April 17 hearing for SB23 at the Ohio Senate Medicaid, Health, and Human Services Committee. You can also read an update on the ROAR site (Update #13).

Wendy Bllitzer Barkett

This was the first proponent hearing (the sponsor hearing was held on February 13). and consisted of two groups of witnesses.  The first were adoptees, some from out of state; the second "the experts."

Kicking off the hearing was adoptee poet Wendy Blitzer Barker  who came all the way from Texas to tell her story and support the bill. She was followed by Jeffrey Costello (Atlanta),  Erin  Hopkins McHugh, Ohio firefighter  Stephen Kelly, and Julia Derry.  Some told jerk-around stories relating to their individual probate court request for non-ID, which indicated that some courts are or have been in the past, out of compliance with current Ohio non-ID laws. And  I was beginning to think I'd heard it all!

Elizabeth Samuels

These witnesses were followed by Professor Elizabeth J Samuels  (University of Baltimore Law School) presenting the history of sealed records in the US and former Maine State Senator Paula Benoit sponsor of the bill that restored the right to OBC access in her state. Also Betsy Keefer Smally, IHS Adoption Training Managing and Ohio Adoption Planning Group co-chair.

Paula Benoit

Finally, former opponents-turned-supporters took the podium. Catholic Conference of Ohio Government Relations Director Jim Tobin, laid down his one-page testimony and simply said,  "it's the just thing to do."  He was followed by the new Ohio Right to Life Legislative Director Kayla Smith, backing up the House testimony of  former ORTL Leg Director Stephanie Ranade Krider. Smith's  testimony ramped it further, though, taking up facts adoptee rights activists have used  for years, usually to no avail:

ORTL's Kayla Smith and
Kate Livingston , Ohio Birthparent Group, professional trouble maker

Legal guarantees could never have been made to these mothers to ensure their children would never have access to their original birth certificate. Again, this was not the intent  of the law even in 1964 when it was enacted, but the law always provided that adoptees, at age 18, could petition the probate court that sealed their records to release them if the court found good cause.

Obviously, in politics, source means everything.

You can read written (and presented) and submitted testimony at the ROAR link above.

Washington State pols take note:  the committee was more than supportive, so much so that Sen. Charleta Tavares asked "How can we make this bill better?  How can we make it easier."  Yikes!  If she'd asked me, I'd have said, "Amend to exclude all 1996 Disclosure Veto language and void the handful of vetoes filed under the1996  DV provision. Restore the right of all Ohio adoptees, not just most."

But nobody asked me.

Another hearing is scheduled for Wednesday April 24 where amendments pertaining to Department of Health/Vital Statistics procedures for OBC release will be discussed, and then probably voted out. The companion HB61 has already passed the House.

I'll be there.

Elizabeth Samuels (U. of Baltimore Law School ) , Maine Senator Paula Benoit, Wendy Blitzer Barkett, Betsie Norris, (Adoption Network Cleveland/ROAR),  Stephen Kelly, Betsy Keefer Smally. 

Jim Tobin (Catholic Conference of Ohio), Kayla Smith (Ohio Right to Life), Bill co-sponsor Senator Bill Beagle, Kate Livingston  (Ohio Birthparent Group)  and  Betsie Norris and Aaron Ockerman  (both from Adoption Network Cleveland.

(all photos by Bastardette)

Breaking News - Ohio House Passes HB61

The Ohio House today voted 94-1 with 2 abstentions to pass HB61 which restores the unrestricted right of OBC access to those in Ohio adopted between January 1, 1964-September 17, 1996.  It's companion in the Senate is pending. Sadly, the bill did not pick up the '96's who will still be subject to a Disclosure Veto (DV) already in place for that access tier..

The truth is that Ohio Legislative Services, which vets all bills, refused to OK challenging  the DV law that amounts to an agreement between the State of Ohio and a handful of cowardly biological parents who demand that the government  grant them a special privilege to hide their identities from their adult offspring.  This "agreement" is quite different from the blanket sealing of OBCs with no legal  "agreement," despite what opponents claim and we have shown repeatedly holds no water.  No one knows how many shirkers are on file here, but the number 20 has  been tossed around the last couple of years. I believe DVs can be removed from 1996 law, but the legal arguments need to be developed more fully, and the big fat arm of Legislative Services needs twisted..  I also believe that the foolishness of OBC access for all but a  minuscule number of bastards will within the next few years be recognized. for the absurdity it is.   There is time to save those few kids who have been black-holed since they won't even be eligible for access for  another couple years. Perhaps I am too hopeful.

I've been attending the HB63 hearings and reporting on them here (see March 2013 posts below), but when I checked today on the progress of the bill to the House floor, I didn't see anything.  Otherwise, I'd have been there.  The naysayer was Ron Amstutz. (R-1-Wooster). I'm not sure who the abstentions were, but I don't see Matt Hoffman on the voting roll today and I know he objected..Hoffman, you may remember, was the chief  smirk and eye roller when I testified in favor of HB 7  five years ago.. He also claimed that he and his brother (a Quad A lawyer) routinely  told their bio clients that their names would never be released to anyone, including their dirty little bastard.. It's our little secret.

A proponent hearing for companion SB23 is scheduled for April 17 in the Senate Medicaid, Health, and Human Services Committee. Some of the state's staunchest anti-abortion advocates and the President of the Senate are sponsors. I don't see it flunking..

This is such an incredible sea change and it  says something about the perceived power of Ohio Right to Life  (many years ago a corporate lobbyist told me ORTL was full of hot air and had everyone fooled) and the Ohio Catholic Conference at the Statehouse. Without their opposition, OBC access appears to be the no   brainer we know it is..  Now they need to get on board for the 96ers.

Current OBC bastard activists as well as deformers  need to take a good look at what has happened here.

Any attempt to create new segregations and blackoles must be met with  brass  knuckles and a Spartan refusal  to retreat.  A handful of '96s are what happens when you let deform through the door under the excuse of  "baby steps" or we'll- pick-them-up-later or whatever they want to call it.   It's bad enough that old bad laws are still in place, but new DV and other restrictive legislations make a joke out of adoptee rights and tie the hands of activists to finish the job  If one Bastard is left behind, then we all are and the battle continues when in fact, it should be over.  The failure to include the '96s, for no matter what reason, cannot be seen as permission for other states to do the same.  Ohio has along-established unique three-tired system that many states don't have and will be difficult go get rid of..  If the 1996 compromise had not  been made 16 years ago, today the road to victory would be clear and not littered with the bodies of  left behinds.  Ohio, instead,  would be on the way  to being the 8th free state of Bastard America.. There is no excuse today for any state movement to accept and promote new restrictions.  If you take them now, you'll pay for them later.

Washington State: The Annual Murder of Adoptee Rights Continues

I

For more than 20 years the State of Washington has been a battle ground for adoptee rights. Some years good bills go bad or bad bills go good; (for awhile); other years bad bills go badder. Even baddest bills are kneecapped by adopteephobic legislators and bureaucrats quivering at the softest echos of baby steps toddling down the halls of government.

This year has been no different.  Two near-companion bills were introduced in the House and Senate.  The Senate bill (SB5118) was originally restrictive,  re-written clean, then re-written back restricted.  The House bill, (HB 1525),  remained restrictive throughout its campaign.  On.Monday, the Senate Judiciary voted out the House bill.  The whole process has become quite confusing, but as of today (April 3, the language of both bills is being matched Whichever bill eventually is enacted (if) Washington bastards will be saddled with more restrictions on  their OBCs.  Promoters, of course  will circle jerk themselves as "progressive" politicians  and "activists"  for allegedly "balancing the interests" of adoptees and birthparents and extending privilege to a few lucky ducks.while the state continues its headlock on OBCs.

Unlike some states where the hammer is pounded by conservative anti-abortion groups and the Catholic Bishops, opposition to OBC access in Washington centers around individual legislators (for various reasons related to their personal adoption experience) and the perennial wolf is sheep's clothing "progressives," ACLU-Washington, misreading and arguing "privacy rights of biological parents, where no such "rights" exist.

Bastard Nation has obtained an email  from ACLU-WA director Shankar Narayan  sent to HB1525  sponsor Tina Orwall  who forwarded it to members of the House Judiciary Committee,  stating its support of  restrictive  SB5518  and expressing the concern that a "broadening" of the bill, as was attempted in the Senate a few weeks ago, would abrogate  the "privacy interests"  of birthparents; thus forcing the organization to oppose the bill, which of course, they  "don't want to do."

In other words, shut up.

Thus, the  annual Class Bastard death warrant was signed.

Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:47 AM
To: Pedersen, Rep. Jamie; Hansen, Rep. Drew; Rodne, Rep. Jay; O'Ban, Rep. Steve; Goodman, Rep. Roger; Hope, Rep. Mike; Jinkins, Rep. Laurie; Kirby, Rep. Steve; Klippert, Rep. Brad; Nealey, Rep. Terry; Orwall, Rep. Tina; Roberts, Rep. Mary Helen; Shea, Rep. Matt 
Cc: Adams, Edie; Clynch, Cece; Harrington, Omeara; Shankar Narayan
Subject: Note on SB 5118 (Access to Birth Certificates)

Chair Pedersen and Members of the House Judiciary Committee:

I wanted to offer a comment on SB 5118 (access to birth certificates), heard this morning in Judiciary. The ACLU-WA’s interest in this bill is in ensuring that the birth parent’s privacy interest is protected—in other words, their ability to opt out of disclosure of birth certificates is preserved. We also understand the need to strike a balance in allowing adoptees access to those birth certificates for medical and other reasons.

The bill before you has undergone a number of changes as it has come to you, but the bottom line is that the current bill strikes an appropriate balance between privacy and the interests of adoptees—we therefore support it. It creates a uniform rule that allows birth parents to opt out if they provide medical history, which serves the interests of all parties.

However, there have been efforts to broaden the bill—one version in the Senate would have opened up all birth certificates to adoptees (both pre- and post-1993) and eliminated the birth parent opt-out in all cases, including for birth parents who have already opted out. I would like to warn against broadening the bill in that manner—doing so would once again fail to protect birth parents’ privacy interests, and we would be forced to oppose (which we don’t want to do). Thanks for considering these thoughts.

Best,
Shankar.

This is simply a nicer kinder rendition of what went down in 1998 when another set of restoration bills (SB6496/HB2810) was buzzing around the statehouse. At that time Bastard Nation and Washington Open '98 had a heated public and private debate with Doug Klunder, from ACLU-WA's Privacy Project (which doesn't seem to exist any more) and ACLU-W staff attorney Jerry Shaheen both of who proved abysmally ignorant of adoption practice, law, and case law and surprisingly arrogant in their pride of ignorance..

Klunder and Shaheen inadvertently, in their arguments, admitted they had no legal leg to stand on. They  fed the incurious legislature half-truths about records access and (at that time) the gold standard court ruling Doe v Sundquist, citing the lawsuit, but neglecting to mention that OBC access, albeit restricted, prevailed.  They argued that birthparents may not have a legal right to confidentiality, but they have a "natural right" to expect and demand that OBCs be withheld from adoptees.  Moreover Klunder and Sheehan, desperate to shut us down,  made the bizarre  accusation (for the ACLU) that OBC  access would increase abortions.  They admitted to Washington Open '98 in a private discussion, however,  that they  had no proof.  Of course they didn't because OBC access does no such thing.

The debate reached its low point, or high point depending on how you look at things, when Klunder, in a private email to Bastard Nation co-founder, executive committee member  and legal adviser Shea Grimm,   said  that the ACLU-WA not only opposed OBC access, but would support legislation in the state that would seal all birth certificates, not just those of adoptees.  Klunder opined  that after the age of 18 nobody needs one.

While  Klunder and Sheehan were busy making talking asses of themselves I ran into Nadine Strossen, then the president of the National ACLU, at reception at Ohio State where she had given a talk on constitutional law.  We had only a moment to speak, but I told her about the Washington situation.  She was as dumbfounded as I.. "Natural right?" she hooted..

On February 23, 1998, after I was unable to get through by phone,  I wrote to Matthew Briggs at ACLU National for clarification on its policy of OBC access and threw in a few demands:

1. An investigation into the activities of Doug Klunder and Jerry Sheehan regarding the dissemination of incomplete and/or false information to the Washington State Legislature.
2. Acknowledgment from the ACLU that Doe v Sundquist clearly states that adopted adults have the right to their original birth certificates;
3. A withdrawal of unsubstantiated and unprovable allegations that open adoption records cause abortion;
4. A copy of the national ACLU policy statement on the right of adopted persons to their original birth certificates, and if no such policy exists, an explanation of why it does not exist ;
5. The name of an ACLU staff member in the national office with whom we can contact regarding open adoption records.
6. A copy of the national ACLU regulations, and/or patterns of administration, and/or guidelines, etc. for local and state chapters in regard to interpretation of policy or creation of policy on a case-by-case basiis.

 Not surprisingly, I didn't receive a reply, even the courtesy acknowledgement one would expect from one civil rights organization to another. I did learn from other sources that the ACLU, like many organizations, lets their individual state or local organizations make their own policy on many issues so ACLU-WA was flying around the Washington statehouse untethered.. In fact, two small ACLU chapters, one in Florida and the other in Michigan had, several years earlier passed resolutions supporting OBC access.  ACLU has since reorganized and  these chapters no longer exist so their resolutions, outside of historical curiosity,  are moot. to today's argument.

My  letter  to ACLU National  is archived on the Bastard Nation ACLU page along  with letters written by Washington State Open '98 and Helen Hill,chief petitioner for Oregon's Ballot Measure 58. Unfortunately some of the wilder correspondence wasn't..  I have it on disk, but my floppy disk reader has stopped working.  If I can get the disk read, I'll add other documents to the ACLU.page.

******

As I was writing this Monday night  I learned that the Washington Senate Judiciary, despite strong and loud  opposition from  individuals and adoptee rights and adoption reform organizations, both state and national,  earlier in the day passed the bill out of committee.  ( The language of the House and Senate bills are now being matched).  The bill, not only maintains the current Disclosure Veto language, but makes DVs permanent .instead of renewable every few years as currently practiced.. Last month, a witness from the Washington State Department of Health testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and later confirmed with BN's Lori Jeske via email, that since 1993 only four (4) Affidavits of Disclosure had been filed--and all of them last year, which makes no sense except in the context of an engineered attempt by special interests  to derail unrestricted access.  Clearly  Washington State relinquishing parents are not interested in hiding from their offspring, even if politicians want them to. Law by speculation. Protection by speculation.

This year's debacle has been brought to you by Washington State Representative Tina Orwall, an adoptee whose strings area being yanked by Senator.Ann Rivers, an out birthmother on a mission to keep other mothers in the closet that she somehow crawled out of.

Jane Edwards

  [Birth Mother]First Mother blogger Jane Edwards has had her boots on the ground in Washington and has posted two blogs on Orwall and Rivers. In both she fingers Rivers as the main culprit, but cuts  Benedict Bastard Orwall no slack in this sickening deal to pit Class Bastard against birthparents and create animosity where none exists except in the minds of politicians..

From Adoptee legislator supports birth-parent veto in Washington

So who's driving this birth-mother veto nonsense.  None other than a birth mother Sen. Ann Rivers, who blocked a birth-certificate access bill last year when she was in the state House. While she's out of the closet, she apparently feels compelled to encourage other mothers to lock themselves in. Sen. Rivers is setting up Washington-born adoptees for double rejection, once when their mother left them in the care of biological strangers, and once when she files a veto to deny her child access to his original birth certificate. What's behind all this madness? Only Sen. Rivers can answer this. And why is adoptee Orwall selling out, not only allowing but actively participating, in this effort to heap more abuse on a group already marginalized, and of which she is a member?

Tina Orwall

From: OBC-access bill with "birth mother" veto may become law published two days later (read the whole thing for context):

Rep. Orwall's reasons for accepting a compromised bill are just excuses. The truth, as she acknowledges in her last sentence, is that "it only takes one legislator to kill a bill." The bill killer is Sen. Ann Rivers, a birth mother, who came to the hearing to tell the Committee that she and Rep. Orwall had reached an agreement on the bill. WA-CARE was assured initially by one of the sponsors of SB 5118 that he had the votes to pass a clean bill. Then Sen. Ann Rivers intervened, and the sponsor agreed to an amendment which included a non-expiring birth mother veto. I called Sen. Rivers' office and asked if she would give me the reason for insisting on a birth-mother veto. She declined to comment.

Some observers are surprised at Orwall's quick acquiescence to Mistress  River's whip snapping,  but I'm not.. I never believed Orwall was as behind unrestircted as she appeared to be. Did she ever actually say she supported full access other than in theory? Just over a year ago I wrote about the peculiar  Orwall-Rivers alliance in  Are adoptees a runny infection?, which I urge you to read in full.  Here is a portion:

Ann Rivers

One would think that this statistic [no DVs] would be the keystone of  any records access argument in Washington.  Incredibly, I've  not seen it mentioned anywhere outside of  Wa-Care's obscure webpage.  Apparently Orwall,  either hasn't been informed of this statistic (which I doubt), or suffers from Stockholm Syndrome and has no grasp of  adoptee civil rights or the politics of adoption.  Paraphrasing Orwall, Alexis Krell  writing in the Seattle Times says that that the representative sought  the veto compromise  as a "balance between preserving privacy and allowing adoptees to gain important records and medical information."

Rep. Ann Rivers (R-LaCenter) a member of the House Judiciary Committee, outed herself as a teenage birthmother during last month's HB 2011 hearing. Tearfully making herself a spokesperson for women she doesn't know but she imagines cower in secret closets throughout the state, Rivers demanded more protection for them and their "privacy."  Alluding to the 2-year veto renewal,  she couldn't "imagine ripping the wound open every two years," as if adoptees are an unpleasant runny infection that needs covered up by an ugly scab in the Washington Revised Code.

Rivers and Orwall amending (2012)

Orwall  (who by this time was reportedly also crying, ) and Rivers put their heads together and came up with two amendments that created a two-tiered veto system binding adoptees (depending on their date of adoption) to 5 and 10 year vetoes.

I doubt if tears were shed this year by our two Cloud Cuckoos. Rivers and Orwall are just the latest iteration of the Klunder & Sheehan Show shilling their "balance" of rights " malarkey to people who don't 'want it.  Statist to the core, they confuse state-granted privilege and favors for rights.  and believe the government not the individual should determine personal  relationships and what legal documents or not, Class Bastard has a right to own.

Tomorrow I"ll post information on how you can help us kill this monstrosity and send class traitors Rivers and Orwall packing. 

Read Bastard Nation testimony in opposition to HB2515, March 21, 2013

WATCH Lori Jeske, BN ExeCommittee member  speak up for and testify against HB2515 before the Washington State Social Services and Corrections Committee, March 21, 2013

Read Bastard Nation testimony in opposition to SB5118, March 26, 2013

Addenda (April 3) :  The entire legislative procedure regarding these bills is the most confusing I've seen in years.  I have re-written the current status as I understand it.  Whatever is going on, the bill is currently in House Rules.