Connecticut currently has two OBC access bills in the hopper. The first, HB 65 is a placeholder which has yet to be written. The second is HB 890 which would open OBCs prospectively for adoptees 21 years old and older adopted after January 2, 2012 contains a disclosure veto. HB 890 is scheduled for a hearing tomorrow before the legislature’s Select Committee on Children. We sent this letter opposing the bill to committee members this afternoon:
This bill is scheduled to be heard tomorrow, February 8, 2011 by the Select Committee on Children.
Bastard Nation. opposes HB 890, and urges you to vote Do Not Pass.
HB 890 creates a nonsensical tiered discriminatory system of OBC access for Connecticut adoptees based on their date of birth, date of their adoption finalization,and their birthparent consent.
HB 890 ignores thousands of the state’s adopted population who will still be unable to acquire their OBC, while at the same time creates a new class of adoptees not even born yet, who can acquire their OBCs unless their birthparent(s) object.
HB 890 creates a prospective new special “right” for birthparents that enables them to bar their adult offspring from acquiring their own birth certificates, a right that no other parent has.
In sum, HB 890 reinforces out-dated adoption secrecy. It does nothing to restore the right of unrestricted OBC access that all Connecticut adoptees enjoyed until 1974. It makes adoptee access to their own birth certificates a state/birthparent conditioned privilege separate and unequal from the right enjoyed by Connecticut’s not adopted who can acquire their own birth certificates unhindered.
Please vote DO NOT PASS on HB 890, and support a bill that mandates equal OBC access, without conditions, to all Connecticut adoptees, past, present, and future.
Sincerely yours,
Marley E. Greiner
Executive Chair
Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization
WTF is it with these damn vetoes that every state seems to fall into? Deborah Jacobs and her ACLU crew protecting us from embarrassment?
This first mother is mad as hell. Most of us did not want anonymity from our own children, dammit; it was forced on us when we surrendered. I couldn’t believe it when I first heard this stupid provision was part of the LAW. I kept arguing with the social worker, Helen Mura of Northaven Terrace in Rochester, NY, but she said if I wouldn’t agree, “they couldn’t help me.”
This is a promise of anonymity? This is a chain around my ankles; fortunately I was able to break it and find my daughter.