Monday, April 26, 2010

More on Illinois HB 5428

This is how the gov't is notifying birth mothers about the new legislation, giving them the opportunity to veto: notices will appear on the back of license renewals.

After talking to several adoption groups, it seems that this veto, which is not a default-type veto that requires action on the birth mother's part to reverse but instead releases birth certificates UNLESS the birth mother takes action to veto, is the best possible option (if a veto must be an option). In other states where this type of legislation has gone through, very very few vetoes were filed. Which is great news, and also proves that the perception that a majority of birth mothers want confidentiality and do not want their relinquished child to have information is wrong.

Bastard Nation is still voting "no" on the bill. It's not perfect, true. But to me, it really does seem like a victory: By next November almost every adopted person will be able to access his/her birth certificate.

Right now the bill is in the Governor's office. To encourage the bill's passing, you can go here and write a letter of support (if you agree with the law, of course):


Pennagal said...

A veto is a veto is a veto. It's not about reunion. It's about rights.

That being said, what's really wrong with this bill is that it institutionalizes search. It strengthens the existing confidential intermediary system in IL, which is raking in enough dough to pay two social workers six-figure salaries. Nice work if you can get it and you can get it if records are sealed!

Amanda said...

I too oppose this bill. The wording is extremely worrysome. There is nothing good about any kind of veto. I've been subjected to state mandated disclosure and contact veto (a restraining order without just cause or due process) and my First Mother lost 15lbs trying to undo the State's damage. I would not wish the intrusion of a confidential intermediary on my worst enemy. If a bill does not address Civil Rights, as a Civil Rights activist, I can't support it. This is about rights, not negating the freedoms of adopted persons based on their adoption status. It wouldn't be OK to enforce an intermediary based on gender, religion, skin color, or sexual orientation. It troubles me that adoptees have become so subordinate in society that we would protest this if it were about gender but accept it as "the next best thing" when it's based on adoption status. What's the difference?

Just my humble opinion of course :-)