WELCOME TO CARE'S "BIRTHMOTHER" INDOCTRINATION CENTER

Bastardette has been remiss is writing the last few days. Some other stuff took and continues to take precedence. Some of it bastard related, some not. So, I'm running this off quickly.

One of the things I intended to write about is CARE's latest move on AB 372.

You know. First CARE wanted to save the old and dying adopted. Now they say they're changing their mission to save only the yet-to-be-born adopted. Talk about a big ball of confusion! I recommend you read BB Church's CARE Admits its Lack Implementation Strategy as well as CARE's apologia Keep Your Eye on the Ball (click on link on front page --"Comprehensive History...") , written probably by CARE's "executive director" and professional lobbyist, Stephanie Williams, for a background to CARE's latest circus trick.

Incompetent CARE's "Eyeball" attempt to frame everybody but themselves for their defeat is laughable. And it took them nearly a week after their baby was thrown into the suspension file to come up with an explanation.

Yeah, those of us who already have our information or records and "unnamed" organizations that actually promote and win equal access to records who CARE kicked to the curb on Day One, are now the Enemy of the People. No doubt we want everybody else to suffer while we gloat niner niner. That CARE promised Cali adoptees the world and gave them a garbage dump that nobody wanted is left unnoted. I'm not sure what kind of a chance their lousy bill had--probably not much--but hey, why not take credit! We helped put this bill back on the highway to hell from whence it came. Hopefully, it will continue it's roundtrip and won't make any detours in the next few days.

Here is what CARE has to say about ethical, comprehensive, and inclusionary bastards, those serious activists who actually believe all adoptees should and can regain their right to birth certificates, and have proven it The folks who believe in doing their homework before they go to class:

Those who have their identity, their story, their "Chapter One" may believe that providing all records instead of some records is the only strategy They can afford to wait another 10, 20, or 30 years or even a lifetime--they know their own Chapter 1.

Are they honest with those who don’t have their truth; those they block forever getting their information by their “take no prisoners” approach?

The statistics in California are staggering, a Judiciary Committee in 2001 rejected release of the original birth certificate. In 2009, ten new faces and a new committee consultant again are unanimous in rejecting reversal of state policy.What is the trigger for legislative change in California? Why are the "no compromisers" not revealing their strategies to engage those who work on all levels of civil rights (ACLU) to convince Them that their issue belongs in the civil rights camp? Why is the dialogue that will bring forward open records by "the take no prisoners" that is superior to AB 372.

No action is inaction.

Hmmm, it appears that CARE now thinks the Empty Pagers can wait 10, 20, or 30 years or even a lifetime. Oh, never mind! And note genuine bastard activist shit kickers don't believe that for a minute.

Here is BB's partial reply:

All the time CARE was telling the adoption community to not worry, that AB 372 would get better, that we should trust them. EyeBall finally levels with the adoption community, AB 372 is as good as it’s going to get. All that talk about amending it over the next two years, well, those were just words coming out of their mouths and those words don’t mean anything.

EyeBall closes with a plea for incremental change. On its face I have no problem with incremental changes leading to full rights. The problem with AB 372 and CARE’s effort is that their increment doesn’t lead anywhere. They have looked at the existing social dynamic of power and thrown up their hands. This is the BEST THEY CAN DO.

It's lonely being incompetent; success has a thousand authors, failure only one. EyeBall bemoans the fact that they have no allies... well, get used to it.

Down, but unfortunately not out, here comes CARE's next "elegant strategy: a PACER sponsored "birthmother only" support group. " How thoughtful of them!

"Birthmother" Indoctrination 101 is facilitated by ...who else other than CARE's professional lobbyist, Stephanie Williams who seems to think that a civil rights bill effecting the most intimate parts of lives can be lobbied the way she ran through California highway bills that effect gazillion dollar commercial interests.

What qualifications Williams has to lead a support group are unknown other than she is reportedly a "birthmother" of two children given up through L-d-S in another state. Gee, can there be some other motive here?

Since the email announcement of the new group, sent by CARE Board member Linda "Mama O" Orozco tells us to pass it on, here is the full email.

From: MamaO

To: MamaO

Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 7:43 PM

Subject: Birthmother Only PACER group - Starting June 11

Please pass on to Birthmothers in our area:

Beginning June 11, Sacramento PACER will have a Birthmothers Only group scheduled for the second Thurs of each month facilitated by Stephanie Williams:

First Meeting 6/11/09, 6:30-8:30 pm
2018 University Park Drive
Sacramento CA 95825
Stephanie's Cel 916-718-1178

Coming from downtown - exit at Howe Ave/Power Inn Road and make a left. Cross the river and make a right turn on Swarthmore (at the light). Make the first left and park when you see the business building end and the homes start. Walk down the path between the buildings and the homes about 50 feet - the path ends and it dumps you into my street. Her home is on the right corner at the end of the block.

LindaO/MamaO
PACER Facilitator (Triad)
916-359-6777-Hm
916-212-0142-Cel
www.adopteerights.org
www.pacer-adoption.org

YES!!!!! Do pass the word around. Please.

Send it to every first mom you know in the Sacto area. And send this blog along, too. Tell them:

Do not go to this group.

Do not be indoctrinated by CARE.

Do not let CARE sell out the civil rights and birthrights of you and your adult children for favors to a privileged few.

NEW BRUNSWICK BABY DUMP PROPOSED: ADOPTION COUNCIL OF CANADA OPPOSES!

There's a baby dump movement growing in New Brunswick, Canada. Bill 60 has been introduced to make it a reality. Below is the official position statement of The Adoption Council of Canada in opposition to the legislation.

Good to have you on board!

THE ADOPTION COUNCIL OF CANADA: POSITION STATEMENT ON SAFE HAVEN LEGISLATION

(May 22, 2009). The Adoption Council of Canada (ACC) strongly supports policies and practices that protect the safety and health of all children and youth, but we do not believe that safe haven legislation is an effective way to meet this goal.

Studies that track abandonment show that safe haven laws have not succeeded in eliminating unsafe, illegal abandonment. Other research suggests that the laws may encourage women to abandon infants who would otherwise have been raised by relatives or placed for adoption through established means. In addition, safe haven legislation deprives one of the biological parents (often the father) of their parenting rights and precludes the abandoned infant from ever knowing his or her genealogical or medical histories.

The ACC believes that children have a right to information about their identity (their birth mother, birth father, or other family members; their heritage; their culture; their family medical history, etc.) and that they—and their adoptive families—will benefit from having this information.

Birth mothers and birth fathers also have the right to supportive services, counselling, and information that will enable them to make the best possible decision for themselves and their children. In addition, First Nations children have the right to the resources accorded to members of federally recognized bands. We believe that a more effective, humane, moral approach to protecting children at risk of abandonment would be the funding of programs for at-risk mothers and fathers.

Policy and Practice Recommendations

Rather than move to safe haven legislation after the death of an abandoned child, Provinces and Territories should:

* Strengthen their investment in prenatal and other family support for young, single, or at-risk parents or prospective parents;

* Create and fund a community awareness campaign about the options of adoption, kinship care, and family support;

* Develop a child welfare helpline; and,

* Create and fund programs to educate teachers, parents, doctors, counsellors, and others about how to identify concealed pregnancies and support affected women.

Safe Haven Legislation Proposed in New Brunswick
Bill 60 – An Act to Amend the Family Services Act

A proposed safe haven bill has been introduced in New Brunswick by Jody Carr -- Progressive Conservative member from Oromocto. To view the proposed amendment, please visit: http://www.gnb.ca/legis/bill/pdf/56/3/Bill-60.pdf.

Should you wish to express your concerns over the proposed law, we encourage you to contact the following individuals:

Jody Carr (PC)
Email: Jody.CARR@gnb.ca
Phone: (506) 453-7494
Fax: (506) 453-3461
Mailing Address
Old Education Building, East Block
P. O. Box 6000
Fredericton, NB
E3B 5H1

David Alward
Leader of the Official Opposition
General Information: (506) 444-2324
Reception: (506) 444-2324
Fax: (506) 453-3461
Email: david.alward@gnb.ca
Mailing Address
Old Education Building, East Block
P. O. Box 6000
Fredericton, NB
E3B 5H1

Social Development Minister Mary Schryer
HON. MARY SCHRYER (L), MLA
Quispamsis, Electoral District 30 / Legislative Assembly
Phone: (506) 457-7866
Fax: (506) 453-2164
Email Address: mary.schryer@gnb.ca
Mailing Address
Sartain MacDonald Building
P. O. Box 6000
Fredericton, NB
E3B 5H1

HON. SHAWN GRAHAM, Premier
Contact Information
Phone: (506) 453-2144
Fax: (506) 453-7407
Email Address: Shawn.Graham@gnb.ca
Mailing Address
Centennial Building
P. O. Box 6000
Fredericton, NB
E3B 5H1

BASTARDETTE'S STREET GOES UP IN FLAMES: AN EYE-WITNESS REPORT

Today at approximately 2:00 AM, three of my neighbors homes went up in flames. These homes are 2, 3, and 4 doors from me. The home that went up first was #3. Grandma Liz lives there. She has lived in that house for as long as anyone can remember, rearing her kids and then her grandchildren. (Her granddaughter is the obnoxious teenager I threatened to take on a road trip to Nebraska last summer). My across-the-street neighbor, 40 something Eleanor, who has returned home to live with her own mother in the house she was born in, cannot remember when Grandma wasn't there. Grandma has been on oxygen for years and seldom leaves the house. A few months ago she had a stroke and is paralyzed on one side. She has been staying with her sister while she recovers.

Eleanor told me that shortly before 2:00 AM she smelled smoke. The smell was so strong that she looked around the house for a fire and even felt the walls for heat. When she found nothing she checked outdoors. She found Grandma's house engulfed in flames so thick that she couldn't even see the house. Eleanor called 911, and her sister who also lives with their mother, ran across the street to bang on neighboring doors.

At about the same time, one of the women directly across the street from me was awakened by the glare of flames coming from the house. She called 911. Sean, who lives two houses down from her also called. News reports today indicate that police, investigating a nearby car fire, also saw smoke and alerted fire fighters.

I had been up until after 1:30 re-writing BN's testimony against SB 499. One of our Texas members was scheduled to present it in Austin this morning. I had just gone to bed. Fire sirens are environmental here.The fire station is very close by, and we hear engines almost every night so we really don't hear them. When the engines turned down my street, however, they cut their sirens. Like others on our street I didn't know about the fire until I heard a lot of truck noises in the alley behind us and the sound of radios. I got up and saw the lights of the trucks over my fence. Out front, fire trucks lined our street from Hudson clear down to the ravine. My normally curious bad cats were hunkered down on the floor, tails puffed up, not moving. Another neighbor, Carolyn, who does Pug rescue told me her "girls" had awakened her and her husband yipping around at the commotion.

By the time I got outside House #2 was on fire. Flames were roaring in the second storey while firefighters smashed out the upstairs windows. Due to the high trees, fire trucks in the street and the area being blocked off, I didn't realize immediately that Grandma's house was the center of the fire. As the night wore on, Carolyn came by and told me #4 was on fire as well.

Grandma's grandson, who lives only a couple blocks away, had just gotten home from work when the fire started. He was in bed and wouldn't answer his phone when Eleanor and her family called him repeatedly. Finally someone got him. He was charged with the bad news of telling his grandmother.

10% of my street was ablaze. John, who lives across the street, and mowed my lawn when he was a kid, could barely speak. Grandma had been his second grandma. And now we watched a lifetime disappear in the smoke. I cannot imagine what it is like to have all tangible evidence of your life wiped out in a few minutes.

So far, the cause of the fire is unknown. I hope it wasn't arson. Workers were in the house earlier in the day so that route is being investigated. Fire investigators found remains of a couple oxygen tanks in the house, which might explain why it went so fast. The only thing that survived the flames are 3 lawn chairs and a couple yard decorations in the back. And the flower garden in the front yard. The house, of course, will be demoed as soon as the investigation is finished. I don't know how it still stands tonight.

The others houses were saved. The Columbus Dispatch (link now gone) reported that #2 suffered $20,000 damage and #4 $12,000. I don't believe that for a minute, especially #2. Workers were out this morning tearing out walls.

Luckily, no one was hurt or killed, though a firefighter was taken to the hospital for a shoulder injury. Grandma's house was empty. The owners of #2 are on an extended trip and someone was living there but wasn't home at the time of the fire. I don't know about #4.

The kitties acted out this morning (it's all my fault) but seem back to normal now.

Tonight some of Grandma's family came by to pay their last respects. When she heard the news last night she wanted to come, but was disuaded by her family. I don't know if she came today or not.

In the first week of June 1991, I was in a fire in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad). I was living in Plekhanova, at the the international student hostel at the Herzen Institute where I had gone to study Russian. We were firebombed by one of the local mafia, so the story goes, because Herzen hadn't paid the contractor for the new bar downstairs. I heard the explosion, but I was about as far away from the fire as I could get. I got dressed, packed up my laptop and $2500 in cash and left. The Leningrad fire department took its time showing up ,and then rushed into the building, fire hoses in hand, cigarettes hanging from their mouths. It was, to say the least, an amusing scene. Luckily no one was harmed by the fire, though 6 rooms housing Dutch students were destroyed.

That fire was scary, but a distanced fire and fear. I had no real stake in the loss outside of a possible inconvenience. I had only been there a couple days, and since the airline had lost my baggage I really didn't have anything in my room yet. But this time it was different. 30 seconds away from my house a fire was destroying a lifetime.

Tonight, as the sun goes down,the house burning smell is still in the air. I can feel it my eyes and on my tongue and even, strangely in my fingertips which feel heavy and tingly as I type this. We are all living on the edge of surprise, disaster, and tragedy. If we thought about it, we'd never get anything done.

Channel 10 coverage with video and pictures is here.

THE FIRE

Fire fighter in my front yard

THE REMAINS
House #2

House #3 (middle house) Grandma's House

Survivors at Grandma's

House #4

"SAVED" AT THE HOSPITAL

Remember long ago when "safe havens" were supposed to save newborns from dumpsters?

This is the latest from Nick Silverio at in Florida:

May 13th, 2009

Dear Friends of "Safe Haven",

A little boy was born this month at a Hospital in North Florida under the "Safe Haven" program. He and his mother were doing very well. This is the one hundred and thirty first (131) baby saved from the dangers of abandonment, from an almost sure death.

The mission continues.....saving one life at a time.

Sincerely,
Nick Silverio

How can a baby be born "under a 'Safe Haven' program"? "Safe Haven" laws at the very best, were meant as emergency custody procedings and have nothing to do with birth procedures. Now in Florida, at least" it seems there's a special type of program for those who can't be bothered--or who are purposefully kept from knowing how-- to make a real adoption plan or get real counseling or make real informed consent. Or how to keep their baby.

As we warned, baby dumping has become normalized. Just another consumer choice and on the state's dime to boot. Talk about abuse of a bad law.

WHAT IS MADONNA THINKING?

Thanks to Lorraine Dusky for this heads-up on Madonna's May 5 appearance at the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Costume Institute Ball with boy toy Jesus Luz. The article was published the next day in the London Daily Mail under the headline Is this really a suitable dress for someone trying to win an adoption case, Madonna?

Well Bastardette answers with a resounding NO, especially since Madge debuted Louis Vuitton's cartoon the day after her adoption appeal hearing in Malawi. Aren't' those boots sweaty? And what's on that her head? A flying fox bat?

There's a lot to say about this, but why take the time when the Daily Mail (go there and here for more pictures!) says it all:

One would have thought that Madonna would invest her time and energies into getting her house in order to ensure she has every chance of success in her bid to bring Mercy James to the US to live with her.

Instead, she wore an outfit that breached the limits of vulgarity, and displayed her typically arrogant thinking.

And not only that, in another move which may not help her case, she also chose the high-profile fashion event to début her romance with model Jesus Luz, who at 22 years old is 28 years her junior.

And from Mercy James' father, James Kambewa who is now seeking custody:

Speaking exclusively to the Daily Mail last week Mr Kambewa, who earns just £23 a month as a security guard, said: 'I don't think Madonna is a model mum.

He told the Daily Mail: 'Madonna has millions of dollars but that doesn't make her a good mum. Parental love is more than money.'

'How can a woman of 50 dance almost naked on stage? I wouldn't want my daughter to grow up like that!

'In Malawi women respect themselves. Cultured women do not go about half-naked.'

There's lots of comments including these, which take up where the Daily Mail signs off:

Who's brave enough to tell Madonna her dress is tucked up in her knickers?
... Alice, Barcelona, Spain

If ever there was a case for authorities to deny Madonna adoption its that photo!!!this woman is very sad and desparate!!!was it fancy dress ?can someone not advise this silly woman at her age to dress properly!??between grass dresses ,or next to nothing outfits the woman is a complete mess!!
...christine, Glasgow Scotland

That's her toy boy? How silly of me, I thought that was the latest child she was adopting.
,,,Karen, Midlands England

no one has the guts to tell her she looks stupid
...Andrew ex pat, Paris France

CALIFORNIA AB 372 SENT TO SUSPENSE FILE

If you were listening to the Cal Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing today you may wonder what happened to AB 372. First there was Assb. Ma and then there wasn't and not a word about the bill in between. I figured it went into the suspense file, where bills are usually sent to die, but was puzzled because the number wasn't even called.

Jean Uhrich from CalOpen was on the scene and tells us that's exactly what happened. The committee has until May 25 to retrieve it from suspension, but because of the costs involved, the bill is likely to expire there. Death by hubris.

The disclosure veto, we understand, cannot be amended back to a contact preference form because the change would send the bill back to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, which has already stated its opposition to such an amendment.

It may be a bit early yet, but good riddance to bad rubbish!

We'll keep you informed. I don't think it's a bad idea to keep those cards and letters comin'' kiddies!

LISTEN TO AB 372 HEARING ONLINE

Click on Room 4202 and listen live. This looks like a long long day.

BASTARD NATION'S LETTER TO THE CAL ASSMB. APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: ADOPTEES ARE NOT PART OF A CALIFORNIA ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE

Dear Honorable Assemblymember:

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization is the largest adoptee civil rights organization in North America. We advocate for the full human and civil rights of adult adoptees. We believe people everywhere have a right to their unaltered and unfalsifed birth records. This means opening government documents pertaining to the adoptee’s historical, genetic, and legal identity, including the unaltered original birth certificate (obc) and adoption decree. Our membership includes adopted adults and first and adoptive parents. We have substantial membership in California.

BN was behind the 1998 Oregon Ballot Measure 58 which restored the right of the state’s adult adoptees to access their original birth certificates. In 2000 Bastard Nation sponsored legislation in Alabama which restored access there. In 2004 we worked in a coalition of adoptee rights advocates in New Hampshire where adoptee civil rights were restored on January 1, 2005. We are currently working in other states to restore records access. Bastard Nation leaves no one behind. We do not support legislation that restricts even one adopted person from receiving his or her own information.

Bastard Nation does not support AB 372. Our submitted testimony is in the official Assembly Judiciary legislative analysis.

AB 372 is not a true equal access bill. It continues to treat adopted persons differently than the not-adopted, which effects costs and appropriations.

Instead of opening access to birth records, the proposal subjects California adoptees to egregious new restrictions on that access which do not exist under current law. AB 372 contains a disclosure veto which gives birthparents, whose parental rights were terminated years before, a new and special right that no other parent has: the right to stop release of the original birth certificate upon request, to her or his offspring. AB 372 creates a state bureaucracy to track down birthparents to inform them of that new and special right and to seek their written consent for release. AB 372 contains an opt-out clause that would permit one or both birthparents in the future the even newer and more special right to deny obc access to their adult offspring for reasons of “rape.” “incest,” “religion” or undefined “personal reasons.” AB 372 is about as far away from a real records access bill as California is from Bulgaria.

As if the bill weren’t bad enough, AB 372 has now been amended by the sponsor Assb. Fiona Ma with a proposed fiscal note/fiscal effect of $16,000,000 for the first two years and a projected $2,000,000 each year thereafter. This outrageous amount is allegedly for “start-up” costs--$8,000,000 for the first year: the creation of a new database and hiring of 34 staff to “man” the tech and administrative bureaucracy to track down birthparents (usually women) at a “best match address” (whatever that means), through certified or registered mail, to get consent for release.

How this snipe hunt is to be accomplished has not been revealed. Last known address of parents taken from records 30, 40, 50 years or older? Google? Intelius? Social Security records? Paid, privately operated databases? Will California access other states’ private governmental records if the search turns up empty at home? (We doubt it!) Does the state intend to contract out searches to secrecy-obsessed adoption agencies, for-profit adoption searchers, or private investigators? How about talking to snoopy neighbors and tracking down rumors?

Who is to foot millions for this murky state snooping project: already burdened taxpayers who are currently facing curtailment of crucial state services or adoptees who have committed no crime other than to have been born and sealed in California? Both are unacceptable.

The justification for this outrageous expense is based on a strange and erroneous extrapolation of data from Oregon where obcs were unsealed in 1999.



The Oregon law, passed by a 1998 ballot initiative, contains only a voluntary non-binding, contact preference form, no disclosure veto or other veto, and the state does not track down women to seek consent for release. If there were an initial cost involved in implementing Oregon’s law, it was because of the 18 month legal battle which went all the way to the US Supreme Court (denied cert) to keep records sealed and the ensuing backlog of thousands of uncompleted requests that accumulated during the time when the law was in abeyance.

The fact is, states that have unsealed obcs—Oregon, Alabama, New Hampshire, Maine—have not incurred any significant cost (if any) in re-opening and distributing obcs to adoptees upon request. They treat adoptee requests for their birth certificates just like they treat not-adopted requests. There is no extra cost. Neither taxpayers nor adoptees are dunned an extraordinary fee nor treated like potential criminals.

A true equal access bill is about the right of the adopted to own a simple piece of paper-- their own birth certificate-- not search and reunion. What any person, adopted or not adopted, does with that piece of paper is her or his business, not the state’s. Yet AB 372, by the mere fact that it mandates search for consent, is a reunion bill that makes the State of California and its taxpayers the broker of personal and family relationships. This kind of state intrusion has no business being part of civil rights discourse much less law.

Adoptees, their rights, and their records are not part of a California economic stimulus package. The best thing to do with AB 372 is deep six it. Fast.

California needs to clear this abomination out of the way to open the path for a real equal access bill that treats all California adoptees as full responsible citizens who are grown up enough to own their own birth certificates, Just give adoptees their obcs without state interference or extraordinary cost to anybody. The taxpayers will thank you. And adoptees will, too. Please vote DO NOT PASS on AB 372.

Yours truly,

Marley Greiner, Executive Chair, Bastard Nation

WARNING: GLADNEY WANTS TO EMPOWER "BIRTHMOTHERS"

On pull--ee--zeeee! I had to take a moment out from writing to the Cal House Appropriations Committee to post this warning:

The Next Step in Services for Gladney
FORT WORTH, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Gladney Center for Adoption is excited to announce the launch of our newest program for birthmothers — Next Steps. Next Steps was developed to help birthmothers transition back into the “real world” after delivery — armed with knowledge, education, practical tools, and confidence to take on the world with a renewed and healthy perspective by focusing on the whole person — mind, body and spirit. It is Gladney’s goal for birthmothers to leave us well-equipped to take on new opportunities. Beth Cox, Caseworker for Next Steps, says, “Next Steps teaches girls how to dream, and even more importantly, how to achieve their dreams. It is about teaching women how to empower themselves.”

While working with Gladney, birthmothers are learning about nutrition, cooking, life skills, developing critical thinking skills, team work, trust and the importance of self-respect. Next Steps is about continuing the progress birthmothers make during their time at Gladney. “We will continue to help support our clients’ efforts and help them tap into community resources such as career development, mentoring programs, skills assessment and education,” says Frank Garrott, President of the Gladney Center for Adoption...

Personally, I feel empowered by the thought of running Dame Edna out of business. Gladney had better think about what they want.

CAL OPEN/BASTARD NATION ACTION ALERT- CAL AB 372. ACT NOW!

This is CalOpen's URGENT ACTION ALERT FOR CALIFORNIA. It also serves as a Bastard Nation Action Alert

Note that Assb. Ma's office now says there will be an $8 MILLION start-up cost!!!!!!!

* * * CALIFORNIA OPEN ACTION ALERT * * *
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE FREELY

Issued May 12, 2009

URGE THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE
ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
TO VOTE NO ON AB 372

On Wednesday, May 13th, 2009 AB 372 will come before the California State Legislature's Assembly Appropriations Committee. Assembly Bill 372 would require State Notification to birthparents of an adoptee's request for their record and the birthparent's Consent to Disclosure and Release of the Original Birth Certificate to the adoptee. The author's office has stated there is an $8 Million start up cost estimate attached to the bill. The State of California can not afford such foolish expense, especially when other open records states have utilized a Contact Preference Form with no fiscal note attached and no additional staff required for implementation and provision.

WE MUST ACT NOW TO DEFEAT AB 372 AND LEAVE CLEAR THE PATH FOR A RIGHTS DRIVEN OPEN RECORDS BILL. DO NOT ALLOW A MISGUIDED ATTEMPT TO WORK WITHIN AND EXPAND AN EXISTING DISCLOSURE VETO, UNDER THE GUISE OF "PRIVACY RIGHTS", TO ESTABLISH FURTHER PRECEDENT IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA! NO MORE BAD LAW ON THE BOOKS!

BILL TEXT OF AB 372: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_372_bill_20090507_amended_asm_v96.pdf

FAX, PHONE and E-MAIL the Assembly Appropriations Committee to vote NO on AB 372.
http://www.calopen.org/asmapprop.shtml

KEY POINTS FOR YOUR LETTER:

- I strongly urge a NO VOTE ON AB 372.

- Adult adoptees refuse to pay for notification to birthparents, as provided for in the bill. "Mommy May I?" Adults, adopted or not, should not be required to seek parental approval to receive their original birth certificate from the State. Certainly, a parent who relinquished all legal right, prior to adoption, can have no credible veto right to disclosure. Therefore, I oppose the fee laid onto adoptees.

- There can be no "settled expectation" of privacy by birthparents, since birthparent names were published and sold under the protection of the California Public Records Act and are available on the internet TODAY. www.vitalsearch-ca.com

- Adopted adults hold constitutional privacy rights, the same as non-adopted citizens, who have no restrictions placed on their access rights.

- Adopted adults are not only the subject of their own adoption, but a PARTY to the action of adoption. AB 372 seeks to allow a non-party to the adoption, the persons who relinquished all rights, to veto access and pay for the notification to exercise that veto.

- AB 372 has strayed far from its original intent, to restore adopted adults unrestricted access to their own birth certificate. I'm glad the discussion was opened, but this bill is a monstrosity. I strongly urge a NO vote on AB 372.


We urge all California residents to ATTEND THE HEARING.
http://www.calopen.org/attend.shtml

You can watch and listen LIVE to the hearing via the internet:
Wednesday, May 13th, 2009
Room Number 4202
9:00 AM (PST)
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/committee_hearings/defaulttext.asp
(Click on Committee Room List)

RAPID E-MAIL CUT-N-PASTE

YOU LETTERS AND PHONE CALLS DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.Price@assembly.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov;
info@calopen.org


California Open and Coalition Partners thank you for your activism!
www.calopen.org

IN CASE ANYONE CARES: CARE DREAM TEAM

When the California Adoption Reform Effort (CARE) announced itself in January 2009, it also announced a list of CARE "committee members"--its dream team recruited to help them turn California into a adoptee paradise. I was surprised at some of the people who should know better who showed up on the roster. Other people did not surprise me. The list has never appeared on the public CARE website, though it may be in their special "members only" section. Since $85 is a lot of money to pay to see who CARE glommed on, we regretfully decline the membership offer.

I want to make clear that not all of the dream team have been involved in a substantial way with CARE nor are they necessarily on its board.

I've spoken to a couple people listed and they said they signed on only to act as advisers if asked. Whether their advice is taken is up for grabs. Some members appear to be window dressing. All should consider pleading temporary insanity and take a long rest in the country.

Below is a list of "committee members." CARE has not posted the names of its 20+ board members but I've marked the ones on the committee who have self-identified as board members with an *. At the end of this committee list I've added others who have ID'd themselves elsewhere as board members or officers.

Annette Baran, social worker, therapist, pioneer in open adoption

Susan Castagnetto, adoptee, Coordinator of Women's Studies, Claremont College

Scott Lowell, , actor, Queer as Folk

*Linda "Mama O" Orozco, first mother, CUB (CARE VP)

*Gene Sperring, adoptive father, PACER board member, AAC N. Cal Rep. (CARE VP)

*Jean Strauss, adoptee, writer/screenwriter, filmmaker (CARE President)

Paula Benoit, adoptee, former Maine Senator and Senate sponsor of successful Maine unrestricted access law

Carol Bishop, co-founder and Exe. VP of Kinship Center

Pam Hasegawa, adoptee, veteran adoptee rights activist

Mary Martin Mason, adoptee, author, ACC legislative director, Adoption Clearinghouse Director for Minnesota Adoption Support and Preservation

Eileen McQuade, first mother, AAC president

Adam Pertman, Director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, author of Adoption Nation

Ellen Roseman, adoptive mother, founder of Cooperative Adoption Consultation

Sharon Roszia, Program Manager of Kinship Center

Elizabeth Samuels, law professor, University of Baltimore

Marsha Temple, adoptee, lawyer

Additional people identified as board members:
Karen Vedder, first mother, former president, CUB
Pat Lubarsky, first mother, former vice president AAC, CUB
Bonnie Burnell, adoptee (CARE VP)
Mimi James, first mother, CUB
Sarah Burns, first mother, CUB
Stephanie Williams, first mother (CARE Exe. Director)

If you want to read the utter contempt with which CARE's minions hold us ordinary unkempt bastards go over to Joy's Division Yes, Miss Stephanie Williams, I'm Surprised, but No it is Not Pleasant entry where the ubiquitous "Rich Patrick" (Anonymous on Bastardette) lectures Joy on her stupidity while he shows an abysmal lack of knowledge of the history of California's sealed obc law. Dale Carnegie he's not:

Have you ever been to school or even studied Common Sense 101? You can’t just jump to the conclusion you like or nobody will listen to you. Obvious they don’t except your little groupthink buddies. Adoptees would not have their records sealed if CA had no Privacy guarantee in its constitution. The lawmakers would have no basis but they did so they did make laws. So yes all adoptees records are sealed because of the privacy right that gave the original lawmakers a legal basis.

How much longer can CARE continue to blunder on?

When will the dream team wake up and smell the nightmare?

CORRECTION: TEXAS HB 4470/SB 499: BASTARD NATION'S LETTER TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH--DEFEAT THEM!

I mistakenly posted the BN Action Alert a second time instead of the letter. Here is the correct post.

Here is the letter Bastard Nation sent to the Texas House Committee on Public Health regarding HB 4470 and SB 499. We called for instructions to submit written testimony and learned that the legislature will only take in-person testimony. In other words, if an individual or organization wants their testimony on any bill to be on the record they may have to make an 8 hour drive or fly to Austin. And forget about faxing. It clogs up their machines and takes too much time. Please email! (See previous action alert for details)

HB 4470 and SB 499 appear to be the handiwork of the so-called adoption reform organization TxCare. (webpage out of date.) So don't' blame it all on the adoption industry.

BASTARD NATION: THE ADOPTEE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION

P.O. Box 1409

Edmond, OK 73083-1409

Phone/Fax (415) 479-3741

May 4, 2009

Re: HB 4470 and SB 499

Texas State Legislature

House of Representatives

Committee on Public Health

Honorable Representatives:

Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization, the largest adoptee rights group in North America, opposes HB 4470 AND SB 499. We advocate for full restoration of rights to unconditional access to original birth certificates for 100% of adopted adults. HBs 4470 and SB 499 won’t get this job done!

The two bills are different with issuing adopted adults their original birth certificates now; however, both are extremely restrictive and demeaning to adopted men and women.

In the House bill, the state registrar may, if resources allow, on request provide to a person who was adopted before January 1, 2010, a noncertified copy of the person’s original birth certificate only if an adopted person’s birth parent has filed a contact preference form with the state registrar authorizing the release of a noncertified copy of the person’s original birth certificate.

In the Senate bill, an adopted adult can receive an original birth certificate now if he/she knows the identity of each parent on the original birth certificate, without obtaining a court order.

Both bills contain disclosure vetoes and contact vetoes designed to keep many adoptees from ever receiving their original birth certificate. These veto sections will be prospective beginning January 1, 2010. The vetoes will keep yet another generation of adoptees, their state-held information, and their personal relationships in the hands of the state, rather than with the individuals involved. No other group of citizens in the State of Texas must have a parent’s permission to obtain an original birth certificate.

Relinquishment documents signed by birth mothers are legally irrevocable. At the time of relinquishment, birth mothers gave up all legal rights to their offspring – forever. These bills would cause unnecessary and intrusive hurdles for adoptees without legal justification.

A genuine contact preference form, as created in Oregon, is non-binding. It never contains a disclosure or contact veto or any other restriction to the issuing of an original birth certificate to any adopted adult who requests it.

These two bills have a new and disturbing section which contains mandatory postadoption counseling for adoptee and birth mother before an original birth certificate will be issued. The bills require verification of the counseling “in a form satisfactory to the state registrar.” This provision puts the final decision of issuance of an original birth certificate into the hands of the state registrar, which arguably could be considered a most arbitrary method of issuing birth certificates.

Adopted adults need legislation that will put them on a par with all non-adopted citizens of the state. They do not want to be treated differently because of the circumstances surrounding their birth.

Please vote NO to HB 4470 and SB 499. Start all over again with a true adoptee rights bill - not a birth mother rights bill. A good adoptee rights bill gives all adopted adults the right to request and receive their original birth certificate, unconditionally and without any falsifications.

Thank you for your consideration.

Anita Walker Field, Secretary

Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Marley Greiner, Chair

Anita Walker Field, Secretary

Patricia Marler, Treasurer

Nina Greeley, Member

Peter Kristian Mose, Member

Marla Paul, Member

BASTARD NATION ACTION ALERT-- NO ON TEXAS: SB 499/HB 4470

BASTARD NATION: THE ADOPTEE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION

ACTION ALERT

TEXAS ACTION ALERT- EMERGENCY

TEXAS SENATE BILL 499 & COMPANION HOUSE BILL 4470

We have an emergency in the Texas State Legislature. Probably one of the worst combination of so-called “adoptee rights bills” in history are on their way to crushing any chance of adoptee’s ever achieving equal access to birth certificates, now and in the future.

Senate Bill 499 was engrossed and passed the Senate on April 28, 2009 and was sent to the House. A companion bill, House Bill 4470, has been waiting in the wings. On April 28, 2009, testimony was taken and registrations recorded in the committee. The bill has been left pending in committee.

PLEASE WRITE AND CALL THE HOUSE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TODAY. Ask them to vote NO to SB 499 and HB 4470. We must not allow this destructive bill to get any closer to the floor of the House. The bill must be killed RIGHT NOW IN COMMITTEE. Contact information appears below.

SB 499 and HB 447 have some minor differences in language but they both contain the same myriad of humiliating restrictions on adoptee rights. In the Senate bill, an adopted adult can receive an original birth certificate now if he/she knows the identity of each parent on the original birth certificate, w/out obtaining a court order.

In the House bill, the state registrar may, if resources allow, on request provide to a person who was adopted before January 1, 2010, a noncertified copy of the person's original birth certificate only if an adopted person's birth parent has filed a contact preference form with the state registrar authorizing the release of a noncertified copy of the person's original birth certificate.

Otherwise, both bills are prospective beginning January 1, 2010. They both contain:

Disclosure vetoes and contact vetoes which give veto rights to birth parents who legally and irrevocably relinquish children to adoption. These veto sections effectively codify into law a birth mother’s right to prevent her “adoptee” from ever getting an original birth certificate.

A “contact preference form” which is a term from Oregon for a non binding ‘preference’; however, these bills use the form as a means to deny birth certificates to adoptees.

Mandatory counseling for the adoptee and his or her birth mother by a state-selected social worker or mental health professional with expertise in postadoption counseling. The bills require “verification of the counseling “in a form satisfactory to the state registrar.”

Just as a state registrar has great discretionary powers to approve the “matches” made by the state’s adoption registry, now the registrar will have a similar control over which adoptee/birth mother matches she will find have had “satisfactory counseling.”

No such verifications are required for the contact and disclosure vetoes though. Anyone can file a denial form, which is not a preference form at all, but now would have the force of law. Anyone at an agency, a well meaning relative, or someone with a grudge can file a denial form, no questions asked.

TEXT OF HB 4470: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB4470

TEXT OF SB 499

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=SB499

TEXAS COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH

Contact Information

In order to send an email, you will need to go to each representative’s website listed below and submit your message there. I know this will take a few more minutes than our usual rapid cut/paste email, but this is how Texas works. You’ll have to paste your email 11 times instead of once. It’s not so bad.

Chair: Rep. Lois W. Kolkhorst
Capitol Office: EXT E2.318
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0600
District Address: P.O. Box 1867
Brenham, TX 77834
District Phone: (979) 251-7888

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=13&rep=lois%20W.kolkhorst

Vice Chair: Rep. Elliott Naishtat
Capitol Office: CAP GW.16
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0668
District Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
District Phone: (512) 463-0668

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=49&rep=elliott.naishtat

Rep. Garnet Coleman
Capitol Office: CAP GW.17
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0524
District Address: 5445 Alameda, Suite 501
Houston, TX 77004
District Phone: (713) 520-5355
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=147&rep=garnet.coleman

Rep. John Davis
Capitol Office: CAP 4S.4
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0734
District Address: 1350 NASA Parkway,, Suite 212
Houston, TX 77058
District Phone: (281) 333-1350

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=129&rep=john.davis

Rep. Veronica Gonzales
Capitol Office: EXT E1.324
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0578
District Address: 4900 North 10th Street,, Suite C-2
McAllen, TX 78504
District Phone: (956) 686-5501
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=41&rep=veronica.gonzales

Rep. Chuck Hopson

Capitol Office: EXT E2.708
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0592
District Address: 214 South Main
Jacksonville, TX 75766
District Phone: (903) 541-2250

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=11&rep=chuck.hopson

Rep. Susan King

Capitol Office: EXT E2.416
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0718
District Address: P. O. Box 2376
Abilene, TX 79604
District Phone: (866) 463-0718

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=71&rep=susan.king

Rep. Jodie Laubenberg
Capitol Office: EXT E2.504
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0186
District Address: 603 North Goliad
Rockwall, TX 75087
District Phone: (972) 772-8525

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=89&rep=jodie.laubenberg

Rep. Jim McReynolds
Capitol Office: CAP 1W.3
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0490
District Address: 203 South First, Suite A
Lufkin, TX 75904
District Phone: (936) 634-9786

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=12&rep=jim.mcReynolds

Rep. Vicki Truitt
Capitol Office: CAP GW.18
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0690
District Address: 1256 Main Street, Suite 248
Southlake, TX 76092
District Phone: (817) 488-4098

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=98&rep=vicki.truitt

Rep. John Zerwas
Capitol Office: EXT E2.316
Capitol Address: P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
Capitol Phone: (512) 463-0657
District Address: P.O. Box 434
Simonton, TX 77476
District Phone: (281) 533-9042

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=28&rep=john.zerwas

POLL CLOSED: DOES CARE KNOW WHAT IT'S DOING?

The poll is closed. The vote is in.

To no one's surprise, the majority of Bastardette's readers who voiced their unscientific opinion on AB 372 believe that the California Adoption Reform Effort has no idea what it's doing.

The Daily Bastardette asked two questions. Below are the results:

Why is Asmb. Ma offering insulting compromises to California AGVB 372?: 42 votes

She believes California adoptees are dangerous and the state needs protected from them: 9 votes/21%

She believes gutting the bill of all meaning is the only way it will pass: 19 votes/45%

CARE told her to: 9 votes/21%

She wants out from under this mess and gutting it is the only way to escape: 5 votes/11%

Will CARE pull Their Own Bill: California AB 372: 34 votes

Yes, they have seen the error of their ways and will act ethically: 1 vote/2%

No, they only want to get their name on a bill and don't care how much damage they cause: 9 votes/26%

Yes, but only after their raise money for Asmb. Ma on April 27: 2 vote/5%

Who knows, they have no idea what they're doing: 22 votes/64%

Not exactly a vote of confidence for the Cali Compromisers.

Also not surprising is CARE's continued dishonesty about what its current rights-gutted, AB 372 proposal (amended on April 21 and passed by the Cal Assembly Judiciary unanimously on April 27) actually says. (see Bastardette entry for April 27 below.) You'd never know about the state and adoption industry-cozy language from the CARE webpage which notes the bill's Judiciary Committtee passage but avoids mention of the massive changes or a link where the current abomination and its analysis can be read. But then, we're told repeateadly to "trust us."

As Bates the Banker said to Bret Maverick so many years ago: If you can't trust your banker whom can you trust?

We know that answer!