Subject: DE Senate hearing on HB 522, June 18, 1998
From: cindybh@juno.com (cynthia bertrand holub)

HB 522 was heard in Senate comm. today. There were about 20
supporters present, and one opposed -- you guessed it, Catholic
Conference, but not Daul this time. Of the four senators on the comm.,
only two were present, Blevins (the chair) and Bair. Sen. Connor was also
there -- she's an adoptive mother who signed on as a sponsor while it was
still in the house. We had very little time, but at least everyone stuck
to their limit. Six of us spoke in favor, with a few others making brief
comments. Everyone except BNational Frank Sims, one other person, and I
spoke almost exclusively about medical issues and the need for reunions.
Frank spoke as an adoptee and an adoptive parent, talked about civil
rights and went through the abortion/adoption stats. I made the usual
civil rights points, talked about the spuriousness of the
confidentiality argument and Doe v Sundquist. The chair was surprised to
hear that records had not always been closed to adult adoptees, so it was
very good I made that point -- in fact it was great when one of the
speakers, the 70-something agrandmother of one of the writers of the
bill, herself an adoptee, then talked about how she just went in and got
her records when she was 18 and how we had a right to them. The chair
also wanted to know how many states had access to records now. We told
her three, so far, but that most advanced industrialized nations did.
Unfortunately, there was so much emphasis on medical stuff that Bair at
one point said, "So this is mostly about the need for medical
information?" I couldn't help just saying, NO, loudly enough for her to
hear, and then she said, "But most of the speakers here today have
talked about medical issues", and dammit, she was right. I had to jump in
a bit, after my time was already up, to again make the point that it was
about our right to these government documents. At least in DE a little
bit of interruption like that is permisssible -- the hearing process is
much more informal than elsewhere I have been. Then time was given to Mr.
Catholic Conf. whose problem, of course, was with the retroactivity. He
trotted out the affidavit that bmothers are given now when they
relinquish -- something I didn't know about before-- it sounded like the
same thing you guys had trouble with in WA -- they can say whether they
agree to have their information revealed when the adoptee comes of age.
Another bit of compromise legislation come back to haunt us -- DAMN! This
was passed only a few years ago -- but Doe v Sundquist applies, anyway.
Our time was up-- no actual vote was taken as there were only two
senators present. . Sen. Blevins asked if it would be acceptable to the
supporters of the bill to have an amendment which would permit
birthparents to veto the adoptees' access, as she did not want to propose
an unfriendly amendment. Caulk said they all wanted a clean bill.

CK

Cynthia Bertrand Holub
Mid-Atlantic Regional Director
Bastard Nation
www.bastards.org

Back to Double-crossed in Delaware