Yesterday, Connecticut took one step closer to restore adoptee equality in the state when the Joint Judiciary Committee passed 224-16- 1, HB 5408. The bill expands original birth certificate access to the state’s adoptees who were adopted before October 1, 1983. If passed, Connecticut will join nine other states that recognize the right of all adoptees to receive their OBCs without restriction or condition.
You can watch the hearing here (starting at 1:44:26)
CalOpen chair Jean Uhrich monitored the hearing online. Here are some of her comments, though we suggest you tune in to the entire debate to get the full impact of the good, the bad, and the ugly.
- Sen. Kissel supports, due to amazingly accurate DNA science today. Thinks by passing can regulate better.
- Sen. McLaughlin, Vice-Chair, opposes. While familiar with DNA testing, still concerned about parents/mother who was told that it would remain confidential. That reason alone.
- Rep. Candelora. Those women are now grandmothers. It is not fair to change the rules on them. If we change the contract, it will allow changing other health care contracts. Speaks to registries, stating over half the states now go that route. Compelled not to break the promise not to abort a child, to give birth to the child, and allow that child to be adopted. Can not get past saying now 40 years later, we break that promise.A better compromise.
- Rep. Dubitsky. Wants to clarify what the “promise” was to the women. Was it contractual? Chair Doyle says not statutory. Speaks to the optional Contact Preference Form. An ability to shield and provide protection. Dubitsky: probes deeper. If the state didn’t make any statutory promise, how would it be that the state would be breaking a promise in opening the record? Doyle answers that in previous hearings some women said they were promised, in the private world, not public. Dubitsky: Thinks the state got involved in years past, when it shouldn’t have. Is inclined to support the bill, to see where it goes.
- Sen. Suzio. In the past, his wife and he were for many years a shelter to pregnant women, some of whom gave up their babies to adoption. The stigma is no longer there. Concludes many would like to know how their child turned out and being reunited. Support.Rep, Reilly, adoptive father. Can not see breaking a contract with the mother who gave birth. Can not support.Rep, Godfrey. Clarifies that bill only provides record to the adoptee. Supports out of committee. People can get their information elsewhere, why should the government hold them up?
- Sen Doyle answers that DNA tests provide broad medical, but receiving actual birth certificate allows direct contact with family to get actual medical history. Better information from direct parents.
- Rep, Reilly, asks about contract law and how it pertains to this bill. Chair Doyle says if a private contract was issued to the mother. then the state would need to uphold. Rep. Reilly seeks clarification, that there is no knowledge if an actual contract existed back in the 60’s. Doyle stats the bill would allow the adoptee to have their own birth certificate. Rep. Reilly, would give foundation some proof to the court that they are indeed adopted. Doyle: yes. Rep. Reilly, as adoptive father cannot support.
Judging from the debate, there is still a lot of work to be done. Despite 20+ years of slogging through the legislature, misinformation and myths still prevail about adoptee equality, especially around abortion, “promises,” contracts, baby scooping, and ancestry.com, along with a weird take on women’s rights with no basis in fact including adjudication. The voices of adoptees are still secondary, misunderstood, and ignored by many lawmakers. Note: adoptive parents and Catholic Charities “speaking” for first parents. While we are happy that the committee voted on our side, we are disappointed at the fairly substantial opposition.
The Joint Judiciary Committee received over 200 letters of testimony on the bill. While we have not read each one, but it appears only a tiny number objected. The most unique objection came from Paul Pino, Connecticut Department of Health Commissioner, who asserts his agency can’t afford the bill:
The Department has significant concerns related to the fiscal impact of this legislation. The number of original birth certificates that will be requested is anticipated to be very high, and will result in heavy workloads for the Department’s Vital Records staff. The additional workload cannot be absorbed within current resources.
Rights do not have a dollar $ign.
Thanks to all the Bastard Nationals, and our friends, and allies who support HB 5408. And, of course, thanks to the Judiciary Committee members who voted to support the restoration of our rights.
HB 5408 is not a Bastard Nation bill, but as long as the bill remains clean and restores equality to all, we support it. We will keep you informed of the next step.
Bastard Nation’s testimony to the Joint Judiciary Committee is here.
New York Adoptee Rights Coalition
Dear CT. State Representative,
What type of State creates a law which effectively tells a child you do not have the right to know your mother or father. You will never know your mother or father.
Every normal child knows the mother and or father. It is assumed from birth.
Those who were adopted live a life wondering: What does my father / mother look like. Are they good people. What are their interests. Are they healthy. Is there medical problems I should know about.
What are their interests. Do I have brothers and/or sisters?
An adoptee lives, constantly wondering..
Thanks for sending this letter to the CT legislature and posting it here!