(NOTE I have placed links at the bottom of the page due to the difficulty of separating online conversations by specific links)
On May 13, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed HF 855* a bill that restores the right of Iowa-born adoptees to their Original Birth Certificates. Only it doesn’t. The bill contains a redaction provision, cleverly and erroneously called a Contact Preference Form. This corrupt CPF ignores the “preference” part of its title, and acts as a Disclosure Veto that can allow biological parents to order the state to black out their names and other identifying information—possibly including the adoptee’s original name–on the document before it is released to “their” pesky bastard. In other words, the state is mandated to mutilate its own generated and held record to ease the comfort zone of a small subset of biological parents who just aren’t up to owning their parenthood.
Redaction was not a last-minute amendment in either chamber. It was placed there by design at least 2 sessions back, in order to maybe get it passed if it could maybe get heard. This “compromise” was happily accepted and promoted by the so-called adoptee advocacy group Iowa Adoptees & Family Coalition, (IAFC). An identical redaction bill, approved by IAFC, died in committee last session and the session before. Attempting to maintain relevancy the group came back promising to bring in a clean bill this year.
Around June 15, 2020, (Facebook doesn’t post a date in its archive) the following Facebook exchange took place between Adoptees United and the Adoptee Rights Law Center founder Greg Luce and IAFC leader Michelle Spear regarding the 2020 bill, which had died recently.
Adoptees United,Inc: Nope. SF621 was a clean bill until Iowa Adoptee & Family Coalition agreed to amendments granting birth parents power to redact information from an adopted persons original birth certificate.
There is zero accountability and transparency in this group.
Iowa Adoptee & Family Coalition: Adoptees United Inc. your opinion. There is transparency. We will have a new clean bill next session. Sometimes you don’t know the reasons why we do what we do because you aren’t in Iowa in the trenches but thanks for always being here to criticize
Going Down
Between that mid-June 2020 post and the first week of January 2021, except for a few general adoption- related thoughts and memes, IAFC remained silent on its plans for 2021 and its upcoming “clean” bill. The best we get is a casual January 6, 2021 in-passing note mentioning that it planned to introduce a bill (no specifics) soon. Not until February 22 did a “call to action” show up on Facebook, although SSB 1040 (as it was then numbered) was introduced on January 13. That means the bill sat unannounced for 40 days before members knew about it, unless they ran a word search on the Iowa Government Legislative page. The House version HSB 226 was introduced on February 17.
When the bill passed House Judiciary, Ms Spear posted a video update (Feb. 22). The first part was an explanation of the bill’s particulars and the process it was going through.
Then it got interesting when she admitted IAFC’s intention to support the redaction compromise as the “best” thing to do and dismissed the left behinds as “whatevers.”
I know that there is some more talks about the fact that that our legislation does include redaction, and no it’s not ideal, and no I didn’t want.. really want that. But as I’ve learned through these last six years, everything waxes and wanes, and you have to make compromises. To make steps. And I’m…I’m not one of those people that believe in all of the pie or none of the pie. Um, I know there are people that do feel that way and if that’s how the members of our board and our lobbyists felt then we would go that route. Ideally, that’s what all of us would want. But it’s just not possible and I will right now. And you have to trust us that we know what’s best for, or what is happening best in our legislation and how we need to work around that. I’m hoping that it doesn’t leave any adoptees out, but unfortunately it may. And if that happens, we will address that when that comes, or they can, or whatever.
Sound familiar?
And then it got more interesting. CalOpen director Jean Ulrich, a long-time full-throttle no-compromise adoptee rights activist posted this question:
Can you tell us what states which took redaction as a “step” later removed the redaction to bring full adoptee rights?
to which Ms Spear responded:
Yeah, I don’t know Jean, I don’t look at other states. So I honestly, I don’t, because I’m not there. So I don’t know. I know New York doesn’t have it anymore and that was a huge success , (NOTE: New York never had a redaction provision and to date no state that mandates redactions has rescinded their DV provisions) and I’m grateful to them and that’s wonderful. But, to be quite honest Jean, I don’t know any other states that have done that, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t do it here. So, that’s just how it is. And if you, if you’re not happy with it. I appreciate that . You come to Iowa, and you do what you want to do, but as of right now, the three board members and the four lobbyists that are on our coalition, all agree that this was the step that was best for us, for Iowa. And the best way possible that we were going to get it moving forward. So, it’s a baby step, and that’s what it is. So we’re going to keep going. …
And I just wanted to update everyone I’m not here to argue I’m not here, to fight with other people about situations, or why we chose redaction or any of that… we kind of discussed that a lot last year when we had to add it. So, I’m not looking really to hash it out anymore. It’s, the way our legislation is and it’s… it is what it’s going to be
Wait a minute! You don’t know what’s happening in other states? Talk about dismissive! Do you not understand that what happens in one state influences what happens in other states, and that your actions in Iowa will harm actions and organizations in other states?
Power in the Union
I am a big supporter of localization and local leadership. But, there is “power in the union” as well. That is, local, regional, and national groups working together, sometimes in different capacities, to get the job done. A united front with a united message is absolutely necessary to restore the civil rights of all adoptees,not dole out privilege and favors to some. Any organization that claims otherwise does not stand for adoptee rights and is not taken seriously by lawmakers, stakeholders, or the public.
In Maine, after OBC for ME asked outside organizations to limit their direct work in the state, Bastard Nation kept our members and allies informed of what was happening there through action alerts and blogs, but had no non-Mainer boots on the ground. OBC for ME held the line and won through a very strong local effort that incidentally launched the political careers of two no-compromise advocates, Bobbi Beavers who afterward served 3 terms in the Maine House and Craig Hickman who after 4 terms in the House is now a 1st term Senator.
In New York, however, adoptee rights organizations took an inclusive position. Bastard Nation, the Adoptee Rights Law Center, the American Adoption Congress, the Adoptive and Foster Family Coalition of New York, with New York Adoptee Rights became core partners in the New York Adoptee Rights Coalition (NYARC). The AAC left the coalition on cordial terms to pursue its own strategy, acted as an independent player, but maintained its no-compromise position, and remained in steady contact with NYARC. Dozens of other state, national, and even international organizations and hundreds of individuals came together inside and outside of NYARC under the banner of “no one left behind” to defeat decades of legislative inertia by passing a bill that unsealed the OBCs of all New York-born adoptees without restrictions or conditions. Since then Bastard Nation has become core partners in the Texas Adoptee Rights Coalition and the Capitol Coalition for Adoptee Rights (Maryland, Washington, DC, and Virginia). Moreover, for years BN has partnered with individual state organizations that pledge in writing and in public to uphold a no-compromise position that leaves some behind. . More coalitions and partnerships are undoubtedly on the way.
Whether a campaign remains strictly “local” or utilizes national support (or something in between, which is the best strategy) the essential principle of victory is to refuse to sell out some bastards to get something passed on your watch. Reject compromise. Pull your bill. If your sponsor(s) balks, publicly announce your action and urge other sponsors and supporters to follow your lead.
You’ve never been to the capitol
Iowa Coalition for Adoptees & Families refused multiple offers of assistance, advice, and support from Bastard Nation, Adoptees United/AdopteeRights Law Center, and perhaps other experienced adoptee rights advocates, believing that only they had the correct political posture. When faced with criticism of their baby step scheme, IAFC denied that assistance had been offered from outside its bubble despite offers recorded online and privately.
This is a “Sidenote” posted on March 3, 2021 when IAFC’s corrupt bill was about to go:
Side note: thank you for all the words of support. It helps to reaffirm that our coalition is truly supporting what is best for Iowa at this time. The naysayers you may see posting on here are mostly from a national movement (Bastard Nation & Adoptee Rights Law)and they believe in the “all or nothing” approach. But I can tell you for sure none of them have ever been to the Capitol with us nor have any of them reached out in the beginning or at anytime to come to Iowa. We are choosing to no longer engage in their comments. We will not block them as we feel it’s important to educate our coalition on all the aspects of the adoption rights movement and all the groups out there and allow our members to form their own educated opinions.
After HF 855 passed, IAFC backtracked, admitted publicly that help had been offered by Bastard Nation and The Adoptee Rights Law Center and rejected. Ms Spear apologized for claiming otherwise.
The New Compromise Law
Parts of HF 855 went into effect immediately. Persons adopted before January 1, 1970 could apply immediately though there is no published time frame for processing. Those born after that date are forced to wait 6 months to begin the application process. Both classes are subject to the “Disclosure Veto” restriction. To make it even more punitive, the DV is a “zombie disclosure veto.” If a biological parent who has filed a DV dies, the restriction will remain in force since there is no provision in the law to lift it.
The new law includes a propaganda provision that mandates the State to create a public information campaign to not only inform the public (aka biological parents) that OBC rights have changed to unseal records but to give cowering bios enough time to utilize the special right that no one else possesses, to require the state to redact information from the released birth record. How this campaign will be accomplished is unknown. So, as one long-time activist wrote, “it will be a race to the post office” to see gets to Vital Stats first.”
IAFC is also running an information campaign, and from what I’ve seen of it online, it looks solid enough—as far as their law will let it, though it urges first mothers to file the Contact “Preference” form.. Be careful what you ask for!
It is perfectly appropriate to be happy for the majority of Iowa-born adoptees who can receive their OBCs without groveling before a judge. I believe that IAFC worked hard to pass its bill, but with a flawed, outdated baby step logic. This is 2021, not 1980. Activists in states such as New York worked for decades to achieve the restoration of OBC rights. Connecticut is on the cusp of enactment and Massachusetts may join the pack this year. Other states such as Maryland, Texas, and Minnesota, are in for the long haul, no shortcuts need apply. They aren’t about to give up their constituents for a Pyrrhic victory.
It is essential to acknowledge that the Iowa “victory” is carried on the backs of “whatevers” barred by law from receiving their own unaltered OBCs due to take-what-they-could-get deformers. Once that veto promise“ between the state and the parent is made, it’s nearly impossible to launch a successful rescue mission.
____________
Greg Luce is the Grand Master Flash of flow charts.
Here is his illustration of Iowa OBC bureaucracy
__________
Links
Adoptee Rights Law Center: Iowa: New Redaction Law FAQ
Bastard Nation Iowa Page
Bastard Nation: Legislation 2021 Page (with links to previous years)
Bastard Nation: Disclosure Vetoes
Bastard Nation: Contact Vetoes
Iowa Adoption & Family Coalition Facebook page
Other states with Zombie Vetoes: Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Washington
____________
*Iowa’s eccentric bill numbering system: requires that each time a bill is amended, it receives a new number. This makes bill-tracking difficult and writing about bills worse. Below is a record of bill numbering for the 2021 session:
Senate
January 13, 2021: SSB 1040 (original; introduced)
March 3, 2021: HF 723 (renumbered)
March 25, 2021: HF 855 (renumbered; final)
House
February 17, 2021: HSB 226 (introduced (original)
March 3, HF7 23 (renumbered)
March 25, 2021: HF 855 (renumbered; final)
New York Adoptee Rights Coalition
