For those looking to dive into the world of digital currencies, a reliable cryptocurrency exchange is essential. These platforms provide the tools necessary to buy, sell, and manage a diverse range of cryptocurrencies securely and efficiently. Supporters have asked, "Why doesn't PAR support the Mensch amendment? Don't we have to give something up to get closer to what we want?" PAR had attempted to compromise by supporting the Wagner amendment, that did not pass, that introduced Maine's Contact Preference language into HB 162. Unfortunately, the Mensch amendment passed and asks us to "give up" rights that are not ours to give.

The description of the Mensch amendment on the September 16, 2014 hearing agenda didn't sound too extreme. The agenda stated that the amendment would allow original parents to veto an adult adoptee's access to their original birth certificate for the next three years, after which time access would be open. Make no mistake, the Mensch amendment would make a number of unacceptable changes to the law that were not readily apparent on the agenda.

#1  The disclosure veto for adoptions that are initiated after the effective date of the bill is intended to be permanent.  There is no ending date for the disclosure vetoes applied to today's fostered and adopted youth.

#2  The amendment language is unclear if the disclosure veto for adoptions initiated after the effective date of the bill will indeed end in three years.

#3  The amendment gives original parents the right to veto access upon termination of parental rights. This includes both voluntary and involuntary termination. The law currently says that the original birth certificate is not sealed until an adoption is decreed. The amendment makes no mention of how fostered and adopted adults will be attended to if their birth record access is vetoed as the original birth certificate is their one and only certified record of birth.

#4  The amendment assigns adoption agencies the primary roles of educators regarding the disclosure veto and gate-keepers for records pertaining to an adopted person's pre-adoption identity.

#5  The amendment legally compels original parents to release their personal health information.

 PAR firmly holds that no adoptee be left behind and that we cannot negotiate away rights that are not ours to give.  We cannot give up the rights of would-be vetoed adult adoptees or today's adopted and fostered youth. Original parents should not be forced to release private information. We ask only for what all other citizens have--for what is not considered a "privacy" issue for any other person regardless of family circumstance--a state issued original birth certificate.

On September 16, 2014, the Senate Committee on Aging and Youth held a voting hearing for HB 162. The votes were as follows:

Contact Preference amendment - Wagner (supported by Rep. Benninghoff):
Yeas: Mensch, Schwank, Wagner
Nays: Argall (proxy), Baker, Scarnati (proxy), Stack, Vogel, Vulakovich, Wiley, Yudichak

For immediate release

HB 162 is scheduled to be voted on by the Committee on Aging & Youth on Tuesday, September 16, at 10:00.  We encourage all supporters to attend.  Click here for the event page.  Click here for driving directions and map.

Our latest update on HB162: the Senate Aging and Youth Committee is considering Maine's Law as an amendment to HB162.  PAR supports this direction and has long suggested that Maine's Access Law be instituted as model legislation in Pennsylvania and throughout the remaining U.S. states that do not allow adult adoptees equal access to their original birth certificates.  You can read the text of Maine's Law here.

The basics of Maine's Law

• Adult adoptees are granted the same access to their original birth certificates as those who are not adopted.
• Original parents may file a contact preference form that is given to the adult adoptee to inform them of the parent's preference for contact.

Senate Aging & Youth Committee

Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Phone:
Senator Bob Mensch 717-737-3110
Senator LeAnna Washington 717-787-1427
Senator Kim Ward 717-7787-6063
Senator Joseph Scarnati 717-787-7084
Senator David Argall 717-787-2637
Senator Lisa Baker 717-787-7428
Senator Elder Vogel 717-787-3076
Senator Randy Vulakovich (Chairperson) 717-787-6538
Senator Judith Schwank 717-787-8925
Senator Michael Stack 717-787-9608
Senator John Yudichak 717-787-7105
Senator Scott Wagner 717-787-3817

We have received correspondence from activists attempting to clarify information given about adoptee rights history in Pennsylvania recently reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer. Specifically, people are asking why does the article state that “records” were sealed in 1925 to “preserve birth parents’ anonymity” and that before 1985, adoptee OBC access was due to a “loophole?"

Simply put, this information is incorrect. In 1925, records pertaining to adoptions were sealed to prevent them from being inspected by the public. OBCs were never withheld from adoptee inspection, nor was this the intention of the 1925 law. As such, there was no birth parent “anonymity.”

Attempts to restrict adoptee OBC access began in the mid-1970’s with inquiries made to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office requesting that the Attorney General find that the law contained a “loophole” allowing OBC access. The PA Attorney General made no such finding. In fact, in 1978, the Attorney General released an official opinion stating that Vital Statistics Division was following the law as intended.

“In practice, the original birth certificate is never impounded by the court when an adoption is finalized because the Vital Statistics Division only releases information from or a certified copy of the original birth certificate and is not authorized to ever release the original birth certificate itself. Since the original birth certificate remains with the Vital Statistics Division, the Division can allow access to it when specifically authorized by statute to do so, as by Section 603(c).”

In short, up until 1985, Pennsylvania was one of three states (Pennsylvania, Alaska, and Kansas) that had never sealed the original birth certificates of adoptees. This was not a “loophole.” This was best practice.

--Amanda H.L. Transue-Woolston, for PAR