Bad news for Bastards AB 372 passes out of Judiciary Committee
I’m late getting this up. Marley’s got details on the unanimous vote. See her post,
IS THAT ALL THEIR IS? CALIFORNIA AB 372 PASSES OUT OF JUDICIARY
CalOpen and Bastard Nation (along with a number of individuals) stood firm, and submitted testimony refusing to leave anyone behind, working against the disastrous bill.
Here’s Marley’s rough run down of who testified at the hearing (in this case “proponents” means those supporting the bad bill, “opponents” meaning those unwilling to leave anyone behind):
Witnesses: I missed a couple of proponents, but think I got all the opponents. Names may be misspelled in some cases.
Proponents: Stephanie Williams (CARE) Sarah Burns, (AAC/CUB,) Cal Assoc. of Adoption Attorneys. Jean Strauss, Tom Martin, Cheryl Cook, Jean Strauss, Tom Martin, Cheryl Cook, CA Alliance Child Family Services, Jim Dunn, Jennylee Balantine, Karen Vedder, Bonnie Burnell, Kristina Cook, Rachel Smith, John Smith, Bruce Reeves,
Opponents: Joe Wood CalOpen) , Linda Franklin, Laurel Ehrichs, Jean Ulrich (CalOpen) , Laurie Dunfield-Baker, (“adopted citizen”), Burt Brosnan, Imogene Speed (adoptive mother, Kathleen Cox.
Also be sure to read through the BN testimony opposing passage,
BASTARD NATION TESTIMONY AGAINST CALIFORNIA AB 372: LEAVE NO ONE BEHIND!
The bill may be out of committee, but this is still far from over.
That, and sadly, C.A.R.E. still has plenty of time to make their already badly botched bill even worse.
![](/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/nablo_typer_160px.jpg")
April 29th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Yay for my name put on another website and tag even. My last name is spelled Ehrichs though
Laurel
April 29th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Fixed.
May 1st, 2009 at 5:21 pm
An Open Letter to the Leadership of the California Adoption Reform Effort (CARE) Regarding AB 372
**Please circulate freely**
Dear CARE Leadership,
Why have you not posted a link to the actual AB 372 bill version that passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee on 4/27? Your Website’s front page lists a link to the bill as introduced on 2/23 as well as a link to the bill as amended on 3/26. These versions of the bill are a far cry from the 4/21 amended version of the bill that passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The 3/26 amended version contained a contact preference form by which first parents could state a preference regarding contact with the adult adoptee. However, it would have still given all adopted persons over the age of 25 access to their original birth certificates upon request, whether the first parent(s) desired contact or not. However, the 4/21 amended version, which is the version that passed out of the Assembly Judiciary and is now on its way to Appropriations, contains a disclosure veto and vague language regarding the requirement of the state to contact first parents in order to obtain their permission before adoptees could be granted access to their original birth certificates.
In reading the front page of your Website and following the links, one could easily be led to believe that the bill as amended on 3/26 (with no disclosure veto) was the version that passed. This, however, is not the case. The 4/21 amended version that did pass, disclosure veto and all, can be found on the directly on the State Assembly’s Website at http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm or via link from the front page of California Open’s Website at http://www.calopen.org.
Please update your front page to include a clear link to the actual bill version that passed and is being considered by the California legislature for passage into law.
Thank you,
Concerned California Adoptee
May 1st, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Thanks Carolyn.
An important distinction, that.