Friday, April 23, 2010

IL HB 5428 Double-Take

While I was here, waxing real poetical-like, about the passage of the IL HB 5428, my dear friend, Musing Mother, was taking her time, asking many questions and thoroughly reading this piece of nonsense. You see, she surrendered in IL and it directly affects her.

Me, I was scanning it, depending on what others had to say and running with it. As sometimes happens, when one jumps before all the facts are known, the message goes lacking. I am just too in love with this laptop. My mother used to say, of anyone who spoke before they knew all the facts, that they "were letting their ass overload their mouths." I guess I let my ass overload my keyboard. My bad.

I would encourage everyone, especially mothers and our children who feel that our needs are worth as much as our children's needs (those of us who raised children learned that a long time ago), to call the governor of IL's office and urge him to veto this bill.

The way to reach the IL Governor's office is:

Office of the Governor
207 State House
Springfield, IL 62706
Phone: 217-782-0244
TTY: 888-261-3336

Chicago Office
Office of the Governor
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph, 16-100
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-814-2121
 
There are several serious flaws in this bill and some that are not as dire as was once thought. But the one that got me is this one rider that really sounds like industry ass-covering to me. Read this and tell me who is missing.
 
Section 18.5, Liability (page 79, lines 19-25)
19 (750 ILCS 50/18.5) (from Ch. 40, par. 1522.5)

20 Sec. 18.5. Liability. No liability shall attach to the
21 State, any agency thereof, any licensed agency, any judge, any
22 officer or employee of the court, or any party or employee
23 thereof involved in the surrender of a child for adoption or in
24 an adoption proceeding for acts or efforts made within the
25 scope of Sections 18.05 thru 18.5, inclusive, of this Act ...
 
Now, lets see...that covers the judges, attorneys, social workers and agencies. The adopters will not be able to sue them for wrongful adoption. That takes care of everyone, doesn't it? NOT NO but HELL NO. We brood mares for the more deserving, we lowly, slut beemommies are left out in the open on the firing range with no kevlar vests or ditches into which we can jump for protection.
 
And don't be so naive as to say it won't happen. There have already been lawsuits brought against agencies by disgruntled forever mommies and daddies who didn't get the product they feel they deserved. With this little piece of razzle-dazzle above, they can go "straight to the source and sue the horse." (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
 
Now, any mother who thinks it is OK to leave us all open to that kind of possible danger for the sake of "giving all for our kids" is whistling out her ass. A good mother is not a martyr. She respects herself and her rights and, by example, teaches her children the same thing. I have no problem with a clean, simple OBC access bill. But when the industry and the legal eagles (who bill many an hour processing adoptions), get their hands in, then they are going to cover their arses no matter what. So it is a matter of a lack of respect. They obviously think we are expendable. Some mothers think we are expendable and some of our children don't give a rat's patootie. I know that adopters involved in this don't give a steaming turd about what happens to us.
 
Any mothers and adoptees who had a hand in this bill need to re-examine it. How can we work together if one party's rights are not respected, either by themselves or their children? We've already been crucified, racked, dunked, drawn and quartered  when we lost our children to the adoption machine. Sorry, but I am not going to go there again and I would hate to see any of my sister moms led down that sorry path.
 
I love my surrendered, adult children with all my heart. I count among my dearest friends several adopted adults. There are three adopted adults I can think of off the top of my head that have both my affection and deepest respect. But shouldn't that go both ways?
 
Oh, and to the person who didn't like my big lady in purple undies (Ms. Hideous of 2010), is Miss Sally Sunshine above any better? I am here to please....heh  heh.

3 comments:

Sandy Young said...

You did fine, Robin. Your blog was spot on, and excellent. And, I really think that if things are going in IL as they always have in the past, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion, anyway.

I just love how much protection we require AFTER we deliver the goods, don't you? Gosh, we fragile flowers of femininity certainly should be so grateful, rather like the children who are adopted, huh?

Anonymous said...

Much better graphic:-)At least she has her clothes on. Only someone under 30 and gorgeous should be pictured in purple undies.

Robin said...

Bu-bu-but, I'm 65 and have purple undies. LOL...I kinda like the old gal. She doesn't give a rip and, the older I get, the more I am like that. Glad you like the cute lady. ;oD