What's the Rush?
It's a rainy Sunday morning here in Portland, OR, in an off-year for elections, just months after the most exciting (and exhausting) political year of my life-time. I could sit around all day, drinking coffee, attempting the Times crossword, puttering around... Or I could go shmooze at a political function down in Albany, where the state party apparatchiks will be swarming around potential candidates in next year's governor's race. That election is about nineteen months away, but people are already lining up behind candidates, budgeting donations, strategizing... Because that's the way it works. If you want to win in politics, you plan well ahead and execute.
Not so with CARE. They're in a hurry. They were formed in January and already have a bill in play and it's only March... It is, admittedly, not much of a bill, but still, they have a well placed author... On the other hand, CARE reminds us that adoption law in California is as byzantine and twisted as the Gordian Knot... Which makes me wonder, what's the hurry?
CARE's latest published document, which can for the moment be found here, reiterates their theme that AB 372 was introduced the week of the deadline because to not do so would mean that they would have to wait two years. And again my question is, what's the hurry?
Imagine if Barack Obama entered the presidential race in June of last year with a platform that said "TBD" and the slogan "Hope... I Win!" Precipitous action in politics is a recipe for failure, even for the most seasoned of politicians. C.A.R.E. holds itself above such petty concerns, like planning, organizing and educating. C.A.R.E.'s motto, as it is in most of Adoption World, is "If something is worth doing, it's worth doing quick and dirty..."
Adoption World pays lip service to success, but there is no down side for failing. Folks in some states, like New Jersey, have banged their heads against the legislative wall for decades in futile attempts to lobby for records access, using the same tired tactics year after year after year. Instead of giving the leaders of these failed attempts a gold watch before they're bum-rushed off the retirement party dais, these folks are lionized. It's like a party where the DJ had only one record, the Song of the Volga Boatmen...
But I digress... Thing is, a legislative reform effort in a state the size of California will take at least two years of preparation, possibly more. There are a lot of stakeholders to line up, a lot of adoptees to organize and activate, a lot of research to concatenate and distill. How is C.A.R.E. doing, what's their score card so far? As far as stakeholders, not so good. I've spoken and emailed a bunch of them and they are scratching their heads wondering who C.A.R.E. is and why they're doing what they're doing. Some stakeholders who have been contacted wonder why, after responding by giving C.A.R.E the benefit of their extensive expertise in adoption politics and law, that they weren't notified when AB 372 dropped like a battered valise out of a clear blue sky. Adoption records reform impacts policies for groups as diverse as the A.C.L.U, Planned Parenthood, both the pro-life and pro-choice movements, the Family Law Section of the ABA, family court judges, the social services bureaucracy, not to mention implications for the Assisted Reproduction Technology practitoners, who have modeled their dubious ethical framework from US adoption's toxic legacy of secrecy... Has C.A.R.E done their due diligence and negotiated with any of these folks, gained allies, neutralized potential opposition? In their three months of titular existence? Considering how little they've organized in the relatively small sphere in which they operate, that is Adoption World, I don't think so, I think they got together and said, "C'mon kids, lets put on a show!"
And about organizing California adoptees... How has C.A.R.E done with that? Surprisingly well, considering they haven't mounted any sort of outreach (media campaign, public meetings beyond the invited few). The introduction of AB 372 has energized some California adoptees, but not in the way I imagine C.A.R.E had hoped. Groups like AAAFC are mobilizing their members in California to lobby their legislators and setting up meetings to press for full unconditional access. This puts C.A.R.E. in an unenviable position of trying to explain why the adoptees they purport to represent are organizing outside of their penumbra of compromise. It speaks directly to their legitimacy.
Perhaps C.A.R.E. hoped for a "stealth" campaign... Some of the premature congratulations last week for South Dakota's now moribund records access reform bill extolled the virtue of "stealth legislation", the notion that a legislative effort can fly under the radar and avoid conflict. This is appealing to folks who are fundamentally conflict-averse, but you have to wonder why personalities like this want to be involved in politics at all... Politics is conflict and its resolution. We can see how this worked out in South Dakota. It only takes one or two folks to lift the rock and expose the wriggling underneath, and the "stealth" evaporates like mist. Better get used to it, you can't whistle past the graveyard and expect good results...
Not so with CARE. They're in a hurry. They were formed in January and already have a bill in play and it's only March... It is, admittedly, not much of a bill, but still, they have a well placed author... On the other hand, CARE reminds us that adoption law in California is as byzantine and twisted as the Gordian Knot... Which makes me wonder, what's the hurry?
CARE's latest published document, which can for the moment be found here, reiterates their theme that AB 372 was introduced the week of the deadline because to not do so would mean that they would have to wait two years. And again my question is, what's the hurry?
Imagine if Barack Obama entered the presidential race in June of last year with a platform that said "TBD" and the slogan "Hope... I Win!" Precipitous action in politics is a recipe for failure, even for the most seasoned of politicians. C.A.R.E. holds itself above such petty concerns, like planning, organizing and educating. C.A.R.E.'s motto, as it is in most of Adoption World, is "If something is worth doing, it's worth doing quick and dirty..."
Adoption World pays lip service to success, but there is no down side for failing. Folks in some states, like New Jersey, have banged their heads against the legislative wall for decades in futile attempts to lobby for records access, using the same tired tactics year after year after year. Instead of giving the leaders of these failed attempts a gold watch before they're bum-rushed off the retirement party dais, these folks are lionized. It's like a party where the DJ had only one record, the Song of the Volga Boatmen...
But I digress... Thing is, a legislative reform effort in a state the size of California will take at least two years of preparation, possibly more. There are a lot of stakeholders to line up, a lot of adoptees to organize and activate, a lot of research to concatenate and distill. How is C.A.R.E. doing, what's their score card so far? As far as stakeholders, not so good. I've spoken and emailed a bunch of them and they are scratching their heads wondering who C.A.R.E. is and why they're doing what they're doing. Some stakeholders who have been contacted wonder why, after responding by giving C.A.R.E the benefit of their extensive expertise in adoption politics and law, that they weren't notified when AB 372 dropped like a battered valise out of a clear blue sky. Adoption records reform impacts policies for groups as diverse as the A.C.L.U, Planned Parenthood, both the pro-life and pro-choice movements, the Family Law Section of the ABA, family court judges, the social services bureaucracy, not to mention implications for the Assisted Reproduction Technology practitoners, who have modeled their dubious ethical framework from US adoption's toxic legacy of secrecy... Has C.A.R.E done their due diligence and negotiated with any of these folks, gained allies, neutralized potential opposition? In their three months of titular existence? Considering how little they've organized in the relatively small sphere in which they operate, that is Adoption World, I don't think so, I think they got together and said, "C'mon kids, lets put on a show!"
And about organizing California adoptees... How has C.A.R.E done with that? Surprisingly well, considering they haven't mounted any sort of outreach (media campaign, public meetings beyond the invited few). The introduction of AB 372 has energized some California adoptees, but not in the way I imagine C.A.R.E had hoped. Groups like AAAFC are mobilizing their members in California to lobby their legislators and setting up meetings to press for full unconditional access. This puts C.A.R.E. in an unenviable position of trying to explain why the adoptees they purport to represent are organizing outside of their penumbra of compromise. It speaks directly to their legitimacy.
Perhaps C.A.R.E. hoped for a "stealth" campaign... Some of the premature congratulations last week for South Dakota's now moribund records access reform bill extolled the virtue of "stealth legislation", the notion that a legislative effort can fly under the radar and avoid conflict. This is appealing to folks who are fundamentally conflict-averse, but you have to wonder why personalities like this want to be involved in politics at all... Politics is conflict and its resolution. We can see how this worked out in South Dakota. It only takes one or two folks to lift the rock and expose the wriggling underneath, and the "stealth" evaporates like mist. Better get used to it, you can't whistle past the graveyard and expect good results...
Labels: adoptee rights, Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, C.A.R.E., legislation, organizing
posted by BB Church at 9:53 AM
9 comments
