This bill has been proposed in Illinois to help provide more medical information for adoptees.

But the bill touches on one of the sorest spots in the national adoption debate.

At issue is how much information should be provided to adult adoptees about their parents.

A 29-year-old Port Byron woman after suffering two miscarriages, now has a healthy son. She wondered about her family medical history with each miscarrage. Yet, she knows nothing of any family medical history that her son might benefit from knowing. She is adopted.

The proposed legislation will require full disclosure of family medical problems at the time of adoption. Sounds like a step in the right direction, right? Is this really the answer to providing medical information to adoptees? Think of it in this light, how many women in a crisis pregnancy have much medical information to offer? How much did you know about your family medical history at age 15, 20 or even age 30? Most young women and their partners rarely have any issues of their own to report. Nor do most have enough interest in family history, medical or otherwise to have more information to provide.

Don't women already provide some medical history when placing children for adoption? When I relinquished my son to adoption over 37 years ago, I was asked for medical history. At 21 years old, I had little to offer. Now, I do know some medical history about my family. Not until reunion did I feel compelled to research the subject and offer some medical history to my son Chris.

Will this law mean no safe havens for the state? Illinois currently has a safe haven law which allows legal abandonment of babies with no questions asked. No proof is required to insure that the person abandoning a baby to a "safe haven" is a biological parent. Maybe they intend safe havens to remain in affect and exempt from this proposed law?

The National Council for Adoption (NCFA) approves of the bill as long as it does not identify the birth parents. NCFA opposes all attempts to identify birth parents. In every state where open records legislation is being debated, the NCFA vehemently opposes changes to open record to allow adoptees access to their records.

A spokesperson for one of the largest adoptee rights group, Anita Walker Field said she believes that the law might do "a little bit of good, but not much." She also said that she believed the bill is "just a way for people to feel like they are giving adoptees something when it really doesn't address what we really need - access to all of our adoption records."

This article discusses all the traditional arguments for and against open records. It includes the much touted theory that if privacy is not guaranteed for birth mothers, more abortions will occur. Yet, considering that the majority of adoptions are open now, how much weight can this argument carry? Statistics do not validate this claim either. There seems to be no evidence that states which currently have open records (Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, New Hampshire and Oregon) have higher abortion rates.