I have been re-reading some of the e-mail regarding Indiana HB 1540 and I
have some serious questions about the amendments that are "supposed" to
address the concerns of genealogists. Such as:
1) To get a certificate requires a direct interest. That works fine for
gettting your parents birth certifcate but how about those of us who are
doing or planning on doing research for clients. Are we going to be
blocked from getting certificates? I would guess that we will be.
2) The state health department will promulgate the rules of access. This
is not a legislative body. The public has little recourse when bad
policy judgements are made by these types of agencies.
Vital records (birth and death records) are sent from the county to
the state
health department, with copies maintained in the local county health department.
Under current law, all birth and death records located in county health
departments may be viewed, transcribed, or copied by ANY member of the public,
that is, they are "open." Certificates, which are produced from the records,
are only issued to persons with direct interest*family members, etc. The
records at the state health department are "closed", that is, no one can view
or
have copies or get certificates without showing direct interest. HB 1540 would
make all vital records, regardless of location, less accessible to the general
public.
Concerns about limiting access have been raised by genealogists and the Hoosier
Press Association. The bill was amended in the Health Committee on Wednesday,
February 5th to provide specific language for genealogists. The state
department of health will promulgate rules making clear who and how genealogists
will have access. It is anticipated that the bill will be scheduled for
amendment and vote in the Health Committee on February 12th.
There are many issues and concerns surrounding access to vital records. I hope
I have addressed some of your concerns. Please feel free to contact me with
anything further.
Sincerely,
Quin Cheatham
>>>Stacy Cox <banner1(a)sonicwave.net> 02/04/03 04:54PM >>>
>>
email_value: House|Cherry,Bob|h53|hr
title: Representative
first: Bob
last: Cherry
other:
num: r53
num1: 53
name: Stacy Cox
email: banner1(a)sonicwave.net
address: 107 Meridian St
city: Shirley
state: IN
zip: 47384
phone:
comment:
Dear Rep. Cherry,
Yesterday I learned that legislation is being proposed on Wednesdaymorning that
may add further headaches to those of us with an interestin pursuing our family
history. These changes are proposed in HouseBill 1540 that may prohibit access
to vital records. As I skimmed overHB 1540 online, I soon realized that I do not
have the time to sortout all of the changes proposed. I'm writing to you
requesting if thislegislation is brought up for a vote that you will take my
opinioninto consideration when making your decision.
As president of the Shirley Historical Society, generalmanager/part-owner of the
Knightstown Banner, and complete genealogyaddict, I urge you consider that not
all access to vital records isintended to invade someone's privacy. Having
access to vital recordsallows those of us with good intentions to determine
familyrelationships and/or make accurate statements on a person's death dateor
birth date. For many of us, a copy of a birth or death certificateis are only
proof of ancestry and is often essential in gainingmembership into groups like
the Daughters of the American Revolution.
I understand the public's sensitivity to issues regarding theinvasion of the
privacy and the threat of identity theft. But, pleasetake into account the
family genealogist or the county historian whenconsidering any legislation that
might prevent our access toinformation about our own family members. I trust my
opinion, and thegood intentions of genealogists and historians in Indiana
andthroughout the country, will be considered before you agree to vote infavor
of changes to HB 1540.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Stacy Cox
______________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
[INHENRY] Re: HB1540
From:
Mike Pearson <mpearson(a)ix.netcom.com>
Date:
Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:36:54 -0600
To:
INHENRY-L(a)rootsweb.com
I have included a copy of the message I sent to the legislators e-mail
addresses. It reflects my feelings about Indiana, my Hoosier heritage,
and the need to keep the records accessible.
As I was sending the first e-mail it occurred to me that there is
another avenue open to us as citizens to get legislators attention on
this issue. I, for one, spend thousands of dollars every time I visit
Indiana on a research trip. That money goes into the local economy. I
intend to write the chamber of commerce in every Indiana town I normally
spend money in and advise them losing access to Indiana vital records
would make my trips unnecessary and would result in loss of my business
in their communities as a result. I know the small towns I stay in,
definitely appreciate my visits each year. Perhaps we can get the
Chambers of Commerce to weigh in on this bill's impact on their economies.
Food for thought.
Mike Pearson
>I would like to present my case for not passing HB 1540.
>
>I live in Texas but I visit Indiana for 10 days each year doing my
>family history. During that 10 days I spend over $2000 for documents,
>gasoline, food, hotel lodging, markers for graves, and other assorted
>expenses. All of which is spent in Indiana and contributes to local
and >state revenues.
>If every researcher who has ever spent money in Indiana is denied the
>access to genealogical records, i.e. birth, death, and other vital
>records the potential loss of revenue could amount to millions of
>dollars a year. This HB is unneeded and unwarranted. My own personal
>use of Indiana vital records has allowed me to locate cousins in
>Indiana and learn that my ancestors were some of the first pioneers in
>Indiana in 1816. Passing this HB would deny researchers an opportunity
>to learn about their Hoosier heritage and take pride in family
>heritage. So I urge you, please do not allow this bill to become law.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Mike Pearson