> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Amy Johnson Crow" <amy(a)amyjohnsoncrow.com>
> > To: "Yolanda Lifter" <ylifter(a)ohiofamilyresearch.com>
> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 6:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: House Bill 95
> >
> >
> > > Hi Yolanda,
> > >
> > > I didn't know if you had seen the latest on House Bill 95. I wrote
this
> > > earlier today for the OGS Chapter Channel. Feel free to forward it
> > anywhere
> > > you'd like. We tried; we really did try. We gave them good, logical,
> > > reasonable, rational arguments and it just wasn't enough.
> > >
> > > It was good running into you in Pittsburgh!
> > >
> > > Take care,
> > > Amy
> > > =============
> > >
> > > Major Changes to Ohio Vital Records Access
> > >
> > > We lost on Ohio House Bill 95.
> > >
> > > On 5 June, the Senate approved House Bill 95 (it was approved by the
> > Senate
> > > Finance Committee on 3 June). With HB95, there will no longer be
> > > uncertified copies of vital records available from the Ohio
Department
> of
> > > Health and the local vital statistics registrars. Also, certified
copies
> > > will have an additional $5 surcharge (making the cost of a certified
> copy
> > a
> > > minimum of $15, as the local registrars will also no longer be
allowed
> to
> > > charge less than the state).
> > >
> > > House Bill 95 will go into effect 1 July 2003.
> > >
> > > You can read the bill as passed by the Senate at:
> > >
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText125/125_HB_95_PS_N.html
> > >
> > > The pertinent sections are 3705.23 and 3705.24. (It is a huge page;
be
> > > patient while it loads.)
> > >
> > > Because this language matches the House version of the bill, there
is
> > > little hope that it would change in the committee
working to
reconcile
> the
> > > House and Senate versions.
> > >
> > > The Ohio Genealogical Society Board of Trustees approved a
resolution
> > > explaining the ramifications of HB95 to Ohio
genealogists. Copies of
> this
> > > resolution was hand-delivered to every Ohio Senator's office.
> > > Representatives of the Board met with representatives of the Ohio
> > > Department of Health. Included in the resolution and in the
discussions
> > > were good, reasonable, logical explanations as to why eliminating
> > > uncertified copies will do nothing to prevent identity theft. We
gave
> them
> > > possible alternatives so that uncertified copies would no longer be
a
> > > financial hardship on the agencies involved. Even with
these
actions,
as
> > > well as the countless phone calls, letters, and e-mails to the Ohio
> Senate
> > > from genealogists and organizations from across the state and the
> nation,
> > > the bill went through unchanged.
> > >
> > > It is likely (even probable) that the next step will be to restrict
> access
> > > -- either with a time restriction and/or an access restriction (only
> > > qualified parties can get a copy of the record). People have
reported
> that
> > > local vital statistics registrars are stating that they are not
allowed
> to
> > > issue copies except to the person or the next of kin. HB 95 made no
such
> > > provisions. However, these instances of restrictions need to be
noted
so
> > > that those agencies can be properly informed on what the current
> > > requirements are.
> > >
> > > It is a very sad time in Ohio genealogy. Unfortunately, this may be
only
> > > the tip of the iceberg.