> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Amy Johnson Crow" <[email protected]> > To: "Yolanda Lifter" <[email protected]> > 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.