The bill was approved 22-12 by the Senate. It was approved 57-21-2 by the Assembly in June. It now goes to the governor.

“The changes made to New Jersey’s graduated driver’s license program were designed to make our roadways safer and our teenagers better drivers,” said Vainieri Huttle (D-Bergen). “Unfortunately, some of the changes may have had unintended consequences that could require further legislation, which is why we are asking the Attorney General to review the program. I am pleased that the bill passed out of Senate committee, and I hope it quickly passes the Senate as it did in the Assembly.”

Under the bill (A-2740), the state Office of the Attorney General would be required to spend the next six months reviewing the changes made to New Jersey’s graduated license program – including the new license decal program for teen drivers and the curfew change for drivers from midnight to 11 p.m. – and then issue a report to the Legislature on the findings.

“The changes made to New Jersey’s graduated driver’s license law were made with the best of intentions – keeping teens safe behind the wheel while making them better drivers,” said Spencer (D-Essex). “Any review or study of the law should be sure to keep that in mind.”

“We want teenagers to be safe on the road and behind the wheel,” said Evans (D-Passaic/Bergen). “At the same time, the public outcry over some of the provisions indicates we should go back and take another look to make sure that in our desire to make our teen drivers safer we did not accidentally impinge upon their freedoms.”

“When it comes to the safety of teen drivers, we cannot afford to legislate from the hip,” said Burzichelli (D-Gloucester/Cumberland/Salem). “The changes made to the graduated driver’s license are brand new and need time to be properly implemented and reviewed so we can see what works and what doesn’t and figure out how best to deal with it.”

“If people are unhappy with the current graduated license because it is too restrictive, that’s one thing,” said Wilson (D-Camden/Gloucester). “If they’re unhappy with it because it just plain doesn’t work, that’s another thing entirely. Before we make a move, we need to know which it is, so we don’t wind up throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water.”

The bill (A-2812) deletes all references in laws to the terms “mental retardation,” “mentally retarded,” “idiot,” and “feeble-minded” and replace them with the term “intellectual disability,” using “person-first” language.

“Person-first” language is language that refers to an individual as a “person with a disability,” rather than as a “disabled person.”

“Language used in reference to individuals with intellectual and other disabilities shapes and reflects the attitudes of society toward persons with disabilities,” said Vainieri Huttle (D-Bergen). “Certain terms are demeaning and disrespectful, and create a barrier to the inclusion of people with intellectual and other disabilities as valued members of our community. It’s time we got rid of them for good.”

“It’s in all of our interest to ensure that the statutes and regulations of the state do not contain language that is outdated and disrespectful to persons with disabilities,” said Giblin (D-Essex/Passaic). “We can do better, and with this new law, we are setting a standard that makes clear that we will do better and ensure everyone is treated with dignity and respect.”

“All future laws will now reflect this more respectful terminology,” said Coutinho (D-Essex). “This isn’t just a feel-good measure. This is a real change in how we treat each other, and one that will set an example for future generations.”

“This is a big step toward a more caring society for everyone,” said Burzichelli (D-Gloucester/Cumberland/Salem). “The days of using offensive and demeaning language in official state documents are thankfully over.”

“This law makes clear that using insulting language about persons with a disability is unacceptable and a thing of the past,” said Greenwald (D-Camden). “We can do better, and with this law, we will do better.”

The bill passed the Senate 38-0 and the Assembly 80-0 in June. It was signed Monday by Gov. Chris Christie.

“The administration does not have the authority to simply chose whether to implement laws. That arrogance is unacceptable in any situation, but it’s especially appalling when it threatens public safety and the health of those struggling with mental illness.

“This law wasn’t created for the fun of it.

“It was created after several horrific incidents involving individuals with mental illness who declined to accept treatment. These weren’t routine incidents. They involved the deaths of innocent New Jerseyans, including children.

“Under the direction of Speaker Oliver, I will soon convene an Assembly Human Services Committee hearing to demand answers from this administration for this reckless and irresponsible decision.”

“If you look at the indicators studied to determine New Jersey’s rankings, it’s clear that we placed so well because we have demonstrated a commitment over the years to funding critical programs that protect at-risk children and families,” noted Vainieri Huttle. “However, Gov. Christie’s budget cuts to FamilyCare, school nutrition programs, after school programs, family planning and general education put this ranking, and all of its implications, in jeopardy for the future.”

New Jersey’s ranking improved from last year when it placed ninth in the annual nationwide Kids Count survey conducted by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Among the 10 indicators that the foundation studies to determine rankings, New Jersey placed among the top 10 lowest in the following categories: infant mortality (5th); percentage of teens not enrolled in school and not high school graduates (4th); teen birth rates (5th); child death rate (6th); teen death rate (7th); percent of children in single parent families (9th); share of children living without secure parental employment and the child poverty rate (both 10th)

“The saddest part is that the Governor’s cuts, while temporarily bridging a budget gap, will only exacerbate problems in the long-term from both a health and socio-economic standpoint. By short-changing the programs that provide cost-effective preventative care and keep kids in school and off the streets we are looking towards a future where families are less healthy and even more dependent on government assistance.

“Just the other day the Governor vetoed two funding bills that have a direct correlation to these rankings – FamilyCare and family planning. Both programs help provide un- and underinsured families with access to pre- and post-natal care, health screenings, preventative medicine, and contraceptives. Without a clear alternative to accommodate this loss in services, many of these families will fall through the cracks,” added Vainieri Huttle.

Days after the Senate voted on a bill to restore money for family planning centers and the Assembly simultaneously approved a similar measure, Assembly Democrats took their case directly to Gov. Chris Christie to let stand the allocation of $7.5 million for women’s health programs.

“Restoring these vital programs will save lives and money,” Assemblywoman Linda Stender (D-Fanwood) in a release issued by the Assembly Majority Office. “We continue to urge Gov. Christie to enact this restoration so that we can continue to prevent New Jerseyans – especially women – from needlessly dying from diseases that can be treated with proper screening.”

Assembly Bill 3019 would reverse Christie’s $7.5 million cut to family planning and women’s health services. Lawmakers said family planning served more than 136,000 patients in New Jersey last year; and helped prevent 40,000 pregnancies and 19,000 abortions while saving $150 million.

“Gov. Christie may still have his back turned on vital services for women and newborns in his budget but he has the ability to correct his mistake by signing this legislation,” said Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle. “Doing so will improve public health while saving taxpayers money.”

Lawmakers said they had found money for the allocation, so letting the bill stand would be budget-neutral. In the senate, the bill received 30 votes, making it veto-proff. Not so in the assembly where it passed, but is vulnerable to a veto from the governor.

“We met every critique and every objection in our efforts to have this critical funding restored,” said Assemblywoman Caridad Rodriguez (D-Hudson). “It continues to be up to Gov. Christie to show us whether he is with or against New Jersey’s most vulnerable women.”

When a father from Burlington County showed up unannounced at the New Jersey Statehouse to complain that child welfare workers had failed to protect his 11-year-old son after beatings by his ex-wife, a staffer for Gov. Chris Christie called the Child Advocate — the same office that would be eliminated July 1 under Christie’s proposed budget.

The father, a prison guard whose name is being withheld by The Associated Press to protect his son’s privacy, said he drove the boy to Trenton on April 16 after becoming frustrated that state child welfare caseworkers were requiring the boy to go back to his mother, who has shared custody. The man said he turned to the governor’s office rather than violate a custody order for failing to drop the boy off; he said his son threatened to run away if forced to go back.

“The Child Advocate’s office are the only ones doing anything to help my son,” the father said, less than three weeks before the office is slated to close. “They’re the only ones keeping track of DYFS (the Division of Youth and Family Services).”

The child advocate watches out for children who have come into contact with state authorities, which can include working with DYFS, courts and school officials on the child’s behalf. In this case, the advocate’s office helped keep the son with his father through the end of the school year and is pursuing a more permanent solution. Criminal complaints alleging assault, neglect and abuse are pending against the woman and a teenage stepbrother.

Christie’s $29.3 billion budget proposes cuts to social services, public education and programs, and saves a projected $1.3 million by closing the child advocate’s office, shuttering its helpline and laying off the remaining staff of 14. Legislation disbanding the office would be among the budget bills Christie must sign by month’s end.

The Office of the Child Advocate was created in 2003 after the body of 7-year-old Faheem Williams was found in a squalid Newark basement. Faheem and two brothers had been under the supervision of DYFS, but their case was closed without an investigation into abuse allegations.

The office protects the rights of mistreated, neglected and vulnerable children by overseeing the provision of child welfare services. It monitors foster care homes, juvenile detention centers and mental health services, runs a 24-hour telephone line that helps residents navigate state bureaucracy and can investigate complaints, subpoena records and sue the state.

Christie said New Jersey’s child welfare system has improved greatly since a lawsuit by a children’s rights group led to federal oversight in 2006. However, advocates for abused and neglected children said they worry that hard-won reforms could be undone without an independent watchdog.

“It was something that may have been necessary at the time when DYFS was in its greatest crisis,” Christie said after his budget was announced in March. “I think now, given the federal monitorship and the leadership that has developed … it leads me to believe the office of the Child Advocate is no longer necessary.”

Cecelia Zalkind, executive director of the Association for Children of New Jersey, an independent watchdog advocacy, said New Jersey’s child advocate has shined a light on inadequacies in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems.

Their early reports on harsh, overcrowded conditions at youth detention centers led to reforms, and Zalkind said the child advocate is the only agency that compiles public reports on child fatalities.

Advocates in the Legislature, including Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle, chairwoman of that chamber’s Human Services Committee, are fighting for restoration of funding for the office. In a letter to Christie dated June 15, Vainieri Huttle said she was “deeply concerned” about the effects of eliminating the office.

“We need an independent voice for the children,” she said Wednesday. “The child advocate fills in that safety net — it provides that extra sense of protection for abused and neglected children. As good as our department is, they can’t get to everything.”

A spokesman for Christie did not return calls and an e-mail seeking comment.

A court-appointed federal monitor issues reports every six months that track DYFS’s progress in achieving a multiyear, top-to-bottom reform. The most recent report, issued this month, showed that the state has made strides in caring for 9,000 foster children but too often did not provide such basic services as weekly visits with parents or safety assessments before closing cases.

For example, during the six months ending last December, just 2 percent of foster children had weekly visits with their parents. Caseworkers failed 81 percent of the time to complete required safety and risk assessments 30 days before closing a case, the report showed.

Christie’s $1.57 billion proposed budget for Children and Families, which includes state and federal money and is essentially flat compared with the current year, is expected to keep the reform effort on track.

Supporters are hoping their losing streak ends Monday when the Assembly’s Human Services Committee convenes to debate and presumably approve the bill.

Unlike her predecessors over the last decade, Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-Essex) said she supports the legislation and will allow the 80-member body to vote on it.

The bill already passed the Senate in March. Next stop if it clears the Assembly: Gov. Chris Christie’s desk. The governor’s spokesman said the administration will review the legislation if the Assembly passes it.

If Christie signs the bill, New Jersey would be the ninth state to allow adopted adults, or children represented by their adoptive parents, to obtain their original birth certificates.
“I wholeheartedly support it. Adoptees and advocates are entitled to have their interests addressed by the Legislature,’’ Oliver said last week.

Committee Chairwoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-Bergen) said she thinks the time is right as acceptance grows for open adoptions. She’s also examined documents private adoption agencies required birth mothers to sign in the 1960s saying the conditions of the surrender end at “the term of the child’s minority.” Seeing that language “was the turning point for me,’’ Huttle said.

“It’s been too long. Thirty years later, it’s a different society,’’ she said.

But opponents argue the bill is different from its predecessors because it outs future biological moms who choose adoption over abortion.

“For prospective adoptions, the bill takes away the option of privacy,’’ New Jersey Right to Life executive director Marie Tasy said. “The language of the bill says the birth parent can fill out a preference form, but it’s just that — a preference, not an absolute veto.’’

“That section of the bill has caused a lot of confusion among legislators,’’ Tasy added.
Upon the adopted person’s request, the state Bureau of Vital Statistics and Registration would produce both the birth certificate and the contact preference form, leaving it up to the adopted person to decide whether to honor a request for no contact, according to the bill.

Biological mothers who have surrendered children up to now would continue to have far more protections.

If they want their name and address removed, they have 12 months after the law is finalized to submit a notarized letter requesting no contact.

In three states that enacted a law similar to the one pending in New Jersey, requests for birth records far outweigh the number of biological parents requesting no contact.
The Oregon Public Health Division has issued 10,151 birth certificates since that state’s law took effect 10 years ago, health spokeswoman Christine Stone said. Just 639 biological parents filed a contact-preference form: 518 wanted contact, 86 requested no contact and 35 agreed to contact through an intermediary.

In Tennessee where both adopted people and biological parents may submit a contact-preference form, 58 people agreed to be contacted and 13 requested no contact between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009, state spokeswoman Calista Doll said. The state provided birth records to 161 people during this time.

The bill (A-929) proposes more public hearings and a study examining the health impact of any proposed conversion. The hearings and independent analysis would be required before the state grants approval for the conversion.

The state’s largest insurer, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, recently considered plans to convert into a for-profit company.

It was also recently revealed that William J. Marino, president and CEO of Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, was paid $8.7 million last year, a 59 percent increase from 2008, while other company executives also enjoyed huge pay hikes.

“This bill simply ensures sufficient public participation and that every issue has been carefully reviewed before a decision is reached on a conversion application,” said Vainieri Huttle (D-Bergen). “We need extra caution when moving forward on issues that could, among other things, increase premium costs and influence the health care of so many New Jerseyans.”

“Requiring increased public participation in a process as important as this is always a good thing,” said Wagner (D-Bergen). “Such conversions can have wide-ranging impacts on all residents, especially when large insurers seek a switch, and everything must be considered and reviewed carefully to ensure consumers are protected.”

“This bill doesn’t oppose conversions,” said Greenstein (D-Middlesex/Mercer). “It just seeks to ensure every angle of a conversion has been carefully reviewed and the public is given every opportunity to provide their input on such an important decision so patients are safeguarded.”

“Conversions come with many concerns,” said Voss (D-Bergen). “If a conversion is worthy, it should be able to withstand the utmost scrutiny. That’s what this bill seeks.”

The bill would make various changes to the process through which Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield could convert from a not-for-profit entity to a for-profit insurer.

The bill would increase the number of public hearings held by the Department of Banking and Insurance (DOBI) from one to at least four, with one being held in the northern part of the state, one in the southern part of the state, and two in the central part of the state.

At least one hearing would be held after the DOBI commissioner has received and made public all written reports obtained through the current conversion process, and, the requirement for public notice of the hearings would increase from 45 to 75 days.

The DOBI commissioner would also be required to hire a consultant to prepare a health impact study of the proposed Horizon conversion, in order to assess the direct and indirect effects of conversion on Horizon subscribers.

The health impact study would have to address questions regarding the accessibility, availability and quality of care under the conversion plan for Horizon subscribers, as well as analyze the business plan and proposed rate changes, and the effects on the cost of care for subscribers.

Additionally, the bill would prohibit the use of any proceeds from the conversion being used to replace current government spending on health care and instead would require that the proceeds be used to promote improvements in health care through accessible, affordable, available and quality health care, including public health-related activities.

The bill was released by the Assembly Financial institutions and Insurance Committee and now goes to the Assembly Speaker, who decides if and when to post it for a floor vote.

“We welcome any progress on improving our child welfare system, but this latest report makes clear we still have a long way to go and that a sustained and focused effort is needed to continue our progress.

“Spending cuts are necessary, but we cannot blindly cut without considering the impacts on our most vulnerable, especially neglected children who still need our help and protection. We cannot turn our backs on abused children, even in the most difficult times and especially when we are moving too slowly to ensure their protection.”

“No one disagrees that NJ’s financial troubles NEED to be addressed. The budget proposal from Governor Christie includes major cuts to health care, senior citizen programs, education, municipal aid and transportation, BUT no new revenue. The responsible way to respond to the current realities of NJ’s budget deficit is to extend the ‘Millionaire’s Tax’ – which is true “shared sacrifice”.”

“Christie talks about sharing the pain in balancing the state budget, but when it comes to the wealthy, there is no sharing. I don’t believe a one time tax would drive the wealthy from this state. In fact, Christie’s attempt to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class will have the same effect in driving out the middle class.”

“Please override this veto and make it law.”

Governor Christie’s proposed Fiscal Year 2011 budget eliminates the relied-upon homestead property tax rebates for over 600,000 senior citizen and disabled homeowners and tenants. Additionally, the proposed budget calls for drastic changes to the Pharmaceutical Assistance and Disabled (PAAD) and Senior Gold Prescription Discount programs. If these changes go into effect senior citizens and individuals with disabilities would be forced to pay hefty deductibles that they are unable to afford, resulting in people not purchasing the prescription medications they need.

These budget proposals would cause two of our State’s most vulnerable populations, senior citizens and individuals with disabilities, severe financial hardship. In response to the many pleas we have heard from our constituents to reverse these budget proposals, Democrats in the Legislature proposed legislation to adjust the income tax rate for individuals making over $1 million per year in fiscal year 2010. By raising the tax rate less than 2% on this segment of the population for a single year, New Jersey would take in an estimated $637 million in revenue. With that money, our State would be able to continue providing necessary assistance to senior citizens and disabled individuals by restoring the homestead rebate and staving off the PAAD and Senior Gold Prescription Discount changes.

I am disheartened by the Governor’s swift rejection of the Legislature’s effort to save crucial programs for senior citizens and individuals with disabilities. However, I look forward to working with likeminded colleagues in sending a message back to Governor Christie: New Jersey’s most vulnerable residents should not have to sacrifice anymore.