It's hard picking my top complaint with this bill
I googled as many different ideas as I could after I was reading the amended assembly bill. In order of those initial thoughts and not by order of any importance:

1. Where is my son's privacy? One of the key components to this "compromise" is that apparently my privacy matters. I would have the opportunity to stop identifying information from being released on the birth certificate, but where his privacy to go get this document without having to involve his relatives either adoptive or biological. What a freaking mind f*ck to everyone involved. I have a couple of thoughts on this, one of which is more related to another point, but one directly involved with this asking permission concept. Could you imagine being in my shoes? Out of nowhere a letter comes stating that my son is asking for this document and thus wondering in some part or another about his biological roots to this world. I would be a deer in the headlights wondering if it was only the piece of paper he wanted or if it would be leading to more contact. The rush of emotion of that idea has currently overwhelmed me and it's with no real practical concept of the mind f*ckery of reunion actually is.

2. Timeline of when the original birth certificate is available. Particularly within infant newborn adoption, the original birth certificate is viewable for a minimum of 180 days after birth, but with an additional admittance by the Department of Public Health, it takes an additional 10 months to process an amended birth certificate and seal the original. That is 16 months approximately that anyone and everyone can obtain that original birth certificate. This amount of time is dismissed in the analysis of the bill on pages 8 and 9.

3. The only birthparents who are promised privacy are those who use that awful safe haven now labeled safely surrendered baby law. Those parents are not listed at all on the original birth certificate, and thus creates a whole other heap of questions for the logistics for this proposed law.

4. The age of 25, which I can only speculate as being some sort of throw back to that adults are now not really adults until after they are no longer claimed as dependent student children by the federal government. On a personal note, I worry that if this legislation moves forward that crappy age will become somehow the standard for the mutual consent registry program that the state also handles which is also being used in the analysis as another supposed promise of privacy.

That's my thoughts for a moment. I'm sure I'll be back with more in a few.