I warned you.
Last week, I blogged that I would stay vigilant over record availability in Indiana — and last Saturday morning, my worst fears were confirmed.
When I tried to access the Indiana, Birth Certificates, 1907–1940 database from home, it was gone from Ancestry’s Card Catalog. Only the older birth records up to 1933 remained:
Alarmed, I drove to one of my local libraries in DeKalb County, Indiana to check if this was just a glitch with the home edition. It wasn’t.
No access. Nowhere.
Then I did what any professional genealogist would do: I asked colleagues around the country — and around the world.
In Michigan? Full access.
In Wisconsin? Full access. In Texas? Full access.
In California? Full access.
Even in Germany? Full access.
Everyone except Indiana still had the record set.
Indiana Hoosiers — the very people whose ancestors’ records these are — are now blocked.
And here’s the kicker:
Indiana’s new 99-year birth record restriction law doesn't even take effect until July 1st.
There is absolutely no lawful reason for Ancestry to have prematurely restricted Hoosiers from their own historical records.
Why did Ancestry jump the gun? Who knows. But it stinks to high heaven.
And it gets worse. FamilySearch, too, has removed the Indiana, Births and Christenings, 1773–1933 database from its Indiana Wiki pages.
Last week? Still there.
Today? Gone.
Here's what you now see:
Shame on you, too, FamilySearch!
What You Can (and Must) Do Right Now:
- SAVE EVERYTHING.
If you find a record, immediately save a copy outside of Ancestry and FamilySearch. I now maintain a separate digital file of all Indiana birth records I’ve located, independent of any online platform. - DON’T TRUST THAT THEY'LL BE THERE TOMORROW.
I've gone through my family tree twice to make sure I’ve captured every birth certificate between July 1926 and 1944. NOTE: Some were indexed wrong so play around and others were never included, my father-in-law, for example - SPEAK OUT.
Let Ancestry and FamilySearch know that Indiana genealogists will not quietly stand by while access is stripped away without warning or legal justification.
The clock is ticking, and history is being erased in front of our eyes.
Don't think this affects you because you have no Indiana family? Think about this adaption of Martin Niemoller's poem with assistance from ChatGPT:
First they sealed the adoption records.
Then they erased the mental health histories.
Then they locked away the birth, marriage, and death records.
Each time, we said, "It’s just one set."
Now the archives stand empty,
And we have no memory left to defend.
I will remain vigilant and continue to speak out to preserve all of our history.
I just read that the Slave Trade Database will be housed at Harvard. Not sure where it has been housed until now. With the divisiveness we are experiencing in all western countries, i worry that history in the hands of any institution is now in danger. It's certainly happened regarding the truth about first nations stories and history in other countries. Now data you want to access is behind a privilege wall. When the hard copies are gone, AI will be in charge of the truth. And who is AI?
ReplyDeleteThis is awful. Thank you for your vigilance.
ReplyDeleteIn the early days of my family history research digital images were still a very new thing. I remember being at a family history center where images were available. I questioned the person who was working there why I needed to make digital copies when I could just come back and see the record. He explained that FS does not own the records and many of them are available to us only because FS made an agreement with whoever owns the records, and the agreement might lend them for only a certain amount of time, or might be able to ask them to be removed at any time.
ReplyDeleteI suspect this is what's happened with your Indiana records. The state probably asked/required that they be removed. Honestly, you can understand that there could be a privacy violation for the later records. There are still many people alive who were born in 1940 and earlier.
I have to say, though, that it would be nice if FS and Ancestry gave a heads-up of a few weeks so we who are searching records could spend more time searching the databases that will be removed.
But it's sad (especially for family historians) that institutions are restricting records.
Thank you for your comment. You're right that FamilySearch (FS) and Ancestry do not own the records—they're digitizing under agreements with record custodians. But it's a mistake to chalk every removal up to contractual expiration or assume it’s a reasonable privacy protection.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s happening in Indiana isn’t just about contracts expiring—it’s about a broader shift toward reframing public records as something private. Indiana’s House Bill 1148, for instance, changed access to birth records from 75 to 99 years. That wasn’t an archival decision; it was a legislative choice—and one with no meaningful public debate or genealogical representation. It wasn’t about preventing identity theft or protecting vulnerable populations. It was about optics and worse, it was hidden on page 10 of an unrelated bill.
Arguing that a birth in 1940 should remain sealed because the person might be alive confuses "public record" with "personal secret." These are vital records—government-created documents for legal use. If we accept the idea that anything concerning a living person must be hidden, we lose the ability to document not just ancestry, but patterns of migration, maternal mortality, adoption, and a host of social histories that depend on access to primary source data.
As for the idea that we “should have downloaded what we needed”—many genealogists work methodically, not reactively. Removing records without warning devalues that labor and disrespects those who use these archives as tools for justice, reunification, and scholarship.
This isn’t about nostalgia—it’s about transparency, access, and public accountability. And it’s worth fighting for.