This is the (often strong) opinion section of the blog. Enough said.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

An ACLU Perspective from New Jersey

TOPIC OF THE DAY Adoption recordsRESPOND: yourviews@app.comLet them hear from us TODAY! from EVERYWHERE! :-)Published in the Asbury Park Press 04/21/05 Registry best for reunitingIn response to the March 29 letter "ACLU view conflicting," concerning theAmerican Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey's position on retroactivelyopening adoption records, the ACLU-NJ and its partners believe mutualconsent registries are the best way to unite birth parents and adoptedchildren.State law over decades has allowed birth parents to make a choice ofconfidential adoption. The law also allows adopted people access to adoptionrecords under certain circumstances, including medical need. The proposedlegislation would unilaterally and retroactively reveal the identities ofbirth parents who placed their children for adoption, thus violating theprivacy rights of the birth parents, many of whom may have hinged theirdecisions to participate in adoption on an understanding of continuedconfidentiality.A well-established mutual consent registry allows parties to come togetheron a voluntary basis, without coercion. Although registries may not resolvethe issue in every case, since either party may no longer be living, theycreate a vehicle for reunions in countless instances.Birth parents who do not desire contact from the children they gave up foradoption are unable to speak out against laws that would reveal their namesbecause doing so jeopardizes the very confidentiality they wish to preserve.The ACLU-NJ often has to conduct balancing tests of competing rights. Inthis case, based on privacy and due process concerns, it is the rights ofbirth parents that we seek to protect.Although the letter accuses the ACLU-NJ of failing to "serve thevulnerable," in this case our defense of civil liberties principles allowsus to speak for those birth parents who must remain silent to maintain theconfidentiality promised to them when they placed their children foradoption. Deborah Jacobs EXECUTIVE DIRECTORAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIONOF NEW JERSEY

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

My thoughts on Privacy

It seems to me that one of the biggest arguments against making original birth certificates available to adult adoptees, is that it could "violate the privacy of the birthparents" (cause there are two people involved there). Anyhow, someone mentioned to me recently, or I read somewhere about what kind of privacy we are dealing with here. Who would the birthparents be wanting to keep this information from? It's not necessarily the adoptee that they want to keep in the dark, it's everyone else! Their families, their neighbors, their coworkers, their in-laws, members of the communities they live in. Those are the people that the information about an adoption is being kept from. And rightfully so, because it's not their business. However, the adoptee shouldn't be shouldered with the blame for 'violating secrecy', and shouldn't be kept from their records so that these other people don't find out.
This is how I see that the current laws hurt the situation and HB770/SB364 could improve privacy for birthparents from these other parties. Currently, if an adoptee wants to find his/her birthparents, he/she can register with the state adoption registry and any number of organizational registries (which have a relatively low match rate). He/she can also use the more common method of amateur detective work (or hiring an agency) and searching for any records around their birth, looking for hospital records, dates and times, types and times of babies born, talk to local people, narrow down the possible candidates, and start calling people to see if they are their birthparents. This method is currently being used by a lot of adoptees who are searching for connections, reconnections, medical histories, and long lost siblings.
Now, using this roundabout way of finding birthparents, it is much more likely that a member of the above mentioned group will find out that a birthparent has given a child up for adoption in the past. One article I read talked about a women calling a number she was sure was her birthfather, only to end up talking to his wife who made it very clear that her husband had NEVER had an affair and how dare she call them. (This man turned out not to be her birth father).
If HB770/SB364 were to pass, the adoptee could have access to their birthparents names without having to do a lot of detective work and asking other people. They could contact the birth parent through a discrete intermediary and the birthparent could then keep this information secret from anyone else they wished to. Also, if the birthparent chose to fill out a contact preference form and desired no contact, then the adoptee would have his/her current medical history provided and would know, from the birthparent, that they did not wish to be contacted, saving the adoptee lots of time of fruitless searching. All in all, it seems like HB770/SB364 could actually improve birthparents and adoptees privacy from the people who really don't need to know. That would be up to the adoptee AND the birthparents.

Karyn

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Reply to Bastard Nation Letter

Anita,
Thank you very much for reviewing the Texas HB770 and the companion SB364 and taking the time to write. (I am copying this to Rebecca Townsend of Arizona Open as she also wrote in support of your concerns. I am certain there are thousands of others who have the same concerns.)

Adoptee rights must be restored fully and without any conditions to the receipt of birth records. The sad reality is that we have worked on such legislation for well over a decade in Texas with no progress. Texas as you may know is the home of NCFA. It will be a VERY difficult state to secure adoptee rights in. We at Txcare have spent thousands of hours for years working in the Texas Legislature in support of adoptee rights. President Bush personally killed our bill last session and threatened vetoes prior to that when he was Governor. It is not easy. Thus, we now have designed a bill that uses the allegations of the our opposition to create what will be a nonfunctional veto provision and in the process create an educational opportunity.

Has anyone you know of ever presented a signed relinquishment document filed in an adoption wherein an agency agrees to promise anonymity? Such a document does not exist.

Due to the issues you have raised I have redrafted, and reposted online, the "Adoption Reform - Texas Style" article. I think these are good changes and want to thank you for raising the issues.

I certainly understand your concerns for many elements of HB770 but it was written to address the complaints and allegations of our opposition over the past decade. I also understand why you would not like what is written in the "Adoption Reform" article about how HB770 will better protect that minority of birth parents not wanting contact. That issue has to be presented to the legislature so that we fully deflate our opposition who in the past have claimed that current law better protects that minority. We can easily show that HB770 will better protect that birth parent minority not wanting contact. It is another step toward getting full adoptee rights into the law. Please note that in the process of providing this "protection" to birth parents not wanting contact adoptees will NOT loose access to their birth records.

Sadly I know we will not agree on the strategy necessary in Texas. Ultimate goals of absolute access to records we may agree on. The intermediate goal of passing HB770 I think we will not agree on. I promise that this is a very real step toward that ultimate goal which will be achieved sooner in Texas once HB770 is law.

There is one adoption agency I am certain you know that has great power within the Texas Legislature. We are fighting them with their own ammunition and calling their bluff with HB770.

I certainly understand you and your supporters will write to criticize the veto boilerplate in HB770. Please also spend at least as much energy writing to support the parts of HB770 that gain full access to birth records by adoptees.

Sincerely,

Bill Betzen
Board member
www.txcare.org

'A.I' and Adoption: Come on, Let's Get Real

`A.I.' AND ADOPTION: COME ON, LET'S GET REAL



07/18/2001
The Boston Globe

THIRD
A.17
(Copyright 2001)



IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AS OFTEN AS IT USED TO, BUT PEOPLE STILL PERIODICALLY TELL MY WIFE AND ME, IN VOICES MODULATED TO EXPRESS UNMISTAKABLE EMPATHY: "Oh, I'm sorry you couldn't have any real children."
Or they ask whether we know anything about our son's or our daughter's real parents. Occasionally, they even say such things in front of our kids.

I've grown so accustomed to such well-intentioned ignorance that, too often, I don't even try anymore to explain the potentially corrosive effects on children of grappling with the notion that either they or the adults raising them aren't real - clearly meaning, in this context, that they are somehow inferior. It doesn't make us grownups feel great either.
Odd as it may seem, those are the kinds of thoughts that filled my brain as I watched Steven Spielberg's new blockbuster movie "Artificial Intelligence."
That's because the adoption-related undercurrents running through "A.I." are as powerful as they are poignant to the tens of millions of us whose lives are touched daily by this wondrous, complex, poorly understood institution.
Early in the film, for instance, the lead character (a human- looking, emotion-enabled robot named David) tries to ingratiate himself with his would-be mother by awkwardly testing his behavior and boundaries with her.
Thousands of adopted people, those who first lived for years in foster care or orphanages, will see more in these scenes than just a machine checking out his operating systems; they will see their younger selves, struggling to figure out how to win the hearts of the strangers who are deciding whether to give them permanent homes.
"A.I." evokes many comparable analogies and insights. Some are transcendent; they will instantly resonate with most of the adoption community but probably not with other viewers who could benefit from their lessons. After all, it's not a long leap from the isolating taunts David endures because he's a mecha (mechanical) to the alienation thrust upon children for generations because they live in a culture in which the words that describe them - "you're adopted" - are used as an insult.
Other aspects of the movie offer less obvious but equally important lessons about adoption and, by extension, about the attitudes and practices of the society in which the institution plays an increasingly pervasive role.
A particularly incisive illustration is Spielberg's ambivalent depiction of the people who arrange David's entry into his new home. While they are essentially good-hearted, there is a disturbing marketing component to their goal of providing more Davids to people who can't make a child themselves.
It's a chilling glimpse, for those who can see it, into the laissez faire world of real adoptions, where businesses sometimes treat children so much like commodities that they might as well be, well, robots.
Perhaps most pointedly, one of the central themes explored by "A.I." is whether we human beings can truly love children we do not create.
It is a complicated, profound question that the film artfully universalizes by creating a future in which everyone is forced to limit procreation in order to conserve resources. But it's not a theoretical subject for the millions of women and men who confront it every day because we are infertile.
This is not a movie about adoption, of course; it's a science fiction/fantasy that means mainly to explore such timeless imponderables as what constitutes humanity and the nature of isolation.
But Spielberg, an adoptive parent, either deliberately laced his film with some of the important concerns of his personal life or else introduced them subconsciously, which in a way would illustrate even more dramatically how influential a role they play.
Yet I would guess only a minority of viewers have an inkling of the degree to which these interesting, edifying issues run through the movie - or through the everyday lives of their relatives, friends, and neighbors.
Which is precisely my point.
Adoption grew up as a covert, shame-tinged institution. It is improving rapidly in most ways, but people generally remain so ignorant about it that they can't always see the totality of the picture they're looking at, even when it's on a big screen.
If they could, they'd already understand the potent impact of a word like real. And they'd come to a movie like "A.I." better prepared to address the full spectrum of provocative questions that it poses.
The answer to the one about whether we human beings can truly love children we do not create, incidentally, is yes.
Absolutely.
Caption: STEVE ANSUL ILLUSTRATION

OPEN LETTER TO BILL BETZEN & TxCARE

From:Anita Walker FieldBastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights OrganizationRe: HB 770 and SB 364This letter is my personal reply to Bill Betzen's "Open Letter" post about the two Texas bills that he and TXCare are supporting. I strongly oppose these bills. I believe adult adoptees must be able to request and receive copies of their original birth documents, unconditionally. Your bills will not achieve this goal. In fact, they will take us giant steps backwards.Unconditional open records for adult adoptees CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED. Look to Oregon, 1998, Alabama, 2000, and New Hampshire, 2005.After New Hampshire, I would have hoped that TxCare would understand the successful separation of the concepts of the relationship between adoptees and the state (which is a state issue) versus the relationships between adoptees and birthparents (not state business).Some Texas birth parents say that they had a promise from the state to keep their identities confidential. You refer to these as "phantom promises." Do you realize that by describing such promises in your bill you actually give credence to them? If this bill should be passed, then a section will be written into the Texas adoption code which actually admits the possibility of the state promising confidentiality to birth parents. This bill sets an exceedingly dangerous precedent for all other states.You know that historically the #1 reason for keeping adoptees' records sealed has been the belief that it violates birth parent confidentiality. Yet in the past, legislators have never really cared about seeing actual documents. Proponents of open records have repeatedly called for legal contracts to be produced. None has surfaced. Yet that never stopped the legislators from continuing to believe and to act as if the state promised confidentiality to birth parents. I understand that you don't expect any birth parents to surface with relinquishment papers. At the eleventh hour you intend to leap out and announce that since birth parents cannot produce written, notarized evidence, all adoptees can have their original birth certificates. However, you do say that should such a document ever surface, you will honor it with a disclosure veto.This back-door maneuver sounds nice in theory but in real life it won't work. If you insist on something in writing, you will get it! You open the door for Texas legislators to come forward and create a new affidavit of non-disclosure for birth parents to sign - now! The Texas lawmakers may be stubborn old cusses, but they are not stupid.Adult adoptees should not be forced to register for a reunion and undergo forced counseling they may not seek in order to simply access their own original birth records. Yet you have just such an adoption registry procedure in your bill. This is another type of condition which you place upon adopted adults, impeding them from receiving their original birth certificates directly from the state in the same way as all other non-adopted citizens.Adoptee rights advocates need to recognize that disclosure of information and contact/reunion are separate events, and one does not necessarily lead to another. Finally, how can you use such loaded language as, "With HB770/SB364 birth parents will have more protection than they have ever had in Texas against an uninvited surprise contact by their birth child. "Your very unfortunate choice of words here sends a message to birth parents that they really do have something to be afraid of from their birth children. Your words add fuel to the fires of all the folks who are already afraid of the proverbial stalking and evil adoptee. Shame on you. Social change takes time and I know that you all in Texas have been working towards open records for many years. But to "fight the good fight" and then fall backwards on a piece of conditional legislation is unconscionable. It would be disastrous to every adopted man and woman in the United States today, and it will set exceedingly bad precedent for adoptees who are right now working for pure unconditional access in their states.Adoptees' identity information is being held by the state. We need a bill that will stop the state from discriminating against adopted adults in the manner in which they issue birth certificates. I urge you to revisit the restrictive conditions and potentially dangerous precedents in your bills. Erase them. Bring back your bill as true open records legislation. It's worth fighting for!! Sincerely,Anita Walker FieldExecutive CommitteeBastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organizationwww.Bastards.Org

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Why Do Adoptees Search? by Tina M. Musso - An Adoptee's Thoughts on Search

Why Do Adoptees Search? by Tina M. Musso - An Adoptee's Thoughts on Search

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Response to News 8 Letter

Good afternoon Ms. ***,
Thank you for e-mailing such feedback helps ensure that different>aspects of any topic are covered. Monday's Good Morning Texas segment is>only one of several different segments, new stories, family tips and >special>events or educational workshops that Channel 8 has included in order to>cover various aspects of adoption. The material, interviews or >announcements>has been presented during various WFAA-TV shows and newscasts, not just >Good>Morning Texas. Because of time constraints, it is not possible to cover>every aspect of adoption each time it's included in a program. As you have>said very eloquently below, adoption is a very complicated topic, so we>cover smaller aspects at a time. Ms. ***, in previous topics, we have>had family members, parents and mothers talk post adoption needs and>concerns as well as open records, sharing health information and helping>families reconnect. Monday's scope which happened to be included on Good>Morning Texas was 1) to inform our area of where to go to find updated>information about international adoption and Asian countries affected by >the>Tsunami, 2) to share information about some immediate volunteer needs and >3)>to allow someone to encourage other families who are experiencing an>unexpected pregnancy. WFAA-TV did not pressure the young lady who appeared.>This young lady said she wanted to be a small part of this show segment in>order to help teens. After speaking with her, we did not doubt her>sincerity. And we were reminded that Texas still ranks #2 and #3 in the>nation for teen pregnancy. Also, the Gladney Center is only one of several>adoption related organizations or support groups we have contacted or>families have put Family First in touch with in order to participated in >the>different segments or family tips, special reports or community town>meetings. Ms. ***, I don't know the time frame when the station will>revisit some aspect of adoption or related topics again. We thank you for>offering to help, making yourself available and noting your ability to help>connect with other families and resources. We also invite you to e-mail, >fax>or write to inform Family First about any upcoming special programs or>events that would beneficial for others because Family First has a>"solution-oriented" focus. It's not an avenue to rehash problems, but to>present some solutions or positive efforts, big or small. The Family First>address is WFAA-TV, 606 Young Street, Dallas, TX 75202 and the fax number >is>(214) 977-6585.>>>> Sincerely,>>>> Cheryl McCallister,>> WFAA-TV>

News 8

I watched (over the phone) the Good Morning Texas segment Monday, featuring Gladney and a "birthmother" who was 16, plugging the agency about how they have paid for her edu, etc. named Hayley. Here's my response to Channel 8 that I just emailed. If I don't hear back in a couple days I'll give them a call. I encourage you to contact them as well ;)---------------------------------------------------------------------I was surprised and alarmed on Monday to see that Channel 8 only represented one side of the story in terms of adoption. The media generally interviews more than one party's perspective, and the Gladney Center for Adoption was represented as well as a "birthmother". 1) The "birthmother" was in actuality a Potential Birthmother. She had not even given birth yet, and was only 16. 2) How manipulative and pressuring to have such a young girl 'plug' the agency, in spite of having her parents' permission. 3) Why not interview a birthmother who has already relinquished, or an adult adopted person? I am adopted and a close friend of mine is a birth mother. We are both reunited, I have had my records opened, and we would be happy to speak with you about our stories or connect you with other interested parties at any time. Adoption is a complicated, emotionally charged issue that cannot adequately be portrayed by interviewing an adoption agency, who has a vested financial interest in the process. Thank you so much for your time. Katy

G21 DAY ONE - "The Right to Know"

G21 DAY ONE - "The Right to Know"

Opposing Viewpoints Page 02 - www.abolishadoption.com

Opposing Viewpoints Page 02 - www.abolishadoption.com

America Held Hostile.com's Editorials Page

America Held Hostile.com's Editorials Page