Yesterday, I had the privilege of testifying before the NJ Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee along with 15 other people for the Birthright Bill that would allow adopted adults equal access to their original birth certificates. You may know by now that the committee voted 9-0, with one abstention, to release the bill to the Senate floor. Our opposition, the NJ Catholic Conference, NJ Right to Life, and ACLU-NJ, elected not to testify, although they did register their opposition to the bill with Committee Chair Senator Joseph Vitale, one of the bill's prime sponsors.
In another post, I'll suggest some measures we might take to express our displeasure with the positions of our opponents. We will also have to enlist impressive numbers of advocates to contact Gov. Chris Christie's office and let him know we care about this legislation.
For now, I'll post a copy of my testimony: please feel free to use any or all of it in your advocacy efforts.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of this bill today. I would like to address my remarks this afternoon to those of you who may have reservations about this bill. The main question we have to ask ourselves is this: Are adopted adults worthy of respect?
Do we respect them enough to treat them equally by law? And do we respect them enough to trust them to handle their own personal affairs competently?
First comes the equal rights issue. It is unjust to treat an entire group of people differently by law than we treat everyone else. Every other citizen has access to her original birth certificate. I do not, simply because I am an adopted person.
Consider how Martin Luther King Jr. defined an “unjust” law. It is one that a majority inflicts upon a minority, he said, and one with which the majority is not expected to comply. The law is particularly offensive, he said, when the minority that is affected has had no say in designing or enacting the law.
Obviously, we adopted adults had no say in crafting the law that would forever bar us from knowing our own ancestry and DNA. Equal access to our original birth certificates is a classic issue of civil rights, and that is the first part of this issue.
The second part is this: Can we be respected enough to handle our own personal affairs competently? There is a difference between equal access and reunion. Some adoptees search, some don’t, but every adopted adult should be treated just like any other citizen by the law.
Equal rights are equal rights. Reunion is a personal choice. I sought out my first mother 10 years ago because I felt strongly that I had a moral right to do so. I had experienced a serious medical problem, and I am not going to jeopardize my own physical and emotional health, and that of my children and grandchildren, because of an outdated law that makes no sense, factually or morally.
A private investigator found my first mother quickly -- I had always had my birth name, as it was printed on my adoption decree. (Many adoptees, up to 40 percent, by some estimates, have some identifying information, a fact that shows records were never sealed to protect original parents. They were sealed to protect adoptive families from “unwarranted interference.”)
My daughter, a doctor, prepared a user-friendly medical questionnaire, and I sent it to my first mother along with a personal letter by certified mail. My original mother was one of the few who was not open to a personal meeting or continuing contact. In fact, she was that woman about whom opponents to this bill say they are most concerned.
She filled out and returned the medical questionnaire, and later that week picked up the phone and called me. We had one helpful phone conversation, and that was the end of our contact. Our private past, which we co-own, is no one’s business except for hers and mine. We handled our past like the adults we both are.
There is a difference between basic knowledge, which is a right, and relationship, which is a choice.
To look at adoption as a positive option, we need to make sure that the person who is supposed to be the main beneficiary, the adoptee, is treated fairly and with respect. We need also to make sure that original mothers are treated fairly and with respect.
The data shows clearly that most original mothers do want to know what has happened to their children. We should not be crafting policy to serve the preferences of a very few, and trampling all over the basic rights of the vast majority.
If we looked at adoption in a healthy manner, we would not say, “A woman should be allowed to remain a lifetime secret to her own child.” Instead we would say, “Every adopted child is worthy of truth and respect, and as an adult, should certainly be entitled to equal treatment under the law.”
We would not say, “Adoption must be predicated on secrecy and denial.” Instead we would say, “The truth, however challenging it might be, may well allow all parties a sense of peace, healing and closure.”
In closing, I’ll say, “As an adopted adult, I respect myself. But any law that assigns me to a separate category or burdens me with special provisions does not respect me as an autonomous, capable person.”
Total Pageviews
Friday, June 14, 2013
Monday, June 3, 2013
The Right to Know -- Perspectives of an Adult Adoptee
The impact of genes -- my grandson looks just like his dad!
Recently, Deanna Shrodes on her website Adoptee Restoration interviewed therapist Karen Caffrey, LPC, JD, about the inner struggles many adopted adults have experienced. Caffrey specializes in working with adopted people, and her insights certainly resonate with me, an older adoptee who was relinquished over 60 years ago.
Caffrey says: "The longer ago the adoption took place the more likely the adoption was closed ..., and taking place in a culture when harmful adoption myths were even more prevalent than they are today. Thus most adult adoptees have grown up in a situation where one of their most important human needs, that being the need to know their origins, has been unmet. Basic, factual information is typically missing. (viz. - What is my nationality? What do my blood relatives look like? Where are they? Why am I not being raised by them? ) Even more damaging is that an adoptee’s natural need to ask questions about herself was often responded to by her adoptive parents (and others) with shaming, fear, hurt, judgment or unreality."
My personal experience reflects Caffrey's thoughts. I must have been about seven or eight years old when I asked my adoptive mother where "my real mother was."
Obviously, I didn't have the sophistication then to ask my questions in a politically sensitive tone! I just wanted to know where my first mother was and why she felt unable to keep me. My mother in her response was uncomfortable and evasive, and later that night my father came to me and said, "You know -- that really hurts your mother when you ask where your other mother is. She thinks of herself as "your real mother."
I must have internalized that lesson in a powerful way, because I never asked my adoptive parents -- who did love me, I know -- about my original family again. I didn't know exactly why, but that territory, evidently, was a place where I wasn't supposed to go.
Caffrey says that "adopted children tend to draw all sorts of mistaken conclusions" from such exchanges, such as:
“I am bad.”
“I shouldn’t ask questions.”
“I make people sad or angry when I ask questions.”
“There’s something wrong with me.”
“What I think I need isn’t important.”
“What I need is wrong.”
“My feelings don’t make sense.”
I don't blame my adoptive parents for their inability to delve deeper into adoption issues, because the "professionals" of their era counseled them that an adoptive family is just like any other, and that infants come to the parents as "blank slates."
But what I learned from the closed adoption system is just what Caffrey articulated. I learned that I shouldn't ask questions because I make people uncomfortable and sad when I do. I learned that what I think I need is apparently unimportant and upsetting to others, so there must be something wrong with me. And probably most important, I learned that my innermost feelings don't make sense in this world of adoption, so I better keep them to myself.
Unfortunately, it took me years and several bouts of depression to recognize that there was nothing wrong with my questions or my feelings -- the problem, rather, lies in the adoption system itself, a system that is still predicated. unbelievably, on amended and legally sealed birth records.
As Caffrey relates, it takes many adopted people a long time to recognize that their struggles may be adoption-related, because "simply put, they've been explicitly or implicitly told that being adopted did not impact them."
When I was growing up, no one ever talked about adoption at all. It wasn't supposed to be an issue, so it wasn't. I was always encouraged to "look forwards, not backwards." When I became a teenager, I started to experience periods of unexplained sadness, but I didn't attribute them to adoption -- I just concluded that I must be hyper-sensitive and not quite normal.
I "succeeded" in spite of these feelings. I married a man who I treasure just as much today as I did on our wedding day in 1971. We have two wonderful daughters -- they, their husbands, and their children are the light of our lives. I have had meaningful employment in the teaching and writing fields, and today, I enjoy watching three of my grandchildren two days a week.
Genetic links -- this granddaughter looks like her paternal Lithuanian grandmother
But the fact that I am a content person today, blessed in many ways, does not mean that the institution of adoption is wonderful just the way it is. It took me far too long to become comfortable with myself and my own feelings because of a closed adoption system that denied the importance of genetic links.
I didn't reach out to my first mother until I was 52 years old and had already experienced a serious and life-threatening medical problem. Searching presented so many obstacles, and I was discouraged by legal and cultural barriers at every turn. I would not have had the confidence to do it when I was younger.
I find it beyond belief that even today, people feel compelled to comment in response to adoption articles that "genes don't matter -- your 'real family' are the people who raise you.
Of course genes matter! If they don't, why does every physician I see ask me for a detailed family health history? Why does my younger daughter have the same skeletal and muscular structure as I do and unfortunately have a tendency, like me, to experience chronic back pain?
My younger daughter looks a lot like me; my older daughter resembles my husband and shares many of his character traits. Three of my grandchildren look just like their fathers; one looks like her paternal grandmother, and two look like their mothers. Only in the world of adoption, apparently, do "genes not matter."
Genevieve, the granddaughter standing in front of me on the right, looks a lot like me!
I always feel compelled to add the information here -- since many people, unfortunately, equate criticism of adoption with an unhappy adoptive family -- that my adoptive parents were loving and responsible people. No one during the era in which I was relinquished was well equipped to deal with adoption realities because the "professionals" then were simply misguided or just didn't know any better.
But today, there is no excuse for continuing the practice of amended and sealed birth certificates, and for denying full-grown adults access to their original birth certificates. It is such an archaic and unjust system that it is amazing it continues to have its proponents. Any institution that is predicated upon secrets and lies is not a healthy institution. Some will argue that most adoptions are open today, so the problem has been solved. But adult adoptees' original birth certificates remain sealed in state vaults throughout most of the United States. Adopted adults continue to have to take all kinds of circuitous routes to obtain even the most basic information about themselves.
There are many reasons why more people don't speak out about the need for equal treatment under the law for adult adoptees. As I explained, it took me over 50 years to develop the confidence to seek what I wanted, because of the cultural and legal barriers that remain a part of adoption in the United States today. The laws that govern adoption need a major overhaul, and truth and justice are always values worth fighting for, especially in the complex and emotional world of adoption.
You might also like:
Ask A Therapist: What Are the Greatest Struggles of Adoptees?
Can we please stop the "real parents" adoption debates?
An adoptee's perspective on love and why truth matters
Sealed Records are Wrong. Period
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Celebrating some positive signs in the world of adoption reform
There have been several articles and events to celebrate in the world of adoption reform these past few weeks. On April 24, the Atlantic published a story by Emily Matchar entitled: "Adoptees Shouldn't Have to Use Facebook to Find Their Birth Parents." It's rare to find a mainstream article that champions the rights of adopted people like this one does. It's brief but compelling, and features promising quotes like these:
From Claudia Corrigan D'Arcy: "Imagine a world where adult adoptees could access their birth records like EVERY other American and know the name they were given," she writes. "Then they wouldn't have to post pictures of themselves on Facebook holding signs with personal information all over. Then they wouldn't have to beg for strangers for shares in order to find out who they look like and if cancer runs in their family."
From the Adoptee Rights Coalition: "Adult adoptees in most of the advanced, industrialized nations of the world have unrestricted access to their original birth records as a matter of right. In contrast, adult adoptees in all but six states in the U.S. are forbidden unrestricted access to their own original birth certificates, due to archaic laws that are a legacy of a culture of shame that stigmatized infertility, out-of-wedlock birth and adoption."
From the US Administration for Children and Families, part of the Department of Health and Human Services: "Placing a child for adoption can cause a sense of loss that is all-encompassing. Some birth parents experience longstanding grief, that is, grief that lasts a very long time and may continue to actually interfere with a birth parent's life many years later."
Matchar's story to date has generated 235 comments, most of them supportive of the adoptee rights movement. The Atlantic story was a nice surprise. So was the recent MSNBC coverage of Kathryn Joyce's new book, The Child Catchers; adoption corruption in Ethiopia; the Indian Child Welfare Act and why it is needed; and the urgent need for more oversight and regulation of the adoption industry.
I didn't realize that Melissa Harris-Perry would be featuring Kathryn Joyce on her MSNBC show April 28, along with Tarikuwa Lemma, a young Ethiopian woman whose family thought that at age 13, she was going to the United States for an educational exchange program, when in reality an unscrupulous agency had arranged for her to be adopted. Other participants on the panel included Karen Moline, an adoptive mother and Board member of Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform; Jacqueline Pata, executive director of the National Congress of American Indians; and William Jelani Cobb, a University of Connecticut historian.
Ironically, I had just finished reading Joyce's book a few days before when I happened to tune in to the Melissa Harris-Perry show. I nearly jumped off the couch and started to cheer when I saw one professional after another getting to air -- in prime time -- some of the profound problems with the business model that drives the adoption industry. This is a subject that mainstream media usually avoids, partly because adoption agencies and their lobbies have driven the adoption narrative for so long.
Joyce makes it clear in her book and in person that many of the people motivated to adopt have the best intentions. They may not, however, be aware how rife with abuse transnational adoption has been, and in some countries, continues to be. I'll provide a link to the show at the bottom of this post. Here are some of the most important points made by panel participants:
From Kathryn Joyce: "There is so much emphasis on and enthusiasm for adoption in the United States. When adoption agencies prey on families' desire to 'help' children they believe to be in need, there have been lies and misinformation seeded in from the very beginning."
Joyce explains that adoption agencies started to turn overseas when domestic adoption rates started to plummet. In the US, there are many more couples wishing to adopt than there are infants available for adoption. It costs an average of $30,000 to adopt a child from abroad, says Joyce, and there is little oversight as to where that money is going. When countries tighten regulations, adoption agencies go out of business, so there are financial incentives for operating in locations with little oversight.
From Tarikuwa Lemma: "I was angry and grieving when I came to understand what adoption was because I already had a family at home. The adoption agency had given my adoptive parents false information. They thought they were saving me from a horrible life in Africa."
From Karen Moline: "Staggering sums of money are paid to these countries, and there is no transparency." Adoption is "an emotional process coupled with a business model," and many people just can't believe that entities who insist they have the best interests of children at heart would be dishonest or manipulative, "They can't believe it, so they won't believe it."
Of course some evangelicals have reacted to Joyce's recently-published book defensively, immediately writing the author off as a far-left extremist, but others have had a more measured approach and have opened up discussions for further dialogue and learning. For example, Dana, whose family includes an adopted son from China, recently posted an article on her blog entitled "Orphan Fever: Are Christians Naive?"
In it, she refers to a summary of Joyce's book that had been published in Mother Jones, that as she says, "paints a pretty unflattering picture of both evangelical Christians and the international adoption business. Since I'm an evangelical Christian and an adoptive parent, I decided to read it," she continues, "and I encourage you to take a deep breath and read it too."
Dana cautions her readers to "resist the urge to be defensive," and instead read the article with an open mind. "Why not give our critics a respectful hearing?" she writes. "Why not see if there's anything to be learned?" Like Dana, I try to enter discussions about adoption in a respectful way. It is an emotional subject, and one that easily leads to hurt feelings and misunderstandings. The correct questions, in my view, are "Where can we find common ground? What can we do together to make adoption better?" In her post, Dana asks, "How can we, as Christians, work to better serve orphans and widows and needy families worldwide?"
Encouraging us all to look at both sides, Dana refers her readers to an article written by an adoptive dad: "Is the Left Launching an Attack on Evangelical Adoption?" While I thought the writer was overreacting to the points made in Joyce's book, I can see why, as an adoptive parent who dearly loves his children, he might feel defensive. I read through the comments to his article and felt discouraged as they deteriorated in many cases to a kind of left versus right culture war.
But I had the opportunity to make several comments of my own, and who knows who might read or understand them? At one point I said this: " I am happy to say that I loved my adoptive parents, and they loved me, but I do not love the system of adoption that continues to treat me by law like a perpetual child incapable of managing my own affairs. My original family is a part of me, and wanting to know my own history is in no way related to the love I have for my parents (now deceased). Incidentally, when I was being treated for a life-threatening illness, I was turned down for a medical trial because I had no access to family health history. Evangelicals should be leading the way to fight for adult adoptee access bills. Instead, they too often stand in the way."
Later, I make this point: "As adoptees, our perspectives are constantly being drowned out by the prevailing narrative that 'adoption is wonderful.' Was I grateful for my parents, who I loved very much? Of course. But I am not grateful for the system of adoption, which unnecessarily prevents many adoptees from knowing even the most basic facts about their own lives. And when we become educated in the realities of adoption, we learn that sealed records are not necessary -- in fact they have been extremely hurtful to countless original mothers and adopted people -- but some adoptive parents, through fear, I'm guessing, continue to advocate for them. Adult adoptee access to original birth certificates is a no-brainer, were we just to pay attention to established data. But adoption mythology, fear, and the agenda of some adoption agencies continue to get in the way."
I am not deluded enough to think I am making a big difference here, but I welcome the dialogue, and I appreciate the efforts that Dana and many other adoptive parents are making to listen to the divergent voices, increase understanding, and make adoption better for their children.
Working to improve adoption practice is exhausting work, and one reason for that, I think, is that people want to hold on to the notion that adoption is a win-win for everyone, an idea that the adoption business happily promotes. And the adoption business, through several influential lobbies, drives adoption legislation from the federal level right on down through the states.
Adoption -- when it is done ethically, with honesty and transparency, can be a very good thing. But in my view, it should be a last resort, not a first response. For many, there are profound losses involved, and that is a reality that many people would rather not acknowledge.
Sometimes I get tired of all the rancor surrounding adoption dialogue, and I have to drop out of the conversation for a while to rejuvenate myself and focus on all that is good in my life: my husband and daughters, my six precious grandchildren, my dear friends, my garden. Amanda over at Declassified Adoptee spoke to this need recently in a post entitled "20 Quick Tips to Better Advocate for Yourself and Others."
Amanda reminds activists for social justice how important it is to take breaks and to hold onto hope, even when legislative bills that would restore equal rights repeatedly get thwarted and defeated. "You never know how the seeds you have planted with your message will grow," she writes.
The fact that the adoption media coverage these past few weeks has stimulated some important conversation gives me hope. So does the fact that the Catholic Conference in Ohio and the Right to Life chapter there have recently testified in favor of an adoptee rights bill. Maybe, just maybe, some of those seeds that so many good people have been planting for so many years are finally starting to take root.
You might also like:
Adoptees Shouldn't Have to Use Facebook to Find Their Birth Parents
Adopted against her will: One woman shares her story
Orphan Fever: Are Christians Naive?
From Claudia Corrigan D'Arcy: "Imagine a world where adult adoptees could access their birth records like EVERY other American and know the name they were given," she writes. "Then they wouldn't have to post pictures of themselves on Facebook holding signs with personal information all over. Then they wouldn't have to beg for strangers for shares in order to find out who they look like and if cancer runs in their family."
From the Adoptee Rights Coalition: "Adult adoptees in most of the advanced, industrialized nations of the world have unrestricted access to their original birth records as a matter of right. In contrast, adult adoptees in all but six states in the U.S. are forbidden unrestricted access to their own original birth certificates, due to archaic laws that are a legacy of a culture of shame that stigmatized infertility, out-of-wedlock birth and adoption."
From the US Administration for Children and Families, part of the Department of Health and Human Services: "Placing a child for adoption can cause a sense of loss that is all-encompassing. Some birth parents experience longstanding grief, that is, grief that lasts a very long time and may continue to actually interfere with a birth parent's life many years later."
Matchar's story to date has generated 235 comments, most of them supportive of the adoptee rights movement. The Atlantic story was a nice surprise. So was the recent MSNBC coverage of Kathryn Joyce's new book, The Child Catchers; adoption corruption in Ethiopia; the Indian Child Welfare Act and why it is needed; and the urgent need for more oversight and regulation of the adoption industry.
I didn't realize that Melissa Harris-Perry would be featuring Kathryn Joyce on her MSNBC show April 28, along with Tarikuwa Lemma, a young Ethiopian woman whose family thought that at age 13, she was going to the United States for an educational exchange program, when in reality an unscrupulous agency had arranged for her to be adopted. Other participants on the panel included Karen Moline, an adoptive mother and Board member of Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform; Jacqueline Pata, executive director of the National Congress of American Indians; and William Jelani Cobb, a University of Connecticut historian.
Ironically, I had just finished reading Joyce's book a few days before when I happened to tune in to the Melissa Harris-Perry show. I nearly jumped off the couch and started to cheer when I saw one professional after another getting to air -- in prime time -- some of the profound problems with the business model that drives the adoption industry. This is a subject that mainstream media usually avoids, partly because adoption agencies and their lobbies have driven the adoption narrative for so long.
Joyce makes it clear in her book and in person that many of the people motivated to adopt have the best intentions. They may not, however, be aware how rife with abuse transnational adoption has been, and in some countries, continues to be. I'll provide a link to the show at the bottom of this post. Here are some of the most important points made by panel participants:
From Kathryn Joyce: "There is so much emphasis on and enthusiasm for adoption in the United States. When adoption agencies prey on families' desire to 'help' children they believe to be in need, there have been lies and misinformation seeded in from the very beginning."
Joyce explains that adoption agencies started to turn overseas when domestic adoption rates started to plummet. In the US, there are many more couples wishing to adopt than there are infants available for adoption. It costs an average of $30,000 to adopt a child from abroad, says Joyce, and there is little oversight as to where that money is going. When countries tighten regulations, adoption agencies go out of business, so there are financial incentives for operating in locations with little oversight.
From Tarikuwa Lemma: "I was angry and grieving when I came to understand what adoption was because I already had a family at home. The adoption agency had given my adoptive parents false information. They thought they were saving me from a horrible life in Africa."
From Karen Moline: "Staggering sums of money are paid to these countries, and there is no transparency." Adoption is "an emotional process coupled with a business model," and many people just can't believe that entities who insist they have the best interests of children at heart would be dishonest or manipulative, "They can't believe it, so they won't believe it."
Of course some evangelicals have reacted to Joyce's recently-published book defensively, immediately writing the author off as a far-left extremist, but others have had a more measured approach and have opened up discussions for further dialogue and learning. For example, Dana, whose family includes an adopted son from China, recently posted an article on her blog entitled "Orphan Fever: Are Christians Naive?"
In it, she refers to a summary of Joyce's book that had been published in Mother Jones, that as she says, "paints a pretty unflattering picture of both evangelical Christians and the international adoption business. Since I'm an evangelical Christian and an adoptive parent, I decided to read it," she continues, "and I encourage you to take a deep breath and read it too."
Dana cautions her readers to "resist the urge to be defensive," and instead read the article with an open mind. "Why not give our critics a respectful hearing?" she writes. "Why not see if there's anything to be learned?" Like Dana, I try to enter discussions about adoption in a respectful way. It is an emotional subject, and one that easily leads to hurt feelings and misunderstandings. The correct questions, in my view, are "Where can we find common ground? What can we do together to make adoption better?" In her post, Dana asks, "How can we, as Christians, work to better serve orphans and widows and needy families worldwide?"
Encouraging us all to look at both sides, Dana refers her readers to an article written by an adoptive dad: "Is the Left Launching an Attack on Evangelical Adoption?" While I thought the writer was overreacting to the points made in Joyce's book, I can see why, as an adoptive parent who dearly loves his children, he might feel defensive. I read through the comments to his article and felt discouraged as they deteriorated in many cases to a kind of left versus right culture war.
But I had the opportunity to make several comments of my own, and who knows who might read or understand them? At one point I said this: " I am happy to say that I loved my adoptive parents, and they loved me, but I do not love the system of adoption that continues to treat me by law like a perpetual child incapable of managing my own affairs. My original family is a part of me, and wanting to know my own history is in no way related to the love I have for my parents (now deceased). Incidentally, when I was being treated for a life-threatening illness, I was turned down for a medical trial because I had no access to family health history. Evangelicals should be leading the way to fight for adult adoptee access bills. Instead, they too often stand in the way."
Later, I make this point: "As adoptees, our perspectives are constantly being drowned out by the prevailing narrative that 'adoption is wonderful.' Was I grateful for my parents, who I loved very much? Of course. But I am not grateful for the system of adoption, which unnecessarily prevents many adoptees from knowing even the most basic facts about their own lives. And when we become educated in the realities of adoption, we learn that sealed records are not necessary -- in fact they have been extremely hurtful to countless original mothers and adopted people -- but some adoptive parents, through fear, I'm guessing, continue to advocate for them. Adult adoptee access to original birth certificates is a no-brainer, were we just to pay attention to established data. But adoption mythology, fear, and the agenda of some adoption agencies continue to get in the way."
Working to improve adoption practice is exhausting work, and one reason for that, I think, is that people want to hold on to the notion that adoption is a win-win for everyone, an idea that the adoption business happily promotes. And the adoption business, through several influential lobbies, drives adoption legislation from the federal level right on down through the states.
Adoption -- when it is done ethically, with honesty and transparency, can be a very good thing. But in my view, it should be a last resort, not a first response. For many, there are profound losses involved, and that is a reality that many people would rather not acknowledge.
Sometimes I get tired of all the rancor surrounding adoption dialogue, and I have to drop out of the conversation for a while to rejuvenate myself and focus on all that is good in my life: my husband and daughters, my six precious grandchildren, my dear friends, my garden. Amanda over at Declassified Adoptee spoke to this need recently in a post entitled "20 Quick Tips to Better Advocate for Yourself and Others."
Amanda reminds activists for social justice how important it is to take breaks and to hold onto hope, even when legislative bills that would restore equal rights repeatedly get thwarted and defeated. "You never know how the seeds you have planted with your message will grow," she writes.
The fact that the adoption media coverage these past few weeks has stimulated some important conversation gives me hope. So does the fact that the Catholic Conference in Ohio and the Right to Life chapter there have recently testified in favor of an adoptee rights bill. Maybe, just maybe, some of those seeds that so many good people have been planting for so many years are finally starting to take root.
You might also like:
Adoptees Shouldn't Have to Use Facebook to Find Their Birth Parents
Adopted against her will: One woman shares her story
Orphan Fever: Are Christians Naive?
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Gun control, adoptee rights and government paralysis
Commenting on the recent failure of Congress to approve even tepid gun control measures, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne wrote: "The story of reform in America is that it often takes defeats to inspire a movement to build up the strength required for victory."
As an adoptee rights activist, I couldn't help but relate to what Dionne is saying here. The fight for gun control and the struggle for adoptee rights have each become so politicized that the facts are often ignored and progress seems all but impossible.
I can't even begin to imagine the disgust and betrayal that families who have lost loved ones to gun violence must feel at our government's paralysis and ineptitude. Will they now redouble their efforts to press for legislative changes? Or will they conclude that no matter what they do, it is simply impossible to compete with the well-funded, special-interest lobbies in Washington?
As a proponent for adoption reform in the state of New Jersey, I have felt both ways. At times, I feel that no matter what we do, we just can't compete with the entities that have easy access to legislators: the NJ Conference of Catholic Bishops, NJ Right to Life, the NJ Bar Association, the National Council for Adoption, and ACLU-NJ. Then later, often fueled by a dramatic setback, such as Gov. Christie's "conditional" veto of an adoptee rights bill that already contained a significant compromise, I feel compelled to keep pressing on.
Several members of the New Jersey Coalition for Adoption Reform and Education (NJCARE), adoptee Pam Hasegawa and original mother Judy Foster, have been lobbying for over 30 years now for the right of adopted adults to access their own factual certificates of birth (OBCs). Having worked with the group for 10 years now, I am awed and inspired by their hard work, perseverance and integrity.
It is truly discouraging that NJCARE's position that adopted adults should be treated equally by law and have the same access to their original birth certificates that any other American citizen has is still considered controversial by some lawmakers. Once, as Foster was explaining to a legislator that she was never promised anonymity from the child she relinquished, the legislator responded, "Well, you should have been!"
And that, unfortunately, is the response of many power brokers to the adoptee rights issue -- don't confuse me with the facts! Instead of listening to the people who have actually lived the adoption experience, they listen to those who facilitate adoptions and who profit from adoption transactions.
Another huge hurdle for the adoptee rights movement is that the issue has become intertwined with the ongoing political battles over abortion. The immediate reaction in some circles is to see adoption as the win-win solution to the abortion dilemma, and the fear is that abortions will increase should we make adoption a more transparent process.
The reality, however, is that there is no link at all between abortion rates and adult adoptee access -- today, we have plenty of data compiled from open access states to substantiate the fact that there is no correlation.
We have actually been told by some NJ legislators that the facts don't matter when it comes to this issue -- it is all about politics. I, for one, don't know exactly how to proceed in the legislative arena when facts don't matter. I am a logical, straightforward type of thinker, and if all the data supports the right of adopted adults to be treated equally under the law, then laws guaranteeing that right should be enacted.
Instead, what I have witnessed over the past 10 years is an Assembly Speaker who refused to meet with us and who would not release to the Assembly floor an adoptee rights bill that had widespread support; an Assembly member who added such expensive and unrealistic amendments to an adoptee rights bill that it had no chance to move forward; another legislator who introduced an "alternative" bill at the very last minute when the success of a balanced adoptee rights bill seemed imminent; and a governor who "conditionally" vetoed a bill that had been discussed and debated for several years, and basically replaced it with the "alternative" bill that had received no public input at all.
To say that my faith in the democratic process has been undermined would be an understatement. Yet when NJCARE recently held an organizational meeting in anticipation of a new adoptee rights bill, to be introduced shortly, I attended. In spite of all the setbacks, there are a few glimmers of hope. We have some new, sharp and energetic members. And in Ohio, in a dramatic turnaround, Ohio Right to Life and the Ohio Catholic Conference recently testified in favor of an adoptee rights bill.
Change may be unlikely, especially with Gov. Christie at the helm, but I have to believe that it is possible, even here in the state of New Jersey.
You might also like:
Ohio Right to Life Embraces Adoptee Rights
Adoption and Abortion: It's Not as Simple as Many Pro-lifers Think
Why is honesty in adoption still a controversial subject?
Why I Oppose Confidential Intermediaries
As an adoptee rights activist, I couldn't help but relate to what Dionne is saying here. The fight for gun control and the struggle for adoptee rights have each become so politicized that the facts are often ignored and progress seems all but impossible.
I can't even begin to imagine the disgust and betrayal that families who have lost loved ones to gun violence must feel at our government's paralysis and ineptitude. Will they now redouble their efforts to press for legislative changes? Or will they conclude that no matter what they do, it is simply impossible to compete with the well-funded, special-interest lobbies in Washington?
As a proponent for adoption reform in the state of New Jersey, I have felt both ways. At times, I feel that no matter what we do, we just can't compete with the entities that have easy access to legislators: the NJ Conference of Catholic Bishops, NJ Right to Life, the NJ Bar Association, the National Council for Adoption, and ACLU-NJ. Then later, often fueled by a dramatic setback, such as Gov. Christie's "conditional" veto of an adoptee rights bill that already contained a significant compromise, I feel compelled to keep pressing on.
Several members of the New Jersey Coalition for Adoption Reform and Education (NJCARE), adoptee Pam Hasegawa and original mother Judy Foster, have been lobbying for over 30 years now for the right of adopted adults to access their own factual certificates of birth (OBCs). Having worked with the group for 10 years now, I am awed and inspired by their hard work, perseverance and integrity.
It is truly discouraging that NJCARE's position that adopted adults should be treated equally by law and have the same access to their original birth certificates that any other American citizen has is still considered controversial by some lawmakers. Once, as Foster was explaining to a legislator that she was never promised anonymity from the child she relinquished, the legislator responded, "Well, you should have been!"
And that, unfortunately, is the response of many power brokers to the adoptee rights issue -- don't confuse me with the facts! Instead of listening to the people who have actually lived the adoption experience, they listen to those who facilitate adoptions and who profit from adoption transactions.
Another huge hurdle for the adoptee rights movement is that the issue has become intertwined with the ongoing political battles over abortion. The immediate reaction in some circles is to see adoption as the win-win solution to the abortion dilemma, and the fear is that abortions will increase should we make adoption a more transparent process.
The reality, however, is that there is no link at all between abortion rates and adult adoptee access -- today, we have plenty of data compiled from open access states to substantiate the fact that there is no correlation.
We have actually been told by some NJ legislators that the facts don't matter when it comes to this issue -- it is all about politics. I, for one, don't know exactly how to proceed in the legislative arena when facts don't matter. I am a logical, straightforward type of thinker, and if all the data supports the right of adopted adults to be treated equally under the law, then laws guaranteeing that right should be enacted.
Instead, what I have witnessed over the past 10 years is an Assembly Speaker who refused to meet with us and who would not release to the Assembly floor an adoptee rights bill that had widespread support; an Assembly member who added such expensive and unrealistic amendments to an adoptee rights bill that it had no chance to move forward; another legislator who introduced an "alternative" bill at the very last minute when the success of a balanced adoptee rights bill seemed imminent; and a governor who "conditionally" vetoed a bill that had been discussed and debated for several years, and basically replaced it with the "alternative" bill that had received no public input at all.
To say that my faith in the democratic process has been undermined would be an understatement. Yet when NJCARE recently held an organizational meeting in anticipation of a new adoptee rights bill, to be introduced shortly, I attended. In spite of all the setbacks, there are a few glimmers of hope. We have some new, sharp and energetic members. And in Ohio, in a dramatic turnaround, Ohio Right to Life and the Ohio Catholic Conference recently testified in favor of an adoptee rights bill.
Change may be unlikely, especially with Gov. Christie at the helm, but I have to believe that it is possible, even here in the state of New Jersey.
You might also like:
Ohio Right to Life Embraces Adoptee Rights
Adoption and Abortion: It's Not as Simple as Many Pro-lifers Think
Why is honesty in adoption still a controversial subject?
Why I Oppose Confidential Intermediaries
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Birthparent vetoes are compromising adoptee rights
Birthparent vetoes extending into the future seem to be the latest "compromise" that legislators are tacking onto adoptee rights bills that would give every adopted person the right to apply for and secure his or her original birth certificate (OBC). These vetoes are totally unacceptable, in my view, because they bestow upon original parents, now and forever, a legal right that they have never had.
Several years ago, I was able to hold my nose and support the NJ legislation that gave original mothers a one-year period to white-out their names, not because I thought it was the right thing to do, but because I thought the legislation, approved by healthy majorities in both the Senate and Assembly, would finally, after 30 years, get us to where we need to be. As many of you know, Gov. Chris Christie "conditionally" vetoed that bill and suggested an unjust and unwieldy confidential intermediary system instead.
Now it would be very difficult for me to support even the one-year, white-out concession, as I firmly believe that every human being has the right to know his or her own story and possess his or her own documents. I suppose it is adoption mythology and reproductive ideology that makes it so difficult for people to understand that adopted adults own themselves. Their original families don't own them, nor do their adoptive families. If their OBCs don't belong to them, who in the world do they belong to?
These permanent vetoes, which have recently been tacked onto an adoptee rights bill in Washington state, make adult OBC access a favor that can be granted only through the preferences of another, not a civil right. As most adoption reform activists know, adopted adults at one time had the same rights to secure their OBCs as any other citizen has. Their birth records were sealed gradually, throughout the mid-twentieth century, primarily to protect adoptive families from "unwarranted intrusion." Now, adoptee rights activists simply want their right of access to their own OBCs to be restored.
Many adoption reformers have written to Washington Senator Ann Rivers, who is responsible for adding the permanent birthparent veto to the pending bills that would give adopted adults the right to obtain their OBCs. I'll share two such letters here, because they so clearly show why permanent vetoes are not a step forward.
Dear Ms. Rivers,
I was disappointed to view your testimony this year 'in support' of SB 5118. Whereas you, as a leader of this state, could have spoken to equal treatment for all citizens, you chose to promote your own special interest over common sense.
This bill does not balance the rights of adoptees and birth parents. As I understand it, any birth parent born in this state who is not an adoptee is able to secure her/his own birth certificate without obstruction. Instead, the amendment to the bill allows birth parents to obstruct an adoptee's access to their own truthful birth certificate and perpetuates society's belief that adoptees who seek out their identity are ungrateful, disruptive and villains of some mythical crime that they did not commit.
I am a human being. I am not a secret. Although, as a feminist, I do have compassion for women who are treated poorly due to unexpected pregnancies, I do not take responsibility for how these same women choose to build the foundation of past or current relationships. As in any relationship, an individual takes risks by keeping secrets and/or omitting the truth. As an adoptee, I bear no responsibility for my birth mother/father's choices.
This bill should be about equal rights. Period. As a tax-paying citizen of this state, I should be treated the same as any other citizen when I interact with government employees. I should not be treated like a second-class citizen by government employees whose attitudes and actions reflect discriminatory law. If SB 5118 passes with the non-disclosure amendment, the state of Washington will continue to discriminate against a class of people who did not choose to join the group to which they belong.
Adoptees will continue to fight discrimination in Washington as well as other states in this union. We will continue to do work to promote identity discovery and development using traditional search methods, technology and emerging science (DNA doesn't lie). We will continue to tell the adoptee story and not allow those with special interests (harboring shame, promoting secrecy) to skew reality. Your attempts to put adoptees in their 'rightful place' fuel the movement. Even if one of these discriminatory bill passes, you can be sure that you have not heard the last of us.
Best regards,
Heidi
resident, taxpayer and citizen of 36th legislative district
Several years ago, I was able to hold my nose and support the NJ legislation that gave original mothers a one-year period to white-out their names, not because I thought it was the right thing to do, but because I thought the legislation, approved by healthy majorities in both the Senate and Assembly, would finally, after 30 years, get us to where we need to be. As many of you know, Gov. Chris Christie "conditionally" vetoed that bill and suggested an unjust and unwieldy confidential intermediary system instead.
Now it would be very difficult for me to support even the one-year, white-out concession, as I firmly believe that every human being has the right to know his or her own story and possess his or her own documents. I suppose it is adoption mythology and reproductive ideology that makes it so difficult for people to understand that adopted adults own themselves. Their original families don't own them, nor do their adoptive families. If their OBCs don't belong to them, who in the world do they belong to?
These permanent vetoes, which have recently been tacked onto an adoptee rights bill in Washington state, make adult OBC access a favor that can be granted only through the preferences of another, not a civil right. As most adoption reform activists know, adopted adults at one time had the same rights to secure their OBCs as any other citizen has. Their birth records were sealed gradually, throughout the mid-twentieth century, primarily to protect adoptive families from "unwarranted intrusion." Now, adoptee rights activists simply want their right of access to their own OBCs to be restored.
Many adoption reformers have written to Washington Senator Ann Rivers, who is responsible for adding the permanent birthparent veto to the pending bills that would give adopted adults the right to obtain their OBCs. I'll share two such letters here, because they so clearly show why permanent vetoes are not a step forward.
Dear Ms. Rivers,
I was disappointed to view your testimony this year 'in support' of SB 5118. Whereas you, as a leader of this state, could have spoken to equal treatment for all citizens, you chose to promote your own special interest over common sense.
This bill does not balance the rights of adoptees and birth parents. As I understand it, any birth parent born in this state who is not an adoptee is able to secure her/his own birth certificate without obstruction. Instead, the amendment to the bill allows birth parents to obstruct an adoptee's access to their own truthful birth certificate and perpetuates society's belief that adoptees who seek out their identity are ungrateful, disruptive and villains of some mythical crime that they did not commit.
I am a human being. I am not a secret. Although, as a feminist, I do have compassion for women who are treated poorly due to unexpected pregnancies, I do not take responsibility for how these same women choose to build the foundation of past or current relationships. As in any relationship, an individual takes risks by keeping secrets and/or omitting the truth. As an adoptee, I bear no responsibility for my birth mother/father's choices.
This bill should be about equal rights. Period. As a tax-paying citizen of this state, I should be treated the same as any other citizen when I interact with government employees. I should not be treated like a second-class citizen by government employees whose attitudes and actions reflect discriminatory law. If SB 5118 passes with the non-disclosure amendment, the state of Washington will continue to discriminate against a class of people who did not choose to join the group to which they belong.
Adoptees will continue to fight discrimination in Washington as well as other states in this union. We will continue to do work to promote identity discovery and development using traditional search methods, technology and emerging science (DNA doesn't lie). We will continue to tell the adoptee story and not allow those with special interests (harboring shame, promoting secrecy) to skew reality. Your attempts to put adoptees in their 'rightful place' fuel the movement. Even if one of these discriminatory bill passes, you can be sure that you have not heard the last of us.
Best regards,
Heidi
resident, taxpayer and citizen of 36th legislative district
Another eloquent letter to Ms. Rivers was penned by original mother Lorraine Dusky. I'll share some excerpts here:
Dear Senator Rivers:
I am a first mother like you, and I am horrified at the amendment you are tacking onto the bill that would give adoptees the right to their original birth certificates, for the birthparent veto continues the yoke of bondage that the sealed records instituted. This amendment gives all biological parents "privacy," if they so desire it, but in doing so flagrantly tramples the rights of others. The right to know who one is, who one was at birth, surely is an inviolate right that all individuals are given simply by being born, and the state must not be a party to infringing that right.
Consider the words of the 1980 document that experts in the then U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare wrote after holding hearings of adoptees, natural mothers, social workers, and adoptive parents throughout the country. Their Model Adoption Act stated:
“There can be no legally protected interest in keeping one’s identity secret from one’s biological offspring; parents and child are considered co-owners of the information regarding the event of birth….The birth parents’ interest in reputation is not alone deserving of constitutional protection.”
The times were not right then to allow this to pass. An adoptive father in the Senate, John Tower of Texas, vigorously fought against this provision and it was deleted from the final bill that passed. Yet adoptive parents elsewhere have fought just as vigorously for the right of their children to know their true heritage, such as Sen. Lou D’Alassandro in New Hampshire who got a bill though in 2004 with a contact-preference but without veto power. Today he talks about the fact that there have been no problems since passage. He did it because it was the right thing to do. Surveys of adoptive parents show that today they are overwhelmingly in favor of the children they adopted to have the right to know their original and true heritage, including the names of their parents.
Please reconsider your stand on this measure and do not let this bill pass with the toxic veto attached. That is like passing a bill against slavery, but adding a proviso letting the slave holders decide if they are willing to let their slaves go. You are so close to Oregon, and they have had no trouble--after lengthy court battles brought by a small group of Mormons--since they have allowed the free and unfettered right of the adopted to possess their own birth certificates. Remove this veto from the bill because it is the right thing to do. Do not be party to legislation that continues to enslave a small portion of adopted individuals. Come down on the right side of history. If this passes, it will be extremely difficult to revisit this issue and remove the veto. The harm done will be permanent.
I am the author of the first memoir from a woman who relinquished a child, Birthmark, published in 1979. If I can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call on me.
Sincerely,
Lorraine Dusky
My comment to Ms. Rivers reads as follows:
Please remove the birthparent veto from this bill -- a birthparent veto going forward is totally unacceptable, as it puts the adoptee's rights to own her own documents at someone else's discretion. Please give adults enough credit to manage the most personal details of their lives on their own, without state or agency interference. Like it or not, I am forever genetically linked to my original mother, and I have the right to at least ask her for information in a private and sensitive way. When I contacted my original mother by certified mail, she did not wish to meet, but we did exchange information that was beneficial for both of us. It perplexes me that legislators think one private letter or phone call is too much to ask of original parents. What about my rights as an autonomous human being, the mother of two, and the grandmother of six precious children? The courts have affirmed that original parents have no legal right to anonymity from their own offspring, and it is time for legislators to acknowledge that fact and restore the civil rights of all adopted adults.
One of the strongest letters to Washington State legislators comes from adoptee Triona Guidry, who has been a victim of the birthparent veto provision that was enacted as part of an adoptee rights bill several years ago in Illinois. What she writes makes perfect sense to me, and shows why as adoptees, we must hold out for equal treatment under the law.
Dear Washington Senators and Representatives:
I understand you are considering an adoptee rights bill, SB 5118 / HB 1525, which contains a "contact veto" clause allowing birth mothers to deny adoptees access to their original birth certificates. Before you rush to pass such a bill, I hope you will consider the inequality of restoring access to some adoptees at the expense of others.
I am an Illinois adoptee and have been denied my birth certificate because my birth mother signed the veto in this state. I am the face of that supposedly small percentage of adoptees who will be permanently denied birth certificate access under this proposed legislation.
Rep. Orwall explains the need to favor the many over the few: "How sad it would be for some adoptees to not obtain this information while a birth parent may still be alive."
What about those adoptees left behind by veto legislation? Why isn't it sad that we cannot obtain our information as well - and in fact are permanently barred from it?
What makes some adoptees more deserving than others?
I was involved in the attempts to halt a similar bill that ended up passing here in Illinois. I have heard the arguments in favor of compromise legislation before: "Well, at least this will help the majority of adoptees." The assumption is that those vetoes will be such a small percentage it won't matter.
But the reality is that no state that has ever enacted veto legislation has gone back for those left behind. There's no sunset clause, no mechanism by which these adoptees will later have their birth certificate access restored.
Rep. Orwall is worried that birth families may die before adoptees have a chance to find them. But this isn't about search and reunion. It is about access to a critical piece of identity: our original birth certificates.
With increasing security in this post 9/11 world, many adoptees are discovering that their adoption paperwork alone isn't good enough. Discrepancies in the paperwork, i's not dotted or t's not crossed, and adult adoptees suddenly find they are unable to obtain driver's licenses, passports, and other critical documents.
I had a friend walk out of the DMV because she presented her amended birth certificate. She was told to bring the original - which, being adopted in a closed-records state, she has no way to obtain.
Veto legislation consigns some adoptees to this oblivion of non-access. They have no recourse, no way to obtain proof of their own identities. They are permanently banned.
The matter of birth mother privacy is irrelevant. My birth mother relinquished all rights to me when I was given up for adoption. Why does a stranger now have the ability to come back years later and deny me access to my own birth certificate? Not every adoptee who wants a birth certificate is looking to search. Search is a matter of personal choice and has no bearing on the civil right to obtain one's documentation of birth.
The only equitable solution is to restore to ALL adoptees the same equal access to original birth certificates as non-adoptees. This has been successfully done in Maine, where everyone follows the same procedure, adopted or not. Everyone pays the same basic fee. No one is left behind.
Maine has suffered none of the dire consequences so drastically described by opponents of original birth certificate access. Adoptees in Maine can walk into the courthouse, heads held high, and be treated the same as everyone else. That is all we want. If Maine, why not Washington?
I invite you to view Maine's legislation here:
http://www.adopteerightscoalition.com/2011/07/adoptee-rights-sample-legislation.html
It's no less sad or unfair for vetoed adoptees to be denied birth certificate access than it is for those whose birth families age and die while legislation is being considered.
Because that "small percentage" so casually dismissed? Those are real people like me. We're not statistics. We exist. And we deserve the same equal rights, too.
Please vote no on SB 5118 / HB 1525.
Sincerely,
Triona Guidry
Guidry's story reminds us about the real human beings that are hurt by birthparent vetoes. In many cases, the adopted person already feels rejected once -- the veto provision ensures that some adoptees will feel rejected twice. As Guidry reminds us, this issue is not about reunions; it is about basic civil rights.
If you would like to comment about Washington's pending bills, you can reach the two legislators responsible for the birthparent veto provision here:
Ann.Rivers@leg.wa.gov
Tina.Orwall@leg.wa.gov
You might also like:
Thursday, April 4, 2013
ACLU Continues to Ignore the Facts and Discriminate Against Adult Adoptees
Just when I thought we might be making a bit of progress in lobbying for adoptee rights in New Jersey, I received an infuriating letter from ACLU-NJ "Intake Manager" A. Herrarte. Mr. or Ms. Herrarte was responding to a letter I had sent newly-appointed ACLU-NJ Executive Director Udi Ofer, along with a well-researched article that deconstructs the ACLU's misguided stance on adoptee rights.
I have to wonder as I read the response whether Herrarte or Mr. Ofer even read the article, as Herrarte's letter contains the same canned statements ACLU-NJ has been spouting for years. What is truly infuriating is that the ACLU position is predicated on a downright lie -- that birth parents had "a legal right to confidentiality when they placed their children for adoption." Does the ACLU not acknowledge court precedents? Apparently not. Both the Oregon State Court of Appeals in 1999, and the U.S. Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) in 1997 have ruled that no such legal right exists. Since the birth parent privacy argument has been refuted legally, there have been no court challenges to any original birth certificate access law.
It is one thing when an entity like the ACLU misinterprets the facts; it is another when it willfully ignores the facts. Whatever the ACLU agenda is on this issue -- adoption reform groups in Washington State have encountered the same frustration from its ACLU chapter -- it does not include a desire to understand or even acknowledge the facts. How sad for a group that insists its mission is to value the liberty of every individual.
I'll share here Herrarte's letter, then respond with a few thoughts of my own:
Dear Ms. Perry:
Thank you for contacting the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey regarding adoption records.
We sympathize with those who seek access to adoption records and recognize that the dilemma involves competing rights.
For this reason, the ACLU-NJ supports systems that reunite people separated through adoption who mutually consent to contact such as "search and consent" services that provide an intermediary to locate and contact birth parents in a confidential manner and request the release of their names.
The ACLU-NJ opposes legislation that provides for the release of the names or contact information of birth parents without their consent.
Our position is based on privacy and due process concerns relating to the release of the names of birth parents who had a legal right to confidentiality when they placed their children for adoption. We oppose revoking this right after the fact, particularly considering that some women hinged their decisions to place a child for adoption on the fact that it would remain private.
Thank you again for contacting us.
Sincerely,
A. Herrarte
Intake Manager
Upon reading this letter, I have to ask, "Where in the world is ACLU-NJ getting its information on this issue?" Adoptee rights bills are not about reunion; they are about equal rights. Some adoptees search, some don't, but every adopted adult should be able to secure the document that records his or her own birth, just like any other American citizen. It is unjust to treat an entire class of people differently than we treat everyone else.
The ACLU also continues to insist that "the dilemma involves competing rights." As adoptee Julie Kelly explains, "It's not about competing rights. It's our rights vs. someone else's possible preference. Rights triumph over preferences. The overwhelming majority of mothers (and the rest of our families) are on our side. They are not in competition with us.
Adoptees are not seeking anything extra that everyone else does not already have for themselves. To make everyone equal, we are demanding restored access to our OBC's -- the same right our mothers have. The same right that all non-adopted citizens have. This is what will make us equal to everyone else. Making separate laws for us makes us different, unequal, and inferior. ACLU of all organizations should understand that."
The ACLU also conveniently ignores the history and intent of sealed records. Elizabeth Samuels, a law professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, has been researching adoption law since the 1990s, and has written extensively about the issue. In testimony before the Ohio Legislature last month, she explained that records were closed gradually throughout the mid-twentieth century "to protect adoptive families from possible interference or harassment by birth parents, not to protect birth parents' privacy."
In many adoptions, Samuels said, the adoptive parents received copies of documents with identifying information about the birth mother. Every state always had a legal mechanism by which records could be opened "for good cause," she said, and "the laws sealing court and birth records have never guaranteed lifelong anonymity for birth parents."
Samuels has analyzed 77 surrrender documents signed by original mothers from the late 1930s through 1990, and concludes that none of the mothers were promised either confidentiality or lifelong anonymity. Many, however, did have to promise that they would not seek information about the child or interfere with the adoptive family.
When an original mother surrendered her child, said Samuels, she was surrendering all of her parental rights and was relieved of her parental obligations. She did "not retain or acquire any rights." In short, secrecy was not offered to the relinquishing mother -- it was required as a condition of the adoption. And as we now know from open access states, overwhelmingly large majorites of relinquishing mothers -- "up to 95 percent," according to Samuels -- are open to contact.
Yet in the face of all those facts, the ACLU continues to insist that this issue is all about "competing interests" and "the right to privacy under the US and NJ constitutions." "I would challenge the ACLU to provide legal evidence of this right to privacy," says adoptee Julie Gretchen Martel. "Obviously, such evidence does not exist."
"I am really sick of being told that my birth parents had/have a legal right to privacy," says Martel. "In Connecticut, OBCs were sealed in 1974, three years after I was born and adopted. At the time of my adoption, my birth parents had no expectation of their identities being kept from me. So please stop telling me otherwise."
For more facts that refute the ACLU position, we can look to the 1999 decision by the Oregon State Court of Appeals. The state may release original birth certificates to adoptees, it concluded, "without infringing on any fundamental right to privacy of the birthmother who does not desire contact with the child."
"Although adoption is an option that generally is available to women faced with the dilemma of an unwanted pregnancy," the court concluded, "it is not a fundamental right. Because a birth mother has no fundamental right to have her child adopted, she also can have no correlative fundamental right to have her child adopted under circumstances that guarantee that her identity will not be revealed to the child."
If that decision isn't clear enough, the U.S. Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) said this in 1997, when a group petitioned the courts in Tennessee to overturn the law that would grant some adult adoptees access to their birth certificates: ..."If there is a federal constitutional right of familial privacy, it does not extend as far as the plaintiffs would like." The Sixth Circuit Court further explains: "A birth is simultaneously an intimate occasion and a public event -- the government has long kept records of when, where, and by whom babies are born. Such records have myriad purposes, such as furthering the interest of children in knowing the circumstances of their birth."
So clearly, according to court precedents, there is no constitutional right to privacy for original parents, yet ACLU-NJ continues to insist that there is. The ACLU's opposition to adult adoptee access is also difficult to understand in light of ACLU national's views on the management of government data.
In its Policy #272 on Government Data Collection, Storage and Dissemination, ACLU states that "personal information should not be collected from individuals without their informed consent." What adopted individual has ever given her permission to have her true and legitimate birth certificate amended by the state and then sealed for all time?
Later, the ACLU policy paper reads: "The ability of an individual to exercise control over the collection, maintenance, and use by the government of his or her sensitive personal information is central to personal integrity and human dignity."
A final example demonstrating the inconsistencies in ACLU's position towards adoptee rights can be found in this ACLU statement: "All persons should have equal rights of access to information maintained by public agencies. The identity or status of the party requesting disclosure should not affect the decisions as to what information is actually disclosed."
Given the facts, it is simply impossible to understand the logic of ACLU-NJ's position. After reading Herrarte's letter, adoptee Gaye Tannenbaum had other thoughtful questions to ask:
"How does the ACLU propose to deal with the many situations where one or both parents have already passed away? They can't give their 'consent.' Is the adoptee forever barred from knowing his or her name?"
"The ACLU frames the issue as one of 'reproductive choice.' Would they support making 'open' adoption enforceable in New Jersey? Would they go to bat for the many women who were promised an 'open' adoption that was subsequently and unilaterally closed? Why are the records sealed in an 'open' adoption?"
"Since the classic definition of 'right to privacy' is the right to be free from government interference, doesn't a 'search and consent' program violate that right by allowing a state functionary to track down and make contact with a party who was 'promised' privacy?"
"Does the ACLU have a problem with adoptees conducting a search on their own -- including the use of DNA testing, social media, genealogy sites, and other public information?"
Like Samuel's testimomy, the court decisions, and the ACLU's own policy about data storage and access, Tannenbaum's questions reveal the absurdity of the ACLU-NJ stance. Perhaps they haven't heard yet that both Ohio Right to Life and NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio recently testified in favor of an adoptee rights bill in their state.
Stephanie Krider of Ohio Right to Life testified before Ohio's House Judiciary Committee: "It is our belief that supporting (this bill) ... would not be a disservice to birth mothers who have placed their child for adoption. Legal guarantees could never have been made to these mothers to ensure their children would never have access to their original birth certificate."
Jamie Miracle of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio similarly testified in favor of the bill: While allowing adoptees to access "important family medical information," she explained, the bill also works to protect the privacy of birth parents by allowing them to express their preference for or against being contacted by the adult adoptee.
"This system will, in fact, better protect the privacy of birth parents by creating a system where they can express their preferences for being contacted, which currently does not exist."
If both an anti-abortion and a pro-choice group can come together to support an adoptee rights bill in Ohio, how can ACLU-NJ continue to insist that relinquishing mothers have a non-existent legal right to privacy as part of their reproductive decision-making? If you are as confused by their thought process as I am, please register your displeasure by contacting them at Post Office Box 32159, Newark, NJ 07102; 973-642-2084; http://www.aclu-nj.org. The new executive director is Udi Ofer, but don't be surprised if your response comes from "Intake Manager" A. Herrarte.
You might also like:
An Open Letter to Executive Director Udi Ofer at ACLU-NJ
ACLU-NJ Misses the Mark on Adoption
Why do State Bar Associations Oppose Adoptee Rights?
Adoptee Rights and a Woman's Reproductive Choices
In many adoptions, Samuels said, the adoptive parents received copies of documents with identifying information about the birth mother. Every state always had a legal mechanism by which records could be opened "for good cause," she said, and "the laws sealing court and birth records have never guaranteed lifelong anonymity for birth parents."
Samuels has analyzed 77 surrrender documents signed by original mothers from the late 1930s through 1990, and concludes that none of the mothers were promised either confidentiality or lifelong anonymity. Many, however, did have to promise that they would not seek information about the child or interfere with the adoptive family.
When an original mother surrendered her child, said Samuels, she was surrendering all of her parental rights and was relieved of her parental obligations. She did "not retain or acquire any rights." In short, secrecy was not offered to the relinquishing mother -- it was required as a condition of the adoption. And as we now know from open access states, overwhelmingly large majorites of relinquishing mothers -- "up to 95 percent," according to Samuels -- are open to contact.
Yet in the face of all those facts, the ACLU continues to insist that this issue is all about "competing interests" and "the right to privacy under the US and NJ constitutions." "I would challenge the ACLU to provide legal evidence of this right to privacy," says adoptee Julie Gretchen Martel. "Obviously, such evidence does not exist."
"I am really sick of being told that my birth parents had/have a legal right to privacy," says Martel. "In Connecticut, OBCs were sealed in 1974, three years after I was born and adopted. At the time of my adoption, my birth parents had no expectation of their identities being kept from me. So please stop telling me otherwise."
For more facts that refute the ACLU position, we can look to the 1999 decision by the Oregon State Court of Appeals. The state may release original birth certificates to adoptees, it concluded, "without infringing on any fundamental right to privacy of the birthmother who does not desire contact with the child."
"Although adoption is an option that generally is available to women faced with the dilemma of an unwanted pregnancy," the court concluded, "it is not a fundamental right. Because a birth mother has no fundamental right to have her child adopted, she also can have no correlative fundamental right to have her child adopted under circumstances that guarantee that her identity will not be revealed to the child."
If that decision isn't clear enough, the U.S. Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) said this in 1997, when a group petitioned the courts in Tennessee to overturn the law that would grant some adult adoptees access to their birth certificates: ..."If there is a federal constitutional right of familial privacy, it does not extend as far as the plaintiffs would like." The Sixth Circuit Court further explains: "A birth is simultaneously an intimate occasion and a public event -- the government has long kept records of when, where, and by whom babies are born. Such records have myriad purposes, such as furthering the interest of children in knowing the circumstances of their birth."
So clearly, according to court precedents, there is no constitutional right to privacy for original parents, yet ACLU-NJ continues to insist that there is. The ACLU's opposition to adult adoptee access is also difficult to understand in light of ACLU national's views on the management of government data.
In its Policy #272 on Government Data Collection, Storage and Dissemination, ACLU states that "personal information should not be collected from individuals without their informed consent." What adopted individual has ever given her permission to have her true and legitimate birth certificate amended by the state and then sealed for all time?
Later, the ACLU policy paper reads: "The ability of an individual to exercise control over the collection, maintenance, and use by the government of his or her sensitive personal information is central to personal integrity and human dignity."
A final example demonstrating the inconsistencies in ACLU's position towards adoptee rights can be found in this ACLU statement: "All persons should have equal rights of access to information maintained by public agencies. The identity or status of the party requesting disclosure should not affect the decisions as to what information is actually disclosed."
Given the facts, it is simply impossible to understand the logic of ACLU-NJ's position. After reading Herrarte's letter, adoptee Gaye Tannenbaum had other thoughtful questions to ask:
"How does the ACLU propose to deal with the many situations where one or both parents have already passed away? They can't give their 'consent.' Is the adoptee forever barred from knowing his or her name?"
"The ACLU frames the issue as one of 'reproductive choice.' Would they support making 'open' adoption enforceable in New Jersey? Would they go to bat for the many women who were promised an 'open' adoption that was subsequently and unilaterally closed? Why are the records sealed in an 'open' adoption?"
"Since the classic definition of 'right to privacy' is the right to be free from government interference, doesn't a 'search and consent' program violate that right by allowing a state functionary to track down and make contact with a party who was 'promised' privacy?"
"Does the ACLU have a problem with adoptees conducting a search on their own -- including the use of DNA testing, social media, genealogy sites, and other public information?"
Like Samuel's testimomy, the court decisions, and the ACLU's own policy about data storage and access, Tannenbaum's questions reveal the absurdity of the ACLU-NJ stance. Perhaps they haven't heard yet that both Ohio Right to Life and NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio recently testified in favor of an adoptee rights bill in their state.
Stephanie Krider of Ohio Right to Life testified before Ohio's House Judiciary Committee: "It is our belief that supporting (this bill) ... would not be a disservice to birth mothers who have placed their child for adoption. Legal guarantees could never have been made to these mothers to ensure their children would never have access to their original birth certificate."
Jamie Miracle of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio similarly testified in favor of the bill: While allowing adoptees to access "important family medical information," she explained, the bill also works to protect the privacy of birth parents by allowing them to express their preference for or against being contacted by the adult adoptee.
"This system will, in fact, better protect the privacy of birth parents by creating a system where they can express their preferences for being contacted, which currently does not exist."
If both an anti-abortion and a pro-choice group can come together to support an adoptee rights bill in Ohio, how can ACLU-NJ continue to insist that relinquishing mothers have a non-existent legal right to privacy as part of their reproductive decision-making? If you are as confused by their thought process as I am, please register your displeasure by contacting them at Post Office Box 32159, Newark, NJ 07102; 973-642-2084; http://www.aclu-nj.org. The new executive director is Udi Ofer, but don't be surprised if your response comes from "Intake Manager" A. Herrarte.
You might also like:
An Open Letter to Executive Director Udi Ofer at ACLU-NJ
ACLU-NJ Misses the Mark on Adoption
Why do State Bar Associations Oppose Adoptee Rights?
Adoptee Rights and a Woman's Reproductive Choices
Thursday, March 14, 2013
An Open Letter to Executive Director Udi Ofer at ACLU-NJ
Labels:
ACLU-NJ,
Adoptee rights,
Catholic Conference,
Right to Life
Many of us in the adoption reform movement are encouraged by the fact that both Ohio Right to Life and the Catholic Conference of Ohio, both long-time opponents of adoptee rights bills, have now endorsed pending adoptee rights legislation. Apparently, both groups have come to realize that granting adopted adults access to their original birth certificates and treating them equally by law to the non-adopted has no effect on abortion rates. They have also come to see that such bills allow original parents an opportunity to register their preferences for contact, an opportunity that they currently do not have. These bills restore the civil right of adopted adults to access their own birth documents, while acknowledging the boundaries that original parents might prefer. They are the best and fairest antidote to the considerable pain and to the violation of adoptee civil rights that the sealed record system perpetuates.
We hope that Right to Life and Catholic Conference chapters in other states will take note, and that they too will come to see that granting civil rights to adoptees does not weaken, but in fact strengthens the institution of adoption. Catholic bishops and Right to Life groups have been a formidable obstacle to adoptee rights in the past; unfortunately, so have some state chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In New Jersey, we have battled the ACLU for years. In the past, the organization's leadership seemed to think that denying civil rights to a grown adoptee is acceptable because doing so enables a woman to make private reproductive choices.
The ACLU stance is logically inconsistent with its mission statement, and we are hoping that with new leadership in New Jersey, it will reevaluate its position on this issue. After all, if Ohio Right to Life and the Catholic Conference of Ohio can admit that they have been mistaken about adoptee rights, so can ACLU-NJ! Here is my open letter to Mr. Udi Ofer, the new executive director of ACLU-NJ:
Dear Mr. Ofer:
I am a member of the legislative team at New Jersey Coalition for Adoption Reform and Education (NJCARE), and I am writing to express my strong opinion that ACLU-NJ has been on the wrong side of history when it comes to restoring the right of adopted adults to access their original birth certificates.
The states of Oregon and Alabama restored this right in 2000, and in the past decade, the states of Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island have likewise restored this right. The states of Kansas and Alaska never sealed original birth certificates from adoptees, and Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Washington all have pending bills.
At its very core, this is a civil rights issue, because adopted adults continue to be treated differently by law in New Jersey than every other American citizen. That is institutional discrimination, and it continues to exist for no good reason. If the document that records my own birth does not belong to me, we might ask, “Who does it belong to?”
The history of adoption reveals that records were never sealed to protect original families, but to protect the adoptee from the “stigma of illegitimacy,” and the adoptive family from “unwarranted intrusion.” Even the courts have ruled that original parents could never have been granted legal anonymity from their own offspring.
Adoptee rights legislation is about civil rights; it is not about reunions. There is a profound difference between knowledge about one’s own history and relationship. Obviously, it takes two to agree to have a relationship, and how two adults decide to conduct their own very personal affairs is frankly no one’s business except for their own.
ACLU-NJ in the past has shown a shocking disregard for the rights of adopted people, and it has wrongly assumed that the rights of original parents and adoptees conflict. Adoptee rights bills are just and effective, and the data from open access states and from those countries that are far ahead of us in restoring adoptee rights is easily accessible.
I implore you to study the facts before the ACLU takes a position on any pending adoption legislation in New Jersey. I am including for you an article published this year at numerous adoption reform sites that outlines how illogical the ACLU’s position has been. I write in the hope that you will study it with an open mind.
I and other members of NJCARE would be happy to meet with you to discuss this issue at any time. Please feel free to contact me at the number below.
Sincerely,
Susan T. Perry
Member, Legislative Team
New Jersey Coalition for Adoption Reform and Education (NJCARE)
To those of you reading this blog post, you can read my article about the inconsistencies in ACLU-NJ's position on adoptee rights here. Please feel free to use any or all of it in your own lobbying efforts. Let's carry on with renewed effort. Progress is slow, but the facts are on our side!
You might also like:
Why do State Bar Associations Oppose Adoptee Rights?
The Ethics of Adoption and Reproductive Technology
Adoptee Rights and a Woman's Reproductive Choices
We hope that Right to Life and Catholic Conference chapters in other states will take note, and that they too will come to see that granting civil rights to adoptees does not weaken, but in fact strengthens the institution of adoption. Catholic bishops and Right to Life groups have been a formidable obstacle to adoptee rights in the past; unfortunately, so have some state chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In New Jersey, we have battled the ACLU for years. In the past, the organization's leadership seemed to think that denying civil rights to a grown adoptee is acceptable because doing so enables a woman to make private reproductive choices.
The ACLU stance is logically inconsistent with its mission statement, and we are hoping that with new leadership in New Jersey, it will reevaluate its position on this issue. After all, if Ohio Right to Life and the Catholic Conference of Ohio can admit that they have been mistaken about adoptee rights, so can ACLU-NJ! Here is my open letter to Mr. Udi Ofer, the new executive director of ACLU-NJ:
Dear Mr. Ofer:
I am a member of the legislative team at New Jersey Coalition for Adoption Reform and Education (NJCARE), and I am writing to express my strong opinion that ACLU-NJ has been on the wrong side of history when it comes to restoring the right of adopted adults to access their original birth certificates.
The states of Oregon and Alabama restored this right in 2000, and in the past decade, the states of Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island have likewise restored this right. The states of Kansas and Alaska never sealed original birth certificates from adoptees, and Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Washington all have pending bills.
At its very core, this is a civil rights issue, because adopted adults continue to be treated differently by law in New Jersey than every other American citizen. That is institutional discrimination, and it continues to exist for no good reason. If the document that records my own birth does not belong to me, we might ask, “Who does it belong to?”
The history of adoption reveals that records were never sealed to protect original families, but to protect the adoptee from the “stigma of illegitimacy,” and the adoptive family from “unwarranted intrusion.” Even the courts have ruled that original parents could never have been granted legal anonymity from their own offspring.
Adoptee rights legislation is about civil rights; it is not about reunions. There is a profound difference between knowledge about one’s own history and relationship. Obviously, it takes two to agree to have a relationship, and how two adults decide to conduct their own very personal affairs is frankly no one’s business except for their own.
ACLU-NJ in the past has shown a shocking disregard for the rights of adopted people, and it has wrongly assumed that the rights of original parents and adoptees conflict. Adoptee rights bills are just and effective, and the data from open access states and from those countries that are far ahead of us in restoring adoptee rights is easily accessible.
I implore you to study the facts before the ACLU takes a position on any pending adoption legislation in New Jersey. I am including for you an article published this year at numerous adoption reform sites that outlines how illogical the ACLU’s position has been. I write in the hope that you will study it with an open mind.
I and other members of NJCARE would be happy to meet with you to discuss this issue at any time. Please feel free to contact me at the number below.
Sincerely,
Susan T. Perry
Member, Legislative Team
New Jersey Coalition for Adoption Reform and Education (NJCARE)
To those of you reading this blog post, you can read my article about the inconsistencies in ACLU-NJ's position on adoptee rights here. Please feel free to use any or all of it in your own lobbying efforts. Let's carry on with renewed effort. Progress is slow, but the facts are on our side!
You might also like:
Why do State Bar Associations Oppose Adoptee Rights?
The Ethics of Adoption and Reproductive Technology
Adoptee Rights and a Woman's Reproductive Choices
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)