CALIFORNIA AND NEW JERSEY BAD BILLS DIE!

For once we have some good news!

California AB 372 is officially dead! The January 22 deadline for it to pass out of committee and on to the Senate floor went by with no action. Although nothing official has come from sponsor Sen Fiona Ma, her office told CalOpen that the bill would "will not be pursued."

Astoundingly, CARE (California Adoption Reform Effort) as of tonight, has not seen fit to announce the demise of their bill on its website. It's last update is dated May 28, 2009. That's what we've come to expect, though, from fake reformers who scrub their website of their own history and embarrassing documents, dismiss an ideology of rights. embracing instead "non-emotional" wishes and desires", (whatever that means), and posit that adoptees need to be "navigated by professionals" rather than ourselves. Veteran grassroots bastard activists who have actually gotten clean bills passed were ordered to take a hike by the dilettantes of CARE.

We're sure CARE, like herpes, will come back. Jean Strauss and CARE are all over the March 18-21 AAC conference in Sacramento.

CalOpen and Bastard Nation continue to hold the line in California. There is much work to be done there, and it needs to be done by real bastards, not those of the Benedict sort, who (sorry to be trite), throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you're from Cali and would like to help, drop CalOpen a line.

On the New Jersey front, the veto-laden S611/A752 never made it through the year end process. It's dead.

Unfortunately, it's risen from the dead in the form of S799 and A1406, similar if not identical to last session's throw-away-our-rights-for-favors-for-some. What is this: Year 29 trying to get this piece-a-crap passed? I feel bad for those people.I know some of them and like them. Really. But, as BB Church likes to remind us, if this were a job, they'd have been fired a long time ago. I fear the adoption-happy ACLU, crotch obsessed RTL Marie Tasy and her croaky bishops will just have to croak before rights are restored in Jersey.

There are some other bills pending, but at the moment reside in a state of confusion. Once they straighten up, well let you know.

BASTARD NATION STATEMENT ON HAITIAN ADOPTIONS AND "BABYLIFTS"

Please distribute freely

For the last week, Bastard Nation, like the rest of the world, has been watching the devastation of Haiti. The images are frightening, sad, and heartrending, especially those of the children.

We have also watched with alarm the rush to rescue Haitian children by adoption. Within three days of the earthquake, Catholic Charities of Miami had set up a scheme modeled on Operation Pedro Pan, a joint State Department-CIA-Miami Diocese project in the early 1960s to separate children from their parents, creating young pawns in the US war against the Castro government. Although “Operation Pierre Pan” in Haiti is on hold, at least for now, numerous evangelical churches and ministries, adoption agencies, secular organizations, unfinalized adoptive parents and other individuals--many with conflicts of interest--have joined the rescue mission call to remove children immediately, no matter what their family status, to the US for the purpose of adoption.

Haiti is still under rubble. Aid is slow to arrive. Survivors are spread out in shelters and camps, or live in the streets. The dead are unnumbered, unknown, and unnamed. Family members continue to search for each for other, and it will take weeks or even months for final conciliation.

The rush to relocate orphans, quasi-orphans, and potential orphans internationally is ripe for coercion and fraud. Adoption agencies, church agencies, and ministries especially--along with fraudulent and predatory “child welfare” agents--have much to gain from fast removal. The trafficking of Haitian children for sex, servitude, and adoption operated in Haiti before the quake. It certainly operates now. The unethical and possibly unlawful mass transfer of traumatized children, many with family status unknown, to foreign shelters, foster care, and adoption agencies, removed from their culture and language, with little hope of family reunification cannot be allowed or tolerated. We urge US State Department and other US authorities in Haiti to (1) remove private special interests and those with conflicts of interest, such as adoption agencies and ministries, from the child welfare decision-making process and (2) halt the evacuation of children and their placement for adoption in the US.

We also urge the State Department to suspend pending adoptions. Haitian paperwork is lost or destroyed. Rock Cadet, the judge most responsible and knowledgeable about pipeline cases, died in the quake. Though the US Embassy survived, US paperwork is probably unavailable for some time, if it still exists. Without proof of Haitian court or Embassy status, any adoption removal from the country, without thorough background investigation and due process, is illegal and not in the best interest of the child

Needless to say, no new adoptions should be processed.

In the post-quake chaos, children need protection from predatory snatchers. Bastard Nation, therefore, supports the expedited removal of Haitian children, orphans or otherwise, to credible and documented parents or family members in the US for temporary or permanent placement depending on the circumstances. These children must not be assumed adoptable and scooped up for fast-track adoption. They should be a top priority. We urge the State Department or other government or credible private and disinterested agencies to assist Haitians in the US to locate child kin and bring them to the US.

We understand why people want to open their arms and hearts to the children of the Haitian earthquake, but adoption is not emergency or humanitarian aid or a solution to Haiti’s ongoing problems. The immediate rescue effort in Haiti should focus on emergency services, individual and family care and family reunification, not family, community, and cultural destruction and the strip-mining of children.


This statement has been faxed to the US State Department.

BASTARD NATION'S LETTER TO THE CAL ASSMB. APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: ADOPTEES ARE NOT PART OF A CALIFORNIA ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE

Dear Honorable Assemblymember:

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization is the largest adoptee civil rights organization in North America. We advocate for the full human and civil rights of adult adoptees. We believe people everywhere have a right to their unaltered and unfalsifed birth records. This means opening government documents pertaining to the adoptee’s historical, genetic, and legal identity, including the unaltered original birth certificate (obc) and adoption decree. Our membership includes adopted adults and first and adoptive parents. We have substantial membership in California.

BN was behind the 1998 Oregon Ballot Measure 58 which restored the right of the state’s adult adoptees to access their original birth certificates. In 2000 Bastard Nation sponsored legislation in Alabama which restored access there. In 2004 we worked in a coalition of adoptee rights advocates in New Hampshire where adoptee civil rights were restored on January 1, 2005. We are currently working in other states to restore records access. Bastard Nation leaves no one behind. We do not support legislation that restricts even one adopted person from receiving his or her own information.

Bastard Nation does not support AB 372. Our submitted testimony is in the official Assembly Judiciary legislative analysis.

AB 372 is not a true equal access bill. It continues to treat adopted persons differently than the not-adopted, which effects costs and appropriations.

Instead of opening access to birth records, the proposal subjects California adoptees to egregious new restrictions on that access which do not exist under current law. AB 372 contains a disclosure veto which gives birthparents, whose parental rights were terminated years before, a new and special right that no other parent has: the right to stop release of the original birth certificate upon request, to her or his offspring. AB 372 creates a state bureaucracy to track down birthparents to inform them of that new and special right and to seek their written consent for release. AB 372 contains an opt-out clause that would permit one or both birthparents in the future the even newer and more special right to deny obc access to their adult offspring for reasons of “rape.” “incest,” “religion” or undefined “personal reasons.” AB 372 is about as far away from a real records access bill as California is from Bulgaria.

As if the bill weren’t bad enough, AB 372 has now been amended by the sponsor Assb. Fiona Ma with a proposed fiscal note/fiscal effect of $16,000,000 for the first two years and a projected $2,000,000 each year thereafter. This outrageous amount is allegedly for “start-up” costs--$8,000,000 for the first year: the creation of a new database and hiring of 34 staff to “man” the tech and administrative bureaucracy to track down birthparents (usually women) at a “best match address” (whatever that means), through certified or registered mail, to get consent for release.

How this snipe hunt is to be accomplished has not been revealed. Last known address of parents taken from records 30, 40, 50 years or older? Google? Intelius? Social Security records? Paid, privately operated databases? Will California access other states’ private governmental records if the search turns up empty at home? (We doubt it!) Does the state intend to contract out searches to secrecy-obsessed adoption agencies, for-profit adoption searchers, or private investigators? How about talking to snoopy neighbors and tracking down rumors?

Who is to foot millions for this murky state snooping project: already burdened taxpayers who are currently facing curtailment of crucial state services or adoptees who have committed no crime other than to have been born and sealed in California? Both are unacceptable.

The justification for this outrageous expense is based on a strange and erroneous extrapolation of data from Oregon where obcs were unsealed in 1999.



The Oregon law, passed by a 1998 ballot initiative, contains only a voluntary non-binding, contact preference form, no disclosure veto or other veto, and the state does not track down women to seek consent for release. If there were an initial cost involved in implementing Oregon’s law, it was because of the 18 month legal battle which went all the way to the US Supreme Court (denied cert) to keep records sealed and the ensuing backlog of thousands of uncompleted requests that accumulated during the time when the law was in abeyance.

The fact is, states that have unsealed obcs—Oregon, Alabama, New Hampshire, Maine—have not incurred any significant cost (if any) in re-opening and distributing obcs to adoptees upon request. They treat adoptee requests for their birth certificates just like they treat not-adopted requests. There is no extra cost. Neither taxpayers nor adoptees are dunned an extraordinary fee nor treated like potential criminals.

A true equal access bill is about the right of the adopted to own a simple piece of paper-- their own birth certificate-- not search and reunion. What any person, adopted or not adopted, does with that piece of paper is her or his business, not the state’s. Yet AB 372, by the mere fact that it mandates search for consent, is a reunion bill that makes the State of California and its taxpayers the broker of personal and family relationships. This kind of state intrusion has no business being part of civil rights discourse much less law.

Adoptees, their rights, and their records are not part of a California economic stimulus package. The best thing to do with AB 372 is deep six it. Fast.

California needs to clear this abomination out of the way to open the path for a real equal access bill that treats all California adoptees as full responsible citizens who are grown up enough to own their own birth certificates, Just give adoptees their obcs without state interference or extraordinary cost to anybody. The taxpayers will thank you. And adoptees will, too. Please vote DO NOT PASS on AB 372.

Yours truly,

Marley Greiner, Executive Chair, Bastard Nation

BASTARD NATION TESTIMONY AGAINST CALIFORNIA AB 372: LEAVE NO ONE BEHIND!

Below is Bastard Nation's testimony in against AB 372. It was submitted last week for today's haering. You can read the official legislative analysis of the bill here. (It's not very good.) Note that CARE has no certified proponents except it\self and the bill has no co-sponsors.

WRITTEN TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO AB 372 ACCESS TO ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATES FOR ADULT ADOPTEES Assembly Judiciary Committee, April 28, 2008 Submitted April 21, 2009

POSITION: OPPOSE

Honorable Members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee:

Below is our submitted testimony on AB 372:

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization advocates for the full human and civil rights of adult adoptees. We believe people everywhere have a right to their unaltered and unfalsifed birth records. This means opening government documents pertaining to the adoptee’s historical, genetic, and legal identity, including the unaltered original birth certificate (obc) and adoption decree. Our membership includes adopted adults and first and adoptive parents. We have substantial membership in California.

BN was behind the 1998 Oregon Ballot Measure 58 which restored the right of the state’s adult adoptees to access their original birth certificates. In 2000 Bastard Nation sponsored legislation in Alabama which restored access there. In 2004 we worked in a coalition of adoptee rights advocates in New Hampshire where adoptee civil rights were restored on January 1, 2005. We are currently working in other states to restore records access. Bastard Nation leaves no one behind. We do not support legislation that restricts even one adopted person from receiving his or her own information.

Bastard Nation does not support AB 372. Although, as of the date of this submission, the bill is without conditions, except for age, Assb. Ma has issued a memo (April 15, 2009) outlining amendments she plans to introduce which would severely limit access and gut the alleged purpose of the bill. These amendments, according to her memo, include:
* An expansion forwards and backwards of the 1984 “birthparent” disclosure veto. This veto would seal all California obcs by default and would require unsealing only by individual “birthparent” consent. Such an amendment would take away the right that some California adoptees have enjoyed for decades to receive through the courts, without birthparent consent, their ob

* A state-run search system whereby state employees or contractors, at taxpayer expense, would track down individual “birthparents” at a “best match address” with a certified return receipt letter to seek consent for the release of the obc. If after 6 months the “birthparent” has not been located or does not return the state’s request, the obc will remain sealed.

* In the case of one “birthparent” consenting to release and the other one not (through default or request), the identifying information of the non-consenting parent would be redacted.

* For prospective adoptions starting January 1, 2010 an opt-out clause would permit one or both parents to deny obc access to their adult offspring for reasons of “rape.” “incest,” “religion” or undefined “personal reasons.”

These proposed amendments are egregious, insulting, and antithetical to the purported purpose of AB 372 and gut the entire bill of any meaning.

We also object to limiting access to the obc to adoptees 25 years and older. Access should be allowed at the age of majority. Anything else is the continued infantlization of adoptees as a class. The idea that one is old enough to fight for his or her country, buy a house, drink, and be married, but not capable of owning an original birth certificate is absurd.

WHY WE OPPOSE: BASTARD NATION’S POSITION ON AB 372 AND UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO OBC ACCESS IN CALIFORNIA.
Unrestricted obc access in California is about rights not reunion. It is about the relation of adoptees to the state. It is about the absolute natural right of identity and the civil right to a true unfalsified birth certificate for all California adoptees not just a select few. The not-adopted need not justify why they want their vital records nor are they forced to ask their parents permission, appear before a judge, join a government-run registry, seek mental health counseling, or spend years getting a bill passed to get their birth record. The not-adopted have a presumed right to their birth certificates and can do with them what they please. All arguments for unrestricted access must then flow from the presumed right of all adults to unrestricted access and ownership of their true birth certificates, not just some. If adoptees are not equal legally to the not-adopted in terms of access, then the right of anyone to possess their own birth certificate is not a right but a state favor. The real question, then, is who owns your identity? You or the state?

Unfortunately, in California today, the birth and identity records of thousands of its citizen adoptees are owned and held hostage by the state. AB 372, which purports to loosen state ownership, in fact, tightens it with its massive restrictions and hoop jumping.

Unrestricted obc access in California should be inclusive and create birth record access equity between the adopted and not-adopted. Unrestricted access acknowledges and codifies a legally, morally, and ethically correct one-size-fits all standard of birth record access rights for all people born in California, not just the not adopted. Unlike AB 372, a genuine obc access bill would restore the right of ownership and access, legislatively rescinded in 1935, to all California adoptees.

Unrestricted obc access in California would abolish a nearly 75-year old state-constructed blacklist of worthy and unworthy citizens whose birth record access is based on a protectionist, paternalistic, discredited social system of adoption secrecy that died decades ago. Restrictions established legislatively in 1935 and expanded by the 1984 “birthparent” disclosure veto, grossly discriminate not only between the adopted and the not-adopted, but between vetoed and non-vetoed adoptees. For adoptees born in 1984 and beyond, (which AB 372 may expand to cover everyone) access is dependent on first parent permission, that gives people whose parental rights were terminated years ago, a special right that no other parent or adult has over another adult—the special right to block access to and ownership of a person’s vital and court records. If expanded back to cover pre-1984 adoptees, older adoptees will lose the right they now enjoy to receive their obc through the courts without “birthparent” consent.

Recognizes adoptee autonomy, rights, and responsibilities as full citizens who can be trusted to own their personal information. Adopted adults should not be denied their birth records to protect someone else’s comfort zone. With the growing demand for “proof of identity” through state and federal laws such as Real ID, it is imperative that all of us prove we are who we say we are. Adopted adults are routinely denied drivers licenses, passports, and security clearances because amended adoptive identities cannot be linked to original birth identities. AB 372 will do nothing to correct this.

Unrestricted obc access in California would not change adoption procedures. Adoption records are sealed upon finalization, not relinquishment. If the court denies an adoption petition or the petition is withdrawn, the birth record remains unsealed. If an adoption is overturned or disrupted, the birth record is unsealed. Most significantly, if a child is never adopted the birth record is never sealed. Thus, if sealing birth records was meant to hide parental identities absolutely, records would be sealed upon relinquishment, not finalization. Even in traditional closed adoptions first parent identities are often recorded on court documents given to adoptive parents without first parent consent. Similarly, legal advertisements with identifying information are often published, and courts may open adoption records for “good cause” without first parent consent. Moreover, California’s Birth Index, which includes the names of “birthmothers,” has been open and available to the public for decades. It was even sold on the Internet by the State of California and is routinely available on eBay. Though closed a few years ago, thousands of copies of the index remain available through legal sources.

Unrestricted access to obcs in California would unseal obcs only to the adopted persons to which they pertain. Allowing adoptees access to information about their origins is NOT a violation of anyone's privacy rights. Adoptee access to their own original birth certificates is not the same as public access or disclosure to the public. It is not "outing" anyone. The records would remain sealed from the public.

Unrestricted access to obcs in California would reflect best practice adoption standards. Unrestricted obc access is a priority of every genuine adoption reform organization, national, state, and local, in the US today. The Evan. B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, The Child Welfare League of America (which sets best practice standards), The National Association of Social Workers, and The North American Council on Adoptable Children, the National Adoption Center, and Ethica: A Voice for Ethical Adoption all support unrestricted access.

CONCLUSION
Rights are for all citizens, not favors or privileges for some. US and California law does not privilege rights by race, religion, ethnicity, age, or gender. The law should not privilege rights by adoption. Bastard Nation cannot think of any other judicial procedure where records are sealed from those to whom the procedure pertains. But in California adopted adults are discriminated against daily due to their adoptive status. AB 372 not only continues the gross discrimination, but threatens to expand it. It is, in fact, the worse “adoption reform” bill Bastard Nation has seen since its 1996 inception.

A true records access bill in California would not harm anyone. It would instead restore legal equality, dignity, and fairness to adopted persons and their biological and adoptive families. Bastard Nation, therefore, cannot support AB 372 with its continued and additional harm to California’s adopted citizens.

Bastard Nation recommends that the Judiciary Committee votes DO NOT PASS.

Don’t leave anyone behind!

MORE THOUGHTS ON THE COMING CALIFORNIA FIASCO

There are a lot of problems with CARE's proposed access bill in California: elitism, compromise, rejection of rights and grassroots, and its decision to go for a bill in the midst of California's economic dissolution.

After several comments posted in my earlier blog entry regarding the so-called constitutionality issue in records access in California, I intended to a make relatively short comment, but decided that topic and some other thoughts really need a separate entry. Below I discuss the constitutionality issue and make a couple observations on the coming California Fiasco.

This is not meant to be a definitive response. My comments are mine only, and do not represent CalOpen, which is perfectly capable of taking care of business itself.

WHY DOES CARE BELIEVE THAT AN UNRESTRICTED ACCESS BILL WON'T FLY?
The California Adoption Reform Effort (CARE) has shown little inclination to learn the history of past California records access campaigns, organize California adoptees outside the Amen Corner, build long-term relationships with leggies, or learn the lay of the Cal legislature, even with their pricey navigator…er... I mean lobbyist... at the helm.

Judging from CARE’s past disinterest in constitutional studies (see BB Church) and its recent lame de facto attempt to acquire a CalOpen-commissioned legal study (now in the possession of Bastard Nation) on state constitutional repercussions of a clean bill, suggests that it hasn’t commissioned research of its own, nor does it really care what research might say anyway. Seasoned rights-based activists working access bills know that CARE’s cry that pols have already evinced “privacy concerns” is a given. Pols hate controversy. “Privacy” is always “controversial.” (except when the government wants to snoop on us). It is always an issue when adoptee records access is concerned. Good research and preparation are what good activists do before they jump into the fire. CARE won’t win over everybody, but the hat they're holding in their hand won’t go up in smoke either, if they know what they're talking about.

CARE poobahs, however, just “know”that a clean records bill won’t pass state constitutional muster, a rather strange decision from an organization that claims its arguments are "non-emotional" and based on "statistical and empirical data.” Perhaps they’ve contracted Sylvia Brown to save them the trouble of actually paying for a study of their own (which may or may not back them up) and publishing the document for their supposed constituency to read and decide for themselves. Or maybe they're just lazy.

DEFORMER LOGIC
According to deformer logic, the way to pass a bill is to scissor out this and this and this until the bill is one big black hole in which to shove certain classes of unworthy adoptees. The bill has no value to anyone but the people who want their names on it. Those who fail to meet deformer criteria-- born the wrong year, lack parental consent, or some other arbitrary standard are, in the vernacular, shit outta luck.

If the bad bill fails, the same old deformers come back with the same old bad bill, with the same old "strategies" the next year and the next and the next and the next.

If the bad bill actually passes, riddled with exclusions (tiered access, disclosure vetoes, white-outs, mandated CIs, a registry, and whatever other sell-outs they can come up with), deformers claim victory, ignoring that they have eviscerated rights and created a vested interest in secrecy where none existed before, that most likely cannot be divested. In other words, certain classes of adoptees are screwed. If it saves just one....

How do deformers explain their logic to the shut-out and disenfranchised? They don’t.

A couple years ago the Massachusetts ABC group conveniently removed their names and contact information from their webpage, when, with their consent and support, their bill went south, excluding about 33 years of adoptees from access under their proud “access” law.

Records access is “non-partisan.” We would all love to support a clean bill in California, no matter who promotes it, as long as we know it is put forward by principled activists who know when to hold 'em and when to to fold ‘em. New Hampshire Senator Lou D’Alessandro knew. Sen. D demanded an up or down vote and got it. So did California Assembly Member Anthony Pescetti a few years ago, who pulled a bill. With CARE we know this won’t happen.

WHO IS TRYING TO MAKE A STATEMENT?
One of the most bothering declarations from CARE, outside of its claim that records access is not about rights, is its trivialization and marginalization of experienced, successful rights-based legislators and activists, articulated in its letter (see previous blogs below).

The Shut Up We Know What's Good For You Principle practiced alike by "friendly" deformers, the National Council for Adoption, the ACLU and anybody else who rejects adoptee autonomy is well articulated here:

There is going to be little room for debate on this if the time comes - we are being represented by a legislator who is in this to pass the legislation, not to make a statement.

Did Alabama Representative Jeff Dolabare fight a rights-based, no compromise campaign just to “make a statement”?

Did New Hampshire Senator Lou D’Allesandro and Representatives Janet Allen and Mike Whalley fight a rights-based, no compromise campaign just to “make a statement”?

Did Maine’s Representative David Farrington and Senator Paula Benoit fight a rights-based, no compromise campaign just to “make a statement”?

Did California Assembly Member Anthony Pescetti, sponsor of CalOpen’s AB 1349 (2001-2002) (and here) who had the integrity and moral fortitude to pull the bill rather than see it ruined, fight a rights-based, no compromise campaign just to “make a statement”?

Did Helen Hill in Oregon, Alabama AWARE , the New Hampshire coalition, and OBC for ME fight rights-based, no compromise campaigns just to "make a statement"?

Did CalOpen fight a rights based, no compromise campaign and give up its much-loved bill "just to make a statement"?

To say that the ideology of inclusion is merely a "statement" reduces the very real sacrifices of time, money, energy, family, friends and jobs that these pioneers and heroes made to nothing more than stunt status--a sideshow. I was at the statehouse in Sacramento the day that CalOpen decided to pull its bill. I saw the frustration, the anger, the open weeping of some who had worked so hard to get their bill as far as it had come. This was no stunt. This was courage.

CARE tells everybody outside of the anything-is-better-than-nothing crowd to go piss up a rope. We’re “professionals.” We know best.

CARE ignores both the historical successes in Oregon, Alabama, New Hampshire, and Maine and repeated deformist failures across the country including Minnesota, Connecticut, and bleeding New Jersey. It writes adoptees and bastards out of their scenario.

CARE has admitted that it will gut its clean bill to get something passed—hardly something that makes sense under a rights-for-all-based process (but then theirs is "wish based," anyway) or will gain the support of everyday bastards and adoptees.

This begs the question:

Who is really “making a statement’?

Why?

And what is it?

WE'VE SCREWED UP YOUR STATE, NOW WE'RE COMING TO SCREW UP YOURS: CALIFORNIA ADOPTION REFORM EFFORT--IF YOU DON'T LIKE COMPROMISE GO AWAY!---COMMENTS

A few minutes ago I posted a long blog, We've screwed up your state, now we're coming to screw up yours--California Adoption Reform Effort: if you don't like compromise, go away. After it was up for a few minutes the entry seemed too long. I have gone back and divided it into two parts: (1`) The Letter and (2) Comments. I have now posted The Letter first, followed by this. I suggest you go below and read the The Letter First.

Zen fascists will control you

100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face

...California Uber Allies. Jello Biafra, Dead Kennedys

For the past few weeks we've been watching the formation of a new "adoption reform" organization in California: California Adoption Reform Effort (CARE). CARE consists of a few Californians, lead by adoptee author/filmmaker Jean Strauss who lives in Washington State and Stephanie Williams, a pricey lobbyist formerly with the Cal Trucking Association. It's advisory committee is cattle car Who's Who of mostly deformers, industry hacks, and out-of-staters.

According to CARE's webpage, the organization is "dedicated to providing adult adopted citizens access to a non-certified copy of their original record of birth."

Unfortunately, for Cal Adoptees, the CARE webpage shows us that it is just the same old deformer hag prettied up in a prom dress and talking from a commitee-written script.

According to the CARE webpage (my emphasis):

California Adoption Reform Effort is united in opening as many birth records in California as politially feasible.

Nothing appears on its webpage about a rights-rooted campaign. Instead CARE refers to "wishes" and desires" which apparently the state has a duty to grant to the adopted and their "birthmothers." (QUESTION: has nobody told CARE that "birthmother" is considered "the N word" by a lot of people, especially mothers, effected by adoption?)

Not satisfied with modeling itself on the successful legislative Alabama, New Hampshire, and Maine campaigns (a ballot initiative as Oregon's is economically unfeasible in Cal), CARE promises to run a "different" campaign.

How different? It's all rather vague.

CARE says its arguments are "non-emotional" (bu, remember, are "wishful.") It's scheme is based on "statistical and empirical data," but CARE fails to elaborate on what this ""statistical and empirical data" may be. Its "non-emotional" arguments, though, seem to include pleas for medical information, which CARE claims is a "right" denied California adoptees, the protection of "birthmothers" and adoptees from "businesses and institutions who profit from the unconsented[(sic] representation of adults"...and protection from incest. (!)

The subheading on CARE's original webpage read: Striving to provide a bridge for adopted citizens and their families to information that could save lives.

It was recently updated to read: California's effort to compassionately open birth records for adult adoptees while respecting state privacy laws!

Inexplicably the graphic used to illustrate this bridge is that of the Brooklyn Bridge, not the Cal-iconic Golden Gate. Catch it while it's still up!

UPFRONT: CARE THROWS IT ALL AWAY!
Upfront: CARE tells us it will compromise-- will sell out the rights of all for favors for some. (It would be interesting to know just how many CAREists already have what most don't.) CARE says that two states have never sealed records. Kansas and Alaska, which is true. It says another seven unnamed states have unsealed their records which is untrue. Obviously Oregon, Alabama, New Hampshire and Maine have unsealed obcs for all adult adoptees upon request and without restriction. We assume that CARE is also including Delaware, which has a disclosure veto and Tennessee which has disclosure and contact vetoes. But, what is the 9th state? Whatever, it is clear that CARE considers states that give "birthparents" special rights over obc access and their adult offspring are "open" states. They are not.

Upfront: CARE declares the 1935 law that sealed California adoptee's birth certificates was "well-intentioned" and "seemed prudent at the time." Obviously somebody needs made aware of Georgia Tann's work in California.

Upfront: CARE infantalizes adult adoptees by confusing open adoption with adoptees' right to their obcs by saying that "CWLA and the Evan B. Donaldson Institute "advocate at least some degree of openness in adoption."

Upfront: in a letter (see text below) from CARE to a select group of potential members, CARE defines itself as "professional" not "grassroots" while claiming adoptees need to be heard. The just need "navigated" by professionals in suits who you pay to lead you around by your needy noses. CARE, in fact, tells non-compromisers to hit the road. BTW, membership in CARE costs $85 a pop.

Upfront: in this same correspondence, CARE claims that the opening of all obcs would violate the California State Constitution and bring on lawsuits, but fails to explain why. A "professional" organization, arguing rights, not reunion, would commission legal research to back up a rights argument before it started. CalOpen, in fact, did just that, but they refuse to give the document up to CARE.

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma has agreed to sponsor CARE's bill, which is being fast tracked. CARE is trolling for co-sponsors and endorsements. So far, CARE says it is a "clean bill" but virtually admits that it will be amended and watered down. The bill hasn't been printed yet. A hearing is scheduled for March, but no date has been set. I will write more about this bill in a separate blog soon.

ACTION
Jean Ulrich and a number of seasoned Cal acativists have revived California Open to hold the line on CARE and its "experiment" ( CARE's word for what they're doing.) In the early 2000's Cal Open's clean SB 1349 made its way up to Senate hearings. Under threat of the bill being compromised out of recognition, CalOpen and its sponsor took the high road and withdrew the bill. I was there when it happened. It was a sad day, but also an honorable day. We did the right thing.

CalOpen's new page went up over the weekend as well as a MySpace page. Facebook is forthcoming. Jean and CalOpen need help to stop this bill from being compromised, and if it is compromised to kill it. CalOpen will be partnering with other groups. It also need help from us--especially help from California adoptees, their families, friends and anyone with a California connection. We cannot let California bastards and adoptees be written out. We are not lab rats!

BB Church momentarily came out of retirement to blog on the upcoming California Fiasco. He also has posted the above letter. Go here to read his thoughts.

ADDENDA: 2/9/09, 3: 25 PM: BB Church has just published a stunning critique of CARE. Go to the link directory about this and read it.

WE'VE SCREWED UP YOUR STATE, NOW WE'RE COMING TO SCREW UP YOURS: CALIFORNIA ADOPTION REFORM EFFORT--IF YOU DON'T LIKE COMPROMISE GO AWAY!--THE LETTER

A few minutes ago I posted a long blog, We've screwed up your state, now we're coming to screw up yours--California Adoption Reform Effort: if you don't like compromise, go away. After it was up for a few minutes the entry seemed too long. I have gone back and divided it into two parts: (1`) The Letter) and (2) Comments. I am posting the letter first. I suggest you it first; then read the comments posted in the entry above this.

*****

INTRODUCTION
For the past few weeks we've been watching the formation of a new "adoption reform" organization in California: California Adoption Reform Effor (CARE). CARE consists of a few Californians, lead by adoptee author/filmmaker Jean Strauss who lives in Washington State and Stephanie Williams, a pricey lobbyist formerly with the Cal Trucking Association. It's advisory committee is cattle car Who's Who of mostly deformers, industry hacks, and out-of-staters.

Bastard Nation has obtained a copy of an email sent by CARE "president Jean Strauss" to approximately 20 potential supporters. Theirvague but very real ideology of compromise is laidout, politically correct language ordered, "privacy" deified, compromise flogged, and experienced grassroots activists told to jump off the Santa Monica Pier.

THE LETTER
----- Original Message -----
From: Jean Strauss
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 11:12 PM
Subject: C.A.R.E.'s strategy moving forward...

Dear Everyone,

First off, thank you to all of you who were able to attend the Sacramento meeting this past Saturday. My apologies for taking so long to correspond to the entire group about what transpired at that meeting, and in the time since, but this is the first day I have had any free time.

The meeting was highly productive and positive. As we were able to inform those in attendance, in the last three weeks of January, the California Adoption Reform Effort grew from a concept to a reality. We are now a licensed professional organization with bylaws, an executive board and council, and a general membership. As of February 1st, CARE became a dues paying membership organization. We now have the structure in place to actively welcome full members, seek funding and support, and move forward with our legislative work. I'll be sending out a general invitation to join via our website in just a few days (probably this weekend). Your support (and the support of many others) will be the only way to achieve our goal of providing access to original birth records for as many California adult adoptees 18 and older as possible.

Our bill was submitted the third week of January, and we have an enthusiastic and very distinguished author in Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, the Majority Whip of the Assembly. In the next two days, a co-author who will be announced. We are currently involved in daily work in preparation of our first hearing sometime in March. We have been pursuing endorsements, and have begun district meetings.

Our effort is a professional one, not a grassroots one. We are being guided through the labyrinth of the California legislature by Stephanie Williams, a lobbyist with over two decades of experience walking the halls in Sacramento. Our strategy, language, and any ultimate success, will be largely due to her expertise and hard work. We would not be where we are without her, and supporting her is an important aspect of our membership.

One of the first hurdles we have to overcome as a group is how to educate others within the adoption reform movement about the strategy we are undertaking in California. It will be crucial to our success that people understand that our strategy in the California Adoption Reform Effort is solely based upon the legislative process that exists and what will work within that process. Hence, this is not an effort to 'right a wrong' or a 'fight for our Constitutional rights'. Our approach is a non-emotional one based upon statistical and empirical data. Thus, ours is 'an effort to update an antiquated and outdated policy established in 1935 (the sealing of adoptee birth records) so as to be able to provide adult adoptees with information about their origins so that they will have the ability to know their ethnicity, their nationality, their exact date and time of birth, and their original name as a protection against potential incest.'

The difference in language (and emotion) will be necessary within the confines of the legislative process. The results will be what we want to achieve - even though we're not using the 'language' we're used to using to express our needs. This is not an easy thing to ask of all of you, and yet it will be an important contribution of each of you to this effort if you are able to master it. I realize the italicized text above doesn't verbally capture the emotional impact that sealed records have had upon adoptees who've faced a lifetime of secrets, nor does this language relay how those secrets have often eroded self esteem and contributed to a the feeling of 'second class citizenry'. I know many of you are interested in being involved in access legislation because you believe access to your original information (all of it) is your constitutional right, and the constitutional right of your children. I am with you. Yet I believe we must use tools that will help us get the job done. The language of 'constitutional and civil rights' commonly used in access legislation appeals stands in direct opposition to the California Constitution. If we use this approach, we will, I have become convinced, fail.

There are other, equally compelling reasons for adoptee access and they can be made from data and 'unintended outcomes' of the original code which sealed the records. It's less emotional, less sexy, less what we're all used to saying and feeling - but it's language that will work with legislators and their staff. After walking the halls of the Capital this week I am convinced of two things: we have a highly competent lobbyist representing our effort and her strategy for getting this legislation through this maze has the best potential for achieving legislative change to sealed records policy.

Many might say that this 'quieter' and very precise language and strategy was not needed in other states which have achieved openness, and many may wonder why Oregon, our neighbor, could succeed without having to play this 'game'. In Oregon, a single donor helped fund a statewide measure which was voted upon by citizens. To do that in California would cost between $3 and $30 million - and the result would most likely be the same as Oregon's: a lawsuit would be brought that the proposition is unenforcable because it would be unconstitutional. Oregon was able to prevail in their lawsuit, and much of the legal debate was elegant and helps our cause. But it does not address the very real difference between our two states constitutions. A similar legal battle in California would be far less likely to end in a positive outcome.

The first amendment of California's Constitution is all about privacy. Privacy is so important in our state that there are even privacy committees. We may be the only state in the Union with such a strict and overriding concern regarding privacy. To pass our bill, we will have to address the privacy obstacles that will be in our path.

We have submitted a clean bill (this means it has no amendments or compromises attached to it). We are asking for one thing and one thing only: that every adult adoptee over the age of 18 be allowed to have a non-certified copy of their original record of birth. It is a simple bill - but it is not an easy challenge. I know there are some for whom compromise represents a 'sellout'. You probably should not join C.A.R.E. We welcome your support, and we want a clean bill, but we are already facing very complicated maneuverings which will probably mean we are facing some compromise. There is going to be little room for debate on this if the time comes - we are being represented by a legislator who is in this to pass the legislation, not to make a statement. I say this after only one day of walking the halls. Privacy has already come up. It is not the concern of just one legislator, it's the concern of every legislator we've encountered.

I say all this not to be discouraging but to be honest and clear. Our author and lobbyist need our support for the path they see to success. They are interested in helping our group provide access to original birth records to as many adult adoptees as possible, and I believe we have a good shot at succeeding if we can achieve a broad understanding among triad members and friends for the need for this strategy, and for the nuances of language that will be necessary to succeed at our goal.

I know that many of you have taken the time to submit new language for our website and organization. Know we've been reviewing all of it and running it by the people who will be working this bill through the tricky seas ahead. What ends up on the website and in postings is going to be the result of legislative vetting.

I have often cited a quote of Thoreau's when trying to help people understand that triad members are the voices which should be listened to as adoption policy is revised. To highly paraphrase Thoreau,

To navigate an ocean we should seek the counsel of shipwrecked mariners rather than find our way based on the advice of those who've never been out of sight of land.

Our lobbyist and author are the mariners who must chart this course. They know, much better than any of us, how to navigate these waters. Only through their wise counsel and honesty will we arrive at our destination.

All that said, we also won't arrive there without the support of all of you, and many other friends. Please consider joining our effort and encouraging others to as well. We have an opportunity to do much good here. My apologies if much of this has sounded didactic and rather heavy. I'm just trying to relay what I have learned about the situation we face. I'm thrilled to be involved and honored to know each of you. I want us to succeed...

Many thanks to all of you for your time and patience and good wishes!

Sincerely,

Jean Strauss

MAINE UPDATE: A COLLECTION OF RECENT NEWS STORIES ON THE RESTORATION OF ADOPTEE RIGHTS IN MAINE

Bobbi Beavers from OBC for ME tells us that the state's Vital Stats office has been overwhelmed with requests for original birth certificates. As of January 9, 274 requests have been handled and a lot more are waiting.

Dan Companion, who received his obc on January 2 and met his first family the following day has sent me a couple links I didn't have before and am posting here:

WCSH-TV, Portland
Restrictions lifted on original birth certificates featuring TV interviews with Dan who came up from Florida and other out-of-state-Day1ers.

Here is Dan's' slideshow of Opening Day events, pictures of the Statehouse in Augusta, and his reunion.

Congratulations Dan and all Maine adoptees!

BOOKS: LOST AND FOUND REISSUED!

Yay! The University of Michigan Press has just released the 3rd ed. of Betty Jean Lifton's classic Lost and Found: the Adoption Experience, the book that launched the contemporary adoptee rights movement.

From the UMP webpage:

The first edition of Betty Jean Lifton's Lost and Found advanced the adoption rights movement in this country in 1979, challenging many states' policies of maintaining closed birth records...

This expanded and updated edition, with new material on the controversies concerning adoption, artificial insemination, and newer reproductive technologies, continues to add to the discussion on this important topic. A new preface and afterword by the author have been added, as well as a greatly expanded resources section that in addition to relevant organizations now lists useful Web sites.

The UMP site also includes a long list of online adoption resources--including Bastard Nation.

Congratulations BJ!

Here is BJ's webpage.

CONGRATULATIONS MAINE: ANOTHER FREE STATE!

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization congratulates Maine adoptees on the restoration of their right to records and identity.

Maine joins, New Hampshire, Alabama, and Oregon in showing the adoption reformist community that compromise isn't needed for a successful rights restoration campaign, that includes every adoptee, not just some. Anything less than full access is antithetical to our rights and defeats us.

Welcome to the expanding list of free states that recognize the gross injustice and illegality of the sealed records system.

A collection of recent media coverage on Maine can be found on The Daily Bastardette

BOGUS BASTARD NATION ACTION ALERTS BEING SENT!

This afternoon five phony Bastard Nation emails, under the subject Bastard Nation Action Alert were sent out.

Bastard Nation has sent no action alerts. These emails are empty and have no attachments.

Please delete them without opening them.

Appropriate abuse authorities have been notified.

Thanks.

Marley

LETTER TO NEBRASKA GOV. DAVE HEINEMAN: AGING DOWN DID NOTHING TO CHANGE MESSAGE IT'S OK TO DUMP YOUR CHILD

Dear Governor Heineman:

Bastard Nation, the Adoptee Rights Organization, is deeply troubled by the decision of last week’s Special Session, to repeal LB 157 and replace it with the equally odious LB 1. By doing so, Nebraska, institutionalized child abandonment, making it just another normal choice for parents unable or unwilling to fulfill their responsibilities to their children.

Since their inception in Texas in 1999, Bastard Nation has opposed all so-called “safe haven” laws, which we call “baby dump laws.

The causes of child dumping are social isolation, fear, family dysfunction, mental illness, substance abuse, poverty, and lack of social services or ability to access those already in place. LB 1 and its previous bill, don’t address these deep-rooted social and economic problems. They just make them “go away,” out of sight out of mind. The problems of parents, whether they are a frightened 15-year old mom of a newborn or a 55-year old grandpa caring for a mentally ill grandson, are very real, and they cannot and should not be solved by a quick-fix, government facilitated and promoted child abandonment program.

Child abandonment is child abandonment no matter at what age and what kind of a comforting name you slap on it. Just because a child can’t remember what was done to him or her, doesn’t lessen the act, the pain, the harm, or the questions those kids will endure throughout their lives. Nebraska’s new plan to divvy up children by age, into those worthy and those unworthy of abandonment protection is not acceptable nor is it best child welfare practice. Aging down to 30 days simply creates a new set of abandoned children and their families who will suffer the lifelong consequences of bad legislation.

Nebraska had it right the first time. It was the last state to pass a “safe haven” law. It could have been the first to repeal before more families are harmed or even destroyed.

Last week, Nebraska’s children needed an advocate—a friend. For those too young or unable to speak for themselves, they needed a voice. Up until the very vote on Friday morning, a bill could have been introduced to permanently repeal LB 157 with no amendments or new bills later. Nebraska could have initiated a child-centric, compassionate common sense approach and message that the state does not support any form child abandonment under any circumstance. The Unicam rejected that option and took the quick-fix out.

Nebraska’s kids got a law that continues to abuse them through legal baby dumping. They got a task force that will pat itself on the back and do nothing. The victims will remain voiceless.

Aging down LB 157 did nothing to change the message that it is OK to dump your child. As long as Nebraska condones the abandonment of any child, all children—and their families-- are in danger.

Marleyh Greiner
Executive Chair

PRESS RELEASE
NOVEMBER 18, 2008

BASTARD NATION TO NEBRASKA:
REPEAL LB 157!
STOP CHILD DUMPING NOW!
AND DON’T BRING IT BACK!

CONTACT: Marley Greiner, 614-571-2999 or MEGreiner@gmail.com

Nebraska had it right the first time. It was the last state to pass a “safe haven” law. Nebraska can be the first to repeal this misbegotten law before any more families are harmed or even destroyed. Nebraska can lead the rest of the country in dragging itself out of this moral quagmire.
Bastard Nation Testimony, Nebraska Judiciary Committee,
November 17, 2009


Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization yesterday called for the permanent repeal of Nebraska’s LB 157, which permits anyone to abandon any child of any age at a licensed hospital in the State of Nebraska. The special session of the Nebraska Unicameral was called this week to revise the age limit on children eligible for abandonment, is looking at two bills, LB 1 and LB 3.

Bastard Nation believes that dumping a child of any age is no solution to social isolation, fear, family dysfunction, and mental illness. The problems of parents, whether they are a frightened 15-year old mom of a newborn or a 55-year old grandpa caring for a mentally ill grandson, are very real, and they cannot and should not be solved by a quick fix, no-muss-no-fuss government–facilitated and promoted child dumping program.

In testimony submitted to the Judiciary Committee, urging repeal and renunciation of child dumping in Nebraska, Bastard Nation said:

Aging down LB 157 does nothing to change the message that it is OK to dump your child. By continuing to promote child abandonment at any age, the message will remain: it’s OK to dump your child.

Rejecting the idea that older child abandonment is traumatic, but newborn and infant abandonment harmless since newborns will have no memory or relationship with their families, Bastard Nation testified:

Apparently memory and articulation is what makes one class of dump “ethical” and “good” and the other not.

“Nine years ago, we warned that once these laws became institutionalized, they would be normalized,” says Bastard Nation executive chair, Marley Greiner. “Bad social policy for newborns and their families has now become bad social policy for all families. Nebraska is the culmination of bad practice.”

Greiner explains that the contemporary baby dump movement is a reaction to ongoing reforms in adoption, including the right of adopted persons to access their original birth records, putative fathers’ rights, and the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) which gives tribal rights under certain circumstances, to children being placed for adoption. The conservative adoption trade lobby, the National Council for Adoption, where the ‘safe haven” concept originated, has stated specifically that “safe havens” are a response to the restoration of the right of adoptees to access their original birth records and identities. State facilitated baby dumps,” Bastard Nation says, “are nothing more than a return to secret adoption and sealed records.”

The testimony continues:

In the last few years, baby dumping, encouraged by the government, has become “just another option,” for parents who might otherwise seek out services that would assist them to keep their children, place them in temporary fostercare while they worked out their problems, or place them for adoption in a traditional informed process. Baby dumping, they are told, is easier.

In some states, the age of children eligible for dumping has edged up and drop-off sites have increased to make the process more “convenient” How-to-abandon your baby units are mandated in the curriculum of several states. There has been a steady increase in “drive-by relinquishments” by parents who have no intention of ever harming their children, but are looking for an easy way out or simply don’t know better, while the rate of dangerous discard and neonaticide remain the same.

Testimony cited a 2005 study done by the adoption reform group, California Open, based on a survey of county coroners the group did through pubic records requests that indicated that since the passage of California’s “safe haven” law, the rate of neonaticide has remained a steady 13-15 per year.

Nebraska has no newborn abandonment “crisis” Greiner says. Since 1996, 5 discarded newborns have been found alive (2-3 in relatively safe locations) and 1 found dead from unknown causes

The real problem, she says, is the failure of the state to deliver mental health care and other services to Nebraska families. Although services seem to exist on paper, the parents and guardians of many of the children turned in under LB 157 are vocal about their inability to access them, and see the legal child dumping of LB 157, as the only way that they can get help. “The state is taking broken kids and breaking them some more by tossing them into a safe haven hole. Make them better with repeated abandonments. This absolutely must stop.”

No child should be abandoned. Nebraska’ plan to divvy up children by age, into those worthy and those unworthy of abandonment protection is not acceptable nor best practice. Aging down to 30 days or some other arbitrary age creates a new set of abandoned children and their families who will suffer lifelong consequences.

For more information see Bastard Nation’s testimony at: http://www.bastards.org/bn-nebraska-testimony.pdf

Also see Children of the Corn: Reporting, Theory, and Writing on Nebraska Child Dumping, a one-stop source of information regarding LB 157. http://cornkids.blogspot.com


Bastard Nation is dedicated to the recognition of the full human and civil rights of adult adoptees. Toward that end, we advocate the opening to adoptees, upon request at age of majority, of those government documents which pertain to the adoptee's historical, genetic, and legal identity, including the unaltered original birth certificate and adoption decree. Bastard Nation asserts that it is the right of people everywhere to have their official original birth records unaltered and free from falsification, and that the adoptive status of any person should not prohibit him or her from choosing to exercise that right. We have reclaimed the badge of bastardy placed on us by those who would attempt to shame us; we see nothing shameful in having been born out of wedlock or in being adopted. Bastard Nation does not support mandated mutual consent registries or intermediary systems in place of unconditional open records, nor any other system that is less than access on demand to the adult adoptee, without condition, and without qualification

PRESS RELEASE
NOVEMBER 18, 2008

BASTARD NATION TO NEBRASKA:
REPEAL LB 157!
STOP CHILD DUMPING NOW!
AND DON’T BRING IT BACK!

CONTACT: Marley Greiner, 614-571-2999 or MEGreiner@gmail.com

Nebraska had it right the first time. It was the last state to pass a “safe haven” law. Nebraska can be the first to repeal this misbegotten law before any more families are harmed or even destroyed. Nebraska can lead the rest of the country in dragging itself out of this moral quagmire.
Bastard Nation Testimony, Nebraska Judiciary Committee,
November 17, 2009


Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization yesterday called for the permanent repeal of Nebraska’s LB 157, which permits anyone to abandon any child of any age at a licensed hospital in the State of Nebraska. The special session of the Nebraska Unicameral was called this week to revise the age limit on children eligible for abandonment, is looking at two bills, LB 1 and LB 3.

Bastard Nation believes that dumping a child of any age is no solution to social isolation, fear, family dysfunction, and mental illness. The problems of parents, whether they are a frightened 15-year old mom of a newborn or a 55-year old grandpa caring for a mentally ill grandson, are very real, and they cannot and should not be solved by a quick fix, no-muss-no-fuss government–facilitated and promoted child dumping program.

In testimony submitted to the Judiciary Committee, urging repeal and renunciation of child dumping in Nebraska, Bastard Nation said:

Aging down LB 157 does nothing to change the message that it is OK to dump your child. By continuing to promote child abandonment at any age, the message will remain: it’s OK to dump your child.

Rejecting the idea that older child abandonment is traumatic, but newborn and infant abandonment harmless since newborns will have no memory or relationship with their families, Bastard Nation testified:

Apparently memory and articulation is what makes one class of dump “ethical” and “good” and the other not.

“Nine years ago, we warned that once these laws became institutionalized, they would be normalized,” says Bastard Nation executive chair, Marley Greiner. “Bad social policy for newborns and their families has now become bad social policy for all families. Nebraska is the culmination of bad practice.”

Greiner explains that the contemporary baby dump movement is a reaction to ongoing reforms in adoption, including the right of adopted persons to access their original birth records, putative fathers’ rights, and the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) which gives tribal rights under certain circumstances, to children being placed for adoption. The conservative adoption trade lobby, the National Council for Adoption, where the ‘safe haven” concept originated, has stated specifically that “safe havens” are a response to the restoration of the right of adoptees to access their original birth records and identities. State facilitated baby dumps,” Bastard Nation says, “are nothing more than a return to secret adoption and sealed records.”

The testimony continues:

In the last few years, baby dumping, encouraged by the government, has become “just another option,” for parents who might otherwise seek out services that would assist them to keep their children, place them in temporary fostercare while they worked out their problems, or place them for adoption in a traditional informed process. Baby dumping, they are told, is easier.

In some states, the age of children eligible for dumping has edged up and drop-off sites have increased to make the process more “convenient” How-to-abandon your baby units are mandated in the curriculum of several states. There has been a steady increase in “drive-by relinquishments” by parents who have no intention of ever harming their children, but are looking for an easy way out or simply don’t know better, while the rate of dangerous discard and neonaticide remain the same.

Testimony cited a 2005 study done by the adoption reform group, California Open, based on a survey of county coroners the group did through pubic records requests that indicated that since the passage of California’s “safe haven” law, the rate of neonaticide has remained a steady 13-15 per year.

Nebraska has no newborn abandonment “crisis” Greiner says. Since 1996, 5 discarded newborns have been found alive (2-3 in relatively safe locations) and 1 found dead from unknown causes

The real problem, she says, is the failure of the state to deliver mental health care and other services to Nebraska families. Although services seem to exist on paper, the parents and guardians of many of the children turned in under LB 157 are vocal about their inability to access them, and see the legal child dumping of LB 157, as the only way that they can get help. “The state is taking broken kids and breaking them some more by tossing them into a safe haven hole. Make them better with repeated abandonments. This absolutely must stop.”

No child should be abandoned. Nebraska’ plan to divvy up children by age, into those worthy and those unworthy of abandonment protection is not acceptable nor best practice. Aging down to 30 days or some other arbitrary age creates a new set of abandoned children and their families who will suffer lifelong consequences.

For more information see Bastard Nation’s testimony at: http://www.bastards.org/bn-nebraska-testimony.pdf

Also see Children of the Corn: Reporting, Theory, and Writing on Nebraska Child Dumping, a one-stop source of information regarding LB 157. http://cornkids.blogspot.com

Bastard Nation is dedicated to the recognition of the full human and civil rights of adult adoptees. Toward that end, we advocate the opening to adoptees, upon request at age of majority, of those government documents which pertain to the adoptee's historical, genetic, and legal identity, including the unaltered original birth certificate and adoption decree. Bastard Nation asserts that it is the right of people everywhere to have their official original birth records unaltered and free from falsification, and that the adoptive status of any person should not prohibit him or her from choosing to exercise that right. We have reclaimed the badge of bastardy placed on us by those who would attempt to shame us; we see nothing shameful in having been born out of wedlock or in being adopted. Bastard Nation does not support mandated mutual consent registries or intermediary systems in place of unconditional open records, nor any other system that is less than access on demand to the adult adoptee, without condition, and without qualification

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE EVAN B. DONALDSON ADOPTION INSTITUTE FROM BASTARD NATION

In December 2007, members of Bastard Nation attended the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute's "For the Records--National Conclave" in New York City. At the end of the day, nearly everyone agreed that compromise legislation to restore the right of birth certificate access to some adoptees and not others, is unacceptable. Participants never heard back from the Donaldson-- until June 25, that is, when we received an email from Susan Hicks, recently hired project administrator of the Donaldson's open records project. Ms. Hicks, self-described as the lead advocate for the Massachusetts "access" bill, sold a generation of Massachusetts adoptees down the river to get access for some.

Below is our Open Letter to the Donaldson Institute that we faxed and emailed earlier today regarding the hire of Ms Hicks. If you agree with us that the appointment of Ms Hicks is a slap in the face of adopted persons and activists who have worked tirelessly for acess for all, and calls into question the Donaldson's commitment to us, please let the Donaldson know.

BASTARD NATION: THE ADOPTEE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION

P.O. Box 1469

Edmond, OK 73083-1469

Voice/Fax 415-704-3166

www.bastards.org

Mr. Adam Pertman, Executive Director

Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute

120 E. 38th Street

New York, New York 10016

June 30, 2008

Dear Mr. Pertman:

We are in receipt of an email dated June 25, 2008 from your new project administrator, Susan Hicks. The subject line of the email is: Re: EBD "For the Records" National Conclave - FOLLOW-UP!

We at Bastard Nation were stunned to read that Ms. Hicks is now the new project administrator for the EBD and that she apparently became qualified for the appointment through her work on the Massachusetts adoptee access bill. Some of us at BN dealt with Ms. Hicks during the legislative process of SB 959. During this time, we found Ms. Hicks to be extremely secretive and unwilling to share any knowledge of the bill whatsoever. She was the opposite of collegial.

Moreover, for her to state, "I was the lead advocate and played an instrumental role in changing the birth certificate access law in Massachusetts" is not something that we feel deserves congratulations, never mind a job offer. The bill is not an equal access law because it does not allow all adopted adults access to their original birth certificates. The law is a compromise that leaves more than a generation of adoptees behind without the same rights as all other non-adopted adults.

Your own 2007 EBD statement, "For the Records," clearly recommends that every state should restore to all adoptees unrestricted access to their records. This report also recommends that state laws that do create a "sandwich' situation" in which some adult adopted persons get access to their records and others do not, should be revisited within three years of enactment. In 2009 will Susan Hicks revisit the legislation that she herself supported?

If it is EBDs intention to bring all adoption reform groups together, then we must state up front that we do not understand the appointment of Susan Hicks to this position. Not only do we not understand the appointment, we are left to wonder at the future direction of the institute. Certainly Ms. Hick's background strongly suggests that the institute is headed in a direction that rewards compromises instead of genuine equal access for all.

We appreciate your time and hope that you will address our concerns.

Sincerely,

Marley Greiner, Chair

Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization

Executive Committee

Marley Greiner

Anita Walker Field

Pat Marler

Legislative Advisor

Janet Allen, New Hampshire State Representative

The following blog was written on September 12, 2007, by Anita Walker Field. It was an open letter to Susan Hicks and the ABC Grounp. You can find it at www.grannieannie.org. It is copied here with permission.

OPEN LETTER TO SUSAN HICKS & ABC

WHAT WILL YOU TELL THE "BLACKLISTED ONES?"

The Massachusetts Committee of ABC was one of the prime supporters of SB 63. I have read over your webpage and discovered that something very important is totally missing from ABC's laundry list of superlatives about SB 63. The missing link is your feelings and attitudes toward the "Blacklisted Ones" – you know, the adopted men and women who happened to have been born on the politically incorrect dates between July 17, 1974 and December 31, 2007. What do you say to these adoptees who will still have to go to court to get their birth certificates?

Will you look them in the face and tell them how good SB 63 is?

Will you pat them on the back and thank them for being martyrs to the cause?

Will you tell them that you'll come back in a year or two to revisit the law and then you will support changing it to include the Blacklisted Ones?

Will you tell them that with all political issues there are bound to be scapegoats? And with SB 63, they are the scapegoats.

Will you look them in the eyes and tell them that this bill was the right thing to do?

Will you tell them that leaving them out in the cold was the politically expedient thing that you all had to do in order to get this bill passed into law?

Will you tell them you're sorry?

To: Members, Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization

Re: Withdrawal of Bastard Nation from A Day for Adoptee Rights

Bastards,

The Executive Committee of Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization announces with regret the withdrawal of our organizational co-sponsorship and official participation in A Day for Adoptee Rights, (DAR) scheduled for July 20-25 during the National Conference of State Legislature's annual meeting in New Orleans. We had planned to hold a "Bastard Boot Camp Teach-In" on July 20, participate in the protest on July 22, and help staff the DAR space inside the Mariol Convention Center July 23-25.

We sincerely regret any inconvenience or discouragement this decision may cause.

As of this writing the event itself has not been canceled, only Bastard Nation's co-sponsorship and participation. Please check the DAR website for updates on the status of the event. http://adopteerights.net/nulliusfilius/

Bastard Nation has been concerned for some time about the cost effectiveness of the project. While many people exhibited an interest in attending all or part of the event, the number of people who actually registered or made a serious commitment to attend was minimal. There were also hidden costs at the convention center, of which DAR and BN were not aware of until recently, which put our participation extremely over budget.

Bastard Nation believes that the Day for Adoptee Rights project is a sound idea. There is no dispute between BN and DAR. We have concluded that this is not the time or place for Bastard Nation to take part in a Day for Adoptee Rights. The cost of the event this year spiraled and did not balance with the number of participants coming forward to show our strength to the politicians who hold the keys to the records cabinets. Bastard Nation is an all volunteer organization that works on the foundational financial principle of bringing you the best bang for your buck. Spending several thousand dollars in member dues and donations on a project that at this point was sputtering is fiscally irresponsible, movement careless, and takes time and funds away from legislative and educational activities that can make a direct difference now.

Moreover, we are concerned with the participation of Abrazo Adoption Agency in San Antonio, Texas. Unknown to DAR and BN until just a few days ago, Abrazo has been raising funds for the event in DAR's name. http://apps.facebook.com/causes/85456?recruiter_id=15092383

These funds went and continue to go directly to the agency, raising huge ethical issues for Bastard Nation and the equal access movement. Records and identity access is about our rights and has no connection with the marketing schemes of adoption agencies. BN has a long-standing, hard-line policy of accepting no support from the adoption industry. Bastard Nation speficially,m and the adoptee rights movement in general, cannot and should not be co-opted or used by the adoption industry to promote its own agenda. We disavow all industry involvement in our work. Any entanglement with the adoption industry endangers the integrity and credibility of the adoptee rights movement.

Although BN solicited funds for our specific DAR activities, the only official fundraising site for DAR is on the DAR site. Do not send funds to any other solicitor.

Bastard Nation is in the process of working with the Country Inn and Suites by Carlson to release the rooms in our reserved block. We will personally contact everyone who registered under our agreement with the hotel about the procedure for you to cancel room reservations should you desire to do so.

We greatly appreciate the work that volunteers from Bastard Nation and A Day for Adoptee Rights have put into this event. Without them and you there is no movement. We applaud your enthusiasm, commitment and we look forward to future activities to restore our rights.

Please write to our Executive Chair, Marley Greiner (maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net) if you have any questions.

Yours in Bastardy,

The Bastard Nation Executive Committee



Anita Walker Field

Patricia Marler

Marley Greiner, Executive Chair

OHIO: Update on HB 7--Records Access Removed!

On Wednesday April 16, HB 7 (as introduced) was replaced with Sub (stitute) HB 7 which removed records access altogether. (The sub bill is not posted yet on the Ohio Leg page but can be found here under LSC ). A vote on the sub bill was delayed a week to give interested parties and pols time to respond. The schedule for next week's hearing won't be released for a couple days. I'll post it here and send it elsewhere as soon as I have it. It will probably be on Wednesday.

BEAOhio and Bastard Nation are very concerned that even if access is returned to the sub-bill, the bill may end up compromised with a disclosure veto, beefed up CI/Registry scheme, etc. The Ohio Catholic Conference, for instance, recommended that the legislature create a new and improved active reunion registry (it is now passive) in which the state would have 18 months, after an adoptee requests his or her identifying information, to obtain birth parent approval or veto for release of the document. After that period, if there is no word from the parent(s) the obc would be released. Yeah, the under-staffed, under-funded and over-worked Vital Stats folks will really fly with that one! And if you don't think that what happens in other states stays in other states, the OCC notes that this recommendation was lifted from an adopted proposal from the Catholic Conference of New Jersey.

Adoption Network Cleveland, which has worked on this bill for more than a year, has offered the contact preference form to lighten the load, and we agree with that offer. But adoptee rights opposition, most of whom believe that records access = abortion, will want much more. (NOTE: This is not a BEAOhio or Bastard Nation bill. It is part of a larger adoption and fostercare reform package initiated by the legislature).

Even if unrestricted records access is returned to sub bill 7 we are greatly concerned that 1996 (to now) disclosure vetoes will be honored. A bill that honors those vetoes and permits future vetoes is not a clean bill. Passage of such a bill would permit the state to continue treating adopted persons as second rate citizens and continue to let a small number of individuals practice special rights.

I'll post the action alert as soon as possible. In the meantime go to My Space BEAOhio and Adoption Network Cleveland for more information about the bill.

I'll be at the hearing!

ILLINOIS; ASTOUNDING CLAIM--MOST ADOPTEES HAVE NAMES OF THEIR BIRTHPARENTS!

Recently, an Illinois adoptee sent me an email from Melisha Mitchell regarding HB 4623's provision on deceased birth parents. In it Ms. Mitchell makes the astounding claim that 80-90% of Illinois adoptees already know the names of their birthparents, particularly the names of their first mothers! I am publishing this letter in full, with permission of the recepient, but am withholding the name upon request. I have highlighted the most egregious statements in yellow.

Dear XXX:

Thanks for all your (really good) questions regarding the pending Illinois legislation. I was in Springfield last week, and came home to dozens of emails on the bill...including yours...and shall do my utmost to answer your questions...

In a message dated xxx, XXX writes:

>Will birth parent "requests for anonymity" eventually expire under HB 4623?

Yes, under the proposed law, all birth parent requests for anonymity through
the Registry will expire upon the birth parent's death.

>How will the State of Illinois know when/if the birth parent has died? I can see if a death >certificate is issued in Illinois - what about anywhere else in the world?

As you point out, if the birth parent died in Illinois (or was born in Illinois, which would require Illinois to receive notice of the birth parent's death), there is no issue to proving that they are deceased. Many Illinois adoptees know their birth parents' names (80 to 90% of the adoption decrees issued in Illinois list the birth mother's full name...and adoption decrees are available to the adoptive parents upon request (as long as they're alive, obviously). As a result, most adoptees in this state do have their birth parent's names. One of the reasons why we added the provision that allows an adoptee who is the subject of a request for anonymity to search again, at no cost, once five or more years have elapsed since the request for anonymity was filed is that a state intermediary is authorized to obtain a death certificate from any state in the US (regardless of what that state's rules are about the release of an obc). If the state intermediary can confirm a birth parent's death and obtains a birth parent's death certificate, this info (death of birth parent) will be relayed to the adoptee who would then receive their obc. This is a tricky provision, though, as some states do place limitations on who can obtain a death certificate (although they have no way of verifying, for example, if someone who says they are the daughter/son of someone is indeed that person's daughter or son)...

Adoptees who find little or no information on their original birth certificates, as well as those who find very common names, may find it helpful to seek assistance through either the agency that handled the adoption, the state intermediary program, or a post-adoption program like that offered by the White Oak Foundation.

As I outlined (sort of) above, most Illinois adoptees will find their birth mother's name on their adoption decree. Although this legislation does not release the adoption decree (which is freely available to adoptive parents in this state--as long as they are alive) to adult adoptees, it is likely that this issue will be addressed in future legislation. Adopted persons who have no information at all (no last name or first name for the birth parent) and were born in Chicago before 1962 can find their birth names in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (and our organization helps adoptees born before 1962 to get this info at no charge). It is less likely that an original birth certificate issued in the 60s or 70s would be blank, but for those rare cases, the state intermediary program would probably be helpful as state intermediaries are able to obtain agency files, court files, relinquishment papers (which often include the birth mother's full name and date of birth) and other documents which should allow them to successfully locate the birth parent or surviving birth siblings if the birth parent is deceased.

>What recourse does an adoptee have if he or she receives an original birth >certificate that is >blank or lists an alias? Will the information that SHOULD have been on the birth certificate (i.e. >identifying information) be made available to the adoptee or is this considered a de facto >"disclosure veto"?

Wow. What a great idea (releasing the info that should have been on the obc to the adult adoptee)...but not one that was included in this bill. It is likely that the issue of the release of the adoption decree (which almost always includes the birth mother's last name, and includes her first name 80 to 90% of the time) to adult adoptees will be taken up in subsequent legislation...this bill only deals with the release of an original birth certificate to an adult adopted person and how birth parents can relay their wishes regarding contact or the release of their identity...

I am attaching to this email a chart that I've put together which shows how things are in Illinois under current statute and how they would be if the proposed law is signed by the Governor. If you have any additional questions after reading the chart, let me know and I'll do my best to answer them!!

Melisha Mitchell
Executive Director
The White Oak Foundation
www.whiteoakfoundation.org

ILLINOIS OPEN'S ANITA FIELD: "...FEIGENHOLTZ FOLLOWED HER OWN PATH--ONE OF COMPROMISE..."

Here are some recent comments from Illinois Open's

Anita Field. "Curiously," we only learned of the impending March 12 introduction of Amendment 1 (aka a re-write of the bill) on Monday March 10 in an article in the Chicago Trib. Tuesday, March 11 Anita entered the hospital for scheduled surgery. We were told by Feigenholtz's office that the vote on Wednesday would be on the "new language only" not the bill itself. On Wednesday, the bill passed out of committee after a show hearing whlie Anita was in surgery.

See previous entry for Reform Coalition statement on HB 4623.

We aren't going away!

Dear Illinois Open Friends,

Thank you all for your support during the days when Representative Feigenholtz was preparing her bill. I tried my hardest to let her know that adoptees don't want restrictions put upon them by the state. She countered by saying I'm living in a dream world and don't understand the underbelly of politics.

I worked very hard to persuade Representative Feigenholtz that the time was right for a clean bill, one that would help all adoptees equally. I know many of you wrote to her not once, but several times, without ever receiving a reply. We tried to tell her we don't want to be tied to the state's apron strings any longer, but she didn't listen to us.

Instead Representative Feigenholtz followed her own path – one of "compromise," the very same path she chose to go down 13 years ago.

With HB 4623 Representative Feigenholtz has put some of us adoptees in a potentially divided position and that's too bad. If she had introduced a pure bill that would have given equal rights to every adopted citizen, we would all be moving forward and working together now.

But she didn't.

Personally, I am opposed to HB 4623. I will not support it under any circumstances and I will speak out against it whenever I can.

I'm stepping back from Illinois Open for awhile because I'm finding that I need more time to recuperate from my surgery.

One of these days soon I'll be back blogging. Stay tuned to www.grannieannie.orG

ILLINOIS: ADOPTION REFORM COALITION URGES: REJECT HB 4623

On March 28, 2008 Adoption Reform Illinois issued a letter to members of the Illinois House of Representatives and the media. The letter was signed by Illinois Open director Anita Field Walker, Green Ribbons Illinois representative Triona Guidry and 27 prominent adoption reform leaders urging the defeat of HB 4623, a so-called records access bill which would open records to some Illinois adoptees while trapping many in the lucrative Illinois Adoption Registry. (More names may be added to the protest at a later date.) Background leading to this letter can be found in several Bastardette entries for February and March 2008. Later tonight I will post Anita Field's personal comments about HB 4623 and tomorrow I will publish Melisha Mitchell's claims regarding the bill and opponents. Additional commentary will follow in the days and weeks to come.

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE FREELY!

NEWS FROM:
ADOPTION REFORM ILLINOIS

Attn: News Director March 28, 2008

For Immediate Release Contact: Triona Guidry

Adoption Reform Coalition Urges: Reject HB 4623

We, the undersigned members of the adoption community, urge legislators to oppose Illinois House Bill 4623. As written, this bill offers some adopted adults the chance to access their original birth certificates, while banning others from accessing theirs.

Illinois adoptees should be treated the same as non-adopted Illinoisans who face no birth certificate access restrictions. We urge legislators to reject the current compromise language of this flawed bill, and to create a new bill that will restore the civil right, rescinded in 1945, of all Illinois adopted adults to access their original birth certificates without bureaucratic restraint or third party interference.

This bill is merely a convoluted extension of the existing mandatory intermediary system. It turns equal access to adoptees' public records into a question of search and reunion, instead of addressing the civil right of all persons to access their original birth certificates.

Our organizations are united in our concern that the amended bill was not the bill that was posted for weeks on the Illinois legislative web site. This amended bill was not available online until March 13, 2008, the day the bill passed through committee, making it impossible to present testimony.

“For The Records: Restoring A Right To Adult Adoptees,” a comprehensive study published by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, examines the issue:
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/research/2007_11_for_records.php

Access to one’s own birth certificate is not a favor to some, but a right for all.

Anita Walker Field
Illinois Open
obc@ilopen.org


Triona Guidry
Green Ribbon Campaign for Open Records
triona@guidryconsulting.com

The attached PDF gives background material about the bill to help your reporter in preparing an article. (NOTE: I'm having with the URL to this. I will post it later...Bastardette)

Signatories:
The Hon. Janet Allen
New Hampshire House of Representatives

Marley Greiner
Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization

Ann Wilmer
Founder
Green Ribbon Campaign for Open Records

Bonnie Pazdan Pierce Spinazze
Co-Founder: Illinois Coalition for Truth in Adoption

Mary L. Fuller
Founder, FamAdopt
Illinois Born and Adopted

Trish Maskew
President
Linh Song, MSW
Executive Director
Ethica, Inc.

Ron Morgan
Kali Coultas
Day For Adoptee Rights

Sandy White Hawk
Executive Director
First Nations Orphan Association

Melissa Holub, Ph.D.
President-Elect
Northern California Society for Psychoanalytic Psychology

Betty Jean Lifton, Ph.D.
Adoption Counselor
Author, Journey of the Adopted Self:
A Quest for Wholeness

Carol Schaefer
Author
The Other Mother:
A Woman's Love for the Child She Gave Up for Adoption

Sally Howard
Author
Finding Me In A Paper Bag

Sandra K. Musser
Author
I Would Have Searched Forever

Rick Ouston
Adoptee/Author
Finding Family

Donna Montalbano
Host: Speaking of Adoption

Lindsay Woodside
Missouri Adult Adoptee Rights Coalition (MAARC)
Missouri Open

Pat Marler
Oklahomans for Adoption Reform and Honesty

Betsie Norris
Founder/Executive Director
Adoption Network Cleveland

Sheila Ganz
Bay Area Birthmothers
Filmmaker
Unlocking the Heart of Adoption

Erik L. Smith
Paralegal, Birthfather advocate, author

Mary Anne Cohen
CUB member since 1976

Peter Christian Mose
Illinois Born and Adopted
Arts Educator

Gerald Bailey
Illinois Adoptee
Retired Educator

Msgr. John W. Sweeley, Th.D.
Adoptee and Adoptive Father
Adoptee Rights Activist
Author of the forthcoming
Rights, Liberties, and Social Justice

David Kruchkow
Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform

ILLINOIS: WARNING! TRAINWRECK AHEAD!

Today Anita Field, founder of Illinois Open sent a letter to Illinois adoptee rights activists updating them on the "open records" situation in that state--the new bill that's supposed to liberate all of their OBCs from the file cabinets of oblivion. The news is not good. Below are my comments followed by Anita's letter.

On November 19, 2007 the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Illinois State Representative Sara Feigenholtz (D-12) intended to file legislation that would make available to all Illinois adoptees, their original birth certificates. Bastard Nation collectively rolled its eyes and waited. Some BN members had experienced Ms Feigenholtz's "devotion" to access in the mid-1990s, when she abandoned them and a clean records bill to a seriously dysfunctional registry scheme that treats adult adoptees like 7 year olds.

Due to her new press-reported putative interest in adoptee rights, Ms. Feigenholz was invited to attend the December 2007 Donaldson roundtable in New York City. Like some other interested parties, she was unable to attend in person so she and her "assistant" Melisha Mitchell sat in by phone. Mitchell is the proprietor of The White Oak Foundation, a professional CI service (Mitchell pays herself $65k a year--Guidestar) that passes itself off as an adoption reform organization. In the past, Mitchell has made highly inflammatory remarks about adoptees. These comments are no longer online as far as I know. If I can pull them from my hard copy files in the next couple days I'll post them here.

Since November Ms. Feigenholtz has urged people to send comments to her about full access, giving the impression that she'll actually read them and do something. (Even as late as Feb. 13, USA Today reported that she planned to introduce a bill to "fully open records.") From her webpage:

...I would like to know if there is still interest among Illinois adoptees in having access to their orginal birth certificate. If you are an adoptee born in Illinois, please email me your thoughts on this issue. Just title the email "adoption issues" and include your home address (city, state, and zipcode), phone number, and your email address. Click here to email me.

Thank you,

Sara Feigenholtz
State Representative
Adult Adoptee

Many people responded. But during the course of the Donaldson meeting, Feigenholz admitted that she hadn't answered the very mail she solicited and continues to solicit on her webpage, making the astounding claim that she was "looking into a grant" to hire someone to answer her mail! (You'll see below, she now blames a "mail sorter" for the overlook.) Illinois reps probably have aides, who are paid assumedly to answer mail (most states do). To top it off, Illinois representatives make a base salary of at least $57,610 (which may have increased this year) and a $102 per diem when in session. If Ms. Feigenholtz has no aide to handle her adoption mail, I'm sure there's a least one Illinois adoptee who would be happy to answer her mail for $5/hr. or for free, if it meant pushing records access through.

It is difficult to believe that Ms. Feigenholtz seriously entertained actually putting up any kind of bill, much less a clean bill. But running your mouth to the Chicago-Sun Times and USA Today has consequences, so Melisha and Sara put their heads together and came up with a fine piece of compromise dreck that would make New Jersey deformers proud.

Ms Feigenholtz contends that those who suppport unrestricted access "don't know politics" and live in a dream. But who's dreaming? Naysayer Feigenholtz who hangs on the words of an overpaid professional CI and Chicagoland adoption lawyers who get rich off the misery of others or those of us who have actually delivered the goods against the odds? Ms. Feigenholz had a ready-made army of hundreds of Illinois adoptees and their families willing to put their feet to the street. Instead, she's fronting the tragedy pimps. I feel bad for her. As an adoptee she should hang her head in shame. Give me NCFA any day, not a Benedict Bastard.

Ms. Feigenhholz is the go-to girl in the House on adoptee rights. Other members defer to her on the issue. The best thing that can happen is for this new bill to be pulled or die in the Rules Committee. The issue should not be resurrected until its sponsor has been put to pasture or a new go-to person emerges. That day will happen. It's not over yet! As Joe Hill said, "Don't mourn. Organize.


ANITA FIELD'S LETTER TO ILLINOIS OPEN

Friends of IllinoisOpen:

I have had some contact with Representative Sara Feigenholtz over this last weekend. The bill she and her aide Melisha Mitchell have written has apparently not yet been filed. They had indicated that it would be posted on Tuesday, but so far, it isn't there.

But no matter what, I was told that the bill will definitely not be an unconditional bill where ALL adoptees in the state would be treated equally.

Representative Feigenholtz's bill has a disclosure veto. All past denial affidavits that have been filed with the Registry will be honored. Additionally, if this bill should pass, it contains a one year period called an "information campaign" during which time a birthparent can file a non-disclosure affidavit which will be honored by the state. If one birth parent files a denial, the birth certificate might still be issued but all information about the other parent will be redacted; that is, whited out.

The bill has a prospective element and that too contains provisions for birth parents to file non-disclosure affidavits.

A good percentage of Illinois' adopted adults would be able to get their original birth certificate with this proposed bill. But not ALL. The only category of adopted persons that would ALL be able to receive their original birth certificate with no restrictions would be those adoptees born before 1946.

I expected the bill to have been already posted but so far it isn't. I honestly don't know why. I could speculate but that isn't really productive.

The last time I spoke to Representative Feigenholtz was on Sunday, Feb. 19. I told her about the many of you who have written to her, more than once, to express your opinions but received no reply. She replied that it had to do with the clerk's sorting the mail. I told her straight out that she should be listening to you all.

Representative Feigenholtz told me that in her experienced opinion, an unconditional access bill, such as the ones in Oregon, New Hampshire, Alabama and Maine, would NEVER pass in Illinois. She said that if she were to file a 100% unconditional access bill, it would languish and die in the Rules Committee. It would go nowhere. She told me that "it just won't fly." Her reason is that the politics of IL are different from these other states.

Representative Feigenholtz maintains that much of the opposition comes from the Chicago Bar Association. I tried very very hard to persuade the Representative that she should be listening to adoptees, not attorneys. I tried to persuade her to go with the contact preference form that was put into place in Oregon and is in the bills of the other open states. I twice sent her the texts of the bills from each of these states plus the text of every contact preference form. I also sent her the latest statistics on how the contact preference forms are being used.

I wish I had better news to report. At this point, this is all I know about what Representative Feigenholtz's plans.

Now I'll tell you how I feel personally.
I believe that "ALL," minus even one adoptee, is not ALL, and is therefore not acceptable. If true unconditional access can work so easily in these other states mentioned, then it could work in Illinois too, if people wanted to work hard to make it work. In my opinion, we're not so different here as the Representative purports. I believe that if you are going to expend so much energy, time, talent and money into a bill that champions adoptee rights, then you don't stop short of your goal. All adopted adults in Illinois must be treated equally under the law. I believe that we must not leave even one adoptee behind.

I tried to explain to Representative Feigenholtz that a true adoptee rights bill is different than a search/reunion bill. But she doesn't seem to get it or if she does, she doesn't want to act on it. She always brings us back to the attorneys who are worried about their clients, (past, present and future) whose confidentiality might be breeched. And that is a search/reunion issue. It is not about the human and civil right of every adopted adult to own his own truth.

I expressed my opinions, and many more arguments, over and over and over to Representative Feigenholtz. She replied that I'm living in some "sort of dream world." She says that I don't live in the real world of politics. That may be true, but I still believe that my dream is better than all of the conditional plans presented- plans which still allow the state to have control over adopted adults.

Stay tuned.

Sincerely,

Anita

Anita Walker Field

IllinoisOpen

OHIO: Bastard Nation Testimony in Support of HB7 Unrestricted Access Bill

I testified before the Ohio House Health Committee yesterday morning on HB 7. Below is my testimony. I had to keep it sort so much of what I wanted to say has been left out I included a legislative packet with my presentation which I hope the leggies read.

A few comments first:

This was the second hearing for HB7 [pdf] (analysis here. The first hearing, last week, was the sponsor hearing where Rep. Brinkman spoke on behalf of his bill. Yesterday's hearing was rather short notice. Six proponents spoke and others sat in support.

Betsie Norris, director of Adoption Network Cleveland presented the case for unrestricted access and answered several questions about veto "protection" and reunion registeries. She was great! First mother, Jean Hood, also from Cleveland, spoke of her experience as first mom and reunion. Jake Teschler, longtime Columbus adoptee rights advocate also spoke on behalf of the bill. Amom in a very open adoption and This Woman's Work blogger Dawn Friedman (Columbus) addressed the importance of maintaining links between biological and adoptive families and that sealed records have no place in healty adoption practice. John Adams addressed medical issues. Chris Ryan had to leave for work before he could testify, but he left testimony on both the absolute right of adoptees to their records and the importance of medical histories using his own experience. As a pre-1964 adoptee he enjoys certain rights and privledges that his 5 adopted siblings do not. Among supporters who didn't speak, were Andria Karshner who drove all the way from Indiana. Much to her surprirse, sitting behind her in the hearing room was a birth aunt she'd never met, so there was a mini-family reunion as a bonus.

The main concern at the hearing yesterday was (surprise!) vetoes. records are sealed and cannot be accessed except by court order. 1996 and beyond permit a first parent to file a disclosure veto with the state (which can be revoked or placed at any time). These vetoes CANNOT be overturned by a judge "for good cause." The current version of HB7 abolishes those vetoes already in place and writes them out of future law. Leggies are very concerned about this lost of "protection."

And of course no matter how much "rights" are stressed" it's always about reunion,

In the next few days I'm going to try (operative word here "try" since I've never done a webpage before, only MySpace and Blogger) to set up a webpage so Ohio-connected people can be informed and involved. I'll also do a MySpace page.

It is absolutely essential for the committee to hear from Buckeyes that that any kind of compromise--any restriction to access that differs from the current version of the bill, is not acceptable.

More on that later.

In the meantime here's my testimony:

WRITTEN TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF HB 7 ACCESS TO BIRTH CERTIFICATES FOR ADULT ADOPTEES Ohio House Health Committee January 16, 2008

Honorable Members of the Health Committee:

My name is Marley Elizabeth Greiner and I’m the co-founder and Executive Chair of Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization, the largest adoptee civil rights organization in North America.

Bastard Nation advocates for the full human and civil rights of adult adoptees. We believe people everywhere have a right to their unaltered and unfalsifed birth records. This means opening government documents pertaining to the adoptee’s historical, genetic, and legal identity, including the unaltered original birth certificate and adoption decree. Our membership includes adopted adults and first and adoptive parents. BN was behind the 1998 Oregon Ballot Measure 58 which restored the right of the state’s adult adoptees to access their original birth certificates. In 2000 Bastard Nation sponsored legislation in Alabama which restored access there. In 2004 we worked in a coalition of adoptee rights advocates in New Hampshire where adoptee civil rights were restored on January 1, 2005. Bastard Nation leaves no one behind. We do not support legislation that restricts even one adopted person from receiving his or her own information.

I am a pre-1964 Ohio adoptee, born and adopted in Toledo and reared in Canton. I have lived in Columbus since 1979. My records were never sealed from me. I received my original birth certificate and adoption decree in 1980—just like the non-adopted. Nobody asked me whyI wanted it. I had a right to it.
Today I will testify in support of the “Adoption Records Access” section of HB 7. I will make over-all comments on why we support HB 7 with an emphasis on why the current tiered access system is unethical and degrading to adoptees and must be abolished.

THE BILL
HB 7 is about rights not reunion. It is about the relation of adoptees to the state. It is about the absolute natural right of identity and the civil right to a true unfalsified birth certificate for all Ohio adoptees. The not-adopted need not justify why they want their vital records nor are they forced to ask their parents permission, appear before a judge, join a government-run registry, seek mental health counseling, or spend years getting a bill, such as HB 7, passed to get them. The not-adopted have a presumed right to their own birth certificates and can do with them what they please. All arguments for passage of HB 7 as written must then flow from the presumed right of all adults to unrestricted access and ownership of their true birth certificates, not just some. If adoptees are not equal legally to the not-adopted in terms of identity, then the right of anyone to possess their own birth certificate is not a right but a state favor. The real question, then, is who owns your identity? You or the state? Unfortunately, in Ohio today, the identities of thousands of its citizen adoptees are owned by the state and locked up in a vault over on Spring & Neilston.

HB 7 is inclusive. It acknowledges a legally, morally, and ethically correct one-size fits all standard of identity and records rights for adopted persons. It restores the right, legislatively rescinded in 1964, of all Ohio adoptees to access and own, upon request and without restriction, the public record of their own births.

The Ohio Legislature needs to abolish the 3-tired access system. This plan, established legislatively in 1964 and expanded by the legislature in 1996, grossly discriminates against adoptees with a state-constructed blacklist of worthy and unworthy adoptees based on date of birth or date of adoption availability. In some cases (1996 and beyond) access is dependent on first parent permission, giving people whose parental rights were terminated years ago, a special right that no other parent or adult has over another adult—the special right to block access to and ownership of a person’s vital and court records.

Due to this pernicious 3-tiered, system more than a generation of Ohio’s citizen adoptees are stigmatized, angered, shamed, and forced to seek court orders (rarely granted) or other remedies to get what the not-adopted and older adoptees have for the asking.

HB 7 does not change adoption procedures. Adoption records are sealed upon finalization, not relinquishment. If the court denies an adoption petition or the petition is withdrawn, the birth record remains unsealed. If an adoption is overturned or disrupted, the birth record is unsealed. In Ohio, if adoptive parents so request, the birth record remains unsealed. Most significantly, if a child is never adopted the birth record is never sealed. Thus, if sealing birth records was meant to hide parental identities absolutely, records would be sealed upon relinquishment, not finalization. Even in traditional closed adoptions first parent identities are often recorded on court documents given to adoptive parents without first parent consent. Similarly, legal advertisements with identifying information are often published, and courts may open adoption records for “good cause” without first parent consent.

HB 7 does not open original birth certificates to the public. Original birth certificates are unsealed only to the adoptees to which they pertain, their lineal descendants and their adoptive parents.
HB 7 reflects best practice adoption standards. I know of no adoption reform organization in the United States today that does not support unrestricted access. The Evan. B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, The Child Welfare League of America (which sets best practice standards), The National Association of Social Workers, The North American Council on Adoptable Children, the National Adoption Center, and Ethica: A Voice for Ethical Adoption all support unrestricted access. In November 2007, the Donaldson Institute, the premiere adoption research organization in the country. released a report: For the Records: Restoring a Right to Adult Adoptees, in which it calls for the unsealing of all birth and adoption records to adult adoptees. In December I attended a meeting in New York sponsored by the Donaldson. Attendees came from as far away as Tennessee, Florida and Texas. They all agreed that the day of compromise is over. Records for all.

LITIGATION
On page 18 of the legislative analysis, the specter of litigation over records access is raised. It is true that suits were brought in 1996 in Tennessee when that state passed a substantive revision to its access law and in 1998 in Oregon after passage of Ballot Measure 58. Opponent claims of contractual impairment and reproductive privacy were dismissed on the state and appellate levels and the US Supreme Court denied cert in both cases. No suits were filed in Alabama, New Hampshire, and Maine after passage of their bills, and there is little chance that any suits will be filed in the future. A summary of these cases and others, with citations, is included in your legislative packet.

CONCLUSION
Rights are for all citizens, not favors or privileges for some US law does not privilege rights by race, religion, ethnicity, age, or gender. I cannot think of any other judicial procedure where records are sealed from those to whom the procedure pertains. But in Ohio, adopted adults are discriminated against daily by a bizarre system of Yes, No, or Maybe: sealed records for us and unsealed records for everyone else. HB 7 eliminates this triple standard and gives all Ohio citizens the right to personal identity. HB 7 will not harm anyone, but will restore equality, dignity, and fairness to adopted persons and their biological and adopted families.

At least a dozen states this year will debate birth record access. HB 7 is model legislation. If passed it will be a beacon for other states to follow. If not, Ohio’s citizen adoptees will remain dirty little state secrets.

The Health Committee should support this important legislation and move it to final passage. Please vote DO PASS.

Photo by Jamie Miracle: Bastardette, Dawn Friedman, Andria Karshner

GRAND OPENING! ILLINOIS OPEN!

GRAND OPENING

PLEASE FORWARD FREELY

ILLINOIS OPEN
http://www.ilopen.org
obc@ilopen.org

MISSION STATEMENT

Illinois Open advocates the issuing to all Illinois adult adoptees, upon request an unconditionally, a copy of their unaltered original birth certificate.

GOALS

Illinois Open is an informational organization. Its goals are to educate the public about sealed records as well as locate grassroots supporters of equal access to the original birth certificate for all adopted men and women in Illinois.

Currently, the only way adopted adults in Illinois can receive a copy of their original birth certificate is by petitioning the court and showing good cause, a lengthy, costly, and time consuming process.

Illinois Open is asking the State of Illinois to repeal or amend its Adoption Act so that all adopted adults can get their original birth certificate in the same manner as all non-adopted citizens.


We want to hear from you.

Please write to us at:

obc@ilopen.org

Visit our MySpace Page

RADIO BASTARDETTE REDUX: TUESDAY

Bastardette will once again appear on Donna Montalbano's Adoption Show out of Fall River, Mass this coming Tuesday (August 14.) We'll be having an open-ended discussion about Bastard Nation and why records access is a civil right. If things get dull, we can talk about Bastardette's favorite musical: The Fall River Follies or Oh Mrs. Churchill, Do Come Over: Someone has Killed Father.

Unfortunately, the show isn't streamed, so you're got to catch it live. Donna is a great friend of Bastards and their families. If you're in the Fall River area, turn, on, tune in, call us.

BASTARD NATION CO-SPONSORS COLUMBUS EVENT!

10 YEARS: IN MEMORY OF GAVI

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the death of Bastard Nation Founding Foundling Gavirela Person aka Amy Lynne Akins. Gavi was an artist, designer, philosopher, spiritual guide, and Bastard visionary. A Jill of all trades and a master of all. Among her many accomplishments is her design of BN's spermie logo.

A wonderful memorial to Gavi appears in today's Lizard Chronicles.

Gavi's memory has also been kept at Gavriela Maxime Ze'eva Person Memorial Page maintained by Denise Castalucci.

Another memorial is Charles Filius's Gavi Remembered,with messages to her from Bastard Nationals

Whenver you feel isolated, you can call to us and we will hear. Use your breath, your precious life, and change
the world's ways for all of us.
Know we were loved by at least one silent heart.
Be strong and love each other, and the world will surely change.

--Gavi

Bastard born and Bastard bred

A gaggle of Bastard Nation Founding Foundlings, San Diego, 1996: (counterclockwise): Michelle Hilbe, Deni Castalucci, Damsel Plum, Gavi Person, Deb Schwartz. (photo by Shea Grimm)

Below is Bastard Nation's letter of thanks to Hawai'i Governor Linda Lingle for standing up for the rights of family and identity in Hawai'i. A slightly different letter has been sent to legislators who opposed the override.

The Honorable Linda Lingle
Governor, State of Hawai`i
Executive Chambers
State Capitol

Honolulu, Hawai' i 96813

July 17, 2007

Dear Governor Lingle:

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization thanks you for opposing HB1830, the so-called “safe haven” law.

Baby abandonment and neonaticide are serious matters. So are identity erasure through unsound child welfare and surrender practice, the subversion of ethical adoption policy, the circumvention of parental rights (especially fathers rights) and the abrogation of traditional Hawai’an culture and hanai.

HB 1830 “fixes” something that isn’t broken. As Honolulu blogger Mel wrote after the override, “HB 1830 is a bill looking for a problem to happen.” Newborns are seldom discarded in Hawai’i.

If “safe haven” history is any indication of what will happen next in Hawai’I, expect to see newborns dressed in Baby Gap, accompanied with binkies, stuffed animals, a supply of diapers, and loving notes from supposedly murderous “desperate mothers” appear soon and mysteriously at emergency rooms and fire stations. Pregnant women and new parents considering an adoption plan, but overwhelmed by what they perceive as a complicated legal procedure will be advised by amateur “hotline counselors” or naive hospital staff to “just safe haven—it’s easier.” So what if identities and heritages are lost? So what if the fundamental right to parent is lost? So what if native Hawai’ian benefits are lost? The law will be hailed a baby saving “success.” “If it saves just one.” One mythical one. Saved from the Dumpster! Saved from ethical treatment.

We know that you were under tremendous pressure to abandon your principles, Governor Lingle. But by standing by those principles you stood for the civil and identity rights of Hawai’i’s children and families. You stood against an ill-advised law that endangers the integrity of every family in Hawai’i. Adoption reformers will not forget your courageous stand. Thank you for getting it!

Yours truly,

Marley Greiner

Executive Chair

July 4, 2007

The Honorable Linda Lingle
Governor, State of Hawai`i
Executive Chambers
State Capitol
Honolulu, Hawai’I 96813

RE: HB 1830: Safe Haven/”Safe Place for Newborns”—Please Veto

Dear Governor Lingle:

Thank you for placing HB1830, the so-called “safe haven” bill, on your list of potential vetoes. We know that you are under political pressure to let the bill pass into law with or without your signature, and we urge you to make good on your intent to veto.

Not one adoption reform organization on the mainland supports safe haven programs.

Safe Haven laws circumvent uniform best practice child surrender standards such as the collection of the child’s identifying information, social, cultural and medical history. They thwart due process for parents—especially the father. They devalue communication and ethical counseling. They refute responsible legal alternatives to baby dumping: public assistance, temporary surrender, and permanent surrender for adoption.

“Safe Haven” Hawai’an-style rejects hanai: extended family and community care. Not only will Native Hawai’ians, surrendered through the anonymous system be denied their native heritage but also benefits to which the are entailed to legally since they will unable able to prove eligibility

Since 1996 there has been one media-reported prosecutable newborn death and no reported cases of unsafe newborn abandonment in Hawai’i . Even proponents agree that newborn abandonment in the state is negligible. Incredibly, though, they insist that unless HB1830 is enacted “confused parents” will be “forced” to use The Dumpster to get rid of their “problem,” even if they don’t use it now.

Why “fix” something that’s not broken?

Anonymous baby dumping is not an acceptable cultural practice in Hawai’i now. No law should make it acceptable for the future.

Please continue to stand courageously for ethical child placement and the right of identity for all Hawai’ians.

Yours truly,

Marley Elizabeth Greiner
Executive Chair

Bastard Nation is the largest adoptee civil rights organization in North America. We are dedicated to the recognition of the full human and civil rights of adult adoptees. We advocate the opening to adoptees, upon request at age of majority all government documents which pertain to the adoptee's historical genetic and legal identity, including the unaltered birth original birth certificate and adoption decree.

BASTARD NATION PRESS RELEASE: MAINE RESTORES RIGHT OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE ACCESS!

BASTARD NATION PRESS RELEASE

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE FREELY!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

MAINE RESTORES THE RIGHT OF

BIRTH CERTIFICATE ACCESS!

LD 1084 PASSES OVERWHELMINGLY—GOVERNOR SIGNS

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization congratulates Maine on becoming the fourth state since 1998 to restore the right of original birth certificate access to adult adoptees. Following in the footsteps of Oregon, Alabama, and New Hampshire (Kansas and Alaska never sealed records) Maine’s activist organization OBC for ME has shown that through focus, perseverance, and a refusal to compromise the rights of all for the privilege of a few, that a clean unconditional access bill can be passed. Overwhelmingly passed,

Despite naysayers, on June 18, near the close of the legislative session, the Maine House overrode and over ran the LD 1084's “Do Not Pass” recommendation from the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary, 104-39. The next day, the Senate followed, passing, the bill 20-15. On June 20, the bill returned to both houses and passed “by the hammer” with no amendments. Bim! Bam! Boom!

Bastard Nation was highly critical of the 2006 records access campaign which began with a clean bill and finished threatened with compromises that made it unrecognizable. This time, OBC for ME (love the name!) ran a mostly under-the-radar operation. Activists emphasized the “localiness” of adoptee rights and the state’s responsibility to its adopted people.

LD 1084 had an extremely strong sponsor, Rep. David Farrington, and the quiet personal lobbying of adoptee Sen. Paula Benoit to shepherd it through with non-partisian support. Benoit’s dignified presentation for records access is credited by friends and foes of access with keeping the debate from the bitterness and acrimony that marked last year’s circus.

Rep. Farrington’s June 18 statement on the House floor ranks him as one of BN’s heroes, though we were not involved in the bill. You can listen to Rep.

Farrington and Sen. Benoit and other supporting speakers, along with a bit of anti-adoptee gas baggery (especially from the House side) at http://www.obcforme.org/.

Governor John Baldacci signed the bill on Monday, June, 25, 2007. It will take effect on January 1, 2009 and gives anyone adopted in Maine 18 and older, upon request, the right to their original birth certificate.

Bastard Nation salutes the come-backs kids of Maine! And we thank those legislators who agreed to undo the wrong done to Maine’s adoptees in 1953 when their records were sealed from them. Other states take note: You can win without compromising your principles and the rights adopted persons. Maine rocks!

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization

PO Box 1469

Edmond, OK

email: bn@bastards.org

www.bastards.org

www.myspace.com/bnadopteerights




(some of the people from last year's Maine Campaign. Bobbi Beavers 2nd for, 2nd from right)

MAINE RESTORES ADOPTEE RIGHTS--UNRESTRICTED ACCESS

Yippee!!!

Bastard Nation is happy to welcome Maine as the 6th state to recognize the rights of adopted persons.

Today Maine Governor John Baldacci signed LD 1084, restoring the right of identity and birth certificates without restriction to adoptees 18 and older, born in Maine. The law takes effect January 1, 2009.

LD 1084 passed both houses last week by a huge margin. Although there was some talk of the bill on a couple lists, OBC for ME, the Maine adoptee rights organization, asked Bastard Nation to sit on the news until the governor signed it into law and they could make their own announcement first.

You can read about it here http://www.obcforme.org/

Bastard Nation congratulates Bobbi Beavers and OBC for ME for a job well done. They held the line and won.

BN's official statement will be released tonight and posted here and elsewhere.

Just a reminder. Hawai'i Governor Linda Lingle has until June 23 to announce if she is considering vetoing HB 1830, the latest incarnation of baby dump legislation in that state.

Gov. Lingle needs to know that the adoptee rights/adoption reform community on the Mainland does not support so-called "safe haven" laws which commodify newborns and their parents, promote anonymous baby abandonment as "just another choice," and undermine hanai. Gov. Lingle vetoed similar legislation in 2003 and has been the target of a pro-dump gang since. Read this "open letter" to the governor from one baby abandonment advocate.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Read the bill

Read Bastard Nation’s letter to Gov Lingle published here on May 22.

Read Bastard Nation's full action alert published here on June 9.

Read Gov. Lingle's 2003 veto statement posted by the American Adoption Congress here

Contact Gov. Lingle and key legislators.


TALKING POINTS:

• HB 1830 is not needed; newborn abandonment/neonaticide in the state is nearly unheard of. Since 1996 there has only been one prosecutable case...

• HB 1830 rejects and undermines the traditional Hawai’ian practice of “hanai”-- extended family and community care which insures that children, unable to be reared by their biological parents are lovingly kept within the family or close community where their identity and heritage remain in tact.

• HB 1830 eliminates”hanai” and the right of identity by denying the “safe havened” access to their original birth documents and heritage information.

• HB 1830 abrogates certain government benefits available to all Native Hawai’ians because the “safe havened” will be unable to prove Native ancestry.

• HB 1830 rejects informed consent and best practice standards of child welfare and adoption placement such as the collection of a full record of identifying information and social and medical histories.

• HB 1830 denies parents--particularly non-surrendering parents (usually the father)- due process by eliminating the ability to locate the dependency proceeding to which they are a party

Oppose HB 1830 and encourage Gov. Lingle to hold firm. We have been told that faxing is the best way to get legislators’ attention.

CONTACT

The Honorable Linda Lingle
Governor, State of Hawai’i
Executive Chambers
State Capitol
Honolulu, Hawai’i 96813
Phone:
Fax:
e-mail: governor.lingle@hawaii.gov

To forestall an override attempt contact the following key legislators who will decide whether to initiate an override. Explain why you oppose HB 1830 and include your letter to Gov. Lingle.

Colleen Hanabusa, Senate President
Hawai'i State Capitol, Room 409
415 Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone ;
Fax
email senhanabusa@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Calvin K.Y. Say, Speaker of the House
Hawai’i State Capitol, Room 431
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone ;
Fax
e-mail repsay@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Senator Suzanne Chun Oakland, Majority Whip (Democrat)
Hawai’i State Capitol, Room 226
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Fax:

Sponsor:
Representative John Mizuno
Hawa’ii State Capitol, Room 436
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone ;
Fax
e-mail repmizuno@Capitol.hawaii.gov

RADICAL ANTI-ADOPTION LAW TYPES ON MY SPACE: WHO'S THE RADICAL?

Cross-posted from BN MySpace.

**********
(above) Radical anti-adoption law types - Maine.

This weekend one of Bastard Nation’s opponents attacked us on their MySpace page calling us “radical anti-adoption law types.” We assume that they mean BN and our friends, too.

Our crime was sending out an action alert in which we requested that you join us and Hawaii’s adoptee rights organizations in contacting Governor Linda Lingle to voice your opposition to HB 1830 and ask her to once more veto safe havens.

(r) Radical anti-adoption law types - New Hampshire

At the bottom of their outburst our opponents republished the alert in an attempt, I suppose, to show their readers what kind of wild-eyed unreasonable, souls oppose government facilitated anonymous infant abandonment and in the larger sense, oppose identity theft through sealed birth records. We hope that their readers were curious enough to hunt us out and visit our MySpace page where they can see for themselves the face of the “radical anti-adoption law types” who inhabit BN MySpace. We hope that they went to your pages, too, and read not only your thoughts on adoption, but saw that you are no different from them except that your life has been impacted by adoption.

Radical anti-adoption law types - Massachusetts



When I look at the faces of adoption on our MySpace page, I don’t see any “radicals.” I see a lot of normal looking people who hold jobs, own homes, rear children, and pay taxes. I see a group of extremely creative, intelligent people who dare to question adoption industry-driven laws that seal public records and hide families from each other under the excuse of “privacy” and other spurious claims in order to keep their murky business activities safe from scrutiny. Is there any other “family practice” outside of adoption that promotes secrecy, forged public records, and anonymity and calls its “beneficiaries” ungrateful and radical?

Who’s the radical?

Radical anti-adoption law types"- Oregon: Max has his records. Why don't we?

BABY THIEF UPDATE: DOWNLOAD BARBARA RAYMOND INTERVIEW

Barbara Raymond author of The Baby Thief, appeared on the Diane Rehm Show today (June 7) for an hour-long interview that must have given the adoptacrats indigestion. If you missed it, you can download it at www.wamu.org/programs/dr

Once more, I can't speak highly enough of the book. Adoption secrecy is the legacy of The Baby Thief: Georgia Tann. Ask your local politician who supports sealed birth certificates why she or he endorses the crimes of Georgia Tann. Adoptees are not dirty little secrets. Adoption is not the witness protection program. Boot the identity thieves out of office.