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