ANNOUNCEMENT: BN Blogs moved!

The Bastard Nation blog can now be found at the new Bastard Nation page in the left column.  Current blog entries and all old entires are at  News Archives in the right column bottom.  Blogs will not longer be posted on this site.

Thanks for your support of Bastard Nation and please continue to follow us on our webpage.

 

Some Thoughts on the "Angry Adoptee:" Land of Gaziillion Adoptees v JCIC$

Last we heard from our friend Kevin Ost-Vollmers,in the Land of a Gazillion Adoptees, he was engaged in a dialogue with the Congressional Coalition.  That was " bad" enough, but it gets worse.  It must be something about April.

Land of a Gaiilion Adoptees: Kevin and Bert getting ready to kick it

On April18, Kevin and  "Rockstar Vietnamese adoptee" Bert  Ballard, Assistant Professor of Communications at Pepperdine University, went to New York to give a presentation, Adoptees and Agencies:  Undiscovered Allies or Estranged Bedfellows,  before a JCIC$ symposium--to educate  (for want of a better word) this specific set of adoptacrats about adoptees.   JCIC$ is as interested in the international post-production product it markets as it is in the proposition that  9/11 was an inside job.How these bastard gods got the password to the sanctum sanctorium is a mystery, and I congratulate them. 

 I'm not sure how many Joint Councilers actually showed up for the presentation, but the board, as a whole, according to Kevin, didn't bother. Curiously,  a board meeting was scheduled for the same time slot which demanded their attention.This, of course, is an old trick. Sudden board meetings are much like "task forces."-- a mechanism to shuffle urgent issues and uncomfortable truths off to Buffalo. The AAC pulled it on Bastard Nation in 1999 in an attempt to short circuit our Belly of the Beast demo (held during the AAC conference in Tyson's Corners, Virginia) at the old NCFA HQ in DuPont Circle, after some AAC board members announced they intended to show up. AAC  Big Fishes warned, if you go to the protest, you're off the board.

I talked to Kevin before he left; and later he reported back rather cryptically on his journey into the Heart of Darkness. Not surprisingly, adoptees and first parents were represented at the JCICS$ huddle as generously as Concerned Women of America at an Occupy Oakland takedown.  Monday , however, Kevin presented a more lengthy report --or rather a list of astute observations, Some Random Thoughts on the Joint Council Symposium, on the Gazillion page He says that most of the people who attended the presentation were "engaging"  but obviously Nancy Fox, director of  Americans for International Aid and Adoption( AAIA) wasn't.  Frankly, I'm speechless.   If you think being a domestic product is difficult, try being an import!.

[Nancy Fox (check out the all-white JCICS board the link takes you to)   grabbed my chin and brought my face right up to hers.  Seriously.  My response?  Lightly tapping her hand away, I said, “Don’t ever do that to me again.  That’s the patronizing I mentioned to you earlier.  I’m not one of your kids.”  She apologized, and then went into how she has known adoptees like Susan Cox, Kathy Sacco, Joy Lieberthal, and Melanie Chung-Sherman since I was a child.  Weird.  If I recall, I’m in Kathy, Joy, and Melanie’s age bracket

Grabbed his chin?  That says it all, doesn't it?  Actually  Nancy  FancyPants had a lot more to say, like lecturing Kevin and Bert that  Korean adoptee diasporaists and first mothers instrumental in the writing and passage of recent Korean legislation  that promotes child welfare and strengthens the rights of adoptees, first parents,and single parents  have "sentenced children to death in institutions."  Where have we heard that one before?

The  message was clear.  Bastards, are simply petulant--if not dangerous--children who need a good finger wag and talking to by an "adoption professional". who knows best. (What constitutes an "adoption professional" is anyone's guess.)   Heaven knows we get enough of this at legislative hearings where adoption bottom feeders and their hacks play whack-a bastard as they blatantly attempt to hold on to their social and legal control over the lives of total strangers--or as the law so quaintly puts it: legal strangers.(We'd be more impressed if  these experts put their "expertise" into making the Do Not Call List work.)  I suppose we should be "grateful" that Fox  showed her true face in public by tweaking Kevin's, chin, unlike her cohorts in the halls of power who'd just punch it (metaphorically speaking)  behind closed doors with no witnesses..

This incident is absurd, of course. It no doubt made other adoptacrats uncomfortable, so it was  not altogether bad. I don't know at what point  in the presentation or Q&A  Fox made her public assault/insult. Here, though,  are some of the inconvenient questions  Kevin and Bert presented to JCIC$ which undoubtedly made Fox squirm::

• Why are adoptees not invited to more influential speaking positions--boards, Congress, the State Department, executive directors, Hague?

• Why are adoptees reduced  to a singular few representatives

and my favorite,

• Why is there a fear of the "angry adoptee?"

Thee "angry adoptiee" looms large in adoption politics  

"The angry adoptee" is a natural outgrowth of the adoption industry's  treatment of its personal cash cow. A subset of the traditional virgin/whore paradigm, the "angry adoptee" is the  whore, undermining the virginal grateful  that adoption agents love to trot every November.  Both of these crazy stereotypes were unknown to me until I became involved in adoptee rights. Both are industry constructed and serve to dismiss any serious  discussion of Class Bastard and its cultural and legal condition. 

Adoptacrats  (agencies, social workers, lawyers, civil libertarians, therapists, anti-aborts, evangelicals, feminists,  politicians, mommy bloggers, and assorted do-gooders)  have created the "angry adoptee"  by (1) cooking the pot in which adoptee anger roils:  government-sanctioned sealed and secret adoption files, forged documents, coerced surrenders and forced adoptions,  fake psychological syndromes, special rights and privileges for special people, stacked legislative hearings, baby selling and buying, racism,  economic exploitation of women, children, and the poor, and   pawning in international politics;

and then

 (2) laying the blame for the ensuing  anger on the victims.when they demand redress and a place at the table.

The idea that adoptee anger is justified seldom crosses the adoptacrat psyche or if it does, it's needs to be "defused" to maintain the status quo..Conversely, the adoption industry-created "angry adoptee"  and its implications, are utilized  to defeat the restoration of the right for all adoptees to access their original birth certificates and to address other ethical and social issues  Ungrateful,  spoiled,. perhaps mental. adoptees, if allowed a voice, could ruin adoption. for the rest of us. If push comes to shove, the proclaim that "the gad old days" are over . "Open adoption" has fixed the problem.

The big question is why is adoptee anger bad? Why shouldn't adoptees, who have had the most intimate parts of their lives--their identities and genealogies-- confiscated and turned into state secrets which  they can't access-- be angry? Why should adoptees be held to a "nicer" political standard than women, labor, queers, and racial and ethnic minorities mired in a system of gender, class and white privilege?

To add insult to injury, adoption deformists, satisfied with small incremental change, reject anger  as a  component of successful political change. They turn themselves inside out trying to convince legislators, policy wonks, and an incurious media that adoption law and practice just needs "tweaked" not overhauled.  Deformists  internalize the name-calling, fearful of their own unworthiness.  They compromise  their alleged core principles and marginalize genuine adoptee rights and activist organizations in order to raise their own niceness quotient in the eyes of the adoptcrats, which in turn might get them "something on the books" for a few,  no matter the harm that that "something" causes the many in their local and national constituencies. In the meantime, the enemy snickers up its sleeve. Just look at  New Jersey!

Ultimately this self-defeating "strategy"  means that deformists not only let the adoptacrats maintain  the sealed and secret adoption system and other unethical and illegal practices, but frame deformist political arguments in wishy-washy. language.  Everyone is expected to sip pink tea, shut up, and be grateful for what you can get.  Ironically,  it's  "angry adoptees"  who hold the line and their principles who actually get laws changed while people-pleasers dig their ditches deeper each year rendering their work unfocused,  incompetent and laughable to the opposition.

This brings us back to the original question:  Why is there fear of the "angry adoptee?"

Without spending a lot of time on the question,  I'd say that the "angry adoptee" represents to adoptacrats, a repudiation of what many of them see as their personal humanitarian mission and the accompanying  social and legal control--for "a good cause"-- in which these humanitarians' self-esteem are vested  Claiming the high ground of "professionali expert,," they insist that adoption is a win-win win situation, when it fact the product and the producer loose out and even the consumer can be left hanging at the end of a short stick. Anyone who disagrees is a spoiled brat biting the gracious, hardworking hand that fed it in its hour of need.

Current adoption practice in the US is a convoluted hybrid of the worst aspects of capitalism  (making lots of money through exploitation of the producing class) and socialism  (redistribution of wealth and resources, but from the bottom to the top), with eugenics (building better baybees through social engineering)  thrown in for fun. Adoptacrats  may react in a "professional" snit  to save face like Fox did, but, their gut reaction is personal.  How dare you question my work; my  passion; my motives! Bank accounts are off limits, and in some cases even not that great.

It's been my experience, crooks aside, that the  majority of industrialists--even  big bucksers-- view themselves (depending on their belief system) as "christian" or secular humanitarians.acting out American exceptionalism or the Great Commission.. Most likely  it's a mixture since current American social policy is a mixture of both fallacious missions. In other words, adopacrats suffer from an especially (but not limited to) social Marxist-Protestant  missionary impulse  to remake the world. by spreading "civilization," home and abroad, in the form of American middle class cultural values to those deemed less fortunate.and in need of some kind of saving.. Adoption is their platform and re-arranging children into the "right families  their mission. Adoption makes them feel important and living a higher calling..Or as Rosie O'Donnell so famously told a little adoptee on national television,  "God put you in the wrong tummy and I had to fix his mistake."   The liberal academic adoption nut  Elizabeth Bartholet  told a rather confounded audience at the 2010 NCFA conference that countries that send off  their never-to-be-seen-or-heard from-again children to the US or other approved destinations boost  their economic standards   Translated domestically, the voluntary or court-ordered redistribution of poor and African American children  to advantaged while folks empowers the  poor and lets their children be neutralized safely into American Dream.

Adoption Makes the World Better.
The mentality that condones child re-distribution domestically,  and the  "spread of democracy" to far away places with strange sounding names--especially if the faraways are of color--is the same mentality promotes the  import  of  "orphans" to the US.  Note, that whenever the US is involved in an "humanitarian war,"  adoption vultures aren't far behind. The US may have lost in Viet Nam, but we got their kids.

Adoption is a soft but crucial component of American foreign policy, The nicer kinder face of neo-colonialism--usually associated with the exploitation of other people's labor (Nike,Foxconn ),  culture (religious conversion), and natural resources (oil; achildren for labor, sex, and adoption).. One has only to remember the  US State Department's threat to veto Romania's NATO membership   a few years ago, unless it re-opened its pipeline, a threat which was ultimately doomed. Later pipeline crises in Vietnam, Cambodia, Guatemala and Russia illustrate how essential adoption--a wholly government-created social practice-- is to US foreign policy.   Some idealists even see international adoption as vehicle for world peace.  Adam Pertman, in his own snit of one worldism, once ask how adoptive parents could possible want the biological parents of "their" children dead.  Seriously!  Unfortunately, I can't find the source at the moment.

******

Kevin Ost-Vollmers experience with Nancy Fox exemplifies the problem those of us in adoptee rights, and ultimately Class Bastard and our  families live with.  The angry adoptacrat.

Threatened by a usurpation of their social power and loss of status,  internally and externally,  as the arbiter of adoption, they obstruct all but unctuous attempts to bring due process, professional responsibility, and fairness to adoption  except when they can pull the strings.  Everything from birth certificate access to reunion issues and facilitation must be vetted through their professional egos. The people who cause the problems, expect Class Bastard & Famlies  to let the them fix  their good intentions.  In the vernacular, self-absorbed adoptacrats think "it's all about them."  If adoptcrats were children, they'd be sent  to etiquette school.or sentenced to a swat on the behind.

When the adoptacracy condemns  the "angry adoptee"-- or for that matter,  in a slightly different form, first parents or adoptive parents who dare to question the beneficent motives and practices of adoption corporatists-- it is simply  attempting to deflect the industry's own self-interested, sometimes vile, actions..The victim must be bludgeoned and embarrassed  into silence or at least public embarrassment.and humuliation.   Critics who challenge the industry on its home turf, such as trade association meetings and legislative hearings are simply dismissed as ungrateful troublemakers who'd rather see children dead than...than what?

And what o the adoptacrats prefer?

The last word. 

These are just a few thought tossed out.  There's plenty more to say.

. 

Oklahoma: HB 2634 passes House 93-0

Oklahoma clean bill HB 2634 passed the House yesterday with a 93-0 Vote. It now goes to the Senate. For more information go to the Oklahoma Open blog and Facebook.

Thanks to all those Oklahomans who contacted House members!  And thanks to Reps Sherrer, Walker, McDaniel, and Hoskin for their terrific support.  We're half-way home! 

Washington SUB HB 2211: The testimony Bastard Nation intended to submit

TESTIMONY

SUB HB 2211:

Adoptee access to their own original birth certificates

Washington Senate Human Services and Corrections Committee

xxxx, 2012

OPPOSE

Privilege is the opposite of rights

Our Washington representative may not be able the attend the hearing so we are submitting this testimony/letter via email.

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization is the largest adoptee civil rights organization in the United States. We support full, unrestricted access for all adopted persons, to their original birth certificates. (OBC).

Bastard Nation's roots are in Washington State, and we would like nothing more than to support SUB HB 2211. Unfortunately we cannot.

The sticking point is SUB HB 2211's “affidavit of non-disclosure,” otherwise known as a Disclosure Veto. This veto creates a special third party privilege for birth parents that no one, parent or otherwise, possesses:  to bypass state law and to personally bar the state from releasing another person's birth certificate to the person to whom it pertains.

This onerous and discriminatory veto privilege, already in place for Washington adoptions finalized on and after October 1 1993, is extended in SUB HB 2211 to cover adoptions finalized before October 1, 1993;. The bill expands the pool of adoptees unable to access their OBCs; ,thus legally segregating a larger number of adoptees from those who can access them.

SUB HB 2211 not only expands the DV system, but creates a highly bureaucratic tiered system, which no other states has, that requires one set of birth parents (October 1, 1993) to renew their vetoes every 5 years, while the other set (pre- October 1, 1993) are required to renew every 10 years In effect, SUB HB 2211 not only segregates Washington's adopted citizens from the not-adopted, but segregates adoptees from those who can and cannot receive their OBC, and then divides the vetoed into separate legal classes. This bureaucratic parsing is insulting, demeaning, and unacceptable. It is anti-adoptee and anti-adoption sending the message that adoption is shameful and adoptees are dangerous.

To add to the insult, Washington media is falsely comparing SUB HB 2211 to Oregon's historic Ballot Measure 58 which in 1999 unsealed the OBCs of all Oregon-born adoptees without condition or restriction.  HB 2211 is the antithesis of M58. The ballot language reads:

Upon receipt of a written application to the state registrar, any adopted person 21 years of age and older born in the state of Oregon shall be issued a certified copy of his/her unaltered, original and unamended certificate of birth in the custody of the state registrar, with procedures, filing fees, and waiting periods identical to those imposed upon non-adopted citizens of the State of Oregon pursuant to ORS 432.120 and 432.146

Sponsors and supporters claim of SUB HB 2211 claim it restores the civil right of Washington adoptees to the OBCs. Contrary to that claim, the bill, with its individual parental opt-out, continues to abrogate that right by continuing to let the legislature control our birth records and who gets what, instead of treating all adoptees in a uniform manner under law. This attitude might be politically expedient and justify past bad legislation. It does not, however, justify the continued denial of the right all Washington's adoptees once enjoyed, A right exists or it doesn't. A right is not contingent on third party approval.

Sooner or later Washington and every other state that has not opened OBCs unconditionally to adoptees are going to be forced to. The issue isn't going away. This is not a matter of if, but when.

Adopted adults, especially since 9/11, are increasingly denied passports, drivers licenses, pensions, Social Security benefits, professional certifications, and security clearances due to discrepancies on their amended birth certificates, and their inability to produce an original birth certificate to answer the problems. Proposed changes in passport application regulations will make it literally impossible for some adoptees to ever receive a passport without an accessible paper trial to the OBC.

Adoptees without a genuine original birth record could soon be barred from running for public office.‭ ‬Last year, at least‭ ‬10‭ ‬states, introduced legislation requiring presidential and vice-presidential candidates to present their original birth certificates to appropriate authorities to prove citizenship eligibility for office.‭ ‬Some of these bills go farther,‭ ‬mandating anyone running for office to prove citizenship through an original birth certificate.‭ ‬It is no stretch to think that someday soon adoptees could be barred from voting due to lack of‭ “‬legal.‭”birth certificates.

Should these rights and entitlements be nullified for adoptees because OBC access might make some people “uncomfortable?”

SUB HB 2211 at this point is not redeemable. It needs to die right now in the Human Services and Corrections Committee.

The only recourse to death by committee could occur if this committee agrees that all Washington adoptees should receive the same treatment under law,. In that case, we recommend the the bill be amended and returned to the House:

1. remove the expansion of the disclosure veto
2. vacate all disclosure veto language from the current law
3. unilaterally expire all vetoes currently on file on the effective date HB 2211.

For lawmakers concerned about “birth parent privacy,” a contact preference form, included in this bill is an easy, ethical solution, passed in other states, that allows birth parents to voluntarily voice their preference for contact with the adoptee, without the legal ramifications of the DV for OBC access. That is, no matter what  birth parents prefer the OBC is still released.

Since 1999 only 85 “no contact preferences” have been filed in Oregon, most of them filed the year the measure went into went into effect. In New Hampshire, as of December 31, 2021only 12 “no contact preferences” have been filed; 11 in 2005 and 1 in 2006. These numbers indicate that OBC access is not an issue for birth parents and that the only objection to full access lays in legislatures where adoption is only discussed, not lived.

The adoptee advocacy organization Wa-Care says on its webpage that since passage of the 1993 disclosure veto, none have been submitted. Laurie Lippold, of the Washington Children s Home Society testified that one was on file. Laws should not be passed due to speculative actions or to serve one person. The1993 DV is clearly not need or wanted.

Kansas and Alaska have never sealed original birth certificates. Since 1999 six states have restored to adoptees the unrestricted right to records and identity access: Oregon through ballot initiative, and Alabama, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island through legislation. No statistics are available for Kansas and Alaska, and Rhode Island's records won't be opened until July 1, 2012, but approximately 16,000 OBCs in the latter five states have been released with no reported ill consequences.

Rights are for all citizens, not favors doled out to some. Washington does not segregate rights by religion, ethnicity, age, or gender. It should not segregate rights by birth, adoptive status, or third party preference.

Unless SUB 2211 is amended to a clean bill that recognizes the right of all of the state's adopted people to their own OBC without restriction, then vote DO NOT PASS and keep this bad bill from a floor vote. Washington adoptees must enjoy equal protection, due process, and dignity, not favors.

Submitted by Marley Greiner
Executive Chair
Bastard Nation: the adoptee rights organization
xxx 2012

Washington SUB HB 2211: Dead according to sponsor and Wa-Care

Washington SUB HB 2211 is reportedly dead.  Last night, Wa-Care, promoters of the bill, announced on Facebook and in a post on its mail list that Rep.Tina Orwall, sponsor of the bill, had informed them that it had died in the Senate Human Services and Corrections Committee. Not surprisingly, uber powerful Sen.  Jim Hargrove wielded the coup de grace. I'm  a little unclear what exactly happened since there was no hearing and the Washington Leg page doesn't indicate, but it looks like he decided to refuse the bill a hearing. Normally I would wait for an official announcement, but since the bill's sponsor has sent out the word, I'm passing it along.

We are not sorry that SUB HB 2211 is dead.  The bill was restrictive,  maintaining and expanding the current disclosure veto system. But we also knew from the beginning that as long as Sen. Hargrove was calling the shots that nothing would happen.  Hargrove, in the Washington legislature for 28 years, has consistently and malignantly opposed all attempts, restrictive and non-restrictive, to free the state's adoptees from their chattel status. We did not expect a sudden change of heart.

We do not know what Hargrove's problem is, but as long as he is permitted to continue to reign in the Senate (formerly he was in the House), nothing will happen. Hargrove and the demise of this flawed bill  should be an object lesson:  no matter how far  OBC advocates twist their bills and their integrity to please the opposition, the opposition will continue to ignore if not hate them.. You don't  lose anything by pushing for full, unrestricted access. You, in fact, will gain respect. There is no shame in walking away when the bill turns rotten. Just don't contaminate the bill yourself.

Certainly Sen .Hargrove has enemies beyond adoptees and their families who would like to unseat him. While adoptees and their families in Washington are not politically powerful enough to do it, it's time to start talking to other people. And, of course, to push for the removal of the 1993 veto and full OBC access for all. .New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode island have all come back after the defeat of flawed, restrictive bills and won clean bills. Dont leave anyone behind.

Here is the funerary post on SUB HB 2211 distributed by Wa-Care.

Sen Hargrove

From: "Penni"
Date: February 17, 2012 8:32:58 PM PST
To: nwasr@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [nwasr] HB 2211 is dead - thanks once again to Sen Jim Hargrove of Hoquium/Port Angeles
Reply-To: nwasr@yahoogroups.com

(be sure to 'like' wa-care facebook page to get all updates)

HB 2211 has died.

We can thank Senator Jim Hargrove from Hoquium/Port Angeles for killing our bill once again. This bill passed the House UNANIMOUSLY yet when it goes to the Senate, it gets routed right back to where similar bills have been routed time and again. You'd think because of the UNANIMOUS support in the House, this guy would at least be required to hold a hearing but nope, not the case.

FYI for voters in Hargrove's district: He's up for re-election this year. Ya'll need to find someone to run against him for once because I do believe 28 years is enough for this s.o.b.

Many of our legislators are holding town hall meetings this weekend. Some are doing call-in type meetings, even this evening. Could only find this short list of some Democrats meetings: http://senatedemocrats.wa.gov/townhall.html Check your local papers for when and where your legislators might be holding meetings.

PLEASE GO TO YOUR TOWN MEETING AND ASK HOW ONE PERSON CAN DERAIL LEGISLATION JUST BECAUSE HE HAS SOME PERSONAL BIAS AGAINST THE ISSUE!

Thanks for your support once again. We will be back again next year.

-Wa-Care

In a few minutes I'll post the testimony that Bastard Nation intended to submit to the Human Services and Corrections Committee this weekend.

MISSOURI: Bastard Nation Testimony HB 1137--Oppose

HB 1137:

access to identifying information for adoptions original birth certificate

Missouri House Judiciary Committee

January 25, 2012

OPPOSE

Privilege is the opposite of rights

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization is the largest Adoptee civil rights organization in the United States. We support full access for all adopted persons to their original birth certificates (OBC) without restriction.. HB 1137 is not an unrestricted bill and we oppose it.

Under current Missouri law, the original birth certificates of all Missouri Adoptees are sealed and cannot be released to the adoptee without a court order.

Missouri's current “identifying information access” law is a confusing, convoluted labyrinth that serves only a handful of adoptees who successfully navigate its bureaucracy. Those few who do succeed receive only “identifying information” without the release of the OBC. .

HB 1157 makes no substantial changes in that law. It simply substitutes OBC release for the current informal identifying information forwarded to the adoptee, keeping the rest of the bureaucracy in place. It,fact, this bill actually increases the bureaucracy by adding the Department of Social Services to the list of agencies that can be involved in the release.

HB 1137 reinforces outdated adoption secrecy present in the current law. It includes the misnamed “contact preference form”which enables biological parents, upon request, to prohibit the state from releasing to the OBC. A genuine “contact preference form”as Oregon, Alabama, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island have enacted permits a biological parent to state a preference regarding contact, with the adoptee, with no legal ramifications. The “contract preference form “in HB1137, is simply a softer name for the “affidavit of nondisclosure form” in current law, and continues to let third parties legally bar the adoptee from receiving the OBC—a privilege or “special right” that no third party, not even a parent, can evoke against the not-adopted.

Furthermore, the submission of a medical history form, mandated for biological parents who file a veto, is invasive and may be in violation of the federal HIPAA. Law. While family medical histories are desirable for everyone, no one has a right to anyone else s, and adoptees should not be the exception. The entire impetus for adoptee rights, in fact, is that adopted people need to be treated the same as everyone else, nothing more and nothing less.

Sooner or later Missouri, and every other state that has not opened OBC’s unconditionally to adoptees, are going to be forced to d so. The issue isn't going away. This is not a matter of if, but when.

Adopted adults, especially since 9/11, are increasingly denied passports, driver’s licenses, pensions, Social Security benefits, professional certifications, security clearances and other entitlements due to discrepancies on their amended birth certificates, and their inability to produce an original birth certificate to answer the problems.

Adoptees without a genuine original birth record could soon be barred from running for public office. At least 10 states, including Missouri (HB 283; ss Lyle Rowland, Mike Kelly) have introduced legislation requiring presidential and vice-presidential candidates to present their original birth certificates to appropriate authorities to prove citizenship eligibility for office. Some of these bills go farther, mandating anyone running for office to prove citizenship through an original birth certificate. It is no stretch to think that someday soon adoptees could be barred from voting due to lack of “legal” identity over problematical amended birth certificates, and the perpetual sealing of the originals.

Kansas and Alaska have never sealed original birth certificates. Since 1999 five states have restored to adoptees the unrestricted right to records and identity access: Oregon through ballot initiative, and Alabama, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island through legislation. No statistics are available for Kansas and Alaska, but approximately 17,000 OBCs in the former states have been released with no reported consequences. (Rhode Island won't open until July 1, 2012)

Rights are for all citizens, not favors doled out to some. Missouri does not segregate rights by religion, ethnicity, age, or gender. It should not segregate rights by birth, adoptive status, or third party “preference.”

HB 1137, as it is currently written does nothing to restore the right of all Missouri adoptees to their own original birth certificates. Unless this bill is amended –basically re-written to restore the rights of all, we urge you to vote DO NOT PASS. All Missouri Adoptees must enjoy equal protection, due process, and dignity. Missouri Adoptees deserve better than HB 1137!

Submitted by Marley Greiner
Executive Chair
Bastard Nation: the Adoptee rights organization
January 25, 2012

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.

Washington State: Bastard Nation Testimony in Opposition to HB 2211/suggested amendments

TESTIMONY

HB2 2211

Adoptee access to their own original birth certificates

Washington House Committee on the Judiciary

January 16, 2011

OPPOSE

Privilege is the opposite of rights

Our Washington representative cannot attend the hearing today so we are submitting this testimony via email.

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization is the largest adoptee civil rights organization in the United States. We support full, unrestricted access for all adopted persons, to their original birth certificates. (OBC).

Bastard Nation's roots are in Washington State, and we would like nothing more than to support HB 2211. Unfortunately we cannot.

The sticking point is HB 2211's “affidavit of non-disclosure,” otherwise known as a disclosure veto. This veto creates a special third party privilege for birthparents that no one, parent or otherwise, possesses: to bypass state law and to personally bar release of another person's birth certificate to the person to whom it pertains.

Already in place for adoptions finalized on and after October 1 1993, HB 2022 would expand this onerous and discriminatory veto privilege to cover all adoptions; thus expanding the pool of segregated adoptees unable to access their OBCs, even when the vast majority of the state's adoptees could..

Interestingly, HB 2211 expires on July 1, 2012, all current vetoes on file. Those birthparents wishing to remain on the veto books would be required to file a new disclosure veto limited to two years duration, and subject to continued filings every two years.

It appears that the sponsors of the bill have it half right. They are willing to permit the state's adopted class OBC access—unless a third part objects—but limit that third party objection to two year increments. That is, the sponsors appear to find something inherently wrong with vetoes, but feel some sort of obligation to the keep them going .Such an attitude may justify past bad legislation but does not justify denying the adoptees of Washington State the restoration of their civil rights. There is no middle way when it comes to rights: a right exists or it doesn't, and it is not contingent on third party approval.

Sooner or later Washington and every other state that has not opened OBCs unconditionally to adoptees are going to be forced to. The issue isn't going away. This is not a matter of if, but when.

Adopted adults, especially since 911, are increasingly denied passports, drivers licenses, pensions, Social Security benefits, professional certifications, and security clearances due to discrepancies on their amended birth certificates, and their inability to produce an original birth certificate to answer the problems. Proposed changes in passport application regulations will make it literally impossible for some adoptees to ever receive a passport without an accessible paper trial to the OBC.

Adoptees without a genuine original birth record could soon be barred from running for public office.‭ ‬Last year, at least‭ ‬10‭ ‬states, introduced legislation requiring presidential and vice-presidential candidates to present their original birth certificates to appropriate authorities to prove citizenship eligibility for office.‭ ‬Some of these bills go farther,‭ ‬mandating anyone running for office to prove citizenship through an original birth certificate.‭ ‬It is no stretch to think that someday soon adoptees could be barred from voting due to lack of‭ “‬legal.‭”birth certificates.

Should these rights and entitlements be abrogated for adoptaees because OBC access might make some people “uncomfortable?”

As I said in the beginning, were it not for the disclosure veto in all it;'s forms,, including modified, we and our members would happy to support HB 2211.

We recommend that Washington State make history, and simply expire permanently all vetoes currently in place. Amend HB 2211 with the following:

• remove the expansion of the disclosure veto 
• vacate all disclosure veto language from the current law
• unilaterally expire all vetoes currently on file on the effective date of HB 2211
  

Kansas and Alaska have never sealed original birth certificates. Since 1999 six states have restored to adoptees the unrestricted right to records and identity access: Oregon through ballot initiative, and Alabama, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island through legislation. No statistics are available for Kansas and Alaska, and Rhode Island's records won't be opened until July 1, 2012, but approximately 17,000 OBCs in the latter five states have been released with no reported ill consequences.

Rights are for all citizens, not favors doled out to some. Washington does not segregate rights by religion, ethnicity, age, or gender. It should not segregate rights by birth, adoptive status, or third party preference.

Unless you amend HB 2211 to a clean bill to recognize the right of all of the state's adopted people to their own OBC without restriction, then vote DO NOT PASS . Washington adoptees must enjoy equal protection, due process, and dignity, not favors.

Submitted by Marley Greiner
Executive Chair
Bastard Nation: the adoptee rights organization
January 16, 2011

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.

Yippie!  Bastard Nation got a nice and extensive plug yesterday in Slate::   Luke  Marci and Me:  After 34 years the Internet gave me a sister I'd never known.  in which writer Luke O'Neil recounts the discovery of his sister, he knew about, but had remained illusive.

Luke discusses BN and sealed records about mid-way through the first page.

 Comments are mainly good, but contain a number of expected snarks in two categories.

(1)  It's a Pandora's box.  You're better off not knowing

(2)  Searching betrays adoptive parents.

I'll  be commenting  there later today.

Thanks, Luke!