BastardGrannyAnnie
About a month ago, I wrote about my granddaughter’s nanny who was born and adopted in Oregon. She was not aware that she could now get her original birth certificate.
On Sept. 11th, I downloaded the application for her. She sent in the application the next day with her $20 and on September 23rd, just TWO WEEKS later, she received her original birth certificate.
I was dancing on Cloud Nine all evening. Here was an adopted adult. someone I know, who was treated like a NORMAL PERSON by the state of her birth.
Oh, it could be just as easy for every other state to be the same way! What’s going on?!
Friday, October 13, 2006
SUCCESS IN OREGON
BastardGrannyAnnie
About a month ago, I wrote about my granddaughter’s nanny who was born and adopted in Oregon. She was not aware that she could now get her original birth certificate.
On Sept. 11th, I downloaded the application for her. She sent in the application the next day with her $20 and on September 23rd, just TWO WEEKS later, she received her original birth certificate.
I was dancing on Cloud Nine all evening. Here was an adopted adult. someone I know, who was treated like a NORMAL PERSON by the state of her birth.
Oh, it could be just as easy for every other state to be the same way! What’s going on?!
About a month ago, I wrote about my granddaughter’s nanny who was born and adopted in Oregon. She was not aware that she could now get her original birth certificate.
On Sept. 11th, I downloaded the application for her. She sent in the application the next day with her $20 and on September 23rd, just TWO WEEKS later, she received her original birth certificate.
I was dancing on Cloud Nine all evening. Here was an adopted adult. someone I know, who was treated like a NORMAL PERSON by the state of her birth.
Oh, it could be just as easy for every other state to be the same way! What’s going on?!
Friday, April 21, 2006
CONNECTICUT AND MASSACHUSETTS - What Are You Going To Do With Your Adopted Adults?
Ask around your neighborhood or your workplace. Any adoptee will tell you that their birth certificates were impounded long ago when their adoptions were finalized. Their birth certificates have been permanently sealed away from them. They cannot go into any Department of Public Health or Office of Vital Statistics and get their original birth certificates! Ever!
It's the state's policy of "Shame Shame! YOU can't know your name."
A bill is making its way through the General Assembly of Massachusetts. It's purpose: What to do with adopted adults who want their original birth certificates? Currently MA and CT are putting condtions upon which adopted adults can or cannot get their birth certificates.
Connecticut's Senate just passed a bill that would allow only adoptees born after October 2006 to access their original birth certificates eighteen years hence.
Both Massachusetts and Connecticut legislators have the opportunity to right a decades-old injustice to all adopted men and women. They can write their bills so that ALL ADOPTED ADULTS, regardless of when they were born, can uncondtionally get their own birth documents in just the same way as all the other citizens. Isn't that only fair?
Please call, fax, or email your elected representatives . Tell them that you
believe all adopted men and women to be able to uncondtionally get their own original birth certificates. It's the right thing to do.
Anita Walker Field
It's the state's policy of "Shame Shame! YOU can't know your name."
A bill is making its way through the General Assembly of Massachusetts. It's purpose: What to do with adopted adults who want their original birth certificates? Currently MA and CT are putting condtions upon which adopted adults can or cannot get their birth certificates.
Connecticut's Senate just passed a bill that would allow only adoptees born after October 2006 to access their original birth certificates eighteen years hence.
Both Massachusetts and Connecticut legislators have the opportunity to right a decades-old injustice to all adopted men and women. They can write their bills so that ALL ADOPTED ADULTS, regardless of when they were born, can uncondtionally get their own birth documents in just the same way as all the other citizens. Isn't that only fair?
Please call, fax, or email your elected representatives . Tell them that you
believe all adopted men and women to be able to uncondtionally get their own original birth certificates. It's the right thing to do.
Anita Walker Field
Friday, April 14, 2006
OPEN LETTER TO ACCESS 2006
Dear Cathy,
I am writing in response to your comments on my guest blog that appeared on The Daily Bastardette, “Open Letter To Maine Adoptees.”
Cathy, how many ways must I say that Bastard Nation was NOT with the opposition? We vigorously supported the bill in early February, before the hearing.
I have collected “all” Bastard Nation’s communications about LD 1805 from February 25th until the very end of March. This is not a “selection,” Cathi, this is every single one:
1) Testimony to Joint Judiciary Committee, “7 Reasons to Support 1805”
2) Bastard Nation Action Alert, February 25, 2006, “Support 1805”
3) Fax sent to the Joint Judiciary Committee while they were in work session,
“Why You Should Vote For LD, as written”
4) Fact sheet to our membership, “Important Information Regarding LD 1805”
5) My letter to the Kennebec Journal, “Support 1805”
>You state that you "were disappointed when instead of the bill being voted on in the committee, it went into a work session." ALL BILLS GO INTO WORK SESSION. It is the way things work here.>
Good to know. Why didn’t you correct us at the time?
>You also state "Ironically, Senator Faircloth, who was a co-sponsor of the original bill, proposed an amendment that prospectively would allow all adoptees unrestricted access to their original birth certificates when they reached the age of 40." NO, THIS WAS RETROSPECTIVELY. >
I have before me a copy of an Internet post entitled “Breakdown of Maine Amendments” and it is signed “Thanks from much more hopeful souls, Bobbi Beavers and Cathi Robishaw” In this post, you state that Senator Faircloth’s proposal as: “ **prospectively allows all adoptees unrestricted access to their OBC upon reaching the age of 40 and to adoptee descendants if the adoptee is deceased.”
The error that I made about prospective and retrospective was made by you and Bobbi Beavers. I only quoted what you wrote. When did it change? Why didn’t you alert everyone to the fact that your own breakdown report was either in error or had been changed?
>You state "We saw no movement at all that Representative Davis’ bill was garnering any more support."
Each and every report that I received stated that Representative Davis’ bill had 5 votes. By the end of March, it still only had 5 votes. I deduced from this that his bill had picked up no additional support from the committee members.
>You state "At this point, we felt we had no option but to act." Oh really? Who are you, our parent? Somehow I must have missed the memo putting you in charge.>
NOBODY puts Bastard Nation in charge. We are an international adoptee rights organization that advocates for equal treatment for all adopted adults concerning unconditional access to their birth certificates. We speak out on issues in many different states or countries whenever we feel a need, and we shall continue to do so. We do NOT need an invitation from any state to act or not to act.
This is America. Communication from people in one state to those in another is not prohibited. We enjoy freedom of speech.
>You state "We hope when this bill is voted down, we can start over and all work together to pass a pure open records bill."
NOT A CHANCE.
You were not informed, because you are not part of our group. We are not dependent on your participation, and WITH GOOD REASON as all can see. Something that we have been working on for 14 months was completely destroyed within a few days time. >
Your bill was destroyed in the Judiciary Committee by Representative Pelletier-Simpson, and your own co-sponsor, Senator Sean Faircloth!
Please remember that we sent representatives to the Hearing on February 28, 2006. Marley Greiner, Chair of Bastard Nation, traveled from Ohio to Augusta to give full support to LD 1805. The Honorable Janet Allen, State Representative of New Hampshire, also traveled to Augusta to give testimony in full support. Bastard Nation member Craig Hickman, a Maine resident, traveled from his home in Maine to the capital to support your bill. Bastard Nation was well represented at the hearing to support LD 1805.
>This blog along with the hateful emails resulting from your action alert has destroyed our credibility. >
Any credibility you have lost was not caused by Bastard Nation. You are looking for a scapegoat - don’t look to Bastard Nation. We have always supported bills that give unconditional OBC access to adopted adults. Likewise, we have always opposed bills that put restrictions upon adopted men and women with regards to their OBC’s. This has always been our policy and it will always remain so.
>We had much help lined up to defeat these amended versions of the bill; now you and your ilk have taken that away from us. We had a chance, and you people took it upon yourselves to ruin it.>
This is the second time I have read this same statement that you had “much help” lined up to defeat the amended versions of the bill. Why on earth didn’t you share this information?
>You should be completely ashamed of your actions.
No, we are NOT ashamed of our actions. We are PROUD that we could help stop a BAD BILL FROM PASSING, a bill that we originally supported but one that was turned into a restrictive mess and would have locked up adopted adults for many decades.
>You are career victims, and love the struggle. You can say it's free speech all you want. It still doesn't excuse the blame you have in this debacle. As far as DEFORMERS go, you people are at the TOP OF THE LIST. >
"We created the term "Deformers" to describe adopted adults who are willing to accept restricted, conditional legislation. We do not accept conditional legislation.
If you are looking to blame someone for the mess in Maine, please look elsewhere for your scapegoat. We reject all of your claims.
Sincerely,
Anita Walker Field
Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization
Executive Secretary
anita5000@comcast.net
I am writing in response to your comments on my guest blog that appeared on The Daily Bastardette, “Open Letter To Maine Adoptees.”
Cathy, how many ways must I say that Bastard Nation was NOT with the opposition? We vigorously supported the bill in early February, before the hearing.
I have collected “all” Bastard Nation’s communications about LD 1805 from February 25th until the very end of March. This is not a “selection,” Cathi, this is every single one:
1) Testimony to Joint Judiciary Committee, “7 Reasons to Support 1805”
2) Bastard Nation Action Alert, February 25, 2006, “Support 1805”
3) Fax sent to the Joint Judiciary Committee while they were in work session,
“Why You Should Vote For LD, as written”
4) Fact sheet to our membership, “Important Information Regarding LD 1805”
5) My letter to the Kennebec Journal, “Support 1805”
>You state that you "were disappointed when instead of the bill being voted on in the committee, it went into a work session." ALL BILLS GO INTO WORK SESSION. It is the way things work here.>
Good to know. Why didn’t you correct us at the time?
>You also state "Ironically, Senator Faircloth, who was a co-sponsor of the original bill, proposed an amendment that prospectively would allow all adoptees unrestricted access to their original birth certificates when they reached the age of 40." NO, THIS WAS RETROSPECTIVELY. >
I have before me a copy of an Internet post entitled “Breakdown of Maine Amendments” and it is signed “Thanks from much more hopeful souls, Bobbi Beavers and Cathi Robishaw” In this post, you state that Senator Faircloth’s proposal as: “ **prospectively allows all adoptees unrestricted access to their OBC upon reaching the age of 40 and to adoptee descendants if the adoptee is deceased.”
The error that I made about prospective and retrospective was made by you and Bobbi Beavers. I only quoted what you wrote. When did it change? Why didn’t you alert everyone to the fact that your own breakdown report was either in error or had been changed?
>You state "We saw no movement at all that Representative Davis’ bill was garnering any more support."
Each and every report that I received stated that Representative Davis’ bill had 5 votes. By the end of March, it still only had 5 votes. I deduced from this that his bill had picked up no additional support from the committee members.
>You state "At this point, we felt we had no option but to act." Oh really? Who are you, our parent? Somehow I must have missed the memo putting you in charge.>
NOBODY puts Bastard Nation in charge. We are an international adoptee rights organization that advocates for equal treatment for all adopted adults concerning unconditional access to their birth certificates. We speak out on issues in many different states or countries whenever we feel a need, and we shall continue to do so. We do NOT need an invitation from any state to act or not to act.
This is America. Communication from people in one state to those in another is not prohibited. We enjoy freedom of speech.
>You state "We hope when this bill is voted down, we can start over and all work together to pass a pure open records bill."
NOT A CHANCE.
You were not informed, because you are not part of our group. We are not dependent on your participation, and WITH GOOD REASON as all can see. Something that we have been working on for 14 months was completely destroyed within a few days time. >
Your bill was destroyed in the Judiciary Committee by Representative Pelletier-Simpson, and your own co-sponsor, Senator Sean Faircloth!
Please remember that we sent representatives to the Hearing on February 28, 2006. Marley Greiner, Chair of Bastard Nation, traveled from Ohio to Augusta to give full support to LD 1805. The Honorable Janet Allen, State Representative of New Hampshire, also traveled to Augusta to give testimony in full support. Bastard Nation member Craig Hickman, a Maine resident, traveled from his home in Maine to the capital to support your bill. Bastard Nation was well represented at the hearing to support LD 1805.
>This blog along with the hateful emails resulting from your action alert has destroyed our credibility. >
Any credibility you have lost was not caused by Bastard Nation. You are looking for a scapegoat - don’t look to Bastard Nation. We have always supported bills that give unconditional OBC access to adopted adults. Likewise, we have always opposed bills that put restrictions upon adopted men and women with regards to their OBC’s. This has always been our policy and it will always remain so.
>We had much help lined up to defeat these amended versions of the bill; now you and your ilk have taken that away from us. We had a chance, and you people took it upon yourselves to ruin it.>
This is the second time I have read this same statement that you had “much help” lined up to defeat the amended versions of the bill. Why on earth didn’t you share this information?
>You should be completely ashamed of your actions.
No, we are NOT ashamed of our actions. We are PROUD that we could help stop a BAD BILL FROM PASSING, a bill that we originally supported but one that was turned into a restrictive mess and would have locked up adopted adults for many decades.
>You are career victims, and love the struggle. You can say it's free speech all you want. It still doesn't excuse the blame you have in this debacle. As far as DEFORMERS go, you people are at the TOP OF THE LIST. >
"We created the term "Deformers" to describe adopted adults who are willing to accept restricted, conditional legislation. We do not accept conditional legislation.
If you are looking to blame someone for the mess in Maine, please look elsewhere for your scapegoat. We reject all of your claims.
Sincerely,
Anita Walker Field
Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization
Executive Secretary
anita5000@comcast.net
Do No Harm
A member of Access 2006 has left comments for Bastardette. I can forgive the majority of her comment and chalk it up to her great disappointment for the Maine bill that drove her to write. However, there is something that needs to be said and I feel that I am qualified to say it. Many of you may remember that NH had a bill in 2000 that went before the Children & Family Law Committee. We worked on that bill for many, many months and I never missed one of the subcommittee work sessions. That committee was very similar to the Maine committee, with amendments that were simply not acceptable. I was emotionally and physically tied into that bill with fund raising, state house demonstration and zillions of NH OARC meetings. However emotionally tied up in the bill I was, I was also able to see the writing on the wall. That bill was not going to come out of committee as written and it was going to go to the House floor with amendments. It was at that point that I asked NH OARC to write to the committee and ask them to please kill the bill. The point is, I have been there and I do understand how hard you have all worked and I do understand what a great disappointment it is but I also know that the amendments you were willing to let it go to the floor with, would have set adoptees back decades. One of the legislative mottos at the NH State House is, "Do no harm". Maine was about to do great harm. Not just to Maine adoptees but to adoptees throughout the United States.
This is the point where Access 2006 & I part company. We repeatedly asked what the procedure was in the Maine legislature for majority reports and order of amendments. I had to assume that the majority amendment would be voted on first and that that amendment would have to be voted down in order for the reps to even hear any of the other two amendments. Since no one would answer my question on procedure, again, I had to assume that they either did not know or did not wish to share the answer with me. I guess that came as no surprise since Access 2006 was very selective about what information was given out and who it was given out to. When Access 2006 was first formed, I asked to become a member and was told that I couldn't. It was only for Maine folks. I was, however assured that they they wanted help from everyone. Then there were legislative meetings featuring our NH Senator and the Maine legislators that I read about on the "public" Access list but I was not invited to. That's okay, I was still willing to help in any way that I could. So when it was time for the hearing, I drove three hours each way to testify on behalf of the bill as written. The hearing went very poorly and it didn't take a rocket scientist to see where this committee was going. To be blunt, the committee members were not ready and the testimony given did nothing but lead them down the wrong path.
BN has spent a great deal of time trying to get information, writing in favor of the bill as written and trying to understand what the strategy of Access 2006 was. I am not the least bit apologetic or disappointed that this bill is dead. In fact, I will sleep much better tonight knowing that Maine adoptees are free to fight again in the future without further obstacles to overcome.
This is the point where Access 2006 & I part company. We repeatedly asked what the procedure was in the Maine legislature for majority reports and order of amendments. I had to assume that the majority amendment would be voted on first and that that amendment would have to be voted down in order for the reps to even hear any of the other two amendments. Since no one would answer my question on procedure, again, I had to assume that they either did not know or did not wish to share the answer with me. I guess that came as no surprise since Access 2006 was very selective about what information was given out and who it was given out to. When Access 2006 was first formed, I asked to become a member and was told that I couldn't. It was only for Maine folks. I was, however assured that they they wanted help from everyone. Then there were legislative meetings featuring our NH Senator and the Maine legislators that I read about on the "public" Access list but I was not invited to. That's okay, I was still willing to help in any way that I could. So when it was time for the hearing, I drove three hours each way to testify on behalf of the bill as written. The hearing went very poorly and it didn't take a rocket scientist to see where this committee was going. To be blunt, the committee members were not ready and the testimony given did nothing but lead them down the wrong path.
BN has spent a great deal of time trying to get information, writing in favor of the bill as written and trying to understand what the strategy of Access 2006 was. I am not the least bit apologetic or disappointed that this bill is dead. In fact, I will sleep much better tonight knowing that Maine adoptees are free to fight again in the future without further obstacles to overcome.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL MAINE ADOPTEES
Dear Fellow Adoptees,
Bastard Nation has vigorously supported Representative Gerald W. Davis’
excellent original bill, LD 1805, which would give adopted adults unconditional access to their original birth certificates.
Bastard Nation was well represented at the bill’s hearing on February 28, 2006. Our Chairperson, Marley Greiner, as well as New Hampshire Representative Janet Allen and Maine resident Craig Hickman, all traveled to Augusta to testify at the hearing. At that time, Bastard Nation issued a letter of support to the Judiciary Committee as a whole in full support of LD 1805.
We supported Representative Davis’ bill wholeheartedly and were disappointed when instead of the bill being voted on in the committee, it went into a work session.
Bastard Nation issued two Action Alerts in full support of LD 1805. We asked our members to write letters to the representatives and senators on the Joint Judiciary Committee, urging them to vote for Representative Davis’ original bill, LD 1805. One Action Alert was issued at the time of the hearing and a second one was sent out when the committee went into its work session.
We quickly learned that certain members of the Committee were not in favor of Representative Davis’ bill and these members both offered amendments during the work sessions.
Representative Pelletier-Simpson added the following amendments to LD 1805: remove the provision for adoptee access to original birth certificates prior to August 8, 1953 as encoded in Maine law; prospectively provide restricted access by adult adoptees; prospectively allow original parents to submit a confidentiality request (a disclosure veto) within 7 days of surrender of parental rights; and impose a confidential search business on the Probate Courts. [Please note: this information was taken directly from reports received from representatives of Access 2006.]
Ironically, Senator Faircloth, who was a co-sponsor of the original bill, proposed an amendment that prospectively would allow all adoptees unrestricted access to their original birth certificates when they reached the age of 40. Senator Faircloth also embraced some of Representative Pelletier-Simpson’s amendments, among them the one removing the provision for adoptee access prior to August 8, 1953.
It is our firm belief that adding any one of the above amendments would be unacceptable. If more than one were added, it would be a full blown disaster.
We have been waiting and watching. As of Friday, April 7, 2006, our resources told us that the count in the committee was:
Representative Pelletier-Simpson- 6 votes.
Senator Faircloth - 2 votes
Representative Davis - 5 votes
We did the arithmetic and realized that things looked mighty grim for Representative Davis’ original bill.
We were told that the 3 amendments could come to the floor of the House as soon as Monday, April10th. We deduced that with 3 amendments coming out of the committee, the one with the most supporters would be the first one voted upon: that is, Representative Pelletier-Simpson’s amendment. If that passes, what would be the use of presenting any other amendments?
We saw no movement at all that Representative Davis’ bill was garnering any more support. In fact, a last minute report indicated that Senator Faircloth and Representative Pelletier-Simpson were now working together to somehow combine their amendments.
At this point, we felt we had no option but to act. On April 8th, we issued an Action Alert and a Press Release asking the representatives to vote down LD1805 as amended. We know that historically, restrictive bills are not readily revisited. Once a bill is encoded into the law, it stays there for many years. It is far better to lose a battle but come back to win the war.
It’s a sad time for us all when we see an excellent bill such as Representative Davis’ LD 1805, turn into a bill with extremely repressive amendments which are totally unacceptable to every self-respecting adopted adult.
We hope when this bill is voted down, we can start over and all work together to pass a pure open records bill.
Bastard Nation
Bastard Nation has vigorously supported Representative Gerald W. Davis’
excellent original bill, LD 1805, which would give adopted adults unconditional access to their original birth certificates.
Bastard Nation was well represented at the bill’s hearing on February 28, 2006. Our Chairperson, Marley Greiner, as well as New Hampshire Representative Janet Allen and Maine resident Craig Hickman, all traveled to Augusta to testify at the hearing. At that time, Bastard Nation issued a letter of support to the Judiciary Committee as a whole in full support of LD 1805.
We supported Representative Davis’ bill wholeheartedly and were disappointed when instead of the bill being voted on in the committee, it went into a work session.
Bastard Nation issued two Action Alerts in full support of LD 1805. We asked our members to write letters to the representatives and senators on the Joint Judiciary Committee, urging them to vote for Representative Davis’ original bill, LD 1805. One Action Alert was issued at the time of the hearing and a second one was sent out when the committee went into its work session.
We quickly learned that certain members of the Committee were not in favor of Representative Davis’ bill and these members both offered amendments during the work sessions.
Representative Pelletier-Simpson added the following amendments to LD 1805: remove the provision for adoptee access to original birth certificates prior to August 8, 1953 as encoded in Maine law; prospectively provide restricted access by adult adoptees; prospectively allow original parents to submit a confidentiality request (a disclosure veto) within 7 days of surrender of parental rights; and impose a confidential search business on the Probate Courts. [Please note: this information was taken directly from reports received from representatives of Access 2006.]
Ironically, Senator Faircloth, who was a co-sponsor of the original bill, proposed an amendment that prospectively would allow all adoptees unrestricted access to their original birth certificates when they reached the age of 40. Senator Faircloth also embraced some of Representative Pelletier-Simpson’s amendments, among them the one removing the provision for adoptee access prior to August 8, 1953.
It is our firm belief that adding any one of the above amendments would be unacceptable. If more than one were added, it would be a full blown disaster.
We have been waiting and watching. As of Friday, April 7, 2006, our resources told us that the count in the committee was:
Representative Pelletier-Simpson- 6 votes.
Senator Faircloth - 2 votes
Representative Davis - 5 votes
We did the arithmetic and realized that things looked mighty grim for Representative Davis’ original bill.
We were told that the 3 amendments could come to the floor of the House as soon as Monday, April10th. We deduced that with 3 amendments coming out of the committee, the one with the most supporters would be the first one voted upon: that is, Representative Pelletier-Simpson’s amendment. If that passes, what would be the use of presenting any other amendments?
We saw no movement at all that Representative Davis’ bill was garnering any more support. In fact, a last minute report indicated that Senator Faircloth and Representative Pelletier-Simpson were now working together to somehow combine their amendments.
At this point, we felt we had no option but to act. On April 8th, we issued an Action Alert and a Press Release asking the representatives to vote down LD1805 as amended. We know that historically, restrictive bills are not readily revisited. Once a bill is encoded into the law, it stays there for many years. It is far better to lose a battle but come back to win the war.
It’s a sad time for us all when we see an excellent bill such as Representative Davis’ LD 1805, turn into a bill with extremely repressive amendments which are totally unacceptable to every self-respecting adopted adult.
We hope when this bill is voted down, we can start over and all work together to pass a pure open records bill.
Bastard Nation
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Adoptee Hell in Maine
HOW DO WE HATE THEE? LET US COUNT THE WAYS!
ADOPTEE HELL IN MAINE
By Anita Walker Field
The Maine Joint Judiciary Committee is deliberating Representative Gerald Davis’ pure open records bill, LD 1805. Representative Davis’ bill would allow all adopted adults unconditional access to their original birth certificates.
Newspapers and other reliable sources tell us that a majority of the committee members of the Joint Judiciary Committee are out to gut LD 1805 and replace it with one of the most repressive and restrictive adoptee (no) rights laws in the country.
It’s one thing to disagree with Bill LD 1805 and vote “No.” That happens every day in state legislatures around the country. It’s how things work. But not in the Maine Joint Judiciary Committee!
Senator Deborah Pelletier-Simpson and Representative Sean Faircloth have grasped at this chance to re-write the adoption law in Maine in a way that will leave Maine adoptees worse off than before this bill was introduced. They are using LD 1805 as a jumping off point to Adoptee Hell.
It is HATEFUL for legislators to take advantage of a committee situation and amend the hell out of a bill in order to fulfill their personal prejudices against adoptees , Representative Pelletier-Simpson and Senator Faircloth have flushed LD 1805 down the toilet
ADOPTEE HELL
ACCORDING TO SENATOR PELLETIER-SIMPSON.
1) Remove the provision from current Maine law that provides for adoptee access to records prior to August 8, 1953. Yes, you read it correctly! Representative. Pelletier-Simpson and and her cohorts, as well as Senator Faircloth, want to take away from adopted adults a right that is already encoded in Maine Law. Instead of retroactively opening all birth records for adopted men and women as LD 1805 originally proposed, this gang wants to retroactively seal all records.
2) Prospectively provide restricted access by adult adoptees
to adoption records sealed in the Probate Courts. Get it? Prospectively. That means that 18 to 21 years from now *some* adopted adults may be able to access their original birth certificates. Isn’t that generous?!
3) Prospectively provide restricted access by adoptive parents of minors to adoption records sealed in the Probate Courts.
4) Prospectively allow original parents to submit a confidentiality request (disclosure veto) with 7 days of surrender and release, consent, or termination of parental rights. There’s the two nasty terms again: PROSPECTIVE & DISCLOSURE VETO.
5) Impose a confidential search business on the Probate Courts, which are understaffed and overloaded with work, and allow them to subcontract for search services. Search services are none of the state’s business!
ADOPTEE HELL ACCORDING TO SENATOR FAIRCLOTH
Ironically, Senator Faircloth was an original co-sponsor of LD 1805. I think someone dropped him on his head because he has now turned himself around and has offered a unique amendment equally as repressive, restrictive, and mean as Representative Pelletier- Simpson’s amendments.
Senator Faircloth agrees with the Pelletier- Simpson amendments, including the one to remove the right of adoptees born before 1953 to access their birth records. Now, from one of his worst nightmares, Representative Faircloth has dreamed up another humiliating and hateful restriction to impose on adopted adults.
6) The Faircloth Amendment will prospectively allow all adoptees unrestricted access to their original birth certificates upon reaching the age of 40 and to adoptee descendants if the adoptee is deceased
DO THE ARITHMETIC AND WEEP
We have heard that there may be 4 or 5 votes for the original bill, LD 1805, as written by Representative Gerald Davis.
We have also heard that Representative Pelletier-Simpson has 5 votes for her "new bill" and Senator Faircloth has at least another 2 votes for his monstrosity.
LD 1805 is doomed! It must be killed in the House of Representatives before Maine adoptees find themselves living in Adoptee Hell. And it must also be killed before it gives any other states nasty ideas about how to treat their adopted citizens.
ADOPTEE HELL IN MAINE
By Anita Walker Field
The Maine Joint Judiciary Committee is deliberating Representative Gerald Davis’ pure open records bill, LD 1805. Representative Davis’ bill would allow all adopted adults unconditional access to their original birth certificates.
Newspapers and other reliable sources tell us that a majority of the committee members of the Joint Judiciary Committee are out to gut LD 1805 and replace it with one of the most repressive and restrictive adoptee (no) rights laws in the country.
It’s one thing to disagree with Bill LD 1805 and vote “No.” That happens every day in state legislatures around the country. It’s how things work. But not in the Maine Joint Judiciary Committee!
Senator Deborah Pelletier-Simpson and Representative Sean Faircloth have grasped at this chance to re-write the adoption law in Maine in a way that will leave Maine adoptees worse off than before this bill was introduced. They are using LD 1805 as a jumping off point to Adoptee Hell.
It is HATEFUL for legislators to take advantage of a committee situation and amend the hell out of a bill in order to fulfill their personal prejudices against adoptees , Representative Pelletier-Simpson and Senator Faircloth have flushed LD 1805 down the toilet
ADOPTEE HELL
ACCORDING TO SENATOR PELLETIER-SIMPSON.
1) Remove the provision from current Maine law that provides for adoptee access to records prior to August 8, 1953. Yes, you read it correctly! Representative. Pelletier-Simpson and and her cohorts, as well as Senator Faircloth, want to take away from adopted adults a right that is already encoded in Maine Law. Instead of retroactively opening all birth records for adopted men and women as LD 1805 originally proposed, this gang wants to retroactively seal all records.
2) Prospectively provide restricted access by adult adoptees
to adoption records sealed in the Probate Courts. Get it? Prospectively. That means that 18 to 21 years from now *some* adopted adults may be able to access their original birth certificates. Isn’t that generous?!
3) Prospectively provide restricted access by adoptive parents of minors to adoption records sealed in the Probate Courts.
4) Prospectively allow original parents to submit a confidentiality request (disclosure veto) with 7 days of surrender and release, consent, or termination of parental rights. There’s the two nasty terms again: PROSPECTIVE & DISCLOSURE VETO.
5) Impose a confidential search business on the Probate Courts, which are understaffed and overloaded with work, and allow them to subcontract for search services. Search services are none of the state’s business!
ADOPTEE HELL ACCORDING TO SENATOR FAIRCLOTH
Ironically, Senator Faircloth was an original co-sponsor of LD 1805. I think someone dropped him on his head because he has now turned himself around and has offered a unique amendment equally as repressive, restrictive, and mean as Representative Pelletier- Simpson’s amendments.
Senator Faircloth agrees with the Pelletier- Simpson amendments, including the one to remove the right of adoptees born before 1953 to access their birth records. Now, from one of his worst nightmares, Representative Faircloth has dreamed up another humiliating and hateful restriction to impose on adopted adults.
6) The Faircloth Amendment will prospectively allow all adoptees unrestricted access to their original birth certificates upon reaching the age of 40 and to adoptee descendants if the adoptee is deceased
DO THE ARITHMETIC AND WEEP
We have heard that there may be 4 or 5 votes for the original bill, LD 1805, as written by Representative Gerald Davis.
We have also heard that Representative Pelletier-Simpson has 5 votes for her "new bill" and Senator Faircloth has at least another 2 votes for his monstrosity.
LD 1805 is doomed! It must be killed in the House of Representatives before Maine adoptees find themselves living in Adoptee Hell. And it must also be killed before it gives any other states nasty ideas about how to treat their adopted citizens.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Adoption is NOT A Reproductive Rights Issue
Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization proudly publishes this essay by
Maryanne Cohen, a birth mother and long time member of Bastard Nation. Please
forward freely with accurate attribution.
Adoption is NOT A Reproductive Rights Issue
by Maryanne Cohen
The opponents of open records on both the Right and the Left have tried to
connect open records for adopted adults to issues of abortion and
reproductive rights. This is a mistake and misuse of words, as all issues
of reproductive rights cease once a living child, a separate individual
with citizenship and rights of his own, is born. Adoption IS NOT a
reproductive rights issue, nor is it family preservation, any more than child
abuse, breastfeeding, day care, or decent schools are, although all these
issues are important and relate to children.
Once an adoption takes place, the reproductive part is done, the child is
born and a separate person. There is no longer one person, the mother, and one
legal non-person, the fetus, but two individuals with their own rights that have
nothing to do with reproduction. I think we need to keep
stressing this, to try to make it clear that however one feels about
reproductive rights or abortion, it has nothing to do with adoption issues
or with open records. Reproductive rights issues are birth control and
access to it, abortion, and perhaps infertility treatments and assisted
reproduction. Once a child is born, no matter what happens next, the
"reproductive" part no longer applies because that is done, ended for
everyone with the birth of one who is now a separate human being, not an object
or less than a person.
Mothers do not have unlimited "choice" concerning what they do with their
children once they are born, nor do they have rights that supersede those of
that child when he or she becomes an adult. "Reproductive rights" do not last
forever; they end when the reproduction part of the process ends after nine
months with a live birth. And men have never had a "reproductive right" to
anonymity, as witness the paternity suits filed every day!
A particularly virulent outgrowth of the idea that a mother's supposed
reproductive rights last forever and always trump the rights of the child are
the awful baby dump "Safe Haven" laws that are springing up everywhere like
weeds. Generally, where the law must step into family matters at all, it is
assumed that protection of the minor child is more important than the rights of
negligent or abusive adults. And all laws pertaining to minors but sealed
records adoption laws end when the person becomes a legal adult.
There are only two choices, not three, that a pregnant woman makes that fall
under the category of reproductive rights; the choice to abort, or to carry the
child to term. The choice to surrender a child for adoption,
which can only be made a legally binding choice once the child is born and
a surrender document is signed, is NOT the third reproductive rights
choice, nor is the opposite, the choice to raise the child and the right to
assistance to do this.
These important decisions that a mother makes once her child is born are in no
way connected to the superior rights she had under the law while the child was
still a fetus. No mother has life or death power over her child once it is born,
nor does she have any right to permanent anonymity from that child under some
misguided notion that this is a "reproductive right" that goes on forever. No
one has a "right" to adopt, that is a privilege granted by the state for the
good of the child, not to fill the needs of the adoptive parents, Nobody has a
right to surrender a child and be given any promise of perpetual anonymity from
that child either. Nobody has a right to raise a child if they are proven
dangerous and unfit. And once again, none of these things should be viewed under
the category of reproductive rights, although often they are.
In my view, both the extreme pro-choice and extreme pro-life groups are
fundamentally dishonest, neither will look at any grey area, and both try
to suppress anyone's experience that does not reinforce their preconceived
notions. Some pro-choice people refuse to admit that any woman ever suffered
deep grief after an abortion, and discount those who try to say that they did.
On the other side, extreme pro-life people try to discount the experience and
feelings of women who really did not regret having an abortion or feel any
grief and are still satisfied with their decision. Both sides are less concerned
with individual women and their real feelings than with only allowing those
whose stories agree with their agenda to be heard. And I think that among our
opponents, both sides project their feelings about the fetus onto the adopted
adult, which really muddies the waters and leaves legislators confused.
Some pro-lifers worship the fetus, deify it in some sense, and then do not much
care what happens to kids once they are born, or to their mothers. These are the
"Adoption, Not Abortion" bumper sticker crowd. They cannot see the difference
between the adult adopted person and the fetus. Adoptees should be grateful they
were born at all, and pregnant women are just waiting to abort if they think
their child will be able to find them years later. The fact that this is never a
factor in why women choose abortion (I wish someone would do a study on that,
what the real reasons are) does not slow them down a bit, because the image of
the killer birthmother and the threatened, "saved" fetus fits their mythology
better than the facts, that open records had nothing whatsoever to do with the
rate or choice of abortion. Plus these groups are big on shame and punishment
for "loose women" and can't imagine a woman who has surrendered not living a
life of shame and fear of her child.
On the other side, the more extreme pro-choice groups demonize the fetus with
all the rhetoric about it being just a parasite, a clump of cells living off the
mother's body. Both sides assume an adversarial situation between fetus and
mother and extend this to the situation of adult adoptees and open records.
Those who are pro-abortion and anti-open records are just defending the mother's
rights against the fetus's rights....forever, not just until it is born. It is
this kind of thinking that also leads them to oppose legislation that would say
that the murder of a pregnant woman is double homicide, even if she is in the
last weeks of pregnancy. Any hint that the fetus is human must be eliminated in
order to protect abortion rights, even if the issue is not related to abortion
or choice.
The anti-abortion crowd think they are "saving babies" at any cost by opposing
open records, because of their misreading of the desires of mothers who carry a
child to term and those who choose to abort. Both think that mothers should have
absolute say about what the "child" gets to know about his own birth and
heritage forever or else there will be a chink in the armor of their respective
agendas. To the extreme pro-choicers, women are always benevolent, know best,
and will always make the best choice because of their superior women's
instincts. To the extreme pro-lifers, women are potential wild beasts with an
urge to kill.
Ironically some from both sides feel that this same woman wants and deserves the
state's protection to hide her past indiscretions. Neither extreme is willing to
see women as just human, no better and no worse than men, nor are they willing
to separate their issues from ours when something we are doing hits a related
nerve in their world view. Of course many others of good will and compassion who
are pro-choice or pro-life also support open records and adoptee rights, but
they are not the subject of this essay.
Is this making sense? And is there any way to get through this on either
side? Neither the Holy Fetus nor the Demon Fetus is helping the adoptee
rights cause, nor are the well-meaning attempts by some on our side to go along
with the reproductive rights model, but argue that a woman who gives birth has a
"reproductive right" to raise her child. It may indeed be argued that women have
such a right, but it has nothing to do with
reproduction. If there is any way we can separate these issues in the minds of
legislators, we will have gone a long way towards neutralizing our opposition's
most annoying and false arguments.
Maryanne Cohen
c. Feb 2006
Maryanne Cohen, a birth mother and long time member of Bastard Nation. Please
forward freely with accurate attribution.
Adoption is NOT A Reproductive Rights Issue
by Maryanne Cohen
The opponents of open records on both the Right and the Left have tried to
connect open records for adopted adults to issues of abortion and
reproductive rights. This is a mistake and misuse of words, as all issues
of reproductive rights cease once a living child, a separate individual
with citizenship and rights of his own, is born. Adoption IS NOT a
reproductive rights issue, nor is it family preservation, any more than child
abuse, breastfeeding, day care, or decent schools are, although all these
issues are important and relate to children.
Once an adoption takes place, the reproductive part is done, the child is
born and a separate person. There is no longer one person, the mother, and one
legal non-person, the fetus, but two individuals with their own rights that have
nothing to do with reproduction. I think we need to keep
stressing this, to try to make it clear that however one feels about
reproductive rights or abortion, it has nothing to do with adoption issues
or with open records. Reproductive rights issues are birth control and
access to it, abortion, and perhaps infertility treatments and assisted
reproduction. Once a child is born, no matter what happens next, the
"reproductive" part no longer applies because that is done, ended for
everyone with the birth of one who is now a separate human being, not an object
or less than a person.
Mothers do not have unlimited "choice" concerning what they do with their
children once they are born, nor do they have rights that supersede those of
that child when he or she becomes an adult. "Reproductive rights" do not last
forever; they end when the reproduction part of the process ends after nine
months with a live birth. And men have never had a "reproductive right" to
anonymity, as witness the paternity suits filed every day!
A particularly virulent outgrowth of the idea that a mother's supposed
reproductive rights last forever and always trump the rights of the child are
the awful baby dump "Safe Haven" laws that are springing up everywhere like
weeds. Generally, where the law must step into family matters at all, it is
assumed that protection of the minor child is more important than the rights of
negligent or abusive adults. And all laws pertaining to minors but sealed
records adoption laws end when the person becomes a legal adult.
There are only two choices, not three, that a pregnant woman makes that fall
under the category of reproductive rights; the choice to abort, or to carry the
child to term. The choice to surrender a child for adoption,
which can only be made a legally binding choice once the child is born and
a surrender document is signed, is NOT the third reproductive rights
choice, nor is the opposite, the choice to raise the child and the right to
assistance to do this.
These important decisions that a mother makes once her child is born are in no
way connected to the superior rights she had under the law while the child was
still a fetus. No mother has life or death power over her child once it is born,
nor does she have any right to permanent anonymity from that child under some
misguided notion that this is a "reproductive right" that goes on forever. No
one has a "right" to adopt, that is a privilege granted by the state for the
good of the child, not to fill the needs of the adoptive parents, Nobody has a
right to surrender a child and be given any promise of perpetual anonymity from
that child either. Nobody has a right to raise a child if they are proven
dangerous and unfit. And once again, none of these things should be viewed under
the category of reproductive rights, although often they are.
In my view, both the extreme pro-choice and extreme pro-life groups are
fundamentally dishonest, neither will look at any grey area, and both try
to suppress anyone's experience that does not reinforce their preconceived
notions. Some pro-choice people refuse to admit that any woman ever suffered
deep grief after an abortion, and discount those who try to say that they did.
On the other side, extreme pro-life people try to discount the experience and
feelings of women who really did not regret having an abortion or feel any
grief and are still satisfied with their decision. Both sides are less concerned
with individual women and their real feelings than with only allowing those
whose stories agree with their agenda to be heard. And I think that among our
opponents, both sides project their feelings about the fetus onto the adopted
adult, which really muddies the waters and leaves legislators confused.
Some pro-lifers worship the fetus, deify it in some sense, and then do not much
care what happens to kids once they are born, or to their mothers. These are the
"Adoption, Not Abortion" bumper sticker crowd. They cannot see the difference
between the adult adopted person and the fetus. Adoptees should be grateful they
were born at all, and pregnant women are just waiting to abort if they think
their child will be able to find them years later. The fact that this is never a
factor in why women choose abortion (I wish someone would do a study on that,
what the real reasons are) does not slow them down a bit, because the image of
the killer birthmother and the threatened, "saved" fetus fits their mythology
better than the facts, that open records had nothing whatsoever to do with the
rate or choice of abortion. Plus these groups are big on shame and punishment
for "loose women" and can't imagine a woman who has surrendered not living a
life of shame and fear of her child.
On the other side, the more extreme pro-choice groups demonize the fetus with
all the rhetoric about it being just a parasite, a clump of cells living off the
mother's body. Both sides assume an adversarial situation between fetus and
mother and extend this to the situation of adult adoptees and open records.
Those who are pro-abortion and anti-open records are just defending the mother's
rights against the fetus's rights....forever, not just until it is born. It is
this kind of thinking that also leads them to oppose legislation that would say
that the murder of a pregnant woman is double homicide, even if she is in the
last weeks of pregnancy. Any hint that the fetus is human must be eliminated in
order to protect abortion rights, even if the issue is not related to abortion
or choice.
The anti-abortion crowd think they are "saving babies" at any cost by opposing
open records, because of their misreading of the desires of mothers who carry a
child to term and those who choose to abort. Both think that mothers should have
absolute say about what the "child" gets to know about his own birth and
heritage forever or else there will be a chink in the armor of their respective
agendas. To the extreme pro-choicers, women are always benevolent, know best,
and will always make the best choice because of their superior women's
instincts. To the extreme pro-lifers, women are potential wild beasts with an
urge to kill.
Ironically some from both sides feel that this same woman wants and deserves the
state's protection to hide her past indiscretions. Neither extreme is willing to
see women as just human, no better and no worse than men, nor are they willing
to separate their issues from ours when something we are doing hits a related
nerve in their world view. Of course many others of good will and compassion who
are pro-choice or pro-life also support open records and adoptee rights, but
they are not the subject of this essay.
Is this making sense? And is there any way to get through this on either
side? Neither the Holy Fetus nor the Demon Fetus is helping the adoptee
rights cause, nor are the well-meaning attempts by some on our side to go along
with the reproductive rights model, but argue that a woman who gives birth has a
"reproductive right" to raise her child. It may indeed be argued that women have
such a right, but it has nothing to do with
reproduction. If there is any way we can separate these issues in the minds of
legislators, we will have gone a long way towards neutralizing our opposition's
most annoying and false arguments.
Maryanne Cohen
c. Feb 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)