Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

USA: Protesters Seek to Change Laws Sealing Birth Papers, July 23, 2008

NEW ORLEANS TIMES-PICAYUNE
July 23, 2008


Protesters seek to change laws sealing birth papers
But opposition notes mothers' privacy rights
By Nicole Dungca
Staff writer

Since finding out last year that she was adopted as a baby, Judy Galliand Adams, 58, has been on a hunt for information about her birth mother. But she faces a major roadblock.

In Louisiana, as in many states, adoptees are denied easy access to their original birth certificates. Instead, they can get only amended birth certificates, which name their adopted parents as their biological parents.

Aiming to get the policy changed, Galliand Adams joined about 60 protesters Tuesday on a march from Lafayette Park to the site of the 34th Annual Legislative Summit of the National Conference of State Legislatures at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center.

Organized by The Adoptee Rights Demonstration, protesters urged lawmakers attending the five-day conference to change laws that require the birth certificates of adopted people to be sealed.

For Galliand Adams, Louisiana's law makes the search for her biological history "incredibly frustrating."

"I have no idea who I am, and there's just a big void there," she said.

Even in states that have so-called "mutual consent registries," adoptees only can contact their birth parents if the parents agree. In these states, access to original birth certificates is often possible but usually requires hearings in civil court.

Other protesters said the laws amount to discrimination.

"This isn't about searching and reunion. This is about our rights," said Michelle Edmunds, who came from Canada to join the march.

Across the aisle, adoption advocates expressed opposition to changes that would loosen restrictive laws to grant adoptees easy access to their birth certificates. States that already have such laws include Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon, Alabama, Alaska and Kansas.

"We're not opposed to open adoption or open records. We're concerned about the right of privacy for the birth mother," said Rodney Huey, spokesman for the National Council for Adoption.

"A birth mother, for whatever reason, decided at one point to have her own confidential adoption, and that (confidentiality is) what she was guaranteed," he said.

. . . . . . .

Nicole Dungca can be reached at ndungca@timespicayune.com or 504.826.3321.

Link to article

Monday, May 19, 2008

UNITED STATES: The Anonymous Gift of Adoption, May 20, 2008

WASHINGTON TIMES
May 19, 2008


Editorial: The anonymous gift of adoption

It sounds like a dream come true for the tens of thousands of adoptees in the U.S. — the ability to find and reconnect with a birth parent or parents. That was the case for Maine Sen. Paula Benoit, whose highly publicized ordeal to find her birth parents not only led to meeting new relatives ( at least three of whom are also ironically lawmakers) but also to legislative action that changed the law in her state so that other adult adoptees could do the same. Her efforts propelled and initiated efforts in a handful of other states to move forward with similar measures. But in the state of New Jersey, the measure has failed several times — and for good reason.

What Mrs. Benoit failed to consider in her identity quest is the potentially detrimental effect that her law (and others like it) to unseal birth records could have on parents who choose to privately put their child up for adoption. It is estimated that there are about 1 million children in the U.S. who live with adoptive parents and 2 to 4 percent of American families include an adopted child. There are several kinds of adoption arrangements that include open, closed (confidential), mediated (non-identifying) and fully disclosed. While the majority of adoptions (69 percent) are open, those who choose to take such a step confidentially should have that option honored, not overturned.

Some adoptees cite medical and heredity reasons for tracking down birth parents. And while that may be a legitimate concern in some cases, it is not the norm. In a study of American adolescents, the Search Institute found that the majority of adolescents simply wanted to know what their parents "looked like" (94 percent) or "why" they were adopted (72 percent).

And, while openness can be a liberating experience for birth parent and adoptee, it's not for everyone. Some birth mothers have started new families and for personal reasons may not want their identity disclosed. It should be up to them — when and if they want to share this information. Anything else is a clear invasion of privacy. Even adoption advocates caution adoptees when seeking out a birth parent about the kind of mistakes that happen when a random search goes awry. Search site adoption.com warns: "Unfortunately, there have been cases of people contacting ... birthparents claiming to be their ... child, or sibling when this is not the case. Be aware that this can happen."

There are other not-so-obvious implications of taking away a birth mother's request for confidentiality. In USA Today, Thomas Atwood, president of the National Council for Adoption, surmised: "Birth mothers were promised privacy, and if that promise is broken, fewer women will choose adoption over abortion." Catholic groups have echoed this sentiment.

There are many famous adoptive parents — Al Roker, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Magic Johnson — who are championed for their selfless acts of love. There are also famous adoptees, including John Lennon and Victoria Rowell, who are grateful for the loving homes they were provided. But you don't often hear about the not so "famous" birth parents, who for personal (likely hardship) reasons of their own choose to place their children up for adoption in the hope that it will provide them a better life.

Adoption is often referred to as a gift. And just as charitable organizations rely on private "gifts" from anonymous donors, parents who give the gift of adoption also have a reasonable right to remain anonymous. It's not up to the recipient to find the donor.

The state of Michigan gives a confidential-adoption birth mother the opportunity to submit her identifying information to the state at any time, should she have a change of heart. Other states would do just as well to leave this choice up to the birth mother.

Link to article

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

UNITED STATES: In Juno, Adoption Pain is Left on Cutting Room Floor by Jean Strauss, March 19, 2008

USA TODAY
March 19, 2008


In Juno, adoption pain is left on cutting room floor
By Jean Strauss

Ever since I watched it, the film Juno has kept me up nights. I know millions of people love this film about a pregnant teen and would skewer me for my concern about it. Yes, it's witty and Juno is a unique character. But the film doesn't portray important realities about adoption. Juno is a modern-day Pied Piper that could lure many young women to a far different reality than the one implied on screen.

(Photo - Girl, interrupted: Ellen Page was nominated for an Oscar for her pregnant Juno. / Reuters)

Supposedly representative of today's generation, wisecracking Juno's solution for her unwanted pregnancy is strangely wrapped in pretty paper from a half-century ago. When she decides to have a closed adoption (meaning that she'll never have any contact with her child again, nor will the child ever be able to know her), the film reflects not current adoption practices but a bygone era. When the adopting parents' lawyer suggests they're willing to negotiate an open adoption (with at least some contact between the parties), Juno responds, "Can't we just kick it old school? … You know, like Moses in the reeds."

The adopting parents and the lawyer share a glance, like antique hunters at a swap meet about to make off with a treasured heirloom for pennies. Asking whether Juno means she wants a traditional closed adoption, she responds, "Sh— yeah. Close it up." Toss in a sweet ending where the audience is assured that Juno will be just fine as she strums her guitar on the curb, and she becomes a dead ringer for all those birth mothers of the '40s, '50s and '60s who supposedly gave up their babies and got on with their lives. The problem is, those mothers who relinquished children long ago would tell you there was never a "happily ever after."

My experience

After a quarter-century of listening to and writing about birth mothers' experiences, I am comfortable suggesting that Juno is pure fiction. No woman, whether 16 or 36, gives up her own child with the words, "He didn't feel like ours. … I think he was always hers." This is simply dialogue made up by screenwriter Diablo Cody, a former stripper who has never relinquished a child nor even given birth.

In the film, Juno's baby is called "the thing." As an adoptee myself, I identified a bit with "the thing" and its impending closed adoption. I grew up with no knowledge of my birth family, no medical history, no past — and no right to ever know these things. Like anyone who feels she understands something from "inside" an experience, I cringed at the film's implication that preserving a lifelong connection between Juno and her son was somehow less important than the adoptive mother's desperate need to have a baby, any baby. I cringed as the audience laughed at lines such as, "You should have gone to China. I heard they give away babies like free iPods. They shoot 'em out of those T-shirt guns at sports events."

But whether Cody got it right or not, my real concern is the influence this film might have on teenage girls and young women. They believe that Juno is a hero who blissfully returns to her young life, unaffected by giving up her son. This same myth was promulgated to Baby Boomer-era birth mothers. They were convinced by agencies, lawyers, social workers and even their own parents that they would forget about their babies and move on. But they didn't. As a birth mother in a recent USA TODAY article said, "We hoped the pain would go away, but it never did." Her experience is echoed in the stories of hundreds of thousands of birth mothers.

Painful secrets

Juno would have us believe that a birth mother's offer of a closed adoption is a sign of the character's generous spirit. But openness doesn't imply selfishness. Openness exists in adoption today because the secrets caused too much pain. Today's birth mothers want openness — as do many adoptive parents — because they feel it is in their own best interests and their child's.

Don't misunderstand — I am not against adoption, nor am I against finding humor in painful situations. What I am against is the idea that secrecy benefits anyone, and I'm deeply concerned about the misrepresentation of adoption's realities. Juno makes an unwanted pregnancy look like a great experience, akin to a year in the Peace Corps. The film's light finale, with Juno unchanged by what she has gone through, is harmful fiction of the worst kind. She is seducing girls and young women into believing that they could — and even should — give away their own child, as if they were giving away a favorite toy, just to be nice.

Jean Strauss is a writer and filmmaker from Bainbridge Island, Wash. Her work includes Penguin's Birthright: The Guide to Search and Reunion and the award-winning short adoption film The Triumvirate.
Posted at 12:15 AM/ET, March 19, 2008 in Family - Forum, Forum commentary, Lifestyle issues - Forum | Permalink

USA TODAY welcomes your views and encourages lively -- but civil -- discussions. Comments are unedited, but submissions reported as abusive may be removed. By posting a comment, you affirm that you are 13 years of age or older.

Link to article

Saturday, March 15, 2008

UNITED STATES: States that Provide Certificates for Stillbirth, March 15, 2008

GRAND FORKS (ND) HERALD
March 15, 2008



States that provide certificates for stillbirth

The Associated Press - Saturday, March 15, 2008

Nebraska lawmakers have given first-round approval to legislation (LB1048) that would create a certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth.

Twenty-one states already have laws allowing such certificates. They are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin.

An additional 12 states - Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon and Wyoming - have laws that provide for certificates of stillbirth.

There are 17 states without laws on birth certificates for stillborn babies. Legislation is pending in Alaska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. Three states - Georgia, Iowa and Kentucky - have no formal laws on the certificates, but allow the documents to be granted upon request.

Sources: National Conference of State Legislators, The MISS Foundation

___

On the Net:

National Conference of State Legislators: http://www.ncsl.org/

The MISS Foundation: http://www.missfoundation.org/


Link to article

Sunday, March 9, 2008

UNITED STATES: Movies Open Door for Adoption Advocates

Not directly related to adoptee rights, but important.

USA TODAY
March 9, 2008


Movies open door for adoption advocates
By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY

The popularity of Juno and Bella, movies about young, unmarried, pregnant women, has given the National Council for Adoption an opening.

The private advocacy group is launching a public service advertising campaign thisweek that includes radio and TV spots as well as billboards, all with this tagline: "Sometimes choosing adoption is being a good mother."

"We see (the movies) as an opportunity to promote adoption awareness," says the group's president, Thomas Atwood. He says the award-winning films, both of them about women who consider adoption for their babies, have given the issue visibility.

The ads are part of a larger government and private effort to reverse the decrease in the number of single women who place infants for adoption.

Fewer than 1% of unmarried pregnant women relinquished their infants for adoption in 2002, the most recent year for which data are available, says Paul Placek, a consultant to the council. That compares with 8.7% before 1973, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Placek says more women have kept their babies as the stigma of single motherhood has eased. Some of them have abortions, although the abortion rate has declined, too.

In 2000, Congress approved a program to promote infant adoption. The Department of Health and Human Services awards grants to organizations, including the adoption council, to train pregnancy counselors at federally funded clinics to present adoption as an option. The grants also have paid for public service ads.

Private groups, including the Minnesota-based Adoption Option Committee, have formed to try to support birth mothers, in part with college scholarships.

NARAL, a group that advocates for abortion rights, "fully supports providing information about options, including adoption," to pregnant women, spokesman Ted Miller says.

Atwood says his group's ads "are not trying to persuade anyone or twist anyone's arms. We're trying to get them to consider adoption. Infant adoption is ripe for growth, for revival."

"Some women are parenting who aren't ready to parent," Atwood says. He adds that single parenthood is difficult, and many children are placed in foster care because of abuse or neglect.

Julia Thornton, 33, a political appointee at the White House, says she was a freshman in college when she became pregnant. She found herself to be the only pregnant woman on campus. Raised Catholic, she chose to relinquish her baby girl but says she has stayed in close touch with the girl and her adoptive mother.

Janelle Kreeb, 30, placed a boy for adoption 11 years ago. "I was young and wanted to go to college," says Kreeb, of Arlington, Va.

She was adopted herself and says her adoptive parents encouraged her to consider adoption. Now studying for a master's degree, she says she knows she did the right thing. She says her son is happy and is doing well in sports and school. "I'm very proud of him."

Link to article

Monday, February 25, 2008

UNITED STATES: Letter from Mirah Riben--States' Sealed Records Discriminate Against Adoptees, Families, February 25, 2008


USA TODAY
February 25, 2008


States' sealed records discriminate against adoptees, families

Mirah Riben, member, board of directors, Origins — USA.org - Richmond, Va.

In his letter "In cases of adoption, respect privacy of birth parents," USA TODAY reader Craig Roberts wrote about his "concerns" for mothers who surrender their children for adoption. Roberts took enormous liberty in speaking for others (Tuesday).

He wrote that mothers who lost children to adoption "could have made a choice to terminate their pregnancies." Yes, they could have, but so could the mother of any child ever born.

Roberts wagers that "the majority of these decisions were made at a young age." The majority of mothers placing children for adoption today are in their 20s. I don't consider those ages to be young. Also, the history of sealed adoption records indicates the records were never sealed to "protect" mothers who surrendered their rights. They were originally sealed in the 1930s to protect adoptive parents and the secrecy of adoption. This kind of protection is a smoke screen for denying adoptees and their families of origin the same rights as others.

Mothers who lost children to adoption have been speaking out, writing and appearing on national television since the '70s. We do not need others speaking for us, making assumptions about us or trying to protect us.

Link to article

Saturday, February 23, 2008

UNITED STATES: Sally Brown--Letter to the Editor: Story on Adoption Records Provides Public Benefit, February 20, 2008

USA TODAY
February 20, 2008


Story on adoption records provides public benefit
Letter to the Editor: Sally Brown - Livermore, Calif.

Thank you so much for your objective feature on the "rights" of mothers who gave up children for adoption vs. the "rights" of adults who were adopted ("As adoptees seek roots, states unsealing records," Cover story, News, Feb. 13).

When I relinquished my son to adoption in 1950 in New Jersey, I was 22, single and unprepared either financially or emotionally to face the scorn of a community that thought I was still a "nice" girl. By 1981, my idea of myself had strengthened, and I was able to reveal my secret to my daughters and search for my son so I could answer his questions.

For any state to interject itself between a competent adult and his or her child is an unwarranted intrusion into a citizen's private history. The facts in USA TODAY's cover story prove wrong the notion that the availability of honest birth certificate information will produce more abortions.

Continued secrecy might protect those agencies and institutions that gave false information to either relinquishing or adoptive parents, but it does not protect any valid interest of the state.

I commend USA TODAY for bringing these facts to the attention of a wide readership and trust that it will not abandon the topic. The electorate needs to know the facts.

Link to article

Friday, February 22, 2008

UNITED STATES: Did You Ever Give Up a Child for Adoption?, February 22, 2008

Please go to the link and add your comments!

ABC NEWS
February 22, 2008



Did You Ever Give Up a Child for Adoption?
ABC Wants to Talk to Biological Parents Who Want to Keep Their Adoptions Anonymous


We are doing a story on the efforts of different states to unseal adoption records. We are looking to interview a woman who gave a child up for adoption and does not want to be found and is adamantly opposed to the unsealing of adoption records. We promise to fully disguise her identity in the piece, including her face and voice.

Please tell us your story below:

Followed by form.


Direct link not working. Try http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=4332269&page=1

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

UNITED STATES: Maggie Gallagher--Children of Sperm Donors Have Rights, Too, February 20, 2008

Check out the comments!

TOWNHALL.COM
February 20, 2008



Children of Sperm Donors Have Rights, Too
By Maggie Gallagher


In New Jersey, the state Senate has twice voted to give adopted children access to their original birth certificates, that is, to the names of their biological mothers. Birth mothers would have one year to notify the state that they wish to remain anonymous. Even so, such birth mothers would be compelled by government to provide social, cultural and health information, or else their identities would be released regardless of their consent.

Recently, one southern New Jersey newspaper weighed in forcefully in the bill's favor: "This is not too much to ask from a birth mother ... The adoptee's right to this information is as important as protecting the privacy of the birth mother," the editors of the Courier-Post opine.


Embryologist Harsha Bhadarka works on the Intra Cytoplasnic Sperm Injection (ICSI) process at Dr. Nayna Patel's Kaival Hospital in Anand, India, Monday, Dec. 17, 2007. The small clinic at Kaival Hospital matches infertile couples with local women, cares for the women during pregnancy and delivery, and counsels them afterward. Anand's surrogate mothers, pioneers in the growing field of outsourced pregnancies, have given birth to roughly 40 babies. (AP Photo/Ajit Solanki)
Related Media:
The Difference between Men and Bulls: Procreation by Donation

But why pick exclusively on birth mothers? If children have a right to know their own biological parents -- a claim recognized in international human rights law and one to which I am deeply sympathetic -- there is no good reason to limit this claim to the small number of women who accept the agonizing burden of giving life to children they cannot raise.

Far more children these days are deprived of knowledge of their origins by a totally difference process: artificial insemination. How can we possibly countenance placing burdens exclusively on women who give life and excuse totally the men whose sole contribution to their child was to "donate" into a little cup, usually for money?

And our laws are almost totally to blame for keeping children created by reproductive technologies in the dark about their origins. The common law remains the rule for children created by sexual acts: I cannot bargain away at the bar my child's right to the support and care of both his mother and father. The child retains the right to the support of both parents, no matter to what those parents have agreed. But if I go to a doctor or clinic for sperm, adult bargains are suddenly allowed by law to trump the child's natural right to know both his biological parents, wherever possible.

A whole lot of other rights and concerns get trumped as well. As the New York Post reported this week, "Conditions at New York City sperm banks are inconceivably bad -- with some offices not testing samples for some diseases, and others using sperm from donors who engaged in high-risk sexual behavior."

Idant Laboratories, reports the Post, fails to test sperm donors for some sexually transmitted and genetic diseases. One woman who used sperm from Idant Laboratories contacted the agency when she learned that her own son, and the child of another family that used the same donor, both suffered from autism.

Idant declined to contact the sperm donor on the grounds that autism is not a life-threatening illness. How many other children will this one man be paid to stud with his identity totally shielded by law -- hundreds potentially?

My own position on sperm donation is considered beyond the pale. Ideally, before a man becomes a father he ought to be able to persuade some woman to marry him. But consider this an absolute minimum: A man who wants to be a father ought to be able to find some actual live woman who wants to have sex with him. Call it nature's quality control.

If we are going to revise all our laws to facilitate adult desires at children's expenses, the least we can do is require facilities that make money by making babies to keep records on whom the biological father is, and make those records available to children who turn 18.

If New Jersey legislators are going to impose this burden on birth mothers, the least they can do in justice is to make sperm-donor dads equally responsible.


Maggie Gallagher is a nationally syndicated columnist, a leading voice in the new marriage movement and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially
.

Link to article

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

UNITED STATES: As Adopees Seek Roots, States Unsealing Records

Go to link for sidebar on history of open records, current stats, and pictures

Tom Atwood steps in the cow pie.


USA TODAY
February 13, 2008


As Adoptees Seek Roots, States Unsealing Records

By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY

When Maine state Sen. Paula Benoit got a bill passed last year, she got more than a new law: She found pieces of her past.

For years, Benoit, 52, had wondered about the parents who had put her up for adoption. That helped lead her to support a plan to give adult adoptees access to their original birth certificates. After the bill passed, Benoit learned the names of her birth parents and their hometown. She e-mailed a colleague, Sen. Bruce Bryant, who represents that area and supported her bill, and asked whether he knew them.

His reply: The deceased couple were his grandparents.

"Oh, for the love of God, I need to call him and say, 'I'm your aunt,' " Benoit recalls thinking. "Can the world be any smaller?"

There was more: Bryant's brother, Mark, serves in Maine's House of Representatives — and had opposed Benoit's bill. "It's too open," he says, adding that birth mothers expected privacy when they placed children for adoption years ago. He says he's happy Benoit is in his family but worries the new law may force some birth parents into contact they do not want.

Three lawmakers, two points of view, one family.

As unusual as Benoit's story is, the debate within her family over whether adult adoptees should be able to learn more about their backgrounds is echoing across the nation.

Last year, Maine was one of three states to pass laws to give such adoptees full or partial access to their original birth certificates — more than in any year since 2000, according to a USA TODAY analysis of state records. Massachusetts approved access for those born before July 1974, when records were sealed, or after January 2008. North Carolina approved indirect access through a state-appointed intermediary. When its law takes effect next January, Maine will become the eighth state to give adult adoptees full access to their birth records, which list birth parents' names.

The controversial push to open adoption records is driven in part by the increased interest among many Americans in finding their ancestral roots. Many adult adoptees may be able to find their birth parents without an original birth certificate by searching databases and the Internet, but the official record makes it easier. Some adoptees want to establish a relationship with birth parents; others are more interested in family medical histories. Some don't want to contact their birth parents, they simply want to know their past.

"For 52 years, I know I've been loved," Benoit says of her adoptive parents, who are alive and support her desire to know birth relatives. Even so, she says, she wondered whom she looked like. She wondered why, despite diet after diet, she couldn't lose weight. "Does obesity run in my family?" she'd ask herself.

"This is really about identity and the truth of a human being's existence," Darryl McDaniels, known as the rapper DMC, told lawmakers last month in New Jersey, where bills to open birth records have languished for decades. McDaniels, 43, learned at 35 that he was adopted and has since backed a bill to unseal birth certificates.

"We never start a book from Chapter 2," he said. "As adoptees, we live our lives from Chapter 2."

As the situation in New Jersey suggests, unsealing birth certificates often has been difficult. Bills to do so were proposed in at least seven other states last year but did not pass. Some proposals, such as those in New Jersey, have been stymied by opposition from the National Council for Adoption and some Catholic bishops, abortion opponents and civil libertarians.

Thomas Atwood, president of the council, which represents adoption agencies, says birth mothers were promised privacy and if that promise is broken, fewer women will choose adoption over abortion.

Despite the opposition, "the general trend is clear: Adoptees are being given access, state by state," says Fred Greenman, legal adviser to the American Adoption Congress, which supports open birth records.

Greenman reconnected with his daughter in 1991, more than 30 years after agreeing to her adoption. The daughter's husband made the first call and set up a meeting. "We spent the whole day at the dining room table talking," he recalls. He says most birth parents welcome contact, as he did, and adoptees deserve to know their past.

Last year's increase in access laws also reflects a larger trend toward openness in adoption, as more birth parents seek to stay in contact with kids they relinquish. "There's far more acceptance of it being open," says Herbert Brail, head of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys.

That was not the case decades ago when many women, under the stigma of unmarried pregnancy, felt forced to relinquish their babies, says Ann Fessler, author of The Girls Who Went Away, a 2006 book about women who gave up children in the 1950s and 1960s.

Fessler, an adoptee, says many of the women she interviewed have "tremendous guilt." She says they want contact with their children, and about half have it. The rest, she says, feel they have no right to it but wonder about their children.

Fessler, 58, says women in their mid-70s and 80s, are — like her own birth mother — often more reticent about a reunion. She wrote her 77-year-old mother a letter, then a postcard, and waited more than a year but got no response. So she called. "I was very, very nervous — kind of shaking," she says. Her mother was friendly on the phone, so they met in person a few months later. "We chatted like crazy," Fessler says.

Now, however, they have "minimal" contact. Her mother has not told her other three children about Fessler. "She's still torn about whether she can come out about this," Fessler says.

Eileen McQuade, president of the American Adoption Congress, says unsealing birth records has not created problems in the states that have done so — Alabama, Delaware, New Hampshire, Oregon and Tennessee. Two other states, Alaska and Kansas, have never sealed birth records. Delaware allows full access except when birth parents object.

Abortion rates have declined in the states that allow full access to records, as they have nationwide. Most birth parents in Alabama, New Hampshire, Oregon and Tennessee have consented to contact with their children or the release of records, according to records reviewed by USA TODAY.

After Oregon began releasing records in 2000, few birth mothers complained, says E. Wayne Carp, author of Adoption Politics: Bastard Nation & Ballot Initiative 58, a book on the state's experience.

As each state opens records, others will follow, says Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, which favors unsealing records. "Success breeds success."

A battle of legal rights

The legislative battles often pit an adoptee's right to his or her birth certificate against a birth mother's right to privacy.

"People have a right to their birth records," says Marley Greiner, founder of Bastard Nation, a group pushing to unseal records.

There is no such legal right, Atwood counters, adding that birth mothers believe they were promised privacy when states sealed records. He says many won't speak out because they have other kids or spouses who don't know about the adoption.

Birth records were sealed not to give birth mothers anonymity but to protect adoptive parents from interference from birth parents, says Elizabeth Samuels, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law. She says some were sealed to protect adoptees from the stigma of illegitimacy.

If birth mothers or adopted children really want to find each other, Atwood says, they can list their names in registries set up by states.

Not all states have registries. Many that do make few matches, says Marri Rillera of the International Soundex Reunion Registry, which gives adoptees and birth parents free help in finding each other. In Texas, about 8,500 adoptees, siblings and birth parents have registered. One or two matches are made each month, says Patricia Molina, who oversees the registry.

"A registry is not the answer," Rillera says. "Open records are."

She says some companies charge thousands of dollars to search records and some adoption agencies charge $400 to $500 for non-identifying information about birth parents, such as age, medical history, ethnicity and religion. An adoptee's search will be quicker and cheaper if birth records are open, she says. "Frankly, I'd like to be out of business."

'We've had mixed emotions'

At least 19,000 adoptees have asked for their birth certificates in Alabama, Delaware, New Hampshire, Oregon and Tennessee.

"I've seen a lot of people whose hands shake" when they get the record, says Melanie Orman, adoption coordinator for New Hampshire. She says many had met their birth mother or knew her name but wanted the piece of paper as a record of their past.

Birth mothers can be distressed. Orman got a call from an angry woman who said she was awakened at 11 p.m. by a call from someone who said, "You're my mother." She says the woman felt her privacy had been invaded.

"We've had mixed emotions: happy, sad, upset," says Carolyn Jones, coordinator of post-adoption services at the Tennessee Department of Children's Services.

Adoptees seeking birth certificates is "routine now," says Carol Sanders at Oregon's Center for Health Statistics. From June 2000 through November 2007, 9,571 adoptees sought records in Oregon. Of 564 birth parents who filed forms on whether they wanted contact, 85 said no.

"I've seen very few who say no," says Dorothy Harshbarger, Alabama's registrar of vital records. She estimates 95% of birth parents allow contact. She says a few complained after records were unsealed in 2000, but not many since then.

A dozen states provide partial access to original birth certificates, depending on the date of the adoption and the permission of birth parents. Another dozen allow indirect access through a state-appointed intermediary if birth parents agree. In other states, adoptees need court approval.

In Illinois, which allows access via an intermediary, 25% of the parents decline contact, says Nancy Golden, co-director of the Midwest Adoption Center, a group that does adoption counseling. She says the women may have kept the birth a secret or may fear anger from the adoptee. She says reunions usually are positive if people don't expect too much. Still, she says the experience can be "overwhelming."

Illinois state Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, who plans to sponsor a bill this year to fully open records, says she was in her 20s when she found her birth mother. The woman's first response: "What took you so long?"

McQuade was 19, a college freshman, when she relinquished a baby girl in 1966. "I felt so powerless and shameful," she recalls. She later married the father and had two more daughters, but they didn't discuss their first child. "We hoped the pain would go away," she says, "but it never did."

Then came the phone call on Nov. 28, 1997, about 9:30 p.m. "I'm calling from New York," a woman said. "I knew what it was immediately," McQuade recalls. The caller, a friend of her first child, asked if the parents wanted contact. They did. The friend handed the phone to the daughter.

Mother and daughter spoke for the first time, neither sure what to say. McQuade started by telling her family medical information.

"It was kind of indescribable — terrified, excited, surreal," says her daughter Kathleen Laing. "We e-mailed every day for a year. It was incredibly intense."

They met in person the following July 4th weekend. "It was a complete roller coaster," McQuade says, from joy and hope to sadness at missing so many years. She says their reunion is "a fairy tale come true" that prompted her activism.

Benoit says that after she began pushing to unseal Maine's birth records, she asked a judge for her own. He said no. Later, to her surprise, she received a letter from the court that included her birth mother's name. She still does not have her original birth certificate.

She says the Bryants invited her to a Christmas party and other get-togethers. "Our family is happy to know her," Mark Bryant says.

Benoit says her birth mother was poor and about 50 when she was born, and did the right thing in relinquishing her baby. If her birth mother were alive, Benoit says, "Boy, would I love to put my arms around her and thank her."

Link to article

Saturday, January 12, 2008

UNITED STATES: US Issues National ID Standards, Setting State for Showdown, January 12, 2008



More potential problems for adoptees with hinky birth certificates.

NEW YORK TIMES,
January 12, 2008

U.S. Issues National ID Standards, Setting Stage for a Showdown
By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON — The federal government issued national standards on Friday that states would have to meet in order for driver’s licenses they issue to qualify as identification at airports and federal buildings, setting the stage for a confrontation with states that have voted not to cooperate.

Under a measure known as Real ID legislation, the states must comply by May 11, the third anniversary of the measure’s enactment, or obtain a waiver from the Department of Homeland Security.

Meeting the May 11 deadline is impossible because the regulations have been delayed so long, but Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, said Friday that his department would issue a waiver to states that promised to comply later.

He laid out a very long schedule, with the final deadline in December 2017, more than 16 years after the events that prompted the law, the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Several states have voted not to comply. One is Washington, where the chairwoman of the Senate’s transportation committee, when asked what difference the new federal rules would make, said, “None.”

The Washington Legislature is to begin a special session on Monday but it will be brief, said Senator Mary Margaret Haugen, the chairwoman.

“It’s very unrealistic of the federal government to think that states that are not in session or in a short session can resolve this in a short time frame,” she said. “Our state has said we will not spend money on the Real ID unless they fund it, and I don’t see any money coming from the federal government.”

In Washington and elsewhere, state lawmakers have complained that the requirements add up to a national identification card, that it is too costly, puts privacy at risk and poses severe technical challenges.

The Legislature in Maine overwhelmingly passed a resolution last January vowing not to comply. The Legislature there is in its “short session” and can take up only legislation that all the leadership decides is an emergency, said Peggy Schaffer, chief of staff to the Senate majority leader.

Ms. Schaffer predicted that pressure from the airlines might force the federal government to reverse itself.

The airlines, in fact, are worried, because travelers with driver’s licenses from states that do not have a waiver would have to use a passport or a military ID, or face additional screening, including a pat-down.

“This has the potential to be hugely problematic,” said David Castelveter, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, a trade association of the major carriers. “It appears as if the Department of Homeland Security is placing the burden on the traveling public for a state’s inability to comply.”

Exactly how many states will decide not to apply for waivers is unclear. Arkansas, Idaho, Montana and others have voted against the program, which was a central recommendation of the Sept. 11 Commission.

States would have to require applicants for new licenses or renewals to prove they are legally in the country, and then record and verify the documents.

Opponents have complained that passports and Social Security cards are easy to verify promptly, but birth certificates, issued by thousands of jurisdictions, are not.

While some states are in revolt, others were moving to tighten their licensing standards even before Sept. 11. And some advocates say that tighter controls would help prevent identity theft and drunken driving.

“We can kill three birds with one stone if we get ourselves on a path to a secure driver’s license,” Mr. Chertoff said.

Civil libertarians counter that the new licenses must have all the information encoded into a machine-readable bar code. These will be read by retail stores, hotels and other companies, the American Civil Liberties Union predicted, creating powerful intrusions of privacy.

Barry Steinhardt of the A.C.L.U. predicted that the program would never take effect. By setting deadlines so far in the future, he said, the administration had “kicked the can down the road” to the next one.

The schedule released Friday calls for compliant licenses for everyone under 50 by May 11, 2014, and for those 50 and over, by Dec. 1, 2017.

The Homeland Security Department decided this would lower costs, according to Mr. Chertoff. He called it “risk management,” saying older people were less likely to be terrorists.


LINK TO ARTICLE

Sunday, December 30, 2007

UNITED STATES: The Ethicist--Seminal Revelation, December 30, 2008

Our Baster Nation comrades are also denied the right of heritage and identity. I will include articles about their activities, too.

THE NEW YORK TIMES SUNDAY MAGAZINE
December 30, 2007


The Ethicist
Seminal Revelation
By RANDY COHEN

My fiancé received a letter at his office from a woman claiming to be the product of his sperm donation nearly 20 years ago. Her stated intention was to receive medical information, something he would willingly provide, but she strongly implied that she desired more, and he does not wish further contact. Was it ethical of her to obtain his name and business address? Must he reply? — name withheld, Portland, Ore.

Your fiancé is right to provide pertinent medical information to this young woman. The consequences to her of not having it could be dire. One way he might respond — while, quite reasonably, deterring further contact — is to have the clinic where he made his sperm donation give her only the medical information and nothing else. If the clinic is uncooperative or, after 20 years, no longer extant, he can proceed via some other middleman — a lawyer, for example.

There is nothing wrong with this woman’s contacting him or with her resourcefully tracking him down. She made no promise not to. It would, of course, be wrong for the clinic to assist her in that effort if it guaranteed your fiancé anonymity. Such promises can be an effective way to encourage sperm donors, who provide a service much valued both by couples having trouble conceiving and by single women eager to start a family.

While this woman may propose closer contact, your fiancé need not acquiesce. He, too, has a say in the matter. While parents have ethical obligations to their children, especially their young children, parenthood is not defined merely by a genetic connection.

UPDATE: The fiancé, now husband, instructed the clinic to provide the woman with medical information but to disclose nothing further about him. The clinic insisted that it had not given out his contact information. It warned him about the possibility of a nonrelative trying to scam a putative parent, a scheme it has encountered before.

Link to article