OPEN RECORDS FOR ADOPTEE BILL PASSES IN NJ!

It's not over yet, but this afternoon New Jersey took one step closer to allowing people adopted as infants to obtain their original birth certificates, and with that the right to know their true identities.  We congratulate our friend Pam Hasegawa and Judy Foster and the others in New Jersey who have fought so hard and worked so long for passage of this bill--31 years.  We hope that the passage of this bill may lead to similar action in our neighboring state of New York. (See blog post of May 8.)

NJ Bill Voted out of committee to full Assembly. At bleeping last.

The adoption-reform bill in New Jersey was voted out of the Assembly Human Services committee last night: Six Democrats voted to send the bill to the entire Assembly; four Republicans abstained from casting a vote. (WTF is wrong with all of them? Or is it just a matter of, this is a Dem bill, we don't want to vote for it or any human rights that Dems support?) But I digress.

The testimony ran on for hours, and the hearing lasted from just after 2 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. What I heard (had to leave at 6:30) was incredibly powerful, at least from our side of the fence. Longtime reform activist Pam Hasegawa pointed out--by quoting the actual law--that the legislation from the Forties does not indicate anywhere that it was meant to guarantee secrecy and anonymity from one's own child; an African American woman spoke powerfully about her need to know, despite that she found her first mother but has respected the woman's desire for no contact; another spoke of not being able to get a passport because amended birth certificates stamped more than a year after their birth prevent you from doing so since 9/11; others talked about the serious health risks of not knowing your actual, FIRST FAMILY medical history--your real medical history, that is, as your adoptive family's medical history has nothing to do with you and is meaningless to a doctor; another spoke of treatment options for herself and her children that are frequently determined by what runs in the family. Your biological family. One woman who did not learn she was adopted at 41 said that she realized she had been giving doctors false information all her life. I thought: and her "loving" but not real mother, her adoptive mother, let her do so. What is "loving" and "caring" about that? That woman put "her" daughter's life in danger for 41 years.

Even I can forget how tragic and stupid and deeply emotional it is sometimes to not have your birth certificate, the information about your biological, birth, original, natural, real first family. But it was all there yesterday in strong, irrefutable language. As I listened on the computer, I both cheered and got glassy-eyed. Our heroine, adoptee activist Elaine Penn, did speak, in clear, forceful language even though her first mother is someone...who's somewhat deranged. First-mother activist Judy Foster was great too, her voice breaking when she got caught up by the emotions of the moment. One adoptive mother, also a NJ legislator, spoke in favor of the bill. Hooray for her!

I had to leave when another adoptive mother was speaking against the bill in a cheerful, chirpy voice. Damn her, I thought, she's never been without her birth certificate, she's never wondered whom she is, who she was when she was born, whom her real parents are.                                      

I also heard an adoptee testify against the bill; I can not for the life of me understand why the woman just can't let it be. If she doesn't want her non-fake birth records, fine. But why deny the thousands who do? What is so fearful to her that she has to actively work to punish others who want to know the truth of their identities? She's like a house slave speaking out against the end of slavery because she might lose her home if all slaves are emancipated, and the Masta can't provide any longer. 

Some of the antis were clearly rattled by the emotional, powerful testimony, but still they droned on, talking about how changing the law will increase abortions, while we have the statistics to prove them wrong. Here's the summary from American Adoption Congress:

"The data reveals that if access has had any effect on adoptions and abortions, it has been to increase adoptions and decrease abortions."(For a state by state breakdown see here: Abortion and Adoption Data from States Who Have Enacted Access)

But still the anti-choice crowd (I hate Right to Life as their appellation, I'm right to life too, I'm against the death penalty) lie and repeat this falsehood as if it were written in the Bible. It must be because they have imprinted in their minds the defeated and weary women at the point they surrender their children, days or weeks after giving birth. Hell, I was obsessed that the birth of my daughter not be posted in The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle where I had been a reporter back in 1966; but I never wanted her not to know who I was. I always hoped for and planned for a reunion, no matter how. That was the saddest truth of relinquishment: that the damn surrender papers stipulated that I never be informed, no matter what happened to her, whether she was in need or not. And she was in need, desperate need, as regular readers know. Now tell me, dear legislators opposed to this bill, how in the hell this makes the old legislation in the "best interest of the child? It does not.

Archaic adoption laws such as those in New Jersey and Michigan and New York and 38 other states are in the supposed best interests of the affluent people who are the adopters, plain and simple. They were written by the adopting class, they were for the adopting class, and today they serve only those of the adopting class who are against open records for their children, no matter their age. As for the few women who hide from their children? The state has no such vested interest in protecting them; if that were the case, they would also "protect" putative fathers who do not want to be named. You have a baby; you owe that individual the right to know his or her identity, plain and simple. Your anonymity tramples the right of others. Your anonymity takes away that person's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." We need another court case to make its way to the Supremes; maybe the conservatives and libertarians on the current Supreme Court will see through the fallacy of sealed birth records, and how it applies law unequally to a whole class of people.

Back to New Jersey: The NJ Senate has passed the bill four times since 2004, the last in March. Yesterday was its first hearing in the Assembly. (Change of leadership, change of legislation.) Now the bill can at last move forward to the general Assembly for a vote.

I know this bill and all such bills that contain any restrictions--or give that handful of birth-comes-first mothers who are afraid of their children, afraid of contact, afraid of facing reality the opportunity to file a veto riles those who oppose any legislation that does not provide unfettered access to original birth certificates to all adopted people.

People, get real. This bill and the others like it pave the way for a shift in attitude in the mind of the adopters, the numskulls who apparently run the NJ ACLU, the legislators who will vote on these bills, the Catholic Church who typically oppose giving adoptees their original, unamended birth records. But once it becomes clear that no great harm occurs in the land, this cruel and unusual legislation will topple. Consider the Emancipation Proclamation. From Wikipedia:

"The Emancipation Proclamation was criticized at the time for freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power. Although most slaves were not freed immediately, the Proclamation did free thousands of slaves the day it went into effect^[2] in parts of nine of the ten states to which it applied (Texas being the exception).^[3] In every Confederate state (except Tennessee and Texas), the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas and at least 20,000 slaves^[2][3] were freed at once on January 1, 1863.

"Additionally, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for the emancipation of nearly all four million slaves as the Union armies advanced, and committed the Union to ending slavery, which was a controversial decision even in the North. Hearing of the Proclamation, more slaves quickly escaped to Union lines as the Army units moved South. As the Union armies advanced through the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (approximately 4 million, according to the 1860 census^[4]) were freed by July 1865.

Near the end of the war, abolitionists were concerned that while the Proclamation had freed most slaves as a war measure, it had not made slavery illegal. Several former slave states had already passed legislation prohibiting slavery; however, in a few states, slavery continued to be legal, and to exist, until December 18, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted."

Sometimes good work that upends old wrong ways takes time and happens in steps. --lorraine 
 _________________________
PS: To listen to the testimony, go to: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/MEDIA/OLS_MEDIA_PLAYER.HTM?wma=!{A}http://rmserver.njleg.state.nj.us/internet/2010/AHU/0614-0200PM-M0-1.wma!

PPS: I've posted one anonymous comment from those opposed; that's it. If the antis want to post here, they need to leave their real name and their url or email address. Then we will consider it.

PPPS: Both books above highly recommended: one is by photographer Jill Krementz How It Feels to Be Adopted and tells first-person stories of adolescent and teenage adoptees with pictures, great for young adoptees dealing with the issue; the second is a wonderful memoir of a birth/first mother, Margaret Moorman, Waiting to Forget: A Motherhood Lost and Found

NJ Bill Voted out of Committee to Assembly. At Bleeping last.

The adoption reform bill in New Jersey was voted out of the Assembly Human Services committee last night: Six Democrats voted to send the bill to the entire Assembly; four Republicans abstained from casting a vote. (WTF is wrong with all of them, I want to know. Or is it just a matter of, this is a Dem bill, we don't want to vote for it and any human rights that Dems support?) But I digress.

The testimony ran on for hours, and the hearing lasted from just after two p.m. until 7:30 p.m. What I heard (had to leave at 6:30) was incredibly powerful--at least from our side of the fence. Pam Hasegawa pointed out that the original legislation from the Forties has no indication legislators meant to "promise" anonymity or secrecy from one's own child; an African American women spoke powerfully about her need to know; others spoke of not being able to get a passport because their amended birth certificate was stamped more than a year after their birth; others talked about the problems with health information. One woman who discovered she was adopted at 41 said that she had been giving doctors false information all her life--well, I forget how tragic and stupid it is sometimes to not have your birth certificate, but it was all there in strong, irrefutable language. I cheered as I listened on the computer, and I cried. Elaine Penn spoke too, in clear forceful language even though her first mother is someone...who's somewhat deranged.

Some of the antis were clearly rattled by the testimony but still they droned on, talking about how changing the law will increase abortions, which we have the stats to prove them  wrong (check the AAC site) but still they state this falsehood. It must be because they have imprinted in their minds the weak and weary women at the point of surrender. Hell, I was obsessed that the birth of my daughter not be posted in The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle back in 1966; but I never never ever wanted her to now know who I was. That was the saddest truth of relinquishment.

But now the bill at last moves forward.--lorraine
-------------

More on New Jersey Adoption Reform bill

Our previous post, We support NJ bill giving adoptees original birth certificates, is drawing heated controversy, as the comments indicate. Some birth/first mothers object to the release of any information the social worker collected at the time of relinquishment of their babies, feeling that this is an infringement of their privacy, and may reflect half-truths or even complete falsifications put down by the social worker. Some we know were sympathetic; others were judgmental and harsh, only interested in getting the baby for her clients, the waiting prospective adoptive parents. 

It is important to note that New Jersey's non-disclosure veto is far less restrictive than in some other states (such as Delaware) where non-disclosure equals no original birth certificate (OBC). Instead, the adopted person whose birth mother uses the one-year window to file a disclosure veto will still be given his original birth certificate--with his or her name, time and place of birth. Only the birth mother's and/or father's (if so listed) names will be blanked out. So, no matter what, the adoptee gets his first name! His first last name! The whole name he was given at birth! As for the issue of disclosure of agency data about the birth/first mother, Pam Hasegawa, one of the bill's framers and an adoptee, notes:

"The OBC will state whether the mother has given birth to other children prior to this birth; hopefully, agency non-IDing info will provide the same facts. From one perspective, that's the first mother's private information (how many other children she had when this one was born). From another perspective (mine), if I have half-siblings, we're related to each other and they're part of my family and I'm a part of theirs. If any one disagreeing with this example would like to exclude that particular fact from non-IDing info to be provided, please consider the implications of any sons or daughters committing incest with a half-sibling.

"While the non-IDing info varies according to the social worker compiling and sharing it with requesting adoptees (as it has been since 1977), there's not going to be wholesale (or ANY) sharing of the records themselves. No birth family members' medical records will be released, although I do hope adoptees will be able to get their OWN hospital records as neonates as other Americans covered by the Freedom Of Information Act are able to. Understand, there is a major difference between medical records and "family-medical history." Maybe changing the word "medical" to "health" would be the more correct term. 

If release of medical records is verboten because of HIPPA privacy laws, then what else is there to draw from than information shared by the birth parent with the social worker before the child's birth and/or adoption? It certainly is better for an individual as well as the prospective adoptive parents to know if the child may carry a genetic predisposition for a disease that doesn't usually show up until adolescence or later, such as schizophrenia or breast cancer. If a first parent has either physical or mental illness in her or his family health history, that information should be shared with prospective adoptive parents, as well as the adopted individual."

While the adoptee (whose mother does not file a veto) may also receive the non-identifying files that are the cause of the commotion about this bill from some first mother's perspectives, he also has the name of the birth mother which he may use to find her, if he so chooses. Information in that file may help him find his mother, as if it says that she had brothers, whose last names presumably have not been changed. 

Furthermore, if the birth mother does not file for non-disclosure during the one-year window she has to do so, we assume that many of these adoptees will, in fact, search for their first mothers and fathers in hope of a reunion. So while they may be given files collected by a judgmental social worker, they should be able to learn first hand from their mothers whether the information is correct or misleading or just plain inaccurate. Those whose first mothers did request non-disclosure would not have that option.

While intellectually we can understand the hesitation and objection about releasing this possibly misleading or mischaracterization of the birth mother, on reflection both Jane and I came to the conclusion that if the bill can only be passed if it contains some sort of "veto" power granted to the birth mother, and releases this agency information, we will go along with it, as it will give the vast majority of adoptees in New Jersey who seek their birth records their unredacted, long-form birth certificates. And that is worth celebrating.

Additionally, the non-identifying information from the agency, along with the original name of the adopted person that is on the birth certificate, will possibly allow those individuals who are good at sleuthing more clues to locate their original parents, if they so choose. Please note also that this information has been given out in New Jersey since 1977. We have been and are adamantly opposed to the state offering and continuing birth mother anonymity from their own children. It invests in the her a right we believe is cruel, unjust, and violates all laws of human nature and decency. It strips the person to be adopted much of their dignity, and the right to be equal and free with the rest of humankind.

In conclusion, Pam asks for input in making the bill the best it can be: "All of us who care about the NJ bill being as good as it can be need to work together as the bill moves forward closer to June," she says. "There is a strong committed core group of people in New Jersey who have been working on the legislation since 1980. If you have a good idea, or your state has a model template for non-identifying information, please send it to NJCare.staff@gmail.com by April 15. 

To which we add: Amen.
--lorraine