2011 Adoptee Rights Demonstration Video
In 2011 the Adoptee Rights Coalition held the 4th annual Adoptee Rights Demonstration in San Antonio, Texas at the National State Legislators Convention. This is the video.
In 2011 the Adoptee Rights Coalition held the 4th annual Adoptee Rights Demonstration in San Antonio, Texas at the National State Legislators Convention. This is the video.
In 2010, the Adoptee Rights Coalition held the 3rd annual Adoptee Rights Demonstration in Louisville KY and the National State Legislators Convention. This is the video.
In 2009, the Adoptee Rights Coalition held the 2nd annual Adoptee Rights Demonstration in Philadelphia PA and the National State Legislators Convention. This is what it was like.
What: first meeting of ACCESS MASSACUSETTS, a grass roots effort dedicated to passing legislation restoring the human right for all adult adopted people born in Massachusetts, access to their original birth certificates (OBC).
Where: Cambridge Family and Children’s Services office at 60 Gore Street, Cambridge, MA 02141
When: August 15th, from 6:30 PM – 8:00 PM
Who: ACCESS MASSACHUSETTS and YOU!
This article analyzes the provisions in a collection of birth mother surrender documents assembled by the author—seventy-five mid-twentieth century documents executed in twenty-six different states. In order to establish the significance of the surrender document provisions with respect to these claims, the article first relates depictions by birth mothers of a journey from silence to legislative advocacy. The article then examines the conflicting claims about birth mothers that pervade legislative contests over adult adoptee access to original birth certificates. Finally, the article analyzes the provisions of the surrender documents. The analysis of the provisions definitively supports birth mother advocates’ reports that women were neither offered a choice of nor guaranteed lifelong anonymity. Their opponents’ contentions to the contrary, whether motivated by concern for birth mothers or other interests, reinscribe an earlier culture of shame and secrecy, subordinating women’s own wishes and silencing their newly raised voices.
Do you know adoptees searching, either using the Facebook images, preferably with many shares and attention, or willing to go social, who are emotionally ready and willing to go public? Who really needs the help with exposure? Who can handle the sensation filming? Who can represent?
The Michigan Republican’s seem very proud of their efforts per their “news brief” on these adoption bills. Based on the literature, they are claiming to “will help Michigan mothers and children” and of course, how could that be a bad thing? The ( more than) five separate and quite complicated bills are being added in to the already existing maze of Michigan adoption laws on the books under the general heading of adoption. It becomes easy to see how the general public gets confused regarding all the many aspects of adoption and jumbles it up in a happy every after story mess when our leaders are so guilty of the same.
Sandy has returned to the Good Fight and is taking her place calling for action! Please join her on the Facebook on the ALARM Network group page challenging the sealed records controversy in the United States. Under her guidance the Alarm network is proposing a Federal Mandate based upon the 14th Amendment and here’s what YOU can do to help!
In the US, 48 states continue the practice of sealing adopted children’s original birth certificates (the OBC) upon finalization of the adoption. In all but 4 of those 42 states, adult adoptees do not have unrestricted access to their OBC like all other people do at the age of 18.
Right now, only Alaska, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Alabama allow unrestricted equal access to all adoptees over the age of 18. In Rhode Island, they have restored access to all adoptees over the age of 25. Washington State, Illinois, New Jersey, Indiana, Colorado, Connecticut, Montana and Ohio now have had successful legislation introduced that does allow many adoptees to access their OBC’s, BUT it is not EQUAL access as they still have birth parent vetos’ in the laws ( in Ohio it;s a one yer window in time where the birth parents can have their names removed, but medical information still goes through) and that gives one party the ability to control another party. New Jersey, Colorado and Connecticut have also recently changed their laws. Unless the adoptee’s birthparents had the knowledge that they could apply for the OBC before the adoption records were sealed, then that adoptee might never see the record of their birth and even then, the ADOPTEE as an ADULT Citizen of the US is NOT treated the same as other US citizens in regard to their legal documentation.
This is one of the many areas of adoption legislation where the states have power over making the laws. Alaska and Kansas never sealed theirs at all, but the other 48 did, some as early as the 1930’s and some not until the 70’s. Some sealed records laws, such as NY, can trace their roots back to the corrupt practices of Georgia Tann and other unscrupulous lobby groups who must have been hiding something.
These stories are not isolated. Various members of the adoption community have created vast clearing houses of these images on the many social media sites form Facebook, to Pinterest, to Tumbler where they are tweeted, shared, and hopefully, maybe, find their way to the one person who could provide clues about their origins. We tirelessly share and promote our fellow Adoptionland members and pray that they find those whom they seek. There are over a hundred images like this with the numbers growing daily.
I was alerted the other day that Missouri has new adoption legislation in the House of Representatives. While we like to see adoption laws updated, there are a few issues with HB 252. While the contact preferences for OBC access are often included in any Adoptee Rights legislation in order to make the legislators feel warm and cozy, allowing one party to deny another their legal documentation is not treating ALL adoptees equally.There is also a portion of the bill having to do with Open Adoption Agreements. In essence, the issue is not that they are saying that there can be enforceable open adoption agreements, it is in the enforcement aspect that the language gets a bit too vague.
Follow your state group on Facebook and Twitter or sign up for their mailing lists and when they ask you to do something, just do it! Send your letter, make a comment saying you did, and share the post to your own networks, The only way we will ever restore the civil rights of our friends and children is if we work on their doggedly and with purpose together.
I do not believe that we will see the end of adoption completely, but these solutions could very well produce a country like Australia where the relinquishment rates dropped about 95%. That is not unrealistic to me. Ideal, yes, but… People will want children that they cannot bare, and here will be people who have children who do not have any desire to ever be a parent. Yes, adoption will still be there, but let it be a safe guard that provides families for children who need homes rather than finding children for families that want them. Adoption relinquishment should be seen as the last possible choice.
Based on a 100% population, then, the USA IF it had similar adoption practices and supported mothers would have 539 Voluntary Domestic Infant relinquishments annually give or takeWant to do it again? Based on the 2006 numbers, we are looking at only 826 infants relinquished in the USA rather than the 14,000.
I don’t even need my calculator to know that it means we are looking at aproximately 13,500 babies relinquished by mothers who, IF given accurate information regarding parenting and had options and support, would most likely NOT have placed their babies for adoption. Now multiply that by the last ten years: that’s over 135,000 families separated for no other reason than the fact that adoption is a huge profit driven business in the USA.
2006 Michele Goodwin argues that the current adoption model in the United States resembles an unregulated marketplace in children. Whether lawmakers and citizens wish to recognize this marketplace, its existence is demonstrated by frequent financial transactions among adoptive parents, birth mothers, and adoption agencies that resemble payments. The author explores this marketplace and the way in which race, genetic traits, and class are implicated in adoption processes, resulting in higher fees associated with the adoption of children with desirable traits. The author proposes two mechanisms by which the government could regulate the adoption market—price caps and taxation.