Illinois HB 4623 Adoption Bill Update

The latest on dupe-adoptionland bill Illinois HB 4623 is that it has been re-referred to the Rules Committee. This means it could be rewritten with who knows what gotchas, and brought for a vote without further discussion or public comment.

I continue to encourage you all to write Illinois lawmakers and media in opposition of this bill.

WHO TO WRITE

• The members of the Illinois House of Representatives
  
• Illinois news media
  Chicago Tribune: ctc-letters@tribune.com
  Daily Herald: fencepost@dailyherald.com
  Sun-Times: letters@suntimes.com
  Peoria (PJ Star): news@pjstar.com
  Springfield (Springfield Journal-Register): sjr@sj-r.com
  Champaign-Urbana (News-Gazette): letters@news-gazette.com
  
• Use your zip code to find your local legislators

HOW TO WRITE
Speak from your heart. But if you are searching for what to say, here are some points you might want to make:

• When birth certificates were sealed retroactively (in 1945), the rules were changed mid-game.
  
• Issuance of an amended birth certificate (ABC) is NOT automatic. There is no guarantee that the adoptee's birth identity will be erased. If the relinquished child is NOT adopted, his/her name is not changed, no ABC is issued.
  
• The OBC (original birth certificate) is an important vital record that pertains to the adoptee, but control of that document rests in the hands of the natural parents who relinquished all rights! And this persists even after the adoptee reaches adulthood.
  
• As written, HB 4623 creates two classes of adoptees: those born before 1946, who are entitled to their OBC and those born after January 1, 1946 who are not.
  
• As written, HB 4623 allows birth parents wishing no contact to exercise an access veto. But no adult should have the ability to supercede another adult's right to THEIR OWN vital information.
  
• Confidential intermediary programs are not a substitute for equal rights under the law.
  
• There is no precedent in Illinois for any branch of the state government to withhold identity information from any of its adult citizens.
  
• Restoration of an adult's right of access to his/her own birth certificate is about identity. It has nothing to do with search, reunion and/or medical histories.

Don't let others claim to speak for you. If you believe, as I do, that access to adoption records should be restored, then let your voice be heard.

If you like, you are welcome to post your letters here on my blog, or send them to me and I would be glad to post them on your behalf. Our efforts to educate legislators and the general public about open adoption records is making an impact. With your help, Illinois can once again become a civilized place where all citizens are treated equally.

Access Denied: Why Adoption Contact Vetoes Are Just Plain Wrong

When I saw the letter, I knew what it was. It's got that big Illinois Department of Vital Health logo on it, one I've come to know in recent years. I knew the letter was from the state Adoption Registry. And I knew it contained my birth mother's denial of contact.

If you're new to my story, you might want to read about my confidential intermediary experience to catch up. Needless to say I've been made well aware of my birth mother's wishes by the governmental nannies I ended up paying for. This is the icing on the cake, that little bit of lagniappe that lets you know you're less than zero.

Because I did not begin this journey asking to contact my birth family. I started it asking for my birth certificate, years ago at the courthouse, when what I got when I stood in line with everyone else wasn't quite the same. My birth certificate (the amended version, I later came to realize) said I was born to my adoptive parents, which is patently absurd. And it listed my place of birth, a detail I'd never known.

Until then it hadn't occurred to me that my access to my records might not be like everyone else's. You go to the courthouse and stand in line, right? If you're adopted, that's like being told Shawnee National Forest is a neighborhood park. There is a whole wilderness out there the likes of which you have never seen. It's full of dangers, roads that lead nowhere, signposts that claim to point the way yet lead you only to darkness.

And it's packed with ideas that would be ridiculous anywhere else but become assumptions when tagged with "adoption." Like the notion that one adult should have the ability to usurp the rights of another.

I wound up contacting my birth mother because it was the only way to gain access to my records. Most adoptees have little in the way of solid data, even within the official paperwork. Sometimes information was lost, or never gathered; more disturbingly it may have been altered, even to the day and/or place of birth. What little exists is protected better than the Master Control Program in the movie TRON. I've got a little blue disk here labeled "Adoptee Rights" I'm going to fling.

Contact veto systems - laws that allow birth parents to veto the adult adoptee's ability to obtain their original birth certificate - are just plain wrong.

An adult adoptee's desire for his or her records has NOTHING to do with ANYONE but the adoptee. It is no one's place to tell us whether or not we should have access to that information. Period.

Note that I'm talking about contact vetoes, not to be confused with contact preference forms which do not limit the adoptee's ability to access records. Asking a birth family's preference is fine. Giving that preference priority over an adoptee's rights is not.

This is the point at which folks usually whine about "privacy of the birth family." Why do people assume adoptees are crazy stalker psychos ready to jump out of the bushes at the first hint of blood kin? Back to TRON, here's a CLU: Adoptees are as capable of acting like adults as anyone else.

And there was never any such thing as a promise of "birth parent privacy." The Evan B. Donaldson looked long and hard at this last year, in their must-read report "For The Records: Restoring A Legal Right To Adult Adoptees." The researchers did not find a single written document declaring that the privacy of birth families would be protected. On the contrary, most birth mothers were threatened that if they ever tried to look, they would be in trouble. And more research, as recently posted on the Unsealed Initiative list, may indicate that some birth relatives were actually told in writing that confidentiality could not be guaranteed.

There are existing anti-harassment laws on the books. And those negative reunion stories are far less frequent than biased news articles represent. If someone doesn't want to be contacted, all they have to do is say so! Sealing an adoptee's records via a contact veto provides them no alternative recourse to obtain their information, in a matter that has nothing to do with the person granted the power to make that decision.

Rather, closed adoption records serve exactly one purpose: shielding the true nature of the adoption industry. Because they clearly don't serve adoptees, nor the majority of birth relatives, nor adoptive families. All they do is continue clandestine practices which lead to the exact same problems that have prospective adopters all up in arms over new regulations on adoptions. Don't you see the cycle, or do you have to be an outsider like an adoptee to get it?

It's hard for people to understand that the right of adult adoptees to access their records is completely separate from search and reunion. That's a smokescreen designed to get us to try compromises like intermediaries and registries, injecting more money into the adoption industry instead of actually addressing the issue of adoptee rights. Even many adoptees are unaware how the system is gamed, to their disadvantage. And why should they be? The adoption marketing engine does a better job than Bill Gates convincing all of us that the flaws in Microsoft Windows are "features."

Even worse, there are those who think even preventing the adoptee from accessing the official records isn't good enough. As I've mentioned before, as written the proposed Illinois HB 4623 would allow birth parents to expunge their names FROM THE ORIGINAL RECORD. Do you understand what a horrible precedent that is? No other vital document is mangled in this way. Only if you're adopted are you debased to such a level.

Why should birth relatives be forced into deciding whether or not they want contact in order for an adult adoptee to access his or her records? And why is adult adoptee records access always cast in apocalyptic terms? The world is not going to end if we have our birth certificates, folks. Life goes on in Alaska, Kansas, Tennessee, Oregon, Alabama, and more recently Maine, not to mention Great Britain, Australia, and, well, much of the world.

Adoptees are not computer programs, easily rewritten or deleted to suit the expectations of others. Contact veto systems are just another slapdash solution that chips away at our dignity, a little bit at a time.

For further reading, see Bastard Nation's "Conditional Access Legislation And Other Legislative Compromises."

Media Bias In Adoption Reporting

I want to know why the media has such a blatant bias against authentic voices of adoption.

A recent article in the Chicago Tribune really irritated me. The article was about the new generation of activists fighting for African-American civil rights, using blogs and other new media. What irritated me was not the article itself, but the fact that the Trib's reporting is, from my perspective, two-faced.

You see, there is another civil rights battle going on, one that also has been going on for decades in traditional forms and, more recently, on the Internet. But the Tribune considers these activists unworthy of mention. Why? Because we are fighting for adoption reform.

The vast majority of media coverage about adoption completely ignores the viewpoints of those most affected by it: adult adoptees and their birth kin. Instead, adoption-related articles focus primarily on the sob stories of adopters and the occasional token reunion story buried in the “lifestyles” section (what used to be the “women's pages,” fluff that usually ends up lining the litter box).

Let's check the media's track record, shall we? We'll search for “adoption” at three major news outlets: the Associated Press, USA Today, and my local Chicago Tribune, using the maximum date ranges of their online search tools. (Here are the actual data if you want to see for yourself.)

We'll start with the Chicago Tribune, which I know posts different articles online than they do in their print edition. A search for “adoption” at www.chicagotribune.com yields a date range of May 9, 2008-June 7, 2008, containing 16 articles related to human adoption (as opposed to the adoption of pets, highways, or technology – always nice to be in the same category as a piece of asphalt or the latest Bluetooth device). Out of these 16 articles:

• 5 (31%) mention the perspective of adoption “professionals” (social workers, agency representatives, lawyers, and others who think they can speak for the adopted)
• 10 (62%) mention the perspective of adoptive or prospective adoptive parents
• 3 (18%) mention the perspective of birth relatives
• 1 (6%) mentions the perspective of adult adoptees
• 2 (12%) mention the perspective of others not mentioned as connected to adoption
  

Okay, let's try a week's worth of the Associated Press (www.ap.org), May 29, 2008-June 7, 2008. I'm pleased to say they were more objective, but could still use more adoptees' viewpoints. Out of 5 articles:

• 3 (60%) mention the perspective of adoption professionals
• 3 (60%) mention the perspective of adoptive or prospective adoptive parents
• 3 (60%) mention the perspective of birth relatives
• 1 (20%) mentions the perspective of adult adoptees
• 0 (0%) mention the perspective of others not mentioned as connected to adoption
  

And, finally, USA Today. We'll search both Latest News and From The Archives. Let's do a big sample: one year, June 1, 2007-June 7, 2008. Out of 53 articles:

• 35 (66%) mention the perspective of adoption professionals
• 40 (75%) mention the perspective of adoptive or prospective adoptive parents
• 15 (23%) mention the perspective of birth relatives
• 5 (9%) mention the perspective of adult adoptees
• 11 (21%) mention the perspective of others not mentioned as connected to adoption

There are more viewpoints from those with no mentioned connection to adoption than there are from actual adoptees!

Still think there's no bias? Two out of the three news outlets included paid advertising from adoption agencies at the top of their search results!

The top three results from the Chicago Tribune were paid sponsored links from agencies, two seeking prospective adopters and one seeking birth moms for those oh-so-marketable infants. USA Today was far worse, look at this series of screen shots (shot1, shot2, shot3, and shot4). Its top three results were also sponsored links from agencies seeking prospective adopters, plus the whole bottom section listed “Web Results” which included at least two obvious plugs for agencies. Additionally there were three more sponsored links at the bottom seeking birth moms. I'm glad to say the Associated Press was far more professional with no sponsored links, adoption-related or otherwise.

Another example of the silencing of adult adoptee voices is this failure of a Vietnamese-American newspaper to provide objective reporting on adoption, as described on the Misplaced Baggage blog. Real articles about adoption get buried, like the revelation (no surprise to the adoption community) that Illinois botches adoptee birth certificates. This article, hidden in the Chicago Tribune's May 25th Problem Solver column, didn't show up in the search for “adoption” (it shows up if you search for “Problem Solver”).

It says a lot about our society that childless couples get church fundraisers to buy a kid, yet adult adoptees and their birth relatives are all but silenced.

Of those articles that do mention birth relative and adoptee viewpoints, you have to wonder about some of them, like the incessant reports about Madonna which quote her adopted child's birth father as being okay with the whole thing. Are these honest opinions or words put in mouths by those who benefit from adoption – the facilitators and the adopters?

On the other hand, the Tribune story about the disappeared children of El Salvador rocked. We need more reporting like that – the honest truth about the adoption industry. Unfortunately such stories are few and far between, as anyone who's ever tried to submit articles critical of the adoption industry can attest.

Which is why blogging is so important to activism, yet these important viewpoints about adoption are ignored. For example, there are plenty of people who have been trying to air their opinions about Illinois HB 4623 and the reprehensible, under-the-table way it has been presented to legislators. Yet the Tribune has not included these perspectives in its coverage of HB 4623. Instead we get the sponsors' dog-and-pony show about how the bill is going to make everything peachy-keen for adoptees. I know damn well, as a coordinator of the coaltion opposing HB 4623, that the Tribune and other Illinois news outlets have all but ignored our letters, phone calls, and blogs, as indeed have many Illinois legislators including the bill's sponsors. The Internet may save free speech as we know it, by giving people like us the means to make our voices heard whether The Powers That Be want it or not.

Chicago Tribune, Associated Press, USA Today, I'm calling you and your media brethren out on your blatant bias against objective adoption reporting.

It can only be assumed that the media harbor individuals who have their own personal reasons for not wanting the public to see a broad picture of adoption. Why? Will the truth cause prospective adopters to think twice, thus limiting the baby brokers' profit margin? Will it encourage legislators to restore access to adoption records, thus exposing the industry's lies and preventing agencies from reaping the windfall of post-adoption services? Will it *gasp* encourage supporting mothers in raising their OWN children, domestically and abroad, even if this means less marketable commodities to sell to desperate infertile couples?

Because if adoption was objectively reported, people would know it isn't perfect. And we can't have that!

If you are in the media, you have a duty to report facts, not opinions. There are plenty of resources available where you can educate yourself on the truth behind adoption. I suggest you start with the Adoption Beat blog, which focuses on media and adoption, as well as the rest of the blogs in my blogroll.

And the next time you report on adoption, GO TALK TO AN ADOPTEE!

Illinois Botches Adoptee Birth Certificates

The Chicago Tribune recently had a snippet, hidden in the Problem Solver column, which provides a stellar example of how Illinois and other closed-records states botch the birth certificates of adoptees.

Go read it, then come on back. This is the same system we adoptees are supposed to blindly entrust with our very identities?

Friends, what do you think of this situation? I'd love to know if this was the adopted woman's original or amended BC. And did they tell the other woman her file has been "corrected?" What about this:

"[T]he incorrect records have been flagged so they are never again released."

Maybe if all records were available to those to whom they pertain, incidents like this wouldn't happen in the first place.

Funny how the Tribune's Problem Solver is able to get more joy out of Public Health than the average adoptee... if this woman hadn't publicized her problem it's likely she would still be stuck in the quagmire.