MySpace.com Blogs - BEA: BUCKEYES FOR EQUAL ACCESS! MySpace Blog

MySpace.com | rss | sign in | sign out

Last Updated:
Jul 7, 2008

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Female
Status: Single
Age: 98
Sign: Libra

City: COLUMBUS
State: Ohio
Country: US

Signup Date: 01/17/08

Blog Archive
[ Older Newer ]

Saturday, May 17, 2008

BAD DAY FOR BUCKEYES!

Ohio adoptees and their families got a double kick in the teeth this week.

On Wednesday Sub HB 7 was voted out of the Health Committee and on to the House floor without the restoration of access language from the original bill. The ringleaders of this abomination got a real cheap thrill out of pulling the carrot away and then beating the bastards with the stick. Committee members received hundreds of emails and phone calls asking them to restore the language. What does it take to be worthy in Ohio?

While this was going on down in the tunnels, the Senate Health, Human Services, and Aging Commitee was sharpening its claws on us by approving SB 304--a safe haven expansion bill that will permit "desperate parents" to dump their up-to-30-day-old problem child on the state. Up from the current 3 day limit.

Erik Smith and I testified against the bill. Some of my testimony and some comments are at The Daily Bastardette.

If it saves just one....

Don't mourn! Organize! Throw the bums out!

7:35 AM - 2 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Friday, May 09, 2008

OHIO UPDATE: SEALED AND SECRET GENERATION SHAFTED AGAIN1

On April 30, the Ohio House Health Committee held another hearing on HB7. The hearing was dedicated to the testimony of the state's "special class," the Sealed and Secret Generation (1964-1996) of adoptees and natural and adoptive parents from that era who support the restoration of obc access language to the bill.

MEA CULPA!
It's taken a long time to write this promised entry about that hearing. Perhaps because of the sheer overwhelming anger that I and the people involved on the right side of HB 7 feel right now.

I originally intended to write a review of the testimony, quoting significant parts from some. (Much of the testimony is archived on the Adoption Network Cleveland HB 7 page, and quotes below comes from those documents.) But the real story lies in the dismissive behavior of prominent Health Committee members, particularly Matt Huffman (R-Lima, right). Only in office since January 2007, Huffman appears to wield an awful lot of influence, or at least acts like he does so that people hop-to at his whistle. I've been told, but not heard it from Huffman directly, that he's claims if the Sealed and Secret Generation get their records, the Republicans will lose the House in November. Who knew? Apparently Cincinnati and Ohio Right to Life (other paper tigers) will be so aggrieved if their wishes aren't followed that they will throw their support to...liberal pro choice Dems. Who knew?

I have attended records access hearings in California (2002), New Hampshire (2004), Massachusetts (2005), Maine (2006) and Ohio (1995, 2008). Each hearing has its own mood, character, and quirks.

In other states, committee members understood the significance of the debate--even if they disagreed with us, and voted us down. They listened. For the most part they asked intelligent questions. But Ohio is "special." From the reported eye-rolling of Rep. Huffman during my testimony (I was unaware of it, but Dawn Friedman who also testified that day, blogged about it*) to the April 30 walk-out of most committee members, which began in mid-testimony of the first witness, Ohio adoptees and their families were given a pat on the head (if we were nice) a lecture (if we weren't) and finally shoved off the plank.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they DO understand our significance, and just pretend they don't, so they won't have to deal with us and "our" bogus political "consequences." If they wait long enough we'll just die off. Or maybe we're just easy scapegoats.

Whatever is going on, what can I say about a posse of elected officials who find us so insignificant or selfish or dangerous or vile that they can't even sit through their own hearing with us. By the end of the hearing, I doubt if a quorum were present. If it weren't for the aides who stuck around, witnesses would have been chatting up themselves. (NOTE: I want to make it clear that not all committee members are jerking us around. But the significant number who are, and make no bones about it, make the access passage impossible this term.)

HOW INSIGNIFICANT, SELFISH, DANGEROUS OR VILE?
Here are the people the committee walked out on:

WITNESS: Carol Snook, Strongsville, natural mother, Class of 1968

Gave birth alone and unattended in a Cleveland hospital after being shuttled around from hallway to hallway.
Separated from other mothers in the maternity ward.
Refused information on condition of son who was separated from other babies in ward.
Refused to leave hospital until she could hold her son; one nurse listened to her.
Forced to sign document promising she would never look for her son.

QUOTE: It is time. It is time to bring truth and honesty to a topic that has been shrouded in secrecy fear and even deceit for too many years. It is time to loose the bonds of injustice pertaining to adoption birth records and afford all adoptees easy access to their heritage. It is time to open the files.

CRIME: Called adoption "the ultimate deception of my life."

WITNESS: Jennifer Scott, Willoughby, natural mother, Class of 1987

Closed adoption only option available to her by law.
Told by Cleveland Catholic Charities caseworker Mary Ellen Anderson, and signed paper to affect, that when her son reached majority he would have access to her personal information, in event that "privacy laws" changed.
Said Anderson told her Catholic Charities would hold any letters and birthday cards she sent to her son through them until his 18th birthday when the "adoption would be opened."
CCC offered no assistance or counseling for depression and other problems.
Called CCC just before son's 18th birthday with address update and to ask that his file be prepared for release on birthday. Asked when she would have contact information for him. CCC told her it could not legally release any information to either of them.

QUOTE: Don't take away the rights of the children who did not make the choice to be given up for adoption; in the only type of adoption offered at the time.

CRIME: Dissed Catholic Charities and named names.

WITNESS: Molly Elizabeth Bellman, Granville, adoptee, Class of 1986/1987

Recently reunited with birth family; sister searched for 7 years.
Pro-life but pro records and identity rights.
Birthparents have given up all rights.
End "cycle of shame and secrecy."

QUOTE: Should we be stripped of our rights to our own biological information in favor of "protecting" the privacy of the birth parent; the number of people who are also stripped of their rights is exponential. I do not believe that restricting our access to our own records "protects" anyone nor does it guarantee any sense of "privacy;" there are other ways to locate a birth parent. All that restricting our rights as adoptees does is to leave a minority group emotionally scarred and disenfranchised.

CRIME: Being pro-life and pro-adoptee.

WITNESS: Susan L. Smith, adoptee and natural parent, Washington Court House, Sealed and Secret Generation

Surrendered at birth for medical reasons; has no social or medical history.
Continues to have medical issues as does daughter.
Surrendered 2 daughters for adoption to protect them from husband's abuse; records sealed.

QUOTE: No written testimony available

CRIME: Who knows?

WITNESS: Howard Pipes, Fredericktown, natural father, Sealed and Secret Generation

Broke into sobs during first sentence of testimony; couldn't continue.
Reunited son comforted him at podium and read remainder of testimony.
Talked about sadness an anguish of not knowing what happened to his son due to sealed records.

NOTE: Reunited son is also natural father. (I didn't catch his name, but he also testified).

QUOTE: Sobbing

CRIME: Big boys don't cry; like father like son

WITNESS: Margaret Haskell, natural mother, provenance unknown, Class of 1967

Focused on medical histories.

QUOTE: No written testimony available

CRIME: Who knows?

WITNESS: Jake Teschler, Columbus, adoptee, Class of 1968

Member of Reunite.
Reiterated January 16, 2008 testimony.
Discussed disparity of access.

QUOTE: (From first hearing) I could petition the court, but depending on the judge's interpretation of the "good cause" portion of the post-1964 access law, I run a real chance of wasting my money and time. There are 88 courts in Ohio and 88 opinions on what constitutes "good cause.

CRIME: Being adopted after 1963.

WITNESS: Nancy Taylor, Columbus, natural mother, class of 1986

Closed adoption only option available to her by law.
Signed release of information document with lawyer who handled private placement of daughter; lawyer is deceased and files were destroyed.
Rep. Huffman tells her document should be at Probate Court; just go down there and talk to court. Adoptee rights advocates laugh out loud.

QUOTE: No written testimony available

CRIME: Doesn't know what she is talking about

WITNESS: Betsie Norris, Cleveland, Unsealed Generation

Director of Adoption Network Cleveland; has worked extensively on HB7.
Discussed Contact Preference form system.
Submitted cpfs from Oregon, Alabama, and New Hampshire.

QUOTE: This method actually gives birthparents more voice than they currently have in Ohio's closed records system. Under the closed records system, birthparents have no method of having their wishes known and successful searching adoptees, of which there are many, do not have a way of knowing their birthparent's wishes until they are stated directly upon
contact.

CRIME: Dedicating her life to adoption accountability, transparency, and adoptee civil rights; owns her own obc.

WITNESS: Gabe Koshinsky, Columbus, adopted through fostercare; Sealed and Secret generation

Chair, Capital University College Republicans; President, Capital University College Conservatives; Ohio Youth Advisory board member.
Unable to attend; testimony read by his sister Grace Hilliard.
Birth certificate is adoptees' personal document that affirms their identity.
Doctoring birth certificates causes adoptees to lose history self-esteem and right to identify biological family.
Adoption should not erase truth.
Parents are responsible for their child and adoption doesn't void truth behind responsibility.
Calls sealed records a "suburban solution" to pretend that everything is OK.

QUOTE 1: Distorting factual information in favor of the parents makes children of abuse and abandonment not only victims of our parents, but victims of state bureaucracy as well.

QUOTE: I find it a grave disservice to our democracy, when the government distorts factually historical information. I reject the notion of changing history in order to protect the "rights" of parents who have abused and neglected their children. Clearly, the child is the only one who loses and it is a sad state of affairs when the state continues to exploit the rights of children who have already experienced abuse or abandonment.

CRIME: Calling out fellow Republicans

WITNESS: Grace Hilliard, Columbus, adopted through foster care, Sealed and Secret Generation

Gabe Koshinsky's sister.
Sealed records are a "horribly constructed band-aid of a lie."
Those who engage in procreation should be held accountable; have forfeited a "right" to privacy.
Sealed records permit adoptive parents to lie because they feel threatened or insecure.
Sealed records create destruction of established family; siblings are no longer related.

QUOTE: What does this (abc) look like on paper? It means the parental names, information
and age are fraudulent. To a bystander this may not appear to have deep consequences for a baby. I assure you there are. For an older child, for me who'd accumulated ten years of history prior to being adopted, this piece of paper resonated as insulting and absurd. In this situation and others where the child knows very well the identity of biological parents and siblings the violation feels much more preposterous.

CRIME: Claiming amended birth certificates are government lies.

SPEAKING OF RESPONSIBILITY...
Health Committee members have received hundreds of emails, letters, and phone calls in support of the restoration of adoptee rights in Ohio. Not one individual or organization has testified at a hearing against access. That's the way it is in Ohio. Cincinnati and Ohio Right to Life and their cronies sneak behind the public, sneak behind closed doors giving no opportunity for "official" rebuttal or face-to-face discussion. Why are special interests that have nothing to do with adoption calling the shots? Why do politicians let them call the shots? Do the people of Ohio have any input into lawmaking? What dank political swamp have adoptees tripped into?

Anger always bubbles just below the surface at obc hearings, but there was something very different about the April 30 anger. I've been putzing around for the right words for days to describe it, which is why it's taken me so long to publish this. All I could come up with was something along the lines of "In other states we are supporting a bill already in place, that (unless amended) will restore our rights. Sub HB 7, with no explanation, inexplicably removed the possibility of that right presented in the original bill and nobody will say why. The Health Committee, for secret reasons, made a deliberate decision to delete adult adoptees from the political landscape--removed hope." Not real articulate.

My good friend and colleague, Baby Love Child, however, has come up with exactly what I spent days trying unsuccessful to formulate:

Leaving the substitute bill "as is," i.e. without records access, is not a passive stance. It is to support a bill that once had access in it, only to have it struck out and eradicated in the substitute bill. This is an ACTIVE erasure of adoptee right to equal treatment under Ohio law.

Yes, the Health Committee, or more concisely Matt Huffman and a few ORTL mouthpieces jackbooted OUR rights for their own agenda. (BTW, Huffman told the January hearing that when he handled adoptions he told women whom he feared would abort that records would remain sealed and their identities hidden.) The committee made it quite clear last week that in Ohio adopted people and their families don't count. Access is a dead horse.

UPDATE
OBC access should never have been included in HB 7. It and its substitiute bill are big bills, a hodgepodge of adoption and fostercare reform. This same jumble happened in 1995 with the omnibus HB 419. These large bill contain a lot of things that many of us strenuoulsy object to. The HB 7 situation is no different with its addition of adoption marketing schemes and natural parent recruitment. (Not enough newborns have hit the market lately). We want accountability for all. We don't want future generations to run on our hamster wheel.

I attended the May 7 hearing. Sub HB7 was scheduled to be voted out of committee without access language. Flogging the dead horse I testified and invited interested legislators to work with us to craft a new separate bill. I also invited them to meet us in NOLA. Interestingly, since this hearing was really about other parts of the bill not us, nearly everyone remained seated and attentive. No one rolled their eyes at fostercare horror stories. They made intelligent comments. They didn't pat anyone on the head. The final vote was carried over until next week, however, due to a poorly worded amendment regarding "childs best interest" that confused everyone--except its author... Rep. Huffman.

Records access is dead in Ohio. . It could be revisited in the Senate version of the bill, but what's the point? There could be some big changes downtown after November, and that's what we have to work with.

Sealed records are anti-adoptee and anti-adoption. Until a final vote is taken, keep on contacting the Health Committee members and ask them why they oppose adoption.

______________
*Dawn's blog on the incident is gone (Dawn, can you give me a link) but Jenna Hatfield references it here in her blog, "And we wonder why ethics are hard to come by." Dawn has also blogged about current HB 7 mess with a good analysis of what Ohio politicians ae saying to women and adoptee adults. And it's not nice!

3:43 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Friday, May 02, 2008

BEA TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF RETURNING OBC ACCESS IN HB 7

I'm not sure how well this will turn out in MySpace format. You can also ready this at The Daily Bastardette. That copy also conatins footnotes.

BEA
BUCKEYES FOR EQUAL ACCESS

SUBMITTED TESTIMONY
APRIL 30, 2008
HOUSE HEALTH COMMITTEE
SUB HB 7
IN SUPPORT OF RESTORATION OF LANGUAGE FROM
ORIGINAL HB 7:
UNRESTRICTED ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE ACCESS
FOR ALL OHIO ADOPTEES

Buckeye for Equal Access (BEA) is a voluntary group of adopted adults, birthparents, adoptive parents, and others connected to Ohio through adoption. We advocate unrestricted access to the unfalsified and unredacted original birth certificates (obc) upon request, for all Ohio adoptees. No exceptions. Our membership includes people from Akron, Columbus, Cleveland, Youngstown, Heath, Fostoria, Marion, Lakemore, Toledo, Concord and all points in between.

BEA is extremely disappointed that unrestricted access to the obc included in HB 7 has been deleted from the sub bill. We ask the committee to amend the sub bill to restore records access with the exact language of the original bill—with no disclosure vetoes or other mechanisms to keep information hidden from adoptees. We are not advocating the incorporation of any other section of the original bill into the sub bill nor are we endorsing other sections of that bill.

Current Ohio law discriminates against adoptees with an arbitrary state-constructed blacklist, based solely on date of birth or adoption finalization and birthparent consent. The law prohibits large numbers of adopted persons from accessing their own original birth certificates and information about themselves.

Adoptees born before January 1, 1963 have unrestricted access to their obc and adoption degree. Those born between January 1, 1964 and September 16, 1996 have no access except by court order. Those adopted after September 16, 1996 have unrestricted access unless a birthparent utilizes a special right—a right that no other parent and no other adult has over another adult—a "right" to bar another adult from receiving the public record of their own birth.

There is no legal or moral justification for this 3-tiered disparity. Adopted persons are not only treated differently than the not-adopted, but we are separated amongst ourselves by arbitrary legislatively-set boundaries.

Current Ohio law makes no sense and countermands the good that adoption purportedly does. Current Ohio law maintains secret files on adoptees. It selectively seals the public records of some while letting others get theirs for the asking. It stigmatizes black holers (those adopted in the middle years) while their adoptive siblings from open years have no problem getting their records.

Current Ohio law, with its tiered system, says there is something terribly wrong with adoption as a way to build families and with those who live within those families. It forces adopted people (and their families) who want information about themselves to beg government and adoption agency bureaucrats for scraps of information, file petitions, appear in court, join a government "reunion" registry, pay professional searchers and private investigators thousands of dollars--or spend years getting a bill, such as HB 7, passed to get their own birth certificates.

Moreover, sealed birth records perpetuate a culture of shame and wrongness around adoption. In previous hearings we have heard statements of praise for parents (especially mothers) who surrender their children to adoption. Yet, if adoption were so praiseworthy, why do the people it affects most need to be hidden from each other by the government?

As Kate Livingston so eloquently testified to you last week:

It has been a huge wake-up call to realize that many of the same people who encouraged me to do an adoption, who applauded me for giving life to my son, who praised my 'courage' and 'fortitude'- also think that despite all of my efforts, my son would be better off not knowing who I was. What else have I and so many other birthmothers done, but accept responsibility for our actions, nurture our children for 9 months, face unparalleled social stigma- all to demonstrate that our children are worth all that the world has to offer- even if we cannot provide it ourselves?

This is the 21st century. The information superhighway grows wider and longer each day, and adoptees and their families are on it. Thousands of successful adoption searches happen each year—hundreds in Ohio alone—nearly all without the obc.

Moreover, in this age of heightened security, the government requires all of to prove our identities and citizenship. Adopted persons without an obc are in danger of losing even more rights than just their obc access. US-born adoptees report increased problems in obtaining driver's licenses, passports, professional certifications, and pensions due to what government bureaucrats refer to as "irregularities" in their amended birth certificates.

A major irregularity is a "late birth certificate (filed a year or more after the birth). According to the US Department of State a "late birth certificate" may only be accepted for passport application if it lists the documentation used to create it and is signed by the attending physician or midwife, or, lists an affidavit signed by the parents, or shows early public records Other "irregularities" include age discrepancies between parents and child, and even missing information. This problem will grow with the increase in adoption of older children from fostercare and adoptions by same sex couples. Clearly the absence of an obc can and will continue to hinder some adopted persons, unable to prove their identity, from obtaining passports and other entitlements and documents. The government demands a paper trail of identity, but adoptee identity, according to the State of Ohio, only begins at the time of adoption. We don't exist before then.
When will this insanity stop?

"Privacy" arguments against adoptee access are misleading. Privacy does NOT mean absolute, eternal anonymity or secrecy from parties with a legitimate interest in information. That is simply not the meaning of the word, either in normal discourse or in the law. Courts, in fact, have generally determined that the federal constitutional right to privacy means protection of individuals from government intrusion. The sealing of the obc from us-- the people to whom they pertain--is clearly a government violation of OUR privacy and an over-reaching act of government authority over our lives.

Tennessee, Oregon, and federal courts located in those states have affirmed that adoptee access to their own birth certificates is not a breach of birthparent privacy since the document is not released to the public, but to the adopted adult to whom it pertains.

Ohio's current outdated law legitimizes debunked spurious claims of "implied promises of confidentiality" to birthparents—promises which apparently never existed in the state before January 1, 1964 or after September 16, 1996. These so-called "promises" have been disproved repeatedly by activists, legal scholars, historians, and in court rulings. In 30 years of birth record access campaigns throughout the US, not one document has ever been presented by the opposition to any legislature that gives "promises of confidentiality," "privacy" or "anonymity"-- implied or otherwise. If verbal "promises" were made by individual adoption professionals or lawyers, they were private policy statements without the force of law—or reality-- behind them. And, of course, no one can promise that a law will never change.

Identifying information about surrendering parents often appears on court documents given to adoptive parents who can at any point give that information to the adopted person. The names of surrendering parents are published in legal ads. Courts can open "sealed records" for "good cause." Critically, the obc is sealed at the time of adoption finalization, not surrender. If a child is not adopted, the record is never sealed. If a child is adopted, but the adoption is overturned or disrupted, the obc is unsealed. In Ohio, adoptive parents can request the court at the time of adoption finalization to keep the obc unsealed. Birthparents have no say or special right in any of these procedures or decisions and at no time are anonymous.

Large numbers of birthmothers say they were never promised anonymity. Nor did they ask for or want it. Just the opposite. They say they were told that their children, upon reaching the age of majority, would have access to their obc and other identifying information.

In no state has it ever been shown that records were sealed to "protect" birthmothers' "privacy" nor that they asked for "protection." It was simply part of the deal forced on them if they chose to place their children for adoption. There is ample documentation in every state that sealed records laws, most of which were enacted after World War 2, were never intended to "protect" birthmothers. They were written to protect the reputations of "illegitimate" and adopted minors and the integrity of the adoptive family: to keep the public—including birthmothers—out of adoptive families' business.

This is especially well documented in Ohio. William Norris, author of the 1964 law, later worked to undo it. Several years ago he testified before the House Human Resource Committee in favor of HB 457, that would restore access:

In doing what I did on this 1960s legislation, I was unable to see the impact this would have on my adopted children when they became adults. Subsequent events have taught me that we went too far. While it was appropriate for the 1964 law to foreclose access to adoptees' birth records maintained by the Department of Health as far as the general public was concerned, I now recognize that closing those birth records to adoptees whose adoptions were finalized after January 1, 1964 was a grave mistake. This has resulted in unnecessary discrimination by denying to a special group of citizens the right to have access to their original birth certificates.

It is now obvious to me that the 1964 legislation produced an absurd anomaly in Ohio, and it is painful to reflect on the fact that these changes in the law were made in the belief that they were in the best interests of the entire adoptive process. …The 1964 law has not worked out in the way it was originally intended and it should be changed by the passage of a new law such as HB 457.

Adopted people want their original birth certificates for many reasons. But reasons are immaterial We have a right to the facts about our births, origins, and adoptions. We have a right to do whatever we please with the information found on our birth certificates, just as the not-adopted do. We should not be parsed, chopped, spindled and mutilated.

The right to the public record of our births is not some radical controversial idea or an attack on adoption. Wendy's founder, the highly uncontroversial Dave Thomas, whom some of you may have known, and probably the most prominent and generous advocate of adoption in US history, certainly didn't think so.

(see attachment for organizations that support adoptee obc access)

In an interview for Adam Pertman's book, Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution is Transforming America, Thomas said, "Those things are controversial for people who have never been adopted, who really don't understand. Everyone should be able to get their birth certificate, their own information. I'd hate to think I couldn't get mine." Thomas, in fact, did have his original birth certificate, given to him by his adoptive grandmother.

The deletion of records access from Sub Bill 7 deletes adoptees from the Ohio landscape. Since records were sealed in 1964 there have been several attempts to restore our rights. Until those rights are restored, we will continue to come here. Year after year after year.

The Ohio legislature has a duty to assure that all Ohioans are treated the same under law. The current legislature, particularly the Health Committee, has the opportunity to stop this hamster wheel right now. You can incorporate the exact records access language from HB 7 into this sub bill. You can vote it out of this committee to the floor with a recommendation of DO PASS... You can restore our rights. You can insure that Ohio adoptees are treated like everyone else. You can undelete us today, this month, this year.

Submitted by Chris Ryan and Mary Greiner for Buckeyes for Equal Access

Attachments:
1: Organizations and Groups that Support Adoptee Acccess
2: The Simplicity of Language: Oregon Ballot Measure 58; statistics

7:15 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Thursday, May 01, 2008

BEA TESTIMONY TO RESTORE ADOPTEE ACCESS TO HB7

I attended the Sub HB 7 hearing today before the Ohio House Health Committee. I'll write about it tomorrow. Being an academic by training, I love footnotes. Unfortunately, the web does funky things with footnotes so I just cut and pasted their text at the end. I have not included the attachments since they were in chart form which is definitely a problem.

BEA

BUCKEYES FOR EQUAL ACCESS
beaohio@gmail.com
www.myspace.com/beaohio
IDENTITY RIGHTS FOR ALL OHIO ADOPTEES

SUBMITTED TESTIMONY
APRIL 30, 2008
HOUSE HEALTH COMMITTEE
SUB HB 7
IN SUPPORT OF RESTORATION OF LANGUAGE FROM
ORIGINAL HB 7:
UNRESTRICTED ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE ACCESS
FOR ALL OHIO ADOPTEES

Buckeye for Equal Access (BEA) is a voluntary group of adopted adults, birthparents, adoptive parents, and others connected to Ohio through adoption. We advocate unrestricted access to the unfalsified and unredacted original birth certificates (obc) upon request, for all Ohio adoptees. No exceptions. Our membership includes people from Akron, Columbus, Cleveland, Youngstown, Heath, Fostoria, Marion, Lakemore, Toledo, Concord and all points in between.

BEA is extremely disappointed that unrestricted access to the obc included in HB 7 has been deleted from the sub bill. We ask the committee to amend the sub bill to restore records access with the exact language of the original bill—with no disclosure vetoes or other mechanisms to keep information hidden from adoptees. We are not advocating the incorporation of any other section of the original bill into the sub bill nor are we endorsing other sections of that bill.

This is the 21st century. The information superhighway grows wider and longer each day, and adoptees and their families are on it. Thousands of successful adoption searches happen each year—hundreds in Ohio alone—nearly all without the obc.

Moreover, in this age of heightened security, the government requires all of us to prove our identities and citizenship. Adopted persons without an obc are in danger of losing even more rights than just their obc access. US-born adoptees report increased problems in obtaining driver's licenses, passports, professional certifications, and pensions due to what government bureaucrats refer to as "irregularities" in their amended birth certificates.

A major irregularity is a "late birth certificate (filed a year or more after the birth). According to the US Department of State a "late birth certificate" may only be accepted for passport application if it lists the documentation used to create it and is signed by the attending physician or midwife, or, lists an affidavit signed by the parents, or shows early public records. (1) Other "irregularities" include age discrepancies between parents and child, and even missing information. This problem will grow with the increase in adoption of older children from fostercare and adoptions by same sex couples. (2) Clearly the absence of an obc can and will continue to hinder some adopted persons, unable to prove their identity, from obtaining passports and other entitlements and documents. The government demands a paper trail of identity, but adoptee identity, according to the State of Ohio, only begins at the time of adoption. We don't exist before then.

When will this insanity stop?

"Privacy" arguments against adoptee access are misleading. Privacy does NOT mean absolute, eternal anonymity or secrecy from parties with a legitimate interest in information. That is simply not the meaning of the word, either in normal discourse or in the law. Courts, in fact, have generally determined that the federal constitutional right to privacy means protection of individuals from government intrusion. The sealing of the obc from us--the people to whom they pertain--is clearly a government violation of OUR privacy and an over-reaching act of government authority over our lives.

Tennessee, Oregon, and federal courts located in those states have affirmed that adoptee access to their own birth certificates is not a breach of birthparent privacy since the document is not released to the public, but to the adopted adult to whom it pertains. (3)

Ohio's current outdated law legitimizes debunked spurious claims of "implied promises of confidentiality" to birthparents—promises which apparently never existed in the state before January 1, 1964 or after September 16, 1996. These so-called "promises" have been disproved repeatedly by activists, legal scholars, historians, and in court rulings. In 30 years of birth record access campaigns throughout the US, not one document has ever been presented by the opposition to any legislature that gives "promises of confidentiality," "privacy" or "anonymity"-- implied or otherwise. (4) If verbal "promises" were made by individual adoption professionals or lawyers, they were private policy statements without the force of law—or reality-- behind them. And, of course, no one can promise that a law will never change.

Identifying information about surrendering parents often appears on court documents given to adoptive parents who can at any point give that information to the adopted person. The names of surrendering parents are published in legal ads. Courts can open "sealed records" for "good cause." Critically, the obc is sealed at the time of adoption finalization, not surrender. If a child is not adopted, the record is never sealed. If a child is adopted, but the adoption is overturned or disrupted, the obc is unsealed. In Ohio, adoptive parents can request the court at the time of adoption finalization to keep the obc unsealed. Birthparents have no say or special right in any of these procedures or decisions and at no time are anonymous.

Large numbers of birthmothers say they were never promised anonymity. Nor did they ask for or want it. Just the opposite. They say they were told that their children, upon reaching the age of majority, would have access to their obc and other identifying information.

In no state has it ever been shown that records were sealed to "protect" birthmothers' "privacy" nor that they asked for "protection." It was simply part of the deal forced on them if they chose to place their children for adoption. There is ample documentation in every state that sealed records laws, most of which were enacted after World War 2, were never intended to "protect" birthmothers. They were written to protect the reputations of "illegitimate" and adopted minors and the integrity of the adoptive family: to keep the public—including birthmothers—out of adoptive families' business.

This is especially well documented in Ohio. William Norris, author of the 1964 law, later worked to undo it. Several years ago he testified before the House Human Resource Committee in favor of HB 457, that would restore access:

In doing what I did on this 1960s legislation, I was unable to see the impact this would have on my adopted children when they became adults. Subsequent events have taught me that we went too far. While it was appropriate for the 1964 law to foreclose access to adoptees' birth records maintained by the Department of Health as far as the general public was concerned, I now recognize that closing those birth records to adoptees whose adoptions were finalized after January 1, 1964 was a grave mistake. This has resulted in unnecessary discrimination by denying to a special group of citizens the right to have access to their original birth certificates.

It is now obvious to me that the 1964 legislation produced an absurd anomaly in Ohio, and it is painful to reflect on the fact that these changes in the law were made in the belief that they were in the best interests of the entire adoptive process. …The 1964 law has not worked out in the way it was originally intended and it should be changed by the passage of a new law such as HB 457. (5)

Adopted people want their original birth certificates for many reasons. But reasons are immaterial We have a right to the facts about our births, origins, and adoptions. We have a right to do whatever we please with the information found on our birth certificates, just as the not-adopted do. We should not be parsed, chopped, spindled and mutilated.

The right to the public record of our births is not some radical controversial idea or an attack on adoption. Wendy's founder, the highly uncontroversial Dave Thomas, whom some of you may have known, and probably the most prominent and generous advocate of adoption in US history, certainly didn't think so.

In an interview for Adam Pertman's book, Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution is Transforming America, Thomas said, "Those things are controversial for people who have never been adopted, who really don't understand. Everyone should be able to get their birth certificate, their own information. I'd hate to think I couldn't get mine." Thomas, in fact, did have his original birth certificate, given to him by his adoptive grandmother. (6)

The deletion of records access from Sub Bill 7 deletes adoptees from the Ohio landscape. Since records were sealed in 1964 there have been several attempts to restore our rights. Until those rights are restored, we will continue to come here. Year after year after year.

The Ohio legislature has a duty to assure that all Ohioans are treated the same under law. The current legislature, particularly the Health Committee, has the opportunity to stop this hamster wheel right now. You can incorporate the exact records access language from HB 7 into this sub bill. You can vote it out of this committee to the floor with a recommendation of DO PASS... You can restore our rights. You can insure that Ohio adoptees are treated like everyone else. You can undelete us today, this month, this year.

Submitted by Chris Ryan and Marley Greiner for Buckeyes for Equal Access

Attachments:
1: Organizations and Groups that Support Adoptee Acccess
2: The Simplicity of Language: Oregon Ballot Measure 58; statistics

FOOTNOTES

(1) US Department of State, TravelState.gov, Bureau of Counselor Affairs, "How to apply for a passport" (http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html. Last visited April 29, 2008); Missouri adoptees hope for better records law: Families hope to gain more rights," Independence Examiner, December 13, 2007 (http://www.examiner.net/stories/121307/new_225283220.shtml Last visited April 29, 2008)
"Passport probs? Anyone else? City-Data.com, April 19, 2007, (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:pBz8q4Ct7BEJ:www.city-data.com/forum/travel/57045-passport-probs-anyone-else-2.html+adoptee+passport+problems&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us&client=firefox-a. Last visited April 29, 2008)

(2) Sterner, Karen, "Passports denied to adoptees," adoptionblogs.com , January 16, 2007 (http://birthfamily-search.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/passports-denied-to-adoptees; http://groups.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/c1f501ed16d664a8. Last visited April 29, 2008)

(3)Tennessee: Doe v Sundquist, 943 F. Supp. 886, 893-94 (M.D. Tenn. 1996). (all legal documents found at http://www.americanadoptioncongress.org/tennessee_legislation.php (last visited April 29, 2008); Oregon: Does v Oregon, 164 OR App. 543, 993 p2d 833, 834 91999) and Does v Oregon Summary Judgment. For a recent analysis of privacy rights and sealed records see Hughes, Susan Whittaker, "The only Americans legally prohibited from knowing who their birth parents are: A rejection of privacy rights as a bar to adult adoptees' access to original birth and adoption records." Cleveland State Law Review 53, 3 p. 429-461.(http://www.clevelandstatelawreview.org/55/issue3/Hughes_final_10.15.pdf . Last visited April 29, 2008)

(4) Recent professional and scholarly work on adoption practices, including "privacy" rights and treatment of birthmothers include, Baer, Janine, Growing Up in the Dark: Adoption and Secrecy, Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2004; Fessler, Ann, The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Their Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v Wade. New York: Penguin, 2006; Raymond, Barbara Bisanz, The Baby Theif: The Baby Seller Who Corrupted Adoption, New York: Carroll & Graf, 2007; Smith, Susan, Safe Guarding the Rights and Well Being of Birthparents in the Adoption Process, New York: Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 2006 (http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/publications. Last visited April 29, 2008) ; Freundlich, Madelyn. For the Records: The Restoration of a Right to Adult Adoptees, New York: Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 2007 (http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/publications) Last visited April 29, 2008); Samuels, Elizabeth. "The Strange History of Adult Adoptee Access to Original Birth Certificates, 5 Adoption Quarterly 63 (2001); Elizabeth Samuels, "The Idea of Adoption: An Inquiry into the History of Adult Adoptee Access to Birth Records." Rutgers Law Review, 53.

(5) Drafter of Legislation closing Ohio records testifies law was "30- year old well-meaning mistake," Testimony of William B. Norris adoptive father and attorney at law before Ohio House of Representatives, Human Resources Committee. (http://www.adoptreform.org/downloads/OhioRecords.pdf . Last visited April 29, 2008.)

(6) Pertman, Adam. Adoption Nation: How the adoption revolution is transforming

America

. New York: Basic Books, 2000, 207.

7:28 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Monday, April 28, 2008

OHIO HEALTH COMMITTEE: UPDATED CONTACT LIST

HB7 SPONSOR:
Tom Brinkman
77 S. High St
11th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 644-6886
Fax : (614) 719-3588
Email Address: district34@ohr.state.oh.us

SEND SUBMITTED TESTIMONY TO:
Kara Joseph: kara.joseph@ohr.state.oh.us

HEALTH COMMITTEE: Chair:
*Lynn Wachtmann (R)
Henry/Napoleon
District 75
77 S. High St
11th Floor
Columbus, OH 1 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 466-3760
Fax : (614-719-3975
Email Address: district75@ohr.state.oh.us

Ranking Minority Member:
Brian G. Williams (D)
Summit/Akron
District 41
77 S. High St
10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614)-644-5085
Fax : (614) 719-6941
Email Address: district41@ohr.state.oh.us

Members:
Barbara Boyd (D)
Cuyahoga/Cleveland Heights
District 09
77 S. High St
10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 644-5079
Fax : (614) 719-0009
Email Address: district09@ohr.state.oh.us

Edna Brown (D)
District 48
Lucas/Toledo
77 S. High St
10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614)466-1401
Fax : (614) 719-6948
Email Address: district48@ohr.state.oh.us

Michael DeBose (D)
District 12
77 S. High St
10th Floor
Cuyahoga/Cleveland
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 466-1408
Fax: (614) 719-3912
Email Address: district12@ohr.state.oh.us

Lorraine M. Fende (D)
District 62
Lake/Willowick
77 S. High St
11th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 466-7251
Fax : (614) 719-3962
Email Address: district62@ohr.state.oh.us

Bruce W. Goodwin (R)
District 74
Fulton/Defiance
77 S. High St
13th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 644-5091
Fax : 614) 719-3974
Email Address: district74@ohr.state.oh.us

Jay Hottinger (R)
District 71
Licking/Newark
77 S. High St
13th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 466-1482
Fax : (614) 719-3971
Email Address: district71@ohr.state.oh.us

Matt Huffman (R)
District 04
Allen/Lima
77 S. High St
11th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 466-9624
Fax : (614) 719-0004
Email Address: district04@ohr.state.oh.us

Shannon Jones (R)
District 67
Trumbull/Deerfield
Assistant Majority Whip
77 S. High St
11th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 644-6027
Fax : (614) 719-3967
Email Address: district67@ohr.state.oh.us

Tom Letson (D)
District 64
Trrumbull/Warren
77 S. High St
11th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 466-5358
Fax : (614) 719-3964
Email Address: district64@ohr.state.oh.us

*Robert Mecklenborg (R)
District 30
Hamilton/Cincinnati
77 S. High St
14th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 466-8258
Fax : (614) 719-3584
Email Address: district30@ohr.state.oh.us

Robert J. Otterman (D)
District 45
77 S. High St
10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 644-6037
Fax : (614) 719-6945
Email Address: district45@ohr.state.oh.us

W. Scott Oelslager (R)
District 51
Stark/Canton
77 S. High St
13th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 752-2438
Fax : (614) 719-6951
Email Address: district51@ohr.state.oh.us

Robert F. Hagan (D)
District 60
Mahoning/Youngstown
77 S. High St
11th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 466-9435
Fax : (614) 719-3960
Email Address: district60@ohr.state.oh.us

James T. Raussen (R)
District 28
Henry/Springdale
77 S. High St
13th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 466-8120
Fax : (614) 719-3582
Email Address: district28@ohr.state.oh.us

Chris Redfern (D)
District 80
Ottawa/Port Clinton
77 S. High St
10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 644-6011
Fax : (614) 719-6980
Email Address: district80@ohr.state.oh.us

Carol-Ann Schindel (R)
District 63
Lake/Leroy
77 S. High St
11th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 644-6074
Fax : (614) 719-3963
Email Address: district63@ohr.state.oh.us

Barbara Sears ( R)
District 46
Lucas/Toledo
77 S. High St
13th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 466-1731
Fax : (614) 719-6946
Email Address: district46@ohr.state.oh.us

Stephen Slesnick (D)
Distsrict 52
Stark/Canton
77 S. High St
10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 466-8030
Fax : (614) 719-6952
Email Address: district52@ohr.state.oh.us

Fred Strahorn (D)
District 40
Montgomery/Dayton
Assistant Minority Whip
77 S. High St
14th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 466-2960
Fax : (614) 719-6940
Email Address: district40@ohr.state.oh.us

Joseph W. Uecker (R)
District 66
Clermont/Loveland
77 S. High St
11th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 466-8134
Fax : (614) 719-3966
Email Address: district66@ohr.state.oh.us

Shawn N. Webster (R)
District 53
Butler/Millville
77 S. High St
13th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 644-5094
Fax : (614) 719-6953
Email Address: district53@ohr.state.oh.us

Kenny Yuko (D)
District 07
Cuyahoga/Richmond Heights
77 S. High St
11th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Telephone: (614) 466-8012
Fax : (614) 719-0007
Email Address: district07@ohr.state.oh.us

Cut and Past NOTE: addys have no names):

1:58 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Thursday, April 24, 2008

ACTION ALERT: OHIO FIRST MOMS--1964-1996 NEEDED TO TESTIFY NEXT WEEK!

Betsie Norris from Adoption Network Cleveland issued the action alert (below) this afternoon.

After attending yesterday's hearing it is evident to me that the committee needs to hear the voice of first parents. This may be about OUR identity and rights, but the committee is seriously balking over first mother "privacy"--and that's the hurdle we need to jump to get access back in the bill, passed, and on to the House floor.

I was planning on contacting some moms personally, but this action alert makes it easier.

If you are an Ohio mom or an adoptee or an adoptive parent from the closed black hole era of 1964 - 1996 and you support our right to recordds, please come and testify or to just show your support for us. Let them know that there was no other option but sealed and secret.

Join us at the Statehouse, testimony and truth in hand. Snow them under with the truth!

If you can't testify, then submit written testimony to the committee. Kara Joseph, aide to sponsor Tom Brinkman, told me she will accept submitted testimony marked as such, duplicate it and make sure it gets to the Committee for the April 30 hearing. kara.joseph@ohr.state.oh.us

We need to keep the pressure on. There have been a lot of calls and emails to committee members and we need more. Call or write today!

While you need to contact Betsie if you want to testify, please let me know as well if you've read this here.

Ohio Legislative Alert

Action Needed! Please forward this email widely

Bill Hearing Wednesday April 30, 2008 – Columbus Ohio

Up until last week, Ohio House Bill 7 contained language that would allow Ohio adult adoptees access to their original birth certificate upon their request. This is something that Adoption Network Cleveland and others across the state have been working on diligently over the last 20 years. Last week, that language was stripped from the bill.

The legislators are very concerned about birthparent privacy. They are assuming that if a birthparent placed a child in a closed record adoption (the only option available at that time) between 1964 and 1996, that allowing the adult adoptee access to their original birth certificate is an affront to the birthparent's privacy.

They need to hear directly from birthparents whose children were adopted in Ohio between January of 1964 and September of 1996 to gain an accurate view of what birthparents want. Adult adoptees or adoptive parents in reunion with birthparents from that era are also needed. Also, professionals who have worked with birthparents from that era would be helpful.

Please attend the next hearing on House Bill 7 and testify – have your voice heard! The hearing will be at the Ohio Statehouse at 4 pm Wednesday April 30, 2008 – room 017. Advocates will meet outside of the hearing room starting at 3 pm. If you can come to the hearing and would like to testify (or discuss testifying), please contact Betsie Norris at Adoption Network Cleveland betsie.norris@adoptionnetwork.org and H.B. 7 sponsor Tom Brinkman's legislative aide Kara Joseph at Kara.Joseph@ohr.state.oh.us.

To sign up for email legislative alerts, go to http://www.adoptionnetwork.org/content.asp?pageid=274 and fill out the form on the right hand side of the page.

Thank you!

Betsie Norris

Executive Director

Adoption Network Cleveland

4614 Prospect, Suite 550

Cleveland, Ohio 44103

P:

F:

www.adoptionnetwork.org

Changing Lives...Creating Future

3:53 PM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

KATE LIVINGSTON’S TESTIMONY TO RESTORE OB