ORTL #Adoption: Ohio Right to Life owns adoption

Ohio Right to Life thinks it owns adoption. Besides its atrocious, out-of-touch HB 307 "infant adoption reform" bill, which I wrote about  in the Columbus Free Press  recently,  ORTL seems to be taking credit for the passage of Sub HB  23, the new OBC access. bill.  Scheduled to take effect in March 2015, the law  will give the majority of those adopted in the state between January 1964-mid-Sept 1996 their OBCs.  ORTL's webpage as well as it's FB page are full of good tidings and great joy over access--something  ORTL opposed viciously  for 20 years. From the  start of the access campaign I felt ORTL's support was conditional,  done mainly as an attempt to make friends in the adoption reform circles and move on to bigger fish, manly its  massive plan for "streamlining" the adoption process for paps in Ohio--and in a weird afterthought, to co-op the adoptee rights movement. We supported you, now you need to support us. Once my public records requests  to various legislators and state agencies are  answered I will have a better picture of this. I'll be writing at length about HB 23 and how it was subverted by one or two politicians. For now, ORTL has rolled out a new adoption logo to show us how serious it is about adoption--even as it sinks over its head in adoption politics. #Adoption. ORTL's new brand.

ORTL

Ohio HB 307: "Adoption reform" language used to promote reactionary adoption legislation

The Ohio House Health and Aging Committee heard proponent testimony Wednesday on House Bill 307 which I  wrote about earlier. The bill would cut  the  time f that an adoption can be challenged after finalization from one year to 60 days, lessen already paltry putative father rights, and expand the state adoption tax credit from $1500 to 10,000 to be spread out over a period of time.  The Ohio House Health and Aging Committee heard proponent testimony Wednesday on House Bill 307 which I

These points, and others, Ohio Right to Life and proponents claim, will "encourage" adoption and lessen the the stress on paps living in fear than a parent may come back and claim "my child." The bill is promoted as an "adoption reform" package. with, no input from actual adoption reformers.

 This appropriation of  "reform" language is akin to racist and sexist appropriation of language.  In the topsy-turvey world of American politics African-Americans, for instance, who support black candidates for office are racists; women who support abortion rights hate women (and children.) During the baby dump campaign a few years ago, Bastard Nation, and myself in particular, were called "anti--adoptee,"  with  an implication  of self-loathing..  "Do you want to see adoptees in little white coffins? the Morriseys  liked to hector. (not that that question even makes any sense), but the meaning was clear.  I'd rather see newborns die than be adopted out of the "safe haven" program, and that's what they spread around legislatures. Appropriation is the desperate cry of elites losing their grip and having no idea how to frame their own decrepit, discredited arguments.  In a country where victimization is worn as  a badge of honor, the the progenitor of victimization is now the victim.  It's the cry of the sore winner.  Whenever you hear it you know you're getting somewhere

 Adoption Circle used to have a pretty good reputation, but after this testimony, it doesn't. I can't cut and paste as I had planned originally, so I'm linking it. 

Lucie Blumenthal HB 307 testimony001 (2) 

 Blumenthal  lays out  the horror of "waiting" for a newborn to be free of its biological parents and into a permanent  "secure" adoptive environment.  The funny part of this is that she sabotages her own arguments. Blumenthal says that in her 28 years of adoption work she has never known of a parent to come back after finalization to challenge. That's because Ohio has a year finalization timeframe. Gut that to 60 days and watch the lawsuits fly. I really didn't want to testify on this bill, but I'm going to have to. Join me on 

PAPal Therapy: Ohio Right to Life's Quick and easy adoption bill - Hearing 1

This afternoon I attended the first hearing of HB 307, Ohio Right to Life's cheap and easy adoption scheme that I wrote about last month.  I suggest you go there first for background.before you continue here.  For those not so inclined, here's a  cheat sheet:  HB 307:

• Decreases the waiting time for adoption finalization from 6-months - 1 year  to 60 days
• Decreases the eligibility time a man can file with the Ohio Putative Father’s Registry (PFR) from 30 days  to 7.
• Requires adoption agencies and adoption lawyers to inform fetal fathers (before the birth of the child)  that an adoption plan is being made; thus, giving them more time to file with the PRF (if they can find it)
• Increases the Ohio adoption tax credit from $1500 to $10,000 to be spread out over four years, substantially offsetting the cost  of the adoption
•  Requires adoption agencies and adoption lawyers to make living expense payments provided by paps (prospective adoptive parents)  up to $3000 (in current law) directly to service providers (doctors, landlords, utilities), not to “birthmothers” themselves.
• Allows paps, lawyers, and adoption agencies  to advertise publicly or "birthmothers."

After the Columbus Dispatch broke the story that the bill was about to be introduced, things got quiet. When I contacted sponsor Rep. Shannon Jones' office about the bill's status I was told by her aide that it was being discussed due to "interested party concerns"  and that some of the provisions mentioned in the Dispatch would likely be changed. The draft of HB307 was not available to the public, so it's hard to say what if anything  was changed.  The filed bill however, sounds just about what the Dispatch reported. With one exception. Shannon Jones is no longer the sponsor. She  either dumped the bill or was dumped by Ohio Right to Life  for reasons I can only guess.  She was replaced by the....how shall I say it....more complaint Jim Buchy .. (R-Greenville). A couple months ago, Buchy. one of Ohio's favorite anti-aborts was featured on Al Jezerra-English discussing abortion.  When asked why he thought women got abortions he replied, "I've never thought about that." Today's hearing wasn't 'much better. I really wish there was a video of it, but as far as I know none was made. My description won't do it justice. We fell through the rabbithole.Here are some of the questions (paraphrased) asked by committee members and Buchy's responses. I failed to get the name of the first questioner, but the rest are identified. Q:  Social services currently has a year to investigate  the adoption after a child is placed before it is finalized.  Won't this bill force a change in social service procedures? 60 days seems an awfully short time to do a thorough investigation to make sure everything is OK and to get all the paperwork in. A: Because of the short time involved, social workers  will  need to keep the focus on those cases, not on other things.

#

John  Patrick Carney (D-Columbus) always good, asked his favorite kind of question. Q:  I'm concerned about advertising.  Have you researched anti-human trafficking laws and authorities on the subject to see if this bill contradicts anti-human trafficking  laws? A:  (mumble) No.

#

Carney on tax credits: Q:  This bill has a tax credit for newborns.  What about older children in foster care, who are actually available for adoption now and need families? A:  Obviously, this bill is about newborns.  Foster care is another story.  (Foster care questions and references came up several times, and Buchy shot blanks each time)

#

Nickie Antonio (D-Lakewood) Q:  Is there any provision here for sibling groups?  Giving tax credits for a sibling group adoption.  Say a newborn has older siblings  available for adoption  already and we want to keep them together. Can there be tax credits for that situation. A:  That's an interesting question. And it went on. Buchy  oddly claimed that HB 307 would save the taxpayers money by keeping newborns out of foster care and get into "loving homes"  (as he likes to call them) quickly.   Huh? When was the last time any of us heard of a newborn stuck in foster care? )safe havens  excepted)

  Buchy closed by asking one of the committee members to adopt him.  I"m not kidding!  

******

By the end of the testimony I had no idea what this bill is about, even though I do know what it's about . Perhaps Rep. Buchy doesn't HB 307 is ostentatiously supposed to be about "reforming" adoption to be fast and quick and to hell with best practice (which we see little of anyway) , but the subtext is really weird. I  have no idea why Ohio needs to encourage more people to adopt newborns. There is already  a line  of paps, as long as the traffic jam on 315 before the  Michigan game,.waiting to pick up a new baby There may be a small number of people discouraged by long waits and bureaucracy, but who cares?  All those available-for-adoption newborns are going to "loving homes" immediately. Clearly Buchy believes that adoption is about finding newborns for people who "need" them.

 There is nothing in HB 307 to offer economic or other incentives to women to put their newborns up for adoption.  Maybe ORTL has burnt itself out on that. So, no matter how many desperate and childless individuals or couples are encouraged to adopt through these "reforms" (a doubtful claim in itself) how does that change the fact that there aren't that many newborns available for adoption anyway, no matter how great the consumer demand.. The real problem is not abortion,  which strangely didn't come up in testimony once, but that women are keeping and rearing their babies, not tossing them in the adoption mill. So, despite all facts to the contrary, Ohio Right to Life continues to conflate abortion with  adoption (not just "saving" the fetus).  Adoption is  the healthy outcome of a so-called "crisis pregnancy."

 Buchy's message today was inept and fuzzy. If this is an adoption bill, then why are the thousands of Ohio kids aging out in foster care  treated as bad baggage. If adoption fees are to high, put  a cap on them. Is  Buchy trying to keep it a secret that this is a ORTL bill? That this is about abortion.  No, wait a minute it isn't. Or is it?

When  his  excruciating testimony was finished, Buchy's argument seemed to be that all-in-all  HB 307 is needed to relieve the stress of paps waiting for finalization. It's therapeutic. Since when is it therapy the state's job?

NOTE: ORTL president Mike Gonidakis  published a piece on the bill in today’s Life News.  I didn’t incorporate it in this entry, but will use it later.

******

I am covering this bill for the Columbus Free Press and hope to have a print piece out  in next Thursday's issue.By then I should be unflummoxed.  It will be much more formal than this blog, which is just a quickly written rundown and notes of today's hearing.

Follow me on Twitter @DBastardette

  I

This is Not Adoption Reform: Ohio Right to Life Proposes cheap & quick adoptions

>

Bad news in Ohio.  Ohio Right to Life is ready to launch a new easy adoption  legislative project:  

The bill isn't filed yet, but  it gained traction Monday when the Columbus Dispatch  published:  Abortion foes focus on easing Ohio adoptions

Since the bill isn't up  yet, we can't say what it says exactly, so I'm going by the Dispatch report only.  Here, is a  rundown from Mike Gonidakis,  adoptive father of two and President of Ohio Right to Life:.  .

• Decrease the waiting time for adoption finalization from 1 year to 60 days (Note: this seems to be a mistake.  Under the ORC, adoption finalization can currently take place no less that 6 months after placement.)
• Decrease the eligibility time a man can file with the Ohio Putative Father's Registry (PFR) from 30 days  to 7.
• Require adoption agencies and adoption lawyers to inform fetal fathers (before the birth of the child)  that an adoption plan is being made; thus, giving them more time to file with the PRF (if they can find it)
• Increase the Ohio adoption tax credit from $1500 to $10,000 to be spread out over four years,  substantially offsetting the cost  of the adoption
•  Decrease "birthmother" fraud by requiring adoption agencies and adoption lawyers to make living expense payments provided by paps (prospective adoptive parents) directly to service providers (doctors, landlords, utilities), not to "birthmothers" themselves.  Under current law, these funds go directly from pap to "birthmother".  The  $3000 payment limit would not change.

This proposal has more holes than the proverbial Swiss cheese. Two months is far from enough time for ethical post-placement. follow-up and opens the adoption process to corruption, child abuse, and adoption fraud. even more than it already is.  When I was adopted finalization took approximately a year and  a social worker made at least three unannounced visits to our home between my placement and adoption finalization.. That is not too much to expect today. If you're doing it right, what's the rush? Combined with the PFR   provision (below),  the shortened time frame is no more than a new way to push dads out of the way and hide their children from them..

My other big concern is the PFR.  There is nothing to prevent a woman from claiming she doesn't know the name of the father or giving  a false name and contact information for the father, or just refusing to name him at all, or  naming several men as possible fathers (Hello, Maury!)   It  certainly doesn't require her to tell the putative father that she is even pregnant.   She can just weasel. Moreover, under current law, a man can register with the PFR any time after he has sex with a woman. (according to court rulings when a man has sex  with a woman he's put on notice). Although some men do get snookered, they currently  have plenty of the time to get on the books if they suspect adoption may be afoot. But since the PFR is unadvertised, does it even matter?.  ORTL needs to look at  the current scandals of Baby Veronica and Baby Deserai  among the latest adoption parade of horrors to see  where this will lead. (For more about the the legal situation of putative fathers and the Ohio PFR go to ericksmith.org 

The adoption tax credit sends a very bad message:  adoption welfare.   (What a boon for serial adopters!) What ever happened to  "if you can't afford a child, don't have one?"  bringing up the whole "deserving" issue. 
  
Welfare moms :     Off the dole you go! 
Adoptive parents:   On the dole you go!

I don't have an original source for this quote, but someone said recently in a tweet,  "welfare cuts + adoption tax credits is redistributive wealth." " I couldn't agree more. 

******

There is, in fact,  nothing in this measure, as far as we know, that offers "opportunities" for women to keep their children.  Or for that matter opportunities for  them to turn their newborns in for adoption, unless you factor in the Draconian legislation that ORTL pushed through last session. These   new measures include diverting   state Planned Parenthood  funds to  evangelical "crisis pregnancy centers."   requiring abortion providers to  force clients to listen to  fetal heartbeats, and a ban on state-subsidized rape counselors  making  discussing abortion and making abortion referrals. Today the New York Times published a piece covering the full range of Ohio's  new anti-abortion regulations that explains the climate ORTL believes it has  created for   cheap  and easy newborn adoption.  

This bill is really about opportunities to make adoption cheaper and easier for paps..  Goindakis admits as much.  "“We’re trying to make adoptions better, cheaper and faster,”  he told the Dispatch.   "In Ohio, adoption is too expensive, too bureaucratic, inefficient at best, and there is too much hardship and heartache in the process.”

Hardship and heartache  for whom? 

I'm writing this quickly to get the word out.   I'll be writing more in depth later. I'm trying to get a pre-flie copy of the bill or at least a synopsis today.



TWITTER:   Twitter fried my account and I was forced to start a new one.  Besides tweeting The Daily Bastardette I tweet  (and retweeet) about adoption issues, civil rights, freedom of the press,  the corporate state, plus some local stuff. Join me there! Daily Bastardette @DBastardette.

Demons of Adoption Awards 2013:: Voting Open!

Nominations are closed and the voting begins.

Select the most deserving Demon of Adoption for 2013.

 I know it's a difficult task  Competition sponsor Pound Pup Legacy, has gathered an array of  stunning nominees this year:  Nightline Adoption (Capobianco agency), Gladney Center, Adam Pertman, (Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute),  Both Ends Burning ("christian" child grabbers),  Children and Families First, and a satanic host of other duplicitous bottom feeders. And to think that Beelzebub didn't even purchase their the dark souls! Our nominees  simply turned them over to him. Here are the nominees with links to their webpages (thanks to Pound Pup)

• Raymond W Godwin and Nightlight Christian Adoption: for their role in the baby Veronica case;
• Supreme Court of the United States: for their decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby girl;
• Lifeline Children’s Services: for assisting evangelical adopters to complete international adoptions when other somewhat sane agencies object;
• Frances Fitzgerald (Irish Minister for Children and Youth Affairs): for attempts to promote inter-country adoption outside the Hague Convention;
• Adoption Advocates International (AAI): for their involvement in the adoption of  Hana Grace-Rose Williams;
• Gladney Center for Adoption: for the placement with the Shatto family that led to the death of Russian born adoptee Max Shatto (Maxim Kuzmin);
• Both Ends Burning Campaign: for producing the documentary Stuck and the promotional bus tour associated with this movie;
• Christian Homes And Special Kids (CHASK): for their role in assisting parents to "re-home" their unwanted adopted children;
• Lutheran Social Services of Illinois: for employing social worker Elizabeth Thomas-Colwell who was formerly a licensed social worker (LCSW) in the state of Illinois. There is reason to believe that she was involved in poor practices and potentially illegal adoptions;
• Children in Families First (CHIFF): for its slick marketing campaign supporting and driving legislation (Children In Families First Act of 2013) to turn back the clock on inter-country adoptions by providing authority to USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security to bypass the Hague Convention Regulations, current US Immigration laws, and International Standards on Child Welfare;
• Adam Pertman: for claiming to be a critic of the adoption system, while at the same time promoting the interest of the adoption industry;
• Mardie Caldwell: for maintaining baby farms, which are categorized by race;
• Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute: for giving their seal of approval to persons and organizations that promote the interests of the adoption industry and pushing agency friendly legislation in Congress.

As always I'm torn.  So many  obscene child harvesters,  but only one winner. I may put off my vote for a few days while I think about it.

Go to Pound Pup Legacy for details and a discussion on nominations and the  online ballot

Happy Voting!

Our Future is in Our Hands: a message from Ron Morgan: Support James Lane

The recent news stories,
documenting  adoptee abuse in great detail, is an opportunity for us to strike for our rights.  While I'm writing up Bastard Nation response  I'm posting a very important message from Ron Morgan. Take the fire and run with it! 

Ron Morgan:

Well, it’s happened again. The media reacts to a breaking story revealing the maltreatment of adoptees by interviewing a bunch of non-adoptees. PBS gave Adam Pertman of the Adoption Institute a forum to react to the bomb-shell Reuters “re-homing” series, and you know what he said?

“Derp, I didn’t know!!!”

This is why it is CRUCIAL for us to support candidates who understand, embrace and advocate for Adoptee Rights. James Lane is a Late Discovery Adoptee running for New York City Public Advocate. James Lane deserves our support.

Don’t sit on your hands while so-called experts and self-described advocates use their positions of POWER to pontificate about our rights!

This is NO JOKE, people. As adoptees our future is in our hands. Write letters, demonstrate, button-hole your legislators, but take a couple of minutes to click on the link below and DONATE to an adoptee running to be our ADVOCATE! Donate to James Lane today!

https://votejameslane.nationbuilder.com/donate

And if YOU ARE INTERESTED IN RUNNING FOR OFFICE, let’s talk….

Donate to this candidate votejameslane.nationbuilder.com Help Elect The Green Party's First Candidate for Public Advocate of New York City

James talks about his adoption and adoptoin secrecy here 

NOTE:  You do not have to be a resident of New York City or New York State to donate.

Spread the word!

Ohio Birthparent Group - Sept. 2013

September 2013

Sep

ROAR Campaign for Adoptee Rights Like birthparents, adoptees have historically been excluded from the policy processes that shape their adoption experiences. Many OBG birthparents have been active in the 2013 ROAR Campaign for adoptee rights, which kicks back in gear this month for the Fall legislative session. We hope you'll join us in supporting the rights of all Ohio adoptees to have unconditional access to their original birth certificates. Find out how to participate in ROAR's grassroots action campaign! Grandparents & Adoption General Adoption Support Meeting Tuesday, September 10th, 7-9pm Karl Road Library This month, our general meeting will focus on the experiences of birth grandparents and adoptive grandparents. How can grandparents best support adoptees, birth parents and adoptive parents? In what ways can we support the grandparents in our lives? What unique rewards and challenges frame the grandparent experience in adoption? Co-sponsored by Adoption Network Cleveland, this meeting is open to the public. Learn more... Birthparent Support Meeting Please Note Location Change for September! Sunday, September 22nd, 2-4pm BEXLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY Open to birth mothers and birth fathers only, this meeting is a private space to meet others who understand this life-long journey. Learn more...

Demons of Adoption 2013: nominations now open!

It's that time again! Pound Pup Legacy has sent  out the call for nominations for its prestigious Demons of Adoption Award 2014. This is the seventh year the award has been issued.  Acknowledging the large adoption bottom feeder population  from which to choose and the tough decisions  ahead, Niels Hoovgeen, keeper of the pup pound writes: It will be tough this time around. Over the last years we have dredged the cesspool named Adoptionland and condemned the practices of such agencies like: Bethany Christian Services and LDS Family Services, such trade associations of adoption service providers like the National Council for Adoption and the Joint Council on International Children's Services, and even showed our utmost contempt for the United States Congress. No feather weights by any means. Although nominations opened only yesterday, Capobianco, Inc took the far lead already.  Other early contenders include Gladney Adoption Center, Adoption Advocates International (Washington State),  Irish Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Frances Fitzgerald, and baby broker Jennifer Potter. Go to the nomination site to nominate and support your personal "favorite" bottom feeding adoption demon. Nominations close September 30, and voting will follow shortly. Feel free to forward the news! Cross posted to The Daily Bastardette. and Bastard Nation.

Jean Paton: Biography of the mother of the US adoption reform movement to be published this fall!

I'm embarrassed to admit this, but when in the mid-1990s when I first got seriously involved in adoptee rights, I had never heard of Jean Paton.

My ignorance was disabused at the Seattle AAC conference (I think it was 2000) E. Wayne Carp, who had just released his pioneering work Family Matters: Secrecy and Disclosure in the History of Adoption was  first day keynoter.  Among the special guests that day was  Jean Paton.

As I remember it, some of us Bastard Nationals were running around with little homemade "nametags" with Bastards are Beautiful" handprinted on them with a magic marker--mainly as a dig at the goody-2-shoes AAC crowd and, of couse, to advertise ourselves.  Someone, and I don't remember who, (maybe it was Jean) pointed out that this phrase  was not original with Bastard Nation. It was an original Jean Patonism.

Well, who was Jean Paton?  Only the mother of the adoptee rights movement in America! That's who!

It was almost like opening your OBC and learning that you had a name and a history.  As a trained historian I was shocked to learn that I hadn't done my homework. I knew about Joanne Wolf Small,   B J Lifton, ALMA and a few other historical anecdotes but not Jean Paton, Orphan Voyage and the roots of our movement. I  think I actually started to cry a little.  We weren't in a vacuum.  Hells bells!  The movement had started 40 years (now 60 years) earlier and we were just hearing about it now!

I was fortunate enough to meet Jean that day. She was up in years  but spry and sharp as ever. We talked for awhile and she  approved of Bastard Nation. I didn't have any further contact with her until Measure 58 passed in Oregon and she sent us a congratulatory note.

I've learned much about Jean since then, but now there is an opportunity for all of us to learn much more.

 This November, Jean Paton and the Struggle for American Adoption  Reform will be published by the University of Michigan Press.  Written by Wayne Carp, (who incidentally authored Adoption Politics:  Bastard Nation and Ballot Initiative 58.  the book  is a full length biography of Jean and the birth of the adoptee rights movement in the United States..  Jean worked with Professor Carp to see this book brought to fruition, but unfortunately passed away before she could see it publication.

Jean Paton and Wayne Carp

Professor Carp had unfettered access to Jean and her archives (an historian's dream) He  writes of his experience:

Over the course of the next several years, I received her vast correspondence, which she sent me. I could hardly have imagined the extent of it: it was a biographer’s Eldorado. Jean had made an onion-skin carbon copy of every letter she ever wrote over a period of fifty years—filling some 50 or more boxes— and had carefully filed away almost every sheet of paper in a complex system of file folders. Paton’s own writings range from a discussion of being suckled at the breast of her mother for the first four months of life to discussions of every aspect of adoption reform to reports of her health weeks before her death. In between are drafts of memos, essays, and articles she never published; reviews of her books and media notices of her travels; account books; typewritten notes of books she read; a detailed diary she kept between 1950 and 1953; memos of every phone call she received related to adoption reform; and even sixty-year-old college papers. Just as important for this study, Jean kept every letter, Christmas card, search group’s newsletter, and solicitation she ever received. These materials include inquiries from triad members seeking advice about how to reconnect with their original families, triad members requesting guidance on how to organize search and reunion groups, and correspondence from publishers, editors, and congressmen. Except for me, (and Jean, of course) no one has read this enormous corpus of Jean Paton’s work.

The  University of Michigan Press has already set up a webpage for the book.  More importantly, Professor Carp has published his own webpage: The Biography of Jean Paton: the Mother of the Adoption Reform Movement.  The page includes out-takes from the book (parts that needed edited out for space or other considerations,) photos, documents,  information on book events, and other material.  Material is being added periodically.  An adjunct Facebook page, The Biography of Jean Paton, went live on Monday,

You can order an advanced copy of the book amazon.com

This is a much needed and important addition to the growing corpus of adoption studies. We can't wait to read it.

Photos courtesy of E. Wayne Carp.

Mary Gauthier to Perform in Columbus! Please Join Us!

Save the date!

 Distribute Freely!

 The great bastard bard Mary Gauthier will be performing here in Columbus on May 18.

I first ran into Mary  over 10 years ago on WCBE.  I'd never heard of her.  I don't remember the name of the song that was played and the word "adoption" wasn't mentioned once. But Wowza!   I shouted  "that's about being adopted." It was.  And I googled her. Since then I've been a big fan.  Her May 2010 CD The Foundling, is a tour d' force of her own adoption experience:

The  songs (on The Foundling) tell the story of a kid abandoned at birth who spent a year in an orphanage and was adopted, who ran way from the adopted home and ended up in show business, who searched for birth parents late in life and found one and was rejected, and who came through the other side of all of this still believing in love

--but speaks to us all no matter what our experience.

It was named 3rd top CD of the year by the LA Times.

My personal favorites are the title cut and "Blood is Blood".  What bastard can't  appreciate the absurdity of: adoptaspeak:

When I was a child

They told me, she loved you too much

She didn't keep me 'cause my mother

Loved me too much

She left without a trail

She didn't leave a trace

Blood is blood and blood don't wash away

Blood is blood and blood don't wash away

An excellent interview with Mary was published in Pennyblack Music.com.

Mary is a big supporter  and active member of the adoptee rights movement. During the 2010 National Adoption Month she blogged: 

There are so many people involved in the Adoptees Rights Movement. There are birth mothers who have grown and changed and come to a place where they want to meet their children, or have lost the chance to meet their own but recognize how valuable the knowledge of origin could be to the children who do seek. There are adoptees who are working together to counteract the shame and deep loss they’ve experienced, and to co-create a world where children are no longer seen as commodities. There are adoptive parents who see in their children their true natures, and honor them by letting the children keep their original names, taking them to where they came from, keeping in contact with birth parents when possible, showing them, quite literally, that their love for them does not hinge on them pretending to be something they are not.

These brave souls are working towards one of the last to be recognized civil rights issues – the right for human beings to know their origins, for all adoptees to know where they came from, to have unrestrained access the their own birth certificates. As of now, we do not have that right. In all but 6 states, adoptees birth records are sealed shut by the state, and upon adoption birth certificates are re-issued…. with adoptive parents names on them.

Of course Mary is about  and writes about much more than adoption.  She's a story teller with a genuine voice, no matter what he subject. Her work is admired by Bob Dylan and Tom Waits:  An earlier (2007) CD, Between Daylight and Dark was universally praised:

“If she keeps this up, one day she may assume the mantle of Johnny Cash,” raved the New York Daily News; while the Boston Globe praised Mary’s “particular blend of toughness and vulnerability that puts her in a league with Bruce Springsteen and Steve Earle.

Mary will perform at: 
549 Franklin Avenue
olumbus, Ohio 43215
614-645-7469
8:00 PM
(For old timers, it's the Shedd Theater at the Old Players Theatre)

Go here for ticket information and orders.

Bastard Nation supports Mary Gauthier and her work.  If you're in the Columbus area we hope to see you there! 

SB23 Update: Passes out of Senate Committee with Amendments

This morning SB23--now Sub(stitute) Bill 23, sailed through the Ohio Senate Medicaid, Health, and Human Services Committee, 8-0.

No substantive changes to the bill were made, but several amendments were added  to clarify procedures in the original bill. The sub bill is not online as of this writing, but should be available on the SB23 page shortly.

Sub 23:

• Removes the 90-day deadline for the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) to mail the contents of an adoption file to the requesting adoptee.  The original bill time-framed the response window to 90 days, but ODH, fearful of  the time it will take to process the large influx of requests  it expects  immediately after the bill becomes law, asked that the time frame be removed

• The Ohio Department of Jobs and Family  Services (ODJFS) will create the contact preference form  (cpf))as opposed to ODH, designated in the original bill.

• Requires any previous release of information forms on file under current law to be released with the adoption file.

• Deletes relatives "by marriage" from the definition of lineal descendant.  (Ex: .the adult child of a deceased adoptee can request the file, but his or her spouse cannot.).

• Removes a provision prohibiting a birthparent from including identifying information in a social or medical history form..

• Removes provisions requiring ODH to review any social/medical history forms and attempt to identify and remove inaccuracies . ODH argued rightfully  that it is in the business of collecting information, not ferreting out inaccuracies in that information. ODH also pointed out the amount of time such ferreting would entail.. 

• Clarifies that contact preference forms and social and medical  history forms are to be considered part of the adoption file, and  as such are not public records.  That is, the cpf, just as the OBC, will not be available for public perusal.

Sub23 will now be sent to the Rules Committee and then on to the Senate floor for a full vote.

Since Sub 23 and HB61 are somewhat different,   if  Sub 23 passes in the Senate, the bill will be returned to the House for concurrence, then sent again to the House floor for a final vote.

If passed, then on to Governor John Kasich for his signature.

HB63 and Sub23 does the following:

• Ohio adoptees adopted  January 1, 1964 -September 18, 1996, at the age of 18, can access, without restriction or condition  their OBC upon request, starting one year from passage date.  (Records are already accessible to all pre-1964 adoptees and to most adoptees post September 18, 1996. see below)

•  Ohio birthparents  can, but are not required, to file a contact preference form specifying if and how they would like contact.  

• Ohio birthparents can, but are not required, to put on file an updated medical history for the adopatee.

Neither bill addresses the Disclosure Veto added to Ohio access law in 1996 that authorizes birthparents to bar OBC access for those whose adoptions were processed after September 18, 1996. .  Veto language for '96ers remains in the law and the handful of DVs on file remain in place; thus making it impossible for Ohio to become a truly free state.

Disclaimer:  This is not a Bastard Nation bill.

ROAR 2013 should published an update shortly.

SB23 Report: Senate Committee Hearing, April 17, 2013

I'm late in getting this posted, but I wanted to file a short report on the April 17 hearing for SB23 at the Ohio Senate Medicaid, Health, and Human Services Committee. You can also read an update on the ROAR site (Update #13).

Wendy Bllitzer Barkett

This was the first proponent hearing (the sponsor hearing was held on February 13). and consisted of two groups of witnesses.  The first were adoptees, some from out of state; the second "the experts."

Kicking off the hearing was adoptee poet Wendy Blitzer Barker  who came all the way from Texas to tell her story and support the bill. She was followed by Jeffrey Costello (Atlanta),  Erin  Hopkins McHugh, Ohio firefighter  Stephen Kelly, and Julia Derry.  Some told jerk-around stories relating to their individual probate court request for non-ID, which indicated that some courts are or have been in the past, out of compliance with current Ohio non-ID laws. And  I was beginning to think I'd heard it all!

Elizabeth Samuels

These witnesses were followed by Professor Elizabeth J Samuels  (University of Baltimore Law School) presenting the history of sealed records in the US and former Maine State Senator Paula Benoit sponsor of the bill that restored the right to OBC access in her state. Also Betsy Keefer Smally, IHS Adoption Training Managing and Ohio Adoption Planning Group co-chair.

Paula Benoit

Finally, former opponents-turned-supporters took the podium. Catholic Conference of Ohio Government Relations Director Jim Tobin, laid down his one-page testimony and simply said,  "it's the just thing to do."  He was followed by the new Ohio Right to Life Legislative Director Kayla Smith, backing up the House testimony of  former ORTL Leg Director Stephanie Ranade Krider. Smith's  testimony ramped it further, though, taking up facts adoptee rights activists have used  for years, usually to no avail:

ORTL's Kayla Smith and
Kate Livingston , Ohio Birthparent Group, professional trouble maker

Legal guarantees could never have been made to these mothers to ensure their children would never have access to their original birth certificate. Again, this was not the intent  of the law even in 1964 when it was enacted, but the law always provided that adoptees, at age 18, could petition the probate court that sealed their records to release them if the court found good cause.

Obviously, in politics, source means everything.

You can read written (and presented) and submitted testimony at the ROAR link above.

Washington State pols take note:  the committee was more than supportive, so much so that Sen. Charleta Tavares asked "How can we make this bill better?  How can we make it easier."  Yikes!  If she'd asked me, I'd have said, "Amend to exclude all 1996 Disclosure Veto language and void the handful of vetoes filed under the1996  DV provision. Restore the right of all Ohio adoptees, not just most."

But nobody asked me.

Another hearing is scheduled for Wednesday April 24 where amendments pertaining to Department of Health/Vital Statistics procedures for OBC release will be discussed, and then probably voted out. The companion HB61 has already passed the House.

I'll be there.

Elizabeth Samuels (U. of Baltimore Law School ) , Maine Senator Paula Benoit, Wendy Blitzer Barkett, Betsie Norris, (Adoption Network Cleveland/ROAR),  Stephen Kelly, Betsy Keefer Smally. 

Jim Tobin (Catholic Conference of Ohio), Kayla Smith (Ohio Right to Life), Bill co-sponsor Senator Bill Beagle, Kate Livingston  (Ohio Birthparent Group)  and  Betsie Norris and Aaron Ockerman  (both from Adoption Network Cleveland.

(all photos by Bastardette)

Breaking News - Ohio House Passes HB61

The Ohio House today voted 94-1 with 2 abstentions to pass HB61 which restores the unrestricted right of OBC access to those in Ohio adopted between January 1, 1964-September 17, 1996.  It's companion in the Senate is pending. Sadly, the bill did not pick up the '96's who will still be subject to a Disclosure Veto (DV) already in place for that access tier..

The truth is that Ohio Legislative Services, which vets all bills, refused to OK challenging  the DV law that amounts to an agreement between the State of Ohio and a handful of cowardly biological parents who demand that the government  grant them a special privilege to hide their identities from their adult offspring.  This "agreement" is quite different from the blanket sealing of OBCs with no legal  "agreement," despite what opponents claim and we have shown repeatedly holds no water.  No one knows how many shirkers are on file here, but the number 20 has  been tossed around the last couple of years. I believe DVs can be removed from 1996 law, but the legal arguments need to be developed more fully, and the big fat arm of Legislative Services needs twisted..  I also believe that the foolishness of OBC access for all but a  minuscule number of bastards will within the next few years be recognized. for the absurdity it is.   There is time to save those few kids who have been black-holed since they won't even be eligible for access for  another couple years. Perhaps I am too hopeful.

I've been attending the HB63 hearings and reporting on them here (see March 2013 posts below), but when I checked today on the progress of the bill to the House floor, I didn't see anything.  Otherwise, I'd have been there.  The naysayer was Ron Amstutz. (R-1-Wooster). I'm not sure who the abstentions were, but I don't see Matt Hoffman on the voting roll today and I know he objected..Hoffman, you may remember, was the chief  smirk and eye roller when I testified in favor of HB 7  five years ago.. He also claimed that he and his brother (a Quad A lawyer) routinely  told their bio clients that their names would never be released to anyone, including their dirty little bastard.. It's our little secret.

A proponent hearing for companion SB23 is scheduled for April 17 in the Senate Medicaid, Health, and Human Services Committee. Some of the state's staunchest anti-abortion advocates and the President of the Senate are sponsors. I don't see it flunking..

This is such an incredible sea change and it  says something about the perceived power of Ohio Right to Life  (many years ago a corporate lobbyist told me ORTL was full of hot air and had everyone fooled) and the Ohio Catholic Conference at the Statehouse. Without their opposition, OBC access appears to be the no   brainer we know it is..  Now they need to get on board for the 96ers.

Current OBC bastard activists as well as deformers  need to take a good look at what has happened here.

Any attempt to create new segregations and blackoles must be met with  brass  knuckles and a Spartan refusal  to retreat.  A handful of '96s are what happens when you let deform through the door under the excuse of  "baby steps" or we'll- pick-them-up-later or whatever they want to call it.   It's bad enough that old bad laws are still in place, but new DV and other restrictive legislations make a joke out of adoptee rights and tie the hands of activists to finish the job  If one Bastard is left behind, then we all are and the battle continues when in fact, it should be over.  The failure to include the '96s, for no matter what reason, cannot be seen as permission for other states to do the same.  Ohio has along-established unique three-tired system that many states don't have and will be difficult go get rid of..  If the 1996 compromise had not  been made 16 years ago, today the road to victory would be clear and not littered with the bodies of  left behinds.  Ohio, instead,  would be on the way  to being the 8th free state of Bastard America.. There is no excuse today for any state movement to accept and promote new restrictions.  If you take them now, you'll pay for them later.

Washington State: The Annual Murder of Adoptee Rights Continues

I

For more than 20 years the State of Washington has been a battle ground for adoptee rights. Some years good bills go bad or bad bills go good; (for awhile); other years bad bills go badder. Even baddest bills are kneecapped by adopteephobic legislators and bureaucrats quivering at the softest echos of baby steps toddling down the halls of government.

This year has been no different.  Two near-companion bills were introduced in the House and Senate.  The Senate bill (SB5118) was originally restrictive,  re-written clean, then re-written back restricted.  The House bill, (HB 1525),  remained restrictive throughout its campaign.  On.Monday, the Senate Judiciary voted out the House bill.  The whole process has become quite confusing, but as of today (April 3, the language of both bills is being matched Whichever bill eventually is enacted (if) Washington bastards will be saddled with more restrictions on  their OBCs.  Promoters, of course  will circle jerk themselves as "progressive" politicians  and "activists"  for allegedly "balancing the interests" of adoptees and birthparents and extending privilege to a few lucky ducks.while the state continues its headlock on OBCs.

Unlike some states where the hammer is pounded by conservative anti-abortion groups and the Catholic Bishops, opposition to OBC access in Washington centers around individual legislators (for various reasons related to their personal adoption experience) and the perennial wolf is sheep's clothing "progressives," ACLU-Washington, misreading and arguing "privacy rights of biological parents, where no such "rights" exist.

Bastard Nation has obtained an email  from ACLU-WA director Shankar Narayan  sent to HB1525  sponsor Tina Orwall  who forwarded it to members of the House Judiciary Committee,  stating its support of  restrictive  SB5518  and expressing the concern that a "broadening" of the bill, as was attempted in the Senate a few weeks ago, would abrogate  the "privacy interests"  of birthparents; thus forcing the organization to oppose the bill, which of course, they  "don't want to do."

In other words, shut up.

Thus, the  annual Class Bastard death warrant was signed.

Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:47 AM
To: Pedersen, Rep. Jamie; Hansen, Rep. Drew; Rodne, Rep. Jay; O'Ban, Rep. Steve; Goodman, Rep. Roger; Hope, Rep. Mike; Jinkins, Rep. Laurie; Kirby, Rep. Steve; Klippert, Rep. Brad; Nealey, Rep. Terry; Orwall, Rep. Tina; Roberts, Rep. Mary Helen; Shea, Rep. Matt 
Cc: Adams, Edie; Clynch, Cece; Harrington, Omeara; Shankar Narayan
Subject: Note on SB 5118 (Access to Birth Certificates)

Chair Pedersen and Members of the House Judiciary Committee:

I wanted to offer a comment on SB 5118 (access to birth certificates), heard this morning in Judiciary. The ACLU-WA’s interest in this bill is in ensuring that the birth parent’s privacy interest is protected—in other words, their ability to opt out of disclosure of birth certificates is preserved. We also understand the need to strike a balance in allowing adoptees access to those birth certificates for medical and other reasons.

The bill before you has undergone a number of changes as it has come to you, but the bottom line is that the current bill strikes an appropriate balance between privacy and the interests of adoptees—we therefore support it. It creates a uniform rule that allows birth parents to opt out if they provide medical history, which serves the interests of all parties.

However, there have been efforts to broaden the bill—one version in the Senate would have opened up all birth certificates to adoptees (both pre- and post-1993) and eliminated the birth parent opt-out in all cases, including for birth parents who have already opted out. I would like to warn against broadening the bill in that manner—doing so would once again fail to protect birth parents’ privacy interests, and we would be forced to oppose (which we don’t want to do). Thanks for considering these thoughts.

Best,
Shankar.

This is simply a nicer kinder rendition of what went down in 1998 when another set of restoration bills (SB6496/HB2810) was buzzing around the statehouse. At that time Bastard Nation and Washington Open '98 had a heated public and private debate with Doug Klunder, from ACLU-WA's Privacy Project (which doesn't seem to exist any more) and ACLU-W staff attorney Jerry Shaheen both of who proved abysmally ignorant of adoption practice, law, and case law and surprisingly arrogant in their pride of ignorance..

Klunder and Shaheen inadvertently, in their arguments, admitted they had no legal leg to stand on. They  fed the incurious legislature half-truths about records access and (at that time) the gold standard court ruling Doe v Sundquist, citing the lawsuit, but neglecting to mention that OBC access, albeit restricted, prevailed.  They argued that birthparents may not have a legal right to confidentiality, but they have a "natural right" to expect and demand that OBCs be withheld from adoptees.  Moreover Klunder and Sheehan, desperate to shut us down,  made the bizarre  accusation (for the ACLU) that OBC  access would increase abortions.  They admitted to Washington Open '98 in a private discussion, however,  that they  had no proof.  Of course they didn't because OBC access does no such thing.

The debate reached its low point, or high point depending on how you look at things, when Klunder, in a private email to Bastard Nation co-founder, executive committee member  and legal adviser Shea Grimm,   said  that the ACLU-WA not only opposed OBC access, but would support legislation in the state that would seal all birth certificates, not just those of adoptees.  Klunder opined  that after the age of 18 nobody needs one.

While  Klunder and Sheehan were busy making talking asses of themselves I ran into Nadine Strossen, then the president of the National ACLU, at reception at Ohio State where she had given a talk on constitutional law.  We had only a moment to speak, but I told her about the Washington situation.  She was as dumbfounded as I.. "Natural right?" she hooted..

On February 23, 1998, after I was unable to get through by phone,  I wrote to Matthew Briggs at ACLU National for clarification on its policy of OBC access and threw in a few demands:

1. An investigation into the activities of Doug Klunder and Jerry Sheehan regarding the dissemination of incomplete and/or false information to the Washington State Legislature.
2. Acknowledgment from the ACLU that Doe v Sundquist clearly states that adopted adults have the right to their original birth certificates;
3. A withdrawal of unsubstantiated and unprovable allegations that open adoption records cause abortion;
4. A copy of the national ACLU policy statement on the right of adopted persons to their original birth certificates, and if no such policy exists, an explanation of why it does not exist ;
5. The name of an ACLU staff member in the national office with whom we can contact regarding open adoption records.
6. A copy of the national ACLU regulations, and/or patterns of administration, and/or guidelines, etc. for local and state chapters in regard to interpretation of policy or creation of policy on a case-by-case basiis.

 Not surprisingly, I didn't receive a reply, even the courtesy acknowledgement one would expect from one civil rights organization to another. I did learn from other sources that the ACLU, like many organizations, lets their individual state or local organizations make their own policy on many issues so ACLU-WA was flying around the Washington statehouse untethered.. In fact, two small ACLU chapters, one in Florida and the other in Michigan had, several years earlier passed resolutions supporting OBC access.  ACLU has since reorganized and  these chapters no longer exist so their resolutions, outside of historical curiosity,  are moot. to today's argument.

My  letter  to ACLU National  is archived on the Bastard Nation ACLU page along  with letters written by Washington State Open '98 and Helen Hill,chief petitioner for Oregon's Ballot Measure 58. Unfortunately some of the wilder correspondence wasn't..  I have it on disk, but my floppy disk reader has stopped working.  If I can get the disk read, I'll add other documents to the ACLU.page.

******

As I was writing this Monday night  I learned that the Washington Senate Judiciary, despite strong and loud  opposition from  individuals and adoptee rights and adoption reform organizations, both state and national,  earlier in the day passed the bill out of committee.  ( The language of the House and Senate bills are now being matched).  The bill, not only maintains the current Disclosure Veto language, but makes DVs permanent .instead of renewable every few years as currently practiced.. Last month, a witness from the Washington State Department of Health testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and later confirmed with BN's Lori Jeske via email, that since 1993 only four (4) Affidavits of Disclosure had been filed--and all of them last year, which makes no sense except in the context of an engineered attempt by special interests  to derail unrestricted access.  Clearly  Washington State relinquishing parents are not interested in hiding from their offspring, even if politicians want them to. Law by speculation. Protection by speculation.

This year's debacle has been brought to you by Washington State Representative Tina Orwall, an adoptee whose strings area being yanked by Senator.Ann Rivers, an out birthmother on a mission to keep other mothers in the closet that she somehow crawled out of.

Jane Edwards

  [Birth Mother]First Mother blogger Jane Edwards has had her boots on the ground in Washington and has posted two blogs on Orwall and Rivers. In both she fingers Rivers as the main culprit, but cuts  Benedict Bastard Orwall no slack in this sickening deal to pit Class Bastard against birthparents and create animosity where none exists except in the minds of politicians..

From Adoptee legislator supports birth-parent veto in Washington

So who's driving this birth-mother veto nonsense.  None other than a birth mother Sen. Ann Rivers, who blocked a birth-certificate access bill last year when she was in the state House. While she's out of the closet, she apparently feels compelled to encourage other mothers to lock themselves in. Sen. Rivers is setting up Washington-born adoptees for double rejection, once when their mother left them in the care of biological strangers, and once when she files a veto to deny her child access to his original birth certificate. What's behind all this madness? Only Sen. Rivers can answer this. And why is adoptee Orwall selling out, not only allowing but actively participating, in this effort to heap more abuse on a group already marginalized, and of which she is a member?

Tina Orwall

From: OBC-access bill with "birth mother" veto may become law published two days later (read the whole thing for context):

Rep. Orwall's reasons for accepting a compromised bill are just excuses. The truth, as she acknowledges in her last sentence, is that "it only takes one legislator to kill a bill." The bill killer is Sen. Ann Rivers, a birth mother, who came to the hearing to tell the Committee that she and Rep. Orwall had reached an agreement on the bill. WA-CARE was assured initially by one of the sponsors of SB 5118 that he had the votes to pass a clean bill. Then Sen. Ann Rivers intervened, and the sponsor agreed to an amendment which included a non-expiring birth mother veto. I called Sen. Rivers' office and asked if she would give me the reason for insisting on a birth-mother veto. She declined to comment.

Some observers are surprised at Orwall's quick acquiescence to Mistress  River's whip snapping,  but I'm not.. I never believed Orwall was as behind unrestircted as she appeared to be. Did she ever actually say she supported full access other than in theory? Just over a year ago I wrote about the peculiar  Orwall-Rivers alliance in  Are adoptees a runny infection?, which I urge you to read in full.  Here is a portion:

Ann Rivers

One would think that this statistic [no DVs] would be the keystone of  any records access argument in Washington.  Incredibly, I've  not seen it mentioned anywhere outside of  Wa-Care's obscure webpage.  Apparently Orwall,  either hasn't been informed of this statistic (which I doubt), or suffers from Stockholm Syndrome and has no grasp of  adoptee civil rights or the politics of adoption.  Paraphrasing Orwall, Alexis Krell  writing in the Seattle Times says that that the representative sought  the veto compromise  as a "balance between preserving privacy and allowing adoptees to gain important records and medical information."

Rep. Ann Rivers (R-LaCenter) a member of the House Judiciary Committee, outed herself as a teenage birthmother during last month's HB 2011 hearing. Tearfully making herself a spokesperson for women she doesn't know but she imagines cower in secret closets throughout the state, Rivers demanded more protection for them and their "privacy."  Alluding to the 2-year veto renewal,  she couldn't "imagine ripping the wound open every two years," as if adoptees are an unpleasant runny infection that needs covered up by an ugly scab in the Washington Revised Code.

Rivers and Orwall amending (2012)

Orwall  (who by this time was reportedly also crying, ) and Rivers put their heads together and came up with two amendments that created a two-tiered veto system binding adoptees (depending on their date of adoption) to 5 and 10 year vetoes.

I doubt if tears were shed this year by our two Cloud Cuckoos. Rivers and Orwall are just the latest iteration of the Klunder & Sheehan Show shilling their "balance" of rights " malarkey to people who don't 'want it.  Statist to the core, they confuse state-granted privilege and favors for rights.  and believe the government not the individual should determine personal  relationships and what legal documents or not, Class Bastard has a right to own.

Tomorrow I"ll post information on how you can help us kill this monstrosity and send class traitors Rivers and Orwall packing. 

Read Bastard Nation testimony in opposition to HB2515, March 21, 2013

WATCH Lori Jeske, BN ExeCommittee member  speak up for and testify against HB2515 before the Washington State Social Services and Corrections Committee, March 21, 2013

Read Bastard Nation testimony in opposition to SB5118, March 26, 2013

Addenda (April 3) :  The entire legislative procedure regarding these bills is the most confusing I've seen in years.  I have re-written the current status as I understand it.  Whatever is going on, the bill is currently in House Rules.