SB 307: Incurious insanity trumps facts. Ohio Right to Life's quick and cheap adoption bill passes House

Length was getting out of hand so I've divided this entry into two parts. This is Part 1:  

Wednesday, January 29, the Ohio House passed Sub HB 307, the make-adoption-cheap-and-fast bill brought by Ohio Right to Life. I was unable to attend the floor vote or the final hearing due to my work schedule, and have no idea why 307 is a substitute since there were only minor changes from the original. I wrote at length about the bill, Ohio Right to Life's Infant Adoption Reform Bill: Threatens Birthparent Rights; Doles Out Tax Credits in the  December 5, 2013 issue of the Columbus Free Press Weekly. By way of review, the bill:

• decreases the time an adoption after finalization can be challenged  in Ohio from one year to 60 days;
• increases the state tax credit to adopters from $1500 to $10,000  that can be spread over a  5-year period ;
• creates a mechanism for adoption agencies and lawyers to make direct  "birthparent living expense" payments  (rent, mortgage, utilities, medical)  to service providers rather than the current practice of distributing funds collected by paps to "birthparents" to make their own payments;
• authorizes potential Ohio adoptive parents who have passed a home study to advertise for newborns in the state.  Currently only out-of-state paps can advertise here.

and the most controversial change,  the creation of a two-tiered Putative Father Registry:

• post-birth--decreasing  the timeframe  from 30 days to 7 days after the birth of a baby in which a man can file with the already established Ohio Putative Registry  (PFR) to guarantee his right to notice if an adoption is filed
• pre-birth--authorizing adoption agencies and lawyers, but only with the  written consent of the mother, to inform putative father(s) that an adoption is pending, advising him to file with the PRF if he wants notice. In this case, the putative father has 30 days after receiving the letter to file with the PFR.

Although most of the changes were discussed at the hearing, I am focusing here on the testimony and discussion on putative father treatment. PDF's of testimony are linked at the end of this blog.  I am, however, quoting generously from them below. My emphasis is in bold.  

Proponents speak 
HB 307 proponents Nancy Burley, executive director of Adoption Circle and Indiana adoption lawyer bottom feeder, Steve Kirsch, according to their submitted  testimony, waxed orgasmic at the January 15 hearing over how these changes, especially the PFR alterations, "expand the rights of birthparents."  by creating an "incentive" for women  to "inform the putative father(s), early in the process "

 Burley, after using up the entire first page of her testimony crowing her qualifications to be heard,  threw potential putatives under the train, arguing that men already have more than enough time to register since under Ohio law, sexual intercourse with a woman "puts a man on notice" of potential fatherhood. HB 307 "is only making a 23 day change in the current law."

 While Burley merely trivialized the change, Steve Kirsh told the committee that Ohio putative fathers should just shut up and be grateful. they aren't in Indiana: '

Frankly...Ohio is setting the bar fairly low for a a putative father to protect his rights.   Under Indiana law, he has to actually file a paternity action and ask the court to make him legally and financially responsible for the child for the next twenty-one years in  order to preserve his parental rights.  Under House Bill 307, all he needs to do is register with the Ohio Putative Father Registry. In essence, what HB 307 is asking of him to take a tiny step to express a desire to be involved in the adoption process without any legal, financial or emotional commitment.

 Funny thing. Registration in the Putative Father Registry in both states is simply a mechanism by which a man can secure his right to  notice if an adoption of a child he believes he's fathered is filed. Registration does not challenge or stop an adoption. To do that, a man must  file in the PFR   and show in Probate Court that he did not abandon the mother or fail to support the child. (and prove, if challenged that he is the biological father.) To become the legal father, he must file a paternity action in Juvenile Court.  Kirsh failed to note that a man cannot realistically file a paternity action without knowing that a pregnancy has occurred.

Kirsh, Burley, Buchy, and ORTL can't have it both ways. If a man must register without knowing about a pregnancy, then he cannot be required to file a paternity action--a actual law suit-- without knowing about the pregnancy . A  potential child must be known of to sue in court.

 The "birthmother" remains the information gatekeeper.  If she doesn't want the man to know, there's a good chance he won't. And if he does know and files a pre-birth claim under HB 307, the filing puts the woman on notice that the father might seek to stop the adoption, consequently incentivizing her be secretly and consensually be shuffled off to Utah where she can dump her newborn into the L-d-S adoption maw.

Opponents Speak
 A couple of sane heads prevailed at the hearing, though in the end were unsuccessful in stopping this cluster fuck.

Denise St.Clair, director of the Capital University Law School National Center for Adoption Law and Policy supported pre-birth notification, but did not agree with the shortened post-birth timeframe. She pointed out that under current law putative fathers already can file with the PFR anytime before the birth of the child and  up to 30 days after. She explained to the  the committee what PFR registration  in Ohio does and does not do.

 The right (parental rights) is not absolute; the putative father's consent is not required if the court finds that he has not the father of the minor. or that he has willfully abandoned or failed to care for and support the minor ,or that the putative father has willfully abandoned the mother of the minor during her pregnancy and up to the time of her surrender of the minor or the minor's placement in the home of the petitioner. With these limitations and safeguards in place the reduction of time during which a putative father may register appears to be unnecessary and could place a nearly insurmountable barrier to putative fathers who want to and are suitable to parent a child.

 Seeming to take aim at Ohio Right to Life's refusal to accept input from adoption reformers, those directly affected by adoption, and even Quad A (Nancy Burley aside) she testified,:

 We can conceive of no benefit for adoptive children through such a change.  The vast majority of stakeholders with whom we have discussed this issue do not support this process change.  In fact, Section (not listed) does not eliminate the potential that other men who do not receive notice may claim paternity or putative father status to the child and register as provided for notice is not received.  If the goal is to decrease the chance that a potential father may appear late in the game, we are not sure that this provision will have that effect.  Putative or legal fathers who are not so identified will still have the opportunity to take measures to protect their rights--as they should.

The Ohio Judicial Conference agreed, Speaking  for the conference's Probate Law and Procedure Committee, Kenneth J Spicer, Delaware County Probate/Juvenile Court Judge argued that  HB 307 threatened constitutional challenges in two areas: putative father classifications and the decrease in challenge time. Spicer argued that different treatment of similarly situated putative fathers could have "dangerous implications in certain very probable situations" that could give rise to equal protection action. He urged the committee to restore the 30-day registration timeframe for all to avoid legal complications.

Spicer then waved a very large red flag, Citing Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(B) which governs the timing for a motion for relief from a final judgement which specifies that a motion must be made within a reasonable time, including one year for specified circumstances. He argued HB 307 could cause confusion between attorneys and courts, and could create a constitutional challenge from a father affected adversely by

create{s} a conflict between the Rules and the {Ohio Revised} Code.  This provision of the bill attempts to modify court procedure... an area that the Ohio Constitution grants to Supreme Court which would be a more proper venue for this kind of change.

In other words,  under Ohio's separation of powers doctrine, the General Assembly has no authority to change court rules which are controlled, under the Ohio constitution, by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Kayla Smith, ORTL lobbyist, sidestepped when questioned about the constitutionally of the 2-tired system. She argued other states already have a  seven day registration-timeframe that has passed judicial scrutiny, but ignored the fact that  those states do not have a two-tiered system--the very constitutional problem Judge Spicer and Denise Sr Clair warned against.. But, hey! ORTL is AOK with the tiers because Ohio Legislative Service, the entity that vets bills, said it was constitutional. If LS were always correct, of course, then no law could ever be challenged successfully.

 Passage in House

Despite the factual testimony of Denise St Clair and Judge Spicer, HB 307 passed out of committee with only John Patrick Carney (D-Columbus--and a friend to bastards) opposing.  When the bill went to the House floor, Carney attempted to add an amendment that would remove all  the bill's changes to the current PRF law .  He was defeated   57-34. .  The final bill passed   77-14.

Although HB 307 has been moved to the Senate for consideration, no hearings are scheduled.  Sen. Shannon Jones (R-Springboro) the original sponsor of HB 307 who either dumped it or was dumped by ORTL after she  raised issues with it, has introduced an alternative bill , SB 250. I haven't read it, yet, but understand it's a milder version of ORTL's monstrosity,  It stresses foster care adoption which ORTL  has studiously ignored throughout HB 307's promotion.  SH 250 may have a better chance of passing.

I'll write about it later. Part 2 will deal with what I see as Ohio Right to Life's agenda and strategy to position itself as an adoption player in the state. I'll also talk some more about  how sponsor Jim Buchy and ORTL has "handled" complaints (even from supporters) that HB 307 does little or nothing  to actually increase adoption of newborns

Links to Testimony

Adoption Circle HB307 Testimony-NBurley001
SKirsh HB307 Testimony001 (1)
ORTL HB307 Testimony-KSmith001
NCALP HB307 Testimony001 OH 
Jud Conf HB307 Testimony-KSpicer001

Join me on Twitter #DBastardette!

     

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!