Yesterday morning, Bastardette received a long comment from the ubiquitous Anonymous taking her to task over AB 372 which “with a little more fine tuning, will give access to over 99% of adoptees.”

Doncha love hyperbole?

It is way too long to respond to as a comment, so I’m putting it up here as a separate entry. It’s like a big circle jerk. I have no idea why I’m doing this other than to show you what we’ve been dealing with over the last few weeks with the CARESTAS.

Anonymous’ comments are in bold, mine not. Anything that was quoted from the original post is noted as from me.

I had some trouble with cutting and pasting and fonts, but I think it’s OK now.


Why do you and all the negative people look at everything as “the glass is half empty”. Is that the way you live your life. It’s sad. This bill is very good and with a little more fine tuning, will give access to over 99% of adoptees. Why do you keep whining about current language when you full well know it will be tweaked ( its only on its 3rd round). Is it because you have a dark ulterior motive and are trying to manipulate others?

And just how would 99% of California adoptees get “access” through the current AB 372 or its “tweaked” version? “Tweaking” suggest minor tune-ups or OCD behaviors exhibited by meth heads. AB 372 is broken and irreparable. To posit a 99% “success” rate is intellectually dishonest and practically speaking, absurd and impossible. Such a remark makes you and your fellow regurgitators look stupid. Are you channeling the Morriseys?

A third round? In most states a third round is usually the end of the line. California must be special. Our dark and ulterior motive is to defeat an ugly anti-adoptee/anti-rights bill that builds a massive state bureaucratic gateway to control the free flow of information to adoptees and abbrogate the right of association. Our dark ulterior motive is to get the state out of our lives. But then we’re talking about the People’s Republic of California.

Records are whatever birth records that the Department of Social Services has on file. Records are lost for everyone. Adoptees are not unique in that way. The vast majority of birth records are on file either in your county of birth or in common DSS files or both.

CARE has repeatedly refused to say what records they are talking about. They have waffled on whether they only want the original birth certificate, the entire adoption file, or something else. Equal access activists want the obc—like everybody else has. We do not ask for special rights or rules—unlike apparently CARE and its special rights statist cronies. The adoption file contains confidential information regarding information on finances, mental health counseling and sexual encounters that the adoptee or anyone else should not be allowed to access without consent While those documents may be interesting to some, they are not legal documents like a state-issued birth certificates. In California the adoption file and obc, as I understand it are only released by the appropriate Probate Court. The Health Department, Vital Stats or DSS has nothing to do with release.

Oregon, Alabama and New Hampshire have all implemented some form of new Open Records legislation. They have been collecting statistics on:
1) how many records they have,
2) how many adoptee requests have been made for records,
3) how many birth parents responded to the notification
4) how many birth parents failed to respond, said giving records were ok and how many said NO

You can find the latest statistics here:

There have been just 15,191 adoptee requests which is 3.5% of the total number of adoptees in the 3 states. That is a large and statistically significant sample size. That means the data from these three states is a reasonable approximation of what can be expected in CA. If you don’t understand Statistics, there is not much I can do about that. Based on how the latest CA AB372 is written, only the actual responses during the 6 month period that said “NO” would be denied access. Only 101 out of 15,000 requests came back “NO”. That is about .66% which means that 100-.66 = 99.34% of the requests would have been allowed in CA under the current AB372 language and that is the intent.

In the states mentioned above, (you left out Maine), the state is NOT tracking down women to seek authorization to release the obc of their offspring. In those states the release of the obc is NOT contingent on first affirmative response from somebody whose parental rights were terminated 40 years ago. No lego needs parental consent to get bcs. In those states, sealing from the adoptee is not the default. The state does not demand consent for release. AB 372 demands that consent. If you don’t understand the difference between a CPF and a veto, then there is not much I can do about that.

(Quote from Bastardette): The egregious veto and government tracking of women says it all. Name changes, maternity homes, deaths, movement from listed homes, movement across state and county lines says it all. Permitting rape, incest, religious and “personal reasons” exemptions says it all.

Please turn your brain ON and Victim’s role OFF and say something meaningful! The government TRACKS everyone! Do you really think this will change how the government tracks people? It tracks men just as much as women? The credit card companies and 100’s of private companies track people too and the government has access to their records.. If you drive, the DMV tracks you. If you work the IRS and State, SS, Medicare etc. track you. If you die you are recorded. If you own property you are tracked. Do you really think they focus on women?

While an over-reaching government may indeed track “everyone” (that in itself is questionable, but we won’t go there for now.) The government doesn’t track down women or men to get their individual consent to release the vital records of their adult offspring to those offspring. The government, with few exceptions (parole specs, for instance, or TROs with just cause) does not monitor or control who associates with whom.

AB 372 specifically tracks down first parents, supposedly promised “confidentiality” or as the adoption industry likes to say ”anonymity” in adoption with a return receipt certified letter. Now, if I lived with somebody who got one of those letters, I’d be mighty curious as to why the government was looking for my wife, mother, daughter, or friend. And what about letters those go to the wrong addresses? I can just picture that lovely domestic scene. Asmb. Ma mentioned an idea the other day about notice by publication. Let’s see, we won’t give your kid your name without your consent, but we’ll publish your name in the paper for everybody to read.

Why is the State of California hiding under the skirts of mothers?

If you knew anything about politicians you would know language like “Rape, Incest etc.. are only there for political purposes. What difference does it make? You must have lots of problems to get hung up on VERY TYPICAL things or it’s a strategy by you to manipulate others. Which is it?

That simply is not true. If you knew anything about Tennessee’s semi-records access law, you’d know that. And where do “religious reasons” or the best–“personal reasons”– fall into that political theory of yours? Why should anyone be denied their own birth certificate because something unpleasant may have happened to somebody else?

The intent of the AB372 is NOT to kick out everyone where the parent is dead or can’t be found. Be real! It will be revised as it has 3 times and fine tuned to make sure that if the government makes a “best effort” to locate the birth parent during the 6 month period, the records will be released. Even the language now requires they use the “best available address” which could be argued means whatever the government has access to. If the government uses the “best” than far less than 1% of people can be found and of course they need a death clause. Complaining about a few wording problems when the bill is the best possible given privacy laws and AD908 obligations is insincere and you know it.

Why should the government be looking for anybody? It’s not the government’s business.

Instead of venting like a victim, why don’t you list any concerns about specifics in a way that is sensible so it can be seen as input to the fine tuning process. A bill goes through many adjustments and POSITIVE suggestions are good. If you didn’t have an ulterior motive (which I believe you do), you would offer constructive criticism and make suggestions as to plugging problem areas. Why are you so angry? How about being genuine and authentic and just saying what you really feel? Then turn off the emotional BS and use your brain to help adoptees rather than just doing damage.

“(1) shall be sent to the BEST available address for each birth parent who is listed on the original birth certificate.”

And what government in what universe are you talking about? California? US? China? T he average person moves something like 11 times in their adult life. I’ve had 13 different addresses since 1965. Just how will “the government” find these people? Do you think the State of California is going to take the time and taxpayer money to hunt down people for a family reunion when it’s firing and furloughing employees and cutting services to keep out of debtors prison? Is the State of California going to hire a battery of drones to spend their days going through Switchboard, Yahoo? Will they Google names. Or maybe the State will contract the work out to…oh, I don’t know, Troy Dunn? Catholic Charities? Confidential CI’s. Professional Searchers? Search Angels. Are they going to go through, order copies of the SS aps of suspected dead first parents? Death records of other states which aren’t even online? Or will they just go with the address in the “adoption file” like maternity homes and wage homes? Have you ever done an adoption search? Thought not! Ever paid for one? Thought not! Who is it that doesn’t know what they are talking about?

If they can’t, the records will be released because the birth parents privacy expectation and the AD908 contract obligation can’t carry over after a “best effort and reasonable” attempt to locate the parent has failed. Get with it!

Speak English please.

What is wrong with you? You are so angry. Get a life and stop playing victim!!! You sound ridiculous. You can’t even explain yourself. You are so angry and so deeply sunk into your victim role, you think others understand your twisted assumptions. How about explaining like an intelligent person trying to communicate.

Hey, I’m not the one who’s angry. You’re the one coming over here shaking your your spleen at a bunch of lowly dumb bastards. If you had a blog—and maybe you do—I’d not come over to your space and go into a hissy. The only thing to be angry about is bullshit deformers jumping into bed with the adoption industry. And being lectured by people who have no idea what side is up.

(Quote from Bastardette)AB 372 is a straight Mother May I bill on steroids rooted in reunion. And notice that the medical exception doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the veto decision of parents.

BRAIN ON – VICTIM ROLE OFF PLEASE! “Mother May” – Come on get off your victim’s soap box! The current law and doctrine put “medical necessity” above privacy. Duh!

And how many people have a medical necessity? And if so, there is no guarantee that a court will buy it. There are plenty of adoptees with life-threatening situations who are denied requests.

(Quote from Marley) This bill would take away the rights that some adoptees have now of getting their records through the courts,. How does this bill effect the 10 open counties Haven’t heard a word about that. Care to explain?

No it doesn’t. It does not modify existing law unless it is specific. The medical necessity clause doesn’t change what a judge can do.

Still not an answer. And since you’re anonymous your opinion doesn’t count much. You’ve said elsewhere you don’t even have a dog in this fight. Let’s hear it from lawyers and judges. How does AB 372 affect the 10 Open Counties?

Isn’t it funny how deformers call those of us who stand for equal rights and principle victims, while they’re claiming victim need? That’s how bullies attempt to disempower their enemies when they’re scared. Are you a Republican?

BTW, we’ve listed many positive suggestions, but the hacks in CARE don’t CARE. Cal Open for instance has talked to Anthony Pico and Asbm. Ma til’ the cows come home. AB 372 is all she and CARE can come up with? Why are the people who have actually gotten unrestricted access are passed into law the bad guys? Why are we the ones who don’t’ know what we’re talking about.

We’re not the ones running around adoptees are dyin’ and making movies about elderly, and dying adoptees. We’re not the ones who said that the legislature doesn’t want to hear about rights. They want to hear about needs.

“An abomination” – Get real!

Does your boss at at Rural Community Health know you’re sending anonymous posts to blogs on your company account?

ADDENDA: I KNEW I forgot something! I suppose the State of California will tack a hefty fee on each bastard who requests their “file” (whatever that may be) to save the taxpayers their hard earned money.


  1. The one thing that stands out to me is this claim of the government tracking us. I say this is ridiculous. Which each entity of the government tracks us in different ways, each entity also is only accountable to themselves and the real privacy laws come into play. Not made up implications of privacy that is suggested for parents who relinquished. The state can’t track effectively Megan’s Law violators, parole violators, tax addresses, freaking jury duty notifications, DMV records, etc… to say that it’s as simple as coordinating those resources is as simple as violating every privacy law.

    The bill says reasonable effort, but it also says that return receipt has to come back within six months for the OBC to be released. It’s not send this letter out and after six months release away. That receipt has to come back.

    What you would like is for the discussion to be on individual flaws with the bill that can be corrected, and don’t want to see that the fundamental flaw is that ONE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO ASK MOM AND DAD FOR THEIR OWN BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    Discussions past that one main point is just wank. I could argue about cost, privacy rights, contact troubles, statistics of who would get their OBC, whether or not the dead can receive return certified mail, etc… but such discussions might give you the idea that this bill is somehow sort of okay if only.

  2. It is amazing to me how terribly angry a person can come off while telling others to “stop being angry” and how victimized they can sound while telling others to “turn off the victim role.”

    Only a victim would settle for scraps rather than demand equality. Perhaps the suffragists and civil rights activists who brought us so much just “had their victim roles on.”

    AB 372 does not attempt to regain the rights of adopted citizens. Instead, it just rolls over and gives in to the point of receiving no complaints from the usual opposition. It’s about passing “a bill” rather than achieving equality for adopted persons in terms of OBC access.

  3. “Why do you and all the negative people look at everything as “the glass is half empty”. Is that the way you live your life. It’s sad.”

    Don’t be sad on my account. I’ve actually worked on campaigns that successfully achieved 100% OBC access in some of the states you’re pimping for your phony statistics. And yesterday I woke up a little sad about AB 372 to find my twitter account blowing up with the news that the Dems got a 59th vote in the Senate. I’m generally a happy guy these days…

    “That is a large and statistically significant sample size. That means the data from these three states is a reasonable approximation of what can be expected in CA.”

    Why? All of the states you’re citing allow 100% of their adult adoptees access to their OBCs upon request, and none of them notify first parents that an OBC has been requested nor do they actively solicit Contact Preference Forms. How exactly is this a corollary for AB 372?

    “If you don’t understand Statistics, there is not much I can do about that.”

    Back at ya. Statistical sloppiness such as yours can cut both ways. For instance out of a million CA adoptees only a trickle bother to utilize the state’s passive reunion registry, perhaps .01%. It could be argued statistically that there doesn’t appear to be a need to open records at all since so few people use the system in place…

    Put in another way, let’s say that you are right and that the number of potential adoptees whose birth certificates are mutilated by white-out is statistically insignificant, a few thousand out of a million. If that few thousand got pissed off, drove by your house and each left a flaming bag of dog doodie on your stoop, I’ll bet you wouldn’t find the mess insignificant at all.

    “The government TRACKS everyone! Do you really think this will change how the government tracks people?”

    Which government are you talking about? The US government? The California state government? The use of the databases you’re talking about are limited by law, and vague language about “best address” doesn’t cover it. AB 372 would have to be 500 pages long, and probably necessitate an act of Congress, to revise the statutes necessary to allow the state to give some DHS bureaucrat unlimited access to identifying databases. Dream on.

    “It will be revised as it has 3 times and fine tuned to make sure that if the government makes a “best effort” to locate the birth parent during the 6 month period, the records will be released.”

    How can we even discuss language that doesn’t exist? If wishes were horse, beggars would ride, but I’m not going to go out buy you a saddle based on wishes…

    “Complaining about a few wording problems when the bill is the best possible given privacy laws and AD908 obligations is insincere and you know it.”

    Why are the disclosure vetoes prospective in AB 372? For that matter, why are they retroactive? The state of California sold the names of the very women who filed disclosure vetoes, they are in the public domain and they have absolutely no expectation of privacy. If they want to file suit they should be doing it now, because the state fucked up. It can’t argue on the one hand that it must keep records sealed because of AD908 obligations while it was making a buck for decades selling the same information…

    “Instead of venting like a victim, why don’t you list any concerns about specifics in a way that is sensible so it can be seen as input to the fine tuning process. A bill goes through many adjustments and POSITIVE suggestions are good.”

    Sure, grow a spine. Stand up for adoptees like Asm Kerkorian stood up for Armenians. Start funding outreach so the million adoptees you keep talking about know what you’re up to, and then advocate for them instead of cutting deals behind their backs. Have a lobbying day with a thousand adult adoptees walking the halls. Think like a social change activist instead of pussy. Act like CalOpen did yesterday…

  4. Anon claims we do not understand statistics, then twists and tortures unrelated numbers (contact preferences filed in true open records states so far, and projected numbers of refusals of contact in CA under the CARE bill). Oranges and rotten apples. It is either dishonest or stupid to try and conflate the two and come out with the same result. Do CARE supporters really believe these twisted statistics?

    Since we are not psychic and can’t know how the CA bill will be “tweaked” in the future, we are left to deal with the current wording that says that no adoptee not given permission by her birthmother in 6 months to get her “records” will be allowed to have them. This includes those where the letter never reached the birthmother.

    We can’t go on what “might” be written in later, or what CARE would “prefer”. The law as written is indeed an abomination. If it changes later, we can react to that, but right now we are dealing with what we see, not what we are asked to believe by faith.

    In real open records states mentioned by anon as the source of her statistics, adoptees get their OBC whether mama wants contact or not. Even in contact veto states and access veto states, the onus is on the birthmother when contacted to express her preference. If she can’t be found or never replies, the adoptee gets her OBC by default. This is the opposite of what is now in the CA law.

    Joy, this may be “just politics” but it is very sleazy, dishonest politics at best. If you actually understand how this bill is going to give “99.5%” of CA adoptees their records, please explain, in terms we can all understand.

  5. As for the state tracking people…if they are SO able to track people, then why does the California State Controllers main webpage seem to be devoted mostly to unclaimed property?

    I would think that getting property/money back to people who it belongs to would be much more vital a use of any tracking system than trying to find a parent who relinquished all rights years ago.

  6. Anonymous, my atrophying little grey cell just refuses to wrap itself round your byzantine hoopla.
    Surely anyone who truly believes adoptees have an absolute and unequivocal right to their OBCs isn’t going be prepared to countenance the sort of concessions you and those who think like you are talking about – not at any stage of the bill’s life.
    If you expect people seriously committed to open records to accept that you *really* believe that “tweaking” something like, for instance, the absurd 6 month time limit is going to achieve them (no matter your projected numbers), it’s not going to work. You have to be blowing hot air out of your sorry anonymous derrière.

    Adopted adults in the UK, including my relinquished and subsequently adopted son, gained unrestricted access to their OBCs in the mid ’70s.
    My son didn’t need my permission to access his original birth certificate because the UK recognizes it for what it is — his. And his alone. Not the state’s property, not mine, not his aparent’s.

    I should add, just to reassure any Chicken Littles who may be flapping around in a tizzy, that when that happened, the sky didn’t fall and crush cowering beemommies. LIfe went on just fine. And a lot better for some people, adoptees in particular.

    Other places have restored to adoptees their abrogated rights. Entirely. Why not every state and province in America and Canada?
    And really, why equivocate so while working to get them?
    Apart from anything else, it just smells bad.

  7. I read through Anonymous’s entire circular rant. It was like watching a train wreck. Well maybe more like coming home brain dead after a long, long day and watching an inane sit-com that you’ve already seen before. It’s stupid and you know the plot by heart but you just can’t stop watching.

    It’s deja vu all over again!

    The only proposed legislation I’ve seen that tops this one for assaninity is Sara Feighenholz “confidential-intermediary employment security” act in IL.

  8. Alas, Anon accomplishes nothing but the display of his/her limitations. Sadly, it is a fine example of what passes for thought in the U.S. these days.

    In my first year of law school, some years ago I’m afraid, one of my professors was a former state legislator and judge (later elevated to the appellate courts). Jack had spent years leading his party’s efforts and knew very well how to turn a bill into law. Two principles I vividly recall are what he called the “Silver Platter” and the “Hairy Arm”.

    Both are simple concepts. You serve your proposal on a silver platter – fully formed, well conceived and properly executed, so that it does not require (much less permit) tinkering by the masses. The hairy arm is equally simple. Give opponents one big ugly piece of the bill that they can chop off and use to claim victory.

    CARE’s bill didn’t meet the first requirement and never even attempted the second, as far as I can see.

    Anon’s willingness to leave some at the gate (I won’t even bother to address his/her claim of 99%) is ludicrous. Rights either exist or they do not. I defy Anon (or anyone else) to identify one right recognized by any state in the union, the exercise of which is subject to another’s permission. Hell, I’ll even take an example of a single privilege which can be proscribed at the whim of another citizen. There aren’t any and for good reason.

    Jack would be amused to read that the best way to get what you want is to ask for less than everything at the very beginning. He’d be outraged by the proposition that any one of us should have the power to restrict another’s rights or privileges for any or no reason at all.

    I am simply appalled that someone who claims to be an advocate for the interests of any adoptee would be happy to sacrifice the rights and privioleges of even one for the sake of a questionable majority.

  9. “(1) shall be sent to the BEST available address for each birth parent who is listed on the original birth certificate.”

    The only way one could insure a good address is via Social Security records…since SS would have followed all name changes and a SS# remains constant (not that the SS# would be on most documents from the BSE and earlier). But a last name and birth date would not be that hard for SS to locate the current address of the natural mother. Any other avenue would be a hope and wish! Now would SS be willing to share this info with California or any other state that would ‘adopt’ this insipid legislation that CARE proposes?

    Any or all of our privacy rights are being violated by many entities on a daily basis…I think the days of ‘privacy’ are well over and no government or corporation is bothering about permissions…they simply do it, because they can. Big Brother is here, alive and well!

    But I do believe in turn-about is fair-play, if that is even possible in Adoption Land. The surrender/adoption records, held by any state entity, adoption agency, attorney’s office, maternity home archive, etc., should be made available to any mother upon request. But I am sure the aforementioned ‘people’ would scream PRIVACY!! PRIVACY from the peering eyes of surrendering mothers…who should know nothing of what was written about them and their families.

    I mention Social Security because of my latest dealings with them…am retiring. I am amazed at the amount of information at their disposal. They gave me info even I wasn’t aware of! It’s all in that SS NUMBER!

    I had to laugh thinking if this was Illinois and they sent a return receipt letter to the address I lived at when I surrendered almost 45 years ago….that address is now a ‘Subway'(sandwich) shop! LOL!

  10. “The Daily Basterdette”

    The Groupthink Minguard?

    You Decide!

    Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance

    Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:

    Consider how they apply?

    1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.

    2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.

    3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

    4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.

    5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.

    6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.

    7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.

    8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

  11. Look who showed up again from the Rural Health Community! Our anonymous lecturer who has no connection with adoption, but knows what’s best for bastards.

    I hate to give these jokers an audience, but I also hate to withhold from the world, the rhetoric of the CARE crowd, since they don’t seem fit to publish their comments on their own page. It’s a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.

    For a moment I thought it was talking about CARE. Group Miniguard indeed. Trust us We don’t have to tell you what we’re up to We have an elegant strategy just for you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *