Bastardette, as do all righteous bastards, opposes New Jersey’s S1087. That’s not a secret. Yet there is something about the Dimwit pols, wonks, and ambulance chasers who all oppose this bill–for the wrong reasons–that really conniptions her. I mean, if you’re gonna oppose the bill, do it on the grounds that it screws adopees, not because it doesn’t screw them enough. These Dimwits, no doubt suffering from over- exposure to Natural Enemy, believe with all their hearts and souls that adoptees are professional intruders, home wreckers, deviants, and ax killers with the sensitivity of Saddam Hussein and the manners of a competitive eater at a rib burnoff.
A survey of Dimwit comments from Dimwit anti-adoptee thugs regarding the New Jersey proposal suggests that they have warmer feelings towards the aforementioned Mr. Hussein than they do with the grown-up versions of those cuddly little bundles they’ve channeled into the local adoption mill. It is obvious that the adoption mythos pounds firmly in their pure white Chrisian hearts and …they don’t know what they are talking about. But since when has the industry let bastards and their natural parents speak with their own voice?
Still there is something comforting about knowing that we are hated by them. Can anybody say with a straight face that it is bad to be hated by NJ Right to Life’s Marie Tasy who has her fingers in everybody’s crotch? If it’s not birth certificates she protecting from marauding bastardy it’s baybees she rescuing from dumpsters, fetuses she’s feeling up in CPICs, marriages she’s defending from queers, embryos she’s saving from the ice crusher, and the American way of life she’s shielding from the Untied Nations.
Here’s the list. (Some of the bill numbers referenced in the comments are the former numbers of the current bill):
Dimwit #1: Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director, New Jersey ALCU:
(1) These are competing rights. The fairest way is for a mutual consent registry.
Randolph Reporter, December 22, 2004
(2) A lot of or rights in this country are things very few people take advantage of. We’re talking about people who made a critical decision based on the undersanding it was private.
NorthJersey.com, January 30, 2005
(3) The law said that their names would be kept confidential. To release that information retroactively and jeopardize the privacy of all those women is a violation of due process and privacy.
Asbury Park Press, May 22, 2005
Dimwit #2: Marie Tasy, Director, Legislative Affairs Director,New Jersey Right to Life
(1) But we are not in favor of a bill that retroactively opens adoption records and prospectively does not allow a woman in a crisis pregnancy the option of confidentiality.
KYW-AM, Philadelphia, December 3, 2004. (link no longer available)
(2) This unfairly tips the balance against a woman’s right to chose privacy in adoptions We believe the decision on whether to have an open or closed adoption rests with the birth mother, without whom adoption would not be possible. It should not be made by the state.
Burlington County Times, December 7, 2004
(3) If you take away the right of privacy, the only option wil be abortion….We support mutual consent and voluntary registration. They (proponents of the bill) want completely unfettered access to information regardless of the birth mother’s wishes.
Randolph Reporter, December 22, 2004.
(4) So, clearly, the intent of the law is to find birth parents. If the birth parent doesn’t wish to be found, I’m sorry, but I don’t think the state of New Jersey should allow that information.
NorthJersey.com, January 30, 2005
(5) You’re not hearing from the birth mothers that don’t want to be found…The fear is real. For women for whom privacy is paramount, they will have no choice but to have an abortion.
Asbury Park Press, May 22, 2005
Dimwit #3: Marlene Lao-Collins, New Jersey Catholic Conference*
(1) [A mutual consent registry is] “ much more compassionate and less coercive than this legislation.
NorthJersey.com, January 30, 2005
(2) [A mutual consent registry] protects the dignity of both parties.
Asbury Park Press, May 22, 2005
(3) To change the rules of the game so far down the road is fundamentally unfair.
East Brunswick Home News Tribune, October 16, 2006
Dimwit #4: Lee Allen, National Council for Adoption
(1) When we’re talking about this, everybody seems to identify with the rights of the adopted person, but what is also important is to remember that the person who made the adoption decision also has rights. For many valid reasons, birth mothers in particular chose to remain confidential…If she wishes to maintain her confidentiality, then legislation like this whittles down her choice to one. She can confidentially and privately choose abortion…Birth mothers that we speak to and represent–many of them have made their decisions based on trust. How can a bureaucracy in the State House wipe away the trust they’ve depended on?
NorthJersey.com, January 30, 2005
(2) The legislation has the potential to limit a young lady’s choices down to one. It’s not a stretch to think that would happen.
Asbury Park Press, May 22, 2005
(3) Birth mothers past, present, and future must maintain control over their confidential information.
KYW-TV, Philadelphia, October 16, 2006
Dimwit #5: Newark Star Ledger, newspaper
Adoptees say they have a right to their birth certificates, but those rights must be weighed against the rights of mothers, and in some cases fathers, who believed their decision to give up a child for adoption would remain confidential To come back decades later and retroactively strip them of that conditionality is unconscionable.
unsigned editorial, December 10, 2004
Dimwit #6: Senator Robert Martin, (R-Morris)
(1)Young unmarried women relied on the word of priests or a counselor of some type that gave them absolute assurance they would have anonymity…I don’t know how we can in good consequence change that now.
Newark Star Ledger, December 5, 2006
(2) That assurance [sealed records] was made based on the law, and now we’re going to change the law. I don’t see how in good conscience we can do that.
Morris County Daily Record, December 5, 2006
Dimwit #7: Thomas Snyder, attorney; secretary to the Family Law Executive Committee of the New Jersey Bar Association:
(1)There needs to be more consideration and protection of birth parents
Newark Star-Register, December 5, 2006
(2) Applying this law retroactively is like trying to recreate history. We should just decide what the rules are now and move forward, not go back and change the rules after the fact.
Asbury Park Press, December 5, 2006
(3) Some people may have remarried and never disclosed to their spouse or children this private personal decision they had in their life.
KYW-TV, Phildelphia, October 16, 2006
Dimwit #8: Rep. Anthony R. Bucco, (R-Booton):
What about the husband or children of the woman who put up the child for adoption? What if someone came knocking on their door and asked for their mother. It could really turn a family upside-down.
Asbury Park Press, December 5, 2006
Dimwit #9: The Big Tent: Alliance in Defense of Privacy in Adoption, ie, Tom Atwood (NCFA), Rev. Bruce Davidson (Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministry), Deborah Jacobs (NJ-ACLU), Marlene Lao-Collins (NJ Catholic Conference), Marie Tasy (NJ Right To Life):
Indeed, birth parents who consider placing children for adoption if S1093/S620 becomes law would no longer even have the option of confidentiality that is often at the crux of the adoption decision, virtually eliminating the option for a private adoption in New Jersey…While we sympathize with adopted people wanting to contact their birth parents, their interests must not negate the potentially oppositional interests of birth parents…We urge you to recognize the critical important of birth parents’ privacy and the threat to adoption posed by it’s violation.
Statement of the Alliance in Defense of Privacy in Adoption, no date.
The sick part about all this is that many of those leggies who support the deform bill carry the same fear of bastards as do the Dimwits. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have stuck a white-out provision in the bill , under the assumption that natural parents, especially natural moms, are cowardly, weak, voiceless victims of their own children who need to hide under the skirts of NCFA, Marie Tasy, and the state, to get through the day.
And it is even sicker that they have convinced themselves that their beloved institution of adoption is so fragile that it will collapse under the weight of truth. How ironic that according to their scenario, adoptees must be stopped lest the destroy adoption.
* For a good laugh see Access to Birth Records for Adult Adoptees, Myth v Fact
and
testimony of Marlene Lao-Collins, Oppose S670 and S1098 which would open adoption records, June 7, 2004
Closeted birth parents,it seems,are an endangered species: not by their offspring, but by their own life spans. As their numbers decline, it would be logical to assume that the ratio of those allegedly given the promise of an eternally secret life to those denied equal access to their original birth records declines as well.
Even those who advance the “promised confidentiality” argument should some day be capable of applying the law of diminishing returns and recognize that the assumed relative good must inevitably be outweighted by the undeniably bad.
That day should be today.
Thanks, Bastardette, for exposing the Dimwits of NJ. They are indeed adoptee haters! I bet they say their prayers each night thanking the Lord that they don’t live in Kansas, Alaska, Oregon, Alabama or New Jersey. After all, viscious adoptees run amok in those states, tracking down poor, defenseless birth mothers and ruining lives wherever they land.
The Ditmwits are building a fort around New Jersey to keep it safe from wicked adoptees who would dare try to gain entrance.
Then again, every on of these comments have already been disproved by those states who have open records.
Even the confidentiality doesn’t seem right since we already had contact while in the womb. Desides, there are already laws on the books to keep one citizen from interfering with the life of another citizen, completely outside of the adoption issue. Why add the extra layer with lies and assumptions?
Did we ever get a count about how many of these people may be birth parents (and afraid the “stigma” may hurt their political careers) or adoptive parents?
Access to Birth Records for Adult Adoptees, Myth v Fact:
Written by the
The New Jersey “Catholic” Conference, tells me that this page is all myths, with no facts.
Fact is who has gained or who stands to gain from keeping these records sealed, adopters and baby sellers, no myth there.
when I was forced to surrender my child in 1968, I was told by the social worker that the records were confidential and I was never to know his name and he would never know mine.the records had been sealed in 1935(California) and were closed to adopted people and their natural parents.
This was cruel and unusual punishment, for the act of bringing a child into the world. I already “knew my child”..and he “knew me”.. we were as close as two people can be, already part of each other’s “privacy” and part of each others lives.
I knew him before anyone else did.
How can a mother and child relationship be such a threat?To whom?(we know the answers to that)
So, if the adult child finds the mother and she doesn’t want to know him or her in adulthood she can always say no.If she hasn’t told her husband or other children..well, now is the time.
As of yet, no one has explained how it is “terrible” for these mothers and children to know each other.
There is something terrible about a country that views mothers and children as enemies, even as the child is in the mothers womb.
“Indeed, birth parents who consider placing children for adoption if S1093/S620 becomes law would no longer even have the option of confidentiality that is often at the crux of the adoption decision,….”
What happened to “in the child’s best interest”, isn’t that supposed to be the adoption industry’s crux of the adoption decision?
kitta3 – This is such crap. I was never told about sealed records until eighteen years after the fact, and then I asked Catholic Charities who sealed the records, they wouldn’t answer me.
Because birth and sex are something to be ashamed of a mother should be ashamed of her out of wedlock pregnancy and condemn her and her child…
Barstards are illegitimate because a marriage certificate at the time of conception is what determines humanity…
Continous access to birth control (and for the pro-choice to abortion during early pregnancy) from menarch to menopause, accurate sex ed, assistance to young and single mothers, honoring mothers, birth, and children regaurdless of the legal relationship with the mother’s sexual partner are obvious.
Honesty usually works. In the county where I live for an extra $10 a couple can get a confindential marriage certificate, which is only available to the couple. Why can’t a birth certificate be made which is sealed from the general public but available to the biological mother, the adoptee, or the adoptee’s gaurdians until the age of 18 with the condition they do not publish it?
anonymous, I am not sure if I would have been told at the agency about the records if I had not asked…but I already knew about sealed records since I knew a number of adopted people and they had told me, and I came from a family of lawyers..and they told me also.
I didn’t want to be hidden from my child.My plan was to find him and I did that that as soon as he was an adult.
I do know other mothers who were told about the sealed records and in some cases it was presented to them as a threat, as in'”You will never find this child because the records are sealed.” It wasn’t a “promise.”
Even though my son and I are reunited we still cannot get the birth certificate without a court order….insanity. I was able to get some of my records from the agency, the papers I signed and some other things.
.
Anonymous, I beleive that before the records were sealed in CA in 1935, the birth certificates were available to the adoptive parents, child, and biological parents.They were only sealed form the public.
From what Janine Baer has said in her book “Growing in the Dark” it sounds like the records were sealed in CA to protect the adoption industry of criminal social “worker” Georgia Tann and her judge friend Camille Kelly.
Then the idea spread around the rest of the country.
Sealed records are covering up more than people’s identities.And Catholic Charities does not want them opened, that is for sure.