NOTE: This is a corrected version of the blog I published last night. Christina is not a high school student (not sure why I thought she was! ) but a college student in Florida. My apologies go her).

College student Christina Cross-Parkhurst, is asking some interesting questions about the new Massachusetts “records access” law. See, deformers and their Beacon Hill hacks tossed an entire generation of the state’s adoptees, who made the mistake of being born at the wrong time, into a black hole, denying them access to the birth records, while letting those born at the politically correct times “permission” to own theirs. For a school project, she’s asking why.

The questions that she asks are some of the questions we’ve asked for months to no avail of legislators and the Benedict Bastards of the ABC Committee who took it upon themselves to decide who deserves identity rights and who doesn’t. (Daily Bastardette, Sept. 9, 2007 for bill signing).

I don’t know if Christina intends to take this outside the classroom. It would be fun, though, to send them to Sen. Karen Spilka who gutted the original clean bill; Susan Hicks and the ABC Committee who licked Spilka’s spike heel boots; and Dr. Joyce Pavao, a founder of the ABC Committee. The committee ducked for cover shortly after their abomination passed, and haven’t been seen since. Their names don’t even appear on their page. At the recent ASAIK conference at Pitt Dr. Pavao said during a small open mic session that she resigned from ABC when the committee voted to compromise. I did not have the opportunity to follow up on this. If this is true, we would like to see a public statement, prominently posted, from Dr. Pavao disavowing the law and the committee. As a founder of the group that sold the rights of all for favors to some, it would behoove her to set the record straight and explain what happened. Since the entire legislative process was held behind an iron curtain we won’t hold our breath.

Below is Christina’s request for help along with her initial questions as posted on the Open Records in New England Yahoo Group list. She has also posted a poll there, but I don’t think you can get to it unless you belong to the group. If you do belong, please take a minute to respond.

I am doing a project for school. I chose Adoptees having rights for my
topic. I myself, being an Adoptee have questions that if I had the
chance to ask. I will list the questions that I have thought of. It
would be great if you had any of your own and would like to add them.
Thank you

1. Why do you believe that adoptees do not have the same civil rights
as non-adoptees?

2. What do you intend to do for the people born after 1974, that would
like their original birth certificates.

3. I would just like to know the reasoning why most of you are only
concerned about the birth mothers rights? What about ours?

4. What is the purpose of sealed records; besides for the birth
mothers rights? I think that you would have to have more than just
that to keep us away from our records.

5. Have you ever been in the situation of feeling alone or incomplete
as a person? If not then how can you tell us it isn’t our right?

As of this writing, Christina needs 10 more questions. Here are some my questions for Christina to consider for submission. If you have questions you like answered about this Massachusetts Mess, please post them here.

The original bill, S959 was a clean unrestricted bill which restored the right of all Massachusetts adoptees to access their own birth certificates. During the initial hearing for that bill dozens of individuals and organizations testified in favor of it “as written.” Only the National Council of Adoption opposed. The bill was backed by Beacon Hill leadership and considered a “done-deal.” Why was the bill, which later became S63, corrupted and adoptee rights gutted?

Arguments regarding “implied promises” to birthparents were debunked by scholars, judges, birthparents, and activists years ago. Even those who oppose records access admit they are unable to present one document to prove otherwise, yet you chose to legitimate and codify those spurious “promises” and urban myths into law. Why?

If you were a blacklisted adoptee, denied access to your birth records because you were born at the wrong time, how would you feel?

Do adoptees ever grow up?

Do you believe that all persons born in Massachusetts have a right to their own true birth certificates, or only some? Why?

Are you aware that birth certificates are sealed only when an adoption is finalized in court? If a child is relinquished and never adopted, the birth certificate remains unsealed and accessible to anyone.

Are you aware that the names of birthparents often appear in legal ads in newspapers and in court documents given to adoptive parents?

Post your questions and comments here. Her deadline is soon.


  1. Here are some questions:

    1) Can you produce any concrete contracts or promises between the state and birth parents?

    2) If not, then how can you pass this new law without any supporting evidence of your claims of birth parent confidentiality?

    3) Why can’t you just give us our records and “age us out” at 18 or 21, the same way you do with foster children? Why should the state maintain control of adopted citizens who are over 21 years of age?

    4) What are you AFRAID will happen if all adopted adults could get their original birth certificates like they do in Oregon, Alabama, Kansas, Alaska, New Hampshire, and Maine?

  2. Did you know that natural parents don’t have access to these OBCs?

    Did you know that Oregon’s Right to Life supported adoptee access once they were assured that adoptee access would not affect abortions?

    Did you know that adoptee access laws actually promote adoption?

  3. One question that never seems to be answered is this:

    Since records were not sealed at the time of relinquishment but at the time of the adoption, how can open records have ANYTHING to do with birth parents rights?

    Didn’t birth parents sign away their ‘rights’?

    Why do fellow relinquished people who were not adopted, but grew up in the foster care system get their records and OBC upon reaching the age of majority, but I can’t get them at the age of 40?

  4. All of your questions are great. I think that you have covered the topic quite nicely. I used to always use the example of two twins. One gets adopted & one remains in foster care. The one in foster care always has her obc while the adopted one doesn’t. Kind of bizarre and it certainly explains that bmother rights are a myth.

    I would like to encourage the high school student to send her completed paper to her the MA state representatives and see what they have to say. Make sure that they understand that she is one of the group left behind in the void. If every adoptee from the black hole wrote to the reps, they might begin to understand the horror of what they have done.


  5. Well, speaking as one of the Black Hole Bastards myself, an Ohio Bastard, I guess the only questions that really matter is why on earth would ANYONE want to put other people through the ongoing sheer hell that is our lack of records access?

    And part two, the question that never seems to get asked is ultimately who benefits from such. We can all readily identify who bears the brunt of such legislation, but people rarely even begin to ask who the beneficiaries of such legislation are. Who gains by locking away the realities of our lives and what exactly is it that they have to hide? (By which I primarily refer to agencies, the State, and other institutions whose potential past misdeeds are safely burried by the black hole laws.)

    As a comment, not a question, I have long given the example of how when both I and a non-adopted Ohioan walk into vital statistics and pay the same amount for copies of our records we get two completely different things from the state; the non-adopted person gets an authentic record of their birth, I on the other hand get a State sanctioned lie, a deliberately and systematically falsified record.

    To quote the Disney character “Stitch” as Bastardette herself has done-

    “Ohana means family. Family means nobody gets left behind or forgotten.”

    I am one of the forgotten, the left behind, trapped behind the State constructed wall of lies. You may not hear our voices very often, but we exist, and our lives are evidence of the State’s ongoing fundamental unfair dishonesty.

  6. Baby Love Child wrote;
    “Who gains by locking away the realities of our lives and what exactly is it that they have to hide? (By which I primarily refer to agencies, the State, and other institutions whose potential past misdeeds are safely burried by the black hole laws.)”

    Bingo!! That is exactly who gains, the state, agencies, religious and other institutions covering up their own dirty laundry and past misdeeds. This has zero to do with protecting poor pitiful birthmothers in need of anonymity, and everything to do with covering their own culpable asses.

    The “Black hole” states are just incomprehensible, especially MA starting in 1974.I was living in MA late 74-77 and was involved in an Alma group there in 75 and the founding of CUB in 76. So in those years I can testify that there were ALREADY outspoken birthmothers in MA saying we were never promised and did not want anonymity. And no, they did NOT start promising anonymity to any surrendering mothers then either.

    It is all such a crock, such a smoke and mirrors trick to hide what they are really protecting and hiding.

  7. Another question might be

    Why do other people get to speak for natural mothers? We don’t ask for anonymity from our children. So, why do others get to say we do? When do we grow up enough to speak for ourselves?

  8. Where are all these poor mythical birth mothers who need protection? Why would a mother not want her own child to know her identity? Why are open adoptions so popular now if birth parents want anonymity?

    And yes, why listen to people who pretend to speak for birth parents? We can speak for ourselves, and most birth parents want open records. How can anyone believe that living with lies and secrets is healthy?

  9. From Kevan:

    The State controls adoption because it is a PRODUCT they help SELL. Foster homes COST the State money. So they have no need to protect that. At least not until some POS like DynCorp or other privatized prison provider figures out there’s money to be made in providing foster care. This is where the danger of privatization truly lies. Adoption is basically a private enterprise whereby a product (children) is provided with a very interesting warranty (closed records to protect your investment from the birth family.) The State we have protects the interests of corporations, private enterprise, and so forth. So, they will do as instructed by the CEOs of various larger adoption agencies.

    Foster homes are not businesses. Yet. Plus, those kids aren’t owned. So they do not need to seal the records. In a just system, adoption would exist to place unwanted children in loving homes. PERIOD. Not provide childless couples with kids (i.e. provide a service that requires recruiting the exploitable birth parents to give up their children.) Adoption is selling a product to childless couples and thus not ever in the interest of the adoptee under the current system. The adoptee is not considered here any more than a plow horse is asked what he thinks about pulling his burdensome wain.

    Further to that, were adoption in the interest of the adoptee, that adoptee would not be robbed of her/his identity and ancestry at birth. Pay attention to that phrase: At birth. The adoptee is robbed when said adoptee is wholly unable to defend her or his self. The adoptee cannot practice self-defense against the theft or have access to legal recourse because the adoptee is an infant or young toddler. Thus, the adoptee is the Perfect Victim. Unable to defend against the theft and without legal rights to restitution.

    Kevan Nichols

Leave a Reply

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