The fallout from SB63 is still dropping on Massachusetts—and AdoptionLand. Except for the shadowy “ABC Committee” no one is popping corks, at least in plain site of the thousands of adoptees whose rights ABC flushed down the sewer. No press release. No making whoopee on the ABC webpage. An informal survey of internet adoption forums made this weekend indicates that 100% of records rights activists would string up ABC— if they could be located. The committee fortuitously removed its membership list from the ABC page, leaving only the names of organizations that supposedly supported the bill, to take the heat.

One Benedict Bastard, however, was outted by Jason Millman in yesterday’s Boston Herald: Susan Hicks, described as an adoptee and head of the ABC Committee. Hicks, recalling her own experience of trying to get her original birth certificate, says “I thought it was insane, it’s such a humiliating process… Something needs to be done about this. It doesn’t even make sense in today’s society.” We can only assume that Ms Hicks believes that sealed records are humiliating and nonsensical for her, but not for anyone else. It would be interesting to know if she’s pre- or post cut-off date. Care to make a bet?

On the industrial front, the barely controlled glee of Nancy L. Scannell, director of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, was captured by the Springfield Republican “It’s a very meaningful right of access these folks now have,” she gushed. Too bad the Republican didn’t talk to “those folks” whose “meaningful right of access” is swimming with the fishes in BostonHarbor due to MSPCC duplicity.

If you have a minute pick up your nearest industrial-size adoption barf bag and go to the MPCC legislative alert page where they hype equalization (Last year’s compromised HB2690 pocket vetoed by Mitt Romney and this year’s HB 2190,virtually identical to HB 2690) while they fluff over “restrictions” (my emphasis):

BILL: An Act Further Regulating Access to Birth Certificates

Lead Sponsors: Representative John Lepper and Senator Frederick Berry

Docket Number: HB 2190

What it will do: This bill would allow people adopted in Massachusetts access to their original birth certificate (with certain restrictions). People who are adopted are the only people who are not allowed to access this document. Last session, thanks to your advocacy, the bill made it to the Governor’s desk, but was “pocket vetoed,” meaning that he did not act in time to turn the bill into law. Let’s finally give everyone in Massachusetts access to their original birth certificate!

Bonus points go to MPCC director Marylou Sudders, who 2 ½ years ago said “[h]aving a birth, certificate is a fundamental right. Think of all the things you need it for.” (South of Boston Patriot Ledger, Jan 17, 2005 . Apparently, those born in non-politically correct years don’t need the “things” those born on either side of them need.

Finally, let’s visit Sen. Susan Fargo, sponsor of the original clean SB959 that over the last 2 years morphed into a number of compromised bills (it’s confusing,I know!) and Rep. John Lepper, co-sponsor of SB63. According to the September 9 Boston Herald, Fargo is a co-sponsor of SB63, though her name is not on the web version of the bill. Sen. Fargo halleluiahs the curative effect of SB63: “Sometimes just having the piece of paper makes them feel like an equal citizen to other people.” Blacklistees, excepted.

In the August 31 Attleboro Sun-Chronicle and the September 9 Boston Herald: Rep. Lepper reveals his motivation for screwing a generation-and-a-half of adoptees: “Until we made this compromise, I don’t think this bill would have gone through. It was primarily because of the issue of privacy.” (Interesting how unconditional access for everybody was a “no-brainer 2 years ago until somebody decided that some adoptees are more equal than others!)

Pray tell, Rep. Lepper, where in any Massachusetts law is the “privacy” of birthparents guaranteed? To equate the sealing of a birth certificate to a guarantee of “privacy” or “confidentiality” or “anonymity” is wider than a leap over the Grand Canyon—or hasn’t anybody ever found a birthparent in Massachusetts without an obc?

Hint to the General Court and ABC: go back to school and work on reading comprehension.

And, in case anybody wonders, Musing of the Lame blogger and Massachusetts first mother FauxClaud gives the lie to “privacy” in her reflection on her Massachusetts “privacy rights” in a comment on Bastardette’s previous blog just below this one.

The National Council for adoption, of course, continues to spout its doom and gloom message that adoption as they know it in Massachusetts is as dead as the political future of its Adoption Hall of Famer (Class of ’03) Idaho Senator Larry Craig. Well, they didn’t really say that last part, but…


We are not through with Massachusetts and ABC, Keep checking back!


  1. Good Marley. Now for the rest of the ABC group. You can remove your name & hide under your rock but it won’t last. The rock will be overturned and you will have to crawl out to take your collective bow. All of the blacklisted adoptees are just waiting to thank you.

  2. Marley,

    I’m sorry you have elected to include the mspcc in your attack, especially when there are so many others in the adoption community who you do not name but who richly deserve the ire you so foolishly direct at mspcc. mspcc is the second oldest child advocacy group in the country. During the organization’s long and distinguished history they have provided some of the only principled and consistent leadership on a host of issues including accountability in adoption. I should not have to remind you that they were and are the only consistent voice of reason, not just in Massachusetts but around the country, about the safe haven movement. When everyone else in Massachusetts was falling into lockstep with the Morrisseys and others mspcc firmly opposed any expansion of the practice. There are plenty of people in Massachusetts who set the stage, opened the door and facilitated the compromise on the access bill. It is deeply troubling that you are not focused on them. Frankly, for once you don’t know whay you’re talking about.

  3. Anon–As I wrote you privately much more is coming. This current blog was a media update. The information in it is taken from the public record. I am well aware of the good work of MSPCC and I was sickened from the hypocritical remarks from them that appeared in the press crowing of this great victory. If MSPCC opposed the bill or had problems with it, then they should have asked that their name be taken off the supporters list and they should have publicly opposed the bill. Furthermore, they knew how to reach opponents of the bill who could have been apprised of the situation,. We know full well who was behind this mess and more will come on this. MSPCC by making positive statements about the bill to the press opened itself to criticism. Anger from the enactment of SB6 goes way beyond Bastard Nation.

  4. Indeed, ABC’s members must be quite proud of their achievement, as evidenced by the proportionate level of self-identity they show. Perhaps they really are in favor of anonymity, as they choose to remain such themselves.

  5. Anon- Great. It’s wonderful that mspcc opposes safe haven laws & I applaud them for that, but we are not talking about safe haven laws here. We are talking about a law that takes 34 years worth of adoptees and leaves them stranded in the sealed obc system while all other adoptees get a pass. This isn’t something that Marley made up out of thin air. This is public record that appeared in the Springfield Republic. Don’t blame bastardette for bringing a public endorsement to the forefront. There will be many more to follow so don’t think that she is merely picking on the mspcc. All who support this horrible law deserve to be outted without any passes given.

Leave a Reply

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