A few days ago, the Parsippany Daily Record published a letter from Peter Franklin, a supporter of New Jersey’s hugely flawed “Adoptees Birthright bill”, ie, what passes for adoptee rights in the state. Mr. Franklin pointed out that while the American Civil Liberties Union protects the rights of “criminals and terrorists” (a practice Bastardette supports completely) it refuses to even entertain the thought that the Adopted Class has a right to its own original birth certificates. Mr. Franklin then turns the screw, observing that the NJ-ACLU board, which constantly yabbers about transparency in government, bars its great unwashed general membership from attending, much less speaking, at its meetings.
Sunday, Deborah Jacobs, the NJ-ACLU’s bastard phobic executive director, wh onever met an adoptee who shouldn’t be duct taped, responded to Mr. Franklin with a snooty letter in which she banged the ACLU’s drum loudly proclaiming its grand authority in rights, implying that bastards are just dumb non-nuancing clucks who should be grateful somebody took us in.
The ACLU’s experience negotiating tensions between competing rights has established the organization as an authority on the nuances of the law with respect to individual rights and freedoms.
Jacobs, who knows as much about adoption as she knows about medieval chansons de geste, and takes her cues from shivering deformers and the adoption industry, failed to mention what these “competing rights” might be when it comes to the government impounding and sealing adoptees’ original birth certificates.
Perhaps because there are none.
Under normal circumstances, competitive rights and their balancing is a problem only when there is a conflict of rights. Since there is a presumed right to own one’s birth certificate, and no “right” to anonymity from one’s own offspring, there is nothing to balance.
Continuing the downward spiral and channeling Glenn Beck, Jacobs twists Mr. Franklin’s words around claiming his letter is actually paean to ACLU fairness!
Jacobs’ letter is beginning to collect comments. Posters are limited to 1000 characters. Please take a couple minutes to post your thoughts on Jacobs AND the half-assed New Jersey bill. I may go back and post some more, but this is what I posted a few hours ago:
The ACLU has never supported the right of adult adoptees to their own original birth certificates. Instead, it supports the confiscation of our government documents and the state creation of new falsified identity records to pass off as genuine; an illegal activity that under any other circumstance would be considered a criminal act of the state. Over a decade ago the Washington State ACLU declared that no one over the age of 18 had any need of a birth certificate and that if legislation were introduced there to seal all bcs from the persons to which they pertain, it would support that legislation.
Deborah Jacobs, like the promoters of the current bogus NJ “records bill” frames her arguments in terms of therapeutic reunion and personal desire. The right to a bc, which the not adopted enjoy, has nothing to do with either. It’s about civil rights and equal treatment under law. If Jacobs’ bc was confiscated and sealed by the state, we’d hear her squawking all over Trenton.
Yes, I admit it. I’m evil. I’d love it if Deborah Jacobs learned tomorrow morning that she’s an LDA. And I’d love to see her stomp her pretty little foot over being just as insignificant to her colleagues in high places as we are to her now.
The ACLU’s do-as-I say-not-as-I do is nothing new.
In 1940, national ACLU, threw Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, its own co-founder, sitting board member, IWW labor hero and Joe Hill’s famous Rebel Girl under the bus, for having the temerity to practice her First Amendment rights and join the Communist Party USA. Years later, when she was sent to prison for her political beliefs, the ACLU sat on its hands and moneybags.
In 2006, under fire from board members critical of its massive failure to practice internally what it preaches externally on any number of issues, the ACLU board adopted a policy to gag dissident board members who privately or publicly complained.
Wendy Kaminer, along with Michael Meyers, was expelled from the ACLU board as a result. She has a written a revealing essay on ACLU hypocrisy, How the ACLU Lost Its Bearings, with a tasty menu of ACLU hypocrisy worthy of Dr. Laura. Kaminer a genuine civil libertarian, writes of the policy:
It included provisions that prohibited board members from criticizing the ACLU board or staff publicly and disparaged whistle-blowing (conduct the ACLU often applauds when it occurs in other institutions). Individual board members were admonished not to “call into question the integrity of the process in arriving at the board’s decision.” In other words, individual directors who had reason to believe that the board had acted unethically were said to have a fiduciary duty to conceal their concerns, not disclose them.
Also see Kaminer’s book, Worst Instincts: Cowaradice, Conformity and the ACLU for an expansion.
We are not surprised that Jacobs (and other adoption industry lobbyists) avoids the issue of rights by framing her objections in the same language as compliant New Jersey deformers, too afraid or tired to demand what they really want–obcs for all without restriction–settling instead for vetos, white-outs, medical histories, and blackmail. Deformers adopt (excuse me!) the language and claims the adoption lobby makes against them in the hope of “getting something” then act surprised when the industry refuses them even small favors and regurgitates their words back at them. It’s a weird circle jerk in which deformers and industrialists accept each others arguments as their own confusing all but the most critical observer.
With civil liberties eroding in the US daily, you’d think the ACLU would have something bigger to worry about than ungrateful adoptees.
My letter to the Morris County Daily Record (my local paper) about Jacobs and the ACLU.
Anyone else wanting to write, send ’em here:
[email protected]
To the Editor:
Deborah Jacobs of the ACLU claims that they are being “fair” to birthmothers by not supporting adopted adults’ unrestricted access to their own original birth certificates. I would like to ask Ms. Jacobs how many actual birth mothers she consulted about this? I am a mother who surrendered a child to adoption, now reunited, and I feel like the little old lady the boy scout insisted on helping across the street whether she wanted to cross or not. Ms. Jacobs, I don’t need your help!
I am liberal but will never give a dime to ACLU.
Birth mothers overwhelmingly support adoptee rights. I am a member of a national group, Concerned United Birthparents, that has supported adoptee rights for over 30 years. I was never promised anonymity, nor was any other mother; we were promised nothing and got nothing. ACLU, we do not want or need your protection! We are big girls now and can speak for ourselves, and the majority of us want justice for adopted adults, not condescending ACLU employees speaking for us.
Mary Anne Cohen
Greetings DB,
There are a number of inaccuracies in your post, but I particularly want your readers to know that the ACLU of New Jersey does indeed welcome its members at board meetings (of course). And, whether a guest is invited to participate in a board discussion is a decision made by the Board President who considers availability of time, relevance of topic, etc. in making that decision. In fact, Peter Franklin visited our board meeting and engaged several ACLU-NJ board members in dialogue on this issue, including some extended email exchanges. He did not, however, succeed in changing anyone’s mind, as far as I know.
Also, I don’t really understand the unkind personal comments in your post, and assumptions about what I know or think. While we obviously disagree on this issue, does that justify personal comments or insults? Your own policy speaks against spurious attacks, so what gives?
So you know, I have tremendous sympathy for adult adoptees searching for information and have consistently demonstrated respect for the adult adoptees working on the issue in Trenton. I don’t mind fierce opposition, but I don’t appreciate being personally demonized, and I also don’t think it does much for your cause.
Deborah Jacobs
Thanks for writing, Deborah. I’ll be away most of the day, but will respond later.
The ACLU has a long record of opposing bastards. I even discussed this once, though time was limited, with Nadine Stroessen. Outside of our short personal discussion when she spoke at Ohio State, the ACLU has refused to discuss the matter with us on any normal level. A few years ago I made several phone calls to National, which at that time at least, didn’t even have a real person answering their phone. Just a menu.
Actually,Deborah, I may just blog my reply to you, since as I’m writing this I’m seeing it’s way too long for comments. Whatever, I will reply.
Deborah,
Did you read my letter? I mentioned you personally because you were the person who wrote a letter to the Morris County Daily Record. I am not an adoptee; I am a birthmother. I really resent you or the ACLU speaking for me or other mothers, when you have no idea what we were promised or what we want.
Birthmothers give up ALL their rights around that child when they sign a surrender. Why should they have a right most of us never wanted “restored” when our surrendered children become adults. the right to veto their access to their own birth certificate? Would you like your mother to have this kind of perpetual legal power over you as an adult?
There is no surrender paper in existence that promises confidentiality to the mother from the adoptee. Several people have collected many of them from all over, and that promise just is not there. Some say the mother promises never to seek the child, but none say anything about the adult child seeking the mother. As to verbal promises, well, they are worth the paper they are not written on.
I do not know anything about who came to your meetings. Were any birthmothers there? Do you even know any birthmothers? Perhaps you should get to know us before you and your organization try to speak for us and pit us against our own children, the adoptees. It won’t work and it is NOT appreciated.
You don’t want to be demonized? Then stop being our personal demon writing the kind of letters you wrote defending the ACLU and its ignorant actions concerning adoptee rights.
Thanks Maryanne for the email address – I will write a letter.
I will be writing a blog regarding Deborah Jacobs. Among we “clucks” are men and women who have served our country but yet don’t have access to their OBC. How can that be justified? It is a civil right for an adult adoptee to have their OBC. It does belong to us. The majority of birth parents would want us to have our OBC’s. It is true there are a few birth parents who went on with their lives and don’t want a call from their offspring. But it should be up to them to ask that they not receive anothr call. Doesn’t our government have enough to do without meddling in the lives of adoptees and birth parents?
It should be OBC’s for all adopted adults with no strings attached. Anything less is violating a civil right. Other groups get their rights and it is past time for the adopted group to get theirs.
Great points MaryAnne.
Deborah, I am another mother who lost my son to adoption and was never, ever promised any kind of anonymity or confidentialty from my own son either verbally or on the surrender of parental rights document that I signed. And had you done your homework, you would know very well that no New Jersey surrender document purports to protect the privacy of the mothers. In fact, records were sealed to protect the adoptive parents who may or may not choose to be up front about the fact that their child is adopted.
The reality is that I was told in 1966 that my son
would be given my contact information should he request it, at age of majority.
I am also astounded that the ACLU continues to speak for mothers by insisting to our children that we need some kind of protection from them.
I consider myself a feminist and progressive and used to respect the ACLU. Sadly I have come to realize that the ACLU purposefully chooses to ignore the mother’s position that we have shared with your organization for years. Why continue to infantalize both us and our children by insisting you are somehow protecting us from our own flesh and blood?
Lastly, I am appalled at the condescending and uninformed position you have chosen to take in your letter to the Morris co Daily Record.
Hi There Maryanne,
I just read your letter. Thank you for your comments. I want you to know that I’m not trying to represent you or other birth mothers who want open adoptee access to OBC. I am trying to represent the interests of those birth mothers who want to retain the confidentiality provided by law for the last several decades. I also want you to know that in expressing the ACLU-NJ’s position, I try to demonstrate respect for all parties, and to the extent you found my letter condescending, please understand that it was not intentional and accept my apology.
I do of course know birth mothers, including within my own family. I have also discussed this issue with people from many perspectives and have sympathy for all sides.
I also have a stack of letters in my office, most sent anonymously, from birth mothers thanking me for the ACLU-NJ’s work on this issue, talking about their experiences with adoption, and explaining why they desperately wish to remain anonymous. They include rape and incest victims, among others. They express terror at the prospect of an unwelcome knock at the door that will force them to revisit painful personal traumas of the past.
Of course, these cases are the minority. I know that most birth mothers welcome contact.
But the ACLU-NJ is very much about protecting minority concerns and believes that those who don’t want contact, and have had the protection of confidentiality through the law for decades, should not have that protection removed without their consent.
I recognize that most readers of this blog regard access to the OBC a right, and that we should not have to compromise over our rights. I respect your stand.
Unfortunately, in my experience with rights, we do have to compromise sometimes, especially when there are competing rights, which I believe is the case here. I understand that you don’t agree, and I don’t imagine that we will resolve that difference.
I also wanted to mention that I have never made any statements about whether birth mothers were promised confidentiality or not. I don’t think it’s relevant to the debate, just like I don’t think that whether the original intent of the law was to protect birth parents or adoptees is relevant to the debate. The fact that the law has protected birth parents’ right to confidentiality for decades, and that it is the standard we’ve abided by, and that some have relied upon, makes it unjust to remove the protection without consent.
Please know, Maryanne, that I didn’t find your letter personally demonizing. I thought it reflected your passionate beliefs about the subject, and stuck to the topic of our disagreement; I have no problem with that. When I wrote about feeling demonized, it was in response to DB’s original post, which included several unkind personal jabs.
I know that this issue is deeply personal to all of you, and I understand the magnitude of the pain and frustration of this struggle. But it doesn’t help anyone if hostility deters civil discourse. I’m happy to engage people on conversation on this issue, as long as we have a respectful exchange.
Finally, I want to mention for clarity something that I believe DB posted in the comments section after my LTE online. She wrote:
“Actually, like most national organizations, the ACLU has no national policy on most issues. Decisions are left to individual affiliates.”
Just FYI, in fact, the National ACLU has hundreds of pages of policies, most of which the state affiliates follow. Although state offices can adopt their own policies, and even differ from the National ACLU, mostly we follow National’s policies.
With respect,
Deborah
Part 1 of 2….
Hi There Maryanne,
I just read your letter. Thank you for your comments. I want you to know that I’m not trying to represent you or other birth mothers who want open adoptee access to OBC. I am trying to represent the interests of those birth mothers who want to retain the confidentiality provided by law for the last several decades. I also want you to know that in expressing the ACLU-NJ’s position, I try to demonstrate respect for all parties, and to the extent you found my letter condescending, please understand that it was not intentional and accept my apology.
I do of course know birth mothers, including within my own family. I have also discussed this issue with people from many perspectives and have sympathy for all sides.
I also have a stack of letters in my office, most sent anonymously, from birth mothers thanking me for the ACLU-NJ’s work on this issue, talking about their experiences with adoption, and explaining why they desperately wish to remain anonymous. They include rape and incest victims, among others. They express terror at the prospect of an unwelcome knock at the door that will force them to revisit painful personal traumas of the past.
Of course, these cases are the minority. I know that most birth mothers welcome contact.
But the ACLU-NJ is very much about protecting minority concerns and believes that those who don’t want contact, and have had the protection of confidentiality through the law for decades, should not have that protection removed without their consent.
I recognize that most readers of this blog regard access to the OBC a right, and that we should not have to compromise over our rights. I respect your stand.
Unfortunately, in my experience with rights, we do have to compromise sometimes, especially when there are competing rights, which I believe is the case here. I understand that you don’t agree, and I don’t imagine that we will resolve that difference.
Continued (part 2 of 2)…
I also wanted to mention that I have never made any statements about whether birth mothers were promised confidentiality or not. I don’t think it’s relevant to the debate, just like I don’t think that whether the original intent of the law was to protect birth parents or adoptees is relevant to the debate. The fact that the law has protected birth parents’ right to confidentiality for decades, and that it is the standard we’ve abided by, and that some have relied upon, makes it unjust to remove the protection without consent.
Please know, Maryanne, that I didn’t find your letter personally demonizing. I thought it reflected your passionate beliefs about the subject, and stuck to the topic of our disagreement; I have no problem with that. When I wrote about feeling demonized, it was in response to DB’s original post, which included several unkind personal jabs.
I know that this issue is deeply personal to all of you, and I understand the magnitude of the pain and frustration of this struggle. But it doesn’t help anyone if hostility deters civil discourse. I’m happy to engage people on conversation on this issue, as long as we have a respectful exchange.
Finally, I want to mention for clarity something that I believe DB posted in the comments section after my LTE online. She wrote:
“Actually, like most national organizations, the ACLU has no national policy on most issues. Decisions are left to individual affiliates.”
Just FYI, in fact, the National ACLU has hundreds of pages of policies, most of which the state affiliates follow. Although state offices can adopt their own policies, and even differ from the National ACLU, mostly we follow National’s policies.
With respect,
Deborah
Deborah,
I do not need your sympathy, and I do not really care for your “respect”. I also do not need your “there, there, I know you are really passionate about this….” pat on the head.
I do not understand why it does not matter to you that birthmothers were never promised confidentiality. We are talking about law here, not fuzzy opinions or hearsay. Law is not about what someone assumes, it is about what is in writing. And birthmother confidentiality was never in writing. Plus many of us were told verbally the exact opposite, as CarolC has stated here, that our kids COULD find us when they were of age. Why isn’t that verbal promise and assumption honored as law?
I find it pathetic that you are taking the words of “Anonymous” in your stack of letters against the words of those of us who sign our names. None of those anonymous cowards were promises anything under law, just as the majority of us who support adoptee rights were not.
Save your understanding and sympathy for whoever wrote those letters….how do you know they even really come from birthmothers?
The rest of us will continue to stand up for adoptee rights, and we will win, like we did in Hew Hampshire, Oregon, Maine and other states. And ACLU can go back to supporting Nazis and other “worthy” minorities. Bastardette was too kind.
Mary Anne Cohen
NJ Birthmother
Deborah wrote:”The fact that the law has protected birth parents’ right to confidentiality for decades, and that it is the standard we’ve abided by, and that some have relied upon, makes it unjust to remove the protection without consent.”
If this is about consent, you may be interested to know that many surrendering mothers including myself did not know that the records were sealed from our kids when we surrendered. We never “consented” to your so-called “protection” in the first place. Nobody informed us of this aspect when taking the surrender. Some of us were warned never to search for our kids, but I do not know anyone who was told specifically that their child could never get their original birth certificate or find them, and some were told the exact opposite. Before the records were sealed from adoptees sometime in the 30s in NJ, the records were open. Laws change all the time. Maintaining any status quo just because some people expect it is not realistic or good legal practice. Times change, laws change, people have to go with the times. Open records for adopted adults is way overdue.
This is a very important legal issue, personal feelings aside. Why is the law protecting personal secrets and lies only in the realm of adoption? Divorce records can be much more personally embarrassing than adoption, yet they are open not only to those involved but to the public.
Someone involved in an unfortunate early marriage and divorce might wish to keep that secret from future partners, yet those records are open, and the state does not abet private shame and lies when it comes to divorce, bankruptcy, or other personal embarrassments.
Why should surrendering parents have state “protection” from their own children whether they want it or not, especially when a surrender terminates ALL parental rights?
From what you have said, I do not see that ACLU has a solid legal answer to any of that, and your lack of support of adoptee rights in favor of a small and anonymous minority who may or may not exist anywhere but in the minds of our agency , Religious Right, and reactionary adoptive parent opponents is disturbing and does not speak well of ACLU.
Wish I could give you a thumbs up, Maryanne! You have articulated the feelings of almost all mothers of adoption loss that I’ve met over the 25 years I’ve been involved with adoption issues. Law is (or should be) law and claiming to be protecting the rights of mothers who were never legally promised confidentiality, is a disgrace.
The ACLA and a small handful of other organizations such as the NCFA continue to ignore us. It’s as if Deborah and her ilk just stand there with their fingers in their ears.
Deborah’s naivete about the fact that most of the letters she receives from “anonymous” mothers is of great concern. You bring up a good point – it’s a well known fact that organizations such as the NCFA trot out 1 or 2 brainwashed mothers every time open access legislation is introduced in a given state, who claim their privacy rights are violated. Yet these women have never produced a document promising them any such thing. The NCFA and it’s supporters (adoptive parents and the ACLU) has for years utilized the tactic of sending “anonymous” letters to the media, the ACLU and anyone they think will defend their position.
Great information, Marley, and interesting to follow Maryanne and the comments here about the ACLU…what Deborah Jacobs does not seem to address is that anonymity was never a guaranteed when a child was relinquished; it occurs upon adoption.
Furthermore, how can you in good conscience not see that current law tramples the rights of every person whose record was sealed without their permission? And that any kind of restriction on them and the right to own their own identity is a gross violation of their rights? You basically are upholding a identity theft.
The other issue is: I am a first mother and I did not want to be anonymous forever from my child. However, without resources to find a private adoption, I did not have a choice, if she were to be adopted in the neighboring state of New York. I was not so much “promised” anonymity, as it was placed upon me like manacles.
How does the pleadings of a few “anonymous” women–how do you know they are not sent by adoptive parents?–stack up against all that? Against women who sign their real names?
For a different discussion on how the ACLU is on the wrong side of this issue, see
First Mother Forum
Deborah Jacob’s statement that a birthmother has the “right to confidentiality” has no legal basis. Nothing in the US constitution or the constitution of any state says birthmothers have the right to keep their children’s birth certificate sealed. The US constitution protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the right to reproductive decisions free of government control.
In giving adult adoptees their birth certificates, the government is not searching or seizing anyone or anything. Giving adult adoptees their birth certificates has nothing to do with reproduction unless Ms. Jacobs believes that mothers gave up their children only because mothers believed the birth certificates would be sealed. Ms. Jacobs, expressly states, however that what mothers believed or disbelieved is irrelevant.
If anybody is searching and seizing, it’s adoptees. If adoptees’ intrusions are unwanted, mothers can get restraining orders against them.
There is no precedent for the ACLU of NJ’s legal position. All courts which have considered whether mothers’ constitutional rights were violated when state laws were changed to allow adult adoptees to have their original birth certificates answered in the negative. The US Supreme Court refused to hear the cases.
I am puzzled why the ACLU of NJ spends time and money to fight adoptee access. In Oregon, the ACLU board voted to oppose Measure 58 but then kept its mouth shut. It did not participate in the lawsuit seeking to strike down the Measure.
I am also troubled by the ACLU of NJ’s deference to women who express fear that their children would contact them. The ACLU of NJ is reinforcing an anti-women culture that giving birth out of wedlock is so shameful that the government must abet women in keeping it secret. The ACLU of NJ’s position is a major retreat from the national ACLU’s advocacy over the past half century for women’s rights. The ACLU of NJ seems bent on reinstating a patriarcal system which allows men to control women’s reproduction by tacitly saying that women need husbands to make their child-bearing proper.
Deborah Jacob’s statement that a birthmother has the “right to confidentiality” has no legal basis. Nothing in the US constitution or the constitution of any state says birthmothers have the right to keep their children’s birth certificates sealed. The US constitution protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the right to reproductive decisions free of government control.
In giving adult adoptees their birth certificates, the government is not searching or seizing anyone or anything. Giving adult adoptees their birth certificates has nothing to do with reproduction unless Ms. Jacobs believes that mothers gave up their children only because mothers believed the birth certificates would be sealed. Ms. Jacobs, expressly states, however that what mothers believed or disbelieved is irrelevant.
If anybody is searching and seizing, it’s adoptees. If adoptees’ intrusions are unwanted, mothers can get restraining orders against them.
There is no precedent for the ACLU of NJ’s legal position. All courts which have considered whether mothers’ constitutional rights were violated when state laws were changed to allow adult adoptees to have their original birth certificates answered in the negative. The US Supreme Court refused to hear the cases.
I am puzzled why the ACLU of NJ spends time and money to fight adoptee access. In Oregon, the ACLU board voted to oppose Measure 58 but then kept its mouth shut. It did not participate in the lawsuit seeking to strike down the Measure.
I am troubled by Ms. Jacobs’ reference to women who express fear that their children might contact them. By deferring to them, The ACLU of NJ is reinforcing the belief that women’s reproduction belongs to men so that giving birth out of wedlock is so shameful that the government must abet women in keeping it secret.
Deborah said: “I also have a stack of letters in my office, most sent anonymously, from birth mothers thanking me for the ACLU-NJ’s work on this issue, talking about their experiences with adoption, and explaining why they desperately wish to remain anonymous.””
You want to represent anonymous birthmother people with their terrified birthmother anonymous letters to you?? How then would you know who these anonymous people really are? They could be shills for the NCFA, Adoption Agencies, adoptive parents, anti-abortionists, people who work for churches/religious organizations, and the occasional nit-wit who knows jack-doody about adoption. Since when are anonymous people with their anonymous letters provided more rights than real live people, who use their real names, addresses and phone numbers? Sorry, Deborah..if this is your excuse to tow the adoption party-line…withn all due respect, it is a piss-poor one.
I am a real live woman who surrendered her newborn for adoption almost 46 years ago. I don’t need to be anonymous, I am not a terrified *birth mother*, nor do I seek your organization’s protection or that of NOW and most certainly not of NCFA. How about ACLU defend the rights of natural mother’s who were not afforded their civil and human rights when our babies were taken en masse during the Baby Scoop Era? I have contacted ACLU in the past about these violations of civil and human rights of young unmarried mothers..your ACLU people didn’t even care to give that subject the time of day. Yet you have the audacity to proclaim to protect ‘anonymous’, invisible people? This is insane!
And this..”interests of those birth mothers who want to retain the confidentiality provided by law for the last several decades.”
Please cite the specific law that you are alluding to. I have never seen such a law anywhere. And does this supposed law also cover supposed anonymous, invisible women who write letters without revealing their name, without even having to prove of their own real live existence, or that they actually surrendered a child for adoption? Sorry Deborah…these excuses are not holding water with this non-terrified, very visible natural mother.
From Erik Smith: According to Jacobs, adoptees comprise of two different classes: wanted and unwanted door knockers. She concedes that a certain percentage of adoptees greatly wish to know their birthparents’ identities. Accordingly, she says that sometimes we must compromise when there are competing rights, as “is the case here.”
Okay, let’s compromise. I propose that adoptees who, by a certain age, feel no need or urge to know their birthparents’ identities can have their records sealed. But adoptees who feel that knowing their birthparents’ identities is essential to their happiness (or whatever) can access their records fully. Naturally, there will be give-and-take under this system, as some traumatized birthparents will get their wish of sealed records, and some traumatized birthparents will not get that wish. But that’s what compromise is about, isn’t it, each making concessions in the face of competing rights? If the ACLU feels it can leave no one behind, remember, sometimes one must take baby steps on the way to a goal.
As for you, BN, you have been way too hard line–you should have compromised long ago.
This is a true and authentic copy of the anonymous letter I wrote anonymously to Deborah Jacobs of the ACLU-NJ, thanking her for her organization’s work on behalf of all of us anonymous birthmothers cowering in the shadows of our ignominious pasts.
Dear Deborah Jacobs,
Thank you for your amazing efforts to keep us Anonymous Birthparents anonymous. Jolly good show. Please keep it up, and do not let anyone know that some of us are not even Real Mommies of any description. We are really, really grateful that you are there to defend us against the barbarian hoards of uppity adoptees who are deluded enough to think their right to know their past outweighs our desire to keep our secrets secret.
Yours anonymously,
Anonymous, President of the National Council for Anonymity
Dearest Anon,
I am so relieved that finally we anons have an anonymous group to support our phantom fears! But there does arise the problem of maintaining anonymity at our National Council for Anonymity “Retreat Into Shame” meetings. God forbid we know who each other really are!!
I have the answer….Head Bags! First we have the popular brown paper bag with eye holes cut out, decorated with the same crayons with which we write our letters to ACLU. Ready in a flash to be whipped on anywhere that someone might recognize you, and disposable after you slink away.
For something more durable and fashion-minded, we have our stylish cloth head bags. There is the traditional Scarlet Letter in red, the Lady Gaga with sequins, in a variety of flashy colors, the Mormon Pioneer in gingham with Temple garment symbols, the Baby Doll Pretty in Pink, for those who were very young sluts, the white Klan look for our southern gals, and the sinister black S&M Sister for the kinky or hard-core Catholic conservative. For the truly demented we have the padded bag to go with your padded cell, (cozy in winter)or the Eraser Head, pink rubber with metal collar, suitable for wear with a pencil-yellow outfit.For the deeply paranoid anonymous coward, there is the “Full Metal Jacket” Crusader helmet, to ward off the blows of those barbarian hordes of adoptees should your anonymity fail. All are suitable to wear at Shame-Filled NCA meetings, or at legislative hearings. Don’t leave home without one, or someone might KNOW!
Get yours today! Only 19.95, and if you respond to this special offer NOW, we will include free of charge a spiked scourge suitable for beating yourself in penance for your horrible sin, and lovely faux gold name tag with your name, “Anonymous” engraved here. Send your money today to “Anonymous” at PO Box ANON, and your head bag will come to your door in a plain brown wrapper, anonymously of course!
Anonymommies LTD
A Subsidiary of NCFA
Deborah,
Please add my name to the list of real, (see picture and my blog) unashamed natural mothers who are becoming increasingly tired of organizations speaking for us and citing anonymous sources as their impetus.
Just as I have not asked the NCFA or the EBDI to speak for me, neither have I, a lifelong Liberal, ever wanted to be protected by the ACLU. This assumption that these letters you have received are genuine is as questionable as the assumption of our fragility as natural mothers without the ability to protect ourselves as we see fit.
If you really want to do something for the natural mother, then make the identity of her appropriated for adoption child available to her. That’s equal protection under the law. Our adult children, adoptees from the closed, secret adoption era, have had their civil rights abridged. We mothers, when we were young, pregnant and being controlled by the system, had our HUMAN rights abridged.
To me, the ACLU standing in front of a few, supposed, frightened, closet natural mothers while ignoring the vocal, brave and assertive natural mothers is ridiculous. We are all of an age that we can decide, for ourselves, what information to share and with whom. And we have long since learned how to say “no” if we need to.
Produce the proof of those natural mothers and their “large” numbers. If we can’t see them, then we can’t believe them. Quit using us as an excuse to protect an industry and those that said industry serves. We can speak for ourselves.
Robin Kinney Westbrook
Dearest Anon,
I am so relieved that finally we anons have an anonymous group to support our phantom fears! But there does arise the problem of maintaining anonymity at our National Council for Anonymity “Retreat Into Shame” meetings. God forbid we know who each other really are!!
I have the answer….Head Bags! First we have the popular brown paper bag with eye holes cut out, decorated with the same crayons with which we write our letters to ACLU. Ready in a flash to be whipped on anywhere that someone might recognize you, and disposable after you slink away.
For something more durable and fashion-minded, we have our stylish cloth head bags. There is the traditional Scarlet Letter in red, the Lady Gaga with sequins, in a variety of flashy colors, the Mormon Pioneer in gingham with Temple garment symbols, the Baby Doll Pretty in Pink, for those who were very young sluts, the white Klan look for our southern gals, and the sinister black S&M Sister for the kinky or hard-core Catholic conservative. For the truly demented we have the padded bag to go with your padded cell, (cozy in winter)or the Eraser Head, pink rubber with metal collar, suitable for wear with a pencil-yellow outfit.For the deeply paranoid anonymous coward, there is the “Full Metal Jacket” Crusader helmet, to ward off the blows of those barbarian hordes of adoptees should your anonymity fail. All are suitable to wear at Shame-Filled NCA meetings, or at legislative hearings. Don’t leave home without one, or someone might KNOW!
Get yours today! Only 19.95, and if you respond to this special offer NOW, we will include free of charge a spiked scourge suitable for beating yourself in penance for your horrible sin, and lovely faux gold name tag with your name, “Anonymous” engraved here. Send your money today to “Anonymous” at PO Box ANON, and your head bag will come to your door in a plain brown wrapper, anonymously of course!
Anonymommies LTD
A Subsidiary of NCFA
_______________________________________________
Dear Anonymous,
Thank you for your interest.
We at the National Council for Anonymity are very serious about the issue of anonymity and consequently most anxious to help sleeping bitches lie, something they do well, even if only by
omission.
Consequently we are always open to suggestions that will help to strengthen the noble state of anonymity.
I anticipate a long and rewarding partnership with you and your company. As a famous proponent of business ethics once said, “The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
Your idea is an excellent one, although I think that extending the head bag to full burqa might make it an even better proposition.
I shall discuss your product with the committee and respond anon.
Once more with feeling,
Yours anonymously,
Anonymous, President and CEO of the National Council for Anonymity and Archbishop of
the Archdiocese of BecauseIsaidso.
I apologize for getting some of these comments up late. I released them through my email notification when they arrived, but Blogger didn’t feel like communicating with the email which I didn’t realize until this morning. Everything is posted now.
Dear Anonymous,
I am sure we can do business together, especially since a reliable source informs us “there is a sucker born every minute”. Of course the mothers of those suckers choose to remain anonymous, and we are here to help them do that, along with ACLU.
The full burqa idea is excellent, and will lead to so many more modest fashion choices for the anonymom who wants to hide in style. Covering the evil female body is always prudent, even for older women, because who knows what saintly men might still be tempted by the sight of a brazen fallen woman uncovered! The mind reels!! The stomach turns!!
I know that we at Anonymommies LTD and the National Council for Anonymity are totally on the same page when it comes to coverups.
My staunch Catholic heart is warmed to hear that you are also anonymously an Archbishop. Perhaps we could also interest you in our other line of liturgically correct Hide the Altar Boy Coverups as well.
Anonymously Yours,
Queen Anonymous the XV
CEO and Grand Inquistor of Anonymommies LTD
A subsidiary of NCFA
Robin Kinney Westbrook said “We can speak for ourselves.”
The fact that you speak for yourself has not passed unnoticed.
Anonymous, President and CEO of the National Council for Anonymity and Archbishop of the Archdiocese of BecauseIsaidso.
Dear Your Royal Highness Queen Anonymous the XV,
While we are saddened to see that you have been reduced to trade in order to maintain your magnificent lifestyle, we understand and sympathize with the need to supplement your miserable income, and you will be happy to know that through helping you we see a way to helping ourselves. Such are the rewards of enlightened self-interest.
We are most interested in your extensive range of products, including plain or embroidered mu-mus, hair shirts and all large bag-like and enveloping religious vestments, wether of sackcloth and ashes, polyester or any other suitable fabric.
The Archdiocese could very well do with a few Hide the Altar Boy coverups, preferably of the Snuggy persuasion.
While you’re about it, perhaps you could throw in a Cloud of Unknowing or two gratis. What the eye does not see, the mind does not know, and what the mind does not know might as well not exist.
At least for the laity and general population.
By working together I think we can not only preserve the anonymity of anonymous birthparents into perpetuity, but also put the doxy back in
orthodoxy.
Which would be almost as good as putting the fun back in dysfunctional.
NCFA is our name.
Obfuscation is our game.
We’re the Church of St. Anon.
Avaunt, Identity, begone!
I’m the Archbish, I’m the boss.
For truth I do not give a toss.
The ACLU sides with me,
And sticks it to Identity
Yours anonymously,
Anonymous, President and CEO of the National Council for Anonymity and Archbishop of the Archdiocese of BecauseIsaidso
Dear Archbishop Anonymous,
I see that you fully understand my plight as royalty in exile and we can do profitable business together.After all, the Church has always favored monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings and Queens (no, not THAT kind of Queen, heaven forbid!! No rights for THEM Almost as bad as the uppity women, they are!).
We do carry a full line of gorgeous liturgical and penitential garb (Bennie the Rat is one of our biggest customers) and we are happy that you know that we are bringing back The Cloud of Unknowing, one of our medieval best-sellers sorely needed today to cloud minds and obscure unpleasant memory. In fact it now comes in a cute “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” monkey dispenser. Press the money’s tail and the Cloud does the rest!
There is an added service for our fine quality garments of which you may not be aware, laundry service.This is especially helpful for getting those pesky, er, stains out of the Snuggly altar boy coverups, if you know what we mean:-) We have partnered with The Inquistion in resurrecting that noble institution, the Magdalen Laundries. to teach wayward Irish sluts a lesson, keep up a supply of crispy new infants for sale, and to get your garments sparkly clean as a soul just come from confession.
For a small shipping and handling fee, we can make these lovely Irish babies available for shipment to your country to be sold at your own distribution centers. We both win, and make some bucks, as well as save souls of course.
Looking forward to hearing more from you, and kissing your Holy ass (or ring, as you prefer) in the hopes of future mutual profits.
Yours in Jeebus’s Name,(anonymously)
Queen Anonymous the XV
CEO and Grand Inquistor of Anonymommies LTD
A subsidiary of NCFA