You are hereby directed to CEASE AND DESIST ALL DEFAMATION OF BASTARD NATION’S CHARACTER AND REPUTATION. Bastard Nation is a respected, national adoptee rights organization with a documented history of successfully advocating for the rights of adoptees. They have spent almost two decades serving the adoptee community and building a positive reputation. Continue Reading →
Bastard Nation is a respected, national adoptee rights organization with a documented history of successfully advocating for the rights of adoptees. They have spent almost two decades serving the adoptee community and building a positive reputation. Bastard Nation has learned that you have engaged in spreading false, destructive, and defamatory rumors about them, including false allegations that they are a “front for adoption agencies seeking to keep records closed to adoptees”, and insinuations that they are funded by agencies or individuals who support the continuation of sealed records.
It is unlawful to engage in defamation of another’s character and reputation. Defamation consists of
(1) a statement that tends to injure reputation;
(2) communicated to another; and
(3) that the speaker knew or should have known was false.
Your defamatory statements involve repeated posts on Facebook and other social media, Facebook messages, emails, and conversations with others.
Accordingly, demand is hereby made that you (A) immediately cease and desist your unlawful defamation of Bastard Nation and (B) provide prompt written assurance within ten (10) days that you will cease and desist from further defamation of Bastard Nation’s character and reputation.
If you refuse or fail to comply with this cease and desist demand, Bastard Nation will have an actionable right to and will seek monetary damages and equitable relief as a consequence of any such further defamation.
Be advised that Bastard Nation has authorized this communication to you and that they intend to pursue all available legal remedies, including a judgment against each individual involved in any way for monetary damages, injunctive relief, and court costs and attorney’s fees.
Continue Reading →
The easy way out of this quandary would have been to amend the language of Sections B and C from “authorize” to “prefer.” This would have guaranteed the meaning of equal protection and equal treatment under law and maintain the integrity of adoptee civil rights.
Unfortunately, no such amendment was accepted. Instead, an amendment was added to the bill that places a limitation on the time frame (July 1, 2016) that a natural parent may change her or his mind mind or file a Contact Preference Form and a Medical History Form. After that date, it is in the discretion of the Registrar. Of further concern, for adoptions after July 1, 2016, it is an adoption agency, not the Registrar, that issues and collects the forms. No language in the bill provides the date for compliance and there is no oversight or penalty to an agency that fails to adhere to the law. I can think of no other state that has a CPF on the books that puts that kind of power into the hands of either the registrar or adoption agencies. Continue Reading →
HB 984 (Rep. Deshotel/Sen. Creighton) having cleared the Senate State Affairs Committee (6-0), comes now to Second Read on the Texas Senate Floor. While the bill language is clean regarding adoptee access to their own original birth certificate, the accompanying Contact Preference Form is in reality a Contact Veto.
Section 2 and Section 3 of the bill would provide a birthparent a new affirmative right to “authorize” or “not authorize” contact, by their adult adoptee. The language of “prefer”, as utilized in Oregon, Alabama, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island, was lobbied OUT of this bill. By replacing this single word, the legislation undermines an adoptee’s right to due process and the equal protection of the law. Section 4 of the bill places limitation on the time frame (07.01.16) that a birthparent may change their mind or file a Contact Preference Form and a Medical History Form. After that date, it is in the discretion of the Registrar. Of further concern, for adoptions after 07.01.16, it is an adoption agency, not the Registrar, that issues and collects the forms. No language in the bill provides date for compliance and there is no oversight or penalty to an agency that fails to adhere to the law. Continue Reading →
This is not a language nit-pick. Language matters, and there is a world of difference legally between the words “prefer” and “authorize.” These sections take the traditional language of the CPF and turns it on its head exchanging the word “prefer” for “authorize;” thus, creating a “Contact Veto” (without that specific term in the bill) that will act as a restraining order against an adopted adult with no opportunity for that adult to appear in court and stand against the accuser. No reason needs given, and no court adjudicates the request. We believe that a Contact Veto by that or any other name is unconstitutional and actionable.
Continue Reading →
Section 2 and Section 3 of the bill would provide a birthparent a new affirmative right to “authorize” or “not authorize” contact, by their adult adoptee. The language of “prefer”, as utilized in Oregon, Alabama, New Hampshire, and Maine, was lobbied OUT of this bill. By replacing this single word, it changes the intent of adoptee autonomy. Continue Reading →
Our Adoption Do-Rights are known by various names: deformers, Scooby-Dooers, Do-Bees ,asskissers, and the American Adoption Congress and its hangers-on.The goal of these pristine patsys is to be liked by downtown fat cat tax eaters, adoption industry hacks, and therapists who do their damnedest to suck the life out of Class Bastard dispensing persona bromidal solutions to political and class rot.
As Burroughs so perfectly put it: Continue Reading →
My central gripe about the bill is that it would create a “foundling birth certificate” to serve as an original birth certificate for all newborns “relinquished” at a state-authorized safe haven ” drop off point. The certificate, to protect parental anonymity, will contain no identifying information about the relinquishing parent even if that information is known to hospital, fire, police, or social service authorities. Continue Reading →
On the surface, the bill used the State Registry as an intermediary while allowing the biological parent(s) to add an additional disclosure veto on all information found in the Registry and on pre-adoptive sibling contact information. The disclosure vetoes would remain effective even after the biological parents were deceased. As if the mutual consent aspect of the Registry requiring both the biological parent(s) and the adoptee to be registered before information may be released isn’t a big enough access hurdle? Repeatedly, SB 352 names the disclosure vetoes as a “non-release of contact information form”. A Contact Preference Form, along with its exact wording, is not in the bill. Yet, the terms and their names were interchanged by those presenting the bill to individuals, media, and legislators. Continue Reading →
The White House this weekend announced–or at least implied–that the president is indeed a unicorn…Of course, as president of the United States, Barack Obama is socially above farting happy-dappy adoption platitudes. H can fire them at will from his fingertips. Continue Reading →