I spent the entire weekend with a throbbing jaw and head and had emergency dental surgery yesterday. So, I’ve been out of it. I still am. I’m writing a short note, though, to send you to others, who are covering CARE’s latest shenanigans and re-write of history. I should have something up tomorrow. CARE has written and distributed the biggest fantasy since Bill Pierce’s hallucinogenic Factbook 3. According to CARE, the adoptee rights movement: is a direct result of medical professionals and social workers recognizing that hiding an authentic identity from an adoptee for an entire lifetime is neither healthy nor necessary. This doesn’t even rank as good revisionist history. Please go to: BB ChurchBaby Love Childand CARE updatesitself to read their own words.
A few minutes ago I posted a long blog, We’ve screwed up your state, now we’re coming to screw up yours–California Adoption Reform Effort: if you don’t like compromise, go away. After it was up for a few minutes the entry seemed too long. I have gone back and divided it into two parts: (1`) The Letter) and (2) Comments. I am posting the letter first. I suggest you it first; then read the comments posted in the entry above this. ***** INTRODUCTIONFor the past few weeks we’ve been watching the formation of a new “adoption reform” organization in California: California Adoption Reform Effor (CARE). CARE consists of a few Californians, lead by adoptee author/filmmaker Jean Strauss who lives in Washington State and Stephanie Williams, a pricey lobbyist formerly with the Cal Trucking Association. It’s advisory committee is cattle car Who’s Who of mostly deformers, industry hacks, and out-of-staters. Bastard Nation has obtained a copy of an email sent by CARE “president Jean Strauss” to approximately 20 potential supporters. Theirvague but very real ideology of compromise is laidout, politically correct language ordered, “privacy” deified, compromise flogged, and experienced grassroots activists told to jump off the Santa Monica Pier. THE LETTER—– Continue Reading →
I thought readers might be interested to know why proponents California’s “safe surrender” law oppose the expansion of time in which a “desperate parent” can drop off a baby from 3 to 7 days (or beyond). It’s probably too much to hope for, but perhaps some of California’s foremost safe haven boosters see where this is going, and don’t want any part of it–like Nebraska’s new law which permits anyone to anonymously drop off a child of any age. Inquiring minds want to know where kitchen table “safe haven” organizations stand on the California and Ohio expansion bills, and certainly what the National Safe Haven Alliance and NCFA thinks about them–if anything. I’ve found no commentary from pushers on expansion. Below is a revised copy of “The California Lesson” which I attached to my May 13 opposition testimony before the Ohio Senate Health, Human Resources, and Aging Committee. (see Bastardette, May 16). which gives extensive quotes from The Opposition Party. THE CALIFORNIA LESSON California’s Safely Surrendered Baby Act is very similar to Ohio’s Deserted Infant Act. It includes a 72-hour limit on the age that babies can be abandoned legally. In 2006 and 2007, legislators in California attempted to expand Continue Reading →
…. when it comes to legalized baby abandonment and the California Legislature. On March 15, the California Senate Judiciary Committee met to vote on SB 116,the repeal of the sunset of SB 1368–the state’s Safe Haven law which permits any old anybody (not only parents) to anonymously “legally abandon” an infant 72-hours old or less at hospitals and police and fire stations with no questions asked. If passed, the repeal makes the law permanent. While researching the bill to write testimony Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization learned that the California Department of Social Services is mandated by SB 1368 and by California’s sunset law itself to prepare and present annual reports to the legislature on the use and effectiveness of the Safe Haven program in that state. The reports were mandated into the law specifically for legislative review when the sunset came up so that (gasp!) the legislature could make an informed and educated vote on whether or not to continue the program. As it turns out, CDSS couldn’t be bothered with such a difficult task. Although a report was issued for 2002, unlike many other CDSS reports dealing with adoption and child welfare, it is not available online. Continue Reading →