November NaBloPoMo is coming to the end, and boy am I glad! I had planned to write some dynamite posts this month, but the task of writing every day (it takes 8-12 hours for me to write one blog usually) just wore me out and my life, such as it is, was put on hold. At the moment my house is a pigsty and both ears are plugged shut with a sinus infection that’s out of control. I am sick of National Adoption Awareness Month and it’s MSM cotton candy puff pieces, fat cat celebrations, and deformers selling our rights up the creek. I don’t remember when I’ve been so sick of adoption as I am tonight.
So, I planned originally to write a short Goodbye NAAM blog, until Jean Strauss’s Absurd Dilemmas Caused by Secrets in Closed Adoptions showed up in Huffington Post this afternoon. (Please someone, tell me how does one become a HuffPo blogger!) Here’s my rush job.
Benedict Bastard Strauss, who rode into California on her white horse and skeeved out on her ass,( here and California Adoption Reform sidebar) frames her HuffPo essay around the fallacious claim that original birth certificate access is about getting medical histories for adoptees. She rattles on about “birthmother” privacy, too. Neither of which has anything to do with the civil and human right of every person to receive their government produced birth certificate without state or third person restriction. Strauss conflates sealed records with closed adoption. Taking a cue from Sara Feigenholtz, she cooks the books claiming that 10 states, not 6, acknowledge the right of its bastards to their own original birth certificates. The first paragraph alone should disqualify Strauss from the debate
How angry would you be if the government had personal information about you — but wouldn’t let you see it? Many adult adoptees can relate to this experience — forty states still withhold their original birth certificates from them. The secrets inherent in closed adoptions can create a lifetime of frustration and feelings of being second-class citizens — and can also create absurd dilemmas.
A contact veto provision in a records access law allows birth parents to file an affidavit with the government stating that they do not want to have any contact with their relinquished adult biological children. Violation of a contact veto may subject an adopted adult to criminal penalties.
*authorizes the State Registrar to replace the original birth certificate of those subjected to the contact veto/disclosure veto with a mutilated copy of the obc with all identifying information, including the address of the parent(s) at the time of birth (if they appear on the cert) deleted.
*requires “birthparents” who file a contact veto/disclosure veto to fill out the same intrusive and probably illegal medical and family history form.