Protecting WHAT!!

During the past week or so there has been a LOT of talk online about the pending legislation in MO, that has passed in both houses and is awaiting amendments to go on to the next step, RI that seems to have passed a good, clean bill without much ado and finally, NJ, where the bill passed in both houses, but sat for 45 days on Gov. Chris Christie's desk before he issued a "conditional veto", and as always his "reason" was to blame the mothers "anonymity guarantee". 

"The decision of any biological parent to seek adoptive parents for a child is an enormously complicated choice, and the protections of anonymity can be a significant consideration when choosing adoption," Christie said in a statement."

Curiously, there has NOT been a slowdown or even a blip in the number of reunions that are happening today.  Just this past weekend, on Facebook, I got no less than 3 separate stories about adoptees reuniting with their natural families.  In fact, it almost seems that reunion is on the upswing.

For the past 20 or so years, almost all adoptions that have taken place have been open.   Even the adoptions that close or are closed from the outset and not like the closed adoptions of the past.  The mothers have a name, the adopters have a name and there is some measure of contact before and during the adoption process and after.  Today's adoptions are almost the antithesis of the secretive, shame-based and covert affairs of the EMS/BSE. 

During the Closed Adoption era, prior to the passage of Roe v. Wade, the mothers went away from home, had their babies, the social workers whisked the babies away immediately or very soon after birth and the mothers had little or no interaction with their own children, and none that wasn't closely monitored.  Today's relinquishing mothers choose their children's adopters, interact with them during the pregnancy and even meet and have them present during the labor and delivery.   There is almost NONE of the terrible not knowing upon which the EMS/BSE was predicated, and yet, the records remain sealed, the birth certificates are changed, and some adoptive parents are STILL not telling their adopted child that they are adopted, preferring lies and fantasy to the truth.

All of the above makes Governor Christies' comments about the mother's anonymity rather specious.  It is FACT that over 90% of the women who surrendered children to adoption wish to know the outcomes for their child.  It is FACT that anonymity from our children was not something we sought, but rather had forced upon us.   It is FACT that many mothers were assured that when their children came of age, they would be permitted to get the necessary information to locate their mothers and that the laws changed AFTER their surrenders, so that according to the laws of the time of their surrender, they could seasonably expect their children to find them.  I was told that my son would be able to get that information and made sure over the years to keep my file updated and the Consent to Contact up to date. 

As I considered some of the comments I read on the Conditional Veto, one comment in particular connected with me.  Someone stated that despite not having a name there are thousands and thousands of reunions every year. Since adult access to identifying information in the form of  the original birth certificate is what is being ruled upon, this statement underscored an interesting (to me) discrepancy.  Despite the specious government assertion, supported by adoption "experts" and activists for increasing adoption, and contrary to the assertions of the mothers and adoptees who have loudly denied and proven that there is not nor ever was, any promise, written or implied, of perpetual anonymity, one has to wonder what anonymity they are so desperately attempting to protect.

The records and the original birth certificates were sealed at the behest of the adopters.  They were sealed for various reasons, not the least of which was out of fear that THE NATURAL MOTHERS WOULD COME FOR THEIR BABIES.  I have heard numerous tales from adopted adults whose evening routine included being tucked in bed at night, not with visions of sugarplums, but with whispered allusions to the big bad boogie Mommy creeping in at night to steal the child away!

That said, and as insane as it is, I suddenly realized that I don't believe for a second that the records remain sealed to protect the adopters of the adopted adults today any more than I believe they remain sealed to protect the natural mothers Nor have I ever believed that the records are sealed to protect the now grown up babies.  I believe, contrary to their statements, that the records remain sealed TO PROTECT THE INFORMATION THAT IS IN THE RECORDS THEMSELVES!

Adoption agencies and workers have, for years, quietly distanced themselves from the tactics of the BSE/EMS stating in whispers, softly, where no one can hear, that "bad things happened" back then, as if they don't now.  They would read the records as they sorted through them to grudgingly send copies to the natural mothers who invoked their HIPAA rights to their own medical records, and apologetically assured the mothers that "things are different now".  They have the records.  They have read through the records.  They KNOW what is in there, and THAT is what they are protecting! 

With the push since the late 1970's for the opening of the sealed birth certificates and the requests of the mothers and the adopted adults for more access to records, the keepers of the records and those in control of them have to have had a watchful eye on the happenings in Australia, where the records were opened to the mothers and the adopted adults for several decades, and the United Kingdom where records were opened in the late 1970's.  They have to have noticed that in Australia there is national inquiry in progress and recently there has been tremendous outrage over the treatment of some women, such as the women incarcerated in the Magdalene Laundries, as those details have come to light.  

One cannot litigate without evidence.  Testimony only counts so far.  If there is no evidence, there is no crime.  We cannot PROVE the allegations that we make, and we cannot get the proof, because they are sealed in the sealed adoption files.  As the anonymity of the Internet allowed shame-filled and trepidatious women to safely talk of what happened to them years before, increasing their awareness and their anger levels as they recognized the injustice, so too will the opening of records, the OBC opening create another Pandora's box and the powers that be do NOT want them exposed to the light of day.

For decades, Mothers have been stating that the do NOT want to be protected from our children.  We have said that we want to speak on our own behalf and not allow the voices of the people whose living depends on the separation of mothers from their babies for surrender to adoption, as they do now, as Adam Pertman, of Evan B. Donaldson and William Pierce and Tom Atwood of the NCFA do.  We have said that criminal practices had been used against us to take our babies.  The proof lies in the records, and since the mothers are alive still so are the perpetrators of the crimes.

 If seeking justice for the children who were abused by the predatory pedophile priests caused a ripple, justice for BSE mothers would be a tsunami!  Bottom line....no legislator gives a crap about any of the principle parties to adoption; not the adopters, not the babies, not the natural mothers.  They care about the bottom line, protecting the businesses that adoption are from the fallout from their own deceptive practices, that were industry wide and an integral part of their day to day business.  I am sure that there WERE indeed, promises of anonymity made...by legislators, to the adoption industry.