As you may have known, there were two bills in the Health and Human Services Committee that seek to change the portion of adoption law that governs an Adult Adoptee's access to identifying information.
HB 1968 is the BAD bill. HB 1978 is the GOOD, equal rights, bill.
Unfortunately, despite all of our outpouring of support for HB 1978, it is still sitting in the HHS Committee. HB 1968, on the other hand, has made its way out of committee and is now before the PA House of Representatives for consideration.
It is of utmost importance that HB 1968 be defeated. HB 1968 not only does not change the current law much at all; it actually makes it worse. Worse even yet, should HB 1968 pass, we worry that legislators (1) will believe that the law is improved when it isn't and (2) won't want to re-address this issue and portion of law, and will leave HB 1978 to die in committee.
We cannot let the law get worse with HB 1968. We cannot let HB 1978 die.
We have created a call-to-action made available HERE.
In the call-to-action you will find:
(1) the text to the bill
(2) bill sponsors to contact
(3) a guide letter to assist those who are new to contacting legislators in drafting letters and emails.
(4) ways to help PAR and defeat HB 1968
(5) our Position Statement of Opposition to HB 1968 to give you an overview on the bill and why we oppose it.
***it does not matter if you are impacted by adoption or not. If doesn't matter if you don't live in PA or even the US. Contacting PA legislators in opposition of this bill can still help! "Injustice ANYWHERE is a threat to justice EVERYWHERE" (MLK Jr.)****
"Why do they deserve to be in his life?" A fellow learner pondered aloud. I was in a discussion group one day where we were evaluating the documentary "My Flesh and Blood." The documentary chronicles a brief period in the life of adoptive mother, Susan Tom.
Susan Tom is the single mother of two biological children, two daughters adopted from Korea who do not have any severe disabilities, and 9 adopted children with a wide range of disabilities and serious medical conditions. At least two of the children are from Russia and at least two others are involved in domestic open adoptions. While there are many points within the documentary that could be discussed, it is the open adoptions that I want to draw attention to. I wanted to share with you a very raw and honest look at open adoption coming from the eyes of average people who are not directly impacted by adoption.
There are two boys, Joe and Anthony, who are involved in open adoptions. They were briefly chronicled in the documentary.
Joe
Joe, who passed away toward the end of the documentary, had Cystic Fibrosis as well as an emotional disorder. In addition to having 12 adoptive brothers and sisters, Joe has 8 biological brothers and sisters. Joe was placed with Susan at a young age while his original mother recovered from drug addiction. As the years passed, they maintained an open relationship and Joe's original mother remarried. She decided to move away because of the benefits to her new family. Joe had a need to be loved by her, which is why Susan kept her promise to keep the relationship over. The clip of Joe's original mother telling him that she is leaving is found here; it is difficult to watch.
Anthony
Anthony, who passed away a year or two ago during the Extreme Makeover of the Tom's home, had a condition called Epidermolysis Bullosa. This is where a person's skin literally starts to fall off, leaving painful open sores all over their body. Anthony's original family was featured at the end of the documentary at his 20th birthday party here, starting at 3:25.
During the discussion of the documentary and of the family, several people wanted to know why the original parents of the two boys were permitted to have open adoptions. "I don't get it," one woman said. "They don't do his daily medical care or take care of him, but they get to come to a party and have fun? How is that fair?" These individuals, who are not themselves affiliated with adoption, are asking honest questions. They are not trying to be mean just trying to understand.
It is important to note that no information on how Anthony became adopted by Susan or why his original family couldn't care for him is mentioned in the documentary. You see a glimpse of his original mother and she appears to be very young, and remember, Anthony is 20 years old himself. Society seems to tend to associate "Birth Mother" with someone who is poor and unprepared.
Being poor comes with its own stigmas. Research has shown that perceived class differences can impact how we feel about others and how we respond to them. For example, women of humble or provocative appearance are less likely to receive help from passersby when in obvious danger than women who are dressed modestly or what one might call with more "class." Being an original mother in itself may have caused an unintended, but automatic, negative judgement of her. "Why does she get to be in his life when she doesn't do anything?"
This was a teachable moment.
I was happy that my professor chimed in that openness is often in the best interest of children. And I agreed. Too often we as adults and parents focus on the other adults and parents in a situation and think of what's "fair." But the focus should always be on the children. Adoption should not be about excluding and punishing an original parent for what they could not or were not given the opportunity to provide but about allowing an original parent to love their child, because the opportunity to receive love from one's original family. Openness is not about what is "fair" to parents but about what is best for a child.
These are individuals who are learning, not trying to be mean. But they also represent what other individuals might be thinking who may not ever have the opportunity for someone to offer them a different viewpoint. These individuals, like you and me, are voters, and can influence legislation, just like you and me, including legislation involving adoption issues. We fear rejection but it can bring good to speak. It can make a difference in the lives of others, in the community, in the state, in the country, and in the world.
Watch the Documentary
You can watch the documentary for free on YouTube. I have provided the first 7 minutes of the documentary in the player below. There are 10 clips total that you should be able to be taken to on YouTube by clicking on the player.
I have to give credit where credit is due. A while back I was expressing how miffed I was that adult adoptees are rarely asked to present their own perspectives and feelings on Adoptee Rights. NPR apparently saw the importance.
I can personally confirm for you that the producers of NPR diligently and specifically sought out an Adult Adoptee to appear on their recent short segment about Adoptee Rights. Kudos to NPR. The adult adoptee they to speak was none other than one of the ARC's founding members Diane Crossfield. Kudos to NPR for that too.
NPR set up Diane to debate Tom Snyder, a representative of the NJ Bar Association who opposes an adopted person's right to access their own birth documentation. Diane did an excellent job. I won't lie; Snyder made my skin crawl because so much of what he said was not, in the very least bit, true.
You can listen to the archived show for yourself here. But I can't close this blog entry without commenting on a few things Snyder said.
Snyder said that this argument of Adoptee Rights is new to adoption practice and hasn't been contemplated much. What he was basically implying is that since they never anticipated the rights and adulthood of the adoptee in the agreements made in adoption practice, it's too late to do right by these adoptees now.
I don't think it is ever too late to treat a citizen of this country equally. Not only has New Jersey been seeking to reform their access laws for the past 25 years, the Adoptee Rights Movement has been sweeping the nation (and the world) since at least 1950. The Child Welfare League of America, which has 800 member agencies, has supported our cause for decades. Not for the past 60+ years has there ever been an excuse for a lawyer or agency not to anticipate the rights and adulthood of any child whose adoption they facilitate.
Snyder also stated that original mothers assumed there would be confidentiality because of the practice of amending and sealing. We all know this simply isn't true. It was disproved recently at a hearing, which Snyder's organization attended.
Snyder, along with the NJ-UCLA and other organizations, aligns himself with the NCFA. A 1983 theoretical study that was presented at an NCFA convention expressly stated that confidential adoptions are beneficial to the adoptee and adoptive parents. Confidential adoptions were thought to be superior to adoptions where parties would have access to one another because it was believed that an original mother who could access her child would interfere with her child's stages of development and the adoptive parent's ability to form a bond with the child. No where is confidentiality ever mentioned as protecting a surrendering mother from her surrendered son or daughter.
To listen to the great points Diane made and to hear the entire broadcast, please visit the hyperlink I made above. Please comment and let NPR know this is an important issue to you and make sure to thank them for asking an adult adoptee to speak on the show.
