New York State Passed Adoptee Rights Bill into Law

We Did It!

 

The New York legislature secured history on an extra day of the legislative session by reversing more than eight decades of discrimination against New York adopted people. With the bill moving through three committees on the final two days of an extended session, the Assembly Members voted 126-2 to pass S3419/A5494 and forward it to Governor Andrew Cuomo for signature and final enactment. If you have not been following this, the soon-to-be enacted law will:

  • restore the right of all adult adoptees to request and obtain a certified copy of the “original long form line by line, vault copy birth certificate,” otherwise known as the OBC, with no restrictions other than the adoptee is at least 18 years of age at the time of the request;
  • if the adoptee is deceased, allow direct line descendants or a lawful representative of the adoptee to request and obtain the OBC;
  • address issues related to people born outside of New York but whose adoptions were finalized by a New York state court. If a copy of the OBC from the other jurisdiction is not available from a New York registrar, then information that would have appeared on the OBC must be provided by the adoption agency;
  • address original birth certificates on file with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, an extremely important provision because New York City currently possesses many pre-adoption birth certificates;
  • address certain OBCs that may also be held by registrars in Albany, Buffalo, and Yonkers;
  • be effective January 15, 2020.

 

Now head on over to the full length post!

“I know someone who’s adopted and they turned out fine”

How many people who blather on and on about the “one adoptee they know” will actually read this post? They are blind to critical thinking. And that is the problem.

IDENTITY

michael janson 001Michael Janssen

FOUR FLAWS IN THE “I know someone who’s adopted and they turned out fine” argument

“They turned out just fine” is a popular argument defending many beliefs, including in adoption. It relies on the personal experience of just one adoptee who the supporter of adoption claims is ‘fine’.

It’s an argument with fatal flaws.

ONE: It’s what’s known as an ‘anecdotal error’

This error, in simple terms, states that “one adoptee was not negatively affected (as far as I can tell), so it must be O.K. for everyone.” As an example: “I wasn’t vaccinated, and I turned out fine. Therefore, vaccination is unnecessary.” We are relying on a sample size of one. Ourselves, or someone we know. And we are applying that result to everyone. This argument also immediately dismisses any and all adoptees critical of adoption as not being ‘fine.’

TWO: It takes a shortcut relying on …

View original post 282 more words

Two Major Adoption Conferences This Weekend

There are two major adoption conferences held this weekend. Due to a combination of private matters, I’ve been unable to attend a conference since 2014.

I highly recommend that adoptees, natural parents, and adoptive parents, other family members, and spouses attend these conferences next year. Hopefully, both of these conferences will not be held on the same weekend again!

Here is a Facebook post by American Adoption Congress showing a photo of, and quoting, New York State Assemblyman Robert Carrol:

2019-4-6 Asbly Robert Carroll speaking about NYS Adoptee Rights Bill A5494

 

Keynote Speaker Assemblyman Robert Carroll speaking about New York Adoptee Rights Bill A5494

“This is about dignity, about allowing adopted people to self actualize.”

 

Here is a news article about this weekend’s conference hosted by The Indiana Adoptee Network:

The non-profit was vital in the passing of a law releasing adoption records in Indiana. They’ll help people working through the process of getting their records from the state.

The Indiana State Department of Health has received more than 4,200 requests for adoption records. The wait to receive records is more than 20 weeks due to high volume. Organizers of this weekend’s conference said they encourage people to remain patient and to contact them if they need help through the process.

“We’re going to help them here at the conference with their information and then once they get their file, we will help them with that, too,” Pam Kroskie, president of the Indiana Adoptee Network, said.

Adoption conferences are more than helping adoptees access their original birth certificates in their state (provided their home state has laws that allow adoptee-access). There are workshops on searching and reunions, adoption psychology, adoption research and family systems, state by state legislative efforts, networking, and learning in general why adoption as we know it, must change.

Many non-adopted people are not aware of how adoption affects adoptees throughout their lives. Many non-adopted people have mis-perceived notions about mothers of adoption loss. For this reason, I suggest that the general public attend these conferences as a learning experience.

You can contact The Indiana Adoptee Network at their website here.

You can contact the American Adoption Congress at their website here.

My Comments Marked as Spam and Deleted from this Discussion on Adoptees’ Rights to Sealed Birth Certificates

This post is about the comment section following this article:

Most American Adoptees Can’t Access Their Birth Certificates. That Could Soon Change.

A slew of new state laws are being debated right now.

As promised on Facebook, I saved not only my comments, but screen-shotted the ones  that were flagged as spam and deleted in the comment section of the above article.

I am re-printing them here should anyone question what went down when two rather mouthy individuals spouted off at me and then didn’t like my responses.

This was my first independent comment (not in a thread):

Doris Michol Sippel • 2 days ago

It is important for readers to know that there are many more situations in which a child is given up for adoption than the typical not-married-mother giving up a bastard baby. Some children are adopted by their grandparents or aunts and uncles. Some children are adopted by their step parent. Some children lose one or both to death making them either half of full orphans who are given by the remaining parent or another relative or an orphanage. Still other children are removed from abusive parents and sent into foster care where they may or may not be adopted out. All of the comments here target the “unwed mother and bastard baby” stereotype. In every single adoption, the adoptee’s birth certificate is revoked, sealed, and then replaced by a false-fact birth certificate that states two people who were not there for the conception and birth are named as if they were responsible for creating this new life. They weren’t. Adoptees are forced to live a lie. Access bills to allow adoptees to have a copy of their sealed birth certificate are a solution to only part of the bigger problem. The bigger problem is that adoptees should never have falsified birth certificates to begin with. Facts are facts. Adoptees are the only group of people who are targeted by laws that steal our identities.

To which, clemans responded:

clemans  Doris Michol Sippel • 2 days ago

With the popularity of DNA tests, none of that matters. At some point a family member will do a test and the matching begins. And it all comes out.

Here is a screenshot of my first comment and clemans’ response:

Screenshot 1

Here is a screenshot that my response was marked as spam 3 times (It has been marked as spam for the 4th time and now only one “This comment was marked as spam” line remains):

Screenshot 2

Now I am responding directly to “clemans”:

March 15, 2019 11 AM

To clemans —

none of that matters” — oh really?

I find it fascinating that when I, an adoptee, post the truth about birth certificates; my posts were flagged as spam and removed 4 times! That is censorship! I am screen-shoting everything!

For the 5th time:

This bill addressed in this article is about ADOPTEES CIVIL RIGHTS to access our revoked and sealed birth certificates. This bill has nothing to do with the misperceived view that mothers need protection or have rights to anonymity. Mothers have no rights because they signed relinquishment papers giving up ALL PARENTAL RIGHTS.

The truth of the facts of birth are recorded by the attending physician on a medical record of live birth. Every newborn gets one of these – it’s your birth certificate. The attending physician verifies the birth by her or his signature on the birth certificate that is then signed by the registrar of vital statistics.

The only people who are segregated from the rest of society – who are discriminated against – are adopted people who are forced, by law, to be victims of identity theft via adoption.

In each adoption – illegitimate or not – the medical record of live birth – the birth certificate – is revoked and then sealed forever. Then, a false-fact birth certificate, not signed by an attending physician, is then issued to legitimize the illegitimately born bastard adoptee.

In the examples I gave earlier, but were deleted as spam: step-parents adopting their step child, grandparents adopting their grandchild, children born within a marriage who are removed due to abuse or neglect, children who are full or half orphans (one or both parents have died) – many adoptees are legitimately born and do not “need” to be legitimized through adoption. Yet, the nearly-century-old laws funnel all adoptees into this narrow definition of who should be re-born via adoption. Long ago, bastards were targeted. Now, every child who is adopted is a victim of identity theft perpetrated by the government.

If 4 full blood siblings are removed from their married parents, and 3 are adopted into 3 separate adoptive families, these 3 siblings will then be issued new birth certificates stating that each one was born to the new adoptive parents. There will be no evidence on record that these 3 siblings actually are full blood siblings with the same legally married parents.  Meanwhile, the 4th full blood sibling ages out of foster care with her birth certificate intact. Even though her parents were involuntarily stripped of their parental rights, this child, now an adult, has her birth certificate from birth. Meanwhile, one of her other 3 siblings is re-homed and adopted a 2nd time, and is issued a 3rd birth certificate. None of the adopted-out siblings has any legal rights to the truth of their births. Only the not-adopted siblings retains that right.

This is not a matter of DNA to uncover family secrets. This is a matter of discriminatory laws targeting a specific group of American citizens who are stripped of our civil and human rights.

Yes, secrets people keep will be found out by DNA. That is not the point I was making. My concern is the law that revokes, seals, and falsifies birth certificates of adopted people.

My second concern is the law that prevents adoptees access to our revoked and sealed birth certificates.

This is about ADOPTEES CIVIL RIGHTS, and not about DNA, and not about the misperceived rights of mothers to anonymity.

Like it or not, relinquishment does not guarantee adoption. That means: when a mother who loves her newborn is faced with no option but to give up her baby, all of her parental rights are removed upon the signing of surrender papers. When a mixed-up, confused, terrified, angry, bitter, disgusted mother wants nothing to do with her newborn or older child, and she gives up that child, she signs relinquishment papers. There is no statement of confidentiality in any relinquishment agreement. She loses all parental rights over her child forever. Arguments holding up the assumption that mothers have rights to anonymity are incorrect.

Signing relinquishment means that the parent signs away all parental rights to the child. There is no guarantee that the child will be adopted. If that child ages out of foster care and the mother does not know, that person has their own birth certificate with the mother’s name on it. Once an adult, the relinquished person can either contact the mother or not. No parent has any legal standing to tell an adult daughter or son what to do.

Here are screenshots of my comment just in case it is marked as spam and is removed again:

Screenshot 3

Screenshot 4

Screenshot 5

And now Fractal and I are talking to each other. “Fractal” also flagged my comment as spam so it was removed:

March 14, 2019 8:30 pm

Screenshot 6

Screenshot 7

Screenshot 8

Screenshot 9

Screenshot 10

Here are my comments, and Fractal’s comments, as they appear in text on the comment section with links:

Doris Michol Sippel  fractal • 2 days ago

Stop calling adoptees “children”. Activists are adults, not children. With all your questions, the way you talk is full of stereotypes from the Victorian Era. No, no mother was ever promised confidentiality. No surrender documents contain those words. Women were coerced into giving up their babies. They still are pressured to keep the supply to meet the demand. There are so many points wrong in what you post…

To which Fractal replied:

fractal  Doris Michol Sippel • 19 hours ago

Stop telling me what to do.
In the birth mother’s mind, the adopted person will always be their “child”.
And so I will continue to call them such.

In the past when women were considering giving a child up for adoption, the GREAT CONCERN was that birth mother would try to insert herself into life of her adopted child.

She would be told that the records were CLOSED FOR LIFE and that she should never attempt to see the child.

And in fact, she would be told that doing so would be incredibly painful for the adoptive family.

With that meme comes the implication that the birth mother doesn’t need to worry about the child coming to find her, because the records were sealed. It would never occur to most birth mothers in the past to think that the child would be able to open records and, because of this internet age, be so easy to find.

You must be adopted to assume the story that all women who give children up are “coerced”.
I can assure you many are HAPPY to be relieved of the burden, and many would have aborted if something hadn’t prevented them from doing so—money, timing etc…
I know this because I used to work in reproductive health, and saw how many women who came for an abortion had to turn to adoption when abortion wasn’t an option any longer.
Of course, these women will someday have to LIE to their adoptive child and pretend they didn’t want to abort them, or cause them more grief and loss of self-esteem.

Seems to me you have zero respect for the wishes of the birth mother and have a lot of emotional energy invested in big, happy reunions!!!!!!
Doesn’t work that way a lot of the time.
In fact, an biological child of theirs who shows up and corners them might well not get the reunion they are hoping for.
And that could cause a tragedy.

Now stop being so bitchy.
BTW, why is your comment history private?
I bet you are just another Fundy Troll on MJ.

March 15, 2019

The following comment to Fractal was also flagged and removed as Spam.

This is in response to “Fractal” who had some rather harsh words for me.

To Fractal –

You don’t need to give me lectures as I know all about the various aspects as to why the records were sealed. Did you not read that I have been an activist for 45 years? That means I have been to numerous conferences and have talked to hundreds, if not thousands, of adoptees and natural mothers. I know every aspect of what you say. You are not telling me anything new.

Fractal said – “You must be adopted to assume the story that all women who give children up are “coerced”.”

My answer: Me being adopted has nothing to do with mothers being coerced into giving up their babies. I know many mothers of adoption loss who are activist for open records. They all say that they were coerced into giving up their babies. There were no choices. The only option was adoption.
Fractal said – “I can assure you many are HAPPY to be relieved of the burden, and many would have aborted if something hadn’t prevented them from doing so—money, timing etc…”

My answer: YES, exactly! I know this too! That’s why I said earlier “disgusted mothers” because I know that many mothers do not want the burden of being a parent so the get rid of their baby. And then hide behind sealed records as a cop-out – not taking responsibility for their actions.

Fractal said – “Seems to me you have zero respect for the wishes of the birth mother”

My answer: NOPE. I have utmost respect for the mothers of adoption loss who are for open records. I have zero respect for anyone – mothers, fathers, priests, politicians, etc – who continue to insist on revoking, sealing and falsifying adoptees’ birth certificates, and then want to deprive adoptees of their civil and human rights to access these birth certificates when they are adults.

Fractal said – that I “have a lot of emotional energy invested in big, happy reunions!!!!!!”

My answer: NOPE! I am not invested in happy reunions at all! I am invested in changing the law to restore adoptees’ human and civil rights to their truths of their births. What an adoptee does with their birth certificate is up to them. Searching and Reunion are NOT the issues. The issue is the law that currently prevents adoptees from accessing our revoked and sealed birth certificates.
Fractal said: “Doesn’t work that way a lot of the time.
In fact, an biological child of theirs who shows up and corners them might well not get the reunion they are hoping for.
And that could cause a tragedy.”

My answer: Wow. Paint adoptees as stalkers and creeps. Way to go.

Again: Conflating the need to change the law to advance adoptees’ rights to our own birth certificates with does not equate to searching and reunions. We do not need reunion registries. We do not need confidential intermediaries. We need to restore adoptees’ civil rights to own our original birth certificates.

Fractal said: Now stop being so bitchy.
BTW, why is your comment history private?
I bet you are just another Fundy Troll on MJ.

My answer: Ok, I’m bitchy. If you say so…

I have no idea why my comment history is Private and I don’t care. I don’t comment on Discuss frequently. I assure you I am who I say I am – Doris Michol Sippel. That is my real name. I see that you, Fractal, are hiding behind a fake name. I am not a Fundy Troll. I am an adoptee, a liberal, a democrat, and an activist. Look up the articles I posted links to.

12:30PM March 15, 2019

Came back from lunch to see that my comment had been removed a 3rd time!

OK then, I’ve  removed Fractal’s name and posted my comment again! Don’t forget, I am screen-shotting this!

Doris Michol Sippel • an hour ago

To Nameless Opposition of my adoptee comments:

I am screenshotting all of this to post on my website!

You don’t need to give me lectures as I know all about the various aspects as to why the records were sealed. Did you not read that I have been an activist for 45 years? That means I have been to numerous conferences and have talked to hundreds, if not thousands, of adoptees and natural mothers. I know every aspect of what you say. You are not telling me anything new.

You said – “You must be adopted to assume the story that all women who give children up are “coerced”.”
My answer: Me being adopted has nothing to do with mothers being coerced into giving up their babies. I know many mothers of adoption loss who are activist for open records. They all say that they were coerced into giving up their babies. There were no choices. The only option was adoption.

You said – “I can assure you many are HAPPY to be relieved of the burden, and many would have aborted if something hadn’t prevented them from doing so—money, timing etc…”
My answer: YES, exactly! I know this too! That’s why I said earlier “disgusted mothers” because I know that many mothers do not want the burden of being a parent so the get rid of their baby. And then hide behind sealed records as a cop-out – not taking responsibility for their actions.

You said – “Seems to me you have zero respect for the wishes of the birth mother”
My answer: NOPE. I have utmost respect for the mothers of adoption loss who are for open records. I have zero respect for anyone – mothers, fathers, priests, politicians, etc – who continue to insist on revoking, sealing and falsifying adoptees’ birth certificates, and then want to deprive adoptees of their civil and human rights to access these birth certificates when they are adults.

You said – that I “have a lot of emotional energy invested in big, happy reunions!!!!!!”
My answer: NOPE! I am not invested in happy reunions at all! I am invested in changing the law to restore adoptees’ human and civil rights to their truths of their births. What an adoptee does with their birth certificate is up to them. Searching and Reunion are NOT the issues. The issue is the law that currently prevents adoptees from accessing our revoked and sealed birth certificates.

You said: “Doesn’t work that way a lot of the time.
In fact, an biological child of theirs who shows up and corners them might well not get the reunion they are hoping for.
And that could cause a tragedy.”

My answer: Wow. Paint adoptees as stalkers and creeps. Way to go.
Again: Conflating the need to change the law to advance adoptees’ rights to our own birth certificates with does not equate to searching and reunions. We do not need reunion registries. We do not need confidential intermediaries. We need to restore adoptees’ civil rights to own our original birth certificates.

You said: Now stop being so bitchy.
BTW, why is your comment history private?
I bet you are just another Fundy Troll on MJ.

My answer: Ok, I’m bitchy. If you say so…
I have no idea why my comment history is Private and I don’t care. I don’t comment on Discuss frequently. I assure you I am who I say I am – Doris Michol Sippel. That is my real name. I see that you are hiding behind a fake name. I am not a Fundy Troll. I am an adoptee, a liberal, a democrat, and an activist. Look up the articles I posted links to.

Screenshots of the above:

Screenshot 11

Screenshot 12

Screenshot 13

It is now 1:40 PM on March 15, 2019. My above comment to Clemans has been marked as spam and removed for the 5th time!

The Opposition really does not want the truth to be told!

Ha! Screenshotted and posted it all right here!

It’s been 45 years of censorship from people who oppose adoptees’ rights to our birth certificates.

I will fight to my dying breath for the right to own my revoked and sealed birth certificate – I will fight for all other adopted people as well.

Sure enough! Censored and deleted again! March 15 at 1:59PM

Doris Michol Sippel • a few seconds ago

Here is a blog post I wrote with screenshots of all of the times my comments have been Marked As Spam and Deleted. The Opposition to Adoptees’ Access to our Sealed Birth Certificates really does not want to hear the truth! Cognitive Dissonance, eh? You can still mark thhis comment as spam and delete it, but the truth is you don’t wan to face the truth!

https://forbiddenfamily.com…

My Comments Marked as Spam and Deleted from this Discussion on Adoptees’ Rights to Sealed Birth Certificates

Screenshot 15

 

 

An Open-Adoption Adoptive Mother Tries to Explain the Anti-Adoption Movement – Here is What I Said to Her

In April of 2018, an adopter named Amey wrote a blog post – The Anti-Adoption Movement – What Does It Look Like?

I will open this post with a hats-off to adoptee Marilynn Huff who made an extraordinary comment to Amey’s post in that blog post’s comment section on adoptees’ birth certificates. Marilynn’s comment is one of the best I’ve ever read, including my own writings.

I will break down Amey’s blog post one phrase at a time.

Under the heading “Adoptees” Amey said:

Adoptees often resent the idea that they were “given up” for adoption. I hate that phrase. We say “placed’ or “made a plan.”

It doesn’t matter what YOU say – that you hate the phrase “given up” – that “We” (meaning infertile people, or adopters) say “placed” or “made a plan” – what matters is how adoptees experience the permanent separation that adoption actually is. The adoptee, as a newborn or an infant too young to have verbal and mental cognition, experiences the sudden loss of Mother as a terrifying break. This Primal Wound is internalized as the infant cries out for Mother. (Read The Primal Wound by Nancy Verrier). The Primal Wound creates brain damage in certain areas of the brains of infants who are taken at birth from their Mothers. On this basis alone, adoption should be seen as extreme child abuse. With new studies being done, hopefully, it will be, and we will see a stranger movement to end adoption as we know it on a global scale.

Be sure to read this blog post and be sure to read the comments for links to scientific studies.

Amey said,

Maybe the birth parents had a problem with substance abuse or were young and not ready to parent. It doesn’t matter. The adoptee still feels unwanted and alone.

Again, it does not matter what the parental circumstances are at the time of birth, the newborn is traumatized by sudden removal of the nurturing mother within whom the infant lived for nine months. The pre-born infant hears mother’s voice and knows her emotions, and is influenced by her emotions. The pre-born infant is happy when mother is happy and feels anxiety and distress when she is nervous or angry. These are proven facts.

The pre-born infant feeds by mother’s food intake – both mother and baby share a symbiotic relationship. The unborn infant needs mother for sustenance, nutrients (in addition to feeling her love), and even receives her bacterial microbiome as she passes through the birth canal during birth. There is now evidence that the infant and mother exchange body and brain cells. The mother’s cells live on inside her offspring’s body and brain, and conversely, the infant’s cells also live on inside the mother. Scientists believe that these cells aid in immune functions.

Such phrases as

the birth parents had a problem with substance abuse or were young and not ready to parent

are a form of distancing the natural parents from their child. This is dissociating, detaching, and distracting from the primary relationship. These words are weapons meant to evoke emotions in observers who then internalize the message that adopters are then “better than” the child’s natural parents. This psychological twisting is then passed down to the adoptee who grows up feeling indebted for being saved from a life of hell with unfit parents. This distorted message permeates society’s belief that adoption saves infants and children.

I hope you, Amey, can now see that your last two sentences in that first paragraph:

It doesn’t matter. The adoptee still feels unwanted and alone

are quite true of the facts of life as experienced by a newborn or an older baby.

The first sentence in Amey’s next paragraph states:

Adoptees sometimes feel that everyone who makes this decision is selfish, while everyone says that they are selfless.

This reflects upon adoption as it happens in today’s society. Adoption has been warping and changing over the last 9 decades. When I first joined the Adoptees Rights Movement in 1975, nearly a year into my reunion with my natural family, I met mothers from the Baby Scoop Era. Here is a blog post I wrote about honoring their contributions.

I might add that you, Amey, should try to avoid words such as “everyone.” There are many adoptees out there who do not see relinquishment, or surrendering, a newborn or older child as selfish. Many adoptees understand that many mothers and fathers of adoption loss are not given proper counseling of all options available, and this includes ways to sustain keeping their child.

As a social worker, I worked in homeless shelters where our clients where homeless mothers with children or were entire families. We had a checklist of goals that we helped our clients obtain one by one – including parenting classes, finding apartments, finding employment and child care – so that the young mother and/or father could raise their own infant and older children.

Still, I have seen just the opposite – where certain social workers are hell-bent on removing children from their parents just to fill their monthly quota of “placing” children for foster care and adoption.

By using your words of “selfish” and “selfless,” I can only guess you are part of the Brave Love Movement. This Christian movement is deleterious and demoralizing to the expectant mother and the mother who has just given birth. It goes against natural to feel obligated to strangers to “make an adoption plan”- specifically because a pregnant woman or teen is already a mother. Her first and foremost obligation is to the infant she is carrying. Pre-birth adoption plans are immoral and ought to be illegal.

It is sad that modern adoption practices, even those that promote and practice open adoption, make it a point and a goal to instill unnatural feelings and beliefs in the minds of pregnant teens and young women. The idea that it is “unselfish” to give your infant to strangers is brainwashing. Many of the women who now boast that they, too, are proud mothers whom selfishly made an adoption plan for their baby, will one day wake up to the horror of what they’ve done. When they do wake up to realize that they were tricked and coerced into giving their babies to strangers, we will see them in the Anti Adoption Movement.

I’ve seen the jewelry line for Brave Love. I’ve seen T-shirts for pre-adoptive-parent- wanna-bees that state “Paper Pregnant” or “My baby is in Nepal” (for those who are waiting for a baby who will be born to a poor woman in a baby farm who will get paid to gestate a baby for strangers so she can use that money to sustain herself and her family).

Such baby farms exist so that wealthy gay men, lesbian women, heterosexual couples, or even single men and women can make a baby through buying sperm and eggs via contract and then rent the womb of a poor woman for their selfish motives of making a baby at extreme means for the pleasure of experiencing parenting.

Buying and wearing a t-shirt that state the words “paper pregnant” with the drawing of a pregnant belly is an advertisement of the absurd ego-mania that exists in today’s wanna-be-adoptive-parents. Only narcissistic, selfish women with too much money to spend would demean themselves to the point of walking around wearing such a t-shirt, let alone actually using a vulnerable young pregnant woman for the sole purpose of taking her baby upon birth.

Amey, your next sentence:

The Expectant or Birth Parents don’t want to parent; the adoptive parents only want a baby.

seems to accept the myths that are out there today. Most unexpectedly pregnant girls and women actually do want to keep their babies and to parent their child. True, there are some mothers who are, indeed, drug addictions, or are involved in crime, or are completely detached to their pre-born infant. I saw a few of these mothers in the homeless shelters I once worked at. There are mental illnesses that won’t allow a mother to be a mother. There are addictions and criminal behaviors that warrant the removal of newborns or older children from such parents.

Children born to these mothers and raised in foster care in safety carry with them their own birth certificate. They may be raised together with their own siblings. One or two of those siblings may eventually be adopted. However, the one who ages out of foster care maintains the birth certificate created upon her birth, even when her parents are dead beats, drug addicts, in prison, or do not want to have anything to do with their children. Meanwhile, the siblings who were then adopted are given new names, new birth certificates, and new parents. The siblings are still full-blood siblings but are not legally siblings.

Amey, I must challenge you to re-examine your words:

The Expectant or Birth Parents don’t want to parent

How do you know that? According to the natural mothers I communicate daily with on Facebook  and on their websites say that they wanted to parent their baby, but many were coerced and many were de-babied during birth by harsh birthing methods of the attending physician and by nurses who took the baby immediately upon birth.

Amey, your next words:

 the adoptive parents only want a baby.

say it all. Wanting a baby and then using a pregnant girl or young woman to meet your desires is the worst form of anti-woman, anti-feminist beliefs and behavior. Rich and powerful women should not abuse and use disadvantaged pregnant women to satisfy cravings to be a parent. Coveting another woman’s baby and actually going through with the plan to obtain her baby for your benefit is a very selfish act.

And your next words, Amey:

In an infant or young child adoption, they are the only people in the triad who don’t get a choice. Other people make it for them, decide what is best because they’re too young to understand. They resent that, too.

Of course adoptees resent the actions of adults who made life-altering choices and made legally-binding contracts over them when they were too young to say no. The world is now facing a great uprising. Adoptees are gathering together to not only voice opposition to what was done to them, but to end adoption altogether.

Then your next paragraph, Amey, is about adoptees:

And it doesn’t matter if they had a wonderful home life with an adoptive family. Often, they’ll say that they love their adoptive parents, but that they resent them for taking them away from their birth family. They recognize that they were given opportunities that they might never have had, yet they feel incomplete, never whole.

Yes, many adoptees do feel this way. It is a burden to walk through life knowing that you may have had “a wonderful life” and that you do love your adoptive parents, and at the same time feel that loss, feel that resentment. While many adoptees have been raised in economically superior adoptive homes, adoptees are split in half feeling guilty for wanting to know their natural parents and to know why they were not kept. Yes, many adoptees know that they were bought at a high price – thousands of dollars – $25,000 or $50,000 or $75,000. When the realization sets in as to the truth of baby-selling, baby-trafficking, and that adoption agencies make their living this way, many adoptees are disgusted as to the means they became adopted.

And yes:

For them, the loss is more powerful than the gain.

Amey, your next section is about Expectant Parents. I will only say this – that pressuring expectant mothers and fathers into a pre-birth matching contract with adoptive-parent-wanna-bees is just that – unwanted and unhealthy pressure for both the pregnant mother and her unborn child.

Your next section, Amey, is about Birth Parents is actually correct in your assessments of the situation for many natural parents.

You are correct in assessing that many Adoptive Parents are:

Adoptive parents are affected by the anti-adoption movement, but I find that they are more often Anti-Open Adoption. I think it’s pretty obvious that this isn’t me, but I understand the sentiment.

This “Anti-Open-Adoption sentiment exists because many adopters feel that they are the adoptees ONLY parents. Many adoptive parents do not want to know that there is another set of parents who has more than genetic ties to the adoptees in their care. They believe that the adoptee owes them loyalty and elegance. Often times, these types of adoptive parents are very possessive over their adoptees. Some actually believe the false-facts stated on the amended birth certificate – they are living in a delusional fantasy, believing that they gave birth to someone else’s child.

Amey, now I will tell you what happened to me.

My mother was dying of cancer while pregnant with me. During her 7th month of pregnancy, my father took his wife to the hospital. She was very sick. It was two days after Christmas 1955. The doctors x-rayed my mother’s abdomen. There they saw me and a cancerous tumor the same size as I was. Two weeks later, in early January 1956, I was born at 8 weeks gestation – two months premature. My mother died on March 28, 1956, at age 30.

My 31 year old father was left with a deceased wife and five children. His parents were old and sick. He was an only child, so he had no family to lean on. His wife’s siblings were married with several young children, and a few had newborns of their own.

At my mother’s funeral, two things happened very close to one another. The parish priest came up to my father and said, “The baby needs two parents.” A few minutes later, a woman approached my father and said, “I know someone who will take your baby.” My father was given no options. No one offered help to keep his family together. My father was a deeply religious man so he followed the priest’s suggestion. He contacted that woman and arranged for her brother and his wife to come and get me. When he gave me to my future adoptive parents, he also gave them my birth certificate, baptismal certificate, and my clothes. I was 4 months old.

My father married his second wife very soon after. His second wife helped take care of my four older siblings. Meanwhile, my adopting parents lived just one block over and three blocks up away. About nine months later, they moved six miles to the north.

By the closed adoption practices of the time, my father was told to never contact my adoptive parents. He was to stay away from me. My adoption became final when I was one year and one week old. My name was changed. My birth certificate was revoked,  sealed, and replaced by one that states my new name, and my new parents – as if I was born to them in that hospital. The Catholic Church even changed my baptismal certificate.

It is these lies and cover-ups that I resent.

I also resent my adoptive parents’ possessiveness.

In 1974, at my age of 18, I was found by siblings I did not know I had. My adoptive parents knew I had siblings, but they did not tell me. They knew where my mother was buried but never told me. Why? Because I belonged to them. I was theirs.

There is much more to my adoption/reunion story; too much for this blog post. That is why I wrote a memoir: Forbidden Family: An Adoptee’s Struggle for Identity.

There are many reasons why I am anti-adoption. I did not need a new home. I already had a home. I had parents. I should have been allowed to grow up knowing my Mom died and visiting her grave. I should have had my siblings and my father with me. Adoption took all of that away from me.

What did I gain from adoption? I was raised an only and lonely child. I had my independence. I had material middle-class things that my siblings did not have. This created resentment in them when we were reunited. While I loved my adoptive parents, I mistrusted them ever since 1974 when I learned that they lied to me for the first 18 years of my life. I spent the next few decades as the adoptee who belonged to two families, who had the burden of integrating two identities, and the burden of taken the brunt of everyone else’s opinions as to what I should feel and what I should do. It was bad for me to be an anti-adoption activist.

All four of my parents are dead now. I have no contact with any abusive relatives – that means my siblings as well as extended family by blood or by adoption. I do have close relatives on both sides…

My life was ruined because of adoption. I am very resentful, and I will fight to my dying breath to end the revocation, sealing and replacement of adoptees’ birth certificates. I join thousands of adoptees around the world who say that adoption should end.

I will close with this thought:

Amey, your last token of a misguided message is this meme:

death-is-not-the-greatest-loss-in-life.png

I don’t know who this person “Tupac Shakur” is, or was, but that meme is extremely hurtful. My mother died when I was three months old. That loss was the single most devastating event in my life. My mother’s death led to my adoption. I am not grateful for this.

On the other hand, maybe the meme is right. I lost my name, my family, and my birth certificate all because of adoption. I am supposed to be grateful and happy. I am not.

Adoption has left me fighting for my civil rights to my factual birth certificate. I fight not only for myself, but for millions of adoptees worldwide. I fight for the humanity of all pregnant girls and women, and for all mothers, and fathers, of adoption loss.

As for adoptive parents – you reap the benefits of adoption. I don’t see any of you running to legislators to turn in those amended birth certificates to demand adoption certificates instead, nor do I see any adoptive parents demanding that the revoked and sealed birth certificate of the child in your care is reinstated. I don’t see any adoptive parents willing to, and actually returning the child back to the natural parents after they rebuild their lives.

Why? The answer is because you now have what you want: ownership of someone else’s child.

That just about sums up the need for the anti-adoption movement.

 

 

 

Here’s Another Take on Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Pro-Adoption View

This is a blog post by Claudia from 2013, but it is still very relevant today – even more so because Pro-Life people seem to think that “saving a baby’s life” means adopting that baby out automatically. It doesn’t.

Adoption is NOT an Alternative to Abortion – For One Last Time – One Pregnancy; Two Different Decisions

Here are some quotes from this blog post:

 The whole idea of abortion does not belong in the adoption conversation. Let me repeat that; it is a separate conversation, a separate debate.

and

She is already, literally , bodily committed to having this baby, so maybe she thinks “adoption” because she is scared and wants to check adoption out. Unfortunately, once she contacts an adoption agency the chances that she will find emotional support to parent will disappear like a poof of smoke. Often she will then be bombarded with pro-adoption rhetoric that starts telling her, however subtle, that she is not worthy of being a mother, not good enough and that if she loves her baby enough, she will want her baby to have “better”. In essence, the MOTHER becomes the perceived threat to the child’s well being.

As I have said many times before, adoption presents itself as having many answers that face a woman with an unplanned pregnancy. They have carefully honed their marketing message and have it down pat. It’s just full of holes, but too many mother realize that when it is too late.

and

….adoption is NOT a reproductive choice; it s a PARENTING choice. A woman has already made the choice to reproduce. She is already a mother. She has had the baby. She is decide NOT to parent her child. THAT is adoption.

Please follow the above link to read the entire article.

Book Signing at the Buffalo History Museum with 69 Local Western New York Authors

I am happy to announce a local Buffalo, New York author event!

The Buffalo History Museum will be hosting it’s Local Author Book signing. See below for details.

This will be the third year I will be attending with my memoir for sale: Forbidden Family: An Adopted Woman’s Struggle for Identity.

This is an honor and a privilege! I hope to see you there!

Local Author Book Signing

Date: 11/24/2018 12:00 PM – 11/24/2018 2:00 PM

Address: 1 Museum Court, Buffalo, NY

Phone: 7168739644

Description: An annual favorite! Meet and greet local authors. Great gift ideas for holiday shopping. More than 65 local authors will be on hand to meet and greet readers and sign purchased books. The wide range of publications – including cookbooks, neighborhood, regional and military history, novels and coffee table books – makes this a perfect opportunity to shop for a variety of tastes. Museum admission is free during this event.

Participating Local Authors: 
Christina Abt, Frederick & Cynthia Adcock, Larry Beahan, Donald Blank, Tamyara Brown, Brigette Callahan and Kristin Warham, Christopher Carlin, Steve Cichon, David Coleman, Lorna MacDonald Czarnota, Doreen DeBoth, Gretchen and Dennis Duling, Rick Falkowski, William Faught, Marilyn Foote, Jennifer Gold, Mark Goldman, Matt Gryta, Gerald Halligan, Heather Lynn Harris, Michael Hawley, Rosanne Higgins, David Horning, Patricia Hull, John Koerner, Cathy Lang, Elizabeth Leader, Elizabeth Licata, Alice Loweecey, Thanya Mckinnon, Nancy Mingus, Graham Millar, Melanie Morse and Thomas McDade, H. Vincent Moses, Christy Nicholas, Renee Oubre, Greg Parkes, Terez Peipins, John Percy, Mark Peszko, Lori Porter, Roger Rainville, Paul Redding, Mike Vogel, Lissa Marie Redmond, Mariana Rhoades, Jim Santella, Jeff Schober, Mariam Shannon, Timothy Shannon, Jan Sheridan, Doris Sippel, Bob and Terri Skurzewski, Shannon Spruill, Dan Starr, Shane Stephenson, Greg Sterlace, Amy Ludwig VanDerwater, Max Warfield, Kristin Warham, Karen Wielinski, Mercedes Wilson, Julianna Fiddler Woite, Theresa Wyatt.

©2018 THE BUFFALO & ERIE CO. HISTORICAL SOCIETY

CBS 60 Minutes on Buffalo WhistleBlower Who Released Documents Against Buffalo Catholic Bishop Malone’s Cover-Up of Priest Sex Abuse

Well, my home city of Buffalo, New York has, once again, made national news in a dark way. This really is world-wide news. And one woman, Siobhan O’Connor, is the whistle-blower we can all thank for her courageous decision to contact a TV News reporter.

Here is the printed article that tells the story:

Whistleblower says bishop knew of sexual abuse allegations, but did nothing

For the first time on television, the former executive assistant to Buffalo’s Bishop Richard Malone explains why she decided to speak out against the bishop for not taking action against priests accused of sexual abuse

Click on the above link to also view the CBS 60 Minutes video interview.

What follows here is a behind the scenes look. First the printed article, and the video, both at this link:

Why Bishop Malone’s assistant became a whistleblower

How did a faithful assistant become a moral objector? For Siobhan O’Connor, the process was gradual — but soon became imperative

Many of you may wonder why I am putting this on my blog about adoption. The answers are because two priests (one on the first list of 42 priests released in March 2018, and the other on a list of 4 priests revealed in June) were influential during my grade school and high school years. Not only that, but I worry about my classmates, my schoolmates, who were victims. I was not a victim, but I saw violence perpetrated by Monsignor when I was 12 years old. That incident told me there was something radically wrong with that man.

Moreover, I was a child when Monsignor reigned with terror from 1964 to 1970. He was still there when I was in high school. And then, Fr. Dan came in. Even though I was not a victim, I was there, in that grade school, in that church, and I was there in high school when we met for Catholic Youth Organization. I was there when sexual predators molested my friends.

Twenty years before Monsignor was assigned to my church, he was a priest at a church in Buffalo where my natural mother attended both the church and high school.  Monsignor signed my mother’s high school diploma. Twenty years later, he signed my 8th grade diploma. There is no way for me to know if he molested my mother. I can’t ask her; she’s dead. From all that I know now, Monsignor was not after girls and women. He was after boys. Still, it is hard for me, an adoptee, to go through my trauma-filled life, my reunion with my natural father and other blood relatives, grieve the loss of my mother by her untimely death when I was an infant, settle with that, and now look back in horror.

Did Monsignor touch my mother?

You may be wondering what I mean by “what I know now”. Well, since June, I’ve been in daily contact with a schoolmate whom I haven’t seen in 48 years, when I graduated from 8th grade at age 14. He wrote to me via my email contact form at this website. We met for the first time as kids in 1964. Think about that. We were young children in 1964.

About one month ago, by an unusual occurrence, I heard the name of a friend of mine from 6th, 7th, and 8th grade. I called him and asked what he knew. His answers were shocking.

I cannot tell anything else here. I am protecting these men’s privacy. We are dealing with this as best we can.

My first blog post about this topic is not only being read in Buffalo and surrounding areas, but all across this nation, and the world. My website tracker tells me this.

I stand with my classmates and schoolmates in solidarity. And I stand with Siobhan O’Connor, and all whistle-blowers, who hold up truth to a higher power that is greater than the Catholic church.

 

In Response to a perspective adopter

Well written, Gazelledz. I wish you had included the link to the post you were referring to as I’d like to pay a visit over there. The website seems to focus on pregnancy. Yes, I know adoptive parent wanna-bees hang out at places where pregnancy is the topic because, well, they covet what they can’t have naturally. That means, of course, that no matter how much any adopter loves their adopted child, they cannot replace what nature created.

Gazelle's Scirocco Winds

Re: TOBEPREGNANT.NET post

Unless you share DNA/cMs, ancestors, extended family, etc. with a child your are NOT that child’s mother. NO judge, state, or country can change inmutable natural laws, and only in the west is ‘adoption’ considered , wrongfully, to be acceptable.

Paying any fee for a child is illegal and bribery is worse. We are NOT for sale, nor are we here for your convenience. We are also not responsible for the choices-good or bad-that you have made, make, or will make in your life time. We were not born to replace what you do not have. We were born to those preselected to be our parents, no matter how or when we were conceived or how we are separated from them. They remain our parents and we their children.

The ‘legal’ conscription of a child through adoption is odious and a crime against nature and humanity as…

View original post 228 more words

“Government-Sanctioned Child Abuse”: Separating Kids, Parents at Border

At this point, I’m not sure if the children will be reunited with their parents. they should never have been separated in the first place. The lack of a database to keep track of the children and parents is appalling. Simple ID bracelets, DNA tests, photos were not part of this operation. These children were removed for no good reason.

ACEs Too High

Government officials are doing irreparable harm to families seeking asylum. They are separating children from their families, no matter the age of the child.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and over 200 other child welfare organizations, which have become increasingly sensitized to early life stress, have condemned the practice of child-parent separations. The head of the AAP, Colleen Kraft, has written an op-ed against it.

She says: “Officials at the Department of Homeland Security claim they act solely “to protect the best interests of minor children.””

Hardly. Is it ignorance or malice? We don’t know, but the justifications sound both ignorant and malicious.

What ignorance are they displaying? Here is a short description:

Human children are not like other animals. They are born so immature they look like fetuses of other animals till about 18 months of age. In the first years of life, children co-construct their biological…

View original post 713 more words