 |
| Demonstrating for the right of identity |
It was gratifying to hear you mention Seneca Falls (women's voting rights), Selma (African-American rights) and Stonewall (gay rights) yesterday, reminding the world of the progress made--and yet to be made--in giving all individuals their right to be free and equal to all. But there was one group sorely missing, and whose rights are being violated on a daily basis: the adopted.
The vast majority of them--somewhere between six and eight million--do not have the clear and unfettered right to learn their true identities. That
surely inviolate right was stolen from them upon adoption under archaic laws dating from an era when attitudes about being born "out of wedlock" were as out of date as the phrase sounds today. Attitudes change, but laws persist. "Adopted children" grow up to be fully-formed adults, but only in seven states do they have the right, without qualifications, to obtain a copy of their original, unamended, birth certificates. That singular piece of paper contains to key to the answer: Who am I? Who was I when I was born?
The laws date from a time--the Thirties to the Sixties--when the shame of becoming pregnant outside of marriage could ruin a woman. Her disgrace carried over to her child, and the thinking was that by obliterating her, the individual could have a new life, unchained from his past. Yet these laws were passed without giving a voice to those whom they primarily affected: the adopted, and with these laws, the state stripped away their right to answer any and all questions they might have about their backgrounds. One can name only one other institution that so cavalierly took individual rights that were without end for those most directly affected: slavery.
 |
| Lorraine |
The stumbling block to unsealing birth certificates is the supposed secrecy guaranteed women like myself. But the laws did not seal the birth certificate upon relinquishment of our children, but upon adoption, and so women could not be granted automatically and legally the kind of "privacy" that seems so inviolate by those opposed to giving adoptees the right to know who they are. Furthermore, it is morally indefensible that adopted individuals are denied access to this basic tenet of self-knowledge because disclosure will embarrass some. Nonetheless, this is the argument we hear when we lobby for unsealing the original birth certificates. And so our bills are shunted to committee to die. But questions of identity do not die.
Not all adoptees search. Many are quiescent because they do not wish to hurt their adoptive parents, who have conveyed to them that such a search is a denunciation of their care and love. But it is not; it is simply a quest for the truth of one's origins. For many who can find no answers, the void of knowledge is painful, unending, and life-altering.
As with gay marriage, this is an issue clogged up in the states. Halfway measures that give birth/first parents say over whether a document should be released still keep adoptees in the chains of an outdated mindset and outmoded law. The right to know one's true identity should not be constrained by the state, and must be an inviolate right if we are to be a nation of men and women who are free and equal to all.
In closing, consider the words of Sister Dominica Maria, director of the New York Foundling Home in the Thirties. She wrote to the governor, Herbert H. Lehman, begging that the bill he promoted sealing the original birth records upon adoption in the state not pass. As an adoptive father of that era, he was doing what he thought best, and the New York legislature bent to his will. Yet her reasons for opposing this law are as true today as they were nearly four score years ago:
"(1) It legalizes the falsification of permanent public records.
(2) It nullifies the inalienable right of person to know the actual facts of his birth.
3) Any special provision for illegitimate children which will single them out from the group of legitimate children is bound to be a cause of embarrassment to them in later years…. Sister Dominica Maria, Superintendent, New York Foundling Hospital. April 25, 1935”I know you have much on your agenda for the next four years, but you have the prestige and power to make a difference. An endorsement from you for the reform we seek would influence decision makers to help relegate these laws into the dustbin of history, where they will surely end up one day.
Sincerely,
Lorraine Dusky
I am the author of Birthmark (1979),the first memoir from a birth mother point of view, and have been involved in adoptee rights since the 1970s.
-----------------------------
See also: Dear President Obama: Open Sealed Records
Beautifully stated, Lorraine. It is just absurd that we adopted adults still cannot secure our original birth certificates in most states. I am so appreciative of all you do to raise awareness.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Lorraine, for stating the facts about adoptees' segregation and stigma. Please consider sending this blog post in snail mail to Pres Obama. He needs to see it in print; maybe he won't read blogs, but he will read his mail! Let us all know what he says in reply.
ReplyDeleteOh, trust me, I am sending this via snail to Obama. Thanks for asking, though. and I'll let you know when and if I get a response. last time I wrote I did not get one. I think the letter stopped at someone's in basket. It was longer and had fact and figures; maybe it was too much.
ReplyDeleteDear President Obama: Open Sealed Records
Yeah, my snail mail letters to Pres Obama have not been answered either. The last President to actually respond to one of my letters about adoptees' rights was President Ford. If your first letter "was too much" in volume, you certainly have it down now! Except, I think what happened, and happens, to pregnant girls and women then and now, needs to be addressed also. Your losses cannot be ignored. To be denied to parent your own child, to be stricken from your daughter's birth certificate and another woman's name placed as given birth is a horrible insult! And, finally, and I hesitate to say, to lose your daughter again, this time in suicide, is an unimaginable loss. President Obama needs to hear it all.
ReplyDeleteYou are a fool if you think the puppet masters will let Obama do anything for us. For those very people still make so much money off of us and so do the gays who also control the President. The hypocrite homosexual and lesbian lobby (think O'Donnell's) do not care at all about our freedom and rights and they are using us, just as straight infertile couples always have. Much of the gay community is bigoted against single heterosexual mothers (aren't you aware we are still called "breeders" by them?) and adoptees are also being used by the gay population to further their cause. People need to wake up and see that the gay activists have made Orwellian adoption laws impossible to fight for first mothers and adoptees now. So have celebrities. Celebrities who have adopted and contributed generously to Obama's campaign fund. I do hope Obama at least reads your letter before he throws it in the trash though.
ReplyDeleteI think your letter was on the money. Did you read the presentation that BN recently gave to Ohio adoption lawyers? It made a point of steering away from emotional/reunion issues and stuck with the rights issue: "Adopted people want their original birth certificates for many reasons. But reasons are immaterial. We have a right to the facts about our births, origins, and adoptions. We have a right to do whatever we please with the information found on our birth certificates, just as the not-adopted do. We should not be parsed, chopped, spindled and mutilated. The right to the public record of our births is not some radical controversial idea or an attack on adoption."
ReplyDeleteThank you for not launching an all-out attack on adoption in your letter to the president. It was a measured, intelligent, and heartfelt response that put civil rights center stage. This is the kind of message that will reach its intended audience and not be tuned out. I hope he responds.
By the way, there is some interesting info in the BN presentation about how in the wake of Obama's own troubles with the birthers, the amended birth certificate is less acceptable than ever as proof of birth.
Anon, way to go with the homophobic rant. Never mind the letter--nice way to throw your cause in the trash. Gays control the president? Puh-leese. Hate it when I see this kind of thing in the adoption reform movement. Sadly, it is not confined to one or two people.
ReplyDeleteThis was beautifully stated. I hope you don't mind but I stole your idea and actually penned my own to Michelle Obama- perhaps she can influence someone in power or add our cause to her own platform.
ReplyDeleteFor those reading the comments here, the blogs that we wrote about previously after they began attacking us for our anger and straight-talking are at it again. At least one left a comment at the previous blog, First Mother Forum makes some people mad, as in, why don't we take responsibility for our actions?
ReplyDeleteYep, we had sex. Yep, we signed the surrender papers. Yep, adoptive parents have lied to a lot of us. Yep, some of us had parents who insisted that we not bring the child home. Yep, others of us felt there was no possible choice other than adoption, so it was hardly a "choice." Yep, so-called "open" adoptions often end up closed. Yep, we get angry. Yep, we have been called all kinds of names for not sitting down and shutting up.
Will that suffice?
You would think that if people can't stand the heat they would stay out of the kitchen. I find it odd that Rain criticizes our blog for misrepresenting her..when we were quoting her....
On another note, thanks everyone for the kudos.
ReplyDeleteToday is the day I sent this letter to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Please join me in writing to the president. If he gets a number of letters on this subject, someone will notice.
Lorraine I think your letter is one of the very best letters I have ever read.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, the letter will make it to President Obama.
I appreciate all the work you do on behalf of the adopted.
@ObamaGirl,
ReplyDeleteI am laughing so hard, so thank you. Is it a homophobic rant as you call it, to cut down Daniel O'Donnell for saying he will never open the adoption records because he is a gay man? (And isn't HIS saying that
bastardphobic btw?)Is it homophobic to cut down Rosie O'Donnell for saying that God put babies in the wrong tummies, as she did insulting first mothers everywhere? And is it a homophobic rant to state that gay couples expect straight women to give them their babies, especially through surrogacy or on trash tv shows and they are wrong to do this? According to your mentality, it is perfectly fine to screw over first mothers and adoptees if the gays do it through adoption laws that discriminate against us. I have no sympathy for the gays as many were bigots in their own right towards other groups of people and were long before gay rights. I know this from what I heard some say over 20 years ago. We are also one of these groups dear and defending gay rights while some of them trash ours will accomplish nothing.
Adoptive parents oppose open records because they are threatened by the biological connection the child has with her first parents. They know in their heart of hearts that the biological connection is so powerful, that it is a bond that cannot be broken.
ReplyDeleteI don't think being concerned about how gay rights will impact adoption is going off on a 'homophobic rant'. It is a biological fact that two persons of the same gender cannot create a baby. So the only way a gay or lesbian couple can create a family with children is by adoption or by using the new technologies to create a non-genetically related child. I think that gay rights activists don't support access to OBCs for the same reasons as heterosexual APs.
This is just my personal feeling, but I am glad that I got an adoptive family that was a very close match to my natural parents, same race, same religion, one male, one female. That does not mean that others are not good parents but I did appreciate being raised in an environment that matched what I was born into.
So Rosie 0'Donnell, a fifty-something woman who has already had one heart attack was able to adopt a newborn. I can't believe how anyone doesn't see what a business adoption is. Those with the most money go to the head of the line.
Great letter, Lorraine! There's really nothing more that could be added.
Robin and Anonymous, it is homophobic to point out someone's sexual orientation in an argument about another issue and to claim that an entire group has Obama in its thrall. By all means, call out Rosie's statement and disagree with Rosie and her brother for their stance on records. What does it have to do with her sexual orientation except that you just relish pointing it out? Gay men and lesbians also adopt from foster care and more would if they could.
ReplyDeleteRobin,
ReplyDeleteThank you for seeing my points. The amended birth certificate that gays want made up stating that the child was created by two males or two females(Parent or Party A and Parent or Party B) proves right there that they do not listen to adoptee's feelings about the issue of amended birth certificates to begin with and they do not care. It is bad enough that adoptees have to live the lie that two heterosexual strangers conceived them, but to make that lie even worse, stating two people who could NEVER conceive a child due to biological impossibility is unforgivable imo. This is the height of disrespect to all adoptees. I want to make it clear to Obamagirl, that when I said the gays own Obama I meant due to campaign donations and due to his party. The Christian adoptive parents also owned McCain as far as I am concerned and this would of been true if Romney had won also. Translation: NO open records.
My point is Obamagirl is that I look down on groups of people who say all the time that other people discriminate against them (ie: the gays) then turn around and support laws and participate in systems that discriminate against other people (ie: first mothers, adoptees and adoption). That is called being a hypocrite and only a moron likes hypocrites you know. I also choose not to support gay rights because they will not support mine and that is MY right and every other first mother and adoptee. Why don't you spend some time trashing gays for not supporting us instead of being so intent on defending them? Or don't we count enough? Are gay people more important than those oppressed by adoption? Hell, no they are not and I suppose I am frustrated living in a country that tries to say otherwise.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough, someone once asked Rosie on her blog why she was against open records, and she said she wasn't but added no explanation. She may actually not have the same stance as her brother, but she sure isn't influencing him if she doesn't.
ReplyDeleteAnd for those who don't know who I meant by the puppet masters, well what do you think? Adoptive parents. Don't they pull all the strings?
ReplyDeleteLorraine said "Oddly enough, someone once asked Rosie on her blog why she was against open records, and she said she wasn't but added no explanation."
ReplyDeletePerhaps she was confusing open records with open adoption. Quite a few people do - although I wouldn't have thought she'd be one of them, because her brother certainly knows the difference. My guess is she was fudging the issue.
Anonymous Jan. 23, 8:16 AM, you said, "People need to wake up and see that the gay activists have made Orwellian adoption laws impossible to fight for first mothers and adoptees now." I agree with Obamagirl. That is homophobic, no getting away from it. Gays are *not* a homogenous group.
You might be interested to hear that George Orwell was an adoptive father (one who actually burned the names of his adopted son's first parents off the adoption papers).
Also, and just for the record, he expressed strong anti-abortion sentiments in his novel "Keep the Aspidistra Flying". I think it's just as well to know what the person whose name you are invoking to support your argument really stands for.
Um, Anon, how do you know that most gay men and lesbians would choose to discriminate against you? You've mentioned two people. You know that most people know little about adoption issues. You realize as well that the birth certificate is not a record of who pushed out the baby but a legal record of parentage. It may not be beautiful or fair, and I agree that it isn't, but gay men and lesbians are merely using a system that is already in place. If you want to reach them, talk to them, point out the common issues, then drop the homophobia. Of course, winning hearts may not be on your agenda. I find that despite the oft-repeated claim to "speak the disturbing truth" and the general Joan of Arc agenda here and elsewhere, lots of people in adoption reform are not really interested in reaching people or in winning. They're interested in staying in their echo chamber. Fat lot of good that does. This is why I liked Lorraine's letter. By the way, 1 in 16 of Obama's biggest fundraisers is gay, according to a CNN poll. If you count people who did not identify orientation, maybe 1 in 6 is gay. That still does not count as "controlling" the president. Gay people did not make the adoption laws you are rightly incensed about. You simply don't like them. It's called bigotry. I'm bi. You asked me why I don't spend more time trashing gays. Go f*** yourself.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall any gay organization taking a position on Measure 58 in Oregon. Measure 58 was the 1998 ballot measure that allowed adult adoptees to access their original birth certificates.
ReplyDeleteI know several gay adoptees and gay first parents who worked for its passage.
The gays I know who have adopted have open adoptions so I don't think they would oppose allowing adoptees to have their OBCs. I think Rosie's hang-up is not related to her being gay but to her own neurosis and insecurities.
Thank you, Jane.
ReplyDeleteAnd there are certainly gays involved in the movement for unsealing the OBCs in New York. What upsets me about Danny O'Donnell is that he cannot connect the dots and see that there is a group other than gays who have had their rights usurped and he actively is against them, while he was one of the leaders getting gay marriage passed in NY.
ReplyDeleteI'm still shocked at Dannny O'Donnell's performance that day we were in his office in Albany. "step right up, folks, and open the door! We have here an adoptee who does not ever want to see his original birth certificate because he was removed from his parents' care due to severe abuse!" Drama, drama, acting runs in the family, I see.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I'd like a one-on-one personal discussion with this man. He's putting on a show and he believes his own antics. Waht would he do with an honest and personal discussion with an adoptee?
Let's see, Mary Beth Whitehead (the scandal of 1986 and 1987) and I talked on the phone several times. I met her attorney at an AAC conference. During out conversation, the great (?) Bill Pierce approached us. We talked for at least an hour. Given the chance, given the face to face with a real adoptee, Bill Pierce wavered. He could not look me in the eye and continue to rant. He was speechless once he heard my story and my reality of having my real birth certificate because my father gave it to my adoptive parents when he gave me to them; but I am not legally allowed to have it. Bill had no words!
Danny and Rosie just might come to their senses with personal one-on-one conversations.
I'd like to have a beer with Obama...and invite Danny and Rosie!
Oh sorry. How rude of me. Not Obama, we're on first name basis. Barack. So, listen, we've got to call for a summit. Let's set up a few days so you, Barack, can hear our stories, put faces and names to our stories. Talk with us. Learn from us. Make real change.
ReplyDeleteLorraine, I hope you sent along your blog's link! And yes, I'm writing my letter right now!
I am relieved to see the tone of comments here rising above those of homophobic anon. Like Jane and Lo I have worked with gay and lesbian adoptees, birthparents and adoptive parents FOR adoptee rights, and it was not a cynical matter of "you support me, I'll support you" but people doing what they felt was right. There is no gay position on open records or adoptee rights, just individual opinions, just like with straight people, black people, Irish, Italians, etc etc. Rosie and her brother are two obnoxious individuals. Rag on them all you want, but don't include the whole GLBT community. That is just counterproductive.
ReplyDeleteobamagirlA birth certificate is a certificate OF BIRTH..not legal parentage..where did you ever get that? It is a certificate of who GAVE BIRTH and who is responsible for the existence of the person listed on that BIRTH certificate. It has nothing to do with who raised that person. An adoption certificate is what lists the raising parents.
ReplyDeleteGawd...I can't stand the possessive attitudes on a person(no, not a child, not not a baby but a human being).
I am 55 years old...STOP telling ME what i need or don't need. I NEED my original birth certificate. My adoptive parents don't. I don't need to tell anyone the reasons why and will not listen to the who owns the human that was born and placed with strangers....and the most common reason is because those strangers can't have their own. I am tired of defending what is obvious that a person is not OWNED by anyone and that includes adoptive people. Thats what MLK was trying to get across. Your comment about birth certificates listing legal parentage shows how you just might want ownership of a person and not caring about that person unless they are fulfilling your needs. IF that person is gay or straight its the same thing.
Your comment that a BC does record "who pushed them out" shows lack of respect totally.
I "pushed out" 5 , My nmother "pushed out" 3 and honey those my babies were mine as i was my nmothers...my amom raised me but she does not belong on a "BIRTH certificate, no matter how much I loved and appreciated her.
I am sorry but to list a gay couple is as bad as listing an hetro couple...its just plain lies and most adopted people pick up on that pretty quick. Its called brainwashing to fulfill someone else's needs. Seriously who wants parents that can't tell the truth? And the first erticate of a person life is the BIRTH certifcate...stop the lies. ITs NOT a certificate on who loves who best...its not a validation to make someone mommy...ITS ABOUT THE PERSON BEING BORN
Also really tired of vunerable infants being used to fight political battles. Whether it be religious(save the children), gay(we are just as good and what to be mommy and daddies tooooooo), or being used as job security(social workers, adoption agency's, lawyers) all in the name of childs best interst...bullshit.
I agree with dpen and Anon on the OBC issue. Adoptees are already having a hard time getting drivers licenses and passports and that's with amended birth certificates that list a male and female parent. Just imagine how much more difficult it will be for adoptees to prove the veracity of an amended birth certificate if it lists two parents of the same gender. This is only going to affect a small percentage of the population so I doubt that every government official will be up to date on this particular situation. It will probably even vary by state, causing even more difficulties and confusion.
ReplyDeleteI support gay rights including gay marriage. But I don't think gay marriage equals someone else has an obligation to produce a baby for the couple so that they can have a family. I also don't think that infertile heterosexual couples or singles are entitled to someone else's child. I don't see how this is discriminatory but if it makes me politically incorrect, so be it.
I hope you get a reply to your letter. Just in case some readers are confused, I don't think any of us are comparing our cause to THE civil rights movement, except in the way that we feel we need to be heard ,not just pushed aside and some action taken As even the UN charter says, every human being has a right to know who brought them into this world and if possible to be raised by family, and, I might add, every woman has a right to know who her child is (and if he is even alive or dead). Did you try sending an e-mail letter to the Obama web site? During the campaign, I sent several and I know they read them because I suggested the president stop using a certain phrase in his speeches and he stopped right after that. I'll bet everything was read during that time. Oh,yeah that was then-they needed us for our vote. Reminds me of the social workers-they needed us for our babies and then it was "Go away,the joke's on you" I did end up voting for Obama after all(I'm in an area hit by the hurricane) but it would be nice if they still read our e-mails and letters now. I wish these people who don't understand what this does to someone could just walk in our shoes for awhile.But they can't. I'm still pro-life,however, even after all of this Being is better than non-being.
ReplyDeletedpen, where did I ever say adoptees don't need their birth certificates? I believe every adoptee has a right to it, as I wrote in my first response on this thread. In terms of what the birth certificate means, though, there are at least 30 clauses in the Family Law act of Alberta (just as an example) just *defining* parentage, and in some cases the father who donated the sperm and the mother who gave birth are not declared parents, e.g., with surrogacy, even on the original certificate. I'm not saying it's right or that a gay couple should do it. I'm saying there's a precedent for it and that the birth certificate sometimes bypasses the person who gave birth as "parent". Is it all good? No. It's extremely complicated and the ramifications for children born into these circumstances may not be good at all. But it is not a "gay" problem.
ReplyDeleteJust one more note--I know two men with a child and she is biologically related to both. She is the product of one man's sperm and the egg of the other man's twin, who has since passed. They used a surrogate. Their names are on the birth certificate as her parents. Whose names should be on the certificate in your opinion? She will always know who she is and how she was born, btw, and it does without saying that she will experience family and heritage like anyone else.
ReplyDelete@Lorraine Dusky:
ReplyDeleteI criticized you for mis-quoting me, because you changed the wording/meaning of the quote. You can't put what I said into quotes...and then change a word...that's not quoting. You also didn't include the two sentences previous to the "quoted" statement...which directly counters your assumption that I don't feel pain is relevant in adoption. I'm sure you did it to help clear up things for your readers, but I feel it unnecessarily obscured my meaning.
And since you are commenting here, and not on my blog or on the main thread...I thought it appropriate to respond here.
Of course adoption involves pain...something I have said MANY times before. My point was, as ill-written as it might have been, was that the pain of making a hard choice is something we all face...and that pain shouldn't be the only thing that influences an birth mother's options.
Take Ms J (my son's birth mom) as an example. She had two options...give her child up for adoption or trust the foster care system take care of him. She had no family or friends who she trusted with a child. She was in jail. Do I think for an instant this was an easy choice for her? NO! Do I think she wished she wasn't in jail and could parent Cadet? YES! But, that wasn't in the cards. Her choice was painful. But, in that pain, she made a positive choice (see her recent letter to us from prison).
So, yes, pain is part of adoption. And yes, you mis-quoted me/mis-interpreted my meaning. I hope this clears things up a bit.
And, I would love to see your and Jane's response to SIF and my responses (per your facebook question).
re: sidebar
ReplyDeleteI'm hooked on that dang Bachelor/ette show, too. Maybe you missed the first episode where they introduced AshLee. She spent her whole intro monologue crying about how she was a foster child and wasn't placed in a permanent home until she was 6 y.o. Then she kept saying how lucky she was. Her story is tragic and she is obviously still deeply traumatized by it as she is 32 years old and couldn't stop crying about it, on national television no less.
The hunk, Sean Lowe, said in his bio that he wants to adopt as well as have his 'own' children. Hopefully, if AshLee is the one he picks in the end, they will provide a loving home for a child who really needs it and not try to snatch someone else's newborn. AshLee is quite beautiful and seems to have a good heart.
I also read some comments following the Bachelor blogs and she is referred to as the "adopted chick".
Rain now acknowledges that adoption involves pain and claims we didn't quote her correctly in our post "First Mother Forum makes some people mad". Here is the full quote from her blog:
ReplyDelete"Some of the birth mothers (and yes, I call them birth mothers because that’s what Ms J [her adopted son's mother] wants us to call her…) on the aforementioned websites and blogs have regrets about giving their child up for adoption. Okay. I’m sorry. I simply can’t imagine the pain of giving up a child. I can’t and I probably never will. I’m sorry. OF COURSE YOU'RE IN PAIN. I FEEL FOR YOU. AT THE SAME TIME, THAT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH ADOPTION. You made a choice, a hard choice, but a choice. And every day, everywhere, people make horrible choices. And, taking responsibility for those choices is part of being a functioning member of society. You are entitled to your opinion and your feelings." (Emphasis added.)
Robin: II missed the segment about AshLee talking about being adopted. Yes, I can't help check into The Bachelor and its
ReplyDeletes counterpart. I know the footage is manipulated, but in the end, I feel sorry for the people who go on the show, get caught up in the moment, and end up crying and feeling terrible when they are eliminated.
responding to:
ReplyDeleteObamaGirl said...
Just one more note--I know two men with a child and she is biologically related to both. She is the product of one man's sperm and the egg of the other man's twin, who has since passed. They used a surrogate. Their names are on the birth certificate as her parents. Whose names should be on the certificate in your opinion? She will always know who she is and how she was born, btw, and it does without saying that she will experience family and heritage like anyone else.
my answer:
I've been researching and writing about sperm donors, surrogacy, and egg donors for 30 years. When adults enter into playing with nature, creating a human being by artificial means, all genetic and gestational parents should be named on a birth certificate that specifies what role each played in creating that newborn human.
This is not just my opinion, it is the determination of entire countries who examined these issues closely. It is inhumane to use the eggs of one man's fraternal twin sister, the sperm from his partner, and the womb of a stanger to incubate the growing infant. For the sanity of that tiny human, all roles of split parentage should be recorded.
We have this notion in society that a child needs "two parents", but when these two parents decide to involve a third or fourth adult in the huge responsibility of creating a new human, then all of them are to be held accountable to the tiny human they all came together to create. No one gets out without moral consequences. The child will grow up to become an adult who will ask questions.
No parent has the "right" to lie about anything to their children. Those lies will come back to haunt them and the child will resent the lies and the liars.
From a mental health standpoint, (I'm a social worker who worked in mental health and homeless shelters), a child is helpless, the adults are not. The adults decide how to make a baby because they are only concerned with their little pity-party of "I WANT a baby", but they are not the ones who will have to bear the burden of coping with all the split parentage that went into creating them. And that means, a Primal Wound worse than one normal adoptees feel. Now, with the situation you described, that child, no matter how much love is showered over them, will have an identity problem, thanks to all the parents who coluded to create them. That is an emotional, biological, moral and spiritual delemna that only such a child/person created by artificial means has to deal with. For the rest of their lives. Their future children and subsequent generations will be affected as well. Selfish adults who WANT a baby, thus create a multitude of unknowns for this new human.
And, if adoption is thrown in the mix, the man who's fraternal twin sister donated her eggs, HE is one step removed from being her father. Don't kid yourself. HE is not the father at all. Did HE adopt this child? If so, then that action further complicates this mess.
@Obamagirl,
ReplyDeleteMany gay adoptive parents, including celebrity ones have chosen closed adoption which upsets me. I am completely anti-closed adoption. This is what I mean by the gays holding us back and making it harder to fight the abusive adoption laws. Because there are even more people adopting now because of gay adoptive parents and more people to fight us. I find your behavior towards me very immature, unintelligent and rude. Telling me to go F myself, I said nothing of the sort to you. You should know you aren't going to get any brownie points from any one acting and talking like this. You'll only make people dislike you a whole lot. To whom ever said to me that Orwell was an adoptive parent and burned the papers with the names of the children real parents, that is an outright lie, so please spare me and everyone else more of them. dpen and Robin,thank you.
Ms. Dusky,
ReplyDeleteI also forgot to say in one of my last comments that the puppet masters are the adoption agencies to. That is what I meant, adoptive parents and adoption agencies and their organizations. I am sure you know who they are. (NCFA, Knights of Columbus, etc)
And Obamagirl one other thing. You know full well that most gay people ARE Democrats. So as I said before the Presidential candidate is owned by that party and all the beliefs of it there where in. I guess you misunderstood what I said.
ReplyDeleteAND Obamagirl I said why don't you spend time trashing gays who don't support OPEN RECORDS NOT WHY DON'T YOU SPEND TIME TRASHING GAYS? Why do you LIE like that and twist my words? Leave OUT my words? What is your problem? I'm done commenting here. BAD vibes.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous and anonymous and anonymous...easier to chose a moniker and use that, Please. Easier for everyone to follow.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, it is time to stop this bout, Obamagirl and Anonymous.
To Anonymous Jan. 24, 5:42 PM who said "To whom ever said to me that Orwell was an adoptive parent and burned the papers with the names of the children real parents, that is an outright lie, so please spare me."
ReplyDeleteThis is from an interview with Richard Blair, Orwell's adopted son:
http://chillifrog.tumblr.com/post/150880875/george-orwells-son
"One final, intriguing question hanging over Richard's childhood is the identity of his true parents. On the copy of the adoption certificate their names have been burned away with a cigarette, leaving a brown-edged hole, as if Orwell wanted to destroy any evidence that his boy was not his. Despite this dissuasion, Richard decided, fairly recently, to track down his birth mother, only to find that she had died, and that his surviving half-sister had no idea that her mother had ever given a child up for adoption. "She took her secret to the grave," she told Richard, and she made it clear she wanted her mother's secret kept. So he has vowed to keep it silent."
Another link about George Orwell's adopted son:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.netcharles.com/orwell/ctc/docs/onlyheir.htm
The Only Heir Scarcely Knew his Adoptive Father
People Weekly, 9 Jan 1984
"At 39, Richard Blair is a reluctant and disassociated heir. His adoptive mother died when he was 10 months old, and Orwell passed on when he was just 6. The author, using a cigarette, had burned the names of Blair's real parents off the adoption papers. "He didn't want me to know and maybe didn't want to know himself," Blair says. "He wanted to consider me his very own.""
halforphan56, when did I say that this child's parents would lie to her? "No parent has the 'right' to lie about anything to their children. Those lies will come back to haunt them and the child will resent the lies and the liars."
ReplyDeleteI explained in my response that this child knows what her parentage and heredity is. When she is older, the sister's role and the role of the woman who carried her to term will be explained. You have dismissed the entire situation as "inhumane." Please explain why it is inhumane when all parties agreed with it, embraced their roles, delighted in this child's birth, and accepted the two men as parents from Day 1. Why is this family configuration going to be so harmful to this child and so offensive to you?
January 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, you insulted an entire group of people with your remarks and take no responsibility for it. Your final excuse is that many gays are adopting and that "upsets you". It is still no excuse for your suggestion that an entire group of people is morally culpable for stupid things that individuals do. Yeah, most gay men and lesbians are Democrats because that's who stuck up for them. Your logic therefore applies to any president in power with a healthy margin of victory. Not news. Not news at all. I have lots of friends. I suspect you don't.
ReplyDeleteobamagirll,,I still maintain a true BC is one that conceived the person listed...not the adoptive parents whether gay or not...yes there are AMENDED BC that can state the family dog if they want but they are not the true BC, those are sealed and needs an act of congress to open them. If all the paps, current adoptive parents and general society in general REALLY love the poor little bastards they would get that a person needs to know their beginnings no matter what they came from and to attempt to change the fact(by changing BC to suite the needy) is NOT in the child's best interest. A childs birth is really about the child not the wanna be real mommy's and daddies that make the childs birth about them. So sorry about being so cynical but being the hard core moderate that I am I SEE the hypocrisy in both conservative and liberal agenda's and BOTH are about themselves and not the true needy. As the hyper liberal champion gays rights they forget about the little asexual babe that is in the middle of there "fight" , conservative are so against gays that they would prefer a baby not be aborted and be given to abusive praying people then to a couple of the same sex that truly can raise a child....anyway the little human loses in both cases. Please listen to the adoptees they are the ONLY experts ....I am pro child...not anti or pro anything else.
ReplyDeleteIf someone is gay and CHOOSES not to create their OWN child they are NOT entitled to someones else's all in the name of gay rights...if a hetro couple is infertile for whatever reason they are NOT entitled to to someones else's child. AND in both cases if it becomes apparent that this child NEEDS to be placed because of neglect or abuse its up to the potential raisers to educated themselves on what they are doing...its NOT up to the child to make them feel all happy and parental and build families. Its up to the adults to help the child heal from the trauma of being separated from their first mothers...no matter who or what they are.
AND if all you REALLY love your cute little bouncing babes you will understand that open RECORDS(not necessarily open adoption) are what ALL people need. If you are not adopted you don't get it.
dpen, yes, the identity of the egg donor ought to be on the certificate, but I don't think it's wrong to list the two men as her parents. In this particular case, there is such openness that it is hard to think of this child being harmed by secrecy. But you are right that the child is entitled to a document expressing her genetic origins accurately. On that we agree. However, I do not think that making this family was wrong-headed.
ReplyDeleteYo! The Orwell story is so...Orwellian. I read the links above. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteHow cruel of Orwell to burn the names of the original parents of his son. How futuristic, and how extraordinarily cruel.
from one of the links about Orwell's adopted son:
ReplyDeleteOne final, intriguing question hanging over Richard’s [Orwell's adopted son] childhood is the identity of his true parents. On his copy of the adoption certificate their names have been burnt away with a cigarette, leaving a brown-edged hole, as if Orwell wanted to destroy any evidence that his boy was not his. Despite this dissuasion, Richard decided, fairly recently, to track down his birth mother, only to find that she had died, and that his surviving halfsister had no idea her mother had ever given a child up for adoption. “She took her secret to the grave,” she told Richard, and she made it clear that she wanted her mother’s secret kept. So he has vowed to keep it silent.
This is from the Sunday Times (of London, I believe) 3 years ago it says at the bottom. Orwell's adoptive mother died when he was three; she kept her illness secret until he was adopted, apparently; and Orwell himself died when Richard was six. Orwell's sister did not seem keen to have this child to raise, a question I have often considered. When the adopting individual, or individuals die, how often does the extended family feel obligated and loving towards someone who only connection to them may be a piece of paper signed by someone other than himself?
It is rather ironic, isn't it? Nevertheless, Richard remembers Orwell lovingly, saying he had "a heart of deep paternal affection".
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Orwell's wife Eileen wasn't too keen on the idea of adoption, but agreed to it because she knew that Orwell was desperate for a son.
Orwell's sister Avril sounds like a typical of-the-period-no-nonsense kind of person, but according to Richard she was protective and loving in her own way. Here's some stuff about Richard's upbringing with Aunt Av:
http://www.orwellsociety.com/2011/10/27/richard-blair-on-life-with-my-aunt-avril/
And here's the vid from the Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival 2009 of Richard Blair in conversation with D. J Taylor:
http://georgeorwellnovels.com/videos/george-orwell-son-richard-blair-in-conversation-with-d-j-taylor/
Actually the only time the word "keen" appears in the Sunday Times article is with reference to Eileen, Orwell's first wife, and is about the adoption.
ReplyDeleteThe person who seemed to be not at all keen on raising Richard after Orwell's death was his second wife Sonia Brownwell, considered by some to be a conniving literary groupie. She was sixteen years younger than Orwell and they married three months before he died.
The article from The Sunday Times states "a stepmother’s role was not one she coveted, so Richard continued to live with Avril and Bill, and scarcely saw Sonia during the 1950s."
To ObamaGirl,
ReplyDeleteMy answers in 2 parts due to space limitations:
Sorry my comment upset you so much. I’m not here to pick a fight. Yes, I did write the words you quoted. What you did not explain is: did the man whose now-deceased fraternal twin sister donated eggs, did he adopt this child? Is his name and the other man’s name on an amended birth certificate? If so, they both are part of the problem.
I don’t care how much love and personal-truth-telling any gay or lesbian couple, or any heterosexual couple, gives a child created by artificial means, the facts are that individual state laws vary on who is listed on the child’s birth certificate.
Some COUNTRIES officially require that ALL parents are named on ONE birth certificate, Britain (feeling that to do so would hurt gays and lesbians) decided several years ago to completely deny the existence of any other parent on the official birth certificate, so only two women or two men are named as parents on a child’s birth certificate.
In the family you described: The names of the two men who are raising this child belong on an ADOPTION certificate, not a birth certificate.
In America, different states may have different laws. So, if the surrogate is named as the birthing mother, and the sperm donor is named as the father on the actual birth certificate, and then the gay couple adopts the child, the names of two men are then listed on the new, amended and false birth certificate, and the actual birth certificate is sealed. The new birth certificate becomes the child’s (person’s) only form of ID, which is a lie. It is a legal lie. If all of the above is true, and the egg donor is not named anywhere, that is another lie.
You asked for a solution and I gave one. As I said, this is not my own opinion; I have researched this topic for 30 years and have consulted with top people from around the world. I co-presented about this topic at an American Adoption Congress conference in the mid 1990s and in our audience sat the late Annette Baran. She politely said that she thought sperm donation was a wonderful way to create a baby. Well, you know, Annette was a role model for me since 1976, and she later became my friend. But at that moment, I disagreed with my role model and teacher. She, of course, was a great writer, a social worker, but she was not adopted and, therefore, could not know how it all feels.
I (and most adoptees and natural mothers) do not approve of sperm donation, egg donation, surrogate mothers, and contractual parents who pick and choose gamete donors off of websites and pick a surrogate from India. As I said previously, the psychological and medical burdens placed upon a child/person created by these means, are inhumane. You may not understand, but I do. I’m adopted. I’ve talked with many people who were created in this way and they are not happy about it. None of what I say is homophobic. None.
Part 2 to ObamaGirl:
ReplyDelete“Please explain why it is inhumane when all parties agreed with it, embraced their roles, delighted in this child's birth, and accepted the two men as parents from Day 1. Why is this family configuration going to be so harmful to this child and so offensive to you?”
All parties DID NOT agree to it: the child/person created this way, who was possibly adopted, too, did not agree to this and will suffer the consequences of all of the parents’ decisions. Identity confusion is very hard to accept and figure out. So, two men are raising the child, and the child will ask, “Who is my mother?” And the answer is: she has two mothers. And if the surrogate was paid for her rent-a-womb services, that adds another dimension to this identity confusion.
You say that this all will be explained to her when she is older. I can tell you from experience that telling a child various explanations, even in age appropriate ways, the explanations change and the child hears that new information is given each time, and that adds to the identity confusion: which version is correct? So, they lied to me before because I was too young to understand.
When the complete truth is told, the perhaps now-young adult may be hurt, furious, in grief because her genetic mother is dead (that cannot be helped, I realize) and disgusted that she grew inside the uterus of a woman she may or may not know in any capacity.
Since you take offense to my answer, and will probably dislike this answer, too, may I suggest that you buy this book: “Lethal Secrets: The Shocking Consequences and Unsolved Problems of Artificial Insemination: parents, children, donors, and experts speak out” by Annette Baran and Reuben Pannor, 1989.
As for this:
“you insulted an entire group of people with your remarks and take no responsibility for it. Your final excuse is that many gays are adopting and that "upsets you". It is still no excuse for your suggestion that an entire group of people is morally culpable for stupid things that individuals do. Yeah, most gay men and lesbians are Democrats because that's who stuck up for them. Your logic therefore applies to any president in power with a healthy margin of victory. Not news. Not news at all. I have lots of friends. I suspect you don't.”
I take it that you direct this comment to me. I did not insult an entire group of people; you believe I did. I certainly do take responsibility for my words. Just because I haven’t answered immediately (I have a life offline, you know), does not mean I am not taking responsibility in not responding to you sooner. Yes, anyone who creates a human being by artificial means is “morally culpable” for the reasons I have already stated. Read the book named above and you will read personal accounts of how donor-conceived people feel. Even in the most open and loving household, as I’ve already stated, a child/person created in this way, and then adopted, in this case raised (adopted?) by two men, will be confused.
Uh, I voted for Obama, twice. I am a Unitarian Universalist for 30 years. In my church, we have a very large congregation of gays and lesbians, transgendered, bi, and heterosexuals. There are varying degrees of openness about gamete donation, surrogacy and adoption. We all respect each other.
For me to point out areas that need further discussion and legislation does not mean I am anti-gay or homophobic. I was one of three heterosexuals present at a demonstration in favor of gay marriage. Myself and my children were invited to and attended a lesbian wedding. Several of my friends are gays and lesbians. And the oldest child of my childhood friend is lesbian.
Halforphan, I wasn't even talking to you Halfthetime. I was talking to Anon. I don't live in the United States. We fundamentally disagree on what is important to children. Nothing more to be said. Good luck with your campaign.
ReplyDeleteObamagirl, This is what cracks me up about people..you say you fundamentally disagree with with whats important to children...so basically you are saying you know better then those that have actually lived the experience..you are NO expert my dear..you are just spouting the latest babble that is politically correct. wait, if we are black,gay, oriental, conservative,liberal, we often say the same thing as adoptees...who the hell are you to say we are wrong...WE KNOW what is best for adoptees..that is the truth, the truth on our birth certificates, the truths about our beginnings the priority is to be with us...not the potential adoptive parents that may be adopting only to prove a point for themselves...not to truly give a child what they need. These donor conceived babies, these surrogacy babies, these adoptees are HUMANS..they are not just bouncy little babies to be plastered on the airwaves for everyone to say ..awwww...look at the cute bouncy baby and LOOK it has 2 daddies, or 2 momies, or is not the REAL child of mr and mrs and they love them as their own...wow! Hope that little baby know how "lucky" they are to be living, breathing, eating and have shelter...look what their parents had to go through to "get" them!
ReplyDeleteYES, we adoptees know what children need and those that are not adoptees don't. How about listening and taking it in instead of fighting with the true experts. Because politics...because you have to prove that gays can parent, or others that have a need to prove that bio does not matter.
you asked me what a birth certificate means...it means a TRUE and accurate document of who is responsible for "birthing" and making this human being...if in fact we have to document donors, surrogates etc so be it...it is NOT about who raises them...It is NOT a document to make the adults feel all warm and fuzzy about being the "real" mommy, daddy to their little prize. It is NOT a political statement to futher anyone rights but the ones that has been born.
Thanks, dpen.
ReplyDeleteTo ObamaGirl:
Did you take 3rd grade biology? Sperm meets egg, fertilizes egg, grows into fetus, fetus grows into baby, baby is born, grows into child, child grows into adult then dies.
All of that is legally changed when birthed child becomes an adopted child. Biology is erased in favor of adoption.
In reality, the adoptee has two sets of real parents: the two who created the living being, and the two who raised the birthed child of two other parents.
Wait! Biology gets even further divided! There is a technique in which the nucleus of one egg is sucked out and replaced with the nucleus of a healthier woman’s egg. The egg then has the genes of two women: the cytoplasm of one (which includes the mitochondria of one mother) and the nucleus of the other.
Toss in the sperm donor and surrogate mother and contractual adoptive parents and taht spells too many parents for a child/person to handle. That is a burden toplace on a human being.
The United States decided to outlaw this type of procedure about 10 years ago. The President’s Council on Bioethics determined that this was unethical to create a human with two genetic mothers.
If you want the exact quote, I can provide it. I don’t want to hunt for it now, but will if you want me to, ObamaGirl.
BTW: That was President Bush, dubya, who called for the President’s Council on Bioethics to research many facets of bioethics, not just creating babies. I should know. I drove 800 miles to present a paper in person to the panel in Washington DC in 2004. I can prove that statement. Want the link to my paper defending adoptees rights?
halforphan:
ReplyDeleteYes.
Lorraine wrote: " When the adopting individual, or individuals die, how often does the extended family feel obligated and loving towards someone who only connection to them may be a piece of paper signed by someone other than himself?"
ReplyDeleteWhat you are asking is...are adopted people treated the same as bio-family members? The answer is ... Not always. And this is something important for expectant mothers to keep in mind when considering adoption. Even though the prospective adoptive parents may be totally gung ho about becoming parents, that does not mean that all extended family members are on board to step into their respective roles as grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, etc. I know many stories, as well as having experienced my own, of adopted family members not being fully accepted by everyone because of their lack of blood connection. So, it really does depend on the individual family, and like everything else in adoption, is basically a crapshot.
@ halforphan56
ReplyDeleteHalforphan56, in your comment of January 25, 2013 at 5.28 PM you said to Obamagirl:
"As for this: “you insulted an entire group of people with your remarks and take no responsibility for it. Your final excuse is that many gays are adopting and that "upsets you". It is still no excuse for your suggestion that an entire group of people is morally culpable for stupid things that individuals do. Yeah, most gay men and lesbians are Democrats because that's who stuck up for them. Your logic therefore applies to any president in power with a healthy margin of victory. Not news. Not news at all. I have lots of friends. I suspect you don't.”
I take it that you direct this comment to me."
What Obamagirl *actually* wrote was:
"Anonymous January 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, you insulted an entire group of people with your remarks and take no responsibility for it. Your final excuse is that many gays are adopting and that "upsets you". It is still no excuse for your suggestion that an entire group of people is morally culpable for stupid things that individuals do. Yeah, most gay men and lesbians are Democrats because that's who stuck up for them. Your logic therefore applies to any president in power with a healthy margin of victory. Not news. Not news at all. I have lots of friends. I suspect you don't.”
So unless you are both 'halforphan56' *and* 'anonymous January 24 2O13 at 5.42 PM' I don't see how you could possibly have thought her comment was directed at you. The fact that she addressed her comment to 'Anonymous January 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM' would be impossible to miss - especially as you copied the bulk of it into your own comment (see above, top) - and makes it clear that her comment was directed towards the anon who wrote the below:
Anonymous January 24 2O13 at 5.42 PM wrote:
"@Obamagirl, Many gay adoptive parents, including celebrity ones have chosen closed adoption which upsets me. I am completely anti-closed adoption. This is what I mean by the gays holding us back and making it harder to fight the abusive adoption laws. Because there are even more people adopting now because of gay adoptive parents and more people to fight us. I find your behavior towards me very immature, unintelligent and rude. Telling me to go F myself, I said nothing of the sort to you. You should know you aren't going to get any brownie points from any one acting and talking like this. You'll only make people dislike you a whole lot. To whom ever said to me that Orwell was an adoptive parent and burned the papers with the names of the children real parents, that is an outright lie, so please spare me and everyone else more of them. dpen and Robin,thank you."
So, halforphan56, are you and Anonymous January 24 2O13 at 5.42 PM one and the same person?
I would like to know because, if so, you also insulted me by calling me a liar for saying that Orwell was an adopter. And what is more, as halforphan56, you followed up my comment with a link leading to the same information!
It is all very confusing and it would be appreciated if you would clear up the confusion.
Enquiring minds want to know.
Robin said "So, it really does depend on the individual family, and like everything else in adoption, is basically a crapshot."
ReplyDeleteI agree. And on the individuals in the individual family as well, as evidenced by Richard Blair's experience. Aunt Avril stepped up to the plate, but Sonia Orwell (as she called herself after her husband's death - although legally she was Sonia Blair) evidently didn't feel that kind of love or obligation.
Thanks Robin for stating this. While the lack of acceptance by extended family members may be noticeable and hurtful when the adoptive family is intact, what really concerns me is what happens to the children when an adoptive parent or parents die or become incapacitated and someone else needs to step up and take over and provide a home. When I first heard about Cheryl Crow's brain tumors, which appear to be nonmalignant, the first thought I had was: if she dies or can't take care of the two kids she adopted, who will? They are quite young. She is a single parent, as are many celebrities who adopt, and so there is not a partner who also signed up for this. Would Danny O'Donnell, for instance, and his partner step in if something happened to Rosie? I'm thinking boarding schools and extended summer camps.
ReplyDeleteBlood relatives are much more likely to accept and take in nieces and nephews, or grandchildren, is something happens to the adoptive parent or parents. But when the obvious caretakers (related by paper) don't want to, what happens? The cities with foster-care programs which first try to track down family members to provide homes have the highest success rates. We written about such a program at FMF before.
"Blood relatives are much more likely to accept and take in nieces and nephews, or grandchildren, is something happens to the adoptive parent or parents."
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can make an across-the-board generalization like that. I don't think the issue is as clear cut as blood relatives will always look out for one another and adopted relatives will always be left out in the cold. I think it depends on the family. There is probably a greater likelihood that blood relatives will take in an orphaned family member than adoptive relatives would, but I think it is an exaggeration to say that there always a direct correlation.
Robin:
ReplyDelete"more likely" is what I said.
You said "probably a greater likelihood that blood relatives..." which is the same thing, no?
I am halforphan56 and not annonymous. I'm tired of being accused of things I did not do. So, it appears I have either misread something or else I am blind. In any case, I thought ObamaGirl was talking to me. Again, I am not annonymous.
ReplyDeleteI stand by my answer: waht happens in split parentage and how that affects the child produced by artificial means. If you want to fight. I'm not fighting.
I will back shortly with links as Lorraine asked.
Perhaps a bit later as there are real life tasks to do now.
From manon:
ReplyDelete"So, halforphan56, are you and Anonymous January 24 2O13 at 5.42 PM one and the same person?
I would like to know because, if so, you also insulted me by calling me a liar for saying that Orwell was an adopter. And what is more, as halforphan56, you followed up my comment with a link leading to the same information!
It is all very confusing and it would be appreciated if you would clear up the confusion.
Enquiring minds want to know."
Oh for Pete's sake!
I did not call you a liar!
So I added another libnk about George Orwell! So what?
Halforphan56 said "I am halforphan56 and not annonymous. I'm tired of being accused of things I did not do. So, it appears I have either misread something or else I am blind. In any case, I thought ObamaGirl was talking to me. Again, I am not annonymous."
ReplyDeleteThank you for clearing that up, halforphan56.
I'll have to look up the quotes later from the book: Reproduction and Responsibility: The Regulation of New Biothechnologies.
ReplyDeleteThe President's Council on Bioethics has removed the online link to my presentation, probably due to change in Presidents in 2009), so here is the link to my presentation on my blog:
http://forbiddenfamily.net/articles/2004-presidents-council-on-bioethics/
Thank you halforphan, I noticed that the link went nowhere.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sending Prez O this letter. I realize that many attempts to change the ridiculous OBC laws have not gone anywhere. But I'm cautiously optimistic that we will see progress, this law doesn't make any sense.
ReplyDeleteOhio might be having a change of heart. Check out this article:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/01/27/push-on-to-open-up-old-records.html
Sorry I haven't answered some questions posed to me. I had a death in the family right in the middle of this discussion, and two other major problems that diverted my attention.
ReplyDeleteLorraine, the link to the President’s Council on Bioethics does not work for the actual governmental website as that was removed.
But the link I provided on my website actually works. I copied and pasted the entire webpage from the President's Council and re-printed it: http://forbiddenfamily.net/articles/2004-presidents-council-on-bioethics/
This link works. Here you will read what I wrote and verbally presented to the President’s Council on Bioethics in June 2004 in defense of donor-conceived children (who will later be adults who have problems similar to adoptees).
I'm searching through a book to find the quote about the nuclear-transfer from one human egg to another.