tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43282456696013617982024-03-13T20:00:22.061-07:00New York adoptee rights legislation will soon become lawAdoptee Rights Legislation has passed in both houses as of June 2019.Governor Cuomo has until December 2019 to sign it into law by the effective date January 15, 20/20.Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-10246956733052634212019-06-16T07:45:00.000-07:002019-07-01T17:46:35.245-07:00New York Adoptee Rights Bill Passes Senateby Joyce Bahr<br />
<br />
Dedicated activists and concerned citizens are thrilled legislation giving all adult adoptees the right to a copy of their original birth certificate at age 18 passed in the state senate on June 7, 2019 with bipartisan support. It was in 2010 Brooklyn Senator Velmanette Montgomery became the prime sponsor of adoptee rights legislation when she took the bill from New Windsor Senator Bill Larkin, an adoptive grandfather. She was the prime sponsor for only one year because republicans took control of the senate again and, Staten Island Senator Andrew Lanza stepped up to become prime sponsor.<br />
<br />
Amazingly in 2019 democrats took control of the senate again and Senator Montgomery became prime sponsor again. Powerful Senator Kemp Hannon who had tabled the bill in health committee for 25 years lost his bid for re-election opening a new window of opportunity.This change along with many newly elected senate democrats in office led to many new bill co-sponsors and, many supporters who voted YES! Bill S3419 passed 13 to 0 in senate health committee and 56 to 6 on the floor!<br />
<br />
A grassroots lobby for the Bill of Adoptee Rights got underway in 1993 when the first adoptee access bill was introduced by Assemblymember Scott Stringer. However, it wasn't until 2005 when a serious grassroots lobby by Unsealed Initiative took off with lobby teams at the Capitol 3 or 4 times a session This serious lobby by adoptees and birth/natural parents put us on the Abany map.<br />
<br />
Presenting copies of the papers unwed mothers signed terminating their parental rights for the first time was key in moving legislators to co-sponsor. Along with news of court precedence in Tennessee (1997) Oregon (1999) and to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (2000) of no right to privacy for birth/natural parents. Conclusions of studies by Professor Elizabeth Samuels from the Baltimore School of Law concluding birth certificates were sealed to protect the home of the adoptive family from intrusion by the birth/natural mother were upfront in our lobby packets.<br />
<br />
Claims by opponents of confidentiality for unwed mothers are untrue. Adoption agencies records are confidential however, confidentiality was not given to unwed mothers who were told to go home and forget about it. Adoptees were not privy to the adoption proceedings. the right of the adult adoptee vs. the right to privacy for unwed mothers should be a non issue as they never legally had that right. <b>If anyone gelives there was confidentiality they are wrong.</b><br />
<br />
We are grateful to all advocates and newly formed advocacy groups joining the lobby to pass this long overdue legislation in our state senate and ,we will continue the fight in the assembly. We never forget adoptee advocates who died without important medical history which just could have saved their lives!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYYzFjU2XbJYbfzuWgCMUqefoScMn_MEOWmjfavWmRBK_M9OKchZWVssxQUYetn8lr7HYJDo-awworPnPgFS-Np9V0SueyijGQ5sAg1GisrbroKfXREKONE0jdnsLNsZDLjjS-4_jhiWo/s1600/march_animation.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="272" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYYzFjU2XbJYbfzuWgCMUqefoScMn_MEOWmjfavWmRBK_M9OKchZWVssxQUYetn8lr7HYJDo-awworPnPgFS-Np9V0SueyijGQ5sAg1GisrbroKfXREKONE0jdnsLNsZDLjjS-4_jhiWo/s1600/march_animation.gif" /></a></div>
<a href="http://www.unsealedinitiative.org/">Our Website</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-38998719486854043522019-02-18T10:39:00.000-08:002019-02-20T04:53:58.112-08:00The fight for adult adoptee rights in New York State continuesby Joyce Bahr<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR7zSnMuwC6R81iRXieQnyJTH8Lo1satiKLFIBJR0OqWXhWzmgCoiX7ZGaga50WbEXejNBqCISnewJ_fyH9ytWWIfNbCEtfvc8sOQErVluWKSlDfLX6nqjLmfL9APnrqnAhK1j-WNdmyg/s1600/bronzeEagle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="1001" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR7zSnMuwC6R81iRXieQnyJTH8Lo1satiKLFIBJR0OqWXhWzmgCoiX7ZGaga50WbEXejNBqCISnewJ_fyH9ytWWIfNbCEtfvc8sOQErVluWKSlDfLX6nqjLmfL9APnrqnAhK1j-WNdmyg/s320/bronzeEagle.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
Give me liberty and my birth certificate now! No Americans should have their personal information withheld from them by the government.<br />
<br />
<br />
Albany legislative session is underway with Assemblymember David Weprin introducing bill A5494 and Senator Velmanette Montgomery introducing bill S3419. Bill A5494 is assigned to assembly health committee once again. Every year since the bill was first voted on and passed on 6/6/2006 the bill is reported to the codes committee which is known as "hell where bills go to die". It is in codes committee where the bill is tabled by the chair Joseph Lentol and Assemblymember Helene Weinstein every year.<br />
<br />
The senate bill is assigned to health committee chaired for the first time in session by Senator Gustavo Rivera. We are contacting the members of the health committee to put bill S3419 on the agenda for a vote. Links to health committee members to contact are on the home page of our website <a href="http://www.unsealedinitiative.org/">http://www.unsealedinitiative.org</a> We want bill S3419 on the committee agenda for a vote.<br />
<br />
Members of the Unsealed Initiative lobby team have had our grassroots Albany lobby going strong since 2005 and have gained the support of many legislators. We are happy to announce our worst senate opponents are no longer in the legislature. Senator Kemp Hannon who tabled our legislation with no discussion for twenty-five years in health committee lost his bid for re-election. In case you don't know the chairs of the committees have too much power taking away from the democratic process.<br />
<br />
This legislative session we have more hope for passage of a senate bill. A5494/S3419 are direct access bills that will cover access to birth certificates not only adult adoptees but, for those who were raised in foster care.<br />
<br />
<br />Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-34543076293909171442016-10-17T19:28:00.001-07:002019-06-29T11:07:14.021-07:00Unsealed Initiative's Bill of Adoptee Rights Amended in the 2015 Legislative session<span style="font-family: inherit;">by Joyce Bahr</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Just now the exact same amended bill was introduced again by Assemblymember David Weprin. He is telling us he may make some amendments to this bill but, we are aware he may not want to rock the boat with any such changes He may be fearful any change could prevent the bill from passing again in the assembly. After many years of serious lobbying by UI's lobby team members regret our bill was amended, making it no longer a B<i>ill of Rights </i>in the 2015 legislative session. Our bill of rights gave all adult adoptees the right to a copy of their original birth certificate with a contact preference option for birth parents. A law on the books in several other states for several years with no problems.This amended bill which we opposed passed in the assembly in 2015 and 2016 but luckily, never made it to the floor for a vote in the senate. This legislation includes not only a lousy redaction which allows a birth parent to remove his or her name from the original birth certificate but, gives judges decision making authority in releasing an original birth certificate to an adoptee. This is unfair, outdated and discriminatory legislation. Adoptees who are tax paying citizens should have the same right as non adopted persons in accessing a copy of their own birth certificate. How could we support this bad legislation?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
Assembly sponsor David Weprin was hopeful in the 2015 session when the new Speaker Carl Heastie, a democrat from the Bronx, announced all bills with high numbers of sponsors would go to the floor for a vote. However, We were let down again as we saw Mr. Heastie's favorite bills go to the floor but, not ours. We were hopeful until two surrogate court judges showed up at our <i>Assembly Health Committee Hearing </i>in 2014 to testify against our bill. Now why on earth would any judge testify against us? Was it they were prompted by the Chair of the powerful and influential Judiciary Committee Assemblymember Helene Weinstein, a democrat from Brooklyn? If there ever was a promise of confidentiality, where is it?<br />
<br />
It's been a number of years since high courts in Tennessee (1997) and Oregon (1999) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (2000) decided to uphold new open records laws in these states. Opponents were unable to present even one written proof of confidentiality or a right to privacy for birth parents because there was none.<br />
<br />
Adoptees and birth parents can legally search because there is <i>no right to privacy. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
With objection not only from the powerful Chair of Assembly Judiciary Helene Weinstein but, Senator Kemp Hannon, Chair of Senate Health Committee one may ask why we are not giving up on succeeding with passage of our <i>Bill of Rights? Why we are standing strong for a new law fair and consistent to all? </i>The truth of the matter is we have no other choice, when we look at other states and see how long their new laws have been on the books with no change. There have been no further lobby efforts by advocates except in Oregon.<br />
<br />
We believe in the inalienable right to know for all adult adoptees and we won't give up!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
.<br />
<i><br /></i>Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-4380856371905813862013-08-03T18:31:00.001-07:002016-11-15T07:41:06.123-08:00Who are the violators of human rights in the adoptees quest for equal rights?by Joyce Bahr<br />
<br />
There aren't too many states recognizing in law the adult adoptees fundamental right to a non certified copy of their original birth certificate. Just nine states Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire ,Oregon and Rhode Island. Several states have pending legislation and there are several with new limited access laws meaning a birth parent can file a contact veto.. Just seems so wrong that natural;/birth parents would be able to prevent the child they gave away, and is now 18 or older from this basic human right. It is wrong, the sealed record law is in violation of the adoptee's human rights and is a violation of the tenets of governance of human rights. What kind of people are these natural/ birth parents who would want to violate another person's human rights? How many birth parents were aware of the change in the law allowing them to prevent an adoptee from access to the original birth certificate? How many were elected to serve in state legislatures when these laws were passed? The answer is, hardly any or none.<br />
<br />
Very likely adoptive parent legislators who don't want there adult children, regardless of how old they are, to know or reunite with the natural/birth parents, were present in committee meetings or hearings at the Capitol. This is because adoption has not changed from being what it's always been about,"protecting the adoptive parents." Since adoption is a service it would seem surveying natural parents and adoptees for their opinions would be in order but, not the case. Surveying adoption attorneys, of course. Surely the New York State Women's Bar association gave their opinion.<br />
<br />
Who was behind changing the law in New York so natural parents would no longer be known as natural parents in law? How many natural parents were notified to see if they agreed to it? How many natural parents support groups were notified about pending legislation to make them known officially in law as birth parents? The answer is none, because adoptive parents and adoption attorneys know best, and they have the money and power. How many adoption attorneys support open records legislation for adult adoptees in New York ? The answer is one or two. <br />
<br />
Surely there are a small number of adoptive parents in legislatures who want their children to know the basic facts of their life and share it with their spouses, families and friends, but the truth remains, natural/birth parents have always been neglected when it comes to getting information. Women like myself had, no information, no options and no support at the time we signed our children away years ago. There was no attorney to represent us. No one asked us our opinion about anything. Some of us were drugged and/or verbally abused.<br />
<br />
This is also a women's rights issue, and we look to Australia as a world leader in adoptee's and women's rights in adoption. Recently Australian natural mothers were successful in a recent federal senate inquiry into forced adoptions, and in receiving apologies from maternity homes, religious organizations such as the Catholic Church and state governments. The federal senate inquiry resulted in an official apology in Parliament from the Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Parliament pledged $5 million in support services for victims of forced adoptions and $1.5 million for a special exhibition in the National Archives.<br />
<br />
Australian women are never referred to as birth mothers and they've had the support of the national women's movement since they came out in the 1970' suffering from grief and shattered from the injustice of forced adoption.. Both adoptees and natural parents in Australian have had the right to know for many years along with the following countries: England, Holland and New Zealand .<br />
<br />
A few years ago Oregon legislature miraculously enacted a law making it easier for natural parents to go through the courts and obtain information to find the surrendered child now 18 and older. Women in the U.S. have not come a long way but, there are a few other states offering them assistance.<br />
<br />
Natural mothers in the U.S. first became empowered in the 1970 with the women's movement and the adoptee rights movement. thousands have searched and reunited. They have become known as birth mothers in New York and all over the country. If they were asked their opinions on changing the old sealed record law in New York by our state government many of us would fall off our chairs. Why would our government ask?<br />
<br />
The truth of the matter is birth/natural parents are being given power over adult adoptees not only to deny rights but, violate their human right to know the basic fact of their birth by filing a contact or redaction veto and most aren't aware of the new laws. A contact veto means the birth parent can prevent the adoptee from access to the original birth certificate while, the redaction veto allows the birth parent the right to remove their name from the original birth certificate. Legislators often feel they cannot move a bill unless a veto is included in the legislation.<br />
<br />
Does anyone feel adoptees and birth parents should determine the laws or have more input?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-70652089419155683562012-07-20T08:54:00.001-07:002016-10-24T14:59:11.417-07:00Adoptees Up Against Backward Laws Protest at National Conference of State Legislaturers by David Phelps and Joyce Bahr,<br />
<br />
<br />
Members of New York’s “Unsealed Initiative,” having ended a legislative lobby session in Albany for the Bill of Adoptee Rights, are in solidarity with protesters at the National Conference of State Legislatures annual conference in Chicago, Illinois in August 2012 . Exasperated with outdated laws dating back to the 1930’s which sealed original birth certificates forever, advocates for change and reform in adoption want legislators to know they will no longer tolerate unfairness, discrimination and disrespect. Why in the twenty first century are there laws nullifying a person’s right to know the basic facts of their birth?<br />
<br />
The United Kingdom opened adoption records more than three decades ago in 1975. Some countries throughout the world never sealed their adoption records and others that did have changed their laws since the 1980’s, providing adopted people their long overdue rights. American adult adoptees have also had some success in changing antiquated adoption legislation. Recent legislation in Alabama, Maine, New Hampshire&nbspOregon and Rhode Island has restored legal recognition of their full human dignity.<br />
<br />
Archaic and false adoption myths, the adoption industry, some adoptive parent legislators and legislators fearing that opening records will necessarily lead to an increase in abortion have all conspired to impede legislative progress in the U.S. Adopted persons have been made to feel shame and fear simply because they want to know who they are and where they come from, a foundational human need that non adopted people take for granted. Adopted people have begun to speak out against this discrimination. They ask: who do sealed birth certificates actually protect and serve?<br />
<br />
The legislation which sealed original birth certificates never codified or even touched upon birth parent confidentiality, which many legislators believe was promised to these parents as a condition of surrender. Recent research conducted by Professor Elizabeth Samuels of the Baltimore School of Law, entitled The Idea of Adoption: An Inquiry into the History of Adult Adoptees Access to Birth Records which was published in the Rutgers Law Review, concludes that laws closing records to the parties were not enacted as a shield to protect birth parents, but rather as a sword to prevent them interfering with adoptive families. <br />
<br />
The confidentiality of birth/natural parents has been a bone of contention in the struggle for adoptee rights and has been used as a smokescreen for other reasons to object to legislative reform. It is said for example that adoptive parents desire to keep the status quo. However, a 1997 study by Cornell University found adoptive parents overwhelmingly support adoptees’ right to know. It is not surprising to find that there are adoptive parent legislators who support reform.<br />
<br />
Many unproven fears retard the movement to grant adult adopted people their birthright. Some fear an increase in abortions, some fear a decline in adoption placements, some say birth mothers were given confidentiality. None of these fears have been justified in the histories of those states which have opened their records. Abortions have not increased. Adoptions have not decreased. These days a small percentage of birth mothers reject contact with their children. At the time of surrender, they signed only a surrender paper terminating their parental rights and confidentiality was not given. In any event, advocates say that those who are the most concerned, namely adopted people themselves, should have the same right to access their original birth certificates as everyone else. They should decide, without interference from the state. <br />
<br />
A comprehensive study conducted in November 2007 by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, the foremost think tank on adoption issues, concluded that adoptees behave with maturity and respect when contacting members of their natural families; the lives natural/birth parents have not been ruined. This report urges all states to open their adoption records. A follow up study by the Donaldson Institute was released in 2010. The study For the Records II an Examination and Impact of Adult Adoptee Access to Birth Certificates and the 2007 study can both be read on the Institute’s website.<br />
<br />
Times have changed and thousands of adoptees and birth/natural parents search for each other every year. Several states have pending legislation and several states have partial open records, meaning adopted people born in certain years have access. Do birth/natural parents have access? Four states have enacted laws giving them search assistance, but not access. These are Hawaii, Illinois, Georgia and Tennessee.<br />
<br />
The August 2012 protest in Chicago, Illinois organized by members of the Adoptee Rights Demonstration is a demand for legislators to vote on Adoptee Rights legislation, not to table it or to assign it to a committee known as “hell where bills go to die.” Protesters are asking legislators to think hard about an adoptee’s inalienable right to original identity and their need to know. Advocates describe sealed records laws as unfair, discriminatory and unenlightened, as relics of the past. Legislative change has been exceedingly slow and painstakingly difficult. It is past time for our laws reflect current research, the norms of the civilized world and to recognize the full humanity of adopted persons!Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-27641323482822916982012-04-28T13:26:00.001-07:002012-04-28T13:26:48.558-07:00Discrimination is prohibited, anything less than the inalienable right to know is unacceptableby David Phelps,<br />
<br />
<div> <div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">When we think about adoption reform legislation, one fact must be kept uppermost in our minds and that is the unalienable right of all people everywhere and always to know who they are and from whence they came.<span> </span>Knowledge of one’s origins is so basic, so vital to the human condition that it is impossible to imagine human life in the normative sense, let alone liberty and the pursuit of happiness, without it.<span> </span>Surely the formation of a healthy human identity necessarily includes such data as who one’s mother is, who one’s father is, some information about one’s ancestors, knowledge of one’s ethnicity, religious affiliation and the like.<span> </span>For people who have not had their original identities stripped from them at birth, it may be extremely difficult to see how not having such information affects every facet of life.<span> </span>They are as Betty Jean Lifton has said, like the sighted trying to see into the darkness of the blind.<span> </span>So accustomed are they to knowing where they grow on the human family tree that their position becomes perhaps assumed and part and parcel of who they are.<span> </span>A Brooklyn born Italian-American pasta maker knows very well who he is and his identity informs him daily.<span> </span>An Irish-American New York City policeman, who is perhaps a second or third generation cop, doesn’t he too know exactly who he is?</span></div></div><div> <div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span>The first step in reforming New York’s adoption laws must be to give adult adoptees unrestricted access to their original birth certificates.<span> </span>It is not only a question of equal rights for those adopted in New York, it is also vital to their well-being.<span> </span>New York must face the fact that the adoption practices of the past were wrong, hurtful and discriminatory.<span> </span>The scope of the state’s discrimination becomes clear if we imagine the children of some minority group being systematically denied knowledge of their origins and being given by the state a false identity.<span> </span>This is exactly what happens in a closed adoption.<span> </span>What if the children of Greek-American New Yorkers where so denied?<span> </span>What if the state decreed that all Native-American children born there would henceforth and forever be denied the knowledge that they were Native-American?<span> </span>What if the state decreed that all African-American children born there would henceforth and forever be denied the knowledge of who their parents were?<span> </span>These actions are unthinkable and barbaric, yet they are exactly what happened to thousands of New York’s citizens who had the misfortune to be adopted in the state. <span> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span>We believe any restriction or veto to access to the original birth certificate would be contrary to Article I Section S11 of the New York Constitution.<span> </span>Furthermore, as the appeal of the Oregon open records statue shows, there are no impediments in Federal law to the passage and implementation of a clean, veto free bill which would at long last give New York’s adopted citizens and those adopted but no longer living there, equal rights.<span> </span>Such a law in no way fully addresses the inhumanities foisted upon adopted people and first parents in New York.<span> </span>But it is a start. </span><span><br />
</span></div></div>Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-73430086670862290972011-06-15T14:59:00.000-07:002012-08-13T15:27:29.002-07:00The Promise of Adoption: Not a Promise of Confidentialityby Joyce Bahr<br /><br /><br />I recall hearing attorney Harold Cassidy speaking at an adoption conference in 1989 in Manhattan. Mr. Cassidy was a litigator in the Mary Beth Whitehead surrogacy lawsuit in 1988, a case which received a great deal of media coverage. At the conference he spoke about The Promise of Adoption. I knew what he was talking about because I heard the phrase very often in the media in the 1960’s before I became pregnant. I would think that many here would recall hearing of this so called promise: that if a baby was put up for adoption he would live happily ever after with loving adoptive parents. Many of us were influenced by this message which we have since found to be dubious at best. <br /><br />Mr. Cassidy spoke of the promise of adoption saying that if the promise was not fulfilled then there would be a problem. And certainly there is a problem. Social mores and adoption practice have changed greatly in recent decades, but very few changes in the law have taken place for adoptees and first parents. The New York Adoption Registry, for example, has reunited very few adoptees and first parents. In fact, it is more or less reunion proof. Funding for post adoption services has been slight and has also helped very few. Adoption as it was practiced in the 1940’s, 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s caused great harm to those it touched. Even today adoption is fraught with difficulties. <br /><br />One further noteworthy aspect of Mr. Cassidy’s presentation was how closed adoption, as it has traditionally been practiced in this state and country, assigns qualities to adoptees as if they were slaves. This idea may come as a shock to many, but an examination does reveal certain similarities between the legal position of the adoptee and the slave. First, neither the slave nor the adoptee has had any say whatsoever in whether or not to enter into his condition. Second, in both cases parties other than the slave or adoptee have complete control over his legal identity. In the one case the master exercises such authority and control, giving the slave his names both Christian and sir. In the other case the state and the adoptive parents collude not only to keep the adoptees’ birth identity a secret, but further to give him a new, false identity as if he were born into the adoptive family. Finally, for both the slave and the adoptee, there is for all practical purposes no appeal from what has been done to them by the law. The slave may be granted freedom by his master or he may not. His only other remedy is to run away and seek to live in the freedom of his own identity in some conducive place. The adoptee is utterly dependent upon his adoptive parents until he reaches the age of maturity at which time he will still find in New York that his birth identity is under lock and key, forbidden to him and sealed forever. For both slave and adoptee others “own” that person’s very identity. To own someone’s identity is in a very real way to own him. <br /><br />The era before Roe v. Wade was one of secret pregnancies, homes for unwed mothers, forced adoptions, trauma for both adoptees and the first mothers and the creation of a whole class of citizens who were prevented by the state from knowing who they were and where they came from. Accepted social mores and the religious consensus at the time branded unwed mothers with the stigma if illegitimacy, leaving the fathers mostly unnamed and unpunished. Adoptees were conditioned to be grateful for having been separated from their natural families and for being forbidden from knowing their original identities. Indeed, it has been said that adoption is the only trauma where its victims are expected by society to be grateful. Adoptees and first parents were sometimes punished for searching for each other. Searching itself was frowned upon and discouraged which is sadly ironic because today the universal consensus in the adoption therapeutic community is that search and reunion are indispensible to healing for both first parents and adoptees. Through the whole course of the post war period before Roe to today, the voices of the two groups most qualified to speak about the effects of adoption, adoptees and first parents, have been consistently ignored and marginalized in adoption law. <br /><br />Social workers in the 1890’s did not speak the word confidentiality when they forced unmarried, pregnant women to surrender. In the 1960‘s some women heard: You will have confidentiality after being strictly warned not to interfere with the adoptive family. I know this firsthand because my social worker did tell me I would have confidentiality and I had to ask her what it meant. She said it meant that they would not tell anyone I was there. It was strange that she did not speak of confidentiality in the presence of my mother who by law, because I was a minor, had to be a witness. However, my mother spoke about it with her later and what the social worker said didn’t mean anything; it had no legal force. For years, first mothers have stated that confidentiality was imposed on some women and many never heard the word. We sinning, pregnant, unmarried women were told what to do by society, our parents, attorneys and social workers. We were victims of the times with their strict codes of morality that pertained only to women and not men. Men did not have to endure the punishment and the stigma of illegitimacy. Also, we were told to go home and forget this ever happened. We were not promised we would forget, we were told. The surrender paper signed by many stated that they agreed not to interfere with the custody, control and management of said child. Professor Elizabeth Samuels from the Baltimore School of Law concluded in her study The Idea of Adoption: An Inquiry into History of Adult Adoptee Access to Birth Records that confidentiality was for adoptive parents so there would be no intrusion by the first mother who was commonly considered to be an inferior person. Neither the word promise, nor the word confidentiality were contained in surrender papers because they were social mores, not legal terms. <br /><br />Setting the record and history straight is pertinent as this pertains to women’s history. I have listened to the stories of many, many first mothers in a support group I led in Manhattan for twelve years: The Manhattan Birth Parents Support Group. We all agreed that we were told what to do and had no information or options presented to us. None of us received a copy of the surrender paper terminating our parental rights and none of us were given confidentiality or a secrecy guarantee. I’ve often thought how odd it is that in 1966, when I was subjected to Victorian social mores and forced to surrender my son, Hugh Heffner was opening the Playboy Club down the block from the office in the Chicago Loop where I signed the paper terminating my parental rights.Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-29567977565948002622011-05-10T19:04:00.000-07:002011-05-11T05:56:41.889-07:00Claims that unsealing birth certificates for adult adoptees will increase numbers of abortions are unsubstantiatedBy Joyce Bahr<br /><br />Anti adoptee rights opponents of the 1996 Tennessee open records legislation claimed the new law would increase abortions and decrease adoptions. They argued women would rather abort than bear children and place them for adoption if they knew the children could later find them. A court battle ensued and the open records statute was upheld by both the Tennessee Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The claims of the plantiffs were disproven.<br /><br />Proponents of open records were able to show statistical comparisons of adoptions and abortions over time and between different states, proving open records do not increase the number of abortions. Data recorded in states with open records also indicate that the number of adoptions has not decreased. Current data from states that have opened their records since 1997 demonstrate no increase in abortions.<br /><br />A recent study by the Guttmacher Institute, “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives” concludes that the decision to abort is typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated factors. The themes of responsibility to others and limitations such as financial constraints and lack of partner support recurred throughout the study.<br /><br />Many Christians are concerned about abortion and its relation to poverty, according to a 2005 article in the New York Times entitled “One More “’Moral Value’: Fighting Poverty.” Glen E. Stassen, a professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, said his students who were largely conservative, agreed poverty should be a part of the moral value discussion.<br /><br />“A lot of Christians who are worried about abortion see poverty as a pro-life issue, because if you undermine the safety net for poor mothers, you’ll increase the abortion rate and the mortality rate”. Dr. Stassen said, “We’ve seen this happen since welfare reform, just as the Catholic bishops predicted.” The welfare reform Dr. Stassen is referring to was enacted in the 1990’s and was referred to as a “Baby Cap” by the Catholic Bishops.<br /><br />Dr. Stassen, like most Christian leaders, does not explicitly link unsealing birth certificates to an increase in abortion rates among poor women. Yet the National Council for Adoption, an anti adoptee rights opponent of unsealing birth certificates, continues in its unsubstantiated claim that providing adoptees unfettered access to their original birth certificates will necessarily result in more women choosing abortion. The NCFA also claims birth parents were given a right to privacy which they were not. Women signed only surrender papers terminating their parental rights and no court ever afforded them a right to privacy.<br /><br />Not all Christians oppose abortion and many Christians support adoptee rights to original birth certificates. The National Council for Adoption mistakenly conflates abortion with adoptee rights and thereby arrives at a false hypothesis that denies adoptees their birthright. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany supports the New York Bill of Adoptee Rights which gives all adoptees at age eighteen a right to a noncertified copy of their original birth certificate and has a contact preference option for birth parents.<br /><br />Historically, many churches have been insensitive to the needs of adoptees and birth parents. A birth mother’s breach of the Judeo-Christian norm in having a child out of wedlock was seen, prima facie, as requiring the permanent separation of the mother and her baby. It was not understood during this dark time, now referred to as the “Baby Scoop Era,” how this separation caused profound harm to both parties. Even today, religious organizations operate adoption agencies that perpetuate the closed adoption system, hindering reunions and withholding basic information from adoptees about their birth.<br /><br />Adoption is not a reproductive issue and the abortion issue is irrelevant to the adoptee’s quest for the fundamental right to know who they are and where they came from. The evidence is in. Unsealing adoption records does not lead to an increase in abortion. In fact, those states which have opened their records enjoy a lower rate of abortion than those where records remain sealed! It is simply not the case that adoptees are causing abortions by demanding their birthright. It is past due time to unseal birth certificates!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> .Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-29146265334002616542011-05-07T06:29:00.000-07:002019-07-01T17:31:47.491-07:00Gail Jerson's letter to the GovernorThe Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo <br />
Governor of New York State<br />
NYS State Capitol Building<br />
Albany, NY 12224 <br />
<br />
<br />
Dear Governor Cuomo,<br />
<br />
As an adoptee born in New York, I ask you to support NYS Adoption Reform legislation S1438/A2003. Please help move this bill to the floor for a vote. It is paramount that all adoptees are given the same basic human rights and ability to plan a secure future, as any other non-adopted human being. But at this point, we cannot do that without knowing if our health is in jeopardy or the health of our children and grandchildren. Our origins and heritage are kept secret because the government keeps this information sealed from the adoptee who has committed no crime. So why are we not able to ensure the health of our families, the way all other citizens of this country can do?<br />
<br />
Unrestricted open records for adult adoptees is the norm in most of the rest of the free world. Adoptees should have a right to access the records of their birth in the same manner as any other citizen of this nation. Why do we have to continue living with the unknown simply because we were adopted and are governed by antiquated laws that desperately need to be changed? New York's sealed records law dates back to 1935 when Governor Herbert Lehman signed it into law, perhaps believing it was in the best interests of his three adopted children. However times and attitudes have changed. We all have a moral obligation to look at historical judgments and correct them if they were made in violation of personal rights. <br />
<br />
For many, the future is blind without sight of the past. Everyone needs to know where they came from, their origins, their history, their racial and ethnic background, who their mothers and fathers are, and of paramount importance, potentially life-saving medical information. Denying this information is not only an injustice and a denial of a basic human right, but it is immoral and unconscionable. <br />
<br />
I was diagnosed with breast cancer 12 ½ years ago. That diagnosis fueled an already burning flame in me to seek out information about my history and birth family. I knew from ‘non-identifying’ information given to me by the adoption agency that my maternal grandmother had passed away at a very young age from a serious undisclosed illness. Did she die of breast cancer? Did my mother also have breast cancer during her life? I would never know because there were no updated medical records available to me. I have 2 children who deserve to know if there have been THREE generations of breast cancer before them. <br />
<br />
After countless years of utilizing every available means that NYS had to offer to try and locate my biological information, and $4,000 later, I was still left with major unanswered health issues and frustration for a system that I felt had let me down. Eventually I learned that my birthmom had died 9 years prior, at only 69 years old. She never had any other children, and all her 4 siblings were also deceased. If the records hadn't been sealed and I had been able to search sooner, I could have found her before she died. I felt saddened, cheated, deprived, and angry due to a system that should have been changed years ago. Sealed records robbed from me something I will never get back. My injuries will always be as fresh as the day I was relinquished, and as fresh as the day I realized the injustice when I began my search 12 ½ years ago. My wound thrives on being kept fresh by those who deny me my rights as a human being. The passing of NYS Adoption Reform legislation (S1438/A2003) addresses that violation of human rights.<br />
<br />
Cordially,<br />
<br />
Gail JersonUnsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-76526441232950808272011-03-22T14:43:00.000-07:002011-03-25T16:04:22.954-07:00The Changing Face of Adoptionby Gail Jerson<br /><br />According to research by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute and data from the Child Welfare League of America, the number of adoptions from other countries had hovered around 20,000 per year for about a decade ending several years ago; it has been falling ever since and was around 12,000 last year. The number of domestic infant adoptions has been around 14,000 or so annually for a long time and remains there. The number of adoptions from foster care (i.e., also domestic) has been rising steadily and has been the biggest type of adoption throughout this period; last year, it was at about 60,000.<br /><br />1. Reasons for decline in foreign adoptions<br />Foreign adoptions have been on the decline, especially from countries such as Guatemala, China and most recently, Ethiopia, which was the number two source country for children adopted by Americans, (2,513 Ethiopian children were adopted by Americans in 2010). The number of foreign children adopted by Americans fell by 13 percent last year, reaching the lowest level since 1995 due in large part to a virtual halt to adoptions from Guatemala because of corruption problems.<br /><br />Ethiopia just implemented changes that could reduce the number of foreign adoptions by up to 90 percent. According to the State Department, Ethiopia's new policy calls for its Ministry of Women, Children and Youth Affairs to process no more than five adoption cases per day — about 10 percent of the caseload it had been handling.<br />China has already tightened rules for adoption, barring people who are single, obese, older than 50 or who fail to meet certain benchmarks in financial, physical or psychological health, from adopting Chinese children, according to adoption agencies in the United States. China had in recent years been the No. 1 source of foreign-born children adopted by Americans. <br />The revised guidelines included a requirement that applicants have a body-mass index of less than 40, no criminal record, a high school diploma and be free of certain health problems like AIDS and cancer, or any psychological issues, anxiety, depression. Couples must have been married for at least two years and have had no more than two divorces between them. If either spouse was previously divorced, the couple cannot apply until they have been married for at least five years. In addition, adoptive parents must have a net worth of at least $80,000 and income of at least $10,000 per person in the household, including the prospective adoptive child. <br />Guatemala has suspended the adoption process since 2008 in order to create a Central Authority to process adoptions, which will make Guatemala Hague Compliant. <br /><br />2. Increase in domestic adoptions<br />As a result of the above decrease in foreign adoptions, and the availability of more babies in this country, domestic adoptions have increased. People are choosing open instead of closed adoptions, married couples are opting for open adoptions, and there are more open-adoption agencies. Many adoption agencies report that open adoption is being embraced by pregnant women who previously might have been reluctant to consider giving up a baby if it meant no chance of contact later in life. Also Christian social workers have been conducting outreach programs throughout the country and have been suggesting adoption over abortions, thus making more babies available. <br /><br />3. Why Open records? <br />Unrestricted open records for adult adoptees is the norm in most of the rest of the free world. Adoptees should have a right to access the records of their birth in the same manner as any other citizen of this nation. However, New York's sealed records law dates back to 1935 when Governor Herbert Lehman signed it into law, perhaps believing it was in the best interests of his three adopted children. Times and attitudes have changed. For many, the future is blind without a sight of the past. Everyone needs to know where they came from, their origins, their history, who their mothers and fathers are, and of paramount importance, potentially life-saving medical information. Denying this information is not only an injustice and a denial of a basic human right, but it is immoral and unconscionable. <br /><br />4. Open Record States<br />Eight states have recently opened records to adoptees in years before records were sealed. States with contact preferences, such as Oregon, Alabama, New Hampshire, and Maine, have had no problems since enacting legislation to open records. Delaware, Massachusetts, and Tennessee also have opened records without incident. Kansas and Alaska never had closed records. Illinois, the most recent state to open records, has had thousands of adoptees who have gotten their records already. All adoptees in Illinois will eventually be able to get their original birth certificate/ <br /><br />5. Results of open records<br />During the last decade, more than a half-dozen very diverse states in terms of geography and politics, from Oregon to Alabama to Maine, have done what the skeptics warned against, and two states, Alaska and Kansas, never sealed these documents, as most of the country did in the last century. Guess what fallout there has been in these states. None.<br /><br />Have the predictions by open-records opponents come true? Has there been a decrease in adoption and an increase in abortion, caused by pregnant women's fear that the children they surrender to adoption might find them decades later? An increase in the divorce rate for women who'd never told their husbands about the child they surrendered to adoption? Have adoptees stalked parents who don't want contact? No. <br /><br />If openness had any effect, it has been to increase adoptions and decrease abortions, according to Fred Greenman, board member and legal advisor to the American Adoption Congress, who has studied adoption and abortion rates in places that allow adult adoptees access to their original birth certificates. States with open records have not seen a decline in numbers of adoption placements. There have been no verified reports of divorces caused by adoptee reunions with birth mothers or fathers. And mothers who've made clear they don't want to meet their surrendered children have not been harassed. This isn't surprising: few adoptees wish to experience rejection firsthand. <br /><br />It is also true that the number of birth mothers who don't want to meet their children is tiny. Surveys show that the great majority of them welcome, even long for, contact. Even the few mothers who don't want contact with their children are better served by open adoption records. States that have granted adoptees access to their original birth certificates have built in vehicles enabling birth parents to let their children know whether and how they want to meet. No violations have been reported. In states with closed adoption records, on the other hand, parents who prefer not to have contact have no means to make their wishes known. And though it's hard for people who have been adopted in states with closed adoption records to find their families, it's not impossible. <br /><br />6. Conclusion<br />States and countries with open records have not seen a decline in the number of adoption placements, but rather an increase. Additionally, abortion rates are not higher and are in fact lower in open records states than in states with sealed records.Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-34504271402548738932011-03-09T14:10:00.000-08:002011-03-09T14:28:11.127-08:00NY bill summary-bill has a contact preferenceBill Summary- A2003/S1438 An act to amend the health law and domestic <br /><br /> relations law in relation to enacting the bill of adoptee rights. The public health law is amended by adding a new section 4138-e<br /><br /> The legislature hereby states its intention to acknowledge, support and encourage the life-long health and well-being needs of adults who have been and will be adopted in the state of New York. The legislature further recognizes that the denial of access to accurate and complete medical and self-identifying data of any adopted person, known and willfully withheld by others, may result in that person succumbing to preventable disease, premature death or otherwise unhealthy life, is a violation of that person’s human rights and is contrary to the tenets of governance. As such, the provisions of this section seeks to establish considerations under the law for adopted persons equal to such considerations permitted by law to all non-adopted persons. This section does so while providing for the need of privacy for that adopted person and his or her birth and adoptive families. Allows all adoptees when they reach the age of eighteen the ability to receive a non certified copy of his or her original birth certificate provided they have proper identification and pay a nominal fee,and to receive an updated medical history form submitted to the health department by the birth parent, if available. The medical history form shall be prescribed by the Health Department.<br /><br /> A birth parent may at any time request a contact preference form that shall <br /> accompany a birth certificate issued under this title. The contact preference form shall provide the following information to be completed at the option of the birth parent.<br /><br /> (A) I would like to be contacted<br /><br /> (B) I would prefer to be contacted only through an intermediary<br /><br /> (C) I have completed a medical history form and have filed it with the department<br /><br /> (D) Please do not contact me. If I decide later that I would like to be contacted, I will submit an updated contact preference form with the department.<br /><br /> <br />The sealed envelope containing the contact preference form and the medical history <br /><br />form may be released to the person requesting his or her own original birth <br /><br />certificate under this title. The contact preference form and the medical history <br /><br />form are private communications from the birth parent to the person named on the <br /><br />sealedbirth certificate and no copies shall be retained by the department. Where <br /><br /> only a medical history form is requested the birth certificate and the contact <br /><br /> preferenc form shall not be sent., but may be requested at a later date.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> When it shall be impossible through good-faith efforts to provide a copy of the birth <br /><br /> certificate (as in the case of an adopted person born outside of, but adopted within the <br /><br /> state of New York), the adopted person shall have the right to secure from a court of <br /><br /> competent jurisdiction or the adoption agency true and correct identifying information. <br /><br /> This act shall tack effect on the first of January next succeeding the date on which it<br /><br /> shall become a law, provided however, that effective immediately the commissioner of <br /><br /> health is directed to promulgate such rules and regulations .Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-57303336992038565492011-03-05T05:03:00.000-08:002011-03-05T05:11:01.163-08:00Press Conference March 6th City Hall ManhattanJoin us! Unsealed Initiative and Assemblymember David Weprin will be on the steps of City Hall in Manhattan Sunday March 6th at 12:30pm for a press conference. This press conference will bring attention to the struggle for passage of the Bill of Adoptee Rights pending in the state legislature. We are not giving up the fight! Take the 4, 5 or 6 train to Brooklyn Bridge City Hall stop.Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-83082628842215652482011-02-01T12:04:00.000-08:002011-02-01T12:10:02.827-08:00N.Y. must open its adoption records<p><span>Letter to the Editor - Albany Times Union, Saturday January 29th<br /></span></p><p><span><br /></span></p><p><span>I write in support of A2003/S1438, the New York State Adoption Records Reform bills. I was adopted in 1960 in Rochester.</span></p> <p><span>Because I am a white, middle-class male, it may be difficult to see me as a member of an oppressed minority group. Yet, that is exactly what New York adoptees are.</span></p> <p><span>What other term can describe a group of citizens prevented by the state from knowing who they are and where they came from? </span></p> <p><span>How is it possible that the state can maintain a veil of secrecy between a human being and the most basic information about himself? </span></p> <p><span>How can one participate fully in the human condition when one is cut off by law from even knowing the identity of those who are responsible for one's life?</span></p> <p><span>Of course, there was another group of people so denied. They were by law and custom expected to live without this vital, human knowledge. These were the slaves of the antebellum South. They were not viewed as men, rather as property. Are we adoptees human beings?</span></p> <p><span>Let New York leave behind the barbaric practices of the past so well described by <a href="http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=opinion&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Ann+Fessler%22">Ann Fessler</a>, author of "The Girls Who Went Away."</span></p> <p><span>Let New York treat all born there with full human dignity. </span></p> <p><span>Let New York open its records as a step toward redressing the misery caused by its closed adoption system.</span></p> <p><span>David Phelps</span></p> <p><span>Fairfax, Va.</span></p>Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-44253985690612660042010-12-26T15:32:00.000-08:002011-01-25T18:55:32.520-08:00Records need to be unsealed<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody> <tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;" valign="top"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-size:12pt;"><span class="txdateline">First published: Monday, November 29, 2010 </span></span></span></p></td></tr> <tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0.75pt; width: 100%;" valign="top" width="100%"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-size:12pt;">Thousands of adults who were born and adopted in New York now live in other states. Some write to state legislators to ask them to open New York's sealed adoption records and may have received replies. However, some feel they have no representation in Albany and should not waste their time. Meanwhile, some adoption agencies indicate that most of the requests they receive from adoptees seeking to know the basic facts of their birth are from those living out of state. </span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-size:12pt;">The Bill of Adoptee Rights -- A2003, sponsored by Assemblyman David Weprin , and S1438, sponsored by Senator Velmanette Montgomery -- has gained support and activists continue to lobby.</span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-size:12pt;">New York</span></span>'s adoption policy is slow to catch up to accepted practice that advocates for openness and honesty. Its policy that no one should search, when search and reunion have been accepted for many years, is a "Father Knows Best" paternalistic policy. It is extremely unfair. </p> <p><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-size:12pt;">Many of the old beliefs about adoption have been disproved and social mores have changed. The shroud of secrecy surrounding adoption was a social more'. There were no confidentiality laws for birth parents, <span class="GramE">nor</span> a right to privacy. Adoptees were not supposed to search because they would upset their adoptive families and find unpleasant truths about their birth families. When these outdated mores collapsed, thousands of adoptees and birth parents began searching for each other; thousands continue to do so every year.</span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-size:12pt;">Searching is now seen as a necessary step in adoptee/birthparent healing.</span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-size:12pt;">It is the old, discriminatory sealed records law that is in the wrong. November is National Adoption Month, and New York adoptees still have no right to the most fundamental information about themselves. </span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-size:12pt;">Joyce Bahr</span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-size:12pt;">President Unsealed Initiative</span></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-size:12pt;">New York City</span></span> </p></td></tr></tbody></table>Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-38832988285864019532010-11-07T06:01:00.000-08:002010-11-07T06:02:37.966-08:00David Phelps Letter to Speaker Silver<style></style><div> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri;">Dear Speaker Silver,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri;">My name is David Phelps.<span style=""> </span>I am a New York adoptee.<span style=""> </span>I was adopted in Rochester in 1960.<span style=""> </span>I was placed through the North Haven agency.<span style=""> </span>I am writing to you today in support of A8410/S5269 , the New York Adoption Records Reform bills.<span style=""> </span>I feel that the time has come, indeed is long past, for New York to open its adoption records.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri;">The question of opening <span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span>New York’s adoption records is an important one for a number of reasons.<span style=""> </span>First and foremost, there is the matter of basic human dignity.<span style=""> </span>All human beings have a birthright, a right to know their origins, the circumstances of their birth.<span style=""> </span>Happily, this is the case in Western Europe, Australia and six U.S. States.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri;">Second, one must realize that not having vital information about oneself is actually harmful in many ways.<span style=""> </span>May I tell you about my adoptive brother Doug?<span style=""> </span>Doug passed away this summer.<span style=""> </span>He died of a heart attack at the age of 51.<span style=""> </span>This was the second heart attack he had had, the first coming in his early forties.<span style=""> </span>At the time of his first heart attack, his doctors of course asked him if he had a family history of heart disease.<span style=""> </span>What could he say?<span style=""> </span>He was adopted.<span style=""> </span>He had no legal right to any family medical history.<span style=""> </span>All he could say was “I don’t know.”<span style=""> </span>In fact the doctors told him that he must have had a family history of heart problems because he wouldn’t have suffered an attack at that age without a genetic predisposition.<span style=""> </span>Now imagine if Doug had known this from an early age.<span style=""> </span>Don’t you think he would have taken precautions?<span style=""> </span>Don’t you think that knowledge would have made a profound impact on his medical treatment and lifestyle choices?<span style=""> </span>I firmly believe that Doug would still be alive today if he had had this vital knowledge.<span style=""> </span>Did the sealed records system kill him?<span style=""> </span>Is that too strong a word?<span style=""> </span>It certainly was at the very least an unnecessary obstacle to his health and well being.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri;">Doug never searched for his birth family, though he wanted to.<span style=""> </span>The sealed records system that we both grew up with conditioned us to think that searching was a sign of maladjustment.<span style=""> </span>Nothing could be further from the truth.<span style=""> </span>Only in the last few years was he becoming aware of the great injustice New York has foisted upon an entire class of its own citizens.<span style=""> </span>Imagine if the state decreed tomorrow that all newborn females or minorities were forbidden to know their original identities.<span style=""> </span>It sounds ridiculous, yet this is exactly what New York has done to those born out of wedlock and placed for adoption within its borders.<span style=""> </span>Why?</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri;">In 2005, I searched for and found my original family and identity.<span style=""> </span>No one has been harmed by my doing so.<span style=""> </span>I have wonderful new relationships with my birth siblings, though my birthparents have both passed.<span style=""> </span>These are relationships I should have had for decades.<span style=""> </span>I have missed the chance of knowing by birth parents because New York has diligently maintained its closed adoption system of secrets and lies.<span style=""> </span>I am sure that if the records had been open I would have searched much earlier.<span style=""> </span>Try to imagine for one moment being prevented by law from knowing your own flesh and blood, the very people from whom you sprang.<span style=""> </span>For the non adopted, as one adoptee has said, it is like asking the sighted to imagine the darkness of the blind.</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri;">So the cause is just.<span style=""> </span>History is on our side.<span style=""> </span>Just this month the state of Western Australia issued a public apology to birth mothers and adoptees for the harsh practices of the past.<span style=""> </span>Indeed, I believe the closed </span><span style="font-family:Calibri;">records system is a barbarism of the 20<sup>th</sup> century which sadly still lingers on in some places in the 21<sup>st</sup>.<span style=""> </span>Please support A8410/S5269 .</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri;">Sincerely,</span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-family:Calibri;"> </span></o:p></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri;">David Phelps</span></p></div>Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-2009093178843769482010-10-24T19:03:00.000-07:002010-10-27T05:11:03.757-07:00Out of State Adoptee/Activist Jim Clevo gets mailby Joyce Bahr<br /><br />Cleveland adoptee Jim Clevo has received mail in response to his letters to legislators. I've known Jim for many years and have the pleasure of speaking to him from time to time and am happy to receive a copies of letters he receives. Why is it that Jim receives response letters and others do not? This past week I communicated with David an adoptee from Washington D.C. and Bob an adoptee from Colorado. David is a professional writer and must send some excellent letters and Bob, he's one hell of a genius. But neither have received even one letter. Well, wait a minute because everyone receives a letter from the Speaker of the Assembly Sheldon Silver. The Speaker opposes A8410 but hopefully our lobbying is leading him to reconsider.<br /><br />Recently Mary Cook an adoptee from Florida received a nice letter from the Chair of Health committee stating A8410 would probably be reported from health committee in the 2011 Albany session. For those of you who don't know A8410 was first reported from health on 6/6/06 and was the assigned to Codes committee also known as <span style="font-style: italic;">Hell where bills go to die. </span>In January of 2011 it will return to health again until the chair decides to put it on the agenda for a vote. A8410 is expected to pass by a vote of 26-0 and reported out of committee to Codes. Our goal is to move it to the floor for a vote!<br /><br />I'm in touch with many out of state adoptees and just the other day heard from Ann Pelto an adoptee from California. She asked me what else adoptees living out of state could do other than contribute. Since Jim is proof that letters do work I have to say keep them going and don't give up! Ann has been in our movement for a number of years and is familiar with the struggles we've had to endure.<br /><br />I have to commend Jim for his writing efforts especially because he has been through some tough times with his health and keeps at it!. In 2009 he drove from Cleveland to Buffalo where he was born at <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Our Lady of Victory in Lackawana, New York </span></span>and then on to Albany where he joined us to lobby. Kudos to Jim!<br /><br />Good idea to highlight bill nos. A8410/S5269 and have the bill number right up front in your letter. Most legislators are familiar with our legislation and know we are asking for birth certificates to be unsealed, not records. The few who may not are those we've been advised not to bother with by my legislators or some others. They are a waste of time.<br /><br />Of most importance at this time is a unified front and solidarity. We've come a long way and have not just a good bill but a <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">very good bill. We can move our bills to the floor for a vote!</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Thanks to all living out of state including birth parents. I'm happy to hear from you from time to time and know that you are not giving up!<br /></span></span>Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-74080714075835653082010-10-24T18:39:00.000-07:002016-10-28T10:18:23.755-07:00Carole Whitehead on National Adoption Month<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman";">November is National Adoption Month and soon we will be inundated with the names of all the famous people who were adopted along with their happy smiling faces. Some of them were adopted by strangers and others by family members. Why aren’t these celebrities who surrendered their children shown as well with their not so happy faces? Both famous mothers and fathers have been in the media as being the biological parents, i.e, Rod Stewart, Roseanne Barr, Joni Mitchell, David Cassidy, Andy Kaufman, Kate Millgrew, Dirk Benedict and Albert Einstein to name a few, even though some are deceased. These are the people who acknowledged their past and should be out there supporting the needs of the adopted to obtain their original birth certificates. While we cannot rely on them to use their celebrity, we can be the ones who speak up for our children. We are the ones who support our children being treated as equals. We offer them their identities, health history, heritage, knowledge and fulfill their needs as only we can. We do this as a gift of love. We will not stand behind the opposition’s insisting that we want to remain hidden because at one time our society said that we must. We are neither afraid of our children nor the discontented legislators who say that our surrendered children must be afraid of us. We can make change and so we shall continue our love, support & whatever it takes to fight the fight. We need to contact our legislative people continuously or else vote out those who refuse to change their stance from day 1. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman";"> </span></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman";">Get active. Stay active. Participate. Our children whether they have been found, or a reunion exists, deserve equality and not cast out as not being entitled to being respected as an adult and not just an “adopted child” forever and ever.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-62422014625608263212010-06-22T10:01:00.000-07:002010-06-22T10:11:38.627-07:00Studies finding for adoptee access to Original Birth Certificates2009 -112 pages- Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute: “Beyond Culture Camp: Promoting Healthy Identity Formation for Adoptees.” The broadest, most extensive examination of adult adoptive identity to date. (Entire study published on Institute’s website).<br /><br />2007 – 50 pages –Professor E. Wayne Carp: “Does Opening Adoption Records Have an Adverse Social Impact? Some Lessons from the U.S., Great Britain, and Australia 1953 to 2007.” (Study available from www.informaworld.com or from Unsealed Initiative).<br /><br />2007 –31 pages—Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute: “For the Record: Restoring a Legal Right for Adult Adoptees.” (Entire study published on Institute’s website).<br /><br />2008 --33 pages---Cleveland State Law Review: “The Only Americans Legally Prohibited from Knowing Who Their Birth Parents Are; A rejection of Privacy Rights as a Bar to Adult Adoptee Access to Birth and Adoption Records. (On line copy available from Unsealed Initiative ). Cleveland State Law Review. Volume 55 issue 3.<br /><br />2001—59 pages- Professor Elizabeth J. Samuels: “The Idea of Adoption: an Inquiry into The History of Adult Adoptee Access to Birth Records.” Study concludes confidentiality was for adoptive parents. Some birth parents signed surrender papers agreeing to stay away from the custody of the adoptee and adoptive family. But no birth parent was given confidentiality or a right to privacy. This study is published in the Rutgers law review#367, 2001. (3 page conclusion available from Unsealed Initiative).<br /><br />1997---Cornell University study sponsored by the New York State Citizens Coalition Children: “Adoptive Parents Are Overwhelmingly in Favor of Opening Sealed Adoption Records.” (Available at www.news. cornell.edu/release/jan97/adoption.record.ssl.ht).<br /><br />1973—New York Law Forum study concludes adults adoptees should have access to identity and birth records for psychological health reasons. (Available from Unsealed Initiative).<br /><br /> Survey Finding for Access<br /><br />2003 –Survey conducted by FindLaw finds an overwhelming majority of Americans believe adopted children should be granted full access to their adoption records when they become adults. (Survey findings published on http://www.findlaw.com ).<br /><br /> Convention on the Rights of the Child<br /><br />1989 –UN Resolution (44/25 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 8). Section 1 states parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference. Section 2 states where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, state parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view of re-establishing speedily his or her identity.Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-24528473142050628472010-06-01T11:18:00.000-07:002010-06-01T11:28:13.783-07:00Bill will give adoptees access to their birth records-Albany Legislative Gazette June 1, 2010<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><div style="HEIGHT: 10px" class="lpdivspac"></div><div style="HEIGHT: 10px" class="lpdivspac"></div><div><div><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="CLEAR: both"></div></div><div style="BORDER-BOTTOM: gray 1px solid; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px; PADDING-TOP: 5px" class="lpdivspac"></div><div style="WIDTH: 50%; FLOAT: left"><span class="author"><a title="click to see other articles by this author" href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/1editorialtablebody.lasso?-token.searchtype=authorroutine&-token.lpsearchstring=Stephanie%20I.%20Witkin">By Stephanie I. Witkin</a></span></div><div style="FLOAT: right"><span class="author"></span></div><div style="CLEAR: both"></div><div style="HEIGHT: 15px" class="lpdivspac"></div><span class="body"><br /><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="157" align="right"><tbody><tr><td><div style="WIDTH: 7px" class="lpdivspac"></div></td><td><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="150"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="160"><tbody><tr height="5"><td rowspan="2" colspan="2"><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="150"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1" width="152" bgcolor="black"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="150" bgcolor="white"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" bgcolor="white"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="98%"><center><a style="TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Section-18294.113122_Top_Stories.html"><span class="sideheader"><span style="color:gray;">Top Stories</span></span></a></center></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td><table class="sidedirectorybody" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="150" bgcolor="white"><tbody><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="8"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-25-68018.113122_Down_on_the_derrick_A_visit_to_a_Pennsylvania_natural_gas_well.html"><img border="0" alt="bullet" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-25-68018.113122_Down_on_the_derrick_A_visit_to_a_Pennsylvania_natural_gas_well.html"><span class="sidedirectorybody">Down on the derrick: A visit to a Pennsylvania natural gas well</span></a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="8"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-25-68017.113122_NY_pols_react_to_Cuomo_announcement.html"><img border="0" alt="bullet" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-25-68017.113122_NY_pols_react_to_Cuomo_announcement.html"><span class="sidedirectorybody">NY pols react to Cuomo announcement</span></a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="8"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68141.113122_Auditors_OTBs_agree_action_is_needed.html"><img border="0" alt="bullet" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68141.113122_Auditors_OTBs_agree_action_is_needed.html"><span class="sidedirectorybody">Auditors, OTBs agree action is needed</span></a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="8"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68140.113122_Breeders_keeping_an_eye_on_Albany.html"><img border="0" alt="bullet" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68140.113122_Breeders_keeping_an_eye_on_Albany.html"><span class="sidedirectorybody">Breeders keeping an eye on Albany</span></a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="8"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68136.113122_Brennan_Center_issues_voter_disenfranchisement_warning.html"><img border="0" alt="bullet" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68136.113122_Brennan_Center_issues_voter_disenfranchisement_warning.html"><span class="sidedirectorybody">Brennan Center issues voter disenfranchisement warning</span></a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="8"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68126.113122_Democrats_are_behind_lt_gov_pick.html"><img border="0" alt="bullet" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68126.113122_Democrats_are_behind_lt_gov_pick.html"><span class="sidedirectorybody">Democrats are behind lt. gov. pick</span></a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="8"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68135.113122_Green_Party_solidifies_ticket.html"><img border="0" alt="bullet" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68135.113122_Green_Party_solidifies_ticket.html"><span class="sidedirectorybody">Green Party solidifies ticket</span></a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="8"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68142.113122_Lawmakers_say_VLTs_are_key_to_future_of_racing.html"><img border="0" alt="bullet" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68142.113122_Lawmakers_say_VLTs_are_key_to_future_of_racing.html"><span class="sidedirectorybody">Lawmakers say VLTs are key to future of racing</span></a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="8"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68133.113122_Malpass_Dont_put_our_children_in_debt.html"><img border="0" alt="bullet" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68133.113122_Malpass_Dont_put_our_children_in_debt.html"><span class="sidedirectorybody">Malpass: Don't put our children in debt</span></a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="8"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68134.113122_Pols_respond_to_Cuomo_candidacy.html"><img border="0" alt="bullet" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68134.113122_Pols_respond_to_Cuomo_candidacy.html"><span class="sidedirectorybody">Pols respond to Cuomo candidacy</span></a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="8"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68129.113122_Rice_picks_up_Albany_County_endorsements.html"><img border="0" alt="bullet" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-28-68129.113122_Rice_picks_up_Albany_County_endorsements.html"><span class="sidedirectorybody">Rice picks up Albany County endorsements</span></a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="8"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-27-68099.113122_Groups_seek_greater_safety_for_pedestrians.html"><img border="0" alt="bullet" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-27-68099.113122_Groups_seek_greater_safety_for_pedestrians.html"><span class="sidedirectorybody">Groups seek greater safety for pedestrians</span></a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="8"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-27-68098.113122_NYC_students_parents_await_final_decision_on_MetroCards.html"><img border="0" alt="bullet" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-27-68098.113122_NYC_students_parents_await_final_decision_on_MetroCards.html"><span class="sidedirectorybody">NYC students, parents await final decision on MetroCards</span></a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td><td style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(/shadow%20pieces/rb2.png); WIDTH: 10px; BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-y" rowspan="2"><div style="WIDTH: 10px" class="lpdivspac"></div></td></tr><tr></tr><tr><td style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(/shadow%20pieces/bb2.png); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x; HEIGHT: 10px" colspan="2"><div style="WIDTH: 25px; HEIGHT: 10px" class="lpdivspac"></div></td><td style="WIDTH: 10px; HEIGHT: 10px"><img style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 10px; HEIGHT: 10px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px" alt="shadow" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/shadow%20pieces/lrc2.png" /></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td><div style="WIDTH: 7px" class="lpdivspac"></div></td></tr><tr><td><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="160"><tbody><tr height="5"><td rowspan="2" colspan="2"><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="150"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1" width="152" bgcolor="black"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="150" bgcolor="white"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" bgcolor="white"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="98%"><center><a style="TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Section-18294.113122_Top_Stories.html"><span class="sideheader"><span style="color:gray;">Extras</span></span></a></center></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td><table class="sidedirectorybody" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="150" bgcolor="white"><tbody><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="1%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/1communityindexbody.lasso?-token.miscgetlppage=editorialreferral.lasso&-token.articleref=68100.113122&-token.checkpermission=53008ec0819f9ffb79d9271875663d72e8326dd8aeca0461&-token.origcheckpermission="><img border="0" alt="icon" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/1communityindexbody.lasso?-token.miscgetlppage=editorialreferral.lasso&-token.articleref=68100.113122&-token.checkpermission=53008ec0819f9ffb79d9271875663d72e8326dd8aeca0461&-token.origcheckpermission="><span class="sidedirectorybody">e-mail this article link to a friend</span></a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="1%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/1communityindexbody.lasso?-token.miscgetlppage=editorlettersubmission.lasso&-token.articleref=68100.113122&-token.checkpermission=53008ec0819f9ffb79d9271875663d72e8326dd8aeca0461&-token.origcheckpermission="><img border="0" alt="icon" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/1communityindexbody.lasso?-token.miscgetlppage=editorlettersubmission.lasso&-token.articleref=68100.113122&-token.checkpermission=53008ec0819f9ffb79d9271875663d72e8326dd8aeca0461&-token.origcheckpermission="><span class="sidedirectorybody">letter to the editor about this article</span></a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="top" width="1%"><a onclick="window.open('EditorialEExprint.LASSO?-token.editorialcall=68100.113122','Print','width=700,height=700,scrollbars=yes,toolbar=Yes,location=no,directories=no,menubar=no')" href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-27-68100.113122_Bill_would_give_adoptees_access_to_their_birth_records.html#222"><img border="0" alt="icon" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/sidedirectory/blackdiamond.gif" width="8" height="8" /></a></td><td width="99%"><a onclick="window.open('EditorialEExprint.LASSO?-token.editorialcall=68100.113122','Print','width=700,height=700,scrollbars=yes,toolbar=Yes,location=no,directories=no,menubar=no')" href="http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2010-05-27-68100.113122_Bill_would_give_adoptees_access_to_their_birth_records.html#222"><span class="sidedirectorybody">print this article</span></a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td><td style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(/shadow%20pieces/rb2.png); WIDTH: 10px; BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-y" rowspan="2"><div style="WIDTH: 10px" class="lpdivspac"></div></td></tr><tr></tr><tr><td style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(/shadow%20pieces/bb2.png); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x; HEIGHT: 10px" colspan="2"><div style="WIDTH: 25px; HEIGHT: 10px" class="lpdivspac"></div></td><td style="WIDTH: 10px; HEIGHT: 10px"><img style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 10px; HEIGHT: 10px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px" alt="shadow" src="http://www.legislativegazette.com/shadow%20pieces/lrc2.png" /></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td><div style="WIDTH: 7px" class="lpdivspac"></div></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table><span class="editorialdate">May 27, 2010</span><br />Members of the Unsealed Initiative, a group that is working toward adoption reform, are hopeful that a proposed "bill of adoptee rights" will be passed this legislative session.<br /><br />The adoptee bill of rights (S.5269/A.8410) would grant people who are adopted the right, upon their 18th birthday, to obtain an original or certified copy of their birth certificate and learn who their biological parents are. The legislation would also ensure adoptees have access to their family's medical history, if such records exists, as well as any other information birth relatives might choose to provide.<br /><br />The bill would also allow birth parents the option making know their contact preference. Birth parents could either chose to allow contact, allow contact through an intermediary or indicate their preference not to be contacted. Birth parents would be able to rescind or revise their contact preference at any time.<br /><br />"Way too many people out there who have been adopted need information. And they're not getting it," said David Koon, D-Perinton, the Assembly sponsor of the adoptees bill of rights.<br /><br />Koon said he is concerned that adoptees who are unable to view a complete family history are at higher risk for developing genetic conditions. If an adoptee is allowed to view their family's history then they might be able to prevent illness, "especially with today's technology," he said.<br /><br />New York sealed adoption records in 1935 due to social stigmas attached to being an adopted child. This subsequently sealed all records of the adoption process to all parties involved. All adoptees thereafter were unable to view their own birth certificates or receive any information regarding their family's medical history.<br /><br />"The whole climate has changed because our issue has become more mainstream. We're more accepted," said Joyce Behr, president of the Unsealed Initiative. According to Behr, the adoptee bill of rights was first introduced in 1993. Since then the bill has been introduced in both houses of the Legislature but has seen little movement.<br /><br />Though New York adoptee records have never been unsealed, in 1983 the state created an Adoption Information Registry that allows adoptees to obtain nonidentifying information about their birth parents.<br /><br />The nonidentifying information that adoptees can obtain includes general appearance, race, education and occupation. An individual can only receive indentifying information if both parties have registered with the Adoption Information Registry and both have consented to the release of their information.<br /><br />Birth parents can also supply medical and psychological information to the registry. That information can be obtained by an adoptee who registers with the registry. Any medical updates must be certified by a licensed health care provider.<br /><br />The registry cannot provide adoptees with their original birth certificate or adoption records.<br /><br />Several states have recently opened adoption records including Delaware, Tennessee and, most recently, Maine, according to a statement prepared by Unsealed Initiative.<br /><br />The legislation was referred to the Senate Health Committee at the beginning of the year, and reported to the Assembly Codes Committee on May 11.</span><br /></div><div style="CLEAR: both"></div><div style="HEIGHT: 10px" class="lpdivspac"></div></div></td>Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-11375847139857588102010-05-11T12:32:00.000-07:002010-05-11T12:53:13.622-07:00Unsubstantiated Claims Unsealing Birth Certificates for Adult Adoptees Will Increase Numbers of AbortionsBy Joyce Bahr<br /><br />Anti adoptee rights opponents of the 1996 Tennessee open records legislation claimed the new law would increase abortions and decrease adoptions. They argued women would rather abort than bear children and place them for adoption if they knew the children could later find them. A court battle ensued and the open records statute was upheld by both the Tennessee Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The claims of the plantiffs were disproven.<br /><br />Proponents of open records were able to show statistical comparisons of adoptions and abortions over time and between different states,proving open records do not increase the number of abortions. Data recorded in states with open records also indicate that the number of adoptions has not decreased. Current data from states that have opened their records since 1997 demonstrate no increase in abortions.<br /><br />A recent study by the Guttmacher Institute, “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives” concludes that the decision to abort is typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated factors. The themes of responsibility to others and limitations such as financial constraints and lack of partner support recurred throughout the study.<br /><br />Many Christians are concerned about abortion and its relation to poverty, according to a 2005 article in the New York Times entitled “One More “’Moral Value’: Fighting Poverty.” Glen E. Stassen, a professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, said his students who were largely conservative, agreed poverty should be a part of the moral values<br />discussion.<br /><br />“A lot of Christians who are worried about abortion see poverty as a pro-life issue, because if you undermine the safety net for poor mothers, you’ll increase the abortion rate and the mortality rate”. Dr. Stassen said, “We’ve seen this happen since welfare reform, just as the Catholic bishops predicted.” The welfare reform Dr. Stassen is referring to was enacted in the 1990’s and was referred to as a “Baby Cap” by the Catholic Bishops.<br /><br />Dr. Stassen, like most Christian leaders, does not explicitly link unsealing birth certificates to an increase in abortion rates among poor women. Yet the National Council for Adoption, an anti adoptee rights opponent of unsealing birth certificates, continues in its unsubstantiated claim that providing adoptees unfettered access to their original birth certificates will necessarily result in more women choosing abortion. The NCA also claims birth parents were given a right to privacy which they were not. Women signed only surrender papers terminating their parental rights and no court ever afforded them a right to privacy.<br /><br />Not all Christians oppose abortion and many Christians support adoptee rights to original birth certificates. The National Council for Adoption mistakenly conflates abortion with adoptee rights and thereby arrives at a false hypothesis that denies adoptees their birthright. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany supports the New York Bill of Adoptee Rights which gives all adoptees at age eighteen a right to a noncertified copy of their original birth certificate and has a contact preference option for birth parents.<br /><br />Historically, many churches have been insensitive to the needs of adoptees and birth parents. A birth mother’s breach of the Judeo-Christian norm in having a child out of wedlock was seen, prima facie, as requiring the permanent separation of the mother and her baby. It was not understood during this dark time, now referred to as the “Baby Scoop Era,” how this separation caused profound harm to both parties. Even today, religious organizations operate adoption agencies that perpetuate the closed adoption system, hindering reunions and withholding basic information from adoptees about their birth.<br /><br />Adoption is not a reproductive issue and the abortion issue is irrelevant to the adoptee’s quest for the fundamental right to know who they are and where they came from. The evidence is in. Unsealing adoption records does not lead to an increase in abortion. In fact, those states which have opened their records enjoy a lower rate of abortion than those where records remain sealed! It is simply not the case that adoptees are causing abortions by demanding their birthright. It is past due time to unseal birth certificates!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> .Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-48031224212273861792010-04-01T19:29:00.000-07:002010-04-01T19:35:43.617-07:00Blind Songwriter's quest for family reunification hindered by outdated adoption lawsDennis H.R. Sumlin - A New York Adoption Story<br />A Blind Songwriter and Artist Recruiter's Long Journey Home<br />Share Article |<br /><br />Feb 25, 2010 Donna W. Hill<br />Dennis H.R. Sumlin finally met his brother after 20 years. Their story demonstrates the enduring value of family and how laws thwart efforts to renew these natural ties.<br /><br />Do you know your parents' names, where they grew up, what they like or their medical histories? Most of us do., For people like Dennis H.R. Sumlin and many other adopted Americans, however, ordinary tidbits about birth families are precious gems, which often take years to unearth. In states like New York, things that could help, such as original birth certificates containing birth parents' names, are sealed.<br />A Rough Start for a Talented Kid<br /><br />Sumlin (32, Manhattan) is a talent recruitment specialist for the Visionary Media Company, president of the nonprofit Performing Arts Division of the National Federation of the Blind (PAD, NFB) and an R&B/Pop songwriter. A mentor to teens and active in the New York State Adoption Reform Lobby (NYSAR), he was elected president of the Westchester chapter of the NFB of NY in January, 2009.<br /><br />Dennis, who spoke with Suite 101 about his experiences, was given up for adoption when he was six months old. His mother, who was living on the streets of New York, had drug problems and couldn't look after him. Born with glaucoma, he lost his sight at 12 and ultimately dropped out of high school. His adoptive father died when Dennis was 16; his mother when he was 21.<br />Longing for Acceptance and Family<br /><br />His adoptive parents, the Holston's, were almost 50 when Dennis came into their lives. Their natural children were grown with families of their own. Though Dennis has warm memories of them and their life together in a Brooklyn brownstone with his aunt and cousins, there were problems the Holston's couldn't fix.<br /><br />Age was one of them. Normally uncles are older than their nieces and nephews. In Dennis's case, since the children of his adoptive siblings were older, Dennis was their younger uncle. Also, The Holston's daughter resented the attention her mother was giving to Dennis, and he never felt accepted by that side of the family.<br />Ads by Google<br />Rights of a Birth Father<br />We Help Fathers Gain the Rights They Deserve. Call Today.<br />www.NationalFamilySolutions.com<br />CT Adoption/Foster/Mentor<br />You Don't Have To Be Rich To Adopt A Connecticut Child<br />www.ct.gov/dcf/care<br /><br /><br />There was also his brother. The Holston's, who didn't change his birth name other than adding their last name, were always open with him about what they knew about his birth family. He had a younger sister and an older brother. The brother had also been adopted.<br /><br />Until age seven, Dennis occasionally visited his brother. He doesn't remember those early meetings, but the Holston's kept those memories alive, and he longed to find him. What he didn't know was that his brother was looking for him too.<br />Technology for the Blind Enables Dennis to Search for His Birth Family<br /><br />Although Dennis wanted to reconnect with his brother, he didn't know how to proceed. A high school teacher, knowing this, gave him Oprah Winfrey's contact information, but he didn't use it. At 24, he learned about a New York state form for adding his contact information to a registry in case his relatives were looking for him. Again, he didn't act on it.<br /><br />Dennis's search began in earnest at age 26 when he learned to use a computer with text-to-speech software, which removed blindness as a barrier to web-based research. Profiles he posted on several ancestry sites led to distant connections. An act of selflessness, however, gave him his big break.<br />A Family Reunites<br /><br />No stranger to the foster care system - his aunt took in foster kids - Dennis joined a mentoring program matching adopted adults and teens. His first kid was a 16-year-old in NYC's foster care system. At an end-of-year gathering, '80s rapper Darryl McDaniels of Run-D.M.C., who was also adopted, and his private investigator Pamela O'Brien talked to the group, showing a documentary about Darryl's quest to find his birth family.<br /><br />Dennis had just learned that New York adoptees can't get their original birth certificates. He wanted to change the law. Darryl, who was trying to change a similar law in New Jersey, connected Dennis with NYSAR's Unsealed Initiative.<br /><br />In March, 2007, Dennis received a call from another mentor. He had Dennis's brother's adoptive mother's phone number. She had been waiting for his call. Dennis spoke with his brother the next night. A month later, Dennis went to North Carolina to see his brother for the first time in twenty years.<br /><br />Since then, other leads have materialized. Dennis found his younger sister living right near him and learned that their birth parents, who never married, had died in the '80s. He has connected with many cousins and other siblings. He hopes to find his youngest brother.<br /><br />"I'm a believer in lineage," says Dennis, who recently changed his name to reflect all of his parents (Holston, Richardson and Sumlin), "I like to know where I came from and represent that in everything I do."<br />The Ongoing Legal Struggle<br /><br />Dennis and NYSAR continue to lobby for the unsealing of birth certificates. Bills are in both houses of the New York legislature.<br />Share Article |<br />[Recommend Article!] Recommend Article!<br />The copyright of the article Dennis H.R. Sumlin - A New York Adoption Story in Law, Crime & Justice is owned by Donna W. Hill. Permission to republish Dennis H.R. Sumlin - A New York Adoption Story in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.<br />Unsealed Initiative Activist Dennis H.R. Sumlin, John Sumlin Unsealed Initiative Activist Dennis H.R. SumlinUnsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-61365552712539009512010-03-07T21:42:00.000-08:002010-03-07T21:55:35.996-08:00New York Post article: new fight by adult adopteesPlease note the description of our bill in this article is not accurate. Our bill gives all adoptees at age 18 the right co a non certified copy of their original birth certificate and has a contact preference option for birth parents. A medical history update form is mailed to those birth parents who do not want contact. It is not mandatory for them to fill it out and return it but hopefully they will.<br /><br />New fight by adult adoptees<br />By STEFANIE COHEN<br /><br />Posted: March 7, 2010<br /><br /> All he knows about his mother is that she was a 19-year-old art student when she gave birth to him on New Year's Eve in 1966. Now, 43 years later, David Bandler is desperately trying to find the woman who gave him up for adoption because he's in a constant state of limbo over his murky origins. <br /><br />"On a subconscious level, it's always sitting there -- you wonder, 'What's my backstory?' " Bandler said. But New York state keeps adoption records sealed, making it often impossible for children to find their birth parents. <br /><br />Currently, adoptees must prove to a judge they have a psychological or medical condition that requires they learn the identity of their birth parents. Bandler's lawyer, Bert Hirsch, says he's filed a "steady trickle" of adoption lawsuits over the years, and they are generally unsuccessful because the state Court of Appeals tends to protect birth parents' privacy. <br /><br />But Bandler is hopeful his search will be fruitful. His psychiatrist filed an affidavit stating that Bandler's life will be greatly improved by a reunion with his birth mother. <br /><br />Joyce Bahr, whose heads a group that advocates to unseal records for adoptive children in New York state, says keeping them closed makes little sense now. She has a bill before the Legislature to allow adopted children to contact their birth parents at age 18 via an agency, and the parent has the option of meeting the child or not. "It's the only humane way," she said.Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-51569678777553166582009-11-23T09:18:00.000-08:002009-11-23T09:18:42.263-08:00Adoptees Cite Discrimination in Landmark Study, Push For Open Birth Records - ABC News<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/adoptees-cite-discrimination-landmark-study-push-open-birth/story?id=9138141">Adoptees Cite Discrimination in Landmark Study, Push For Open Birth Records - ABC News</a>Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-77293560199265828652009-11-21T05:23:00.000-08:002009-11-21T05:39:15.664-08:00birth parents privacy rights is a lie concocted by the opponents of adoptee rightsby Joyce Bahr<br /><br />The National Council for Adoption formed in 1980 after England unsealed birth certificates in 1975 and a federal class action lawsuit by 19 members of the New York chapter of the Adoptees Liberty Movement Association was defeated, because a Texas republican senator and adoptive parent used his power to do so. Also at this time adoption social workers were communicating with the U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare about reforming adoption and HEW wanted to open records for adoptees and birth parents throughout the country.<br /><br />There is speculation the NCFA was formed not only to promote adoption but to prevent adoptee and birth parent rights, and this they have done. Not only did they lobby against the Tennessee and Oregon open records bills they legally challenged the new laws. However they were unsuccessful in court challenges to the Tennessee Supreme court, the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Sixth Circuit and the Oregon Appellate Court, as they were unable to produce even one written promise of confidentiality. Also they were unable to prove unsealing birth certificates would cause more abortions.<br /><br />During the Tennessee initiative to open records only one agency in the state, The Small World Adoption Agency operated by the Mormon Church joined the NCFA to lobby against the bill while other adoption agencies in the state spoke out, saying the NCFA does not want to reform adoption. <br /><br />The NCFA is a Washington, DC-based trade association with 184 private agency members of which 61% are either Latter Day Saints or Bethany Christian Services-affiliated. They advocate for confidential adoption and deny that adoptees have the need for contact and information about birth families. They fail to recognize grief issues for adoptees and for mothers who surrendered to adoption. For many years they have said the few adoptees who search and are degenerates and misfits. The thousands of birth/natural mothers who have searched are not mentioned at all. Instead of any concern for mothers and acknowledgement of the injustice of forced adoptions they continue their lies of privacy rights. <br /><br />Surrendering mothers like myself signed surrender papers terminating parental rights for the purpose of adoption placement, and these papers state nothing about confidentiality or a privacy right afforded mothers. When abortion was legalized in 1973 women were given a legal right to privacy in the early trimester of abortion, but there was never any right given to mothers who surrendered, and adoption agencies never gave us a document signed by them stating we would have confidentiality. Certainly agencies could never give anyone a right and they had no intention of giving a mother legal confidentiality. No options to keep your baby were presented and most mothers were manipulated and coerced in a surrender process all about signing the baby away.<br /><br />Some social workers made statements indicating a surrendering mother would have confidentiality, but what did it mean? Was it legally binding, when courts have held that adoption professionals' verbal sratements of confidentiality cannot be permitted to tie the hands of legislatures? No,neither a social more nor a verbal statement are legally binding and are not supported in a statute. For some the word confidentiality was heard because the agency wanted to let you know they had no intention of telling anyone you were pregnant out of wedlock, but they were not saying they could some how prevent your child from one day finding you. Nor could they prevent social mores from changing. It was confidential however, no confidentiality was given.<br /><br />Did mothers ask for confidentiality? No, it was imposed on some of them and in private adoptions attorneys never mentioned it. Pregnant mothers were being told what to do and doomed to lose their child because they were unmarried. Doomed to suffer the unbearable pain and agony of postponed or delayed grief or immediate grief. <br /><br />Research by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, the foremost think tank on adoption issues in their study, For the Records, Restoring a Legal Right for Adult Adoptees finds there is no constitutional right to prevent the disclosure of "confidential" information. Courts have held that the constitutional right of privacy has never included a general right to the nondisclosure of all forms of information that an individual may prefer to keep secret.<br /><br />Most Americans support adoptees and birth parents in their search and many do search, however if there were a right to privacy for birth parents or adoptees it could have put a damper on searching a long time ago. So there are no privacy rights for birth mothers or fathers and there is no justification for denying adoptees the inalienable right to a copy of their own birth certificate. Mutual consent registries do not work for all and give many no other recourse than to search. <br /><br />The NCFA should not speak for the thousands of adult adoptees who want to quit wondering, have questions answered, and who realize the importance of knowing their identity for health and well being. It should be the adult adoptees decision to seek the answer to their identity and be able to request a copy of their birth certificate if they so choose. The Donaldson report released in November of 2007 did not rely on disapproved assumptions and the misrepresentation of statistical data as the NCFA would like people to believe. The report recommends for every state's laws to restore unrestricted assess for adult adopted persons to their original birth certificate and it acknowledges the fundamental right to know.<br /><br />Joyce Bahr is President of the Unsealed Initiative and founder of Manhattan Birth Parents Support Group which she lead for twelve years and is a member of the American Adoption Congress Legislative Committee. She found her son in1986.Unsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4328245669601361798.post-89012409754803105412009-11-17T14:01:00.000-08:002009-11-17T14:17:15.234-08:00Activist Jeff Hancock's Letter/some adoptees cannot get a passport/NY adoptees denied rights!Please note: This letter was presented to Ms.Wendy Saunders at the State Capitol on 9/2/09<br /><br /><br />Dear Mr. Governor and Deputy Secretary Saunders,<br /><br />My purpose in writing your offices today is to request your support of Bills A8410/S5269 known as “The Adoptee Bill of Rights.” This legislation will grant equal rights to adult adoptees born in New York State by providing us access to our “Original Birth Certificates.” <br /><br />Original Birth Certificates differ greatly from the “Certificate of Live Birth” New York State currently issues adoptees. While the Original Birth Certificate contains our factual identifying information, the “Amended” certificate is erroneously written as though our adoptive families are our birth parents. This practice in today’s society continues to misguide the general public as well as policy makers. Even President Barack Obama has faced scrutiny of late for having an “Amended Birth Certificate” similar to those issued to adoptees in New York State.<br /><br />Due to these outdated practices adoptees in New York State are not receiving the same rights non-adoptees have as U.S. Citizens. In 2004 the 9-11 Commission created “The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative” demanding stricter practices with the granting of a US Passport for travel. Nationwide adult American-born-adoptees have randomly encountered rejection in their applications for US Passport. The information contained on our sealed “Original Birth Certificate” has birth information necessary to fulfill Federal Passport requirements while Amended Birth Certificates do not.<br /><br />Currently the State Department not only demands extensive detailed proof of birth information, they also demand a non-refundable application fee. Many adult adoptees wait weeks, if not months, for a passport only to have it returned marked “Action Not Taken” while also forfeiting their 100 dollar payment. This denial of our constitutional rights is unfair as we are American-Born residents yet are treated as though we are second class citizens. As a late-discovery adoptee, I am included in the group of adoptees who are denied in their passport application. Ironically, it was a result of the federal passport requirement that I learned of my adoption at the age of 41 in 2007.<br /><br />There are over 6 million adult adoptees living in the United States today. It is time for New York State to join Maine, Oregon, Kansas, Alaska, Alabama, and New Hampshire by granting adult adoptees like myself with equal access to our “Original Birth Certificates.” Won’t you please join us by supporting passage of “The Adoptee Bill of Rights”? <br /><br /> <br /><br /> Sincerely Yours,<br /><br /><br /><br /> Jeffrey A. Hancock, Western New York Regional Coordinator<br /><br /> New York Statewide Adoption Reform's Unsealed InitiativeUnsealed Initiative New York Adoptee Rightshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08768275100293874008noreply@blogger.com1