Friday, June 23, 2006

AN ARGUMENT DISSOLVED AND REFUTED

Everyone knows how I feel about these new laws coming to light with abortion. One of the things that I am beginning to realize is that there is only two ways that they are going to prove a doctor is performing an abortion or a woman is getting an abortion. First they are going to go through a female's medical record. Granted its a privacy issue. There are several states waiting for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned. A woman will no longer have the promise of privacy or confidentiality through her medical records. The courts, law enforcement, and news media will all have access to any woman's medical record. The other option will be to have law enforcement in the medical offices of doctors. They will be watching every pap smear and other medical services a doctor may perform on a woman. I am very uncomfortable with this. I am also outraged by all of this. Yet here we have murders, robberies, and other problems that need to be address first. Here they are concentrating on women's health and pregnancy issues.

Now another way to look at this. They no longer have a excuse to keep our records closed to us. Of course they will come up with another argument against us. According to an article with Bastard Nation, birthparents have no reasonable expectation of anonymity. The constitution does not extend the right to privacy to include withholding birth information from the very person to who it primarily pertains -- the adoptee.

Both groups of opposition, the pro-life and the pro-choice, want records sealed because women who have had abortions are afforded privacy, they argue that women who have given children up for adoption should be given the same option. Here are some statistics that I find interesting came from a message that Faux Claude left on a comment section of a reunion story. Oregon's five year report on its open record law stated that less than 1% of birthparents desired no contact. New Hampshire also has the same rate. There are a few states that are considering doing away with the contact veto portion of their laws. States that allowed access to original birth certificates have lower abortion rates. Of course most people who want information on adoption usually look to the National Council For Adoption for the facts. I know from looking at their Adoption Factbook, is filled with lies, whether intentional or not. They state that its rare that adoptees search. I know from looking at their information about my birth state of Indiana that it is false. Adoptees not searching is not true because look at all the registries out there. Adoption.com has hundreds of thousands of entries. There is ISRR which also has a good million of entries in their database. There hundreds of other groups that help adoptees search. Many that are specific to states. Birthmothers/fathers are also searching. They wait until their child reaches 18 or 21.

3 comments:

Marie Jarrell said...

Amy-Reading your post was like chewing on tinfoil. ARRRRRGGGGGHHHH. How convenient that the Adoption Factbook is so filled with lies. Why tell the truth when lies make things so much more profitable? The whole damn system is so sick. Sure, some states are stirring a tiny bit under their blankets, but still they mostly sleep on through the alarm clock.

Joy said...

Amy, I am glad you are expressing your feelings, I have the same feelings, but feel exhausted in trying to make a difference after so many years of trying.

Again you have my complete support.
joy

Attila The Mom said...

Oh, I wouldn't say that the NCFA is lying--wink wink, nudge nudge--but they're damn good at twisting stats to fit their agenda.

What the "privacy advocates" don't seem to get is that relinquishment and adoption are two seperate legal acts.

Once a birthparent relinquishes his/her rights, it's over.

If the child is never adopted, but languishes in foster care for her entire childhood, she will receive her OBC upon the age of majority.

It was only upon adoption that our records were sealed and falsified BC's issued.

So where's the stinking privacy in that?

Fabulous post, as always!