I am tired of giving this woman airplay but rather than argue with her on her blog. I am going to point out the pure ignorance of her statements.
Here is the first one:
"Although Professor Samuels (like Kippa) is in favor of mandated open records (as opposed to the “mutual consent” approach advocated by the National Council for Adoption and myself), Samuels’ paper is helpful in providing a historical context for understanding the complexities of the issue, and how balancing the respective (often conflicting) needs and responsibilities of all three sides of the adoption triad have challenged state legislatures and social agencies alike for more than sixty years. "
First off up to the 192os, there was no need to balance any of this information. All of the parties of interest had access. What is so different today compared to then is that this woman and her beloved National Council for Adoption want to continue to shame the relinquishing mothers, fathers, and the adoptees. That is pretty much the tone of her entire article. She is still dismissing all adoptees and their natural families. This also includes her adopted children. They will grow up.
Gee Whiz doesn't she even bother to think that her foster to adopt child or any adopted child might have future issues with getting a passport and being able to vote. Adoptees are having to prove that they are American citizens every day. Adoptees are being targeted by Immigration.
This kind of thinking was introduced by Sigmund Freud and Florence Clothier. Florence Clothier was a social worker who brought in Sigmund Freud to introduce psychoanalysis into adoption. She is the woman who put forth the belief that women were mentally ill and emotionally unstable; thus pushing the intentional separation of mother and child as being good.
Ms. Saxton nor the National Council for Adoption is not the be all and end all of adoption. It is a complicated issue on the emotional side. However, that should not be regulated by the government. The government is not in the business of relationships. There is this little thing called free association. The laws that apply to the non adopted apply to the adopted.
Its time that legislators should be speak with those living adoption especially the products of adoption, the adoptees.
7 comments:
I didn't realize she was arguing. She doesn't seem to be publishing comments.
No, she's not arguing. She's just assigning to limbo those comments she doesn't care for.
Her blog, her choice.
I just sent this one. Got snarky. The devil made me do it :-)
' “Thanks for sending that along, Kippa.”
Not at all. My pleasure.
As an adoptive mother myself, I’m surprised that the subject of open records isn’t of great importance to your general readership.
Never mind. If it isn’t now, I’m sure it will become so in the future.
“This post was not about birthfamilies, but about adoptive families. ”
Pardon my turkey. I thought it was about the needs of children in need of families.
My bad. '
It is so hard to believe, but so obviously true, that ignorance is rampant in the adoption realm. Granted, coming from a foster care perspective, this lady has an entirely different perspective than most adoptive parents. But I'm shocked that it's 2008 and we are no more evolved about adoption than we were almost 30 years ago, when I first became adoption involved. It's as if CUB, the AAC, and BN amounted to nothing, and all our work in adoption reform has done nothing to educate or enlighten. "Whatever, really, seriously" exactly describe my sentiments.
And I feel sad.
I've been saying for a long time, that Adoptees are commodities too for the Psychiatry Profession. When we start showing the signs of damage we have from being told we can not know our own parents names, many Adoptees, by their AP's are whisked off to a wierd psycholgist or psychiatrists office. The social workers and the Adoption Agency told our AP's to do this-(ie:if they can't handle not knowing their birth parents or want too, or they can't handle being told they can't know then they are dysfunctional, insane and other assorted bullshit). Translation-they will be punished for not playing the game and have the "crazy" label slapped on them. Freud was a male chavinist pig COCAINE ADDICT. His retarded theroies were thought of and written down when he was stoned out of his mind. He had a female patient, who was getting raped by one of her fathers freinds. He ignored this. He never said shit to this man, never went to the law about it, and just had her continue paying him for "counsel", while the asshole sat there too, studying her and writing all these notes down about her. The Father of Psychiatry was nothing but a criminal, rip off artist AND DRUG ADDICT. He deserves NO admiration what so ever, and I am sick and damn tired of people LYING and saying he was a great man. HE WASN'T. He should of had his ass sued off.
No, she doesn't seem to publish all comments. Certainly not this one, which I attempted to post before she effectively ended the discussion:
http://www.michaelcochrane.ca/2007/opening-adoption-files-pain-privacy-and-provincial-law/
Quote: "One of the more interesting opinions, I thought, was expressed by Margaret Somerville of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montreal. She suggested that privacy does not always need to be a two-way street. Her view as that emphasis should be placed on the rights of the child, such that, (Kippa interjecting. Sorry to shout, Amy. I just want it to be very visible) IF A CHILD SOUGHT DISCLOSURE OF ADTION RECORDS, THE INFORMATION SHOULD BE DISCLOSED WHETHER THE PARENT WHO PLACED THE CHILD CONSENTS OR NOT. The child had a right to know. The reverse, however, would not necessarily be true. In Ms. Somerville’s approach, an adult would only be entitled to information about a child who had been placed for adoption if the child consented."
It was languishing in "comments awaiting moderation" for a while. But not any more.
It has been aborted.
Kippa and all others,
If she won't publish the comments, bring them here and I will publish them.
S'okay, Amy.
I screwed up about Heidi not posting my post. She didn't address it (at the time) - but she did post it.
I've apologized.
Post a Comment