Sunday, July 22, 2007


This woman is a very interesting woman. She did something that most state legislators don't and want to have time for. She helped get a bill passed. She also took the time to step into adoptee's plight. Something she didn't have to do but she did anyway. It motivated her to do more. Low and behold. It passed. Thank You Maine adoptees for giving me the motivation to do the same in the states of Indiana and Texas. The article can be found here.

There is a comment section on this It just shows the ignorance of people.

Don Turner of Brunswick, ME
Jul 22, 2007 11:05 AM
I adopted a set of twins and was told by ther judge that my wife and I could choose to reveal to the boys anything about their biological father but no one else. One did chose at a later time to communicate with his biological father and it turned out miserable. This shows how a State can change things for the worst if someone special gets a chance to change promises made years before. It may have turned out good for this Senator but there has been shows on TV showing how it can be unhappy. Maine should leave things the way they were. At least, these adoptees were not aborted like another group of people believe in.

Typical attitude of adoptive parents. It isn't up to them to decide how a relationship goes. In fact I would not be surprised if his attitude didn't affect his child's relationship with his natural father. It isn't up to him to decide whether the relationship is good or bad. Its his child's choice. We are not property of our parents. We are individuals. For many adoptees of the past, abortion and unwed motherhood were not options. Get educated on the friggin issue.

The next comment is obviously a prolife person.

The privacy of the mother should be protected if she CHOOSES that option. While all of us feel a great deal of compassion for adoptees who seek to know their history, they should recognize and appreciate that this is a SMALL PRICE to pay for life. Understanding that their mother made the ultimate, selfless sacrifice should be recognized. Mother's should be given the CHOICE of whether they want to be contacted. If they change their minds down the road, there should be a system to notifify the child. I'm happy it turned out well for Webster but what's the impact for mother's making this decision today? The woman's choice shouldn't be ignored when she chooses life over death. Medical histories should be provided at the time of birth to allieviaate any problems in that area.

No you don't feel compassion for adoptees. If you did, this argument would not be used. If you would bother to listen to us in this adoptee right movement, you would know that the right to privacy is about the right to be free from governmental interference. Small price to pay for their life.. oh what a concept. As I said previously, abortion and unwed motherhood was not an option for many of these women. Its is not a price to pay. I as an adoptee should not have to pay for the sins of my natural parents. Yet that very comment expects me to do that. I am expected to not know who I am as an individual, to not know my heritage, and to not see the very document that accurately records my birth. This woman also assumes that women just want to get rid of their babies. I know this to be false as well. I could not cast aside my children. If I feel this way, how can any other mother be that way? Many of the mothers of the past are coming forward. 99% of mothers from two states, New Hampshire and Oregon have proven this. What more documentation do you need? A friend of mine, Adoption Roadkill, is known for this saying. If adoption is so great, which child are you willing to give up? I imagine you would look at me like I was crazy. Is it really so different for these women?

xmen of freeport, ME
Jul 22, 2007 7:25 AMMy thoughts exactly. Paula your job is to work for your voters, not run for office on some personal agenda that once again, will cost the taxpayers in this state more money.

Hmmm I guess adoptees are just property again. Aren't adoptees voters? Aren't the natural parents voters? We make up about 10% of the population. Shouldn't the laws reflect us as well? Or do you feel that we should just shut and be grateful that someone took us bastards in? Interesting reflections on adoptions all of these comments. By the way the law will give us a copy of the original birth certificate. It doesn't cost additional monies to get us that.

Jeff Mu of Portland, ME
Jul 22, 2007 7:20 AM
If biological parents were promised they would not be contacted, that should not be violated - whether "legally valid" 50 years later or not. Whoever thinks throwing a lawsuit in yer bio's faces is a good way to start a new, loving relationship is quite mistaken. There will be bitterness and resentment of trust and broken state promises. Exchanging their hurt for yours is not the answer. On the other hand, it's not a black-and-white policy issue, either. There is plenty of middle ground here to build on. A third-party can be asked to ask them, even years later, if they changed their minds and are now willing to be contacted. Or if they are willing to have their identity revealed after they die. And DNA technology now makes it possible to look at hereditary issues without revealing names at any time. And so on.

Here again No they were not promised that. It has been proven time and time again. No natural parent was ever given a document that stated that they had the contractual privacy. On top of that you can not legislate someone else's rights away. You can not take away my rights as an adult. An adult who has fought in a war for your blithering rights. An adult who is a working mother and wife. An adult who is a voter just as you. This law gives me my identity back. It gives me my heritage back. It gives me the chance to view a document that accurately records my birth. What I chose to do with it is mine and mine alone.


Anonymous said...

As a Mainer by heritage, I'm ashamed at the ignorant statements you found. It's unfortunate when reunions go badly, but that is no reason to deny an entire group of people's basic civil rights.

At least the right thing has happened with the legislation. In a representative democracy, we often must assume that our elected officials may just have more information than the average camper and ARE doing what's in society's best interest. Looks to be the case in this situation.

PS In defense of folks who believe in the value of life, not everyone expects adoptees to be grateful for not being aborted. That was just a particularly stupid comment.


Anonymous said...

"Medical histories should be provided at the time of birth to alleviate any problems in that area."

Because, as we all know, most people have their complete medical past and future history to share at the birth of their children.

MOL_Am_Ris said...

What really chaps me about these stupid arguments is that people base their arguments almost all on "adoption versus abortion" and go from there.

It's not even an issue of abortion versus adoption. Nor are first mothers ever, at any time, promised anonymity.

Why would anyone who is WILLING TO have an abortion go through a full pregnancy and give away the child? If the child is just in the way of their life a pregnancy will be, as well.

Furthermore, it assumes that the ONLY reason a child might have to want to see and know their family is "medical history" and has nothing to do with the reality that THIS IS MY FAMILY.

I'm surprised that no one brought up the whole "besides you can only love one family- if you look for your original family, the adoptive family must have done something wrong and not be loveable."

Ignorance is rampant in our society.

The most ridiculous of all is the concept that the alternative to adoption is abortion.

The two are actually 100% unrelated in our society today. Those who will get an abortion, will get one. They're not going to waste the time going through a pregnancy just so someone ELSE can have a child in the vast, vast majority of cases.