It's not exactly a secret that we live in the Pacific Northwest. I grew up here and returned a few years ago with a spouse and child in tow after a long stint out-of-state. Marian, in fact, is our family's sole native Northwesterner, having been born in Oregon.
When Mari grows up she'll be able to request and receive a copy of her original birth certificate, no strings attached, just like everyone else born in Oregon. (Her original certificate being the one issued prior to her adoption, the one that names Beth as the mother who gave birth to her on that warm February day.) She has that right because of the work done over a decade ago by supporters of Ballot Measure 58, a voter initiative that restored Oregon-born adult adoptees' access to their original birth certificates.
A new bill introduced by Speaker of the House Dave Hunt--HB 2843--threatens to effectively repeal Measure 58. It would require birth parents to submit a consent form to the state before adoptees could have a copy of their birth certificate. I don't know about you, but I don't need my parents' permission to get my birth certificate.
Simply put, I care about open records because I believe that restricting Eddie and Mari's access to their birth certificates is a violation of their civil rights. As an adoptive parent and a supporter of openness in adoption, I also care about open records because I believe that locking pre-adoption birth certificates away perpetuates the myth that there is something shameful about adoption--that having been adopted, having placed a child for adoption or being a family formed by adoption is something that needs to be kept hidden. Closed records keep those stigmas alive. (The way we amend birth certificates is a whole 'nother issue, but let's stay focused, shall we?)
ETA: Great news! Representative Hunt's office dropped the bill on Monday after listening to advocates who brought information into his office last week and doing more research into the issue and the potential ramifications of the bill. (It was presented originally at the request of a constituent.)
6 comments:
I'm curious about why; do you happen to know? I flicked through the wording of the bill and it's interesting to see that they conflate adoptees' rights to their own true birth certificate with birthmoms' presumed right to anonymity.
My heart broke when I saw your tweet a few days ago. When talking to Washington legislators I constantly point to Oregon's law and am hopeful that I will be able to continue to do so.
Luckily after Measure 58 passed it was challenged in court and it has already been found that (birth) parents do NOT have any right to privacy/anonymity/whatever you want to call it from their child (in OR).
From what I've read this bill is the result of one citizen, so if every Oregonian who supports the rights of adult adoptees writes their legislator that should speak volumes.
So glad to read that the bill is dead!
So glad they dropped it. I'm all for openness in adoption too.
Wow, that's great (and quick!)
So glad it was dropped and that OR adopted children's rights have been protected.
As an adult adoptee in a closed adoption in CA, I haven't been able to get anything beyond some non-identifying information (which I was grateful to finally get). My husband, also adopted (NJ) has less info than I do.
I actually haven't done any checking on my own records since the 1990s. I wonder if anything has changed here in CA.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.