Essay About Adoption And Privacy Of Birth Records
The Adoption Institute recognizes 1.5 million adopted children at this time in the United States, which is over two percent of all children. About five million people in the US, both children and adults, were adopted, at a contemporary rate of about 100,000 adoptions a year. 60 percent of all Americans know an adopted person, know someone who has adopted a child or know a mother who has relinquished her child to adoption. This substantial sized group of the American public has unique and personal needs and desires in both private and political realms. These political opinions include both sides of the debate on confidentiality of birth records, a desire to further educate the American public on the option of adoption, and the struggle to uniform state regulations regarding adoption. Adoption is "the legal process which creates the status of parent and child between individuals who are not each other's biological parent or
…show more content…
child" (Hollinger 1993). This legal process, however, can occur in many different forms. There are five main subgroups of adoptions as recognized by law: intrafamily adoptions, or adoptions by a stepparent, adoptions of foreign born children, adoptions of older children, adoptions of Native American children, and finally the adoption of infants by unrelated adults. Another differentiation made in adoption is whether it is public or private. A private adoption is regulated by a state licensed company and completely separates the birthparents from the adoptive parents. A public adoption involves participation by the birthmother in choosing the adoptive parents, as well as continued communication after the adoption. This paper focuses on the private adoption of domestic infants by unrelated adults (Hollinger 1993).
One of the main problems with studying adoption in America is the unreliability and sporadic nature of statistics. Because adoption is mandated through state laws, not federal, the national government cannot demand reports on adoption. Additionally, the many different types of adoptions, public, private, state licensed agencies, non profit and for profit all confuse and compound numbers. That qualified, the majority of information on adoption is most easily understood and relatable through percentages. Adoption of unrelated infants originated throughout American culture as a solution for families with no biological heir. This practice was largely unregulated by either state or the federal government until the Massachusetts Act of 1851 set the provisions that the adoption proceedings must be overseen by a judge and for the first time the proceedings involved the legal dissolution of all parental rights by the biological parents. In 1891 Michigan passed legislation requiring the judge in proceedings to be satisfied concerning the moral fiber of the adoptive parents and the first specialized adoption agencies began to appear throughout the country during the next two decades. The next largely influential adoption policy was the 1917 Minnesota Children's Clause, the first state legislation to privatize birth records. This policy made records confidential to people outside the "adoption triad" which includes the birth parents, the adoptee, and the adoptive parents. It also required home studies of the homes into which the state placed children (ADOPTION HISTORY PROJECT). It was the first of its kind to address the stigma of adoption and in the conservative social environment of the early 1900's, the government sought to protect adoptees and the adoptive parents from prying neighbors and even blackmailers by making birth records confidential.
As the century progressed, so did adoption. The number of children being adopted soared, from 33,800 in 1951 to 89,200 in 1971 (Stolley, 1993: Fig. 1). After the increase in adoptable babies due to larger number of illegitimate births during World War II and societal acceptance of pregnancy, the institution of adoption flourished and necessitated new legislation. By the early 1940's it was common for the states to reissue birth certificates to adoptive parents for their child with the amended information. The other original birth records were then sealed, following the precedent set by the Minnesota Children's Clause. Throughout the 20th century psychologists began to study the process of adoption as well. It became a common belief, espoused by the Child Welfare League of America, the leading private adoption organization in the nation during the mid 1900's, through their influential publication Standards for Adoption Service, that women who conceived children out of wedlock were emotionally unstable and psychologically unwell. Therefore, birth records began to be sealed from members within the triad to protect the adoptee and the adoptive parents from the psychologically ill birthmother. The historical desire of privacy of the adoptive parents continued as well, and eventually all parties involved desired sealed and confidential birth records. As the children adopted during the boom of adoption in the forties and fifties came of age, they began to question this practice of sealing birth records. Adoption was no longer an institution to further inheritance, but instead had begun to meet the needs of couples who could not have children of their own. With this modulation, the stigma of being adopted no longer carried with it the same harshness as fifty years earlier. Modern psychological studies also negated the necessity of removing all contact between a biological mother and the adoptee based upon immediate mental instability of the mother. Also, as the number of adoption agencies, both public and private, began to increase, there was a growing concern regarding the legality of their practices (Schulman 1993). As these members of the triad no longer demanded the privacy of previous generations, they began to instigate movements and groups to further their goals of opening birth records. The first of such groups to form was the Adoption Liberty Movement Association, or the ALMA. The ALMA was formed by Florence Ladden Fisher, a young woman who had been adopted as an infant and not told of her adoption until her 20's. The ALMA began fighting for the opening of all birth records through grassroots campaigns. The organization engaged this participation, as compared to lobbying actions at each state legislature because, as Fisher claimed, to "change the law State by State the adoptees who are being hurt by the present laws would all be dead and buried before the States would open up unconditionally" (Fisher, 1976). The ALMA therefore sought to change public opinion regarding adoption. This group's major political act occurred when the ALMA challenged the NY state adoption laws in ALMA et al v. Lefkowitz et al, a 1977 class action lawsuit heard on appeal in the second circuit court of appeals. ALMA attempted to change the New York state laws, claiming they were unconstitutional. The ALMA claimed the sealed birth records violated the first amendment's right to acquisition of knowledge by concealing their birth information from adoptees. It also, they argued, violated the thirteenth amendment's prohibition on slavery, claiming the framers had in mind when defining slavery, the removal of children from their biological parents, adoptees, they claimed were forced to wear a badge of slavery because of this classified status of their records. Finally, the ALMA sought to convince the court that the fourteenth amendment declared illegitimate children a suspect class, in which the ALMA lumped adoptees, therefore any legislation regarding this class of citizens would be subject to strict scrutiny. Unfortunately for the ALMA, the court of appeals denied all three of their claims, essentially ruling on all that the ALMA had created false analogies and applications of the amendments (Carp, 2004). Continuing the activism by adoptees, Jean Paton formed the American Adoption Congress in 1978. This organization represented a new argument in the debate for open birth records. The AAC based their demand for the opening of records on the psychological damage their confidentiality caused for an adoptee. This group was very bureaucratic and democratic, relying on a structure of hierarchy resembling the federal government to engage members into action. The AAC also began using the phrase "adoption reform movement" in association with their actions in order to connect a certain legitimacy with their actions. Like the ALMA, the AAC initially failed with their psychological argument and their activism evolved into lobbying state legislatures.
After the psychological movement in adoptive politics, another group was formed to address adoptees' growing impatience with the policy changes and actions of capital based governments. Bastard Nation was the first nationally based interest group for adoptees, employing the internet as a tool to connect its members. As a whole, the leaders of this organization were young, college educated women, who sought to shock the nation with innovative activism. They demanded media attention with marches and picket lines, rejecting traditional forms of participation, such as the lawsuit used by the ALMA or lobbying similar to the AAC. Instead these participants engaged in debates on radio and television, they wrote editors of newspapers, and took a stance of absolute openness of birth records, without compromise. Bastard Nation, BN, also took a much more humorous stance on adoption reform than previous activist groups. As their name suggests, members sought to negate the stigma of being a "bastard" by satirizing a society that inflicted this stigma. The group used clever word games such as knock knock jokes, "Knock. Knock. Whose there? An Adoptee. SLAM," and recipes including "Who's My Poppa Pot Pie" and "Strawberry Short-a-Mother Cake" in order to interest others in their movement and demand attention (Carp, 2004: 27).
BN's largest policy contribution to the realm of adoption politics was Oregon's Ballot Measure 58 in 1998. This referendum gave adoptees over the age of 21 unconditional access to their birth records. Measure 58 was the first of such state laws to allow this access, however, now 11 states have enacted similar stances on birth records including the release of records with previous consent by birth parents (BN website.). Within six months of the enactment of this measure in 2000 there were over 5,000 requests for birth record information in the state of Oregon (Carp, 2004). The substantial number of these requests can only serve to illustrate the widespread demand by adoptees for information held in their birth records.
Initially, advocates of confidential records believed that adoptees searching for information on their birth parents illustrated a failure in the system of adoption. If these records were open, they believed, more adoptees would be likely to search for birth parents and reject adopted families. However, as psychologists have found in their studies , most adoptees wishing to find biological parents simply embodied "an innate curiosity about their genealogical past" (Carp, 2004).
Despite the proliferation of groups seeking to open birth records, some adoptees still favor confidential records.
The National Committee for Adoption represents this sector of adoption activists. Bill Pierce, the founder of this group, defends the confidentiality of birth records in his essay, "About Adoption and Privacy of Records" written in 1982. He claims that the opening of birth records unequivocally represents "willingness to disrupt not only the lives of adoptive parents but even of minor children" and Pierce claims, negates the planning and promises a birth mother received when she initially put the baby up for adoption (3). Pierce also contends that the movement towards open records is being perpetuated by a vocal minority. He claims, in fact, that the anti-privacy groups represent a minority of "probably less than a thousand-who've made adoption so controversial" (3). However, this belief is clearly flawed, or at the least outdated, give Ballot Measure 58's success in Oregon, drawing out 5,000 adoptees in less than six
months.
Pierce suggests, in place of such complete openness of records, a compromise. He offers the idea of what he terms voluntary registries, in which birth mothers and adoptees can register and if both parties agree, birth records would become available to each, with the advising of a social worker trained to make the subsequent reunion as satisfactory and healthy as possible (3). Since the publication of his pamphlet, many states have enacted similar legislation. Twenty Six states at this time have search mechanisms called "passive registry" in which "at least two parties are required to register with a public or private agency in order for a match to be made" (State adoption disclosure laws). Other current policies involve an intermediary system which contacts a birth parent seeking consent for release of personal information and waivers of confidentiality which are documents filed which allow the disclosure of confidential records.
The debate over confidentiality of birth records is undeniably the largest issue in domestic, infant adoption politics today. However, other issues demand attention as well. The National Committee for Adoption, or NCA, for example, is also entrenched in a campaign to educate the public about the option of adoption. The lobbying efforts of this organization enabled the Adoption Information Act to pass legislation in the federal government, requiring Planned Parenthood and other resources for pregnant girls to carry and provide information on adoption as well as abortion. In conjunction with these efforts, the group has sent representatives to news networks, radio shows, and other public forums to educate on the option of adoption in all circumstances.
Another locust of unrest within the adoption community has been the uniformity of state laws. As previously stated, adoption is regulated by individual states, and its definition and application is defined drastically different in each state. For example, each state and even each court, can define the incapacity of a mother to raise her baby at a different level. Additionally, different states allow adoptive parents to pay for different parts of the birth and pregnancy, regulate different roles intermediaries can play and mandate different amounts of time spent in foster care before the adoptive parents can receive the child. (Adoption Insititue Fact Overview).
Through out the history of adoption in the United States, groups have tried to uniform the laws. In 1953 the Uniform Adoption Act was first proposed. However it was not until 1994 that the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws drafted the final Uniform Adoption Act which was passed into law the same year (UPENN LAW). This uniformity of state laws still allows leniency in its specific application within the states, however, it seeks to determine on an equal level, common adoption terms and practices in all states. This uniformity removes certain interpretations from the states, however, it also allows a common standard to be enacted in all instances of adoptions, hopefully improving and perpetuating the institution.
As the twentieth century ended, adoption began to again parallel changes in society. Before 1973, 19.3 percent of pregnant, unmarried white women put their babies up for adoption. Fifteen years later however, between 1989 and 1995, a mere 1.7 percent of pregnant, unmarried, white women chose this same option. This discrepancy can be explained through the legalization of abortion, an increase number and acceptance of single parent families because of divorce rates, as well as the increase in teen pregnancies, the age group most likely to keep a baby conceived out of wedlock. . (Adoption Institute). This drastic decrease in children available for adoption created a related decline in private, domestic adoptions. However, adoption is more socially acceptable than ever, and the demand for adoptable children is ever present, in the 1995 national Survey of Family Growth they found nearly 10 million "ever-married" women from 18-44 had considered adoption, which equates to nearly a quarter of the population of women who had ever been married (NAIC).
With this large discrepancy between the number of families searching for babies and the number of babies available, hopeful parents have extended their searches to international adoptions and adoptions of special needs children. Additionally, with increasing societal acceptance of homosexuality, the issue of same sex couples adopting children arises as well. These changing dynamics in United States adoption shift much of the political focus to these realms and away from the birth record, uniformity of laws and educational debates surrounding private, domestic adoptions.
This shift in adoption policy and attention signifies a changing era in adoption politics. If domestically adopted adults are still unhappy with their states rulings on birth records or any of the other issues, they will be forced to be loud and strong in their verbalization of their needs. Bastard Nation continues its goals to open all birth records to all adopted adults without fail, but their spectacles of participation are no longer innovative or unique. In order to perpetuate the intensity and success of their action at the end of the twentieth century these groups need to engage as many citizens as possible, conveying the deeply personal effect legislation on adoption can have. Past participation has matured to meet the needs of past changes and participation now must do the same. If domestically adopted adults expect to continue experiencing the same level of attention and influence in government, their participation must be new and inventive, as Bastard Nation's was at the beginning of its activism.
International and special needs adoptees are not only increasing in political attention, but percentages as well. Despite the fact that the number of foreign adoptions has remained steady over the five year span from 1986-1991, hovering at about 10,000 internationally adopted children, this number becomes more statistically relevant given the drastic decrease in domestic adoptions (Stolley). Similarly, The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 drew attention to special needs adoptions. This act sought to catalyze an increase in the adoption of children determined to be special needs, such as those with medical problems, older children, and children with physical or mental disabilities (Stolley). Programs such as Dave Thomas' Adoption Act of 2003, which allows adoptive parents of special needs children to access money in IRAs without penalty, make it easier for the average American family to afford the extra medical expenses of a special needs child. "In 1986, some 13,568 children with special needs were adopted. These special needs adoptions accounted for 26.5% of all unrelated domestic adoptions" (stolley). The research by the Adoption Clearinghouse illustrates the changes in domestic adoption's dynamics.
However successful Ballot Measure 58 may have been in Oregon, it does not suggest a revolution in adoption practices. Almost every other state in the nation has changed their laws since the 1851 legislature first ruled on adoption, however a slow change to a slight openness does not signify the revolution Bastard Nation proposes. They have tried similar referendums in other states such as California, New Hampshire, Missouri, Washington, New Jersey, Georgia and Louisiana, but all of these have failed to pass with 50 percent of the voters approval. In Alabama, however, they were successful in passing another referendum similar to Oregon's. This failure in furthering their goal may portray the nations actual feelings on the subject, however, it seems to also suggest the need for the further education that the National Committee for Adoption is attempting, hereby demonstrating the necessity for adoption groups, no matter what their stance on one issue, to cooperate where possible to further the good of all adoptees and future adoptees in the country.
Because of the changing elements of adoption, the most essential aspect of adoption politics would be to ensure that all voices are heard and being represented. Bill Pierce, the founder of the AAC, voiced his concern that the proponents of open birth records were an extremist minority, and the leaders of contemporary action groups run the risk of propagating members and using charismatic illusory issues to spark participation in a debate that is essential about personal choice. When I began this paper I was a strong believer in the necessity of closed birth records. Although I have known my whole life I was adopted, it is not an issue I think about during my day to day life, and I certainly do not think of my adoptive parents as anything other than my mother and father. I felt the sanctity of our family as well as the closure my biological mother must have desired, all rested on the privacy of my records. However, after reading about the efforts by many of the people involved, I began to understand the passion that this topic ignites in people it touches. The best option, to ensure that all parties are not as disrupted as is conceivable with completely open records, seems to me to be the passive registry which allows members of the triad to register because of their own motivations. This option allows only those members desirous enough to act, that is to register themselves, to be involved in reunions, and also negates any undue pressure intermediary services which contact parties independently might exert.
In his book, Adoption Politics, E Wayne Carp lays out another piece of advice for domestic adoption advocates and groups in the new century. He brings in the issue of the number of adoption agencies through out the country and recommends groups such as Bastard nation and the AAC engage these agencies in their fight. Because most of these agencies support open records, they would be likely advisories to the proponents for closed records. Together with a new sector of the American public and an increase in the volume and key of the adoptees' voice it seems possible to perpetuate political action.
My birth records are in Virginia, the state in which I was born, and are therefore not available to me without a court order, based upon necessity, or "good cause" (STATE ADOPTION DISCLOSURE LAWS) and I am okay with that. But for the thousands of other adoptees from the state of Virginia, I hope that they keep pursuing political participation as an outlet for their passion. Most of all, I would wish adoptees, biological parents and adoptive parents alike to each individually have, to borrow a phrase ironically from abortion activists, the right to choose.
child" (Hollinger 1993). This legal process, however, can occur in many different forms. There are five main subgroups of adoptions as recognized by law: intrafamily adoptions, or adoptions by a stepparent, adoptions of foreign born children, adoptions of older children, adoptions of Native American children, and finally the adoption of infants by unrelated adults. Another differentiation made in adoption is whether it is public or private. A private adoption is regulated by a state licensed company and completely separates the birthparents from the adoptive parents. A public adoption involves participation by the birthmother in choosing the adoptive parents, as well as continued communication after the adoption. This paper focuses on the private adoption of domestic infants by unrelated adults (Hollinger 1993).
One of the main problems with studying adoption in America is the unreliability and sporadic nature of statistics. Because adoption is mandated through state laws, not federal, the national government cannot demand reports on adoption. Additionally, the many different types of adoptions, public, private, state licensed agencies, non profit and for profit all confuse and compound numbers. That qualified, the majority of information on adoption is most easily understood and relatable through percentages. Adoption of unrelated infants originated throughout American culture as a solution for families with no biological heir. This practice was largely unregulated by either state or the federal government until the Massachusetts Act of 1851 set the provisions that the adoption proceedings must be overseen by a judge and for the first time the proceedings involved the legal dissolution of all parental rights by the biological parents. In 1891 Michigan passed legislation requiring the judge in proceedings to be satisfied concerning the moral fiber of the adoptive parents and the first specialized adoption agencies began to appear throughout the country during the next two decades. The next largely influential adoption policy was the 1917 Minnesota Children's Clause, the first state legislation to privatize birth records. This policy made records confidential to people outside the "adoption triad" which includes the birth parents, the adoptee, and the adoptive parents. It also required home studies of the homes into which the state placed children (ADOPTION HISTORY PROJECT). It was the first of its kind to address the stigma of adoption and in the conservative social environment of the early 1900's, the government sought to protect adoptees and the adoptive parents from prying neighbors and even blackmailers by making birth records confidential.
As the century progressed, so did adoption. The number of children being adopted soared, from 33,800 in 1951 to 89,200 in 1971 (Stolley, 1993: Fig. 1). After the increase in adoptable babies due to larger number of illegitimate births during World War II and societal acceptance of pregnancy, the institution of adoption flourished and necessitated new legislation. By the early 1940's it was common for the states to reissue birth certificates to adoptive parents for their child with the amended information. The other original birth records were then sealed, following the precedent set by the Minnesota Children's Clause. Throughout the 20th century psychologists began to study the process of adoption as well. It became a common belief, espoused by the Child Welfare League of America, the leading private adoption organization in the nation during the mid 1900's, through their influential publication Standards for Adoption Service, that women who conceived children out of wedlock were emotionally unstable and psychologically unwell. Therefore, birth records began to be sealed from members within the triad to protect the adoptee and the adoptive parents from the psychologically ill birthmother. The historical desire of privacy of the adoptive parents continued as well, and eventually all parties involved desired sealed and confidential birth records. As the children adopted during the boom of adoption in the forties and fifties came of age, they began to question this practice of sealing birth records. Adoption was no longer an institution to further inheritance, but instead had begun to meet the needs of couples who could not have children of their own. With this modulation, the stigma of being adopted no longer carried with it the same harshness as fifty years earlier. Modern psychological studies also negated the necessity of removing all contact between a biological mother and the adoptee based upon immediate mental instability of the mother. Also, as the number of adoption agencies, both public and private, began to increase, there was a growing concern regarding the legality of their practices (Schulman 1993). As these members of the triad no longer demanded the privacy of previous generations, they began to instigate movements and groups to further their goals of opening birth records. The first of such groups to form was the Adoption Liberty Movement Association, or the ALMA. The ALMA was formed by Florence Ladden Fisher, a young woman who had been adopted as an infant and not told of her adoption until her 20's. The ALMA began fighting for the opening of all birth records through grassroots campaigns. The organization engaged this participation, as compared to lobbying actions at each state legislature because, as Fisher claimed, to "change the law State by State the adoptees who are being hurt by the present laws would all be dead and buried before the States would open up unconditionally" (Fisher, 1976). The ALMA therefore sought to change public opinion regarding adoption. This group's major political act occurred when the ALMA challenged the NY state adoption laws in ALMA et al v. Lefkowitz et al, a 1977 class action lawsuit heard on appeal in the second circuit court of appeals. ALMA attempted to change the New York state laws, claiming they were unconstitutional. The ALMA claimed the sealed birth records violated the first amendment's right to acquisition of knowledge by concealing their birth information from adoptees. It also, they argued, violated the thirteenth amendment's prohibition on slavery, claiming the framers had in mind when defining slavery, the removal of children from their biological parents, adoptees, they claimed were forced to wear a badge of slavery because of this classified status of their records. Finally, the ALMA sought to convince the court that the fourteenth amendment declared illegitimate children a suspect class, in which the ALMA lumped adoptees, therefore any legislation regarding this class of citizens would be subject to strict scrutiny. Unfortunately for the ALMA, the court of appeals denied all three of their claims, essentially ruling on all that the ALMA had created false analogies and applications of the amendments (Carp, 2004). Continuing the activism by adoptees, Jean Paton formed the American Adoption Congress in 1978. This organization represented a new argument in the debate for open birth records. The AAC based their demand for the opening of records on the psychological damage their confidentiality caused for an adoptee. This group was very bureaucratic and democratic, relying on a structure of hierarchy resembling the federal government to engage members into action. The AAC also began using the phrase "adoption reform movement" in association with their actions in order to connect a certain legitimacy with their actions. Like the ALMA, the AAC initially failed with their psychological argument and their activism evolved into lobbying state legislatures.
After the psychological movement in adoptive politics, another group was formed to address adoptees' growing impatience with the policy changes and actions of capital based governments. Bastard Nation was the first nationally based interest group for adoptees, employing the internet as a tool to connect its members. As a whole, the leaders of this organization were young, college educated women, who sought to shock the nation with innovative activism. They demanded media attention with marches and picket lines, rejecting traditional forms of participation, such as the lawsuit used by the ALMA or lobbying similar to the AAC. Instead these participants engaged in debates on radio and television, they wrote editors of newspapers, and took a stance of absolute openness of birth records, without compromise. Bastard Nation, BN, also took a much more humorous stance on adoption reform than previous activist groups. As their name suggests, members sought to negate the stigma of being a "bastard" by satirizing a society that inflicted this stigma. The group used clever word games such as knock knock jokes, "Knock. Knock. Whose there? An Adoptee. SLAM," and recipes including "Who's My Poppa Pot Pie" and "Strawberry Short-a-Mother Cake" in order to interest others in their movement and demand attention (Carp, 2004: 27).
BN's largest policy contribution to the realm of adoption politics was Oregon's Ballot Measure 58 in 1998. This referendum gave adoptees over the age of 21 unconditional access to their birth records. Measure 58 was the first of such state laws to allow this access, however, now 11 states have enacted similar stances on birth records including the release of records with previous consent by birth parents (BN website.). Within six months of the enactment of this measure in 2000 there were over 5,000 requests for birth record information in the state of Oregon (Carp, 2004). The substantial number of these requests can only serve to illustrate the widespread demand by adoptees for information held in their birth records.
Initially, advocates of confidential records believed that adoptees searching for information on their birth parents illustrated a failure in the system of adoption. If these records were open, they believed, more adoptees would be likely to search for birth parents and reject adopted families. However, as psychologists have found in their studies , most adoptees wishing to find biological parents simply embodied "an innate curiosity about their genealogical past" (Carp, 2004).
Despite the proliferation of groups seeking to open birth records, some adoptees still favor confidential records.
The National Committee for Adoption represents this sector of adoption activists. Bill Pierce, the founder of this group, defends the confidentiality of birth records in his essay, "About Adoption and Privacy of Records" written in 1982. He claims that the opening of birth records unequivocally represents "willingness to disrupt not only the lives of adoptive parents but even of minor children" and Pierce claims, negates the planning and promises a birth mother received when she initially put the baby up for adoption (3). Pierce also contends that the movement towards open records is being perpetuated by a vocal minority. He claims, in fact, that the anti-privacy groups represent a minority of "probably less than a thousand-who've made adoption so controversial" (3). However, this belief is clearly flawed, or at the least outdated, give Ballot Measure 58's success in Oregon, drawing out 5,000 adoptees in less than six
months.
Pierce suggests, in place of such complete openness of records, a compromise. He offers the idea of what he terms voluntary registries, in which birth mothers and adoptees can register and if both parties agree, birth records would become available to each, with the advising of a social worker trained to make the subsequent reunion as satisfactory and healthy as possible (3). Since the publication of his pamphlet, many states have enacted similar legislation. Twenty Six states at this time have search mechanisms called "passive registry" in which "at least two parties are required to register with a public or private agency in order for a match to be made" (State adoption disclosure laws). Other current policies involve an intermediary system which contacts a birth parent seeking consent for release of personal information and waivers of confidentiality which are documents filed which allow the disclosure of confidential records.
The debate over confidentiality of birth records is undeniably the largest issue in domestic, infant adoption politics today. However, other issues demand attention as well. The National Committee for Adoption, or NCA, for example, is also entrenched in a campaign to educate the public about the option of adoption. The lobbying efforts of this organization enabled the Adoption Information Act to pass legislation in the federal government, requiring Planned Parenthood and other resources for pregnant girls to carry and provide information on adoption as well as abortion. In conjunction with these efforts, the group has sent representatives to news networks, radio shows, and other public forums to educate on the option of adoption in all circumstances.
Another locust of unrest within the adoption community has been the uniformity of state laws. As previously stated, adoption is regulated by individual states, and its definition and application is defined drastically different in each state. For example, each state and even each court, can define the incapacity of a mother to raise her baby at a different level. Additionally, different states allow adoptive parents to pay for different parts of the birth and pregnancy, regulate different roles intermediaries can play and mandate different amounts of time spent in foster care before the adoptive parents can receive the child. (Adoption Insititue Fact Overview).
Through out the history of adoption in the United States, groups have tried to uniform the laws. In 1953 the Uniform Adoption Act was first proposed. However it was not until 1994 that the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws drafted the final Uniform Adoption Act which was passed into law the same year (UPENN LAW). This uniformity of state laws still allows leniency in its specific application within the states, however, it seeks to determine on an equal level, common adoption terms and practices in all states. This uniformity removes certain interpretations from the states, however, it also allows a common standard to be enacted in all instances of adoptions, hopefully improving and perpetuating the institution.
As the twentieth century ended, adoption began to again parallel changes in society. Before 1973, 19.3 percent of pregnant, unmarried white women put their babies up for adoption. Fifteen years later however, between 1989 and 1995, a mere 1.7 percent of pregnant, unmarried, white women chose this same option. This discrepancy can be explained through the legalization of abortion, an increase number and acceptance of single parent families because of divorce rates, as well as the increase in teen pregnancies, the age group most likely to keep a baby conceived out of wedlock. . (Adoption Institute). This drastic decrease in children available for adoption created a related decline in private, domestic adoptions. However, adoption is more socially acceptable than ever, and the demand for adoptable children is ever present, in the 1995 national Survey of Family Growth they found nearly 10 million "ever-married" women from 18-44 had considered adoption, which equates to nearly a quarter of the population of women who had ever been married (NAIC).
With this large discrepancy between the number of families searching for babies and the number of babies available, hopeful parents have extended their searches to international adoptions and adoptions of special needs children. Additionally, with increasing societal acceptance of homosexuality, the issue of same sex couples adopting children arises as well. These changing dynamics in United States adoption shift much of the political focus to these realms and away from the birth record, uniformity of laws and educational debates surrounding private, domestic adoptions.
This shift in adoption policy and attention signifies a changing era in adoption politics. If domestically adopted adults are still unhappy with their states rulings on birth records or any of the other issues, they will be forced to be loud and strong in their verbalization of their needs. Bastard Nation continues its goals to open all birth records to all adopted adults without fail, but their spectacles of participation are no longer innovative or unique. In order to perpetuate the intensity and success of their action at the end of the twentieth century these groups need to engage as many citizens as possible, conveying the deeply personal effect legislation on adoption can have. Past participation has matured to meet the needs of past changes and participation now must do the same. If domestically adopted adults expect to continue experiencing the same level of attention and influence in government, their participation must be new and inventive, as Bastard Nation's was at the beginning of its activism.
International and special needs adoptees are not only increasing in political attention, but percentages as well. Despite the fact that the number of foreign adoptions has remained steady over the five year span from 1986-1991, hovering at about 10,000 internationally adopted children, this number becomes more statistically relevant given the drastic decrease in domestic adoptions (Stolley). Similarly, The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 drew attention to special needs adoptions. This act sought to catalyze an increase in the adoption of children determined to be special needs, such as those with medical problems, older children, and children with physical or mental disabilities (Stolley). Programs such as Dave Thomas' Adoption Act of 2003, which allows adoptive parents of special needs children to access money in IRAs without penalty, make it easier for the average American family to afford the extra medical expenses of a special needs child. "In 1986, some 13,568 children with special needs were adopted. These special needs adoptions accounted for 26.5% of all unrelated domestic adoptions" (stolley). The research by the Adoption Clearinghouse illustrates the changes in domestic adoption's dynamics.
However successful Ballot Measure 58 may have been in Oregon, it does not suggest a revolution in adoption practices. Almost every other state in the nation has changed their laws since the 1851 legislature first ruled on adoption, however a slow change to a slight openness does not signify the revolution Bastard Nation proposes. They have tried similar referendums in other states such as California, New Hampshire, Missouri, Washington, New Jersey, Georgia and Louisiana, but all of these have failed to pass with 50 percent of the voters approval. In Alabama, however, they were successful in passing another referendum similar to Oregon's. This failure in furthering their goal may portray the nations actual feelings on the subject, however, it seems to also suggest the need for the further education that the National Committee for Adoption is attempting, hereby demonstrating the necessity for adoption groups, no matter what their stance on one issue, to cooperate where possible to further the good of all adoptees and future adoptees in the country.
Because of the changing elements of adoption, the most essential aspect of adoption politics would be to ensure that all voices are heard and being represented. Bill Pierce, the founder of the AAC, voiced his concern that the proponents of open birth records were an extremist minority, and the leaders of contemporary action groups run the risk of propagating members and using charismatic illusory issues to spark participation in a debate that is essential about personal choice. When I began this paper I was a strong believer in the necessity of closed birth records. Although I have known my whole life I was adopted, it is not an issue I think about during my day to day life, and I certainly do not think of my adoptive parents as anything other than my mother and father. I felt the sanctity of our family as well as the closure my biological mother must have desired, all rested on the privacy of my records. However, after reading about the efforts by many of the people involved, I began to understand the passion that this topic ignites in people it touches. The best option, to ensure that all parties are not as disrupted as is conceivable with completely open records, seems to me to be the passive registry which allows members of the triad to register because of their own motivations. This option allows only those members desirous enough to act, that is to register themselves, to be involved in reunions, and also negates any undue pressure intermediary services which contact parties independently might exert.
In his book, Adoption Politics, E Wayne Carp lays out another piece of advice for domestic adoption advocates and groups in the new century. He brings in the issue of the number of adoption agencies through out the country and recommends groups such as Bastard nation and the AAC engage these agencies in their fight. Because most of these agencies support open records, they would be likely advisories to the proponents for closed records. Together with a new sector of the American public and an increase in the volume and key of the adoptees' voice it seems possible to perpetuate political action.
My birth records are in Virginia, the state in which I was born, and are therefore not available to me without a court order, based upon necessity, or "good cause" (STATE ADOPTION DISCLOSURE LAWS) and I am okay with that. But for the thousands of other adoptees from the state of Virginia, I hope that they keep pursuing political participation as an outlet for their passion. Most of all, I would wish adoptees, biological parents and adoptive parents alike to each individually have, to borrow a phrase ironically from abortion activists, the right to choose.