Saturday, March 24, 2007




If the legislature has its way, some Massachusetts adoptees may soon find
themselves on a state-established blacklist that bars them from accessing their
own original birth certificates because of the date of their birth. Other
adoptees, however, born, during the "correct" timeframes will be allowed access.

Blacklist Bills SB 63 and SB 77, passed unanimously on March 21, by the
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Children, Families, and Disabled Persons create
two categories of adoptees. Adoptees born on or before July 14, 1974 and on or
after January 1, 2008 will be allowed unconditional access to their original
birth certificates now sealed by the state. Adoptees born between those dates,
will continue to be governed by current Massachusetts adoption law and forced to get a court order to get their own birth certificates. If
they’re lucky.

Adoptees and their families should look their legislators in the eye and ask the
very important question: what makes one adoptee worthy and another one not? And
tell them SB 63 and SB 77 are not acceptable--for anybody.

SB 63 and SB 77 turn back the clock. While other states, including neighboring
New Hampshire, move forward to restore the right of all adopted persons to
access their own birth certificates and other state-held records about
themselves, Massachusetts lawmakers have decided to toss thousands of the
state's adoptees in a 34 year black hole. These politicians claim that the state
needs to "honor" promises it allegedly made to women who relinquished between
the black hole dates (including the rest of this year!) that their names would
not be revealed to their offspring. These "implied promises" have been debunked
by legal scholars, activists, natural mothers, and the documents themselves
which offer no promises implied or otherwise.

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization is the largest adoptee rights
in North America. We advocate for unconditional access to original birth
documents for ALL ADOPTED ADULTS. Bastard Nation vigorously opposes SB 63 and AB
77. We are outraged by the discriminatory actions of the Joint Committee.

Bastard Nation leaves no adoptees behind. Neither should Massachusetts.

Thursday, March 15, 2007


Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Minnesota all have bills being considered in
their respective state houses. Bastard Nation supports only North Carolina’s
Bill H445.


Three new bills, three Black Holes. It boggles the mind. HB 2190, SB 63 and SB
77 were introduced in January and they appear to be almost identical. SB 63 is
sponsored by Sen. Karen Spilka and SB 77 by Sen. Susan B. Fargo, also left overs
from last year.

All three bills are a repeat of last year’s amended bill, SB 959 which was a
good bill that went bad in the Joint Judiciary Committee. Thankfully, it was
pocketed by Gov. Romney at the eleventh hour. . And now, they’ve gone and done
it again.

All three new bills actually contain the same Black Hole as last year’s model.
The Black Hole is the condition in the bill which prevents adopted adults born
between July 14, 1974 and January 1, 2008, from receiving their original birth
certificates. All adoptees who fall into this hole will continue to be treated under
Massachusetts’ old sealed records law. Those adoptees born before 1974 or after
2007 may access their original birth certificates.

Supporters of this bill contend that there was an “implied promise” of
confidentiality to birth mothers between 1974 and 2007 and that the state is
obligated to honor its “implied promise.”

A hearing is scheduled in the Senate by the Committee on Children, Families and
Persons with Disabilities for Wednesday, March 21, 207.

Bastard Nation vigorously opposes these 3 bills.


North Carolina is the state with the good bill. H445/S111 will allow all adopted
adults equal access to their original birth records, unconditionally and with no
falsifications. The bill also contains a contact preference form for birth
mothers that is similar to those in New Hampshire and Alabama. The contact
preference form will be kept with the original birth certificate but it will not prevent adoptees from receiving their records.

This bill is short, sweet and to the point. It’s not encumbered with any other
adoption issues that so often get thrown into access bills - issues that are
peripheral to unsealing records and that sometimes completely hamper the
unconditional access section.

H445 has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary. SB111 has been sent to the
Committee on Judiciary I (Civil).

The bill is sponsored by NCCAR, North Carolina Coalition for Adoption Reform.
Roberta MacDonald is Chair of NCCAR.

Bastard Nation offers its full support to North Carolina’s bill as written.


Another disaster is going through the statehouse in Minnesota. Bill HF1445 is a
long, complicated and confusing bill purporting to allow some adopted adults to
have access to their original birth certificates. The bill contains a disclosure
veto and also sprinkles in other restrictions here and there as you read through
the bill. It also has a new surprise that this reporter has never seen before.

One section of the bill says that under certain circumstances the state must
notify all birth parents who have previously filled an affidavit of
nondisclosure that their adopted children are now requesting original birth
certificates. However, “notify,” in this particular bill, means personal
notification. The state must actually send out representatives to locate and
advise these birth mothers of their adopted childrens’ requests for original
birth certificates. The state has 6 months to fulfill this duty.

Bastard Nation vigorously opposes MN Bill HF1445.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

The Black Hole

A new access bill, HB 2190,l has been filed in MASSACHUSETTS and it has the same insane “Black Hole” provision as last year’s bill. Adopted adults can request and receive their original birth certificates so long as they weren’t born between July 14, 1974 and January 1, 2008.

The rationalization for the black hole is that this bill acknowledges an “implied promise” of confidentiality made to some birth parents who relinquished during that time period.

Grannie Annie says:

An "implied" promise? How can a promise be implied? A promise either IS or it ISN'T. Period. Oh, such crap!