In repsonse to the Supreme Court's (Leaked) Draft Decision on Abortion

Written May 3, 2022, following the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion regarding Roe V Wade reversal: 

TW: "Infant supply,"  foster care, infant relinquishment, abortion

Lots of chatter about the "Domestic Infant Supply," recently....well, let me rephrase that. Lot's of chatter outside the adoption community happening now. Adoptees, birth parents, and yes, even adoptive parents, agencies, and governments have been aware of and discussing the "Domestic Infant Supply" for decades. Actually, nearly a century. This is not new information. Thanks for finally wading in, albeit, the shallows of the conversation. We still appreciate your passing interest. Thanks for reading this primmer on what is meant by "Domestic Infant Supply" because not everyone realizes all the nuances, history, and personal impact.

I've lived them.

Over the past week, I've seen several befuddled online commenters mulling over this issue of the "domestic supply of infants," as cited in the Justices' draft decision on the fate of Roe V Wade. Most of these conversational passers-by are scratching their heads since they know so little about the mechanics of adoption. The one thing they do know is many children are in foster care right now. The following primmer may seem harsh as I am using the same economic terms as the justices, by way of the CDC, felt comfortable using in their draft decision. But let me first explain from my perspective as an adoptee outside of what is defined as the "supply."

Let me illuminate. Babies labeled with disabilities, kids who entered foster care later, and black babies and children of color are apparently not considered as part of the supreme court's definition of the "supply," even though there is, as everyone knows, a surplus of these kids. They instead go into and often remain in foster care for years. In agency materials, infant adoptees are literally priced as "depending on desirability" and the less " desirable" cost less and take longer to find an adoptive home, if found at all. When the Supreme Court refers to the domestic infant supply" they are referring to the [mainly] white, able-bodied domestic supply of infants and lamenting that it is drying up because single women are choosing [the medically safer and less mentally scarring] route of abortion. The majority opinion of the court, the conservative justices, think this must stop and that women should be required by law to remain pregnant against their will, regardless of circumstance or a woman's preferenc and right to privacy and autonomy.

We know this ruling is largely about the industry of adoption because of the terms used, "domestic supply of infants," and also because most Christian fundamentalists and far-right conservatives think single mothers choosing to keep and parent their children in single-parent households is an abomination and is the root cause of our society's, ills. It is well known among adoption reform advocates that workers pressure single women to relinquish their child for adoption at so called "birthing centers" before they have even given birth by emphasizing the importance of "Gods plan" of a dual parent, [meaning man and a woman, make no mistake] household. Clearly the Supreme Court thinks all women need to carry their babies to term, risking their own [maternal] mortality, all so other people can have more "supply" to choose from. It must be noted that the members of the Supreme Court know full well that red states will outlaw abortion, and that these states are the ones with the highest rates of maternal mortality. Still they decry, "How dare they not carry to term when others are wanting, waiting for babies!" Some of these states have already passed trigger legislation that outlaws abortion immediately or 30 days after the Supreme Court passes this authority to the states. So if the Supreme Court issues it's decision in June, as expected, abortion will be illegal and women can be arrested for the offense as early as this month. 

As an adoptee with known disabilities in infancy, I was adopted into a chaotic dysfunctional adoptive home after spending 3 years in foster care. I can say, this Supreme Court opinion was not referring to children like me. Because of mild CP, a mental retardation diagnosis, and vision issues I was on the bargain basement sale rack. My parents were actually paid to take me, not the other way around. So there are kids available, there is a supply, just not the desired, fought after ones. The justices want more of the "desirable inventory"  available for prospective adoptive parents shopping the market to choose from. They decry the lack of untethered babies available to waiting couples. The disabled babies and older children aren't what their crowd and the for-profit agencies, are after, because they are not what sells. The other half of the equation of supply is demand, after all.

I am a burden, not an asset and the circumstances around my adoption's finances only prove it so. My parents were paid to take me, not the other way around. I am a drain and not a commodity. The many thousands of those in foster care do not factor into this court's decision. We are the born, but the unseen. 

More in this topic as things develop.... 

Uvalde, Texas' Children & Families Deserved Better

May 24, 2022

I should feel nothing but pure joy today. Instead my heart hurts.

No doubt you have heard the events of yesterday's shooting in Uvalde, TX. Twenty-one dead as I write this, just a little passed midnight. Nineteen of them children. The news came to me while I was at my son's high school graduation in Central Texas. Imagine my horror when I momentarily turned my attention during the graduation to my phone to post a photo to my Instagram and I see the horrific news. I still had most of the graduation to get through. I didn't tell my husband and daughter who were sitting right beside me because I didn't want to tarnish the memory of what should be our celebratory day with yet another tragedy - a luxury I feel guilty about now and a feat that has become harder and harder everyday for all parents - to pretend everything is just fine as we careen toward an uncertain future for us and especially for our children. 

The Sandy Hook shooting happened when he was still in elementary school - just 8 years old at the time. His entire school career has been overshadowed by the threat of gun violence in his school, like children all across America. There have been so many shootings in Texas and across the nation during his growing up years, not to mention the incessant active shooter drills at all levels of his schooling, kindergarten through 12th grade. How can this not be impacting our kids. Yes, "children are resilient,"  but not this resilient. Just look at the mental health statistics in this country. Yes, "children are resilient,"  but not if they are dead. Though we as a culture are desensitized, this is not normal. Not one bit of it.

As a parent I am heartbroken that my children have been traumatized in this way, at their schools and in other public places. As a constituent, I am outraged. Republicans have been in complete control of statewide political leadership in Texas for 30 years. The gun lobby is still permitted to funnel billions into our elections, essentially buying legislators, overriding public opinion. Our daily reality is a direct result of their political will. Enough with the thoughts and prayers followed by the loosening of gun laws each and every legislative session. Enough. 

As my son heads off to college, instead of breathing a sigh of relief that the threat of public school shootings is behind us, my worry continues. In 2021 Texas GOP lawmakers fought for and won a victory, a law that prohibits Texas public universities from banning guns from their campuses. Yes, you read that right. When concealed carry laws passed the legislature, Texas universities tried to institute sensible gun restrictions on campuses, but the Texas legislature, Lt Governor, and Govenor pushed back and passed a law that forbade state universities from instituting any sensible gun restrictions on campus. They also lowered the age for gun purchasing to 18. Yesterday's shooter was 18.

My heart hurts today. 

My heart hurts beyond measure for the parents of all those kids who will not have a graduation for their child like I've had for mine. Even if our day was marred by bloodshed, at least we had our day. My son got to walk. We, his family, got to see him cross the stage and hold dreams for his future, something I don't take for granted, not since December 12, 2014* and every day since. I hope legislators who believe in sensible gun reform are elected this November. I hope everyone gets out to vote. Our children's lives depend on it...literally. 

* Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. https://g.co/kgs/XfB3y4.

Copyright 2022 Marci Purcell. All rights reserved. This content is only to be printed in its entirety with express consent from the author or with proper citation given. 

A Reckless Message

Because of DNA and social media, the true gamechangers in our 21st century society, it is reckless and irresponsible for anyone, or any state for that matter, to even imply that someone could remain anonymous. Sending the message that lifelong anonymity is a reality for anyone in today's world is akin to a cruel joke, at this juncture. By continuing the practice of barring adoptees from their information in the guise of birth parent protection, the state wrongly sends the message that it has the ability to keep someone's identity anonymous. This could not be further from the truth. The state has never really had this ability or authority, and certainly cannot with the advent of these prolific game changers.

With 20 million DNA kits sold, all domestically born adoptees have to do is test with one of several DNA companies to be connected to biological family. If the test is financially out of reach, joining a fb high school reunion group from their year and town of birth is often all that is needed to find biological family. The need for these public searches is reduced in states that pass access legislation, replacing it with a much more private phone call or email, which avoids the need to contact high school friends and cousins, as is happening now. So, counter to what the few remaining dissenters argue, in the real world we live in, sealed records jeopardizes privacy, whereas access provides a more private path for those searching. Good government is about passing laws for the actual society we currently live in, not pandering to fictuous myths of a bygone era. We live in a new century requiring new laws.

Senator Campbell's testimony on SB 713

Can You Imagine...?

Can you imagine a contract that:

-two parties enter into that is used to justify barring a third person (party) from knowing anything about their history, ethnicity or genealogy without that third party's consent or foreknowledge, though, in fact, legally it does not?

-This contract is signed by the first two parties without the consent of the third party - the actual person losing access to their own personal, most basic information.

-The third party, the one resulting in being barred, is unaware of said contract, or its signing at the time of its execution.

-The contract is interpreted as barring them, the third party from their own personal information for life, although this is not actually what's in the contract.

-The third person (party) has committed no crimes. And that same third person is not allowed to even view the specific contract that they are being bound by for life.

When the third party questions the validity of the contract they are bound by, but never agreed to, they are sometimes shunned and humiliated by those close to them, misinformed strangers, and also by privileged persons in positions of power. The barred individual's motives are questioned. They are told to be grateful that the contract exists.  

The terms of the contract, as mistakenly interpreted by others, extend until death.

*often one or both of the two signing parties do not fully understand the scope, full intent, or implications of the contract at the time of its signing. The third party, when later notified of the existing signed contract and its implied and actual terms, is keenly aware of all its implications through lifelong exposure to discrimination and all that that experience includes.

You can't make this stuff up.
#ThisIsUs #adopteevoices #HumanRightsViolations

Adoptees Always Needed to Represent at the Capitol

I've gotten to know the Capitol fairly well, and in my travels through its halls I meet mostly supporters of OBC access. I think it is fairly accurate to say we have "overwhelming support" in the Capitol. Young people, people who respect personal autonomy, and those who are for honesty in government are especially supportive. However, I still meet a few who "do not see the need." That is personally why I go. To be seen. And heard. As I am no longer a child.

What opponents say to me as an adult adoptee regarding my rights to my information:

Nothing.

They say nothing.

Nothing that acknowledges that I am a voting, autonomous adult. They refer to me as "the adopted child," if they refer to me at all. I am unseen in the equation. I did not pay money to sit at the adoption table. I did not empower someone else to become a parent. I have no signature on a contract. I am to remain silent and be grateful that it "all worked out for the best," and ask no further questions.

They say nothing about our lack of family medical history, or that the state-created, current systems are inadequate and daunting. They say nothing about how not only do we not have our family medical history, but neither do our offspring. Our children are burdened as we are with inadequate information to provide to doctors.

They refuse to speak to my anxiety as a dating person, not knowing who I am related to in my community and whether I am dating a cousin....or closer. They find no problem with the law excluding me from an accurate or often ANY ethnicity information. Who am I really? They don't care that I want to know, that I need to know.

They say nothing to me. The adoptee. The perpetual child.

Birth parents need to testify because people are speaking for them. Adoptive parents need to testify because the assumption is they don't support. In the case of adoptees, no one is even bothering to speak for us....we are not even part of the narrative. Opponents are not even bothering to co-opt our voice on this issue. We are children. We are not to challenge the system. According to our opponents, any and all information can only come to us from the parents, no matter how old we are. Our birth certificate is not for us, not to be handled by us without special, whimsical permission, which my or may not be granted.

The few opponents will be there each session, and their dismissal of us-of adult adoptees, will be seen by those who are in support. This is perhaps one of the most powerful aspects of showing up. To see who is moved by our stories and who is not, and for others to see that, too. If you support, come lend your voice next session.

IN RESPONSE TO KWAME ANTHONY APPIAH

I posted this comment to the Jan. 24, 2018 NYT column by The Ethicist entitled, What if I Don’t Want to See the Child I Gave Up for Adoption?, By Kwame Anthony Appiah

Please remember, adoptees grow up to be tax paying, voting, adult citizens. We do not remain children. The "Ethicist's" casual dismissal of the need for family medical history would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that right now, in the present, adults and children alike, are searching for answers to rare genetic diseases, answers that they find when they gain access to their origin info. Vague mention of a someday when the genome is decoded is hardly an acceptable, well thought-out response.


Also, saying "some adopted children are curious" is like a slap in the face. THE MAJORITY OF HUMANITY IS CURIOUS. The non-adopted just have their answers readily available to them and so they don't give it a second thought. Even with the wealth of information available to most non-adopted, Ancestry, Family Tree DNA, 23&Me shows its latest numbers in the multimillions of people testing. Adoptees are only 2% of the population so it isn't adoptees buying up all those testing kits, right? Its everyone! Why? To find out all they can about themselves.


Please quit talking about adoptees as perpetual children and making them out to be some kind of freaks for wanting their origin information. It is normal and natural to want to know your beginnings and can be traumatizing living a life without this information. We are not asking for much. Just what everyone else has....and takes for granted. Next time, please do a little more research, "Ethicist." As a discerning reader of the NYT, I expect something a lot more fair and balanced than this pat, predictable, simplistic answer.

What About Adoptee Confidentiality?

Adoptee rights advocates aren't here to make you feel warm and fuzzy. We bring the difficult conversations into the light. This is an integral part of our mission. We are the end users of the social construct of adoption. Whether it is to shed light on the inadequacy of current systems, or the educating of legislators on the need for greater transparency, we are here to strike up the difficult conversations.  

Among those conversations is the recent practice of agencies, both public and private, sharing very personal information of minor children on social media platforms, blogs, and websites. This practice is justified by some agencies,  saying it helps to get children into loving homes that are better equipped to provide a nurturing environment. They may also argue that it elicits a level of sympathy and can serve as a catalyst for someone who might not otherwise be looking at adoption. In an attempt to safeguard, there are regulations in place with regard to children in foster care about what shared information is permitted. However, based on a website I stumbled upon of previously adopted children, whose parents are seeking new homes for them there are no safeguards in place. The idea of the website is to provide the children with a loving home, more suited to their specific needs, since they were displaced from their adoptive homes. This is known as rehoming. Most of the posts did not include why the child was no longer welcome or suited to the original “forever family,” only that a new family was needed and the myriad of challenges the child’s behaviors presented. Many of these children were adopted from foreign countries. Many were lacking an invested parent to advocate for them. All had their personal "detriments," traumas, and disabilities displayed for the general public to see on a public site.

This is saying nothing of what was promised to the birth/first mother upon relinquishment, and what her expectations for her baby were as she sent them thousands of miles across sea and land, I urge you to ponder what happens when that child reaches adulthood. When they Google their name...visit their online story, what will they see? There is often a grieving process for an adoptee immediately following receipt of their confidential non id info (if they can get it at all). Non ID information refers to the information available to them for the adoption agency or the state about the time before they were adopted. This grieving process is normal, and receiving this information is important to an adoptee's identity development and sense of self. Now imagine the added complication of having to process that - not only were they perceived as unwanted by their [first] adoptive family, but everyone knows it. The entire internet. Googling yourself is a common activity for people today. Finding out that your very person al information is out there, for literally all to see is a major trauma. 

Forgotten in these public online posts, as is the case in many adoption customs and laws, is the fact that adopted children, like all children, grow up. They become adults. The fact that the choices regarding public disclosure of information that their guardians at the time made in haste and under duress, when they were perhaps very young children, remains relevant for their entire life. Once private information is “out there” on social media, it is public information, out of the control of it’s owner, or even the original poster. Someone who was granted authority to do what was “in the best interests of the child,” could well cause them trauma as an adult, leaving much of the earlier trauma work to unravel, decades later. We all care about children. If you are reading this, it is likely you want to do what is best. But our job isn’t to stop caring as soon as the child leaves care, or even leaves childhood. I challenge agencies, both public and private, to take a closer look at this practice. As a friend of mine so often quotes, "when we know better, we do better."

Christian Guest Blogger

In my social media travels, I recently came accross this exchange between Lynn Grubb, adoptee rights advocate and writer, and commenter, Jennifer Fredericksen, family preservation advocate. It so impacted me that I asked permission to create this dialogue as a blog post. I feel it explains why people of faith not only can, but should support adoption reform and family preservation. Thank you Lynn and Jennifer for allowing me to share:
Lynn: Adoptees, adoptive and birth parents: what could the church do more of (or less of) to help you feel supported in your faith and worship? Even if you do not currently attend a place of worship I would still like to hear from you especially if you left a place of worship because of anything related to adoption.

Jennifer Fredericksen: Thank you for asking this question. 
A few things I can think of that would help me and my family fit back into the church and begin to heal from adoption trauma......

1) Listen to us. Sit with adoptees and families of loss. Show up and hear our grief and loss. Validate it.

2) Research and understand that adoption does not save babies from being aborted. In fact, I have testimony from qualified professionals in the pro-life mindset that can prove such. This is huge because if they knew the facts, they would support family preservation. Expecting mothers who believe adoption is their only birthing option will abort before relinquishing.

3) Prepare  a sermon, or many that digs into scripture explaining the real meaning of adoption in the Bible. I have never heard a sermon from the pulpit to support the way our churches promote adoption? I had to read if for myself and study what God says about the importance of family and how adoption is not His design.....which explains the grief and damage adoption has done to my family. Why did I have to find this out on my own?

4) All Pastors need to read the "Primal Wound" to understand the trauma of a child and mother separated at birth. If we are going to be "pro-life" we need to care about the wellbeing of child and mother as well. 

5) When there is an unexpected pregnancy in the church family it is imperative how we handle it.  Embrace the expecting mother. Do not judge her or her family. Come along side of them and celebrate the new family member with all the family. I can not tell you how many people told us they were sorry to hear of the pregnancy. I recall one person congratulating me. I was stunned by this. A baby is not a sin......it is a gift from God for the parents and family, not for another family.

6) Make sure the church comes alongside the expecting grandparents to assure them their importance in supporting their son or daughter AND grandchild.

7) This one is big for me......it literally makes me physically ill.  Stop promoting pregnancy centers that promote adoption as a beautiful, selfless option. Along with propping up open adoption. Open adoption is not legally binding. Be aware of what we are supporting financially.  Relinquishing a baby is devastating to a mother and child. We should not support anything that causes such trauma...abortion and adoption is trauma.  We need to promote parenting. Adoption should rarely take place. We have to educate the pregnancy centers.
I am not against these centers, I want to support them. But they need to know the facts on adoption.

8 ) I am certain Pastors have no idea the messages I receive from so many who suffer from adoption trauma. Their Faith and Salvation is in a crisis. For adoption to be God's plan, one mother must lose a baby and grieve this loss all her life while the other mother is blessed? God surely loves this adoptive mother and hates the other for this to happen. And for the adoptee.....God must love others more because they got to stay with their biological family. And the adoptee was separated by God from his/her family. This adoption theology, I believe, is responsible for so many never coming to Christ or their rejecting Him. THIS is a serious matter. I do not want to be responsible for this.

Just so everyone knows....

I want every baby born. I believe every mother and baby should always be given the chance to stay together. I believe most adoptive parents have good intentions and have no judgment at all with them.  Except the ones who lie, coerce, and feel entitled to someone else's child.  It's real, it happens.
I love Jesus, and I want more than ANYTHING to be back in church with my family.....I miss every part of being a church family.  We keep trying. But it would be encouraging to know some of these things above that trigger our trauma, can at the very least be discussed and taken seriously.

We as Christians and churches can do better and make family preservation our goal before adoption. 

Sorry this is so long. But I have been waiting for years for someone to ask this question.

Grateful?

Asking (or telling) an adoptee to be grateful for having a family is like asking other humans to show gratitude for the oxygen they are permitted to breathe, while all others enjoy oxygen at will.

Texas Senate Bill 329 86th Legislative session

What Texas Senate Bill 329 does:

1. Restores access to the non-certified copy of the original birth certificate to the adoptee at age 18.
2. Provides a contact preference form to birth parents to specify preferred contact: direct, through an intermediary, or prefer no contact.
3. Provides a medical history form which can be filled out by a birth parent and attached to original birth certificate with the contact preference form.
4. Provides descendants of the adoptee access in the event the adoptee is deceased, in keeping with the rights of access for no- adopted citizens.

Why it makes sense:

• Prior to 1973 implementation of the Texas Family Code birth certificates were open to the parties of the adoption, including the adult adoptee and birth parent(s). Currently, the original birth certificate remains the birth certificate of the child until they are adopted. Adoptions may occur months, years later, or never, resulting in the foster child becoming an adult, keeping their original, intact birth certificate. If birth parent anonymity was the intent of the Family Code, the system would be written otherwise.  
• This is the first time in Texas birth parents would be legally granted a voice in the process.
• This would provide ethnicity information, genealogical information, connection to biological family information. All critical to the health and well being of the adoptee.
• Birth parents are not legally promised anonymity at the time of adoption. Their rights are removed, not granted at the time of relinquishment. Concerned United Birth parents supports this legislation. They do not feel they should stand in the way of an individual's right to their own personal vital record. Furthermore, the release of the original birth certificate minimizes the chances of the adoptee having to conduct a more public search, using DNA and social media  
• Releasing the original birth certificate to the adult adoptee is in keeping with Texas tradition and current norms. The records were not sealed to the parties of the adoption for most of the 20th century (1973), A simple study and inquiry into past and current adoption systems reveals no evidence that this sealing was or is done to protect birth parent privacy. When discussing the current practice with today's agencies, the original birth certificate is routinely given as part of the adoption file to adoptive families before it is sealed.
• Although Texas does maintain a mutual consent registry, the nature of the registry forces the adult adoptee to contact the biological family first in order to obtain their own personal information. SB 329 gives the adoptee their vital record without requiring a reunion.  
• Although the addition of the medical history form as part of the adoption process did occur in the 1990's, the information provided is minimal and static.Imagine a family medical history without any updates during your lifetime. Have you always known what your parents would be afflicted with as they age? Family medical history is ever evolving. This is of little help to adoptees as they age and attempt to navigate their medical care in adulthood. SB 329 provides a way for adoptees to obtain an up-to-date family medical history voluntary.
• SB 329 carries no fiscal note, yet accomplishes so much.
• Adoption professionals have known for decades that providing the adoptee with origin and medical history information is the humane practice. To continue to deny adoptees what all others in our society enjoy is simply cruel. When we know better we do better. This issue has been on the hearts and minds of the adoption community for over 20 years, This is the 11th consecutive session this type of legislation has been introduced and the closest we've come to getting it passed!  

Original bill test here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=85R&Bill=SB329


Copyright 2017 Marci Purcell: All rights reserved; may be used freely with citation by non-profits and educational institutions. 

Game Changers for Supporting Access

I support #SB329. In recent years there have been important game changers causing the need for legislative change to protect the rights of many in the adoption community. They are social media and the DNA testing sites (Ancestry.com, FtDNA). In the past there were arguments based on feeling relating to keeping records sealed, but those proved to be myths by the longitudinal data. In fact these bills look to be naturally lowering abortion rates as the abortion rates typically decline in states that restore access and are lowest in the states that never closed.

Current options for adoptees in Texas

1. Petition the court of adoption for the judge to release the birth certificate: As adult adoptees, many of us from the baby scoop era, are taught to feel ashamed of wanting this genealogical information. Even well meaning people say to us, “Why would you do this to your adopted family? They are your real family, the ones who raised you.” Am I not permitted to the curiosity I feel as most people do, when it comes to my ancestry? Learning my biological genealogy cannot begin to replace the memories of my childhood and the parenting of my adoptive family. No adult adoptee thinks it could. But it does not erase my innate curiosity and longing for my cultural identity. To go before a judge only risks the same judgement, the same accusing questions. but in a very public manner. For many adoptees this can be, and often is a very humiliating experience. It is again to be told, “You have no right to know your family, to know your heritage, not even as an adult citizen, as the rest of us do.” I am an adoptee, advocating for this legislation and I have not had the emotional fortitude to go before a judge and risk another rejection. The idea of this process makes me feel vulnerable and humiliated. Often times the judge denies access.

2. Social Media: If I do not have the means, the fortitude, or was denied my original birth certificate by the judge I can turn to social media. Sites like Facebook and Twitter have already played a vital role in uniting birth families. Adoptees are using the most efficient tools available to them, and right now that is social media. People ask, “what’s the harm in this. Why worry if it is working?” Reunions are stressful. A public reunion scenario adds another level of stress. I believe the humane way to initiate reunion is for a person to obtain their OBC, directly. Then the adoptee can reach out privately to the biological parents. When you “advertise” on social media, you risk “outing” the birth parent before they have a chance to prepare. In fact, the adoptee has inadvertently told thousands of people about a very private event, filled with a myriad of emotions for the birth mother/birth father. Or, the adoptee contacts a half-sibling or a cousin, and the birth mother is outed this way. Most birth parents actually do want to be found. Research supports this, however, most do not want to be found in a public forum; very jarring and not at all private. I think this is a real injustice. By keeping birth records sealed, it forces adoptees to go about searching in a very public way. If access to OBC’s is granted, it reverts back to a private matter between adult family members, as it should be.

3. DNA Testing Sites: Again, a very useful tool with many of the pitfalls listed above. It is rare for an adoptee to get a direct match to a birth parent when entering DNA. It is usually a second cousin or maybe a half sibling. The adoptee then “climbs the family tree” until they reach someone who is willing to do a little digging.This digging involves asking various family members if they know anything about a baby being relinquished. The birth mother is then outed, possibly before she has had time to emotionally prepare or tell those closest to her. With the awareness of the law changing, the birth parent has a chance to think things through, and make thoughtful decisions about how to handle contact, and at the very least tell those closest to them.
.
Adopted people are finding their families. But the current system is failing to keep these matters private. Ironically, by removing government involvement by in dealing records, states can protect the rights of citizens on both sides of the equation. That is why the past element of opposition is missing. This is why so many legislators are signing on and we rapidly nearing the tipping point. Because, in the past an adult adopted person had little chance of finding biological family without the birth certificate. Now, the OBC has become almost irrelevant. Except it is not; Not to those whose OBC’s are denied them. It is a constant reminder that they are a shameful secret, not granted the same rights to their first medical and genealogical document as everyone else; an event for which they were present. OBC Access legislation greatly reduces this risk of unwanted publicity and provides personal validity for thousands of Texas citizens.

Why Adoptees are Needed to Testify for OBC Access

I've gotten to know the Capitol fairly well, and in my travels through its halls I meet mostly supporters of OBC access. I think it is fairly accurate to say we have "overwhelming support" in the Capitol. However, I still meet a few who "do not see the need." That is personally why I go. To be seen. And heard. As I am no longer a child.

What opponents say to me as an adult adoptee regarding my rights to my information.

Nothing.

They say nothing.

Nothing that acknowledges that I am a voting, autonomous adult. They refer to me as "the adopted child," if they refer to me at all. I am unseen in the equation. I did not pay money to sit at the adoption table. I did not empower someone else to become a parent. I have no signature on the contract. I am to remain silent and be grateful that it "all worked out for the best."

They say nothing about our lack of family medical history, or that the state created, current systems in place are inadequate and daunting. They say nothing about how not only do we not have our family medical history but neither do our offspring. They do not speak to my anxiety as a dating person, not knowing who I am related to or growing up without accurate or ANY ethnicity information.

They say nothing to me, the adoptee.

Birth parents need to testify because people are speaking for them. In the case of adoptees, no one is even bothering to speak for us....we are not even part of the narrative. Opponents are not even bothering to co-opt our voice in this issue. We are children. We are not to challenge the system. According to our opponents, any and all information can only come to us from the parents, no matter how old we are. Our birth certificate is not for us to be handled without permission.

The opponents will be there Monday, and their dismissal of us, of adult adoptees will be seen by those who are in support. This is perhaps one of the most powerful aspects of this hearing. To see who is moved by our stories and who is not, and for others to see that, too. If you support, come lend your voice or vote to this process.

**The State Affairs hearing regarding OBC access is Monday, March 27, 2017 9 am at the Texas State Capitol in Austin in the Senate Chambers. Affordable parking can be found at the Capitol Visitors Parking Garage, a half block from the Capitol Building. When you enter you can ask for directions or stop by the visitors desk and grab a map. They can also give you directions. The bill order is not announced until the morning of, so we do not know what exact time the bill will be heard. Look for the group dressed in bright blue, either in the Gallery or Chamber depending on schedule, if you want support. We will be giving testimony and providing support to each other.

Texas OBC Access 2017

A bill that would restore access for adults who were born and adopted in Texas to a noncertified copy of their original birth certificate is currently making it's way through the Texas legislature. SB329 and HB547 are the bills to support for this proposed restoration of rights. Most people assume adoptees get their information when they become adults, but in Texas this is not so. However, since adoptees come from all walks of life and across the political spectrum this bill is currently enjoying bipartisan support.

So far, 13 senators and counting have heeded the many constituent requests to sponsor SB329. The group who put the bill forward, Texas Adoptee Rights, has mobilized thousands across the state. Those in support of restoring access include birthparents, adoptive parents, and adult adoptees. There are also many professional and medical groups who recognize the need for adults to have their information, both for medical reasons and for personal identity information, such as ethnicity and biological lineage. Others support simply on the grounds that it is discrimination to bar one group from accessing the document everyone else has a right to.

The biggest catalyst for an improvement in the law has been the emergence of DNA testing companies and social media. With closed records, adoptees and some birth families now turn to these public venues to search. This often results in extended families, including half siblings and social media “friends” being contacted before the birth parent even knows there is a search. Restoring access to birth certificates allows the process of reconnecting to be private once again, and a one-on-one communication instead of a public "outing." SB329 restores privacy for all involved and removes the need for public searches.

Some argue the current system is sufficient, but if that were true advocates would not have such a strong case to amend the law. Advances in DNA technology have made the registry and court system a liability to time sensitive searching, and there are those who just want their info, with no interest in searching. As for the registry, dead people don't register, and if a birth parent has died of an inherited disease there is no way to get this info to the adoptee.

The adoption language and societal cues leave adoptees and birth parents feeling they have no right to know each other even though they may have the desire, so they dare not register. The court system can be degrading and yields unpredictable results depending on the judge's perception of the vague term, "good cause," as is written into current law. Attempting to fix a completely broken system is a waste of state resources. With this information age comes a need to overhaul how we view confidentiality, and what actually preserves it for those involved in adoption. Secrecy is never a real solution. The concept of anonymity is from a bygone era.

With the discovery of how vitally important family medical history can be, adoptee’s lives hang in the balance. Some are in a race against time to discover what medical issues may be in their future, or worse, they may be struggling to diagnose a disease without the necessary information for their doctors to solve their medical mystery.

With so many senators signed on to SB329 things are looking good! The support is there and is making good progress through the legislative labyrinth. The further good news is this bill generates money for the state of Texas, instead of costing.

I, a long time Texas resident but a New Jersey adoptee, received my birth certificate just days ago. Their law went into effect January 1st. Seems odd that the geography of my birth affects what information I am permitted to know about myself. I cannot wait until my fellow Texans can enjoy the same feeling of legitimacy that comes with access to one's own birth record. It is a profound experience.

Is the term "Forever Family" contractual?

There is an argument afloat that adoptive parents signed into a contract and were given the impression through the adoption process, that they would be the "forever family" to their adoptive child. They feel opening records threatens that "promise" and violates adoptive parents rights," and so justifies keeping adoptees' original birth certificates sealed. 

1. Granting an adult adoptee a non certified copy of an original birth certificate does not change the legal relationship of parentage. An adoptive parent is still recognized by law as the legal parent. Most importantly, adoption contracts do not stipulate that the identity of the birth parent(s) will never be released to the adoptee. Providing a non-certified copy of an OBC to an adult adoptee does not impact the legal status of an adoption or violate an adoption contract. 

2. The rights of any legal parent, either biological or adoptive, to control or limit the rights of their child do not extend past the emancipation age of 18, when they become an adult citizen.

3. The idea of a "forever family" is not legal terminology. This is a social term that has been used to describe a family that will ensure the test of time, not the test of a legal contract and whether it survives into adulthood. We are in relationship with our parents as adults because we choose to be, we are not required to be. No contract can enforce a parent child relationship into adulthood nor would we want it to do so.

4. Many adoptions occurred prior to the sealing of records. These parents were given the impression that their children, once adults WOULD have access to their information when they turned 18, and yet the records were still sealed retroactively, regardless of their impressions. See, An Adoptee Roared in OHIO: The Betsie Norris Story, by Jean Strauss. 

5. There is nothing in an adoption contract that stipulates a child, once an adult is legally prohibited from gaining knowledge of their own truth or origins. If there were, we would not have even the inefficient systems and pathways we currently do, the adoption registry and the courts.

6. It must be mentioned that adult adoptees did not sign the adoption contract. They are a third party in a contract they did not sign. Although the first five points nullify the validity that OBC access somehow infringes on the adoption contract signed by the parents and the agency/state, it cannot go unmentioned that adult adoptees did not sign into this contract at any time. Thus, they should not be held contractually to the terms of said contract once they reach adulthood. (Incidentally, none of these contracts grant a birth parent a lifetime of anonymity, especially since this would be negligent for the state to do so). It is then their choice to remain in a relationship, not because there was once a contract that bound them but because it is a beneficial relationship, as is the case with non adopted adults and their relationships with family.

Fortunately, not all adoptive parents are putting forth these arguments. Many support access. Especially in a time when 90% of adoptions have openness. Adoption therapists and social workers emphasize the importance of adoptees knowing their origins, and have for decades. In fact, it is quite surprising these antiquated ideas still persist at all. With many states now having access, clearly the tide is turning.

Copyright 2015 Marci Purcell: All rights reserved; may be used freely with citation by non-profits and educational institutions. 

SB 714, 2013 OBC ACCESS BILL "I don't understand the need...Is this for Financial Reasons?"

http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=810

Start at 51:00 for Senator Lucio explaining the bill, (2013's bill was only in the case that the birth parents were dead). Go to 54:40 for Senator Campbell's comments about "financial reasons."
Senator Campbell's respsonse, "Which adoptees [want access]? Where?"

57:00 for Witness testimony by Adoption Knowledge Affiliates, Shirley Dodson &
TX Adoptee Reunion Services, Connie Gray.

2013 Companion House Bill 1014 by representative Susan King.

We remember in our bones

We can't remember
in our heads.
in our homes.
in our beds.
But in our bones,
we remember.

We can't remember
the lands.
the choice.
the hands.
But her voice,
we remember.

Our mind aches,
for what not it knows
But we remember
in our bones.

Copyright 2016 Marci Purcell. May not be used without express permission from the author.

DNA, Social Media, Sealed Records & Myths of Providing Anonymity

So, by now you may have heard the Ancestry.com, FTDNA.com, 23&Me, and GEDMATCH* are all offering very affordable, or free rates for their DNA Testing results. You simply swab a cheek, spit in a tube, or upload a prexisting data file from another company and whala, you are compared to anywhere from 1,000,000 -14,000,000 people depending on the service. If you plunk your DNA into more than one database you are compared to close to 20,000,000 people, and this number is very rapidly rising, daily.

Now, with DNA as the leading way to find long lost family, it is ludicrous to imagine that state governments are spending tons of money to make and keep adoptee records sealed. Spending money? Yes, because this process and all its trappings actually costs the state government money. The staff needed to process the OBC differently, the space needed to keep these files separate, and the work hours of high paid judges and clerks across the Texas, to listen to cases and grant or deny access to those who choose to petition the court. None of these measures, which translate to monetary expenses would be incurred if the records were open to the adoptees to whom they belong, just as they are for the non-adopted. The irony is the money and time IS NOT actually keeping people's identities anonymous, or even private, which people (inaccurately) cite as being the reasoning behind, and result of sealed records. What it is doing is disenfranchizing and perpetuating the stigma of being adopted for the majority of adopted people in this country, and leaving all parties vulnererable to very public searches, because this is what is left to them since records are sealed. Many adoptees would otherwise have no interest in reuniting with birth family, but driven to do so because that is currently the only way to gain access to their own, vital information, including family medical history, ethnicity, and genealogy information. 

Here's how sealed records is having the opposite effect of what some legislators purport:

When the adoptee interested in gaining access to their identity information (ethnicity, birth stats, genealogy) hits the brick wall of sealed records, they then turn to the public commercial sector, with all its social media and DNA tools. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, and Google have all become the perfect venue for finding family. The adoptee simply scrawls down all the private information they know surrounding their birth (non-ID info) onto a posterboard, which is then shareable and they are off to finding family. Eventually a friend, or cousin, or adult child of the birth parent sees the information and makes the connection.  This discovery is usually followed up with a series of awkward phone calls until finally, the birth parent is identified then outed in a very public and unexpected way by their known family members or close friends. Not at all private for the birth parents, nor for the searching adoptee, for that matter.

Usually in tandom with social media, the adoptee does DNA testing, now the fastest way to finding family. As mentioned above, there are many millions of people in the database. I have yet to see someone domestically born test and not have at least a 3rd cousin match to the tester in the past year, and often a 2nd cousin or closer match is probable.  Although some matches may be somewhat distant, this is an amazing feeling for the adoptee; very grounding. To see for the first time ever that you are connected to others on this planet is usually life altering for the individual. To receive ethnicity information, although vague, is profound.

This realization of connectedness and new ethnicity information can be very motivating, and the person with renewed vigor doubles down to solve the mystery of who they are descended from. They "climb the family tree," spending hours researching, asking their new relatives how they could posibly fit in, sharing every shred of information they may have until the mystery is solved, usually through a new aunt, sibling, or cousin. Again, no privacy whatsoever for the birth family, or the adoptee.

And then there are the many who put in their DNA sample only to immediately match a birth parent because they, too are searching. DNA gold! Studies show an overwhelming number of birth parents want to connect, to at least gain some closure or peace about their decision. Some want to thank adoptive parents. For others it is to confirm the well being of their adult children who were adopted out in a different social climate then we have now, so their child, as an adult can gain healing through understanding their birth parent's decision. The DNA enrollment number will be increasing as more and more discover DNA testing as a reliable search tool. The opportunity for this reunion, and to know the whereabouts of their child often provides immense healing to both parties.

An important point I would like to make here is that the government continues to send the message, often in writing, on their website and printed materials, (and squashed legislation attempts by adoptee rights groups), that the sealing of records was implemented to, and will protect the birth parents' right to privacy from adoptees. This is not the impetus for sealed records and in today's day and age sealed records, as shown above, actually jeopardizes privacy for all parties. These old school arguments are simply untrue, especially in today's world.

The fact that birth records are not sealed from the relinquished individual *until* and unless there is an adoption, is telling. I was not adopted until I was 3, so my records remained mine, my original birth certificate served as mine until I was adopted. My given birth name, including my last name, was my legal name until I was adopted at 3. All the while, my birth mother was easily traceable, her identity known. In fact, I continued to posess my social security card with my original name on it after I was adopted. No one ever asked for it back. I grew up knowing my given birth name and date of birth. If the sealed records were meant to keep someone anonymous, why does this information remain the child's until the time of adoption, sometimes years later? Because these sealed records laws were put in place mainly to quell the concerns of the adoptive parents who were fearful of birth parents, not to guarantee the anonymity of the birth parents. I have seen my relinquishment document. There are no rights granted. Only rights taken away. Birth parent anonymity, as a reason for sealed records is only a myth. It was never the actual intent.

These laws are continually upheld on a false premise and rob adoptees of their medical, genealogical, and ancestral information. Imagine walking around in a world full of people and not knowing who you are biologically related to; fearful of dating a cousin or wondering if that woman who looks like you is your sister. Imagine the stress that accompanies that lack of knowledge. Imagine not knowing your ethnicity. It feels like society is playing a cruel trick on us. Family origin information, accoridng to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is a basic human right. Of course it is. Most non adopted can't even insgine what our lives are like. I challenge you to try.

We are asking lawmakers to stop holding our info hostage. We are adult, tax-paying citizens and tired of being treated like children. Adoptees are real people, with decendents, our children, who are also impacted. We are not enjoying this 20th century government supported social experiment, which amounts to systemic discrimination based on the circumstance of our birth. Stop violating our basic human rights and give us our original birth certificates. We are adults asking for what you all already have; equal rights to access our vital record.

Our issue is not about reunions. Reunions are happening everyday with DNA and social media. Our issue is about being treated with equality and diginity under the law. Our issue is about access to our own information in the form of our original vital record. What we do with that information, as adults, is our own business, just like what you do with yours is your business.

An Open Letter to President Obama

An Open Letter to President Barack Obama

March 22, 2016

"...we also need to recognize how much we share. Because in many ways, the United States and Cuba are like two brothers that have been estranged for many years, even as we share the same blood."  -President Barack Obama, Cuba, 2016

 Dear Mr. President;

In today's historic speech from Cuba you chose to invoke the metaphor of two brothers separated from each other, Separated from their kin, Their blood. Their family. This tugs at the core of human emotions. For most people this imagery conjures up feelings of the family they know and love; those blood relatives present in their lives. They envision being separated from them and they are gripped with emotion. The heartache. The longing. The loss. It's all there. So vivid, so real, so identifiable. It is the reason, Mr. President you chose to use this powerful metaphor. It is visceral and compelling. One could almost say it is an inevitable choice of words given the speech's intent, to bring home an important point, the reuniting of two estranged countries.

Americans across all political persuasions have the freedom to identify with your metaphor without guilt, without inner conflict. It is the right of every American, of every human to long for and have a connection with family. Isn't it?

For 2% of the United States population, listening to this speech conjures up different emotions, different visions. You see, adopted people have not been given permission or the right to freely imagine knowing our "blood" family that we "have been estranged from" without feeling guilt or that we are being selfish. If we allow ourselves to even dream of a reunion we have been conditioned by those around us to deaden those feelings, to squash our curiosity, or to feel ashamed of the wanting. The conventional adoption community still places guilt on the curious adoptee who longs to know their original family and discourages us from searching.

If that wasn't a strong enough message, in the majority of states, the government places undue burden and heavy restrictions on adoptees who want to know their families of origin, their brothers, their sisters, their parents if still living, by denying the adult adopted person a copy of their own original birth certificate. Adoptees are not trying to replace the families who have raised them, but for many,  there is a longing to know those with whom we share the same blood. It is at the heart of all humans, but adoptees are made to feel shame for wanting that information. For those of us who push past the shame and guilt, it is usually an expensive, time consuming, emotionally draining process to attempt find our original families, using expensive DNA testing, private searchers, and social media outlets in an attempt to connect.

Although the United States Government does not recognize an adoptee's right to know their origins as a civil right, other entities do. The United Nations outlines identity continuity, as well as maintaining family connections, as the rights a child is entitled to under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified in 1989.*

To hear my country's president include this kinship metaphor in a speech meant to speak to the entire nation only emphasizes a citizen's right to have access to their kin, and underlines the injustice that adoptees do not have the right to this information. How can we confidently assert our voice in U.S. civic life if we are unsure of who we are and where we come from? If our government passively condones the message that we are considered unworthy of the same rights and considerations under U.S. law as our peers? Without that right to know who we are, our other rights feel hollow.

The only other group in the U.S. denied access to their original birth certificates are those entering into the witness protection program, a path they chose for themselves, having been given full disclosure of what rights they are gaining and losing. Access to our original birth certificates is taken from adoptees with no disclosure, no choice on the part of the citizen it effects most. We are stripped of a right without waiving our right. This is quite traumatizing if you are the one experiencing this discrimination, though seemingly easily dismissed by everyone else not effected.

The irony is that the strength in your metaphor is what illustrates it's connection to the fundamental guarantees of our nation; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I wonder if you have used this metaphor unaware that your own country denies this very right to a full 1% of it's population. When you do the math this calculates out to millions of Americans.

I suppose it is easy for many to dismiss 2% of the population and deny us our complete identities, our full compliment of constitutional guarantees. I have more faith in you than in most other people, Mr. President. But for anyone else reading, here is a snapshot of who adopted people are:

We are the 3 month old little boy enduring the initial trauma of separation.
We are the 16 year old still grappling to make sense of the separation that happened sometime in our childhood and wondering how exactly we fit into the world.
We are the 30 year old father holding our precious newborn, overcome with emotion as we meet a blood relative for the first time.
We are the 35 year old woman miscarrying again, as our hope of seeing ourselves reflected back in someone else's face diminishes.
We are the college student, once adopted, then returned and adopted again, only to be abused by our second family, left as adults with nowhere to go for the holidays.
We are the people our government repeatedly tells you are not worthy to have our own original identity. The laws send the message, this is not your right, this is only a luxury to be enjoyed by some, but not by all, and certainly not by you, the adoptee. But we are also the resilient, we are the determined, and we will not stop asking for our identity until we have it in every state, for every adoptee.

Thank you Mr. President for reminding adoptees that the desire for a basic human connection with a blood relative is a normal, natural thing. That we need feel no shame in our desire to search and connect. I invite you, no, I implore you to weigh in on this issue that affects millions of tax paying, adult American adopted citizens. Please join the effort to rectify this situation so the United States can say we are a nation whose laws grant equal rights to 100% of its people.

In gratitude for your service.

Sincerely,

Marci Purcell

Marci Purcell
Board President
Adoption Knowledge Affiliates
www.adoptionknowledge.org
&
Technical Writer
Texas Adoptee Rights

Convention on the Rights of the Child

*Pertaining to child's identity and maintaining family and nationality connections.......
Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

Article 8

1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.

Article 9

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.

2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.

3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.

4. Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall of itself entail no adverse consequences for the person(s) concerned.

Article 10

1. In accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family.

2. A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents. Towards that end and in accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, States Parties shall respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave any country, including their own, and to enter their own country. The right to leave any country shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary to protect the national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Convention.

Copyright 2016 Marci Purcell: All rights reserved; may be used freely with citation by non-profits and educational institutions. 

Justice Antonin Scalia's written dissent re: Adoptive Couple V Baby Girl

"The Court's opinion, it seems to me, needlessly demeans the rights of parenthood. It has been the constant practice of the common law to respect the entitlement of those who bring a child into the world to raise that child. We do not inquire whether leaving a child with his parents is 'in the best interest of the child.' It sometimes is not; he would be better off raised by someone else. But parents have their rights, no less than children do. This father wants to raise his daughter, and the statute amply protects his right to so do. There is no reason in law or policy to dilute that protection." 

-Justice Antonin Scalia, dissent written for case, Adoptive Couple V Baby Girl.