ANOTHER LETTER TO THE INDY LEGISLATORS

have enclosed documentation from Ohio's HB 7 and Maine's adoptee access laws. I am also including information on Oregon's law. With a contact preference form, it gives the relinquishing parents a say in how they want to be contacted. It does not deny the adoptee access to their own original birth certificate. Adoptees in this country and state are having more and more issues with getting passports, other forms of identification, and even being allowed to vote. Why? Their amended birth certificates look suspect. We as a group need to be able to prove our American citizenship. If you look at Roe vs. Wade, Griswold vs. Connecticut, and even the Eisenstandt case, you will see that these cases represent the right to privacy as the right to be free from governmental interference. This includes state and federal interference. Another case to look at is Brown vs. Board of Education. This case stated that separate is not equal. Adoptees and their families are being treated unequally by the separate laws in the state of Texas. Any one who is not adopted has access to their birth certificates and other documents with their names on them. Adoptees and their families do not have that same access. Currently relinquishing parents do not have a say at all. They do not get a copy of the original birth certificate. If you look at the laws, the records are sealed at finalization of the adoption, not at relinquishment. If a child is never adopted, then their records are never sealed. Keep in mind we are discussing adult adoptees. I am lucky in the sense that my adoptive mother has not only supportive but has encouraged me to take this road. She helped in creating the fighter that I am. Once an adoptee becomes an adult, just like the non adopted, neither set of parents should have any say over the original birth certificate. Look at it this way. Do your parents control your birth certificate? No they don't. The same laws should apply to adoptees. Truthfully it is not that hard to find in Texas. I have done it five times in the last six months. Its been both relinquishing parents and adoptees. I have even had an adoptive parent wanting to open the adoption of their child. All it takes is someone finding someone like me to help them look.

The state can earn money by just providing copies of the original birth certificate. Here is a video about Oregon's Measure 58. It also shows how New Hampshire handled their financial report on it.

This is Oregon's official website on the statistical information on the records issued:

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/chs/order/58update.shtml

Here is what the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute said about both relinquishing mothers and adoptee rights. They quoted 90% of relinquishing mothers wanting contact.

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/publications/2006_11_Birthparent_Study_All.pdf
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/publications/2007_11_For_Records.pdf

Here is the information for the New Hampshire debate and subsequent passage of their law.
Its all on You tube but its very informative. Janet Allen was essentially in the passing of this bill. You will see that it did not cost the state any extra money. This state has not had any issues with stalking adoptees or relinquishing parents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHB0mCSnRE4 part one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDv4EBe9wcE part two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfBMiKGUDLs part three

Here is my rough raw data that I gathered on the Oregon and New Hampshire Laws.

OREGON STATISTICAL INFORMATION
ADOPTEE ACCESS LAWS
# OF RECORDS # OF RECORDS # OF NO CONTACT # OF CONTACT
YEAR REQUESTED PROCESSED PREFERENCE THRU CI
2001 5832 5565 79 (1.4%) 27 (0.4%)
2002 6722 6439 80 (1.2%) 28 (0.4%)
2003 7459 7296 81 (1.1%) 29 (0.4%)
2004 8021 7811 81 (1.0%) 28 (0.4%)
2005 8486 8190 83 (1.0%) 29(0.4%)

OREGON STATISTICAL INFORMATION
ON ADOPTION

YEAR # OF ADOPTIONS
1998 849
1999 922
2000 831
2001 1071
2002 1118
2003 854
2004 943
2005 1033

The law went into effect in May 2001. Adoptions have not gone back down to the level of 1998.


NEW HAMPSHIRE STATISTICAL INFORMATION
ADOPTEE ACCESS LAWS
# OF RECORDS # OF CONTACT # OF NO CONTACT
YEAR PROCESSED THRU CI PREFERENCE
2005 778 6 (0.7%) 11 (1.4%)
2006 137 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.7%)
2007 139 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
2008 91 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

It was in 2005 that the law allowed adoptee access to their records in New Hampshire.

You can check their statistics with the following link.

http://www.sos.nh.gov/vitalrecords/Preadoption%20birth%20records.html#progress
http://www.sos.nh.gov/vitalrecords/Publications/Contact%20Preference%20Form.pdf contact preference form

http://www.sos.nh.gov/vitalrecords/Publications/Medical%20History.pdf birth history form

This is how I would like our bill to look like:

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2004/SB0335.html (New Hampshire)

It gives the adoptees their OBC. Relinquishing parents have their say on the contact portion of it. Contact is already legislated in the law in the form of stalking and harassment laws. This will increase adoptions in our state and it will decrease abortions. Our abortion is second highest in the nation. This is even more obvious in Oregon where none of the federal regulations that have been passed did not affect the statistics in Oregon.

If you need to ask me any further questions, please contact me.

ADDITIONAL ADVICE FOR INDIANA ADOPTEES

I am hearing more and more issues with the Department of Health. Indiana adoptees and natural mothers need to start requesting their information via certified mail. You have proof that you have sent it in. They can't tell you any longer that it is lost. If you sent any form of payment in, make sure it is either a check or money order. You want to have proof that you have paid it and that they have cashed the check.

We also must start writing our legislators to let them know. They have to hear that it is getting harder and harder for adoptees and their families. It is also time for them to hear that we are having issues with getting false information from the agencies.

WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOUR RIGHTS?

As time moves forward, more and more Coleman adoptees and Coleman mothers are coming forward. I feel it is important to re issue the information that you all are entitled to. What your resources are. What exactly are your rights as defined by Indiana state law. You need to know this if you are searching. If you are interested in joining the cause of the Adoptee Rights Coalition, I will also provide more information in regards to this as well.

Here is the information every Indiana adoptee should know when beginning their search:

• You have the right to your non identifying information. You will have to be insistent with the Department of Vital Records in Indianapolis.
  
• You have the right to choose the confidential intermediary. You do not have to use the agency confidential intermediary. I recommend Candy Jones and Lori Baxter. Candy Jones is a first mother in reunion. She is a member of Concerned United Birthparents. She is also a member of the American Adoption Congress. I recommend using her if you are searching for your natural family. She has been there and can reach your mother in a way that most CIs can not. Lori Baxter is an adoptee. She is also a school teacher who does this in her spare time. I recommend her for first parents searching for adoptees. She can reach your adoptee in a way that an agency can not. I have heard great things about both of these confidential intermediaries. I absolutely do not recommend Catrina Carlisle or Kris Lucas. I have heard countless stories about both of them. They will hurt your reunion more than help you reunite. Both of these women work for the adoption agency. Both women have the adoption agency's interest at heart. Catrina Carlisle is the former agency director of Coleman Adoption Services before they merged with St. Elizabeth. She is also an adoptive parent. She isn't your adoptive parent especially if your adoptive parent supports your search.
  
• The law states birth parent. Both birth parents can be contacted if it is in your court records. There is no restriction on it. St. Elizabeth Coleman is the one that puts restrictions on contacting your natural father.
  
• There is no limit on contacting your parents. St. Elizabeth Coleman only allows one phone call to your natural parents.
  

DOES BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION HELP OUR CASE?

As an adoptee, I think it does. The reason is because the right to privacy laws of Indiana and the constitution itself treats us separately. It could also be said for Illinois since their laws are similar to Indiana.

What is Brown vs. Board of Education? It was the Supreme Court decision essentially banning all segregation in the United States. This case originated in Kansas but several cases in other states were brought forward at the same time.

Their decision:

"...that in the field of public education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal...therefore plaintiffs and others...are deprived of the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution."

Adoptees and their families are being deprived of their equal protection. In the laws as well, we are giving special immunities and privileges to the adoption industry as a whole. Its time to change it.

WHAT EXACTLY IS ROE VS. WADE?

Roe vs. Wade is not about the right to an abortion. If one were to read the actually court case on this, one would realize this. It is about the right to be free from governmental intrusion. Trust me you don't want that Supreme Court Case to be overturned. If it is overturned, it allows the state and federal governments back into our private lives. They will begin to govern what we all do in our private lives. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, it will allow the government to override our parental rights, to decided how and when we have sex, what we use to protect ourselves with our sexual actions, and many other things. Am I the only one that sees this?

If you don't believe me, read this.

PRIVACY SMIVACY

This is something that Catholic Charities and the NCFA constantly throw at us fighting for adoptee access. I personally believe that the mothers should have equal access to that document. To understand what the right to privacy means you need to understand the laws and the different definitions of privacy.

The Catholic Church and its charity, Catholic Charities have issues with the right to privacy period. They have tried to keep the Catholic priest issue under raps for years both in Texas and in Indiana. As recently as December of 2007, they were still fighting over the sexual abuse scandal of the Catholic Church. On Channel Six Indianapolis, this story came up on my Google search.

Recently a document has come to my attention about adoptee access and the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was initially opposed to the sealing of records. They even wrote the Governor of New York about it. You can find that article here.

Definitions of Privacy according to Wikipedia:

• Physical privacy means the prevention of intrusions into one's physical space or solitude, unwelcome searching of one's personal possessions or unauthorized access to one's home or vehicle. This can also be used for stalking.
• Informational privacy means keeping one's identifying information such as a person's social security number private.
  
• Financial privacy is about keeping our financial transactions private along with all of our credit card, debit card and account numbers.
• Medical privacy is about keeping our medical records to ourselves.
  
• Political privacy is being able to vote anonymously.
• Familial privacy is being able to make the best reproductive choices for one's family without governmental interference. (This one is not in Wikipedia but it is often used when it comes to adoptee access.)
• Organizational privacy is more about keeping trade secrets amongst companies private so that another company can't exploit their secrets. The government may also invoke executive privilege.

None of this really explains why adoptees and their families can't have access to the adoption records and the original birth certificate. These are documents that pertain to all of us. They are about all of us. They have our names all over it.

Adoption according to Indiana's right to privacy laws is considered separate under the law. If one were to read Brown vs. Board of Education, then the state would realize that separate is not equal. Roe vs. Wade is another example that they love to misinterpret. It is about the right to privacy. It is about the right to be free from governmental interference.

INTERESTING BILLS UP BEFORE THE INDIANA LEGISLATORS

There are two bills that are up before the current Indiana legislative session. These are the bills from the previous years that have not been resolved.

One bill is SB 0217 which is a human and sexual trafficking bill that does not go far enough. It targets only the sexual side of human trafficking. It does not go into the international adoption side. That is currently a major issue amongst adoption reformists.

Here is the quoted text of the bill:

Human and sexual trafficking. Allows a court to order the: (1) dissolution or reorganization of; or (2) suspension, revocation, or forfeiture of a license, permit, charter, or prior approval granted by an agency of the state to; a corporation, a limited liability company, a partnership, or an unincorporated association if an agent of the corporation, company, partnership, or association commits a human or sexual trafficking offense while acting within the scope of the agent's authority. Provides that it is a defense that a person who engaged in criminal conduct did so because the person was a victim of a human or sexual trafficking offense. Makes it promotion of human trafficking, a Class B felony, for a person to recruit, harbor, or transport another person by force, threat of force, or fraud to force the other person into appearing in a state of nudity or engaging in or participating in an obscene performance or a performance that is harmful to minors. Makes it human trafficking, a Class C felony, for a person to pay, offer to pay, or agree to pay money or other property to another person for an individual whom the person knows has been forced into appearing in a state of nudity or engaging in or participating in an obscene performance or a performance that is harmful to minors. Makes it promoting prostitution, a Class C felony, for a person to sell or offer to sell travel services that include or facilitate travel for the purpose of patronizing a prostitute in Indiana or another jurisdiction. Requires an international matchmaking organization to provide a copy of a client's criminal history information and marital history declaration and certain other information to a recruit of the organization in the recruit's native language and English.

Another bill of interest is HB 1358. It prohibits discrimination based on ancestry. This is the third year running on this bill. It has yet to be passed.

Here is the quoted text of that bill:

Civil rights. Extends antidiscrimination and civil rights statutes to include prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, disability, and ancestry.

Its time to start writing legislators to let them know that they are violated our rights by discriminating against us by treating us separately.