Are people that are against the sealing of adoption records also anti-abortion?

Question

I am just wondering when the rights of the child start. I am not for sealing of pertinent information, medical records, potential genetic issues, etc. I am for the preservation of the birthmother's privacy. A child doesn't need to know a birthmother's name to tell the doctor about a medical issue. Where he/she was born may have some bearing on the issue, so that information should be disclosed. Heritage can also be used as a basis of determining risk factors, so again, let them know.

However, none of these questions come into play if the birth nmother chooses to abort the child. Who is protecting the child's rights BEFORE birth?

Answer 1

Yes, I am.

They are consistent ideas; the right to live begins from the moment of conception.  The right to one's records begins from the moment those records are created.

Note: I am referring to natural rights as opposed to legal rights.

Answer 2

Well, I guess no one is protecting the rights of the child BEFORE it's born. I guess people think that because it's aborted, it doesn't matter and it has no rights.

That was a very good question that really made me think. Sadly, I don't have any better of an answer.

Answer 3

Some who are against sealing the adoption records are anti-abortion and some are not.  It is totally unrelated keeping information from an adoptee.    I am against sealing any part of adoption records and I am Prochoice.  If the mother chooses to abort, adoption never comes into question.

Answer 4

Well adoption is about giving--meaning a baby or child will be placed into a home where it should be loved and well cared for. Aborton--is the excat opposite that is about taking. The need for medical information would be a mute point. So, the babies right to life is decided on by the mother, it is her choice what way to go. With that choice has it's own set of consquences.

But really each person has a right to search or not to and a b-mom can indicate she does not want contact or she does want contact.

Answer 5

I really think it depends who you ask.  Anti-abortion supporters would definitely claim that human life begins at conception and must be protected by law.  

Many adoptees would probably agree that they LOST rights at the time their adoption was finalized.  We lost the right to access OUR OWN information, a right that every non-adopted person enjoys.  Who is protecting the child's rights AFTER adoption?

I too believe in a birthmother's privacy.  I contacted mine, and when she refused contact, I forgot about her.  But what you are asking for here is birthmother's right to secrecy.  And I totally disagree that birthmothers have that right.

Answer 6

These are two totally different things

BUT the bmom has total control.  It is she who chooses to kill, parent or adopt out her child.

Answer 7

The people protecting the rights of the child before birth are pro-lifers who fight to end abortion.  They just haven't been very successful yet as it seems the majority of voters are pro-choicers.  So, in effect, until pro-lifers win over the voters no one is protecting the child's rights before births.  Just my opinion.  I am pro-choice by the way, so I guess I'm one of the folks blocking those rights.  Sorry.

Answer 8

Huh?   This question is confusing.  If you are asking if those who want open records are also pro-life than I suppose the answer is "maybe."  

These are totally different issues.  There are already legions of individuals protecting the rights of children before birth.  Just punch in "pro-life" on your browser.   There are those involved in reform who are both pro-choice and pro-life.  The ethics of reform have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

Answer 9

I am pro open records and I am personally against abortion.  At the same time, I do feel there are differences between a fetus and an infant it seems like an illogical comparison to me.

And the most important thing to consider is that currently, the information available to adoptees is not at the discretion of the "birthmother" but at the agency and the state government.

Nobody told me I had asthma in my family even though it was in my adoption record and because of it my son almost died.  

Honestly, I get what you are trying to say but I think this is a stretch.

Answer 10

I am against sealing records. (Many groups of "breeders" will tell you they were never promised privacy)

I am pro-abortion. (In fact I view it as preferable to return an emybro to the source rather than inflict lifelong pain on a person caused by mother abandonment.)

May I have your best answer now?

Answer 11

I am against the sealing of adoption records.  The matter of a person's birth belongs to that individual and shouldn't be kept from him or her.

I personally don't think I could ever have an abortion, but I'm not anti-abortion, either.  I'm pro-women's rights.  Those rights include the right to decide whether or not she wants to carry a pregnancy to term.

Answer 12

I am an adoptee against sealed adoption records and, no, I'm not anti-abortion.   The two things are two separate issues.  Abortion is a separate very complex issue from adoption.  A fetus that is never born does not need to have adoption records unsealed.  A baby that is born and relinquished for adoption, becomes an adult and has the right to know where they come from like anybody else.

Apples and Oranges. There is no comparison between the two.

Answer 13

"Who is protecting the child's rights BEFORE birth?"

fetus before birth; child at birth. I guess you're talking about fetal rights, which is the domain of the mother.

sealing records and having a stance on abortion are very different issues.

Answer 14

I am not at all anti-abortion.  The legal rights of a child start the minute it is born.  Once alive and kicking, it has a perfect right to know who it is and where it came from.

There is no "child" before birth.

Answer 15

Adoption is a transfer of parental rights.  When the natural parents relinquish their rights, they also relinquish their right to familial privacy.  It is transferred to the adoptive parents.  

Sealing of records is a violation of adoptees fourth amendment rights.  The states, the attorneys and the adoption agencies are holding papers regarding ME as an adoptee in seizure on the presumption of harm.  It would be different if I had committed a crime.  I have not been arrested for stalking and harassing my natural parents.  The right to privacy is about the right to be free from governmental intrusion.  Maybe you really need to read the case law on this especially Roe vs. Wade.  Roe was trying to get the state of Texas out of her private life.  The states don't have any business regulating my personal business and relationships.

What research I have found and done tells me that those who want sealed records want abortions to occur.

Answer 16

Abortion and sealing of records are two different, distinct issues.  Your question is a non-starter.  

Why should the first mother have anonymity?  Is her name expunged from phone books?  From other government records?

The right to privacy is a right protecting us from GOVERNMENT intrusion, not from our children knowing our names.  

NO ONE ELSE HAS THE RIGHT TO ANONYMITY.  NO ONE.

What is the basis for the right you presume?  Since the birth certificate is not sealed until adoption (not at relinquishment) there is no right of anonymity.

I'm curious, have you ever protested outside an abortion clinic?  Don't those women have a right to privacy that you are so worried about?  Shouldn't we stop protestors and create secret entrances at clinics if the right to privacy you assert is so important?

Answer 17

adoption and ABORTION don't go hand in hand LC.

first a woman decides if shes going to continue her pregnancy.

then the woman decides if shes going to parent or surrender her child to adoption.

Answer 18

well first off, its up to th mother what happens to the child before its born. Its the same with people who are pregnant and are not adopting out.

I personally think that a child should b given the right to see who their birth mother is and everything to do with medical records. Its only right that they know where they have came from. I dont think that the Birthmother should have privicy, at the end of the day, she should know the consequences of adopting a child out, for the child to one day search for her. Its a natural thing for adoptees to want to know where they come from.

It should not be hidden.

Abortion is a choice made by the mother at the time of pregnancy.

Answer 19

Who said that those in favor of RE-instating (yes, I mean to stress the "RE") equal rights are anti-abortion?  Just like the rest of the general population, some are pro-life and some are pro-choice.  They're separate issues.

By the way, if you've been reading up on the law, you'll know that there is absolutely no way to guarantee any kind of "birthparent anonymity."  Records only seal if and when an adoption finalizes.  No privacy there, as this takes at least six months.  If an adoption fails, those records unseal.  No adoption finalization = no sealed record.

As well, many states allow the adoptive parent or adopted person (if old enough) to decide whether or not the original birth record will be sealed.  Again, where's the guarantee of anonymity in that?  

No relinquishment document has ever been brought forth that shows any promise of this anonymity.  Even the NCFA can't produce one, as they do not and cannot exist because of the law I've stated above.  Don't believe me? Read the code of the state laws.  I don't make statements I can't back up.  Oh, and don't forget that a court order will open a birth record in any state that doesn't have equal access laws.  Again, no anonymity guaranteed there.  

These laws aren't new.  They have always been intact during the sealed records era.  Sealed records haven't always been a part of adoption.  Records only started to be sealed from the adopted person in the mid-1940's.  

Court rulings in Tennessee and Oregon state that so-called birthparent anonymity doesn't legally exist.

Advocates of returning equal rights to adopted citizens only want what all other citizens have.  We should to be treated unequally under the law simply because someone happened to adopt us.

EDIT:

I meant to mention that you referred several times in your question to a child's rights.  Equal access is about an ADULT citizen's rights.  Also, the NOW and the ACLU, both of which oppose open records, fully support pro-choice laws.

Edit for LC:

I believe the question asked has been answered.   Because adoption and abortion are separate issues, intertwining the two in a question is convoluted.  Besides, you're asking about a fetal child's rights in the first part of the question and an adult's rights (open records) in the second part of the question.  Like I said earlier, some people for reform are pro-life and some are pro-choice.

Answer 20

Hi LC,

There may be some people who are pro-choice & there may be some people who are pro-life.  They cannnot all be lumped together because adoption & abortion are two totally separate things, espectially when considering human civil rights.

It is a woman's legal right to do what she wants to her body, that includes using birth control or terminating an early pregnancy.  While abortion can be considered a medical procedure that should be contained in a mother's medical records, adoption is NOT a medical procedure and adoption has nothing to do with birth control.  A woman's reproductive choices for any given pregnancy end when that pregnancy is concluded.  

Once a child is born, he/she presumably has the same rights that all other humans have, and one of those rights is a right to his/her own identity.  Although medical information is important to everyone, it is not the only part of a person's identity.  No law gives women the right to control what rights a child may have for the rest of their adult life.

There is no law that gives parents who relinquish children for adoption additional permanent anonymity.  Furthermore, not all children who are relinquished are ultimately adopted.  Those who stay in foster care, and those who have disrupted adoptions have their original birth certificates, so it is NOT a matter of relinquishing that supposedly gives this additional anonymity that you believe some natural parents may possess.  Are you aware that the overwhelming majority (99%) are delighted to reconnect with their adult children?  Natural parents are not afraid, nor should they be, of their children.  Whoever is using natural mothers as their rational for not restoring equal rights to birth certificates for adoptees is either mistaken or has a hidden agenda.  Which do you think it is?  And what could their motivation be?

To sum it up, abortion and adoption are two separate things covered by separate laws.  Adoption is not a birth control method that should be covered under medical privacy laws.  Once a person is born, they are their own person, worthy of the same equal rights that all other people have including the same rights to their identity.

Hope that helps clarify.  Thanks for asking.

julie j

reunited adoptee

Edit to add to Heather's answer:  Alaska, in addition to Kansas, has also always had unsealed birth certificates for adoptees and they also have always had a lower than national abortion rate, so that indicates there is not a connection between unsealing birth certificates and higher abortion rates.

Answer 21

Your question is an argument in support of discrimination.

Every citizen should receive EQUAL treatment under the law.  Sealed records discriminate against adoptees, who deserve the right to their own, factual and unaltered birth certificate just as any other citizens

Your argument treats adoptees as a suspect class.  It may interest you to know that many adoptees fighting to have their rights re-instated already know the names of their birthparents (gasp)

ps.  Kansas never sealed it's records and has lower abortion rates than surroundings States with sealed records

Abortion rates haven't skyrocketed since records were unsealed and adoptee's rights reinstated in 6 States so far.

In all 8 States have reinstated adoptee rights to their own vital records

have you ever looked at it from the point of view that perhaps MORE women would choose adoption if there was a chance of them knowing their children, rather than sealing them away from them forever.   Just another way to look at it

ETA.  Okay. . . some are pro-life and some are pro-choice; I fail to see the relevance of Adult adoptees access to their own birth record and abortion, sorry, there is no connection there - mothers are more like to relinquish if they know there is a chance of seeing their offspring again one day

Answer 22

I am against sealing records, but I am not anti-abortion.

I fully believe that government has no business dictating morals and religious beliefs on society.