Question about "open birth certificates"???

Question

I'm just trying to understand what we're facing as far as reforms. I know that there are 6 states that adoptees have access to their records, can each state change the law? I was thinking that it could go one of 2 ways. Each state could change the law or a law could be enacted by congress making it national. Is it one or both? Any other information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time.

Answer 1

Amy and Gersh are both right.  The reason there is no relinquishment document that promises anonymity to first parents is because it's impossible to promise that due to the way adoption law is written and with how the adoption process itself.  No birth record gets sealed upon relinquishment.  Therefore, no anonymity can be promised.  Again, relinquishing a child does not seal the original birth certificate.  

Anyway, states have always written their own laws regarding adoption.  In the beginning, when adoption was first legally established in the 1800's, an adopted person's original birth certificate (OBC) did not seal.  Some decades later, states began sealing them from access by the public and then by access to the first parents.  It was only in the mid-1940's that states began sealing them from the adopted person.  All of the stigma of adoption, infertility and fear of those pesky first parents interfering with the adoptive family sparked sealed records.  Sealing the records to the adopted person were done to help facilitate those who did not want their child to know his or her adoptive status.

Two states, Kansas and Alaska, never sealed records from the adopted person.  Since the late 1990's, four states have changed the law to re-instate an adopted adult's right to his or her own birth record (Alaska, Oregon, New Hampshire and Maine.)

The tough thing about relying on Federal legislation for me is that we could end up with "deformed" legislation instead of "reformed" legislation.  By that I mean, legislation that will only allow "some" adopted person the right to their OBC's.  It would still be unequal treatment under the law.  It's much harder to fight a bad reform law than to fight for good reform in the first place.

Answer 2

I thought I had written something on this about a week ago, and I just found it.  

Here's what I said then (I hate quoting myself, but I don't think I can say it differently):

"The federal government is (supposed to be) for the regulation of commerce and relationships among the states. Since adoptions take place within the states, there is no good (read: "constitutional") reason for the federal government being involved.

"It is, then, a by-product of our federalist system. Like drinking ages, speed limits on highways, alcohol sales, marriage laws, and so many other state governed laws, having the federal government regulate this would be viewed as an encroachment on the sovereignty of states.

"The federal government has tied tax dollars to following federal guidelines (ala drinking age, for instance, and speed limits), and in that way has managed to make some things more uniform. But I strongly suspect there is little interest in tying tax dollars to a uniform adoption system.

"I do think consistency would be really good in this area. But it's hard to see how we might make that work in a federal system."

While certainly things could change, I think our best bet, at this point, is working state-by-state for change.  Adoption law (like many other laws) has historically been handled at the state level.  So that's where the fight is, currently.

I hope that helps some.

Answer 3

The argument against greater regulation of adoption by the federal government has been rooted in the notion that adoption is a state law issue.   Therefore the law is changing State by State, it is fought by special interest groups who feel it may harm their livelihoods even though there has been no proof of this in the States that have opened the records.

Answer 4

http://www.b******s.org

it could potentially be a national law enacted by congress if passed, but I feel like a state by state basis gives us a better chance or hope. Thats why me and most like a couple hundred others will be protesting at the annual state legislators convention this july!

There is a bill in draft called the national infant adoption reform act, its a rough draft, but still good, it could be a national open records law if passed in a few years.

http://www.nationalinfantadoptionreforma...

Answer 5

Each state could very change these laws.  There are several states with adoptee access bills on the books.  Sadly there are those who work for the industry that spew the lies that natural mothers want their privacy.  In these states, 99 % of natural mothers don't want that privacy and were not promised that privacy.

To be honest, we need national legislation but not with this President.  We need a decent president who believes in equal rights in all living adoption.  Everyone is afraid that adoptee access increases abortion.  This is just not true.  In states with adoptee access, adoptions have increased and abortions have decreased.  Just look at the statistics in Oregon, Kansas, New Hampshire and Alaska.  All are below the national average in abortions and above the national average in adoptions.  Kansas even has the most liberal laws concerning abortions.  Interesting!

By the way there has not ever been documented proof of this so called "birth mother " privacy.  There  is no relinquishment paperwork.  No adoption finalization paperwork.  Nada.