Why does privacy matter if its not written into law?

Question

Ohio currently has a bill pending that is being reviewed by committee which could potentially restore the rights to Ohio Adult Adoptees.

It was reviewed yesterday and the committee is very hung up on mothers / fathers right to privacy and apparently asked a lot of questions about it according to a review from The Bastardette, an ohio adoptee herself. : http://bastardette.blogspot.com/2008/04/betsie-norris-from-adoption-network.html

Now I personally don't support the bill as a whole, but I most definitely support the unconditional open records part of the bill and thats what I would like to discuss now.

If there is no law of privacy to first parents who have surrendered a child to adoption, then why would they care about if it was or wasn't promised?

Shouldn't the committee be sticking to whats written in law and on legal papers instead of looking for testimonies based on rumors only? Why would they "defend" or "take side" with an illegal promise of privacy? Help me get it?

Answer 1

...a thought that just crossed my mind about this subject....

I wonder how much of this issue might have to do with some of the "old-school" thinking of the elder people with the power in government....

I am old enough and have hung-out long enough with really old people so take part in some of those.."back in my day" conversations. One topic of which is often pointed on "how today everything has been legislated"

Old people like to joke that it's a wonder they survived childhood given the fact they played on dangerouse play equipment and helmets were for kids who already had a head-injury...

I wonder if some of this "privacy" right stuff falls into this area where some elder people reject the idea that every single thing a person does has a legal requirement and law attached to it?

It seems to be an attitude of so many people I know over the age of 50 or 60... so...if these people are in charge right now of making new law--or allowing changes in old ways they may not veiw the fact that just because a law wasn't written didn't mean their common sense didn't apply it....

Do you think that as these old sticks-in-the mudd retire and die and more of my generation comes into power this Hanging on to the past and view that a "promise and hand-shake" was as good if not better then dragging the government and lawyers into it...things might come up to Our View of Law...and rights?

Just a passing thought that jumped into my mind after talking with an Old timer this morning and hearing some more of their feelings about laws and how we can't even buy a hair dryer without 10 disclaimers--and warnings attached to the cord...suggesting we should not use it in the shower...

some of these people believe that our new way of thinking seems to regulate things to a point where common sense has been lost to a warning...or law....

?

Answer 2

Hi Gershom,

What I really believe is happening there is a hidden agenda.  Since the real reasons (continuation of human trafficking for profit, covering up of questionable past doings) cannot be rationally nor legally justified, a semi-plausible reason (presumed "privacy") is used in an attempt to withhold birth records from those to whom it pertains.

The problem with using "privacy" as a reason is this:

The only way awarding "privacy" from one's children can be granted is by first permanently taking away the child's right to his/her heritage.  That is wrong.  The child did not consent to that.

Nobody else has the right to remain hidden from someone else, especially with the government's assistance (unless they are in the federal witness protection program.)  If they wish not to have a relationship with another person, that is one thing.  That does not mean they may take away their children's right to know who they are and where they came from.  

Another thing worth mentioning is this:  Natural mothers overwhelmingly DO want to be found by their children lost to adoption!  They do not want others speaking on their behalf.  It is a myth that they do not want to be found, that they do not care, that they do not love their children, & that the children are forgotten.  One must ask whose interests are the adoption lobbyists truly protecting when they spend millions of dollars to oppose open records & to keep natural parents & adult adoptees away from each other?  Since both involved parties say they don't want privacy, could committees possibly be protecting their own interests there?  Hmmm....

Since there is no real "right to privacy," even if someone had promised that to anyone else, they had no legal authority to do so in the first place.  By the way, there were just as many who were promised they could contact their children when they reached adulthood, and it turned out they couldn't.  In any case, you're right - the Ohio committee should stick to written law and stop projecting their own subjective interpretations.  Thanks for asking.

julie j

reunited adoptee

Answer 3

One Q to you...how is it allowed when most adoptions are done by bmoms under 18? They cant legally :smoke,drink or join the army...what a one sided affair...a few exceptions but not many..

Answer 4

You ask an excellent question and one that as an adoptive parent I simply cannot get my head around either.

I believe it could be as pathetically simple as human beings unable to accept a "changing of the guard" so to speak. They have themselves so convinced that they are protecting first families and adoptees from themselves. Many of us subsribe to the notion of "getting over it", "Moving on."

For first moms, these committes are probably thinking: Why would these wonderful women want to go backward to a painful place? They did such a loving a selfless thing by giving up their children to married couples, they should be allowed to move on with their lives. Lets not open old wounds.

For adoptees, they might be thinking: They were given a chance at life. Their adoptive parents sacrificed so much to love and raise them. Their adoptive parents are their real and only parents and therefore allowing them the chance to find their first parents would be confusing and maybe damaging. Lets not open old wounds.

It's all pretty presumptuous and insanely over generalized.

They might be able to find some anecdote's from first moms and adoptees who say: "No thanks, I don't want to go there." But I'm sure there as just as many who at the very least would like to know there was a chance at reconnecting with a huge part of themselves.

It's an insulting kind of "protection". Adults can make their own decisions about who is a part of their lives. If you don't want to meet. Don't meet. If you do, fantastic. These are choices that non-adopted people like myself take for granted.

We cannot consider ourselves "equal under the law" if adoptees and first parents are denied the same rights as non-adopted people.

So yes, Gershom, they should be sticking to what;s written in law. If you were not promised privacy, then you have to expect that you want receive any.