Wednesday, April 28, 2010
I'm delivering a paper on "safe havens." Here my panel:
Secrecy and Openness: Legal Issues
Chair: Sara Dillon, Suffolk University School of Law
“Preventing Harmful Secrecy: Blood-ties, Best Interests and Veto Victims.”
Alice Diver, School of Law, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland
Letting the Genes Out of the Bottle: Should New Paradigms in Medicine Lead Us to New
Paradigms in Adoption?
Martha Satz, Southern Methodist University
‘Safe Haven’ Laws: Promoting the Culture of Secrets and Shame in an Age of Adoption Openness--Ohio Case Study.”
Marley Greiner, activist, Bastard Nation, Ohio
So, things will be a little quiet here, despite a lot of breaking news in the last few weeks. I'll try to post about the conference and some pictures.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Below is Feigenholtz's response to Jeske's email, followed by Jeske's original email, reposted with Jeske's permission.
---- Original Message -----
Monday, April 26, 2010
Laura Silsby neared the three month mark this weekend, and the Central Valley Baptist Church wants to make sure you know it.
Saturday afternoon they threw a We-heart-Laura rally at the Idaho Statehouse. About 100 attended, including her local gang of electric Kool-Aid (minus the acid, we think) testers. A Northwest Cable News-KBTV video of the event is posted at the bottom of this entry. Be sure to watch Nichole Lankford prostrate herself in prayer. Fellow pranksters Paul Thompson and Charisa Coulter are seen or interviewed and more TeamSilsbys were spotted. Coulter, ever loyal to her boss, declared:
She is always on mind. It's a roller coaster. You have highs and lows but our hope is not in government and officials. It is in God.
But so far, God seems perfectly happy to keep Silsby in her own private Haiti Hilton.
"We want people to know that there still is support for her, organizer.'"Randy Jackson said. "If you pay attention to the media, sometimes it seems like there's a lack of support for her. There's still la lot of people who support her and want this whole ordeal to be done and for her to be home with her family. (NOTE TO RANDY: Supporters are not posting many supportive comments in the Statesman.)
Charisa Coulter's best friend and avid Silsby fan Sue Pearce gave us the QOTD:
Laura is a mother. She has three children. She needs to come home and I can't wait to go meet her at the airport when she does."
We have no memory of Silsby evincing concern for her children since her arrest. If she had, she might have come across a tad more sympathetic. Silsby, in fact, didn't show much concern for her children before her arrest either as reflected in her financial and business shenanigans and her dream trip to Haiti.
Speaking of Silsby's children...another Silsby lawyer has thrown in the towel.
The Idaho Statesman reports that Robert Williams, who's been representing her in "child custody issues" filed a motion to withdraw. He joins Gerald Husch, Silsby's Personal Shopper attorney who bolted in March. Williams says he has been unable to communicate with his client. He probably wouldn't have gotten paid anyway.
Silsby's ex-husband Terry Silsby (right) has sued for custody of their two children, living with him since the ex's trip south. She has an adult son who is married.
There are few details, but the Statesman reports that Judge David E. Day ruled on several custody-related issue brought by Terry Silsby. Mr. Silsby asked that the court hold the children's passports out of concern that Laura would take the children out of the country if and when she ever makes it back to Idaho. Day ruled that Mr. Silsby's lawyer Matthew Bohm should hold the passports for now. He also granted Terry authority to register the children for school in his own school district.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Yesterday, the online (and today's hardcopy) Chicago-Sun Times published an op-ed piece by Peter Mose, Why can't I get my real birth certificate? in response to HB 5428. Peter is a member of Bastard Nation's Executive Commitee.
The piece will go into the Sun-Times paid archives soon enough. With Peter's permission I'm giving it a permanent home here. It is a clear simple statement, written on a very personal level, Aabout why sealed birth certificates and restricted access is wrong. It deserves wide circulation.
Thank you Peter!
Please go to the link above and post a comment.
Why can't I get my real birth record?
April 25, 2010
BY PETER KRISTIAN MOSE
On July 15, 1956, I was born in downtown Chicago, at Wesley Hospital, now a part of Northwestern University's medical complex. I was delivered by a physician named Byford Heskett. It says so on my Illinois birth certificate. It also says my parents were Donald and Ellen Mose of Oak Park. But Ellen never met Dr. Heskett, and indeed she never gave birth to me.
Instead, I was adopted by Ellen and Don Mose from an adoption agency in Evanston when I was 2 months old. The Cradle Society was a prominent adoption outfit back then, as it is today. Judge Otto Kerner Jr. later signed my adoption finalization papers, making the whole transaction legal. That was in 1957, before he became governor.
Also in 1957, the State of Illinois sealed up my original birth certificate and issued a new altered one, the one I carry today. The one that decrees the fiction that I was born to Don and Ellen Mose, and not the truth that I was born to a single mother who bore me in her 30s, after having had a lengthy affair in Madison, Wis.
Somewhere in Springfield, now locked away, is my real first birth certificate. I don't have it, and it is unclear whether I could get it, even now that my birth parents apparently are both deceased.
Life goes on. At 53, I remain Peter Mose, a classical musician, an educator, an arts journalist. An American living in Canada, someone with two national allegiances -- just like I have two identities as an adopted person.
Now, however, comes word from the Land of Lincoln that a new bill has made its way through the Legislature, a bill meant to help me. It's HB 5428 (sponsored by Rep. Sara Feigenholtz of Chicago and Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi of Joliet), and it's supposed to allow all adopted adults born in Illinois to reclaim their original birth certificates if they wish.
Except it does not do this. Instead it sets up all sorts of conditions, categories and waivers. If I was born before 1946, for some reason then I'm OK to get one. If not, I now have to give my birth parents a say in the matter, and a veto over me. Where did this odd idea come from? Why can't I as an adult simply ask for and receive my original birth record from Springfield, just like every other person born in Illinois can do?
Why can't we in Illinois model ourselves on such states as Oregon, or Maine or New Hampshire?
These more progressive states, along with several others, would view my request for my original birth certificate as an issue of simple, even trivial, civil liberties -- i.e., I'm a grown-up American citizen, here's my processing fee, please send me a copy -- not as some complicated dance of balancing my rights against those of birth parents who relinquished me long ago, and thereby relinquished any legal rights they once might have had over me.
If someone could explain this baroque thinking of Illinois legislators to me, perhaps then I could try to explain it to some of the thousands of other normal, unexceptional, law-abiding adults like me whose adoptive beginnings were in this state. We just want our original birth certificates from Illinois' vital statistics office, like everybody else. Not the state-doctored fictional rewrites.
And we don't seek adoption reunions; we don't seek tears on Oprah. We just want a government-issued document that is accurate. It could not be simpler.
Peter Kristian Mose is an arts educator in Toronto, Ontario, and sits on the executive board of Bastard Nation, a U.S. adoptee rights organization.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization urges you to veto HB 5428, a so-called “adoptee rights” bill promoted as a progressive piece of legislation to correct Illinois’ long-standing Draconian treatment of its adoptees and their families of origin. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The bill’s stated purpose and its final product are diametrically opposed.
The introduction to the bill reads: The General Assembly recognizes that it is the basic right of all persons to access their birth records, and, to this end, supports public policy that allows an adult adoptee to access his or her original birth certificate. The rest of the bill guts the “recognition of that “basic right,” putting unreasonable and outrageous restrictions on that “basic right:”
HB 5428 separates adoptees into two classes by date of birth and then into numerous subclasses of “access” and “contact” eligibility dependent on parental and state “consent.”
HB 5428 “grants” rights to some at the expense of others.
HB 5428 criminalizes adoptees that use information from the Illinois Adoption Reunion and Medical Exchange to locate and contact families of origin.
HB 5428 dictates relationships between adults.
.HB 5428 is a bill that adopted persons and their families of origin did not ask for and do not want. It has virtually no support from adoptee rights and adoption reform organizations in Illinois and throughout the country.
HB 5428 is NOT an original birth certificate access bill. HB 5428 is NOT an adoptee rights bill. HB 5428 is NOT an adoption reform bill.
Instead HB 5428 is an abomination that stalls genuine adoption reform in the state for decades.
Please veto HB 5428 and ask the legislature to come back with a clean bill that treats all Illinois adoptees as fully equal to non-adopted Illinoisans.
Marley Elizabeth Greiner
Friday, April 23, 2010
What I find interesting is that many of the senators theoretically "got" the idea of our "rights"--but failed to grasp that the bill, with its multi-layered "consents," forms "information exchanges" and liabilities obviated those rights, kept the state in control, and gave adoptees and their families nothing but a big messy pile of obtuse rigmarole that can only be sussed out with a pitchfork.
On June 10, 1919, Illinois ratified the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution, which gave women the right to vote. What if Illinois leggies that day declared:
All women have the "basic right" to vote. However, we are concerned about the affect female voters will have on male reputation and status in the community. We need to protect the rights of those husbands who believe that the marriage contract promised them that their wives would never be allowed to vote.
To balance the right of women to vote with the right of husbands to protect their reputations and status, we are mandating a mutual consent voter registration law, which authorizes husbands to dictate what level of franchise their wives can practice: full, limited and/or's (school board, municipal, state, national, initiative, referendum, tax) and, of course...none at all.
Actually, that scheme would have made suffrage reactionaries quite happy as the passage of HB 5428 has made our current crop of bastardphobic reactionaires and adoptahacks happy.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
I have also added the Cravers to my "Killers" page and done a couple updates and clean-ups in other cases.
Brian Dykstra, accused of killing Isaac Dykstra (birth name unknown) is finally going to trial. A pre-trial hearing is scheduled for April 29 and trial date set for May 10,2010. See the Memoriam page for details of the case.
Nathaniel Michael Craver (birth name: Ivan Skorobogatov), age 7, Dillsburg/Carroll Township, Pennsylvania. Died August 25, 2009 at Penn State Hershey Medical Center after being taken off life support. The autopsy revealed Vanya suffered 80 external injuries, including 20 to the head. Old injuries, including fractures to his forehead and old blood beneath his scalp were found. The coroner also found evidence of malnourishment and "severe failure to thrive." Adopters Michael and Nanette Craver say that Vanya caused injuries to himself.
On August 19, the Cravers claim Vanya fell and hit his head on a wood stove in their home, but seemed OK. Next day he was found unresponsive in his urine soaked bed and taken to the ER. Michael Craver's mother told investigators that on Memorial Day 2009 she was shocked to see Vanya's eyes swollen shut and was told by her son that the boy rubbed and scratched his eyes and wouldn't leave them alone. She also reported that Vanya would shake when he thought he would get in trouble over something. An adoptive aunt reported that in August 2009 Nathaniel's eyes were swollen shut and the left side of his face was swollen. There are no records of medical treatment for any of the injuries Vanya supposedly suffered at his own hand.
On February 26, 2010, Michael J. Craver, 45 and Nanette L. (Korkuch) Craver, 54 were arrested and charged with criminal homicide, conspiracy, and child endangerment. They are currently held in the York County Prison without bond. Authorities said they made no connection between the death and Vanya's Russian adoptee status and were surprised when Russia TV crews showed up at his office. No trial date has been set. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for April 29, 2010.
Additional information: Sometime in 2008 , the Cravers briefly lost physical custody of Vanya and his twin sister Elizabeth (now in care) while York County Children and Youth Services investigated alleged negligence and poor conditions in the home. (no details) The children were returned and pulled out of public school to be home schooled. (Another report says they were already being home schooled).
In 2003, Vanya and his twin sister Dasha (now known as Elizabeth) were adopted from an orphanage in Chelyabinsk. In US 6 years (approx). Home Study: unknown. Post-Placement: unknown. Adoption Agency: unknown
Harrisburg Patriot-News, February 27, 2010. "York County parents charged in death of their son, 7"
York Dispatch, March 4, 2010. "Prosecutor: Local boy's death sparks international attention"
York Dispatch, March 5, 2010. "Carroll Twp. couple charged in child's death"
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
BASTARD NATION ACTION ALERT!
ILLINOIS GROUND ZERO
CONTACT GOVERNOR PAT QUINN NOW
Don't let Illinois gut what few rights
Illinois adoptees still possess!
This afternoon the Illinois Senate passed HB 5428:
the Illinois Adoption CI/Registry Cash Cow Protection Act
HB 5428 is NOT an original birth certificate access bill
HB 5428 is NOT an adoptee rights bill
HB 5428 is NOT an adoption reform bill
HB 5428 is an adoption industry bill, dressed up as obc access, intended to kill rights-based adoptee access to our own birth records.
HB 5428 is an Illinois Adoption Registry and Medical Exchange (IARME) promotion bill with virtually no support from adoptee rights and adoption reform advocates and organizations.
HB 5428 separates adoptees into two classes by date of birth and then into numerous subclasses of “access” and “contact” eligibility dependent on parental and state “consent”
HB 5428 “grants” rights to some at the expense of others.
HB 5428 criminalizes adoptees that use information from the IARME to locate and contact families of origins.
HB 5428 dictates relationships between adults
THE BILL IS HERE: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09600HB5428eng&GA=96&SessionId=76&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=50466&DocNum=5428&GAID=10&Session=HB%3C/span
GO HERE FOR BN TESTIMONY AND TALKING POINTS http://bastardnation.blogspot.com/2010/04/bastard-nation-testimony-hb-5428-oppose.html
Office of the Governor
207 State House
Springfield, IL 62706
Office of the Governor
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph, 16-100
Chicago, IL 60601
P.O. Box 1469 | Edmond, OK 73083-1469 | Phone / Fax: 415-704-3166
2 No vote
Senators waxed poetic over the "robust" debate in Judiciary a few days ago!
Were they there?
Others praised the bill as "brilliantly crafted."
Did they read it?
Supporters said, "We are being balanced" by not going "far enough."
Why do they promote "special rights"
Supporters spoke eloquently about the "restoral of a right"
What about the vetoed left behind?
The EB Donaldson "pledged support" for registry/CI "educational" campaign.
When did EBD become NCFA?
On to Pat Quinn's office...action alert shortly!
For further context go to my 2008 Illinois Warning! Trainwreck ahead for records rights and Illinois and That train keeps a rollin'--more pile-a-crap legislation. (I wrote more about Illinois in 2008, which you can find in a search, but those are the major pieces). Much of what I wrote then is relevant to the current situation in Illinois. Not much has changed except the bill number.
Rather than advocating the clear adoptee right to the original birth certificate (obc) and identity she claims to hold dear to her heart, Feigenholtz promotes universally the loathed state- run "mutual consent voluntary registry" scam traditionally supported by NCFA. Claiming to make an end run around "conservatives" Feigenholtz advocates the NCFA meme of parental anonymity and non-existent special rights for "birthparents" --all in the name of getting "something" passed. That Illinois Citizens for Life and other social conservatives, despite the end run, oppose obc access, goes over her head. When real bastard activists call her out, Feigenholtz feigns surprise and hurt, and responds like we are too stupid to appreciate her delicate "position" as a legislator.
Recently Feigenholtz told St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Kathleen Foody:
No matter what the circumstances (of the birth) are, we see that they never wanted protection from their offspring," But this bill respects the minority of birth mothers who choose to keep their identities secret, so it's the most perfectly balanced bill possible.
But, since courts have ruled that parents have no right to anonymity from their own offspring, then Feigenholtz's argument for anonymity is spurious. Maybe she should transfer from the Chicago School of Machine Politics to the University of Chicago Law School where her old friend Barrack Obama taught.
A couple years ago, in an attempt to bulk up her database and appear adoptee-friendly to get support for her fake rights HB 4623, Feigenholtz set up an "adoption"contact link on her official tax-payer supported legislative website. There she asked, and continues to ask, adoptees and those interested in adoptee rights to send input. Many have done so and are still waiting for a reply. Feigenholtz ignores them.
In December 2008 I attended the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute "conclave" on adoptee rights and obc access in New York City. Feigenholtz and Melisha Mitchell, introduced as her "assistant," participated through phone conference. During the course of the meeting, Feigenholz admitted that she hadn't answered the very adoptees she solicited on her webpage, making the astounding claim that she was "looking into a grant" to hire someone to answer her email! Feigenholtz, did, however, find the money to hit up her ignored bastard database for campaign funds during her unsuccessful 2009 run for Rahm Emmanuels's House seat
HB 5428 was undoubtedly written by Melisha Mitchell who as far as we know, has written all or most of Feigenholtz's other "access" bills. Mitchell has never written a sentence she couldn't convolute and jibberize. Here's a tortured 14 line one sentence sample (p 34-35 printer friendly version):
If the Registry has confirmed that a requesting adult adopted or surrendered person or the parent of a requesting adult child of a deceased adopted or surrendered person or the husband or wife of a requesting surviving spouse was not the object of a Denial of Information Exchange filed by a birth parent on or before December 31, 2010, and that no birth parent named on the original birth certificate has filed a Birth Parent Preference Form where Option E was selected prior to the receipt of a Request for a Non-Certified Copy of an Original Birth Certificate, the Registry shall provide the adult adopted or surrendered person or his or her surviving adult child or surviving spouse with an unaltered non-certified birth certificate.
Mitchell runs the White Oak Foundation, a putative non-profit search company that according to its webpage does free and at-cost adoption searches. Despite her long record of writing and promoting bills whose object is in direct conflict with the American Adoption Congress' policies, Mitchell was, until recently, the AAC Illinois State Rep. Why she remained in the fold until a few weeks ago, associating the AAC with her tom-foolery and really bad bills is one of those AdoptionLand mysteries we can only ponder. I have been assured by the AAC that she no longer represents the organization in any capacity, despite her reported sign-in last week, at the Senate hearing. (see "respond" link above). Her name does not appear on the organization website.
Two years ago, after meeting opposition for HB 4623 from every direction, Mitchell presumably in the guise of a "search expert" sent out a mass mailing (no longer online) claiming that 80-85% of all Illinois adoptees already know the names of their "birthparents." In another mass mailing she claimed that opponents to the Feigenhohltz bill were nothing more than "right to life" organizations and unnamed "obscure internet entities. Those "obscure internet entities" included Illinois Open, Bastard Nation, Illinois Adoption Reform Coalition, Ethica, A Day for Adoptee Rights, BJ Lifton, Carol Schaefer, Sandra White Hawk, Maine State Senator Paula Benoit, and New Hampshire State Representative Janet Allen. That letter is not on the White Oak website, but can be found on adoption.com
The Voice of Hypocrisy
Feigenholtz, Mitchell, and the White Oak Foundation have been involved in Chicagoland adoption politics for as long as I can remember--predating the formation of Bastard Nation. As long as I've been around they have been pimping the registry "alternative" to records access, claiming that the Illinois state government isn't ready to restore the obc right it rescinded from adoptees in 1945.
Incredibly, Melisha Mitchell while writing and promoting registry bills in Illinois has been claiming she doesn't support them.
Take her article "Mutual Consent Voluntary Registries: An Exercise in Patience--and Failure" published in the January/February 1999 Adoptive Families Magazine, written with input from Barbara Busharis. Pam Hasegawa and AAC's then-president and Mitchell mentor, Jane Nast. The article is not on the Adoptive Families website, but can be found on the White Oak Foundation webpage in text and pdf form. (I guess Mitchell thinks nobody will notice the dissonance.) The article is based on AAC MCVR state surveys made in 1993, 1996, and 1998 which showed not only an incredibly low rate of successful matches but an overwhelming dislike by adoptees and their families for state-run "family reunion" registries and state-involvement in personal relationship building. Out the gate, Mitchell, like those who oppose her today, calls state-run mutual consent registries "cumbersome bureaucratic band-aids" and "passe."
Ironically, in view of the 80-page HB 5428 monster with its multiple consent/veto levels and "medical exchange" forms, she and Feigenholtz are currently pushing, Mitchell writes:
The often-complicated registration procedures are impractical for elderly or seriously ill adoptees and birth parents. Registries don't work well for adoptees who are unaware they were adopted--or for birth parents who have been told their child is deceased. And to make matters worse, behind the scenes, legislators and registry administrations, who, like most NCFA-member agencies, were not as keen on facilitating search and reunion as those actually affected by these laws, began making the kind of budgetary and protocol decisions that would doom all but two of these state registries to single-digit reunion rates.
Mitchell makes much of adoption reform's rejection of state-run registries, comparing their unpopularity with genuinely popular and successful voluntary non-governmental registries such as those run by ALMA and ISRR. She actually admits what HB5428 opponents argue: that state-run registries, were enacted and continue to be pushed to halt activist legislation to unseal obcs; that is, registries are inimical to adoptees, their families of origin, civil rights, and the free flow of information:
The paradox is grounded in the raison d'etre for MCVR's, historically which was NOT to facilitate the reunion process for searching adoptees and birth parents, but rather to stall the progress of the original access-to-records bill, the Model State Adoption Act.
Mitchell also complains that states "build[ing] pernicious provisions" into their registry statutes, such as New York, which:
limits registrations to adoptee who were born AND adopted in the Empire State, leaving those born in New York but adopted out-of-state in registry limbo.
HB 5428, in fact, retains already in-place provisions that limit registry clientele to those born and adopted in Illinois, barring those who were born in other states and adopted in Illinois. Anita Field and Triona Guidry have both written about their registry/CI experiences with the Illinois Adoption Reunion and Medical Exchange which in part involve interstate adoption registry problems. Field's mid-1990s experience with Illinois-Indiana is recalled in The Cheese Stands Alone. Guidry's early 2000s Illinois-Ohio registry nightmare appears in Caveat Emptor on Confidential Intermediary Programs and Case Closed! Another Adoptee Becomes a Confidential Intermediary Statistic.
Incredibly, Mitchell criticizes the Indiana Adoption Medical History Registry (IAMHR), while now pushing the very similar Illinois Adoption Reunion and Medical Exchange. She points out that the Indiana registry is a "backdoor" for the already "reunited" to get their obcs, with no fundamental change in the law (my emphasis):
While some of the unique “perks” which were added to the Indiana registry in 1993 might be considered steps in the right direction (particularly its emphasis on the exchange of medical information and a provision that allows all adoptees who are matched with their birth parents via the registry to access copies of their original birth certifiicates and other adoption files), these innovations may be skewing, rather than actually improving, the registry’s reunion statistics. It appears that some adoptees and birth parents are flocking to the IAMHR not to find one another, but to use the registry’s back-door access to birth records to obtain their original birth certificates—after they’ve been reunited. And, too, when you consider that the focus of the Indiana registry is on the exchange of vital medical data, its 13% success rate begins to take on disappointing proportions. For someone who’s dying of a mysterious, genetically-linked disease, odds this slim, combined with a total absence of search assistance, can ring like a death knell. So, even Indiana’s better-than-average results (some 9,000 new applications and over 1500 matches since 1993) are not necessarily a sign that the times are a’changin’ quite yet.
Way before 1999, the adoption-industry-lobby-created reunion registry system, designed to hold off obc access, was rejected across the board by adoptee rights and adoption reform advocates. Everybody knew that "reunion" registries and state CI's with their industry/state multi-layered bureaucracy and purposeful incompetence were Bastard Control. That they were created as a barricade between adoptees and their birth certificates and whatever they wanted to do with them when they got them.
Today, registries are still rejected and hated for the same reasons. Yet, today,--2010--in Illinois we have HB 5428, expanding registry power over people who don't want it. The bill is written and pushed by a professional searcher who in 1999 claimed-or at least acted like--she opposed registries. It is sponsored by a reunited Big Sister who thinks she owns "adoption" in Illinois (she even has her very own Adoption Reform committee in the Illinois House) and can impose state supervision over adopted people and their families of origin through "special rights" a pile of wonky paperwork, secret bills, and stacked hearings--all in the name of benevolent "adoptee rights." Glory be to Sara Feigenholtz!
Well, this isn't "adoptee rights." It's adoptee wrongs.
Why was this not OK in 1999 and it is OK now? Why was this passe 11 years ago, and "progressive" now? Why are self-proclaimed adoptee rights proponents carrying the adoption industry's water?
Part 3 will discuss Feigenholtz's small circle of friends and attempt to suss out some things.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Under the rubric of family friendly "parental consent," these bills are designed to create more obstacles for teenage women seeking abortions. The Miami Herald reports:
The measure would require a judge to determine by the elevated standard of ``clear and convincing evidence'' that a minor is ``sufficiently mature'' to choose termination. Another provision prevents so-called judge shopping by requiring a pregnant girl to make the petition only at the local courthouse; requires a parent's signature get notarized for consent; and allows longer delays, up to three weeks, for final approval.
These provisions, are clearly intended to create even greater state ownership of the female body than already exists in Florida. If that is possible. Once normalized with teens, this ownership will eventually extend to legally adult women, who as we know, are all too stupid or "dangerous" to be trusted to handle their pregnancies in a private and autonomous manner without the supervision of the state.
But hold on! There's more!
Last Tuesday, a really really really special provision was added to the House version taking women a few steps closer to becoming brood mares for the adoption industry. We can't find the amendment online yet, but the Herald reports:
The House Criminal and Civil Justice Policy Committee added a measure to mandate a judge determine whether a minor is aware of the ``shortage of unborn babies available for adoption.'' It passed 11-4, but defied party lines with a moderate Republican and a Catholic Democrat switching sides.
We are unaware of any "unborn babies" currently adopted in Florida We have no doubt, though, that the folks from Florida Family Action (and their friends at the bastardphobic Family Research Council and Focus on the Family), and Florida Catholic Conference pimping this crazy crap, can come up with another law that mandates fetuses be "aborted" into the bodies of the desperate and childless or grown in artificial wombs to be hatched for the market.
Monday, April 19, 2010
HB 5428 is misleading. The bill’s stated purpose and its final product are diametrically opposed. The bill simply beefs up the current confidential intermediary/registry system that controls adoptee access to their own public records and adds penalties for so-called “misuse” of information from the registry.
1. conflates rights with reunion. It confuses OBC access with contact with a parent. It retains the Illinois Adoption Registry and Medical Exchange (IARME), and currently outsources the registry process to the privately owned Midwest Adoption Center as the OBC gateway; thus, keeping the vital records of the state’s adoptees at the mercy and whim of “confidential intermediaries” and paid “searchers” in an inherently arbitrary system accountable to no one.
2. vacates, though parental disclosure veto power (see #4)
750 ILCS 50/10)
(from Ch. 40, par. 1512) FINAL AND IRREVOCABLE CONSENT TO ADOPTION
4.subjects Unworthies to five subcategories of parental permission. These categories are no based in a public or civil rights /equal protection and treatment paradigmn. but on state-granted privilege. The bill predicates release on a “special right” for parents whose rights were terminated decades ago, which no other parent or adult has: a special right to deny another adult his or her own birth certificate.
5, forces adopted persons who have been denied their birth certificates, to wait FIVE years before they can appeal the decision.
6. levies a minimum $10,000 punitive damage claim, payable to the “sought- after relative against any individual—a CI, state employee, even the adopted person-- who uses information allegedly received from the IARME to identify the relative who has requested “anonymity.” How the source of information is to be determined is anybody’s guess.
7. includes a provision for a massive taxpayer funded public information This cost does not include the cost of retention of separate birth, adoption and registry records, general maintenance of IARME, and outsourced searches which the state has no legal or fiscal responsibility to pursue.
Under normal circumstances, competitive rights and their balancing is a problem only when there is a conflict of rights. Since there is also a presumed right to own one’s birth certificate, and no “right” to anonymity from one’s own offspring, there is nothing that needs balanced.
Please make that that “basic right” a reality and come back with a real OBC access bill that treats all of
Well, just in case this one disappears, too, I'm posting it. The explanation of "gaming" public authorities is worth noting, I thought. From the comments in the same article, responding to SouthforkMom:
April 19, 2010
Thanks to SouthforkMom's comment (April 17) regarding Torry Hansen's parents, their controlling upbringing of Torry and her sisters with repeated homeschooling, and especially Erik & Nancy Hansen's filing a false missing persons report with Hayfork law enforcement.
I also note Terra Kephart's comment (in the news article) that the Hansens were socially reclusive.
All this information is corroborated by the Hansen family's behavior in Tennessee (where they had moved from California) from 2006 onward, with the social reclusion of the entire family, the homeschooling, and their 'gaming' of public authorities by providing false information or by withholding necessary information.
The last trait, the 'gaming' of public authorities by withholding necessary information, is borne out by Torry & Nancy Hansen's returning Justin Hansen to Russia without giving prior notice either to the Russian government, or to the Washington State adoption agency that had arranged the adoption, or to the followup agency (Adoption Assistance Inc., of Danville, KY) that had contracted to monitor Torry Hansen's adoption.
It is not even clear that authorities in Bedford County, TN, where Torry & Nancy Hansen resided with Justin, had ever received formal notice from the Hansens that Torry Hansen had custody of a child. Thus no independent third party can verify Torry & Nancy Hansen's claims about Justin's threats and violence -- which is probably exactly what the Hansens intended.
It should also be noted that both Torry and Nancy Hansen did travel to Russia to meet Justin-Artyom and spend time with him before they decided to complete the adoption and take him back to the U.S. Also, the followup agency, Adoption Assistance, Inc., had previously educated Torry Hansen about the difficulties of Russian adoption and especially the difficulties encountered in caring for older institutionalized children and possible abnormal behavior. So, Torry and Nancy Hansen were not unprepared for Justin-Artyom and his allegedly difficult behavior.
The Russian government has already placed Justin-Artyom with a diplomatic family in Moscow who are well-informed about his history, are prepared to cope with his behavior, and plan to adopt him.
Note to Timbuk24U: Adoption is not like marriage. Marriage is between two consenting adults. Justin-Artyom is a child who did not consent be adopted by Torry Hansen. Also, once the adoption was finalized in November 2009, Justin-Artyom automatically became a U.S. citizen, and Torry Hansen lost the right to unilaterally terminate the adoption without the prior approval of an American court. Bedford County authorities will have to get a court order to unseal the adoption papers (which include whether the adoption was legally terminated). But if the adoption was not legally terminated, Torry Hansen could face charges of abandonment.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Don't let Illinois continue to gut the rights of Illinois adoptees!
TAKE ACTION THIS WEEKEND!
CONTACT ILLINOIS SENATORS
conflates rights with reunion. It confuses OBC access with contact with a parent. It retains the Illinois Adoption Registry and Medical Exchange (IARME), and currently outsources the registry process to the privately owned Midwest Adoption Center as the OBC gateway; thus, keeping the vital records of the state’s adoptees at the mercy and whim of “confidential intermediaries” and paid “searchers” in an inherently arbitrary system accountable to no one.
2. vacates, though parental disclosure veto power (see #4) 750 ILCS 50/10) (from Ch. 40, par. 1512) FINAL AND IRREVOCABLE CONSENT TO ADOPTION which states in part:
That I do hereby consent and agree to the adoption of such child. That I wish to and understand that by signing this consent I do irrevocably and permanently give up all custody and other parental rights I have to such child. That I understand such child will be placed for adoption and that I cannot under any circumstances, after signing this document, change my mind and revoke or cancel this consent or obtain or recover custody or any other rights over such child.
It also contradicts its own language:
“Surrendered person” means a person whose parents’ rights have been surrendered or terminated but who has not been adopted.” (p 11)
3. divides Illinois’ adopted citizens into two arbitrary classes based solely on date of birth: worthy and unworthy. Worthies are born before January 1, 1946. Their OBC is released upon request--like the not-adopted. Unworthies are born after that date. Their OBC release is subject to a lengthy menu of regulations, restrictions and other people’s decisions about access, none of which are under the adult adoptee’s control.
4. subjects Unworthies to five subcategories of parental permission. These categories are not based in a public or civil rights /equal protection and treatment paradigmn. but on state-granted privilege. The bill predicates release on a “special right” for parents whose rights were terminated decades ago, which no other parent or adult has: a special right to deny another adult his or her own birth certificate.
5. Parents (referred to as “birthparents in the bill) are given five “preferences” to choose from:
a. Agree to full release; parent prefers direct contact
b. Agree to full release; parent prefers contact through a personally designated third party
c. Agree to full release; parent prefers contact through IARME
d. Agree to full release; parent prefers no contact
e. Prohibit release of the OBC or certain designated information on the OBC. Depending on the parent’s “preference” the prohibited adoptee may receive the OBC with specific information deleted. In other words, the State of Illinois will deliberately mutilate its own public record at the request of a private individual—in most cases a virtual stranger to the requester--to abrogate the right the “basic right” state says the adoptee has.
6. forces adopted persons who have been denied their birth certificates, to wait FIVE years before they can appeal the decision. At that time, IARME, upon petition, can search for the parent to request an updated medical history and/or confirm the continuance of the prohibition.
7. levies a minimum $10,000 punitive damage claim, payable to the “sought-after relative” against any individual—a CI, state employee, even the adopted person-- who uses information allegedly received from the IARME to identify the relative who has requested “anonymity.” How the source of information is to be determined is anybody’s guess.
8. includes a provision for a massive taxpayer funded public information campaign including a website, press releases, and printed notices about the law enclosed with drivers license and vehicle renewal applications. This cost does not include the cost of retention of separate birth, adoption and registry records, general maintenance of IARME, and outsourced searches which the state has no legal or fiscal responsibility to pursue. We have seen no fiscal note at this time, but under the current state government budget slashes, such expenditures are irresponsible and wasteful.
For further information go to BN's testimony here.
Please contact Illinois Senators now and let them know that HB 5428 has no support from adoptees, adoptee rights advocates, and the adoption reform committee.
Senators have no published email addys so it's all about phone calls and faxes. Go here for a contact list.
Illinois Open has also published a list of contact through various webpages.
Just in: here are separate templates for Republican and Democratic members. You must send a your letter to each individual, but goes pretty fast, with cut and paste.
Also go here for some other addy inks and updates.
If HB 5428 is so damned great for adoptees, then why do sponsor Rep Sara Feigenholtz and her friends in high places want to keep us silent? Why did they not only hide the bill fro public view, but keep opponents from testsifying?
Mary Fuller/Rights of Adoptees
Corrupt IL HB 5428
...For 30 years I've been an advocate for open records. I do understand that HB 5428 is a horrid bill. What I don't understand is how any legislator who is serving the people can vote Yea. My thought is that the length of the bill was meant to confuse as many as possible. How many legislators actually sat down and read through 80 pages (67 if saved into a Word file). I was at the hearing and saw first-hand how some of the senators were talking among themselves and laughing. Of course I don't know what they were laughing about but their minds did not seem to be totally on what was being said at the hearing. I won't go into what all I viewed but the rudeness and disrespect did stand out.
...Those who know some of the IL history have heard of Al Capone. Yes, the mafia gunned down people but then cared for the deceased's family. Now we have a different mafia in Springfield that does not gun down people at the Capitol. What they do elsewhere, I'm not sure. But they look you right in the face while they are actually stabbing you in the back. They think that we are stupid when we are smarter than at least many of them. They are not as nice as Al Capone but do refrain from having someone gun you down at the Capitol or in the parking areas. They even let Blago walk away so we are probably safe in that respect. Just how long I'm not sure.
Triona Guidry/73 Adoptee
Leaving Adoptees Behind: My experience at the Illinois HB 5428 Hearing
Once again, I find myself not only fighting people who believe adoptees have no rights but also those who believe in adoptee rights but think conditional access is okay and we can go back and fix it later. What if there isn't a later? Don't you think they will grandfather in anybody who's had a disclosure veto filed against them? My rights may be gone for the rest of my lifetime, but I'll be damned if I sit by and allow it to happen....
...That's where the niceties end. Once the meeting started I began to get that sinking feeling you get when you're watching the original V and the spaceships show up. You want to scream: "They're lizards in human skins!" but everyone wants to believe that the kindly Visitors are here to help. Except they're not, and you're on the menu....
Also read Bastard Granny Annie's latest: Adoptees & Free Speech, her response to deformers who have told us to shut up and mind our own business when their ugly bills rear their heads and endanger the rights of all:
...Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You don't tell me what to say and I don't tell you. Adoptees do not all belong to one huge fraternity. We have not taken an oath of allegiance to each other. We have never sworn to uphold any "party line." We are individuals who happen to have been adopted...
After the last few weeks, I now fully grasp the meaning "Chicago politics" --even if the statehouse is in Springfield. Now, if only we could prove, beyond speculation, what Chicago Machinist Sara Feigenholtz gets for gutting the rights of adoptees she claims to promote.
To see what's wrong with this piece of garbage see BN's testimony here or further down the Daily Bastardette. Just above this entry I will be posting separate contact information for the Illinois Senate. Call and let members know that HB 5428 is not about our rights.
THIS JUST IN: Oh, the irony! April 22 marks Human Trafficking Outeach Day in Illinois. Will Sara be there?
Mainstream media reported Thursday that charges against nine of ten TeamSilsby members have been dropped. Then the Haitian Attorney General said, hmmm...no, they haven't.
I'm working on other projects and don't have the time to comment. Baby Love Child, though, has. Her Charges not dropped against American Baptist missionaries despite Thursday's reports reviews the latest Silsby (in this case government-media complex) faux pas.
You'd think by now the State Department would figure out its not the arbitrator nor interpreter of Haitan law. Since MSM, does believe State is, however, reporters failed to follow a very basic rule: verify verify verify. And so did TeamSilsby and its legal team who rushed to their keyboards with the great news.
BLC's blog includes a link to Topeka Silsbyite Drew Culberth's 14 minute TV interview made after he got the good news, but before he got the bad news. The interview doesn't reveal anything new about the group's venture in Silsby's heart of darkness, but it is valuable in detailing their jailhouse life.
Culberth still doesn't "get" that the group did anything wrong. They just wanted to give "orphans a better life." Still drinking Silsby's kool-aid, Culbreth says there will be no closure until Miss Laura, who "deserves to have her name cleared" is released.
No regrets. No questions about the note slipped to MSNBC; No opinion about Silsby's stateside "problems." But nobody really asked either.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
How many ways can a birth certificate be folded, spindled, and mutilated, run through the shredder, and the detritus be considered "rights"?
Yesterday, the Rhode Island Judiciary Committee passed H7877 , a twisted sister "adoptee rights" bill. The bill includes a disclosure veto. But just not any disclosure veto. This is a very special veto:
Any birth parent, or parents or adult sibling of a deceased or incompetent birth parent, may file a no release form with the division and the division will thereafter not release a copy of the adoptee's birth certificate. The division shall post the no release form and filing instructions on the division's website . the birth parent, or parent or adult sibling of a deceased or permanently disabled birth parents may revoke his or her no release form at an time.
That is, not only can your parent(s) file a disclosure veto and hold your birth certificate hostage, but so can relatives you've probably never even heard of. Even the very people who might have forced you into the adoption mill. And...these mystery relatives can speak for the dead, too! What's to stop strangers, in fact, from filing a veto without even telling Mom or Dad about you or the veto. How will this veto be administered? Is it a passive veto? Or does the state track down mom, dad, grandparents, aunts, uncles to chit-chat about your worthiness quotient?
Do these deformers not realize how dangerous this is?
For years real bastard advocates have been fighting the deformer-created "special rights" disclosure veto doctrine they love more than their own rights--or rather YOUR rights. Now a new generation of deformers--some of whom have actually worked on and helped win clean bills in New Hampshire and Maine and know the sweet smell of success-- for some inexplicable reason want to expand that "special right" to collateral relatives. Once that happens, Rhode Island will never reach back into that black hole and pick up is left behinds.
Maybe there's some grand strategy that the rest of us are just too plumb dumb to see. Like that grand strategy in California that would have amended their piece-a-crap on the floor?
Sometimes something is not better than nothing.
A Later Thought: What's wrong with asking for what you want and sticking with it? Do these people go shopping for a 2010 BMW and walk out of the dealership, all too happy with a 1987 Yugo?