The Senate Affairs Committee hearing held in Austin on March 27 made strange bedfellows of closed adoptions and abortion.
The committee heard testimony regarding proposed SB329 (a bill sponsored by Senator Brandon Creighton, which, if passed, would give adult adoptees born in Texas the right to access their original birth certificates.) Dozens of birthparents, adoptive parents, adoptees and professionals testified about the negative impact of closed adoption practices and how granting adult adoptees could change Texan lives.
Testimony was also heard with regards to SB1362 (a bill sponsored by Senator Donna Campbell, which, if passed, would simply reiterate the existing requirement that agencies must provide information about the Texas Voluntary Adoption Registry to prospective birthparents and adoptive parents before placement.)
An interesting theme arose, however, in the course of the discussion of SB1362. Senator Donna Campbell, an avowed opponent of adoptee OBC access, attempted to make the argument that opening adoption records for adoptees would somehow be a violation of birthmothers' rights to privacy and that such practices would result in catastrophic increases in abortion rates here in Texas.
And then, she even invoked a privacy standard cited in Whalen v. Roe in her argument for closed adoption-- despite the obvious fact that prescription drug monitoring and adoption entail two very different forms of privacy concerns.
The proposed SB329 includes a provision that would allow birthmothers to document their wishes to be contacted or not be contacted by the adult adoptee receiving their original birth certificate.
Statistics from states that already do have open records bills show that there is no correllation between open records and rising abortion rates in those states-- and that more than 99% of birthmothers are receptive to some level of contact with their placed child/ren. Even mothers who placed years ago, in what has come to be called the Baby Scoop Era, indicate that they are open contact, even if just to share information and confirm the well-being of the child/ren placed so long ago. They just prefer that it be discreet, and not as public as being found with DNA and social media.
That most birthmothers now welcome contact is likely a reflection of the fact that social mores have changed dramatically, and the trend of most adoptions nowadays to entail some level of openness and some degree of communication following placement.
Campbell argues that her bill, which she euphemistically named the "Mothers Privacy Protection Act," somehow protects mothers who place; yet it seems that the actual intent of her proposed legislation is not to protect birthmothers nor adoptees, but rather, the interests of adoptive parents in closed adoptions?
In order to legally place a child for adoption in the State of Texas, a mother must vow to forever relinquish any and all rights in relation to the child being surrendered. Legally, the act of relinquishment irrevocably severs any parental relationship she has to her own child, effectively making her no longer a mother in any legal sense of that word.
It seems curious, then, that Campbell would choose such an emotionally-loaded title for her bill?
Furthermore, Campbell's argument about the privacy "rights" of birthmothers is also fools' gold. If a mother must forfeit all her rights in order for her child to be adopted, what entitles her to have the right of privacy legally restored to her when the adoptee turns eighteen and needs to know who his or her first parent was?
If an adoption decision must always be made in the best interests of the child, why should that adoptee's best interests take second seat to a birthmother's wish for privacy, decades later?
The fact is: most adoptees are naturally hesitant to intrude on a birthparent's privacy and go to extreme lengths to ascertain whether or not contact would be welcome before ever seeking reunion. The triad members who are typically most apprehensive and fearful of adoption reunion after a closed adoption has occurred are neither birthparents nor adoptees, but adoptive parents.
Several crisis pregnancy centers sent representatives to Austin on March 27 to attest to their opinions that making original birth certificates available to adult adoptees in Texas would cause young girls who are dealing with crisis pregnancies flock to abortion clinics rather than make adoption plans.
No research was cited to support this notion, of course-- because it isn't true, and therefore doesn't exist. Abortion rates have actually fallen in the states which do have open adoption records laws. (By the same token, closed adoptions are almost unheard of anymore, because so few parents willing to place will even consider doing a closed adoption.)
In Abrazo's experience, most birthmothers are not "young girls" but single parents between the ages of twenty and forty-- and even mothers who are pregnant as a result of sexual assault or incest still express an interest in wanting to know where their child gets placed and with whom. As Abrazo's director testified before the senate state affairs committee on March 27: "birthmothers love the children they place for adoption. They have no reason to fear them."
Furthermore, the mothers who contact Abrazo about making adoption plans very rarely contact adoption agencies early in pregnancy, because at the point that one discovers they are unexpectedly expecting, any consideration of the abortion option is about deciding whether or not to be pregnant. At the point that one starts looking into placing a child for adoption, one is deciding whether or not to parent. Those are two different decisions, which are typically made at two different times.
Open adoption doesn't induce women to decide for or against abortion. Likewise, perpetuation of the archaic and outdated practices of closed adoption will do nothing to inspire more women to have abortions nor to place children for adoption. (And we assert this truth as an organization that will always advocate for mothers choosing adoption over abortion.)
Attempting to hide an anti-adoptee-rights agenda behind the pro-life banner is misguided at best, and reprehensible at worst. Please urge your Texas lawmakers to support legislation that provides much-needed alternatives to all Texans who are subject to victimization by both closed adoptions and abortion.
The committee heard testimony regarding proposed SB329 (a bill sponsored by Senator Brandon Creighton, which, if passed, would give adult adoptees born in Texas the right to access their original birth certificates.) Dozens of birthparents, adoptive parents, adoptees and professionals testified about the negative impact of closed adoption practices and how granting adult adoptees could change Texan lives.
Testimony was also heard with regards to SB1362 (a bill sponsored by Senator Donna Campbell, which, if passed, would simply reiterate the existing requirement that agencies must provide information about the Texas Voluntary Adoption Registry to prospective birthparents and adoptive parents before placement.)
An interesting theme arose, however, in the course of the discussion of SB1362. Senator Donna Campbell, an avowed opponent of adoptee OBC access, attempted to make the argument that opening adoption records for adoptees would somehow be a violation of birthmothers' rights to privacy and that such practices would result in catastrophic increases in abortion rates here in Texas.
And then, she even invoked a privacy standard cited in Whalen v. Roe in her argument for closed adoption-- despite the obvious fact that prescription drug monitoring and adoption entail two very different forms of privacy concerns.
Do birthmothers have a legal right to privacy after placing?
The proposed SB329 includes a provision that would allow birthmothers to document their wishes to be contacted or not be contacted by the adult adoptee receiving their original birth certificate.
Statistics from states that already do have open records bills show that there is no correllation between open records and rising abortion rates in those states-- and that more than 99% of birthmothers are receptive to some level of contact with their placed child/ren. Even mothers who placed years ago, in what has come to be called the Baby Scoop Era, indicate that they are open contact, even if just to share information and confirm the well-being of the child/ren placed so long ago. They just prefer that it be discreet, and not as public as being found with DNA and social media.
That most birthmothers now welcome contact is likely a reflection of the fact that social mores have changed dramatically, and the trend of most adoptions nowadays to entail some level of openness and some degree of communication following placement.
In order to legally place a child for adoption in the State of Texas, a mother must vow to forever relinquish any and all rights in relation to the child being surrendered. Legally, the act of relinquishment irrevocably severs any parental relationship she has to her own child, effectively making her no longer a mother in any legal sense of that word.
It seems curious, then, that Campbell would choose such an emotionally-loaded title for her bill?
Furthermore, Campbell's argument about the privacy "rights" of birthmothers is also fools' gold. If a mother must forfeit all her rights in order for her child to be adopted, what entitles her to have the right of privacy legally restored to her when the adoptee turns eighteen and needs to know who his or her first parent was?
If an adoption decision must always be made in the best interests of the child, why should that adoptee's best interests take second seat to a birthmother's wish for privacy, decades later?
The fact is: most adoptees are naturally hesitant to intrude on a birthparent's privacy and go to extreme lengths to ascertain whether or not contact would be welcome before ever seeking reunion. The triad members who are typically most apprehensive and fearful of adoption reunion after a closed adoption has occurred are neither birthparents nor adoptees, but adoptive parents.
Does closed adoption make more girls and women want to be birthmothers?
Several crisis pregnancy centers sent representatives to Austin on March 27 to attest to their opinions that making original birth certificates available to adult adoptees in Texas would cause young girls who are dealing with crisis pregnancies flock to abortion clinics rather than make adoption plans.
No research was cited to support this notion, of course-- because it isn't true, and therefore doesn't exist. Abortion rates have actually fallen in the states which do have open adoption records laws. (By the same token, closed adoptions are almost unheard of anymore, because so few parents willing to place will even consider doing a closed adoption.)
In Abrazo's experience, most birthmothers are not "young girls" but single parents between the ages of twenty and forty-- and even mothers who are pregnant as a result of sexual assault or incest still express an interest in wanting to know where their child gets placed and with whom. As Abrazo's director testified before the senate state affairs committee on March 27: "birthmothers love the children they place for adoption. They have no reason to fear them."
Furthermore, the mothers who contact Abrazo about making adoption plans very rarely contact adoption agencies early in pregnancy, because at the point that one discovers they are unexpectedly expecting, any consideration of the abortion option is about deciding whether or not to be pregnant. At the point that one starts looking into placing a child for adoption, one is deciding whether or not to parent. Those are two different decisions, which are typically made at two different times.
Open adoption doesn't induce women to decide for or against abortion. Likewise, perpetuation of the archaic and outdated practices of closed adoption will do nothing to inspire more women to have abortions nor to place children for adoption. (And we assert this truth as an organization that will always advocate for mothers choosing adoption over abortion.)
Attempting to hide an anti-adoptee-rights agenda behind the pro-life banner is misguided at best, and reprehensible at worst. Please urge your Texas lawmakers to support legislation that provides much-needed alternatives to all Texans who are subject to victimization by both closed adoptions and abortion.
Senator, Dr. Donna Campbell was sure picking on me, even gave me a dirty look. I was the one she directed the question to, which, unless I was involved in constitutional law would know nothing about. Then, she told me a reply was not necessary. I was being respectful and let it go until I could look it up. In fact, I am sure all the other attorneys in the room had to look it up as well. I was able to discredit this vile attempt to discredit my testimony in my SB329 testimony. I was also able to obtain a written legal opinion from an attorney specializing in adoption reform law. She is a piece of work. You would expect opposition by real facts but not a cheap courtroom trick in he hallowed halls of the Texas State Senate. I guess when real facts are not available any dirty trick will suffice.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your wonderful blog. It was spot on. I posted to my FB page.
ReplyDeleteIt's a pretty safe assumption that closed records have resulted in more abortions than people like Donna Campbell could imagine. When adoptees themselves choose abortion, it's time to sit up and take notice!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/adopteecivilrightsresourcecenter/photos/a.721777557909062.1073741831.529856490434504/1359081674178644/?type=3&theater