Anger and betrayal.

It’s always depressing to see one oppressed group sell out the rights of another. Well, unless you’re the one oppressing them, I guess. So I bet the boys of the far right get a pretty massive woody every time groups like the ACLU, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood screw over the civil rights of adult adoptees in a misguided attempt to protect the “privacy” and “reproductive rights” of first parents.

I’m not going to go through the arguments here. If you don’t know them, it’s pretty simple: adoption is not a reproductive rights issue, and nobody has the right to be anonymous from their offspring (unless you would like to overturn every paternity suit ever filed). By taking adoption as a reproductive rights issue, pro-choice groups are playing into the hands of the pro-lifers. By opposing adoptees’ efforts to pass open records legislation, these groups, along with the ACLU, have actually allied themselves with the Family Research Council, the American Life League, and Pat Robertson, for crying out loud. Thanks a lot, you dumbasses.

The thing is, I had known about the ACLU (which always struck me as a rather shady organization, in spite of agreeing with them on most issues) selling me down the river, but I hadn’t thought about adoptee activism in quite a while and I was completely unaware of being sold out by pro-choice organizations that I had been actively supporting. Recent events with my own search renewed my interest in adoptee civil rights activism, and what a shock it was to find this out.

Today, actually. Man, do I feel stupid.

The Unitarian Universalist church of which I am a member collects money on a fairly regular basis for Planned Parenthood. I will be campaigning against that until they change their position on adoptee rights, as it goes against the first of the 7 principles covenanted by the Unitarian Universalist Association: the inherent worth and dignity of every person.

Why am I taking this so personally? I circumvented my closed adoption to discover that my natural mother died of breast cancer at the age of 51. Breast cancer genes can be passed through fathers. I have a little girl. That information could save her life, and these groups that claim to support women’s rights would deny her right to have it. They would deny her dignity and worth.


8 Responses to “Anger and betrayal.”

  1. 1 joyjoy June 23, 2007 at 2:04 am

    How did you find the evidence of their stance, I need the evidence.

  2. 2 iBastard June 23, 2007 at 2:11 am

    Adoptee rights activism organizations like Bastard Nation. Hey, if that’s wrong I would jump up and down with relief.

    (Updated with better link.)

  3. 3 Robert Hafetz June 23, 2007 at 9:59 am

    I have been working for the past 2 years on New Jerses effort to unseal adoption records. The ACLU Has sent a spokesperson at every hearing to oppose us. They have been so poor in their presentations that I would consider asking them to continue. Their publically stated original position is their concern for the “right of privacy” for birth mothers. We challanged them to cite the law that grants such a right and they admitted publically they could not. Then we brought their attention to the Oregon Court Of Appeals ruling that no roght of pocreational privacy exists and states can open records and not infringe on the rights of birth mothers. The ACLU now advocates for a “reasonable expectation” of privacy. They have also been unable to produce a single birth mother to come forth and testify at any hearings. Then in closed door talks their true position came out; they are afraid adoption lawyers will be sued if records are usealed. The American Bar Assoc. also takes this position and is working against us. Adoption lawyers have used some unethical practices in the adoption. One is to promise the birth mother llifetime secrecy even knowing they had no right to make such a promise. Then there is the manipulation and coersion we are all too familiar with. What we have are lawyers covering their asses at our expense. The ACLU doesnt give a damn about the civil rights of adoptees and their mothers to use their right of freedom of assembly to find each other if they choose to. They defend Nazis, child molestors, Islamic killers, but when it comes to adoptees and their birthrights, our civil rights dont matter.

  4. 4 Sue June 23, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    This is some kind of twisted political move. I’ve worked for them so I know from the inside that PP is so NOT pro-adoption. The only reason they even talk about the “adoption option” is because the right puts them under so much pressure to do so. They consider it a woman’s right NOT to be pregnant (and I fully agree with them. but the right is on the other side of the debate and has caused them to lose tons of money. The money we might withhold over this issue does not compare)

    This must be an attempt to pander to those who hate their pro-abortion stance, as if to say more women would carry to term and surrender for adoption if they could be more assured of anonymity. Which is absolute BS. The reasons women gave me for not wanting to carry a child was the sure knowledge that they would not be able to surrender, that they could not get to know a child inside them, then give them away and live a life of knowing what they had done and NOT knowing where their child went.

    A choice between two difficult options, early abortion or giving up a child was a no brainer to so many women. But the Right and the adoption industry wants women to be baby machines no matter what the cost. And PP is actually playing into that shit with this stance.

  5. 5 Sue June 23, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    PS I just reread what I wrote and started to argue with myself. I said, “…they could not get to know a child inside them, then give them away and live a life of knowing what they had done and NOT knowing where their child went.” to which we were supposed to reply, but what about open adoption? To which they would often just shake their heads considering the prospect of watching someone else love their child. And that would be when the open adoptors are ethical and actually stay in touch.

  6. 6 Sue June 23, 2007 at 3:35 pm

    PPS I am intentionally using the anti adoption industry language. I was supposed to make sure I said things like “Have you considered making an adoption plan”? to which they would reply “I could never give my baby away.”

  7. 7 joyjoy June 25, 2007 at 2:04 am

    See I have heard the same thing regarding NARAL and Planned Parenthood from BN but have not been able to find it on their platform.

  8. 8 Bastardette July 12, 2007 at 6:53 am

    Planned Parenthood ACLU, , National Right to Life, etc, like many organizations do not have a specific policy on records access. Those policies are left to individual state or local branches. Only the Oakland County, MI and Central Florida (?) ACLU’s have endorsed records access and that was over 20 years ago. The issue has been divisive in NRTL pitting NRTL co-founders Dr. John Willke against Dr John Sonne They were close friends at one time, and now don’t speak due to Sonne’s insistance that sealed records is “psychological abortion.” Not a term I’d use, but it’s interesting. And Willke is a whack job of the worst sort. I sat through his testimony at a hearing in the Ohio Leg last year on a bill to outlaw abortion in the state, and it was as creepy as it gets I wrote a long article on it for the Columbus Free Press. He describes the miracle of conception as an ant invading a basketball.

    I’m very interested to learn that the real fear from the ACLU is that adoption lawyers ers might be sued. Awwwwwww!!!!!!!! Really. That never occured to me. coming from them.

    There’s a couple things to keep in mind, too. (1) Much of hte ACLU’s fear of adoptees comes from NCFA. Blll Pierce was a lifelong member of the ACLU and until he went over to the Dark Side in 1980, was a genuine card carrying New Deal liberal, and in many ways remained one. His interests in privacy rights pre-dates NCFA and adoption policy by decades (as did ACLU’s adopteephobia). . But he was able to mold NCFA “facts” to fit ACLU’s fears. (2) The ACLU hierarchy is full of adopters.

    While I’m at it, Planned Parenthood and other “pro-choice” agencies agreed with the ACLJ’s appeal in Sundquist, but didn’t sign on as amica. I have a copy of statement that a coalition of repro rights folks issued in support. I think they just didn’t’ want to get in bed publicly with Pat Robertson, FRC, CC, and the Eagle Forum.

    I’ve written about NOW beating up first moms on the Daily Bastardette NOW can be really good on a local level, but national still sucks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: