This is just plain talk..no cutesy tag lines or clip art. When we say that every person should have the same rights under the law, are we including the mothers? We are not if there are invasive and disrespectful requirements of the mothers that are not also applied to the adopted person and the adopters.
For instance; Jane Doe is a mother whose great, great uncle, John Doe, died of syphillis. It is not something those in the family who know about it talks about. It has no bearing on the health and well-being of the adopted person. It is nobody's business, isn't it?
Or, for insance; Jane went through a rough patch in her marriage and had an ill-advised affair. That is part of her psycho-social history, but is it the business of the state, her adult, surrendered child and that child's adopters?
Or, for instance; No one in Jane's family or in the family of the man who fathered her child has ever had cancer, AS FAR AS THEY KNOW, but her adult, surrendered child develops cervical cancer. Should Jane be held liable?
Bastardette, in her blog about New Jersey bill S799 was direct and to the point. This provision of the bill is "intrusive." It allows for the ultimate kind of disrespect for mothers while tying up the adult adoptee in trying to meet ridiculous requirements in order to know their origins.
The ultimate lie is that this kind of muddying of the legislation for open records is done to "protect the mothers' privacy." Now, tell me how a compulsory medical form requirement from mothers does anything to protect her privacy and to protct her from frivilous lawsuits and liability? This only makes sense if the drafters of this rider to the bill hears strange voices in his/her head. This legislation is another in a long line of state bills that screw the mothers and throw a bone to the adopted citizens. It seems that "equality" is all for the industry and adopters.
There are things in my life that are my business, only..that I would not even share with the children I raised. Why should I be forced to answer these often insulting questions to have them shared with the state and adopters? Oh wouldn't it be boon to adopters, especially, if Jane had, at some point, been exposed to Herpese or gtenital warts. "See," they would say, gleefully, "We told you they were all sluts!" They, of course, won't mention the bout with clamydia that caused their infertility.
To those who draft these bill and then add all these provisions, Make. Up. Your. Minds! Either you are "protecting the mothers' privacy" or you are invading it. You can't have it both ways and you are losing your grip by pitting the adoptees against the mothers. We are noticing and some of us are getting together and talking. Just go ahead and say bye-bye to the adoption industry dollars in your campaign trunks and start getting real.
We mothers from the EMS aren't getting any younger, but over the years, we have become a lot smarter. Think about it.