To the Washington State Chapter of the ACLU:
As an adult citizen of the United States who holds the concepts of liberty and personal choices for ALL American adult citizens very dear, I am writing to express my outrage with your opposition to HB 2810 and SB 6496. These bills are pieces of legislation that would give adult adopted citizens of Washington the ability to obtain a copy of their unaltered original Birth Certificate. Currently, the right of adult adoptees in Washington to obtain their original birth certificate is being violated by antiquated sealed records laws. As an adult adoptee myself, I am totally enraged by your stance on these bills. I cannot imagine how your opposition to these bills is justified as part of the goals of extending liberty to all citizens. What could be more liberating to adult adoptees than recognizing their right to obtain a copy of their original birth certificate, a document that contains the most fundamental piece of information a person can have about oneself?
Contrary to popular notions about sealed records, the sealed records system was NOT established to protect the privacy of birthparents. If that were the case, then original birth certificates would be sealed at the time of a child's relinquishment. Instead, records are sealed at the time of adoption finalization. Clearly, then, the goal of the sealed records system is to protect the adoptee and the adoptive family from unwanted intrusion. Careful scrutiny of HB 2810 and SB 6496 certainly shows that these bills DO NOT interfere with these goals of the sealed records system.
Furthermore, the idea that birthparents were promised confidentiality is false. I challenge the Washington state chapter of the ACLU to identify even one birthmother who has documentation of a promise of confidentiality. In contrast, many birthmothers were promised verbally that the child they relinquished would have access to their records when they reached the age of majority. Obviously, birthmothers were VERBALLY promised a myriad of different things. Why, then, should the perceived right to non-disclosure of a few random birthmothers supersede the right of adult adoptees to obtain a copy of their most fundamental vital document? Indeed, the United States Supreme Court, in Doe vs. Sundquist, has already ruled that the adoptee's right to obtain a copy of their original birth certificate takes precedence over a birthmother's perceived right to non-disclosure. I fail to see how this alleged birthmother privacy concept meshes with the basic tenets of the ACLU.
Finally, I am forced to ask how the ACLU could even consider supporting a system that erects government-backed brick walls between adult citizens: adoptees and birthparents. This system totally oppresses the liberties of adult adoptees and birthparents in making their own choices about with whom to associate. If an adult adoptee locates a birthparent because of information gleaned from his original birth certificate, then that birthparent has the right to refuse continued contact. This is all about ADULT citizens conducting their private lives as they see fit, without unwanted government intrusion. I thought that was the whole concept of liberty; apparently the Washington chapter of the ACLU has formulated a new definition.
Sincerely,
David C. Ansardi, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor
Department of Microbiology
The University of Alabama at Birmingham
[ Prev ] [ Open 98 Home Page ] [ Next ]