February 9, 1998
To The Editor of the Tacoma News Tribune:
I have read several times over your op-ed piece "Adoption privacy must be honored" and frankly, I am quite disappointed. The editorial board of the News Tribune has every right to inform its readers of its opinion that the birth certificates of adult adoptees need to remain sealed. It also has a duty, however, to present its readers an informed opinion based in fact and current case law, not spurious and unsubstantiated bytes regarding the history and practice of adoption and open records.
The News Tribune seems particularly concerned with the privacy rights of birth mothers. I find this chivalrous defense of birth mothers curious--sort of like Pat Robertson's spirited defense of Karla Faye Tucker-- since traditionally birth mothers, as a class, are social piriahs. There is nothing in the legal documents that birth parents sign which mention "confidentiality." On the contrary, many birth mothers have been lied to for years by "adoption professionals" claiming that upon the age of majority their relinquished children will be given full access to their records. Where is the News Tribune's outrage at this institutional lie? More to the point, original birth certificates are sealed at the time of adoption--not relinquishment. If a child is never adopted and lingers in the foster system, he or she has full access to their records and can show up on the proverbial doorstep anytime.
Your op-ed piece also neatly forgot to mention a recent court decision: Doe v Sundquist in which the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Tennessee ruled that the right of privacy does not extend to a birth parent who wishes to keep birth information from the very person it pertains--the adoptee. In October the US Supreme Court let this decision stand without comment. Both courts saw what the News Tribune doesn't: the issue is not about search and reunion (something in which many adoptees aren't interested) but about equal access and coverage under the Constitution.
The right to one's own original, unamended, undefaced birth certificate upon request is a civl rights issue. The personal records of nearly 6,000,000 adopted people in this country--their original birth certificates, heritages and genetic histories--are held hostage by outdated laws that declare adopted persons civilly dead, and serve no purpose other than to stop the free flow of public information via public records and to obliterate the ciivil rights of adopted persons.
I have a real problem with reporters and editors who support the continued sealing and inherent secrets in adoption records--a clear violation of the civil rights of adopted people who are denied access to personal information which is easily and legally available to any non- adopted person born the US. The free flow of information is the foundation of the newspaper business. Reporters and editors have gone to jail and even died for this right of access and use. As a former reporter myself, and now a working historian, I have enjoyed the benefits of public records for years. Next time the crack News Tribune I Team decides to write a piece on a land swindle involving a member of the mayor's cabinet and they meander on over to the County Recorder's office to take a look-see at some property transfers, and the functionary at the counter tells them they can't see them because its a violation of somebody's privacy, I am sure that the editor will be pleased as punch that the government is doing its best to keep information that belongs to the public out of the hands of the public. I guess the News Tribune, and the public at large, should just "get on with it," then--just like it tells adoptees and birth mothers to do.
Marley Elizabeth Greiner
Executive Chair, Bastard Nation
Columbus, OH
[ Prev ] [ Up ] [ Open 98 Home Page ] [ Next ]