Sunday, September 03, 2006
Back to the ISSUES...
...
I was asked in a comment: "What actually has been achieved by way of adoption reform in the past 30 years?"
I have given pieces of the answer in a couple of comment replies.
First of all, when comparing AU to the US, you need to realize that AU has had open records since 1988 in South Australia....and the had it UNILATERALLY for both adoptees and their mothers. They could THEN work on going further. We still have 46 states to go in getting open records....and don't even DARE ask for them to be open to mothers (more on this below).
Further: "After the passing of the Adoption Act 1988 in South Australia, it gradually became clear to the government that the long term impact on family members who had been separated by adoption could not be ignored and so steps were taken to provide post-adoption services. Steps were also taken to re-examine whether or not adoption was an appropriate outcome for families in difficulties. With the passing of the Children’s Protection Act 1993, the South Australian government made it clear that they were willing to put resources into family preservation and into creating alternative options for children at risk, which would be genuinely child-centred. Since that time, numbers of adoptions in South Australia have reduced steadily." Evelyn Robinson's International Conference on Child Rights
Bucharest, Romania. February 2006
All of this PRIOR to any inquirey? Is that correct? We are in the dark ages compared to that!
Besides fighting for open records here in the US...in the beginning the major focus was on search and support. We were finding one another and our kids (or mothers) in the dark without the Internet...and in a very hostile atmosphere. If you don’t know: at least one person, Sandy Muser, was actually JAILED for helping mothers search! Back then, just searching was very, very controversial and an act of civil disobedience to say the least. Today it is something most people take pretty much for granted. When I say we were pioneers, I mean it! We paved the road. We dared to appear on national TV and tell the world that we were birthmothers - look at us!
Then as now, there were controversial issues within the adoption reform movement as well. Those mothers, such as myself, who were in this from the beginning, were all mothers of MINOR children. It is one thing for BN to speak about open records for ADULTS. We were searching for and finding YOUNG KIDS! There were those within the movement that were scared stiff that we would bring so much heat to the whole search movement...and in fact minor search probably did lead to Sandy's arrest. But we were not in denial, and once that door is open you can't close it. From the minute I found out it was possible to find my daughter, nothing was going to stop me. And the more I heard of mothers finding out their kids had died in infancy or in car crashes as teens, or were in bad adoptive homes...the less ability I had to wait until she was 18! It wasn't going to be any more "legal" when she was 18 - so why wait? But that was very controversial. WE were the radical outlaws even within our own movement.
There was major controversy in CUB during Carol Anderson's tenure over whether CUB should support any open records bill that didn’t open the records mutually for mothers AND adoptees. The articles, the opinions, the disagreements on that issue! CUB came close to being disbanded and I think that was part of the reason...Carole was far more radical than other CUBers.
All of the inner conflicts then - as now - slow down real progress in groups that have very limited resources to begin with. In the end, they are all a part of any organization or grassroots movement's history and growth.
But it is important to see them as ISSUES and not take any of it personally. If someone disagrees with your opinion, it just means they see things differently. Not all Democrats agree with one another. Not all Republicans. Often legislatures vote against a bill not because they are against the issue, but because it doesn’t go far enough.
The same is true today of BN who opposes some open records legislation in some states because it doesn’t go "far enough" ...is not a "clean bill" because to may contain a veto or some such. This again causes dissention often between the AAC and BN. One may be supporting a bill the other comes out publicly and opposes. And while there are those who disagree with BN, we all UNDERSTAND their positon BECUASE they have spelled out and very clearly articualted their position with logical reasons why they have chosen that path. Ad, they are printing an article I worte in ther upcoming newsletter that disagrees with a position of theirs.
There is no ONE, TRUE or RIGHT way. There are differing opinions...between groups and between individuals within groups. AND…even within the same individual over time! Diane Turski re-wrote her famous "Birthmother as Breeder" article. I have changed opinions on issues over the years. We all do because it's part of learning and GROWTH.
Ya gotta just get used to it. It's part of the process. And it can be a very educational and informative part of the process if you can learn to listen the ISSUES and not take things personally as an insult because someone disagrees with a particular path toward adoption reform. And, discussing them among ourselves helps us to further fine-tune our arguments so we can present them to others outside the movement. When I ask questions about not using the “b” word – I am asking to learn and answering me helps a lot more than asking me why I’m asking or being defensive and seeing a question as a criticism.
A personal observation: In the past, people have walked out of groups...quit over personal/poliictal differences, etc. Groups have totally disbanded. But it seems to me that things have been more ANGRY lately. More militant, more RUDE. More demanding of "my way or the highway" attitude than I have ever experienced previosuly. BN does things that others disagree with (and sometimes really piss off people who have spent YEARS trying to get a bill inyroduced) but they have never DEMANDED that others follow their way of doing things, they just do their thing. I have never experienced the level of nastiness, sarcasm, abruptness, unwillingness to discuss issues...and just plain MEANNESS that I have seen recently. Either that, or I am going senile and have forgotten! :-)
Please don't see this last observation as reason to ARGUE with me about my observation or to take it as an atack. It's not. It is what it is...a personal observation, from my own vantage point. I named no one or no group. Your experience may be very different. Nor do I want to hear "they started it" type schoolyard arguments. Those are really just a childish waste of time and energy.
The best thing anyone readng this can do is prove me wrong by NOT being cantankerous!
And please let's remember:
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard(er) battle.
Plato
I was asked in a comment: "What actually has been achieved by way of adoption reform in the past 30 years?"
I have given pieces of the answer in a couple of comment replies.
First of all, when comparing AU to the US, you need to realize that AU has had open records since 1988 in South Australia....and the had it UNILATERALLY for both adoptees and their mothers. They could THEN work on going further. We still have 46 states to go in getting open records....and don't even DARE ask for them to be open to mothers (more on this below).
Further: "After the passing of the Adoption Act 1988 in South Australia, it gradually became clear to the government that the long term impact on family members who had been separated by adoption could not be ignored and so steps were taken to provide post-adoption services. Steps were also taken to re-examine whether or not adoption was an appropriate outcome for families in difficulties. With the passing of the Children’s Protection Act 1993, the South Australian government made it clear that they were willing to put resources into family preservation and into creating alternative options for children at risk, which would be genuinely child-centred. Since that time, numbers of adoptions in South Australia have reduced steadily." Evelyn Robinson's International Conference on Child Rights
Bucharest, Romania. February 2006
All of this PRIOR to any inquirey? Is that correct? We are in the dark ages compared to that!
Besides fighting for open records here in the US...in the beginning the major focus was on search and support. We were finding one another and our kids (or mothers) in the dark without the Internet...and in a very hostile atmosphere. If you don’t know: at least one person, Sandy Muser, was actually JAILED for helping mothers search! Back then, just searching was very, very controversial and an act of civil disobedience to say the least. Today it is something most people take pretty much for granted. When I say we were pioneers, I mean it! We paved the road. We dared to appear on national TV and tell the world that we were birthmothers - look at us!
Then as now, there were controversial issues within the adoption reform movement as well. Those mothers, such as myself, who were in this from the beginning, were all mothers of MINOR children. It is one thing for BN to speak about open records for ADULTS. We were searching for and finding YOUNG KIDS! There were those within the movement that were scared stiff that we would bring so much heat to the whole search movement...and in fact minor search probably did lead to Sandy's arrest. But we were not in denial, and once that door is open you can't close it. From the minute I found out it was possible to find my daughter, nothing was going to stop me. And the more I heard of mothers finding out their kids had died in infancy or in car crashes as teens, or were in bad adoptive homes...the less ability I had to wait until she was 18! It wasn't going to be any more "legal" when she was 18 - so why wait? But that was very controversial. WE were the radical outlaws even within our own movement.
There was major controversy in CUB during Carol Anderson's tenure over whether CUB should support any open records bill that didn’t open the records mutually for mothers AND adoptees. The articles, the opinions, the disagreements on that issue! CUB came close to being disbanded and I think that was part of the reason...Carole was far more radical than other CUBers.
All of the inner conflicts then - as now - slow down real progress in groups that have very limited resources to begin with. In the end, they are all a part of any organization or grassroots movement's history and growth.
But it is important to see them as ISSUES and not take any of it personally. If someone disagrees with your opinion, it just means they see things differently. Not all Democrats agree with one another. Not all Republicans. Often legislatures vote against a bill not because they are against the issue, but because it doesn’t go far enough.
The same is true today of BN who opposes some open records legislation in some states because it doesn’t go "far enough" ...is not a "clean bill" because to may contain a veto or some such. This again causes dissention often between the AAC and BN. One may be supporting a bill the other comes out publicly and opposes. And while there are those who disagree with BN, we all UNDERSTAND their positon BECUASE they have spelled out and very clearly articualted their position with logical reasons why they have chosen that path. Ad, they are printing an article I worte in ther upcoming newsletter that disagrees with a position of theirs.
There is no ONE, TRUE or RIGHT way. There are differing opinions...between groups and between individuals within groups. AND…even within the same individual over time! Diane Turski re-wrote her famous "Birthmother as Breeder" article. I have changed opinions on issues over the years. We all do because it's part of learning and GROWTH.
Ya gotta just get used to it. It's part of the process. And it can be a very educational and informative part of the process if you can learn to listen the ISSUES and not take things personally as an insult because someone disagrees with a particular path toward adoption reform. And, discussing them among ourselves helps us to further fine-tune our arguments so we can present them to others outside the movement. When I ask questions about not using the “b” word – I am asking to learn and answering me helps a lot more than asking me why I’m asking or being defensive and seeing a question as a criticism.
A personal observation: In the past, people have walked out of groups...quit over personal/poliictal differences, etc. Groups have totally disbanded. But it seems to me that things have been more ANGRY lately. More militant, more RUDE. More demanding of "my way or the highway" attitude than I have ever experienced previosuly. BN does things that others disagree with (and sometimes really piss off people who have spent YEARS trying to get a bill inyroduced) but they have never DEMANDED that others follow their way of doing things, they just do their thing. I have never experienced the level of nastiness, sarcasm, abruptness, unwillingness to discuss issues...and just plain MEANNESS that I have seen recently. Either that, or I am going senile and have forgotten! :-)
Please don't see this last observation as reason to ARGUE with me about my observation or to take it as an atack. It's not. It is what it is...a personal observation, from my own vantage point. I named no one or no group. Your experience may be very different. Nor do I want to hear "they started it" type schoolyard arguments. Those are really just a childish waste of time and energy.
The best thing anyone readng this can do is prove me wrong by NOT being cantankerous!
And please let's remember:
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard(er) battle.
Plato
# posted by Senior Mom @ 2:19 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Mmmmm...so in essence nothing has been achieved over the past thirty years?
Whatever approaches have been made over the past 30 years clearly isn't working.
Don't you think it's time for a new political approach, one that encourages all mothers to finally stand up and be counted and to have those wretched past adoption practices that denied us both our legal and human rights, which effectively raped us of our babies, addressed?
Isn't it time to dispel the myths that keep mothers crushed and oppressed and disentitled?
Isn't it time to stop playing the oppressive adoption game by deferring to ourselves as 'birth mothers' and instead take back our rightful titles of natural mother, real mother, MOTHER, instead of cow towing to the industry that swindled us out of our chldren?
Anon 1
Whatever approaches have been made over the past 30 years clearly isn't working.
Don't you think it's time for a new political approach, one that encourages all mothers to finally stand up and be counted and to have those wretched past adoption practices that denied us both our legal and human rights, which effectively raped us of our babies, addressed?
Isn't it time to dispel the myths that keep mothers crushed and oppressed and disentitled?
Isn't it time to stop playing the oppressive adoption game by deferring to ourselves as 'birth mothers' and instead take back our rightful titles of natural mother, real mother, MOTHER, instead of cow towing to the industry that swindled us out of our chldren?
Anon 1
# posted by 
: 7:16 PM
: 7:16 PM
Mirah said: First of all, when comparing AU to the US, you need to realize that AU has had open records since 1988 in South Australia....and the had it UNILATERALLY for both adoptees and their mothers."
I'm quite aware of Au adoption history. Victoria was the first State to open records in 1985. All other States followed suit between 1988 and 1991. mothers obtained unilateral rights s to identifying infomration as a result of the role they played in opening records by publicly exposing the lifelong grief they lived with as a result of closed records in never being allowed to even know if their babies were dead or alive.
Mirah said: They could THEN work on going further. We still have 46 states to go in getting open records....
it was Origins Au who did the research to discover that those past adoptionpractices were not only cruel an dhuman but were actually illegal. None of the previous organizations who pushed for open recirds had anything to do with exposing the fraud. In fact they have actively sought to avoid similar Parliamentary inquiries into those illegal prcedures. In fact they encourage their member to beleive that if they signed the consent they made the decision. Piffle! Mothers signed the consent because they were given no alternative but adoption. AND they signed the consent AFTER their rights had already been contravened. Which of course constitutes fraud.
Mirah said: and don't even DARE ask for them to be open to mothers (more on this below)."
Why not????
Anon 1
Post a Comment
I'm quite aware of Au adoption history. Victoria was the first State to open records in 1985. All other States followed suit between 1988 and 1991. mothers obtained unilateral rights s to identifying infomration as a result of the role they played in opening records by publicly exposing the lifelong grief they lived with as a result of closed records in never being allowed to even know if their babies were dead or alive.
Mirah said: They could THEN work on going further. We still have 46 states to go in getting open records....
it was Origins Au who did the research to discover that those past adoptionpractices were not only cruel an dhuman but were actually illegal. None of the previous organizations who pushed for open recirds had anything to do with exposing the fraud. In fact they have actively sought to avoid similar Parliamentary inquiries into those illegal prcedures. In fact they encourage their member to beleive that if they signed the consent they made the decision. Piffle! Mothers signed the consent because they were given no alternative but adoption. AND they signed the consent AFTER their rights had already been contravened. Which of course constitutes fraud.
Mirah said: and don't even DARE ask for them to be open to mothers (more on this below)."
Why not????
Anon 1
# posted by : 7:35 PM
: 7:35 PM << Home
