Most adoptees have experienced three major traumas which have resulted in many of them having unusual difficulty feeling secure in their identity, their sense of belonging and connectedness, and their feeling of being real, authentic, first class, present, and comfortable with intimacy. They share much in common with abortion survivors (Sonne, 1996). The fact that the birth parents of future adoptees did not keep their children, no matter what the reason, suggests that many adoptees, as unwelcome unborns, experienced their first prenatal trauma as a result of being in an ambivalent parental environment during their life in the womb. In addition to most adoptees probably having experienced a first prenatal trauma, all adoptees have definitely experienced a second trauma by virtue of the postnatal disruption of the emotional bond between them and their birth parents when they were given up for adoption. Most have also experienced a third trauma in the form of a psychological abortion of their identity by virtue of having been given a falsified birth certificate defining them as
the biological children of their adoptive parents.

During adolescence, when adoptees are maturing sexually and going through the stage of identity vs. role confusion, or at a time when they plan to marry, or when they plan to have, or are having, children of their own, many adoptees experience an escalating and almost imperative need to search for their roots. The search is by no means an easy one under the best of circumstances, but finding themselves deprived of access by law from learning the truth about their origins brings to the fore and reinforces their third trauma, a powerful psychological abortion of mind and spirit that has been latent, but is now manifest. The consolidation of this psychological abortion by law forecloses the opportunity for adoptees to address and resolve all three traumas. Without knowing the truth about their origins, many adoptees are unable to use their minds to heal themselves.

There has been intense opposition by some pro-life groups to passage of bills which would authorize adoptees' access to their original birth certificates, based on the presumption that passage would result in an increase in abortion being chosen over adoption by birth parents who are not prepared to raise their children. This was the prediction of Willke (1990), then president of National Right to Life, in his testimony to the Ohio legislature in which he strongly opposed passage of an open access bill, which was, indeed, defeated. Not only is this presumption unsupported by available data, the data documents the opposite. Countries with open access actually have a lower rate of abortion than those who have sealed records (Forrest, 1996). A Canadian study (Daly and Sobel, 1993) showed that abortion and adoption were both decreased. The authors report that more unwed pregnant women are keeping their babies than was the case in past years, and the decrease in adoption was due to this, not due to an increase in abortion. Ridgeway ( 995) reports similar data and conclusions from England.

The anecdotal presentation in hearings this spring in Trenton that some birth mothers
actually threatened to have an abortion unless guaranteed confidentiality is also not
supported by evidence. Again to the contrary, Feinstone (1996), found in a survey of seven adoption agencies in New Jersey that not one of them had ever had a birth mother who expressed such a threat. It has been my clinical experience that a more common reason some women choose abortion over adoption, in addition to other reasons, privacy upon adoption being an unlikely one, is because they fear the pain of relinquishing their new-born child. N.M. (1996), writing in the Adoption Triad Forum, speaks to this, describing her adoption relinquishment as "by far the single most painful event in my life. I've always felt strongly that abortion was wrong. and in an ultimate sense I still do. Yet after going through one unplanned pregnancy that 'ended' with my son being adopted, I knew I could not survive that kind of pain one more time when I became pregnant just 2 months short of my wedding." (italics by N.M.) She chose to abort. Closed records actually increase the fear of relinquishment because they confirm to the birth mother that she will never again see her child. Most birth parents miss their children, worry and grieve about them, and would welcome contact. Gioglio (1996) to the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services reported that out of 322 birth family members contacted from 1992 through 1996, predominantly birth parents and siblings, there were 289 in-person reunions, and 10 by-mail reunions. Only 14 refused contact, and 10 were deceased.

Since the presumption of some pro-life opponents of an increase in abortion upon open
access is unsupported by evidence, it can be discredited as a fantasy, and dismissed. There remains, however, a component of the position of pro-life opponents of access which deserves serious attention, and which actually threatens the viability, integrity and consistency of the right to life movement This is the inherent contradiction in the position of those who oppose abortion, support a right to life, and yet do not support adoptees' access. Dedicated to saving the lives of unborn children from physical abortion prenatally, but opposed to adoptees' right to know, and to their right to have access to their original birth certificates, they are paradoxically unwittingly sanctioning a psychological abortion of the minds and souls of some of these same saved children who happened to have become adoptees after having been born alive.

Please reconsider your position it you are opposed to access. I know your intentions are good. However, saving the lives of the unborn is not enough if the souls and minds of some of them are damaged subsequently. I also know that you believe that there is more to life than a material existence. The adoptee is not magically born again by the act of sealing his original birth certificate and issuing a false one. To the contrary, his birth is denied and erased. His original identity is psychologically aborted.. The same might be said of the identities of birth and adoptive parents, and also their nuclear and extended families. I believe that pro-life opposition to passage of these bills is not only harming adoptees, birth and adoptive parents, and their families, but that it will also harm the pro-life movement in the long run as more and more people realize the contradictions contained in a position such as this taken by anyone who professes respect for the sanctity of life.

                                  REFERENCES

    Daly, K.J., and Sobol, M.P., (1993), Adoption in Canada: Final Report. National Adoption Study, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario NIG 2W1.

    Feinstone, L. (1996), Survey of seven adoption agencies: No instances of threat by pregnant women to abort unless guaranteed privacy upon adoption. Personal communication, July 2.

    Forest, B. (1996) , Chart of Abortion Rates in Countries with Open Access to Original Birth Certificates. Now Jersey Assembly Community Services Committee, March 4th.

    Gioglio, G. (1996), Report of the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services. New Jersey Assembly Community Services Committee, March 4th.

    N. M. (1996), Letter. Adoption Triad Forum, 5, No. 3: p.5. Ridgeway, J. (1995), Letter on England's Adoption Act of 1976 to Pamela Hasegawa. New Jersey Coalition for Openness in Adoption, November 29.

    Sonne, J.C. (1996), Interpreting the dread of being aborted in therapy. International Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Medicine. In Press.

    Willke, J. C. (1990). Testimony, State Senate Hearing, HB 256, Columbus, Ohio, August 22. National Right to Life Committee, Inc., Washington, D.C.

    Doctor Sonne is a psychoanalyst and family therapist who has written extensively on issues of custody, adoption, foster care, abortion, and the deleterious effects of third party insurance on psychotherapy, He is currently Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Senior Attending at the Institute of the Pennsylvania Hospital, and Director of Family Therapy at Cooper Hospital in Camden. In addition to his research and teaching activities, he has been in private practice for over forty years. Doctor Sonne presented testimony in support of A-742 and S-287 to the Assembly Community Services Committee on March 4th, 1996, and to the Senate Committee on Women's issues, Children, and Family Services. on March 14th, 1996.
 
 

This date commemorates the day when Oregon adoptees were able to recover access to their original birth certificates following the successof Measure 58 ballot initiative.
 Adopted adults and those who support them gather for an hour in front of Vital Records Offices around the United States, handing out flyers on open records for adult adoptees, educating the public, and symbolically trying to get a copy of their original birth certificate via phone mail or fax around the nation. Adoptive and Birth family members are encouraged to participate.

If you are unable to visit the Vital Records Office in your state of birth, it would be helpful to write a letter or telephone the  appropriate vital records office in your state of birth. Ask them to keep your letter ON FILE with your birth certificate awaiting the day when your state of birth makes adoptees'  original birth certificates available to them. BIRTHFAMILY members are also encouraged to WRITE to STATE  registrars, updating their name, address, phone number, email and asking that that information be attached to the adoptees' birth record file. It is suggested that all request be notarized to emphasize legitimacy.  All letters should be mailed by November 27, 1999 to ensure that they arrive by December 3.

 To obtain the address of the state registrar of vital statistics
 in the state of the adoptee's birth, consult the following
 webpage(s) for the address, fee, etc.

 http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww/howto/w2w/w2welcom.htm

 http://www.vitalrec.com/
 
 

November 3, 1998 Measure 58, which allows adoptees 21 and older access to  their original birth certificates for the first time, is passed by voters. When the law goes into effect, the state vital records section of the Oregon Health Division will begin filling the 895 requests for birth certificates filed by adoptees since voters approved the measure last November third. The measure passed by a healthy margin of 57% to 43%, repealing a 1957 law.

The success of Measure 58 in Oregon demonstrates that the general public supports opening records to adult adoptees. Other adoption reform organizations have attempted to achieve the same result for over 20 years without a single success by relying on registries and intermediary systems that addressed the issue in psychological terms of search and reunion. Oregon now joins three other states, Tennessee Kansas and Alaska, as well as many nations around the world including England, Argentina, and most of Australia, in recognizing an adult adoptee's right to access the government-held record of their birth.

The measure is significant because it frames the issue in terms of civil rights, fairness, and equal protection of the law rather than in terms of psychological need or medical necessity. This is the first time in our government’s history that an initiative has been placed on a statewide ballot  to restore the right of adopted adults to request and receive their original birth certificate. It is also the first time a sealed records law has been repealed in the United States. Kansas and Alaska never sealed original birth certificates.

July 27, 1999 Marion County Circuit Judge Paul Lipscomb denied the request to keep the law inactive        while the birth mothers appeal their case in a higher court. He also rejected their request for a 14-day delay so that they could ask the Oregon Court of Appeals to issue a longer  stay.  "There is no further reason to delay the people's will for putting Measure 58 into effect," he said after a 30-minute hearing held by conference call with attorneys. "It is my strong belief that matters of public policy are for the Legislature and people and not for the courts (to determine)." (Wednesday, July 28, 1999 By Bill Graves of The Oregonian staff) Then on July 30, 1999, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay of Measure 58 while it considers if the law should be continued to be blocked during an appeal.  The State Appeals Court replies on August 13, 1999 by putting Measure 58 on hold for 90 days while constitutional challenges are reviewed.  Chief Judge Mary Deits announced on September 7, 1999 that the court will hear oral arguments on November 22.  However, Measure 58 will remain on hold until January 31, 2000.

Side Note
Oregon Department of Vital Records has devised a FAQ to address questions for adoptees seeking to apply for their  records under the newly passed Measure 58. The FAQ is  located at :
 http://www.ohd.hr.state.or.us/cdpe/chs/certif/preadopt.htm
 
 

Newsletters | Adoption Articles | Adoption Crossroads HomePage