Archive for July, 2007


July 29, 2007

How many adoptees hate their birthdays? I know that I do. I have so many doubts about my birthday. There isn’t a damn thing that I can do about it. After rereading The Baby Thief, I wondered with so many black market children now adults out there why are records sealed. I know in Georgia Tann’s case that it was to cover the money.

I had a conversation with my own adoptive mother today. I spent half of my conversation telling her that yes she is my mother. I finally got a little fed up. Whether or not my natural mother chooses to recognize me or not, I am very much a part of her. I want my adoptive family to understand that. It hurts bad enough that my natural mother can’t or won’t acknowledge me but to have my adoptive family do that makes it so worse. I told my adoptive mother that my search is at the end of the road. I have to change the laws in Indiana in order to get some closure for myself. I have to change them to prevent others from feeling this horrible nagging at my soul.

I have discovered many things about the Suemma Coleman Home for Unwed Mothers. They didn’t give adoption paperwork to the adoptive parents. That makes a person wonder what were they hiding. Paperwork was not finalized until close to a year later. I am having to explain to her over and over that agency was not the best. They were no better than any other agency. It makes me very suspicious that they didn’t get paperwork. It makes me wonder if I am a Black Market baby undiscovered. Why didn’t they give them paperwork?

Then of course discovering that they tortured the women there was horrifying too. They tied the women to their beds so that they couldn’t touch their stomachs. They knocked them out at the last minute to keep them from discovering what the sex was of their baby. If I ever find out that I am half Indian, I will raise hell with the agency. They are required by law to reveal my information to me.

So many screw ups, thanks to Georgia Tann. So many legalized lies. When will it ever stop?



July 27, 2007

The Baby Thief: The Untold Story of Georgia Tann, the Baby Seller Who Corrupted Adoption is an amazing book. It is a must read for all adoption reformers and anti-adoption groups. This book was written by an adoptive mother. As she is telling Georgia’s story, she intertwines her own story with her daughter. I am overwhelmed by her ability to own up to her own culpability in adoption. I am thrilled by her acknowledgement of her daughter’s natural family. It added a truly touching reality to adoption.

As I read this book, I had already started Wake Up Little Suzie by Rickie Solinger. That is a hard read and I have not quite gotten one third of the way through it. It is hard to read that in my own natural mother’s era, women weren’t mothers until they were married. Its hard to read that my own mother was considered “feeble minded” and therefore could not take care of me. It is difficult to understand why only white women were considered reformed after they gave up their children. Its beyond my imagination to know that unwed black mothers were considered the sole cause of the black people’s poverty in America. So I went into reading Barbara’s book understanding some of this. I will review that book later.

You get a few interesting tidbits about Georgia herself. She was gay and even adopted her partner, Ann. Both women were also adoptive parents. What is horrifying is that Georgia and her staff, sexually, physically and emotionally molested and abused children in their care. She intimidated everyone in her quest for power. She had received her law degree but her father would not let her practice law. It was through her father, a county judge in Mississippi, that she began the practice of putting children inadoptive homes. It was because of her that adoption became acceptable. It was when she got to Memphis, Tennessee that she began to corrupt adoption. This woman stole countless children to give to the rich and famous in California and New York. This woman also ignored these children’s basic human needs by starving them. Countless children also died in her care.

One particular thing that I found totally flooring. Many doctors, social workers, and such protested her practices. They took it to the higher levels of the government. Sadly because one of her buddies held some serious political clout, she was beyond reproach and discipline for many years. One of the things that boggles my mind is that she created the sealed record system in adoption and the amended birth certificate. Other agencies did complain about her tactics of using “adoption recruiters or spotters” and of her child and maternal abuse. It got them nowhere but they realized that her tactics did work. They incorporated many of them into their policies. Those policies are still in place now. Many states had black markets for babies. Indiana, Texas and Florida are just a few that I know of.

Sadly this is still going on today. All you have to do is type in adoptee or adoption into your google search engine to find what I find. It is time to take adoption back. Its time to make the laws about the rights of those living adoption. They should be equal in all respects. Its time to legislate adoption agencies and attorneys out of their power over us.


July 25, 2007

Granted it is not Patricia Stowbridge, Michael Shorstein, nor Jeanne Tate, at least an agency is being investigated. Here is the story and the link.

An update on an ABC Action News investigation: A bay area adoption agency could lose its license, after the state is finished looking at its financial records. Action news investigator Matthew Schwartz broke this story back in February.
Dorene and Kevin Whisler have an empty bassinet in what would have been their baby’s room. The former Tampa residents spent 32-thousand dollars to adopt a child from “Adoption Advocates,” which is located in this un-marked office in Largo. But the Whislers backed out of the adoption at the last minute, saying the agency told them the mother was drinking and doing drugs and couldn’t guarantee a healthy baby. Meanwhile, the baby was adopted by another couple.
His name is Landry, he’s now ten months old and perfectly healthy. He was adopted by a bay area couple who paid Adoption Advocates ten thousand dollars for the birth mother’s expenses. But just months earlier, the Whislers had paid Adoption Advocates ten-thousand five hundred for birth mother expenses. So Adoption Advocates collected two fees for one adoption! When we brought it to the attention of the Department of Children and Families this past April, DCF started investigating Adoption Advocates. This week, spokesman Andy Ritter says the state continues to review the agency’s records.
We asked what if DCF finds that they charged two people for the same expense… two different couples? “That would be a licensing violation, and it could possibly result in the loss of their license,” Ritter told us.
We’ve tried several times to talk to Adoption Advocates, which is run by Kathleen Hayes and her daughter Tara.
This week Tara Hayes again told me on the phone that the agency still has no comment.
Scott Stephens is a Hillsborough County family court judge. He couldn’t talk about specific cases, but says people who want to adopt should get legal help before beginning the process. He says, “It’s an inherent prospect for these people to be taken advantage of, and there’s no shortage of people who would like to take advantage of them if they can.”
After our earlier reports on adoption advocates, DCF got involved and the adoption agency had to refund the Whislers about eight-thousand dollars. Adoption Advocates’ license expired two weeks ago. DCF has given them a three-month provisional license, while its investigation plays out.
©2007 The E.W. Scripps Co. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast


July 25, 2007

This story was brought to my attention. It gets sadder by the minute. Here is the link and the published story is below.

By Leah

Before 5-month-old Madison Erickson was taken from her Itawamba County home Saturday, her birth mother, Jamie Kiefer, was taking steps to revoke what her attorney says was not a legal adoption.
Joey Langston, of Langston Law Firm in Booneville, said Kiefer had not waived her parental rights nor had she consented to the adoption of Madison Erickson; therefore, she could not have abducted her own baby, he said. Kiefer’s sister, Rikki Swann, also allegedly was involved in the abduction.
The two sisters are facing kidnapping and robbery charges. Three masked people took Madison at gunpoint.
Langston said Kiefer’s ex-husband, Daniel Kiefer, who worked at a Tupelo steakhouse with Jennifer and Matt Erickson, Madison’s adoptive parents, started the adoption process. Madison was 2 weeks old then.
Langston said Daniel Kiefer, in cooperation with the Ericksons, coaxed his ex-wife into signing papers waiving her parental rights in exchange for a reconciliation of their marriage.
“She was excited about having a child, but her ex-husband told her if she didn’t put the baby up for adoption, he would not consider reuniting with her,” he said.
Daniel Kiefer’s brother, Jimmy, is the biological father of Madison.
Jimmy Kiefer could not consent to an adoption because, when the baby was born, he was in the State Penitentiary at Parchman for violating parole for attempted murder, Langston said.
Daniel and Jamie Kiefer divorced after Daniel realized the affair and the resulting pregnancy. Daniel Kiefer could not be reached for comment Tuesday night.
Jamie Kiefer, while living with Daniel, exhibited symptoms of postpartum depression before, during and after she signed the parental surrender papers, said her former attorney, Daniel Tucker of Booneville. Tom Velie, executive director at New Beginnings International Children’s & Family Services adoption agency in Mississippi, said because Madison’s so-called adoption was done privately through an attorney – and not through an agency – Kiefer may not have received thorough counseling before she decided to give up the baby. He is not involved in the case.
After she signed the papers, Daniel Kiefer took his ex-wife to see a specialist in Maryland, who diagnosed her with severe postpartum depression and advised her to stop the adoption process immediately, Tucker said. The couple flew back to Mississippi, where Jamie Kiefer was again diagnosed with severe postpartum depression, he said. Jamie Kiefer hired Tucker to reverse the parental surrender.
“On May 11, we sent to Dan Davis’ office (in Tupelo, where the adoption was handled) a letter of revocation,” Tucker said. “We went to court in June to have a temporary hearing, and the judge would not immediately set (the adoption) aside.”
Davis, the attorney who handled the adoption was contacted at his home Tuesday night. He said his office would release a statement soon.
A judge scheduled a hearing for Sept. 19 on Jamie Kiefer’s motion to stop the adoption.
Authorities say Jamie Kiefer and two other armed intruders took Madison after using an electrical cord to tie up Jennifer Erickson, who called authorities after freeing herself. Swann may have been involved after the initial abduction, authorities say.
According to Langston, the sisters’ father, Joseph Richard Triste, voluntarily turned himself in Tuesday night to the Itawamba County Sheriff’s Department, allegedly admitting he was involved in the abduction. Langston said Triste was charged with burglary and breaking and entering. Itawamba County Sheriff Phil Crane could not be reached Tuesday night to confirm Triste’s surrender or confession.
Madison was found unharmed Sunday more than 600 miles from her home at a Fort Bragg Army base apartment about 60 miles south of Raleigh, N.C.
Swann lived at Fort Bragg before her husband was deployed to Afghanistan but since had moved back to Mississippi.
Langston and Swann’s attorney, Casey Lott of Lott Law Firm in Booneville, are flying to the Cumberland County jail in North Carolina today to discuss legal strategy with Jamie Kiefer and Swann, both of Toshomingo County and in their 20s.
In a court appearance there Tuesday morning, the sisters signed extradition papers agreeing to return to Mississippi to be tried on state charges.. Both also were charged in North Carolina with being fugitives from justice, according to The Associated Press.
“(Jamie Kiefer) is not a bad person. She is a caring mother who was suffering from a problem a lot of women face. Unfortunately, it’s not their choice; this is a chemical imbalance,” Tucker said. “I talked to the girl many times, and I saw the love and passion she had for her baby.
“You have a natural mother who had PPD wanting her child.”
Langston said some of his associates will visit a Mississippi courthouse today to confirm his belief the adoption was not legal. If that is the case, Jamie Kiefer cannot be punished for taking her own baby, he said.
Officials in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Northern District of Mississippi still are deciding whether federal charges are appropriate.
Officials in that office would not comment because the case is still ongoing.
FBI Special Agent Jason Pack could not say when the sisters would return to Mississippi.
The sisters could face up to life in prison for the state charges and for the federal charges if they are filed.
Madison’s parents made it back to Mississippi from North Carolina on Monday with the baby, where family members awaited their homecoming at the Ericksons’ home.
The adoptive parents have been granted temporary custody since Jamie Kiefer is in jail, Tucker said.
A man answering the phone at the Ericksons’ home Tuesday said the Ericksons had changed their minds about taking media calls until further notice. He said he could not speak on their behalf.
The FBI, the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation and the Itawamba County Sheriff’s Department are working together to find a woman also suspected of being involved in the abduction


July 25, 2007

Okay I watched this show. Let’s just say I am pissed. How can one agency have the hugest and longest advertisement on television? It showed two young women giving their children up for adoption. Here is some information on Gladney that members of Soul of Adoption dug up on them. I have some of my own to add as well.

Individual #1 said about Gladney and their lying ways.

The lie being that the expectant mother has control over things by picking who will raise her child.The truth is that when her child is born and she enters a contract with Gladney, Gladney has legal ownership over what happens to her child, not herShe can pick who she wants her child to go do, but Gladney can pick whomever they wantIf the paparents were aware of how unethical Gladney was and backed out, the mom would still not have any control or legal rights to her childThe legal rights to the child belongs to GladneyThat is one way that a mom going to an adoption agency can shoot herself in the foot, if the agency is unethical and doesnt really want to honor her wishes if her wishes are at conflict with what the adoption agency believes she should do

Individual #2

It sounds like Gladney would like to have the control over the relationships between first parents and their children…they are the ones who want to control that.

Individual #3

This was a quote from the social wrecker in the cases.

“I try to help them focus back on what they have evaluated, what they’ve been planning when they weren’t so emotional,” said St. John. “And, so that they can make decisions based on who can provide best for the child. … and sometimes you just need to give them some time to grieve

This is a direct quote from the Gladney literature. Individual #4 found this:

“The adoption process has become much more open in recent years. birth parents want to speak to prospective adoptive couples before finalizing their adoption. Although, in most cases, Gladney’s semi-Open adoption process does not involve the exchange of identifying information (last names, street adress, etc), it does allow all parties involved to make a more informed decision. In addition, the child understands that his birth mother made the best choice possible when she selected his mom and dad to raise him”. “It is becoming increasingly challenging to locate women in crisis pregnancy willing to make an adoption plan. The Gladney Center for Adoption spends thousands of dollars each month in marketing and outreach. However, as you enter the adoption journey, it is important to remember that the process will likely go much faster if you participate in networking for prospective birth mothers. Remember, Gladney will be here to screen birth mother calls and advise you on the best places to network and advertise. However, the bottom line is that the more involved you are in the recruitment of birth parents, the sooner you can experience the joys of parenthood”.

Individual #5 said this in her own dealings with Gladney

Fee Schedule:
Less than $75,000
IncomeAdoption Fee – $23,90
$75,001 – $100,000
IncomeAdoption Fee – $25,900
$100,001 – $150,00
IncomeAdoption Fee – $31,900
$150,001 – $200,000
IncomeAdoption Fee – $36,900
$200,001 Plus
IncomeAdoption Fee – $39,900

Although Gladney advertises “Open Adoption”, what they actually are selling is semi-open or semi-closed adoption. Choosing the Potential Adoptive Parents from a stack of profiles and meeting them once or twice is hardly “Open”. What they DO support is possibly staying in contact via mail sent THROUGH THE AGENCY. They absolutely do not support full disclosure of personal information, etc. I can tell you from personal experience, they STRONGLY DISCOURAGE full openness.

See there is this other little parts that many people don’t know and understand. Gladney is the founding member of the National Council for Adoption. The group that does not support rights for adoptees and their families, both adoptive and natural. President Bush, his wife Laura, and his mother are all on the board of Gladney. President Bush is dead set against adoptees and their families having those very rights. The NCFA has a credit card just special for adoption through MBNA to help you through those rough finanicial times paying for the adoption. Of course they get a kickback from MBNA. The other thing is that Gladney in the past demanded that natural mothers do not name their natural fathers in their pregnancy. Gladney also makes a huge profit off adoptees when they decide to search. Its 50 bucks to register on their registry. Last I heard it was a few hundred bucks to make contact with their families. Placement Day was the worst phrase that I have ever heard. How sickening. Only Gladney would come up with something so horrifying.

Texans its time to take back the law. Its time to make Gladney accountable for their very actions against mothers. This was a horrible horrible adverstisement for one of the worst adoption agencies in the state of Texas. My promise to those children and their mothers. I will SEE TO IT THAT YOU WILL FIND EACH OTHER. I WILL CHANGE THE LAW.


July 24, 2007

Sadly I can only find this story on her today. Everything else was from last night. Someone is finally speaking out from her camp.

Child’s mother had reached the end of her rope, a family friend says
7/24/2007 8:13:10 AMDaily Journal
By Leesha FaulknerDaily JournalJamie Kiefer tried every legal avenue to get her baby daughter back after she gave her up, but she met with roadblocks in each direction.She became despondent and desperate when she failed.Now she and her sister, Rikki Swann, are in jail in Cumberland County, N.C., charged with robbery and kidnapping in Mississippi after allegedly taking Jamie’s biological daughter from the woman who wanted to adopt her. They also were charged in North Carolina with being fugitives from justice.Authorities are meeting with federal prosecutors to determine if the women will face federal charges, according to Jason Peck, an FBI special agent in Jackson. They claim the two women and a man burst into the Mantachie home of Jennifer and Matt Erickson, tied up Jennifer and took the baby to Fort Bragg, N.C. In North Carolina, Jamie and Rikki took refuge where Rikki lived with her husband before he was deployed to Afghanistan.Authorities are looking for two other people they believe helped take the baby.But family friend Debbie Williams of Itawamba County said the sisters didn’t intend harm to the child or Jennifer Erickson. “Her story’s not being told. I’m speaking for Jamie and her sister. She made mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes,” Williams told the Daily Journal late Monday.Kiefer’s story is told by Williams, who said she’s known her 15 years.It begins a little more than a year ago when Jamie and Daniel Kiefer were married but having a rocky time. They have a 5-year-old son, Dominic. She became pregnant by her husband’s brother, Jimmy Kiefer, who had decided to stay with them to serve out his parole on a Tishomingo manslaughter case.Williams said Jamie, who was home-schooled, hasn’t had many life experiences. “She was sheltered,” Williams said. “She was the baby of the family.”On the other hand, Jimmy Kiefer was a smooth talker.”He could con her into everything,” the woman said. “She was having problems. She didn’t know. It was just a bad situation.”After Jamie became pregnant by Jimmy, she and Daniel divorced. On Feb. 1, she gave birth to the child she calls Cali Charmain Kiefer.”When I went home from the hospital, I was deeply depressed,” Jamie writes in an explanation of events. “I didn’t want to talk to anyone or see anyone.”Her ex-husband, Danny, took her into his home.”Danny told me that he wanted to try to work things out between us and that it didn’t matter to him that the baby wasn’t his,” Jamie writes. “He said that he would love that child, and if I saw fit, she would know no other father.”By this time, said Williams, fighting put Jimmy Kiefer back in Marshall County Correctional Facility for violating his parole. His release date is Oct. 12.ChangesSoon after Cali’s birth, Jamie said, she suffered from post-partum depression, a condition experienced by many mothers of newborns. Danny’s attitude toward the infant changed, Jamie writes.”He didn’t even want to hold her, which just made me feel like I wanted to die,” she tells in the written statement.Danny worked at Outback in Tupelo with Jennifer Floyd. Floyd knew about their situation, according to Jamie. Danny came home and told his ex-wife Floyd wanted to adopt Cali.”She wanted to come and see my baby, and like an idiot I let her in my home to hold my baby,” Jamie writes. “She sat there as I breast fed my daughter and told me how much Danny loved me and how she didn’t think he could love my daughter.”Through the haze of depression, Jamie said, she couldn’t think straight. Floyd called the next few days, saying she and her boyfriend, Matt Erickson, wanted to adopt her baby, according to Jamie.”Danny packed up her nursery, right down to the specially embroidered things I had made for her. He drove me to Dan Davis’ office, an attorney in Tupelo, and had me sign some papers and hand her over. Then, boom, just like that, my Cali was gone,” Jamie writes.She had signed away her parental rights.Davis declined to talk about the adoption proceedings Monday because he said he didn’t have permission from his clients, the Ericksons.Williams said Jamie told Davis the next day that she had made a mistake and wanted her child back.Jamie writes: “I told Danny I couldn’t handle it and that I wanted her back. He said it was too late, that we all made the decision that we felt was best and that I would be fine after some time went by.”He also persuaded her to move to Maryland.Jamie comes homeJamie became more depressed, Williams continued. Her parents became concerned and traveled to Maryland to see for themselves. They brought her back. She went into mental therapy and began a legal battle to get her daughter back.Williams said Jamie hired Daniel Tucker, a Booneville attorney she paid $3,000. “Nothing was done,” Williams said.Tucker couldn’t be reached for comment Monday. A message was left at his home after hours.Jamie writes she officially protested the pending adoption May 11. A hearing date was set for September in Chancery Court, according to Williams, who said she didn’t know much about it.After a hearing to set a trial date, Jamie remained unsatisfied, said Williams. She went to the Department of Human Services in Tishomingo County several days ago to plead for some kind of emergency visitation she’d heard she might be able to get. The woman at DHS said she couldn’t help Jamie because she had signed away her parental rights. Danny Kiefer met his ex-wife at the DHS office.That was the last time Williams saw or heard from Jamie and her sister.Now, Jamie and Rikki are charged with single counts of robbery and kidnapping in Mississippi, and their mother, Charmain Trist, was trying to get them an attorney. She’s also in North Caroline to retrieve Dominic and Swann’s two children, ages 6 and 1, who were with the women when authorities raided the Fort Bragg apartment where they had taken refuge.Today, the Ericksons are back in Mississippi with the infant they call Madison.Weeks before, Jamie wrote: “I miss my little girl every moment of every day and look forward to rocking her and singing to her the way I did when she was in my womb.”Contact Daily Journal county-courts reporter Leesha Faulkner at 678-1590 or Hear Debbie Williams’ story on Clearing the Cobwebs at


July 24, 2007

Everyone knows that I love cats. I always have. There is just something about their indepence that awes me. We have two female cats and two male cats. Because we live in the country, we have a need for cats. It keeps the snake and rat population down. These felines are unspayed and unneutered. They are well fed well cared for animals in every other respect. Smudge is our main queen. Boy does she act like it. Her daughter, Sassy, became a mother for the first time last night.

In order to teach my own children about sex and motherhood, we keep the pregnant females in the house. To give those kittens every opportunity to survive and make it to adult hood. Sassy kept getting bigger and bigger. I was amazed. I thought this cat would burst. As I watched and rubbed her tummy throughout, I watched a cat come into her own. I watched her transform into the mother that her own mother was. Everytime another cat or dog came into our bedroom, she about tore my leg off. When the first kitten came out, it was automatic. She cleaned her kitten and cleaned herself up. She kept herself and her babies cleaned. She settled immediately into nursing her babies. What result was four glorious little orange tabbies. What I saw was immediate and unconditional love. It was such a natural site.

I thought about this well into the night and this morning. How can we as a society expect mothers to stop caring about their children? If you attempted to take those kittens from either one of my mother cats, they would take your dang hand off. Yet we do this to mothers all over this country. We don’t allow them the opportunity to let their hormones to balance back out after a birth. Agencies and attorneys tell mothers that they will get over it. If my cats don’t get over it, how can we expect human mothers to do the same? This ranch breeds horses and cattle. They are not intentionally separated at birth. In cattle, the whole herd takes care of the calves. We are fully functioning animal but yet we treat our own mothers and children like they are nothing. There is not an animal shelter in this country nor a ranch in this country that separates cats from kittens, dogs from puppies, cattle from calves nor horses from colts but we do this to human beings? Lord we need to change things.


July 24, 2007

This story came over the news yesterday. Jamie Keifer was contesting the adoption of her child. There are not too many details on this case. What we do know is that she resorted to violence in order to get her baby back. I know many mothers sympathize with her. I know that I do. Violence is not the way to go. This will cost probably cost her in the long run. I can hope that this media spotlight on adoption will force some issues with the industryWhat many people don’t realize is that there is coercion in adoption. That adoption is built on lies and deceipt on the part of adoption agencies. Many courts support the adoption agencies and their representatives. I watched Fox News with Geraldo last night. I don’t take him too seriously. Last night he flamed me just like probably many others involved in adoption reform. He actually called the natural mother a “baby seller.” What he doesn’t realize is that women don’t sell their babies. Its adoption agencies who profit off this. Its the adoptive parents who don’t consider the feelings and emotions of the very parent that is giving them that child. Granted I will wait to see what follows. Hopefully we will hear more about this case. Hopefully it would not be shoved under the rug. Maybe the FBI will start checking into this a little more. Hopefully their curiosity will get peaked about this situation. Interestingly enough, Cold Case replayed its episode about maternity homes of the past.


July 22, 2007

This woman is a very interesting woman. She did something that most state legislators don’t and want to have time for. She helped get a bill passed. She also took the time to step into adoptee’s plight. Something she didn’t have to do but she did anyway. It motivated her to do more. Low and behold. It passed. Thank You Maine adoptees for giving me the motivation to do the same in the states of Indiana and Texas. The article can be found here.

There is a comment section on this It just shows the ignorance of people.

Don Turner of Brunswick, ME
Jul 22, 2007 11:05 AM
I adopted a set of twins and was told by ther judge that my wife and I could choose to reveal to the boys anything about their biological father but no one else. One did chose at a later time to communicate with his biological father and it turned out miserable. This shows how a State can change things for the worst if someone special gets a chance to change promises made years before. It may have turned out good for this Senator but there has been shows on TV showing how it can be unhappy. Maine should leave things the way they were. At least, these adoptees were not aborted like another group of people believe in.

Typical attitude of adoptive parents. It isn’t up to them to decide how a relationship goes. In fact I would not be surprised if his attitude didn’t affect his child’s relationship with his natural father. It isn’t up to him to decide whether the relationship is good or bad. Its his child’s choice. We are not property of our parents. We are individuals. For many adoptees of the past, abortion and unwed motherhood were not options. Get educated on the friggin issue.

The next comment is obviously a prolife person.

The privacy of the mother should be protected if she CHOOSES that option. While all of us feel a great deal of compassion for adoptees who seek to know their history, they should recognize and appreciate that this is a SMALL PRICE to pay for life. Understanding that their mother made the ultimate, selfless sacrifice should be recognized. Mother’s should be given the CHOICE of whether they want to be contacted. If they change their minds down the road, there should be a system to notifify the child. I’m happy it turned out well for Webster but what’s the impact for mother’s making this decision today? The woman’s choice shouldn’t be ignored when she chooses life over death. Medical histories should be provided at the time of birth to allieviaate any problems in that area.

No you don’t feel compassion for adoptees. If you did, this argument would not be used. If you would bother to listen to us in this adoptee right movement, you would know that the right to privacy is about the right to be free from governmental interference. Small price to pay for their life.. oh what a concept. As I said previously, abortion and unwed motherhood was not an option for many of these women. Its is not a price to pay. I as an adoptee should not have to pay for the sins of my natural parents. Yet that very comment expects me to do that. I am expected to not know who I am as an individual, to not know my heritage, and to not see the very document that accurately records my birth. This woman also assumes that women just want to get rid of their babies. I know this to be false as well. I could not cast aside my children. If I feel this way, how can any other mother be that way? Many of the mothers of the past are coming forward. 99% of mothers from two states, New Hampshire and Oregon have proven this. What more documentation do you need? A friend of mine, Adoption Roadkill, is known for this saying. If adoption is so great, which child are you willing to give up? I imagine you would look at me like I was crazy. Is it really so different for these women?

xmen of freeport, ME
Jul 22, 2007 7:25 AMMy thoughts exactly. Paula your job is to work for your voters, not run for office on some personal agenda that once again, will cost the taxpayers in this state more money.

Hmmm I guess adoptees are just property again. Aren’t adoptees voters? Aren’t the natural parents voters? We make up about 10% of the population. Shouldn’t the laws reflect us as well? Or do you feel that we should just shut and be grateful that someone took us bastards in? Interesting reflections on adoptions all of these comments. By the way the law will give us a copy of the original birth certificate. It doesn’t cost additional monies to get us that.

Jeff Mu of Portland, ME
Jul 22, 2007 7:20 AM
If biological parents were promised they would not be contacted, that should not be violated – whether “legally valid” 50 years later or not. Whoever thinks throwing a lawsuit in yer bio’s faces is a good way to start a new, loving relationship is quite mistaken. There will be bitterness and resentment of trust and broken state promises. Exchanging their hurt for yours is not the answer. On the other hand, it’s not a black-and-white policy issue, either. There is plenty of middle ground here to build on. A third-party can be asked to ask them, even years later, if they changed their minds and are now willing to be contacted. Or if they are willing to have their identity revealed after they die. And DNA technology now makes it possible to look at hereditary issues without revealing names at any time. And so on.

Here again No they were not promised that. It has been proven time and time again. No natural parent was ever given a document that stated that they had the contractual privacy. On top of that you can not legislate someone else’s rights away. You can not take away my rights as an adult. An adult who has fought in a war for your blithering rights. An adult who is a working mother and wife. An adult who is a voter just as you. This law gives me my identity back. It gives me my heritage back. It gives me the chance to view a document that accurately records my birth. What I chose to do with it is mine and mine alone.


July 21, 2007

I have had this on my brain. I am trying to logically put in order in my mind. I want to know how and why women’s sexuality and reproductivity had to be controlled. This article by Carrie Friedman puts my feelings into words. I recently had hysterectomy. I have not made a big deal about it. Why do some women feel less if they don’t have that organ? Am I less of a woman because now I don’t have one? Is this what society wants me to view myself? The secret words of many women have told me that I would feel 100% better. You know what? I do. No more back aches, very few severe headaches, no more bleeding, no more cramping, and many other reasons why my quality of life has improved. Seriously does this operation make me less of a woman? I think it allows me to be the woman I want to be and what my husband wants me to be.

Where was it decided that women could not handle the automony of their own bodies? Was it doctors? Was it men? Where was it decided that poor and single women could not raise their children on their own? Why is it that its women’s fault that they are where they are in their lives? How come men are not held accountable for their portion of procreation of their own children? If my own husband and many male friends hold themselves accountable, why can’t the rest of men in our society? Why can’t the religious right hold men accountable for their actions?

Just some tough questions that I would like men to answer.