Archive for October, 2007


October 31, 2007

Here is another link.

The adoption vs. abortion myth

Why politicians are wrong to trumpet the former as a solution to the latter.

By Cory L. Richards October 29, 2007

Striving to find the “middle ground” on abortion — that is, coming up with ways acceptable to pro-choice and pro-life Americans alike to reduce the number of abortions in the United States — is a worthwhile undertaking. But it also has given rise to some fairly resilient myths about the best way to achieve this goal. Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani prominently featured one such myth in his speech Oct. 20 to a group of social conservatives. The former New York City mayor stated that “we increased adoption by 133% over the eight years before I came into office. And we found that abortions went down by 18% during that period of time. I believe we can do that in the United States.”But Giuliani’s implied causality between these two statistics is unsupportable for this simple reason: The increases he cites were in the rate of adoptions of children out of New York City’s foster care system, not in the rate at which women were continuing unwanted pregnancies and placing their infants for adoption rather than having abortions. Nothing in the data he cites indicates that there was any significant increase in the city’s newborn relinquishment rate while he was mayor. Giuliani is not alone in misrepresenting the adoption-abortion link in this way. Politicians from both parties frequently promote tax credits and other incentives to ease the way for adoptive parents to demonstrate that they want to “do something” about abortion. Facilitating adoptions, especially of hard-to-place children, deserves our strong support. But it does nothing to affect the abortion rate. To assert that it does is either ill-informed or simply cynical, and it should stop.Meanwhile, we know that very few women actually place their infants for adoption. In the United States, fewer than 14,000 newborns were voluntarily relinquished in 2003 (the latest year for which an estimate is available), according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That proportion — just under 1% of all the children born to never-married women — has remained constant for almost two decades. It’s down considerably from the early 1970s, but even in those days, more than nine in 10 unmarried women who gave birth kept their babies. The 2003 infant relinquishment figure is minuscule when compared to the almost 1.3 million abortions that took place that year. And even then, it would be wrong to assume that every one of those relinquishments actually averted an abortion. Many women placing their baby for adoption may never have considered abortion in the first place. Among the main explanations cited in the HHS report for decline in relinquishments since the ’70s are that “the increased social acceptance of single parenthood has led more unmarried women to keep their children” and that “a higher proportion of unmarried mothers are in their 20s rather than their teens, so the personal and financial stresses may not be as great as in the past.” More important, the researchers do not consider abortion to be a significant factor and suggest that “the decline in abortion rates shows that the decline in relinquishment is not a result of increasing selection of abortion over relinquishment.”Politicians of all stripes, and whatever their position on abortion, should face reality. Increasing the rate of completed adoptions, however valid on its own merits, is irrelevant to the abortion rate. And increasing the rate of newborn relinquishments, even assuming it could be done in an ethically and socially acceptable way, at best would be tinkering at the margins. Even if relinquishments doubled, and each one of them represented an averted abortion, it would make hardly a dent in the abortion rate. In his recent speech, Giuliani did leave himself an opening to embrace evidence-based policies when he offered that he would “support any reasonable suggestion that promises to reduce the number of abortions.”In fact, there are plenty of proven, common-sense policies that he (and all those who are still promoting adoption as a viable anti-abortion strategy) could support. Chief among them is to expand women’s access to high-quality contraceptive counseling and services and to support comprehensive sex education that teaches young people about both delaying sex and using protection when they do become sexually active.As a just-published Guttmacher Institute study shows, abortion rates are extremely high in many countries where contraceptives are not readily available and contraceptive use is not encouraged, even though abortion is highly restricted in those places by law. And the world’s lowest rates of abortion by far are found in Western Europe, where very few legal restrictions are placed on abortion but contraceptive use and comprehensive sex education are widespread.Behind virtually every abortion is an unintended pregnancy. The sooner politicians accept that the only way to meaningfully achieve fewer abortions is to do better in helping women and their partners prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place, the better.



October 31, 2007

Here is the link. I have put the story down below.

Why adoption is so easy in America

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 31/10/2007

Page 1 of 2

As Foreign Secretary David Miliband and his wife adopt a second son from the US, Cassandra Jardine compares the simplicity of the process over there with the frustration of trying to give a needy child a home in Britain
There are certain American websites currently offering mouth-watering incentives to would-be buyers. “Delivery within four months”, “Discounts of up to $19,000”, they proclaim.

Tough love: Madonna overcame many obstacles to adopt her son, David, from Malawi
If it were cars they were selling this would not seem odd, but it’s babies that are for sale – bright, smiling newborns to tempt the childless into parting with about £20,000.
There is no shame in treating babies like any other purchase in America, where the adoption industry is largely privatised and run by firms that promise to bring together pregnant women and adoptive families, deal with all the legal niceties and ensure there are no hitches along the way.
Right now, there is something of an ongoing sales push: November is National Adoption Awareness Month, which aims to get more Americans to choose adoption, both as buyers and as sellers. The rash of Hollywood stars who adopt has reduced what little social stigma was attached to adoption.
From Elizabeth Taylor and Julie Andrews a few decades ago, through to Diane Keaton, Michelle Pfeiffer, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman more recently, adoption is seen as a logical choice for those who can’t have children, don’t have a partner or who are reluctant to take time off from their careers.
“To me it’s curious that adoption is kind of exotic in the UK,” says Tina, a single professional in her late forties, living in New York, who adopted a baby a year ago. “In the US, it’s not a big deal at all.”
Unlike Britain, where babies have been in short supply since contraception and single parenthood became widespread and acceptable in the 1970s, there has never been a shortage of babies to adopt in America.
There, abortion is not an option in many states and the inadequacies of the welfare system make bringing up a child almost impossible for single parents without a regular income. All prospective adoptive parents have to do is register with an agency – preferably one operating in the southern states, where more babies are available – and write such a mouth-watering description of the home on offer that the mother-to-be will pick them to give her child a new and brighter future.
When it’s made so easy over there, it is scarcely surprising that Foreign Secretary David Miliband and his American-born wife Louise have chosen to take this route, rather than endure the frustrations of attempting to adopt within Britain.
Here, it can prove a soul-destroying experience, especially if you are – like the Milibands – white, middle-class and over 40.
Three years ago they adopted their first son, Isaac, from America amid unwarranted suspicions that they had been fast-tracked in obtaining the home study that is required before a child can be brought to Britain. When they wanted a sibling, it was only natural to return to the United States to find Jacob.
The system there is especially attractive to parents who want to bond with a child from birth. Birth mother and adopters are paired up early in the pregnancy, with the advantage to the mother that she gets her “expenses” paid by the adopters, almost as if she was a surrogate carrying a donated sperm and/or egg.
The adopters, in return, hope the pregnant woman will live a lifestyle that protects the unborn child – although there are plenty of stories about women who take the money and behave irresponsibly.
The other agonising worry for the adopters is whether the birth mother will exercise her right to keep her child after the birth. It is no surprise that this issue figures in the most frequently asked questions on the adoption websites. The agencies promise to do ”all we can to protect you from disruption”. The only thing they don’t offer is a money-back guarantee.
Given the demand for, and scarcity of, very young babies to adopt in Britain, it is surprising that more people here do not head West to fulfil their dreams of a family. The Milibands are among a tiny number – some 20 to 30 a year – of British couples who adopt from America.

It may have been easier for them because of Louise Miliband’s dual nationality but Maxine Caswell of Oasis, the Overseas Adoption Support and Information Service, says it is neither necessary to live in America nor to have citizenship in order to adopt an American baby because the United States is not yet a signatory to the Hague Convention, which requires babies to be kept within their country of origin wherever possible.
Adoption policy in Britain is very different, aiming to keep babies with mothers wherever possible or to find a placement within a family so that only six per cent of children are adopted before their first birthday. Between birth and adoption these babies have often been exposed to less than ideal environments, which can cause behavioural problems later.
Add to that policies on ethnic matching and guidelines about the generation gap being no more than 40 years and the result is that most people who only start to think about adoption in their thirties, after having tried and failed to have their own children, find they are ineligible.

Only 3,000 to 4,000 children are adopted each year in this country out of 80,000 in care, many of them mentally or physically disabled or deemed “problem” children. In rural or suburban areas very few children are available, while in inner cities there is a major problem in finding the resources to put would-be adopters through the long training and assessment programme.
Camden, north London, where the Milibands live, is part of a consortium of five boroughs which between them have 100 children up for adoption, many from ethnic minorities. In the Foreign Secretary’s South Shields constituency, only one family of three siblings is currently available.
Any couple who wants to adopt a child from abroad must undergo the home study process which can take up to 18 months, but the other criteria – such as age and skin colour – for adopters may not be as strict. However, they should be under no illusion that it is easy, according to Maxine Caswell.
“We only help people adopt from countries where children wouldn’t be able to find a home within their boundaries,” she says, before rattling through the options that account for the 400 inter-country adoptions a year to this country, only a tenth of the number that France, Italy and Spain achieve.
For the past 12 years, China has been the key source, particularly of girls. With a backlog of 20,000 applications (many of them from Americans who like inter-country adoption because it is cheaper) it now takes 23 months before you are given the name of the available child. And, as China gets richer, there are more childless middle-class couples coming forward to adopt within China.
Russia is the next most popular choice, particularly for those seeking white children, but there are difficulties. The cost is high – some £15,000, as American agencies organise the adoptions – and the children are usually a year old before they are handed over, by which time they may have suffered some degree of institutionalisation.
Guatemala has long been a source of babies, with one per cent of children given up for adoption, but there have recently been fears about girls from rural areas being pressurised to give up their babies to feed the demand. Thailand organises adoption efficiently, but foreigners are allowed to adopt only if no local family can be found. India is another possibility but it can be slow bureaucratically.
Millions of children in Africa need new parents as a result of wars or Aids, but Ethiopia, where Angelina Jolie struck lucky, is so far the only country allowing children to be adopted by British couples. It takes the might of a Madonna to break through the restrictions elsewhere. She and husband Guy Ritchie adopted their son, David, from Malawi.
No doubt there are many who are queasy about this world-wide trade in babies, but there will be many couples desperate for a family who, having read about the Milibands’ experience with the quick, efficient but expensive American system, will now be wondering if this is the right path for them.
They had better hurry as America is unlikely to be a source of newborns for much longer. Next year it is due to sign the Hague Convention.
From then on, those seeking newborns will have to give careful consideration to surrogacy – which surely isn’t so very different from monitoring a child almost from conception, as the American adoption agencies do.


October 28, 2007



October 28, 2007

I have been updating my blog all day today. I have added a feminism group. These are women who get what those living adoption must deal with. I added a research link as well. Many of these articles are courtesy of The Lizard Chronicles. I am always amazed by her research. I will add more as more comes out. Time permitting of course. I have added a ton more adoptees, natural parents, and adoptive parents. I am betting that I forgot someone somewhere. Please leave your blog address. I will add it to the LONG list of links. We must get our stories out there. We must let the legislators in this country know that we want changes in adoption.

I read this on Writing My Wrongs. This is what we all must be aware of. There are way too many unscrupulous agencies and attorneys. This came from an attorney at the Ethics conference recently.

A list of things she suggests PAPs consider prior to placement:

Obtain a criminal background check on expectant mother or father. Purpose is to find out if the parent might be in jail or prison at the time of the planned consent.

Conduct a financial background check and obtain credit reports on expectant parents. Check for bankruptcy filings – prior to placement.

Obtain prenatal care records and speak with the obstetric attending physician (she cites the need for a HIPAA release, how knowledgeable of her!)

Present the expectant parents with detailed questionnaires and tell them that they must be signed under oath and carry a penalty of perjury.

Test the fetus, in utero, prior to placement, for drug or birth defects.

The list goes on.

The other issues are now adoptive parents in contested adoptions are forcing natural parents to pay child support. Some of these parents did not consent to these adoptions. The other issue is that adoption agencies do have a very powerful network. If they can’t pursue the adoption in that state because someone is contesting the adoption, they move the natural parent to another state. It is damn near impossible to keep up with state laws. These agencies are also violating the ICPC regulations concerning adoption. In Shawn McDonald’s case, they pretended that they didn’t know where he was at. He was listed on Texas Putative Father registry. He made his intentions very well known. This happened to Cody O’Dea as well. In Joseph and Brynden’s case, the natural mothers went to three different states. They ended up in one agency and one state. Adoption Center of Choice. It doesn’t sound like any choice to me.

Agencies and the American Justice System does everything it can to drag out the fight that natural parents are trying to stop. The rest of society ends up feeling sorry for the adoptive parents. Its the agencies that promote this kind of tactic. There is no honesty or accountability with these organizations. It got so bad that this particular agency has been banned from advertising in Illinois.

Write the legislators in your state and tell them that you want accountability in your state regarding adoption laws.


October 25, 2007

I have had a lot of questions running through my brain. I have thought about an email conversation between my high school buddy and myself. I have also had some visitors to my blog that I don’t know who they are and where they are wanting from me. I noticed though that they hit one post. Its been a long time since anyone has posted that much on my blog. I have since found out other things about them that do concern me. It is my understanding now that it is becoming standard practice for make non relinquishing natural parents to pay child support. Yep the contesting natural parents especially fathers are now being forced to pay child support. It is a tactic to force them to relinquish. From the comments alone on that post, this group of folks are a very entitled bunch of adoptive parents. Something many of us (to include adoptive parents) in the underground movement call adopters.

Since this is going to be a long post anyway, let me get to that email. I was amazed that someone could get it so quick. I never figured this friend of mine to go “bible thumping.” If by some wild chance, he is reading this today or the weeks ahead. I am using our emails to show others how to educate without blowing a fuse. Of course my friend is wonderful man anyway. I love him too much to lose him. I would rather lose a friend than see one make a horrible mistake when it comes to adoption. This man is also an absolute wonderful SINGLE father. I would throttle anyone who stands in his way in being that kind of father.

Here is his email.

Hi Amy,

You know I love and respect you. I do understand that not knowing your biological lineage could drive you crazy, but remember that GOD has a rhyme and reason for everything in this world and he will provide.

There are reasons people put there young up for adoption and you must respect their rights also. You can’t force people to see what they gave up. Be it good or bad.

Maybe the reason for all of this was to get your blog going and find others like yourself, but you can’t push your beliefs on others. I’m not saying that you are pushing me and I don’t want you to feel that way. I appreciate your mail and I dig the video.

I wish you the best in all you do, but if you feel incomplete because your biological mom wants nothing to do with all of this, that is her right and GOD will provide you answers to all in do time and you must be patient and pray for all and every.

Love you always,
In respect for his privacy his name shall not be revealed.

My response to him.

I love you as well. In this road that I have taken I have found out many things. Your attitude towards this is very prevalent and condescending. I don’t mean to sound upset but truthfully I am that and hurt. I think you have been around D***** a little too much. LOL.

There are many things in my story that I have not revealed. You have to really dig on my blog to find just some of them. You have to force me to be honest in a way that I can’t be with anyone but an adoptee. I shall try for you.

First, I have found out through others that the agency that I was adopted out of is known for telling lies to both adoptees and natural parents. Their search specialist is also known for sabotaging reunions. In fact most CIs are known for doing this. The agency is now associated with a group that is also known for taking an adoptee/natural parent ‘s money and not giving any information at all. Not even bothering to contact. I have begun to doubt my own birthday. I have met other natural mothers that were at the home at that time frame. I also know how she was treated. That in itself is horrifying. I am no longer searching for her. I haven’t been for a very long time. I will probably begin in the future but it is still too hard to stomach.

Yes I am fighting for the same equal rights as you. You have your original birth certificate. You have the document that accurately records your birth. I don’t have that. I am a prisoner of my own country because my amended birth certificate is suspect. It doesn’t have the date it was file on it. I could not get the documents to prove that I was born in the United States. I could very well be considered an illegal alien in my own country. If she truly doesn’t want contact, then I am absolutely fine with that. I say this because I doubt she was even contacted. I seriously think all of my information was a lie. Pretty harsh if you think about it. I don’t have the same medical history as you do. I may be passing something onto my children without my knowledge. I hope and pray my daughters having a different race pop out is the least of my concerns.

As far as my blog is concerned, it is one of the top ten adoptee blogs in the country if not the world. I am a respected member of the adoption community. I am also a feared person amongst adoption agencies and their attorneys. My blog was mentioned in a court deposition in Fort Worth. Why? A young man in Fort Worth is fighting for the right to raise his own son. You see that is my story. I don’t want to force my natural mother to meet me but I do want my father’s information. My natural father wanted to raise me. He too deserves to know that I am alive and thinking of him. The agency would not make contact because she supposedly refused. That young man could be you, A, M, B, and many other of our friends. That young man could be your son. The list of fathers wanting to raise their own children is long. I helped one father regain custody of his son. That was one battle that was won. Many others have been lost because of the myths, lies and deception of adoption in itself. I am not against adoption in itself but I am against mothers and fathers being coerced out of their children. It won’t be too much longer where it will be the right to parent one’s own children vs. the right to adopt. In the era that you and I were born, single mothers were forced to give their children up for adoption. There was no choice for them. Abortion was not a viable option. I say viable because it was available but women had to jump through hoops to get it. A woman had to be declared mentally insane and sterilized in order to get one. A father these days must know all the state laws regarding his rights. In the previously mentioned case, the father did the right things. It was the agency that violated the law. He still doesn’t have his son. I know fathers where the mothers jumped states. They are currently fighting to get custody of their children.

The adoption industry is a 6.7 billion dollar business worldwide. It has motivation to keep these myths continuing. I want to make adoption honest and ethical. Allowing adoptees access to their records would help that. It is sadly twenty one years too late. I need to see to it that the money is taken out of it. I need to see to it that a man and a woman are making their decision fully aware of the hardship it creates for all involved in adoption. I think open adoptions should be legally binding. Adoptive parents are scammed constantly as well too. Its time for it to end.

Women choose abortion because they can’t go a lifetime of never knowing how their child is doing. If that child is even alive. Of never seeing that child. If adoption is so great which child are you willing to give up? You would never do that. I know you too well. So in saying that, you must understand the heartache of my natural parents and the millions of other natural parents.

God has absolutely nothing to do with adoption. Adoption as it stands today and in the past is based on money and corruption. God put me here to fight the lies and deception of adoption. Of that I am absolutely sure. God constantly reminds me that there are people out there that need my voice. Everytime I doubt myself, God puts another adoptee or natural parent in my path to keep me true. I am also the sin of my parents. I have paid for their sins. They better damn well go to heaven. All adoptees pay for the sins of their parents. God is also against lies, injustice and cruelty. Adoption is based on societal views against men and women. Even in the bible, adoptees return to their homes and families. Look at Moses and Jesus. Both returned to their true families. Moses fought against his adoptive parents to protect his family. Jesus returned to our Heavenly Father to serve at His side.

I mentioned my father wanted me. B****, he begged, pleaded, coerced and more to get custody of me. He called the agency on 12/20/1965 begging to see if I was still available. That date is the day of my oldest daughter’s birthday. His wife also knew of my existence and wanted me as well. My mother used the name Anne in the home. Both of my daughters have Anne in their names. For years as a child, I cried every time I heard a siren. I was probably crowning in the ambulance as they took her to the hospital. I remembered her. That will always be the punch in my gut for the rest of my life. I was not born with a clean slate. I also know that they probably tied her to the bed to prevent her from touching her stomach or touching me. I also know that she was knocked out to prevent further knowledge of me. She was not allowed to hold me or see me. She was also fed three sparse meals during her interment at the home. I could never figure out why my girls were so big and I was so small as a baby. Now I know why. I fight to prevent these kinds of things from EVER happening again.

Adoptees are the only ones who don’t have a choice. Why should we be bound by a contract for the rest of our lives? A contract that we did not sign. Most contracts are not valid with a minor. Yet I and millions like me are bound by that agreement. Would you honor an agreement made by others on your behalf? In a court of law, you would not be required to but I am. Also the laws in 44 states are based on what the agencies want. Not what adoptive parents, natural parents and adoptees want and need. In the six states that have adoptee access, adoption is on the rise and abortion is decreasing. I have proof of it. In the six states again, 97% of natural parents want contact from their children. There have been no issues of stalking adoptees. Again I can prove all of this. In some of those states, the percentage is higher. Even raped natural mothers want contact from their children. I have proof of that too. I have tons of research, books, and statistical information proving what I say is true. I have spoken with thousands of natural mothers and fathers across this country. I am not someone who is ignorant. I am not someone who is having a temper tantrum. I am very well versed in laws in many if not all of the states in this country of ours. I am a member of Bastard Nation, OriginsUSA, Concerned United Birth Parents, Chosen Babies, Soul of Adoption, Indiana Looking, Adoptee Rights, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute’s email list, and probably many other lists and groups. I back up what I say with facts and documentation.

I know that you can’t even begin to imagine all of this. I don’t expect you to understand. I hope and PRAY that you learn from my experiences. I pray that you as my friend never experience the horror of adoption as it is now and then practiced. I don’t want our children subjected to it either. I don’t want you robbed of your grandchildren. If I can prevent this, then I have done my job as God wanted. I have followed HIS will. It will because of me and others like me that you won’t be denied your rights as a parent and as a grandparent.


His response titled Call me ignorant.

Dear Amy,

I guess I am the ignorant one. I did not realize all the BS that goes with the agencies. Being government I guess I should have.

I do understand a bit more. I guess not being adopted I never really payed attention to all the ins and outs of it all.I am truly sorry that I have hurt you through my ignorance. I should know better.

As far as D*****, we’ve never discussed the subject before. I really don’t know where he stands on the subject, but I do know that God gave everybody the right to a choice of their actions and be it wrong or right, it is still their choice. I did not realize that the agencies are apparently on the side of evil and it must be defeated and that is God’s plan for you.

I don’t mean to push on the religion factor so much, but it is a big part of life in this world and should be followed by all, even though it’s not. That is the sad part.

As I said earlier, I am truly sorry that I hurt you. I did not mean to. I guess I am just not educated on all aspects of the adoptee world.

I am not a big reader and working in the spirits (alcohol) business doesn’t give me a lot of time to do much of it. Especially during the holidays.

I also should have known that you are not one to go into something half heartily and tried better to understand where you come from. I wish the best for you and hope everything works out in your quest.

God is watching over you and your and all will be wonderful. Have faith. Which I’m sure you do. Y’all will be in my prayers and I sorry for all the jerks in the adoption service are messing up so many lives, but I know you will have an impact on it and them and things will change for the better because of your persistence. I wish you the best.

On a different note. I hope the family is doing well and life is treating you well.

Still w/ love, and now, admiration.

Now to this group. After reading the comments, it can be deduced that this is a group of entitled adopters. Yes I say adopters. Just like they use derogatory commentary against Ibaanika and other natural parents. They need to understand that they too deserve negative commentary right back. It is a shame that they feel so entitled. One day they too will realize the harm that they have inflicted on their owned children. More harm than what any natural parent would have done. Yes you own the children. They will know how you bought and paid for them without a care in the world for them. As an adoptee who had a father who wanted her, I can tell you that they will feel anger at you. In my case, my adoptive parents didn’t know what was going on at the agency. My own adoptive mother feels horror at what was done at the hands of this agency. I don’t know if any of this group realize this. As you are talking about your child’s parents, you are commenting on them as well. What you say about the natural parents reflects on your child. They will wonder if you feel this way about them. It will show up in your relationship with them. I can say this much. My mother never spoken badly about my natural parents. By the way, comment moderation is on. I will warp whatever you say in comment moderation.

Mother Jones.

October 23, 2007

Check out this article.

Its a good read. I personally would like to see Mother Jones do a series on adoptee rights. I used to subscribe to them all the time.

Angry Cat Adopted

October 22, 2007

I would be too. Losing my identity and my parents


October 20, 2007

My name is Amy Burt. I am writing to you to ask you to intervene on the behalf of Shawn McDonald. He is a father whose rights were horribly violated by both the adoption agency, LDS Social Services and social worker, Eric Larson, involved in his case. He listed himself on the Texas Putative Father registry. He made his intentions to raise his son very very clear. Somehow, the adoption went through. He was not proven an unfit father. He was DNA tested and was proved to be the father. The adoption agency was found in violation of adoption ethics for the state of Texas by Child Protective Services. The social worker was also put onto probation for his part in this wrongful adoption. The Judge, Cheryl Lee Shannon, in his case has still yet to return his son to him. The Judge even ordered the adoption agency to pay $100,000 to this young man to pay for his legal fees. In fact Shawn is being sued by the “adoptive parents” for child support. They rob him of his parental rights and then sue him for child support. This is being done to force him to relinquish his rights. Something is just wrong with this case.

Texas is well known for protecting the rights of its constituents. Why hasn’t Shawn had his son returned to him? Why is this adoption agency allowed to continue to operate? Why does the social worker still have his job when he violated the rights of this father? Texas legislators need to step up and help this man regain custody of his child.

These kinds of cases create a need to reform adoption. It is long past the time to allow adoptees access to their records. This would be sadly twenty one years too late. We need to make open adoptions legally binding. We also need to remove the money in adoption. It is allowing unethical practices in adoption to proliferate and expand. The adoption industry has become about their right to profit at the expense of adoptees, natural parents and adoptive parents. You must make this right.

I beg all of you to intervene on the behalf of this young man. He deserves to be a father to his son.

Amy K. Burt


October 20, 2007

Now an important message from the Adoptee Rights Protest Gang

Dashboard Confessional

October 19, 2007

Brought to you via the many adoptees across this country. Excellent job guys excellent job.