Testimony on adoption bill SB959, respectfully submitted to the
Joint Committee on Children and Families
of the Massachusetts Legislature
Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute
Adam Pertman, Executive Director
October 27, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning and thank you for providing me the op****tunity to testify
on the ABC legislation, permitting adult adoptees access to their
original birth certificates. The issue you are examining today is far
more im****tant than most people perceive it to be, both in practical
terms for the tens of millions of Americans that it stigmatizes - I
refer here to both birth parents and adopted people - and symbolically,
because we keep secrets about things we are ashamed of or embarrassed
about. So, when we seal birth certificates, we send the clear signal
that adoption is somehow a lesser way of forming a family, because it
has something to hide from the very start.
Thank God, we are emerging from the period of our history in which
people actually believed that was true, a period in which adoption was
a shadowy secret, a period in which we denigrated nearly everyone
touched by this wondrous institution, a period in which we even turned
the words "you're adopted" into an insult. My children are not an
insult, and neither are anyone else's, regardless of how they came into
a family or why they left one. But some remnants of those dark days
remain, and sealed birth certificates are one of those remnants.
It is also difficult to learn much about secrets. As a result, many
myths, misconceptions and stereotypes have come to be widely accepted -
even by some professionals in the adoption field. The Evan B. Donaldson
Adoption Institute, which I am proud to head, has no formal ties with
any interest group. It is an independent and nonpartisan research,
policy and education organization that was created for just one reason:
to provide accurate, research-based information for practitioners,
policymakers, journalists and others so that we, as a society, can
shape better laws, policies and practices to improve the lives of
everyone touched by adoption, especially children.
I will try not to take up too much of your time. So I've boiled down
the rest of my testimony into bullet points about research that applies
specifically to the issue of sealed birth certificates. I will steer
away from any disputed findings, and will stick to only those confirmed
by hard data, widely accepted studies, or pervasive experience. I will
submit footnotes and sup****ting materials for the record:
First, as you may already know, it is a historical fact that
adoption-related records - in Massachusetts and across the United
States - were closed to protect adopted children from the stigma and
shame of illegitimacy, and biological mothers from the stigma and shame
of unwed motherhood. The clear legislative and professional intent was
to prevent access to those records by the public, not by the parties to
an adoption themselves. Historically, the notion that birth
certificates were sealed to ensure the anonymity of birth mothers is
untrue, irrespective of whether providing anonymity is a good idea or
not.
Second, it needs to be stressed that adopted people are not stalkers,
ingrates or children in search of new mommies and daddies. They are
simply adults who want the same information the rest of us receive as a
birthright. In his book "Roots," Alex Haley wrote: "In all of us there
is a hunger, marrow deep, to know our heritage, to know who we are and
where we have come from. Without this enriching knowledge, there is a
hollow yearning; no matter what our attainments in life, there is the
most disquieting loneliness." Research, experience and instinct all
affirm Haley's eloquent observation. And adopted people are not exempt
from the laws of nature. They love their parents - that is, their
adoptive parents - just as much and are just as loyal as if they had
been born to them. But a growing majority wants to know about their
genetic, medical and cultural roots. Statistically, most do not form
relation****ps with their biological kin or even make contact; for them,
just having the most basic information about themselves is enough; it
makes them feel they are treated equally, and it makes them feel whole.
The fact is that access to their do***ents has become an issue that is
separate from the question of "search" anyway. That is because, as a
result of the Internet and other modern-day resources, many if not most
adoptees who want to find their birth relatives can do so with or
without their original birth certificates. One other detail relating to
adoptees: They are wrong when they complain that they are the only
Americans whose records are automatically sealed, and cannot be opened
without court approval. In fact, the same process applies to people
placed in the Federal Witness Protection Program.
Third, the notion that a lack of anonymity leads women to have
abortions rather than place their children for adoption is pure
fiction. It may sound correct intuitively but, in fact, just the
opposite appears true in practice; the research indicates that women
are at least as likely to carry their babies to term and place them
into adoptive homes if they believe they will have ongoing knowledge
about what happened to those children. The evidence is in the growing
number of states where adoption records have most recently been
unsealed, and it extends much further and for much longer: In Kansas
and Alaska, the only two states in which records have never been
closed, there consistently have been fewer abortions and more adoptions
than in states that border them or in the country as a whole.
Fourth, on the critically im****tant question of the birth mothers'
desires, the research is unambiguous: Every study I am aware of
relating to whether they want anonymity clearly shows that the vast
majority do not - and that applies to those who were verbally assured
of anonymity as well as those who were verbally assured they would one
day have contact with the children they bore; yes, many women were
promised exactly the opposite of anonymity, but those promises are
seldom publicly discussed.
Back to the numbers: Depending on the study, between 80 percent and 95
percent of birth mothers do indeed want some level of information or
contact with the lives they created. That doesn't mean they want to
give up their privacy, but there's a huge difference between privacy
and secrecy. And it doesn't mean they necessarily want the information
or contact right away - some only want it years later, when they've had
enough time to deal with the personal and emotional consequences of
their action or, increasingly often, when they discover they have
genetic or medical information they want to share. It is also highly
significant that only a small percentage have taken advantage of the
op****tunity to say "no" release of birth certificates in all the states
that have unsealed them in recent years. Even among those who genuinely
thought they wanted anonymity at the time of placement, the majority
eventually change their minds. Life is not a snapshot, after all, and
few of us would want to live forever with the decisions we made at the
age of 17, or even 25. Yet the core argument against unsealing birth
records is predicated on the mistaken belief that birth mothers are of
one mind - and it will never change. This is not only a fundamental
misunderstanding of research and experience, on a human level it
assumes a woman can carry a child within her and then part with that
child and just "move on," as though she has given away an old record
player. That view - essentially relegating women to the role of
baby-making machines - pervaded adoption for generations. Thank God, it
is changing radically and adoption practices are being reshaped in
comprehensive, historic ways as a result. The bottom line is that birth
certificates remain sealed in most of our country today because of
lingering myths and mistaken stereotypes.
Finally, keeping birth certificates sealed contradicts the stated
desires of almost everyone directly affected, and it flies in the face
of majority opinion throughout the United States. That applies to birth
mothers, who seldom choose not to be contacted in states where they can
state a preference; it applies to adopted people who - once they are
adults - favor access to their records by margins of about 4 to 1; it
applies to a large and growing number of adoptive parents, a clear
majority of whom have already told their children about their origins
anyway; and, according to a national study, it applies to the American
public as a whole. The study, which had a 3 percent margin of error,
asked this question: "Should adopted children be granted full access to
their adoption records when they become adults?" Eighty-four percent
responded, "yes."
I respectfully ask the members of this Legislature to put aside the
aberrational anecdotes, emotional appeals, and corrosive myths on which
too much public policy relating to adoption has been based for far too
long. Instead, please examine the research. I believe that, after you
do, you will come to the same conclusion as that 84 percent. Again,
thank you very much.
|
