Did Jesus Tell You To Lie?

Seems that somebody is having a bit trouble with the truth.  I had engaged in a very civil discourse on open adoption records with this liar and she twisted my words.  I don’t like that.  It seems that she wants to make people believe that I support “mutual consent” in matters of birth certificate access.

Crazy lying bitch.  I do not in any way support mutual consent laws.  I believe that adoptees should have free access to their birth certificates.

Here’s the post followed by comments..

he Legal History of Adoption in the U.S.

“Kippa Herring” has posted several comments regarding the research of Professor Elizabeth Samuels, who published her overview of the legal history of adoption in the U.S. in the Rutgers Law Review ( Winter 2001), entitled  “The Idea of Adoption.” Rather than print selected quotes from Samuel’s work, I’ve decided to refer you to the article so you can read it in its entirety.

Although Professor Samuels (like Kippa) is in favor of mandated open records (as opposed to the “mutual consent” approach advocated by the National Council for Adoption and myself), Samuels’ paper is helpful in providing a historical context for understanding the complexities of the issue, and how balancing the respective (often conflicting) needs and responsibilities of all three sides of the adoption triad have challenged state legislatures and social agencies alike for more than sixty years.

For those of you who are new to this, mandated open records ”unseal” original birth certificates of adult adopted children (and other persons of interest), regardless of whether the biological parents agree to having identifying information released to the (adult) child.

At this time, only a handful of states allow adult adoptees unrestricted access to their original records, although this is something that a variety of nationally organized advocacy groups (such as “Bastard Nation” and “Unsealed Initiative” are fighting to change).

Nevertheless, adoptive parents will want to educate themselves about the issue so you can be prepared when your child broaches the subject of his birth parents. Not all adopted children decide to look for their birth parents, but most have feelings about their birth families that we — their parents – need to help them work through, even if search and reunion is not a possibility.

Information is power, the saying goes. By educating ourselves about the issues surrounding adoption, we empower ourselves to give our children the support they need to reconcile and integrate the two sides of their heritage.

No two families will approach this the same way. It may be that your child has no interest in finding his birth family. If he does, try to relax and not take it as a sign that he is rejecting you.From what I’ve read, there seems to be little connection between an adopted child’s desire to know his birth family and the strength of the bond he has with his adoptive parents. Just this afternoon I spoke with a radio producer whose older sister found her birth family, and yet he had no desire to do so.

In any event, this article is well worth reading, no matter where in the adoptive triad you stand.

4 Responses to “The Legal History of Adoption in the U.S.”

  1. Thank you for posting this, Heidi.

    “Information is power, the saying goes.”
    Which is one reason, among others, why adopted people deserve to have the right to information about their origins restored to them – and I use the word “restored” deliberately, because that right was eroded and eventually lost during the middle of the 20th century.

    I would also like to include the opinion of Margaret Somerville, Canadian ethicist and academic. She is the Samuel Gale Professor of Law, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine and the Founding Director of the Faculty of Law’s Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University. She is a remarkable woman and someone to be taken seriously even where one disagrees with her.

    The excerpt (below) is from a 2007 panel discussion about ethical problems relating to assisted reproductive technology, but she also relates to children’s human rights in general:

    “Recently I’ve been working on children’s human rights with respect to their biological origins and biological families.
    In that work I’ve argued that we must recognize that children have human rights with respect to knowing the identity of their biological parents and, if at all possible, their immediate and wider biological families; having a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents; and to come from natural biological origins.”

    She also says that “It is one matter for children not to know their genetic identity as a result of unintended circumstances.
    It is quite another matter to deliberately destroy children’s links to their biological parents, and especially for society to be
    complicit in this destruction.”

    You can read more here:
    http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/files/pdf/The%20Intersection%20of%20Freedom%20-%20Margaret%20Somerville.pdf

    She also believes that emphasis should be placed on the rights of the child, so that if an adopted person seeks disclosure of their adoption records, that information should be disclosed *whether the parent who placed the child consents or not*, because everyone has the human right to know their origins.
    The reverse, on the other hand, wouldn’t necessarily hold true. In her opinion, a parent would only be entitled to information about a child who’d been placed for adoption if they consented.

  2. “For those of you who are new to this, mandated open records ”unseal” original birth certificates of adult adopted children..”

    Also for those who are new to this it might be worth noting that adoptees do not remain children all of their lives. They do become adults. For perspective should those not adopted be referred to as adult biological children, adult natural children, adult unadopted children? Sounds rather silly, doesn’t it?

  3. I would think that even those who are new to adoption would realize that children (by definition) grow up.

    It was a simple typo. Thanks for pointing it out.

  4. Kippa:

    “…having a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents; and to come from natural biological origins.”

    With regard to reproductive technology, I’d have to say that Professor (?) Sommerville is arguing against invitro and other forms of artificial reproduction, which is consistent with traditional Catholic teaching. And I fully agree that, if mandated open records becomes the norm, donor records must also be released as well. That would be simple justice — the same standard for both mother and father.

    As for the final paragraph, it’s important to distinguish between “rights” and “desires.” As “Addie” pointed out, these individuals are no longer children, but adults. “Mutual consent” would seem to be the logical middle ground.

    Nice try fuckwit.

    here’s the second comment she refused to put up…

    Comment:
    Please do not presume that I would think that mutual consent would be a logical middle ground.  I do not.  My biological history belongs to me, just as yours belongs to you.  I have as much right to know what that heritage is as anyone else.

    There is no middle ground.  Something that is so uniquely mine cannot be denied me, it is my right to know this.


    And the response..

    Frankly, it’s not my concern whether you think this is logical middle ground — you are entitled to your opinion, and the express it … on YOUR blog.

    As I’ve said to Kippa, I’m not interested in prolonging the discussing about open records on my blog at this time. There are strong points of view, and frankly because each of us has formed an opinion from which we are unlikely to budge, further discussion is pointless. I’ve deleted your comment, in keeping with my comments policy.

    Feel free to link and respond as you see fit … but at EMN, I get to moderate and direct the conversation as I see fit. I’m sorry if you disagree with my viewpoint.

    Heidi Saxton

    Author, “Raising Up Mommy” and “Behold Your Mother” (http://www.christianword.com)

    Founder, “Extraordinary Moms Network”
    (
    http://extraordinarymomsnetwork.wordpress.com)

    Proud of herself, isn’t she?
    Well that bitch can lick me.
    She’s a liar who will do anything to support her little bitty position.  Her faith and/or intelligence is obviously so weak that she will not take on a civil debate.  She just another useless crying bitch who can’t back up what she lays down.
    Now go do your penance for being a liar, little Heidi.  Jesus will forgive you.

Oh, and if you’ll notice she said that she would delete my comment from her blog.  She hasn’t done that either.  Just another lie.

OK, she finally took that down.  But she’s still a liar.

Here’s my latest communication with Heidi The High Strung Convert..

Hah! Thanks for such a constructive and thoughtful response.

I’ve not read your blog, and based on what I’ve read about your perspective
so far, I seriously doubt that will change anytime soon. But I’m sure there
are plenty of those who share your viewpoint who will be happy to let you
“preach to the choir.” I just happen not to be one of them.

H.

And my response..

No sweetie, it’s you that has the choir.  I have minions, they look
like the monkeys that fly out your ass every time you lie.  Well I
have the minions, and I have readers.  You see if I bring up a topic
I’m willing to defend my position, it’s called integrity. I doubt you
would know anything about it.


Advertisements

34 thoughts on “Did Jesus Tell You To Lie?

  1. Here’s my take on what is needed in regard to birth certificates:

    (1) all adoptees and natural mothers should have unfettered access to the original birth certificate. This should include every adoption that ever occured in the past.

    (2) future adoptions should NEVER alter the birth certificate in any way. The birth certificate is a record live birth that records the pertinenet details of an individual’s origins. There is no logical reason to ever change this document. An adoption decree should suffice for parental rights.

  2. Somehow I knew without looking who posted that. I am trying to “like” this blogger, really really. I am grasping though and her catholic viewpoint (according to the site she represents-claiming to speak for catholics)) is certainly NOT my Christianity at all. Since I am not and never will be catholic by choice,my church and my Jesus does not condone lies~I can’t speak for the catholics. Every post she writes that grinds my rear, I keep trying to start fresh and give her another chance.
    I want to like some more APs, because I AM one-as well as an adopted person.(does that adoptee status cancel out my “expert adoptress” opinion?lol since the “adopted” know nothing about adoption-heh but we adoptresses are all knowing)
    ~sigh~ I only have ONE nice adoptive family on my blogroll and it seems to be slim pickins.

  3. Why in God’s name are you talking to this woman?

    She has already demeaned the “birthparents” as much as is humanly possible by way of stereotypes and discrimination.

  4. Mei-Ling,

    Oh I’m not really talking to her. I like to think of it as more batting her around.

    chowchow,

    I do know some wonderful adoptive parents. They just don’t think they are experts. In fact, I really tend to like folks who are smart enough to realize that nobody can truly be an expert about adoption. We are all just working from our own experiences and those that are shared honestly by others. The Universe knows that the research isn’t much help.

    My blogroll actually has a few nice APs on it.

    maybe,

    Damn right.

  5. We all know exactly what you meant, Addie.
    And so did she. She’s slippery as all get out.
    She twisted my words too. As well as didn’t post the link that shows Somerville favors adoptee rights.

    “. . . nobody can truly be an expert about adoption.”
    I wish more people would realize that and not appoint themselves as pundits.
    Now she’s trying to distract attention from the right to know one’s origins by bringing up the old reunion chestnut.
    As if she doesn’t know these are entirely separate issues.

  6. “Now she’s trying to distract attention from the right to know one’s origins by bringing up the old reunion chestnut.”

    What? I don’t understand. Did she write that in a private e-mail to you? Or on a blog somewhere?

  7. No Mei-Ling, I’m not in private correspondence with her. The thought. Eeek!

    I hate the “The reunion makes every thing OK.” thing too, but that’s not Heidi. This was more like the opposite. See under her post “The Legal History of Adoption in the U.S”. She quoted some adoption counsellor who once said, “Reunion doesn’t resolve anything. It only changes the dynamics.”*

    This was in reply to Mark Deibel’s response which was focused on rights and didn’t even touch the issue of reunion.
    This seem to be part of the way she operates. Slips in ‘reunion’. Confuses. Conflates. So that her regular readers will have no idea what’s going on. It gives her another hook on which to hang her argument. So she can re-establish her agenda.

    Heidi, if you’re reading here, 1+1 don’t = 3.
    Opening adoption records is NOT about reunion. It has Nothing To Do with Reunion. Opening records is about equal rights.
    Open records and reunion are Entirely Separate Issues.
    Putting them in the same basket is just like the old abortion/adoption either/or conflation. Or the equally old hat open adoptions/open records confusion.

    Heidi doesn’t care for the barrage or arguments she’s getting, but it was she who opened the original kettle of slimy frogs when she appointed herself adoption pundit by writing her grossly misinformed and horribly misleading “Anti-adoption” article in the Catholic Whatever.

    * Actually I agree with that statement about reunion.
    But it SO wasn’t Marks’s point. You know, Heidi’s more articulate, but she reminds me of Sarah Palin – if you don’t like it, ignore the question and change the subject to nudge things back in your direction.

  8. “In what way Charlie?”
    Hey hey. Very ho ho.

    Well, I have to admit to a mistake. My badski.
    She’s bumped up an older post in which she *has* posted the link and quote that I thought she hadn’t.
    But I’m not sure whether it’s had any impact on the way she understands Margaret Somerville’s message about people’s rights to know their origins.

  9. If I were a minion could I have wings?

    I am in favor of open records, period. Without them, and some luck, I would not have known my full adoption story or met my birth mother who was told she couldn’t contact me.

  10. Altered birth certificates are state sanctioned lying and manipulation of records. Period. All adoptees want is their true birth record. They want the state to give them the truth instead of the lies. These “Christian” adopters need a reality check. But what do you expect from religious zealots? Particularly the Catholic baby stealing variety. Thieves have to lie in order to continue to be successful at it.

  11. She changed the comment she wrote to me because she thought that I was Kippa and she was talking about nasty comments on Amy or Aimee’s blog, and I am wondering if she confused Addie with Amy as well?

    I was curious because of what you wrote so I wrote a polite comment but then regretfully I kind of spoke from the heart, it’s a terrible habit I have and one that is not easy to break.

    I think she’s weird and not even worth talking about, the really interesting one is that freaky mean one who has jolly Christmas music on her blog and Jesus talk but is a mean cold creep.

    There is nothing Christian about those women, it’s all about being self congratulatory, talking about being in the trenches and calling natural mothers BM and basically just needing to big themselves up.

    Addie please no more posts like this, I don’t have the stomach for these ugly people and I don’t have the discipline to turn away from these car crashes, I have to look.

    There are so many of them, they spread their poison and use Jesus as a screen and they give themselves superhero names on the internet but they are just dull housewives with computers. They are what we call here at home “nothing people”.

  12. She’ll basically throw the Bible down your throat. You think her quotes in her blog posts are bad?

    I had some e-mail exchanges with her… seems all she’s capable of is regurgitating the Bible over and over again.

    “Jesus will save your soul, but only if you let Him!” blah blah blah…

  13. Anyone can quote from a book. It’s how you treat others that counts. If you are unkind and dishonest then that is who you are. You can be a mean person and still read a book and quote from it.

    The other thing is that to give yourself names like Mighty Mom or Extraordinary Mom kind of gives you away. The self congratulatory nature of that is shameful and underneath all that is the feeling of not being important hence the need to big oneself up.

    Again, it’s boring women who never get noticed and are just housewives with computers. Using the Bible is one way to feel important but they use it to try to get away with being nasty.

    This is all the energy I’m going to give to this, they don’t deserve any more than this.

  14. Thank you Kippa. That woman thought we were the same person. She changed her comment and didn’t publish the one that I wrote telling her that we are the same person.

    After feeling poisoned by those disgusting people I have decided only to dialogue with nice people. That’s my new goal. I intend to stick to it.

  15. THIS IS WHAT I MEAN, THESE PEOPLE ARE REALLY DEMENTED.

    Mightymom (retardedmom)
    That “circling a pregnant girl like a vulture” comment really threw me for a loop. really.(so now I’m going to be a total bitch here goes)

    tells nothing about beauty contest that all families who wish to adopt have to go through to get the birth mother (they are not expecnant mothers oh no)to pick them. tells nothing about the girls(not women but girls and slutty criminal ones at that) who string along several families at once getting all her medical expenses paid plus a lot of “extras” only to choose to keep the baby at the very last moment (the cheeek of it after taking all that money from all those nice families who really are paps)….and she doesn’t have to give any of that money back(so that means she shouldn’t be allowed to keep her baby)…talk to a few families who have waited for many years for an American born child to adopt before(yes they missed out on the good white babies, I really want to talk to people like that, yeah sure…) you slam International adoption(because those poor people got conned by birthmothers so they deserve a baby, any baby, if ot a white baby then at least an almost white baby). Then look at the fact that in many countries you are not taking the child from it’s parents (because we all know those babies don’t have any living relatives)…you are taking it out of an ORPHANAGE.(yes, so they are orphans, not family members who can grow up with mightymom type people so take that you fiend)

    oh, and the question is not rearing vs adoption….it’s ABORTION vs adoption. These ladies have already decided in most cases not to keep the kiddo.

  16. THIS DESERVES A COMMENT ALL BY ITSELF:

    oh, and the question is not rearing vs adoption….it’s ABORTION vs adoption. These ladies have already decided in most cases not to keep the kiddo.

    (sorry when did abortion get mentioned, if these “ladies” decided not to keep their babies then why is abortion an issue? And who says they have made a decision? And if they have who says they can’t decide to keep after the baby is born? And when did you become such a cold mean sterile bitch? I don’t think it was the vulpture comment, I think you were pretty fucked up long before then)

    (MightyMom? What is so mighty about being so nasty? Someone should pull your pants down and give you a good hard spanking)

  17. Kim, I saw that and posted a link to Mary Anne Cohen’s article, “Adoption is not a reproductive rights issue” http://adoption.about.com/od/adoptionrights/a/reprorightsissu.htm

    She may post it. She may not. She certainly hasn’t posted quite a few comments I’ve made, including the one where I made the point that I AM speaking from an adoptive mother’s perspective. And asked her WHY she thinks closed adoption records should be opened only IF and when donor and in vitro arrangements become open.

    Might Mom is awful. Just awful. I don’t know what else to say.
    These people make me want to sterilize the computer screen.

    It does give one a revealing insight though.
    I mean, into this kind of thinking.

  18. Oh Kippa, thanks for reminding me that God issues orders directly to some folks. Since he never tells me much of anything, I tend to forget that some know exactly what he wants.

  19. See what happened Kippa was that Osolomom left a comment and I thought it was the woman who runs the blog replying and was surprised and touched by her open minded intelligence, that bad mistake of mine led me to open my heart, yeah i know, never a good idea on the internet anywhere, call it a weak moment, and then the RetardedMom replied and then I looked and though oh eek.

    When I had a peek at MoronMom’s website, no I can’t stay away it’s my car crash theory where you have to look, I was mortified and startled by her jolly Christmas music and dark bad evil energy coming through her blog.

    The writing about themselves as being in the trenches and using the term BM for natural mothers says it all.

    I should have just trusted Addie and taken her word for it, they are crazy lying bitches, let me add cold and mean to that too.

    Now I can go back to focusing on the beauty of life……..

  20. I know, Maybe. Apparently they have a hot line to the bearded Big Guy in the sky.

    LOVE this song. It just riffs and riffs . . . kind of goes on, but still . . .

    Oh, Kim. I do so understand what you mean. It’s that gruesome it’s hard not to rubberneck. Yes, Addie has a talent for cutting through crap.

    Focusing on the beauty of life is a good idea.
    I’m going to enjoy the beauty of the day (we have snow here, and brilliant sun). You have a lovely day too.

  21. “The other thing is that to give yourself names like Mighty Mom or Extraordinary Mom kind of gives you away.”

    Well, I was wondering about that.

    But to be honest, the only thing I could think of was that any mom who raises a child appropriately should be given thanks and respect. She’s not downplaying first moms in that title – she’s using it for recognition for the hard work that adoptive moms do!

    BUT.

    I don’t like her usage of the term “BM.” BLEH.

    Maybe and Kim: She has good reason to think that not all children should stay with their biological parents – her own adopted children were taken from foster care because their biological parents were treating them quite badly – both physically and emotionally. I’m not saying she *should* be thinking that all children *deserve* to stay with their first parents ALL the time, but because she’s in a circumstances where it would actually be dangerous for her children to be in any sort of contact with their first moms, I can sort of see where she’d get her impressions from.

    (But her Bible statements? Nuh uh. I, too, would like to know when God spoke privately to her.)

  22. I have noticed that a lot (not all but a lot) of foster adoptive mothers have this feeling that they are super saints for taking in another person’s child. As well as that they don’t even bother to hide their hatred of first mothers. They certainly are not going to appreciate adopted people telling them what they think either.

    I think being abused at home is good reason to be taken from the home you won’t find argument with me there, although being taken from the home is also traumatic.

    I think all people deserve respect Mei-Ling, I don’t see how you can raise a child well and be a mean person at the same time. Some of that meaness is going to seep through. The two qualities just don’t exist together.

    I don’t care anymore what anyone calls me, it says more about the person than it does about me. I don’t even see myself as a birth mother or first mother or BM or vessel of life or giver to God’s chosen infertiles really, I see myself as a person. How I see myself is not related to adoption it really isn’t.

    I don’t relate those people as people who adopted, I never just think of someone as an adoptee either. It always takes me by surprise when someone does that to me, it’s like they have half vision or something.

  23. While I agree with Mei-Ling that all parents, adoptive or otherwise, deserve respect for doing a decent job, I do think calling oneself “Mighty Mom” or describing onelf as “extraordinary” is being being self-congratulatory.

    As Maybe observed, it’s not as if they didn’t choose, very deliberately, to become parents. And presumably they had the time and conditions to anticipate what that might involve.

    Like Kim, I relate to people as people (the ones I “click” with; the ones I don’t), and don’t think in terms of adoptee, “birth parent”, adoptive parent/adopter, whatever, unless it’s necessary to label for clarity.
    I don’t feel that I, personally, can be categorized that way, and never did.

    But these people identify themselves as adoptive parents. It seems to be their primary role. Obsessional. And I think that’s weird.

  24. I hate that woman’s blog, and let me tell you she doesn’t speak for all Catholics either. How dare she? I just don’t waste my energy on reading there or commenting anymore. I can’t, it takes too much out of me and I am not willing to do that.. Just um no….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s