Christie's Cruel Joke

Governor Christie’s conditional veto of the NJ Adoptee Birthright bill amounts to a cruel joke played at the expense of NJ adult adoptees and birth parents. For those of you unfamiliar with the issue let me explain.

During this legislative session, the NJ Senate and Assembly passed the Adoptee Birthright bill, the culmination of a long struggle by advocates that has lasted about 30 years. The bill would provide adult adoptees with access to their original birth certificates or OBCs. In NJ as in most states in the country adoptees’ OBC’s are sealed and locked away when a child is adopted. At that time the state issues an amended birth certificate that substitutes the names of the adoptive parents for the birth parents. Only in the most extreme medical emergencies, like a bone marrow transplant requiring a donation from a birth relative are the records opened.

Why is a bill that would allow adult adoptees access to their OBC’s so important?

Well, in most cases when adult adoptees become aware of their adoption they’re interested in making contact with their birth parents and other birth relatives they may have.  But without access to their OCB it’s almost impossible to make contact. 

Birth mothers also want to connect. Overwhelming, when given the chance, birth mothers opt for contact with the children they gave up for adoption.

This is not speculation, data collected in the states where records have been opened, and in the U.K. that did away with secret files in the mid-70s, confirms this to be the case. 

Now back to the Governor. Why is his action so underhanded and mean spirited?

Instead of signing the bill passed by the legislature that would end the outdated policy that treats adoptees like second class citizens he opted instead to offer an amendment that would establish a new governmental bureaucracy (funny coming from the bureaucracy busting Governor) that would mediate between adult adoptees and the birth parents before opening records. Under his plan intermediaries would have a year to seek out birth parents asking for their permission before the original birth certificates are released to the adoptee, the rightful owner of that information.

On the surface this might not look like such a horrible thing. Even though a year is a long time to wait for critical information about family and origins, it’s not forever. So why are adoptees and birth parents so anger with the Governor’s move. Here’s the rub.

It comes down to the fine print and how things are going to play out in the real world. A close look at the Governor’s amendment reveals that intermediaries will be appointed by representatives of the state’s adoption agencies and many of those organizations, especially those with religious affiliations, have long been opponents of open records.

We all know that the way you approach people about sensitive issues, can affect the way they respond. We’re all familiar with the poll question that asked one way gets one answer and asked another gets the opposite response. That idea is relevant here. Will intermediaries have an agenda? How will they approach birth parents? What will they say? Who will be supervising how they act? And if they come back with a negative response will the adoptee have any recourse? All of these questions and others remain to be answered.

Whenever I tell someone that adoptees don’t have access to their OBC they’re shocked and can’t believe it. That kind of secrecy and deception just doesn’t seem to belong in America especially today. So what’s behind the long-standing and vehement opposition to open records? Opponents claim they’re protecting birth mothers who were promised confidentiality when they gave up their children for adoption. But advocates of open records say this is clearly not true and point to data showing that 95% of birth mothers are not interested in remaining anonymous. They want a connection or at least some contact with the children they gave up.

So what makes opponents so adamant if protecting the confidentiality of birth mothers is a false issue? Could it be that the opponents’ real objective is to protect birth fathers, some of whom were wealthy, well-connected, influential men or even clergy who fear being outed. Think that’s wild speculation? Google “Priests Fathering Children,” and see what results you get.