MISSOURI NEEDS YOUR HELP: RESTORE ADOPTEE RIGHTS NOW

It's always something! Bastardette can't be in two places at once, but she'd appreciate your help right now. Write to the Missouri House Judiciary and support HB 1436. Restore the civil rights of Missouri adptees--NOW! Adoptees aren't permanent wards of thes state ya know!

BASTARD NATION URGENT ACTION ALERT: SUPPORT MISSOURI'S HB-1436, OPEN RECORDS FOR ADULT ADOPTEES!HB-1436 WILL BE HEARD IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28th.

PLEASE CONTACT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND URGE THEM TO PASS THIS BILL OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH A "YES" VOTE!!HB-1436 has been introduced in the Missouri Assembly and would restore the availability of original birth certificates to adult adoptees born in the state, upon request and on par with other adults born in Missouri. This is a very straightforward adoptee rights bill that has been re-introduced for several years but thwarted by powerful legislators. The Missouri Open group supporting this legislation needs our help to ensure that the voice for adoptee rights in heard in the Show Me State!! Please remember that legislative activity on our issue in one state does impact what happens in other states. We are all in this together. Please pitch in and help Missouri win open records for adult adoptees!

READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE BILL:http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HB1436I.htmCOMMITTEE CONTACT INFORMATION:
HB 1436 is sponsored by Connie Johnson, Dem, Majority
Whip, Co-sponsored by James Whorton, Dem.

House of Representatives Judiciary Committee:
Mailing Address Format for each member:201 West Capitol AvenueRoom number (indicated for each Representative)
Jefferson City, MO. 65101

Bryan Pratt, Chair
Bryan.Pratt@house.mo.gov
Rm. 114A
573-751-8636
Capitol Fax: 573-751-8636

Timothy Flook, Vice Chair
tim.flook@house.mo.gov
Rm. 201G
573-751-1218
Capitol Fax: none

John P. Burnett
John.Burnett@house.mo.gov
Rm. 101I
573-751-3310
Capitol Fax: 573-751-3310

Connie "LaJoyce" Johnson
Connie.Johnson@house.mo.gov
Rm. 302-1
573-7510-7605
Capitol Fax: 573-522-9494

Rick Johnson
Rick.Johnson@house.mo.gov
Rm. 115C
573-751-6625
Capitol Fax: 573-522-9207

Scott Lipke
Scott.Lipke@house.mo.gov
RM. 235BA
573-751-6662
Capitol Fax: 573-526-7740

Marilyn Ruestman
Marilyn.Ruestman@house.mo.gov
Rm. 302B
573-751-9801
Capitol Fax: 573-522-5505

Ray Salva
Ray.Salva@house.mo.gov
Rm. 105G
573-751-5701
Capitol Fax: none

Jason Smith
Jason.Smith@house.mo.gov
Rm. 406B
573-751-1688
Capitol Fax: 573-526-1806

Bryan P. Stevenson
Bryan.Stevenson@house.mo.gov
Rm. 408A
573-751-7082
Capitol Fax: 573-526-9847

Steven Tilley
steven.tilley@house.mo.gov
Rm. 201A
573-751-1488
Capitol Fax: 573-526-0881

Michael Vogt
Michael.Vogt@house.mo.gov
Rm. 109E
573-751-9472
Capitol Fax: 573-522-3369

Brian David Yates
Brian.Yates@house.mo.gov
Rm. 235
573-751-0907
Capitol Fax: 573-526-1776

RAPID E-MAIL CUT AND PASTE:(copy this block of e-mail addresses into the BCC: line of your e-mail message and send one e-mail that will be distributed to all of the Representatives or Senators)
Bryan.Pratt@house.mo.gov; tim.flook@house.mo.gov; John.Burnett@house.mo.gov; Connie.Johnson@house.mo.gov;
Rick.Johnson@house.mo.gov; Scott.Lipke@house.mo.gov; Marilyn.Ruestman@house.mo.gov; Ray.Salva@house.mo.gov;
Jason.Smith@house.mo.gov; Bryan.Stevenson@house.mo.gov; steven.tilley@house.mo.gov; Michael.Vogt@house.mo.gov; Brian.Yates@house.mo.gov

Call, fax, e-mail, and write today! Your letters and phone calls do make a difference.Legislative CommitteeBastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organizationhttp://www.bastards.org/

Copyright 2006 Bastard Nation - Permission is granted to distribute verbatim copies of this document, provided that this notice remain intact.

MAINE'S THE THING:RESTORE ADOPTEE RIGHTS IN MAINE--NOW!

Bastardette has managed to blow off the month of February despite the best laid plans to post daily or thereabouts. It's not for a lack of anything to say!

In a few hours I'm off to the sunny state of Maine to testify before the Joint Judiciary Committee in favor of LD 1805--the bill, which if passed, will restore the right of identity and records access to Maine's adoptees. According to the weather report the temperature is 14 but feels like 8. Does it make any difference at that point?

Anyway, I'll be back in a few days with a full report and pictures and a copy of my testimony. I'd post my testimony now, but why give the Axis of Evil a leg up to piss on us?

With a little luck, there will be another NCFA meltdown. BTW, NCFA's St. Andre Home is leading the braying pack calling for birthparent privilege. Right on Andy's heels are the Catholic Diocese and Planned Parenthood. That bed sure is getting crowded.

Here's information about Maine's Access 2006 campaign to take back our identities in Maine.

And here is the Bastard Nation action alert. Write the committee and let them know that you support Maine's bastards and adoptees and that you want Maine to become the 6th state to recognize that adopted persons are people, too!

SUPPORT MAINE'S LD1805 - COMMITTEE HEARING ON FEB. 28, 2006!
BASTARD NATION ACTION ALERT: PLEASE DISTRIBUTE FREELY

MAINE ACTION ALERT: URGE THE MAINE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY TO VOTE YES ON LD1805!


BASTARD NATION: THE ADOPTEE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION fully supports (as written) the bill that is being heard in MAINE: LD1805. We urge all Bastard Nation members and adoptee rights supporters to contact the committee members and ask them to vote YES on LD1805.

On TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28 @ 1:00 pm, LD1805 WILL HAVE A HEARING BEFORE THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY. THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL, AS WRITTEN, IS BASED ON NH'S LAW AND WILL ALLOW ADULT ADOPTEES TO ACCESS THEIR ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE IN THE SAME MANNER AS ALL NON-ADOPTED ADULTS WHO WERE BORN IN MAINE. THERE IS A CONTACT PREFERENCE FORM INCLUDED IN THE BILL, WHICH WILL ALLOW BIRTH PARENTS TO EXPRESS THEIR DESIRES ABOUT CONTACT, SIMILAR TO SYSTEMS IN PLACE IN OREGON, ALABAMA, AND NEW HAMPSHIRE. PLEASE HELP MAINE BECOME THE 6TH STATE TO ALLOW ADULT ADOPTEES UNCONDITIONAL ACCESS TO THEIR ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATES!

Please call and e-mail your letter of support urging a yes vote on LD1805 to all Representatives and Senators of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

Read the full text of LD1805:

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/externalsiteframe.asp?ID=280019835&LD=1805&Type=1&SessionID=6

The MAINE State government page can be accessed here: http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/search.asp


If you are out-of-state, be sure to mention any Maine connection you may have.


PLEASE WRITE the Representatives & Senators of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary and ask them to vote YES LD1805. Help spread the recent victory for adoptee rights in New Hampshire to its neighbor to the North! REMEMBER: Passage of a clean bill in Maine can help efforts in YOUR state! Legislatures do look to their counterparts in other states to gauge trends in law. We need to work together to end adoptee rights violations in ALL states and provinces!


* * * CONTACT INFORMATION MAINE REPRESENTATIVES & SENATORS***


**SENATORS**

Senator Barry J. Hobbins (D-York), Chair :no email; Senate Democratic Office: 207-287-1515

Senator Lynn Bromley (D-Cumberland) : SenLynn.Bromley@legislature.maine.gov

Senator David R. Hastings III (R-Oxford) :dhastings@hastings-law.com (home)



**REPRESENTATIVES**


Representative Deborah L. Simpson (D-Auburn), Chair :RepDeborah.Simpson@legislature.maine.gov

Representative Sean Faircloth (D-Bangor) : sfaircloth@gwi.net (home)

Representative Stan Gerzofsky (D-Brunswick) : STAN1340@aol.com (home)

Representative Marilyn E. Canavan (D-Waterville) : mcanavan@verizon.net (home)

Representative Mark E. Bryant (D-Windham) : RepMark.Bryant@legislature.maine.gov

Representative Michael Edward Dunn (D-Bangor): RepMichael.Dunn@legislature.maine.gov

Representative Roger L. Sherman (R-Hodgdon)* :RepRoger.Sherman@legislature.maine.gov

Representative Roderick W. Carr (R-Lincoln) :RepRod.Carr@legislature.maine.gov

Representative Joan Bryant-Deschenes (R-Turner) :RepJoan.BryantDeschenes@legislature.maine.gov

Representative Joan M. Nass (R-Acton):RepJoan.Nass@legislature.maine.gov


***RAPID E-MAIL CUT AND PASTE***
(copy this block of e-mail addresses into the BCC: line of your e-mail message and send one e-mail that will be distributed to all of the Representatives or Senators)

SENATORS:

SenLynn.Bromley@legislature.maine.gov;dhastings@hastingslaw.com

REPRESENTATIVES:

RepDeborah.Simpson@legislature.maine.gov;sfaircloth@gwi.net,STAN1340@aol.com;mcanavan@verizon.net;RepMark.Bryant@legislature.maine.gov;

RepMichael.Dunn@legislature.maine.gov;RepRoger.Sherman@legislature.maine.gov;RepRod.Carr@legislature.maine.gov;RepJoan.BryantDeschenes@legislature.maine.gov;

RepJoan.Nass@legislature.maine.gov


***COMMITTEE INFORMATION***

Committee Clerk: Susan Pinette

Policy Analyst: Margaret Reinsch (Office of Policy & Legal Analysis)

Fiscal Analyst: Tim Leet (Office of Fiscal & Program Review)

Hearing Room: Room 438, State House - phone (207) 287-1327

Chairs' Office: Room 433, State House

Mailing Address:

Committee on Judiciary
100 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0100

Call, fax, e-mail, and write today! Your letters and phone calls do make a difference.

Legislative Committee
Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization
http://www.bastards.org/

Copyright 2006 Bastard Nation - Permission is granted to distribute verbatim
copies of this document, provided that this notice remain intact.

ADOPTION IS NOT A REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ISSUE by Mary Anne Cohen with commentary by Bastardette

For as long as Bastardette can remember, adult adoptees have been the object of fear and hatred on both sides of the abortion issue. During the Sundquist case when Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice and the National Council for Adoption challenged Tennessee's semi-records access law, Robertson went so far as to claim that the open records movement was simply a stealth attempt by pro-aborts to push abortion, since abortion would be the only solution to the intrusion of dirty little secrets aka bastards into the sancity of the home. (Unfortunately, this quote is no longer available online). The ACLU, Planned Parenthood and NARAL--claiming bizzrarely that adoption is a "reproductive choice" equal to abortion or any other medical procedure deserving of "privacy"-- frequently join the anti-abort Robertson clique claque implying that adoptees are disrupters from whom women need protection. During Sundquist a coalition of Tennessee repro-service providers supported ACLJ/NCFA but declined to sign on as amici. (Memo in the possesion of Bastrardette). The ACLU even shows up in in the NCFA Factbook 3 quashing adoptees like the cockroaches it believes we are. And I've already discussed what these so-called civil libertarians have done in New Jersey. At this rate, it wouldn't surprise me soon to find surrender and adoption covered by HIPAA.

This ridiculous presumption of adoption as a "reproductive choice" or "right" gets in the way of all records access campaigns. No adoptee rights/records access organization that I've ever heard of has an abortion policy for or against. Why would they? Abortion has nothing to do with surrender and adoption. Bastard Nation (here, here and here) and
the American Adoption Congress have amply proven this. Yet the myth continues. But then myths are highly useful weapons to pummel adoptees or any other "minority" that dares to rock Leviathan.

Recently Bastardette's good friend and longtime adoptee rights advocate Mary Anne Cohen put her thoughts down on the "reproductive rights" controversy, taking both sides to task. No matter what your views are on abortion and reproductive rights, if you support the civil rights of adult adoptees and records and identity access, you need to take Mary Anne's words to heart--and into the halls of legislation.

ADOPTION IS NOT A REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ISSUE

The opponents of open records on both the Right and the Left have tried to connect open records for adopted adults to issues of abortion and reproductive rights. This is a mistake and misuse of words, as all issues of reproductive rights cease once a living child, a separate individual with citizenship and rights of his own, is born. Adoption IS NOT a reproductive rights issue, nor is family preservation, any more than child abuse, breastfeeding, day care, or decent schools are, although all these issues are important and relate to children.

Once an adoption takes place, the reproductive part is done, the child is born and a separate person. There is no longer one person, the mother, and one legal non-person, the fetus, but two individuals with their own rights that have nothing to do with reproduction. I think we need to keep stressing this, to try to make it clear that however one feels about reproductive rights or abortion, it has nothing to do with adoption issues or with open records. Reproductive rights issues are birth control and access to it, abortion, and perhaps infertility treatments and assisted reproduction. Once a child is born, no matter what happens next, the "reproductive" part no longer applies because that is done, ended for everyone with the birth of one who is now a separate human being, not an object or less than a person.

Mothers do not have unlimited "choice" concerning what they do with their children once they are born, nor do they have rights that supersede those of that child when he or she becomes an adult. "Reproductive rights" do not last forever; they end when the reproduction part of the process ends after nine months with a live birth. And men have never had a "reproductive right" to anonymity, as witness the paternity suits filed every day! A particularly virulent outgrowth of the idea that a mother's supposed reproductive rights last forever and always trump the rights of the child are the awful baby dump "Safe Haven" laws that are springing up everywhere like weeds. Generally, where the law must step into family matters at all, it is assumed that protection of the minor child is more important than the rights of negligent or abusive adults. And all laws pertaining to minors but sealed records adoption laws end when the person becomes a legal adult.

There are only two choices, not three, that a pregnant woman makes that fall under the category of reproductive rights; the choice to abort, or to carry the child to term. The choice to surrender a child for adoption, which can only be made a legally binding choice once the child is born and a surrender document is signed, is NOT the third reproductive rights choice, nor is the opposite, the choice to raise the child and the right to assistance to do this. These important decisions that a mother makes once her child is born are in no way connected to the superior rights she had under the law while the child was still a fetus. No mother has life or death power over her child once it is born, nor does she have any right to permanent anonymity from that child under some misguided notion that this is a "reproductive right" that goes on forever. No one has a "right" to adopt, that is a privilege granted by the state for the good of the child, not to fill the needs of the adoptive parents, Nobody has a right to surrender a child and be given any promise of perpetual anonymity from that child either. Nobody has a right to raise a child if they are proven dangerous and unfit. And once again, none of these things should be viewed under the category of reproductive rights, although often they are.

In my view, both the extreme pro-choice and extreme pro-life groups are fundamentally dishonest, neither will look at any grey area, and both try to suppress anyone's experience that does not reinforce their preconceived notions.

Some pro-choice people refuse to admit that any woman ever suffered deep grief after an abortion, and discount those who try to say that they did. On the other side, extreme pro-life people try to discount the experience and feelings of women who really did not regret having an abortion or feel any grief and are still satisfied with their decision. Both sides are less concerned with individual women and their real feelings than with only allowing those whose stories agree with their agenda to be heard. And I think that among our opponents, both sides project their feelings about the fetus onto the adopted adult, which really muddies the waters and leaves legislators confused.

Some pro-lifers worship the fetus, deify it in some sense, and then do not much care what happens to kids once they are born, or to their mothers. These are the "Adoption, Not Abortion" bumper sticker crowd. They cannot see the difference between the adult adopted person and the fetus. Adoptees should be grateful they were born at all, and pregnant women are just waiting to abort if they think their child will be able to find them years later. The fact that this is never a factor in why women choose abortion (I wish someone would do a study on that, what the real reasons are) does not slow them down a bit, because the image of the killer birthmother and the threatened, "saved" fetus fits their mythology better than the facts, that open records had nothing whatsoever to do with the rate or choice of abortion. Plus these groups are big on shame and punishment for "loose women" and can't imagine a woman who has surrendered not living a life of shame and fear of her child.

On the other side, the more extreme pro-choice groups demonize the fetus; all the rhetoric about it being just a parasite, a clump of cells, living off the mother's body etc. Both sides assume an adversarial situation between fetus and mother and extend this to the situation of adult adoptees and open records. Those who are pro-abortion and anti-open records are just defending the mother's rights against the fetus's rights....forever, not just until it is born. It is this kind of thinking that also leads them to oppose legislation that would say that the murder of a pregnant woman is double homicide, even if she is in the last weeks of pregnancy. Any hint that the fetus is human must be eliminated in order to protect abortion rights, even if the issue is not related to abortion or choice.

The anti-abortion crowd think they are "saving babies" at any cost by opposing open records, because of their misreading of the desires of mothers who carry a child to term and those who choose to abort. Both think that mothers should have absolute say about what the "child" gets to know about his own birth and heritage forever or else there will be a chink in the armor of their respective agendas. To the extreme pro-choicers, women are always benevolent, know best, and will always make the best choice because of their superior women's instincts. To the extreme pro-lifers, women are potential wild beasts with an urge to kill. Ironically some from both sides feel that this same woman wants and deserves the state's protection to hide her past indiscretions. Neither extreme is willing to see women as just human, no better and no worse than men, nor are they willing to separate their issues from ours when something we are doing hits a related nerve in their world view. Of course many others of good will and compassion who are pro-choice or pro-life also support open records and adoptee rights, but they are not the subject of this essay.

Is this making sense? And is there any way to get through this on either side? Neither the Holy Fetus nor the Demon Fetus is helping the adoptee rights cause, nor are the well-meaning attempts by some on our side to go along with the reproductive rights model, but argue that a woman who gives birth has a "reproductive right" to raise her child. It may indeed be argued that women have such a right, but it has nothing to do with reproduction. If there is any way we can separate these issues in the minds of legislators, we will have gone a long way towards neutralizing our opposition's most annoying and false arguments.

Mary Anne Cohen
Feb 2006

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! JACKO AND THE POPE

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! There is just
something so wrong with this!

According to the February 6, 2006 issue of The Scotsman, The Vatican, which "owns the rights" to the written prayers and chants of John Paul 2, has been in talks with Michael Jackson to put the works to music. (Maybe Jacko thinks he can make a killing convincing Sony to trade the Beatles catalogue for the Pope's?)

Whatever....

Is the Vatican really this stupid? So out-of-touch? But then .. nobody lately has accused the Church of being in touch with anything or anybody anyway.

If The Vatican goes through with this nutty idea, we can use it to our advantage. After all, who's gonna listen to a bunch of Catholic bishops get the vapors over bastards when their own church has turned over JP2 prayer legacy to Jacko.

Talk about tainted love!

Here's the complete story:

Jackson in talks to set late Pope's prayers to music

NICK PISA AND RAYMOND HAINEY

SECRET discussions between the Roman Catholic Church and Michael Jackson to put the prayers of Pope John Paul II to music appeared to be in disarray last night after the singer fled members of the press who had got wind of the project.

Pope John Paul, who died last April, wrote 24 religious prayers and chants and Church officials now want to set them to music.

Jackson, recently cleared of child sex abuse charges in California, is seen as a prime candidate because of his worldwide celebrity status.

Yesterday, Father Giuseppe Moscati, of the Millennium Music Society, which specialises in church music and organises musical events at the Vatican, reluctantly confirmed the details.

Fr Moscati said: "We have the rights for the 24 prayers written by Pope John Paul."We had hoped the fact that we have been in contact with Michael Jackson would remain a secret. But sadly it has leaked out ahead of time. We are in discussions and trying to sort it out."

Fr Moscati dismissed Jackson's controversial past and insisted it was no barrier to him working with the Catholic Church. The priest said: "He was cleared and found not guilty by a jury.

"Michael Jackson is very interested in this project - we shall see what happens."

Last night it emerged that Jackson had secretly flown to Venice to sign a contract. But as news of his arrival leaked he fled the city and was
thought to be on his way back to the United States.

He had arrived in Venice with his three children, but changed his plans after learning that photographers and reporters were waiting for him.

Jackson shot to superstar status with his album Thriller in the early 1980s. He also had a massive global hit with his famine awareness single We Are The World.

A source in Venice said: "We were all ready to put the deal to Michael Jackson but he was scared off when the news leaked out. As soon as he knew everyone was waiting for him and the project had been found out he disappeared. We don't know where he is now."

The Vatican deal would be Jackson's first musical work since his trial, as his image has taken a nosedive since his court appearances last year.

He has barely been seen in public and has retreated to his Neverland ranch in California as he tries to recover his respectability.

It had been suggested that he was considering a move to Europe, where his fan base - especially in France and Italy - is phenomenally loyal.

Last week he was seen in Bahrain, where he has also been spending time away from the media, dressed in full black Islamic robes and headgear as he tried to elude photographers.

He spent several days there before flying on to Germany, where he visited friends before travelling to Venice. Jackson shot to stardom as a child in the 1970s with his brothers in the Jackson Five, before hitting new heights as a solo performer.

He has sold more than 100 million albums worldwide and has been married twice.

But Jackson's status as one of the world's biggest stars was rocked in 1993, when he was accused of child molestation involving Jordy Chandler, then aged 13. Prosecutors did not pursue the case after the alleged victim refused to testify.

But Jackson, who maintained his innocence, settled a civil action raised by Jordy's family. It is thought he paid out more than £5.7 million in an out-of-court settlement.

The Catholic Church has also been rocked by worldwide allegations of sex abuse by priests. In the United States, the Church has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars to victims of abuse, with the diocese of Covington in Kentucky last year handing over £68 million to child sex abuse victims.

In 2002, the archdiocese of Boston reached a £5.7 million settlement with victims of paedophile priest James Geoghan. The following year, the archdiocese was forced to sell £57 million of
assets to fund legal settlements for more than 500 abuse victims.