Emergency Medical Locators

For adoptees who are in need- this website is fantastic! please check it out!

Find My Family Adoption Reunion Registry

Use them and if you can, send them some cash...

The dumbing-down of America

          Ok, its not great news. Today’s major television stations and early morning programs have turned into “we will entertain you with dumb drivel.” Who is controlling networks? Teen polls? Suits on steroids? A small clique of mystery moguls?

          On the Today Show they send someone to England to report on the upcoming nuptials of a prince and commoner (a year and continent away) rather than to Haiti where thousands are dying. We might get a one-minute clip that Haitians are protesting what didn’t happen to prevent their cholera outbreak… The media didn’t mention water purification or machinery or tools for their Third World nation after the earthquake.  Where is reporting LIVE from Haiti? Who is asking reasonable questions about this in their news programs?  Why not? How come?

          And you think Sara Palin’s new book is as important as let’s say – mine? Her book will sell thousands and thousands of copies because media will cover her hangnails and bad hair days, just to give her rising fame more power.  

          Palin has a plain ol’ plan that includes running the White House. She needs press. She’s using the “Madonna Playbook” of massaging media with constant exposure and massive marketing.

          I penned a historical memoir about a distinctly racist act of genocide against Native children by removing them from their Tribal Nations. My book “One Small Sacrifice: Lost Children of the Indian Adoption Projects” was self-published. Why? Who the heck cares about Indians these days? Most people think we live in prehistoric teepees.

          When was the last time you saw major media coverage of poverty in Pine Ridge or the plight of Native people or any Third World Nation?

          Nowadays, Matt Meredith Ann and Al are making viral music videos. I simply change the channel to Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now. Or I turn to NPR and the BBC who do a much better job reporting on America than our networks ever will. I go online to hear National Native News or watch Indian Country TV streaming from the Lac Courte Oreilles reservation in northern Wisconsin. I read emails daily from Indigenous Thinkers and First Peoples News, both Yahoo news groups.

          Where do you get your news? What helps you make informed decisions?

          It’s not on America’s TV programs. For some of us, it’s only the internet until it costs us more money and we’ll read newspapers, if they still have reporters on their payroll.

          One more place I do visit is the History News Network from George Mason’s University. Their motto is “Because the Past is the Present, the Future is, too.” I found this new book review today: “Reading Obama: Dreams, Hope, and the American Political Tradition,” by James T. Kloppenberg.  “…Barack Obama puzzles observers. Derided by the Right as dangerous and by the Left as spineless, Obama does not fit contemporary partisan categories. Instead, his writings and speeches reflect a principled aversion to absolutes that derives from sustained engagement with American democratic thought. Reading Obama traces the origins of his ideas and establishes him as the most penetrating political thinker elected to the presidency in the past century….”

          I feel like the guy in Wisconsin who blasted his TV with a gun when Palin’s daughter ruined Dancing with the Stars (his opinion).

          I don’t see Cable news interviewing Cornell West, who is putting substance in plain English with: “Brother West: Living and Loving Out Loud, A Memoir” but he was on Democracy Now this morning.

          What do I know? I’m just a dumb viewer.

Review: Lost Sparrow solves mystery but leaves wounds exposed




Four Native American children adopted by the Billing family

  On November 16, 2010, the documentary “Lost Sparrow” premiered on PBS Independent Lens.  Based on a true incident in 1978, two Crow Indian brothers (both adoptees) ran away from home and were found dead on railroad tracks the next day.

Chris Billing’s film takes a closer look at what killed these two boys and what truth shattered his entire family.

The filmmaker is one of four biological children. His parents adopted six, with four of them from the Crow tribe. Billing was 16 when the boys died. The family buries them in New York and moves on with their lives. His parents eventually divorce.

The filmmaker narrates how his little brothers Bobby (13) and Tyler (11) were trying to help their sister Lana (who is also Crow). Lana told her brothers she was being sexually molested by their adoptive father. The two boys were going to Montana to get help. They knew who they were and knew their tribe.

As the film unfolds, Billings’ story becomes more about the despondent quiet Lana, and how she didn’t survive the sexual abuse or find peace after her brother’s heroic gesture and unfortunate deaths.  Lana runs far away from the adopters to North Carolina. Her pain is so deep the alcohol abuse seems the only antidote she can afford. There are no signs of wealth where Lana lives; unlike the Billings and their homes in New Jersey and the summer mansion in upstate New York.

Journalist-turned-filmmaker Chris Billing said it took three years to make the film. His parents, Mr. and Mrs. Billing, agree to see Lana on film but neither managed an appropriate response to her troubled past. Dysfunctional denial, which Mr. Billing’s exhibited while filming, seems inappropriate and not an apology, considering the facts revealed during the course of filming.

The man at the center of the conflict, the adoptive father, an all-controlling philanderer, rich businessman, acts like nothing happened, like he did nothing wrong. What you hope is he was charged as a pedophile and sent to prison. This didn’t happen.

What does happen is the filmmaker and his siblings repatriate the two boys to the Crow tribe and have them interned on tribal land. Chris films the boys’ father and tribal family who knew the boys were adopted by a rich East coast family but could do nothing to stop the adoption. Their grief leaves the viewer tormented.

After revealing the entire truth, the filmmaker said it did little to bond their family or cure old wounds, “If it was good for Lana, then making the film was worth it.”

Wounds this egregious and deep are not healed by a 78-minute film.


From the Lost Sparrow PR: 
On June 27, 1978, a 44-car Conrail freight train struck and killed two Crow Indian brothers near the town of Little Falls, New York -- a day after Bobby, 13, and Tyler, 11, had disappeared. The two boys had run away without warning from the white, Baptist family that had adopted them and their biological sisters seven years earlier, spiriting them from a troubled Montana reservation family to an idyllic Victorian castle across the country. Lost Sparrow recounts award-winning filmmaker Chris Billing's investigation, three decades later, into the dark family secret that prompted his adopted brothers to flee.

Trace A. DeMeyer is the author of One Small Sacrifice: Lost Children of the Indian Adoption Projects, 2010. She lives in Massachusetts.

I see dead people

Well, actually I do not see dead people but I know people who are living like they are dead.

Ok, imagine this. You are a child and you disappear. Not only are you upset, your entire family is crazy with despair and your parents are distraught. They might go on television and beg the people who took you to please bring you back. Your mom and dad might even divorce since they cannot forget you and they can’t seem to heal since you are missing.

You (the child) on the other hand, might be too young to fight back, or even try and escape. But you want to.

That is child abduction and we all take this seriously in American and all over the world.

Now, change the word child to adoptee.

This life changing event: “adoption” does change you and your parents. American and the world do not think of adoption as abduction but I do. Why? It feels the same to the child. And to some mothers, it feels exactly like your child was abducted.

The trauma of being abducted or adopted is the same for the child. You are feeling you are not where you are supposed to be. Let’s not get into the medical terms but those words do exist in medical journals.

So, I ask you, when will people who adopt children begin to understand that adoptees have feelings they cannot describe or display? Some adopters I know have taken this very personally and have tried to make the child feel better and assure them they will meet their natural parents someday. I have friends who have adopted and some are remarkable in their sensitivity. Some of them advocate for open adoption, so their adopted child meets their parent on a regular basis, if at all possible.

So, if you are adoptive parents and reading this, I need you to do something TODAY. Forget that there are laws preventing disclosure when it’s a sealed adoption. I want you to request the adoption file – the legal proceedings. All of it! You signed the documents so you can request them.

OK, you did it. When your adopted child asks, I want you to tell them you have the name of their natural mother and that you will help her/him find their natural parent(s) when they turn 18. It depends on the child and when they ask. If they don’t ask, I want you to give them the file when they are 18 as a gift.

That is why I see dead people. If you are a mystery, it feels like you’re dead.

American Indian & Alaska Native Heritage Month: November 2010

The first American Indian Day was celebrated in May 1916 in New York. Red Fox James, a Blackfeet Indian, rode horseback from state to state, getting endorsements from 24 state governments, to have a day to honor American Indians. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed a joint congressional resolution designating November 1990 as "National American Indian Heritage Month." Similar proclamations have been issued every year since 1994. This Facts for Features presents data for American Indians and Alaska Natives, as this is one of the six major race categories.

Note: Unless otherwise specified, the data in the "Population" section refer to the population who reported a race alone or in combination with one or more other races.

                                 Population

5 million

As of July 1, 2009, the estimated population of American Indians and Alaska Natives, including those of more than one race. They made up 1.6 percent of the total population. Source: Population estimates

8.6 million

The projected population of American Indians and Alaska Natives, including those of more than one race, on July 1, 2050. They would comprise 2 percent of the total population. Source: Population projections 

83,670

Increase in the nation's American Indian and Alaska Native population from July 1, 2008, to July 1, 2009. The population of this group increased by 1.7 percent during this period compared with the overall population growth of 1 percent. Source: Population estimates

29.7

Median age of the American Indian and Alaska Native population in 2009, younger than the median of 36.8 for the population as a whole. About 30 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives were younger than 18, and 8 percent were 65 and older. Source: Population estimates 

739,964

The American Indian and Alaska Native population in California as of July 1, 2009, the highest total of any state. California was followed by Oklahoma (415,371) and Arizona (366,954).

About 13,000 American Indians and Alaska Natives were added to Texas' population between July 1, 2008, and July 1, 2009. That is the largest numeric increase of any state. Texas (4.2 percent) also had the highest rate of increase during the period. Source: Population estimates 

5

Number of states where American Indians and Alaska Natives were the largest race or ethnic minority group in 2009. These states were Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Dakota.

Source: Population estimates 

13

Number of states with more than 100,000 American Indian and Alaska Native residents on July 1, 2009. These states were California, Oklahoma, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, New York, Washington, Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Alaska, Oregon and Colorado. Combined, these states were home to 65 percent of the nation's American Indian and Alaska Native residents. Source: Population estimates 

18%

The proportion of Alaska's population identified as American Indian and Alaska Native as of July 1, 2009, the highest rate for this race group of any state. Alaska was followed by Oklahoma (11 percent) and New Mexico (11 percent). Source: Population estimates  

151,843

The number of American Indians and Alaska Natives in Los Angeles County, Calif., as of July 1, 2009. Los Angeles led all of the nation's counties in the number of people in this category. Harris County, Texas, added about 2,100 people to this group between July 1, 2008, and July 1, 2009, leading the nation's counties in largest increase of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Source: Population estimates 

10

Among counties or equivalents with total populations of 10,000 or more, the number that were majority American Indian and Alaska Native, as of July 1, 2009. Shannon, S.D., led the way, with 86 percent of its population from this group. Source: Population estimates 

                            Families and Children

1,080,775

The number of American Indian and Alaska Native families in 2009. Of these:

-- 39 percent were married-couple families, including those with children.

-- 18 percent were married couples with their own children, under the age

    of 18.

Source: 2009 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races population http://factfinder.census.gov;

3.51

Average number of people in an American Indian and Alaska Native family in 2009. This was larger than the national average size for all families, regardless of race (3.23 people).

Source: 2009 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races population http://factfinder.census.gov;

                                   Housing

55%

The percentage of American Indian and Alaska Native householders who owned their own home in 2009. This is compared with 66 percent of the overall population.

Source: 2009 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races population

$129,800

Median value of homes owned by American Indians and Alaska Natives. The median value of homes for the overall population was $185,200.  Source: 2009 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races population 

                                  Languages

21%

Percentage of American Indians and Alaska Natives 5 and older who spoke a language other than English at home, compared with 20 percent for the nation as a whole. Source: 2009 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races population 

                                  Education

80%

The percentage of American Indians and Alaska Natives 25 and older who had at least a high school diploma. Also, 16 percent obtained a bachelor's degree. In comparison, the overall population had 85 percent with a high school diploma and 28 percent with a bachelor's degree. Source: 2009 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races population 

163,676

Number of American Indians and Alaska Natives 25 and older who had a graduate or professional degree.

Source: 2009 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races population 

                                 Businesses

$34.5 billion

Receipts for American Indian- and Alaska Native-owned businesses in 2007. These businesses numbered 237,386.

45,734

Number of American Indian- and Alaska Native-owned firms in California in 2007, which led the states. Oklahoma, Texas and New York followed.

3 in 10

Number of American Indian- and Alaska Native-owned firms that operated in construction and other services (such as personal services, and repair and maintenance) in 2007.

24,064

Number of American Indian- and Alaska Native-owned firms that had paid employees in 2007. These businesses employed 191,472 people.

3,631

Number of American Indian- and Alaska Native-owned firms with receipts of $1 million or more in 2002. These firms accounted for nearly 2 percent of the total number of American Indian- and Alaska Native-owned firms and more than 64 percent of their total receipts. Source: American Indian- and Alaska Native-Owned Firms: 2002  Note: This is the most current data available -- 2007 data will be released in March 2011.

178

Number of American Indian- and Alaska Native-owned firms with 100 or more employees in 2002. These firms generated nearly $5.3 billion in gross receipts -- 24 percent of the total revenue for American Indian- and Alaska Native-owned employer firms. Source: American Indian- and Alaska Native-Owned Firms: 2002 

Note: This is the most current data available -- 2007 data will be released in March 2011.

New York; Los Angeles; and Gallup, N.M.

The three cities with the largest number of American Indian- and Alaska Native-owned firms, with 7,134; 5,767; and 2,642, respectively, in 2002.

Source: American Indian- and Alaska Native-Owned Firms: 2002;  http://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/02/aiansof.html;

Note: This is the most current data available -- 2007 data will be released in March 2011. Source for data in this section, unless otherwise stated: Preliminary Estimates of Business Ownership by Gender, Ethnicity, Race and Veteran

Status: 2007 http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/economic_census/cb10-107.html;

                                    Jobs

28%

The percentage of civilian-employed American Indian and Alaska Native people 16 and older who worked in management, professional and related occupations. In addition, 24 percent worked in sales and office occupations and about the same percentage worked in service occupations. Source: 2009 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races population 

                                 Caregivers

54%

Among American Indians and Alaska Natives 30 and older who lived with their grandchildren, the percentage who were also responsible for their care. The corresponding rate for the population as a whole was 40 percent. Source: 2009 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races population 

                                  Veterans

339,515

The number of American Indian and Alaska Native veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

Source: 2009 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races population 

                             Income and Poverty

$37,348

The median income of American Indian and Alaska Native households.

Source: 2009 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races population 

23.6%

The percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives that were in poverty in 2009.

Source: 2009 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races population 

                              Health Insurance

24.1%

The percentage of American Indians and Alaska Natives who lacked health insurance coverage. Source: 2009 American Community Survey for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more races population 

Note: The preceding data were collected from a variety of sources and may be subject to sampling variability and other sources of error. Facts for Features are customarily released about two months before an observance in order to accommodate magazine production timelines. Questions or comments should be directed to the Census Bureau's Public Information, Office: telephone: 301-763-3030

It's Complicated, Baby

All across America, people still prefer to adopt babies. Millions of Americans adopted babies and some of us were adopted as babies. I’m guessing it’s because tiny babies don’t show their feelings; baby screams sound just like cries.  This may also explain why so many children languish in foster care: they’re just too old. Older kids do exhibit fear, uneasiness or apprehension; some kids even act like babies.

            Adopting babies is easier. Adoptive parents can hope their new baby will adjust and bond favorably by the time baby will talk. Some adopters believe they saved us as babies since our mother was a slut or wretched teenager, or maybe a sick woman on an Indian reservation or from a trashy tenement. Maybe we're Third World babies from an over-populated Chinese, Russian or African orphanage. Sometimes adopters simply ignore our culture and history, like it doesn’t exist. Some of my friends heard words like “dirty savages and filthy heathens.”

            Adopters might hope to mold “orphan babies” into something they want. They'll try loving us first. Yet we know love doesn’t cure everything. Love can’t erase genetics or ancestral memory. If love doesn't work, the adopters might try bullying us or drugging us into submission until we show them some gratitude.

            An even more complicated reality exists, a much bigger untold desperate story. 

            Adoptable babies are scooped up quick, especially if they are white and healthy and from America. You can even order one, but it will cost you thousands of dollars.

            If that doesn’t work, and if you can afford it, you can always buy a surrogate mother; these women widely advertise now. She’ll carry and deliver your baby for a price. Some sisters will do this for an infertile sibling.

            Then there’s a huge “underground market,” where they still kidnap and sell babies. Baby peddlers, some who practice law, are out there making money, too. Some abducted babies were made child sex slaves. Guatemala is now under investigation for illegal baby peddling. Someone made a ton of money on babies!

            A newer adoption scam is happening online – when a woman fakes a pregnancy, offers her unborn baby as bait, then steals the unsuspecting couple’s money (thousands of dollars) using the internet as a trap.

            There are tragic stories about sick women or couples who will kill a pregnant woman just to take her baby. This happened in Massachusetts recently.

            There are more stories about babies being dumped (abandoned) all across America. One mother dumped three babies in California (two were saved but one died from exposure). In New York, three sisters were arrested for helping one sister dump her newborn girl in the trash, causing the baby to die.

            Some mothers are illegal immigrants and don’t want their new baby. They'll do their child a favor by dumping them off at a firehouse. Those adoptees rarely find their mothers, since birth records won’t exist. There is a slim chance their mother will seek them out for a reunion since they are considered felons and criminals in most states.

            For the millions of us who have been handed over, dumped, or exchanged (or sold, or taken) for a hundred years – has anyone dared to ask how we felt at the exchange? 

            Apparently we are studied, not consulted.

            Bear in mind, babies didn’t create this billion dollar adoption industry or cause infertility. Babies can't solve social issues but we're sold as one solution. Babies can't cure the pain in women who can’t conceive. Babies didn’t create poverty. Some would say certain babies arrived at the wrong place at the wrong time. We were an inconvenience, or a sin, or a mistake.

            How will we ever fix this? It's complicated, baby!

Cultural Genocide

Baby Love Child � More Aboriginal kids in child-welfare in Canada now than at the height of the “residential schools”

Adoption Legislation Primer (a must read!)

Special Guest Blog by Romany

HISTORY

Most sealed records legislation dates from the 1930s – 1950s.  At that time, birth certificates were public record, meaning that anyone could get a copy of anyone else’s birth certificate.  Court adoption documents were also public record.  Back then, adoption legislation allowed the state to seal original birth certificates once an amended birth certificate had been issued.  Court records of adoption were also sealed by state law.  In many states, the sealing did not initially prevent the parties to the adoption (parents, adoptive parents, and adoptee) from accessing records after they were sealed.  Eventually, however, even the parties to the adoption were prevented from accessing the records.

In many states, there have been ongoing attempts to restore access, some stretching back 20 to 30 years.  Most recently, access legislation that HAS passed has been through the efforts of a state senator or state assemblymember who is an adoptee.  This has happened in New Hampshire, Maine and Illinois.

THE OPPOSITION & THEIR POSITION:

The primary argument from the opposition is that relinquishing parents have an expectation of privacy that the state is morally (and/or legally) bound to protect.  The corollary argument is that without state-guaranteed protection of their privacy, some unknown number of women in a “crisis pregnancy” would choose to abort rather than place for adoption.

The opposition generally consists of some very strange bedfellows:

o        The National Council for Adoption (lobbying group for certain adoption agencies)

o        The Catholic Church (through each state’s Catholic Conferences of Bishops)

o        Some ACLU chapters

o        Some Planned Parenthood chapters

o        Some Right-To-Life organizations (RTL)

While RTL organizations tend to push the abortion angle, some Planned Parenthood chapters consider adoption a “reproductive choice” deserving of the same protection of anonymity as abortion.  ACLU chapters push the “expectation of privacy” with or without “reproductive choice”.

SO WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE “ABORTION ARGUMENT”?

Plenty.  The original hue and cry was how “abortion rates will skyrocket” if access legislation is passed.  We now have up to ten years of history in states that have restored access.  Abortion statistics from those states have shown NO uptick in abortion rates. 

There is also a survey by the Guttmacher Institute (“Concern for Current and Future Children”) that indicates at least SOME women choose abortion over adoption BECAUSE sealed records would not allow them to know what happened to the child they relinquished.

The arguments from RTL are now centered on a woman’s ability to choose a closed adoption rather than visions of the wholesale slaughter of innocents.  Even in a diminished capacity, this argument still holds sway with pro-life legislators.  We are now being asked to effectively guarantee that no woman will ever have an abortion because of access legislation.

THE “EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY” ARGUMENT

The gist of this is that some unknown number of parents were promised or BELIEVED that they were promised anonymity/confidentiality/privacy in that their identities would never ever be released to anyone.  For a long time, this myth was repeated in a vacuum.  The only real “evidence” anyone had was that a state law sealed records.  Everything else was based on the opposition telling legislators that they had received “a stack of anonymous letters” from parents.

On the other side are certain indisputable facts:

1.       Adoption records and OBCs do NOT seal upon relinquishment.  They seal upon ADOPTION.  They seal even in step-parent adoptions.

2.       Many women have been speaking out for years about how they never wanted anonymity from their own children.  They continue to be dismissed as “a tiny but vocal minority”.

3.       Adoption records may be opened by court order for “good cause shown”.  Even though it is presumably the parents’ identities at stake, there is no provision for the parents to voice their opposition to disclosure.  In most states, even waivers from those parents do not guarantee that the records will be unsealed.

4.       Information from confidential intermediaries has shown that the vast majority of parents contacted welcome the opportunity to reconnect with their children.

5.       Contact preference forms filed in Oregon and other states are overwhelmingly in favor of contact.

6.       The overwhelming majority of recent domestic adoptions have been OPEN adoptions because the vast majority of relinquishing parents are insisting upon open adoptions.

The opposition counters this with the “if only one…” argument.  They have convinced legislators that it is better to stick with the status quo of denying equal rights to millions of adoptees than to allow anyone’s life to be “ruined” by disclosure.

Recently however, certain documents have been making an impact among legislators.  First and foremost are actual surrender documents which have been collected by Prof. Elizabeth Samuels.  You would think that if anonymity/confidentiality/privacy was promised to a relinquishing parent, that promise would find its way into the primary document signed by that parent.  These surrender documents have been very enlightening, to say the least.  Promises are being made, but it is the parent who is doing the promising.  General provisions:

-          The parent is terminating ALL rights (parental and otherwise) with respect to the child and is, in turn, being released from all obligations with respect to said child.

-          The parent has no right to be notified if and when the child has been adopted, and by whom.

-          The parent promises not to search for or contact the child or the child’s adoptive family WHILE THE CHILD IS A MINOR.  This time limit was a big surprise to many people.

The second set of documents making an impact are contemporaneous notes, letters, policies and testimony from when the various legislatures were first considering passing laws to seal adoption records.  As stated before, the original legislative intent was to prevent the general public, and only the general public, from accessing the records.  We need to do more research in this area as each state’s legislative history is unique.

A WORD ABOUT DYSFUNCTIONAL LEGISLATURES

Many of those in the lobbying trenches have been stymied by the reality that power is concentrated in the hands of a few long-term politicians.  This does not just affect our legislation, of course.  One would THINK that when half of the Assemblymembers have signed on as SPONSORS of a bill (New York), then that bill would have long ago been released to the floor for an up-or-down-vote.  One would be very very mistaken.

We (adoptee rights advocates) have seen well-supported bills languish in committee for decades.  We have seen public hearings scheduled, re-scheduled or cancelled at the last minute with no explanation.  We have seen bills rewritten without the input of the adoptee rights lobby group who proposed the legislation in the first place.  We have seen bills containing access provisions completely gutted of those provisions prior to passage.  We have seen the outright railroading of attempts to schedule bills for a floor vote.

Much work needs to be done.  We need champions (preferably adoptees) in the various state legislatures.  We need more research into the original legislative intent.  This can take various forms, including contemporaneous newspaper articles extolling the virtues of sealed records.  We also need first parents to write letters to be included in lobby packets and we need them to request their surrender documents.  Together, we can be a force to be reckoned with in the 44 states (and DC) that do not allow adult adoptees unrestricted access to the single sheet of paper that recorded their births.

Our deepest gratitude to Romany. She will post more on this topic in the very near future. If we educate ourselves, we can change the world!