Do you agree with this statement regarding why adoptees should have access to their obc?

I totally agree with it. What an adoptee chooses to do with the information on their OBC is no one's business. The fact that we are being denied our OBC is the issue when it comes to this being a civil rights issue.

When we bring in the reunion side of this to the LEGAL fight for our OBC, it muddies the water. Not every adoptee wishes to search, but every adoptee should have access to their OBC.

The anti-choice zealots have been adoptees biggest enemy in this, citing that closed records are for the privacy of the "birthmother". Fact is, I cannot find one first Mom who ever wanted to be "protected" from their relinquished child, nor did the want to remain anonymous. BUT- The first Mother aspect can hurt help AND hurt adoptees in this fight. Its about ADOPTEES getting their OBC's, NOT first Mother's having it. First Mothers are not the ones having issues getting passports and other legal papers because of an altered OBC.

It should not matter WHY we want our OBC's. The fact is that we CANNOT have our OBC's, when every other citizen is permitted to have theirs. It's about equality, NOT about what we do with the information.

I agree.

Having access to the OBC can facilitate reunion in cases where it contains unknown information, that's a good thing, but that's not really the main point of argument in favour, because it rests on what some people may or may not desire, not on the basic rights that should apply to everyone whether or not they choose to exercise them.

The main issue is equality, which is indeed a matter of civil rights.

Adoptees should have the same rights as non adopted people and have an automatic right to their OBC. In the UK they can from the age of 18 but I still think all adoptees worldwide should have this anyway.

I agree with the statement. Reunion is a different issue. I didn't need access to my OBC to find my parents. I found them more than twenty years ago, and I still have yet to lay eyes on my birth certificate. Like maybe my eyes will burn out and I'll self destruct? Or possibly the world will stop revolving and humanity will come to a screeching halt? Reunions take place, the cat jumps out of the bag, and birth records are still sealed. Altered birth certificates are a sales pitch by the industry to potential adopters. They're an insult to everyone who is forced to recognize them. Reunion has nothing to do with the insane, discriminatory, and arbitrary laws preventing people from possessing a true and accurate historical record of their birth. Honestly, I would prefer no birth certificate to being forced by law to present a lie. That thing I'm required to use to generate other forms of identification is nothing more than a sales receipt. That profane, fraudulent document is an offense to everything sacred.

No, reunion is never a guarantee but how would an adopted person learn all they want to know if they don't contact their natural mother/family? I personally believe that it goes a lot deeper than a question of civil rights. It is also about identity, heritage and unanswered questions.

I am certainly in favor of adult adoptees being given access to their OBCs, just as I am in favor of the coercion and violation of their civil rights of the mothers being addressed in a public forum. The purpose of this should be seeking redress and acknowledgment that the whole mess started with that gross insult to the mother/child bond.

Natural mothers should also have equal access to the amended birth certificates. JMO

Yes, I do. Many of those who continue to lobby for Equal Acess are already in reunion. It's not about reunion, it's a matter of principal. A matter of being treated equally under the law. It's about not having to grovel in a Courtroom, for something everyone else takes entirely for granted.

Take this sentence, for example:

"Adoptees are denied access to their true birth certificates while non adopted have access to theirs"

Now, If you replaced the word 'Adoptee' with, say, "Women" or "African American" or "Jews" it's not difficult to see the discrimination against a select group of people

Strange how it seems acceptable in US society for Adoptees to be discriminated against in this way. Shrug.

slightly wordy and incredibly misses the part of atheism. The section "...there is something of the ethical grandeur of the prophets..." is obviously from a non secular point of view that considers the "prophets" as being creditable or something to be respected. it may be greater advantageous if this fact centred greater on rational theory and objectivity... Edit: If I remember suitable, Hart has a tendency to be interior the religion must be accommodated camp, so he tries to describe atheism in a fashion that theists can understand, on a similar time as not problematic the absurdities of their ideals.

I have worked in legislation for OBC access for adopted people. And, I continue to support the right of adopted people to access the OBC. However, my reasons don't exactly fit with the statement of your friend.

True 'equality" would be the restoration of the OBC as the legal birth certificate, and that is not what access to OBC laws actually do. Even with access to OBC, adopted people remain adopted,their adoptive identity is their legal identity, and the Amended or false birth certificate is still their legal birth certificate.

I am opposed to the government falsifying birth certificates of adopted people, or anyone else, for that matter. Birth certificates are Vital Records and like other Vital Records, they should be as true and accurate as possible. Marriage and divorce records are supposed to be true, as are death records(also falsified in the case of adopted people).

Citizens should have access to Vital Records that they have a 'direct and tangible connection to." Some have argued that adopted people no longer have that "direct and tangible connection" to their own OBC, because they have been adopted, their identity has been changed, and they have a new(fake) amended birth certificate.

There should be only one BC. Changing the law so that adoptive parents could no longer file for an "Amended" (false) birth certificate, would be closer to "equality" with the rest of the non-adopted population. This would also establish that the adopted person is still the same person, recorded at birth.

The adopted person's OBC should be the only one, and it should always be available, to the adopted person, adoptive parents and the natural ones, too. This would be closer to equality....the way the rest of the non-adopted citizens live.

As for the birth facts on the OBC, they are usually the same as the "facts of birth" on the Amended BC. What the OBC provides to adopted people, is the name(s) of the natural parents.

Adopted people are treated differently, but not just because they cannot get the OBC. It is the falsified BC that creates the difference. It is also the fact of adoption that creates the difference. Adopted people are held to a different standard because the state wants to maintain the "stability" of adoptions, and the state is taking the adoptive parents' wishes for sealed records and false BCs as a legal ground for 'confidentiality."

There are other people who have 2 birth certificates: out of wedlock children whose mothers and fathers are required, or choose, to establish paternity later, after the BC has been filed. When paternity has been established, the OBC of those children is sealed, and a new one with Dad's name on it is issued. Parents used to try to hide this and they still can. But, out of wedlock birth is not an adoption.The facts of birth really do not change.

Not all BCs of non-adopted people are truly factual. However, the false BCs of non-adopted people are usually considered to be fraud. OTOH, the false BCs of adopted people are considered to be the 'lawful birth certificate."

I certainly agree with the statement adoptees are treated like second rate citizens

they can't get their obc and that is wrong they can vote,go to war, drive a car but not

get their obc please tell me what is wrong with this picture their rights are being violated

I have never fully bought it. The only information that is on the OBC that is not on the ABC which they have access to without reservation, is the name of the mother and occasionally (but not usually) the father. All the rest of the information is the same unless the APs specifically request that it be changed, and I have heard that happens rather more often than we realize. However, the standard is that they take off the mother and father's name and replace them with the name of the AP and the rest is identical.

My question in response would be to wonder why they feel the need to disguise their very real and very natural curiosity about their lineage and heritage and connections behind something so transparent? I have never really understood this argument...