| Our legislators find it difficult to understand the position of these birth parents, because they're invisible. Testifying publicly before the legislatures in Trenton pierces the very privacy they want so much to preserve. An unwanted intrusion from a birth child could significantly disrupt a mother's life, or even endanger it. In our region, several cases in recent years have demonstrated how terribly wrong things can go when a birth parent's information is released without consent.
The legislature can and should pursue alternative options to facilitate desired reunions, balancing the rights of everyone involved. For example, the state could create a "search and consent" system that deployed trained intermediaries to initiate contact, letting the birth parents decide for themselves if they're open to a reunion instead of releasing their personal information with minimal notice.
Birth parents should be able to choose whether to keep their identities confidential or allow them to be known when they place children for adoption. That choice delves into personal questions concerning someone's marriage, family life, identity, and feelings about reproduction and children, which the right to privacy under the United States and New Jersey constitutions protects.
Crucially, the right to privacy extends to medical histories. While most birth parents will gladly provide medical information to benefit their children, it's both unethical and impractical to force people to disclose personal medical information.
Our coalition on this issue - the ACLU-NJ, NJ Right to Life, Catholic Conference, the Bar Association and the National Council for Adoption - comes to the table with different perspectives and concerns about this bill. The great news is that working with these diverse advocates has been an overwhelmingly positive and collegial experience, despite our differences on other issues. The good news - as well as the bad news, too - is that all of these advocates do their jobs very well, which isn't fun when we're adversaries.
The issues involved with S799/A1406 are complicated, and people's feelings about it depend a lot on personal experience - it doesn't go down party lines and it doesn't go down adopted/not adopted lines. It's an issue that presents competing rights, and we must find a middle ground that respects the concerns of everyone with something at stake.
I would like to see a compromise struck on this issue for many reasons - both sides are weary of the fight, and for the adult adoptees, there is a tremendous personal stake. But we will not give up on the rights of the women who made the choice to carry an unwanted or untimely pregnancy to term, place a child for adoption, and maintain personal confidentiality.
The bill passed the Assembly Human Services Committee, as expected, after about five hours of testimony. All of the Democrats voted in favor, while all of the Republicans abstained. We have proposed the aforementioned "search and consent" model as a compromise in the hopes that some of the legislators will see all sides of the issue and pursue a real solution before this incredibly flawed law passes.
Problems with S799/A1406
For past adoptions: The rights of women who placed children for adoption are disregarded.
• S799/A1406 opens sealed adoption records one year after the enactment of the law unless birth parents contact the state to indicate that they do not want contact.
• Most birth parents won't know that their rights to privacy are on the line. The bill provides no budget appropriation to notify the birth parents who have since scattered around the country and world. Most will lose their right to privacy without ever hearing about the law.
• Those who do follow the steps to maintain their privacy after finding out about the law will be required to submit a medical history form, and then to resubmit it every five or ten years (depending on the parent's age) thereafter. If they fail to provide this information, their identifying information will be released against their wishes.
• Requiring people to disclose personal medical information violates fundamental privacy rights found in laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a federal law passed in 1996 securing individual medical rights.
For prospective adoptions: Privacy is not an option once the law is enacted.
• The contact preference form is just that: a preference. A birth parent may submit a form to the state indicating whether they want to be contacted, but if the birth parent chooses the option that says "I would prefer not to be contacted at this time," it is not binding. The adopted person could still receive the long-form copy of the birth certificate, which contains all identifying information. |
.gif)
