Should adoptees be able to acquire their original birth certificates so they can search for their birth families

[braalian]

The SC of the US affirmed the ruling the US signed the treaty making it law. More and more states have opened records. Adoptees are finding their families every day and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it since its really none of your business

Is this with or wothout the consent of the birth mothers?

 

[Hafar1014]

So, you are saying that all states with abortion records seal are violating a SC ruling? You are so full of shit! The SC cannot uphold a law passed by the UN. Where is the link to the ruling?

Abortion isnt the subject a persons right to know their identity is and have a medical history is

 

[Hafar1014]

Is this with or wothout the consent of the birth mothers?

No consent is required since there is no right of secrecy

 

[braalian]

No consent is required since there is no right of secrecy

Ok. Just checking. You are a ridiculous person. Had to make sure

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Neither a birth nor an adoption may be carried out in the absolute cloak of secrecy that may surround a contraception or the early termination of a pregnancy. A birth is an event that requires the generation of an accurate vital record that preserves certain data, including the name of the birth mother. That the state has a legitimate interest in preserving such data is not disputed here. We recognize that a birth mother may well have a legitimate interest in keeping secret the circumstances of a birth that is followed by an adoption and also that an adoptee may have a legitimate interest in discovering the identity of his or her birth mother. Legitimate interests, however, do not necessarily equate with fundamental rights. The state may make policy choices to accommodate such competing interests, just as the state has done with the passage of Measure 58. We conclude that the state legitimately may choose to disseminate such data to the child whose birth is recorded on such a birth certificate without infringing on any fundamental right to privacy of the birth mother who does not desire contact with the child.
FILED: December 29, 1999
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
JANE DOES 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7,
Appellants,
v.
THE STATE OF OREGON; JOHN A.

KITZHABER, Governor of Oregon;

and EDWARD JOHNSON, State

Registrar of the Center for Health

Statistics in Oregon,
Respondents,
and
HELEN HILL, CURTIS ENDICOTT,

SUSAN UPDYKE; and THE OREGON

ADOPTIVE RIGHTS ASSOCIATION,
Intervenors-Respondents.
(98C-20424; CA A107235)
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County.
Paul J. Lipscomb, Judge.
Argued and submitted November 22, 1999.

SALEM, Ore. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor rejected Tuesday an emergency request to delay an adoption records law from going into effect, allowing adoptees 21 and older access to their birth certificate.

More than 2,200 adoptees already have paid $15 and filed applications with the state Health Division to get their original birth certificate. Most are eager to know their parents’ identities, and many want to know more about their medical histories.

The Health Division has said it will begin mailing birth documents as soon as today.

“I have a wonderful family, but there’s still that piece that’s missing,” said adoptee Geena Stonum, 41, of Portland. “When you see people who maybe look like you, you wonder if they’re maybe related to you.” She’s been searching for her birth parents on and off for 20 years.

I highlighted the parts you apparently ignored.

The case was in Oregon. The SCOTUS never heard the case, you simpleton!

Where is the reference to the UN you claimed?

Congratulations on proving you don't know anything! Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Abortion isnt the subject a persons right to know their identity is and have a medical history is

WTF does abortion have to do with this? Are you having a stroke? I am beginning to think you are seriously ill!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Is this with or wothout the consent of the birth mothers?

Obviously it's without consent. Although we are supposed to believe that women who expected privacy want to be found. But, registries of birth mothers who want to be found don't work.

Obviously, the OP has issues with being adopted. Therefore all birth mothers must have their lives destroyed.

What about surrogates? Women paid to carry children who have no genetic connection to the child. Are they at risk? Sperm donor fathers, what about them? They might have altruistic motives and never expect that someday they will be found by someone who says "I'm your kid. Write me into your Will."

This entire practice should be stopped and birth parents advised they have rights to sue for damages and loss of reputation.

 

[Hafar1014]

Ok. Just checking. You are a ridiculous person. Had to make sure

THe courts ruled on this and it went up the SC
SALEM, Ore. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor rejected Tuesday an emergency request to delay an adoption records law from going into effect, allowing adoptees 21 and older access to their birth certificate.

More than 2,200 adoptees already have paid $15 and filed applications with the state Health Division to get their original birth certificate. Most are eager to know their parents’ identities, and many want to know more about their medical histories.

The Health Division has said it will begin mailing birth documents as soon as today.

“I have a wonderful family, but there’s still that piece that’s missing,” said adoptee Geena Stonum, 41, of Portland. “When you see people who maybe look like you, you wonder if they’re maybe related to you.” She’s been searching for her birth parents on and off for 20 years.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

THe courts ruled on this and it went up the SC
SALEM, Ore. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor rejected Tuesday an emergency request to delay an adoption records law from going into effect, allowing adoptees 21 and older access to their birth certificate.

More than 2,200 adoptees already have paid $15 and filed applications with the state Health Division to get their original birth certificate. Most are eager to know their parents’ identities, and many want to know more about their medical histories.

The Health Division has said it will begin mailing birth documents as soon as today.

“I have a wonderful family, but there’s still that piece that’s missing,” said adoptee Geena Stonum, 41, of Portland. “When you see people who maybe look like you, you wonder if they’re maybe related to you.” She’s been searching for her birth parents on and off for 20 years.

That is a bald-faced lie. The SCOTUS never heard the case, and you provided the statement that proved it! A single associate justice refusing an emergency stay is not heard by SCOTUS. When will you refute my post stating this?

SCOTUS would never hear a case like this because it only applied to one state and did not involve constitutional rights.

 

[Papageorgio]

I don’t think the records should be open, the parents closed it for a reason, not saying it is right or wrong but the parents made a decision not to abort the child, made the decision to put the child up for adoption and should have a right to keep it private. Just my opinion. I knew a women that sought out her parents and rejected quite badly. There are reasons.

 

[Hafar1014]

That is a bald-faced lie. The SCOTUS never heard the case, and you provided the statement that proved it! A single associate justice refusing an emergency stay is not heard by SCOTUS. When will you refute my post stating this?

SCOTUS would never hear a case like this because it only applied to one state and did not involve constitutional rights.

SALEM, Ore. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor rejected Tuesday an emergency request to delay an adoption records law from going into effect, allowing adoptees 21 and older access to their birth certificate.

More than 2,200 adoptees already have paid $15 and filed applications with the state Health Division to get their original birth certificate. Most are eager to know their parents’ identities, and many want to know more about their medical histories.

The Health Division has said it will begin mailing birth documents as soon as today.

“I have a wonderful family, but there’s still that piece that’s missing,” said adoptee Geena Stonum, 41, of Portland. “When you see people who maybe look like you, you wonder if they’re maybe related to you.” She’s been searching for her birth parents on and off for 20 years.

It means the case has no merit

 

[Hafar1014]

That is a bald-faced lie. The SCOTUS never heard the case, and you provided the statement that proved it! A single associate justice refusing an emergency stay is not heard by SCOTUS. When will you refute my post stating this?

SCOTUS would never hear a case like this because it only applied to one state and did not involve constitutional rights.

Nothing like losing twice to prove youre wrong

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

SALEM, Ore. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor rejected Tuesday an emergency request to delay an adoption records law from going into effect, allowing adoptees 21 and older access to their birth certificate.

More than 2,200 adoptees already have paid $15 and filed applications with the state Health Division to get their original birth certificate. Most are eager to know their parents’ identities, and many want to know more about their medical histories.

The Health Division has said it will begin mailing birth documents as soon as today.

“I have a wonderful family, but there’s still that piece that’s missing,” said adoptee Geena Stonum, 41, of Portland. “When you see people who maybe look like you, you wonder if they’re maybe related to you.” She’s been searching for her birth parents on and off for 20 years.

It means the case has no merit

Wrong! It meant that it only applied to one state and did not involve a constitutional right. SCOTUS only rules on state laws when there is a conflict with another state and if a constitutional right is violated in other states also. Have a nice day, you legal moron!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nothing like losing twice to prove youre wrong

Losing? Who is losing? You keep posting lies! That's being a loser in anyone's book.

 

[Hafar1014]

Wrong! It meant that it only applied to one state and did not involve a constitutional right. SCOTUS only rules on state laws when there is a conflict with another state and if a constitutional right is violated in other states also. Have a nice day, you legal moron!

The point is there is no right of privacy for birth mothers and there isnt a law in any state that gives that right. Thanks to DNA and search engines anyone can be found. Your entire argument is moot irrelevant has no doesnt matter and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it

 

[JohnDB]

Uncle of mine cheated on his wife some 25-30 years ago....
Aunt was pissed but this many years later....

Girl however, big problem....she wants $$$$$.
Mother never told uncle so he is in the clear on that score....
But she keeps coming by for $$$$ and he keeps giving it to her even though he cant afford to.
She wants nothing to do with half siblings....just the money.

Got a feeling that his meager assets (going to children) when he dies will be fought over by her. But surprise! Everything is in mom's name.

It will be interesting to watch.

 

[Hafar1014]

Uncle of mine cheated on his wife some 25-30 years ago....
Aunt was pissed but this many years later....

Girl however, big problem....she wants $$$$$.
Mother never told uncle so he is in the clear on that score....
But she keeps coming by for $$$$ and he keeps giving it to her even though he cant afford to.
She wants nothing to do with half siblings....just the money.

Got a feeling that his meager assets (going to children) when he dies will be fought over by her. But surprise! Everything is in mom's name.

It will be interesting to watch.

Isnt that child support so it seems fair.

 

[JohnDB]

Isnt that child support so it seems fair.

Not 25 years after the fact....especially when she did not tell him because she was unsure of paternity. He has never had access to her until now when she comes around asking for money.

So no, she had a parent....

 

[Hafar1014]

Not 25 years after the fact....especially when she did not tell him because she was unsure of paternity. He has never had access to her until now when she comes around asking for money.

So no, she had a parent....

Thats extortion and is a crime. Threaten her with charges

 

[JohnDB]

Thats extortion and is a crime. Threaten her with charges

Obviously,
But....small town and he has too many other things going on to worry about.

Small towns in rural nowhere....they have their own sense of justice. The girl is a pariah....She will keep that label around here. Meaning unemployable, deplorable friend group, and family isolation.

Her ONLY hope of having a positive life is by leaving the neighborhood and living in a large city.