What do you think about this quote from The Basic Bastard?

"The amended birth certificate, which names the adoptive parents in the place of the birth parents, was first proposed by two Registrars of Vital Statistics in 1931 and was utilized by most states by the end of World War II. In the decades leading up to World War II, court records and original birth certificates were sealed to the public, the explicit reason given being to protect the adoptive family from exposure to embarrassment or even blackmail regarding the illegitimate origins of the adoptee, or in cases where the adoptee had not been told of the adoption to keep that the prerogative of the adoptive parents. Many states sealed adoption records to birth parents as well, fearing their interference in the life of the adoptee. Nowhere in any of these original statutes is there is any reference to the protection of birth parents' privacy."





http://www.bastards.org/bb/2.SealedHistU...

What do you think about this quote from The Basic Bastard?
It raises all kinds of questions, I think.





Primarily, in my mind, is: "Why did it switch?" If the practice began in order to protect adoptees from the indignity of illegitimacy (an indignity that seems alive and well, if recent discussions here are any indication, since so many people seemed at pains to deny that adoptees are illegitimate - which makes me think they believe being illegitimate is a bad thing to be), why has it become about protecting first parents from adoptees?





Apparently, being a child born to a single mother is no longer an issue. Now, the indignity is in giving birth to a child if one is a single woman.





This quote is simply one more piece of evidence that sealed records isn't really about protecting privacy of first parents. But it does beg the question: Why do so many adoption agencies work so hard to keep these records sealed?
Reply:I think the idea of sealed records in the 1930's was indeed to protect the adoptee. Being illegitimate in those days was a scandal and often resulted in discrimination against the illegitimate child--even into adulthood.





BUT TIMES HAVE CHANGED! The need for this sort of subterfuge no longer exists.
Reply:I think the concept/theory is way past outdated. It's 2008. we actually have scientific data now to support the reasons that reunion with adoptees and their first families is NOT detrimental and is often quite healing. We are hiding behind old ideas that were not based on any kind of clinical studies to begin with.!!!!!
Reply:It makes me want to scream. I DON'T WANT TO BE PROTECTED FROM THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!





I don't want my children to be protected from the truth!!!!!!!! I don't want their natural families to be protected from the truth!!!!!!!!!!





I grew up with a damn huge elephant in my living room. I'll be DAMNED if my kids are going to do the same thing.
Reply:I think the records where closed to protect the birthparents but its not right for the adopted children or adopted people they shouldnt do that people should be allowed to know there birth certificate
Reply:It was a sign of the times and worked for that generation.
Reply:i think that it shows the mindset of people in the 1930's.
Reply:Shoot, as an adoptee, I NEVER felt and still don't "feel like all the other kids," because I didn't know where I came from and nobody could tell me. I felt ashamed of myself. Being born to an unwed mother had nothing to do with that feeling--it was the cover-up that did it.





It's high time we either did away with sealed records altogether or allowed adoptees access to their records upon coming of age. And the base lie that this was done to protect my first mother from being found by me should be corrected wherever it's found until people finally understand that records were sealed for the convenience and emotional security of adoptive parents.
Reply:i think it's archaic. the child seems to be the last priority in that thinking.


it seems to me that though it doesn't mention birth parent privacy, that it must have been a factor. In those days they were considered outcasts from society, as opposed to these times, when professional, well-educated single women and movie stars are choosing to have children on their own today. i think the "illegitimacy" label is fading away. at least i hope so. who cares if a child was born into or out of a marriage? it's basic human decency to treat children with love and respect regardless of their origins. what happened to the notion of judge not lest ye be judged? that quote sounds like something stemming out of old time bible-thumping intolerant religion.


i think it's important for adoptees to be able to know their origins. i would think it would also be helpful to the adoptive parents as they are raising this child to be able to have access to this background as health issues pop up.
Reply:I have one adopted child and two biological children, and my name is on the birth certificates of all three of my children. My son didn't happen to be "illegitimate".





I think it was good for him to have my name and my husband's name on his birth certificate, so when he did things like hand in a birth certificate for baseball (or whatever) he could feel like all the other kids (rather than having a stranger's name on the certificate).





I think the amended birth certificate is kind of nice for reasons like that.





As far as birth parents go, except in the case of a birth mother who was raped, I just feel that someone let an unwanted pregnancy happen by either being too careless or by taking a chance. Then, too, some adoptees are adopted because their birth mother hurt them or neglected them.





Children become adoptees because of the actions of their birth parents, and adoptive parents are the ones who have to figure out how to make their child feel secure and loved and the same as every other child. Some adoptive mothers have to pick up the pieces of damage done for years.





I think the protection and interest of the child is Number 1 at all times, and I think adoptive parents have a right to expect a certain amount of protection, as well as support in their efforts to make the child feel as secure and whole as possible.





I'm very sorry for the birth parents, but (again, except in the case of rape) they are the ones who created a situation which led to one person having to deal with being adopted and two other people (the adoptive parents) trying to deal with whatever challenges there are in trying to make an adopted child feel "like everyone else".





Birth mothers pay a heartbreaking price for their mistake(s); and I'm sorry for that, but they are the ones who created the situation. I'm not of the old fashioned kind of thinking that birth mothers ought to be ostracized or punished, but if there's some rotten situation related to the birth certificate, well, I guess, that's part of the rotten price they end up paying for letting an unwanted pregnancy occur.





Under normal and legal adoptions adoptive parents are screened for being emotionally and mentally solid. Birth parents have already created a situation which tells the world they aren't the most "solid" or mature people. I don't think it's such a horrible injustice for laws to keep an eye out to protect the child from a potentially unstable birth mother.