As a birthmother, I strongly support the concept of giving adult adoptees and their birth parents and birth siblings the right to know about one another. I also support giving a young, unmarried woman who is considering relinquishing her infant for adoption a "certainty" period. Her decision has life-altering consequences for herself, her infant and everyone they touch - for generations to come. This decision should not be made in haste.

I offer in support of these opinions a series of Adoption Facts...Did you know that...

Sealed adoption records - including the issuance of a NEW birth certificate for an adoptee that shows the adoptive parents as the birthing parents - was an outgrowth of a 1921 Uniform Illegitimacy Act drafted and distributed by the U.S. Children's Bureau to various states. Originally connected to child welfare issues, this reform campaign must have done its job well because the concept of erasing the stigma of illegitimacy soon was being promoted by adoption workers and most states in the next two decades permanently erased the stigma of illegitimacy for adopted persons with an all-new birth certificate. Birth certificates of that era were stamped in big red letters either LEGITIMATE or ILLEGITIMATE. Unfortunately, this well-intentioned action also erased the biological half of the adoptee's identity. This falsified birth certificate is a legal fiction that is quite damaging according to experts.

By the mid-1940s, social workers were confidently asserting to one another and the community at large that unmarried mothers by virtue of being pregnant and unwed were "unhappy and neurotic" and "emotionally immature" and therefore "unfit for parenthood". This psychiatric viewpoint was common for two decades - even placed in the Child Welfare League of America's Standards for Adoption Practice - and impacted, of course, the attitude of society and social workers who encouraged white, middle class women who were pregnant and unmarried to relinquish their child for adoption. I was one of those women who was so "encouraged" during the 1960s.

The view of white unwed mothers as "unfit mothers" unfortunately still exists on some level even today. But by the late-1960s the "adoption mandate" was unraveling. White girls who kept their babies were quoted regarding the "joys" of motherhood and the horrors of relinquishment were aired in public. Even professionals began questioning ..and I quote...: "the heartlessness, the cruelty and the sadism that the pregnant woman so frequently senses... when the physician, minister, or lawyer suggests to her that she carry the child to term and then hand it over, never to see it again, to someone else to rear." The physician who said this continues: "37 of the last 44 unwillingly pregnant patients referred here for consultation had, before their referral, adamantly rejected all pressure in this direction (of adoption). All felt exactly the same way about it...'I am not an animal' and 'Do you think I could give my baby away after carrying it for nine months?' There is a civil rights movement in this country now. A hundred years ago you could take the babies away from slaves. You can't do that now!'"

In the l950s and l960s, closed records adoptions helped breed shady adoption practices. Texas had its share. In 1954, a young pregnant woman testified before a Congressional Committee looking into private maternity homes harboring unwed mothers and selling babies for profit. This young woman had been sent to (a maternity home) in Fort Worth by her doctor. She said the home received 6,000 applications a year and in any one month there were 300 girls in residence, 150 babies delivered and one social worker. "The costs to the unmarried mother included a $90 per month charge and $150 for the delivery. Adoptive parents paid $2,500 for a baby. Conditions were pretty rough in the home, she said. Here's a direct quote of her testimony:

"I had been told...that the babies were not placed in an adoptive home until they were four to six weeks of age, that there was a six month waiting period before anything was legal or final, and that I had six months in which time I could regain the custody of my child...I left the home when he was ten days old and wrote a letter five days later telling them I was ready to return, to regain custody of my baby. I received a letter telling me I was too late, and that he had already been placed out, that it was up to the court....Also one of the documents stated that should anything be wrong with the child, physically or mentally, that the mother has to take him back whether she wants to or not. However, if the child is normal and healthy, according to their court procedure there is no way in which I can regain custody of the child."

Both of the above examples come from Wake Up Little Susie, by Rickie Solinger.

Having open adoption records does not seem to affect the rate of adoptions. Two states - Kansas and Alaska - allow adopted adults access to their original vital statistics. In 1994, 1 child was adopted per 1,062 population in Alaska and 1 child was adopted per 1,489 population in Kansas. But, in 1990, 1 child was adopted per 2,334 population in Texas, which has not allowed adult adoptees access to their original birth certificates since 1932. Looks like during the 1990s, Alaska has twice the rate of adoptions as Texas and Kansas' rate is almost that. (Source: National Center for State Courts, Va.)

Reunion Registries Don't Work. Despite the fact that I myself reunited with my birthdaughter because we both contacted Methodist Mission Home within four days of one another, there is considerable evidence that Mutual Consent Voluntary Registries simply do not work effectively. Texas has 40 registries in addition to the state's central registry. Triad members simply have no idea that these exist unless they serendipitously stumble onto someone who knows. More importantly, if my daughter had registered but I had been deceased she would never have been able to have contact with any others in her birth family. Registries only work if BOTH persons are alive and feel compelled to register. Because so many adoptees are made to feel disloyal at the mere thought of looking for a birth parent - and because so many birth parents are made to feel shamed by the mere thought of looking for a relinquished son or daughter - the changes are low that both will register.

The Governor of Texas has recently appointed a task force to help speed up the process of moving foster kids through the system and, if appropriate, into adoption as quickly as possible. Our organization, TxCARE, applauds this. We definitely support the concept of adoption for all children who need families. Statistically, more than a million potential parents want to adopt in any given year in this country. Around 100,000 adoptions actually take place (about 61,000 are what we call "stranger" adoptions and about 25,000 are infants.) Which is why we see advertising for babies in newspapers and on billboards and pressure on young pregnant women to relinquish. Yet we have almost a million US children in foster care.

What's the situation in Texas? At The Gladney Center in Fort Worth - it's the nation's largest maternity home and adoption agency - about 240 infants are released for adoption each year BUT about 4,000 couples inquire about adopting these 240 infants. These dramatic statistics come from Adoption Crisis written by an adoptive mother of two, Carol A. McKelvey. I recommend it as a highly readable book for any lawmaker struggling to get an overview of the issues of adoption in contemporary America. And, adoption in Texas is featured prominently.

Birthmothers were not promised confidentiality and permanent secrecy. Many of the birthmothers in our organization have provided copies of their relinquishment documents which we have here today. As you read them, you'll note: No where is there a statement asking for/ promising confidentiality. You might, however, be appalled at the intimidating, threatening tone taken by some of these documents. For example, says one 1976 document...and this material is set out in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, obviously to emphasize its message:

"I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT IF I CHANGE MY MIND AT ANY TIME, I CAN NEVER FORCE THE ... HOME TO DESTROY, REVOKE OR RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT AND THAT I CANNOT TAKE BACK OR UNDO THIS AFFIDAVIT IN ANY WAY."

This was signed...irrevocably of course... by the 16-year-old birthmother of a 5-day old male child. At age 18, by the way, this young man - who had spoken frequently to his teenaged friends of wanting to know about his biological family - committed suicide. The birthmother always intended to find him when he was grown. So much for adoption as happy ever after. So much for promising a birthmother confidentiality...the tone of this document is not promising of confidentiality in my view; rather it contains a strong warning to not change one's mind, to not speak up, to remain invisible for a lifetime.

We have collected these relinquishment documents from many places in Texas and elsewhere - and not one of them promises confidentiality. Birthmothers are no longer invisible. And those of us in the adoption triad - whether we are birth family members, adoptive family members, or adult adoptees - are no longer wanting to allow adoption laws that affect us and our families for generations to come to be made without our input. I implore you (The Texas Legislature) to listen with a wide open heart.

There's much more that I could say. There's much docu-mentation that it's time to end the travesty of denying adult adoptees their civil rights. I welcome your inquiries about resources that would help you find some answers and would be delighted to furnish a "reading" list. Just ask. Thank you for providing this forum today for discussing some important adoption issues.