Friday, February 25, 2011

HB 2904 pt2

For the last week I have tried to write again about HB 2904; Why I support it, and the people who don't support it. But I just can't do it. Every time I sit down to the computer to type out my feelings, I become so frustrated, and so upset, that I just have to walk away. I seriously just can not understand how anyone can be SO against themselves, and others like them. How can a birth mother NOT support birth mothers, birth mother rights, and protections for birth mothers and the adoptee? I can not, and will not, EVER understand this. 
So because I am too upset to put my feelings into words, I will instead post a comment made by an adoptee on a post over at the First Mother Forum. Please read her (I am assuming this adoptee is a female, please correct me if I am wrong!) entire comment, as she makes some very good points.   




"Speaking of "not reading posts very well," how many times does Jane have to write a post explaining the legislation before people will read it and understand that their questions have already been answered?

If they have actually read her posts, and still have questions, perhaps they could clarify which ones were not cleared up, based off of what Jane said, instead of just saying Jane hasn't answered anything. She has. Good grief, I feel like I could write a master's thesis on this bill already.

--She has said who "Oregon Birth Mothers" are. She has named names. What is the claim that they don't exist based off of? Because they aren't registered non-profit status? Lots of groups aren't registered (e.g. "grassroots") and they very much exist. Some of the mother's stories were published in a magazine article which Jane has linked to at least once. 

--Jane has stated the 8 day period does not interfere with bonding. The APs can take the baby home if that is what the mother wants.

--If time periods are waivable, then there's nothing to stop an unethical lawyer/agency from pressuring a mother to waive them. Do people understand this inability to wave the decision-making period is to prevent coercion to protect the mother and child?

--Jane has stated that both the 8 day period and 30 day period are not "anti-adoption" barriers to adoption, but recommendations by the Evan B. Donaldson adoption institute. How in the world is following the recommendations by one of the leading adoption policy groups in the U.S. "anti-adoption?" 

--An issue with many institutions and industries is when one entity knows more than the individual making a life-long decision. I experienced this first-hand when buying my home and signing my mortgage (the unfair advantage is precisely why there's a mortgage crisis!). In adoption, agencies and lawyers hold the same advantage. Is it really that horrible that the law require them to give necessary information to a mother making a decision for her child?

--Just because one mother had an ethical lawyer/agency does not mean another lawyer will for another mother. What is wrong making one ethical standard so that ALL mothers can receive that same ethical treatment?

Why doesn't anyone who opposes the bill have answers to these questions?

Is anyone who opposes this legislation reading anything anyone writes to answer their questions? I would think that those who would want others to be as madly in love with adoption as they are, would support legislation that would enable women to make sound decisions and enable APs to know that the original mother made a sound decision so that there's a greater chance that they WOULD love adoption.

So many of we adoptees have mothers who were not given adequate time to make decisions because nothing was stopping the agencies from asking them to sign consents when our mothers were not ready and had not had adequate information (or any information at all). When I think of my mother pining all those years, wondering if she did the right thing, I don't see extended decision-making time as her automatically not choosing adoption. It's not "anti-adoption." I see it as providing her with time, when the agency couldn't have stomped into her hospital room, to really think about it and have had more peace with her decision. She deserved that peace of mind. I think it's sad that there was no law in my birth state that would have prevented the agency from treating her that way.



I really wish people would take just 5 minutes of their time to read Jane's posts and respond directly to what she's said. Jane is obviously more than qualified to speak on and interpret law, especially in Oregon. Instead of just repeating themselves and shouting the same misinformation about the law, why don't they comment directly on her explanations and tell her how she's wrong? Instead, they've come here to be rude and sarcastic to her, making remarks about her personally instead of the legislation, when she's done nothing but follow her convictions."






*** I have permission to post this comment. Any emphasis has been added by me (with the exception of the words in all capital letters). For more information on this bill you can go here and here. You can also read these blogs. 

7 comments:

birthmothertalks said...

I am very for the new law. I think all states need to have something like it. I don't get why people would be against it either.

Not Just A Birth Mom said...

Anonymous/Ms. Diligence posted a comment here a few minutes ago. I see now that it has been deleted..? I want you to know that your opinion is welcome here, even if we do not agree. I will not delete your comments unless they are extremely rude, foul mouthed, or attacking other people.

Anonymous said...

I never deleted anything, was actually just looking out of curiosity to see whether or not you had approved it.
~ Ms. Diligence

Not Just A Birth Mom said...

Well, I don't moderate my comments, so they are automatically approved. But they do come to my email. Feel free to repost your comment, or if you no longer have it "written" down some where, I could copy and paste it from my email, if you like.

Anonymous said...

You can re-post it! ~Ms. Diligence

Not Just A Birth Mom said...

Ms. Diligence said.....


"Due to the fact that FMF will not post any comments that do not explicitly support them, perhaps here might work!

@anon 8:50 pm
"Why doesn't anyone who opposes the bill have answers to these questions?"
Simply- because we have already answered these questions, many times, in many places, and repeating ourselves becomes tiresome very quickly.

Also, things have changed.

Per a mtg with Rep Doherty on Feb 17th, the bill is stuck, has next to no support from legislators and has several 'overaching issues'. You can find the official notes from Rep Doherty's office here as I don't see that Jane has shared them publicly on FMF:
http://hb2904adoptionreform.blogspot.com/2011/02/direct-from-rep-dohertys-office.html

Unfortunately Jane's 'explanations' of her own bill are incorrect. Things she states that are in the bill are not yet in the bill, and things that she states are not in the bill, actually are still in the bill. It is important to understand that the bill is NOT GOING TO MOVE out of committee as it is currently written. Jane is working on an 'amendment' with Robin Pope that will focus solely on the revocation period aspect of the bill. This amendment will be presented to a work force group that represents ALL stakeholders in adoption (agency, facilitator, attorney, adoptive parent, birth parent, adoptee, DHS and the fiscal state of OR) in March with Rep Doherty. At that point questions such as yours can be answered based on the changes proposed to amend the original matter at hand.

Many of the explanations that Jane uses to explain the CURRENT bill are things she HOPES to include in the amendment, but are not things that are in existence and/or acknowledged by any legislative process at this point.

~Ms Diligence
P.S. Its next to impossible to support something that doesn't really exist anymore."

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails