Confessions of a Weepy Birthmother

by MaryAnne Cohen

(This article first appeared in the Fall 1997 issue of the Bastard Quarterly.)

At the recent Bastard Nation conference, someone made reference to "weepy birthmothers" who turn out at every legislative hearing to tearfully tell their stories of lost babies, and plead for any little concession the legislators might deign to grant adoption reformers. I immediately recognized myself, especially my younger self when I was a

pretty, shy little thing, crying and shaking as I told my sad story to those big mean men in suits. And, being Irish/Slavic, depressed, and a poet, I can cry in my beer with the best of 'em.

The more I listened to the brilliant political strategists and Proud Bastards who presented BN's agenda--Open Records as an adoptee's civil right--with no excuses, no compromise, and no need for "good cause" or "emotional need"--or for weeping Mommies "giving permission"--the more I liked what they had to say. Jean Paton began almost fifty years ago with a vision of an adoptee-led movement for open records, with birth and adoptive parents in a supportive or auxiliary role, and 25 years ago, Florence Fisher was talking about open records for adoptees with no restrictions, as a civil right, as were most of the early reform groups that sprang up shortly thereafter. They were young, outraged, full of fight and confidence in their cause. In Bastard Nation it seems that these ghosts have risen, and the movement has come full circle.

In the past twenty or so years, as reformers grew weary and our opponents got richer and stronger, many compromise bills have been introduced, or strong bills modified to appease. Most raised hopes briefly, caused dissent in some groups, then died. Except for some registry bills that are worse than nothing, none of these bills, no matter how much reformers compromised and gave in, have gotten anywhere. The sole exception was in TN , where the special condition of the TN Children's Home scandal made it easier. Contact vetoes, white-outs, and other "Mother, may I?" provisions have been proposed again and again, yet the bills STILL are not watered-down enough for the opposition. Neither have other bills that were straight open records, no compromise, gotten passed. Obviously, we have not yet found the key to get legislators to listen and act on adoptees' behalf.

I have always liked the idea of adoption reform as a civil rights issue, because I believe it is, and because it is such a logical, clear, "clean" way to present it. It is clear that the emotional approach and the psychological approach have not worked, and may have even worked against us. We have spent so much time telling legislators that adoptees are "primally wounded" or suffering from other ills, that we have lost sight of the fact that a civil right is not contingent on special needs or "conditions", but on human rights - whether the beneficiaries are nice or nasty, well or sick, emotionally stable or flaming lunatics.

Reunions are on every talk show, to such an extent that much of the general public does not even realize that adoption records are still sealed. If all those folks are finding each other and going on Oprah, what's the problem? Even our worst opponents in the Religious Right feature sentimental "mutual consent" reunions on their shows and in their publications.

But reunions are not the issue, and should not be. If having access to one's birth certificate is a civil right, it should be regardless if everyone searches, or nobody searches. That is a personal matter between the adult parties involved, not a matter of government interest. The only thing legislation should be concerned with is redressing the wrong of denying one class of people - adoptees - a civil right that the rest of us take for granted: access to original birth records.

If we take the clear and limited stand of fighting for birth records as a civil right, the testimony of adoptive parents and birthparents, while welcome, would be no more relevant than the support of any other concerned citizen speaking in favor of a civil right for a disadvantaged group to which they do not belong. If birthmothers really did have an implied promise of confidentiality--so what? White bigots had an implied promise they would never have to eat lunch next to an African-American in the pre-civil rights south: it was written into the law. But once that law was seen to be a violation of civil rights, that which anyone had wanted or expected before, went out the window, and a lot of fine southern ladies and gentlemen were real uncomfortable!

Some birthmothers whom I greatly respect, like those in the CUB leadership, have taken a position of not supporting any legislation that does not also open records to birthparents. While I understand this, and would like to see records open both ways, I personally do not make it a condition for my support of legislation. Ultimately, each person much search their own conscience on this, and I respect the right of other birthparents to arrive at a different conclusion, with the hope that they would not actively try to defeat legislation for adoptees only--just leave it alone. I feel perfectly comfortable actively supporting the civil right of adopted persons to access their birth records, just as I support civil rights for Gays and Lesbians, African-Americans, Asians, and other groups to which I do not belong.

I would rather speak for open records as a civil right for adoptees, than have to be the "weeping birthmother" on the witness stand. My son's right to his birth records has nothing to do with what I want - positive or negative - and this is as it should be. As an issue of law, it has nothing to do with individual feelings, it has nothing to do with reunion, and it has nothing to do with psychology. I has everything to do with civil and legal rights, the true dominion of legislation.

I have been mostly involved in search and support for many years, and still see a central place for these personal and psychological concerns in the adoption reform movement. I feel in my heart that the need of some mothers to see their children again, and of some children to see their mothers, transcends all man-made law. But that is a very separate issue from the legislative battle, and I think that keeping it separate may be the way we will finally win. Those who can't see this may have to rethink their approach to the legislative arena.

As my friend Lucy, birthmother and Origins co-founder, has said, "we did not lose our identity like adoptees did, and the legal papers do not mean as much. Also, we did sign the papers. Adoptees never had any choice. And no paper will ever bring our children back." As much as many birthmothers had little choice, the issues are so different that I do not know if they can be addressed the same way. I don't know of any birthmother who would want her papers, but not want to see her child. Those who do not want to search do not care about information or papers either, preferring to try to ignore the whole thing. But I have heard of many adoptees, including my son, who had little or no interest in search, but still wanted a copy of their original birth certificate. Those of who are not adopted can only imagine what that document must mean to adopted persons.

I think that BN is on the right track, and while I continue my search and support work with birthparents in Origins and CUB, and with all triad members and adoption professionals in AAC, NJ Coalition, or other groups, I am also an enthusiastic supporter of Bastard Nation as our best hope to finally get open records. After years of dealing with timid, grateful adoptees, I am happy to be a supporter and follower as Proud Bastards lead the way in their own battle. And anyhow, I've always wanted to be a camp follower!

Mary Anne Cohen is a birthmother, editor of the Origins newsletter and outgoing Education Chair of the American Adoption Congress.

(This article first appeared in the Fall 1997 issue of the Bastard Quarterly.)

Copyright 1997 Bastard Nation
All Rights Reserved