NEW JERSEY: ANYTHING TO GET A BILL PASSED. WE LEAVE EVERYBODY BEHIND!

BASTARD NATION’S LETTER TO NJ HOUSE SPEAKER JOSEPH ROBERTS, JR–PLEASE OPPOSE A 752. ADOPTEE DESERVE RIGHTS NOT FAVORS!

NEW JERSEY: MY CAUSE IS BETTER THAN YOURS. ADOPTEES V GAYS

The core of it all is of course, yet another broken bill, designed to leave some behind, constructed upon the false notion of parental vetoes that does real damage to existing adoptee rights.

One either excepts the basic premise that adopted people should receive equal treatment under law to non-adopted people, or they don’t. Sadly, the proposed legislation in New Jersey is predicated upon the notion that we are somehow ‘different’ and thus deserving of ‘different’ treatment.

The New Jersey bill, A752, has opened the door to complete non-sequiturs like “parental medical information” which simply have nothing to do with a genuine effort to restore Bastard access to our Original Birth Certificates (OBCs). Bastards regaining access to our OBCs doesn’t grant us access to parental medical histories, it merely restores to us access to our own documentation that the State had allowed access to originally, only to later confiscate and refuse us access to.

Just as non-adopted people get no family medical history when they request a copy of their Original Birth Certificates, neither should such be falsely folded in to concepts of adopted people’s restored access to ours. Doing so only attempts to conflate search and reunion issues into the genuine civil rights issue of records access.

Restored records access is what Bastards demand of the State. We demand such based on the premise that adopted people should be treated equally under law to non-adopted people.

Family medical histories are what some of us MAY ask of our relatives. Such requests may be granted or denied. Under law we have no “right” to be granted a medical history. Sharing such is at the discretion of our relations. Just as non-adopted people likewise have no inherent legal “right” to be granted such by their families.

Ethically, of course, sharing what information is available is likely morally preferable, but such interpersonal relationships and what information is or is not passed between individuals should not be state mandated.

As I’ve written here time and again, individual medical histories and family medical histories are up to individuals to decide whether they chose to share or not.

At the core of the Bastard rights position is the demand that we be free to live our lives without undue governmental intrusion into our interpersonal and family affairs, asking only we receive the same treatment as non-adopted people.

When states then insist upon entangling medical histories into state mandated requirements, they do little more than CONTINUE the ongoing pattern of state interference and control over ourselves and our families’ lives. Simply put, it’s none of the State’s damn business. It’s an interpersonal matter between us and our families- just as such is under law for non-adopted people.

Again, all we seek is equality. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

Deformers in New Jersey are creating what would be a catastrophe instead, attempting to put our families into the position of being essentially state blackmailed by the State itself into handing over personal and family medical histories, should they desire a lack of contact.

A752 is not an adoptee rights bill, it’s a false conflation of a bill that attempts to push medical histories and reunion issues into the discourse about our authentic need for restored access to our own records, our demand to be treated just like other non-adopted citizens.

It sets up precisely the systems that are the hallmarks of deform bills: false and interpersonal issues conflated in, and separate class of Bastards left behind in the wake of the bill.

Speaking as one of those left behind by Ohio’s contortionist deforms, I know firsthand what it means to have some people get theirs at the direct personal cost to people like myself. It’s why I will never support anything other than a pure restored access bill that leaves no one behind.

Anything this “compromised” bill would manage to pass in the short term will have lasting detrimental repercussions for those left behind for decades to come.

Horrible excuses for legislation such as New Jersey’s A752 say a very great deal about those supporting them. As I pointed out in my WTF page one of the clear indicators of a Bastard is that they are not in it merely for what they perceive as something that might get records for themselves, nor for some short sighted ‘quick fix’ that leaves other Bastards standing beside them screwed and left behind at the end of the day:

An adoptee who is cognizant of and cares about ‘class Bastard.’ I.E. an adoptee who either inherently understands, or has moved beyond caring about issues of equality and access from a purely personal position of merely wanting equality for themselves, to understanding “personal solutions” are not the solution. A Bastard understands that ‘compromising away’ the person standing next to you in an effort to get something for oneself is simply unthinkable. We don’t jump in to get ours now by putting the Bastard standing next to us off with promises of “we’ll come back for you later.” A Bastard understands to the core of their being politically and interpersonally, “we leave no one behind/no one gets left behind or forgotten.” All of which is to say, Bastards have learned a number of lessons from history and incorporated such thinking into their everyday, perhaps now second nature, actions.

If the so called “activists” in NJ claiming to represent NJ adoptees haven’t figured that out yet, they’ve forfeited any genuine claim to representing any adoptees other than themselves and their own personal interests: they’ve presented a selfish half-assed piece of crap legislation that not merely leaves other adoptees behind, but also once again, sets a model that will could (and likely would) be used by other states to screw yet more adopted people.

When you’re willing to settle for what amounts to table scraps instead of human rights, you should not be the least bit surprised when what you get table are scraps instead of human rights.

I, as an adopted person, oppose New Jersey A752.

Sadly if that’s all it did, it could be dismissed as yet another lousy compromised from the get go bill. Merely the latest in a very long string of such. Sadly, that’s not all it would do. Instead it goes further, going so far as to actually erase existing OBC information for kids who go through the state’s babydump (or so called “safe haven”) process, for example.

Marley has laid out the core of some of the mess it would create (emphasis added by me),

Sponsored by NJCare, (aka The Krampi) A752 (aka The Krampus Bill) is one of the worst throw-our-rights away bills on record. The bill, of course, contains the compromiser’s favorite compromise, the “birthparent” disclosure veto.

But wait, there’s more!

In order to make this veto work, the state extorts a family/medical history from closeted parents. Kind of a pay to play scam. If parents don’t submit the government mandated snoop form in 60 days, then The Bastard gets the obc. Sounds like a violation of HIPAA to me.

But wait, there’s more!

A752 also contains the whiteout “alternative” that will give adoptees, slapped with a veto, an “original birth certificate” that’s been mutilated by a government censor with a glob of white-out smeared over identifying information including their own names, and the parental addresses at the time of birth.

But wait, there’s more!

The Krampus Bill automatically seals the obc of all persons anonymously dumped under the state’s “safe haven” law, even if one or both parents are identified on the obc (one of baby dumping’s dirty little secrets). See, a safe haven dump, coerced out of a confused parent ” is a legal assumption of an on file and notarzied “disclosure veto.” Tough, but at least you weren’t thrown in a dumpster. That receptacle is reserved for your rights.

Finally, Krampus includes a fiscal note of $90,000 from the General Fund to finance the cost of a national advertising campaign to warn biological parents that their bastard may be hunting them down with the adoptee-requisite drywall hatchet in hand. Be sure to get that veto on file while you still have your hands to write with.

It would create a whole new ‘right’ of sorts for parents (”of origin”) that sets them apart from all other people. The ability to have our paperwork modified and to demand adopted people go through an intermediary whether we want to or not.

NJCare board member Carol Barbieri, writing of A752 in the Asbury Park Press goes so far as to claim those not wanting contact “will be left alone” as a result of their bill, relabeling such a sick form of “protection”:

For starters, it gives birthparents who wish to remain anonymous a year to file a notarized “request for nondisclosure” letter with the state. Their name and address will be omitted from the adoptee’s original birth certificate. If a birthparent doesn’t want contact from an adoptee, they will be left alone.

Currently no such protection for birthparents exists in New Jersey. Furthermore, if a birthparent wants to reunite with an adoptee, he or she gets to choose how they would like the initial contact to take place — directly or through an intermediary.

All of which firmly inserts state interference into the ways in which adults conduct their interpersonal affairs.

Adopted people’s constitutional and human right to free association, would now be explicitly circumvented. We would be forced down chutes of predetermined contact or lack thereof with government serving the role of enforcer over our interpersonal relationships.

This holds no resemblance to any known concept of adoptee equality, instead, adopted people would form yet another new class, a set of people with what amounts to a pre-emptive restraining order set against us and interpersonal contact not based on any standard of prior actual behavior but merely on our EXISTENCE as members of a a class of people, those adopted and ‘nondisclosured’.

This is precisely the sort of pre-emptive restraining orders on interpersonal contact we’ve seen over and over down through the years out of the usual opponents of Bastard rights. To see such instituted on the back of any notion of an “adoptee rights bill” would be a damn sad day indeed.

Anyone who thinks this New Jersey bill does no harm has missed the horrific details contained therein.

Furthermore, if Bastards settle for utter garbage such as this, the odds of New Jersey ever being adding the roll of honour of states that treat adopted persons equitably under law are slim to none. No state that has settled for “compromised” legislation has ever come back and become a state authentically supportive of our full equality.

The United States according to Bastard Nation-

(Alaska and Kansas never sealed their records away from their adopted citizens. Oregon, Alabama, New Hampshire and Maine have each entered the roll of honour over the course of the last nine years.)

If New Jersey passes this bill it will instead join the list of states that rather than moving towards equality for adopted people, have chosen to protect the interests and secrets and lies of those with much to hide and much to answer for.

For adopted people themselves to side with such interests, putting forward bills that maim our demand for full equality under law is nothing short of an embarrassment. They side with those whose hands are dirty over those of their own class and long term interests. Such shortsightedness belies any claim to speak for adopted people as a class.

They have been “bastardized” by the State and wish to continue precisely such patterns of discrimination.

There is no shame is asking for what you really want, restoration of rights for all adopted people and genuine equality under law.

Conflating in search and reunion interpersonal issues, state enforced pre-emptive restraining orders, record nullification for those entering the system via the babydump mechanisms (a nice little X-mas bonus, cleaning up an oversight on the part of the dump pushers by piggybacking on a supposed ‘adoptee rights bill,’ nice that. so yup, an ‘adoptee rights’ bill that will actually take an eraser to a class of Bastard’s OBCs) , and granting new powers to parents (that will utimately come down to the State’s whims in interpretation) all at the direct expense of adoptee human and constitutional rights is unacceptable.

Such junk legislation should go only one place, the nearest shredder.

This bears no resemblance to adoptee rights instead, in a truly Orwellian fashion, it guts our existing rights and takes white out to “Dumpee’s” (or “Dumplings”) OBCs.

It’s yet another ‘I hope for mine, screw the costs to others’ bill.

If New Jersey activists came back with a real access restoration bill next time out, I’d gladly blog, write, and work in support of such, but when the best NJCare appears to have to offer at the moment is white out for a new set of OBCs, it’s past time to let this bill die.

I leave readers with the contact information for the Speaker,

Assembly Speaker Joseph J. Roberts, Jr,.
Brooklawn Shopping Plaza
Rt. 130 South & Browning Rd
Brooklawn, NJ 08030
Phone: 856-742-7600
(No fax number listed)

email him via his web page: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/bio.asp?Leg=16 (cut and paste) (hit the email link.)

Ask that he allow A752 to die.

After all these years of work, it’s long past time, New Jersey needs a genuine bill that restores adopted people’s equality, not a piece of legislation that will ultimately gut what few existing rights we have left.

]]> http://www.babylovechild.org/2009/12/12/new-jersey-let-a752-die-the-conflation-of-family-medical-history-with-authentic-restored-access-and-preemptive-restraining-orders-among-other-nightmare-senarios/feed/ 2 http://www.babylovechild.org/2009/12/08/belated-high-praise-for-the-nablopomo-truly-daily-bastardette/ http://www.babylovechild.org/2009/12/08/belated-high-praise-for-the-nablopomo-truly-daily-bastardette/#comments Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:10:56 +0000 Baby Love Child http://www.babylovechild.org/?p=1465 This is one of those posts that’s been on the back burner brewing here for a bit.

I’ve known Marley/Bastardette for a number of years now and I find I always come away from time spent with her having learned something. It may be  something deeply nuanced in relation to the intricacies of adoption policy and politic, or it may be something as marvelously “mundane” as her turning me on to a classic film. Other times we talk about music or history or she recommends another book to add to my seemingly endless reading pile.

Always, she leaves me with new ideas to chew on. Her humour, wit, and willingness to dare the outrageous have inspired me time and again.

Spending time with her down through the years has always been time I’ve treasured.

So when I heard she had taken on the task of tackling NaBloPoMo, I knew we were all in for a treat.

Get her talking, and sooner or later listeners (or readers in this case) are going to stumble headlong across new ideas or even old concepts that leave them thinking.

The promise of a truly *DAILY* Daily Bastardette has always been inherent, but trust me, as a fellow blogger, I understand how maintaining such, even over the course of a month is no small feat. (Closest I’ve ever come is 20 some odd days in a single month around the Nebraska big kid dumps.)

So this past November, The Daily Bastardette pulling 30 blogs in 30 days was just a bit like sitting down with a cup of coffee and opening the paper each morning used to be (back in the age when ‘Dinosaurs roamed the earth’ and ‘news was actually printed on a thing called “paper” and was delivered daily to one’s abode.)

The Daily Bastardette this past November served as the perfect anecdote to the nonstop cotton candy sticky sweetness of the all-marketing-all-the-time National Adoption Month.

For those of you who may have missed it, you missed the development of a body of work over the course of a single month the likes of which you wouldn’t find in the course of a year on many an adoption related blog: humour, history, media criticism,  original research/investigative journalism, community connections, theory and international content. Or put more simply perhaps, everything that the Daily Bastardette is, condensed down into a nutshell, a single month long extravaganza.

Marley is a true Bastard treasure, a genuine preserver of the rich Bastard-centric history that surrounds us all, even as it continues to unfold day in and day out all around us.

This post then is both a small personal ‘thank you’ and a celebratory ‘well done old girl!’

***

Browse at will, the November ‘09 body of Bastardette’s posts-

HAPPY NATIONAL ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH: JOIN ALT.ADOPTION ON FACEBOOK! Nov 1

UPDATE: JEAN PATON BIO Nov 2

3RD ANNUAL DEMONS IN ADOPTION AWARD WINNER: BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES Nov 3

NATIONAL ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH RESOLUTION: SURPRISE! WE’RE NOT IN IT Nov 5

GALLERY OF HEROIC ADOPTEE & BASTARD LEGENDS Nov 6

BASTARD NATION BEST PRACTICE 12 YEARS LATER: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-DEFEATISM IN ADOPTION REFORM BY DAMSEL PLUM Nov 7

MY LAME MAD MEN BLOG Nov 8

OHIO ABANDONED BABY CASE SOLVED: WE KNEW IT! HOAX! Nov 9

HOAXES CANNOT PIMP BABY DUMPING Nov 10

11-11-11: PVT . FRANK LAWRENCE RIP Nov 11

HAWAI’I: THEY’RE BACK–MORE MORONISY Nov 12

MY FIRST ADOPTEE: RONNIE BURNS Nov 13

CONGRATULATIONS DON CHAON! Nov 14

THE GREAT LIE. THE GREAT CAT FIGHT. ONE OF MY FAVORITE ADOPTION FILMS Nov 15

MORE FILM–THAT HAGAN GIRL: YOU THINK YOU’VE GOT PROBLEMS. BE GLAD YOU’RE NOT MARY! Nov 16

UK FLIM-FLAM: THE FERTILITY SHOW Nov 17

ADOPTION IS A FEMINIST ISSUE: DAWN FRIEDMAN TAKES ON THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION Nov 18

ABC NEWS LOOKING FOR ADOPTEES: DISCRIMINATION Nov 19

PICTURES AT AN EXHIBITION Nov 20

THE AAC AND ADOPTEE RIGHTS: A REPLY TO THE EXAMINER Nov 21

MARLEY MISSING FROM SHELTER Nov 22

JOAN WHEELER IS A BAAAAD GIRL! Nov 23

FIND MY FAMILY: WHERE’S THE RECORDS? Nov 24

“SAFE HAVEN” SURVIVOR Nov 25

THANKSGIVING: I’M GRATEFUL FOR CELEBRITY ADOPTERS! Nov 26

KITTIES SPEAK OUT ABOUT ADOPTION Nov 27

“FIND MY FAMILY” REDUX Nov 28

TROY DUNN TALKS ABOUT GLADNEY AND RECORDS Nov 29

BABYKLAPPE NEIN DANKE! GERMAN ETHICS COUNCIL SAYS NO TO BABY DUMPING Nov 30

MORE DETAILS EMERGE ON BOX BUTTE CASE; LAWMAKERS STILL DON’T GET IT

(Yup, this may be the shortest post in BLC history.)

Marley has all the details in her useful post, MOTHER PANICKED, REGRETS “SAFE HAVEN:” 1ST POST-NEBRASKA FIASCO BABY GOING HOME.

Within 48 hours, both parents had come forward requesting the return of their child.

This portion in particular, pertains to the infant’s current custody arrangements:

On July 23, under a plan arranged by HHS, Butte Box County Judge Charles Plantz (left) granted legal custody to the agency while the parents undergo genetic testing and psychological assessment. Plantz made it clear in his order that HHS should proceed with its plan to place the baby with his biological mother while its investigation continues. The maternal grandmother is taking a leave of absence from her job to help care for the infant and his mother. The Star-Herald says the grandmother will move into the mother’s home, but the Herald-World says the mother will move into the grandmother’s home. The father will be allowed easy access to the infant.

According to court documents, Larry Miller, the baby’s court appointed guardian ad litem said, “NDHS believes this arrangement will provide safety for the baby.” Hospital officials filed an affidavit in which they said they believe it would be best for the mother and baby to be together so the mom could nurse and bond with him. (Note: court documents are not available to the public; information on them comes from news reports.)

Marley’s post covers many aspects of the dump scheme and points out some of the ways Nebraska is attempting to grapple with the genuine needs of these families in the aftermath of the older kid dumps.

She also brings forth a crucial point from her years of research:

In the nearly 10 years I’ve researched legalized dumping I have not found one single case where a parent or a family member who petitioned for return was denied.

and goes on to explain some of the potential reasons why:

I believe there are two reasons for this:

• Child welfare workers by in large do not like “safe haven” laws and except when thwarted by legal anonymity laws that binds their hands, hold a higher child welfare standard than do politicians and amateur do-gooders via counseling, education, and informed consent whether the final decision of the parent(s) be reunification, kinship care, temporary foster care, or adoption.

• The state fears if victims of “safe havening” are not returned, except for good cause, a parent or relative will seek legal redress. Since “safe haven” laws are already dancing on thin ice, the chance of overturning a law on constitutional grounds given the right circumstances in any state, is good. Not only would costly time-consuming litigation be necessary, but if the plaintiff were successful the entire law could be overturned, and adoption placements of safe havened children be vacated. If the case goes up the law ladder far enough, the entire Ponzi scheme could collapse throughout the country. Keeping families in tact post-dump, then, is simply utilitarian even if it is the right thing to do.

For more on the constitutional problems with “safe haven” read Erik L. Smith here and here.

I actually wasn’t planning on blogging about it, but in light of some of the lunacy campaigning surrounding the movie, I figured another Bastard voice tossed into the fray might not be the worst thing.

So my two cents, in seven acts, since so many have asked.

(And just to get it out of the way upfront: yup, pigtails, not unlike a certain blogger you might know… .)

ACT I

Yeah fine, movie.

Get OVER it already.

Plenty of people out there hear the word, “Orphan” or read about the upcoming flick, and assume this somehow is some kind of reflection on them, their industry, their christian evangelism efforts, their adopted kids, or whatever.

It has become nothing less than a sick form of ultimate adoptionland Rorschach test, with plenty of people (many of whom are not adoptees themselves) taking offense.

Seems what any one given person sees in the poster has far more to do with who THEY are than the product itself.

All of adoptionland sees what it wants in it.

And lots of people are in for a bit of a surprise by that measure.

But how do you sit these people down and say “you know, your narcissism aside, for once, it’s not all about you” is just a losing game.

Particularly when there’s cash and media to be gained by their course of action.

Look, I’m a Bastard, an ‘orphan’ if you must, and in all honesty, I could give a rat’s ass.

The squeeky wheels of adoptionland have panicked over Orphan, convinced it will destroy adoption.

Meanwhile, idiot adoptees are running around wanting “Orphan” T-shirts and “adopting” the film’s protagonist, “Esther” as some kind of adoptee heroine, convinced her “evil deeds” all stem from adoptee lack of access to our original birth certificates.

Far as I’m concerned, these two polar extremes deserve one another, both factions are completely nuts.

No, the arrival of “Esther” on the scene does not mean no one will ever adopt again, and that worldwide, unwanted (and now supposedly feared due to a movie) children will be stacked up like so many Tribbles.

That’s the lie at the heart of the Anti-Orphan whiner’s rant, that supply will outweigh demand if the movie goes forward.

This in a land where demand (for a certain kind of a adoptee that is) outstripped supply a LONG time back.

Nor is she any kind of Bastard superhero.

Those “adopting” her as one of us are equally, collectively, off their rockers.

As I said, all these folks, deeply invested in their own projections as they are, are in for a bit of a surprise come tonight.

The various pro-adoption factions, from secular left, to evangelical right have all found a fundraising friend in Orphan. Question is, of course, has the studio found a friend in them to help its marketing efforts? Who’s using whom, and does it even matter at this point?

ACT II

Then there’s the whole hoopla over the “It must be hard to love an adopted child as much as your own” line. The whiners whined, the studio pulled it. Now the whiners want pro-adoption materials included in the DVD sales, adoption cross marketing tie ins at theaters etc.

Me? I think removing the line was cowardly.

Further, I think the line, spoken by Ester the Orphan actually does strike at a certain Bastard truth:

Not only IS it hard to love a Bastard as your own, I personally feel it SHOULD be.

Huh?

Yeah, you heard me, right.

Adoption takes an extraordinary effort of extraordinary people. It is not and should not be, and should not be marketed as easy.

Adoption is a special circumstance. It is not ‘just like everyone else’ and there are aspects of it that are absolutely difficult.

Glossing over those, failing to acknowledge them, and otherwise sweeping them under the rug tries to drive any encountered ‘bumps’ under the rug as well, morphing them into mere personal problems, rather than acknowledging that those adopting and adopted face certain situations that non-adopted people and non-adoptive parents do not. We do so as classes of people, not only as individuals.

It is hard to love an adopted child as much as one’s own, it should be, and yes, it should take the extra effort.

Adoption and its aftermath for the people affected, takes work.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, who says it’s all easy and rainbows and pink candy cotton fluff is the real problem here, not a line in a movie that for all of about one second managed to speak a Bastard truth.

But not to fear, it’s been cut.

ACT III

In this post at least I’m not going to go into the particulars of the various Anti-Orphan factions nor the pro-Orphan folks.

Marley/Bastardette has been tracking some of the Anti-Orphan lunacy though, and I’d advise exploring her coverage to date,

“ORPHAN,” ESTHER, AND US: ADOPTION MUCKETY-MUCKS LOOK STUPID AGAIN

ADOPTION MUCKETY-MUCKS CONTINUE TO ACT STUPID OVER “ORPHAN”

ORPHAN: THE ADOPTION INDUSTRY AND BELTWAY WINGNUTS SQUEAK THE WHEEL

ACT IV

See the thing is, whining is cheap and easy.

If some of these nuts were at all serious, they’d be doing a bit more than mere webpage creation or whining at any microphone they can worm their way in front of.

Take the example of Queer Nation. As some of you might remember, when the Bisexual Bashing and rape glamorizing film “Basic Instinct” came out in the early 90’s, Queer Nation launched its nationwide “Basically, It Stinks!” campaign, complete with plot spoiling “Catherine Did It!” materials.

The Queer Nation focus on Basic Instinct (BI) was always about far more than just a single movie, it was a teaching example that QN focused upon as part of its broader agenda of exposing Hollywood’s ongoing pattern of homophobia.

Queer Nationals out in California got a hold of the script and production schedule and repeatedly disrupted.

Among the more creative actions was showing up with American Flags and “honk if you support our troops” or “honk for the 49ers!” as the film crew attempted to work in San Francisco.

From the start, a media campaign was launched criticizing Hollywood’s portrayals of Queers.

When the movie was finally released, QN members descended on theaters with flyers doing educational campaigns, using lines from the movie’s script to pull the rape scene out into the light of day, allowing people to evaluate it outside experience of the film.

There were attempts to gum up theater ticketing lines at single screen theaters running the film by attempting to buy movie tickets with (Queer as a) three dollar bills featuring famous Queers. While no tickets could be purchased with such, the amount of time wasted on dealing with activists ensured patrons missed start times, and cut into theater profits.

Theater goers often had to pass through picket lines and chants of “Catherine did it,” “Basically, it stinks!” or “We’re here, we’re groovy, we wanna see our REAL Queer lives in the movies.”

Domestic Violence and anti-rape materials or even a booth were set up, using the film as an educational activity. Cars in theater parking lots were flyered, stickers were made. At least one theater was treated to dead fish in its heating and cooling system, making the “Basically it stinks!” quite viceral.

Come the Oscars, Queer Nationals enacted a massive plan on many fronts and managed to get inside and disrupt, creating a rare unscripted few moments of national television.

All of which is to say, if you’re going to take on Hollywood, go big or go home. Don’t whine on webpages and attempt to fill column inches in the remaining dead tree print media.

But then again, as I said, sometimes, everything you’re whining about might just turn out to not be all about you at all.

Besides, unlike Queers fighting against their own appropriated images being utilized by Hollywood and thus working on their own behalf, many of those whining about Orphan are most certainly not Orphans themselves.

Some are members of the adoption industry, others have built their ministries on the backs of those ever useful orphans, and still others are academics, some are those desiring adoption normalization (both adoption as “normal” and THEIR adoptions as “normal”, not distinct from other forms of childraising,) and an (often overlapping) subset are adopters. But in their noisemaking ‘on behalf of’ orphans, they ultimately tend to appropriate our voices.

Real orphans and adoptees have no uniform position on the film.

So, no I may be a Bastard, but won’t be mounting an all hands on deck campaign to ‘do something’ about something as irrelevant as Orphan.

To do so would mean mounting a full scale campaign against Bastard and adoptee depictions in media, and once you take that on, you can pretty much start with Disney and work from now until forever.

Which, not surprisingly is precisely what some of these same whiners have done, a bit more scattershot perhaps, but from Stuart Little on to the Esthers of this world, some of these groups have come to realize that being upset on our behalf can fill one’s organizational coffers.

ACT V

This current noisefest in adoptionland is little more than providing one hell of a distraction from real things happening in adoption, like women in Guatemala on a hunger strike, trying to regain their children stolen for American adoptions.

ACT VI

Are there genuine reasons to critique the damn film? Sure, and they’re plenty ‘horrific’ all on their own.

To name but a few (Quotes are taken from the PDF online production notes) :

Adoption as fix all and replacement

How about the idea of the adoptee as replacement child for a miscarriage (that over and over again is labeled an “unborn child,” (propagandistic language like that alone is enough to lose my horror film dollars.)

…Kate, a wife and mother and recovering alcoholic who recently endured a stillbirth in her third trimester. “She has a gaping hole in her womb and in her heart,” …

Clearly Kate is a model potential adoptive parent.

“She lost a child in childbirth. She’s an alcoholic, and she almost lost another one of her children because of it. She’s tortured.

Sounds like Kate’s relationship with her husband, John is no winner either.

“At its core, this is a family that was broken. Kate has extreme guilt over Max’s accident, the drinking, and even the stillbirth. Despite trying to get past all of that, John’s still not sure he can trust her, and even blames himself.”

The notion of adoptees as family fixes, and interchangeable replacements and how normalized such has become culturally here in the US is plenty scary.

The idea of bringing home a new adoptee to “heal” a marriage, is likewise, a disaster waiting to happen. The two in combination, though is pretty much precisely the kind of profile that should, at least until these crises are past precluded gaining a child. But no, both in the movies and real life, getting a hold of a kid is easier than it perhaps has any business being.

Referring to the stillbirth (here propagandistically referred to as a “child”) classic ‘transference’ language is used, take all that love for your wished for child and heap it on an adoptee.

…she’s trying to persevere and to heal her marriage and her family. Her choice to adopt is an act of kindness. She needs to do something with all the love that she had in her heart for that child…to give it to somebody in need.

Do tell, what kind of homestudy is that?

‘We’re grieving like there’s no tomorrow, and our marriage is on the rocks, oh and I almost let my other kid die, but give us a new kid, it’ll make everything all better… .’

Hmmmm, how about instead, you first work through your grief and pull yourselves together before you even begin to consider taking on some other kid. A kid who will need to be approached on their own terms, who has their own needs, and is a person in their own right, not an interchangeable cog in a machine.

But no, rather than telling such potential adopters ‘now might not be the time, you have some work to do first’, seems there are plenty of folks willing to find them a kid, the proverbial ‘Oh, that one didn’t work out? No problem, we’ll just get you another.’

Yeah, adoptees as replacements, or as a therapeutic means for adults to work out their own shit and family dramas? Yup, that’s pretty scary alright.

But rather than focusing on the everyday horror that is replacement child procurement, the act of getting an adoptee replacement is viewed as ‘good’, it’s just the details of which one they selected that makes things ‘bad.’ Had they chosen some other kid instead of Esther, we’d have a Hallmark or Lifetime channel movie instead.

Added bonus? One of the kids almost died while under the mother’s care.

Kate, still healing from her loss, is a recovering alcoholic, and her drinking has led to near-tragedy in the past when their daughter Max nearly drowned on her watch. John continues to fight the urge to blame his wife for what might have happened. The fractures in their relationship run deep, making them vulnerable and giving Esther an opportunity.

Yup this is precisely who were I a social worker (or nun) I would want to entrust a troubled child to.

The whole Russian adoptee crap

Or how about the idea of psychopath dangerous murderous Esther as a Russian adoptee?

Because Esther is supposed to be of Russian descent, and because the character Max uses sign language to communicate, Fuhrman was also busy behind the scenes learning both sign language and an accent for the role. “It was a lot of fun learning sign language,” she says. “And I liked the accent because having a different voice changed me a bit and helped me become the character.”

Right down to the costuming.

“Esther’s silhouette is what makes her Esther—her ribbons, the traditional sort of Russian dresses that she had.

In the real world, it’s American adoptive parents murdering their Russian adoptees at a rather remarkable rate, not murderous Russian adoptees going after their American adoptive families.

Americans have certain ‘built in’ feelings about Russians, yet one has to wonder, how would the same story play were the adoptee Ethiopian?

Biological determinism and Essentialism

Or the way the film has written both womyn and children from an ‘essentialist nature’ or biological determinism viewpoint; that womyn are ‘natural nuturers’ laden with maternal instinct, for whom family comes first willing to dump their careers overboard, forsaking such to raise children, that the Mother is “fighting for her family” etc.

Kate is also a gifted pianist. We learn she had a career teaching at a prestigious music school, and she gave that up to raise a family. But her son couldn’t care less about music and her daughter is profoundly deaf and can’t hear it. However, the biggest impact on her was the loss of a child, followed by Max’s terrible accident, a near-drowning she could have prevented had she not been drinking.

She becomes a womyn defined purely by her act of motherhood, or lack thereof.

In addition to the thriller aspects of the film, Killoran was also drawn to the mother-child relationships at the heart of the story. “I think Kate is a wonderful portrayal of a woman trying desperately to do right by her children, whether biological or adopted. She just wants the best for them.”

and

“There’s just something really primal in that mother-child relationship,” says Johnson, “so I felt like that was really the best relationship to exploit and corrupt; to take what should be the most natural bond in the world and turn them into enemies. And I gave the mother a troubled background so that when she starts saying there’s something wrong with Esther, everyone has reason to doubt her because she’s not the most reliable person.”

The biological children, particularly the daughter character are portrayed as everything Esther is not, genuinely innocent and good.

Sign language was necessary because Kate and John’s younger daughter, Max, is deaf. The filmmakers cast first-time actress Aryana Engineer, just six years old, in the part. “Aryana was really special,” offers Collet-Serra. “She was so innocent and so full of life. In one sense, this movie is about protecting this young girl’s innocence, so that really needed to come through.”

Then there’s Esther the Orphan herself, who, looking so young, obviously must, by her very nature be considered “innocent,” “angelic” even, because that’s what children ARE. Except of course, in every sense of the word, she isn’t.

Downey notes, “The character of Esther starts off one way—you have to believe that she’s this sweet, angelic girl, who’s had a bit of a difficult past, but is excited to be part of this new family. Then you realize, no, she’s pretty evil, and she has intentions. And then you go deeper into why she has those intentions.

Likewise, much of the focus on Ether is the constructed tension between “childhood innocence” and the evil child, who has infiltrated that most sacred of institutions, the family home.

In a film, when you have an evil kid who does evil things, you start small and more subtly than you might expect in a horror movie. Little things start happening, and before you realize it you have an enemy inside the house, this little girl manipulating the situation.

The Essentialist “Nature” of Orphans in Hollywood and Bastard as intruder from within

Then there is the essentialist Hollywood portrayal of orphans themselves, starting with “The Bad Seed.”

The Orphan is portrayed as potential snoop, or as potentially being where they don’t belong, always around the corner, listening.

But the Coleman house was almost to scale, and also an open design with different angles and walls built for specific psychological purposes, or to hide some of the violence taking place. “We wanted a house that was open in order to get the sense that Esther could always be around the corner listening.” Jeff Cutter, the director of photography, lit the house with the same intention. “Jeff created pools of light so there was never a sense that you were able to see who was in the room; Esther could be there and the others not know it,” says Collet-Serra.

Thus they intend she be transformed into a pervasive presence, a presence that makes those around her not even safe in their own homes. She becomes “the enemy on the inside.”

“Tension and fear go hand-in-hand,” says director Jaume Collet-Serra. “The horror aspect comes in with the brutal violence the family and others face in fighting this little girl, this enemy on the inside.

and

Producer Susan Downey states, “We were definitely trying to tap into a primal fear that people have about what they allow into their homes, or into their lives. And I think with the best intentions Kate and John open their home to Esther, and they get completely undermined by this girl. That’s something that I think will get to people, that hopefully will create fear in viewers. But I think also that the mistakes these characters have made in their past come back to haunt them because they allow this girl to get in there and find out their darkest secrets.

The plot centers around the notion of a child’s essential nature as that of innocence, movie villans such as Esther, then are made ‘horrific’ in their violation of such notions of essentialism.

“I think a villain like this is interesting to watch,” states producer Joel Silver. “You wouldn’t want to see her in the real world, but it’s fun to see her in a movie. She’s a psychopath in the shape of a little girl who will stop at nothing.”

Stylistically they wanted “innocent” yet “rotten to the core.”

“Things that look okay, things that look completely, excruciatingly normal, are normally things to stay away from,” warns actor Peter Sarsgaard. “Even the way Esther looks—she looks like this neat, clean, perfect little girl—but of course she’s rotten to the core.”

Much as the filmmakers love to insist they’re doing something new, the heart of the matter is that it’s been done before in endless variation. Stories about orphans and those adopted, relying upon secrets and lies to provide essential plot twists are an all too familiar story. While I can appreciate the screenwriter’s love of the genre starting with “The Bad Seed” that hardly means such ‘twists’ are all that special.

Working from a story by Appian Way’s Alex Mace, screenwriter David Leslie Johnson wrote the script. “David’s screenplay delivered,” attests Silver. “He really made the story and the characters come to life.” For Johnson, it was a labor of love. “I’ve loved the genre ever since I saw ‘The Bad Seed,’” he notes. “It’s one of my favorite horror sub-genres—the evil child. There’s something very visceral to it. Viewers have a strong reaction, whether it’s a child being corrupted by the devil, or whether it’s just a bad kid…we’re very knee-jerk in our reaction to it. And I didn’t want to do it in a way that it had been done before. I wanted to find a new way into it, to bring a new angle to the subject matter. I came up with the twist at the end, the secret, and sort of worked backward from there.”

Bastard lives would be useless to storytellers were it not for our built in secrets.

And everybody has a secret— Kate has secrets in her past, John has secrets in his. Even Max is being forced to keep secrets. Of course, Esther has the biggest secret of all.”

Some of us would prefer to see real Bastard lives without secrets up on the big screen, but then what would be the draw? An orphan with no hidden twist? Why make such a film. Where’s the commerical appeal?

ACT VII

But my most stinging criticism of Orphan?

I grew up in the 70’s and ’80’s. I know a good horror film when I see one.

I also know a BAD one when I see one, if it’s bad enough, I’ll pop some popcorn and settle in!

From late night double chiller theater with Fritz the Nightowl, to festivals at the Drexel, to the local drive ins, I got my fair share of horror flix both good and bad.

But those in the mushy middle? Regardless of budget if the storytelling and plot devices relegate it to a predictable average, it’s forgettable at best.

House of Wax, (also directed by Jaume Collet-Serra) didn’t suck quite as much as most of the recent crop, it had moments that hearkened back to some of the classics, but the Golden and the Silver ages of horror are unfortunately behind us now.

Orphan, far from “showing us something new” built on the frame of the Bad Seed genre, instead gives us more of the same; a “bastard” doing the see-saw act between “angelic” and “evil,” a broken mother turning to her maternal instincts and fighting for her family against an intruder, a husband who finds his wife untrustworthy, and two biological children, the boy who questions the presence of the adoptee and a girl whose “innocence” must be protected, all set against a snowstorm.

Kick in a nun, a spooky orphanage and a good biblical name like Esther and we’re off to the races.

Far from taking the genre and challenging assumptions, or pushing boundaries, audiences will instead be given yet another helping of gender and role stereotypes. Constructs of family and home are front and center in ways that again, do not challenge the dominant paradigm.

All of which is tethered to hypernatalist notions such as the miscarriage now reframed into a missing “child” in the family whose absent space must be filled (by an adoptee) and guess what? Now you have a recipe for a movie that floats along on the tide of what Americans already think about themselves and what they already want.

These bedrock assumptions are all around us in the everyday, from what roles and expectations are for womyn on into our adoption international foreign policy.

The best horror films rely on more than a mere ‘twist,’ they challenge audiences assumptions, about who they are, about what is possible, about the value of “safe” and about what “family” means.

For Orphan to provide a genuine surprise, it would first have to transcend pretty much everything laid out in the production notes.

But twists like that are once in a director’s lifetime if they’re lucky.

And horror fans as of late, have by and large not had fortune on their side.

Yes, Orphan has a secret.

But it takes more than a secret to make a film that ascends and becomes a true classic.

]]> http://www.babylovechild.org/2009/07/24/orphan-theres-something-wrong-with-adoptionlands-desire-to-project-its-crap/feed/ 8 http://www.babylovechild.org/2009/07/22/nebraska-first-baby-dump-after-the-fiasco-and-age-down/ http://www.babylovechild.org/2009/07/22/nebraska-first-baby-dump-after-the-fiasco-and-age-down/#comments Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:53:11 +0000 Baby Love Child http://www.babylovechild.org/?p=818 Marley/Bastardette has the details in her blog post,

NEBRASKA: POST-FIASCO BABY CATCH– ‘NO QUESTIONS ASKED”

Both her piece, and this have been crossposted to our Nebraska blog chronicling NE’s series of legalized child dumps, Children of the Corn.

Monday evening a baby boy was left at Box Butte General Hospital in Alliance under Nebraska’s aged down new dump law created over the legislative special session. (Nebraska law, originally accepted older kids, but was “aged down” in the wake of their “big kid” dump fiasco that made international headlines.)

This marks the first legalized infant abandonment in Nebraska since the final “big kid” dump in late November ‘08.

Quoting Marley’s piece,

According to Nebraska Health and Human Services Chief Executive Officer Kerry Winterer (RIP Todd Landry), in an HHS press release:

“It’s important to gather information like family medical history to meet this child’s current and future needs,” he said.

Officials asked that anyone with information call the HHS office in Gering at 308-436-6559, the Box Butte County Sheriff’s Office at 308-762-6464, the Alliance Police Department at 308-762-4955 or the Nebraska State Patrol at 308-632-1211.

While it appears the “fiasco” taught Nebraska at least a little about the vital importance of preserving at least a few scraps of information for the kid, clearly Nebraska has yet to learn the broader lesson:

EVERY SINGLE LEGALIZED CHILD ABANDONMENT MARKS A FAILURE:

• a fundamental failure of the state to protect the long term interests and human rights of these kids.
• A failure of the state to treat these instances as what they are, marking a crisis for the parent (s), be that psychological, economic, covering over traumatic events such as incest or domestic abuse, etc.
• The state inexcusably providing what amounts to a “make it all just go away” vent, whereby underlying core issues, and genuine needs, are simply ignored. The kids themselves are left to deal with the legacy of such.

Monday marks yet another sad day, a day on which the State of Nebraska failed one of its most vulnerable and least able to protect their own interests, and a day when whatever family this child once had is left to disappear into shadows with their own lifetime’s worth of a festering secret that can never be rectified.

Nebraska had an opportunity after seeing what legalized child dumping or what is oh so politely reframed as “safe haven,” meant to those old enough to speak of their own experiences of being “legally abandoned.” An opportunity to dismantle its dump system. Instead they chose to preserve it, aging down to those unable to speak about their own experiences. In essence, Nebraska found a way to silence its most directly affected and experienced critics, at least until they grow older, long after this crop of politicians leaves office.

No, this is not some “greater good,” this is not a “save,” nor should this act be celebrated. This is nothing more than rot from within. Shame on Nebraska for maintaining its system of secrets and lies, pushing the lifelong consequences of such down onto a newborn.

REVOLTING ENTITLEMENT BLATHER ON DKOS: “ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION IS NOT PERVERSE”

Bastardette, my partner Mike Doughney, and I have a number of comments on the thread, though some of the posts on the thread have been blinking in and out of “hidden” status, due to rampant abuse of the dKos troll rating system.

In any case, much as there are a number of important points brought out by the few voices of saneity on the thread, I felt this comment I scrawled off was important enough to merit being moved over to BLC, as so called “Secrecy” is a term that needs to be addressed head on. I am writing in response to another commenter (beijingbetty, whose words appear in the quote boxes.)

“Secrecy”: Far more than mere cultural habit

Go see the Daily Bastardette for details from today’s hearing on California AB 372-.

For once, it’s a bit of what could be good news,

CALIFORNIA AB 372 SENT TO SUSPENSE FILE

as Marley said,

The committee has until May 25 to retrieve it from suspension, but because of the costs involved, the bill is likely to expire there.

and

I don’t think it’s a bad idea to keep those cards and letters comin‘ kiddies!

IS THAT ALL THEIR IS? CALIFORNIA AB 372 PASSES OUT OF JUDICIARY

CalOpen and Bastard Nation (along with a number of individuals) stood firm, and submitted testimony refusing to leave anyone behind, working against the disastrous bill.

Here’s Marley’s rough run down of who testified at the hearing (in this case “proponents” means those supporting the bad bill, “opponents” meaning those unwilling to leave anyone behind):

Witnesses: I missed a couple of proponents, but think I got all the opponents. Names may be misspelled in some cases.

Proponents: Stephanie Williams (CARE) Sarah Burns, (AAC/CUB,) Cal Assoc. of Adoption Attorneys. Jean Strauss, Tom Martin, Cheryl Cook, Jean Strauss, Tom Martin, Cheryl Cook, CA Alliance Child Family Services, Jim Dunn, Jennylee Balantine, Karen Vedder, Bonnie Burnell, Kristina Cook, Rachel Smith, John Smith, Bruce Reeves,

Opponents: Joe Wood CalOpen) , Linda Franklin, Laurel Ehrichs, Jean Ulrich (CalOpen) , Laurie Dunfield-Baker, (”adopted citizen”), Burt Brosnan, Imogene Speed (adoptive mother, Kathleen Cox.

Also be sure to read through the BN testimony opposing passage,

BASTARD NATION TESTIMONY AGAINST CALIFORNIA AB 372: LEAVE NO ONE BEHIND!

The bill may be out of committee, but this is still far from over.

That, and sadly, C.A.R.E. still has plenty of time to make their already badly botched bill even worse.

To get readers up to speed, first a little history:

Ron has done a number of posts on CARE’s crap, including his latest, in which he nails the sappy overwrought emotionalism CARE is employing:

BB Church vs CARE, Nikfa and THE Adopton Institute, with one hand tied behind my back…

Marley also has a number of posts on her California Adoption Reform Effort tag, including her latest about the content of the CA bill itself:

CALIFORNIA: I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE! BAD BILL HITS THE BOARDS!

While you’re there, be sure to note Maryanne’s comment on Marley’s piece:

maryanne said…

I am mad as hell! I am a member of the CUB Board and we were flat out lied to to get us to support CARE’s bill. We were told in an email from Jean Strauss that they were going to introduce a clean bill, with the proviso that it “might” have to be modified somewhere down the road. This clearly not what happened; CARE did not even try to introduce a clean bill, but came out with this travesty.This group deserves no support from anyone who cares about adoptee rights.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:45:00 AM EST

If this is how the bill’s “supporters” are interpreting current events, I’d say CARE has a rocky road ahead of it.

The full text of CA AB 372 as introduced can be found on the California Open page.

Read it and judge for yourself, but simply put, it is not by any stretch a clean open records bill.

As Marley pointed out in her latest piece CARE felt the need to add this disclaimer of sorts to their webpage concerning the bill:

(a word about reading a bill: Legislative language, and the language of statutes, can be confusing. The language is based upon existing legal code which encompasses thousands of pages that are all interrelated. The chane that we are requesting will allow adult adoptees over the page of 18 access to their original record of birth. The text herein is written by the legislative counsel for the California Assembly and is written for lawyers, not for lay people. What’s important is that it cretes a legal right for adult adoptees to get their birth records.)

In other words, it’s a nice little condescending pat on the head, saying essentially, ‘there, there all you adoptees, it’s in legislate-ese, just TRUST US, it doesn’t mean what you thought you read, see? It’s now a “rights” bill, trust us!’

Which of course is ultimately not what it is. This is not a rights bill, this more of the usual conditional psuedo-access predicated upon desires and whims.

Again, Bastards buying that old “trust us” line, I’ve still got that old CARE bridge on the wrong coast to sell ya … .

Bastards have every reason to begin asking the hard questions when someone begins selling us the just “trust us” line in relation to legislation.

These are people’s real lives CARE is being so CARE-less with. The consequences of getting it wrong means real people left behind, screwed over, and trapped behind walls of lack of access.

In Ohio, I’m precisely that class of “left behind” Bastards. Had I been born just a few years earlier, or perhaps a few years later, my chances of actually gaining access to my authentic records would be quite different, but as it stands now, purely due to a “political compromise” I’m locked into those middle, and fucked over, years.

Messed up legislation has real world consequences to those bargained away.

And that is precisely what the CARE bill does, set up a new and damaged system going forward. If their bill were to pass Bastards would be left begging judges for scrubbed of identifying information (unless such is deemed necessary to assist in establishing a legal right) copies of their paperwork.

It says so right there in the CARE bill:

The name and address of the natural parents shall be given to the petitioner or requester only if he or she can demonstrate that the name and address, or either of them, are necessary to assist him or her in establishing a legal right. In all other cases, that information shall be redacted from all records and information provided, including a copy of an original record of birth.

CARE’s pre-emptive answer to such is of course, another pat on the head, ‘there there, you just don’t understand it, TRUST US!’

Trust people who have the unmitigated gall to write such into a bill and then try to proffer it off as a bill that “creates a legal right for adult adoptees to get their birth records”?

Like hell!

Yes, by and large I’m pointing my readers to others writings on the CARE-tastrope, in part because

• Ron himself is a California adoptee (as well as his previous work with California Open)
• and Marley in her Bastard Nation work as a “9-year member of CalOpen Partners” is also in a position to have something to say here.

Both of them not only have something to say about this monstrosity, they come from places to know of what they speak.

What I have to say is mainly in support of the good work they’re already doing.

None-the-less, being a left behind Bastard myself, who has petitioned the court for my records repeatedly, let me tell you, I at least hold out hope that if the judge were to actually sign off on allowing me my own paperwork, it would at least be complete, not routinely redacted by law.

CARE is thus taking a bad situation and ultimately making it worse, setting up NEW roadblocks. This is not merely a bad bill, it’s actively counterproductive.

Living as I do on the other end of a not altogether dissimilar process in Ohio, let me be the first to tell you, “compromises” that create new obstructions and make the already bad situation worse are no answer.