"Personhood" for Whom?

“The laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state." ~ language in the newly passed Oklahoma "Personhood" bill

* As a pro-life Oklahoman and an adult adoptee, I want to
address pervasive myths regarding Adoptee Access Legislation currently
being passed in several states across our nation. Restoring the
unconditional right of adult adoptees to obtain their original birth
certificates is a human right supported by The Child Welfare League of
America and several other child advocacy and adoption groups. Statistics
in the states that have restored this right show that abortion rates do not increase and adoption rates do not decrease.
(See American Adoption Congress at http://www.americanadoptioncongress.org/reform_adoption_data.php)

The Supreme Courts of both TN and OR (both adoptee access states) have ruled that birthmother's were never promised confidentiality under the law, but instead, archaic
"sealed records" laws in adoption were not enacted until the 1940's to
protect the newly formed adoptive family. In fact, if a birthmother
relinquishes her child for adoption, but for some reason the child is
never adopted, that child's original birth certificate is never amended
or sealed. This alone proves that "sealed records" was not enacted to
protect the "privacy" rights of birthmothers. It was enforced upon them.
(See Jan Baker's article, "Open Records: Do Birthmother's Need Protected? at http://adoption.about.com/od/adoptionrights/a/openbirthmompro.htm)

Kansas, our neighbor to the north, has never sealed original birth
certificates to adult adoptees. Restoring the right of adult adoptees to
obtain their original birth certificates is a basic human right.

Birth certificates of American citizens should never be "sealed" or "amended" (falsified) from the very person they belong to, yet the adoption industry continues these practices. This is unethical and violates the very core beliefs that the "personhood" movement claims to support.

Think about it. Adoptee's very identities are aborted when their birth certificate is sealed. No matter how much they love their adoptive family, they live their entire lives asked to fulfill the legal role of someone they were not born as. They are human beings who have a right to know their truth.

True "personhood" mentality would not permit this to happen to millions of fellow human beings. Yet, these very organizations lobby against adoptee access legislation. This reduces adopted individuals to a commodity; their very identities sealed and amended for the fulfillment of an economically driven supply & demand based system.(See "Shotgun Adoption" in The Nation ~
http://www.thenation.com/article/shotgun-adoption)

Legislators can prove themselves as "pro-life" by extending the SAME rights and privileges of "personhood" to adult adoptees.

Currently, in all but 7 states, adoptees remain "perpetual children" in the eyes of the law, without the rights and privileges afforded to every other American citizen to access their own record of birth. Archaic "sealed records" law strips adopted citizens of their human dignity, identity, and history.
(For information about the states that have enacted this legislation see Adoptee Rights Coalition at http://www.adopteerightscoalition.com/p/for-legislators.html)

'Personhood' bill passes state Senate

By BARBARA HOBEROCK World Capitol Bureau
Published: 2/15/2012

OKLAHOMA CITY — The Oklahoma Senate passed a measure Wednesday that would declare that personhood begins at conception.
Senate Bill 1433, by Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, heads to the House for consideration after securing passage in the Senate by a vote of 34-8. It is the first bill the Senate has passed since returning to session Feb. 6.

“The laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state,” the measure says.

It includes an assurance that legal action could not be brought against a woman for indirectly harming the unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular prenatal care program.

Crain said the measure would not prohibit contraception or in vitro fertilization. It also would not ban abortion because Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, allows it, he said.

But Senate Pro Tem Brian Bingman, R-Sapulpa, acknowledged that “this bill is one of many Senate Republicans have advanced which affirms right to life, and I am proud to support it.”

An amendment Sen. Constance Johnson, D-Oklahoma City, offered to draw attention to what she sees as the sexist nature of the bill did not get heard due to a procedural move by Crain.

Her proposed amendment declared that if a woman became pregnant as the result of a rape, the rapist would undergo a vasectomy, be fined $25,000 and be financially responsible for the resulting child until the child turned 21.

Crain said his bill was requested by Oklahomans for Life. Tony Lauinger, Oklahomans for Life chairman, watched the debate from the Senate gallery.

Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre, D-Tulsa, said it was disturbing that men who want smaller government and less government intrusion are trying to make personal health decisions for women. She said bills such as Crain’s are written to get the Republican base to the polls.

“You can get elected without these kind of tactics,” McIntyre said.

Crain said the bill was not about getting re-elected. “The unborn have no voice of their own,” he said.

Wes Glinsmann, a spokesman for the Oklahoma State Medical Association, said his organization opposes the measure.

The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice also opposes it. Members of the group wore pink and sat in the Senate gallery during the discussion of the bill, which lasted about two hours.

Sen. Jim Wilson, D-Tahlequah, said the bill “is bad for business” and “makes Oklahoma look silly.”

While Sen. Richard Lerblance, D-Hartshorne, said it would have several unintended consequences in areas ranging from probate to insurance, Sen. Kim David, R-Wagoner, urged senators not to be swayed by critics using scare tactics.

By BARBARA HOBEROCK World Capitol Bureau

Copyright 2012 World Publishing Co.