I've been thinking a lot about Robin Williams the past few days since he died of an apparent suicide. It makes me sad, he seemed like a nice guy from everything I've read and heard. It's strange to me that someone who seems to have everything would be so distraught that they'd take their own life. Unfortunately, it happens more often than anyone would care to admit.
People are never satisfied. And it seems the more they have, the more they want. I can't get no...satisfaction. (That's where Mick Jagger comes in).
My friend posted an interesting link on her Facebook page about depression this morning and how pharmaceuticals often fail and her doctor friend has a treatment for depression that is much more successful. I know from my own experiences with depression and cyclothymic disorder (like a mild bipolar, Google it) that a pill doesn't really make things better, at least not for me. What makes me better is being aware of my behavior and forcing myself to take some action. BTW, that's advice from my psychologist, who doesn't let me get away with using the excuse of lack of motivation for not doing anything. She says the motivation comes from the action, not the other way around.
Hmmm.
So this week I'm taking some action, and hoping it leads to motivation to take more action. If nothing else it will get me out of the house.
I have a bracelet with one my favorite Bible verses on it. Philippians 4:13 I can do all this through him who gives me strength (NIV) I've always liked that verse, but people often take it out of context. Like hey, I believe in Jesus, so I can lift this car. Or run 80 miles. Yeah that's not what it means, although you could probably train and eventually do those things if you so choose.
No, to get the context, you need to read the verses before. Verses 11-12 I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.
Now after you read that, add this: I can do all this through him who gives me strength.
So, in a nutshell, satisfaction. Even if things aren't going how you want them to be going. That doesn't mean you sit back and accept things as they come and never try to change anything. But you learn to be content in your circumstances. Otherwise you might go crazy. And there is someone who can give you strength to get through it.
I feel bad for Williams' family, friends and fans. Many people cared for him and depression lied to him and told him his life didn't matter. I don't know whether he'd been under the care of a physician or taking any medications or getting help with his addiction problems. TBH, it's not really my or anyone else's business. I just hope those who loved him with be able to come to terms with losing him.
Because, in spite of the lies that depression and addiction told him, he mattered. We all matter.
RDG
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Agenda 21, or I'm madder than hell and I ain't gonna take it no more
Originally published on September 3, 2011 on http://dontbenicetomejustbecauseihavecancer.blogspot.com/
Over the past year, in addition to dealing with fun stuff like unemployment and breast cancer, I've received a crash course in the hidden agenda of the United Nations, specifically Agenda 21.
Now if you Google “Agenda 21,” the first website that comes up is the UN page describing Agenda 21. And if you click through, you can link to read the entire document. It's long, boring and uses terms like “inter alia” and “sustainable development.” And it's all right there on their website, so it's not a “hidden” agenda at all. Right?
Wrong.
The part that's hidden in fancy catchphrases that sound reasonable, such as “sustainable development,” is the erosion of property rights and taking from the “rich” to give to the “poor” so that everyone will be equal. I'm all for helping the poor. I know charitable contributions are vital to the survival of many organizations that do legitimate good works to help those in need. For several years we gave money to Heifer Project International yearly because we believe it's a good program. They help people by giving them animals so they can raise them for food, eggs and milk. The recipients of the animals are then required to pass on an offspring of their animals so others can benefit. In other words, pay it forward.
I like that. God helps those who help themselves. The Heifer Project people also teach them how to manage the land and take care of the animals to make them more environmentally conscious. That's good too. I like the idea of ending hunger, empowering people and saving the world all at the same time.
And then they went and did it. Busted out that “sustainable development” term. It sounds like a good idea, making sure we don't run out of natural resources, making sure the world is still around and usable for our children and grandchildren. It SOUNDS good, but if you dig a little deeper, you find that these schemes serve to limit what we can do with our own private property.
If the best practices of raising livestock and crops are known, and they are not cost prohibitive, most landowners are going to do the right thing. If I have a family farm I plan to pass on to my children, I want it to be usable. I want my children and their children to be able to get as much use as possible out of it. I don't want to pass on a worthless piece of land to them.
But the UN thinks otherwise.
“The broad objective is to facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources. In doing so, environmental, social and economic issues should be taken into consideration. Protected areas, private property rights, the rights of indigenous people and their communities and other local communities and the economic role of women in agriculture and rural development, among other issues, should be taken into account.” (Agenda 21, Section II, Chapter 10, paragraph 10.5)
In layman's terms, they want to make it easier to make sure land is used with the most sustainable benefits. What's wrong with that? Say you own 1000 acres. In your area, you need roughly one acre per head and you want to raise 1000 head of cattle. Or you could raise corn and yield 160 bushels per acre. Shouldn't you be able to decide what you'd like to raise? What works for your family and your bottom line? Maybe you'd make more money from one but your family has raised the other for four generations?
Enter “sustainable development.” Experts in the Department of Agriculture have determined that your land is best suited to raising corn, and more people can be fed with that corn. So under Agenda 21, they can come in and tell you that you must raise corn. Think it won't happen? I mean, after all, the paragraph quoted mentions “private property rights...local communities and...other issues.” However, look what else was mentioned: the rights of indigenous people (of which 94% of the world's population is NOT), protected areas (government controlled lands, such as national parks, state forests, the city park and the latest trickeration, national heritage areas) and women in agriculture. So if you are say, a white (or black or Hispanic or Asian) male in Missouri, you may not have any property rights if this goes through.
But we live in the good ol' US of A! This can't happen here! Wrong...it already is. Review current planning and zoning policies and practices in your area. Note the mention of sustainable development or sustainablity. It's the latest catchphrase. Sadly, many of the county commissioners, city councilmen, state senators and Congressmen who vote for sustainability don't really even know what it means. But once the terms have worked their way into law, you can bet the people who stand to benefit from the policy change will be first in line to let us know exactly what it means. Look out for organizations such as PETA and the HSUS and environmental wackos who would like nothing more than to send us back to the 19th century. Maybe throw a little Communism in there...From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875)
“All countries should, as appropriate and in accordance with national plans, objectives and priorities: Promote the use of labour-intensive construction and maintenance technologies which generate employment in the construction sector for the underemployed labour force found in most large cities, while at the same time promoting the development of skills in the construction sector” (Agenda 21, Section I, Chapter 7, paragraph 7.69e)
“Promoting efficient and environmentally sound urban transport systems in all countries should be a comprehensive approach to urban-transport planning and management. To this end, all countries should: integrate land-use and transportation planning to encourage development patterns that reduce transport demand; adopt urban-transport programmes favouring high-occupancy public transport in countries, as appropriate; encourage non-motorized modes of transport by providing safe cycleways and footways in urban and suburban centres in countries, as appropriate” (Agenda 21, Section I, Chapter 7, paragraphs 7.52a-c)
We can all ride our bicycles or the train from our apartments to our inefficient, green jobs (such as swinging a hammer to build a house instead of using a nail gun) so that everyone has a job and no one has any more than anyone else. Hmmm, what does that sound like?
Communist Russia, maybe??
Certainly not the United States of America, founded by Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Not the country that was torn apart by the War Between the States but came back together and within 50 years was a superpower. Not the nation that survived two world wars, the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, and the Civil Rights Movement. Not the sovereignty that rose from the ashes of the terrorism of September 11, 2001.
Not my country.
Over the past year, in addition to dealing with fun stuff like unemployment and breast cancer, I've received a crash course in the hidden agenda of the United Nations, specifically Agenda 21.
Now if you Google “Agenda 21,” the first website that comes up is the UN page describing Agenda 21. And if you click through, you can link to read the entire document. It's long, boring and uses terms like “inter alia” and “sustainable development.” And it's all right there on their website, so it's not a “hidden” agenda at all. Right?
Wrong.
The part that's hidden in fancy catchphrases that sound reasonable, such as “sustainable development,” is the erosion of property rights and taking from the “rich” to give to the “poor” so that everyone will be equal. I'm all for helping the poor. I know charitable contributions are vital to the survival of many organizations that do legitimate good works to help those in need. For several years we gave money to Heifer Project International yearly because we believe it's a good program. They help people by giving them animals so they can raise them for food, eggs and milk. The recipients of the animals are then required to pass on an offspring of their animals so others can benefit. In other words, pay it forward.
I like that. God helps those who help themselves. The Heifer Project people also teach them how to manage the land and take care of the animals to make them more environmentally conscious. That's good too. I like the idea of ending hunger, empowering people and saving the world all at the same time.
And then they went and did it. Busted out that “sustainable development” term. It sounds like a good idea, making sure we don't run out of natural resources, making sure the world is still around and usable for our children and grandchildren. It SOUNDS good, but if you dig a little deeper, you find that these schemes serve to limit what we can do with our own private property.
If the best practices of raising livestock and crops are known, and they are not cost prohibitive, most landowners are going to do the right thing. If I have a family farm I plan to pass on to my children, I want it to be usable. I want my children and their children to be able to get as much use as possible out of it. I don't want to pass on a worthless piece of land to them.
But the UN thinks otherwise.
“The broad objective is to facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources. In doing so, environmental, social and economic issues should be taken into consideration. Protected areas, private property rights, the rights of indigenous people and their communities and other local communities and the economic role of women in agriculture and rural development, among other issues, should be taken into account.” (Agenda 21, Section II, Chapter 10, paragraph 10.5)
In layman's terms, they want to make it easier to make sure land is used with the most sustainable benefits. What's wrong with that? Say you own 1000 acres. In your area, you need roughly one acre per head and you want to raise 1000 head of cattle. Or you could raise corn and yield 160 bushels per acre. Shouldn't you be able to decide what you'd like to raise? What works for your family and your bottom line? Maybe you'd make more money from one but your family has raised the other for four generations?
Enter “sustainable development.” Experts in the Department of Agriculture have determined that your land is best suited to raising corn, and more people can be fed with that corn. So under Agenda 21, they can come in and tell you that you must raise corn. Think it won't happen? I mean, after all, the paragraph quoted mentions “private property rights...local communities and...other issues.” However, look what else was mentioned: the rights of indigenous people (of which 94% of the world's population is NOT), protected areas (government controlled lands, such as national parks, state forests, the city park and the latest trickeration, national heritage areas) and women in agriculture. So if you are say, a white (or black or Hispanic or Asian) male in Missouri, you may not have any property rights if this goes through.
But we live in the good ol' US of A! This can't happen here! Wrong...it already is. Review current planning and zoning policies and practices in your area. Note the mention of sustainable development or sustainablity. It's the latest catchphrase. Sadly, many of the county commissioners, city councilmen, state senators and Congressmen who vote for sustainability don't really even know what it means. But once the terms have worked their way into law, you can bet the people who stand to benefit from the policy change will be first in line to let us know exactly what it means. Look out for organizations such as PETA and the HSUS and environmental wackos who would like nothing more than to send us back to the 19th century. Maybe throw a little Communism in there...From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875)
“All countries should, as appropriate and in accordance with national plans, objectives and priorities: Promote the use of labour-intensive construction and maintenance technologies which generate employment in the construction sector for the underemployed labour force found in most large cities, while at the same time promoting the development of skills in the construction sector” (Agenda 21, Section I, Chapter 7, paragraph 7.69e)
“Promoting efficient and environmentally sound urban transport systems in all countries should be a comprehensive approach to urban-transport planning and management. To this end, all countries should: integrate land-use and transportation planning to encourage development patterns that reduce transport demand; adopt urban-transport programmes favouring high-occupancy public transport in countries, as appropriate; encourage non-motorized modes of transport by providing safe cycleways and footways in urban and suburban centres in countries, as appropriate” (Agenda 21, Section I, Chapter 7, paragraphs 7.52a-c)
We can all ride our bicycles or the train from our apartments to our inefficient, green jobs (such as swinging a hammer to build a house instead of using a nail gun) so that everyone has a job and no one has any more than anyone else. Hmmm, what does that sound like?
Communist Russia, maybe??
Certainly not the United States of America, founded by Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Not the country that was torn apart by the War Between the States but came back together and within 50 years was a superpower. Not the nation that survived two world wars, the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, and the Civil Rights Movement. Not the sovereignty that rose from the ashes of the terrorism of September 11, 2001.
Not my country.
Nothing is free, not even the "free" Pill
Originally published on February 14, 2012 on http://dontbenicetomejustbecauseihavecancer.blogspot.com/
Over the past week or so I've been hearing a lot of rhetoric about Obamacare forcing religious institutions to make birth control "free" through their health plans and I have a few opinions about this. First of all, the administration has signed off on so many waivers that surely they could just waive these religious institutions who object to this part of the legislation. I don't know, maybe they have to apply for a waiver or something. Seems to me that if the legislation is so good, why would any company need a waiver? But that's not what galls me.
What bothers me is this whole notion of "free" birth control. Heck, "free" anything, for that matter. Pharmaceutical companies make birth control pills. There are costs that go into manufacturing and marketing them. They do not appear out of thin air. So in order to give them away, those costs to the drug companies have to be covered somehow. If the insurance company pays the drug company for them, then the insurance company somehow has to recoup their costs. How do you think they do this? Well, the person using them could pay for them or it could be a cost that is spread among all the policyholders. Either way, someone is paying for them. They are not free. Just because Suzy Q doesn't pay a co-pay for them, she is paying for them in higher premiums or in higher co-pays for another service. In other words, the cost of the "free" birth control is subsidized.
Here's the screwy thing with health "insurance." It doesn't work like traditional insurance. An insurance policy is something you hope to not use. Auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, life insurance, liability insurance, all of these protect you financially against peril. If you're driving down the road and you get in a car wreck, your auto insurance pays for the damaged property if it's your fault. If your house burns down, your homeowner's insurance pays off your mortgage and helps you get into a new home or repair the damaged one and replaces your lost contents. Life insurance pays your beneficiary money if you die. You write the check or have the autodraft monthly or yearly for these insurance plans and you hope to never use them. They're insurance. Peace of mind.
Health insurance is not insurance, as least not in the same sense these others are. You expect to use your health insurance. You go to the doctor for check ups or when you're sick and you file a claim. You pick up your monthly maintenance prescriptions for high blood pressure, birth control or diabetes. You have medical tests or get antibiotics or physical therapy for an injury and you expect that your health insurance will pay for these things. In theory, anyway, the large pool of people paying premiums is supposed to be larger than the amount paid out in claims, but with so much chronic disease, the impatience of Americans to get well NOW and the skyrocketing costs due to innovation, the profit margins are dwindling. Add to that the lower investment returns in the stock market over the past several years and insurance companies have had to increase their rates to continue to make a profit.
Yes, those evil insurance companies dare to make a profit. Damn capitalism. And those horrible hospitals keep charging more so they can stay in the black as well. And don't get me started on those slimy doctors and nurses and physical therapists who want to make a good living and pay off their student loans and drive nice cars and take vacations. Horrid, horrid people, making their living on the backs of people who need their services. They shouldn't charge anything at all. It should be free.
While we're at it, there's plenty of other things that should be free as well. Everyone needs to eat, why should Wal-mart and McDonald's and farmers charge money for food? Food should be free. We all need water to live, so why should the city send me a water bill every month? Water should be free too.
I can think of about a million more things that oughta be free, but I think maybe you see my point. The farmer needs to make money to care for himself and his family. The guy flipping burgers or stocking shelves does too. The city has to pay people to maintain the water lines. Everything costs something, nothing is "free."
So why is Obama talking about "free" birth control? People who support "free" birth control say that it's to improve access, to make sure there are no barriers to women getting birth control if they want it. If you really want to remove barriers, make the FDA change it to over the counter and stock it next to the Tylenol at the drug store. As it stands, you have to go to the doctor and get a checkup if you want to use birth control. That's a barrier. You have to pay the doctor and wait for an appointment. My OB-GYN makes appointments a year in advance and even if I call tomorrow, chances are it's going to be at least a couple of months before I can get in to see her. Another barrier. If you're over 35 and you smoke, the doctor isn't going to want to prescribe the birth control pill. Yet another barrier.
Looks to me like the only barrier this plan eliminates is the $5-50 a month cost of the birth control pills. And I'm guessing if every health plan has to make them "free," those costs are going to be passed on in higher premiums. Maybe not $50 a month higher since men, children and postmenopausal women will have to pay more too, but certainly more. Likely enough more that there will be women who would have been better off had they not gotten "free" birth control.
A cost of $50 a month for birth control is peanuts compared to what some cancer drugs cost. And many insurance companies either don't cover these drugs at all or have huge co-pays. And let me tell you, cancer is something you hope you never have to use your insurance for. I'd much rather cough up an extra $50 a month to not get pregnant if I knew if God forbid my kid got cancer my health insurance would cover her medications without me having to pay $1000 a month co-pay. I think most reasonable people would feel the same way.
Over the past week or so I've been hearing a lot of rhetoric about Obamacare forcing religious institutions to make birth control "free" through their health plans and I have a few opinions about this. First of all, the administration has signed off on so many waivers that surely they could just waive these religious institutions who object to this part of the legislation. I don't know, maybe they have to apply for a waiver or something. Seems to me that if the legislation is so good, why would any company need a waiver? But that's not what galls me.
What bothers me is this whole notion of "free" birth control. Heck, "free" anything, for that matter. Pharmaceutical companies make birth control pills. There are costs that go into manufacturing and marketing them. They do not appear out of thin air. So in order to give them away, those costs to the drug companies have to be covered somehow. If the insurance company pays the drug company for them, then the insurance company somehow has to recoup their costs. How do you think they do this? Well, the person using them could pay for them or it could be a cost that is spread among all the policyholders. Either way, someone is paying for them. They are not free. Just because Suzy Q doesn't pay a co-pay for them, she is paying for them in higher premiums or in higher co-pays for another service. In other words, the cost of the "free" birth control is subsidized.
Here's the screwy thing with health "insurance." It doesn't work like traditional insurance. An insurance policy is something you hope to not use. Auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, life insurance, liability insurance, all of these protect you financially against peril. If you're driving down the road and you get in a car wreck, your auto insurance pays for the damaged property if it's your fault. If your house burns down, your homeowner's insurance pays off your mortgage and helps you get into a new home or repair the damaged one and replaces your lost contents. Life insurance pays your beneficiary money if you die. You write the check or have the autodraft monthly or yearly for these insurance plans and you hope to never use them. They're insurance. Peace of mind.
Health insurance is not insurance, as least not in the same sense these others are. You expect to use your health insurance. You go to the doctor for check ups or when you're sick and you file a claim. You pick up your monthly maintenance prescriptions for high blood pressure, birth control or diabetes. You have medical tests or get antibiotics or physical therapy for an injury and you expect that your health insurance will pay for these things. In theory, anyway, the large pool of people paying premiums is supposed to be larger than the amount paid out in claims, but with so much chronic disease, the impatience of Americans to get well NOW and the skyrocketing costs due to innovation, the profit margins are dwindling. Add to that the lower investment returns in the stock market over the past several years and insurance companies have had to increase their rates to continue to make a profit.
Yes, those evil insurance companies dare to make a profit. Damn capitalism. And those horrible hospitals keep charging more so they can stay in the black as well. And don't get me started on those slimy doctors and nurses and physical therapists who want to make a good living and pay off their student loans and drive nice cars and take vacations. Horrid, horrid people, making their living on the backs of people who need their services. They shouldn't charge anything at all. It should be free.
While we're at it, there's plenty of other things that should be free as well. Everyone needs to eat, why should Wal-mart and McDonald's and farmers charge money for food? Food should be free. We all need water to live, so why should the city send me a water bill every month? Water should be free too.
I can think of about a million more things that oughta be free, but I think maybe you see my point. The farmer needs to make money to care for himself and his family. The guy flipping burgers or stocking shelves does too. The city has to pay people to maintain the water lines. Everything costs something, nothing is "free."
So why is Obama talking about "free" birth control? People who support "free" birth control say that it's to improve access, to make sure there are no barriers to women getting birth control if they want it. If you really want to remove barriers, make the FDA change it to over the counter and stock it next to the Tylenol at the drug store. As it stands, you have to go to the doctor and get a checkup if you want to use birth control. That's a barrier. You have to pay the doctor and wait for an appointment. My OB-GYN makes appointments a year in advance and even if I call tomorrow, chances are it's going to be at least a couple of months before I can get in to see her. Another barrier. If you're over 35 and you smoke, the doctor isn't going to want to prescribe the birth control pill. Yet another barrier.
Looks to me like the only barrier this plan eliminates is the $5-50 a month cost of the birth control pills. And I'm guessing if every health plan has to make them "free," those costs are going to be passed on in higher premiums. Maybe not $50 a month higher since men, children and postmenopausal women will have to pay more too, but certainly more. Likely enough more that there will be women who would have been better off had they not gotten "free" birth control.
A cost of $50 a month for birth control is peanuts compared to what some cancer drugs cost. And many insurance companies either don't cover these drugs at all or have huge co-pays. And let me tell you, cancer is something you hope you never have to use your insurance for. I'd much rather cough up an extra $50 a month to not get pregnant if I knew if God forbid my kid got cancer my health insurance would cover her medications without me having to pay $1000 a month co-pay. I think most reasonable people would feel the same way.
21st century second class citizens
Originally published on February 23, 2012 on http://dontbenicetomejustbecauseihavecancer.blogspot.com/
Seems like there's a lot of talk about adoption lately, both good and bad. I may have some bias, since I'm adopted I probably notice things mentioning adoption more than the average person may. Kind of like if you buy a blue Camry, suddenly you notice how many freakin blue Camrys are on the road (and maybe wish you'd bought a red Accord). Anyway, over the past couple of days I've heard about adoption right and left and I have some opinions (shocking, I know).
First of all, there are a couple of bills in the Missouri General Assembly (HB 1137 and SB 713) that may serve to allow SOME adopted adults access to a copy of their original birth certificate. That's right, not all, just SOME. The criteria: the birth mother must sign off that it's OK for the adopted ADULT to get a copy, or the birth mother must be dead, or the birth mother must be over 100 years old if she's still alive. That's right, first mommy holds the strings.
Can you imagine if something like this was passed for ALL adults, not just adopted adults? Your mom has control over whether you can have a copy of your birth certificate. Who cares if you're an adult and you have $15 and proof that it's you requesting it? Who cares if you lost your only copy, or if your mom never gave you the copy she got when you were born? Doesn't matter, mommy said no. No passport, driver's license, health insurance or marriage license for you.
I'm thinking that would not go over well AT ALL.
Most people don't think too much about their birth certificate because A. they have one and B. the information on it is true. However, for people who are adopted this is not the case. These days, with open adoptions, the veracity of the events surrounding the adoption, whether good or bad, are generally not called into question. But back in the "Baby Scoop Era," (Google it) there were many adoption practices that were poor at best and downright sinister at worst. Georgia Tann, Dr. Katherine Cole and other doctors, social workers, nurses and orphanage workers coerced young women into putting their babies up for adoption and some even stole the children from their mothers. Documents were signed while women were still drugged from childbirth. Birth certificates were falsified so that there was not even a "real" copy filed with the state that showed the child's name at birth and the birth mother's name. Birth dates and places were changed. Fraud was rampant.
Even Edna Gladney, who is said to have helped remove the stigma of illegitimacy from adopted children, had practices that are no longer used today. At the beginning of the 20th century, there were maternity homes across the country that young ladies could go to if they "got in trouble" and they could give birth and learn how to care for their babies and figure out what they could do. The goal, at least for many of the homes, was not for the young woman to put her baby up for adoption. But after WWII, it became our patriotic duty to produce as many children as possible (anti-communism) and maternity homes became an ideal place to find WHITE babies for those WHITE patriots who couldn't have their own. The Baby Scoop Era was in full swing by the 50s. If a white girl "got in trouble", off she went to a home (Edna Gladney, the Willows, Florence Crittenton, etc) where she had the baby, signed away her rights and showed back up at home a few months later. The focus of the homes moved away from helping a girl learn how to care for her child and herself and toward feeding a growing demand for white newborns.
This push for adoption didn't really happen in the African-American community. The same social workers who were telling white girls to give their babies up weren't giving the same advice to black girls. No demand for black babies.
And now, here we are, many years later. The "girls" of the Baby Scoop Era are anywhere from 50 to 80 years old or older. The "babies" are anywhere from 35 to 65 or older. Some of them are probably dead, likely more of the moms than the children. But they are all adults. And they've been adults for quite some time.
A lot of the young women who put their babies up for adoption were told to go home and forget about it. Have your own life, never think about your baby again. And certainly don't ever try to find him or her. Georgia Tann and Dr. Cole were even said to have told young women who had given birth that their babies had died. That way they didn't have to worry about that minor detail of a birth certificate or the mother relinquishing her rights. The baby could simply be spirited away to a waiting adopted family, who could claim that the baby was born at home. Back then most women did not work outside the home and they weren't as open about being in "a family way" as women are today. A pregnancy could be hidden fairly easily. So if Grandma didn't realize you were pregnant but you showed up with a new baby, well, it was plausible.
So in this generation, we have a lot of unanswered questions. Story after story has come out about what happened in the Baby Scoop Era, how children were stolen, how birth mothers were coerced, how adoptive parents were fed untrue stories about the origins of their children. Lies were told, people suffered unspeakable pain. Relationships were destroyed.
By the time I was born in 1974, the Baby Scoop Era was all but over. But at the time, the practice was still closed adoption and a veil of secrecy. I had the advantage of knowing both the doctor who delivered me and the attorney who handled the private adoption. When I turned 18, I asked him about my birth mother. He said I had good parents and a good life, I didn't need to know that. I accepted it. About four years ago I contacted the attorney to ask for my birth records. She denied even handling my adoption without even looking into her old records. I know because I received the return receipt on the registered letter I sent her on the same day I received her reply letter, which she typed on a typewriter herself. I guess she didn't want to leave that letter laying around her office for anyone to accidentally come across.
When secrets and lies are involved, you can only assume that what is being hidden is something sinister. At first I thought maybe it was something to do with my birth mother, that she was a promiscuous or a criminal. But now I've come to suspect that what is being hidden is the events around the adoption itself. I don't pretend to think that Dr. G and VA, the attorney, specifically remember the details of my birth and adoption. I have a feeling that likely both of them did things they'd rather not come to light and so they've brushed aside my attempts at finding information.
Fortunately for them, the law is on their side. I was born in Arkansas and to date, birth records are sealed and are to be opened only by court order. My adopted parents can get a copy of my adoption decree, but I cannot.
I know the search for the truth about my adoption and my birth parents has been painful for my adopted parents, especially my mother. I know they love me as much or more than they would have had they conceived me and she'd given birth. I am thankful that they have been supportive. My dad was from the get go, my mom took awhile to warm up to the idea and but she was the one who met me at the county clerk's office to get the adoption decree they wouldn't give to me and turned around and handed it to me in front of them. I don't think I will ever forget how I felt at that moment. I finally had a name. And mom was on my side. As she should be.
Now whether or not that name is real is another story. And due to circumstances beyond my control, my search came to a screeching halt soon after. I haven't found any new information since then.
Those who wish to keep adopted adults from getting access to their records claim to be doing so to protect the privacy of the birth parents. This is complete and utter BS. At no time when children were relinquished were birth parents promised privacy. Sealing the records protects the privacy of the CHILD. The CHILD is the only one in the adoption who has no say in what is happening. The birth parents know what they are doing. So do the adoptive parents. The people who know the birth mother knew she was pregnant and see she does NOT have a baby. The people who know the adoptive mother know she was not pregnant but she HAS a baby.
Sealing the records does protect privacy, alright, the privacy of the adoption system. If the birth parents and adopted child never meet, they can't compare stories to see if what they were told was true.
Just like African Americans and women in the early to mid 1900s, adopted adults are being treated like second class citizens. We are being denied information about ourselves "for our own good." Think back to history class and what was said about giving the "Negro" or the woman the vote or equal rights. Think about how society was going to fall apart, that they would no longer know their place, that they needed to be led by men who knew what was best. Jim Crow laws and denying women rights had nothing to do with protecting society or children. It had everything to do with keeping white men higher than the rest. I think any reasonable person can look back and see that these things were wrong. That we were all created equal, just like it says in the Declaration of Independence. Not that we're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others, like it says in Animal Farm.
Right now I feel the adoption industry is more equal than the adopted adult, and that everyone else, for that matter, is too. And if the bills in the Missouri Legislature pass as written, a few more will get to step into the "more equal" column, if their first mommies will let them.
As for me, well, I'm just hoping if every other state surrounding Arkansas opens records, they will too.
**Update 9/25/13: both bills in Missouri failed. Another poorly written bill was introduced during the regular session of the Missouri General Assembly in 2013. It came out of committee but didn't make the calendar to be voted upon.**
Seems like there's a lot of talk about adoption lately, both good and bad. I may have some bias, since I'm adopted I probably notice things mentioning adoption more than the average person may. Kind of like if you buy a blue Camry, suddenly you notice how many freakin blue Camrys are on the road (and maybe wish you'd bought a red Accord). Anyway, over the past couple of days I've heard about adoption right and left and I have some opinions (shocking, I know).
First of all, there are a couple of bills in the Missouri General Assembly (HB 1137 and SB 713) that may serve to allow SOME adopted adults access to a copy of their original birth certificate. That's right, not all, just SOME. The criteria: the birth mother must sign off that it's OK for the adopted ADULT to get a copy, or the birth mother must be dead, or the birth mother must be over 100 years old if she's still alive. That's right, first mommy holds the strings.
Can you imagine if something like this was passed for ALL adults, not just adopted adults? Your mom has control over whether you can have a copy of your birth certificate. Who cares if you're an adult and you have $15 and proof that it's you requesting it? Who cares if you lost your only copy, or if your mom never gave you the copy she got when you were born? Doesn't matter, mommy said no. No passport, driver's license, health insurance or marriage license for you.
I'm thinking that would not go over well AT ALL.
Most people don't think too much about their birth certificate because A. they have one and B. the information on it is true. However, for people who are adopted this is not the case. These days, with open adoptions, the veracity of the events surrounding the adoption, whether good or bad, are generally not called into question. But back in the "Baby Scoop Era," (Google it) there were many adoption practices that were poor at best and downright sinister at worst. Georgia Tann, Dr. Katherine Cole and other doctors, social workers, nurses and orphanage workers coerced young women into putting their babies up for adoption and some even stole the children from their mothers. Documents were signed while women were still drugged from childbirth. Birth certificates were falsified so that there was not even a "real" copy filed with the state that showed the child's name at birth and the birth mother's name. Birth dates and places were changed. Fraud was rampant.
Even Edna Gladney, who is said to have helped remove the stigma of illegitimacy from adopted children, had practices that are no longer used today. At the beginning of the 20th century, there were maternity homes across the country that young ladies could go to if they "got in trouble" and they could give birth and learn how to care for their babies and figure out what they could do. The goal, at least for many of the homes, was not for the young woman to put her baby up for adoption. But after WWII, it became our patriotic duty to produce as many children as possible (anti-communism) and maternity homes became an ideal place to find WHITE babies for those WHITE patriots who couldn't have their own. The Baby Scoop Era was in full swing by the 50s. If a white girl "got in trouble", off she went to a home (Edna Gladney, the Willows, Florence Crittenton, etc) where she had the baby, signed away her rights and showed back up at home a few months later. The focus of the homes moved away from helping a girl learn how to care for her child and herself and toward feeding a growing demand for white newborns.
This push for adoption didn't really happen in the African-American community. The same social workers who were telling white girls to give their babies up weren't giving the same advice to black girls. No demand for black babies.
And now, here we are, many years later. The "girls" of the Baby Scoop Era are anywhere from 50 to 80 years old or older. The "babies" are anywhere from 35 to 65 or older. Some of them are probably dead, likely more of the moms than the children. But they are all adults. And they've been adults for quite some time.
A lot of the young women who put their babies up for adoption were told to go home and forget about it. Have your own life, never think about your baby again. And certainly don't ever try to find him or her. Georgia Tann and Dr. Cole were even said to have told young women who had given birth that their babies had died. That way they didn't have to worry about that minor detail of a birth certificate or the mother relinquishing her rights. The baby could simply be spirited away to a waiting adopted family, who could claim that the baby was born at home. Back then most women did not work outside the home and they weren't as open about being in "a family way" as women are today. A pregnancy could be hidden fairly easily. So if Grandma didn't realize you were pregnant but you showed up with a new baby, well, it was plausible.
So in this generation, we have a lot of unanswered questions. Story after story has come out about what happened in the Baby Scoop Era, how children were stolen, how birth mothers were coerced, how adoptive parents were fed untrue stories about the origins of their children. Lies were told, people suffered unspeakable pain. Relationships were destroyed.
By the time I was born in 1974, the Baby Scoop Era was all but over. But at the time, the practice was still closed adoption and a veil of secrecy. I had the advantage of knowing both the doctor who delivered me and the attorney who handled the private adoption. When I turned 18, I asked him about my birth mother. He said I had good parents and a good life, I didn't need to know that. I accepted it. About four years ago I contacted the attorney to ask for my birth records. She denied even handling my adoption without even looking into her old records. I know because I received the return receipt on the registered letter I sent her on the same day I received her reply letter, which she typed on a typewriter herself. I guess she didn't want to leave that letter laying around her office for anyone to accidentally come across.
When secrets and lies are involved, you can only assume that what is being hidden is something sinister. At first I thought maybe it was something to do with my birth mother, that she was a promiscuous or a criminal. But now I've come to suspect that what is being hidden is the events around the adoption itself. I don't pretend to think that Dr. G and VA, the attorney, specifically remember the details of my birth and adoption. I have a feeling that likely both of them did things they'd rather not come to light and so they've brushed aside my attempts at finding information.
Fortunately for them, the law is on their side. I was born in Arkansas and to date, birth records are sealed and are to be opened only by court order. My adopted parents can get a copy of my adoption decree, but I cannot.
I know the search for the truth about my adoption and my birth parents has been painful for my adopted parents, especially my mother. I know they love me as much or more than they would have had they conceived me and she'd given birth. I am thankful that they have been supportive. My dad was from the get go, my mom took awhile to warm up to the idea and but she was the one who met me at the county clerk's office to get the adoption decree they wouldn't give to me and turned around and handed it to me in front of them. I don't think I will ever forget how I felt at that moment. I finally had a name. And mom was on my side. As she should be.
Now whether or not that name is real is another story. And due to circumstances beyond my control, my search came to a screeching halt soon after. I haven't found any new information since then.
Those who wish to keep adopted adults from getting access to their records claim to be doing so to protect the privacy of the birth parents. This is complete and utter BS. At no time when children were relinquished were birth parents promised privacy. Sealing the records protects the privacy of the CHILD. The CHILD is the only one in the adoption who has no say in what is happening. The birth parents know what they are doing. So do the adoptive parents. The people who know the birth mother knew she was pregnant and see she does NOT have a baby. The people who know the adoptive mother know she was not pregnant but she HAS a baby.
Sealing the records does protect privacy, alright, the privacy of the adoption system. If the birth parents and adopted child never meet, they can't compare stories to see if what they were told was true.
Just like African Americans and women in the early to mid 1900s, adopted adults are being treated like second class citizens. We are being denied information about ourselves "for our own good." Think back to history class and what was said about giving the "Negro" or the woman the vote or equal rights. Think about how society was going to fall apart, that they would no longer know their place, that they needed to be led by men who knew what was best. Jim Crow laws and denying women rights had nothing to do with protecting society or children. It had everything to do with keeping white men higher than the rest. I think any reasonable person can look back and see that these things were wrong. That we were all created equal, just like it says in the Declaration of Independence. Not that we're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others, like it says in Animal Farm.
Right now I feel the adoption industry is more equal than the adopted adult, and that everyone else, for that matter, is too. And if the bills in the Missouri Legislature pass as written, a few more will get to step into the "more equal" column, if their first mommies will let them.
As for me, well, I'm just hoping if every other state surrounding Arkansas opens records, they will too.
**Update 9/25/13: both bills in Missouri failed. Another poorly written bill was introduced during the regular session of the Missouri General Assembly in 2013. It came out of committee but didn't make the calendar to be voted upon.**
Monday, September 23, 2013
Allow myself to introduce myself
You know, there's just so many things I want to talk about that have nothing to do with breast cancer or property rights. So I decided to start a new blog. I'll cover random subjects. Someday I may even write a book.
Right now I'm knee deep in searching for my birth family. I was adopted when I was six days old. I love my parents. They're awesome people. I had a great childhood. I just have some questions, an empty spot, a feeling that something is missing. I wonder about where I came from. What annoying habits of mine are inborn and which ones I picked up along the years. I wonder why I developed breast cancer somewhere between the ages of 29 and 36. I wonder why I have that one weird toe that looks like it hasn't grown since I was three.
Important questions all. I have opinions too. Lots of them. And sometimes funny stuff happens. Or stuff really irks me. That's what I plan to talk about. So I hope you'll join my journey.
RDG
Right now I'm knee deep in searching for my birth family. I was adopted when I was six days old. I love my parents. They're awesome people. I had a great childhood. I just have some questions, an empty spot, a feeling that something is missing. I wonder about where I came from. What annoying habits of mine are inborn and which ones I picked up along the years. I wonder why I developed breast cancer somewhere between the ages of 29 and 36. I wonder why I have that one weird toe that looks like it hasn't grown since I was three.
Important questions all. I have opinions too. Lots of them. And sometimes funny stuff happens. Or stuff really irks me. That's what I plan to talk about. So I hope you'll join my journey.
RDG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)