California AB 372. I will get to that in a round about way.
I am in a foul mood and so I am going to say some things that will surely piss people off. I don't care who I piss off anymore. Some adoptees are cool, calm and collected. I'm not. Not today. Last night I went to my local Latter Day Saints Family History room to look at the Birth Registry for my birth year from the city I was born in. I had discovered I could order it and waited for about a month to get it. They set me up on a film viewer and I wound through the microfilm to get to my name on my current B/C. Mine was a family "adoption" so I wondered if my name was changed. These records of B/C only give certain info. Last name, first name, month, day , year of birth, borough of city the birth took place, and the last 5 numbers of the b/c reg. Parents names are not given. So I found my name in the records and it matches my current B/C #. In my case, that told me that I apparently was acknowledged by my paternal family and given my first name at birth. But as I was winding through the tape an odd-looking page jumped out at me! A page with maybe 80 "Smith Female" names (tonight I will count the number exactly). Keep in mind that on an ordinary page there are a few babies named "female" or "male" rather than given a First Name. Usually married parents name their children before filing for a B/C. My "half-brother", also a bastard, sent me his page and he is named "male" but with his first mother's real last name. OK, so I think I can assume that most of these unnamed Smith babies were born to single mothers and likely many of those, if not all, were put up for adoption (we're talking baby scoop era). But the unnamed "Smiths" outnumbered the named Smiths! That is statistically not right!!!! Obviously many of these "Smiths" were single mothers who gave a common false name in order to protect their own fucking name. And lo and behold, of the five "Smith Females" born in my month, there was one born on the same day as me! And surprise, surprise, also in the same borough of the city. This birth certificate number is 250 numbers before my named number. My named b/c is stamped that it was filed three days after my birth; this seems a little weird to me, that an unnamed Smith born in the same borough and on the same day as me, would get a b/c number 250 numbers lower than my number. And I was born on a Saturday to boot!!! So one would assume that no b/c's would be filed until Monday. So how could "Smith Female", born on the same day as me, end up with a number 250 lower than mine? Are we the same person? Was a new b/c made for me after my natural mother died (when I was 3 weeks old) and at that point my paternal family acknowledged me, named me and got a new b/c issued for me? By the way, the doctor who signed my B/C is famous and named in The Girls Who Went Away; he was involved in a case that went to the Supreme Court and was the predecessor to Roe v. Wade. And he lived in the same town and went to the same college, graduating within a year of my real maternal aunt's husband. An Ivy League College. These people had power and money. I wish I could blow this whole thing out of the water and make a big stink. I could if I had a voice and not sure I have the energy to do it on my own. So tonight I am going back to look at all the babies born in my month and borough (means going through the tape alphabetically and writing down numbers) so I can see if my current B/C number is surrounded by other babies born on my day, or is it surrounded by babies born a few weeks later. And why am I so pissed? Because to have to do this is BULLSHIT. And to have to wonder at what the FUCK happened and why it happened to me, is incredibly painful and crazy-making. And to think that the FUCKING state fucked around with my records and my identity makes me FURIOUS. It has been more than months since I sent the letter to the state where I thought the adoption would have taken place (if an adoption in fact did take place), giving them all the information I know, at the direction of a woman who told me I could find out that there was an adoption if I did this. And no reply. Not even an acknowledgment that my letter was received. This is a different state than where I was born. But now it appears to be a possibility that the state I was born in did a big cover up and perhaps there was no official adoption. To make it even nuttier, my secondary mother wrote a story about how they found and bought the out-of-state property she stole from me (which I am certain was in my first mother's family - and is in yet another state of course). This "story" of hers is actually in public records in that state, because she tried to sell the property to a state conservation group and wrote this story and another one about the history of the property when it was this old hunting club. In her story about "purchasing" the property, and that is what it is, a fucking pack of lies story, she says the "former owner's daughter, Mrs. Smith" took them out in a boat to show them the lake. I kid you not. Mrs. F'in Smith!!!! I need a publisher. The tangled web of lies and deceit they wove is just too much for me to handle!!! I AM TELLING THE GOD'S HONEST TRUTH AND HAVE RECORDS TO SHOW AND PROVE IT - I AM NOT A CRAZY NUT!!! In the end they didn't sell the property to the conservation group, but to a cousin of one of the board of directors of the state conservation group. If I said her last name everyone of you would know it because it it is a very well known name and the name of a multi-million dollar company owned by this family which is like the biggest name in the state. The name is synonymous with the state.
So back to California. Why the fuck will a state protect the fact that a fucking sperm swam up the vagina of a woman 20, 30, 40 , 80 years ago(before she was married - OH HORRORS!) at the expense of a HUMAN BEING who lives and breathes NOW and wants to know who they are, where they came from, who they look like, who they are related to, what illnesses may run in their family, where their talents, likes and dislikes may have come from and where they fit in this world? Why is the protection of the name of the woman who literally "got fucked" so much more important than the needs of the person who was produced? Why is 20 minutes of young love/sex and its participants protected over the lifetime of the HUMAN BEING ADOPTEE that was produced? Is the fucking BIRTH mother a fucking saint now or something? I am so damned pissed right now I don't care who I offend and what words I use. BIRTH MOTHERS got their protection and gave up rights when they gave their babies away. Now the babies have been raised, which was the point of the adoption, wasn't it? To give a baby to a family that wanted to raise a baby, who otherwise wouldn't have been able to have a "cute bundle of joy". Now the adoptee is an adult, 18 or 80 years old. WHAT IS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA doing putting a birth mother's "wants" over their adult offspring's rights? Why should anyone's permission be given before another citizen gets their original birth certificate? I am sorry, I understand mothers were forced to give babies away, or mislead, and some have lead pained lived because of that. But get real. The babies given up to adoption are now adults. The products of certain sexual encounters got adopted. They are still human beings who deserve the same knowledge about their origins and right to OBC as non-adopted human beings. Why does California think the birth mother's rights 20, 30, 80 years after the adoption supersede the adoptees?
What is California hiding in their records? A passel of "Smith Female" and "Smith Male" babies? And if I used the word "Fucking" too much for some of you, too fucking bad!!! When you get right down to it, fucking is what started this whole ball of wax rolling. Yeah, FUCKING and Adoptee Rights and OBC go together in my book!!! Get over it.
Share the same place for a minute or two
23 hours ago


