Reader comments
Adoption 'finder' proclaims her innocence
34 comments | Read story
Becky | 3:56 p.m. March 17, 2008
Way to go, Jill! Fight it! I know you are innocent!
Marley Greiner | 8:27 a.m. March 18, 2008
The State of Utah has stolen the birthright of thousands of its adoptive
citizens through sealing their birth records. I have no idea if Ms Ekstrom is
guilty as charged, but I don't know any adopted person who wouldn't
grab those secret dossiers the state has collected on them if given the
opportunity. If Utah treated adopted folks the same as the not-adopted this
kind of allegation would never happen And while we're at it, if these
records are so "sensitive" why were they sitting around n plain sight?
Wake up Utah | 9:08 a.m. March 18, 2008
Start treating adoptees the same as the non-adopted, and allow them access to
their birth certificates. Then your courts would be better served than this
witch hunt against a woman who reunites families.
Comments continue below
An Adoptee | 11:51 a.m. March 18, 2008
Give me a break. Not all of us WANT to be reunited. Not all birth parents WANT
it either. I've met my birth mom - when I was in my 30's because she
wanted it and I felt bad for her. But it's been an uncomfortable situation
for me. She's a good person, and I'm glad she knows I turned out ok.
But if I could turn back time and not have her find me? In a heartbeat. My
"real" family is the one that raised me from birth.
Little My | 12:30 p.m. March 18, 2008
These records rightfully belong to the people whose births they record.
If adopted people weren't denied this civil and human right, situations like this wouldn't arise.
If adopted people weren't denied this civil and human right, situations like this wouldn't arise.
Little My | 12:46 p.m. March 18, 2008
A person's right to their OBC has nothing to do with reunion.
To An Adoptee: | 12:51 p.m. March 18, 2008
That's your personal choice and you have every right to it. However the
fact remains that a market was created by people who wanted their records. If
adoptees were treated the same as nonadoptees, NONE of this would have happened.
No matter what your feelings on who your real family are, it should bother every
adoptee that the state they live in treats them as dangerous second class
citizens not to be trusted with their own identity.
Thank You, An Adoptee | 1:13 p.m. March 18, 2008
It's about time someone pointed out that "reunions" aren't
what they're cracked up to be. I know of many people who were forced into
reunions that they never wanted and that only led to heartache and pain. Women
should have the right to place a child for adoption anonymously, without fear of
being contacted out of the blue, years later, by anyone! These untrained,
unregulated "finders" are only out to make a quick buck by meddling in
people's business and violating their privacy rights. They care nothing
about the lives they ruin in the process. They do not respect the privacy of
the people they are hunting down because they are paid for results. Many women
would rather get an abortion than risk having their lives torn apart decades
later by unwanted contact from adoptees or their "finders." Is that
really what you want?
Confused Marley Greiner | 1:26 p.m. March 18, 2008
You really think that a birth certificate is the same as a
"birthright"? You obviously know nothing about adoption. When one is
adopted they become legally entitled to all the rights and privileges of a
biological child, vis a vis their adoptive parents. An adoptee's true
birthright comes from their adoptive parents--it is the product of a lifetime of
loving, caring and sacrifice. A birth certificate is nothing but a piece of
paper!
Little My | 1:35 p.m. March 18, 2008
"Women should have the right to place a child for adoption anonymously,
without fear of being contacted out of the blue, years later, by
anyone."
Sure.
Why shouldn't women be able to just dump their kids if those kids happen to be inconvenient? It's only depriving them of their pre-birth history.
After all, it's none of their business where they came from, right?
WRONG!
Very, very wrong.
Sure.
Why shouldn't women be able to just dump their kids if those kids happen to be inconvenient? It's only depriving them of their pre-birth history.
After all, it's none of their business where they came from, right?
WRONG!
Very, very wrong.
AdopteeRights for LIFE | 1:43 p.m. March 18, 2008
To "confused marley greiner"
Birthright and Adoption don't go hand in hand. children aren't BORN from their adoptive parents. You couldn't be more confused yourself. Marley is the PRESIDENT of Bastard Nation the nations LARGEST adoptee rights organization in the COUNTRY.
She knows PLENTY about adoptee rights. Its YOU who needs a clue.
Birthright and Adoption don't go hand in hand. children aren't BORN from their adoptive parents. You couldn't be more confused yourself. Marley is the PRESIDENT of Bastard Nation the nations LARGEST adoptee rights organization in the COUNTRY.
She knows PLENTY about adoptee rights. Its YOU who needs a clue.
Laurie Dunfield-Baker | 1:46 p.m. March 18, 2008
Women DON'T have the right to place a child anonymously in ANY state. The
birth certificate does NOT seal when a child is places for adoption. An adoption
must be finalized by the court, which usually takes at least 6 months, in order
for the record to seal. If the adoption never finalizes, or fails, the record
REOPENS. There is no anonymity.
Adopted citizens are the only citizens in 44 states who cannot gain unfettered access to their OWN birth certificates. Even people given up for adoption, but don't happen to be adopted, have this right. But, adopted citizens do not. This is discrimination. Whether you thinks it's just a piece of paper or not doesn't matter. It doesn't stop it from being discrimination.
Adopted citizens are the only citizens in 44 states who cannot gain unfettered access to their OWN birth certificates. Even people given up for adoption, but don't happen to be adopted, have this right. But, adopted citizens do not. This is discrimination. Whether you thinks it's just a piece of paper or not doesn't matter. It doesn't stop it from being discrimination.
Lets be honest here . . . | 1:55 p.m. March 18, 2008
This isn't about birth certificates. A birth certificate is a legal record
identifying one's legal parents. It entitles one to all the rights and
privileges afforded under law vis-a-vis their legal parents. Adoptees receive
the very same birth certificate that everone else receives.
What you're really after is a copy of a legally- worthless, sealed, government record identifying your birth parents (also known as an "original birth certificate"). Obtaining that document will not provide you with any rights under law, nor are you denied any legal rights without it. There is no civil right to know the identity of your biological parents. There is, however, a constitutional right to privacy which ought to protect a woman's ability to place a child for adoption anonymously.
What you're really after is a copy of a legally- worthless, sealed, government record identifying your birth parents (also known as an "original birth certificate"). Obtaining that document will not provide you with any rights under law, nor are you denied any legal rights without it. There is no civil right to know the identity of your biological parents. There is, however, a constitutional right to privacy which ought to protect a woman's ability to place a child for adoption anonymously.
Newsflash Little My . . . | 1:59 p.m. March 18, 2008
Women already have a right to anonymously drop a newborn off in a safe-place for
any reason whatsover. Not just because the child is inconvenient, but becuase
the woman is unable to properly care for them. They're called safe-haven
laws, and they exist in nearly every state in the union, INCLUDING UTAH.
Believe me, there are a lot worse things than being deprived of ones "pre-birth history." Like for instance being aborted, left to die in a trash can, or flushed down the toilet. Safe-haven laws are not wrong, they are an absolute necessity and have saved many lives!
Believe me, there are a lot worse things than being deprived of ones "pre-birth history." Like for instance being aborted, left to die in a trash can, or flushed down the toilet. Safe-haven laws are not wrong, they are an absolute necessity and have saved many lives!
Laurie Dunfield-Baker | 2:25 p.m. March 18, 2008
Let's be honest here, really.
It IS about birth records. I, along with almost every adoptee rights advocate I know, already knows his/her birth parents. The inability to receive one's OWN factual record of birth simply because one is adopted is discrimination. I am denied THAT right.
The 14th amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom from government intrusion in personal matters. Therefore, adoptees in sealed records states are the ones having their 14th amendment rights trampled. The state of California is holding my actual record of the events of MY BIRTH from ME.
Women DON'T have the right to place a child anonymously in ANY state. The birth certificate does NOT seal when a child is places for adoption. An adoption must be finalized by the court, which usually takes at least 6 months, in order for the record to seal. If the adoption never finalizes, or fails, the record REOPENS. There is no anonymity.
Two Supreme Courts, Oregon (Doe v Oregon Decision et. al.) and Tennessee (Doe v Sundquist,) have upheld that there is no Constitutional right to anonymity for parents who relinquish for adoption.
It IS about birth records. I, along with almost every adoptee rights advocate I know, already knows his/her birth parents. The inability to receive one's OWN factual record of birth simply because one is adopted is discrimination. I am denied THAT right.
The 14th amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom from government intrusion in personal matters. Therefore, adoptees in sealed records states are the ones having their 14th amendment rights trampled. The state of California is holding my actual record of the events of MY BIRTH from ME.
Women DON'T have the right to place a child anonymously in ANY state. The birth certificate does NOT seal when a child is places for adoption. An adoption must be finalized by the court, which usually takes at least 6 months, in order for the record to seal. If the adoption never finalizes, or fails, the record REOPENS. There is no anonymity.
Two Supreme Courts, Oregon (Doe v Oregon Decision et. al.) and Tennessee (Doe v Sundquist,) have upheld that there is no Constitutional right to anonymity for parents who relinquish for adoption.
Newsflash to Obtuse | 2:31 p.m. March 18, 2008
"Women already have a right to anonymously drop a newborn off in a
safe-place for any reason whatsover. Not just because the child is inconvenient,
but becuase the woman is unable to properly care for them."
If a woman can't take care of her child she should be encouraged to surrender through conventional means.
There is no way of quantifying the effectiveness of safe-haven laws in saving lives. Unsafe abandonment continues in states where safe-haven laws have been enacted.
Safe-haven laws encourage the anonymous abandonment of children who might otherwise have been kept or who would have been relinquished through legitimate (ethical) channels.
Little My
If a woman can't take care of her child she should be encouraged to surrender through conventional means.
There is no way of quantifying the effectiveness of safe-haven laws in saving lives. Unsafe abandonment continues in states where safe-haven laws have been enacted.
Safe-haven laws encourage the anonymous abandonment of children who might otherwise have been kept or who would have been relinquished through legitimate (ethical) channels.
Little My
To Adopteerights for Life | 2:27 p.m. March 18, 2008
Being "president" of a group called "Bastard Nation" is
hardly an impressive credential. As president, the first thing Marley ought to
do is change her group's name to something that shows dignity and respect
for adoptees. Only ignorant people still use the term "bastard."
Laurie Dunfield-Baker | 2:47 p.m. March 18, 2008
The term "Bastard" is still a legal term in many states. I'm
sorry you consider it undignified and ignorant.
"THAT right" . . . | 2:52 p.m. March 18, 2008
"to recieve one's OWN factual record of birth" Whatever that is.
Good luck finding that one in the 14th Amendment or anywhere else. Would that
be an emanation from a penumbra? Scalia would have a field day with that.
You can tweak the definition any way you want, the bottom line is that adoptees are not being denied any legal right. And if we are going to recognize such ephemeral "rights" then we ought to first recognize the right of a woman to place a child for adoption anonymously.
You can tweak the definition any way you want, the bottom line is that adoptees are not being denied any legal right. And if we are going to recognize such ephemeral "rights" then we ought to first recognize the right of a woman to place a child for adoption anonymously.
Mary Lassiter | 3:04 p.m. March 18, 2008
Its too bad that the courts are going after this woman instead of the many
unethical adoption agencies.
Anonymous | 3:09 p.m. March 18, 2008
RE: THAT right:
I'll just repeat what I stated about what two Supreme Courts have found and about what the 14th amended guarantees. I'll add that because every other citizen except adopted citizens has the right to access his/her factual record of birth, then it is discrimination to deny a person that simply because the person is adopted.
The 14th amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom from government intrusion in personal matters. Therefore, adoptees in sealed records states are the ones having their 14th amendment rights trampled. The state of California is holding my actual record of the events of MY BIRTH from ME.
Women DON'T have the right to place a child anonymously in ANY state. The birth certificate does NOT seal when a child is places for adoption. An adoption must be finalized by the court, which usually takes at least 6 months, in order for the record to seal. If the adoption never finalizes, or fails, the record REOPENS. There is no anonymity.
Two Supreme Courts, Oregon (Doe v Oregon Decision et. al.) and Tennessee (Doe v Sundquist,) have upheld that there is no Constitutional right to anonymity for parents who relinquish for adoption.
I'll just repeat what I stated about what two Supreme Courts have found and about what the 14th amended guarantees. I'll add that because every other citizen except adopted citizens has the right to access his/her factual record of birth, then it is discrimination to deny a person that simply because the person is adopted.
The 14th amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom from government intrusion in personal matters. Therefore, adoptees in sealed records states are the ones having their 14th amendment rights trampled. The state of California is holding my actual record of the events of MY BIRTH from ME.
Women DON'T have the right to place a child anonymously in ANY state. The birth certificate does NOT seal when a child is places for adoption. An adoption must be finalized by the court, which usually takes at least 6 months, in order for the record to seal. If the adoption never finalizes, or fails, the record REOPENS. There is no anonymity.
Two Supreme Courts, Oregon (Doe v Oregon Decision et. al.) and Tennessee (Doe v Sundquist,) have upheld that there is no Constitutional right to anonymity for parents who relinquish for adoption.
Laurie Dunfield-Baker | 3:21 p.m. March 18, 2008
From the archives of OregonLive.com
O'Connor rejects last appeal to block Oregon adoption law
Tuesday, May 30, 2000
By Janie Har and Bill Graves of The Oregonian staff
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cleared the way for an adoption rights law to go into effect at 5:01 p.m. today.
O'Connor, whose jurisdiction includes Oregon, refused to continue a hold on Measure 58, which gives adult adoptees the right to see their birth certificates. The law, approved by voters Nov. 3, 1998, has been tied up in court since.
O'Connor rejects last appeal to block Oregon adoption law
Tuesday, May 30, 2000
By Janie Har and Bill Graves of The Oregonian staff
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cleared the way for an adoption rights law to go into effect at 5:01 p.m. today.
O'Connor, whose jurisdiction includes Oregon, refused to continue a hold on Measure 58, which gives adult adoptees the right to see their birth certificates. The law, approved by voters Nov. 3, 1998, has been tied up in court since.
Amyadoptee | 3:42 p.m. March 18, 2008
Its a shame something like this happened. If the records were opened up and
adoptees allowed access, then situations like this would not need to happen.
Sealed records violate the rights of adoptees as per Roe vs. Wade, the right to privacy which means to the right to be free from governmental interference and fourth amendment rights (they hold our records in seizure on the presumption of harm) I think agencies and attorneys are more afraid of the harm to them. One day soon an adoptee, natural parent, or adoptive parent will sue these agencies for the harm that they have done to all of us. Set Jill Free.
Sealed records violate the rights of adoptees as per Roe vs. Wade, the right to privacy which means to the right to be free from governmental interference and fourth amendment rights (they hold our records in seizure on the presumption of harm) I think agencies and attorneys are more afraid of the harm to them. One day soon an adoptee, natural parent, or adoptive parent will sue these agencies for the harm that they have done to all of us. Set Jill Free.
Marley Greiner | 5:52 p.m. March 18, 2008
My oh my! Some liberal has their dander up over the name Bastard Nation. Our
name has not stopped us from winning Ballot Measure 58 in Oregon or legislative
victories in Alabama and New Hampshire which RESTORED the right of original
birth certificate access to all those adopted in those states. As others have
pointed out there is no "right to anonymity" in child surrender. OBCs
are sealed at the time of adoption finalization (in some states the adoptive
parents or adoptees can request that they not be sealed). Identifying
information about surrendering parents are often in legal ads and court
documents given to adoptive parents. Judges can open adoption records for good
cause without permission of first parents. No adult has the right to deny
release of public documents to another adult. Why should they, then, have a
special right? Even in so-called anon. safe haven cases, a parent(s) is
identified. If you're adopted andn don't want your information,
nnobody is forcing you to get it.
Ron Morgan | 5:59 p.m. March 18, 2008
"What you're really after is a copy of a legally- worthless, sealed,
government record identifying your birth parents (also known as an
"original birth certificate")."
It's only sealed in some states, Actually what I want is equal treatment. Every other citizen in the US can get a copy of their records of birth. Adoptees should as well.
"Obtaining that document will not provide you with any rights under law, nor are you denied any legal rights without it. There is no civil right to know the identity of your biological parents."
There is no law against knowing the identity of your biological parents either, and in some cases this knowledge can be mandated. Biological parents do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from their offspring.
"There is, however, a constitutional right to privacy which ought to protect a woman's ability to place a child for adoption anonymously."
Well, that's your opinion. The constitution is silent on the alleged right of women to give birth anonymously. What little the constitution does say about privacy protects citizens against unwarranted intrusion by the government into the personal affairs of its citizens. There is nothing in there about preserving family secrets...
It's only sealed in some states, Actually what I want is equal treatment. Every other citizen in the US can get a copy of their records of birth. Adoptees should as well.
"Obtaining that document will not provide you with any rights under law, nor are you denied any legal rights without it. There is no civil right to know the identity of your biological parents."
There is no law against knowing the identity of your biological parents either, and in some cases this knowledge can be mandated. Biological parents do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from their offspring.
"There is, however, a constitutional right to privacy which ought to protect a woman's ability to place a child for adoption anonymously."
Well, that's your opinion. The constitution is silent on the alleged right of women to give birth anonymously. What little the constitution does say about privacy protects citizens against unwarranted intrusion by the government into the personal affairs of its citizens. There is nothing in there about preserving family secrets...
Mirah Riben | 6:06 p.m. March 18, 2008
Sealed records create criminal of many innocent people, and also create yet
another underground quasi legal business venture for some to capitalize on
others hardships and need to know.
Conversely, it's a myth that sealed records protect someone from being found. Everyday people find one another via the Internet etc.
And adoption records that are verboten to the adoptee and his mothers are often very accessible and in the hands of adoptive parents.
Conversely, it's a myth that sealed records protect someone from being found. Everyday people find one another via the Internet etc.
And adoption records that are verboten to the adoptee and his mothers are often very accessible and in the hands of adoptive parents.
Gershom | 6:35 p.m. March 18, 2008
So can I charge the state a class A misdemeanor for stealing MY identity and
sealing my birth certificate from me?
I don't agree with this woman selling adoptees information back to us, and making a "career" off of discrimination, BUT if she would have given the information for free, I would have jumped up and down in celebration for her giving us our RECORDS BACK.
The STATE is who treats us like 2nd class citizens. The STATE is who is treating us like people not worthy of their own information, criminals that our own parents need protection from.
I am not a board member of Bastard Nation, however I feel confident in saying that their name wouldn't be Bastard Nation if the states weren't treating us like Bastards because we are born illegitimate.
Records were sealed to protect adoptees from the stigma of being "bastards" therefore "bastard nation" seems a bit more appropriate than obviously YOU think.
I don't agree with this woman selling adoptees information back to us, and making a "career" off of discrimination, BUT if she would have given the information for free, I would have jumped up and down in celebration for her giving us our RECORDS BACK.
The STATE is who treats us like 2nd class citizens. The STATE is who is treating us like people not worthy of their own information, criminals that our own parents need protection from.
I am not a board member of Bastard Nation, however I feel confident in saying that their name wouldn't be Bastard Nation if the states weren't treating us like Bastards because we are born illegitimate.
Records were sealed to protect adoptees from the stigma of being "bastards" therefore "bastard nation" seems a bit more appropriate than obviously YOU think.
They... | 6:55 p.m. March 18, 2008
"Its too bad that the courts are going after this woman instead of the many
unethical adoption agencies."
are just looking for someone to take the blame. Typical bureaucracy....
are just looking for someone to take the blame. Typical bureaucracy....
Ron Morgan | 7:16 p.m. March 18, 2008
"You can tweak the definition any way you want, the bottom line is that
adoptees are not being denied any legal right. And if we are going to recognize
such ephemeral "rights" then we ought to first recognize the right of
a woman to place a child for adoption anonymously."
I would say that the right to knowledge of your origins is a natural right that predates the constitution and need not be explicitly enumerated to be said to exist. It's certainly a right that can be positively (and legally) asserted. There are no laws *against* knowing who your biological parents are, even in states that have sealed adoption records.
So although there is a common law right to know or discover one's biological kin, there is no corollary right to anonymous birth. To quote a federal appellate judge on the matter, birth is both a private and a public act. The government has a fundamental interest in when and where its citizens are born. It does not have an interest in keeping that information secret from the citizen to whom it pertains.
I would say that the right to knowledge of your origins is a natural right that predates the constitution and need not be explicitly enumerated to be said to exist. It's certainly a right that can be positively (and legally) asserted. There are no laws *against* knowing who your biological parents are, even in states that have sealed adoption records.
So although there is a common law right to know or discover one's biological kin, there is no corollary right to anonymous birth. To quote a federal appellate judge on the matter, birth is both a private and a public act. The government has a fundamental interest in when and where its citizens are born. It does not have an interest in keeping that information secret from the citizen to whom it pertains.
Citizen | 7:16 p.m. March 18, 2008
Let's be honest for once. Adoption is big business. Jill Ekstrom has been
making a lot of money off of adoptees by selling them information. The real
question is. When is the state of Utah and the Federal Government going to put a
stop to the baby broker business being run out of Utah? I personally would like
to thank the Davis County Prosecutor for enforcing the law. For some unknown
reason the baby brokers in Utah seem to think they are above the law and it does
not apply to them. Kid of reminds me of Eliot Spitzer, Mark Foley and Michael
Nifong. I hope I see the day the baby brokers are put behind bars where they
belong for the pain and suffering they have caused for so many.
Anonymous | 7:48 p.m. March 18, 2008
The adopted child should be able to gain access to their original birth
certificate when they are adults. This way the child can make an adult decision
for themselves. I'm tired of people saying there is no business for an
adopted child to know of their original existence. Let the adopted decide for
themselves.
To Let's Be Honest Here | 2:32 p.m. March 19, 2008
I'm adopted and have always known so.
My birth certificate, on the other hand, is a completely falsified document, listing my adopted parents (who didn't meet me until 2-1/2 months after my birth) as if they were my birth parents.
It is not an "amended" birth certificate, which is how any other legal document is treated, but appears to BE the ORIGINAL and is the ONLY birth certificate which I have access to.
The problem here is antiquated laws and misplaced morals which treated unexpected pregnancy as something that needed to be covered up regardless of the cost to the child involved.
I just want the truth.
No other citizens go around with falsified birth certificates. If my birth parents don't want me to know who they are, then let them choose to be listed as "anonymous" right on the birth certificate. Case closed. Just don't pretend my adopted parents were my birth parents by listing them as such.
An alternative would be to provided birth certificates to all citizens which don't list parents at all. After all, if it's just proof of citizenship, all we need to know is WHERE and WHEN we were born.
My birth certificate, on the other hand, is a completely falsified document, listing my adopted parents (who didn't meet me until 2-1/2 months after my birth) as if they were my birth parents.
It is not an "amended" birth certificate, which is how any other legal document is treated, but appears to BE the ORIGINAL and is the ONLY birth certificate which I have access to.
The problem here is antiquated laws and misplaced morals which treated unexpected pregnancy as something that needed to be covered up regardless of the cost to the child involved.
I just want the truth.
No other citizens go around with falsified birth certificates. If my birth parents don't want me to know who they are, then let them choose to be listed as "anonymous" right on the birth certificate. Case closed. Just don't pretend my adopted parents were my birth parents by listing them as such.
An alternative would be to provided birth certificates to all citizens which don't list parents at all. After all, if it's just proof of citizenship, all we need to know is WHERE and WHEN we were born.
H. Aiken | 6:17 a.m. March 20, 2008
Sounds like a Harriet Tubman to me! We desserve the Freedom to know our
Heritage!
NYS needs to change with the times!
Adoptee
Albany NY
8/1967
NYS needs to change with the times!
Adoptee
Albany NY
8/1967
H. Aiken | 7:18 a.m. March 20, 2008
THank you, Anonymous. And in re: to "unethical" adotion agencies, how
about the PI's that "somehow" get their information. How come we
have to be willing to pay a high price for our information IF they can get
it.
Unless they change the law, I don't think I'll ever get the opportunity to thank my bmom or meet a sister that i have out there. Every red haired lady about 60 yrs old I wonder if she's my bmom.
If my bmom doesn't want to have a relationship with me, that's fine, but I'd like some medical history at least. Remember, I was relinquished for my well being and it's my well being that desires to know my heritage, what hospital I was born in.
I really think adoption was to "save" the reputation of the child that "sinned" and her parents from having to deal with it. Those are the dark ages now. Grow up and move on!
Open Records are LONG over due.
Better solve this issue before the egg/sperm donor kids create a whole other problem!
Unless they change the law, I don't think I'll ever get the opportunity to thank my bmom or meet a sister that i have out there. Every red haired lady about 60 yrs old I wonder if she's my bmom.
If my bmom doesn't want to have a relationship with me, that's fine, but I'd like some medical history at least. Remember, I was relinquished for my well being and it's my well being that desires to know my heritage, what hospital I was born in.
I really think adoption was to "save" the reputation of the child that "sinned" and her parents from having to deal with it. Those are the dark ages now. Grow up and move on!
Open Records are LONG over due.
Better solve this issue before the egg/sperm donor kids create a whole other problem!
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- 4A soccer all-state first team 9:46 p.m.
- 5A all-state soccer first team 9:39 p.m.
- Drop in Thanksgiving travel predicted 9:29 p.m.
- Island whipping doesn't thrill Andersen 9:18 p.m.
- Canyons chief named law group's v.p. 9:06 p.m.
- Rock on 9:00 p.m.
- Lobo land like home for BYU lineman 8:57 p.m.
- 3A soccer all-state first team 8:56 p.m.
- U. hopes to keep clicking 8:28 p.m.
- Steelers lead Broncos at halftime 8:13 p.m.
- TCU showdown has big implications
- Seniors helped BYU regroup
- Lambert surprisingly tops news
- Hope for single moms
- Bystanders framed for child porn
- Korver and Miles to be evaluated
- Prep girls soccer MVPs named
- Utah Jazz Extra: Whose hot/not
- GOP blasts Matheson after vote
- Newhouse Hotel, an explosive end
- Gay advocates trek to LDS office
269 - House passes health care bill227
- TCU showdown has big implications181
- Lobo suspended181
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys154
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd114
- Thousands protest health bill112
- RSL rallies to advance103
- No 'backlash' for pioneers, gays analogy95
Meghan McCain, the daughter of former presidential candidate John...
Why do so many people live so close to refineries in Utah and elsewhere?
Advertisement
Latest comments
no style points. A win is a win and they needed it.
who can shoot. Tonight AK shot well from the wing. That was crucial as NY...
The Utes have reason to be optimistic... except that it's THIS YEAR'S TEAM...
I dislike a theocracy as much as the next guy but the constitution says...
@Anonymous 10:04 p.m.: "Someone remind me why congress is exempt from...
and big purple Horned Frogs! Both have it in for uties,
I'm sure everyone would have been more comfortable if the police had done a...
The letter says that immigrants need aid. Yep, they do. However, so do...
Ute butt kicking coming this week! OUCH, and then out of the polls for good...
In my opinion, prison sentences are way too long. Prison sentences should be...
Advertisements