About three months ago, a group of adults who were adopted as children formally came together to lobby for changes in the way original birth records are denied to adoptees. They formed TRACE, The Rhode Island Adoption Coalition for Equality, which is advocating for a change in Rhode Island law that will allow adopted children to learn whom their birth parents are. The hearing on their amendment is scheduled for April 1 when it is brought before the House Judiciary Committee.

On the surface, it seems to be a reasonable and uncomplicated task: open the vital statistic files the way you would for anyone else who has the requisite information and fees.

Not so, says TRACE.

They say the wrong-headed, good intentions of previous generations have added up to a continuous denial of adoptees’ right to know who they are.

“Having children out of wedlock used to be a big deal,” said Bryan Conti, a 47-year-old Warwick resident and adoptee who is a founding member of TRACE. “The word ‘bastard’ was a legal term and illegitimacy was a crime. So, there was this impulse to protect the child and to protect the mother’s privacy and avoid the ‘stigma’ of being or having an illegitimate child. But that’s not the case anymore. Most people don’t look down on someone because they are or they had a child out of wedlock today.”

With the removal of the social stigma, the reason for protecting privacy is illegitimate. Being exposed as an unwed parent or child of an unwed parent doesn’t have the devastating effect it used to have; but even if it did, says Conti, that is no excuse for “denying an adopted child the very basic right to know who its parents were.”

It’s difficult to argue with Conti’s assertion that the stigma no longer exists. There may be a number of reasons why Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin was not elected Vice President in the last national election but few would argue that being the parent of an unwed mother had something to do with her loss. David Letterman had been an unwed father for five years before he finally married his long-time companion recently and that circumstance has done nothing to diminish his audience.

Conti’s argument is further bolstered by the tremendous advances in bioscience and genetics and the discovery that many of the most devastating diseases have their origin in the genes of the patient. Any doctor who performed a physical examination of a patient and neglected to ask about the health of parents and relatives would be accused of malpractice and the U.S. Surgeon General offers a download for people to start My Family Health History as a tool for diagnosis for clinicians.

Granting unlimited access to birth records should be a “slam dunk” as far as finding sponsors, but that has not been the case. There are reasoned arguments for maintaining control of adoption records, but TRACE says they fold under scrutiny.

“The issue of the parent’s privacy and unwanted reunions are separate issues,” said John J. Greene, 35, of Warwick, an adoptee and co-founder of TRACE. “Most adoptees looking for their birth records are not interested in having a relationship with their birth parents, especially if the parent doesn’t want it. The legislation we are asking for gives the parent the option of denying a meeting or reunion. In any event, that’s a non-issue as far as we are concerned. We believe it is our basic right to see our original birth records.”

The movement for open records is not confined to Rhode Island. TRACE says five states have already passed amendments to allow access to birth records and two have never had them sealed at all, but the way the proposal is written should satisfy the concerns of everyone involved. TRACE asserts that Rhode Island Public Law 23-3-15 has always allowed opening sealed records to the court at the sole discretion of the court but even the court must notify the birth mother of the request from a third party. But the law is full of inconsistencies. Records of children surrendered for adoption but raised in the foster care system are not sealed. TRACE also says the amendment they advocate has options for birth parents to maintain their privacy in the event that the revelation of the records would have a significant impact on the life the parent now enjoys. A form provided to the birth parent offers: “a. I would like to be contacted; b. I would prefer to be contacted only through an intermediary; c. I prefer not to be contacted at this time.”

“The fact is, not every adoptee seeking records wants a reunion, and not every birth parent does not,” said Green. “The birth parents worry about disrupting the lives of the adoptees.”

Greene and Conti always come back to the question of basic civil rights: Should adoptees be denied the rights automatically granted to “legitimate” births?

Opponents to the bill, including the Catholic Church, assert that the promise of privacy granted the birth mother at the time of the adoption must be honored. Otherwise, women will opt for abortion instead of adoption if they believe the decision to put the baby up for adoption could come back to haunt them. But TRACE asserts that unsealing birth records has not created problems in the states that have done so, such as Alabama, Delaware, New Hampshire, Oregon and Tennessee. Alaska and Kansas have never sealed birth records and Delaware currently allows full access except when birth parents object.

“Abortion rates have actually declined in the states that allow access,” said Conti, who is candid enough to acknowledge that open records may not be the sole reason for the decline in abortions, “but it certainly hasn’t increased abortions.”

TRACE also believes that their mothers have no right to privacy that is not afforded other mothers.

“If I want to, I can go to a vital statistics record and find out who your parents were,” said Conti. “I can get your parents’ death certificate and find out what your parents died from. But I can’t find out what medical problems I could face because of not knowing who I am.”

TRACE’s mission statement says they need to generate as much support as possible from all Rhode Islanders, especially adoptees and natural parents who relinquished a child to adoption, and adoptive parents as well.

“My parents realize that what I am doing has nothing to do with the love and respect I have for them,” said Conti. “I consider them my parents and they support what I am trying to do.”

Greene said one of their most enthusiastic members is Nancy Horgan, of Wood River Junction, who is a birth mother.

“But the point is, my birth record is sitting, ‘chillin’ in a file at vital statistics,” said Greene. “And there are other people who could get to see them but not me?”

“The primary initiative for this effort is about having the same equal civil and human rights as our non-adopted citizens,” continued Greene. “I can't stress enough that this effort is so adoptees and their children can have the same opportunity at living a healthy life, know our original identity and that includes our heritage and where we came from. No government has the right to withhold a person's identity.”

As far as adoptive parents go, most will be in favor of the amendment because that’s the way they are, according to Greene and Conti. They want the best for their kids. Greene said there would never ever be a replacement for his real parents.

“My birth mother gave me life and I’m grateful for that,” said Greene, “but my parents gave me the world.”

If you're an adoptee or a birth parent and would like to learn more, attend the next TRACE meeting at 1 p.m. on Saturday, April 4, at the Lachapelle Funeral Home located at 643 Main St. in Pawtucket. Information is also available at trace2009.org/adoptive_parents or contact John Greene at 440-8368 or by e-mail at beene11@yahoo.com. Bryan Conti can be reached at 487-9588 or by e-mail at b_conti@verizon.net.