Regarding my post Fact vs Fiction~
After hearing from both Andrew Curliss (the News Observer journalist who wrote the article) and from David Vaughan, (the gentleman for which the article was written) I am afraid my post Fact vs Fiction may have been misunderstood. Before some clarification I would like to begin by thanking Andrew and David for bringing this matter to the public eye. I would also like to offer a hearty thanks to Representative Margaret Dickson for her efforts.
With that being said, here is a portion of my response to Andrew Curliss:
I clearly understood the comment (“Whose rights trump whose?”) was from a SUPPORTER of open records. My tone may have come across cynical but it was intended to challenge the
current thinking regarding the word “rights” in regard to open records.
All too often the argument circles around to whose “rights” are more important. My
point is that there is only one party whose rights are being infringed upon and
that is the adoptee. As I said earlier there is no such thing as a right to
confidentiality so how can it be a matter of whose rights trump whose? It is the
adoptee’s birth certificate that is sealed, not members of our natural family
and not members of our adoptive family. They all have their birth certificates.
In conclusion I would like to say that although we are all GRATEFUL for the assistance of the elected officials who ARE paying attention, I think it is extremely important that they convey the proper message because they are getting listened to. It is of the utmost importance that the matter be presented clearly, without the added social garbage so often piled upon it. Again, the only rights being infringed upon are the adoptees and this is a point we cannot lose sight of.