A Response to New Jersey Right to Life`s Call to Oppose A1406
Transcription
A Response to New Jersey Right to Life`s Call to Oppose A1406
A Response to New Jersey Right to Life’s Call to Oppose A1406 Led by faulty assumptions and a lack of practical experience in the field of relinquishment and adoption, NJRTL may be straying away from their important mission to protect and foster human life. Prepared by L. Newman, NJCARE [email protected] What States have OBC Access Legislation? STATE DETAILS OF STATE STATUTES Alaska Never sealed Original Birth Certificates (OBCs) Kansas Never sealed OBCs Tennessee Access since 1995 Delaware Access since 1999 Oregon Access since 2000 Alabama Access since 2000 New Hampshire Access since 2005 Maine Access since 2009 Colorado OBC access for adoptions finalized between 7/1/1951 to 6/30/1976 and 9/1/1999 to present Indiana OBC access for adoptions finalized prior to 1940 Massachusetts OBC access for adoptions finalized prior to 4/14/1974 Montana OBC access for adoptions finalized prior to 2/2/1964 Ohio OBC access for adoptions finalized prior to 1/1/1964 and 9/1996 forward Since the most recent abortion data is from 2005 and earlier, these four states are the most relevant to analyze NJRTL claims that OBC access will “cause more abortions”. Why is NJCARE compelled to investigate NJRTL’s position? In the course of debating A1406 and all subsequent bills over the past 30 years, New Jersey Right to Life (NJRTL) has consistently argued that… “[the] bill will discourage adoptions and cause more abortions.” To date, NJRTL has never offered the NJ Legislature any data to support this position. Rather, NJRTL has offered opinion, conjecture and partial data. Therefore, NJCARE felt a solemn obligation to investigate this important issue by analyzing relevant available data to validate or invalidate NJRTL’s assertion that A1406 will “cause more abortions”. NJCARE does not want a policy that will discourage adoptions or cause more abortions! NJCARE’s position is that NJRTL’s argument is a red herring. The factors involved in making a decision to resolve a pregnancy through abortion do not include the provisions proposed in A1406. However, NJCARE sought to find states with statutes similar to those proposed in A1406 to see if, in fact, abortions increased. Abortion Analysis Let history guide our decision… NJCARE Analysis Data Source: The study’s introduction reads… This report contains the most current teenage pregnancy, birth and abortion statistics available, with national estimates through 2006, and state-level estimates through 2005. The report includes tables showing annual national rates and numbers of teenage pregnancies, births and abortions through 2006; statelevel rates of pregnancy, birth and abortion in 2005; and statelevel numbers of teenage pregnancies, births, abortions and miscarriages, as well as population counts. The report concludes with a discussion of the methodology and sources used to obtain the estimates. Guttmacher Institute’s U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Birth and Abortions: National and State Trends and Trends by Race and Ethnicity All four states with OBC access statutes similar to A1406 have NOT seen an increase in abortions Summary: Change in Percent of Pregnancies Aborted from 2000 to 2005 for States with OBC Access 35.0% 28.2% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 6.3% 5.0% 1.4% 0.0% -5.0% -2.4% -4.2% -5.0% -7.5% -10.0% -0.5% -1.7% -1.9% -1.1% -3.3% -7.8% -11.3% -15.0% -15.5% Data Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf New Jersey Ohio Montana Massachusetts Indiana Colorado Maine New Hampshire Tennessee Oregon Delaware Alabama Kansas Alaska U.S. -20.0% Exclusively teenage pregnancies Alaska Louisiana Vermont District of Columbia Utah Connecticut Colorado South Carolina New York Rhode Island Idaho Jersey New Virginia Pennsylvania Montana Georgia Michigan Massachusetts Iowa Minnesota Ohio Indiana Washington Nevada Delaware Wisconsin West Virginia Maine Hawaii Kansas U.S. Total Arizona Oklahoma North Dakota Alabama California Missouri New Hampshire Maryland Florida Illinois North Carolina South Dakota New Mexico Arkansas Oregon Texas Kentucky Tennessee Mississippi Nebraska Wyoming Some states with similar legislation have seen the biggest reduction in abortions – NOT an increase as NJRTL suggests will happen Change in Percent of Pregnancies Aborted from 2000 to 2005 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% Data Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf Exclusively teenage pregnancies (6,000) (5,509) (3,000) (2,554) (2,661) (2,000) (1,606) (1,000) (4) (14) (26) (26) (28) (34) (38) (38) (65) (78) (82) (83) (87) (98) (99) (101) (104) (151) (152) (186) (197) (200) (267) (277) (281) (319) (341) (389) (411) (499) (505) (844) (897) (932) 1,000 2,750 3,000 714 316 295 283 279 276 183 149 132 107 53 14 New York Data Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf California Texas Florida Illinois North Carolina Tennessee Maryland Mississippi Oregon Arizona Missouri Wyoming Alabama Kentucky Nebraska New Mexico Ohio Washington Arkansas Michigan Oklahoma Nevada Georgia Massachusetts Wisconsin New Hampshire Kansas Indiana Hawaii Minnesota Delaware Maine South Dakota West Virginia North Dakota Iowa Pennsylvania Montana Idaho Rhode Island Virginia Utah Vermont Alaska South Carolina District of Columbia Connecticut New Jersey Colorado Louisiana How many pregnant teenagers chose life for their baby? While percentages are important, absolute (not relative) metrics offer context Change in Abortions from 2000 to 2005, if pregnancy rates were constant Attempt to quantify the number of abortions reduced over the 5 year period assuming constant pregnancy rate (pregnancy rates declined, therefore actual abortions, births and miscarriag 4,000 2,000 - (4,000) (5,000) Exclusively teenage pregnancies A closer look at the four states most similar to A1406 All are “Opt Out” for Birth Parents None has a “non-disclosure” provision Tennessee Pregnancy Outcomes Delaware Pregnancy Outcomes 100% 80% 100% 80% Bill is enacted 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 1988 1992 Abortion 1996 Miscarrage 2000 2005 1988 Birth 1992 Abortion Oregon Pregnancy Outcomes 1996 Miscarrage 2000 2005 Birth Alabama Pregnancy Outcomes 100% 100% 80% 80% Bill is enacted 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 1988 Bill is enacted 1992 Abortion 1996 Miscarrage 2000 2005 Birth Data Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf 1988 Bill is enacted 1992 Abortion 1996 Miscarrage 2000 2005 Birth Exclusively teenage pregnancies A closer look at Oregon: Total Abortions (not just teen pregnancies) 15,000 Abortions in Oregon have declined 24.6% 14,500 Annual Abortions 14,000 13,500 13,000 12,500 12,000 11,500 11,000 Est. 10,500 10,000 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Oregon has no parental notification laws. Measure 58 Passes Court Battles Fail Processing of OBC Requests Begins Measure 58: • Permits adult adoptees to access a copy of their original birth certificate; • Provides a contact preference form for birth parents; • Does not have a non-disclosure provision for birth parents. Data Source: www.dhs.state.or.us/dhs/ph/chs/data/abortion.shtml Any way you measure it, Oregon has NOT seen an increase in abortions Births, Infant Mortality & Abortions Abortions & Births 90% Abortions 80% Pregnancies* 70% 60% 50% 15,000 14,500 14,000 13,500 13,000 12,500 12,000 11,500 11,000 10,500 10,000 50,000 49,500 49,000 48,500 48,000 47,500 47,000 46,500 46,000 45,500 45,000 1998 40% Births 30% 20% 76% 24% 80% 20% 10% 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Abortions 2005 2006 2007 2008 Births 100% 2009 Births Infant Mortality Abortions 0% `98 `99 `00 `01 `02 `03 `04 `05 `06 `07 Oregon has no parental notification laws. Measure 58 Passes Court Battles Fail Processing of OBC Requests Begins Measure 58: • Permits adult adoptees to access a copy of their original birth certificate; • Provides a contact preference form for birth parents; • Does not have a non-disclosure provision for birth parents. * Does not include pregnancies resulting in miscarriages, etc. Data Source: www.dhs.state.or.us/dhs/ph/chs/data/birth/trends.shtml NJRTL has misrepresented the data in the media By Marie Tasy, Executive Director of New Jersey Right to Life, Published June 9, 2010 in the Trenton Times This statement is MISLEADING and aims to discredit the facts! “The letter "Access to records linked to fewer abortions" (May 24), is full of false assertions and faulty conclusions. The writer [Pam Hasegawa of NJCARE] uses Alan Guttmacher Institute abortion statistics from 2000 to 2005 to suggest that opening adoption records will actually reduce abortion. She specifically cites the decline in Alabama's and Oregon's abortion statistics as evidence to support her theory, since both of these states passed laws to open adoption records in 2000. NJCARE does not believe this legislation will reduce abortions. It just won’t increase abortions. There will be no effect. 100% 120 90% 100 80 28% decline in pregnancy rate 60 40 36% decline in abortion rate 20 0 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 OR Pregnancy Rate OR Birthrate OR Abortion rate OR Miscarriage Rate Pregnancies 15 – 19 years of age Rates per 1,000 Women Age 15 to 19 years of age The facts she applies do not tell the whole story and, in reality, prove nothing. A careful review of statistics available for this same period illustrate that in both of these states, the pregnancy rates decreased during the same period that abortion rates decreased. In Alabama, the pregnancy rates went down 19 percent; in Oregon, the pregnancy rates went down 28 percent. It stands to reason that the abortion rate would decline correspondingly with the pregnancy rate.” 80% 70% Clearly more pregnant teenagers are choosing life instead of abortion, since OBC legislation passed in Oregon. 60% 50% 54% 30% 32% 20% 10% 28% Abortions did NOT increase as NJRTL insists will happen 0% 1988 1992 1996 2000 OR Abortion Rate / Pregnancy Rate OR Miscarriage Rate / Pregnancy Rate OR Birth Rate / Pregnancy Rate Data Source: 58% 40% U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions: National and State Trends and Trends by Race and Ethnicity, Jan. 2010 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf) 2005 Why Women Have Chosen Abortions 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Not ready for responsibility Inadequate finances Woman's life would be changed too much Problems with relationship; unmarried Too young; not mature enough Children are grown; woman has all she wants Fetus has possible health problems Pregnancy caused by rape, incest “None of the women mentioned that the guarantee of a confidential adoption played a part in their decision to have an abortion.” “The promise of the confidentiality of adoption records, or a fear of a lack of confidentiality of these records, was not mentioned by anyone in the study.” Lawrence Finer, PhD Director of Domestic Research The Guttmacher Institute September, 2006 The View of Crisis Pregnancy Centers Do crisis pregnancy center professionals buy into NJRTL’s position on A1406? What Crisis Pregnancy Centers have told NJCARE • Concerned that A1406 would jeopardize crisis pregnancies, NJCARE contacted a number of Crisis Pregnancy Centers to discuss the bill and the potential effects on their practice. • Lehigh Valley Crisis Pregnancy Center – • “ I am writing in answer to the question posed to me, by you, on the telephone this morning. You asked if women considering adoption were more apt to opt for abortion because of the issue of confidentiality. I have never, at any time, experienced a client considering confidentiality an issue regarding adoption.” Bethany Christian Services – “ As I stated on the phone I have worked as a pregnancy counselor at Bethany Christian Services for over six years and have met with many birthparents in my time at Bethany. I have found in my work with birthparents that most birthparents desire some openness in their adoption and that being able to have contact with the family and child through pictures, updates, and visits makes adoption more realistic for many birthparents. While having some openness in adoption may make the decision more realistic, I want to emphasize that it does not make the decision easier. To my knowledge, I have not had a situation where a birthmother has chosen to terminate her pregnancy because she could have contact with the child and adoptive family. At Bethany we desire our birthparents to make decisions based on their needs as well as the needs of their children and adoptive families; thus the amount of contact varies with each case. There have been some birthparents who chose traditional placements [closed adoptions] because they believe they are not able to process the emotions of this contact.” Discussing NJ Right to Life’s Stated Goal Does NJRTL really understand the adoption triad or the process of adoption? Discussing NJ Right to Life’s Stated Goal New Jersey Right to Life wants to let a birth mother decide at the time she makes an adoption plan whether she wants a confidential adoption or an open adoption. A1406 does not change the adoption code related to such choices, however, there is no such thing as a “confidential adoption”, rather a birth mother can choose to have a “closed adoption” or an “open adoption”. In the context of today’s choices, a closed adoption is chosen by birth mothers who would find it too painful to be in contact with their child, while not being able to be everything for their child. For these few birth mothers (very few choose a closed adoption today), the relationship must be all or nothing and they choose nothing. While her decision to choose adoption is held in confidence from the public, it is clearly known to the adoptive family and the adoptee, so how the confidentiality of her decision is compromised is unclear. It is clear that a birth mother would not want the general public to know of her or her decision. However, the assumption that such birth mothers do not want their child to know their origins or the identity of the person who gave them life is over reaching and purely speculative. In fact, most would agree it is counter to human nature. New Jersey Right to Life goes further to state, “Simply put, adoptions would not be possible without birth mothers.” NJCARE is sensitive to this statement, but is compelled to clarify this simplistic statement designed to assert a birth mother’s perceived right over all others, including her child. Life would not be possible without birth mothers. Adoptions are only possible when adoptive parent(s) step forward. The Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon (12/29/1999) stated: A decision to relinquish a child for adoption, however, is not a decision that may be made unilaterally by a birth mother or by any other party. It requires, at a minimum, a willing birth mother, a willing adoptive parent, and the active oversight and approval of the state. Given that reality, it cannot be said that a birth mother has a fundamental right to give birth to a child and then have someone else assume legal responsibility for that child. Adoption necessarily involves a child that already has been born, and a birth is, and historically has been, essentially a public event. During testimony on June 14, 2010, it was clearly demonstrated that a birth mother’s involvement in deciding where her child would be placed, comforted by the assurance that her child would know her (by choosing an open adoption plan) has made adoption a more attractive option. NJCARE is puzzled that A1406, a bill that is consistent with the best practices of adoption today, is mischaracterized as harmful to adoption by NJRTL. Conclusion Should the foundation of policy be doubtful hypotheticals rather than facts, experience and sound reasoning? Conclusion • No data supports NJRTL position that A1406 will increase abortions: – Abortion rates and the number of abortions have not increased in any state that has passed legislation similar to A1406. • • • • • Alabama -7.5% Delaware -2.4% Oregon -11.3% Tennessee -15.5% 319 fewer abortions in 2005 than in 2000 38 fewer abortions in 2005 than in 2000 499 fewer abortions in 2005 than in 2000 897 fewer abortions in 2005 than in 2000 An interview with the Director of Domestic Research, Lawrence Finer, PhD of the Guttmacher Institute refuted NJRTL’s claim that a woman will choose to abort if a “confidential adoption” is not available (even though it remains available if A1406 becomes law) – – – • “None of the women mentioned that the guarantee of a confidential adoption played a part in their decision to have an abortion.” “The promise of the confidentiality of adoption records, or a fear of a lack of confidentiality of these records, was not mentioned by anyone in the study.” Top reasons were unpreparedness and financial inability. Crisis pregnancy professionals have stated that confidentiality or privacy in the context of adoption has not led to a decision to terminate a pregnancy. Recommendation • With all due respect to NJ Right to Life’s mission and supporters, NJCARE believes NJRTL’s position on A1406 runs counter to their mission of protecting and fostering human life. • NJCARE believes NJRTL’s concerns are misplaced due to faulty assumptions and a lack of practical experience in the field of relinquishment and adoption – and a lack of understanding the history of relinquishment and adoption in the United States spanning the past 70+ years. NJCARE requests your support for A1406. In light of this presentation, you can be confident that abortions will not increase and adoption will be a more attractive option to both birth parents and adoptive parents in the state of New Jersey.