I am responding to your ludicrous filler, "FIGHT OVER ADOPTION-SECRECY" (2-22-99).
To say I was appalled would merely scratch the tip of the iceberg.

I am a 38-year-old adult adoptee who detests being referred to as a child by the unenlightened media.
I started paying adult admission to the cinema at age 12.
I registered to vote, attained a drivers license,
and even registered for selective service, at the request of then President Reagan, at 18.
At 21 I could enter the tavern of my choice and order a beer if I so desired.
No questions asked.
However, as a 38-year-old adult I am regarded as a second-class citizen and denied my original birth certificate.
I am told, time and time again, that I should be grateful that someone 'took me in' and 'put a roof over my head.
I am told my birth is none of my business.
To be denied my birth certificate based solely on my circumstance of birth is in direct violation of my constitutional rights.
I am as grateful for that 'roof over my head' as any non-adoptee--no more, no less.
If my birth is none of my business just whose business is it?
Certainly not some bespectacled county clerk who can, at any given time, have access to my "sealed" file.

Your 'editorial' was a tapestry of fallacies and misconceptions.
It is perfectly obvious that the only research you did for this writing
amounted to idly thumbing through a recent issue of Time Magazine and honing in on another poorly written article.
Frankly, this frightens me.
I find it disturbing that you don't let facts get in the way of meeting a deadline.

Measure 58 has nothing to do with search and reunion.
If you would read the "two line initiative" you would realize that.
Measure 58 is about civil rights.
"Promises of confidentiality" to birth parents is one of the great urban myths.
I am sure some were "promised" this.
But it was done so the birth mother would sign on the dotted line and relinquish her baby.
They were also told they would soon forget the whole ordeal.
I have yet to meet a birth mother who has forgotten.
In my adoption file it clearly states that I, at age 21, would have access to my files if I so desired.
I assure you I was not given access. What about that promise?
This 'promise,' which I have in writing, holds no credibility.
However, a verbal 'promise,' to which there is no record, is being touted as something as sacred at the Shroud of Turin.
Not surprising when one is dealing with a system built solely on secrets and lies.

You refer to the "angry children" of Bastard Nation.
As a proud member of this organization I can tell you we are angry.
And rightfully so. But not for the convoluted reasoning you give.
We are angry at a closed system that is proven, time and time again, to be riddled with flaws.
We are angry that we are denied our medical history, thus denying our children of theirs.
This blank slate is then passed on to their children.
All because one person might be upset.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Or the one.

And finally, I am shocked that you would DARE refer to me,
and millions of other adoptees, as "potentially dangerous."
The credibility of your publication, as well as your profession, continues to decay at a blinding rate.
I strongly urge you to print not only a public apology for this discriminatory remark
but also a complete retraction for your blatant misrepresentation of Measure 58
and those it directly touches.