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
njcare.staff@gmail.com
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.