You don’t have to be grateful for someone adopting you, or for “GIVING YOU A BETTER LIFE”. You can just exist like anyone else and process your traumas, if you have any, like anyone else. You don’t have to do any of that if you don’t want to.

I originally wrote this paper in 2006 for Professor John Berry in English Composition 110 at Bismarck State College. The assignment was titled “Open or Closed Records and The Right to Privacy,” and at the time I relied on the sources I had access to, the research I understood, and the personal experiences that shaped my perspective. I was in my twenties, I was a student, and I stopped researching when I felt I had enough material to earn a good grade. Looking back now, I can see that there were many works available that I never found, and much more depth I could have explored. I simply did not have the experience or the awareness then that I have now.

Twenty years have passed since that first version, and I am older, smarter, and far more capable of digging into the research that supports adoptee rights. Medical science has advanced, genetic testing has become common, and adoptee access to original birth records has become part of national conversations about identity, health, and civil rights. Yet the core problem remains unchanged. Adoptees are still denied access to their original birth records in many states, and the consequences continue to affect their lives and the lives of their children.

I have revisited and expanded this paper because the issue is still important, still unresolved, and still deeply personal for millions of people. What follows is an updated and strengthened version of my original work, supported by modern research and framed within the realities of 2026.

I also want to be clear that my support for open records comes from one specific place. When my daughter was a baby, she became seriously ill, and the doctors kept asking for medical history that I simply did not have. I did not want contact with anyone from my past, and I still do not. I wanted information for my child’s safety, not for reunion. I also understand that some adoptees fear unsafe contact and believe sealed records protect them. That concern is real, and it deserves respect. But access to medical history and identity does not require contact. Modern adoptee rights laws can separate information from interaction, allowing adoptees to receive the facts they need without forcing relationships they do not want. My position is not about opening the door to unwanted contact. It is about ensuring that adoptees and their children are not left without critical medical information that could save their lives.

Opening adoption records is no longer a niche issue or a private debate between adoptees and agencies. In 2026, it has become a matter of public health, civil rights, and basic human dignity. Medical professionals rely heavily on family medical history to assess risk for cancer, heart disease, autoimmune disorders, and hereditary conditions. Genetic testing has expanded, but it does not replace the need for accurate family history. Millions of adoptees still cannot answer the most fundamental questions about their own backgrounds because their original birth records remain sealed. As states revisit outdated adoption laws, the question is no longer whether adoptees want this information. The question is why they are still being denied it.

Doctors routinely ask patients whether certain illnesses run in their families. For most people, these questions are simple. They know if a grandparent died young, if an aunt had breast cancer, or if diabetes is common in their lineage. Adoptees cannot answer any of these questions. When a child becomes seriously ill and a doctor says, “It could be genetic,” an adoptee has nothing to offer except, “I was adopted.” That answer provides no diagnostic value. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the United States Surgeon General both emphasize that family medical history is one of the most important tools in preventive care and early diagnosis. Adoptees are systematically denied this tool, and the consequences can be life altering.

Medical information is only one part of the issue. Adoptees also deserve to know where they came from, what circumstances shaped their early lives, and why they were relinquished. These are not luxuries. They are basic human rights tied to identity, autonomy, and personal history. Yet the only link to this information remains locked away in sealed files, inaccessible to the very people whose lives those records describe.

Opponents of open records often argue that birthmothers were promised confidentiality. Denise Castellucci, in her essay “Adoption Records Should Be Opened,” explains that the right to privacy is widely misunderstood because it is not explicitly defined in the Constitution and must be interpreted by the courts. She notes that many who oppose open records are not actually invoking constitutional privacy, but rather the idea that a woman should remain permanently anonymous from her own child. Courts have repeatedly rejected this interpretation. As Castellucci states, the right to remain forever anonymous from one’s own offspring does not exist, and allowing adoptees access to their records does not violate legitimate privacy protections.

Ira Carnahan’s essay “Adoption Records Should Remain Sealed” includes an interview with an anonymous birthmother who fears that releasing confidential information would expose her past to her husband and children. Her concern is understandable, but it cannot outweigh an adoptee’s right to medical safety, identity, and truth. Whether a birthmother chooses to disclose her past to her family is her personal decision, but her preference for secrecy should not determine whether another human being is allowed access to their own origins.

A child does not choose to be adopted, nor do they choose to become someone’s lifelong secret. Whatever circumstances led to the pregnancy are not the child’s fault. Yet adoptees are told that everything explaining who they are, their ancestry, their medical risks, and their biological connections, is a secret they are not permitted to know. Privacy is an important value, but as Castellucci writes, “adoption should never ask any human being to trade their dignity, self determination, and the most basic right to know the true facts of their birth” simply to preserve an unwritten promise of anonymity.

Arthur Sorosky, Annette Baran, and Reuben Pannor’s book The Adoption Triangle includes letters from birthmothers both for and against open records. Many who oppose openness describe their pregnancy as a past mistake and fear losing their current families if the adoption becomes known. Over ninety percent of these women believe that allowing adoptees access to their records would disrupt their lives. Their fear is real, but it cannot be the foundation of public policy. Ethical rights cannot be built on the avoidance of hypothetical discomfort.

The stakes become clear when considering real situations. A mother and father sit beside their daughter, Anna, in a hospital while doctors search for the cause of her severe illness. The father lists every condition that runs in his family. The mother can only say, “I was adopted.” That statement offers no guidance, no clues, and no help to the child lying sick in the hospital bed. Anna recovered, but countless children do not. They are the most urgent reason adoption records must be opened.

Modern adoptee rights research supports this need. The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute’s report For the Records: Restoring a Right to Adult Adoptees concludes that open records improve mental health, identity formation, and medical outcomes. Legal scholar Elizabeth J. Samuels documents that sealed records were never intended to protect birthmothers, but to shield adoptive parents from stigma. International human rights standards, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, affirm that every person has a right to identity and family connections.

In 2026, adoptees are increasingly speaking out, lawmakers are reconsidering sealed record statutes, and public awareness of genetic health has never been higher. The debate is no longer about secrecy. It is about safety, equality, and human dignity. As Castellucci writes, “The interest or disinterest in the adult adoptee’s records should be a personal decision made only by the person it involves and not by the government or any other individual.” Adoptees deserve the same rights as non adopted people. When those rights are denied, the consequences ripple across generations, affecting their children, grandchildren, and every descendant who inherits unknown medical risks.

Opening adoption records does not erase the past. It simply returns to adoptees what has always been theirs. The truth.

by Lori Ann Hantke

Works Cited

American Academy of Pediatrics. “Use of Family History Information in Pediatric Care.” Pediatrics, vol. 114, no. 1, 2004.

Carnahan, Ira. “Adoption Records Should Remain Sealed.” Opposing Views Resource Center, 22 Nov. 2006.

Castellucci, Denise. “Adoption Records Should Be Opened.” Opposing Views Resource Center, 22 Nov. 2006.

Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. For the Records: Restoring a Right to Adult Adoptees. 2007.

Samuels, Elizabeth J. “The Idea of Adoption.” Rutgers Law Review, vol. 53, 2001.

Sorosky, Arthur, Annette Baran, and Reuben Pannor. The Adoption Triangle. Anchor Press, 1978.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. “Surgeon General’s Family Health History Initiative.” 2004.

This is something a lot of people don’t notice—but it says a lot about how society treats adoptees vs. foster kids.

Adoptees are often seen as “rescued”

🍀 They are usually permanently placed in homes and told they’re “chosen” or “lucky.” That gives them a certain social capital, and people listen to them more—at least superficially.

✨ They often have more time and support (not always, but more than most foster youth) to reflect, write, and connect with others.

Foster youth are seen as “damaged”

👿 There’s a deep stigma around foster kids. People often assume they’re “troubled” or “bad kids,” not victims of trauma.

🐺 They’re constantly displaced, isolated, or dealing with survival. That makes organizing and speaking out much harder.

⌛ Many age out without a stable family, housing, or internet access—so their voices are lost before they can even be heard.

Adoption narratives are emotionally powerful (and marketable)

🧨Anti-adoption adoptees are fighting back against a system that sells a “happily ever after.”

💀 But the foster care system doesn’t even pretend to have a happy ending—it’s more openly bleak, so people just ignore it.

☁️ Society has already given up on foster youth in a way it hasn't yet with adoptees.

Many foster kids are too burnt out to fight back

💤 When you’ve been through group homes, abuse, reunification trauma, aging out with no support—the energy it takes to organize is massive.