Category Archives: Public Health

‘Picking a target’ in 2023 for adoptee rights advocacy

It’s now 2023. A new year has begun, and for thousands of Michigan-born adoptees like me, none are any closer to having their legal rights restored to their original birth certificates.

So this year, I am going to put the spotlight on this state’s leaders, especially Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who are failing to right a massive wrong that denies basic human rights to people only because of the status at birth.

Go here to read my full article, analyzing failures in Michigan’s agency responsible for overseeing vital records and leadership by all branches of state government.

My article also analyzes the sometimes complex and even messy world associated with issue advocacy, including the mostly ignored world of adoptee rights.

Here’s my list of tips (also found in my longer article) for adoptee rights advocates in Michigan, or their allies (all allies are welcome, too):

If you live in Michigan, make noise. Be that annoying tsetse fly for Gov. Whitmer and state lawmakers who cannot be ignored until your bites are so painful that you are acknowledged. To that end, here are friendly resource on tips for advocates with limited resources, from Saul Alinsky.
You can develop relations with lawmakers and request personal meetings if you are going to Lansing. You can also share information with your local media, if they still exist, in the form of letters to the editor or on social media calling attention to denied legal rights. Social media may be helpful if you are good in that space. With Twitter turning into a large mess, I am not sure what platform may be the most effective now.
If you are more of a “power broker” kind of person, who knows “the game” (meaning you have “connections to those in power), a more effective way to make change is to engage Gov. Whitmer.
If you are not able to engage Gov. Whitmer, the most powerful power broker of all is a governor’s chief of staff. Gov. Whitmer’s Chief of Staff is, as of Jan. 2, 2022, JoAnne Huls. Because chiefs of staff try to be invisible to public and only to speak with deal-makers, the other best possible person for real access is a governor’s communications director, who manages a governor’s “brand.” Bobby Leddy is Gov. Whitmer’s communications director, and he is active on Twitter and can be “pinged” and equally “annoyed” with persistent, fact-based activity about adoptee rights concerns.
In addition to copying Leddy on Twitter, consider using this account to get Gov. Whitmer’s staff’s attention: Press@Michigan.gov. They will care if you are a state voter, in the way they won’t care about someone like me, who is not a voter in the state.
The best way to promote reform is by telling stories of the injustices you have encountered. Make it personal and say what happened and what it means to you. Name names and make it personal. It has to be personal. This was very helpful with stunning legal reform in Vermont being implemented in 2023.
My personal preference is to advocate for lasting legal reform the way New York state adoptee rights advocates and Vermont adoptee rights advocates have won legislative reforms. Those are two great success stories. Use the links to learn more about their lasting victories.

Remember, lasting change, good or bad, is always won by a group of committed warriors, in the truest sense. True warriors are those go into any “conflict” with the outcomes already decided in their minds with a clear strategy for victory.

Each of us can make a difference. Choose your battles and always remain focused on the larger goal. For me that remains permanent and lasting legal reform to end the injustice of outdated, harmful adoption laws that hide a person’s truth and deny them their original records.

And for adoptees who are working for change, I appreciate everything you can do this year if you have the time, energy, and good will. Good luck and make 2023 a great one!

‘Talking Story’ with Bryan Elliott on his podcast Living in Adoptionland

Bryan Elliott, host of Living in Adoptionland, and Rudy Owens, author of You Don’t Know How Lucky You Are

Earlier this month, I sat down with fellow adoptee and now podcaster Bryan Elliott to discuss the U.S. adoption system and why I wrote my book examining that institution and my journey through it. I had no idea where our conversation would land. However, I trusted Bryan’s professionalism as a writer, director, and multimedia producer to allow our conversation to wander where it naturally wanted to go.

Bryan posted our conversation this week on his podcast channel, Living in Adoptionland. I could not be happier with the interview and the high quality of the production.

Bryan had contacted me in late spring and invited me to his new show, which he launched in late May. And he’s been busy, having already published nearly a dozen shows, with conversations with some fellow adoptees I know from their advocacy on Twitter and other spaces where adoptees advocate for reform to a system that has impacted millions of people.

Bryan shares this summary why he’s producing his show now. He describes it as “the podcast I wish I had before I started on my journey more than 25 years ago. It’s a mosaic of real stories from the adoption community which includes parents who gave up their children, families struggling with infertility and natural conception, and the often silent adult adoptees.”

Before we taped the podcast, with Bryan in southern California and me in Portland, we agreed to a couple of ground rules. One was that I did not want to be involved in efforts that were contrary to my larger goal in writing my book of restoring rights to adoptees, and he respected that. Another point we both agreed to was to not center ourselves in the much larger national crisis surrounding the Supreme Court’s ending of legal abortion in the United States in June with its disastrous decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. That recent, historic decision by the right-leaning court ended nearly 50 years of bedrock reproductive and legal rights secured for women.

Both of us, in our conversations before the taping, recognized this decision had tremendous impacts on women. As adult adoptees, we also both knew too well what this likely meant for the promotion of adoption by those who overturned this half-century-old legal precedent. Speaking for myself, I believe Bryan shared my own view that having two white guys talking about an issue that impacts so many women, including many brown and black women, would not be appropriate, even though as adoptees we probably would have critical perspectives to share on the national policy debate that is falsely promoting adoption as the policy alternative to abortion healthcare. In the end, we did mention this topic because one cannot talk about adoption in 2022 without talking about abortion and how that intersects with adoptees as a huge group of Americans.

With the big issues agreed upon, we could then turn to other topics he wanted to ask about and I was able to share about my now four-year-old memoir and public health analysis of this massive and still discriminatory system. Some of the themes I touched on were:

Understanding how adoption must be seen sociologically because of its history tied to the larger historic problem of illegitimacy;
How doctors played a bedrock role in the massive expansion of adoption in the United States after the 1940s and how that role ensures it remains a legitimate and acceptable “practice,” even when it separates mothers and their children;
How my life as an adoptee has evolved over time, providing me insights shared by writers and thinkers I admire, including Viktor Frankl;
Explaining to others how being adopted and being denied rights means confronting lies, discrimination, and harm that is institutionalized and continues to harm countless persons.

I would encourage those who are interested in learning more about adoption to listen to his previous interviews and to bookmark his podcast platform. And as an adoptee, I want to say how refreshing it is to talk about adoption and not have my basic human rights challenged because the interviewer did not do their homework in understanding how adoption impacts millions of persons denied their legal rights and basic human rights to know who they are.

Thanks again, Bryan. Keep up the great work. I will be tuning in again to more conversations on Living in Adoptionland.

To learn more about Bryan, visit his website here. You can reach out to Bryan here.

You can continue to reach me on my website. My hope is this conversation inspired some listeners to want to learn more and buy my book.

The ups and downs of ‘adoptee Twitter’

Rudy Owens Memoir Twitter Account Banner

The Twitter account banner for Rudy Owens’ memoir on the U.S. adoption system.

I created my adoptee memoir Twitter account in 2017 as a way to help promote my memoir and book, which provides a critical look at the U.S. adoption system after World War II and my place in that larger story. Since I launched the account, I have used it to stay engaged on adoptee rights issues and issues related to domestic and inter-country adoption.

Twitter has many downsides. I find it can be a swirling pool of misinformation and emotion, which has been weaponized by autocrats like former president Donald Trump and state actors like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and many other nations that have exploited its glaring vulnerabilities. It also has been a major source of misinformation during the pandemic, and that likely will remain.

On the positive side, Twitter still remains a place that gives space to alternative points of view that is empowering. It has own subcultures, like “Black twitter,” “feminist twitter,” “Asian-American Twitter,” “adoptee Twitter,” and many, many more.

In these leaderless but visible groups, participants express views that challenge coverage in legacy and mainstream media on issues relevant to their affected groups. This has long been documented.

One study dating from 2016 by the Knight Foundation on this form of expression quoted a self-defined participant of feminist Twitter, who said, “The reason I often don’t trust mainstream pieces or outlets is because they very rarely go talk to the people affected by the issue. They don’t consider people in a community experts in their lives, like we living it aren’t experts in our own experiences.”

This is an idea very common among those who reference the term “adoptee twitter” and who use Twitter to address issues relevant to their lives, policy discussions, media bias, racism, hate speech, legislative debates, harm to those adopted, and more.

Like any group without a corporate or government moderator controlling opinion, views will vary. Twitter, by its nature, rewards emotion, anger, rage, and also views that elicit strong responses. This is not a place for thoughtful contemplation. That said, insights and wisdom can be found here.

I continue to use this space to share facts and media coverage relevant to policy issues, media bias that incorrectly describes adoption, legislative issues relevant to impacted adopted persons, and insights that I have from disciplines and ideas that matter to those who work to educate the public and reshape outdated views.

This weekend I shared a Tweet for those who use Twitter in this world of adoptees who communicate in this space. I said this was my perspective using Twitter as an adoptee:

Your experience is your expertise. Your story matters!
You don’t need to quote “experts.” In time others notice your value.
Align with folks who are positive and who lead by example.
#Facts still always matter!

I also see my Twitter communications as a responsibility to help millions of others. Mostly because of my Twitter communications, I have reached an audience for my book on this system. Some possible readers and even my followers may never like this approach to this system, but that’s OK. Telling one’s story requires having faith in one’s truth. And for me, my story remains firmly grounded in historic, scientific, and public health research, not my “feelings.”

For now, I am planning to continue using my Twitter account to promote my book, because I think my work has great relevancy for understanding adoption as an overlooked and important public health issue requiring immediate legislative action now to address injustices and documented harm to millions.

I also want to keep using Twitter as a place to engage the public and share facts being overlooked. I did this most recently to support ongoing efforts underway now in Vermont, led by adult adoptees born there, to restore rights to adoptees to access their birth records without discrimination and as a right protected by law.

I can also see the day when one day I will say, that’s enough. I am done.

I am not quite there, but ultimately, the way Twitter is constructed does not align with how I prefer to approach the world, because Twitter is driven by impulse, immediacy, and emotional responses. We have seen the downsides of this, and stepping back may be the best solution for me later.

Why adoptee rights advocacy should use a public health lens

When I wrote my memoir and critical study of the U.S. adoption experience, I deleted a chapter where I highlighted divisions among many of the millions of adoptees, notably those who want to focus mainly on their personal feelings about this experience and those who focus more on making systemic changes to end inequities to many.

This is a long debate, and I strategically dropped this section because I thought it would become a distraction. There are many ways this plays out, and I am choosing not to amplify works and ideas that I do not think will lead to change. Nor do I want to tell others how to navigate meaning in their lives. Those decisions remain with the individual, and no one but the person has the ability to confront those realities.

Making systemic change requires a focus on upstream advocacy, to fix the root issues and problems.

Since publishing my book, I have had some modest successes, including calling attention to how the United States fails to even count adoptees, which would be one step forward. This ongoing and intentional failure by the U.S. Census reveals larger issues of bias to adoptees and how the power dynamics of the interconnected institutions and interests co-mingle with sustaining modern adoption while not reforming it.

I would love to see more fellow adoptees, especially among those who advocate for systemic changes—what public health folks call upstream advocacy—talk about the intersection of public health, adoption, and adoptee rights issues.

Adoption is and will remain a public health concern, since the public health systems at the local, state and federal level in this country helped build this system and sustain it, for domestic and inter-country adoptions.

I am fortunate that I have a background in public health, so I can make these connections much more easily. As I wrote in what I call my first of its kind public health memoir on adoption: “I use public health concepts that focus on laws and systems that have an impact on large groups of people. A public health lens lets one look at outcomes, including the health of adoptees and those born illegitimately. This approach points out flaws that can be fixed, particularly if we look at evidence and science as well as how adoption systems work best.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provide this model to explain how a public health approach addresses problems and promotes population health.

Unfortunately, I have found few adoptees with this formal education, and that may be one reason why this method and lens have not been widely shared by them as a means to highlight the root issues and show a path to change with institutions that wield unhealthy power over the lives of millions of adoptees because of laws and policies.

As I have written before, health and public health groups have a moral obligation to advocate for the wellbeing of all adopted Americans as a population. Both also have a responsibility to correct their past historic roles creating a system that denies adoptees rights and also health information that could potentially be life-saving for some.

I am still confident that the approach I outlined in my book will gain traction, among journalists who continue to ignore root issues and also among adoptees themselves.

I also know this journey will be long. I have not given up hope because the goal remains to fix the larger problems, and changing laws and systems will help the greatest number of people who continue to be denied basic legal rights and knowledge of who they are.

What adoption taught me about bureaucracy

I have spent decades of my life fighting a large bureaucracy in Michigan, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. The massive state agency, which oversees all vital records and all birth records of adoptees born in Michigan, denied me my original birth records for nearly three decades. It did this even after I had met my birth mother who signed a consent form in 1989 that should have forced the agency to give me my original birth certificate. It took a court battle to secure my birth certificate’s release in 2016.

The long dance I had with that ossified bureaucracy provided wisdom I continue to use in how I do my work professionally today in a large government agency and how I deal with other bureaucracies that intentionally choose to do wrong as opposed to good. In nearly every sense, being an adoptee denied basic legal rights was my advanced training how I respond to immoral, inflexible systems and institutions to this day.

This week, I found myself locking horns with two intractable systems that are among the least accountable and most unbending in the United States. One is a nursing home in St. Louis, Missouri, that cares for a family member of mine, which in its operation is not that different than the more than 15,000 licensed facilities nationally. The other is a medical clinic in metro Portland, Oregon, where I visited a doctor in September this year. Each represents a part of the much larger systems of for-profit healthcare and nursing home care, and their structure and management are likely representative of their thousands of counterparts throughout the country.

Both of these institutions that provide medical and health services are, theoretically, there to serve others and provide services that are essential and also something most persons see as “morally right.” These two facilities are not related in any way. Yet both are much alike in how they function as bureaucracies that are mostly intractable in their actions and inflexible when asked to be accountable.

Because of my long decades of dealing with bureaucratic systems, I have learned important lessons. The most important of those lessons is to never accept “no,” which is the reflex response of organizations that do not take ownership for their actions that can cause harm and can be morally wrong. You can read my essay about that here. The knowledge gained from prolonged struggles, I have found, can be used for doing what is both good and morally just. I choose to fight for what I know to be right and not to submit in these seemingly losing battles. In the simple conflicts we all face in life, I have long-decided that I would be the lion and not the lamb.