« Parableman on Quiver Full "Theology" | Main | Blogosphere Regime Changes »

New and Improved Birth Certificates

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will be glad to hear from me. I’ve created a revolutionary birth certificate that may help him out.

Gov. Romney is taking some heat from gay rights advocates for refusing to change the “Father” and “Mother” blanks on birth certificates to “Parent A” and “Parent B” blanks. (HT: Kathleen Parker’s article on townhall.com.)

Birth certificates used to be simple, providing basic information about a baby’s birth: the place of birth, the date and time of birth, medical information, the father’s name, the mother’s name, etc. Easy stuff. That was then, this is now.

These days same sex couples are adopting, male couples are hiring surrogate mothers, and female couples are implanting embryos created with donor sperm. Some couples want to change the birth certificate to reflect these non-traditional situations. Gov. Romney’s current solution is for “hospitals to cross out the words "Mother" or "Father" and write in the phrase "Second Parent."

Gov. Romney wants to preserve the biological parent’s identity on the birth certificate. While thinking about what he could do, I came upon a solution for these and other situations. It’s not as good as being able to leave “Father” and “Mother” as the only blanks to fill, but it would give the child the truth about his or her birth.

Again, let’s think about the birth certificates in the past. It used to be that the father and mother blanks on a birth certificate only indicated the “who” of conception. Sometimes who the father was remained unknown, and it was duly noted. The “how” of conception was always known, until 1978 when the first test tube baby was born. Now the “how” of conception varies. Thus, the idea of preserving the biological parent’s identity on the birth certificate would apply to heterosexual parents as well.

Why not just put the truth? Who did the sperm come from and who did the egg come from? There would also be a blank for who provided the womb, in case it’s a different woman than the egg provider.

That sounds callous, but it is a birth certificate, not a “who will raise the child” certificate. “Intended Care Giving Parent” blanks could be added to identify the people who will be responsible for rearing the child. (That’s the part that will help out Gov. Romney.)

It’s true that biological parents aren’t always the people who raise the child, but does that need to be addressed on the birth certificate? My biological dad is listed on my birth certificate, but he opted out of my life when I was two years old. My step dad raised me. Does that mean I should change my birth certificate? It doesn’t seem right to erase traces of my lineage. Even if I did change my birth certificate, I would still be genetically linked to my biological father. Adding the “Intended Care Giving Parent” blanks would allow that truth to remain and accommodate different situations when people know that the biological parent will not be “Intended Care Giving Parent”.

Here’s rough idea of what this new birth certificate would look like:

___________________________ 

Biological Father (sperm provider)

__________________________
Biological Mother (egg provider)

___________________________________________

Gestational Mother (if different than biological mother)

_______________________________

Intended Care Giving Parent

_______________________________

Intended Care Giving Parent

There you have it, the new standard for birth certificate clarity; a reflection of our cultural upheaval and technological advances.

Comments

Lexie, This is a great post. I agree and it seems to be common sense that a birth certificate does not need to reflect who intends to parent the child. In addition to the examples you provided, what about those mothers who choose to give their yet unborn child up for adoption and find adoptive parents before the due date? The child is immediately adopted to his new "father" and "mother" upon birth, but surely his birth certificate would reflect his biological parentage. Aside from all questions of morality (which are HUGE), only one partner in a lesbian relationship is biological related to a child "they" give birth to. IMHO, This isn't even a pro-gay or anti-gay issue. It's just biology.

Posted by: Hannah at August 6, 2005 5:12 AM

As an adoptive parent, just a bit of clarification. When our adoptions were finalized the birth certificates were officially changed as part of the adoption. They reflected the names of our boys as we chose their names and they listed us as their parents. There was no mention of birth parents or the names given by birth parents. Both of our boys were born in the US, in different states, so I'm guessing that that is how it works nationwide, though I could be wrong about that.

That's not to take away from your overall point. In our case, there is still a mother and father, and I agree that they shouldn't be changed.

Posted by: Bob at August 6, 2005 5:42 AM

You did such a good job designing this revolutionary birth certificate that I'm afraid it just might be the one they implement. Just think you may inadvertantly go down in history as the designer of the postmodern birth certificate. Yikes! :-)

Posted by: Cindy at August 6, 2005 7:07 AM

Thanks for the comments. One of the great things about blogs is potential for comments to exchange and clarify ideas.

Hannah, I'm glad you brought up adoption. Since the standard birth certificate has been used without much contention - at least, none that's made national news recently- I didn't even address it. But in thinking about it, this certificate might work as well. The biological father and mother question could be handled how it is now. (This is where I need adoptive parent input. Thanks for stepping up already, Bob.) Do some adoptive parents opt to have the bio parents known and some don't? Who decides what information is left on or off the a birth certificate?

It also brings up the option of calling all parents that aren't biological adoptive, so the last two blanks could be changed to Adoptive Parents. One effect of that would be that the term "Adoptive Parent" used post 2005 wouldn't neccesarily mean the same thing as when it was used pre 2005. While I was writing this, I was trying to think of the word that would distinguish bio parents from parents who raise the children. The usual term of adoptive parents didn't seem to fit, hence the cumbersome "Intended Care Giving Parent". Ah the power of words.

Those were just a few things I intentionally omitted. As Hannah mentioned, there are changing a simple piece of paper bring up huge issues.

Cindy, that would be interesting. :) Funny thing, I didn't start out intending to come up with it. I was just commenting on an article.


Posted by: Lexie at August 6, 2005 8:18 AM

If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.

About

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.