Skip to content

To make herself look like an important ‘activist’ Joan Wheeler misrepresents issues to the bioethics council!

by on May 2, 2013

It appears as if Joan is having some technical difficulties on her web site! For the moment this blog post is NOW the ONLY PLACE where one may see the contents of her ‘presentation’ to the The President’s Council on Bioethics, Washington, D.C., 2004.

UPDATE Dec 2015; as older posts are being seen I’m updating with links to my second blog and a Facebook page wherein I expose AGAIN the lies, fabrications and hate that Joan M Wheeler says about me and family. After the first book was pulled from publication by the publisher, May 2011, she has ‘self-published’ yet again, her ‘story’, NOW called ‘duped by adoption’. There is NOTHING in it for adoption reform, for she is totally against adoption and her two families. To learn more see…

https://gertmcqueen2.wordpress.com/

https://www.facebook.com/dupedbyadoption1

NOW BACK to this post

Yep, she is very clever with crafting words, in the slight of hand of a magician, so that those that don’t know her, will not see the bullshit behind her words! It needs to be pointed out, from the onset here, that Joan may have gone to a few adoption ‘conventions’ over the years, but, for the most part she has not been what most people would consider a ‘prominent-named’ activist. Nor has she ‘contributed’ to anything that ‘advanced’ the CAUSE. In fact, many have been distancing themselves from her.

By her own telling, she has NOT been able to hold down any regular ‘paying’ job, ever! The times that she was able to attend conventions she either had the adoptive mother pay for it or she took out a loan, as she did in 2013. At that last convention, she advocated the blowing up of Vital Statistic offices as a means to getting the government’s attention!

Then of course, there were years that she had to care for the sick/dying adoptive mother and the final writing of that garbage book which left no time for Joan to be…anything. On page 399, the chapter titled, 30th year of reunion…that would be 2004 the year of this ‘presentation’…Joan writes that she was caring for 3 elderly parents; adoptive mother, natural father and step-mother. This is just an exaggeration! Joan was not responsible for the day to day care for natural father and his wife (step-mother) and their care was NOT provided by Joan. She exaggerates and self-promotes herself. Joan volunteered to take natural father and his wife to some doctor appointments and shopping; that’s all Joan did!

Again, from Joan’s book, page 573, time period is March 2004, Joan was at a meeting in support of gay marriage where she ‘took the opportunity to talk about the civil rights of sperm donor children to a lesbian friend’ but when the friend would NOT see Joan’s point of view, Joan’s indignation kicked in. She writes, ‘that lesbian’s snappy answer resounded with the same self-righteous venom that I’ve heard countless adoptive parents spout for over three decades indicating they believe that they owned their children.’ That’s a clear example of what is ‘really’ behind Joan’s self-importance …agree with her or she’ll mock you.

While she was putting the ‘final’ finishing touches (read more slander to birth family) to the manuscript, she was activity promoting the book…not adoption reform issues! Regardless what she thought then, that book was NOT about ‘adoption reform’ as we have made it quite evident by getting the book pulled from publication!

Just what did Joan write in that book about bioethics? Chapter 39, titled, adoptees and donor-conceived people, is filled with extensive quotes from the President’s Council on Bioethics and other sources. In between these quotes are just more of Joan’s own rants and outrage and self-indignation over the issues. No where, in this chapter, nor anywhere else in the book, can I find where she states, that she presented a paper. The ONLY place that it is mentioned is in the ‘boiler-plate’ ‘about the author’…typically a place were an author promotes themselves. In other words, clear evidence that Joan is a bullshit artist.She is a typical narcissistic needing to have attention upon themselves at all times. The whole chapter, just 12 pages, could have been summed up with a reference to the bioethics website and a ‘few’ lines from Joan!

She uses the fact that she ‘drove 800 miles to present a paper’ and as a means of self-promoting her long years of dedicated service. Is there something I’m missing here? What does driving 800 miles have to DO with her educated (?) opinion? See the following…for just HOW Joan interacts with others and more….meaning…if you go to the comments here you will see how when ‘some’ disagree with Joan she argues and then must inform them of her expert opinions!

http://www.firstmotherforum.com/2013/01/dear-president-obama-please-consider.html

So Joan says…I should know. I drove 800 miles to present a paper in person to the panel in Washington DC in 2004. I can prove that statement. Want the link to my paper defending adoptees rights?

Oh, HERE, she can provide proof, but everywhere else where she libels and slanders she doesn’t provide proof. 

She has NO SPECIAL knowledge nor expertise in bioethics…period. Her only expertise is bullshitting and browbeating others. 

Joan Wheeler just likes to ‘puff’ herself up, as she is doing in her ‘resume’ on her web page and on LinkedIn. Most of her ‘activism’ activities are limited to browbeating, insulting and other unsavory tactics on Internet social networks and news sites. Here is an example of her ‘puffing’ herself up.

On her blog, http://forbiddenfamily.net …under the tab ‘about author’ Joan states that she ‘presented a paper’

Sorry, Joan DID NOT present a paper! She gave a comment/statement, in the public session! Even the ‘chairman’ stated they had ‘only one person who has asked to make comment in the public session’. Furthermore, no action was taken on her general comment. If action had been taken Joan would have presented that information; for she would want to promote the fact! Seeing that she failed to provide a follow up one can only surmise that the committee did nothing with her ‘presentation’. Clearly, this is an attempt to ‘show off’ her self-importance, in the field of ‘adoption activist’.

Here is the quote from her web site under ‘author’ tab….
‘Joan presented a paper entitled Adoptees and Children of Reproductive Technologies to The President’s Council on Bioethics, Washington, D.C., 2004. (http://forbiddenfamily.net/articles/2004-presidents-council-on-bioethics/).’

Joan does provide, in the above reference on her site, the ‘entire’ program of that ‘bioethics’ session, but nowhere in the program was Joan listed as ‘presenting’ a paper. She is ONLY mentioned, in Session 7: Public Comment.

I’ll present the entirely of Joan’s COMMENT as it is in the ‘transcript’ of that session. But first, I am pulling out a couple of points from her ‘comments’ for my own commentary. Most of her ‘comment’ is just more of the same old personal rantings that she is famous for uttering. I shall leave it to the readers, here, to see Joan’s self-importance on it’s own merits.

JOAN says… because of March’s production, your booklet on reproductive technologies, that I am here today. I represent the children created by reproductive technologies.

GERT says…in other words…she found out that she could go to a public session and give her rants. Whom is she representing? She doesn’t name them. Well actually she did give the following to the counsil ‘is a member of the International Adoption Reform Movement and the American Adoption Congress’. But what are they?

http://www.bastards.org/ ‘the’ International Adoption Reform Movement is a ‘grassroots’ organization that for the most part engages in browbeating tactics and is headed by and mostly has a following of ‘angry adoptees’. While some do lobby various state representatives with lawful means, the majority are just ‘voicing’ their opinions. The most angry are the ones that go on internet discussion groups and argue with anyone who is pro-adoption!

http://www.americanadoptioncongress.org/ (from their web-site The American Adoption Congress (AAC) was formed in 1978 as an umbrella organization for the proliferation of search and support groups that had sprung up in the 1970s.) This and others do have conventions where authors and psychologists and the like give presentations and do book signings.

Joan had/has ‘visions’ of herself being one of those types of authors on a great circuit of book-signings and conventions. In 2009 Joan was all over the internet promoting herself and book telling everyone that she would be traveling to conventions and book signings. She utterly believed that her ‘book’ was going to SOLVE the adoption reform movement…no wonder she convinced all those members of Bastard Nation (the International Adoption Reform Movement) and others that we birth siblings were the ‘enemy’ when we found out about her libelous book and had it pulled from publication.

JOAN says… Those of us who were adopted know the pain of loss. We were relinquished into secrecy, victims of traditional closed adoption. We were given new families, and we were told we were ungrateful if we wanted to know our origins.

GERT says…How is this related to the topic of bioethics? What does HER, or other adoptees’, pain have to do with bioethics? What does HER, or other adoptees’ experiences have to do with bioethics? It’s all about HER.

JOAN says…As an adoptee reunited with my birth family for 30 years

GERT says…How is this related to the topic of bioethics? Is this a ‘nod’ to some sort of experience? And why doesn’t see tell the full story of HER reunion, that no one wants her around them because of her negative behavior?

JOAN says…These children, now adults, are organizing around the world to seek out their donor fathers.

GERT says…what organizations?

JOAN says… Young men believe masturbate and get paid? Great way to make money. I’m a medical student. I’m a genius. Someone can benefit from having my genes. Oh, and I don’t even have to pay child support.

GERT says…Her mocking, saracasm and taunting language is NOT the way to address ‘learned’ people, committees, councils, legistators and others. But this is the only form of communication Joan knows. Joan always wants to ‘shock’ people. It’s a mistaken opinion…shocking people will NOT make them alter anything, for they are not impressed with a speaker/presenter who uses that means of communication. Learned people, as well as others, only wonder ‘where’ this speaker/writer is coming from…how does SHE know what men believe? Joan speaks from her inner dialogue and her brain does not get activated. These people on the council hear ‘masturbate, get paid, make money, student, genius, benefit from my genes, don’t have to pay support’ and they, the council, are wondering what!! where is this coming from?? what does that have to do with bioethics?

JOAN says…Young women believe, sure, I’ll help infertile couples. I want to give the gift of life to a couple waiting for a child. It’s not as if I’m actually handing over a real baby. Once she’s pregnant, it’s her kid. Besides, I can use the money.

GERT says…And again, Joan knows what women believe and she speaks from her inner dialogue…infertile couple, gift of life, real baby, pregnant, use the money. The council hearing this rant are wondering ‘when is she going to be done?’

JOAN says…Being that gift of life is a psychological burden that no one should have to bear. I can hear it now. Why do you want to know your genetic mother? I carried you for nine months. I went through 20 hours of labor for you. I’m your mother. She’s just a donor.

GERT says…But no, Joan is not done yet…and her inner dialogue knows all…

JOAN says…desperately want to have a child of their own. They have no intention of telling their children. They don’t need to. They are safe to raise the child under false pretenses. This is an extension of closed adoption practices.

GERT says…and she doesn’t know when to shut up!

JOAN says…There is no documentation and no identification of the donor parents. No legal adoption takes place, and no one need know the truth, especially not the child. Birth certificates are legal lies.

GERT says…Where’s her documentation for these claims?

JOAN says… Lesbians are leading consumers of the sperm donor industry. They don’t want a man in their life. So they opt for anonymous sperm. These mothers will some day have to face their children’s questions. Mom, you fought for the right to marry your same sex partner, but will you honor my right to know my father? Who is my father? Why don’t you know who my father is?

GERT says…Joan is using projection and personal opinion mixing…another method that is NOT lost on the hearers! By now they understand where this speaker is coming from…personal rage and anger.

JOAN says…With two sets of parents conspiring against the donor child, this situation is far, far worse than traditional closed adoption.

GERT says…oh my conspiracies abound! yes, the rage and anger is coming out and the hearers have SHUT DOWN, they are no longer hearing Joan.

JOAN says…Parents are not only not the only conspirators. Fertility doctors are in control. They determine where a donor’s semen is shipped, and then embryos and eggs are traded like stocks and bonds. This determines the gene pool to avoid consanguinity, as if biological relatedness is only science.

GERT says…yep, conspiracies and conspirators…parents and doctors…great use of metaphors here! that’s sure to get the council members’ attention!

JOAN says…They don’t want sisters and brothers to interbred. So they spread donor gametes far and wide with no record keeping. This is social and genetic manipulation.

GERT says…the council has stopped listening so if true…their ears are plugged!

JOAN says…It is troubling that the Council buckles to popular demand to take out the recommendation to track every embryo made because that could be a political agenda.

GERT says…and this will certainly get their attention! tell the council, you are addressing, that they are ‘buckling’ to interest-groups and playing with political agendas! Joan really hasn’t a clue on how she presents HERSELF.

JOAN says…Because of the opposition to openness, the issues I bring before the Council could be considered radical. Imagine donor children have the same rights as normal children. Adoptees have the same rights as non-adoptees. Civil rights for children? These are radical concepts.

GERT says…And continue to tell the council that they are NOT open to hearing issues! Sure way to get that council to DISMISS the speaker as a ‘radical’….and Joan and other adoptees wonder why they are not being heard!

JOAN says…Regulation, tracking and disclosure of identity of donors and medical histories should be expected, demanded, and enforced by federal law. Genetic parents and legal parents should be clearly identified on unsealed birth certificates.

GERT says…key word here is ‘should’…that’s what Joan wants! I want, I want, I want…and I’ll rant and rave until I get what I want!

JOAN says.. Parents who use reproductive technologies need to accept and respect their child’s full circle of parentage. When alternative, nontraditional families are created, honesty is the best policy.

GERT says…key word…’need’…that’s what Joan wants from everyone who hasn’t heard her drum beat…they NEED to listen to her! And in case they hadn’t heard…’honesty is the best policy’…coming out of the mouth of a known liar!

JOAN says..to strictly regulate the fertility industry. Tracking every sperm, every egg, every embryo is not only possible, but it is in the best interest of the children to do so.

GERT says…Joan knows that all that is possible! Where did she get her degree in bioethics? She didn’t! She has none. She’s a bull-shit artist. And she alone knows what in ‘the best interest of the children’. Too bad she never looked out for the best interest of her own children!

CHAIRMAN KASS: Thank you very much for an eloquent statement.

GERT says…of course, professionals use polite courteous comments, even when it’s obvious that the speaker, Joan Wheeler, was rude to them.

I have already written a couple of posts addressing this issue…see…   Joan Wheeler continues to lie and lie on another adoption site, but she got caught! part one on February 11, 2012

and see…  Joan Wheeler continues to lie and lie on another adoption site, but she got caught! part two on February 11, 2012

NOW the entire ‘presentation’…. http://www.bioethic.gov/june04/session7

but it does appear as if Joan is having some technical difficulties on her web site and for NOW this is the ONLY PLACE where one may see the contents of her ‘presentation’.

PCBE: Transcripts (June 25, 2004): Session 7: Public Comment

FRIDAY, June 25, 2004
Session 7: Public Comment

CHAIRMAN KASS: We have only one person who has asked to make comment in the public session. So I’d ask Council members not to break here. We’ll have that comment, and then we will adjourn.

We welcome Joan Wheeler, who is a member of the International Adoption Reform Movement and the American Adoption Congress.

Welcome.

MS. WHEELER: Hello. I deeply regret not being informed of your meetings in prior months or years on reproductive technologies. It is because of March’s production, your booklet on reproductive technologies, that I am here today.

I represent the children created by reproductive technologies. Those of us who were adopted know the pain of loss. We were relinquished into secrecy, victims of traditional closed adoption. We were given new families, and we were told we were ungrateful if we wanted to know our origins.

As an adoptee reunited with my birth family for 30 years, I strongly oppose the blind use of donor gametes, and I agree that regulation is needed.

Adoptees from traditional closed adoption suffer low self-esteem and identity confusion from being given away and lied to. Children of donor parents face similar problems. These children, now adults, are organizing around the world to seek out their donor fathers. They suffer long life consequences for the actions of both sets of parents.

Donors are not fully educated as to the consequences of their actions. Young men believe masturbate and get paid? Great way to make money. I’m a medical student. I’m a genius. Someone can benefit from having my genes. Oh, and I don’t even have to pay child support.

Young women believe, sure, I’ll help infertile couples. I want to give the gift of life to a couple waiting for a child. It’s not as if I’m actually handing over a real baby. Once she’s pregnant, it’s her kid. Besides, I can use the money.

Being that gift of life is a psychological burden that no one should have to bear. I can hear it now. Why do you want to know your genetic mother? I carried you for nine months. I went through 20 hours of labor for you. I’m your mother. She’s just a donor.

Forty years ago adoption was in the best interest of the child. Now the perceived rights of infertile people take precedence. Recipient parents of donated gametes desperately want to have a child of their own. They have no intention of telling their children. They don’t need to. They are safe to raise the child under false pretenses. This is an extension of closed adoption practices.

Internet adoption agencies boast of total anonymity. This instills false beliefs in the donor recipient parents. They fiercely defend their rights and deny the existence of other parents. The recipient mother gestates and gives birth. So it is assumed she is the child’s only mother.

There is no documentation and no identification of the donor parents. No legal adoption takes place, and no one need know the truth, especially not the child. Birth certificates are legal lies.

Couples who claim to be infertile are often very not infertile at all. Lesbians are leading consumers of the sperm donor industry. They don’t want a man in their life. So they opt for anonymous sperm. These mothers will some day have to face their children’s questions. Mom, you fought for the right to marry your same sex partner, but will you honor my right to know my father? Who is my father? Why don’t you know who my father is?

With two sets of parents conspiring against the donor child, this situation is far, far worse than traditional closed adoption. Parents are not only not the only conspirators. Fertility doctors are in control. They determine where a donor’s semen is shipped, and then embryos and eggs are traded like stocks and bonds. This determines the gene pool to avoid consanguinity, as if biological relatedness is only science.

They don’t want sisters and brothers to interbred. So they spread donor gametes far and wide with no record keeping. This is social and genetic manipulation.

It is troubling that the Council buckles to popular demand to take out the recommendation to track every embryo made because that could be a political agenda. I ask the Council to reconsider. Tracking gametes and embryos is not a conservative Republican or liberal Democratic agenda. It is a human rights issue.

Because of the opposition to openness, the issues I bring before the Council could be considered radical. Imagine donor children have the same rights as normal children. Adoptees have the same rights as non-adoptees. Civil rights for children? These are radical concepts.

Regulation, tracking and disclosure of identity of donors and medical histories should be expected, demanded, and enforced by federal law. Genetic parents and legal parents should be clearly identified on unsealed birth certificates.

Parents who use reproductive technologies need to accept and respect their child’s full circle of parentage. When alternative, nontraditional families are created, honesty is the best policy. Therefore, I urge the President’s Council on Bioethics to strictly regulate the fertility industry. Tracking every sperm, every egg, every embryo is not only possible, but it is in the best interest of the children to do so.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KASS: Thank you very much for an eloquent statement.
Anybody have any final business?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN KASS: Thanks to everybody. We will be in touch about follow-up on both the topics of discussion yesterday and the topics we have broached today.

Anybody who has afterthoughts after this meeting both of substance and of procedure, please let’s hear from you, and we’ll be in touch with you shortly.

Thank you all for coming. The meeting is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the meeting was concluded.)

end

Ruth permalink

just want to point out this –
Joan says “Imagine donor children have the same rights as normal children.”

Where does Joan get off saying that donor children are NOT normal. WHAT is normal? Why does Joan think she can define what or WHO is normal?

Who then is ABnormal? Donor Children? Test tube babies? Great speech Joan. Keep it up. Let one of those “donor kids” or test tube babies that are now in their 20s and 30s hear you say that they are ABnormal.
And Joan wonders why people can’t stand her.

I tweeted this post and it was picked up by and published here under ‘arts and entertainment’
http://paper.li/k8ethics/bioethics December 29, 2014

Advertisements
3 Comments
  1. just want to point out this –
    Joan says “Imagine donor children have the same rights as normal children.”

    Where does Joan get off saying that donor children are NOT normal. WHAT is normal? Why does Joan think she can define what or WHO is normal?

    Who then is ABnormal? Donor Children? Test tube babies? Great speech Joan. Keep it up. Let one of those “donor kids” or test tube babies that are now in their 20s and 30s hear you say that they are ABnormal.
    And Joan wonders why people can’t stand her.

  2. Reblogged this on Refuting a Book of Lies: Forbidden Family — and commented:

    LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN, EVERY TIME WHEN IT COMES TO JOAN WHEELER

  3. I tweeted this post and it was picked up by and published here under ‘arts and entertainment’
    http://paper.li/k8ethics/bioethics December 29, 2014

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: