1. What are you asking for?
We want all Americans to have unconditional access to their own original birth certificates and to the original birth certificates of their ancestors. 

2. How do you plan to achieve this?
Through educating legislators, refuting stakeholders who have historically opposed adoptee equality, and directing concerned citizens towards grassroots groups in their own state who are working for positive change. We wish to create a climate in which restoration of adoptee equality is seen not as a fringe element agenda but in fact an overdue restoration of dignity. 

3. Why are you asking for this?
Discrimination is never justified. When one class of people is denied information about the facts of their own lives that all other Americans have access to this is discrimination and this is inconsistent with the principle that all men are created equal. 

4. Is there a correlation between restored access and an increase in abortions?
No. Abortion is a legal right and has no relevance to the topic of unequal treatment by state governments to one class of Americans. 

5. Why would anyone be for discrimination against people who were adopted?
A red herring that has plagued the equality movement since its inception is the urban legend of confidentiality afforded to relinquishing mothers. No person, even an agent of the state, may bind the state government to any "promise of confidentiality" which is contrary to actual state law. Birth certificates are not sealed until an adoption occurs, which may not happen for up to a year or more, if ever. 

6. What are your views on compromise measures?
No other class of people must get permission from a court or government agency to access their own original birth record. Further, no other class of parent has the right to remove their name from a birth record upon request. The issue is how to most efficiently remove adoptees from the class of those denied access while not creating a new class of parents' rights.  Hence the idea of "compromise".

Compromise measures are a means to get "something" passed.  The argument being - "if we don't do this, it will be years before we get anything".  The counter argument is - "if we don't hold fast to our principles of universal access, we are consigning some adoptees to being permanently barred from access".  While both sides have their passionate defenders (and critics), there are some very recent developments that just might cause the whole issue to be moot.

Adoptee access to birth certificates protects their parents' privacy.