No, the pro-adoption, pro-marketing adoption to "birthparents" website being boycotted is not folding and probably not likely to. Nor are their advertisers.
But there are baby steps I am happy to report.
Concerned United Birthparents (CUB) apparently received an untold number of "inquiries" as a result of "a question that Mirah Riben posed on her blog" regarding the boycott and the fact that CUB's VP and another board member were paid bloggers on that site. So troubling were these "inquiries" that CUB president, Margy McMorrow felt the need to address and defend them in the long-awaited issue of their newsletter, the Communicator, which became available on July 12, 2007.
The defense stated: "Our words need to be heard by those who are adopting today, those are the people who most need to hear what we have to say. They need to hear our truth, what we have personally experienced in the world of adoption....Change will not occur if we only talk to each other. Keeping it among ourselves isn't the answer. We need to reach out to people who disagree, who haven't a clue about the birthparent experience and that of our children. The messages of Jan and Heather are consistent with CUB's views. We support their activism."
First, I want to thank those who read here and raised the issues with CUB. Collectively our voices were heard!
Unfortunately, Margy did not check with the prime players before releasing this newsletter on 7/12/07 claiming that Jan and Heather were blogging there for higher motivation.
Just four days later - today - July 16, 2007, according to Jan Baker: "Heather is no longer blogging at" that site. Jan apparently "also resigned a few days ago and will blog till the end of the month." Jan is very clear to point out that neither of them left as a result of my raising the issue of conflict of interest. Both Heather and Jan have said that it was a lot of hard work producing the amount required and the pay very low.
I can understand that. While I have no quotas, I - and many others of us - do what we do for free...because we are doing what we believe in. Seems whatever higher values their blogging was intended to achieve was not worth their effort in the end in terms of time versus dollars and cents.
And so, while no one is willing to connect any dots...seems I raised an issue that caused CUB to feel a need to defend its actions, and lo and behold those who once blogged for blood-sucking baby brokers, claiming noble reasons for doing so, are no longer!
I call that a minor success no matter how its couched, and no matter what the stated reasons. Less $$ for the bad guys!
It is often hard to make choices. Sometimes good comes wrapped in evil and vice versa. Sometimes it is hard to step back and seethe bigger picture. In this case, is the good being done in reaching those who might an article placed on that site as opposed to elsewhere worth lining the pockets of baby brokers?
When we seek to decipher what seems a quagmire -- I use a simple rule of thiumb: follow the money! When is a noble cause not so noble, despite all of the protetstations and rationales to the contrary? Whenever money is involved!
I could easily accept advertising from Google on this blog and make a little cash. yes, i know it would likely "how-to-steal-a-baby- sites that would advertise, but according Margy McMorrow's logic, that might introduce "others" to this point of view. I prefer to keep the lines firm between them and us. ad not be an Uncle Tom, supporting those who profit from mothers' losses.