Wednesday, December 24, 2008

A Rose by Any Other Name

As the country prepares for an historic inauguration, I was reading about the slaves who built the white house. Documents have been revealed, recording payments made to the slave owners for the hiring out of their slaves. The slaves were listed as "Slave John", Slave Tom." None had surnames. A surname makes a man a man; it ties him to his lineage, his clan. Slavery of course, systematically destroyed families.

Their is power of ownership and in naming. Expectant mothers often spend inordinate amount of time reading baby name books and deciding upon a "proper" name for their child - one that expresses what the child means to them and also its family heritage.

Names are carefully recorded in religious and legal documents and generally follow one for life.

Surnames, until recently, tied families together. Womens lib however, seeing it as a symbol of patriarchal "ownership" eschewed the practice of assuming one's husbands name upon becoming married and today many women hyphenate or simply continue to use their maiden name. Yet family or surnames remain important in helping one track his lineage or genealogy - a practice that multitudes of people take great pride in. Squeals of delight to discover one's great, great grand dad!

Prior to the 1940's, when an orphan, or the child of an infirmed or widowed mother needed care, a member of the community of parish came forward and The Smith Family raised the Jone's boy. All knew his rightful heritage and no one questioned his family ties, despite whatever affection the boy and his new family might have likely shared. He connection to his family tree remained unbroken despite care given him or the contributions he made those who raised him. Children were assets, but not possessions.

The days of the orphan train encouraged adoption as way to obtain indentured servants. Still their name was of little consequences - no more than the slave's.

Not until the tables turned and children became more scarce and having one or more, a sign of affluence and were desired as prizes for their own bragging rights: my son is smarter or a better ball player than yours - did naming a ward become important. Children have became possession and thus need to be labeled like one might adhere sticker onto a possession so as to assure its return if lost.

In adoption today the name a mother gives her child is often discarded and naming "rights" ate part and parcel of the transfer of ownership of the child to his or her new parents.

The idea of the child being an individual with any rights - even to his own name or ethnicity) in domestic adoption) - is barely considered. Though it is now becoming fashionably popular to keep some form of an internationally adopted child's name incorporated into his American name. But not as a "right to know."

An adoptees "right to know" is on par with that of slaves.

Yet the simple test of the importance of a name is to call a young child by a name that's not his and watch him get very upset! Or name is weho we are. Our unique identification....or, is it?

Saturday, December 20, 2008

The Times They Are NOT Changing

Many days I feel as if social attitudes around family and adoption have ground to a halt. Stopped dead in their tracks in the 1950s and not progressed one iota.

Oh there are the politically platitudes about gay rights and a win now and then - then a set back. there is the lip service to "birthmothers" rights - i.e. the right to chose parents to take her child (kind alike the "right" to chose your on firing squad) and promise her the moon and sun and also their right to break those promises...

All those niceties aside, when push comes to shove - women who even THINK about surrendering a child to adoption are, in the real world, not unselfish, honorable, sacrificing, saints.

Take for example 22-year-old Casey Anthony indicted for the murder of her missing 3-year-old daughter. Caylee. Circumstantial evidence such as her not reporting the child missing for a month point very suspiciously at the young mother. But also thrown up is the "fact" that she allegedly had thought about surrendering custody of the child. Maybe she did consider this option as single parenting became more difficult than she had imagined. Are we now tried and found guilty based on our thoughts? If so, every parent in the world would be found guilty of having a momentary wish their kid would simply disappear! How many teens have screamed in anger at a parent: "I wish you were dead!" Do we lock them up bade on that?

In our society, the very worst thing a mother can do, is even engage in the possibility of giving her own child away!

This is as true today as it was in the 1960s, shortly after I lost my daughter, when all I heard every day "at the water cooler" and on the subways and streets of NYC was : "Any dog can give birth!" said with clenched teeth and veins of utter DISGUST and repulsion popping about the sheer AUDACITY of one Helen Scarpetta attempted to regain custody of her daughter, "Baby Jessica" who was illegally adopted by the DeMartinos. Not one shred of sympathy was given this mother as the DeMartinos fled the state and never returned her KIDNAPPED child!

Joel Steinberg, the murderer now free, was never charged with kidnapping Lisa or Mitchell and Dr Sarosi who negotiated the "deals" of both children was given a slap on the wrist for what was called "illegal adoption" and was in fact kidnapping - except for the fact that the mothers involved were led to believe their child was being adopted and would be well cared for.

Dredging up all this ugly past is not just Casey and Caylee Anthony.

It is also reading blogs against the Indian Child Welfare Act (IWCA) - and basically against the sanctity of the family, and those who support and sympathize with the couple de jour who has to return an illegally adopted child. This time it's Clint and Heather Larson returning Talon to his mother, father and siblings.

The pity spewed for the 30 days of "bonding" this unrelated person had with this child just totally override nine months of pregnancy! Her longing, desire, hopes and dreams have been dashed! Often I read of people crying over an empty nursery that never even held "their" child that they planned to adopt! And the sympathy - Oh my God, the sympathy. Yet we mothers who lose our kids get zero, zip, none, nada. We made our beds! Never mind much infertility is preventable - especially when childbirth is delayed into ones forties...but they are blameless and pure and we are evil witches.

Never mind that no adoption is final until it's final stuff happens. People wait and plan to have a baby and have a miscarriage. Children who mothers have held and loved die. Deal with it!

But not only do Casey Anthony's alleged thoughts make her a bad mother - they also go to point put that far more single mother should give their babies to far more deserving waiting couples, because "see what happens." Single mothers are killers - based on one case and in total disregard for the numbers of adopters who longed, and desired, and waited and PAID and thn MURDERED the child entrusted to them!

And let's be clear hereabout this discrimination. this is not discrimination across the board for all single mother. Oh no! If you are single an can AFFORD to adopt - or have IVF or a surrogate - then you have rised above all other criteria and then single parentage will not be an undo strain or your child -- because of course, you can AFFORD a nanny!

Monday, November 24, 2008

Family Preservation Hero of the Year Award

For Immediate Release November 22, 2008
Family Preservation and Advocate Publications is proud to announce the recipients of the 2008 Hero of The Year Award: Jennifer and Todd Hemsley of Los Angeles, California.

Each year Family Preservation, the blog of, honors those unique and special people who go the extra mile to protect a natural family's integrity, often by preventing an unwarranted adoption separation and lifelong loss.

Jennifer and Todd Hemsley were selected for 2008 Hero of Year for their selfless courage in meeting these criterion, putting the best interest of an innocent child before their own desires. Suspicious about the confirming DNA test for the child they had hoped to bring home from Guatemala and make their own - they did the moral, albeit difficult thing - and stopped the adoption, losing large sums of money.(1)

With corruption rampant in adoption, those who adopt internationally - even through the most highly respected of agencies - have unwittingly found themselves the recipients of children who have been stolen, kidnapped, trafficked and sold to foreign orphanages(2).

Mirah Riben, author of "The Stork Market: America's Multi-Billion Dollar Unregulated Adoption Industry" said: "Every prospective to chose to be part of the problem and support unscrupulous baby brokers or be part of the solution." (3, 4)

The Hemsleys made a noble sacrifice and most deserving of recognition, not just for helping one child they had come to love, but also for bringing public attention to the crisis of international child trafficking for adoption. They are thus awarded 2008 Family Preservation Hero of the Year Award.

The Hemsleys will receive a certificate of honor as well as an autographed copy of The Stork Market in appreciation for their exemplary behavior in the face of being caught up on an horrific international crisis and personal moral dilemma. Their story will be reported in the revised second edition of The Stork Market.

Riben adds, "The Hemsleys are role models for all who consider international adoption, already making a mark. They have a real-life lesson for those who think, as they originally did, that it is OK to pay sums of money as a 'down payment' on a human life. We hope and pray that they child the Hemsleys nicknamed 'LaBoca' was returned safely to her family of origins and that the perpetrators were arrested and will be punished."(5)

Last year's recipient was Dr. Richard Boas, an American adoptive father launches campaign to help unwed Korean moms. (6)


(1) Llorca, Juan Carlos. 2008. To save adopted girl, Calif. couple gives her up'; Associated Press,
(2) Smolin, David.
(3) Riben, M. 2007. The Stork Market: America's Multi-Billion DollarUnregulated Adoption Industry
(4) Graff, E.J. 2008. "The Lies We Love", Foreign Policy.
(5) Close Your Eyes and Think of England -
(6) Helping Single Mothers and Ending Exports of Children.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Response to Heidi Saxton

Response To Heidi Saxton's Adoption Story

I appreciate Heidi Saxton’s interest in learning, hearing and hopefully understanding varying positions regarding adoption, despite having been barraged with responses to what felt to many of us as having been clumped under a negative “anti-adoption” umbrella. I am very encouraged to read her words: “It can be tempting to generalize about the motivations and agendas of others, and dismiss their beliefs out of hand – especially when their ideas about adoption conflict with your own.”

And so, believing in her sincerity in that statement, the dialogue continues with my response to her second article, which was far too lengthy to post as a comment, so here goes…

Saxton begins: “The fact that I am not myself adopted or a birthmother, to some people, means that I have no right to suggest that adoption is in many cases a better option for birthmothers than attempting to raise a child without the resources to do it properly.”

It is not because of who Heidi Saxton is, though it may in part be because of her life experience and her expressing herself through a filter of her interpretation Catholic doctrine, a view of adoption not accepted by all Catholics.

Whatever the root, it is the statement itself that is troubling to me: “without the resources.” Saxton begins with this and again, near the end of a lengthy article which then becomes a book review, she concludes:
“The unmarried couple who takes responsibility for their actions and puts the needs of their child first — whether that means marrying so they can raise the child together, making an adoption plan, or making sure one parent (usually the mother) has the long-term resources she needs to parent — should be supported in their efforts to plan for her child’s future. Inexperienced and overwhelmed birth parents may need help to gather the information they need to make informed decisions.”

“Making sure one parent (usually the mother) has the long-term resources she needs to parent.” In fact, Saxton mentions knowing of single mothers who are doing just fine, because they have ample resources and support. This raises the following questions:

- If someone lacks the resources, does that make them unfit to parent?
- Is it the sole responsibility of “the unmarried couple” to ensure the necessary resources?
- What is the moral choice of each of us as individuals and as a society as large to those who lack resources to raise their own families?
- Should babies be removed from those who lack the resources and given to others who have more?
- Why not “fix” the lack of resources issue and help the budding family remain intact?
- If a marriage – which Saxton considers sacrosanct – is floundering, do we suggest divorce, or provide resources for the couple such as counseling?

No one could disagree with Saxton’s belief that: “all things being equal — a child thrives best when he can remain with a biological parent.” Do we not as loving “Christians” or just good moral human beings and as a society have an obligation to make all things as equal as possible? Like providing day care even for those not able to afford nannies or private nursery school?

If Saxton is saying that after providing all support, options and resources a mother is still unable or unwilling to safely care for her child, then alternative care is needed…then we are on the same page. However, what she says is: “When a parent is unable or unwilling to provide this kind of environment, as a society we must tend to the needs of the children. For some, this means supporting birth parents that need assistance; for others, this means opening our homes to children whose parents cannot or will not provide the kind of environment these children need.”

So, indeed, it is a CHOICE whether to offer support to a struggling mother or not. WWJD?? Save the baby and flush the mother or try to save both? Quite the conundrum!

Is Marriage a Vital “Resource”?

In a comment to her former article on CE, I called Saxton biased. It was edited out, with a scolding note from the editor of the site. I did not, however, use the word biased to imply prejudice necessarily. I used it to mean “a particular tendency or inclination”, a leaning or mind-set. Clearly Saxton believes that it is the legal status of marriage – not just a man and a woman and certainly two people of the same gender – that is necessary to raise a child. This represents, IMO, a clear bias for marriage and against unmarried couples.

Saxton’s belief system assumes that raising a child is, and always has been, the realm of the legally married man and a woman; a “principle” she states “upon which every civilization has been built since the beginning of time.” Saxton is apparently unaware of matriarchal societies, or Israel’s kibbutzim and other societies in which the entire community takes responsibility for all of its children.

No one among us would argue that it is not extremely difficult for one person all alone, without any support from community or family to care for a child and no one should ever have to do so in such isolation and desperate conditions, despite the pro-adoptionists and baby brokers who paint that very grim picture to expectant mothers compared to a rosy, “perfect” – or at least “better” - alternative all wrapped in a white picket fence with a dog in the yard.

But, if we place all our eggs in the marriage basket as the be-all and end-all criterion for raising a child, what do we say about the 50% divorce rate? With that 50/50 chance of any marriage lasting throughout a child’s youth, not to mention parents who die, does it really matter that much if the child is born into wedded bliss which terminates, or if a marriage occurs a bit later on and is an influencing and positive force in the child’s life, providing necessary stability? Or, if the necessary resources are provided by sources other than a legal spouse? Interestingly, one of Saxton’s sisters lost a child even after being married. For her, as for many women, marriage is not such a protection after all, is it? Reuben Pannor, as well as Adam Pertman and other adoption experts have addressed the fact that married women also lose children to adoption and as the economy worsens we will see a growth in this population surrendering. I suggest Saxton check out:

It gets very hairy for Saxton when she attempts to “explain” parenthetically: “In the case of single adoptive parents, the child enjoys the loving attentions of someone who has chosen to parent, though it is always in the child’s best interest to have a loving mother and father.” Does this mean to imply that a single mother who births a child cannot also provide “loving attention”??? Isn’t what really meant is that it is ok if you can provide enough material “advantages” alone?

Having laid out the groundwork about needing “resources” – Saxton then turns her argument from the practical dollar-and-cents issues of raising children to the legal and moral issues. There three possibilities: One is that Saxton is concerned about single mothers being a drain on tax payers; two, is that she is concerned about the “sin” of unmarried sex, or; she truly believes that children need both a mother and a father and that this is not possible without legal marriage.


“[W]omen are often unfairly judged regardless of the choices they make regarding an unplanned pregnancy. Women who choose to put a baby up for adoption have their maternal instincts questioned and women who carry an unplanned pregnancy to full term when unmarried or financially insecure are often labeled irresponsible. In our culture…women are too often and too readily judged. Our efforts should not be to judge women. Rather, our goal should be to support women.”

Is Saxton unfairly being judged? She seems to think so. Is she unfairly judging others with anti-adoption labels and such? I call it as I see it and feel and Saxton’s firm belief in marriage feels judgmental to me. I appreciate that she makes “no apologies for speaking from a faith-based perspective” and begins her arguments with: “Christians who believe that…” In so doing, however, one then must accept that their opinions are based on a narrow belief system and are thus going to be viewed as being judgmental by those of us outside that belief system.

Perhaps because Saxton is writing for a Catholic blog, there is an assumption that the audience all start from that same position. Perhaps then, the blog should require a registration that questions one belief system, but it does not. It is an open forum on the Internet discussing a topic – adoption – that crosses and surpasses all religious belief and dogma. It is being read and commented to by those with a variety of moral beliefs. And, in fact – as Saxton recognizes – even within and among Christians there are differences and she thus does not speak for or represent the beliefs of all Christians – just herself.

Saxton mentions that one of the reasons her parents chose another couple over her to raise heir grandchild was because she was a catholic as “opposed to” a Christian (apparently her parents had some biases). Yet, despite knowing that dome people feel this way, Saxton professes to speak, not just for Catholics, but to be able to present
a “Christian” perspective”?

Jesus himself made a big point of honoring prostitutes. Why do you suppose that is so? And when he used the term “widow” it referred – at the time – to any woman raising a child without a husband. Christians, like mothers who have lost children to adoption, are not entirely homogeneous in their beliefs.

Mistakes? Puzzles?

Saxton is puzzled why it is “that when birth mothers acknowledge that it was a mistake to get pregnant, and go on to choose adoption, they are often commended as ‘courageous’ (and rightfully so). … However, anyone else who says that it is a ‘mistake’ (or ‘wrong’) for unmarried women to get pregnant, or that adoption is a better option for those who are unable to parent, is branded ‘judgmental’ and ‘naïve’.”

I suggest Saxton remember her own words: “one size does not fit all.” SOME mothers may feel their pregnancy was a “mistake.” Many believe the only “mistake” and regret lies not with being human and being sexual, but with not being able to fight harder to keep their family together despite the pressured placed upon them to do the “courageous” and “right” thing and thus lose their child forever.

When you come to understand that women lose children to adoption for a variety of reasons and come from all walks of life and all different life circumstances prior to that one occurrence, you understand that not all deal with the loss in the same way, because they do not share one set of beliefs, thoughts, values, strengths, weaknesses, or emotional reactions to their loss. One person often changes their coping mechanisms around the traumatic loss over their lifetime.

Many are in denial. Some are stuck forever in justifying that what they did was right and go one to adopt others’ children or in some way live to prove the righteousness of their ‘decision.” Others are vehemently anti-adoption and live their life focused on ending the unnecessary, unwarranted separations of mothers and their babies. And, likely, the vast majority sway back and forth in their emotions and beliefs, or are somewhat neutral most, or all, of the time.


If Saxton is saying that after providing all support, options and resources a mother is still unable or unwilling to safely care for her child, then alternative care is needed…then we are on the same page.

Why did Saxton, who states that reunification with one’s family is good, feel the need to pray for and label as “callous” someone believing it a lovely thing to have both mothers at one’s wedding?

“All of us — from birth to natural death — can only do our best to live according to the light we’ve been given.” Amen. And as Saxton also said: “a child thrives best when he can remain with a biological parent.”

Friday, November 21, 2008

Morally Bankrupt

Our country is not just financially bankrupt - it is morally bankrupt as well.

It is estimated that some 1500 people watched a teen ager die online after ingesting a lethal dose of sleeping pills and did nothing to try to stop him. Where is the humanity? Where is any sense of responsibility? Is life just a spectator sport?

What is our responsibility to strangers when in Nebraska more than 30 children - mostly teens - have been abandoned in recent months by their parents. 20/20 interviewed two tearful mothers who claim they had no other option but to simply open the car door, kiss their kid goodbye, and drive off!

Have we totally lost all connections to one another on a human level?

We live isolated in nuclear families - often just mothers and their children. No extended family. No support systems.

Have we destroyed all meaning of "family" by dissociating it from biology? Children are created in test tubes from purchased sprn[m and eggs, carried by "surrogate" rental wombs, redistributed through adoption...

Children are possessions to be bragged about when they are cute, smart, wel behaved...and, like another possession: disposed of when they disappoint.

Without connection to our biology, how can we possibly connect to a stranger on the Internet and feel any human compassion or kindness?

Humans, seem in many instances to have used our great big huge brains to evolve into the lowest form of life...

Tonight, another teen found this disconnect unbearable to live with. We hope he's in a
"better place." I mourn for Abraham Bigg...and pray for the souls of those who watched and did nothing.

Loosing our jobs, watching our savings dwindle, holds no candle to losing our humanity.

Let Them Hear from You!

Birth moms who choose adoption deserve support for their decision

By Gloria Whitcraft
For The News-Sentinel

During November, National Adoption Month, I'd like to call attention to some of the greatest unsung heroes I know: birth moms who choose adoption.

Did you know that in our country today, many people feel it's morally wrong to place a baby for adoption? It's true. The birth moms we see at Shepherd's Gate often experience a lack of support from family, friends and society for their consideration of adoption as a viable option.

But in my opinion, what our birth parents are doing is one of the most loving and selfless things anyone could ever do. Many parents we work with are hurting and confused. Most are uninformed about the facts of adoption, their rights and who truly has their best interests at heart. What they need most is not our condemnation but our respect. Respect for looking at the pregnancy from their unborn child's perspective instead of thinking only of themselves.

That's why we at Shepherd's Gate place so much emphasis on birth mothers. In almost 100 years of placing children with adoptive families, we have found that the best adoptions occur when the birth parents have received education, counseling and support regarding their decision to place their baby with a loving family.

That's why we've seen so many successful outcomes, because we support birth moms whether they make the decision to parent or to place. We are here to work with women who are pregnant and don't know what to do, not to pressure them into a decision. Surprisingly, adoptive parents who are waiting anxiously for a child support this approach. They care very much about how the birth parents are treated, because they too want what is best for the child.
So during this month as we focus national attention on adoption, let's honor birth parents who either place their babies for adoption or parent the child themselves. Because ultimately, we want them to make a decision they — and the baby — can live with. And that's worth celebrating.

Gloria Whitcraft is director of Shepherd's Gate, a division of Lutheran Social Services of Indiana that provides quality services to birth parents and adoptive families. To learn more, go to or call their 24/7 hotline at 1-260-494-8687.


Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Stop Legal Child Abandoment!

Nebraska, the last state to enact such legislation, went further than all other states. Nebraska's LB157 allows any person to abandon any child up to the age of 19. Since its passage last summer, 34 children and teens have been abandoned in Nebraska at hospital and other sites. Some of these children were adopted; several were driven from out of state.

Family Presrvation supports Bastard Nation call for the immediate and PERMANENT repeal of LB 157 as well as any and all attempts to impose any baby dump/Baby Moses, safe haven bill on the people of Nebraska.

Nebraska’s LB 1 and LB 3, two alternatives to LB157, were introduced on Nov. 14th. LB1 would change the safe haven law to apply to infants 72 hours or younger. LB 3 would create a 2-tiered system of "legal abandonment": one for infants up to one year of age; the other for children between the ages of 1 and 16.

The second tier would also create regional and state "intervention teams" to assist families in abandonment crisis enabling them to access services and avoid abandoning their children if possible. There is no intervention team for infants and their moms.

Nebraska's experience proves that abandonment is unacceptable at any age. The legislature must concentrate on saving Nebraska families rather than saving only the infants, who by the way, are in high demand in the adoption world.

You are encouraged to contact Nebraska legislators at once because bills introduced on the opening day of the Unicam session, Nov. 14th, will be eligible for final passage as early as this Friday, Nov. 21st.

If you are a constituent from Nebraska please say so. While letters from Nebraska residents may be counted differently, it is important for legislators to hear from ALL of us and to know that legal abandonment of infants or children of ANY age – by anyone – is not a solution for troubled families any civilized government should support.

This is an opportunity to have your voices heard!

Information links:

Nebraska legislators provided in a form you can copy and past into one email:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Help Dr. Joyce Brothers

Last updated November 17, 2008 9:53 a.m. PT
Steer pregnant daughter toward adoption, but don't demand it


DEAR DR. BROTHERS: We are sick with worry about our 17-year-old daughter, who last month told us she is pregnant. She has seen a couple of classmates raising babies with a lot of help from their families. We are not willing to do this. We want to help her give up the baby for adoption (abortion is out of the question). She is getting more and more upset because she wants to keep it, and doesn't realize that this will ruin her life. The father is not known. What do we say to her? -- P.T.

DEAR P.T.: I'm sorry your family is facing this crisis, but as long as you are all working on this together, you have a good chance of weathering the storm. I am glad to hear that your daughter was able to confide in you about her unplanned pregnancy; you must now be very careful to not make her wish she hadn't told you. And by that, I don't mean give in to her demands to keep the baby. It is her life, and of course she can keep the baby and struggle along, or she can give in and give it up. But the fact that you can't be helpful grandparents right now ultimately may turn your daughter against you. If she sees that there is no other choice than to give up the baby to a family more able to care for a child, she may never forgive you. Or she may thank you. Right now, there's no way of knowing.

The fact that your daughter does not know who the father is should trouble you greatly. She sounds like a girl who has been looking for love in all the wrong places -- and thinks she will now have someone to love and be loved by in return. That's admirable, but also sad. So, your job now is to give her all the information and help you can with a view toward adoption, [???] and let her know that afterward [how about being there NOW!] you will be there for her with the love she wants and needs. If she ignores your advice, you will have to look into your hearts and see just how unconditional that love is.

Write to Dr. Joyce Brothers via King Features, 888 Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10019.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

The Lie We Love

THE SCHUSTER INSTITUTE is pleased to announce the results of our year-long investigation into corruption in international adoption. These troubling findings have profound implications for private lives and public policy.


The story of "orphaned" infants and toddlers in developing countries who need to be whisked away to adoring moms and dads in faraway lands is largely a myth, reports our investigative article "The Lie We Love."

The reality: over the past two decades, there have been serious irregularities in international adoption—buying, defrauding, coercing, and kidnapping children away from their families. Read the article to learn how, where, and why. Click to hear: E.J. Graff on New Hampshire Public Radio's "Word of Mouth"!

Learn more: Supporting Documentation about International Adoption Corruption.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

In Memroium

Thanksgiving '08 - Without Alicia

The winter darkness closes in
Blocks the light of day, the light of hope
Holidays created to bring artificial light and cheer
Friends and family to lighten the spirit
can instead

be reminders of what is not present

Thanksgiving 1995 was on Thursday, Nov. 23rd
What friends were there with her? What family?

Then came Chanukah.
Who came to her humble rented room in Clifton, New Jersey?
What invitations? Phone calls?

Did the one who had coveted her just 27 years prior…
sought her out
Took from those who loved her
Did the one appointed “mother”
The one who did not come on
February 27, 1995
to identify her self-silenced, cold corpse
who did not claim her earthly remains
did not kiss her goodbye and put her to rest...

Did she call and wish her a Happy Holiday?
Invite her to join the family for dinner?
To eat and rejoice?

Or were they all too busy with their own lives to care?
The ones she called her brothers; "family"?

Or, had they given up?
Lost hope in the “nice Jewish” Barbie Doll
they had bought
who did not perform and meet their expectations?

Had she been left alone to fend for herself?
Abandoned by her alleged “forever family”?

Did she feel like a disappointment to them?
Not meeting the standards her “brothers” had met?

Did I not too let her down?
I wasn’t there either. Didn’t call.
Abandoned her yet again when she was at her lowest.
My lot to live with. My cross to bear…

As the darkness closes in.
As it did on February 27, 1995…

What had she to be thankful for?

Was Alicia’s prayer :
Look on my right hand, and see,
for there is no man that knoweth me;
I have no way to flee;
no man careth for my soul.

Did she cry out asking who is her refuge in the land of the living?

Did she pray:
Attend unto my cry; for I am brought very low;
deliver me from my persecutors;
for they are too strong for me.
Bring my soul out of prison…

Were her prayers heard?

miles away and years away
a tiny candle will flicker in the darkness.

A Yahrzeit light…a memorial

For 24 hours the flame will flicker
In a state of unsettled unstillness
Swaying this way and that
Dimming at times and then flashing brightly

For she who lived her life like a candle in the rain

Never Knowing....

Please visit Alica at: and
She lives on in our hearts...and in the work to preserve natural families...

"Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage: anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they don’t remain the way they are."
St. Augustine

Friday, November 14, 2008

Adoption on TV

Seems like you cannot watch a TV show without adoption being written into the plot of comedies, dramas or whatever....

Two I caught just this week were an episode of Brothers and Sisters on ABC with Calista Flockhart and Sally Field (daughter and mother). If you've never seen it it gets bonus points for being ultra progressive and edgy - not just one gay brother - but also an uncle who came out of the closet in his 60's!

Calista's character is married to a handsome senator played by Rob Lowe. They have gone through infertility issues and in the current episode me "their birthmother." They must have said "our birthmother" no less than ten times! Ironically, the expectant mom - a very together DOCTOR - turned the down ans so will not be "their birthmother" after all...not that she ever was or would have been even she handed them her child to raise. Guess next episode they'll find a younger less together mom to exploit.

On the Comedy Chanel, the very bizarre Sarah Silverman Program. Sarah is -- quite simply : crazy. A few pieces missing in her puzzle. Lots of nuts in her trail mix. She is looked after by her sister but manages to get into one ridiculous mess after another.

In the most recent episode she finds herself pregnant and realizes that she is barely able to care for herself, let alone a child and decides on adoption to the great relief of her sister who says she'd like to adopt her baby. The highlight of the show was an hysterical scene in which she has her sister and boyfriend to her house with three other couples and they all state their 'case' vying for her baby. Undecided, Sarah decides the best way to chose is to have a bumper car race!

On the plus side, a favorite of mine, Boston Legal, (also ABC) did an episode about a 15-year old who wants an abortion against the wishes of her mother. She hires the firm to represent her to get an override to needing her mother's consent. In court she plead sher case that she is of sound mid and knows what she wants and it is not to be a mother at this time in ehr life. She goes into detail about how having a child now would ruin her education and thus hr life...she'd wind up on welfare, etc., etc.

Amazingly, the word adoption was mentioned just once and dropped! Truly amazing under the circumstances set up by the plot. I could have been the perfect solution!

One blogger noticed the phenomenon as well and saw it on some other shows:

What shows have you seen with adoption plots?

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

We are Being Heard: Part II

We are a force to be reckoned with! The Catholic Exchange fear "anti-adoptions" are the cause of increased abortions. Old news...all of it.

In a very poorly written article that uses circular illogic, Heidi H. Saxton contradicts herself left and right. Heidi Hess Saxton is the author of "Raising Up Mommy" and founder of the Extraordinary Moms Network, an online resource for mothers of adopted, fostered, and special needs children. She and her husband foster-adopted their two children in 2002.

You need to read the whole article, but here are some highlights:

Saxton admits that whil there are people who want chidlren, and while thre are half a million kids needing fostering and possibly could be adopted - they are not wanted. She makes no apology for this fact of human behavior., nor doe sshe see any need for catholics or others to redress this imblanace and inhumanity.

Now...she is of course far more concerned with the babies of tens who she believes are being "pressured" to parent! Ignoring the very recent public announcments by Sarah Palin, and as if she lives in a time machine stuck in the 60's, Saxton says:

Women in crisis pregnancies who are considering adoption may have second thoughts when faced with the very real possibility that their “past” may come knocking on their door twenty or thirty years hence, disrupting their lives with demands and recriminations.

I am kind of offended that neither I, my book, nor Origins-USA was mentioned among the examples of anti-adoptionists. Instead she singles out and quotes from the very benign Adoption Mystique, along with:
grass roots, anti-adoption advocacy groups such as “Bastard Nation” and “Adoption: Legalized Ties” are seeking to discourage adoption, choosing rather to advocate for disgruntled adult adoptees and “natural parents,” including those whose children were taken from them because of abuse and neglect.

Part of the "attack" is on birthparents by adoptees is seeking their records. !!

Perhaps, my favorite quote is:
Adoption gives children wounded by the choices of their first parents a second chance to heal. Granted, it does not completely shield the child from the consequences of her first parents’ choices. There is no way to shield the child entirely — that is the nature of sin.

and this:

On the other hand, through adoption (even open adoption, in which the birth parents maintain a level of contact after the placement), a child is helped to make the most of their own natural giftings and eradicate the worst of their natural weaknesses.

She uses an actual limb amputation as an example of "getting over it"! As if a piece of flesh and bone with no soul is comparable to one's family!!! Was she absent the day her religion taught about human beings - like the unborn babies she advocates for - having a SOUL?!

We cannot change history; we can only acknowledge and learn from it, grieve our losses, forgive those who have hurt us … and move forward.

Heidi - human beings are unique and different. Did anyone teach you that? You admit that not all adoptive parents are perfect...why then do you group together all adoptees and beleive they shoudl all feel like your sister who lost her lefg? Can you understand that they each have their own way of dealing with their loss? Some may! Some may feel very, very differently.

And don't even get me started about rights! Adult adoptees, you claim, have no right to use the "best interest" argument and have no right "violate" alleged promises that were never made! Why are you so concerned about the rights of those you refer to as sinners???

Adoptees are not all of one mind. neither are mothers who lose their childre - voluntariliy or involuntarily. neher are all ypu group ogether as 'anti-adoptionist" of one mind or share the same mission or goals? BN has quitea different agenda than Legalized Lies! prhaps as different as you, as a Ctaholic difefr in your vbeleifs from Sarah palin's Pentecostal Assembly of God. And thank goodness...because SHE saw the path of life without loss for her duaghter and grandchild. All pro-lifers shoudl take a lesson from her on that one.

Adoption involves a major loss and should NOT en encouraged or promoted - it should always be a LAST RESORT after all attempts at keeping a family together have failed!

And - Heidi - please read my book (The Stork Market) if you want some anti-adoption material to argue!

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

We ARE Being Heard!!!

National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Encyclopedia of Social Work. 20th Edition 2008:
  • “Not every child will be better off adopted than in long-term foster care or guardianship.” (p.37).
  • “Not everyone believes that adoption is of great value to children and American society.” (p.41).
  • “Adoption foes are gaining greater attention as they argue that adoption is a cause of trauma to children and birth parents and that both experience irreparable harm from their separations.” (p.41)
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Policy Statements on Foster Care and Adoption (20th Edition, 2006-09):
  • “Our profession is called to prioritize family preservation and permanency in child welfare.” (p.165).
  • “Neither foster care nor adoptions services should be used merely because they provide a convenient choice in a difficult situation.” (p.167)
  • “The needs and rights of adoptees to know their birth origin should be recognized and respected.” (p.170).
That's the good news: We are being heard. And, we have our views substantiated by an authoritative body.

The bad news? The NASW and social workers do not make adoption policy and never have. Noe does the CWLA who has set "guidelines" for ethical practices. All adoption experts were against sealed records form the very beginning and said so and were ignored!

The sad reality? Adoption is no longer under any control by social workers or any government regulation, other than that which regulates any business (read commerce)!

Acknowledgment: My gratitude to Harry Kuhn, MSW for locating these quotes which help support and further our cause.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Will "Changeling" Change Angelina Jolie?

Have you seen the trailers: Angelina Jolie clutching her chest ala Sarah Bernhardt, shouting agonizingly and painfully: “I want my son!”

Clint Eastwood chose a story so incredible, were it not true, it would still have made a good (albeit unbelievable) movie. But knowing it actually occurred makes the facts of the rampant police corruption and elaborate cover-ups, including institutionalizing women who are a risk to the maintenance of their power and control…extraordinary.

Also notable was the recreation of California in the 20’s and 30’s and excellent performances by relatively unknown child actors.

But what amazes and intrigues the most is the star of the film, Angelina Jolie (who wore makeup, even while committed to a mental hospital!). The irony of this woman who takes others peoples children like trophies or stray kittens or a collection of ceramic dolls playing this role is incredulous!

Does Jolie the woman - Jolie the mother – dissociate totally from Jolie the actress playing the role of a mother suffering the loss of a child? Does she use some reverse form of method acting to not feel the agony of a mother’s inability to accept an interchangeable child for her “own”?

Amy Ryan’s character, Carol Dexter, “gets it.” She identifies with Jolie’s character, Christine Collins, because Dexter has lost two children because of incompetent medical care.

In an additional irony, Carol Dexter, who is also incarcerated in the psyche ward, shares with Christine the secret to staying safe in the loony bin. Counseling Christine (the new fish) to eat and act “normal,” Dexter explains that if you smile too much, you look delusional/hysterical; if you cry, you're depressed; and if you show no emotions, you are emotionally devoid/catatonic. Click here for a clip of this scene.

I was struck by the fact that these are the very same criteria social workers of the 60’s used to judged “unwed” mothers – already a suspiciously deviant lot for having “gotten themselves” pregnant.

Angie please...stop the insanity! The kids you take have family, they have cultures that you pluck them from. They have mothers who cry for them...and just like Christine Collins, never give up the hope of seeing them again.

Art, in this case is far more real than the world of Angelina Jolie in which mothers are interchangeable.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Adoption Today Magazine Review by Denise Roessle

Adoption Today Oct/Nov 2008(pages 58-59).

The Stork Market: America’s multi-billion dollar unregulated adoption industry,” Mirah Riben, Advocate Publications, 2007

The Stork Market is not an easy read, whatever your perspective on adoption. Chances are you will squirm, gasp and shake your head in disbelief (as I did). Then, you will likely come to realize that this book is an important addition to the body of adoption literature — in fact, a must-read for every mother who is considering surrendering a child, every couple seeking to adopt, and every adoption professional and legislator in the United States.

You won’t find a more straightforward account of the adoption industry as it exists today. Concise, well researched and documented, The Stork Market offers a comprehensive history of current adoption practices, including the lack of regulations (no requirements for training, licensing and reporting) for agencies and facilitators in 47 of our 50 states, transgressions committed against both natural mothers and adopting parents (including recognizable names like Georgia Tann and Seymour Kurtz), varying international adoption policies, trends toward rushing mothers into the decision to surrender, unenforceable open adoption agreements, safe havens, foster care, and sealed records.

Mirah Riben’s conclusion (a view shared by Origins-USA, on whose board of directors she serves) is that family preservation is the answer — with kinship adoption and legal guardianship as viable alternatives to adoption by strangers, the end to amended birth certificates, enforcement of open adoption agreements, and a greater focus on finding families for older children in foster care.

“It is far easier for the general public to identify and empathize with the plight of someone who desires to be a parent and cannot, than with expectant mothers needing support,” Riben writes. Many in the media “lament the ‘shame’ of the lack of ‘adoptable’ babies, and describe painfully desperate attempts to adopt and ‘deserving’ couples being forced to endure long waiting periods, traveling overseas and/or paying exorbitant fees, and being victimized by scammers. What is overlooked is that the intended purpose of adoption is not to fix infertility but to find homes for children whose families cannot raise them.”

After reading The Stork Market, I believe family preservation is an aim worthy of our consideration and effort. At the very least, major reforms are in order. Riben (along with Evelyn Robinson, a social worker, author and speaker on the long-term outcomes of adoption separation, who has lived and worked in Australia since 1982 and wrote the book’s foreword) cites Australia’s Children’s Protection Act of 1993, an adoption alternative model based on the best interests of children that might well provide a road map for changes here in America. The act makes private adoption illegal, bans commercial adoption agencies and payments of any kind connected to adoptions, encourages and supports expectant mothers in raising their children, requires counseling after birth at least three days prior to consent for adoption, prohibits consent for adoption until the child is at least fourteen days old, and includes the names of both the natural and adoptive parents on the birth/adoption certificate.

Change of this magnitude takes years. In the meantime, The Stork Market provides vital information on mothers’ and fathers’ rights and how adoptive parents can avoid being victimized by unscrupulous agencies and facilitators.

“Adoption is a very personally and emotionally charged issue for those touched by it,” Riben acknowledges. “Few can think about or discuss it without passion. For that reason, this may be a difficult or painful book for some to read. It may make you sad, it may shock you, or it may make you angry. But it is for just these reasons that you might need to read it.”

I hope you do.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Material Girl Divorce Confirmed

All the Guy Ritchie/ Madonna divorce rumors have been confirmed. It's official.

So...while in the process of trying to take yet another Malawian child from her family... sweet, pure Kabalah- following songstress who still struts half naked for crowd at 50...
has been committing adultery!

This was Guy Ritchie's first marriage, and it is alleged he requested no pre-nup. He's 40, but even that ten year edge couldn't help him keep up with her veracious appetite for men, things and kids! A-Rod is just 33 and far more athletic -- and darker skinned. Maybe he can keep her happy for a couple o' years.

Maybe... Madonna, but he's got a lot to be compared with. The Diva has been "romantically" linked with: John Kennedy Jr., Warren Beatty, Lenny Kravitz, Sandra Bernhard, Vanilla Ice, Dennis Rodman, and magician David Blaine. Not to mention Guy Ritchie and Sean Penn to whom Madonna - aka Louise Veronica Ciccone: August 16, 1958 in Bay City, Michigan - married in Malibu, California, on August 16, 1985 in a very public wedding. The marriage lasted four years and ended in divorce on September 14, 1989.

Well, this time she made it 8 years...officially...however, in 2005, Madonna revealed that she had thought about divorce, but instead the couple adopted David Banda, from Malawi.

Though the superstar couple's marriage looked finished in the summer when Madonna was spotted with New York Yankees baseball star Alex Rodriguez, Madonna, apparently had wanted to wait until the end of her latest world tour before announcing the split.

And judging from her body-builder looking muscles in photos of her latest tour, she and A-Rod may have been sharing more than bodily fluids - perhaps a steroid cocktail or two?

Though I feel sorry for her kids (for so many reasons), I for one have prayed for this announcement in the hopes it will put an end to her quest to take yet another child away from her family and add it to this circus. Can anyone translate adulterous slut into Malawian and get them the word? David Banda's father had said he beleived her to be a "good Christian" woman. Yeah right!

State Separates Family - For No Good Reason!!

I know of no one - not even the most radical anti-adoptionist - who advocates for keeping children in an unsafe home.

Why in heaven's name would a child be taken from family - and given to strangers of another race - when there is extended family begging to care for them?

Why is CAROLLYNN SMITH, 63, a grandmother who has proven herself a more than capable of parenting of five of their siblings having to battle to even SEE two of her grandchildren?

This is sheer insanity on the part of state bureaucrats who punch some formula into a computer and decide that Smith is too old and single instead of seeing the humanity and common sense involved.

As a result of Smith's persistence and picketing, community organizers and neighborhood activists have now joined her in her pursuit of justice for Kofi and C'Lynn.

Jan Meskimen, a retired Portland Public Schools teacher who was among the first in Oregon to adopt inter-racially. Having raised an African American daughter and granddaughter through adoption (Meskimen is white), she said she knows how difficult it is for African American kids adopted by white families.

"She needs to get her grandkids," said Meskimen. "Because you can love other people's children, love them all you want, but that biological connection, the heritage and culture, it binds them all together. The other kids need to be part of that."

Smith agrees saying she not prejudiced, but "I feel like family should be with family. Blood should be with blood."

That families should be with families - who want them and can care fr them should be the first LAW of good social work! It is a moral imperative! To not do so in unconscionable as stated by Garren, a family therapist who worked as a children's social worker in South Central Los Angeles for three years before coming to Portland in 2005, is concerned about Smith's situation and is hoping to draw attention to it.

"If you want to create homeless people and drug addicts, you cause this kind of trauma in their early childhood," says Garren. "The kids are already living with strangers, and wondering why they can't see grandma. The fact that the department could not only arrange but basically encourage and support a situation like this is unconscionable."

Time is running out

Kofi and C'Lynn's adoption becomes final at a court hearing before Judge Nan Waller in Multnomah County Family Court on October 30. Smith is currently fighting the case without an attorney.

If you live in Oregon please join the campaign by writing letters to the editor in your state to bring Kofi and C'Lynn's HOME to their loving, caring FAMILY!

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Angelina IRONY

It's called Changeling.

It's a new movie based on a true story of a missing child in th 1920s. Synopsis: “A mother’s prayer for her kidnapped son to return home is answered, though it doesn’t take long for her to suspect the boy who comes back is not hers.”

To find her son, she did what no one else dared."

Changeling is directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Angelina Jolie...the woman who "collects" children.

Watch the preview and hear Angelina Jolie scream: "I want my son back!"

Hear her say: "I know my son my son is out there...I can still feel him."

I understand that acting is acting...but does she make no connection whatsoever between the emotions she is portraying in this distraught mother and the mothers of the children she has "bought"?

Sunday, October 5, 2008


When two children -- two adopted children -- end up dead in a block of ice hidden in their mother's freezer, the entire child welfare apparatus flies into a panic.

Almost immediately after the news broke about the gruesome case of Renee Bowman and her children, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty called a news conference to say that the city had done no wrong (the family lived in Maryland, but the children had been adopted in the District). The Baltimore-based agency that cleared Bowman to adopt dropped into a defensive crouch from which it has yet to emerge. And social workers braced for another round of outraged cries for heads to roll.

It sure looks like someone messed up. You might think that the people charged with investigating Bowman before she adopted one child in 2001 and two others in 2004 should have known and raised alarms about facts such as these: Bowman was convicted of threatening bodily harm to a 72-year-old motorist just two years before the first adoption; she may have had an abusive mate; she filed for bankruptcy protection in 2001; she described her childhood to friends as akin to that of "an abused dog"; and her own mother had been a homeless wanderer of the city's streets.

Now we learn that Maryland's social services agency got a complaint accusing Bowman of child neglect last January, sent a caseworker to the house and concluded that everything was fine -- "clean and appropriately furnished," though with a funky smell that was attributed to mildew.

Still, it is possible, as Fenty and some adoption advocates argue, that everyone did their jobs, that Bowman passed every screening, and that whatever went horribly wrong in her life happened only after she had adopted the children.

The problem is, we can't know. And the fact is, it is our business.

In the reflexively privacy-obsessed world of adoptions, it is somehow an imposition if the public wants to know where the state's wards end up, who is collecting the stipends taxpayers shell out to encourage adoption and how all that money is being spent. We know best, social workers say.
But anytime public money is involved, it's the public's job to demand oversight and accountability, and the only road to that goal is transparency.

I met Adam Pertman many years ago when he was a foreign correspondent for the Boston Globe. After experiencing the joys and frustrations of adoption, he left the news business to advocate for those who give that loving gift of parenthood. Now, as director of the Adoption Institute, he understands both instincts: the newsman's passionate belief that sunshine is the best medicine, and the adoption world's embrace of secrecy to protect children and grant adoptive parents the same rights birth parents enjoy.

When he trains social workers, Pertman tells them: "Your secrets don't do you any good. The only time you get in the news is when someone dies, and it's because you won't give out any information. "

The roots of that secrecy lie in the not-so-distant past, when adoption carried a powerful stigma. "This is a whole institution built on stigma and secrecy and shame," Pertman says, "on people being told to lie for the rest of their lives. You didn't tell your children they were adopted. Amazingly, we got to the other side, and adoption is no longer anything to be ashamed or embarrassed about. But the remnants of that era of secrecy are profound."

Executives at the Board of Child Care, the Methodist church-affiliated agency that investigated Bowman's suitability for adoption, would not talk to me. The top boss didn't even return my call. The reflex is to circle the wagons and board up the windows.

Luckily, some see that public trust is essential. Janice Goldwater, who runs Adoptions Together, a private agency in Silver Spring not connected to the Bowman case, opened her files so I could see how exhaustively her social workers investigate families being considered as adoptive parents.

Adoptive parents tell me they feel as if they've had a colonic irrigation of their finances, family history and even their sex lives. Social workers interview friends, relatives and co-workers; examine tax, criminal and credit records; and ask about religion, guns, drugs and corporal punishment. Families are rejected if they are likely to spank the child, keep unlocked guns in the house or put the child to sleep on a bunk bed or sofa bed.

And somehow a Renee Bowman gets through. How? The pathetic truth is that people inside the system already know that answer, but the rest of us might never know.

The legacy of secrecy lives on. Goldwater, who has an adopted child as well as three birth children, was appalled to see that her adopted child's birth certificate was rewritten to show Goldwater and her husband as the birth parents, a deception that fools no one.

Goldwater and Pertman are both wary of making adoption records public, even in a case that ends in an awful crime. Once an adoption has been completed, they argue, the parents should have the same rights as a birth parent.

But the public has an obligation to children who were placed by the government. Bowman, for example, received $2,400 a month in federal money to defray the cost of raising her three children. In the current system, there is no way to see if that money is being spent as intended.

"There are sound, competent professionals doing this work," Goldwater says. "We have to show people that, not hide anytime something bad happens."

UPDATE (11 A.M.): Matthew Fraidin, a law professor at the University of the District of Columbia law school, this morning passes along an email by Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, arguing for opening up adoption hearings, as 15 states have already done:

Even journalists who disagree with my organization on everything else usually find common ground with us on one point: The enormous harm done to children by the secrecy that permeates child welfare - the closed court hearings and sealed records.

So I'm surprised the Post hasn't done what many other newspapers have in the wake of child abuse tragedies - demanded, over and over, that, at a minimum, the court hearings be opened.

One of the reasons the child welfare system in Allegheny County, Pa. is, relatively speaking, a national model, is that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette crusaded to get the courts opened, and then followed up with outstanding reporting on what was going on there.

Since 1980 about 15 states have truly opened these hearings. And even though many of these began as pilot projects with sunset dates, not one of these states has closed them again. And in state after state onetime opponents of openness became converts. It's been harder to get records open, but there has been some progress there as well.

How might that have helped in the most recent tragedy? Here's an excerpt from an e-mail that Prof. [Matthew] Fraidin of UDC Law School sent yesterday to Petula Dvorak [The Post's reporter who's been covering the Bowman case]:

"Petula, don't you want to open up the court's file of the adoption cases to see what is in there? Don't you want to listen to the tape of the adoption proceedings, or read a transcript? The neglect case files of the children would tell you when Ms. Bowman entered the children's lives, what their condition was when they went to live with her, whether the social worker and GAL and judge really gave Ms. Bowman any scrutiny: did the s/w or GAL visit the children regularly before the adoptions were granted? CFSA (and the Board of Child Care, the private agency that licensed Ms. Bowman) have files, too, showing what Ms. Bowman told them, whether they checked it out, how well they knew her, whether they watched her with the children, whether they wondered why her employment ended in 2000, whether they explored her bankruptcy filings in 2000 and 2001. Etc., etc. and so on and so forth.

There is a WORLD of information in the court files and in CFSA's files, and a puzzle in there that, if put together thoughtfully, could save children's lives. What happened? How? Why? Were there shortcuts? What assumptions were made? What pressures were the social worker and GAL (who probably was carrying 75 to 100 cases at the time) under? ..."

In New York State, Family Courts were opened by order of Judith Kaye, Chief Judge of New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals. No one has made the case better. Said Judge Kaye: "Sunshine is good for children."

Isn't it time to demand that the courts in D.C. let the sunshine in?

A Very Moving Video

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Stop the Blasphemy!

WARNING: The following may be offensive to some. My use of pro-life arguments is not meant to demean their original intent - only to show how they apply equally to argue against adoption and for family preservation.

I found this while shopping for an Adoption Sucks tee - which I didn't find!
It says: "Childbirth is an act of nature.
Adoption is an act of God"

To thee I sayeth:

You formed my inmost being;
You knit me in my mother's womb.
I praise you, so wonderfully you made me;
Wonderful are your works!
Psalms 139:13-16 [New American]

YOU, God, knit me in my mother's womb! What do those words mean? How can anyone who believes in God, or who claims to, not believe that very creation of life and its coimng to fruition at birth are not within His domain? This "nature" and outside the realm of the Almighty? HUH? What bible are these people reading? The Gospel of NCFA?

To thee I sayeth:

  • They claim to know God, but they deny him by their actions. They are detestable, disobedient, and disqualified to do anything good. Titus 1:16

  • The promises of God are not for us to claim rashly, to protect us while we rush on recklessly into danger, violating the laws of nature or disregarding prudence and the judgment God has given us to use. This would not be genuine faith but presumption. . . . 1MCP 25.1

  • God loves His creatures with a love that is both tender ans strong. He has established the laws of mature, but His are not arbitrary extractions. 2MCP 411.1

  • "It is I who bring both death and life." Deuteronomy 32:39

  • "Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?" Job 31:15

Do Not Take God's Name in Vain!

If you believe in God, then you generally accept God as Omnipotent and Omniscient ruler of the universe, He therefore extends His providence to all things, overseeing them and maintaining them in a condition to fulfill His ultimate purpose. God therefore created the present world as a perfect place to fulfill His purpose, with all nature under His command. Nature is simply the law God established at the time of creation, which regulates the processes of this world in accordance with the principle of cause and effect.

Is not every flower, every rainbow, every baby not proof of God's existence, for those who believe n God? Are WE not all God's creations? Mad in his image? Or does that happen to babies only after they are adopted? If so...why aren't ALL babies adopted?

Adoption is purely LEGAL construct, folks! If God created adoption then he also created divorce, and executions.

Stop this blasphemy! Next you'll be followers of the church of blasphemous Rosie O'Donnell who tells her adopted kid they were born in the "wrong tummy" but God saw his "mistake" and fixed it!

"Yahweh called me when I was in the womb, before my birth he had pronounced my name." Isaiah 49:1

Yet those who separate babies from their mothers and take away their names, have the audacity to call it God's plan!

We need to get back to basics and reality folks and remember the biblical references to adoption are all about maintaining family ties. Read up on Moses before ye use the word of God to justify BUYING BABIES!!

Clearly the Christian pro-life position is that life begins at conception. If all life is scared and it begins at conception - what then is the mother in who's womb it has been planted and grows? A mistake? Interestingly, some Christian pro-life arguments contain the belief that "We can compare the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us to the umbilical cord which connects the unborn baby to its mother. All the nutrients including oxygen to sustain life is furnished to the unborn child through the umbilical cord." How can anyone who believes and preaches this, stand in witness or support those who and physically take a child virtually form its mother's womb without recognizing that they are violating the intent and word of God.

A Catholic pro-life argument proclaims: "our nation has all but lost any claims we could have ever made on 'compassion' because we have allowed lies, innuendo and insanity to circumscribe the parameters of this so-called debate." Indeed we have when we justify baby selling as the will of God. "Denying the fact that life begins the moment a female egg is fertilized is sheer lunacy — or, worse, intentionally misleading....It is patently arrogant that we, as adults, get to decide for the most vulnerable of our society — our unborn children, who cannot speak for themselves..."

We need to press pro-lifers who promote adoption with this question:
If Killing an Unborn Baby is NOT a "Choice" - why is separating it from it's mother not just a choice - but a justified holier-than-thou preference for those who proudly wear their Christianity on their sleeve, and the Christian Coalition which promotes adoption and bemoans the decrease in the number of adoptions?

In Genesis (1:27-28), when God blessed man and woman and called them to "be fruitful and multiply" he did not stipulate that they needed to complete their education first, or be married or employed, or own their own home.

Let us not forget, and please let's revise, this oldie but goodie:

It reminds us that The Virgin Mary was an Unwed Teenage Mother!

And it was said to Mary: blessed is the fruit of your womb! Luke 1:39-44

So, just to keep things in proper perspective...I've decided to bring it back on a tee shirt:

Available at Cafe Press.

RussiaToday Apr 29, 2010 on Russian Adoption Freeze

Russi Today: America television Interview 4/16/10 Regarding the Return of Artyem, 7, to Russia alone

RT: Russia-America TV Interview 3/10

Korean Birthmothers Protest to End Adoption

Motherhood, Adoption, Surrender, & Loss

Who Am I?

Bitter Winds

Adoption and Truth Video

Adoption Truth

Birthparents Never Forget