Adopting For Ease and "Convenience"

It is difficult to read.  Shocking in its backwards logic. A shameless display of "me first" thinking.


I am talking about an article entitled "Adoption Worked Better for My Career" on The Grindstone.


Please read and return here to comment. I'll wait....


Fact: American, educated women are delaying childbirth. This has been a trend for some time now. 
Women find encouragement to delay because of wild idiotic claims like that made by D’Vera Cohn (doctor? researcher?) who said: “Medical technology and fertility treatments have made it possible, to not only have babies, but to have healthy babies” later in life. These false claims encourage more women to put off childbearing often to find that mother nature is not so inclined or so kind to just sit back and wait until they have completed all other goals first.  But then, of course, one can "just" adopt - right?


Reading this article made my head spin thinking of all the rhetoric told to mothers like myself - and STILL being told to mothers today! - about children needing two parents and that it would be SELFISH to keep your own child if you couldn't provide for it. 


So, I posted the article on an email list for adoption professionals (and aps) I am on and opened a discussion asking what they thought of women "choosing' adoption as an 'easier" option so as not to "risk" their jobs for a prolonged maternity leave? (Not that they are being selfish or wanting their cake and to eat it too.)


One list member replied that when she looks at the reasons she adopted multiple older children from foster care, she finds the article "isn't far off the mark."


"Truth is," she says. "I did not want to interrupt my career nor did I want a baby nor did I have anyone in mind to father a child with me, so adoption was an answer to all these issues.....I don't necessarily feel comfortable seeing these reasons in print, but that doesn't make them less true."


She asked: Are children only to be adopted for "correct reasons?" And just who decides what those "correct reasons" should be?


I instead ask: Do some reasons to adopt - like it being allegedly 'easier' or to avoid stretch marks - reflect a lack of real depth of thought into the serious nature of adoption, particularly when it involves older children. 


I was asked if I was "outraged" by the article, as it was assumed I was. I replied:

My thoughts reading it, are of course, quite different from yours as I come from a different perspective. My thoughts about it reflect the irony of women being told for decades that our children needed two parents and that we would be selfish to keep our own children...my thoughts regard who is raising the children of career-first women... 

Without being judgmental of anyone's personal choice I wish many women who choose to put their careers first and foremost in their lives and then as an afterthought thought think about children would read an excellent old book entitled "Sequencing: Having it All, but not all at once" by Arlene Rossen Cardoza which would have helped the one mother in the article who sometime after adopting found she could work from home. The book is chock full of solutions like that. 

I guess my biggest concern is very different from [another's] response (see excerpts   below). While getting children out of foster care is a worthwhile goal, I am concerned about bringing possibly troubled youngsters or teens into a home where both parents continue to work outside the house full time (many even for more than 40 hours a week and or travel for work). I think it is a huge mistake for anyone to think that because they are not infants requiring feedings every 3 hours, that it is OK to plop these kids in a new home and disappear all day, or leave them to be after-school-cared by others. That feels like it could easily be a powder keg of anger and problems to me. 

I would be far more cautious making such older child placements and THAT was what I hoped for feedback on.

So, outrage no. But is there resentment on the part of mothers who lost our children to adoption reading articles like this one, yes. A great deal of resentment. Had we been provided day care so we could work and raise our children without stigma, we certainly would have done so. And given the current climate, why is any woman still encouraged to loose parental rights and give her child to others with the belief that it is best for her or her child when in reality all it is is different - trading one set of problems for others?

Since ONE of the mothers quoted in the article adopted older children from foster care and the article recommends this, one list member replied that she thought this "trend" was "great news for children in foster care who tend to be older and have been waiting for a family" concluding that we must always focus on the best interests of the children.

I replied:

1. Removing children for their safety and protection does not resolve the problem as long as the mother is able to have more children and is not provided the help she needs to protect them from harm. Many problems are temporary in nature and can be fixed with financial aid, daycare assistance, parenting classes, substance abuse rehabilitation, anger management, etc. In home care that provides these solutions while keeping the family intact have proven to work well and are also more cost effective than removal to foster care which we know to be high risk. Such alternatives are in the best interests of children.  

2. I was addressing the encouragement of expectant mothers who have not harmed or neglected their child in any way to relinquish. We need to look at Australia's apologies and the reversal of the stigma on single mothers to see the only reason remaining for promoting infant adoption is to fill orders for babies to adopt, not because it is necessarily best for mother or child to be separated. Adoption - even in the most loving of homes - is a trade off. It generally provides a child more financial "opportunities" and privileges, but at the loss - in all states - of access to his own true original birth certificate, at least until adulthood. In small number of states the adoptee may then have that access and acquire  answers about identity and vital accurate and up-to-date medical history.  

I am sure we can all agree that striving to keep children within their kin circle of extended family should always be attempted first when looking at the child's best interests. 

The discussion continued with the comment: "some reasons are representative of a great deal of depth. Others are just as shallow as those used by those who make other serious choices" to which I replied:

True. But THIS serious choice - to adopt - involves the life of another innocent human being and requires the assistance of a "professional" who is in  a position to perhaps suggest more thinking or point out why it not be so "easy" to "just" adopt.

Thought it, but bit my tongue and didn't add: OR, "professionals" who are so eager for a buck and don't care what the motivation is - even when it is pedophilia.


Not for nothing but I would not adopt a dog or cat and leave it all day to go to work. I know people do it all the time. I'm just saying I wouldn't. And I know it's a no-no for mothers to "judge" others mothers or their mothering, but it's OK to judge them as unfit because of their age or financial status (cause obviously marital status is no longer an issue)? And it's perfectly OK to wait and then take someone else's kid and justify it as "rescuing"?

Your thoughts?

Doris Duke's Adopted (Adult) Daughter

The billionaire tobacco heiress Doris Duke has something in common with John Goodman, who made headlines recently for adopting his 42-year-old girlfriend. Both were very wealthy, and both adopted adults, but for very different reasons. Goodman, did it to try to avoid being hit with a huge civil suit payment for vehicular homicide.

Doris Duke, on the other hand was reportedly trying to replace her dead baby.

When Duke was 27 years old, she delivered a premature baby daughter who died just 24 hours after being born. The baby’s death profoundly affected Duke, and she even hired psychics to try to help her communicate with her lost child. It never worked. 

But in 1985, at the age of 73, Duke's belly dancing instructor introduced her another of her students, to 32-year-old Hare Krishna devotee Chandi Heffner 

Duke decided that Heffner was the reincarnation of her lost baby daughter. The two women started out as friends, but Duke began lavishing increasingly more extravagant gifts on Heffner, including a 290-acre horse ranch in Hawaii. 

In 1989, Duke formalized the odd relationship by legally adopting the 35-year-old Heffner.

However, by 1991, the relationship had soured. According to a documentary about Doris Duke's death and will challeneges: the butler did it! Six years before her death Doris hired Bernard Lafferty,  as her butler. He allegedly helped instill paranoia into Ms. Duke, having her cut herself from all contact with everyone but him. Months before her death, he had her change her will making him sole executor.

Duke tried to negate the adoption of Heffner. Some accounts say she succeeded. in any event, she disinherited her. Duke’s will specifically instructed that her former adopted daughter should not receive any inheritance:

“I am extremely troubled by the realization that Chandi Heffner may use my 1988 adoption of her (when she was 35 years old) to attempt to benefit financially under the terms of trusts created by my father. After giving the matter prolonged and serious consideration, I am convinced that I should not have adopted Chandi Heffner.

“I have come to the realization that her primary motive was financial gain. I believe that, like me, my father would not have wanted her to have benefitted under the trusts which he created, and similarly, I do not wish her to benefit from my estate.”

After suing Duke’s estate three times following Duke’s 1993 death, however, Heffner received a $65 million settlement.

The butler, Lafferty, was proven unfit as executor and removed. he died at 51 years of age after receiving a substantial inheritance from the Duke estate. But the bulk of Doris' money went to charities.

Open Letter To Rush Limbaugh, Cronies, and Fans

NOTE - this piece was published by NewsBlaze at this link.

To all misogynist pigs:

So, let's see: According to Rush women who use contraception are sluts and prostitutes and should put their sex acts on view for perverts like him and his cronies to gaggle - and whatever other perverted sex acts - at!

Hmmmm....does that include married women who use contraception, as it is likely any grad or law student may be, or simply the untold number of "good Christian" happily married mothers and wives?

Since you are obviously anti-birth control, let's speculate at how you accomplished four marriages without any patter of little feet, Rushy-boy.  Limp dick? Shooting blanks? Or were the four Mrs. Ls on '"The Pill"?  Four unsuccessful marriages and one reported unsuccessful relationship. Not quite the ladies man are ya' Rush?

Are women who use contraceptives to control excessive bleeding, menstrual pain, or to regulate dysmenorrhea, or even to control acne equally branded with your red letter of whoredom? Are you aware that oral contraception is also prescribed for acne? What about women who have been told a pregnancy could risk their life or that of the child they might conceive?  What about applauding the intelligence of women who do simply do not want bring yet more kids into the world they feel not ready to care for?  If they have kids "out-of-wedlock" they are strongly chastised by the likes of you and your cohorts, and now you have the brass balls to chastise for them for using common sense to prevent that?

Preventing pregnancy is quite different from "wanting sex," you moron!  

However, the little blue pill men take to get a stiff hardon, a woody, has one purpose and one purpose only: To be able to have sexual intercourse and that is ok to be covered by medical insurance - even insurance paid for by Catholic agencies and employers?

Why? Because there is no word for a male whore, slut, pig?  Who do you think all these men with their new found extended sexual prowess are having sex with??? Are all of their sexual encounters intended for procreation, Rush?  Have all of yours been?

I bet you swallow those little blue pills by the handful, along with your oxy, you woman-hating pig! In fact you were detained by drug enforcement agents at Palm Beach International Airport in June 2006 for having - gee whiz - VIAGRA! - that was not prescribed to you, you moralizing phony hypocrite
!


Now what was that for, Rush? Is there any other reason to take Viagra other than because YOU WANT SEX?! You are apparently unable or undesirous of having children yet continue "trying", eh? And this is perfectly ok, of course, because you are a M-A-N!!


Yes, according to the misogynists of the world, it's perfectly OK for horny dog men like you - married or not - to get their sex drug paid for, but not so for women to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies - a condition that could be life-threatening?!? Are you for real? Do you even hear the words that come out of your filthy, stupid, sick mouth or do you say them intentionally to get the "buzz" and media coverage? Is that your high, Rush? 


You told women where to put their pills - between their knees. Guess where I think you should put your pills, Rush?  The hole between your ugly bloated cheeks that spews shit...other than your face.


You know, Rush, misogyny has its roots in fear of women. Whasamatter Rushy-boy, Mommy didn't breast feed you?  Put on your big boy pants and get over it. We've been given the right to vote, ya know.

30,996 signatures to go: Help us hit 250,000 signatures on our petition calling on Eric Cantor and Republicans in Congress to publicly denounce Rush Limbaugh's cruel tirade against women >> 

And, sign the DSCC's petition here

AND, the DCCS's petition here

BUT, if you want to do more than  anction him...

Sign the Change.org petition to get the FCC to ban him from the air! 

UPDATE:  It is all the more important to sign the petition to have him taken off the air after the apology he was pressured to make:

A Statement from RushMarch 03, 2012For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week.  In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

1. He apologized for personally attacking Sandra Fluke. He is totally clueless that he insulted ALL women!

2. He apologized for the words her used but make sit perfectly clear he still sees a connection between preventing pregnancy and recreational sex and that such activities should not be made available at no cost. But no mention of his use of Viagra, or his obtaining it from someone else - (illegally?) with or without paying for it. 

Apology not accepted.

UPDATE 3/5/12:  Nine advertisers have abandoned the Rush Limbaugh show since Friday.

Keep the pressure on ALL his advertisers to withdraw by clicking here

Rhode Island Adoptee Rights: Victory?

Rhode Island legislators passed into law a bill allowing adopted citizens over the age of 25 to obtain their original birth certificates. is this a victory to cheer?  If you like being called an adoptee child, cheer now. if you are willing to accept crumbs and second-class status, celebrate.

Those seeking equality are saddened by this slap in the face of blatant discrimination against people for having been parented by those not related to them....punished for decisions about their lives they had no control over or no choice whatsoever in....treated differently and lessser-than for something we hail in this country as a wonderful thing: adoption! An institution we encourage and support with tax credits and an entire month spent in its honor, promoting it.

Imagine the uproar of the gay community if they were given the right to marry if they were over 25.  Or, if when women or Blacks got the vote, they got it with an age restriction that didn't apply to others? Imagine slaves having been freed - when they reached 25 years of age...with no end to slave ownership.

Click the image or go to http://www.health.ri.gov/records/howto/getacopy/

Note that all others in the state of RI just need to fill out an application and pay $20. NO AGE RESTRICTION whatsoever! All that is required is a photo ID. 

The adoption reform community is to blame for not pushing this as a civil rights issue and for accepting these insults with cheers. Even the once "radical" BN, who calls others "deformers" accepts these age restrictions.  This is discriminatory and the adoption community should be outraged not cheering this.

If adoptees dislike being called adopted "children" they need to stop allowing the law to treat them worse than children. A 12-year-old with $20 and able to fill out the form can get their BC, but an adopted adult citizen who pays taxes, serves the military, can marry and vote.... cannot!  If you dislike being called adopted children stop running after and accepting every sweet treat that's offered you. Stand up and demand full equality as a citizen of this nation that prides itself on equality.

Stand up and make it the civil rights issue it IS! Stop accepting CRUMBS. Age restrictions are no different than any other hoops put on adoptee rights. 

Click this image above or go to the RI vital stats web page. The blatant discrimination herein should be just as offensive  to every American citizen as signs that once read: "Colored Bathrooms" or "Colored water Fountains."

Where is the outrage?  Where is the demand for equality and JUSTICE FOR ALL?  Are adopted citizens not part of that "all"?  


Tax payer money supports these adoptions that then discriminate against the very people it purports to "rescue" and "save." Every American should be up in arms at this disgrace.


But Rhode Island is not the only state that treats adopted citizens differently. In fact, more than 40 states deny them access t their own birth certificate FOREVER! other states add restrictions such as age requirements, or other hoops that only adoptees have to jump through. There needs to be a federal challenge to the process by which birth certificates are falsified by states to begin with. If you or I falsified a government document we'd be imprisoned, but states do it willy nilly every time a person is legally parented by those other than who he was born to. And the original information is kept secret from the persons named therein! What other legal document do those named on it have no access to? None!  


Outrage. An assault to the very life and liberty this nation was founded on. And barely a whimper is heard. It's as if along with taking away OBCs, a majority of adoptees have their back bones removed, their courage destroyed and replaced with gratitude for not having been aborted, or raised by crack whores....as was the alternate fate of adoptees like Steve Jobs. Living with the knowledge of having been adopted - and thus abandoned or rejected - destroys for too many a basic sense of self-image and leaves adopted far too many to feel and act like beaten puppy dogs who are thankful for any scrap thrown at them, licking it up with a wag of their tale at their master.  Deformers? How about whipped shoe-shine boys? I find it very sad, shameful and disgraceful. Very sad indeed that human beings accept such dehumanizing treatment and even applaud it.


Some say it's a compromise and better than it was originally proposed. I am not ignorant to the process and how legislation requires compromise. Unlike BN, I am NOT ragging on the local grassroots reformers who likely worked very hard to get this much...my beef is with those in the movement who applaud it and do not express outrage. My beef is with the lack of push for equal access as a civil rights issue across the country. 


There'd have been no cheering if black and white water fountains were placed adjacent to one another, or "colored" bus seats were moved a row up from thee back.


EQUALITY CANNOT BE COMPROMISED. It is either equal or unequal, mathematically and politically. Unequal is unfair and unacceptable because it is discriminatory. Period. 

Auto magnets available at: CafePress.com/AdoptionTruth