Bethany's Coercion Received Fed Funding

Following on to Kathryn Joyce's piece on Crisis Pregnancy Centers and adoption today on RH Reality Check (in which Joyce points to Bethany Adoption center as an example), Sarah Posner reports today in the American Prospect that in addition to other federal money, Bethany has received 8 federal grants totalling over $3 million in 2009:

Bush-era abstinence-only funding isn't the only federal funding Bethany has received -- or continues to receive. According to a Department of Health and Human Services database, Bethany received eight federal grants worth over $3 million in 2009, including for abstinence-only education, healthy marriage promotion, and "embryo donation and/or adoption public awareness." And HHS used a Bethany representative on a panel in August for its conference entitled "Strong Practices, Bright Promises," about healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs.

Is Adoption Natural?

An interesting subject is being blogged about by adoptees and aps...and you'll never guess where they stand on the subject!

Issycat, who calls herself an "ambivalent adoptee" asked: "Are all potential adoptive parents so desperate for a kid that they lose IQ points?"

Apparently, I’m not supposed to call the woman who gave birth to me my natural mother. I’m not supposed to call her that because it implies that adoption is unnatural.....

You know what is natural? Babies going home and being cared for by the mothers who carried them in their bodies. That is natural. Anything else is just a little sad.

I’m not saying I hate adoption. I don’t. I’m not saying that adoption isn’t necessary in some cases. It is.

But there is no way in hell I would ever call it natural.

The discussion continues over at AdoptionTalk by an ap who says:

The "natural" thing is another one of those "givens" in adoption language -- adoptive parents are supposed to be upset about adopt-a-whatever programs, we're supposed to say we're the real parents, not those pesky birth parents, and we're supposed to say that adoption is natural, just another way to add to your family.

I was brainwashed to believe it, weren't you? I completely bought into the "same as" narrative, that raising an adopted child was the same as raising a biological child, nothing less and certainly nothing more.

It's not the same.

There are a growing number of aps who "get it" - mainly because they have to. It's pretty hard to pretend a child of another race or ethnicity is "the same as" the one who might have been born to you! Most have changed that to the "rescue" myth and how these kids would be starving in the streets or languishing in orphanages of not for their saving graces! Too bad the kids in orphanages are still there, left behind, as orders are filled - via kidnapping, stealing, or coercing - by human traffickers for younger tots.

Is Adoption Natural?

An argument I had seen put forth many years (decades?) ago for this position is the animal kingdom in which we hear anomalies of dogs adopting kittens etc. Cross breed nursing and nurturing.

THAT is natural, albeit very unusual. But it is natural because the animals are operating on survival instinct. The infants will latch on and nurse from ANY teat and the mothers that are lactating are feeling very maternal and will not push the babies away.

It is also natural because it only happen when the baby animals are truly ORPHANED - as in their mother abandoned them or died.

THEY DID NOT SEEK OUT these orphans nd pay large amounts of kibble for them! They did not do it to meet any NEED of their own to be a parent because they were barren, or even out of altruism to save the babies from death. They just did what comes naturally - a baby suckles.

It is also natural because the kitten, while it may act like a dog and have some learned behaviors - is still a kitten. No one rewrites its past history and renames it a dog.

Following this example, in-family adoptions are - to some extent -natural. A grandmother or sister raising her nieces or grandkids because the mother is deceased or incapable is a very natural thing. Raising them and caring for them is natural - changing their names and pretending the grandchild is the child of the grandmother is NOT!

For me the line between natural and unnatural is two-fold:

1. Motivation. Is the child being cared for first and foremost for the sake of the child regardless of the caretakers ability to have children of "their own" or not and regardless of their desire to be a parent. The dog did not NEEDm want or seek to have a kitten. The grandmother likewise did not pursue having a baby to raised at this time in her life. They filled a need of the child and did what had to be done.

2. Pretense and name changing. This again comes down to best interest of the child. Long before adoption got all tangled up in laws when a child needed care someone in the community or parish stepped up and provided that care. But because the motivation was as stated above, there was no need to pretend the child was 'theirs' or to change the child's name. It was perfectly acceptable to know that the Jone's were raising the Smith's boy...or that my Aunt Sally was being like a mother and caring for me.

It is the reversal of the natural order that makes adoption unnatural. It si the u=turning it upside down and putting the needs of those adopting before those of the children. It is seeking out often through devious means children to fill a demand that is very unnatural and unsavory and immoral. It is PAYING for them that is unnatural. Buying them. Owning name. Renaming them to make the ownership complete. Eradicating their past. That is what is unnatural.

Perhaps that is what Issycat means in her ambivalence? She, like most adoptees, does not resent having been provided good care - when that is the case - but they resent - and rightly so - the trade off, what was taken form them in exchange for tht care - their kin, hertige and identity.

What do you think?

Anita Tedaldi at it Again

Once upon a time adoption was secretive. Now the doors of reality have swung wide open revealing every nuance of ugliness...

You might recall my blog post about adoption give-backs and great deal of hubub in the adoption blogger community and general media about the woman who terminated her adoption after 18 months because she and her other five kids just "didn't bond" with the adopted baby...and her military husband was away a lot, etc...

Well, this woman seems to be a major glutton for attention - albeit mostly very negative attention, appearing on an NBC Today show segment

Although in the original Times blog, Tedaldi wrote that she "wasn't connecting with [the baby] on the visceral level I experienced with my biological daughters" she blames the child as well, telling Matt Lauer: "The child, D., wasn't connecting with us."

Ironically, Tedaldi wrote a column for Military.com called "We Can't Trade In Our Children or Husbands" back in January 2008. (Military.com has pulled the piece, but the Adoption Talk blog has some of the text.)

Is she sharing this to unburden her guilt or for those who praise her for her honesty? or is it just one more aspect of the "tell all" generation, who reveal on Orprah having "consensual sex" with their father as Mackenzie Phillips did recently. Is it just all about the shock value and selling books?

More importantly...

We have all read of cases of people suing adoption agencies for “wrongful adoption” because the agency did not disclose all medical facts.

Someone should sue Anita on behalf of Baby D for failure to disclose she was not prepared to parent another child, and to pay for the lifelong psychiatric care he will need for having been rejected by her and her family. She should be made to pay dearly for what she did and so too anyone else who does likewise.

Adoption is a forever commitment. When one decides to divorce, and end another lifetime commitment, one often has to pay the piper in terms of spousal support for the partner who may have given up a career to parent or is simply the lesser earner and depended on the promise of of forever. Seems perfectly logical to me to make people for destroying children’s lives by adding to the burdens they all ready have to bear.

If she gets away scott free - and gets to “brag” about it, and/or gets pity or support for her honesty — what lesson is learned? The person who originally posted her story on Motherlode and went on the Today Show with her says:

she is now loath to sit in judgment of other parents because she has come to understand how one can end up in a place they never thought they would be. That’s the message that resonated with me. That is why I published her guest post. Today’s parents are often too stressed themselves, leading them to be too quick to judge others. Perhaps seeing how easy it is to mess things up in spite the best of intentions — and Anita is the first to say she completely messed things up — might make all of us pause and realize that we could just as easily become “that kind of parent.”

But what does it say to other prospective adopters: I can give this a “TRY" and if it doesn’t work, the public will be sympathetic and forgiving? Is that the message we want to send?

We need to always put the rights and needs of children above adults. She is not the one who deserves sympathy and pity here - Baby D is.

Isn't That Special!

If you remember the SNL character "The Church Lady" played by Dana Carvey, then you also remember his famous "Isn't that SPECIAL" with a magnificent tone of sarcasm.


Spence-Chapin on the Kevin Cohen scam:

"Our hearts go out to the many families who thought their dreams of adopting a child were about to come true," said Kathy Legg, executive director of Spence-Chapin Services (www.spence-chapin.org), after learning about the alleged adoption scam conducted by Long Island lawyer Kevin Cohen.

Legg feels strongly that prospective adoptive parents deserve better from New York State, which has a patchwork of state regulatory laws related to the practice of adoption including provisions in the Domestic Relations Law, the Family Court Act, the Public Health Law and the Social Services Law. This is a call to action for the New York State legislature to look at comprehensive reform that would prevent the victimization of adoptive families.

Many states have take action to insure that the public's interest in these life-changing matters has been protected. States such as Michigan, Maryland and Illinois allow only authorized or licensed not-for-profit agencies to provide adoption services. New York needs to do the same.

Legg also encourages prospective adoptive families everywhere to carefully research adoption providers to find agencies with proper state authorization and good reputations prior to making a commitment and turning over money. For example, Legg states that the website of the Council on Accreditation (COA) lists agencies across the country which have met high standards for their adoption practice.

Yeah, that's the ticket! Prevent the victimization of aps! of And who gives one ounce of even lip service, who even PRETENDS to care about protecting the rights of relinquishing families or those considering it? Guess we are fair game to be victimized cause we "made our own beds" and then spread our own legs in it!

And people wonder why I remain angry? There is still an assumption that we are sluts and they are doing a favor by helping us getting rid of our kids; that we have no rights to protect; that we simply don't matter at all - the wrapping on the gift.

We certainly re not the victims nd have no rights to protect because adoption serves the paying client and ONLY the paying client! Let there be no mistake about it. And agencies want to come out as the caring protectors of those paying customers cause they are fighting independent practitioners for their business!

A Prestigious Appointment

I am very pleased and proud to announce that my dear friend and colleague, Evelyn Robinson has been appointed by Australian Attorney-General to the National Intercountry Adoption Advisory Group.

The Attorney-General has appointed Ms Evelyn Robinson as a discretionary member of NICAAG, until 30 March 2012. Ms Robinson has extensive adoption experience.

Ms Robinson placed her child for adoption in 1970 in Scotland. Ms Robinson has a background in social work and professional experience in providing post adoption services. She is based in South Australia and regularly provides training for families and professionals with the Post Adoption Support Service and the South Australian Central Authority. Ms Robinson has published three books about adoption. She has presented several conference papers on adoption topics in Australia and overseas.

Evelyn, as you may know is a reunited mother and author of Adoption and Loss - The Hidden Grief , Adoption and Recovery - Solving the mystery of reunion, and her latest: Adoption Reunion - Ecstasy or Agony?

To access information on the new NICAAG appointment, please go to the 'What's New' at this link.

More evidence for need of access to family medical history

Mental illness affects about 58 million people over the age of 18 in the United States. About one in four adults suffer from disorders ranging from depression to obsessive-compulsive disorder to schizophrenia in a given year, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.

The genetic force behind these illnesses is strong — for an identical twin who has developed schizophrenia, his or her twin has a 50 percent chance to do so as well — but clearly not absolute.

For most, the chance of developing schizophrenia or bipolar disorder is only around 1 percent, but for those with a close relative with the disorder, such as a parent or sibling, the average risk rises to about 10 percent.

And...unlike some single-gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis or Tay-Sachs, that can be tested for before conception and potentially avoided, or during pregnancy, there is no testing for mental illness, which experts say is likely a complex combination of multiple genes, plus environment influences.

A survey and opportunity to comment on whether knowing your family mental history weighs into your decsion to have children is available at this link. Those of us separated by adoption were not considered in the original article or the survey.

Anti-Adoption on The Web

Anti-adoption sentiment on the web is the subject of a blog post I recently cam across:

...Most of what I read was from people adopted long ago when adoption was not spoken of, swept under the rug, when young single women were coerced or forced to give up their infants for adoption. I am always horrified when I read such stories, see movies, or hear of cases like these. I believe it was wrong but this is not the only adoption scenario out there, certainly today, more and more young women are keeping their babies....Everything I read was so black and white...I don't know what to say. I can't begin to tackle the tangled emotions and thoughts that are broiling in my head right now.

My reply:

I would like to share some thoughts on your observations and comments. First, all the horrors of coercive adoptions are NOT relegated to past history. Yes, fewer U.S. mothers need to resort to losing their children to adoption s single parenthood is more acceptable and birth control more accessible. All that means is MORE pressure than ever on the few expectant mothers who do CONSIDER that option. It also means that a great deal more focus is now on international markets where women are not just coerced, but babies are actually STOLEN (in China and India) or kidnapped at gunpoint (as in Guatemala) and then sold to orphanages who then sell them to U.S. adoption agencies.

There is a great deal that is UGLY, bad, wrong, illegal, immoral and definitely unethical about adoption TODAY.

Add to that, that the people who have been negatively affected by it in the past - adoptees - are now grown adults able to speak out. And mothers in the US who were coerced into silence for may decades are likewise finding their voices more and more.

So the pendulum is shifting. Since the 1940s, when US adoptions began to become a business and records were sealed, adopters were put on a pedestal and adoption was seen through rose-colored glasses as a win-win. "Unwanted" children were finding living homes.

But now we know the truth. The curtain has been drawn and we have seen the little man behind it. We all know the Emperor has no clothes. The truth is that adoption is not about finding homes for orphans and kids who really could benefit from it - like 129,000 kids in foster care who could be adopted...instead its a multi-billion dollar industry paid for by those claiming to be "desperate" for a child and willing to pay enough to support illicit baby brokers who traffic inhuman life.

This is despicable and anyone who is not ooutraged is not paying attention.

Does it reflect badly on those who are adopting? Unfortunately Yes. It points out that it adoption is not quite as altruistic as even they might have been led to believe. There really are not as many "orphans" "languishing" in orphans. the numbers have been grossly inflated because nearly 90% of children in orphanages worldwide are not orphans at all but have at least one living parents and or extended family who hope to reclaim them and have placed them in care temporarily, as was the case with both children adopted by Madonna.

Adoption is corrupt and those seeking to adopt need to make some hard choices: to be part of the problem or part of the solution.

Infertility is a terrible loss, as is losing a child to adoption - or to miscarriage or any other loss. But you don;t see people who have lost limbs or their sight acting all entitled to someone giving up theirs for them - or exploiting the poor. Well, actually organs are being exploited form the poor, but it ILLEGAL!!

Infertility is awful but no one owes anyone a child and no one has a "right" adopt. Adopting one child at a time is not solving world hunger or the AIDS epidemic or global poverty. It is creating a lot of backlash and increasing the image of the ugly American who comes into impoverished countries with their ethnocentricity and their dollars and thinks that giving one child more material advantages outweigh=s his basic need and RIGHT to his family and culture.

It is sad for those who adopted believing they were doing a good thing. But, as I said, they can chose to be part of the solution. many have:

Read blogs such as fleasbiting,blogspot.com and bittersweet-story.blogspot.com/

The first is a U.S. couple, the second a couple from Australia each of whom adopted two Indian children and discovered they were stolen form their mothers. They did the RIGHT thing from the start in investigating heir doubts to uncover the through and then to help the child victims - and the families - deal with their situation.

Jennifer Hemsley stopped an adoption in the process in Guatemala when she suspected DNA tests were fraudulent.

ALL of these people have become advocates for eradicating the corruption in adoption. Each of us must chose what legacy we want to leave for our children and those who come after us. We can chose to hide from these ever increasing revelations of abuse, we can deny fiercely that OUR children were taken in any way but the most ethical...or we can face the reality and stand up and do something to stop the proliferation of child trafficking for adoption. It's your image you must face in the mirror each morning. Will it be something you are proud of? Will you be someone your children will be proud of?

I believe it was Robert Kennedy who said: "The greatest tragedy is for good men to see wrong and do nothing."

A position of adoption as a last resort, as is taken by the UN and many child advocacy NGOs around he world - or one of Family Preservation is less offensive than anti-adoption, just as pro-life is fare kinder than ant-abortion and pro-choice far more realistic than pro-abortion.

Every child has a RIGHT to remain in his family. Every family his the right to receive the support they need to remain intact. When that is not possible extended family are the next line of defense for children in need and only when there is not family whatsoever capable is state care required or a another family sought. That family should preferably be within the community of the original family for continuity of language, culture, and even possible visitation. International adoption must be a last resort.

This is not a negative position on adoption - it is a positive position, humane and ethical position for families in crisis.

Is it black and white? Are all adoption good or all adoptions bad, of course not. But enough are bad or questionable to cast a shadow of doubt on all. Unless you have met with both the mother and father of your child in person, who have been confirmed to be the mother and father by DNA tests or a birth you witnessed personally, then you don't know for sure.