I never considered I could have been aborted…

With the movie “October Baby” bringing up the stupid topic of adoptees being saved from abortion I just had to weigh in.

 

The thought never crossed my mind that my mother was going to abort me. Never once did I think it was a possibility. I was taught mothers made a choice of a) aborting; or b) carry to term; and then they chose parenting or adoption (based on your marital status during my era).

 

I have seen many comments by adult adoptees my age and younger that wish to thank their mother for not aborting them. Each time I cringe and ask myself why would you say that? Who put that thought into their head by connecting abortion and adoption, “as if” all mothers who surrendered their baby for adoption first opted for abortion but something happened and they chose adoption instead. And if it was their parents – shame on them. They passed on a stereotype that has no basis in reality. They put that in their child’s head for what reason exactly? So the adoptee could be grateful for being adopted, and hate on the mother who gave them up because she was going to abort before she “chose” adoption? 

 

If any [adoptive] parents reading this says well I would never say that, I would ask you if you say “I’m so glad your “birth” mom chose life”.  Because if you said that, in my opinion, you have just told your child there was a good chance they could have been aborted.  If you don’t agree with me how many other children (non-adopted) have you said that too?  How many friends have you said that too?  None right?  Because deep inside you think that a mother who does not / cannot keep her child automatically made the choice of abortion and something happened to make her choose adoption – all without knowing if she would have even considered abortion to be one of her options in the first place.  You stereotyped the mother based on the fact she chose adoption for her child. 

 

People reading this may be saying what proof do I have to be so adamant on this?  My proof is the words from my dad. The man who has witnessed more pregnancies than most, and who you had to see to confirm you were pregnant way back when the rabbit had to die. Specifically the unmarried girls (and young adult women) brought in by their mothers and if the test was positive some asked the question about where they could get an abortion for their daughter which he couldn’t/wouldn’t answer and they would leave.  The outcome was one of two scenario’s – pre Roe vs Wade, dad would see some of them back in to patch up or deal with infections after the “back alley” abortion, the other girls the mothers did not ask about abortions would go away to “care for” a sick relative and come back sans baby.  Post Roe vs Wade he didn’t have to deal with taking care of some them after an abortion because it was now a safe legal procedure.  The choice boiled down to a personal choice of Either/Or – not was going too then didn’t.

 

I am sure the process has changed now that you don’t have to go to the doctor to find out if you are pregnant, but I doubt things have changed much as to the choice options.  A decision (choice) will be made to either get an abortion or carry to term. One or the other. Of course some will have families will pressure them. Some will reach out to CPC’s and have Adoption agencies “guide them” into making the “right” choice of carrying to term and then choosing adoption (which doesn’t always mean it was right for them). Some will have Church members pressure them. Some may change their mind in either direction. Some will stand fast in their original choice. But stop saying adoptees were saved from being aborted simply because we are adoptees. If our mothers were going to abort us – we would not be here. It can’t be any simpler than that.

 

Why did anyone think making this movie was a good idea? Why? So we have yet another generation of adoptees burdened by this archaic false notion put into their heads by those sanctimonious parents who believe this fallacy?  That another generation of adoptees will have that comment thrown at them if they dare to say there is any downside to adoption?  That comment that can be so very damaging to their self-esteem, feelings of worth, feelings of identity, make them feel like they need to be perfect and better than everyone else, feelings of being rejected and not good enough.  Just think how you would feel in the adoptees shoes being given that message from the time they were little till they are in their senior years.  Believe me it gets old hearing it thrown out to adoptees who dare challenge how adoption is practiced.  I cannot imagine having to grow up hearing it.

 

Getting off my soap box now but this subject just triggers me…

 

 

What I am reading…

I found a new blog recently called Life Not Black & White that gives voice to the flip side of the reunited adoptee voice.  She writes beautifully but that would be expected, as she is a Journalist from North Carolina.  All of her posts are worth reading, and best if you start oldest which I have linked below but don’t stop there.

Just the Four of Us (link fixed – my apologies)

I tell stories for a living. As a journalist, I’ve interviewed my share of politicians, celebrities and everyday people. The average, everyday people always make for the most fascinating stories. No matter how insignificant you think a person’s life may be, I’ve learned that everyone has an extraordinary story to share.

A Girl Like Her – A Film by Ann Fessler – you can view the trailer here and the screening locations and dates for April include Durham, NC, Minneapolis, MN, Denver, CO which can be found here.  This is a film I would give anything to see.  If you haven’t read her book, The Girls Who Went Away, you really should put it on your list for 2012.

Malinda at Adoption Talk has a link to a review of October Baby that mirrors the thoughts I had when I first heard of this movie and saw the trailer.  Well worth the time to follow the link to the complete review at On Icarus’ Wings.  This is not a film I would go to even if someone paid me.  Plus 10% of the profits go to an adoption agency.  Just so wrong to promote adoption like this.  I have already seen numerous posts about this movie.  It all just leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

Another post I keep going back to that shows the bizarre mentality of people from The Silent Birthmother about the day her daughter went to a different church.  A must read. 

You Go Girl!

Last night Cindy was invited to attend an event with her friend at their church. We told her she could go. So she went, but when she came home she was angry and was in tears!

What are you reading?  Have you found any new blogs lately? 

 

 

Why?

What stuns me is the contradictions/differences between countries that all had their own versions of forced adoptions during the same period…

Australia has completed the Senate Inquiry into Forced Adoptions and in the 20 recommendations is a call for the government to apologize. It is also interesting to note that before this inquiry, Australia learned that how adoption had been practiced was wrong, and to my knowledge all (or most) domestic adoptions are now done through state agencies, not private, and the profit has been taken out. That parenting is the first priority and adoption is last, and mothers pensions and health care are the norm.  Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this.

Canada is also starting to warm up to some type of Inquiry into Forced Adoptions although with the Conservative Party having the majority in the federal government, it may take a while.  In the Senate (not elected) Senator Art Eggleton has publicly stated there should be an Inquiry, yet I don’t know how much weight he has as the current federal government has appointed a lot of conservatives to the senate recently, to ensure they have a majority there as well.  The push may have to come from the provinces to reach the federal level.  A class action lawsuit has been filed in British Columbia and it is expected that other provinces will be hit with similar actions as well.  In Ontario, MPP Monique Taylor has pushed for a provincial inquiry into the practices.  

Just like Australia, although perhaps not as well, Canada learned that how they practiced adoptions in the past was wrong and the number of domestic adoptions are very few outside of foster care.  There are still private agencies but the scale is nothing like the US even comparing the population differences, and whether or not there are private agencies is determined by the laws in each province.  I could not find any province that provided domestic (non-foster) adoption statistics.  It’s important to note Canada also has a year maternity leave and you can qualify for unemployment insurance, provided you have enough weeks of employment. Universal health care at little to no monthly cost, as well as other services are available to mothers.

For Intercountry adoptions at least the Canadian Federal Government is willing to call the issues for what they are Child Trafficking and Corruption. 

Ireland which had the same history, has also learned those practices were wrong.  There was an inquiry into the Magdalen Laundries by the Human Rights Commission in 2010, but there are calls for further inquiries into the vaccine trials on babies for adoption and how the bodies of those infants who died were treated, as well as other practices.  Ireland also exported a sizable number of babies to the US estimated to be a minimum of 2,000 during this period according to this submission to the UN in 2011 by the Adoption Rights Alliance.

In Ireland today, non-family domestic adoptions for all intents and purposes are rare from what I could find.  Ireland has an estimated population of 4.5 million and 2008 (most recent report) had a grand total of 67 non-family domestic adoptions of which 25 were done by persons or authorities outside of State and only 1 private placement adoption. Of the 67 non-family adoptions only 3 were under the age of 12 months for that year. 

The 2008 report from Ireland (link above) includes this in the opening statement (bolding mine and I also included a link to the actual act):

The purpose of the Adoption Act 2010 is to improve standards in both domestic and intercountry adoption. The regulatory framework governing adoption has been strengthened in an attempt to ensure that the best interests of children are protected at every step throughout the adoption process.

Accredited bodies – organisations delivering adoption services – must comply with the terms of the legislation, which was first published in January 2009. The new legislation seeks to end the practice whereby a single adoption agency could provide the full range of adoption services, from pre-birth counselling to post birth placement with prospective parents. This was a very clear policy decision taken to avoid the obvious conflicts that could arise.

Ireland has also made a concerted effort to make Tracing for adult adoptees easier, but hasn’t made progress on changing the laws for adult adoptees to access their original birth certificates to my knowledge.  They did take the manual index cards of adoptions and created an electronic index with 19 separate fields that could be searched in different combinations, and I believe it is a centralized registry.  The above report also details statistics on that as well.

Germany has state processed domestic adoption as well and to get an understanding of how they operate please read this post over at International Adoption Reader to understand the fundamental difference of how she sees Adoption as an Institution vs Adoption as an Industry or Establishment elsewhere.  The snippet below does not adequately cover everything so go read her post.

Domestic infant adoption cannot and must not be facilitated by private agencies. If a couple applies to adopt domestically (except for stepchild adoption most likely for an infant), their application is taken care of by the same youth welfare authority that is responsible for providing homestudies. You would consequently never find a private body recruiting “birthmothers”, since this is simply illegal, as private adoptions are. Women who are pregnant in difficult circumstances will be offered a really broad range of support – from mother child homes for teenagers to enough welfare money and child support for other situations.(The last cases of forced adoption happened in former socialist East Germany, more than 20 years ago.) Generally, family preservation is the first choice in social work, and children who need to be taken out of a family due to neglect or abuse will be foster children in a setting which allows and supports first family contacts on a regular basis.

I have only chosen to cover a few of the countries that I believe have taken steps in the right direction since the era I was adopted in.  

The USA on the other hand hasn’t learned from the past the same way, nor does it appear the least bit interested in looking at the way our mothers were treated or any even talking about it, let alone initiating a Senate Inquiry.

They haven’t restricted the private adoption industry in any meaningful way I can see, like the other countries.  Instead, the private adoption industry appears to have focused on how to get more women to surrender their babies for adoption, to working on getting the laws in states changed to allowing for pre-birth expenses to be paid, as well as reducing the waiting period/revocation period in some states.  Federally they have worked on as getting the government to pay back the costs of adoption under the Adoption Tax Credit. They adjusted from having a society that demanded women surrender their babies to finding methods to convince women they should surrender to a better home and how they could have “open” adoptions, but never worked to ensure the laws in each state fully protected (if at all) those mothers to ensure the adoption stayed open. They changed their tactics to also include pre-birth matching schemes (that also include hospital plans), and advertising for “birthmothers”, but my question is even though the methods are different, are they really all that better, or just different. 

Finally, something I have watched brewing for several years in the US is the mind-set change back to my era, and the politicians are working hard to do just that by systemically reducing the choices and options a mother has.  Shannon LC Cate whose personal blog is Peter’s Cross Station has a post on Blog Her that speaks to that much better than I could hope to do, so please read it.  The GOP War on Women’s Subtext: A Return to the Baby Scoop Era.

Thoughts?

 

Brene Brown: Listening to shame…

I posted her talk on The Power of Vulnerability here which is worth listening to if you haven’t already - before listening to this talk.

From Ted video link:

“Shame is an unspoken epidemic, the secret behind many forms of broken behavior. Brené Brown, whose earlier talk on vulnerability became a viral hit, explores what can happen when people confront their shame head-on. Her own humor, humanity and vulnerability shine through every word.”

 

Truth about the past…

I am still trying to finish reading the actual Australian Senate Inquiry into Forced Adoptions Report.  Here are a few articles from Australia that speak to it.  Sex, lies and adoption and Lessons from the past – adoption isn’t the answer to child protection and Joint call for nation to apologise over forced adoptions. 

Yet Australia was just one of many countries during this era where society and religious institutions all worked together to “shame” the mother.  To limit her options to one and only one choice – surrender.  A time most of us cannot even begin to imagine because we were to young to understand the harsh realities our mothers faced.  Yet how they were treated was so far beyond inhumane that I cannot even find the words to begin to give it justice.  Australia is the first country to my knowledge to do this type of in-depth assessment at the government level of what really happened to our mothers.  It is time countries like Canada and the US and countries in Europe to find the truth and apologise.  Make it a part of documented history and talk about it, write about it, teach about it. 

We all need to keep talking to make sure that type of society never gains a stronghold again.  Right now the stirrings of that same mentality are present and it scares me.  The old term “unwed” mothers has made a very unpleasant comeback.  The rhetoric of shaming the mother by applying a label and at the same time not labeling the father as an “unwed” father rather just a father, clearly identifies to me the intent and intentions of bringing back the term and applying it to todays mothers. 

Read the article from The National Post in Canada and read the comments as well – that mentality is snaking its way into Canada as well: Curtain lifts on decades of forced adoptions for unwed mothers in Canada. 

Karen Lynn was 19 when her mother sent her to a home for unmarried pregnant women in Clarkson, Ont., in 1963. There, she was known as Karen No. 1 to protect her family’s reputation, and said it was clear she would not have been allowed to stay there if she did not agree to an adoption. A year later, Sharon Pedersen was 20-years-old when she was drugged and tied to her bed during labour and then shown four different babies through the nursery window at a hospital in Victoria, she said.

She ultimately signed adoption papers at the local children’s aid society, she said, but not before social workers held a pen in her hand and threatened to call the police because she was screaming and throwing furniture in protest.

Similar accounts have begun to emerge across Canada, and there is now a growing movement calling on the federal government to probe this country’s historic adoption practices. Many decades have passed, and many women have since reunited with their sons and daughters, but they are speaking out against what they say were coerced and forced adoptions.

Not every unmarried mother was coerced or forced into giving up her child, but the women going public today are not alone.

Their stories sound eerily like the hundreds of testimonies submitted to a recent Australian inquiry into adoption from the 1950s to the early-1980s, and last month an Australian Senate committee urged the government to apologize to the “many parents whose children were forcibly removed” from their care.

*****

Finally, I need to take a moment for a mini rant on the “ad” that was placed directly below the title in the link “Joint call for nation to apologise over forced adoption” at the top of this post. “Have a Baby in 12 Months” “Surrogate Mothers allow you to bond before birth & protect your rights!” REALLY? Just under the title of an article on the Senate Inquiry into Forced Adoptions? The inquiry that also included Adult Adoptees…just seems incredibly tacky to me…

 

Father wins…

After reading the ruling (see link below) it appears that this father did everything he possibly could do to show he wanted to parent.  Everything.  He found out his girlfriend was pregnant in January 2010.  She signed up with an adoption agency and told him she leave Missouri for the adoption.  He filed with the Missouri Putative Father Registry in March, 2010.

She left Missouri for Texas in May 2010 and went into housing provided by her adoption agency.  In June and July he was sent documents from Texas to consent to the adoption which he did not sign.  He filed petitions for paternity and for parent-child relationship in Texas in July as well as with the Putative Fathers Registry in Illinois.  Early August 2010 he filed with the Putative Fathers Registry in Texas.

She moved to Arkansas in late July or early August 2010.  He filed with the Arkansas Putative Fathers Registry around the middle of August 2010.  She signed away her rights and consent to guardianship and adoption in Arkansas at the beginning of Sep 2010 and the baby was born the next day.

No one told him the baby had been born but within days of the birth he filed for paternity and custody of the unborn child In Arkansas.  On the same day a petition for guardianship was filed by the adoption agency stating that the parents were not married and he had not provided support and his consent wasn’t required.  The court granted the petition for guardianship the next day.  A few days later an adoption petition was filed.  Around the middle of Oct (assuming he received notice from his Putative Fathers filing), he filed a complaint of intervention and then a bit later a consolidation and moving to the correct county that was granted.

In November the appeal was heard and denied and in January 2011 the adoption was granted.  He filed two separate appeals which he obviously lost so he appealed to the Supreme Court of Arkansas who heard the case and ruled March 1, 2012.

“Accordingly, we reverse the finding that appellant’s consent is not required, vacate the decree of adoption, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

***

I get so very frustrated when fathers rights are treated like a game of cat and mouse.  The child is now 18 months old so I certainly hope this is settled very quick.  It is time for people in adoption to stop playing games like this.  If the father wants to parent it was his right to parent from the beginning.  I am sorry people think/thought otherwise.