In this world of adoption labels are slapped on willy-nilly. There are only two labels – no middle ground. I do not consider myself to be either pro-adoption or anti-adoption so neither label fits me, but I am sure I have been labelled the latter rather than the former more often than not.
I recognise sometimes adoption is the only good option and as long as all efforts of family preservation have failed, then adoption is a viable consideration. However I also believe we have a long way to go before adoption is done right.
I believe an adoptee should have the right to their original birth certificate and identity.
I believe wanting to know your family, searching, reconnecting and having your family in your life is normal, and something that should be supported by all.
I believe it is wrong for adoptees not to know their family health history when the Surgeon General says family health history is important and reinforces the need yearly, targeting Thanksgiving as the best time to update your family health history.
To help focus attention on the importance of family history, the Surgeon General, in cooperation with other agencies with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has launched a national public health campaign, called the Surgeon General’s Family History Initiative, to encourage all American families to learn more about their family health history.
I believe the adoption industry has failed adoptees by not doing anything to fix the issue of adoptees having to live without their family health history, rather they use this statement like that makes it all okay not to do anything because sometimes there is a history from when you were born or you can petition the courts. I wonder what excuse they would give adoptees from Utah who don’t have the option to petition the courts?
Response to 1b: Information on genetic and familial medical histories can be and often is provided to adopted persons without jeopardizing the birthparent’s right to privacy. When the state possesses information on the medical history of an adopted person’s biological family, the state can easily inform the adopted person of that history without providing the names and identities of her birthparents. In some cases, however, the state may not have this information on file. This is often the case for adoptions that occurred decades ago, before the importance of such information was fully appreciated. In these instances, however, adopted persons are free to petition a court to release their birthparents’ identifying information for the purpose of obtaining their biological families’ medical histories.
I believe the adoption industry is wrong to continue to promote to mothers that they can remain anonymous to their children when they reach adulthood, knowing the laws can, do, and will change in the future, and what the law is today does not mean it will be the same in the future.
If you are concerned about your privacy if you decide to place your child for adoption, please contact us to find out more about your state’s laws regarding adoption privacy or confidentiality. We believe in and support your right as a birthparent to choose a confidential adoption if you so desire.
I believe some adoption agencies solicit parents to surrender their child or choose to turn a blind eye when their associates in-country do this with promises that are untrue. I believe this happens in every go-to country before it too closes.
I believe some adoption agencies or their associates in-country edit and/or downright falsify the childs paperwork to ensure they meet the orphan criteria.
I believe some in the adoption industry are more concerned over their bottom line than the best interests of the child.
Catholic Charities had hoped the Indiana General Assembly’s attempt to defund Planned Parenthood would mean more placements.
However, shortly after the state Legislature adjourned, Planned Parenthood of Indiana successfully sought a preliminary injunction barring much of the law from being enforced. The state is appealing.
“We have not seen an increase with that yet,” Kavanaugh said. “Hopefully in the near future we will.”
I believe it wrong for the NCFA and the FRC to design a study and commission a booklet on the results as a way to promote adoption, oh and did I mention it was on 51 mothers who surrendered 2 years ago or less. Not a study of mothers who surrendered over a larger period of time – say the last 10 years when you all say adoption is sooo different from before, but only interview those who have not had time to realize fully what surrendering has done to them and their family. Not to mention that little fact that if there are 22,000 domestic infant adoptions per year, then if it is all so good, how come they could only find 51 out of 44,000 to interview? To then name the booklet: BIRTHMOTHER, GOOD MOTHER: Her Story of Heroic Redemption is even worse in my opinion.
I found the above in a HeartBeat International Newsletter – but then what did I expect when the first story in this newsletter is about adoptive parents telling the social worker that they are adamant that their child choose adoption as a solution to unwed pregnancy and of course the SW did her job and the adoptee surrendered her baby for adoption. What was the favorite term AP’s love – oh right the forever family…until they aren’t? Perhaps it only extends to the current generation?
I believe some parents are willing to forego ethics, morals, doing what is right, to ensure they get what they desire and use Bible verses to justify their actions.
I get upset when prospective and parents “pray” the “birthmother” does the “right thing” and signs the surrender papers despite it being a voluntary domestic or international adoption, i.e. no danger to the child. And if she doesn’t then the nasty names come flying out – imagine someone actually wanting to parent their child – tsk tsk.
I get upset when prospective parents “court” the selfless, brave, “birthmother” promising an open adoption and anything she wants and attending the birth and once the papers are signed, start complaining about “boundaries” being crossed by said “birthmother” and consider closing, or close the adoption.
I get upset when a state creates laws designed specifically to quash the fathers rights and then claim it is written in the child’s best interests to have a permanent family right away, “as if” the newborn baby would know the legal status of his family or suddenly be so much better off because of that piece of paper.
I get upset when the adoption community bashes UNICEF instead of blaming the child traffickers, corrupt lawyers, government officials, adoption agencies, and supply driving the demand that got the country closed in the first place.
I get upset when parents who speak out against ethical violations are labeled as Satan lovers or some such nonsense, all because they spoke up when a families rights are being violated.
I believe some homestudy agencies work hard to approve families to adopt and sometimes choose to turn a blind eye to red flags which should have disqualified them.
I have deleted this paragraph due to breaking news and it would not be appropriate.
So I do not fit either the pro or anti adoption label in my opinion. I think I am one of many who fall somewhere in-between. So why do you need to be labeled pro or anti – I personally don’t want any label. I think it is a bullying tactic by those who can’t win in an ethics debate. What do you think?