Saturday, August 28, 2010

Building families? - no, building bottom lines

In my travels through the blog world I came across a letter that Sandy at Musing Mother posted in her blog called Sinners and Saints. This letter is from the then president of the National Council for Adoption and it was written in 2006. He titled it Reviving the Institution of Infant Adoption. That line alone was enough to get my back up. I'll give you a few pieces from that letter here but I encourage you to go to Sandy's blog and read the whole post.

"This choice of parenting over adoption is often the default decision, due to the mother's lack of understanding of and information about adoption. She bore the child, so, of course, she should "keep it." and how can any mother "give away her baby?" Due to this common instinctive reaction, frequently reinforced culturally and by those around her, the woman with an unplanned pregnancy is often unable to consider adoption freely and make a fully informed decision."

When I first read that paragraph my breath literally caught in my throat. Then it made me laugh. Default decision?! What else would it be? That's how it's supposed to be! Seems to me like the NCFA just doesn't like that women might actually be getting some support from friends and family, support to keep and parent their own children. They would much rather convince her that "making an adoption plan" is a much better decision. And, isn't it funny that this is what we've been saying from the other side..... women in the position of facing an unplanned pregnancy aren't getting all the information they need regarding the consequences of surrender. Maybe women are getting more informed and the NCFA just doesn't like the direction that the information is taking them.

"NCFA is expanding its efforts to revive the institution of infant adoption through sound pregnancy counseling and public communications that promote infant adoption awareness and understanding. NCFA's infant adoption awareness training program teaches pregnancy counselors how to present the adoption option to women with unplanned pregnancies."

Yes, they're going to "counsel" women right out of their babies lives. Who is paying for this counseling? Who is training the counselors? They are, so what kind of spin do you think they'll put on this counseling? Follow the money. They make money when a woman surrenders so how do you think the counseling will go? They will gear it towards encouraging a woman to surrender her baby. This is where the so-called positive language comes in - see what I wrote a couple of posts down below in Language and Lures. They are expanding their efforts because they've been hit in the wallet since the rate of infant adoptions has declined.

"A recent study commissioned by NCFA and the Family Research Council revealed valuable insights into the birthmother's choice of adoption. In-depth interviews of 45 birthmothers addressed the emotional process, thoughts, and feelings they went through in arriving at their adoption decisions. Some findings came as no surprise. For example, in order for birthmothers to feel right about their decision, it was necessary that they made the decision voluntarily. Many who felt they had been coerced or tricked into adoption, mostly older birthmothers, were bitter about it."

So this is how they learn their techniques. They study us, find out what buttons to push and then gear the counseling and advertising that they do to steer young, vulnerable women in the direction of adoption. So, they don't want mothers to be bitter - is this what I'm supposed to take from that last line? I don't feel I was coerced, I know I was coerced. Now, instead of just being open about their agenda, they've gotten sneaky about it. If they play the game right these young women will come away from this experience thinking this was all their idea and gee, they're even happy about it. Then they use these happy surrendering moms to convince more mothers to do the same thing. This is how they "build families" and bottom lines.

The last paragraph...

"For the sake of children, birthparents, and families, NCFA seeks support for advancing counseling, media, and policy strategies to revive infant adoption in America. Will you partner with us in this vital cause?"

Well, sorry NCFA, no support here. They actually strategize on how to separate mothers from their children. They want a revival! They make me sick.


  1. It is, as everyone knows, all about the money. With the waining of infant adoptions, the prices go down and so does their bottom line. Since, however, the costs of their enterprise have risen, it is imperative that they find a solution to survive -

    I wonder if finding all their offices and homes and picketing them as baby theifs would work?

  2. The very title of your blog stems up so many issues about what it means to have a choice. When I point out that contesting adoption vs death isn't a choice, I get told that since a mother is "physically" capable of letting her child rot in the streets that death IS actually a choice.

    *shakes her head*

    As in, a mother can physically let her child rot if she doesn't have the money. She can physically, legally and lawfully let the child die.

    So it's okay to romanticize that a mother gave up her child out of love (instead of being literal as to the WHYs), but it's not okay to romanticize that a mother "cannot" kill her child?

    Sometimes I wonder about people. I really do.