Reasons Why adoption isn’t able to fill in the gaps of a Roe-deficient America
28 Jul 2022

Reasons Why adoption isn’t able to fill in the gaps of a Roe-deficient America

Post by drclixadmin

Opposition to abortion is a part of an event that precedes the March for Life. March for Life in 2016.

In the immediate aftermath of this Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, social media is brimming with memes and images that play off of an infamous tweet that shows a clean-cut couple smiling at the camera from in front of the Supreme Court building and holding an inscription that reads “We will adopt your baby.” (Slate has the entire story about the couple in that image.)
In a post-Roe society, there is increased attention on adoption as a possible alternative to an unplanned pregnancy. Indeed, during arguments in the Supreme Court last year, Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that adoption can be a reliable substitute for abortion. But the discussion about adoption does not always consider who the child to be adopted has.
Kathryn Joyce, an investigative reporter for Salon, is a journalist who has been reporting on adoption across America for more than ten years. She has written a book. The Child Catchers is one of the finest ever written on the tangled interplay between the economy, Christianity, and adoption and delve into the ways in which the adoption industry squeezes every penny it can from an extremely fragile time that impacts the lives of every person that it touches. (Disclosure that I am an adoptee.)
Joyce and I recently spoke about the issue of adoption rhetoric at the time that American reproduction rights are being stripped away. The rhetoric touches on numerous other aspects of American life, including class and race.
“For several decades, there’s been a pro-choice response to those who oppose abortion. What do you plan to do with the additional children you’d like to have? Are you ready to take on all of these children?” Joyce said. “And it’s maybe? Many will affirm, “That’s exactly what we’re after.'”
Edited to increase clarity and length.
Couples holding signs reading “We will adopt your baby” have been circulating on Twitter over the past couple of weeks. As someone who has covered the world for a long time, How do photos like connect with your work?

It’s like discussions about adoption that for a long time took place at the fringes of discussions concerning reproductive rights are now becoming a more commonplace discussion. It’s fascinating to note that there are a few occasions where there was an equivalent, but not time-bound, acknowledgment of this issue.
the book discusses the events that took place in Haiti following the devastating earthquake of the year 2010. There was a huge desire to not only expedite adoptions currently in the process but also open an adoption procedure that was expedited for any child in care in an institution in the country, despite experts on welfare along with some most accountable adoption organizations saying that “When the country is in complete disarray is not the time to start rushing things.” In the course of the plan, Laura Silsby, a Baptist missionary from Idaho and Idaho, came up with this brutal and creepy plan in which she planned to take Haitian children off of the streets. In the end, they would be to be given the option of international adoption. The boldness and despair of it all caught the attention of people.
In 2018, when the family separation crisis in the border region began to be noticed, People suddenly paid close attention to the issue. Was the biggest adoptive agency in the United States, Bethany Christian Services was appointed by the federal government in order to provide foster care for the children. Many people began asking what their plan is with the children they’re removing from their parents. Will they be giving these children up for adoption?
Following this decision of the Supreme Court overturning Roe, another similar event occurred. There two Supreme Court justices — Samuel Alito in his opinion and Amy Coney Barrett in her arguments last winter have made the case that abortion isn’t necessary because we’ve adopted. Right-wing politicians have claimed it’s the solution to unwanted pregnancies. Then you’ll find people arriving with happy banners and huge smiles saying, “We will adopt your baby.” This is difficult to ignore for lots of people who aren’t familiar with the issues.

The majority of your book (but not solely) covers international adoption, specifically evangelical Christian families who adopt children, often a lot of them, from abroad. What is the place of domestic adoption in that picture?
The message of the movement overall is based on the notion that by adopting, you’re doing more than simply creating an extended family. Additionally, you are solving the issue of abortion in their minds. They believe you’re providing an answer to the problem of unplanned pregnancy. Adoption is perceived as an all-in-one solution.
The common thread is poverty in this instance. One family has broken apart for reasons that lead to poverty in many different ways. A fragment of the first family generally forms more wealthy families.
While doing my research for the book, I had a conversation with the Director of an agency for adoption located in the Pacific Northwest that prided itself on being extremely transparent and working to avoid some ethical issues which have affected other adoption companies. She explained that when you consider the various forms of adoption, one thing they all have in common is that the birth mother isn’t visible. This means you’re not only removing the birth mother but also the entire family from which they came. It’s not uncommon to see them as the product’s originator, however ridiculous as it may sound. This is how many people who have been adopted feel as if they were an item or a source.
The idea of making families of origin inaccessible by creating an overall caricature. If it’s domestic adoption, there’s a good chance it’s a dysfunctional family, a substance-addicted family, or an abusive family. Or reckless, uncaring young parents who didn’t have a responsibility. On the other hand, they’re made into angels who made their lives for the cause. However, they’re not seen as individuals with different sources and assistance who could make a totally different decision.
Globally, you’ll are witnessing the same thing. The families they came from were viewed for many years as a traumatic circumstance from which children were saved or reported on in third-world tragedy.
What do you think of this? Is it related to race?
Sometimes, in the discussion around international adoptions, we see the notion that many people might refer to as “white saviors”: These children were abandoned, and the adoptive family or the church is trying to rescue their lives. Most of the time, the ideas involved will be some pretty severe discrediting of the country, its tradition, or the family the children were born into.
When you think about the devastating earthquake that struck Haiti in 2010 you will see that there was a skewed version of the rhetoric, with people discussing Haiti as a doomed or even a satanic state. There was a feeling of keeping these youngsters from growing up in the country. The people of Haiti were able to say, “What are you saying about our country if you say the only chance our children have is to be taken out of it?”
In the past two decades, transracial adoptions particularly have spoken about their experiences in this regard. The generational wave of adoptions of the same age hail from a specific country because this country was booming in the adoption field in the past. This is why this older generation of Korean American adoptees [from the 1980s] were the pioneers in this study and activism. They discuss having at times grown up in a place where they were the sole person of the color. Additionally, Black or Latinx adoptees, no matter if they were adopted in the United States or abroad are able to say the same things.
Even those who experienced positive experiences and who were very close to their adoptive family would say that one thing that wasn’t clear was the perception of what it is like to be an individual from a minority in a white-dominated community.
Pro-abortion demonstrators and those against abortion hold signs in front of the US Supreme Court during the 1989 March for Life in Washington, DC.
Mark Reinstein/Corbis via Getty Images
The obvious question is: Why weren’t those who held the signs not simply adopting children from foster care? Of course, it’s not as easy, but I’m contemplating the question.
There are many different factors in play. Many times, people who are looking to adopt wish to adopt infants or young children. There is a belief that children who are placed in foster care are damaged in some manner. Sometimes, there are strange race-related dynamics. Adoptive parents have had the experience of adopting who have differentiated by race, between Black children who were in foster care within the US and Black children who were open for adoption in Africa. They would reply, “My kid’s not Black. They’re Ethiopian.”
However, the system of foster care has its fair share of issues. Most children that end up in the system of child welfare in most areas in the United States are not due to abuse of children but due to things that fall within those of neglect. For those who haven’t paid enough attention to it one could easily believe that neglected children aren’t fed or protected and must be removed. However, that’s not always what neglect actually means.
The majority times it boils down to matters that relate to poverty. There are huge disparities in racial makeup in this regard, but there are also significant classist aspects. White families with a poor background often find themselves in the wrong place under this criticism. The lack of care that leads to dissociating children with their parents in the poorer communities of this nation is so subjective.
The kids are put in this situation because they were wearing dirty clothes to school, because a nurse at school found lice or parents were trying to obtain treatment for substance abuse. The majority of these situations end up leading to the fact that they are poor. When we had a nation that had adequate resources to address such issues, it would not create a system that begins its own catastrophic sequence of events, not only for families , but also for the entire system when it begins to take in many greater numbers of children that it is able to take care of.
It is evident that a lot of people adopt as they’re unable to have children due to a variety of reasons. What are the primary motives behind adoption in these religious communities and families with only one or two children?
Everyone is in a unique situation For the majority of people’s main motivation is to create or grow their family. This is still the case.
When I wrote regarding adoption in the Christian adoption movement in the past 10 years there was a coordinated effort to portray adoption as more than just something that individuals do because of the various reasons people make decisions however, but to transform it as a religious undertaking which would have them doing many things simultaneously. They would solve problems related to the “orphan crisis,” which was the argument that there were many millions of youngsters orphaned and need adoption homes all over the world. Another argument was they could resolve the issue of abortion. They could offer the houses which pro-choice advocates were always seeking and requesting when they asked questions such as, “Are you prepared to adopt all these extra kids?”
When the adoption movement really came into full force in the latter half of 2000 and the early 2010s many religious leaders began writing books that made a theological argument for adoption, too. Many of these books would discuss the analogy between how children are adopted to a family and how Christians were accepted into God’s family after they decided to accept Christ. They would then say that by adopting you’re capturing the divine pattern within your family. A few of the books make the argument that the main goal of adoption is to fulfill that Great Commission mandate that you are taking your mission and converting nations around the world and engaging in evangelism through adoption.
The physical impact that a pregnancy can have on the body is a lot and, when we talk about the birth family, I want to think about the psychological and emotional effects of being pregnant and then giving your child away even though you’re willing to do so. What does that look like?
The reason why I began discussing adoptions in the first place was that I was talking to many of the women who had given up their children in the period of the baby scoop before the 1973’s Roe v. Wade. Unwed parenting was such a shame that lots of white women were sent to maternity homes so they could undergo pregnancy and give birth, and pretend like nothing took place.
A French woman who adopts the child of Tahiti encounters the biological mother.
BSIP/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
I spoke to the women a few years later, and they were in shock from the loss. It was a part of their lives. Every person I spoke with felt forced and manipulated, as if they weren’t allowed to choose whether to be a parent. They told me all sorts of things like they’d have PTSD reactions if they saw crying children, or that they would never stop thinking about their child’s location and whether they were safe.
A few of the mothers I talked to who have experienced this talked about it as a kind of loss that is unclear. This is a term they frequently apply to families of someone who’s gone missing. There are some aspects this is more difficult to handle than when someone has passed away since you live in this constant state of insecurity.
Adoption will always be a reality. It will always be an aspect of how humanity deals with children in need of homes. However, we’re now moving into a time when there’s likely to be additional cases. What are the best things we can do as a nation to make adoption less painful for everyone concerned?
It must be a completely informed decision that we’ve not seen with the exception of certain circumstances. It’s not the primary experience for people who surrender their children to adoption.
A lot of people have shared their stories about different forms of pressure they’ve experienced. It is possible that they be required to complete these forms which can make them feel that they’re not capable or financially stable enough to have a child, which is a very subtil kind of coercion. There are more explicit ways to tell people in plain language that there’s no way to be a good mother and should they choose to keep their child, it’s selfish.
It is time to begin asking: Have they or their family received the resources they’re likely to be lacking to ensure that they ensure that their family is intact? There’s plenty of discussion about adoption, even among advocates about adoption being the last option when trying to bring a family back together or to keep a child in the extended family or in their own community, or at the very least, within their own country, if it’s an international.
In the real world, it’s not realized that way, because these choices cost the state funds. If you’re truly going to help families as some Republican politicians have said they’re considering doing after they’ve banned abortion in several states, it’s likely to cost a significant amount of money. The adoption business is a private market-based solution that makes money for Western businesses as well as the middlemen involved.
We’ve never tried any method that’s not coercive. But I think it’s impossible to discuss that possibility without having the main decision that everyone must decide whether or not to pursue the pregnancy. The majority of people involved in adoptions, especially those who have given up custody will tell you that the decision of whether or not to keep the pregnancy is a different matter than choosing to raise the child.