Babies ?

With the state of the world, it is understandable that many young people are NOT planning to have children. My oldest son has said that with conviction and he has proven over the years that he does know his own trajectory in life.

I do understand the enormous responsibility of bringing children into this world. I also do have 2 grandchildren. My thoughts today were triggered seeing an article in the current issue of Time by Jamie Ducharme titled “Baby Talk”. Reddit has a group titled “fence sitters” – people who aren’t sure whether they want to have children. It is a group of over 70,000 members.

In a footnote of a draft opinion on abortion access, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito quoted from a 2008 government report on the demand for adoption in the U.S., which used the phrase, “domestic supply of infants.” Posts on social media critical of the opinion have misleadingly suggested that Alito himself came up with the phrase. The 2008 Report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said “… nearly 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., they were in demand for a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent.”

According to the Time article – “About a third of US adults under 35 who don’t already have kids say they don’t know whether they want them, and only 21% people in that age group say having kids is very important for living a fulfilling life, according to 2024 statistics from Pew Research Center. A stunning half of US adults under 50 who don’t already have kids think they’ll stay child-free forever. Most say they simply don’t want kids. But financial strain and concern about the state of the world and the environment are also common reasons, according to other Pew data. People are feeling so much angst about when, how and whether to procreate that new psychological concepts have emerged to help make sense of how people make these decisions.”

When one throws into the mix Republican panic about demographic changes, it explains a lot about their perspectives. From an article at the Case Western Reserve website by Girma Parris PhD titled LINK>The Republican Party and Demographic Change –

Since before the turn of the millennium, many commentators have argued that long-term demographic change, especially the shrinking proportion of “white” voters, would create a Democratic majority in U.S. politics. This analysis explicitly referred back to Kevin Phillips’ 1969 The Emerging Republican Majority, which argued that the Democratic embrace of civil rights would move white southerners and some of the northern white working class, and so the balance of power, into the Republican column. The Republican choice to become (or allow themselves to be seen as) mainly a “white” party was in spite of arguments among some Republican campaign professionals, especially after the 2012 election, that the party needed to increase its appeal to growing demographic groups. In spite of such appeals, the nomination, election, and subsequent domination of the party by President Donald Trump appear to have doubled down on making the Republicans a party dominated by white voters – and the Democrats something different.

From a reforming adoption perspective, maybe it is all good news. Banning abortion may NOT be enough to reverse that trend nor will it result in an increase in the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life. Young people don’t want to have to make that choice. And adoptee voices are loud and clear about the damage that being given up can cause for the rest of that child’s life.

SisterSong and Georgia

Fulton County Judge, Robert McBurney, ruled Georgia’s abortion ban unconstitutional under the state constitution. He suggested that the six-week abortion ban treated women like “collectively owned community property.”

This word “liberty” has been niggling at my values awareness at least all this day long. The judge wrote, “A review of our higher courts’ interpretations of ‘liberty’ demonstrates that liberty in Georgia includes in its meaning, in its protections, and in its bundle of rights the power of a woman to control her own body, to decide what happens to it and in it, and to reject state interference with her healthcare choices.” He added that society can only intervene in a person’s pregnancy when the fetus reaches viability, which is generally understood to be between 22 and 24 weeks.

McBurney wrote – “While the State’s interest in protecting ‘unborn’ life is compelling, until that life can be sustained by the State ― and not solely by the woman compelled by the Act to do the State’s work ― the balance of rights favors the woman.” Physicians in the state can now provide abortions until fetal viability, reverting to Georgia’s 2019 abortion law.

“Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote,” McBurney wrote. “Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted, not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy, even taking into consideration whatever bundle of rights the not-yet-viable fetus may have.”

The ruling is a monumental win for abortion rights advocates who have rallied against the extreme abortion ban. On Saturday, reproductive justice groups hosted a rally at the state capitol to demand a repeal of the law and commemorate the two women who died because of the state’s abortion ban. ProPublica recently reported that Amber Thurman and Candi Miller, two Black mothers from Georgia, died because they were denied proper medical treatment after using abortion pills.

“Today’s win was hard-fought and is a significant step in the right direction,” Monica Simpson, president of the women of color-focused reproductive justice organization LINK>SisterSong, said. “[But] every day the ban has been in place has been a day too long ― and we have felt the consequences, especially our Black and brown communities.”

This blog’s content depended upon the reporting of Alanna Vagianos in The Huffington Post at this LINK>Judge Strikes Down Georgia’s 6-Week Abortion Ban.

SAY HER NAME

Georgia, Georgia
The whole day through (the whole day through)
Just an old sweet song
Keeps Georgia on my mind (Georgia on my mind)

I said Georgia
Georgia
A song of you (a song of you)
Comes as sweet and clear
As moonlight through the pines

Let Them Live

An expectant mother writes – I’m currently pregnant and felt there was no way to parent. I was referred to an agency called Let Them Live. They got me a car, a house, and are going to pay my rent until 3 months after the baby is born. They have fund raisers for moms upwards of 30k. They also do tons of workshops from financial planning to meal planning everything in between but those are not required. The only requirements are attending 2 support groups a month, which are done through Google Meet. No money is paid to you directly, only to cover your expenses / purchases.

Another woman responds – I’m glad that you were able to receive assistance. I’m not sure that Let them Live is a super reliable resource, given their lack of fulfillment on their promises to some women. Just advising you to be cautious. (blogger’s note – I immediately discerned red flags when reading about all the stuff the woman received – what was the catch ?)

Doing a Google Search on the organization, I found this at Business Insider – LINK>Anti-abortion group Let Them Live to pay $10,000 it never gave to women who agreed not to terminate pregnancies.

An anti-abortion couple promised pregnant women thousands of dollars if they didn’t have abortions. The women had their babies, but the couple didn’t always hold up their end of the deal. Business Insider investigated. Now Let Them Live says it will pay out the nearly $10,000 the women never got.

The Details – Let Them Live is an Indiana-based nonprofit. They promised the three women thousands of dollars of support in contracts that a lawyer described as “abusive.” The group offers women financial assistance, if they are considering having an abortion for economic reasons, “The Catch” as long as they sign a contract vowing not to terminate their pregnancy.

The women said Let Them Live failed to deliver on $30,660 in support, which it had promised them for childcare, food, rent, and utilities, leaving one considering suicide and another having to “ask on Facebook” for diapers. of All the women said they were at least five months pregnant, when they were told the support would be cut, meaning their options for abortion were narrowing. “I feel conned into keeping this baby,” one told Business Insider.

The organization’s founders are a millennial, anti-abortion, Christian couple who have deep connections to the conservative movement. They claim to have “helped” more than 700 women cancel their abortions, since it was founded in 2019.

Philip Hackney, an expert in nonprofit law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, said Let Them Live’s contracts were “abusive” because the women were obligated to conditions including giving up “significant” health privacy rights.

You can read Business Insider’s full investigation report at this LINK>I feel conned into keeping this baby.

(Note – you will be asked to create an account and there IS a paywall. I used my Facebook account and they only asked for my name, profile picture and email address. Then, they asked me to pay.)

Hard Truths

It’s easy to be righteous about “life” and extreme in your anti-abortion views – perhaps you should open your heart to read this story in today’s Huffington Post LINK>A Letter To My 1-Year-Old Son About His Abortion. The truth is, for many women (myself included) an abortion is just a waypoint on the way to having other children.

The article is full of the REAL reasons some women must resort to an abortion. Near the end, the father says – We won’t tell you about the joy Dub Dub (grandma) felt knowing you were on your way, or how hard Pop Pop (grandpa) tried to live long enough to meet you, only to pass away on the last Sunday in January, exactly three weeks before you were born. We won’t explain how heartbreaking it is to become a parent just as you’ve lost your own.

We will wait until you are ready . . . We will wait to explain Roe vs. Wade, and make sure you know how to raise your voice when the moment demands it, because women shouldn’t have to face this fight on their own. We will wait to explain how dark our world was during that time, but never miss a chance to tell you that you were the one ray of light.

We will wait until you are older to tell you the bad parts, and how they outnumbered the good. We will wait until you are grown to tell you how fortunate we were to live where we did, because if we hadn’t, we might not have had you.

Reproductive Discrimination

Struck v Sec of Defense

This case straddles both the issues of abortion and adoption. Story courtesy of LINK>Teri Kanefield. You can read the entire essay at that link.

Susan Struck joined the Air Force at the age of 23 in 1967. The recruiter warned her that she would be discharged if she got pregnant. She was sent to Vietnam. When Struck learned she was pregnant, her commanding officer gave her a choice: Get an abortion or leave the Air Force. At that time, abortion was legal in the armed services. Struck refused an abortion on the grounds that she was Catholic — although a lapsed Catholic. She wanted to give her child up for adoption and remain in the Air Force.

According to Air Force regulations, when an officer became pregnant, a board of officers was convened to hear the case. On October 6, 1970, Struck appeared before the board and asked if she could use her accumulated leave to have the baby, arrange for the adoption, and then return. The board refused her request. A few weeks later, on October 26, the secretary of the Air Force reviewed the findings of the board and ordered Struck to be discharged effective October 28, 1970.

With the help of the ACLU in Washington state, Struck took her case to court. Colonel Max B. Bralliar, commanding officer of the Minot Air Force Base, testified that Struck “demonstrated excellent ability in the performance of the managerial aspects of the work units and an excellent knowledge and application of nursing care principles,” and that she was highly dedicated with a “professionally correct and mature attitude.”

Meanwhile, Struck returned home to have her baby and arrange for the adoption. She gave birth to a girl, who she called L.B., which stood for “Little Baby-san” or, if she was in a different sort of mood, “Little Bastard.” She selected the adoptive parents, Julie and Art, who agreed to Struck’s terms: the baby would be raised Catholic, and Struck would be allowed to visit. On December 10, 1970, the adoption was finalized. Julie and Art named the baby Tanya Marie.

On June 4, 1971, the district court ruled against her, so she appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Five months later, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. She filed a petition for rehearing, but was again denied. One of the judges dissented for two reasons: first, men with temporary periods of disability were not discharged, and second, he found it irrational that only the natural mother, not the natural father, was declared unfit for service after the birth of a child. With the dissent, the ruling was 2-1 against Struck.

Susan Struck wanted to take her case to the Supreme Court. Because Ginsburg was then the director of the ACLU’s newly-formed Women’s Rights Project, Struck’s case found its way to Ginsburg’s desk. Ginsburg thought Struck’s case was the perfect case to challenge abortion laws as unequal under the Fourteenth Amendment. The gender distinction in the Air Force policy made absolutely no sense. Once the baby was adopted and Struck was legally no longer a mother, there was no reason to deem her unfit for service.

Moreover, Struck’s case made two vital points: A woman should decide whether or not she would have an abortion, and abortion laws naturally discriminate on the basis of sex or gender. As Ginsburg said, nobody is for abortion. What people are for or against is a woman’s right to choose. For Ginsburg, the issue wasn’t about privacy. It was about autonomy. It was about a woman’s right to control her own life and her own body. Moreover, the facts would make the case unlikely to trigger a backlash.

Ginsburg planned to ask for a narrow ruling that would make the public aware of the issue without turning the abortion question into a hot political mess. To Ginsburg’s regret, as she was working on Struck’s case, another case–the case of Jane Roe–made it to the Supreme Court first. The 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade extended the right to privacy to the right to have access to an abortion.

Ginsburg believed the Court’s ruling was too broad. The sweeping decision caused the abortion laws of forty-six states that restricted abortions to be instantly rendered unconstitutional, even the most liberal of them. Ginsburg feared the decision would turn the issue into a political one, mobilizing the pro-life movement.

Clergy Acting On Conscience

The news has been dominated by reactions to the decision by the Arizona Supreme Court to permit the enforcement of an 1864 law that is currently interpreted as a ban on all abortions except to save the mother’s life. Arizona’s Supreme Court recently ruled that a law written in 1864, which is a total abortion ban, and was written more than 50 years before women were even granted the right to vote, is now a law again. The law originated during the Civil War and before Arizona even became a state.

Activism for legal abortion came from a coalition of Christian ministers and conscientious doctors, because women in abusive relationships must be able to determine their own fate and end pregnancies that are not in their own best interest, or that of children that they may already have, or may want to have in the future. Making abortion illegal, practically guarantees an increase in child abuse; taking care of children is hard, physically and emotionally. It is not natural for women and too many women act from their own frustration harshly with their own children. These facts are hard to face, but every person who deals with abused women and children knows this.

Since these are uncertain days for women, it can be helpful to remember how progressive faith leaders boldly responded to bans on abortion just before Roe. Clergy acted on conscience to defy abortion bans through a network called the LINK>Clergy Consultation Service (CCS). Some women who used CCS were married with up to five children. Some had become pregnant in abusive marriages. Others were unmarried students in a time when sexuality was taboo and single motherhood unacceptable.

They were horrified at the way laws in all 50 states limited women’s freedom and left only dangerous options for ending a pregnancy — brutal back-alley abortions or self-harm to induce miscarriage. These faith leaders shared a core belief: Care for people in need took precedence over obeying what they considered unjust laws.

I will admit that I once had an abortion back in the early 1970s after it became legal. I went to a well-run Reproductive Services clinic in El Paso Texas that included some counseling. My partner made it clear he would not be there to support a child with me and left the decision about what to do to me. He didn’t go with me to the clinic nor was he there with me in the scary hours that evening, when I was bleeding and didn’t know if it was normal. I was totally alone. Still, I was glad to have a safe choice and I haven’t regretted doing it. I have been disturbed by pro-life propaganda but never for long. I do hope as a society we are not determined to go back to the bad old days but only time will tell what the near future trajectory will be.

Thanks For Choosing Life

I read these 2 questions in my all things adoption group today –

Have you given public (like social media) credit to your adopted child’s birth mother for “choosing life” ? Why is this inappropriate and problematic ?

Some responses –

From an adoptee – I always wonder if people who say this to birth moms also say it to any random person. They have no idea who was considering abortion vs who wasn’t. Another adoptee shares – I’ve been told “you’re lucky your mom chose life” so many times.

One woman noted – I know people obviously don’t do this directly BUT one thing I’ve noticed since becoming a Mom is that people DO seem to assume you are pro-life if you have babies, especially young ones and especially if in a married “nuclear” family ! Like, no I had an abortion in between my 2 boys because I didn’t want a baby that soon, pretty simple ! And people are always SHOCKED. Even pro-choice people sometimes.

Another adoptee admits (and she was not the only one) – I told my birth parents this as a naive young teenager thick in the fog.

From one woman who surrendered a child to adoption – I’ve had 2 people say something like this to me and I literally burst into tears. I don’t want or need “thanks” for experiencing the worst event of my life and the life of my child. To which another shared a brilliant comeback – I had someone (a friend at the time) ask me wasn’t it better than an abortion. I told her to try it with one of her kids.

Another women who works in women’s health said – I’ll hold their hand and support them, whatever they choose. Not my body, not my business. Women should not be incubators for babies they don’t want. An adoptee says similarly, These phrases reduce women to breeders in support of the adoption industry. They make me sick.

Another adoptee shares – Would I rather have been aborted? Not the same discussion but for argument’s sake – I didn’t have sex until I knew, if necessary, I could be a single parent (I have not been raped and my abuser was female). I knew I couldn’t knowingly put a child through what I went through.

One who had bad experiences shares – yes, I understand the chain reaction of my son and his mom had I never been born, but I also recognize the horrible hell I suffered from foster / adoptive / foster parents. And of course, you have to equally weigh the negative impact of my not being born, my parents wouldn’t have been so traumatized, they’d likely have graduated, I know for sure my mom would have done very well for herself, as she was working her butt off and trying her best, until I was wrongfully taken. (Blogger’s note -It does get bad and I just can’t but child predators are mentioned).

And sadly, I’m certain this woman is not the only one – As a pregnant teenager in a violently abusive cult, they never, ever would have let me abort. A baby created out of violent abuse that I was terrified to have and never wanted to begin with but was left no other option than to birth and raise another vulnerable child in the confines of the cult. I used to feel guilty because I just wanted the baby out of my body. I wanted control over my body for once. I was never so relieved (and so ashamed) when I miscarried at 19 weeks. I never chose life for that baby. The baby was forcefully conceived, forcefully carried, and would have been violently abused had she lived. Every woman should be able to choose and be radically supported in her choice.

Only Ever About Babies To Adopt

I thought this over a year ago, when the Dobbs decision was first leaked, before it was announced by the Supreme Court. Yesterday, I came across a widely diverse piece in the LINK>Politico Magazine Friday Read where “Thinkers from across the political spectrum reckon with the dramatic and unpredictable ways the country has already changed since the historic Supreme Court decision.” They titled their piece – ‘I Underestimated the Depth of Outrage’: A Year in Post-Roe America.

One piece written by Robin Marty, author of The New Handbook for a Post-Roe America, reads – “. . . the Christian conservative activists and politicians behind our total abortion ban abandoned their pretext that this was ever about anything other than making babies for their families to raise.” It occurs to me that with dwindling numbers of people going to brick and mortar churches, taking the babies of “heathens” (woman who did not remain chaste and conceive in marriage) and indoctrinating them in the faith is one way to increase their numbers.

She notes “. . . we have not seen one single public policy introduced that would help a person avoid pregnancy — no subsidizing of affordable, accessible contraception, no expansion of Medicaid for pregnancy prevention or earlier prenatal care, no additional funding for hospitals, clinics or other medical centers that are feeling the burden of additional pregnant patients needing services.”

“Instead, we saw a Legislature that created more subsidies for adoption and fostering — despite the fact that the foster care system is already underwater. The Legislature couldn’t even muster enough support among themselves to pass tax breaks for the predominantly Christian crisis pregnancy centers that are allegedly supporting mothers during pregnancy. We passed death certificates for stillbirths and “baby boxes” for abandoning newborns (now up to 45 days post-birth instead of just three). We saw an attorney general who argued that pregnant people could be jailed for taking abortion pills — who was then forced to walk back his words. We saw a lawmaker try to codify that same threat into law before his colleagues killed his bill in committee.”

She asks – What (do) the conservatives really want out of an “abortion-free” nation ? It is a place where people are forced into pregnancy, where their personal health and liberty has no relevance, and where the ideal outcome is a live infant by whatever costs. After all, they have plenty of “good” Christian families to raise them.

blogger’s note – I wonder what the real outcome will be ? – more single, unwed, mothers are choosing to keep and parent their own babies. There will be more children raised in poverty and more stressed out mothers trying their best to provide for their families. Maybe the “extra” number of babies they actually get out of this will be less than they thought there would be.

Another one, Abby M. McCloskey (who is a Republican) admits – “I have been disappointed that the rollback of abortion rights in red states — like mine, Texas — hasn’t been met with more robust financial support and protection for mothers and children. I understand that more government support is a turnoff for conservatives, especially in our fiscal environment. But in this case, I believe it’s the wrong place to draw a red line. As someone who values life and believes in the importance of strong families, it is a logical extension of the pro-life argument to protect and value life at all of its stages.”

She notes – One basic way to improve support for families is to provide a baseline level of wage support and job protection if a parent chooses to take time off of work to care for their baby, (which we know is associated with better outcomes for both parents and kids). Lack of job protection and financial insecurity are the leading reasons why (more parents don’t take time off from work following the birth or adoption of their child); few low-wage or hourly employees have paid family leave options from their employers.

She adds that she will be looking with great interest at what GOP presidential candidates propose this next cycle to support families, especially for the women impacted by the end of Roe.

blogger’s note – Of course, if people who can afford to pay for adoptions end up with the “extra” babies, the actual genetic, biological parents won’t need to the government to help them fund the raising of their own children. There are many more points of view in the Politico article at the link above.

6 Months After

It’s still too early to know all of the ramifications of overturning Roe. My state of Missouri was quick to claim the first out of the gate to overturn any right to have one. It is said the decision had a definite effect on the midterm elections. Kansas was an early surprise.

What impact has the overturning had on adoption ? After all, more than one Supreme Court Justice covered their decision by praising adoption. LINK>Good Morning America has a piece that takes a look at this.

Research on abortion and adoption shows that, in reality, there is not a clear line between adoption and abortion as equal options. “The idea that adoption is going to be an alternative [to abortion], that’s not borne out in what we see people already deciding. That’s not what they want for their lives, and their children’s lives,” according to Gretchen Sisson, a sociologist and researchers at the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program at the University of California San Francisco. Among women who are denied abortion services, over 90% of them choose to parent versus choosing adoption, according to data from LINK>The Turnaway Study, which tracked nearly 1,000 women for five years.

According to Sisson, the data shows that adoption is a “rare decision to make,” while abortion is by comparison a “far more common” decision women make. In 2020, 620,327 abortions were reported in the US, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which collected data on every state aside from California, Maryland and New Hampshire. That same year, there were an estimated 19,685 non-stepparent, private domestic adoptions in the US, according to the National Council for Adoption, an adoption advocacy organization. “Adoption is almost always a constraint. It’s what happens when people feel they don’t have another option, when parenting is so impossible, so untenable, so unsupported, that people will turn to adoption purely as a way of surviving and ensuring their child’s well-being,” said Sisson. “And if you remove abortion as a legal option, more people will relinquish when they feel that they can’t parent.”

Exploiting the poor to increase the supply of adoptable babies ? That has seemed to be the intent from the Supreme Court Justices. Sisson estimates that new abortion bans enacted post-Roe will increase the number of infants available to adopt each year by as many as 10,000. “You’re talking about a relatively small number compared to the number of people that are going to be parenting children that they didn’t intend to parent,” said Sisson. “But you’re talking about a massive number when looking at the overall rate of adoption.”

Rory Hall, executive director of Adoption Advocates, a Texas-based adoption agency, said the agency has not yet seen a noticeable increase in women opting for adoption amid heightened abortion restrictions in the state. She said that while she believes infant adoptions will increase, she does not believe they will increase as much as anticipated because adoption is such a “hard” option. “Our biology tells us not to do it, and emotionally it’s just so hard to do that,” Hall said of adoption. “I think most people, if they would terminate the pregnancy but can’t, are going to try to find a way to parent.” She continued, “With that said, there’s going to be some that are just in a position where they can’t no matter what, and will choose adoption.” Hall said of increased abortion restrictions, “I think it’s going to weigh even more on our foster care system. My concern is we already have so many kids in [foster] care … and that will increase, probably exponentially, as each year goes by, and so I worry about those kids.”

Almost Aborted ?

This story got my attention – LINK>My Family Oversimplified My Brother’s Adoption Story by Carrie McKean in The Atlantic. She writes –

My brother arrived in my life like the rain always did: after fervent prayer and petitioning. With the matter-of-factness of a child suddenly convinced of her cosmic power, I greeted God with a new request: “Can I have a little brother or sister?” True story from this blog author – before our sons were conceived, I prayed for my husband to want children. The rest is obvious (though I never told him about those prayers).

Then, our old family doctor in a neighboring town, a man familiar with my mom’s longing for another baby, asked if my parents would like to adopt a newborn boy. It was to be a private, closed adoption, as requested by the infant’s birth mother, who faced an unexpected pregnancy in a rigidly conservative and nosy town.

In truth, I don’t think my parents ever knew much about the circumstances leading to my brother’s adoption. They never met William’s mother, so the doctor was the only narrator, which left plenty of room to fill in the story’s gaps with details that suited them.

At a local crisis-pregnancy-center fundraising event, when her brother was already a teenager, her father called her brother up to the stage and announced – “His birth mom wanted to get an abortion, but the doctor wouldn’t do it.” It was the perfect fairy tale for the occasion, featuring a thwarted villain, clear protagonists, and a satisfying resolution. She writes that she joined in the applause. We were the heroes. We’d saved him. We would save them all, if we could.

She admits that – For most of my adulthood, I haven’t thought much about the fact that my brother was adopted. But in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade being overturned, I find myself considering his entry into my life yet again. Watching the gleeful moods of many in the pro-life community post-Roe, I see glimpses of my past. Believing that your brother was “almost aborted” has a way of crystallizing one’s convictions. Growing up in a conservative evangelical community, I was taught that morality was black-and-white. It was an orderly worldview with no room for messy complications; those were hidden behind closed doors.

She goes on to share – People like me were “single-issue voters,” and the voter guide in my church bulletin told me which politicians were pro-life. Just like so many within the pro-life movement today, we were blinded by our convictions to the uniquely complicating circumstances and considerations in each unwanted pregnancy.

In the middle of the extremes of a polarized country, the majority of Americans believe that at the least, abortion should be legal in some circumstances and illegal in others. Many lawmakers seem more interested in pleasing a vocal base than they are in having nuanced and thoughtful policy discussions. No person should be reduced to a political pawn. When it comes to aborted or not – we can’t objectively weigh the life we have against the one we don’t. Even in my case, I can’t weigh what my life might have been like had I been given up for adoption because I was not.

Regarding her brother’s adoption, she recognizes regarding his birth mother that – It is possible that adoption was her Plan A, despite the story we grew up hearing. Or maybe she wanted to keep her baby, but her parents pressured her into a different decision. In my own family, my mother pressured my sister to give up my niece. My youngest sister was always going to give my nephew up for adoption. Both were true of the birth mothers in my own family.

The story’s author says – These days, considering that my brother’s mother might have bravely endured a set of circumstances she never wanted because she had no other choice sends my emotions spinning wildly. I move through anger, indignation, and sorrow for the circumstances she faced, for the personal agency she might have been denied, for the losses my brother and she have always had to live with, for the persistent grief that comes from severing a primal relationship. But the spinning can stop in only one place: gratitude for the abortion she did not receive, for the brother that I have. For the family that we’ve made.

Adoption tends to run in families – I know it has in my family – abundantly. The author adopted her youngest daughter. At the age of 10, this girl has begun to grapple more and more with the fact that she doesn’t look like the rest of her family. Her adoptive mother notes – “For weeks, she’d been dissecting our family tree and figuring out how everyone fit together.”

One day this daughter said to the author’s adopted brother – “You’re not my real uncle,” she said, keeping her voice falsely nonchalant and tossing her head so that her long black hair fell to cover half her face. “Because you’re not my mom’s real brother.” He quickly glanced up and caught the author’s eye. They both heard what she was saying between the lines about herself and her place in their family. The author realized that her brother knew better than she ever could, what this daughter was feeling, so she stayed quiet and let him respond.

“Hey,” his voice softened as he leaned over to gently bump her shoulder with his. She didn’t budge. He playfully kicked her cheetah-print Converse with his mud-caked work boot and she finally looked up to catch his eye. “I’m here, aren’t I? Doesn’t get more real than that.” I looked up at the sky and blinked back tears. His voice, gentled by his West Texas drawl and infinitely tender heart, landed like rain on the brittle places.

Of course, as this girl matures, there will be more questions. It is good that there is another adoptee in the family that she will grow up close to as those questions demand answers.