The Now Way

LINK>Adoption Birth Vlog example
MaryJane Lance – once again in pursuit of a child

Blogger’s note – This post is from an adoptee and is about children who are adopted and exploited on social media. The adoptee’s post is below –

Documenting the adoption journey has been an integral part of the overall adoption story. At one time the creation of lifebooks was meant to be a way of helping the child understand what it meant to be adopted. It served an important purpose to ensure that the child’s sense of self was rooted in their adoption..

Once social media became the established way of capturing our lives, lifebooks became obsolete in favor of blogs and vlogs. We now live in the age in which people make a living as content creators, much to the thanks of YouTube. From traditional profile books and listings with adoption agencies, to creating their own websites, featured news coverage and social media hashtags, prospective adoptive parents sought out every possible way to let the world know their story in the hopes of being matched with a child for adoption.

Posting one’s life on social media is native in today’s culture. And because it has well-established ways to monetize online content, these prospective adoptive parents have learned the business. So what is the big deal? It’s normal to post content about your family, right? Many family-run Youtube channels get views in the hundreds of thousands and millions. Everyone loves feel-good reality content.

Right now, the media is shedding light on the failings of the adoption industry. The Netherlands, home to the Hague Adoption Convention, has officially closed its international adoption program (again). South Korea is undergoing a comprehensive investigation revealing hundreds of adoptions involving the falsification of records. Holt International is linked to many of these cases. Dillon International has shut down. The Russian president was accused of committing war crimes by kidnapping Ukrainian children and adopting them into Russian families.

The Asunta Case was in the top 10 Netflix series based on the true story of Asunta Fong Yang. In the U.S. the media is putting a spotlight on the Stauffer Family scandal (2020) involving the rehoming of the boy they had adopted from China. The Stauffers became a YouTube sensation story having monetized their adoption journey. So, what is the scandal exactly?

Tik Root wrote an eye-opening Time magazine article, “The Baby Brokers: Inside America’s Murky Private-Adoption Industry” published in 2021. Prior to that was the Reuters report, “The Child Exchange” exposing the Yahoo child rehoming groups published in 2015. Last year, the media descended on the issues and ethics of child influencers. The Stauffers are one of countless adoptive families who have taken to social media monetizing their adoption journeys effectively exploiting Huxley for profit.

Exploiting children is nothing new, neither is adoption. So, where does the Stauffer Family fit into this picture? Why is this a big deal?

Here’s the adoptee’s perspective:
The adoption industry has reached critical mass and has been developing new ways to sustain it’s multi-billion dollar operation. No longer a taboo subject conducted through back doors held in secrecy only priests could hear, adoption has saturated virtually every level of society. In the confusion and chaos of a divided media, social opinion, subplots found in the DC and Marvel universes, K-Dramas, and TV shows, sports, gold-winning olympiads, tech leaders, musicians saying they will adopt a child, and celebrated family reunions on Good Morning America, the adoption industry is free to carefully and gradually change its course with little attention or resistance.

Issues from the current adoption system become course correction for the industry’s next leap forward into the already multi-billion dollar surrogacy market. With all of this attention on the adoption side of the industry, the surrogacy market grows virtually unnoticed. Children like Asunta Basterra and Huxley Stauffer (formerly known as), are victims of a known corrupt, exploitative industry. They are commodified and dehumanized in the name of adoption. They are bought and sold in a child trafficking scheme to later be disposed of or “rehomed” once their use has run out.

Despite the ongoing efforts of investigative journalists to expose these truths, the adoption industry has proven its power of propaganda ensuring people remain ignorant, confused and brainwashed at the expense of children’s lives. We must continue making every effort to send a clear and unified message to stop this crime. Stop commodifying and exploiting women and their children for profit. There are now 9 million adopted people in the U.S today. Our numbers are going to grow exponentially in the coming years. We have taken a stand against violating our rights. We have taken a stand against being stolen, kidnapped, and trafficked. And now we are taking a stand against being made into disposable people.

Show Hope

Their website seems to be orphan focused. One adoptee was not amused posting – “Yes, raise money not to support a mother but to take her child !” I went looking.

Here is what the LINK>Show Hope website suggests – The care of orphans is a global issue crossing all divides – borders, racial and economic. The cost of adoption can range between $25,000 and $50,000. That is outside the financial reach of most families. Many children who have been orphaned live with mild to acute healthcare needs, requiring access to medical and therapeutic intervention. Many who have the ability to make a difference in the lives of waiting children do not take action because they are unaware of the need or feel helpless to do anything. The photos show white mothers and a diversity of races as to spouse and children.

The organization suggests they are active in 5 areas of outreach – Adoption Aid, Medical Care Grants, Pre+Post Adoption Support, Student Initiatives and Care Center Legacy. How it started – with an 11-year-old girl in Haiti living without the love and security of a family. The parents, Mary Beth and Steven Curtis Chapman, then adopted three times. In February 2003, they formed a 501(c)3 nonprofit with a focus on religiously reducing obstacles to adoption. They even have a “Join Us in Prayer“<LINK at their website.

The couple has experienced loss. Maria Sue Chapman was the youngest daughter (their sixth child). She was adopted from China in 2004. On May 21, 2008, as the result of an accident in their home, Maria Sue passed away. Donations in her memory launched Maria’s Big House of Hope their flagship Care Center in Central China providing care for children with acute medical and special needs.

I don’t know if the adoptee’s criticism was valid or not. I don’t know that this organization is taking children from parents rather than supporting the biological parents in their time of need. I do know there have been a lot of questions about international adoption and the impact of being adopted by a family from a different culture on the child. This is referred to as transracial adoption. Any fund raising with the goal of facilitating adoption has also come under increased scrutiny. I checked with LINK>Charity Navigator who says – Show Hope’s score is 99% based on Accountability and Finance, earning it a Four-Star rating. They advise – “If this organization aligns with your passions and values, you can give with confidence.”

It Was Not What You Think

A Facebook acquaintance of mine, who is also an adoptee, delivered a made for Sunday sermon –

Here’s a serious question. Why is it so many couples who have experienced issues with infertility or unable to keep a fetus viable in utero, believe God is or has called them to adopt, only after they’ve spent thousands of dollars, spent years of time trying to have their own baby.

Seriously, if God was really calling you to adopt why didn’t he/she/they call you before wasting the time and money?

Also why do you think telling an adopted child about how much time and money you spent trying to get and maintain a pregnancy will translate to them how God chose you to be their parents when clearly if you had been successful you never would have adopted?

And how do you justify telling an adopted child it was God’s will for you to be their parents? Like isn’t this God powerful enough to put a baby in your barren womb?

Why is it not gods will for you to accept your struggle to conceive as god telling you you shouldn’t have children? But it’s the adopted child’s responsibility to believe it was gods will for them to leave their family of origin and become the child you couldn’t create or deliver?

100 years of propaganda, and Indoctrination.

Has convinced you that adoption is a way to build a family.

This is commodifying children.

Adoption was never suppose to be about finding infants for infertile couples. Adoption prior to Georgia Tann was about finding homes for orphaned children. (Blogger’s note – my own mother was a victim of Georgia Tann’s practices.)

Inquiring minds want to know.

Blogger’s note – searching for an image for today’s blog led me to this LINK>How Do I Know If I’m Called to Adopt? by Lauren Elizabeth Miller. Which led me to look at her “About” page. She says “My next greatest calling is writing and speaking about faith, motherhood, and adoption.” ​She is an adoptive mother of children from China. In her blog, I appreciate this line – “While all of us can do something, not everyone is called to adopt.”

Yet she also writes – Our family has always landed in churches full of adoptive families that have affirmed our family’s call to adopt. We temporarily moved to Franklin, TN right before we were old enough to start the adoption process for China. (China requires both parents to be 30 years old.) The first church we visited was filled with adoptive families and stories that re-affirmed our calling. However – You will have family members or friends who will question your call to adopt.

Blogger’s note – partly in answer to my FB acquaintance – Evangelical Christian churches play an outsized role in promoting adoption.

Abandoned in a Cardboard Box

In looking for an image to illustrate today’s story, I was surprised at how common it actually is for parents to use a cardboard box as a bassinet. The story I read in LINK>The Huffington Post isn’t actually about this. The story by Shari Leid is titled – “I Was Found Abandoned In A Cardboard Box As A Baby. All My Life I’ve Been Searching For The Truth About Who I Am.” The subtitle is – “Now a mother myself, I often think about the emotions that must have swirled within my birth mother during her pregnancy.”

She writes – In the bustling streets of Seoul, South Korea, my life began at Chapter 2 with a cardboard box in a nondescript parking lot. There was no Chapter 1; the scant police, hospital and orphanage records offer no clues about my birth name, birthplace, or birthdate. My birth story is shrouded in mystery. It was 1970, a time when adoption, especially international adoption, was navigated with less understanding than it is today. Concepts like the significance of bonding between a baby and its mother during the first year of life were not as widely recognized or prioritized.

She goes on to note – Attachment, the emotional bond between a child and their primary caregiver, is now known to play a pivotal role in shaping our relationships and emotional well-being. My early life was marked by a series of caregivers ― from a birth family to a police station to a hospital ward to an orphanage and finally to a foster home ― before being escorted to the United States by representatives of an adoption agency to meet my adoptive parents. This early experience laid the foundation for the complex web of attachment issues I would grapple with throughout my life.

Not for the first time have I read this from an adoptee – the school project that I hated the most was the Family Tree assignment. It was a stark reminder that I was like a grafted branch, awkwardly attached to a tree that wasn’t originally mine. And the thing with grafts is, they don’t always take ― sometimes they stick out, not quite blending in, or they might not even survive if they don’t heal right.

She relates the effects of her attachment issues – In those tricky teen years and my early 20s, I struggled with trust in my relationships. I was continually searching for assurance, for tangible signs that the people in my life would remain steadfast, that our connections would endure the inevitable storms. Looking back, I recognize this was a dance with fear ― the fear of being forgotten, of being alone. Unintentionally, I placed those around me under the microscope of my insecurities, seeking constant validation of their affection and commitment.

Then she describes how becoming a mother affected her – Now a mother myself, having experienced the profound journey of pregnancy and childbirth, I often think about the emotions that must have swirled within my birth mother during her pregnancy. I can’t help but wonder whether she, too, grappled with a sense of emotional detachment ― an act of self-preservation, knowing she couldn’t keep me — and if she transferred those feelings of detachment and anxiety to her unborn child.

She notes that there is a profound power in having a birth narrative. Hers came by way of a psychic at a friend’s party. She was given the gift of a reimagined beginning. It is interesting that after marriage, she and her husband adopted a girl from China only to discover that this woman was already pregnant. This happens more often than you might think (an adoption brings with it a pregnancy). Her son was born a mere seven months after they returned from China.

She notes – We adoptees are not just the sum of our adopted family; we are the continuation of a history, the carriers of genetics, and the embodiment of potential that stretches back beyond our memory. Our birth families, with all their mysteries and absences, are still a vital piece of our identity, a narrative thread that is ours to weave into the story of our lives. 

There is a lot of attention to Korean adoptee stories these days – 112,000 Korean children were adopted by US citizens over the last 60 years. The story author writes – In 2020, the South Korean National Police Agency began offering a service to overseas adoptees of Korean descent that provides a way for us to submit our DNA and register it with foreign diplomatic offices, in the hopes of reconnecting with our biological families. I provided my DNA sample, but to this day, there has been no match.

NOT QUITE NARWHAL

I saw this book recommended to an adoptive parent. Then, I found a review at Red Thread Broken by Grace Newton (aka Grace Ping Hua). She is one of the 80,000 adoptees from China who currently live in the United States. She was born in Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China. When she was two years old, she was abandoned and taken to the Nanjing Social Welfare Institute, where she stayed for a year. At three years of age, she was adopted and has lived in the United States ever since. She notes – “I have had the good fortune to go back to China twice and plan on returning in the near future.”

I have somewhat of a thing, but not an obsession, for unicorns. And the idea of this reminds me of Sandy in SpongeBob (she is a squirrel living in a air filled dome under the sea). From Grace’s review – “From the first page to the last, the illustrations in this book are darling. This book captures big and complicated emotions in very few words at an easy to grasp introductory level. Kelp knows he’s different from the other narwhals, and the author allows him to embrace feeling different without feeling ostracized.” Later she adds, “for adopted children the message is clear that it is okay and wonderful to hold love for both families.” blogger’s note – since learning about my original genetic grandparents and coming in contact with some of my genetic relations, an aunt and some cousins, that has proven a bigger struggle for me than I expected but I think I have finally arrived at that conclusion.

There are also some criticisms but she concludes with – “Though there are a couple of faults, the benefits greatly outweigh these and merit giving this book a read.” One criticism is that the author erased the parents from the book, but Grace believes that was an unintentional error given how carefully and clearly Sima emphasizes the importance of both worlds for Kelp. There is a lack of explanation regarding Kelp’s identity as a unicorn. And I definitely know this from acquaintances – many adoptees don’t find out until later in life that they are adopted.

Grace also notes that “the author of the book has left it open enough that Kelp can relate to any child living with loss and longing for love from both first and adoptive families, for a child navigating two households due to divorce, a child moving to a different school who wishes to keep old friends and make new ones, and many other situations of feeling torn.”

Another One Bites The Dust

Not since Georgia Tann’s Memphis Branch of the Tennessee Children’s Home has an adoption agency operated so brazenly and been allowed to continue selling children as government officials turned a blind eye to reports of malfeasance.

A federal grand jury today charged Margaret Cole, Robin Langoria, and other employees of European Adoption Consultants (EAC) with fraud, money laundering and bribery in connections with adoptions from Uganda and Poland.

EAC had been granted accreditation under the Hague Convention for Inter-Country Adoptions by the Council on Accreditation. That accreditation is considered a sort of gold standard in the realm of international adoption agencies: it involves a substantial amount of time and work and fees to receive.

In 2015, EAC had a complaint lodged against it for a case in China. In December 2016, the State Department debarred EAC, and their Hague accreditation status was revoked. The IAMME website (IAMME became the sole Hague Convention accreditor in 2018) states this: “Nature of the Substantiated Violations: The Department of State temporarily debarred adoption service provider, European Adoption Consultants, Inc. (EAC) from accreditation on December 16, 2016, for a period of three years. As a result of this temporary debarment, EAC’s accreditation has been cancelled and it must immediately cease to provide all adoption services in connection with intercountry adoptions.

The Department found substantial evidence that the agency is out of compliance with the standards in subpart F of the accreditation regulations, and evidence of a pattern of serious, willful, or grossly negligent failure to comply with the standards and of aggravating circumstances indicating that continued accreditation of EAC would not be in the best interests of the children and families concerned.”

The FBI raided EAC in 2017, and the agency closed. Cole had founded EAC in 1991. EAC had worked in adoptions in Bulgaria, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Honduras, India, Panama, Tanzania, and Ukraine, in addition to Uganda and Poland.

According to federal court records, 574 named defendants got away with $200 million selling 8000 children over 40 years. Yet the State Dept continues to present a campaign against human trafficking, but does not include adoption trafficking. The State Dept does not define adoptions as force fraud and coercion as they do for human trafficking. They never connect their own dots. The problem is that adoption trafficking isn’t illegal. Only trafficking for sex or slavery. Agencies like EAC knew this as well as how hard it is to prosecute cases – and plenty of adoptive parents just didn’t care either as long as they got the kids they wanted.

It’s so sad that the department of state has been aware of this type of corruption, orphans are being “created” through fraud and deception for the purpose of adoption, and for years and years this has been happening. The US authorities have looked the other way. Factual complaints have been filed on case after case, there has been investigation after investigation, authors have researched and books have been published, outlining the crimes and those involved, many articles have been written and testimony given, the news is given coverage with major networks, and yet still, charges towards those involved fail to achieve justice.

There is still no accountability for those who have lied, coerced, and trafficked children for the purpose of adoption. The agencies and the identities of directors and staff, as well as those they chose to work with in another country, are no secret to the US authorities, both federal and state. Yet, most all of these people walk free and live their lives with ease. But for the children and first mothers involved, some will face irreparable physical damage, and emotional trauma forever. For the adoptive families, emotional and financial damage continues.

One person noted that they knew this had happened to an innocent mother and her children in Guatemala. And also to her own family around 2006,..and here we are,…still talking about it. Nothing seems to ever change when evil intent is afoot. With international, transracial adoptions everything is cleansed and purified. Any wrong doing is raised to a level of calm speculation and cool logic. The horror of it all never dwells on the harm done to the victims. At worst, some will admired the shape of the argument, never shuddering at the distortion caused by the criminal mind. The end justifies the means . . .

Exploitation

I’m reading this morning about the surrogacy baby factories in India in the current issue of Time magazine. I personally know of more than one family who has acquired their child using surrogacy. I’m not a fan. Learning about the in utero mother baby bond has done it for me. Separating the baby from its gestational mother creates trauma in the child.

Both India and Africa are hot beds in the trade of women’s bodies to create babies for their intended families. There is also surrogacy in the United States. Always it is a matter of poverty and money.

One poor woman writes – she went to the clinic to live out her pregnancy because she was worried that being pregnant while divorced would subject her to malicious rumors. “If I tell anyone, they think that I am going to give away my own child. They don’t understand that I am simply giving my womb on rent.” Still, as far as that baby in her womb is concerned – it IS her own child.

I do have sympathy and compassion for the poor women who turn to surrogacy as their only method of creating revenue. This is a difficult situation. Without a doubt, commercial surrogacy takes advantage of low income women. I do not believe that making only Altruistic Surrogacy legal is the answer as it does not address the poverty that drives woman to provide their wombs in service to prospective parents. It will likely only drive the practice underground. A 9 month long commitment is a huge demand on any woman’s life.

Legal protection is needed – for both the surrogates and the intended parents. There needs to be medical insurance for the surrogates and a minimum amount of compensation for the time they are devoting. Don’t get me wrong – I still do not favor surrogacy. However, I am being realistic about the financial circumstances that drive a woman to agree to this. Banning the procedure will not work any better than it has worked for banning alcohol or illicit drugs. One needs to look at the source of what is motivating the behavior – poverty and desperation.

Sital Kalantry is a clinical professor at Cornell Law School and has written extensively about surrogacy. She worries about the lack of informed consent and notes that many of the women are unable to read the contracts, which are written in English, and they sign them using a thumbprint. The clinic highlighted in the Time magazine article has a C-Section rate of 70%. It probably is safer for the fetus than a vaginal birth but it is definitely more convenient for the doctor (your blog author raises her hand that she has had 2 C-Sections – these were said to avoid transmission of the hepC virus she co-exists with). And it is more convenient for the intended parents because they know when to pick up their baby.

A ban on commercial surrogacy in India will only send the practice underground. The conditions for the surrogates will be worse and it will still be in effect unregulated. Underground the surrogates will have no protections whatsoever. An example is China – despite commercial surrogacy being banned there – it is estimated that more than 10,000 children a year are still being born through that process.

You can read the entire Time magazine article here – India’s Ban on Commercial Surrogacy.

Adoptees Deserve Better

Steve Inskeep, is a co-host of NPR’s “Morning Edition” and “Up First.” He is an adoptee and an adoptive father. He penned an op-ed in the New York Times recently titled For 50 Years, I Was Denied the Story of My Birth. I share excerpts below.

In 1968, a woman appeared for an interview at the Children’s Bureau, an adoption agency in Indianapolis. She was in her 20s and alone. A caseworker noted her name, which I am withholding for reasons that will become apparent, and her appearance: She was “a very attractive, sweet looking girl,” who seemed “to come from a good background” and was “intelligent.” She had “blue eyes and rather blonde hair,” though the woman said her hair was getting darker over time, like that of her parents.

Her reason for coming was obvious. She was around 40 weeks pregnant. She told a story that the caseworker wrote down and filed in a cabinet, where it would rest for decades unseen. The expectant mother said she had grown up in Eastern Kentucky’s mountains, then migrated north as a teenager to find work after her father died. She was an office worker in Ohio when she became pregnant by a man who wasn’t going to marry her. The most remarkable part of her story was this: When she knew she was about to give birth, she drove westward out of Ohio, stopping at Indianapolis only because it was the first big city she encountered. She checked into a motel and found an obstetrician, who took one look and sent her to the Children’s Bureau. She arranged to place the baby for adoption and gave birth the next day.

The baby was me. Life is a journey, and I was born on a road trip. I spent 10 days in foster care before being adopted by my parents, Roland and Judith Inskeep, who deserve credit if I do any small good in the world.

In recent decades, open adoption has been replacing closed and sealed adoptions. The rules governing past adoptions change slowly. Mr Inskeep was not allowed to see his birth records. Everything he has shared about his biological parents was unknown to him growing up. He says, “They were such a blank, I could not even imagine what they might be like.”

His adopted daughter is from China, and like many international adoptees, she also had no story of her biological family. A social worker suggested to him that his adopted daughter might want to know his own adoption story someday. So I requested my records from the State of Indiana and was denied. Next I called the Children’s Bureau, where a kind woman on the phone had my records in her hands, but was not allowed to share them.

In 2018, the law in Indiana changed. Many adoptees or biological families may now obtain records unless another party to the adoption previously objected. In 2019 the state and the Children’s Bureau sent me documents that gave my biological mother’s name, left my biological father’s name blank and labeled me “illegitimate.” On a hospital form someone had taken my right footprint, with my biological mother’s right thumbprint below it on the page.

I saw something similar on my mom’s adoption file records. Tennessee had changed the law in the late 1990s for the victims of the Georgia Tann scandal only, sometime after they denied my mom but no one ever told her. My cousin told me she got her dad’s file (he was also adopted from The Tennessee Children’s Home) after my dad died in 2016 and that is why I now have the file my mom was denied on flimsy reasoning (her dad, who was 20 years old than her mom could not be proven to have died, though her mom had died and the state of Tennessee didn’t really try very hard).

Mr Inskeep writes – It’s been nearly two years since I first read those documents, and I’m still not over it. Knowing that story has altered how I think about myself, and the seemingly simple question of where I’m from. It’s brought on a feeling of revelation, and also of anger. I’m not upset with my biological mother; it was moving to learn how she managed her predicament alone. Her decisions left me with the family that I needed — that I love. Nor am I unhappy with the Children’s Bureau, which did its duty by preserving my records. I am angry that for 50 years, my state denied me the story of how I came to live on this earth. Strangers hid part of me from myself.

2% of US residents — roughly six million people — are adoptees. A majority were adopted domestically, with records frequently sealed, especially for older adoptees. Only nine states allow adoptees unrestricted access to birth records. Indiana is among those that have begun to allow it under certain conditions, while 19 states and the District of Columbia still permit nothing without a court order (I came up against this in Virginia). Also California, when my dad was born, I could get nothing out of them. Florida also remains closed.

This spring, more than a dozen states are considering legislation for greater openness. Bills in Florida, Texas and Maryland would ensure every adoptee’s access to pre-adoption birth records. Proposals in other states, like Arizona, would affirm the rights of some adoptees but not others. The legislation is driven by activists who have lobbied state by state for decades. Many insist on equality: All adoptees have a right to the same records as everyone else.

Equality would end an information blackout that robs people of identity and more. Mr Inskeep notes what my mom (an adoptee) often said to me – “I was never able to tell a doctor my family medical history when asked.” For that matter, until I learned who my original grandparents were from 2017 into 2018, I didn’t know mine either because BOTH of my parents were adoptees.

Closed adoption began as “confidential” adoption in the early 20th century, enabling parents and children to avoid the stigma of illegitimacy. Records were sealed to all but people directly involved. In a further step, by midcentury, even parties to the adoption were cut out. Agencies offered adoptive parents a chance to raise children without fear of intrusion by biological parents, and biological parents a chance to start over.

Access to information about one’s genetic background, heritage, and ancestry is a birthright denied only to adoptees. An adoptee is expected to honor a contract made over his or her body and without his or her consent.

Levels of Necessity

A woman asks – Is there ever an instance where adoption is ok?

A good example comes from an adoptive parent – I don’t know. I thought no, but then a friend reached out yesterday about being contacted to adopt a friend’s child that was born 3 months early. The baby is still in the hospital (born in November). Both parents recently passed away, and the extended family is either unwilling or unable (because of incarceration) to adopt. The other siblings have been adopted by other families that are not related. If all this proves to be true, it’s the first time I’ve felt like maybe this is a time when a child does need a home and does need to be adopted. The baby is literally alone in NICU and is truly an orphan. With that being said, as an adoptive parent, I’ve come to realize that most adoptions don’t have those levels of necessity attached to them.

I also thought this was a good answer – There will never be a blanket statement of “adoption is okay in xyz case.” The answer is that adoption should be a last resort. Instead, support the parents in keeping their kids. But if you are adopting no matter what, look for kids (usually teens) who have already experienced a termination of parental rights.

Another writes – Living in a country (New Zealand) where adoption is almost obsolete – fallen 98% in the last 30 years and considered a relic of the past, I think we have proven it is not needed anymore – there are better options that do not erase a persons identity.

Here is another perspective from an adoptee related to an International adoption – I was adopted from China as a baby during their one child policy – families were often stuck in the position of giving their daughters to other family members, hiding them from authorities, or giving them up for fostering or adoption. I don’t think it was my American parent’s job to fix this through adoption, when there were other ways they could care for children domestically, but should this be considered a slight “exception”? I do empathize with my parents desire to help a dire situation, but I’m sure I’d feel different had I not had a loving, safe childhood in America. Thousands of Chinese girls were adopted by American families during this time, and I know others feel they have had opportunities here in America that they know they wouldn’t have had, had they stayed with their birth parents.

I also liked this answer – With the consent of the person being adopted, and then ONLY if the person being adopted is of an age to consent to the adoption. Adoption is never necessary. Therefore, it should only be done with consent.

I definitely agree with this perspective – Until they stop erasing the child’s ancestry and issuing fake birth records, no. Adoption, as it is practiced today, is never OK. You can provide permanency, love, and support to a child without adoption. Adoption is a lie.

These last two are backed up with this personal experience – If they are old enough to fully understand what is going on, so I would say 12 and up (just my opinion) and if there was no other family. In my case there was no one, but I didn’t get adopted until I was an adult (had 7 unsuccessful adoptions while in foster care) but adoption should only happen of the child is fully aware of everything and 100% without a doubt wants to be adopted.

And lastly this – I am an adoptive parent – I adopted my nephew when my sister was dying and his dad was not available. I would have done things differently and possibly left it as a kinship placement with permanent guardianship – had I known then, what I know now. Talking about his first parents is common in my home, we have his mom’s pictures hanging up, I have his original birth certificate and several other documents of importance. And he’s in therapy at the age of 6 from trauma directly from being adopted. It’s not sunshine and roses, even when it’s family.

Forced Sterilization

In China –

A teacher coerced into giving classes in Xinjiang internment camps has described her forced sterilization at the age of 50, under a government campaign to suppress birth rates of women from Muslim minorities. Qelbinur Sidik said the crackdown swept up not just women likely to fall pregnant, but those well beyond normal childbearing ages. Messages she got from local authorities said women aged 19 to 59 were expected to have intrauterine devices (IUDs) fitted or undergo sterilization.

In 2017, Sidik was 47 and her only daughter was at university when local officials insisted she must have an IUD inserted to prevent the unlikely prospect of another pregnancy. Just over two years later, at 50, she was forced to undergo sterilization. When the first order came, the Chinese language teacher was already giving classes at one of the now notorious internment camps appearing across China’s western Xinjiang region.

She knew what happened to people from Muslim minorities who resisted the government. In a Uighur-language text message that she shared, local authorities made the threat explicit. “If anything happens, who will take responsibility for you? Do not gamble with your life, don’t even try. These things are not just about you. You have to think about your family members and your relatives around you,” the message said. “If you fight with us at your door and refuse to collaborate with us, you will go to the police station and sit on the metal chair!”

In the US –

Dawn Wooten, a nurse working at an ICE detention center in Georgia, made startling allegations about the treatment of the women detained there. Wooten filed a whistleblower complaint against the agency last Monday.

Natalia Molina has written about the history of forced sterilization. There’s a shameful legacy of US officials ordering operations on people without their consent — often disproportionately targeting people of color — with laws driven by racism and cloaked in terms about mental health and fitness. There’s a long history affecting many different racial and ethnic groups, across many institutions — mental health hospitals, public hospitals and prisons.

The ICE allegations can be seen as a recent episode in a much longer trajectory of sterilization abuse and reproductive injustice.

Back in 1907, Indiana passed the world’s first eugenics sterilization law. 31 other US states followed suit. Women and people of color increasingly became the target, as eugenics amplified sexism and racism. The laws, which led to officials ordering sterilizations of people they deemed “feeble-minded” or “mentally defective,” later became models for Nazi Germany.

Under those laws, about 60,000 people were sterilized in procedures that we would qualify today as being compulsory, forced, involuntary, and under the justifications that the people who were being sterilized were unfit to reproduce. In California, people of Mexican descent were disproportionately sterilized. And in North Carolina, Black women were disproportionately targeted. Most of the state laws were repealed by the 1970s. But their history is something states are still reckoning with.

Could progressives become the next target upheld by a very conservative Supreme Court ? One hopes not but with the craziness that is overtaking the US, one can no longer predict how outrageous an unethical policy might be and still be upheld in the coming future. What has been done, cannot be undone, but we should never be silent about injustice and abuse. We can stop turning our heads away because it is someone else’s problem.

Never forget, social ideas can be twisted in order to promote dehumanization. Like the Muslim ban Trump ordered shortly after his inauguration.