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.

The Whys and What Ifs

This was posted in my all things adoption group creating a bit of outrage and controversy. Some people here have such negative opinions about adoption or trying to find a family member to take them. What if the parents are messed up and sometimes it goes back generations? What if the other family members don’t want the kids? Adoption is not a bad word and helps many kids find stability. I have 6 adopted children with 3 different mothers involved and we all get along. I don’t judge them or bring up their past and they may not like the fact that they have to go through me to be in their children lives. I will tell you it works. I share everything with them about their children and even let them come to events. I deal with grandma’s and aunts and uncles and it works. They thank me for standing up, when relatives sat down and refused to take part. In a world where it takes a village, you are extremely naive to believe one person can get it done. I get it things don’t always work out as planned and the path you are on may all the sudden change. Foster and adoptive parents are heroes who take on challenges and many times don’t see the results of their labor. The situation is not perfect because you place people together with hopes, dreams and expectations and it never works out the way you’ve planned. Let’s face it though – that’s life.

Unsurprisingly, there were a lot of comments (188) and I won’t be sharing all of them but will selectively share a few. This person’s perspective on adoption and the need for it is not uncommon in adoptionland or among adoptive parents. No one wants to know that any child is abused or neglected. That should go without saying but sometimes it still must be said.

One said – you don’t think my messed up family loves their children??? These people need to stop taking children, they’re not saving them.

Another one notes (and I have seen this more times than I have a number for) – my adoptive parents were messed up.

Someone else said what must be said – All children deserve to be raised in a safe and loving home with parents who want them and are equipped to raise them. The issues arise when there are barriers to that happening and society prioritizes giving the child away over removing the barriers. Describing adoptive parents as ‘heroes’ feeds into that mistaken prioritization.

One noted – pretty sure my family has a book on surviving fucked up!!!! We still fought to keep our family together!! I will always, always argue family is best!!

The current activist/reformist perspective is – Stewardship or Guardianship. Then there is no need for “adoption” AT ALL.

One asked the hard questions – Why does helping families in crisis include owning their children? You said it yourself, “it takes a village” – so why does the one with most resources get to own the children? Why is it such a hard concept that the whole family should be lifted up out of crisis? Why does a child have to lose everything just to receive care?

An adoptive parent writes – the reality is that adoption is not all joy and perfection. The trauma that adopted children face is a reality, there are many different factors behind the trauma but there is no denying that taking a child from their mother is trauma. Are you able to set aside how amazing you think you are, in fact can you take off the superhero cape that you wear from long enough to try and understand the words of adult adoptees? Adoptive parents are not saviors, we are not hero’s. All of our stories and experiences are different but we can learn so much from adult adoptees and try to do better.

Someone else notes – We aren’t saying that adoption is evil, we are just saying it is mostly evil (today as things are). It is a corrupted system where children are the fodder for the selfish. We are trying to make changes so there is more help for families to stay together and less child trafficking. Children, should only be removed from their natural parents in the most dire of circumstances (Rape, Murder, Incest, etc.) And even then, being adopted is and will be traumatizing. The children suffer for it and will need life long access to therapy. If it is safe enough for children to visit with and see their parents, then it is safe enough for total reunification. It is a sick world we live in, where stealing a baby is commended but helping someone through the struggles of human life, so they can parent their own kids is rarely brought up.

Blogger’s Note – No wonder I spend time nearly every day trying to be part of the answer to what is wrong about adoption.

Tolerance

After seeing this, I went looking for some background on Christianity and LGBTQ issues. I found this – Cultural backlash: Is LGBTQ progress an attack on Christianity? – from Washington University in St Louis Missouri. PS – FD is Foster Daughter. From that linked article –

“Many Christians have come to see themselves as being on the losing side of the culture wars,” said Clara L Wilkins, principal investigator and associate professor of psychological and brain sciences in Arts & Sciences. “Christians may perceive that an America where same sex marriage is legal is one in which they have lost their sway and are now victimized.

“This is especially common among conservative Christians, who also are more likely to believe that Christianity is a defining feature of being American. As a result, they see themselves as being at odds with LGBTQ individuals, who are perceived as having increasing social influence.”

The root causes and consequences of “zero-sum beliefs” or ZSBs— these are a belief that social gains for one group necessarily involves losses for the other – are most common among conservative Christians, and are shaped by their understandings of Christian values, the Bible and in response to religious institutions.

Christians saw the decrease of LGBTQ bias as corresponding to more bias against Christians. ZSBs are driven by symbolic threats, not realistic threats. White Christians are concerned recent social changes threaten their social influence, namely their ability to instill and enforce their notions of Christian values upon broader society — not realistic threats, such as loss of livelihood. Simply reminding white Christians about a changing cultural climate in which their influence is waning was sufficient to increase their perception of Christians’ victimization and perceived conflict with LGBTQ people. “The church is a strong moral authority with the potential to shape norms and attitudes toward sexual minorities like court rulings have shifted attitudes on same sex marriage,” the study authors wrote.

Momentous changes such as the Biden Administration’s appointment of Pete Buttigieg as the first openly gay secretary in the presidential Cabinet and Rachel Levine, the first openly transgender federal official as well as the electoral win of Delaware Sen Sarah McBride (the first openly transgender person in that role) have sparked outrage by opponents. They argue that the growing acceptance of LGBTQ individuals impedes the ability of Christians to practice their faith — as if gains for one group necessarily involved losses for the other.

While the number of white evangelical Christians has decreased significantly in recent years — from 23% in 2006 to 14% in 2020, their political influence continues to grow. Mass media has enabled white evangelicals to disseminate their messages of Christian nationalism, culture wars and cultural grievances and political conservatism to a far-reaching constituency. The Human Rights Campaign predicted that this will be a record-setting year for anti-LGBTQ legislation with as many as 250 bills introduced in state legislatures in 2021 alone.