Preventing Pregnancy

If there is no pregnancy, there can be no need for adoption in response to an ill-timed birth. The LINK>Guttmacher Institute Study details the social and economic benefits that accrue when women can determine when to have children, including the impact on preventing teen pregnancy and the correlation with education outcomes. Study after study documents the positives of access to birth control. Women will go back if that access is revoked.

From that study – Historical research has linked state laws granting unmarried women early legal access to the pill (at age 17 or 18, rather than 21), to their attainment of postsecondary education and employment, increased earning power and a narrowing of the gender gap in pay, and later, more enduring marriages.

Contemporary studies indicate that teen pregnancy interferes with young women’s ability to graduate from high school and to enroll in and graduate from college. Conversely, planning, delaying and spacing births appears to help women achieve their education and career goals. Delaying a birth can also reduce the gap in pay that typically exists between working mothers and their childless peers and can reduce women’s chances of needing public assistance.

Unplanned births are tied to increased conflict and decreased satisfaction in relationships and with elevated odds that a relationship will fail. They are also connected with depression, anxiety and lower reported levels of happiness. Contraceptive access and consistent method use may also affect mental health outcomes by allowing couples to plan the number of children in their family.

People are relatively less likely to be prepared for parenthood and develop positive parent/child relationships, if they become parents as teenagers or have an unplanned birth. Close birth spacing and larger family size are also linked with parents’ decreased investment in their children. All of this, in turn, may influence children’s mental and behavioral development and educational achievement.

Because not all women have shared equally in the social and economic benefits of contraception, there is more work to be done in implementing programs and policies that advance contraceptive access and help all women achieve their life goals if and when they decide to become mothers.

LINK>Joyce Vance writes – Senate Republicans blocked a measure that would have created a federal right to contraception access. That seems like it should have been noncontroversial. It’s 2024. But it was not. It failed to pass, with Republicans saying the legislation was both unnecessary and government overreach. I suppose it’s only unnecessary if you don’t care about the right to contraception going the same way as the right to get an abortion.

In his concurrence in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in support of the decision to overturn Roe v Wade, US Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas directly called into question the right to contraception as a logical outgrowth of the Dobbs decision.

Denying The Father

I came across a question posted by a pregnant woman. The baby she is carrying will be a daughter. She asked, “Is it unethical to leave a potentially dangerous father off of a newborn’s birth certificate ?”

The immediate response was honest – Every person has a right to know their true identity. In fact, among adoptees this is a significant and primary issue.

Someone suggested the expectant mother put him on the birth certificate but terminate his rights. This expectant mother offered – He’s never done anything to me so far except be an asshole but he has a felony charge that is relevant to the situation. I spoke to a lawyer and he said he’d give it a 50/50 chance that a judge would allow termination of rights without a stepfather around to adopt. And the father would have to willingly be there and declare he wants to terminate rights.

Doesn’t seem fair but this is the reality we as women often have to cope with.

Then came this caution – The reality is, if he’s on the birth certificate and you file for public assistance, he’ll be charged child support. That system is crappy and may share your address. Don’t let people pressure you into any move with your abuser you’re not comfortable with.

Someone offered what seems to be a rational alternative – She can always establish paternity later. All she has to do is file for child support and give his name and the state will take care of finding him and doing paternity test. You can’t take him off birth certificate once he’s on but you can establish paternity and get child support without him on birth certificate.

And I do believe this is an important consideration – Not putting his name on the birth certificate makes it harder for him to just take her. That would be proof that the child is indeed his daughter and does have legal rights, unless you go through the court to have it documented in the way you wish. Not putting his name he would have to go through court for paternity and visitation.

It does appear that the father is aware. In fact, the expectant mother says he wants to co-parent and she wants only full custody and that any visitation be supervised.

My sympathy and compassion go to the expectant mother wanting to protect her daughter. She says she does intend for her child to know ALL of her family. At this time, this is not an adoption issue but it is a family separation issue.

The Shift

Adoption shifted the focus of charitable organizations from providing homes for truly homeless and orphaned children to the profit motivated supply of infants to childless couples with the financial resources to afford it.

A number of reasons were used to justify separating mothers and their infants. Not because it was profitable – of course.

Punishing unmarried mothers, preventing a reliance on public assistance which might raise the cost to taxpayers – the planned removal of white infants from white unmarried mothers who were deemed unfit for whatever reason – including a perception the mother was neurotic for wanting to keep her baby – was perpetrated by adoption social workers.

Unmarried mothers were sometimes viewed as breeding machines when the demand for these infants exceeded supply. A high demand coupled with low supply increased the pressure on unmarried mothers to surrender their babies.

It isn’t difficult to see how this created serious abuses around a mother’s relinquishment of her child. Georgia Tann opportunistically profited from the shift.