This is why I was so glad to see The Nation recently publish an article called Shotgun Adoption, which outlines the problems pregnant women often encounter at crisis pregnancy centers like the Alpha Center and Bethany Christian Services (both in Sioux Falls). The article points to the stories of several women who were celebrated by Bethany for opting against abortion, but who were then coerced into relinquishing their babies. One woman in South Carolina, speaking under the pseudonym Carolyn Jordan, was hesitant to agree to adoption. At one point, her counselor at Bethany promised an open adoption, which would allow her to maintain contact with her child. The day she gave birth, she was told that completely open adoptions aren't legal in the state, and that she would be given no information about the couple adopting her baby. When she said she was reconsidering giving up her baby, the Bethany counselor brought in the would-be adoptive parents to plead with her. If that isn't a hard-sell, coercive tactic, I honestly don't know what is.
I think the author hit the nail on the head when explaining why coercion happens, especially to young white pregnant women:
The cultural shift that had followed World War II switched the emphasis of adoption from finding homes for needy infants to finding children for childless couples. Karen Wilson-Buterbaugh, founder of the Baby Scoop Era Research Initiative, has compiled sociological studies from the era, including Clark Vincent's speculation in his 1961 book Unmarried Mothers that "if the demand for adoptable babies continues to exceed the supply...it is quite possible that, in the near future, unwed mothers will be 'punished' by having their children taken from them right after birth"--under the guise of protecting the "best interests of the child."
The Baby Scoop Era ended with Roe v. Wade, as abortion was legalized and single motherhood gained acceptance. The resultant fall in adoption rates was drastic, from 19.2 percent of white, unmarried pregnant women in 1972 to 1.7 percent in 1995 (and lower among women of color). Coinciding with this decline was the rise of the religious right and the founding of crisis pregnancy centers.
The change in demand and focus of CPCs means there's likely to be a pretty prevailing attitude that "the ends justify the means," meaning they'll say anything to a pregnant woman to not only convince her to rule out abortion, but also to surrender her baby for adoption. If the focus had remained exclusively on finding homes for babies, instead of finding babies for homes, CPCs would likely see no need to coerce women into making a choice they're not happy with.
It's difficult to talk about the subject without pointing out that sadly, the huge demand among adoptive parents is overwhelmingly for white infants. Babies of color are often available for adoption, as are older children of all races, but many couples are willing to wait up to 10 years for a white infant to adopt.
Obviously, I'm not saying adoption is inherently a bad choice for women with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. Adoption, like any reproductive choice, is great when it's not the result of coercion. I've never met my biological mother and don't plan to in the near future, but I'd like to hope she chose adoption, and wasn't forced into it by the Catholic adoption agency that facilitated the process. Sadly, the fact that it happened in 1985 has led me to think for a while now that it may not have been the squeaky-clean process I grew up believing it was.
4 comments:
Great post Angie. Two books I recommend reading that deal with adoption pre 1973:
The Baby Thief: The Untold Story of Georgia Tann, the Baby Seller Who Corrupted Adoption by Barbara Bisantz Raymond and The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade by Ann Fessler.
Aren't you at least glad your birth mother didn't abort you? Think about it, what would the world be like without you?
While rich people can't raise anyone better than a poor person (let's face it, rich kids get in a lot of trouble, they have the money to do it), haven't there been studies that show that kids who grow up in a 2 parent household do better? I think adoption is good, not an answer for everyone, but still an option when I think there are a lot of young women who think they have no choice. Which isn't "pro-choice" at all.
As I'm sure you can guess, Jenay, you're not the first person to ask me that.
Any of us are just as unlikely to be here as anyone else. If my or your biological parents would have had sex a day or two differently, we wouldn't be here either.
But what-ifs aren't the point. The point of my post is simply to refute this oft-presented idea that adoption is the be-all end-all "solution" to abortion, and that if adoption exists, abortion shouldn't have to.
Adoption not the happy-go-lucky situation Bethany commercials would have you believe. What's more, there are a lot of reasons women seek abortions for a whole host of reasons, and not wanting to be a parent isn't always it.
Knowing that, and for a whole host of other reasons I don't have time to delve into here (but which we've discussed here at DW before) it reinforces why abortion remains an important option for women.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got some non-internet activities to tend to.
Oh I agree that adoption is not a solution to end abortion. Keeping thier pants on would be easier - and cheaper! :) I think it's so funny when you see a young teenage girl who says she doesn't know how it happened! Crazy.
Post a Comment