The adoption vs. abortion myth

LA Times ^ | 29 October 2007 | Cory Richards

[shrinkermd]

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani prominently featured one such myth in his speech Oct. 20 to a group of social conservatives. The former New York City mayor stated that "we increased adoption by 133% over the eight years before I came into office. And we found that abortions went down by 18% during that period of time. I believe we can do that in the United States."

But Giuliani's implied causality between these two statistics is unsupportable for this simple reason: The increases he cites were in the rate of adoptions of children out of New York City's foster care system, not in the rate at which women were continuing unwanted pregnancies and placing their infants for adoption rather than having abortions...

Giuliani is not alone in misrepresenting the adoption-abortion link in this way. Politicians from both parties frequently promote tax credits and other incentives to ease the way for adoptive parents to demonstrate that they want to "do something" about abortion. Facilitating adoptions, especially of hard-to-place children, deserves our strong support. But it does nothing to affect the abortion rate. To assert that it does is either ill-informed or simply cynical, and it should stop.

Meanwhile, we know that very few women actually place their infants for adoption. In the United States, fewer than 14,000 newborns were voluntarily relinquished in 2003 (the latest year for which an estimate is available), according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That proportion -- just under 1% of all the children born to never-married women -- has remained constant for almost two decades. It's down considerably from the early 1970s, but even in those days, more than nine in 10 unmarried women who gave birth kept their babies.

[shrinkermd]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc errors are endemic on this issue.

[ClearCase_guy]

I know very little about Adoption policies. What I've been led to believe is that adoption considerations in the US are often driven by race (whites can't easily adopt black children) and there is a risk that the birth mother will appear and demand her child back at some point.

My understanding is that the very high rate of adoptions from China to the US is largely an attempt to circumvent bad US adoption policies (coupled by the rarity of US babies available for adoption, since we abort about 1.5 million of them a year).

[thulldud]

My understanding is that the very high rate of adoptions from China to the US is largely an attempt to circumvent bad US adoption policies

Combined with bad Chinese population control policies.

[Dr. Sivana]

I know very little about Adoption policies. What I've been led to believe is that adoption considerations in the US are often driven by race (whites can't easily adopt black children) and there is a risk that the birth mother will appear and demand her child back at some point.

My understanding is that the very high rate of adoptions from China to the US is largely an attempt to circumvent bad US adoption policies (coupled by the rarity of US babies available for adoption, since we abort about 1.5 million of them a year).

My wife and I have adopted domestically twice, and are now working on an international adoption. While it is true that black birth mothers often face peer pressure to not allow an adoption to a white family, it is not an issue under the law in any state. Individual adoption agencies may have their own policy, and several big ones have no problem with inter-racial placements.

That said, you do not need an agency at all to find a domestic placement, unless you are in one of the adoption-hostile states (Connecticut, Massachusetts) that require them. You do need an agency for the home study. The agency we went with was a non-profit that specializes in international adoption but was happy to do our home study and follow-ups. Our two daughters were found through our own advertising and by a referral made to us by our adoption attorney. Attorneys aren't cheap, but they work on your behalf, whereas social agencies work on their own behalf. (For instance, one supposed large charitable adoption organization that we tried first required Marxist style re-education that was designed to make you feel guilty about the tragedy of adoption. I don't think it is a coincidence that the same people were also involved in servicing foster care and impoverished families. With an adoption, their work is finished.)

Some states allow finalization in the state of birth. That is usually a good deal. Texas is VERY good about it, and the fees are reasonable.

In nearly all states (California a very notable exception), a finalized adoption (Washington state is VERY fast, 90 days, other states are at least six months) is next to impossible to undo except in the case of outright fraud. The birth mother is pretty much out of the picture as soon as she signs final surrenders. (time to do this varies, it is always best to wait a little longer than the minimum). In our experience, a serious mind changes happens before placement, NOT after.

Adoptions from China have been popular because of the availability of girls, who are MORE popular to adopt than boys stateside. Red China is cutting back now, and Vietnam is the new far east hot spot.

New World Order alert, a new international convention was held to "standardize" international adoptions, and to reduce "babyt selling" (which really is uncommon, at least in U.S> international adoptions. As a result, many families have been seriously set back as some entire countries have SHUT DOWN The process and are requiring parents to start again when they have the new rules inplace (Guatemala is a big example of this).

International adoption is popular in general because of the relative predictability. Some prefer international adoption because many agencies propmote "open adoptions", with ongoing contact between birth-mother and adopting families (the amount of openness can and does vary greatly. Often, it simply means update letters and photos every year.) Individual countries might be popular for a variety of reasons. Eastern European countries are popular with those who want the adopted children to look like they were naturally born within the family. Africa and Haiti are less expensive and have fewer restrictions, and there is great need there. S. Korea allows the baby to receive military escort home, making a trip to the host country unnecessary. Typical restrictions have to do with religion, age, weight general health. I have not ever seen race come into play.

[Spiff]

But Giuliani's implied causality between these two statistics is unsupportable for this simple reason: The increases he cites were in the rate of adoptions of children out of New York City's foster care system, not in the rate at which women were continuing unwanted pregnancies and placing their infants for adoption rather than having abortions...

As I reported on Free Republic months ago. I'm glad that someone in the MSM is picking up the story and hitting Giuliani on his outright lies on this issue.

[Lizavetta]

Our local donut lady is a Cambodian who is adopting a black infant, through the county of Sacramento, as soon as it is born next month. And she already has four kids.

[murron]

My question is: Even if what he was saying about the numbers of adoptions increasing while he was Mayor is 100% accurate, can he name what specific policies did he implement to decrease abortions and increase adoptions? I really would like to know. Maybe he could share this in future debates, so that his policies could be adopted(sorry about the pun)in other U.S. cities.

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

We adopted internationally ten years ago from Russia. Best wishes in your pursuit.

I've seen some information lately, although it would take me a while to locate it, indicating adoption placement availability of Chinese boys as well as girls. These boys had "special needs", which to Chinese authorities means something as inconsequential as a cleft palate of a club foot.

[LowCountryJoe]

Where is a conservative non-profit organization the raises money, through contributions of pro-lifers and would-be adoptive parents? Why hasn't one been established? If the pro-lifers, of which I am one, would put their money where their mouths are, much money could go toward a private solution that seeks to curb abortions and instead encourages births -- whether the biological mother keeps a child because of the help of a subsidy from the non-profit or is given a financial incentive to go through with the pregnancy and give up the baby for adoption?

This abortion issue really touches the nerve of the religious. But, curiously, if you notice the size of many of the physical churches in America (particularly in the southern states) or look at the amenities of the clergy -- particularly in the Catholic Church (think Vatican pomp & circumstance), you'll notice that the contributions are being badly mismanaged and the clergy are poor stewards of the tithe. There's enough money there to affect change in the rate of abortions...the real question is whether or not the pro-life crowd wants to step outside their comfort zones and do with less in their religious observation settings, while supporting a much worthier cause.

[ClearCase_guy]

you do not need an agency at all to find a domestic placement, unless you are in one of the adoption-hostile states (Connecticut, Massachusetts)

Thanks for all the information. I'm sure a large part of my ignorance comes from the fact that I've lived in Massachusetts all my life. The media here never seems to say anything good about adoption. We just hear horror stories. Just last week NPR had a story on an experiment from the 1960's in which twins were separated at birth to study the difference between nature and nurture. The adoptive families were not told, and the girls were about 35 before the adoption agency called and said "Guess what?"

The whole news story gave me the feel of "Adoption agencies may have ulterior motives", "Your child may have a secret which is hidden from you" and "Many years from now you may get a phone call which turns your world upside down".

I'm glad that adoption turns out well for people. I have always thought it was a wonderful thing. But the news coverage that seems to get emphasized in MA often makes me think that the actual implementation of adoption policies is not always as good as can be. I'm sure MA manages it poorly (we do everything poorly.)

[Dr. Sivana]

I feel for you. My wife and I are refugees from Connecticut (nine years now), which has become MA lite. There are some excellent excellent people in both states, but the atmosphere is stifling.

Agency-only states like CT and Mass basically double the costs. The year that CT became agency only (1964), adoptions dropped IN HALF.

However, CT still has great apizza, and Massachusetts still has Riverside Par ... they did what?!

[Dr. Sivana]

Where is a conservative non-profit organization the raises money, through contributions of pro-lifers and would-be adoptive parents?
[...]
This abortion issue really touches the nerve of the religious. But, curiously, if you notice the size of many of the physical churches in America (particularly in the southern states) or look at the amenities of the clergy -- particularly in the Catholic Church (think Vatican pomp & circumstance), you'll notice that the contributions are being badly mismanaged and the clergy are poor stewards of the tithe.

You are mistaken. The pomp and circumstance, as you ut it, is not all that costly. The lawsuits resulting from negligent bishops does. Most of these beautiful churches were built 80 or more years ago. The Vatican does not spend ver6y much at all, considering that it provides for about a billion Catholics. Catholics understanding that the Lord Jesus is with them and among them. Spending money on his behalf (e.g. a gold Monstrance or Tabernacle) was no worse than the woman who poured expensive ointment on Christ Himself, even as Judas wanted to spend money on the poor. I personally know many Catholics who dig deep to support both the Church and crisis pregnancy centers and other worthy charities. They don't take it out of the Church budget ... God comes first. They take it out of the budget for clothes, entertainment vacations, new cars, etc.

The priests (outside of Eastern Rite and Anglican Use)don't have to support families to support, and typically are paid $20,000 plus reasonable bennies (a place to stay and health coverage). Members of religious orders don't keep any money.

[LowCountryJoe]

You are mistaken. The pomp and circumstance, as you ut it, is not all that costly. The lawsuits resulting from negligent bishops does. Most of these beautiful churches were built 80 or more years ago. The Vatican does not spend ver6y much at all, considering that it provides for about a billion Catholics.

I am mistaken, huh, the Vatican does not spend much money on frivolous stuff? I'd like to see some financial statements to confirm or dispel my opinion on this matter. By the way, I, too, am a confirmed Roman Catholic.

Spending money on his behalf (e.g. a gold Monstrance or Tabernacle) was no worse than the woman who poured expensive ointment on Christ Himself, even as Judas wanted to spend money on the poor.

Spending money on His behalf is no worse...? Need I remind you that Judas was the one who was stealing the money that he claimed to be the good steward of, that's why he said what he did. Many churches nowadays seem to make a Judas-like appeal...I'm simply wondering and asserting that there's a likely probability that there are Judas-like motives to match. At least some of the evidence seems raise an eyebrow and of a little credence to my claim. The Judas analogy is also one that I am familiar with: I used it just last week here at FR.

I personally know many Catholics who dig deep to support both the Church and crisis pregnancy centers and other worthy charities.

Good! I imagine that they wouldn't have to dig as deeply if the Judases had less influence and access.

They don't take it out of the Church budget ... God comes first.

God needs cash? The priests that teach and guide us need to be compensated for their efforts and the path they chose; they also need to be taken care of in their retirement. There needs to be a physical structure with some amenities that need to be paid for. And social programs the church endorses or sets up need to be funded. Any money spent beyond these things, though, is, in my opinion, wasteful. I wouldn't really know though because the likelihood of me seeing financial statements are slim to none. We could continue to argue this but we are not likely to chance one another's opinions on that point.

[Mamzelle]

Aren’t adoptions of SKorean children difficult? I thought the government had pretty much cut them off entirely. I’m glad to hear they’re still possible.

[Dr. Sivana]

S. Korea is still active, though they are rather fussy:

* Korea program will accept married applicants between the ages of 25 and 42, with a maximum 10-year age difference between husband and wife.
* Applicants must be married a minimum of three years, but at least high school graduates and have a minimum income of $30,000.
* Families can have two children in the home and still be eligible for a healthy infant.
* Families cannot be more than 10% over the mean of U.S. Standardized Weight Chart.
* Families may have up to four children if they are accepting of a child with special needs.
* Childless couples or families with a child of each gender may not choose gender; families with a son may apply for a daughter.

[hinckley buzzard]

It is a sad and revealing truth that many women, maybe most who decide they cannot keep a baby, would rather kill it than birth it and give it up. I have heard this sentiment expressed frequently in my work with female patients and discussion with female colleagues. It is not hard to understand. These women intuitively know that once having given birth, they will be so attached to the newborn that they will be unable to give it away, and this conflicts with their already-made decision that they cannot keep it(for whatever reason.)

Easier to have it killed and disposed of by a third party while under anesthesia/sedation. There will be ample time for regret and repentance later.

[Salvation]

Pray for an end to abortion and the conversion of America to a mindset of life!

[Mr Rogers]

A pregnant woman who needs to find a home for her baby will have NO problem. She will probably have NO problem getting financial support. There are folks waiting in line for a chance to adopt a baby.

And yes, many churches work charities to support adoptions - our Pastor is a pastor only on a part-time basis. He works full time for a baptist agency supporting adoptions.

And you are wrong about wealthy churches. I’ve been reviewing financial statements from churches I attend for a long time, and am amazed at how little most pastors get paid, and how cheap most building programs are.

You don’t sound like someone who has made any sincere attempt to learn the facts before attacking churches.

[dellbabe68]

I looked into adoption for a couple of years (I have now decided against it) and I was afraid of not being able to adopt a black child since I am white. It didn’t even come up. There might be some who are against it for cultural preservation reasons, but there are enough kids that need homes it really wasn’t an issue. The issue with the number of babies is that people generally want a perfectly healthy baby, understandably. Still, I found numerous adoption agencies willing to help me and domestically it was less money than I expected (if I was willing to go outside my own race). Internationally, in the FYI column, some countries have such a high country fee, that on top of fees for attorneys there and here, a doctor to re-examine a child so you know what potential health issues you’re signing up for (even though nothing is a guarantee in your birth children, either), and the visa and traveling expenses. Plus, you need to stay in country for a while to get the kid, so that goes to time off. My particular workplace does not offer maternity for adoption, so your vacation has got to be used for travel and the stay at home time (as much as you can do).

Anyway, I could go on... but on the subject of race, I found that to be the least of the issues involved.

[dellbabe68]

If you want to compare info, feel free to email me. I looked into agencies all over the country and found several very good ones. Also, nothing in life is a guarantee.

Also, the birth mother does not need to know where you live. Most agencies make it so they only know your first name. Also, there are religuish periods, where the birth parents have to give up rights. During that time you do hold your breath. But after the child is legally yours. And nowadays most people raise their kid with the knowledge they are adopted, so if birth parent shows up, it won’t be a surprise. However, you would be the parent. Honestly, the horror stories are disproportionate, but there are things you need to be careful about for sure.