(1) If her family was devout, they most likely sent her to a Catholic college.
(2) There is no evidence that she was "away" at college - she could have been attending college locally.
(3) Whether her family knew or not, her natural impulse as a child from a "devout" Catholic household would be to seek out a Catholic agency.
Parenthetically, there is zero chance that someone would be attending college anywhere in America where (a) an abortion clinic was conveniently located while (b) no Catholic adoption agency was nearby. But she apparently went to college in a mythical locale where abortion was readily available and there was no offical Catholic presence anywhere in sight. Impossible.
Furthermore, in the past, Catholic adoption agencies had (and maybe still do) a strict policy of only placing children in Catholic homes, and of race-matching (which was the norm for all agencies until fairly recently).
So? The point is that they were not rejecting any child brought to them.
Many non-white babies turned over to Catholic adoption agencies ended up in Catholic orphanages, and not being adopted into families.
So? Is it better to be raised in an orphanage, or to be murdered? A "devout" Catholic knows the answer to that question.
Until the advent of the large-scale welfare state, in which most adoption and foster care of "hard to place" children began to be handled by government, or government-funded agencies, most adoption agencies were either highly sectarian outfits, or for-profit (though on paper they were no doubt "non-profits").
My mother spent her young adulthood working at one of America's many foundling hospitals - there were plenty of them in pre-welfare days and my mother spent her days placing abandoned children in foster households. Many of those kids were from mixed racial backgrounds and even more had severe physical or behavioral problems. Private charity existed before the government took over, Mr. Government Shrinker.
There is no profit whatsoever in placing non-white babies in the U.S., and never has been.
To the Catholic faithful, who have been gladly donating millions and millions to Catholic hospitals and their adoption-services agencies for many decades, the unprofitability has never been a concerned. I would be delighted if every last cent of my annual tithe went to caring for abandoned children - I can't think of a use of my cash which would give me more pleasure.
And sectarian agencies are limited by the racial make-up of their membership
No Catholic agency in the US has ever had any worries of finding Catholics from any ethnic background, from Scottish to West African and every shade inbetween.
Again, immaterial. the Catholic Church in America has been more than happy to feed, clothe and educate any child of any race who needed their help.
You are jumping through preposterous hoops to justify the murder of this innocent kid.
It was illegal in 1973 anyway to reject adoptees on the basis of race.
She is a complete and total liar.
Nobody can be forced to adopt a child they don't want, and there is no law against a prospective parent rejecting a child based on race. A private adoption agency is not and never has been forced to take over responsibility for any baby that it can't find an adoptive home for. This woman doesn't claim that the agency didn't offer to refer her to a state or private institution which would place her baby in institutional care, and there is nothing improbable about her claim that she was told they couldn't place a biracial baby in an adoptive home.