"birth"Mothers Exploited By Adoption
   “Adoption is not about unwanted babies — it is about unwanted mothers.”

Domestic Adoption - Speaking Out!  
"Why BIRTHMOTHER Means BREEDER" by Diane Turski
 * Home
* * Disembabyment: How Our Babies Were Taken

 * ADOPTION FACTS :
Open Adoption = Open LIES!
|| The Industry || Damage to Mothers || Damage to Babies || Why Records Closed || FAQ

 * Voices From Exile
 * Speaking Out!
 * Young and Pregnant?
Keep Your Baby!
 * BIRTHMOTHERS.INFO
 * Living With Loss: Resources
 * Recommended Books
 * Webrings
 * Guestbook


dear birthmother letters


 

 

 

pictures of babies up for adoption

 

adoption dreams open records


open domestic adoption records


Note: The terms

"unwed" mother, "birthmother", "biological" parents

make a parent appear to be less than the mother or father they are. These terms dehumanize and limit the parent's role to that of an incubator.

"Dear Birthmother" and "Dear Birthparent" letters soliciting for healthy babies are despicable.

Using the honest terms "mother", "single mother" or "natural mother" help the public to understand that real family members are being separated to obtain babies for adoption.

 

 

Adoption Photolistings - Children Up For Adoption

Internet Photolistings of Children - Not in a Child's Best Interests
by Laurie Frisch

On my computer screen is a picture of a girl, "Pretty and vivacious". Another girl is described as "very glamorous". On another page an African American girl is listed as "currently in therapy" and "developmentally delayed". A boy is described as "on medication to assist him with symptoms of ADHD." and "does not have contact with any of his family members." One girl "is very sensitive, can misread social cues and often believes people are making fun of her". A girl "occasionally exhibits disruptive behavior". A boy of 16 is described as an "attractive little boy".

All of the pictures have the child’s first name included. Is this a fraternity boy’s prank? Who would put pictures of children on the web with their names and such descriptions?

The website is one of many on the internet advertising children. Near the listings of older children are listings of couples, singles and gay people who “look forward to expanding our family and cherishing the addition of a new baby”. None of the prospective adopters’ ads says “occasionally exhibits disruptive behavior” or “can misread social cues”, although surely it happens. Even listing their ads seeking an infant shows great insensitivity toward children who have been advertised as available for years.

“This is such an invasion into these kids lives, exposing to the entire world that they are an orphan or making it out that they haven’t got parents that love them.” emailed one woman who had been in an orphanage as a child. “And with these girls it looks like they are advertising their sexuality. It could cause some pedophile creep to come forward and adopt these young girls.”

“If it gets children adopted, it’s worth it.” I’m told by a woman at one agency. I imagine her picture on the web with a description like this: Helga, age 22 “Sometimes insensitive, slightly challenged, needs help to learn to consider others feelings.”

One more click and I find myself at the Rodent Adoption Listing website which displays a picture of a 12 month old Champagne Hood and a 6 month old Mink. “These two girls are very sweet, friendly, active and extremely outgoing.”

Several websites caution people not to say children are “put up” for adoption because it brings to mind the time when children were literally placed on raised platform at a public meeting like so much meat. Isn’t the adoption photo listing just as humiliating? Even the rodents get a nicer advertisement than the kids.

Laurie Frisch

 

How Poverty Separates Parents and Children: A Challenge to Human Rights a study by ATD Fourth World - with forewards by United Nations and UNICEF, includes a description of how United States child protection system (CPS) separates family members. Discusses 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and it's contribution to the "unfair dissolution of many families"...States that "A child in the United States blames her parents for not protecting her from the child protection system."

 

Adoption photolistings are not the only issue

The United States government is putting pictures of children for adoption on the internet at adoptuskids website. The government is advertising children - human beings - like some product for sale via adoption photolistings. But adoption photo listings are not the only issue.

Adoption and Safe Families Act Tears Family Apart - tells about the tragic consequences of ASFA 1997 and adoption bonuses for one family. A mother's youngest "adoptable" child is taken even after she has proven herself to be a fit parent.

Adoption Bonuses - the Money Behind the Madness - a shocking look at how federal funding is set up to separate families.

 

The majority of children in United States are removed from their homes not due to not drug use, sexual abuse or physical abuse but on the basis of "denying critical care". According to Federal Report: Iowa Fails Abused Children a federal report showed 70% of kids in Iowa under this category.

"Denying critical care" might mean anything:

If a social worker showed up at the stable when Jesus was born, she might say that

  • the environment was unsanitary
  • there was no food in the refrigerator
  • Mary and Joseph were cohabitating and
  • they planned so poorly they didn't even arrive at their destination in time to get a hotel room.

If Mary was not already proficient at nursing her son, you can just image the social worker looking down on her saying "babies having babies" in digust and then taking Jesus away and giving him to fost-adopts. Unlike the old-style foster care providers, a fost-adopt is a person who is hoping to get a child. A fost-adopt is not someone who wants to adopt a child already in the system. Instead, a fost-adopt is looking for a fresh little one who is not already abused by being separated from family, then experiencing repeated placements and possibly other abuse while in the system.

Would Mary ever get her son back? Not unless she had $50,000 and a good lawyer.

The U.S. government would do better to stop expending effort on the humiliating photo picture listings of children for adoption and instead find way to help children remain in their homes.

 

 
 
Mothers Exploited By Adoption
Site Copyright © 2004 First Mothers Action 
Legal Disclaimer