In this installment, we focus on domestic adoption and the rebranding of adoption via specific language. We invite you to join the conversation in the comments following each post.
Karen Pickell: Lynn, I also had the sense that this movement
belies a broader push for political power that would reach into other areas of
society as well. And, of course, there are huge profits to be made. Near the
end of chapter three, Joyce mentions a 2010 investigation of Bethany Christian
Services—the largest adoption agency in the U.S.—that found “$8.4 million out
of Bethany’s $9.1 million total budget went to management costs or fundraising”
rather than to services benefiting children, which explains why they and other
agencies so frequently try to push young, expectant women toward relinquishing
their babies to adoption. This chapter hit close to home with me; my own mother
received no support to keep me from either her family or Catholic Charities due
to her being a young teenager at the time. That was back in 1968, but even
today once one of these agencies get their claws into a young woman, the goal
is to convince her to relinquish rather than to help her find a way to raise
her child. This quote from Reanne, a birth mother profiled in chapter three,
sums it up: “I could have taken care of my child easily. I wasn’t on drugs or
an alcoholic. I was just young.”
Rebecca Hawkes: I'm glad you mentioned Reanne. She's been much
on my mind. I found her story to be particularly poignant, no doubt in large
part because I too am the daughter of a mother who was simply
"young." The coercion that Reanne experienced during her pregnancy
was familiar but heartbreaking. (“’Everything is so negative and subtle, and it
starts to work on you,’ said Reanne. ‘I felt like I was walking around with a
baby that wasn’t mine. I was a birthmother before the child was born.’”) Also,
as I read about her actions through the years in her attempts to reconnect with
her son and re-open an adoption that had closed, I was aware that she was that
nightmare "birthmom" that so many adoptive and prospective adoptive
parents fear, the one who won't go away and even shows up on the doorstep, so
it was good to get that story from her perspective. It's noteworthy that
although Reanne acknowledges the harmful impact of a religiously affiliated organization
that orchestrated her relinquishment, she herself maintained and even deepened
her own faith. It's a significant moment for her when an evangelical preacher
tells her, "That child was taken from you . . . They said you weren’t good
enough. This is what religion has done over and over." For us, as readers,
it's an important reminder that not all evangelical Christians are blind to the
harmful impact of current adoption practices. I think it's important for
readers of this round table to understand that we're not engaging in
Christian-bashing or evangelical-bashing. We need to be able to look critically
at certain harmful practices, especially when they have become widespread and
are being cloaked in religious garb, but that's not the same as indicting an
entire religion or group of people. One of the things I've found especially
encouraging since this book's publication is the number of Christian bloggers
and writers who are coming forward to essentially say, "This is a
difficult and controversial book but we shouldn't just dismiss it without
reading it and discussing it. There are things in here that we need to be
discussing."
Carlynne Hershberger:
As a mother who lost a child to
adoption, I can say that I had the same experience as Reanne but through
Catholic Social Services in 1980. One part I highlighted in the book: "’If
you want to look at what's wrong with international adoption, state adoption,
and Christian adoption,’ one agency director told me, ‘it all has to do with
how they treat birthmothers. The common denominator in all of these is that the
birthmother is invisible.’"
I agree, we're not here to bash any particular religion or
people of faith. It's the system that is wrong.
It is good to see the Christian writers acknowledging that
something has to change and being open to discussion but it's distressing to
see the people who claim to be Christians out and out lying about their role
in the industry. In one part of the book Joyce talks about Jim Wright and
Birthmothers—aka Birthmother Ministries on Facebook. I spoke with Jim
personally. We had a long phone conversation where I asked him repeatedly about
the role of his ministry and adoption, and he claimed that they were not at all
focused on adoption. Yet, he is quoted in the book as saying "The reason
we use 'birthmothers' as our name is because it connotes adoption." And he
says, "That's how Birthmothers came to be: because we go to adopt, and we
can't get anybody to do a homestudy." In my conversation with him, he stressed
that they don't push adoption and could only speak about his own experience as
an adoptive father.
Rebecca: Also, we've mentioned it already, but the
numbers manipulation comes up again in this section of the book, as when a
Christian crisis pregnancy ministry argues that all children born to single
mothers in the United States are orphans because the biblical definition of an
orphan is a fatherless child. "If 43 percent of the six million babies
born that year were born to unwed mothers, the ministry reasoned, 'that means
2.6 million new orphans last year!'" Excuse me? I find the redefinition of
"orphan," in both domestic and international contexts, to be
frighteningly Orwellian. "Birthmothers." "Orphans." The
language choices are deliberate and manipulative. "Orphan" tugs at
the heart strings and obscures the fact that we are primarily talking about
children who already have parents . . . just not the "right" parents
in the eyes of the orphan-crisis movement.
Mila: Wow. This is a great discussion. As a Korean
adoptee, although I do not adhere to the Korean brands of Buddhism or
Confucianism, it has been so enlightening to learn about the history of these
religions/philosophies and how they have affected the family (and ultimately,
adoption) culture in Korea. I state this to say that I agree that it can be
very valuable to expose adopted children to the religions/philosophies of their
origins.
One of the things that has stood out most to me thus far in
The Child Catchers is the "rebranding" of "birth mother"
that Joyce discusses on pages 114-117: "Based on this research, Young
suggested a new CPC communications strategy that would 'chip away at those
associations and establish new ones,' presenting adoption as an expression of
birthmothers' selfless love as well as a means of redemption—a way for mothers
to 'defeat selfishness, an evil within themselves.'" I found this
disturbing and disgusting. A so-called Christian organization hired a marketing
company that describes itself as studying consumers' "subconscious
emotional motivators" so that companies can "leverage their brands as
never before." Talk about manipulation. This is sickening. I think this
decision to "rebrand" birth mothers was pivotal (in a very bad way)
for the adoption movement. And it's ubiquitous now in the adoption community.
Completely takes advantage of the emotions of women dealing with unplanned
pregnancies or otherwise. Reading about this made me want to fight some people!
Karen P.: I agree, Mila. I realized while I was reading
this part about birthmothers that I not only write about adoption to give voice
to the adoptee viewpoint, but also to hopefully help put an end to the sense of
shame that surrounds birthmothers, including my own. There is no need for these
women to feel they are evil or that they've done something that needs to be
hidden. Joyce makes the point that the adoption industry has been successful in
promoting "positive adoption language" in order to paint a rosy
picture of relinquishment. They have the money to be able to launch massive
media campaigns to influence public opinion. We need an equally powerful
counter movement to offset this control. The work that adoption reformers do is
immensely important, but it seems like it's not enough. How much more
influential could reformers be if we could find a way to fund our own national
media campaign to educate the public on the truths of adoption?
Mila: Wow, Karen. I can't believe I've never thought
about harnessing media campaigns to educate the public about the complex truths
of adoption. You're a genius.
Lynn: Karen Pickell is a genius! We need to do
that!!!
Karen P.: I'm new at this, so I'm sure others have
thought about it, and I'm equally sure it must be prohibitively expensive which
is probably why it hasn't happened.
Susan Perry: Your comment is so perceptive, Karen. How do
we educate the public about the truths of adoption when "positive adoption
language" promoted by the industry has been so successful in presenting
relinquishment as a positive, clear-cut thing? I've often thought the problem
is one of numbers—we need so many more people to speak out, yet I understand
why many are reluctant. But we also need a coherent national strategy. How do
we put that together?
Karen P.: The American Adoption Congress has its
"No Secrets, No Fear" campaign, but how many outside of that
community have even heard the slogan?
Mila: This is the first I've heard of it. I think
you're right—it's the money issue.
But of course it is. Those with the money have the power—as
perfectly exemplified in modern adoption!
Deanna Shrodes: There have to be people in the adoption reform
movement who have these gifts and might be willing to donate their time to
production?
Carlynne: Have ya'll seen the graphics going around done
by Kate Dahlquist about educating yourself on adoption? I think those would be
fabulous to get out on a large scale.
Lynn: Yes, we could use free Facebook, which is more
powerful than those silly ad campaigns.
 |
| K. Dahlquist & R. Bangert |
Carlynne: Without the resources of the industry, I guess
we start with doing what we're doing now but do more of it . . . Facebook,
Twitter, blog, etc. info from this book, share the book and excerpts from it on
a regular basis.
Mila: Rebecca, you ask a valid question. There is so
much resistance to the truth, I think in large part because this is such an
emotional, and often religious, issue. People don't want to hear it. And often
the ones who need to hear it the most avoid it like the plague.
Karen P.: I think Susan makes a good point, too, that
this level of campaigning would not only require money but also a comprehensive
strategy.
Mila: As Carlynne just stated, using social
networking sites and blogs are actually making a difference and getting the
truth out there. But anything like this is going to be slow going. It runs so
deeply and pervasively.
Rebecca: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." —Margaret
Mead
Karen P.: Also, let's remember that those promoting
adoption aren't just doing it out of the goodness of their hearts—in most
cases, they are getting paid!
Carlynne: I deal
with this in my own family. I have a cousin who adopted a newborn and they've
bought the propaganda fully. I've tried sharing info like this with them and
all I get back is, "All those babies are just going to end up in foster
care anyway." Last thing I asked him was . . . does that mean you believe
my daughter would have been neglected or abused and ended up in foster care?
That's the last time we spoke. Learning the truth shakes the foundation of what
they believe so they can't go there.
Lynn: Great points, Rebecca. I like the idea of
using the graphics on Facebook to list specific points like the one you pointed
out: "International adoption halted—orphanages close." If people can
understand that basic concept, it might suddenly dawn on them that we are
creating more "orphans" by our own actions and that the orphan
terminology has been used so loosely (when 80% of these kids actually have
families). The Baby Scoop Era came to an end eventually—hopefully The Orphan
Crisis will end very soon.
Karen P.: I do find it encouraging that this book, The Child Catchers, is already receiving
so much media attention. I hope the discussions instigated by Kathryn Joyce's
thorough reporting will continue to grow and will begin to infiltrate the
adoption propaganda machine.
Mila: The only thing about things like Facebook and
graphics are that those who need to challenge their thinking about adoption
will not do so by being exposed to graphics. It requires a more personal
element. It's like politics—ain't no Dem or Repub gonna be changed because
they happen to stumble across a graphic. I really wish more adult adoptees were
given the opportunity to present at some of these conferences and seminars,
etc. for adoptive parents and advocates. I think when adoptive parents and
advocates are forced to face adoptees and birthmothers in person, it changes the
dynamic and makes things much more personal (for everyone involved).
Lynn: Good point, Mila, about the graphics . . . however
using Facebook, Twitter, etc. to further the facts against what the adoption
agencies are touting would be useful. Maybe we will have to get political at Lost
Daughters and speak out against some of these practices if we can all agree on
a collective position.
To be continued . . .
