"I wish my mother had aborted me"

Adoptees are quite familiar to being told, if they offer any critique of adoption, "be grateful that you weren't aborted," or words to that effect.  So I thought folks might find interesting this non-sensationalized (despite the title) argument from a non-adoptee that it would have been better for all concerned if her mother had secured an abortion:

If there is one thing that anti-choice activists do that makes me see red, it is when they parade out their poster children: men, women, and children who were “targeted for abortion.” They tell us “these people would not be alive today if abortion had been legal or if their mothers had made a different choice."

* * *

Here is why it is so effective: People freak out when you tell an opposing story. I make even my most ardent pro-choice friends and colleagues very uncomfortable when I explain why my mother should have aborted me. Somehow they confuse the well-considered and rational: “The best choice for both my mother and me would have been abortion” with the infamous expression of depression and angst: “I wish I had never been born.” The two are really very different things, and we must draw that distinction clearly.

* * *

An abortion would have absolutely been better for my mother. An abortion would have made it more likely that she would finish high school and get a college education. At college in the late 1960s, it seems likely that she would have found feminism or psychology or something that would have helped her overcome her childhood trauma and pick better partners. She would have been better prepared when she had children. If nothing else, getting an abortion would have saved her from plunging into poverty. She likely would have stayed in the same socioeconomic strata as her parents and grandparents who were professors. I wish she had aborted me because I love her and want what is best for her.

* * *

The world would not be a darker or poorer place without me. Actually, in terms of contributions to the world, I am a net loss. Everything that I have done—including parenting, teaching, researching, and being a loving partner—could have been done as well if not better by other people. Any positive contributions that I have made are completely offset by what it has cost society to help me overcome the disadvantages and injuries of my childhood to become a functional and contributing member of society.
It is not easy to say, “I wish my mother had aborted me.” The Right would have us see abortion as women acting out of cowardice, selfishness, or convenience. But for many women, like my mother, abortion would be an inconvenient act of courage and selflessness. I am sad for both of us that she could not find the courage and selflessness.

Reactions?

Another Illegal-Adoption-Isn't-Child-Trafficking Story

I've posted before that the U.S. does not consider illegal adoption to be child trafficking, because the bad acts done are not done to procure services from the adoptee (sigh).  In this article about child trafficking charges against those who adopted out Sierra Leone children without their parents' consent, someone from an anti-trafficking organization opines that what happened wasn't trafficking:

Anti-trafficking organizations in Freetown are also feeling the effects of the HANCI case.

Janet Nickel works as a technical advisor for an anti-trafficking program with World Hope International. She says communities they work with are confusing adoption and trafficking. They think it means the same thing.

Nickel explains some do not realize that trafficking involves exploitation. "So you explain that and then people say oh yes, that is happening, it's going on in our community and they can start naming cases where somebody has been exploited but they never thought of it as trafficking, as they thought trafficking is adoption," she stated.

She also questions if the trafficking charges are even accurate. "If there's no exploitation, if it's not for criminal purpose, it doesn't fit the definition of child trafficking," she added.

* * *

Nickel adds one young woman adopted through HANCI has come back and met her biological father. She says there is no evidence of any exploitation of the adoptee.

So go ahead and steal children for adoption, lie to their parents about what's to happen with them, fabricate records -- but no worries, it's not trafficking!  Sigh.

American Couple Jailed in Ghana for Suspected Child Trafficking for Adoption

There's been a lot of gossip on various adoption blogs (like here and here and here, for a small sampling) about this case, but this, from the AP, is the first "official" media report I've seen:

Police in Ghana say an American couple was recently detained on suspicion of child trafficking after trying to board a plane with four children they are trying to adopt.

Comfort Miah, an official with the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit, told The Associated Press: "They say the children were adopted and we are investigating to find out if this has been properly granted by a court of proper jurisdiction."

Sol and Christine Moghadam from Irvine, Calif., were traveling with their two biological children and four adopted siblings from Ghana. They were stopped Friday at Accra's airport.

On their blog and in a video created on their behalf, the couple says they were forced to spend Friday night in jail. Their two biological children were placed in an orphanage. As of Tuesday, they had still not been allowed to leave Ghana.

For the family's blog mentioned in the article, click here.

Trafficked Babies Returned to Mothers

That's the good news in the trafficking case in Mexico involving Irish prospective adoptive parents:

Mexican authorities have returned to their biological mothers all but one of the babies ensnared in an apparent illegal adoption ring providing children to Irish couples, the women's lawyers said Monday.

Attorney Yuri Marquez said Jalisco state authorities returned 10 of the 11 babies to their families last week. The children had been in the custody of the state's protective services since January, when prosecutors opened an investigation after detaining a 21-year-old woman who was accused of "renting" one of her children.

Prosecutors are still running DNA tests on the remaining baby to confirm who her mother is, Marquez said.

The state restored custody to the parents after determining the mothers were tricked into believing their babies were being photographed for an anti-abortion ad campaign, while in reality the children were really being shown to Irish couples looking to adopt.

"The judge was able to see that far from being members of organized crime they are victims, they were tricked," Marquez said.

Circle the Wagons

First, I want to thank everyone who voted for me in the Circle of Moms Top 25 Adoption Blogs by Moms contest.  Thanks, especially, if you've been the recipient of my annoying, repeated, sniveling and whining facebook and twitter posts asking you to vote AGAIN!  You will be most relieved to discover that Circle of Moms has decided to bring the contest to a premature end:

After serious consideration, we have decided to cancel our Adoption Blogs by Moms – 2012 contest. Our Top 25 program is meant to celebrate, connect, and support mom bloggers. Following some feedback from participants in our 2011 contest, we decided to make this year's Top 25 more inclusive. In doing so, we unknowingly stepped into a very sensitive issue and debate, and we apologize to all the moms who have been offended, no matter what your position on adoption is.

What the heck are they talking about, I hear you cry?!  Well, maybe you read my post about Circle of Moms removing Cassi's blog, Adoption Truth, from the contest because they didn't find her sufficiently "positive" and "supportive" of adoption.  I wasn't the only one who was offended by that action (see here and here and here and here and here and here, well, you get the idea!). So, it was all of us "anti-adoption" folks complaining about that action by Circle of Moms that led to cancellation of the contest? 
Not exactly!  It was more like some of the other adoption bloggers yelling, "The invaders are coming, the invaders are coming," and insisting that Circle of Moms circle the wagons to keep out anyone they disagreed with.

Apparently, the activist blogs which were rising in the rankings were “a few bad apples [that] ruin the batch.” The only reality allowed in an adoption blog contest is "the reality that adoption is a loving response to a tragic reality" which "we as an adoption community [should] come together and truly embrace." Yes, those are all actual quotes from disgruntled bloggers bemoaning that adoptee and birth mother blogs ruined the contest!  Oh, and you have got to see the screen grab from one of the contestant's public facebook page that Linda has at Real Daughter! "I am happy to report some of the more offensive anti-adoption blogs have been removed from this list."  AND "I really don't want to see any of these negative on adoption blogs at the top of the list . . . so pisses me off."

So, the contest ended. Yet another incident illustrating the enforced orthodoxy of adoption talk.  Only positive, glorifying, happy talk is allowed.  Too bad that that party line does such a disservice to others who may feel differently about adoption.  I'll say it again: "when adoptive parents ignore the hard truth that their experience of adoption is not the same experience as their adopted children and their birth families, when they ignore the hard truths about corruption and trafficking, they are doing damage not just to their children, but to the institution of adoption as well." 

Yes, this is all just a silly little blog contest designed to draw traffic to Circle of Moms.  But it cast light on this ridiculous orthodoxy where nothing negative can be said about adoption without consequences.  You get kicked out of the circle, you get called a "bad apple."  You're chastised for not recognizing that there can be only ONE reality about adoption, and it certainly isn't the one you're talking about.  You PISS OFF those who disagree with you.  And when you start drawing attention, the forum for your viewpoint has to be shut down -- for fear you might actually cause folks to see adoption as the complex, multi-layered, fraught-with-problems institution is actually is.

Circle the wagons, keep out any dissenting viewpoint!

Again, thanks to all for your votes!  Too bad the contest wasn't as worthy as you all are!

The Circle is Broken

Circle of Moms. A website for moms, with the tag line, motherhood, shared and simplified.

What a great concept -- an unbroken circle of women who have the common experience of being mothers, something that connects us when nothing else does. Solidarity.  Connection.  Infinity without end. But Circle of Moms broke that circle when they sent the following email to Cassi of Adoption Truth, just as she reached the number 2 spot in the Top 25 Adoption Blogs by Moms contest:

--“Dear Cassi,

I’m writing to let you know that we have unfortunately had to remove your blog from the Top 25 Adoption Blogs by Moms competition. As described on the contest page, the Top 25 Adoption Blogs by Moms contest is open to “mom bloggers who write about adoption or foster parenting in a supportive, positive way”.

Best,
The Circle of Moms team” --

That's it, and her blog, voted for by over 100 people, disappears from the list.  Cassi is kicked out of the circle.

Why?  She is a mom.  She is a blogger.  She writes about adoption.  So why is she kicked out of the circle?  Apparantly, the powers that be at Circle of Moms doesn't like what she has to say at her blog or the way that she says it.  She doesn't belong in the circle because she is not sufficiently "supportive" or "positive" about adoption.  This is censorship in its starkest form.  Her speech is suppressed because others disagree with it.  How cowardly is that?!  Circle of Moms is enforcing the norm that the only privileged speech about adoption is speech that sticks to the happy-happy-joy-joy narrative.  That is especially so when the speaker is a first mother or an adoptee.

Which brings me to the second answer to the WHY? question. Cassi is being censored because of WHO SHE IS as much as for what she says. Cassi relinquished her child for adoption.  She writes about coercion in adoption consent.  So do I.  She writes about adoption reform.  So do I.  She writes about open records.  So do I.  She writes about how adoption has affected her now-adult child.  I also write about how adoption has affected my not-yet-adult children.  SO why is Cassi censored, and I am not (or at least not yet!)?  Because adoptive parent speech is the only privileged speech in the adoption triad.  Because I sometimes post photos of my cute adopted kids. And isn't that a shame, that my status privileges my speech, while Cassi's status enforces silence?

When I first learned that Cassi was kicked out of the circle, my immediate reaction was to withdraw from the clearly-rigged contest.  I'm keeping myself from doing so by reminding myself that the only cure for bad speech -- or enforced silence -- is MORE speech.  Or as Justice Louis Brandies said so eloquently, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

Adoption is complicated.  It is not a simple either/or, for-or-against, pro- or anti-adoption duality.  It is complicated, multi-faceted, fraught with ambiguities.  One person's gain is another person's loss.  One person can both gain and lose in adoption.  This complicated institution of adoption needs MORE speech, not less.  Only by discussion ALL perspectives can we explore the multi-layered truth that is adoption.

Here's what I said before when I was accused of being "anti-adoption," the short-hand equivalent of not writing about adoption in "a supportive, positive way:"

Yes, I've adopted and it has brought me immeasurable joy. And it has brought my children loss, pain and grief, as well as joy. It has brought their birth families loss, pain and grief. And when corruption and child trafficking enter the picture, adoption brings everyone involved even more loss, pain and grief. The only joy then is in the black hearts of corrupt officials and child traffickers.

And when adoptive parents ignore the hard truth that their experience of adoption is not the same experience as their adopted children and their birth families, when they ignore the hard truths about corruption and trafficking, they are doing damage not just to their children, but to the institution of adoption as well.

Frankly, it's going to be the over-reaching of the "pro-adoption" folks that bring an end to international adoption, not anything the so-called "anti-adoption" folks do. Haven't you noticed the pattern? A country opens to international adoption. . . just a trickle at first. Then it's push, push, push for more, more, more adoptions from that country. Now the trickle is a flood of money as more and more and more adoptive parents flock to the country. And the money brings corruption. . . . And the country shuts down to international adoption. . . . Wash. Rinse. Repeat. "Pro-adoption?" Really workin' out for you, huh?

So I'm sticking with the contest, and I'm taking Cassi's issues with me, even though I cannot match her eloquence, her passion, her lived experience.  Cassi has asked people to keep voting in the contest, and to vote for the following blogs:

The Declassified Adoptee
Musings Of The Lame
Adoption Talk
Neither Here Nor There
iAdoptee
To Tell The Truth – Please Stand Up

I really appreciate Cassi's positive support for my blog, as well as these other fine adoption blogs. So please vote -- before these blogs are also censored from the list!  Let's repair the circle.

Anti-Adoption Activists Defy Popular Opinion

From the Chicago Tribune:

"Anti-adoption" sounds ludicrous. Who could oppose placing an unwanted child into a loving home?

An entire movement, it turns out--fighting with a primal passion to expose what activists insist is adoption's darker side: The lifelong trauma of women coerced into surrendering babies. Adoptees denied their heritage. And, they say, a billion-dollar industry that focuses more on money than youngsters' welfare.

Some leave careers to write letters, track legislation, research articles and books. They work in anti-adoption non-profits. They educate "vulnerable mothers" and provide baby supplies and financial resources.

The activists insist a mother should first be helped to keep her child. In cases in which that is impossible (say, the woman is incapacitated), a family member or other caring adult should have guardianship. The child should be aware of that relationship. Money should not be exchanged.

Adoption supporters say that logic is flawed.

* * *

"I've been in children's welfare a long time and I've never seen this level of volatility in other issues. Feelings run very high," said Madelyn Freundlich, attorney and author of the book "The Impact of Adoption on Members of the Triad" (Child Welfare League of America), the triad being mother, baby and adoptive couple.

Anti-adoption groups confront a public puzzled by their cause. Some 94 percent of adults polled either held "very favorable" or "somewhat favorable" opinions of adoption in a 2002 national survey by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a non-profit focusing on adoption policy and practices.

Not to mention facing a public and media willing to accept simplistic and unhelpful labels like "anti-adoption" for any critique of adoption as it's currently practiced. . . .

Adopted Twins Returned to Russian Agency's Doorstep

And wouldn't you know it would involve Americans:

A pair of 15-month-old twins was returned to a St. Petersburg adoption authorities by an unidentified man, the city’s child ombudsman said on Tuesday.

“The twins were left on the doorstep of the Moskovskaya Zastava adoption authority. An unidentified man brought them in a baby carriage and left quickly,” St. Petersburg child ombudsman Svetlana Agapitova said.

The babies were adopted by a St. Petersburg resident last October. The adoptive mother, however, faced legal problems after a probe revealed that she failed to notify authorities about her dual Russian-U.S. citizenship as well as having an American husband.

The woman was originally advised to get a letter of consent from her husband before the adoption. It was unclear how she was able to document the adoption without her husband's involvement.

“However, she decided… to abandon the twins. Moreover, she decided not to do this in person,” the ombudsman said.

A probe has been launched and the woman was put on a wanted list. The babies are currently under medical supervision in a children's hospital.

It may well be that the current anti-American adoption sentiment in Russia is merely manufactured for domestic political consumption, as this article argues, but boy, American adoptive parents are sure making it easy for them. . . .

Is the U.S. State Department Anti-Adoption?

The Christian Post asks, and answers yes, citing the usual suspects:

In 2004, Americans adopted 22,991 orphans from other countries. That number has steadily declined to only 9,319 in 2011, according to State Department records. This decline is happening due to a set of complicated factors based partly upon different views regarding what is best for an orphaned child.

The Christian Post spoke to several international adoption experts to understand why the decline is taking place, and why adoptive parents have recently run into difficulties with the State Department when trying to bring their children home.

* * *

"It's an enormous collapse of a really valid service to children. It didn't just happen by accident. There's a reason that this all happened," Tom DiFilipo, president and CEO of Joint Council on International Children's Services, said in a Jan. 19 interview with The Christian Post.

Which is a priority: a child's need for a loving family or a child's race and ethnicity? How one answers this question drives some of the disputes over inter-country adoptions, according to Jedd Medefind, president of Christian Alliance for Orphans and former head of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in the George W. Bush administration, in a Feb. 2 interview with The Christian Post.

"Both internationally, as well as domestically in the U.S., there have been fierce debates over which is more important, a child's ethnic background, or their need for a family," Medefind said.

As usual, we're seeing the U.N., UNICEF, and the State Department being scape-goated for following the Hague Convention.  And it's more than halfway through the article before it concedes that adoption corruption and sending country's internal politics might have something to do with the decline, too!

Russia Suspending Adoptions to the U.S.?

Several different media outlets are reporting this, as if it's NEW news, but I'd already heard that this request was in the works since January 18, and blogged about it 10 days ago.  So I don't know if it qualifies as new-news.There's also lots of contradictions in the reporting. Maybe it's worthwhile to try to clear up some of that. . . .

All seem to agree as to the reason is "an 'incessant string of crimes' allegedly committed by American adoptive parents." Some are saying that adoptions are suspended until the U.S. and Russia "sign an accord."  But of course, we know there was a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Russia about adoptions in July 2011, after the Artyom incident.  Maybe it's the nature of the agreement -- some of the reports say adoptions are to be suspended until there's an agreement that "allows Russian monitors to visit the homes of adopted children."

The Russia News Agency.seems to be reporting it differently:

Moscow will suspend the adoption of Russian children by U.S. citizens until the Russian-U.S. adoption deal comes into force, Foreign Ministry said on Saturday.

The move comes after series of incidents involving the mistreatment of adopted Russian children in the United States.

“Regarding the incessant series of crimes in the United States against adopted Russian children, Russian Foreign Ministry rules that the adoption procedures for the U.S. citizens should be suspended until the Russian-U.S. adoption deal, signed on July 13, 2011, comes into force,” the ministry said in a statement.

Russia and the United States signed a bilateral adoption agreement in July which states several important points, including psychological testing of the adoptive parents as well as obliges adoptive parents to work with only accredited adoption agencies.

If it's just a suspension until prospective adoptive parents have satisfied the psychological testing requirement, it doesn't seem like such a big deal.  If it's until the U.S. agrees to let Russian monitors into adoptive parents homes?  That could be a deal breaker, since the U.S. wouldn't agree to it in the July 2011 bilateral agreement, as the State Department background briefing about the agreement made clear.

Probably too early to tell what will ultimately come of it. Maybe it's as this article reports -- just a political tool in the domestic elections in Russia to gin up anti-American sentiment, and after those elections (in March, I believe) the issue will go away. Who knows.

Laos: Adoption Trafficking Investigation

Here's a news report about a retired official investigated for selling babies into international adoption:

Laos is investigating a retired justice ministry official for allegedly selling adopted babies to Americans, Canadians and Australians for thousands of dollars each, a report said.
The official is accused of seeking out unwanted babies in poor, rural areas, obtaining adoption papers and selling the infants, all aged between one and two years, on to foreigners for up to $5,000 each, according to Radio Free Asia.
He has been taken in for questioning and the adoption process for children thought to be caught up in the scam has been suspended pending the results of the investigation, RFA reported.
Mike Pryor, press officer at the US Embassy in Laos, told AFP that Laos "suspended foreign adoptions on January 9" but did not offer any specific reason for the move.

"Adopting a child for sale... is a crime related to human trafficking, no question about it," a government official told RFA.

The justice ministry is probing how the scam worked, including whether the birth parents sold their infants, which can constitute a human trafficking offence punishable by a three-to-five-year jail term, the official said.

It was not clear how many children were involved in the alleged adoption ring.

Laos is not a Hague Convention country. The number of children adopted from Laos to the U.S. is small:  6 in 2011, 7 in 2010, 8 in 2009. It would be interesting to know when this retired justice ministry official started working in adoptions -- there was a rather large jump in adoptions in 2009 -- the previous year there were 3, and then it jumped to 8. Though the numbers are small, that jump seems significant.

Another interesting quote from the article that caught my eye:

Laos is listed as Tier 2 -- out of three -- in the US State Department's 2011 anti human trafficking report. . . . The US however said the government had 'never administratively or criminally punished any public official for complicity in trafficking in persons.'

This incident, even if proven true, shouldn't be a ding against Laos in the 2012 anti-human-trafficking report, since our State Department doesn't consider buying babies for illegal adoption to be human trafficking.  Sheesh.

Adoption as a Political Tool in Russia

At Foreign Policy Blog, a post about how international adoption plays as a political tool in Russian domestic politics:

On January 18, Russia’s Ombudsman for children, Pavel Astakhov, and Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, stated that they would seek an official moratorium on adoption of Russian children by American families. Cooperation on adoption between the two countries has seen its ups and downs following the pattern of U.S. -Russia relations, but the public discourse on international adoption has also served as a tool of Russian domestic policy to strengthen control over Russians and to spread anti-American attitudes. As a result, the discourse is rarely focused on creating constructive policies that can address problems persisting in the international adoption process.

The announcement is very likely to revive public discourse on the abuse of adopted Russian children in the United States. The timing is not coincidental as a new wave of blameful declamations is preceding the upcoming presidential election in Russia. Once again Russian authorities seek to use old tools and practices in strengthening national unity by pitting ‘us’ – Russians against ‘them’- foreigners via offensive adoption rhetoric.

* * *

[M]edia-promoted public discourse on international adoption serves as a very effective pre-election tool that conveniently diverts attention from the existing everyday problems. It serves to create an ‘outside enemy,’ while seeking to bolster unity among Russian people and to position Vladimir Putin as a strong leader of the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ community.

High School Newspaper Censored as Bullying for Anti-Gay-Adoption Editorial

Here's a new twist on bullying -- an interesting story out of Wisconsin, where a high school newspaper ran pro and con editorials about gay adoption, to the distress of gay parents whose children attended the school:

A gay couple with school-age children is outraged over a Shawano High School newspaper column that cites Bible passages and calls homosexuality a sin punishable by death.

The column ran on the editorial page of Shawano High School's Hawks Post recently as part of an opinion package about gay families who adopt children. The other side said sexual orientation does not determine a person's ability to raise kids.

"This is why kids commit suicide," said Nick Uttecht, who is raising four children with his partner, Michael McNelly.

Uttecht told school district officials he thinks the piece opposing gays as parents is hateful and should not have run. He worries the strong language will hurt his children and could lead students to bully gay classmates.

School officials apologized and said they will review the process for editing and producing the paper.

* * *

David Hudson, an expert for the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group First Amendment Center, said the column may be distasteful to some, but student journalists were practicing their constitutional right to free speech.

"Bullying is a serious concern, and I don't take it lightly. But I hope it doesn't lead to squashing different viewpoints. I do think (gay adoption) is an issue people are deeply divided about. Hopefully student journalists don't have to fear they'll be squashed if they take a controversial view."

* * *

Although students have the right to voice their opinion, it doesn't mean they should say it in a school paper, said Christine Smith, assistant professor of psychology, human development and women's studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay.

"High school students are at a time in their life when they are developing intellectually and socially," she said. "To see something like this debated in the paper could be devastating. How would you feel if someone said your family is abnormal, is not acceptable, that your parents never should have been allowed to have you, that they're not suitable to raise you?

"Of course, it's got to be harmful. Kids this age are so worried about discovering who they are and what they are. To have them told their family is immoral and not suitable has to be devastating. To be told by your peers, people you see in the hallways, these people who clearly have passed judgment."

So what do you think?  Should the student newspaper be able to publish controversial opinions that may adversely affect some students?  I'm pretty much a First Amendment purist, but the Supreme Court isn't when in comes to school papers.  The court has said that school administrations can in fact censor school newspapers so long as they have a reasonable educational justification, as I learned to my displeasure as a high school newspaper editor!  Preventing bullying, creating a non-discriminatory learning environment, should qualify as a reasonable educational justification for limiting hateful student speech in the newspaper, right? I don't think I would have bought that argument as a high schooler, opinionated on rights and the perogatives of journalists.

But as a parent?  Maybe my desire to protect my children makes me a tad more sympathetic to the position of the school administration. I wouldn't want my kids to read stupid articles that opined on the inappropriateness of single parenting or transracial adoption or international adoption, or the inferiority of China or the like, and I would be worried that such an article would make other students more willing to bully my kids. But on the other hand, the articles here offered both arguments for and against, the audience was high school and not younger kids, and I guarantee that my kids would have already heard all the pro and con opinions folks harbor about our family structure before they ever saw such an article. But on the other other hand, should my kids have to deal with those obnoxious opinions in school, which should be a safe harbor?!

Reactions?

Anti-Huntsman Ad Hits Home for Adoptive Families

This is the first piece I've seen addressing adoptive parents' reaction to the anti-Huntsman video I posted:

Presidential politics hit home for an Alexandria family on Friday after a web ad aimed at Republican candidate Jon Huntsman raised questions about his values, citing his ability to speak Chinese and his decision to adopt children from China and India. The ad, sponsored by a group identified as NYLiberty4Paul, urges voters to support Texas Congressman Ron Paul in the race, though Paul disavowed the ad and said his campaign had nothing to do with it.

"It's a very strange way to make a point," said Alexandria lawyer Nancy Jo Nelson, who has adopted three girls from China.

"I think there is nothing more American than adopting a child that has been abandoned anywhere in the world. It's a highly American thing to do," she said.

Any local reporting of this in your area?  Interesting response from the mom -- it's "a highly American thing" to adopt children anywhere in the world?  Of course, folks from other countries do the same thing!  And you could really turn that one on its head, too:  international adoption can be criticized as neo-colonial, imperialistic depradation of the so-called third world by the Western world, including America.  So in that way, international adoption is a "highly American thing" to do!

Buy UNICEF Holiday Cards



At the Washington Times' so-called "Adoptive Family Forum," Andrea Poe is using the upcoming holidays as an excuse to bash Unicef in a piece entitled Why I Won't Buy UNICEF Holiday Cards.  It's pretty much a regurgitation of this article she wrote in 2010, and to which I responded here.  Basically I said that her problem isn't with Unicef, it's with the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, because she's protesting the subsidiarity principle, the idea that intercountry adoption is a last resort for children.  Blaming Unicef is like blaming the police for enforcing a law you don't like.

Since I did a paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal of this anti-Unicef stance before, I won't do it again.  But I will note that I agree whole-heartedly with Dr. John Raible's reaction to the article:

Ever since I was a kid, when I would go “trick or treating for UNICEF” to collect spare change in one of those black and orange milk carton-like coin boxes, I have supported the work of UNICEF. I just took the time to read their position statement on international adoption for myself. Compared to the way the author of the above-mentioned article made the UNICEF statement sound, I found the actual statement both ethical and courageous. In contrast, the bombastic article comes off as polemical and whiny. It’s hard not to read the first article as the self-righteous outrage of an entitled Westerner whose “privilege” (to adopt whomever and whenever she chooses) is being threatened.

Indeed.  And I think the feeling of entitlement that Dr. Raible notes must be pretty strong, since I noted it too in titling my previous post, "Get out of my way, I'm entitled to adopt!"

And while you're thinking about whether to support Unicef, think about these facts:  Unicef has vaccinated over half the world's children against deadly diseases (in China alone, my children's home country, in September, Unicef vaccinated over 100,000 children against measles), provided clean drinking water to 1.2 billion people since 1990, and currently in the famine-ravaged Horn of Africa, Unicef is the main provider of therapeutic food. What has Unicef done in your child's country of origin?  Unicef may be the reason he or she lived long enough to be adopted. . . .

So go out and buy Unicef cards, and send one to Andrea, care of the Washington Times!

Preparing for transracial adoption

At Boston.com Moms, an advice columnist answers a soon-to-be aunt's letter about becoming a transracial adoptive family, and here's part of it:

* People can be nosy. When a child doesn't look like parents (or aunts!), people people sometimes stare or ask questions. Have a simple answer ready, one that you would be happy to speak in front of your child even if he weren't a baby. Here's an excerpt from my book on this subject (p. 321):

"Louise Derman-Sparks, who is white, remembers when her son, who is black, was [a preschooler]. As she picked him up from preschool one day, a classmate stopped tham. "Is that really your mom?" he asked. Derman-Sparks, an early childhood educator who specializes in anti-bias education, was ready with an answer.

"I bet you're wondering if I'm Doug's mom because his skin is brown and mine is white," she said. The little boy nodded. "I am his mommy. What makes me his mommy is that I love him and take care of him." Children can also be coaxed to answer for themselves: "She's my mom even though h er skin is white and mine isn't. I'm adopted."

* Develop thick skin. Children in transracial families fare best when adults model a range of reactions, depending on the circumstances. If someone asks, ''Is she adopted?" it may be a genuine, although stupid, question. What is the tone? What is the body language? I once interviewed Susan Caughman, then editor of Adoptive Families Magazine. She told me that part of a parent's job is to "teach a life skill: How to evaluate people's motives

I didn't include the part of her answer where she suggests a no-secrets policy from the beginning of the adoption -- I agree, but it seems pretty silly advice for transracial adoption, since the fact of the adoption is pretty IMPOSSIBLE to keep a secret!  But then, I do know of one family where the mom is white, the child is Indian, and they haven't told her she's adopted because the adoptive father is also Indian (BTW, update since I wrote about this family 2 years ago -- child is now 7 and they STILL haven't told her. . .  .).

Armenia: Report Identifies Corruption in International Adoption

From ArmeniaLiberty website:

The Armenian government is planning to make fresh and potentially far-reaching changes in its rules and procedures for international adoptions of children from Armenia following an RFE/RL report suggesting that they may still be riddled with corruption.
Relevant proposals drawn up by Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian’s office aim to increase the transparency of the process and reduce the role of obscure local middlemen working for Western adoption agencies. They are also meant to make it easier for Armenian families to adopt or bring up orphans.

An April 2011 report by RFE/RL’s Armenian service (Azatutyun.am) said that U.S. adoption agencies seem to continue to make thousands of dollars in informal payments to Armenian officials dealing with foreign adoptions. In particular, it cited a sample contract signed by one such agency, Hopscotch Adoptions, with Americans wishing to adopt Armenian and Georgian children.

The contract, offered to a potential client in the United States in 2007, explained that almost $5,000 of more than $30,000 charged by Hopscotch for every adoption would be spent on “gifts to foreign service providers and government functionaries performing ministerial tasks as an offer of thanks for prompt service.” It claimed that such gifts are “customary” in Armenia and Georgia and do not violate U.S. law.

“Gifts and gratuities” were also a separate spending category in a sample agreement that was offered by another U.S. agency, Adopt Abroad, at least until last April.

Officials at the Armenian Ministry of Justice as well as anti-corruption campaigners in Yerevan agreed at the time that such payments amount to bribes and are therefore illegal in Armenia.

And then there's this part of the article about an American adoptive parent behaving badly:

Another major proposal from Prime Minister Sarkisian’s staff would increase from three to six months the minimum period of time, after an orphan’s inclusion on the database, during which he or she cannot be eligible for international adoption. This requirement, meant to facilitate domestic adoptions, appears to have been violated in at least two cases in 2007.

In one such example, an American couple living near Washington, DC adopted a little Armenian girl through Hopscotch in May 2008. Sonia Vigilante, the adoptive mother, revealed on her blog that the girl was less than one month old when she and her husband were first shown her pictures and offered to adopt her in October 2007.

Vigilante reacted to the RFE/RL report with a litany of abusive e-mails sent to Ara Manoogian, an Armenian-American activist and blogger who privately interviewed her and several other U.S. adoptive parents and shared their experiences in Armenia with an RFE/RL correspondent. Using a fictitious identity, Manoogian posed as a childless man from Texas interested in adopting an Armenian child.

“The girl is mine mine, mine!!!” Vigilante wrote on May 31. “I win, Armenia loses. Hahahahahahahaha!!!” “I don't give a shit what the Armenian crooks think of me anymore,” she said in a subsequent note.

Boy, won't her daughter be delighted to find this when she's older. . . .

"You seem very anti-adoption at times"

Says a commenter (anonymous, of course!) to this post:

I'm having difficulity understanding why you have two daughters that are adopted from China. You seem very anti-adoption at times.

Either/or. For or against.  Black or white. Guess what?  It's all so much more complicated than that.  If you don't want to deal with complexity in adoption, this probably isn't the right blog for you.

It's pretty funny to be labeled "anti-adoption" when what you're doing is criticizing CHILD TRAFFICKING.  When you're criticizing UNETHICAL ADOPTION. When you're railing against CORRUPTION in international adoption. When you're recognizing that adoption brings GRIEF, PAIN AND LOSS for adoptees and birth families.  When you actually accept the law of the land -- the Hague Convention on adoption -- that says that international adoption is a LAST RESORT.

If that's anti-adoption, then I guess I'm anti-adoption.  Who knew?!

And then the "how can you be anti-adoption if you've adopted" thing?  It's that "if you're not for us, you're against us" crap, I guess. Having "benefitted" from adoption, how DARE you criticize the institution in any way?!

Again, I say, it's more complicated than that.  Yes, I've adopted and it has brought me immeasurable joy.  And it has brought my children loss, pain and grief, as well as joy.  It has brought their birth families loss, pain and grief.  And when corruption and child trafficking enter the picture, adoption brings everyone involved even more loss, pain and grief. The only joy then is in the black hearts of corrupt officials and child traffickers.


And when adoptive parents ignore the hard truth that their experience of adoption is not the same experience as their adopted children and their birth families, when they ignore the hard truths about corruption and trafficking, they are doing damage not just to their children, but to the institution of adoption as well.
 
Frankly, it's going to be the over-reaching of the "pro-adoption" folks that bring an end to international adoption, not anything the so-called "anti-adoption" folks do. Haven't you noticed the pattern?  A country opens to international adoption. . . just a trickle at first.  Then it's push, push, push for more, more, more adoptions from that country.  Now the trickle is a flood of money as more and more and more adoptive parents flock to the country.  And the money brings corruption. . . .  And the country shuts down to international adoption. . . . Wash. Rinse. Repeat.  "Pro-adoption?"  Really workin' out for you, huh?

Label me however you want.  I'll keep blogging about the difficult, complicated, fraught-with ambiguities,  world of adoption.  There are lots of other blogs out there that won't dish up hard truths to make you uncomfortable.

81 Children Rescued from Chinese Child Trafficking Ring

From the New York Times:

In a significant illustration of China’s illicit trade in babies, the Ministry of Public Security said Wednesday that the police had rescued 81 children from a major child trafficking ring that had operated throughout eastern China.

Xinhua, China’s official news agency, reported that 13 babies were rescued in the city of Handan in Hebei Province, ranging in age from only 10 days to 4 months. Most were girls, the news agency said.

More than 2,600 police officers from 14 provinces were deployed in a sting operation on July 20, which resulted in the detention of 330 suspects, the ministry said in a report posted on its Web site.

Another raid earlier this month broke up a cross-border child trafficking operation in China’s southern provinces of Guangdong and Guangxi, Xinhua reported. Eight children were rescued and 39 suspects, mostly Vietnamese, were arrested, according to Chinese media reports.

So what happens to the children?  According to China Daily:

All 89 kidnapped children, including eight Vietnamese infants, who were recently rescued by police from two major human trafficking rings in South China, will not be allowed to stay with the people who bought them.

The decision is part of an attempt to limit the growth of the black market in stolen children, said Chen Shiqu, director of the anti-human trafficking office under the criminal investigation bureau of the Ministry of Public Security.

Chen told China Daily the existence of a buyer's market is the main cause of human trafficking crimes.

He said the children should be placed under the temporary care of civil affairs departments before their parents can be located and verified through DNA tests.

"To make the buyers lose both the child and their money, and to completely deny their original intention, we will ask the civil affairs departments to temporarily take care of the rescued children," he said.

The Criminal Law says abducted children whose parents cannot be found will not be available for adoption due to the lack of identification. This means they will live in welfare institutions, which are not conducive to the healthy development of children.

"We are negotiating with civil affairs departments to improve the laws to allow unidentified children to be adopted," Chen Shiqu said.

Despite the quote from Chen, that the existence of a buyer's market is what causes this human trafficking, the buyers will not be facing criminal charges as long as they did not abuse the children they bought.  The New York Times article says, "'The cost of the crime of buying children is not great,' Liu Ancheng, deputy director of the ministry’s criminal investigation bureau, told the newspaper."  No kidding!

And, no, for those who will want this pointed out, there's no evidence that these trafficked children were intended for international adoption to the West.  Though the children taken from Vietnam to China were trafficked internationally. . . .

The Anti-Blogroll

I've been added to the Inquisitor's "Anti-Blogroll," where Daniel Ibn Zayd criticizes adoption blogs;  since I've touted my kudos, I thought it only fair to share criticisms, too:

The current plateau in the falsely named "pro vs. anti" adoption debates is among those from both "sides" who consider that they constitute some kind of "middle ground" of the discussion; that their supposed progressive open-mindedness is anything other than more of the same self-congratulatory passivism. The words "race" and "class" are bandied about, and studies for and against are trotted out, as if this back and forth advances anything; as if this logorrhea brings anything new to the table. The problematic of their positioning is that it takes adoption to be a given, with the ensuing discussion stemming from this "reality on the ground". This results in adoptees giving advice to adoptive parents as to why they should live in a racially diverse neighborhood; this results in adoptive parents (such as this one) finding nothing wrong in promoting a "Chinese Barbie Doll" on her blog; this results in the endless parade of discussions, talk shows, conferences, and blogs on the subject that rehash the topic to death—as opposed to, say, condemning adoption in the first place for the act of class aggression against other peoples that it is. Until such a time that the discussion shifts, then this is all so much Uncle Tomism; a horrific beguine of compradors and masters. And you'll forgive me if those of us truly on the ground don't "LOL" along with you.

We had a twitter discussion about the Barbie in China clothes before he posted this;  he objects to it as "neo-colonialist predation "and labels it as #heinous #racist #oppressive #adoptionIsCriminal.  I understand his point, but Chinese adoptees playing with white Barbies in Western clothes colonizes their minds, it seems to me, so an alternative isn't a bad thing (see, there I go again, accepting the fact that there are already adoptees who should be considered -- he's right about me!). The "LOL" reference is to my twitter reply of surprised laughter when he accused me of "promoting adoption" at my blog, since more people accuse me of being anti-adoption than of promoting adoption.

He's right about me -- more of that "both sides" discussion I find important and he finds "advances nothing," exemplified by my decision to, in fairness, share with you his viewpoint.

P.S. Daniel Ibn Zayd responds.  I appreciate his perspective, but I do not appreciate his implication that I called his work "stupid."  Not something I'd ever do.