Happy Valentine's Day!

From China Daily -- he's 104 and she's 99!

Best Blog Nominations Sought at Grown in My Heart

The group adoption blog Grown in My Heart is soliciting nominations for their 2011 Best Blogs list and the deadline is TOMORROW  (I was honored to be included in the 2010 list). There are lots of different categories, so you can nominate lots of your favorites.  If you feel motivated to nominate this blog, I'd be delighted, but I'd suggest that you should NOT nominate me for Best Adoptive Parenting Blog.  Why?

Well, consider the Valentine greeting I got from my youngest daughter at school pick-up today.  After the usual hellos, I saw a tissue-paper flower in her Valentine loot bag, and thinking someone gave it to her, I said, "What a pretty flower!"  Maya responds, "It's for ZOE!  Not for YOU!"  Oooookay.  I say, "That's sweet of you to give your sister a Valentine flower."  Maya then starts the well-known rhyme in a sing-song voice:

Roses are red
Violets are blue
You're a TERRIBLE mom
and I HATE you.

Yikes!  Isn't that a lovely variation on the traditional Valentine's Day poem!?!  Doesn't look like Maya will be nominating me for Mother of the Year, or anything else, for that matter (but that doesn't mean that you can't nominate me for something, HINT HINT (OK, just how desperate do I sound?  I think Valentine's Day brings out all kinds of desperation in me!))

Turns out, when all the dust settles, that Maya was really mad at herself, not me, because she hadn't finished the tissue-paper flower she was working on for me.  And she thought that tricking me into thinking I wasn't going to get a flower was the way to handle it. When we got home and she finished the flower, she presented it to me quite sweetly, noting how much better it was than Zoe's flower, since it came in a cup filled with confetti (oh joy!).  The flower was accompanied by a card with another poem:

Roses are red
Vilits [sic] are blue
You're the best mom
and I love you

Sigh. Couldn't we have just SKIPPED the effing tissue-paper flower (in confetti!) AND all the drama?! A simple "Happy Valentine's Day" and "I love you"  would have been quite enough for me!

But the flower is awfully cute. . . .

British Survey: Who Should be Allowed to Adopt?

From a British survey on attitudes about who should be allowed to adopt:

When it comes to adopting a child, Brits feel that age and lifestyle habits should be much more damaging to an individual’s case than their race, religion, income or sexuality, our poll has found. We gave respondents a list of groups in society and then asked them to judge whether each should be allowed to adopt or not.

•From our list, people over the age of 50 (46% should be allowed, 33% not), the age of 60 (16% allowed, 64% not) and smokers (44% allowed, 35% not) were the least favoured groups

•People on low incomes (53% allowed, 26% not), single people (53% allowed, 33% not) and homosexual couples (53% allowed, 34% not) came next

•The most favoured groups from our list were couples from a different racial background to that of the child (77% allowed, 11% not), unmarried couples (73% allowed, 17% not) and couples from a different religion to the child (65% allowed, 14% not)

Do you think the results would be the same in the U.S.?  Would smokers be less favored than gay people or single people here? Would it be as high for unmarried couples (73% approve)? I think we'd agree on the age thing -- what do you think? What about other countries, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Australia (I know there are readers from these countries and many more)?

Good News?!

This article from the Korea Herald was tweeted by an adoption agency with the tag line, "Good news for international adoption:"

Despite a falling birth rate here, many Korean children are still finding their home abroad, a report found Sunday.

Of the total 2,439 children adopted in 2009, 1,125 were sent abroad, slightly down from 1,250 in 2008, the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs said.

Adoptions have declined here along with the country’s falling birth rate.

Over the past 10 years, the number of domestic adoptions has decreased from 1,726 in 1999 to 1,314 in 2009, while that of international adoptions has almost halved from 2,409 in 1999.

However, the ratio of international adoption still remains high despite the government’s efforts to encourage domestic adoption.

(Perhaps not surprisingly, this agency tweeted an article about Ethiopia revoking the license of another adoption agency with the comment, "Why can't we all just get along?" Yeah, that's the appropriate response to allegations of corruption.)

THIS is what we mean when we talk about an entitlement mentality -- this belief that ANYTHING that allows us to adopt children is good, and anything that stops us from adopting children is a bad thing.

The fact that South Korea, one of the most economically prosperous countries in the world, in fact, the 4th largest economy in the world, cannot take care of its own children is a tragedy.  We're not talking here about a war-torn, economically impoverished, "third world" country, with millions of orphans languishing in orphanages.  We're talking about an idustrialized nation, a high-tech nation where 98% of the population is literate, 86% of the population is urban, where less than 0.1% has HIV/AIDS.  Does this look like the picture we have of a country that "needs" international adoption?

So why is it "good news" that South Korea is placing more children internationally than domestically? The Hague Convention, last time I checked, still expresses the international norm, accepted by all signatory countries, including the U.S. and South Korea, that domestic adoption is preferred and international adoption is a last resort.
Far from good news, this article highlights a tragedy for South Korea.  Little to crow about here, unless you feel you're entitled to all the world's children.

*Blush*

I received two lovely early Valentine's presents this week (not that the senders thought of them as Valentine's presents!).  A little blog love from two places.

First, I got an email from nursingschools.net saying they'd listed the blog  in an article entitled 50 Best Blogs for Adoption Advice.  Sweet!

Second, I got an email from Adoptive Families magazine saying that it had chosen to include the blog in its first-annual roundup of the top adoption blogs. How cool is that?!  The list will be in the March/April issue, and they'll be sending me a graphic "top adoption blogger" badge to display on the blog.  Ooooh, I love me some bling!

So thanks for the recognition -- I really appreciate it!

Back of the Bus, Singles

Arizona is considering new legislation that would require both state and private adoption agencies to move singles to the back of the line in adopting -- or as the wonderful title to this blog post puts it, Sending singles to back of adoption bus:

[O]ne of the legislators supporting a bill that would make second-class citizens of single people who want to adopt children couldn't understand why there was any opposition to the proposal.

Single adoptive parent Susan Frank was there when SB1188 was being considered in committee. She has fought this battle before.

Essentially, the bill would direct the Arizona Department of Economic Security, as well as private adoption agencies, to give primary consideration for adoption to married couples, making single people eligible only if a qualified married couple is not available (with a few exceptions).

Frank is a lawyer.

She told me, “One senator said, ‘We're not saying that single people can't adopt.' It was later that it occurred to me – and I'm not at all comparing myself to (civil rights icon) Rosa Parks – but it occurred to me that it would be like telling Rosa Parks, ‘We're not saying you can't ride the bus.'”

Your reaction?  Should married couples be given preference?  How about giving preference to whoever, married, single, straight or gay, would be best for the child?  You know, that case-by-case "best interest of the child" standard?  Arizona must take great comfort in the fact that China follows the same rule that enlightened state proposes. And I suspect Arizona is doing it for the same reason China is -- fear of the gay.

China: Internet Ads to Adopt Children

Every adoptive parent who has adopted from China knows this rule -- there is no way to place a child for adoption in China;  it's illegal to do so.  That's why children are abandoned. But there is a growing trend toward birth parents trying to place children directly with adoptive families in China. From the Global Times:

Pei Yajun, a 21-year-old driver in Wuhan, Hubei Province, became desperate after his son, Yuchen, was born seven months ago. Instead of enjoying the new experience of fatherhood, he was consumed with anxiety over whether he could even raise his child after his wife left him.

"I am only 21. I cannot raise the baby myself because his mother left me for someone else," Pei told the Global Times.

In desperation, Pei turned to online forums QQ and Baidu, and searched for someone to adopt the boy.

"I want my boy to grow up in a happy family that can take good care of him," he said.

Pei's case is by no means an isolated one. Many parents, unable to find a legal channel to give away their babies, see this as their last resort. Baidu Tieba, a popular online community, even has one section dedicated to adoption advertisements.

"My baby is due in March, but I can't raise him or her since I'm only 19. I'd like to give it to anyone who promises to give him or her a good life," an Internet user named Lu wrote in Baidu Tieba's adoption section.

The replies came thick and fast. "We want your baby desperately! My husband and I have been married for 8 years, but we can't have a baby," said one of the 20 or so responses.

Thousands of similar threads, in which anxious middle-aged couples search for babies to adopt or desperate parents search for families to raise their children, can be found in various online forums across China.

Abducted v. Adopted: What's the Difference?

At Huffington Post, Jennifer Lauck, author of Found: A Memoir and Blackbird: A Childhood Lost and Found, asks that question:

Carlina White said she always had a sense she did not belong to the family that raised her. The twenty-three-year-old woman had been abducted in 1987 from a Harlem Hospital when she was nineteen-days-old. White was then raised by her abductor, Ann Pettway. Pettway is now in custody for kidnapping.


What White expresses about her sense of belonging is what I have felt for all the years of my own life -- only I am called adopted versus abducted.

Go read the whole thing, and then tell us what you think.

Chinese Dining Rules

As you're celebrating Chinese New Year/Spring Festival (you have until the Lantern Festival on Feb. 17, which is the last day of the celebration), you might find these explanations of some Chinese dining customs helpful:

1. Do not rest chopsticks vertically in rice . . .

[T]he sight of two upright chopsticks in a bowl is reminiscent of the incense sticks that the Chinese traditionally burn in veneration of deceased loved ones. . . .

2. Never turn over the fish

In Chinese restaurants, the standard is for a fish to be served whole.

After working your way through the tender top side, it may seem logical to simply flip the fish and continue. Unfortunately, doing so has an unforeseen consequence.

Meaning: You’ve capsized the boat.

According to Lo, this is of more concern in regions that rely strongly on fishing or are located along the coast. . . .

3. Birthday noodles

Chinese tradition calls for a birthday girl or boy to slurp a bowl of noodles as a celebration of the many years ahead. And as “Lady and the Tramp” so aptly demonstrated, that one long noodle can be a great thing.

Meaning: It symbolizes longevity.

In this case, that long strip of noodle is a metaphor for the long walk of life. Yet this tradition comes with an addendum: do not cut the noodles. . . .

4. Tea tapping is a must

A tea cup should never be allowed to run dry.

Your host, or members of your dinner party, will regularly refill the cups of those around them, who tap the table in response. Go ahead and follow suit.

Meaning: It’s a show of thanks. . . .

5. Always order an even number of dishes

When out with a sizable crowd, you want to ensure you order enough food. A rule of thumb is to order dishes equivalent to the number of people in your party, plus one. But if you’re an even-numbered crowd, this will put you at odds -- in numbers and in fortune.

Meaning: Odd number of dishes symbolizes death (again).

“For regular meals, you’d always order an even number of dishes, because an odd number is usually only ordered at a funeral meal,” says Lo. . . .

Not turning over the fish was the only one on this list that I didn't know when we went to China for 5 months in 2007.  But being in coastal Xiamen, it wasn't long before we learned of this custom.  I'm afraid we dumped a few fishermen overboard before the kindly waitstaff at our favorite restaurant set us straight, though!

Adoption Talk, Going Beyond "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Counselor Robyn Gobbel encourages parents to rethink the "don't ask, don't tell" theory of talking about adoption:

Countless times I’ve sat with the parents of older adopted kids and had them tell me that their child isn’t impacted by the core issues in adoption (loss, rejection, guilt/shame, grief, identity, intimacy & relationships, control/gains- as described by Silverstein and Roszia in 1982). The reason the parents are so certain of this is because their child has never talked about. Adoption isn’t a secret in their house, but their child has never mentioned grieving for their birthfamily or feeling rejected. Their child never talks or asks about their birthfamily. Because their child is silent about adoption issues, parents assume that adoption issues don’t exist.

Can you think of a time in your life when something was really weighing heavy on your mind but you didn’t talk about it to anyone, even your closest confidante? Or a time when you just couldn’t get something out of your mind but you were afraid that it you talked about it, you were certain you’d hurt the very person you love most in your life? Or maybe you’re just a more introverted individual and you aren’t really one to divulge your innermost feelings. There are probably thousands of reasons why people (and children!) keep quiet even when something is really pounding away at their heart.

She promises a future post on HOW to encourage adoption talk.

Can the Internet Help China Adoptees Find Birth Family?

Powerful story about how the internet in China reunited a kidnapped child with his family:

A seven year old boy who was kidnapped in Shenzhen in 2008 has been reunited with his father yesterday, in a miracle that could only have happened in this day and age, thanks to the internet.

The emotional reunion was witnessed and live-tweeted by Phoenix Weekly's 《凤凰周刊》 senior correspondent Deng Fei (邓飞), who accompanied Peng Gaofeng to Pizhou, Jiangsu Province following a tip-off that his son was there. Deng had interviewed Peng three years ago, shortly after his son, Peng Wenle (彭文乐), disappeared, and since then has become something of an activist against child trafficking.

* * *

Peng received a call from a university student in Jiangsu Province who said he saw a child in Pizhou that resembled his son. The student had come across his son's picture, circulating on Sina Weibo, after a grassroots campaign led by Professor Yu Jianrong (于建嵘) inspired Chinese internet users nationwide to take pictures of beggar children they come across and put them online.

Initially, Peng was unexcited by the call. Over the last three years, he had received many such calls and each time he was left disappointed and depressed. The student told Peng that he would try to snap a picture of the child and send it to him. On the eve of Chinese New Year, that picture came. When Peng saw the picture, he felt his jaw dropping to the ground. The child was his.

* * *

On the fourth day of the Spring Festival, Peng arrived in Pizhou with Shenzhen police officials. They were told by the local police officials that the child was currently being adopted by the woman he now lives with.

* * *

At the police station, Peng burst into tears the moment he saw his son. The police had to try to calm him down, telling him he was shocking the child. At this point, the child told the policeman, "That man crying is my dad, I remember him." All this while, his adopted mother was watching by the side, with tears in her eyes.

Overjoyed, Peng called his wife, screaming over the phone, "It's our child, it's our child!" Little Wenle then took over the phone, greeting his mom in their hometown's Hubei/Qianjiang dialect.

I've posted before about the potential of the internet in birth family searches by China adoptees:

This is how I always thought it would work for finding families in China -- it would come from siblings. The older sister who remembers when her baby sister disappeared. The younger brother whose birth was permitted because his sister was abandoned. This is the generation that will leave the countryside, the small villages, the farms, and head for the bigcity. They will go to college and trade school, they'll learn about computers, they will learn English, they will have some disposable income. And they will wonder about those family stories of the disappeared. And they'll post on a family searchboard

There have been a slew of stories in Western media about adoptee/birth family reunions made possible by facebook (see here and here and here for examples);  looks like it's a possibility in the developing world as well.

What do you think?

P.S. Brian Stuy of Research-China posts his take on whether the internet holds promise of birth parent searches in China.  Here's a bit of it:

Adoptive families understandably hope for a simple method to locate birth families -- a DNA or other database that will allow them to put in their child's information, push a button, and out would come the birth family information. Certainly if such a service existed that was open and free to use, there would be little to lose by participating. But in reality, given the "complexities" surrounding most children adopted form China, such a program will result in failure in nearly every case. Technological barriers inside China, birth family participation rates, information accuracy, and many other reasons will prevent successful matches except in rare and very specific instances (kidnapping, Family Planning confiscations, etc.)

Reaction?

If we pursue international adoption, how do we know for sure a child is a true orphan?

Interesting post, with a book recommendation, about adoption and child trafficking at All Things Mothering:

I’m reading Little Princes (William Morrow) by Conor Grennan. It’s about an American who volunteers at an orphanage in Nepal while embarking on an around-the-world trip. When a mother arrives at the gates of the house looking for her two sons, he realizes her children (along with the other kids at the orphanage) have been trafficked. Conor decides not only to dedicate his time to trying to stop child trafficking in Nepal, he establishes a non-profit to reverse the practice and return the kids to their birth parents.

I was captivated by the topic. Ron and I tried to adopt from Nepal last year. It wasn’t until after we began the paperwork that we first learned of child traffickers exploiting children for adoption. We’d heard of child trafficking with regard to sex or labor trade, but adoption? What about the millions of abandoned children in the world? Like the ones I’d seen in documentaries featuring Mother Teresa? Turns out, Ron and I had a lot to learn.

* * *

Ron and I are trying to wade through all this and figure out what it means–for us, for kids, for the future. If we pursue international adoption, how do we know for sure a child is a true orphan? And even if a child has a living mother–a mother who loves him or her–it doesn’t always mean the mother can parent the child (same for a father). But who makes that call? And is it right to take a child so far away from his or her culture and background?

Important questions to ask. How would you answer these questions for a prospective adoptive parent?

Lost Children Links

Kids Stolen From Their Mothers and Sold to New Families Looking for Answers, from the New York Post about a baby-selling ring in New York.

Lost Children, from Vietnam News, after nearly five years of searching, a village in Vietnam is finally getting answers about the fate of 13 children placed abroad for adoption.

Sierra Leone Parents Demand Kids' Return, about the 29 families who lost children to international adoption without their consent.

Hundreds of Spanish babies 'stolen from clinics and sold for adoption,' says the Guardian (UK).

The Missing Girls of China: Population, Policy, Culture, Gender, Abortion, Abandonment, and Adoption in East-Asian Perspective, an article from law professor David Smolin.

Individual Cases, Systemic Problems

I was having a conversation about schools with a group of moms recently.  Some loved the public school their child attended, some hated the public school their child attended.  It struck me in the conversation that no one said, "How can you criticize public education when your child attends a public school?"  No one said, "How can you criticize public education when your child is having a positive experience in a public school?" No one said, "You hypocrite! You're only complaining after you've benefited from public schools!"  No one said it, because everyone knows that there are systemic problems with public education in America, even while there are good public schools.

But we do that about adoption all the time -- How can you criticize adoption when you've already adopted?  How can you criticize adoption when you benefited from it?  How can you criticize adoption when you've had a positive experience with adoption?  You hypocrite -- you're only criticizing after you brought your child home! You can't possibly love your adopted children if you criticize adoption. . . .

I can criticize all kinds of things that benefited me -- democracy, capitalism, public radio (pledge drive, anyone?!), public schools, private schools, modern dentistry, books, etc. -- in the hopes of making things better.  Can't I criticize the systemic problems in adoption toward that same end -- in the hopes of making things better?

Scott Simon Responds

Back in August, I posted in response to NPR's Scott Simon's in-house interview upon the release of his new book about adoption. Well, Simon posted a response in the comments.  Since the post was so long ago, I'm not sure anyone will see the comment there, so I publish it here so he can have his say:

I doubt that there’s much I can say to assuage the enmity expressed towards me in postings on this blog. Let me simply state that my wife and I understand that it’s important for our daughters to know and be proud of their culture, and will have our unstinting support to do so.

I find it incongruous, in this month in which we celebrate the Rev. Martin Luther King for hoping his children “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” that we are assailed for trying to do just that for our daughters. I am keenly aware of America’s racist history and bigoted tendencies. Not a week goes by that I don’t receive anti-Semitic or gay-bashing emails. But as I note in my book, “(I)n China, our daughters might have faced bigotry for being Hui, Miao, Manchu, Yi, Mongol, or any of the other of China's 55 other nationalities that they could be.” They have already been stung by prejudice toward women in the land of their birth, and if someone looks a little funny at our family, or makes some boorish remark, I do not assume that the Klan rides again. We receive about a thousand times more consideration.

I reject the idea that my wife and I should feel guilt for taking our daughters out of their native culture because we remember that our daughters had been relinquished and left to languish in orphanages. Those orphanages, not the China of the Qing dynasty, Chen Rong, or modern adventure capitalists, were their culture. Our daughters will stand a better chance of appreciating the majesty of Chinese culture by growing up and learning about it in our American and French family, than if they’d been left in those orphanages, and slotted into factory or farm work by their teens.

Our daughters are hardly the only Asian kids in their respective classes. I suspect, as they grow older, and kids being kids, someone will kid them about being Chinese. And they, delightful as they are, may kid other kids about being chubby, or red-haired, or big-nosed, Puerto Rican or Russian. Ordinary adolescent obnoxiousness need not be regarded as a trauma. Kids of all ethnicities worry about their identities, even Bushes and Kennedys. It’s a stage of development, for goodness sake, not a crisis.

We can’t predict how interested our daughters will be in their heritage at various times of their lives. They learn the language, songs, dance and food now, but as my wife and I say, “You can drag the girls to Mandarin class, but you can’t make them speak.” They also dance ballet, play with Thomas the Tank Engine, and learn music. If they get interested in African art, French cuisine, Tuva throat-singing, and South African literature, that’s fine, too. They are our daughters. We want to see into their hearts and minds, not just their blood and skin color.

Will they identify themselves as American (and French), as well as Chinese? Of course. We have become a nation of hyphenated identities, and scores of millions of Americans, myself included, have more than one ethnic, national, or religious identity. It’s one the great strengths of both our country and our family. I doubt that Chinese culture, or our daughters, will be diminished by that.

We cannot rewrite their lives, or the laws of China, that would restore them to their birth mothers and the culture into which they were born. But we can give them a loving family to grow strong in, and the background to make their own choices.

Scott Simon

Of course, Simon is entitled to his opinions, as am I.  But no one is entitled to have everyone agree with their opinions!  And disagreeing with someone's opinion is not expressing "enmity!"  I don't think he expressed "enmity" in his comment here.

So you can judge the "enmity" Simon sees in postings about him here, check them all out:

Scott Simon, "Meant to be," & Ethnicity

Scott Simon's New Book -- Excerpt

Scott Simon Talks Adoption With His Daughter

"How to say Thanksgiving in Mandarin"

Now if you want to see enmity, which is distinct from a difference of opinion, check out my opinion of the Super Bowl guy!

Super Bowl versus Adoption: Which is More Important?

In a profile of 4 men honored for never missing a Super Bowl, this little tidbit:

Attending all 44 games is an amazing feat, but what these guys have overcome and given up to get to the Super Bowl is perhaps more spectacular.

It’s one thing to pass up a party or miss a wedding, anniversary or even a funeral, but Jacobson, 71, of San Francisco, tells the tale of giving up the chance to adopt a child.

Jacobson and his wife were participating in an open adoption in the 1970s and he says the birth mother’s only prerequisite was that the adoptive parents be present for the birth of the baby. The problem was that the baby was due on Super Bowl weekend.

“I said it’s no problem,” he recalls. “I’ll take the red-eye (flight), watch the game and take the red-eye back. That was fine with my wife, but it wasn’t with the mother.”

Because of Larry’s growing obsession, he and his wife passed on that adoption but later adopted two biological sisters, neither of which knew until recently the story of the abandoned adoption.

“My daughter said she was glad about the Super Bowl,” Jacobson says. “If we’d gotten that child, we wouldn’t have gotten our daughters. So they think the Super Bowl is a good thing.”

Gee, what a sweet "meant to be" story to share with the daughters whose adoptions didn't interfere with a Super Bowl.

And this is in a magazine called American Profiles, describing itself as a "magazine that celebrates hometown American life. It's a heartfelt reminder of what's good about who we are."  Really?  Really.

Day of Captivity 4

Because of the Superbowl, you've probably heard more about DFW's puny little winter weather "crisis" than it warrants.  But it has been a personal "crisis" being housebound with the girls with no school for FOUR DAYS!  Well, not exactly housebound -- you can see that the girls have taken advantage of the unusual snow to practice their limited snow-play skills.

Does Subsidizing IVF Decrease Adoption Rates?

That's one of the questions answered by this paper, Trading-Off Reproductive Technology and Adoption: Does Subsidizing IVF Decrease Adoption Rates and Should it Matter? Here's the abstract:

For those facing infertility, using assisted reproductive technology to have genetically related children is a very expensive proposition. In particular, to produce a live birth through in vitro fertilization (IVF) will cost an individual (on average) between $66,667 and $114,286 in the U.S. If forced to pay these prices out of pocket, many would be unable to afford this technology. Given this reality, a number of states have attempted to improve access to reproductive technology through state-level insurance mandates that cover IVF. Several scholars, however, have worried that increasing access in this way will cause a diminution in adoptions and have argued against enactment of state mandates for that reason.

In this paper, which was selected for presentation at the 2010 Stanford-Yale Junior Faculty Forum, we push against that conclusion on two fronts.

First, we interrogate the normative premises of the argument and expose its contestable implicit assumptions about how the state should balance the interests of existing children waiting for adoption and those seeking access to reproductive technology in order to have genetically related children.

Second, we investigate the unexamined empirical question behind the conclusion: does state subsidization of reproductive technologies through insurance mandates actually reduce adoption; that is, is there a trade-off between helping individuals conceive and helping children waiting to be adopted? We call the claim that there is such an effect the “substitution theory.” Using the differential timing of introduction of state-level insurance mandates relating to IVF in some states and differences in the forms these mandates take, we employ several different econometric techniques (differences-in-differences, ordinary least squares, two-stage least squares) to examine the effect of these mandates on IVF utilization and adoption. Contrary to the assumption of the substitution theory, we find no strong evidence that state support of IVF through these mandates crowds out either domestic or international adoption.

The article is an interesting read;  in addition to concluding that no evidence suggests that state support of IVF crowds out adoption, the article tackles the much more difficult question -- even if IVF subsidization did diminish adoption, should the state nonetheless support it?

Year of the Rabbit

Happy 4709! Today is the start of the Year of the Rabbit, and I love, love, love this humorous piece [warning, those opposed to eating bunnies probably should stop now!], Beware of the Lunar Bunny Craze, from China Daily:

Sales of all things bunny are multiplying like ... well, like the proverbial rabbits. Only souvenirs being made for the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton in the United Kingdom come anywhere close to the millions of yuan spent on the bunny craze. Even prices of polypropylene fiber and cotton used by China's 6,000-odd stuffed toy makers have rocketed as stores fill their shelves with cuddly rabbits in time for the Golden Week shopping spree.

Bunny mania even burrowed its way into the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, which approved the release of six animation films with rabbit characters, including Legend of a Rabbit, and Moon Castle: The Space Adventure.

But there's one difference between this year's rotating zodiac icon and the soon-to-fade-out tiger: Tigers cannot be bought at pet stores. Across the country, sales of rabbits are surging with people buying them as gifts for their loved ones. High-grade breeds like Holland Lop, Angora and Lionhead are selling for hundreds of yuan.

But be warned, a bunny is for life, not just the new year. And don't forget they can be nasty animals. The fluffy, cute, soft bob of fur that gave birth to the likes of Bugs Bunny, Roger Rabbit and Thumper can actually be aggressive creatures. I should know that because I spent some of my childhood time being attacked by one.

* * *

A white rabbit may be a symbol of longevity in traditional Chinese culture, but your doe-eyed, floppy-eared friend may be headed to the stew pot quicker than you can say Xin Nian Kuai Le (Happy New Year).

Remember to cut off its foot; the Irish swear it brings good luck.

Not exactly a bunny lover (unless in a stewpot), hmm?!  China Daily has a special section devoted to all things Chinese New Year/Spring Festival -- click here and enjoy!

International Adoption: Fewer, Maybe Better

At Slate, commentary from KJ Dell'Antonia about the falling international adoption numbers reported by the State Department:

There were fewer international adoptions in 2010 than there have been in any year since 1995: 11,059, down from a high of 22,884 in 2004. Most of those children were from China (3,401), Ethiopia (2,513), Russia (1,082), and South Korea (883). There's no lack of interest from adopting families, and to what degree the lower number reflects fewer children in need of families is debatable. What is clear is that the United States government has increased its efforts to end baby- and child-trafficking in countries that send large numbers of children to the U.S. for adoption, and those increased efforts mean both fewer corrupt adoptions, and fewer adoptions overall.

* * *

That corruption has tainted nearly every large adoption program. Frequent XX Factor contributor E.J. Graff investigated the State Department's discovery of systematic fraud within the Vietnamese adoption system for Foreign Policy in a piece that included these chilling words: "even when the embassy was all but certain that a child had been fraudulently taken from a birth family -- but did not have evidence strong enough to stand up against the necessary 'preponderance of the evidence' standard in [Vietnamese] court -- it still at times had to allow an American family to bring home that child." Who would want to risk being that American family? Allegations of baby-theft, payment for children, and officials tricking women into giving up their infants have been made in nearly every country involved in international adoption, including China, and many suspect Ethiopia is next. (CBC News reported on adoptive parents who found they'd been lied to by officials involved in their adoptions there in 2009.)

Falling numbers and longer waiting times probably look bleak to parents hoping to adopt internationally, but every adoptive parent should welcome the changes that led to the drop—and, perversely, hope for even lower numbers in years to come. Yes, there are more hoops to jump through than ever before. Yes, there are still children in other countries who need homes and futures they're unlikely to find without willing international help. But there are also those who are willing to profit from the those kids, and their victims can be found on both sides of the oceans that separate adopted children from their birth countries. The laws and regulations that attempt to curtail that profiteering are far from perfect, but they're better than the Wild West alternative, and certainly better than wondering, long after the fact, if your beloved child left a grieving family behind.

The full State Department report can be found here.