This is what we’re up against my friends …

People like Heidi Hess Saxton.

Others have posted on this but here’s my two cents worth. I did make a comment on the article which was published and it appears to have gotten a response since I’m mentioned by [blogger] name – unsigned masterpiece.

It’s also now my sign in name at the CatholicExchange. That’s OK.

Here’s what I started to write about the article but then events kind of overtook me.

I have said the statement below was a reason being put forward to keep adoption records closed but, to tell the truth, I always wondered if it was propaganda for our side.  But, now I have read it in black and white, and on line.

Adoption records should not be opened because it will discourage future pregnant teens from giving up their children for adoption.

You can read it below for yourself. That and a lot of other twaddle about birth parents and adopted people.

Written with not much “Christian” love on a Catholic website.

You’ll find myths, stereotypes and half truths put forward in the name of correcting the biased information disseminated by Bastard Nation and other adoption rights advocates.

I left this comment:

This article is a throw back to another age. It contains so many stereotypes about adopted adults and birth parents.

I say, more in sorrow than in anger, that you do your readers a disservice by publishing things like this.

If I were to write a post on my blog that said that Catholics were misguided and brain-washed, I don’t think you would be too happy. Ms Hess Saxton has done the equivalent with respect to birth families, adoptees and I suspect some adopted parents.

It is always a mistake to assume one can extrapolate from the particular and personal to the general and the norm. [Ms Hess Saxton is an adoptive mother.]

If I did that, based on what I heard about my son’s adoptive experience after we were reunited, I would be making similar derogatory remarks to the ones Ms. Hess Saxton has made, only they would be about adoptive parents.

You state she is going to write another article, I think she is biased and should perhaps find another subject which she can approach with a little more objectivity.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

The editor then posted this:

It’s interesting that she does not view what Hess Saxton has written as personal attacks. I felt a little attacked as a birth mother. If I were an adopted person, I’d feel a little slagged.

I wonder what Jesus would say about all this? I wonder how He views Heidi’s “goodwill”?

I suspect He’s on to her.

Here’s the whole thing.

Peace – don’t let it ruin your day. Our time is coming.

UM

Anti-Adoption Advocates – How Should We Respond?

Now that the election is over, one of the most chilling prospects of the future administration is the president-elect’s determination to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA). The implications of this — both financial and moral — are staggering, for it means our tax dollars may be used to snuff out the lives of millions of children. To be truly pro-life, then, is to seek ways to ensure that the need for abortion is eliminated, as far as we are able to do this.

Adoption gives those in crisis pregnancies an abortion alternative that saves the life of the child and relieves them of the unwanted responsibility of parenthood. Adoption also provides an opportunity for couples to have a child they might otherwise never have, and for the child to have a “forever family” that will love him or her for life.

With foster-adoption, children who have already been born — often to parents with such serious issues that the children may have been better off had the “adoption option” been chosen from the beginning — are given a second chance. Sadly, many of these children — especially those who are part of sibling group, have special needs, or are “older” (four or more) — must wait months and even years for a loving, permanent home. There are simply not enough suitable families willing to open their hearts this way.

The situation would be dire enough … Now grass roots, anti-adoption advocacy groups such as “Bastard Nation” and “Adoption: Legalized Ties” are seeking to discourage adoption, choosing rather to advocate for disgruntled adult adoptees and “natural parents,” including those whose children were taken from them because of abuse and neglect.

Anti-Adoption Advocates: Biased “Truth”

The dynamic of adoption is often described as a “triad,” with 3 sides representing the birth (or first) parents, adoptive parents, and adopted child. By and large, anti-adoption groups have vilified both adoptive parents and the agencies that mediate the placements.

Recently, however, the attack has expanded to birth parents as well: Under the “Unsealed Initiative,” adult adoptees and others are lobbying government agencies in New York and other states (successfully, in Toronto) to release sealed birth records in order to gain access to the identities of birth parents who may not desire contact, and who were promised anonymity upon relinquishment. In the minds of the adult adoptees, the “best interest of the child” trumps all — when in fact the “child” is no longer a child, but an adult whose “right to know” is no more important than the other party’s right to privacy.

This growing trend is even more alarming, given the unabashed pro-abortion stance of the Obama administration. Women in crisis pregnancies who are considering adoption may have second thoughts when faced with the very real possibility that their “past” may come knocking on their door twenty or thirty years hence, disrupting their lives with demands and recriminations. Unless the records are truly sealed with a “suite lock” — one that can be opened only by mutual consent — the real danger is that these “unwanted” children will simply be aborted.

Catholic Anti-Adoption Advocates

Recently I was appalled to discover that these “anti-adoption advocates” are making inroads even in Catholic publications. Last September the National Catholic Register ran this article (accessed through my EMN blog) by self-professed “anti-adoption advocate” Melinda Selmys, who writes about encountering teenage adoptees who were acting out — though the adoptive parents were “kind and loving people.”

Rather than consider the real possibility that the teens had been damaged by circumstances that led up to the adoption, or that adoption may indeed have been their best chance at a bright future, or that these kids were just like others teens who have difficulties making the transition into adulthood, Selmys concludes that the adoption itself was the true source of the problem. She writes:

The child … is not a tabula rasa on which anyone – parents, teachers, social workers, engineers of brave new worlds – can inscribe their glowing hopes for the future. … The child is created in the image and likeness of God, but it is also in the image and likeness of its parents. The people who hope to see evil eradicated from the world through increasing government intervention in the lives of children are going to be sorely disappointed. Children do not inherit their faults and failings merely by watching and imitating mom and dad. They inherit them on a much deeper level.

Healing the Wounded Heart

Now, much of what Ms. Selmys says sounds reasonable. Foster and adoptive parents are well aware that our children have challenges and issues originating with their “first families” — behavioral, mental, emotional, and medical among them. Sometimes it’s genetic. Other times challenges come from the child’s pre-adoptive environment, not a blank slate … a heart wounded by bad choices and negative impulses of broken people.

It is also true that no adoptive environment is “perfect” — just as no parent is perfect. Ideally, children thrive best when they are raised by their natural parents, joined for life in the sacrament of matrimony. Sadly, as a society we have fallen woefully short of this ideal, and the only question that remains is how to mitigate the damage inflicted on innocent young lives.

There are situations in which adoption is truly the best (though not perfect) choice: Children born to young teens (especially those who have neither the inner resources nor long-term support system necessary to parent); children of parents with unresolved substance abuse or domestic violence issues; and children of abusive and neglectful parents. In each of these cases, little wounded hearts heal best when they are no longer in close proximity to the source of the pain. Sadly, this can mean removing children from birth parents voluntarily or (when parents demonstrate neither the willingness nor the inclination to fix their own messes and put the children’s needs first) involuntarily.

Adoption gives children wounded by the choices of their first parents a second chance to heal. Granted, it does not completely shield the child from the consequences of her first parents’ choices. There is no way to shield the child entirely — that is the nature of sin. On the other hand, pressuring unwed teenage mothers (and other at-risk mothers) to keep their babies even when they are demonstrably not capable of parenting produces more difficulties than it resolves — down the line, when adoption is no longer a viable option.

Adoption, the “Pro-Life” Option

The sad reality is that the older the child, the smaller the pool of potential adoptive parents. In the U.S. today, more than 500,000 children are in need of temporary or permanent homes … the vast majority are part of larger sibling groups, special needs, or “older” (age four or more).

Because the pain of adoption is real, the adoption choice represents true self-sacrifice on all sides of the adoption triad: Birth parents put the best interests of the child ahead of their own needs, adoptive parents agree to invest themselves entirely in a young life they did not bring into the world. The child may also suffer in ways they cannot fully understand until they are much older — and may have difficulties accepting even then. And yet, when the choice is literally life and death, this kind of self-sacrifice is the pathway to hope … if we allow it.

Will these mothers come to regret their choice? Undoubtedly there will be times when they will wonder if they could have chosen differently. They may yearn to re-establish contact with that child — and should be able to leave the door open for this, should the child (ideally, with the blessings of the adoptive parent) seek her out. But as with many significant choices in life, once the choice is made we cannot see clearly “the road not taken”; because of the unknown variables that stem from that choice, it is illusory at best. We can only learn from our choices, and move on.

On the other hand, through adoption (even open adoption, in which the birth parents maintain a level of contact after the placement), a child is helped to make the most of their own natural giftings and eradicate the worst of their natural weaknesses. The birth parent is then able to tend to his or her needs without inflicting even greater damage on the innocent. And the adoptive parents are presented with an opportunity to invest their lives in a way that produces rich spiritual fruit in the life of parent and child alike.

In Search of the “Phantom Parent”

Books such as The Adoption Mystique, by anti-adoption advocate Joanne Wolf Small, MSW, remind us that some children never completely recover from the losses of adoption — no matter how much love and attention they are given. The sense of abandonment can run deep, and visions of “real” mom and dad can tantalize even the most outwardly accommodating child — especially those in the throes of adolescence and into young adulthood, when the natural desire to separate from Mom and Dad is most powerful, and the quest for identity strongest.

While the release of some information — such as medical histories — has objective value, and could be released without depriving the first parents of their right to privacy, it is imperative that the concerns of all three sides of the adoption triad be given equal weight. Birth parents have the right to remain anonymous (unless they choose to relinquish that right); adoptive parents have the right to raise their child without undue interference; the adopted child has the right to a safe and nurturing environment. The adult adopted child has the rights of any adult — but not access to the confidential records of other private citizens.

In the section entitled “Anti-Adoption Media Bias,” Ms. Small offers a revealing quote from “The San Francisco Examiner” (1999, February 22):

Anguish is everywhere in the adoption equation …. The birth mother … adoptive parents …. Adopted children haunted by phantom birth parents who, they may feel “abandoned” them – beings … they cannot know. Phantom limbs on the family tree (par 10).

At age eleven, my younger sister experienced phantom pains when her leg was amputated. The nerves at the amputation site, which connected the missing leg to the brain, did not immediately die. And yet, Chris did not let the amputation define her or limit her in any way, and in time these pains diminished. She became first a cheerleader, then a wife and mother. If she had chosen to concentrate on the pain — instead of healing — she would be a very different person today.

I realized just how complete the healing had been when, a few years ago, an over-zealous “street healer” offered to pray for her leg to grow back and she refused. “When I get to heaven, I’m going to get my leg back — and you better believe I’m looking forward to that. But right now, for whatever reason, this is God’s plan for me, and I’m going to accept it. I’m not going to feel sorry for myself — I’m going to live.”

Wise words that can be applied to many situations — including adoption. The “phantom pain” of adoption must be acknowledged — and yet, reunification may not always be possible or even desirable. The adopted child must recognize the reality of the adoption triad; each part of the triangle of birth parent/adoptive parent/adopted child has both rights and responsibilities, some of which cannot be assumed by the child until he or she becomes an adult.

It is in adulthood that many children — adopted and biological alike — discover something essential to their future happiness: Some things in life are chosen for us by the adults in our lives, based on the information at hand, which have both positive and negative repercussions. If we continue to blame our parents for those choices, we remain in a state of “arrested adolescence” and keep ourselves from realizing our God-given potential. This is true of adult children of adoption — and of many other children, too.

We cannot change history; we can only acknowledge and learn from it, grieve our losses, forgive those who have hurt us … and move forward. The loss adopted children experience is real — just as my sister’s loss was real. She had to work through those feelings; the loss was necessary if she was to survive. This is the story of adoption: a story of painful choices made in the present, in order to secure a better — and a living — future.

Heidi Hess Saxton is the author of “Raising Up Mommy” and founder of the Extraordinary Moms Network, an online resource for mothers of adopted, fostered, and special needs children. She and her husband foster-adopted their two children in 2002.

That’s One Big Powerful Mother Dude!

I want to know who she is and where she is, that big powerful mother who keeps convincing the legislators of this continent that we first mothers want to hide from our children, you know, the ones we gave birth to.

I don’t get it.

The studies say that’s not true. Something like 90% of birth parents want to be found. And among the small percentage of those who say they don’t, 50% change their mind within a year of being contacted.

Anecdotal evidence from the other mothers says that ’s not true. Mothers want to be found or went searching and have found.

The blogosphere says that’s not true too. Everybody out here seems to be talking about how we can get them to open things up.

But somehow, this mighty mother still convinces law-makers that adoption records cannot be completely open because she made a deal, a contract, with the kind folks who counselled her to relinquish her baby and by god, she doesn’t care about the rest of us mothers and adoptees, she wants that contract upheld.

Now despite being a “troubled and misguided” young lady who went out and got herself pregnant, some where along the way I managed to get a law degree. And one of the things I learned while getting a law degree is what constitutes a contract. By any definition I know, there was no contract that guaranteed confidentiality between mothers and anybody. It’s not in the adoption papers that were signed. As I like to say, it was not a promise made but a punishment imposed. Any suggestion that there were negotiations going on, mother to adoption agency, is laughable.

But that’s not relevant the big powerful mother says because, silly you, it wasn’t a contract,contract, as in legal contract; it was a social contract.

A social contract? What’s that?

According to Wikipedia:

The term social contract describes a broad class of republican theories whose subjects are implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. Such social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government and/or other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order.

Well we must be on the right track here because Wikipedia is talking about giving up rights. So, just like they taught me in law school, I have to ask, “How are you defining rights? How are you defining social order? What is the social order that wants preserving? Who are the people who want to receive this social order?”

Now from everything I read, it’s not the mothers and it’s not the adoptees who want to receive or preserve this social order. I think we are the people who are supposed to give up the rights, as Wikipedia says, to preserve everyone else’s social order.

Do you think it just might be the adoptive parents who want to preserve this social order?

Here’s an excerpt from “How Adoption in America Grew Secret…” an article by Professor E. J. Samuels of the Baltimore School of Law that appeared in The Washington Post. Professor Samuels seems to think it might be the adoptive parents too.

Legal adoption in America only came into being starting in the second half of the 19th century, and at first all adoption records were open to the public. When they began to be closed, it was only to the general public, and the intent was to protect adoptees from public scrutiny of the circumstances of their birth. Later, as states began to close records to the parties themselves, they did so not to provide lifelong anonymity for birth mothers, but the other way around — to protect adoptive families from possible interference or harassment by birth parents.

Her phrase “to protect adoptive families” is an interesting one because as I read some of the opinions that were expressed in my own jurisdiction with respect to opening adoptive records, it is not just the current adoptive parents who must be protected but also the future, the potential, adoptive parents.

And what are the future adoptive parents to be protected from…the fact that the mother might want to know her child. That’s one thing but there is something else.

Adoptive parents because they believe a lot of the myths about adoption are worried that if mothers are not guaranteed confidentiality, they will not relinquish their children for adoption. The supply line which is already getting tight might dry up further.

Do you think some of these letters arguing promised confidentiality may not be from mothers. Maybe they are from adoptive parents, current and future.

Or maybe I’m all wrong and there is one big powerful mother out there who has the ear of government. If I could just find her and talk to her, I would tell her not to be afraid. For one thing, coming out of the great void is wonderful. For another, there’s no point. They can pass or refuse to change all the laws they want – we’ll still find each other. Many of us already have.

They only control one of the doorways to information. How does that old saying go about somebody closing a door and opening a window?

Hasn’t the UN said something about every child having the right to know and be raised by its own parents.

Peace

UM

Before you have a reunion…

you have to have information.

I understand there may be some adoptees marching for their right to know who they are today in New Orleans so this is for them.

When all the studies say that mothers of children lost to adoption want to be found, why do people keep perpetuating the myth that records should not be opened because the “birth mother” was promised confidentiality.

As a mother, I can tell you no such promise was made to me. A penalty was imposed on me, that I would never know my child. It wasn’t what I wanted. Of course, that didn’t stop us. we searched for each other and we met.

If you are the mother (or father) of a child who was adopted and you’d really like to meet that child, speak up, make your views known.

Peace

UM