Home › blogs › reunitedmomWolf Linda's blog

Bush Admin Pushes Grabbing Babies From Poor Women So Wealthy Can Adopt

Fri, 2008-04-04 23:17 - reunitedmomWolf...

Here is an artical that I wrote and was published by OPED news.I hope you will find the information of interest. I am not a great writer but I am full pf passion for the truth.

http://www.opednews.com/webber022704_adoption.htm

Hello:

I am one voice joined with others finding their voices for the millions of Mothers and children of adoption wounds. Some have found their voices and some that haven't yet. I have held adopted persons and Mothers in my arms as they sobbed about the pain of being without each other. Many of us Moms are sick and or dying young from the grief of having our children taken from us by adoption brokers. Only in America will a community gather around a woman who's child has been kidnapped and offer validation for her pain and yet will tell a Mother and adopted person that has lost each other to coercion to be grateful for the act of separating them from each other. I have held many Moms and adopted while they sobbed about being hurt from adoption. There are cases where adopted persons and Mothers have committed suicide do to the trauma of adoption. Many adopted teens are in treatment centers. These are the truths you will seldom be told because adoption is very Politically correct now.

We are then told that times have changed. Well, Not really....There's is a push now by President Bush and some of his church-based adoption agencies to bring back the good old days when all a women needed to be was young, no family support and little to no social welfare programs in place to lose her baby to adoption.

Because now there are more choices for women and parental help the government is trying their best to take away those choices to make room for more adoption of infants to wealthy clients of adoption agencies.

First, welfare reform has caused more woman and children to fall into the worst poverty that we have seen in a long time, Second, they want to stop the choice of abortion. There's a real pebble in their shoe and it is what young women have today they didn't have and that is parental support. First our government, furthering the Republican agenda of baby selling baby in America, voted for "The Infant adoption awareness act." But what to do with those pesky parents/grandparents? The answer is HR 7 that would reintroduce "group homes for unwed mothers" We all know that thought control/coercion works best in a closed or non-existent support system. So, Can we say it's starting to look a lot like the 50's, 60's and even past there to some extent? Those of us that were sent away to the Prisons for unwed Mothers do not want to see those horrid places in anyway shape or form emerge again.

Under President Bush's watch we are witnessing going backwards not forward when it comes to the rights of woman and children. It is scaring the heck out of us Moms and many adopted persons that are the direct result of the baby scoop era. We are fearful for the young scared Moms that will fall prey to these adoption brokers. An adoption agency in Texas has just opened a new "campus "just before these bills were passed and President Bush is in tight with this agency. This Texas Adoption agency was saying they have a lot of open beds for pregnant Moms and then comes these bills? Does something smell? Also, one of the big agencies at the National Council for Adoptions has listed as a contact agency an agency that is a big, church run conservative institution.

I read the documents well before they deleted some of them and they stated that they need to focus on white babies because there isn't much of a demand for babies of color. Again, here's the 60's revisited. It was suggested that birth control be taught more to women of color. The reason I believe that many believed the testimony before Congress was because they didn't hear testimony from us Moms and our children about the harm done to us by being separated from each other. Remember these bills are not for the purpose of anything but to bring in more INFANTS. And in truth the government was promised a savings in tax monies although Bush just pushed the 10,000 dollar incentive to adopt, including infants, through. Just think what a single Mom could do with $10,000? Some may say well there are open adoptions now and I say many young Moms are coming forth saying they had never been told their contact could be slammed shut once the adoption became final. And that is exactly what happened. Interestingly, the agencies failed to inform the Moms of this

All we Moms and adopted children of adoption loss have is our truth and integrity. We don't have the money that the adoption brokers have. We have the resolve to fight for the rights of all women and children poor and middle class that Republicans have such a hatred for. And yet they have no problem taking their children to sell to their friends at the adoption agencies. We hope that our voices are heard for the sake of all women and children.

And we also need your help. Here are a few things you can do to help:

Write to your congressman/woman and tell them it is not OK to support the separating of Mothers and children for no reason other than they are poor. Ask them what they are doing to preserve familles? Write letters to the editors of your local paper informing parents/grandparents of the intent of our government into separating their children and grandchildren from them. Praise them for showing true family values by keeping their children/grandchildren close to them with love and support.

If you belong to a church or temple ask the congregation to embrace a young Mom and her child into fellowship not for the purpose of removing her child from her but in true support.

Last but Not least, we really need to restore a family friendly administration into office and vote out the Republican agenda of America being good for only the wealthy.

Linda Webber, mommaL3@aol.com Activist for the rights of Mother's and children to be free from adoption coercion.

Mentor for young Moms that are parenting their children

Wife, Mother of two sons and one reunited daughter

Grandmother of four children

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati

Comments

Sat, 2008-04-05 13:24 — Kerry

The Many Shades of Green

It's facinating to read the concerns people have in regards to family-size and care given to children.  Just this morning I read two articles that discuss the cause and effects of "over-reproduction".

One article, titled "Children Bad for Planet" starts with:  "HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank."

The other article, titled. "America by the Numbers, More Money, More Kids", explains: 

"the wealthiest families are having more children: In 2004, an estimated 41.3% of the wealthiest families had at least three children, much higher than in 1996, when an estimated 29.3% of families earning in the highest income bracket (that year, $300,000-plus) had three or more kids.

"Having more than two children is a luxury," says Paul Demeny of the Population Council, a non-profit research group. "Three or four is getting to be a size that only the affluent can afford."

With contraception more effective these days and the cost of raising children so high, couples are thinking more about economics as they plan their families, Demeny says.

Once families have more than two children, everything becomes much more expensive, he says, pointing out that larger families need bigger cars and homes.

"These trends have been unfolding during the last 20 or 30 years," but they are just now showing up in statistics, he says. They reflect the movement of women into the workforce, the complications of finding quality, affordable child care and America becoming a more secular society (secular couples tend to have fewer children).

Children were considered a financial asset to the poor in the 19th century, providing a cheap source of unskilled labor and the potential to bring additional income to the family. But with industrialization and the need for children to spend their youth in school, the economics of large families dramatically changed. "

So what's the moral message ecconomists are trying to pitch?    Let's try this slogan on for size:  "Green with envy because you're dirt poor and unhappy?  Sell your children, and save the planet!"

Sun, 2008-04-06 08:01 — Kerry

The Benefit to Having More Babies

Anyone broken by and through the international adoption industry knows it's the politics of profit that keeps their buisness going.  But more people need to be concerned  about the new approach they are using to keep national profits growing:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23972762

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia's population plummeted, and until recently was shrinking at the rate of about 750,000 people a year.

So the Kremlin made kids a priority. A 2007 law expanded maternity leave benefits and payments, and granted mothers educational and other vouchers worth $10,650 for a second child and any thereafter. More important, perhaps, Russia's surging economy has made it possible for young couples to plan for their future.

Population still in decline
The population decline hasn't halted, and demographers warn it could plummet again.

today births are on the rise, from 1.4 million in 2006 to 1.6 million in 2007 — their highest level in 15 years.

Both Gorlov and Simanova, who lived together for years before their recent marriage, say their decision to start a family was deeply personal. But Simanova noted the public service ads on television every night that showcase big families and praise the virtues of adopting children. And she suspects this may have played a role in her current plan to have three children and adopt a fourth.

"They are promoting families, they are promoting babies, and somehow this message is getting through," she said.

Her husband, Alexander, a 30-year-old lawyer, wasn't so certain that government policy influenced his decision.

"It's not that we want to raise a lot of Russians to raise the booming economy," he joked after soccer practice one recent evening. But he did say that Russia's economic resurgence over the past decade has made it easier to raise children.

Emptied villages, labor shortage
For Russia, the increase in births is more than a signal of a society recovering from decades of poverty and social upheaval. Because of falling birthrates and rising death rates, the number of Russians dropped between 1989 and 2008 from about 148 million to 141.4 million. Villages emptied, the pool of military recruits shrank and a labor shortage loomed.

Some experts have estimated that the number of Russians could fall below 100 million by 2050, making one of the world's most sparsely populated countries even more so and — some fear — threatening its very existence.

President Vladimir Putin says the baby boom is just one sign of a turnaround in the country's long demographic decline, and credits increased state spending on health and social programs.

"We have checked the falling birthrate and rising death rate," Putin said in a Feb. 8 speech in the Kremlin. "Many doubted that the state investments this program called for would be of any use. Today I am happy to say that they have been of use."

Putin also noted, however, that deaths still outpace births and that Russian life expectancy is the lowest in Europe. "This is a disgrace," he said. "Our population is declining with every passing year."

How long do you think it will take me to find an article on China's push for pregnancy, adoption and their long-term effect on national concerns? 

Sun, 2008-04-06 08:05 — Kerry

(Earlier than expected...)

By Maureen Fan

Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, December 13, 2007; Page A30

BEIJING, Dec. 12 -- China expects the start of a baby boom next year, state media said Wednesday, in a development that will further strain a country whose resources are already stretched thin by a population of 1.3 billion.

The "mini-baby boom" is partly the result of a relaxation in family planning rules in the 1980s, Zhang Weiqing, the country's top population control official, said in a speech, according to the China Daily newspaper. Exceptions were made to China's "one-child" policy in 1984, and children born since then have reached childbearing age.

"The desire to have boys or more than one child is deep-rooted and still very strong, especially in rural areas," Zhang said, adding that the newest boom could exceed 10 years.

China experienced a baby boom after the Communist Party came to power in 1949; a second boom occurred in 1962; a third boom was recorded in the late 1980s.

For more than three decades, China has imposed tight controls on population growth. By limiting how many people compete for scarce resources, the country has been able to lift millions out of poverty.

But population control policies have also contributed to a growing sex imbalance -- boys are preferred because they can carry on the family name and, unlike girls, generally won't move away after marriage. Because so many aging couples have had only female offspring and are prevented from having more children, they fear they will have no one to care for them in the future.

The Chinese government often complains that its "one child" policy is misunderstood by the West. Less often, it acknowledges that its policies to reduce births, particularly in rural areas, are ineffective. But that's the message to be taken from swelling migrant populations, experts say.

"The best pension is to have a boy. Farmers still don't trust girls to take care of them in old age, because they marry out," said Li Fan, a Beijing-based expert who studies family planning. "Nobody can really control how many children farmers have nowadays, especially now that they are so mobile."

Local officials sometimes tolerate Chinese who have violated the "one child" policy because violations lead to fines, and fines mean increased revenue for villages or cities. At the same time, when officials' promotions depend on meeting quotas, they have resorted to overzealous enforcement, including forced abortions and sterilizations.

In recent years, the central government has turned toward incentives rather than coercion as a means to limit births. A recent proposal would give pensions to poor farmers who have only one child or two girls.

"Many grass-roots family planning officials complain that it's very hard for them to pursue their work, because the central government's strict family planning policies haven't changed; yet at the same time, citizens are more and more aware of their basic human rights," said a longtime senior official who works on family planning issues but who was not authorized to speak on the record.

In some areas, urbanization and rising education levels have countered the preference for boys. Nearly 80 percent of couples planning to start a family said that they wanted to have both a boy and a girl, a survey by the National Population and Family Planning Commission showed last year.

But rising incomes also make it easier for Chinese to violate the "one child" policy and simply pay the fines.

Sun, 2008-04-06 16:29 — Niels

At faith value

While there is something to be said for the Russian program to increase the number of child biths in their country, after years of population decline and soaring abortion rates, while there is even a rationale behind the Chinese one-child policy, the US policy to increase infant adoption is only religiously driven. Ever since the current administration took office a religious agenda has been pushed, without further rhyme or reason. Faith based offices were installed, funding for abortion related programs was stopped. Abstinence only education became the prime option of sex-ed, the infant adoption awareness trainings got started and funding was given to embryo adoption programs.

Where the Russian and Chinese programs, at least aim to solve a problem. The US programs are aimed at creating problems. Abstinance only programs only increase the risk of teen-pregnancies and are known to do so, that way feeding the need for teen pregnancy solutions, where the infant adoption awareness programs feed off upon.

The embryo adoption programs are another religious way of making money out of the by-product of IVF treatment and an embargo on stem-cell research. While European research aims at creating as little embryos for IVF as possible, the US government sees more money can be made through a save the embryo campaign.

Doing a quick survey of the federal funding for these programs reveals:

Sun, 2008-04-06 22:20 — Lulu

Worlds apart, but for how long

The US and Europe seem worlds apart.

Here in Europe we have build social systems, support for families and unemployment schemes. Though over the last years that system is under pressure. And I truly hope Europe is not following the American pattern.

Birth rates are down in the whole of Europe. One of the reasons is that families postpone having children. First a carreer needs to be build, a house to be found, or people put priority on first 'enjoying life'.
Then to realise it is too late....

And there are not many 'adoptable' children, as the rights of children and their parents got better secured since the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was implemented throughout Europe. So the demand has been shifted abroad.

Europe has a tendency to copy the American culture. We must make a fist, have a strong voice, to not copy this American  trend.  We must remain a rights-based society - and increase social rights, not doing away with them. We must create even better conditions, so that people can have the children they desire in time. And stop promoting the idea that one can have other's children instead.

Here in Europe too there are religious groups that want to replace abortions with adoptions. They are a minority - and should stay that way.

 

Sun, 2008-04-06 22:28 — Kerry

Dare I say...

AMEN

Just because something "works" does not mean it's best for all.  Perhaps that's the lesson America's priority in the shipping of children can teach others.  What looks good on paper is not always what's best for a child, or the future for any given society.