This Adoption Activism site is owned by Heather Lowe. [ Previous 5 Sites | Previous | Next | Next 5 Sites | Random Site | List Sites ]

When my son made his entrance into the world in November 1998, a second birth took place. 
There on the delivery table, having just become a mother, I was reborn as a birthmother.  
In the long days since that double birth, I have grieved a grief of a severity I didn't 
think possible. I have reached new depths of suffering, and I have lived the meaning 
of regret.  For a person who despises victimhood and espouses personal responsibility, 
this has been a hard feeling to accept--but the truth remains...bad laws are what brought our separation about.

No little girl grows up dreaming of becoming a birthmother; a role that is generally 
either ignored or despised. Yet millions of women carry the badge. Increasingly we are 
more forthright about our aborted chance at motherhood, and some of us are even militant. 
But birthmothers from an earlier era still stumble upon one another, often after long 
acquaintance. "You too?" they say.  "I had no idea..."

For even if a birthmother did summon her courage to speak, the shameful, inhumane practice 
of closed adoption ensured that no one wanted to listen. More frequently, mothers who 
surrendered children didn't even try, having bought into the big lie that they would "get 
over it and move on." How many women have we lost to the aftereffects of this evil untruth? 
The terrible pain of our older birthmothers (those from the era of maternity homes and 
secretive births) is living proof that "you will forget" is a fabrication so wicked that 
Satan himself may have been its creator. Birthmothers never forget.

Open adoption, in which adoptive families maintain ongoing, lifelong relationships with 
the birthfamily, has elevated birthmother status in important ways, but injustice in 
adoption remains rampant, and prejudices still abound.  Would-be adopters and social 
workers alike have an image of the "typical" birthmother, and they look down on her in 
smug condescension.  They think they are rescuing the poor confused child, and expect 
her to be grateful to their charity in "saving" her child from a life that is not 
solidly middle class, or a home that is not two-parent. 

Even after two decades of progress toward open adoption, birthmothers still pay. We pay 
every time someone tells us our child is so lucky to have found a good family (i.e., 
to be away from us?) We pay when coworkers (usually the same ones who told us during 
our pregnancies that it would be selfish to keep our children) go on to ask in disbelief, 
"How could you have given away your baby?"  We pay dearly on Mother's Day, and we pay 
each time we are asked, "Do you have any children?"

I am not anti-adoption. Many cases really do call for a good adoptive family, and many 
children benefit from growing up outside their biological homes.  But adoption as it 
is practiced today is a disgrace. It's become an industry geared not toward "the best 
interests of the child" (itself a worn out catchphrase with little real meaning) but 
toward serving people who think they have a God-given right to add a child to their home.  
Adoption used to be about finding homes for children, but now it's about finding children 
to fill the homes of infertile couples. To improve the institution of adoption, I propose a 
list of nine reforms.

To understand why I make them, however, it's first necessary to have some background on 
me. For starters, I fit none of the birthmother stereotypes. Aged 27 when I gave birth,
I was hardly a teen mother. I am not poor or unstable: I have a good job with a major 
corporation. I am not uneducated; I have a sharp mind and an undying love of learning. 
My child was unplanned, but not unwanted. My family and I had much to offer my son, 
save the one thing we could not give him: a father who stuck around.

Research into the effects of adoption on infants shows that the psychological cost 
of infant-maternal separation is so high that an adoption should only be done as a last 
resort. It is a well-documented fact that infants do suffer lifelong consequences as a 
result of separation from their first family, regardless of how joyous and successful 
their adoption eventually turns out to be.  Experts in the field caution, therefore, 
that adoption should be done only if there is no other way for mother and baby to stay 
together. Unfortunately, this is not how adoption is commonly practiced. Agencies and 
private adoption "facilitators," which profit based on how many adoptions they can 
arrange, don't ask too many questions about why a potential birthmother is considering 

adoption.

So despite the red flags that the demographic indicators ought to have raised in my 
case, the adoption industry forged ahead, desperate to get one more healthy, white 
newborn. No one said to me, "If anyone has the resources to be a single parent, it's 
you." No one asked me why I was really choosing adoption, or if I was being influenced 
by those around me instead of going with my gut feelings. No one acknowledged that 
what I was actually trying to do was pay for my "sin" in getting pregnant out of 
wedlock--trying to make atonement by making an infertile married couple happy. 
The "counseling" I got was perfunctory and biased and all-around unacceptable (I'll 
have more to say about that in a moment.) But I didn't know better. Despite attacking 
the potential adoption of my son as a research project, and reading a great deal of 
material while pregnant, I did not collect enough unbiased information to fully 
understand what I was doing. No one knows just how to go about becoming a birthmother 
until it's already too late.

So, I signed the papers, and they got the baby. But is this the basis for building a 
family--on the grief and regret of another? I often wonder how adoptive parents of this type live with 
themselves, knowing how much they have taken away from my child's birthfamily. Unless, 
that is, it's absolutely clear that they are offering the child much more than the 
birthfamily could have done. My situation lacks such clarity. It is far too ambiguous. 
I fear that in the life of my son, I merely replaced one major loss (lack of a present 
father) with another (being cut out of his biological family).  

Thus, my proposed reforms:
1. Keep social workers with an agenda away from expectant mothers. When I was trying to decide if I was going to 
surrender my child to adoption, the agency provided the prospective adopters with a 
counselor, as well as one for me. But that counselor was herself an adoptive mother. 
In our "talks," she bubbled inanely about what a wonderful gift her daughter has been 
(as if the girl's birthmother had searched valiantly for the perfect present and done 
so much better than a gift certificate.) Birthmothers do not give their children as 
gifts to needy parents; if anything they give the parents as gifts to their children.
This phenomenon of presenting adoption as "gift-giving" is far too prevalent. A 
potential birthmother does not need to be thinking about the plight of childless 
couples, no matter how sad infertility may be. A woman in the midst of a crisis pregnancy 
has been stigmatized as a bad girl, often experiencing the disapproval of and anger from 
family and friends. In order to regain her "good girl" status, she will do anything to make 
these people happy again, and giving away her baby to a needy couple seems like the 
perfect way out. The danger is that she will make an adoption decision based solely on 
the feelings of others.
My counselor's pro-adoption propaganda colored my thinking at a time when I desperately 
needed objectivity.  It is unacceptable that supposedly neutral parties, offered for 
support and guidance, have such personal interest in the outcome. Adoption lawyers and 
social workers should never be adoptive parents themselves.

2. Mandate counseling for all potential birthmothers.  Even if the expectant mother 
thinks she does not need counseling, she is wrong. She is in denial, and needs counselling more than ever. The law should 
require that she receive free counsel from an uninterested, outside party.  Voluntarily 
losing one's child is the most serious loss most women will ever face. Being forced 
to do so without extensive advisement is sheer cruelty.
The need for counseling leads to another needed reform: putting more controls on private adoption. 
Private adoptions circumvent agencies by using lawyers as facilitators, In private 
adoption, there is little to no counseling. What's more, lawyers are trained in law, 
not in helping expectant mothers to make painful, human decisions, and they will not 
see to it that she gets the support she needs (or that the prospective adoptive parents 
receive the education they need to realize all that they are taking on). Education 
should become mandatory for all hopeful adopters, and required reading lists should 
be standard.

3. Train all hospital workers in sensitive adoption practices.  The horror stories 
I have collected from other birthmoms regarding their experiences in the hospital 
are hair-curling, and they come from both sides of the fence. Every day I hear of 
nurses who think adoption is wrong and try to talk the birthmother into keeping the 
child in the biological family, or nurses who think adoption is glorious but that the 
birthmother is sinful and has no right to enjoy her own birthing.  Both are equally 
offensive and could be cured with more education among hospital staff, who need to 
learn that their role is to make a mother's delivery as pleasant and stress-free as 
possible, regardless of what plans she may be making for her child.  Doctors, nurses, 
and support staff should never express their opinions on the adoption plans taking 
place.  In the meantime, potential birthmothers must take full control of their 
hospital experience and not let outside ignorance alter a well-made birthing plan.

4. Keep hopeful adoptive parents out of the delivery room and away from the hospital.  They 
don't belong anywhere near the scene. This is hard for me to say, because my child's 
parents were in the delivery room (at their request, not mine) and it seemed at the 
time to be a relatively pleasant experience, though not without a measure of 
awkwardness. Looking back, however, I see how deeply it interfered with my decision-making 
ability. Since then I've also learned more about the pre and perinatal experience 
of the child. The question ought to be, " Who does the adoptee want in the delivery 
room?"  Unfortunately, this question is almost never asked.

According to psychologists, the newborn baby recognizes its mother immediately at 
birth. That baby needs time to continue the bond with his first mother, who he 
already knows from forty weeks of sharing her body.  The prospective adoptive mother, 
no matter how wonderful she may be, is still a stranger to the newborn, who does not 
experience himself as separate from his biological mother until the age of two months. 
There will be time for gentle transitions into an adoptive family later, if they are 
in fact needed.  

Adoptions are often handled as if the baby is not really present. The thinking seems 
to be that if the switch-off is handled quickly enough, the baby will never notice. 
This is patently untrue, and rushing to place a child in an adoptive home does lasting 
damage.

There is yet another reason prospective adopters don't belong anywhere near a delivery 
room. No matter how much thought has gone into a pre-birth decision, an adoption plan 
must be made anew after the birth, once the child has become a reality. A great majority 
of first-time mothers report feeling disconnected from their child while pregnant--and 
these are women who planned their pregnancies and intend to keep their children. For most 
potential birthmothers, this is their first child, and they have no idea how they will 
feel after the baby's actual arrival. A child that they wonder if they could love is now 
known to be the most precious thing on earth to them. Yet adoption laws are mostly written 
by men, who have no idea that motherhood is a great unknown until it actually happens.
We frequently hear about the horrible birthmother who so inconsiderately changes her mind, 
as if a change of heart is a sin.  Yes, the prospective parents will face real pain if the 
birthmother decides to keep her baby. But the cold truth is that no one is going to leave 
that hospital without pain. The potential birthmother is expected to bear the pain, and to 
bear it FOREVER. When she backs away from that pain, she is treated as if she has violated 
a contract, much as if she were selling a car, not relinquishing a child. Most states do 
not allow an intent to relinquish statement, but those that do must act at once to outlaw 
them.

Potential birthmothers do not owe anyone a child.  Where the prospective adoptive 
parents and potential birthparents have formed a meaningful relationship, with a 
firm commitment to ongoing presence in each others' lives (which in open adoption 
we hope they will have done), adoptive parents' presence in the delivery room may be 
acceptable--as long as the birthmother is the one asking for it and the emotional 
risks are known to her.

5. Abolish irrevocable consent. Many states allow a window of time for birthmothers 
to change their minds about this most immense of decisions, but many do not. In 
addition, many states allow consents to be taken in a hospital bed, shortly after birth, 
rather than in a courtroom in front of a judge--the proper place for a decision of such 
solemnity to be formalized.

Imagine you are given 72 hours to decide whether you will lose your child.  Is that 
enough time?  The place you are given to do it is a hospital bed, where you lie worn out 
from labor, hovered over by anxious adoptive parents and their guests. Their joy at the 
new arrival is infectious, and you might start to think that life as a birthmother will 
always be this saturated in gratitude and happiness. Is that the proper atmosphere to 
make a decision which will completely recreate you as a person and affect the rest 
of your days?  In three months, many things can change in a birthmom's life, factors 
that will make her want to keep her child. Give her the time and the space to make the 
decision, and if her economic or social standing has not improved or if she still doubts 
her mothering ability, proceed with the adoption.


6. End adoption advertising.  Adoptive families like to say their families were formed by 
God. If so, then why do they need marketing to get the job done?  If God wants to form a 
family by adoption, then prospective adoptive parents need to sit back, shut up and let Him 
do it. They shouldn't sell themselves with saccharine ads and gooey posters, troll for babies 
on the Internet, or omit crucial facts in those "Dear Birthmother" letters. (And while they're 
at it, they should never refer to a pregnant woman as a "birthmother" at all. A woman is not 
a birthmother until she has signed away her legal rights to her child, so an expectant mother 
can never be a birthmother. Calling her one denies reality, forces her to think of herself 
as something she may not want to become, and is coercive in the extreme.)

Prospective adopters who paint themselves as the Cleavers of the nineties are hawking the family 
for gain. Thankfully, a lot of potential birthmothers see through it--but many of the younger, 
more naive ones do not.  Babyselling is rightfully despised in our culture, yet somehow baby 
soliciting is not.  There are plenty of non-coercive, dignified ways for prospective adopters 
to get the word out that they hope to adopt. Let's use them. We must bring back integrity to 
the adoption process, or we haven't progressed much since the days 
of the orphan trains.

7. Let closed adoptions dwindle like the Dark Age remnant they are.  I have no respect for 
potential adoptive families who would even consider a closed adoption. Adoptive parents in a 
closed adoption have only solved one thing: their own infertility.  They are not acting for 
the sake of a child but for the sake of their own need to "play family." Closed adoption 
parents certainly do not have the child's well-being in mind, since as a result of their 
own fears and insecurities they only trade one set of problems (a single parent home) for 
another (genealogical bewilderment).

Those who adopt overseas to make things easier on themselves are also suspect.  It's one 
thing to save an orphaned child from a group home. It's quite another to purchase a baby 
overseas because you don't want to deal with the child's biologic roots, or because you feel 
you need a perfect white baby.  Going halfway around the world to avoid the birthfamily is 
cowardly and wrong, but somehow society views these do-gooders in a positive light. There are 
plenty of adoptable kids right here in the U.S.  The question is, is the adoptive family up 
to the challenge?

8. Open records for adult adoptees.  Unfortunately, we have not yet reached the point 
where all adoptions are open, so we have an additional problem, that of closed records.  
How can we say we have the best interests of a child at heart when we tell her she has no 
right to her original identity?  Why are adoptees the only class of people deemed not 
trustworthy enough to know of their origins?  This seems so obvious as to defy further 
explanation, yet only three states understand it so far.  If you believe in basic human 
rights, you must grant adoptees the right to know.  Don't let the Oregon Seven fool you. 
The vast majority of birthmothers (some 98%) are for open records--for they are mothers 
first, who care about their children's psychological well-being.  
Closed records damage the adoptee, by keeping him forever a child. Adoptees grow up, 
but adoption laws do not reflect that obvious fact. They are never trusted with their 
heritage.  This perpetual infantilization of adoptees is demeaning to all involved, and 
violates basic constitutional (and property) rights.

9. Make open adoption agreements legally enforceable.  Only one state allows birthmothers 
the protection of open adoption contracts, which help to hold adoptive parents to their 
promises. In all other states, such agreements are actually illegal.
It's a sad fact that a large percentage of adoptive parents break their promises for 
continued contact once they have the baby in their home. It happens more than you would 
think, and is especially tragic when the only reason a birthmother agreed to adoption in 
the first place was the promise of ongoing contact with her child.  Such agreements must 
have the protection given to other serious agreements--the protection of law.

Summary
Birthmothers don't ask to be created.  We become, without wanting to become. We are, 
without wanting to be.  Our mistake? Struggling through an unplanned or unsupported pregnancy in order 
to give life, sticking to a strong value system, refusing to care what others think of 
our choice. We are told over and over again during pregnancy, by people who want our 
oh-so-valuable babies, that we are doing the honorable thing, making a beautiful choice, 
loving our child completely.  Then, as soon as the placement is secure, we are told to be 
ashamed of what we have done. We are asked how we could give away blood. We are shunned 
and scorned as somehow less than the "real" adoptive mothers. We hear that "good" 
birthparents ought to ride away into the sunset, leaving their children in the past, 
leaving the adoptive parents to answer the tough questions and soothe the child's losses. 
But fifty years of closed adoption in the United States has proven that it doesn't work. 
If you doubt it, turn to the Internet to see the number of adoptees in immense pain.
The sugarcoating of adoption has got to stop. It is not a win-win situation. The biggest 
losses of all come to the one who tried heroically to find the best solution to an unplanned 
pregnancy. In reality, there is never a solution. All three options have severe effects on a 
mother's life, and when a mother chooses the very hardest road for the sake of her precious 
child, society ought to scrape its collective knees as it bows down to honor her sacrifice.
And yet the very word is ugly...birthmother. As if the word "mother" is not big enough to 
encompass more than one type of love. I prefer the term used by some enlightened adoptive 
parents: first mother. 

Perhaps I seem to be hard on adoptive parents. This is not because I dislike them, but 
because they have all the power in adoptive relationships, and therefore far greater
responsibilities. The child has no say in what happens to him, and the birthparents 
lose all rights once the papers are signed. Adoptive parents function as the gods in 
the adoption triad, and like the gods of mythology they can be either benevolent or 
terrible. I urge both present and prospective adoptive parents to try to truly feel the 
enormity of birthmother and adoptee loss. Then, if you still feel the adoption is 
necessary and good, go ahead with it...but do it in a dignified way that honors your 
child-to-be and the family from which he comes.  Then adoption is allowed to be a 
blessed event, not a disgraceful one.
© Heather Lowe, 1999