For Birth Mother's day, on our birth mother blog, there was a video posted. It is a beautiful tribute and a birth mother's story. Used in the video was a song called "From God's Arms To My Arms To Yours". It's perhaps the most touching rendition of the story of adoption set to music that you'll ever hear. In researching it, I came across the book and the CD by Michael McLean. So many people are asking about it, I thought I would add the Amazon link for books and CD's so that when we find something or recommend an item, it's easy to find. It may sound like an advertisement, but I am going to order my copy right now. I keep going back to the video just so I can listen to it. It's a very special way to tell an adopted child just how much they are loved by their birth mom and their adoptive family.
Showing posts with label adoption issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adoption issues. Show all posts
Monday, May 17, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Adoption Issues - We're All Pro-choice
Someone pointed out to me today that we're all pro-choice. Some of us are pro-life and some are pro-death, but we're all pro-choice. We each want our own choice. I worked in Labor & Delivery for seven years. For two of those years, I was a neonatal bereavement counselor. It was my job to go into a delivery room where a woman was either going to give birth to a deceased baby, one that would most certainly expire, or had already expired. It was my job to gently take the baby, give the baby a bath, take footprints and hand prints -- as tiny as they might have been. It was my job to photograph the baby in perspective -- next to a flower or a small reminder of how little that baby was. Then, I would dress the baby in something nice -- often doll clothes since preemies are sometimes no larger than the palm of your hand. The child would then be wrapped lovingly in a baby blanket and presented to the parents, so they could hold, be with, and grieve the loss of their baby. To say it was heart-wrenching is an understatement. I grieved my own losses, particularly my son Cody, who was also born deceased and very premature. I sat with Moms, Dads, Grandparents, and siblings and cried right along with them. So very precious was this life they lost. Anyone who has gone through such a trauma is pro-life. The death of a baby is such a devastating loss. A life unlived. It's so unnatural to be witness to an angel taking flight.
It's interesting that a baby born at 25 or 26 weeks can, with support and care, grow up to live a normal life. And yet, in many states, it is legal to abort a child of that gestational age. If you read the book "Gianna", it will give you insight as to what happens to babies when they are aborted. Gianna is a woman who was actually aborted, and lived to tell about it. After being burned by saline and forced from the uterus, she came out crying. The doctor put her aside, assuming she would die. When she didn't die after an hour, she was finally taken reluctantly to a hospital. She was burned by the saline abortion and because of the trauma and forced prematurity, she suffered cerebral palsy. She was adopted and has lived as full a life as one can with cerebral palsy. She is sharp as a tack. She wrote a book. How can anyone advocate for the right to hurt a child? I've known people in the past who would save a puppy or rescue a kitten and would criticize someone for dumping a litter off the side of the road to die. And yet they advocated for abortion.
If you drink and drive and you run into someone who is pregnant and you kill their unborn child, case law indicates that you can be held accountable for manslaughter and even second degree murder. Yet, if that very same woman continues on down the road to an abortion clinic and allows the life of her child to be taken, we are told, "It's a choice". Not much of a choice for the baby. We have double standards.
Why is it that the very same baby can be viewed as a precious family member and as an expendable nuisance depending upon circumstances? Who should get to play God?
So, when all of this debate in Congress centers around tax dollars (mine and yours) being allocated for abortion at will (which is what the law reads, despite what is being sold to us as a Presidential over-ride), I have to object. I spent too much time comforting those who lost the opportunity to parent. There are too many more who want to parent the unborn who may be, at a cost to us, discarded and thrown in the trash. It's tragic, it's senseless, and it's costing us so much - financially, emotionally, and spiritually. It's like the bumper sticker that says, "Abortion - One dead, one wounded". The mother doesn't walk away unscathed. Often I talk to women who are now considering adoption because they have aborted before and can't reconcile that with their conscience. A woman once told me, "I will never be able to forgive myself and I hate myself for what I did". Post-abortion, women look down at the babies they have and they think to themselves, "That was one of them. What did I do?". Some have a very hard time forgiving themselves. Abortion providers are so quick to identify the problem as "pregnancy tissue" or "products of conception" -- very sterile terms for a beating heart, don't you think? As Americans, we can't claim to the rest of the world to be humanitarians if we are killing our own babies. Yes, that sounds harsh, but isn't that what is happening? There will always be exceptions to every rule, but those should be offered by physicians trying to save a life that may be in the balance. Outside of that, there are better options.
Congressman Bart Stupak sold out. Supposedly a vehement pro-lifer, his vote was the tipping point. I wonder what he was promised by our President in order to get him to reverse his stance, compromise his ethics, and vote for a bill that states abortion should be available to those who want it and should be covered by health care insurance paid for by taxpayers? Back door deals and dirty politics are now the norm. How did we get to the point in this country where the votes of the congressmen who are supposed to be representing the people are bought and sold? And at what price? Very simply - the price of a life. No, make that millions of lives. Innocent lives.
I have seen and attended many births. I have worked in a newborn nursery. I have been present in adoption situations for support during delivery. I've never seen a baby and felt "That one should have been aborted". Not once. Not every baby is what you may consider "perfect". But what I have found is that every baby is perfect for someone. I will never support having my tax dollars or my business' tax dollars go for abortion at will. The fact that this is "the law of the land" -- my land -- is sickening to me. I would love to be able to support our President, but I can't. Mr. Obama claims to be Christian, but supports the right to choose death and wants me to pay for it. I find that hypocritical and offensive. How is that my choice?
It's interesting that a baby born at 25 or 26 weeks can, with support and care, grow up to live a normal life. And yet, in many states, it is legal to abort a child of that gestational age. If you read the book "Gianna", it will give you insight as to what happens to babies when they are aborted. Gianna is a woman who was actually aborted, and lived to tell about it. After being burned by saline and forced from the uterus, she came out crying. The doctor put her aside, assuming she would die. When she didn't die after an hour, she was finally taken reluctantly to a hospital. She was burned by the saline abortion and because of the trauma and forced prematurity, she suffered cerebral palsy. She was adopted and has lived as full a life as one can with cerebral palsy. She is sharp as a tack. She wrote a book. How can anyone advocate for the right to hurt a child? I've known people in the past who would save a puppy or rescue a kitten and would criticize someone for dumping a litter off the side of the road to die. And yet they advocated for abortion.
If you drink and drive and you run into someone who is pregnant and you kill their unborn child, case law indicates that you can be held accountable for manslaughter and even second degree murder. Yet, if that very same woman continues on down the road to an abortion clinic and allows the life of her child to be taken, we are told, "It's a choice". Not much of a choice for the baby. We have double standards.
Why is it that the very same baby can be viewed as a precious family member and as an expendable nuisance depending upon circumstances? Who should get to play God?
So, when all of this debate in Congress centers around tax dollars (mine and yours) being allocated for abortion at will (which is what the law reads, despite what is being sold to us as a Presidential over-ride), I have to object. I spent too much time comforting those who lost the opportunity to parent. There are too many more who want to parent the unborn who may be, at a cost to us, discarded and thrown in the trash. It's tragic, it's senseless, and it's costing us so much - financially, emotionally, and spiritually. It's like the bumper sticker that says, "Abortion - One dead, one wounded". The mother doesn't walk away unscathed. Often I talk to women who are now considering adoption because they have aborted before and can't reconcile that with their conscience. A woman once told me, "I will never be able to forgive myself and I hate myself for what I did". Post-abortion, women look down at the babies they have and they think to themselves, "That was one of them. What did I do?". Some have a very hard time forgiving themselves. Abortion providers are so quick to identify the problem as "pregnancy tissue" or "products of conception" -- very sterile terms for a beating heart, don't you think? As Americans, we can't claim to the rest of the world to be humanitarians if we are killing our own babies. Yes, that sounds harsh, but isn't that what is happening? There will always be exceptions to every rule, but those should be offered by physicians trying to save a life that may be in the balance. Outside of that, there are better options.
Congressman Bart Stupak sold out. Supposedly a vehement pro-lifer, his vote was the tipping point. I wonder what he was promised by our President in order to get him to reverse his stance, compromise his ethics, and vote for a bill that states abortion should be available to those who want it and should be covered by health care insurance paid for by taxpayers? Back door deals and dirty politics are now the norm. How did we get to the point in this country where the votes of the congressmen who are supposed to be representing the people are bought and sold? And at what price? Very simply - the price of a life. No, make that millions of lives. Innocent lives.
I have seen and attended many births. I have worked in a newborn nursery. I have been present in adoption situations for support during delivery. I've never seen a baby and felt "That one should have been aborted". Not once. Not every baby is what you may consider "perfect". But what I have found is that every baby is perfect for someone. I will never support having my tax dollars or my business' tax dollars go for abortion at will. The fact that this is "the law of the land" -- my land -- is sickening to me. I would love to be able to support our President, but I can't. Mr. Obama claims to be Christian, but supports the right to choose death and wants me to pay for it. I find that hypocritical and offensive. How is that my choice?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Adoption Issues - Older Child Adoptions
In the past, most of the adoptions we have assisted with have been for newborns. When the economy went South, we anticipated having more than the average amount of newborn adoptions, simply because birth mothers generally place because they are not in a good place financially and can't manage working and paying for day care for a newborn and possibly other children. That problem would be increased with job losses and the lack of financial support from other sources. However, it hasn't worked out that way, but rather the birth rate has gone down and abortions are up. It's possible that many birth moms who place their infants for adoption start out at a place where they think "Perhaps I can do this" and only find out later in the pregnancy that they can't (father has disappeared or income has changed) and they decide to go forward with an adoption plan. In recent months, knowing that they can't manage because of the lack of a job and the pressures of trying to support kids in the current economic environment, some tend to opt for abortion. All it all, it seems that everyone is being more careful about unplanned pregnancy because of economic hard times. Perhaps that is why the birth rate is the lowest since the Great Depression.
However, we are seeing a trend we didn't anticipate -- the voluntary placement of older children. There are older children in the system and that has always been the case, because they are removed from homes where there is abuse or neglect. They go into foster care until it is decided that they may be adopted. Now we are seeing birth moms who wouldn't normally place their children choose to make an private adoption plan. Financial hardship is affecting already established families in a way we didn't anticipate as well. For a mom to go to work, she needs day care for her children. If she is single and has three or four kids, the cost of day care can be higher than her earnings. Welfare doesn't cover all of their needs. This leaves them with no way out, except to consider placing one or more of their children for adoption, so that they can get on their feet, work, and support themselves and their other children. This doesn't typically happen when there is only one child or the parent is not overwhelmed. This can be a heartbreaking reality for some women. It's not a choice they would normally make, but one they are faced with nonetheless.
Open adoption is more difficult when a child is old enough to remember a parent. On one hand, you don't want them to feel abandoned. On the other hand, they will tend not to adjust and feel a part of a new family if they are waiting for their birth mother to come back for them. It seems cruel to give them that hope when the adoption plan has been made and they will be integrated into a new family. A child of three or four is old enough for an explanation that they can understand. Siblings should be considered as well. Once a child has been allowed to integrate into the new family, then after a period of time, the relationship with the birth mother can be re-established. Of course birth mom and adoptive family should keep in touch in the meantime. It's just important for the child to be allowed to adjust and gain his or her place in the family, so that they feel like a family member, not a guest in someone's home.
Older child adoption is much more complex than infant adoption. A child may need therapy to adjust and accept a new life. While they are adjusting, it's best to move slowly and easily through the changes, rather than rocking their world with a name change or a completely foreign situation. They should be allowed to have their comforts -- their toys and loveys (a blanket, favorite stuffed animal, a pacifier, or whatever they cherish). If their name is to be changed, it should be gradual. Can you imagine going by your name one day and all of a sudden having people call you by something totally different the next? That would be a bit like being in the Twilight Zone. It can be very disorienting for a young child.
For those considering older child adoption, it is a good thing to offer a child a loving, stable home. But keep in mind that it is a gradual adjustment. A psychologist once told me that for every year (or month) that a child has lived outside of your home, it will take them that long to adjust to being in your family once they get inside your home. So for a two year old, that means two years. That's a long adjustment time, but it's realistic. A child under the age of a year will adjust more quickly. A child of three or four will have memories to contend with and insecurities about being moved again. It takes a lot of patience but, for those who have patience to offer, can be very rewarding indeed.
However, we are seeing a trend we didn't anticipate -- the voluntary placement of older children. There are older children in the system and that has always been the case, because they are removed from homes where there is abuse or neglect. They go into foster care until it is decided that they may be adopted. Now we are seeing birth moms who wouldn't normally place their children choose to make an private adoption plan. Financial hardship is affecting already established families in a way we didn't anticipate as well. For a mom to go to work, she needs day care for her children. If she is single and has three or four kids, the cost of day care can be higher than her earnings. Welfare doesn't cover all of their needs. This leaves them with no way out, except to consider placing one or more of their children for adoption, so that they can get on their feet, work, and support themselves and their other children. This doesn't typically happen when there is only one child or the parent is not overwhelmed. This can be a heartbreaking reality for some women. It's not a choice they would normally make, but one they are faced with nonetheless.
Open adoption is more difficult when a child is old enough to remember a parent. On one hand, you don't want them to feel abandoned. On the other hand, they will tend not to adjust and feel a part of a new family if they are waiting for their birth mother to come back for them. It seems cruel to give them that hope when the adoption plan has been made and they will be integrated into a new family. A child of three or four is old enough for an explanation that they can understand. Siblings should be considered as well. Once a child has been allowed to integrate into the new family, then after a period of time, the relationship with the birth mother can be re-established. Of course birth mom and adoptive family should keep in touch in the meantime. It's just important for the child to be allowed to adjust and gain his or her place in the family, so that they feel like a family member, not a guest in someone's home.
Older child adoption is much more complex than infant adoption. A child may need therapy to adjust and accept a new life. While they are adjusting, it's best to move slowly and easily through the changes, rather than rocking their world with a name change or a completely foreign situation. They should be allowed to have their comforts -- their toys and loveys (a blanket, favorite stuffed animal, a pacifier, or whatever they cherish). If their name is to be changed, it should be gradual. Can you imagine going by your name one day and all of a sudden having people call you by something totally different the next? That would be a bit like being in the Twilight Zone. It can be very disorienting for a young child.
For those considering older child adoption, it is a good thing to offer a child a loving, stable home. But keep in mind that it is a gradual adjustment. A psychologist once told me that for every year (or month) that a child has lived outside of your home, it will take them that long to adjust to being in your family once they get inside your home. So for a two year old, that means two years. That's a long adjustment time, but it's realistic. A child under the age of a year will adjust more quickly. A child of three or four will have memories to contend with and insecurities about being moved again. It takes a lot of patience but, for those who have patience to offer, can be very rewarding indeed.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Adoption Issues - There Is No "Safe Haven"
Back in 2001, California enacted it's version of the "Safe Haven" law, which has been put into place in almost all 50 states. It was implemented in order to allow women who couldn't parent for whatever reason, and presumably couldn't tell anyone, to place their children in a safe place at a police or fire station or hospital, with no questions asked. While at least 331 babies (according to the California Department of Social Services) have been saved by this law, countless others have died even with it in place. The question begs..."Why would anyone abandon or put their child in a trash dumpster when the obvious solution is so available?". This week, in Redondo Beach, California, a young lady age 24 who was attending a party excused herself to a bedroom because she felt "uncomfortable". A few hours later, she left to go home. She left behind her 6 lb. newborn daughter outside in a trash barrel - an ordinary trash receptacle awaiting pick up at the street. This was done just blocks from a local fire station, where she could have placed the baby and sounded a bell so that someone would come and get her and keep her safe.
I think we all want to know the answers. It's hard to imagine giving birth in a bedroom while people are partying in a home and not being noticed or notifying anyone. It's hard to imagine going through that without asking for help. While the mother states that she had no idea she was pregnant, when she finally figured out she was having a baby, wouldn't she want some assistance? An ambulance? A Hospital? Not if she planned to dispose of her baby. It seems far-fetched that with such elaborate planning, she didn't know what she was doing or that she was pregnant. While Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has been mentioned as a cause for this behavior, I find it difficult to accept. The more in shock a person is, the more they need help making decisions. They don't plot and plan when they are in shock.
Jessica Canfield was booked for investigation of murder after it was determined that she gave birth to the infant girl who was found under trash in a container that was too heavy for the garbage truck to lift. As a result, sanitation workers got out to investigate and found the infant. I'm not sure it will ever be possible to understand the reasons behind the actions of Jessica and others like her. Despite laws put in place to protect infants and shield reluctant mothers from judgment, scrutiny, or even discovery, we are still finding infants in trash cans. I wonder how many have gone undiscovered?
I think we all want to know the answers. It's hard to imagine giving birth in a bedroom while people are partying in a home and not being noticed or notifying anyone. It's hard to imagine going through that without asking for help. While the mother states that she had no idea she was pregnant, when she finally figured out she was having a baby, wouldn't she want some assistance? An ambulance? A Hospital? Not if she planned to dispose of her baby. It seems far-fetched that with such elaborate planning, she didn't know what she was doing or that she was pregnant. While Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has been mentioned as a cause for this behavior, I find it difficult to accept. The more in shock a person is, the more they need help making decisions. They don't plot and plan when they are in shock.
Jessica Canfield was booked for investigation of murder after it was determined that she gave birth to the infant girl who was found under trash in a container that was too heavy for the garbage truck to lift. As a result, sanitation workers got out to investigate and found the infant. I'm not sure it will ever be possible to understand the reasons behind the actions of Jessica and others like her. Despite laws put in place to protect infants and shield reluctant mothers from judgment, scrutiny, or even discovery, we are still finding infants in trash cans. I wonder how many have gone undiscovered?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)