Gilead begins: domestic supply of infants

Fridafever · 07/05/2022 21:23
I don’t think there’s much merit in trying to say that the babies will be defective and so not adopted. The evidence isn’t really there, newborns really do always get adopted I think.

amp.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2015/mar/04/prospective-adopters-urged-to-think-of-the-child-not-the-disability

Very young children can usually find adopters within four months of a placement order being made. We know that for children over four, or those in sibling groups or from black and ethnic minorities, the process can take longer. But it is children with disabilities who find it hardest to find prospective parents regardless of age,”

That tweet is way out of context and inflammatory nonsense. The Opinion is listing arguments made by pro-lifers as part of the summary of all the arguments for and against Casey. Domestic supply of infants is not one of the reasons given for overturning Roe v Wade.

It’s footnote #46

The sentence it belongs to starts on p33 and states
”Americans who believe that abortion should be restricted press countervailing arguments about modern developments. They note that the attitudes about pregnancy of unmarried women have changed drastically; that federal and state laws ban discrimination on the basis of pregnancy; that leave for pregnancy and childbirth are now guaranteed by law in many cases(43); that the costs for medical care associated with pregnancy are covered by insurance or government assistance(44); that States have increasingly adopted “safe haven” laws which generally allow women to drop off babies anonymously (45); and that a woman who puts up her newborn for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home(46).

footnote (on p34).
(46) See, e.g. Centers for Disease Control, Adoption Experiences of Women and Men and Demand for Children to Adopt by Women 18-44 Years of Age in the United States 16 (Aug 2008). (“[N]early 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e. they were in demand for a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent.”); Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics, Adoption and nonbiological parenting; https ….and so on.

Sorry but my cut and paste not working. Link to text of draft opinion.
www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-874f-dd36-a38c-c74f98520000

@Fridafever the stats don't agree with this - & this will be particularly the case if more women/girls are forced to carry through their pregnancy. I KNOW of cases of seriously disabled & extremely prem babies who were in permanent foster care & were never adopted in this country. &, by the way, I would never ever use the word defective in relation to a child.
Anyone who has had contact with the care system (as I indirectly had) could tell you that even new born babies who had issues were less likely to be adopted.
Most people who want to adopt have an image of a healthy baby - caring for a child with a disability even when you give birth to that child is hard.

Anyone else finding it ironic that one of the batshit things a lot of the Republican QAnon Trump zealots kept shouting about was that they elected Trump to fight the secret child trafficking rings?

I don't think it automatically follows that babies who would otherwise have been aborted will have been disadvantaged.

In the UK for example teen pregnancies are at their lowest ever, which is a good thing, but when it happens, girls from middle class families are likely to terminate the pregnancy and working class girls to continue with it.

I don't think it's incredible that there will be girls in both socioeconomic groups who want neither an abortion nor a baby. Giving a baby up voluntarily is almost unheard of now. There is no stigma to having an abortion nor keeping the baby- the stigma now would be "how could you give your baby away?"

I do think if you (general you) are giving women a free choice that the option of adoption from birth should be on the table, if that is a genuine, uncoerced choice.

"supply of infants" is an utterly abhorrent phrase, sickening.

Just like surrogacy this is the purposeful creation of babies who will be separated from their mothers with all the trauma that involves

I don’t think there’s much merit in trying to say that the babies will be defective and so not adopted. The evidence isn’t really there, newborns really do always get adopted I think.

It’s obviously a gross argument (that women should give birth in order to supply the adoption need) and honestly I wouldn’t bother engaging with it in this way.

MrsTerryPratchett · 07/05/2022 20:39
The issue is these very clean arguments don't reflect RL. So yes, if there are happy, cuddly newborns, which the mums are now happy to give up at birth to loving homes...

But, these are babies who would have been aborted, so less than ideal situations. More babies with; disabilities, addicted mothers, mothers living without antenatal care, mothers living in prostitution, illegal immigration status, abusive places, young mums, older mums, ND or disabled mums, more risks of birth injury or addicted babies and on and on. More babies from closely related people Sad.

The clean arguments also don't take into account that women and girls don't carry in isolation. So many will be forced to keep the baby after birth, because abortion is private but pregnancy is obvious. Those with abusive partners can't give them up, they have to stay.

It's dystopian.

I agree.

mrshoho · 07/05/2022 20:34
That wasn't my intention at all @PerkingFaintly . I was wondering if the 1 million women seeking to adopt included transwomen. Seeing 'domestic supply of infants' fills me with dread

I did realise what you meant, and the worry about babies being a commodity.

‘I can sadly foresee some children never being adopted and being institutionalised.’

Even if they were all adopted by lovely families, then without the option for legal safe abortion that is reproductive slavery.

Her words are chilling.
Though adoption can be a wonderful thing, and successful, another aspect to consider is that even when babies are adopted shortly after birth they will experience the trauma of separation and this may affect them mentally all their lives.

Some children, for example of a drug addicted or alcoholic mother, or of a less popular race, or born with a disability will not be adopted quickly if at all and they may have even worse outcomes.

Also, stress during pregnancy, which mothers forced to keep a baby under any circumstances are likely to feel, is now known to harm the baby’s mind.

If an expectant mother is strongly stressed over a longer period of time, the risk of the unborn child developing a mental or physical illness later in life such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or cardiovascular disease increases www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170529090530.htm

Adopted children and later poor mental health:
www.verywellmind.com/what-are-the-mental-health-effects-of-being-adopted-5217799

What about the mental health outcome of a baby born to rape: either if they ever find out, or is their mother has to keep a secret from them?

Ditto children conceived through incest, who may also have genetic complications exacerbated.

One thing that drives me crazy with anger is that if a raped girl or woman bravely decides to keep her baby, the father can have parental rights ( even though parents of adopted babies don’t). In many cases the rapist won’t even be convicted so is even more likely to have PR.

Margaret Atwood comment in the guardian.

Many parents who want to adopt are pretty specific about the children they want to adopt & to be frank a majority are going to be middle class & probably white. The mothers race, age (very young girls more likely to have smaller premature babies), financial status (deprived with little access to contraception - thanks to cutbacks on that), drug addiction (with all that entails regarding affect on babies), disability (both in the mother & the child) increases the chance of a woman or girl falling pregnant & also cause the resultant baby to be less healthy or disabled. The mother is unlikely to have a healthy pregnancy & have less medical care, checks or a healthy diet this means the baby is less healthy. What this amounts to is that many of these children are unlikely to be adopted. Note - if a child is born with serious health issues in USA it means the parents have a lifetime of very expensive medical bills & that would stop many potential adoptees.
The arrogance of (mostly) males inflicting their beliefs on woman who are often the most vulnerable at their most vulnerable time & at the same time ensuring that the children born of these pregnancy do not have the optimum chance of a healthy & happy life is horrific.
There are women whose abusive relationship means they are trapped into unwilling pregnancy (with a good chance of the child being injured by their mother partner before birth or afterwards)
It makes me so angry.

I agree with every word of your post, MrsTP.

The phrase ‘demand for infants’ is nauseating. Children are not a commodity. Women’s bodies are not a labour pool.

I dislike any rhetoric that tries to conceptualise a ‘right’ to be a parent. There is no such right. What there is, is a right to decide for yourself whether you want to use your body in any particular way, and whether you believe life starts at conception.

As it happens, I do believe the above. But I fully support every other woman’s right to control her own body as well.

The issue is these very clean arguments don't reflect RL. So yes, if there are happy, cuddly newborns, which the mums are now happy to give up at birth to loving homes...

But, these are babies who would have been aborted, so less than ideal situations. More babies with; disabilities, addicted mothers, mothers living without antenatal care, mothers living in prostitution, illegal immigration status, abusive places, young mums, older mums, ND or disabled mums, more risks of birth injury or addicted babies and on and on. More babies from closely related people .

The clean arguments also don't take into account that women and girls don't carry in isolation. So many will be forced to keep the baby after birth, because abortion is private but pregnancy is obvious. Those with abusive partners can't give them up, they have to stay.

It's dystopian.

That wasn't my intention at all @PerkingFaintly . I was wondering if the 1 million women seeking to adopt included transwomen. Seeing 'domestic supply of infants' fills me with dread.

Let's not forget that the cost of adopting in the US is huge. Forced birth babies are a financial commodity. Many different organisations and government departments make a lot of money from it, especially if it's through a private agency. I just read that $70,000 for a baby wouldn't be unusual.

It's horrific - too horrific to even imagine. Please let this be able to be stopped!!

Nice try, mrshoho, but you're not going to derail us from opposing the potential loss of Roe v Wade.

And to justify that cites the CDC paper's sentence: (“[N]early 1 milion women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., the were in demand for a child) whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or withig the the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent.”)

What's their definition of women 🤔