Why are they in a hospital bed? (Adoption related)

[FightingtheFoo]

I just want to be clear this has nothing to do with the parents in question being a same-sex couple. I feel equally about surrogacy whether it's Kim Kardashian buying a baby or Pete Buttigieg.

With that disclaimer:

Why on earth is he posing in a hospital bed?

I just find the absolute airbrushing out of the woman who actually carried, nurtured and gave birth to those babies for 9 months horrifying.

https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1434167993769111552

1. They are in a hospital tending to their newborn babies (changing/feeding/bonding …all those things newborns need from their parents). They will likely have a hospital room at their disposal to do so.

1. I cannot understand why you have leapt to the judgement that the birth mother has been airbrushed out based on ONE picture. It’s an adoption, of course she doesn’t want to be in this picture!! But who’s to know they haven’t taken private pictures of mother with babies etc. The fact is it is nobody’s else’s business.

1. Horrifying? Get a grip.

@Hoowhoowho

The hospital bed doesn’t bother me but the US newborn adoption system is as ethically questionable as surrogacy.

Women ‘match’ usually during pregnancy with prospective parents
They are paid expenses which they often feel pressure to give back if they choose not to place the baby
The prospective parents are often present at the birth, they are often pressured to sign relinquishments within hours of birth
There is pressure to move states to avoid the baby’s father staking any claim to the baby as in some states, a father has to register his interest prior to the birth whether or not he knows the women is pregnant, whether or not he knows she will go to that state.
In many states open adoption agreements are unenforceable
Counselling is often coercive and many women receive neither independent counselling or legal advice

The newborn adoption system in the US sidelines mothers just as surely as surrogacy.

This!

I would also like to add all the barriers to accessing contraception and abortion in the US (financial and anti abortion lobby).

And the lack of any support system to enable mothers and babies to stay together.

In the UK mothers do not “willingly” give up their babies for a better life with wealthier parents, because we still have at least enough support structures in place to prevent this primal trauma of separation which has life long consequences.

Adoption in the UK happens only for child protection, not as a commodity for would be parents.

Typical hospital rooms for labor and afterward in a nice US hospital involve couches, chairs, and so on. It's all very large and nice. Hospital staff definitely tells you not to be on the hospital bed if you are not the patient, if you're a normal person. But ah, for a cute congressional photo shoot, whatever, right?

@TrifleCat

The UK adoption system starts from the premise of loss - acknowledging the child has lost its biological parents and the negative impact this can have. I am deeply uncomfortable with the American narrative that adoption is only something to celebrate, it isn’t, it starts with loss.

Also interesting that states are now banning abortion whilst we see the media push the rosy picture of separating a baby from its biological mother.

And also this.

Mothers and babies should be supported to stay together. Separating them causes life long suffering to both even when it is actually the best and safest course of action in some circumstances.

It is heartbreaking and tragic when babies cannot be loved and nurtured by the woman who brought them into the world and ideally with the loving support and care of the man who fathered them even if he is not the romantic partner of the mother.

The tweets are very carefully worded. Nowhere have they said that these two babies are adopted. We assume they are, because of the previous media reports that Pete and Chasten were pursuing adoption. But I thought it was interesting that they haven't actually confirmed this. Of course everyone involved is entitled to their privacy and I wish the new family every happiness.

The babies would be admitted to the hospital as patients for at least 24-48 hours after a birth. It’s not uncommon for the adoptive parents to take over immediately following the birth. The adoption isn’t final at that point, but they are allowed to start parenting. Thus they would be given a room in the hospital because the babies would have a room in the hospital.

It's possible that the babies were brought to them in a separate room from the mother. And that to take a photo with everyone in it together there was only the bed which was big enough to sit down together.

So you expect one parent to be stood all the time, including when feeding their new born baby?

Most (maybe all) hospitals in the US aren't allowing pediatric patients to have more than one parent/caregiver present at one time due to covid, so it's a moot point. The usual rules are being bent in all kinds of ways for these two.

There is zero possibility that they are sitting on the mother’s hospital bed. She will have her own separate room.

There really isn’t any reason for them to avoid sitting in any comfortable spot in the room they have been assigned.

@PurpleOkapi

So you expect one parent to be stood all the time, including when feeding their new born baby?

Most (maybe all) hospitals in the US aren't allowing pediatric patients to have more than one parent/caregiver present at one time due to covid, so it's a moot point. The usual rules are being bent in all kinds of ways for these two.

This is not true. Hospitals in my part of the US are allowing 2 visitors at a time for most wards during visiting hours. We visited someone last week and it looked like a normal visiting hour to me. Also - I;ve never seen a 'ward' in the US that didn't consist only of private rooms or at the most 2 people in a room and that was in the emergency areas.

It's not special treatment for new parents to be allowed into a hospital to see their newborns. Particularly when there are two babies - even if there were one parent one child restrictions (which there aren't in many/most places) they would be fine with two parents and two children.

On the other hand, this is America and if you have the money or status you do get better treatment - it's the basis of the whole healthcare system.

It's horrible and unfair but it's the way it works in private healthcare. If you have great insurance or plenty of money then you get better treatment, better facilities, and better conditions.

Also, if you have good insurance most maternity rooms are private - if I hadn't had insurance my bill from the hospital for a vaginal uncomplicated birth and 2 nights in hospital would have been about $80,000. With insurance we ended up paying about $1000.

For that type of billing you get a lot of privacy and comfort - and we were in a regular city hospital not a fancy luxury one for rich and powerful people.

Here you have a couple who have either adopted or used a surrogate and have been assigned a room in the hospital to take care of their newborns. They sat down together on the bed in that room for a sweet proud new parents ohoto - I really don't understand why anyone has an issue with this.

I'm not sure I understand the issue. Most hospitals in the US don't have large wards as in the UK, babies room in with the parents. Typically only a night or so but sometimes longer. So this is likely the room for the babies and parents, with the latter sitting on the bed for the photo.

I'm not sure who else would be taking care of the babies, they can't stay in the room alone.

All well and good supporting mothers to stay with their babies when you live in a country where the mother has the option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy - we’re talking about America!

My best friends adopted at birth last year, birth mum was in Texas at the time and they live in California. They were matched (ie she found out about them and she made the call that she wanted her baby to go to them - there isn’t necessarily a “waiting list”) in January and their daughter was born in March, in California. Birth Mum stipulated baby should be born where her dads live and she left the hospital after 5 days to return to her life but baby was there for another 2 weeks due to being premature and her dads were the ones in NICU with her.

Birth mum had just left an abusive marriage, fell pregnant by accident and lived in rural Texas, didn’t know or was in denial about her pregnancy until about 20weeks, was in a women’s shelter and categorically did not want her baby - but it was too late and too much stigma for abortion.

There are a lot of horrific assumptions on this thread about the realities of women in America who give up their babies for adoption and the gay male couples who give these babies a home and a life. FWIW they have no photos of birth mum, they followed her lead completely in that she wanted a closed adoption, no photos, didn’t hold or see the baby at all.

Let a happy family be happy

It is highly unlikely that we are talking about adoption. A far more likely scenario is that these men hired a surrogate, mixed their sperm, and hired an egg donor so that the woman who bore the child had no genetic relationship to it. That is the way these things are done now. I don't have proof but my Spidey sense tells me this is so and I am generally correct. One clue: twins. That suggests to me that more than one egg may have been implanted. Also, there have been a number of high profile surrogacy cases of gay men hiring surrogates and posing for similar lying-in-hospital-beds-inappropriately type photos recently--a phenomenon I will discuss in part 2.

I should explain that I have had a lot of experience in US hospitals, unfortunately, but here are a few things you should know. 1. "Wards" are generally rare except in special circumstances. 2. Chairs of various types are plentiful and is very much frowned upon to sit on a hospital bed. Hospital beds are considered to be for patients only and are the work area of the doctors and nurses. Sitting on a bed is considered contaminating it. 3. If there was any medical reason for the babies to need to stay overnight, they would stay in the nursery where nurses would watch them, not in a hospital room with two healthy adults. If the babies did not need medical care, they could go home with their new parents. Hospitals actually need those rooms. So Mr. Buttigieg dhould not need an overnight room.tMothers can care for their newborns in their private or semi-private rooms as they recover from the birth, but the babies can also be placed in the nursery if the mothers need to sleep, etc.

Bed thing aside.

I don't know how common it is for babies to go for adoption at birth. I'm thinking pretty rare. Given most children who could be adopted are older.

SS will try to keep baby with mother if poss. I know there are some iffy cases but I don't think there's widespread unethical practices going on.

What is the situation in USA. A pp said matched. So the newborns go at birth sometimes.

Newborn twins.

In general and again a feel but women even girls don't tend to want their babies gone straight after birth.

So what's going on in USA? Which state is this? Is this sort of thing not unusual?

How come, what's going on?

May be fine may be not. I don't know.

Searching brings up a lot of agencies.

The Indiana gov site gives costs involved and list of agencies
www.in.gov/dcs/adoption/adoption-agencies/

12500 for an infant.
I think they're in Indiana (?)

Where are the babies coming from that this is viable for multiple businesses to facilitate?

Other links saying why are black babies cheaper to adopt.. yikes.

Oh dear

'In many cases, however, women that are pregnant need financial assistance for adoption for their medical expenses, pregnancy expenses and more. While there are no adoption agencies that pay you in Indiana, your adoption- and pregnancy-related expenses will be taken care of at no cost to you. The type of adoption financial assistance in Indiana that you may receive can include:

Attorney fees
Maternity clothes
Transportation
Housing and utilities
Food and additional living expenses, as determined by the court
Medical assistance
And more, depending on your situation
The costs listed above will be covered by the adoptive family and the child-placing agency that you choose.'

Similar number of links for agencies offering to locate birth parents of those adopted...

This is very interesting and worrying.

Can be added to the list of wtf USA I think.

'
Subscribe
Sign In
up next
25% of Indiana kids have access to high-quality preschool, report...
OPINION
Indiana is national leader in adoptions
BILL STANCZYKIEWICZ | | 9:25 am EDT May 1, 2015
As the nation prepares to celebrate Mother’s Day, families formed through adoption are more common in Indiana compared with other states.

According to the National Council for Adoption, Indiana has the nation’s fourth highest rate of adoption per live births, the ninth highest rate of adoption per nonmarital births, and the 11th highest rate of adoption per 100,000 adults.

“Our state’s laws make Indiana a very adoption-friendly state,” said Nadja Radke, a pregnancy and adoption counselor for St. Elizabeth Coleman, a Catholic Charities ministry that has been serving in Indiana for 100 years.

Radke explained that the birth mother’s signature on the adoption consent decree is final, while the birth father or other biological family members have only 30 days after the baby’s birth to claim custody.

“One of the biggest fears we hear is that the birth parents will continue to meddle,” Radke said. “That just is not true at all. By the time the decision has been made to place the child for adoption, the birth parent has made the choice to not parent the child.”

'
Sign In
up next
25% of Indiana kids have access to high-quality preschool, report...
OPINION
Indiana is national leader in adoptions
BILL STANCZYKIEWICZ | | 9:25 am EDT May 1, 2015
As the nation prepares to celebrate Mother’s Day, families formed through adoption are more common in Indiana compared with other states.

According to the National Council for Adoption, Indiana has the nation’s fourth highest rate of adoption per live births, the ninth highest rate of adoption per nonmarital births, and the 11th highest rate of adoption per 100,000 adults.

“Our state’s laws make Indiana a very adoption-friendly state,” said Nadja Radke, a pregnancy and adoption counselor for St. Elizabeth Coleman, a Catholic Charities ministry that has been serving in Indiana for 100 years.

Radke explained that the birth mother’s signature on the adoption consent decree is final, while the birth father or other biological family members have only 30 days after the baby’s birth to claim custody.

“One of the biggest fears we hear is that the birth parents will continue to meddle,” Radke said. “That just is not true at all. By the time the decision has been made to place the child for adoption, the birth parent has made the choice to not parent the child.”

Labor Day Sale!
Don’t miss your chance for unlimited digital access to exclusive content.
$1 for 6 Months
Subscribe Now
Between 2009 and 2013, an annual average of 3,678 children were adopted in Indiana. Along with domestic adoptions through private agencies or attorneys, children also can be adopted through the state’s foster care system as well as internationally. Overall, 2.7 percent of Hoosier children live in adoptive families.'

Oops took the ads sorry

This is unbelievable.

Hoosier means someone who lives in Indiana Google tells me.

'Overall, 2.7 percent of Hoosier children live in adoptive families.'

Nearly every 3 in 100 children in Indiana is adopted???????

Federal data reveal that before 1973, 8.7 percent of babies born to unwed mothers were placed for adoption. By 2002, the rate had dropped to just 1 percent. Radke speculates that single parenting has become more socially acceptable during the last four decades, while teen moms who were raised in unstable families are less likely to place their child for adoption because they often view their baby as a source of love and stability.

Radke hopes more birth parents become aware of the option of adoption and that more adults develop interest in becoming adoptive parents.

“We think of adoption as just another way to parent,” Radke said. “Whether you have biological children or not, adoption is another way to build your family. You’re providing that safety and stability that every child needs.”

Ok this is not good I had no idea

This is. All wrong.

Can't find any data on the mothers.

Indiana govt says 2k adoptions a year. 6 million people.

3% of children there are adopted?!

When you Google Indiana adopt newborn or similar.

You get about 50/50

Adoption agencies
Agencies to help find birth parents

Fucking hell