Check it out.
Homepage. http://sonofasurrogate.tripod.com
Blog. http://sonofasurrogate.tripod.com/blog/
And especially the Post "Love Isn't All You Need"
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Friday, November 09, 2007
Not a Great Loss (HUMOR)
President Bush was visiting a primary school and he visited one of the classes. They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked the President if he would like to lead the discussion on the word "tragedy".
So the illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a "tragedy".
One little boy stood up and offered: "If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and ills him, that would be a tragedy.
"No," said Bush, "that would be an accident." A little girl raised her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."
"I'm afraid not," explained the president. "That's what we would call great loss."
The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Bush searched the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?"
Finally at the back of the room a little Johnny boy raised his hand...In a quiet voice he said: "If Air Force One carrying you and Mrs.
Bush was struck by a "friendly fire" missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy."
"Fantastic!" exclaimed Bush. "That's right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?"
"Well," says the boy, "It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss and it probably wouldn't be a fucking accident either".
So the illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a "tragedy".
One little boy stood up and offered: "If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and ills him, that would be a tragedy.
"No," said Bush, "that would be an accident." A little girl raised her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."
"I'm afraid not," explained the president. "That's what we would call great loss."
The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Bush searched the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?"
Finally at the back of the room a little Johnny boy raised his hand...In a quiet voice he said: "If Air Force One carrying you and Mrs.
Bush was struck by a "friendly fire" missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy."
"Fantastic!" exclaimed Bush. "That's right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?"
"Well," says the boy, "It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss and it probably wouldn't be a fucking accident either".
Thursday, October 11, 2007
If you call yourself a "birthmother" ...
... you are stating that you are not a mother.
... you are stating that you have no connection, no love, no bond with your lost child.
... you are stating that your worth in your child's life is as nothing other than a convenient set of reproductive organs, not as a person or a human being.
... you are agreeing with the people who told you that you are not fit to be a mother because (fill in the blank) you were young, unmarried, poor, a sinner, irresponsible for getting pregnant in the first place ... or whatever the coercion of the time was.
... you are in effect calling yourself an incubator.
But worst of all, you are stating you are no longer a mother as your role ended with birth.
The term "birth mother" was created and defined by social workers to be part of "Respectful Adoption Language" which, in contrast, defines the only "Mothers and Fathers" of our children to be those who adopted. It is only respectful to those who have adopted, and shows you no respect what-so-ever.
You deserve much more than this. We may have been separated from our children, though surrender or "placement", but we are still their mothers. And, being mothers, we are not "birth mothers," because a "birthmother" is defined as being a non-mother.
Think of it this way, in other (non-adoption) circumstances, one still says "His mother died when he was a baby," or "His mother divorced his father when he was a baby, and he has a stepmother." NOT "His birth mother died when he was a baby." In the "Real World," outside of the surreal and artificial landscape of "Adoption Land," there is no such thing as a FORMER mother!
That is why many natural mothers, who still love our children and feel that strong connection with them, reject the term "birthmother." We know the bond of motherhood, which even lasts despite years and decades of separation. We do not feel that it is necessary to be denigrated in dehumanized in order to "respect" another social group.
The term "birth mother" as thus applied to mothers of adoption loss is -- in effect -- a blatant lie.
... you are stating that you have no connection, no love, no bond with your lost child.
... you are stating that your worth in your child's life is as nothing other than a convenient set of reproductive organs, not as a person or a human being.
... you are agreeing with the people who told you that you are not fit to be a mother because (fill in the blank) you were young, unmarried, poor, a sinner, irresponsible for getting pregnant in the first place ... or whatever the coercion of the time was.
... you are in effect calling yourself an incubator.
But worst of all, you are stating you are no longer a mother as your role ended with birth.
The term "birth mother" was created and defined by social workers to be part of "Respectful Adoption Language" which, in contrast, defines the only "Mothers and Fathers" of our children to be those who adopted. It is only respectful to those who have adopted, and shows you no respect what-so-ever.
You deserve much more than this. We may have been separated from our children, though surrender or "placement", but we are still their mothers. And, being mothers, we are not "birth mothers," because a "birthmother" is defined as being a non-mother.
Think of it this way, in other (non-adoption) circumstances, one still says "His mother died when he was a baby," or "His mother divorced his father when he was a baby, and he has a stepmother." NOT "His birth mother died when he was a baby." In the "Real World," outside of the surreal and artificial landscape of "Adoption Land," there is no such thing as a FORMER mother!
That is why many natural mothers, who still love our children and feel that strong connection with them, reject the term "birthmother." We know the bond of motherhood, which even lasts despite years and decades of separation. We do not feel that it is necessary to be denigrated in dehumanized in order to "respect" another social group.
But no matter how difficult society makes the lives of single mothers who refuse to relinquish their children, those women who gave into the pressures suffer in a way the others will (mercifully) never know. For the saddest and most horrifying aspect of adoption is the amount of emotional damage inflicted upon the natural mother. To call her the 'birth mother' instead of the 'natural mother' allows her only the physical birth and denies her those feelings she wasn't supposed to have. -- Death by Adoption, Joss Shawyer, Cicada Press (1979), p. 62
The term "birth mother" as thus applied to mothers of adoption loss is -- in effect -- a blatant lie.
Friday, September 28, 2007
"Family of Origin" -- Some terminology slight-of-hand
What is a "family of origin"? Well, if you didn't know any better, and read the forums at the website "Soul of Adoption" or the Evan B. Donaldson-sponsored "Ethical Adoption Conference" (anyone else think that this is an oxymoron?) webpage, you might think it referred to natural families (i.e. the natural mothers, fathers, and siblings of children separated from them by adoption).
I first encountered the term misused at "Soul of Adoption." Surprised the heck out of me. Since when was the natural family considered to be the family of origin for an adoptee, unless said adoptee had only been adopted as an adult?
A "Family of Origin" is a term with a distinct meaning and purpose. In psychotherapy (especially in what is known as "Family Systems Theory" or just "Systems Theory," i.e. counseling theory and practice expanded beyond the individual to examine that individual's part of a larger "system" of people in their lives), your "Family of Origin" is the family you grew up in. This interactive and ongoing system of people -- and hence communication, behavior, relationships, and especially roles in the family -- plays a large part in creating the person you have become as an adult. A huge part.
That is the purpose of the term "Family of Origin". To define a specific dynamic, interactive, and circumscribed network that a client belongs to and functions as part of, which not only affects them but which they also affect in return. You need the term, the concept, in order to find and identify Family of Origin issues that might be affecting an adult in their current lives. It is very often used in marriage counseling, career counseling, family therapy, and in general psychotherapy. Genograms are often added as well, to plot out relationships and areas of conflict and enmeshment.
Important Family of Origin constructs that are analyzed and explored in therapy include differentiation of self, triangulation, fusion, emotional cut-off, family projection process, object relations, life-cycle dynamics, etc. This is just a small part of it -- family therapy literature includes the work of Bowen, McGoldrick, Carter, the Milan Group, and many others.
Unfortunately, once again it appears that a term was chosen and externally applied onto natural families for the sole reason that it would not offend people who have adopted. Once again, our rights, our dignity -- our worth and respect -- are ignored in order to please those whose consumer demand for our infants was considered more socially acceptable than our own desire and need and love for our newborns. And this time, it is with a term that was unapologetically lifted from therapeutic practice. And the problem is that it very much looks like whatever smarty-pants decided to use the term "Family of Origin" to refer to natural families had NO idea what the term means!
Just like if a lay-person decided to take a medical term -- let's say, pancreas -- and apply it to a tibia, it would not make sense. Doctors would say, "Listen, you have that wrong! A pancreas is an internal organ, and a tibia is your shin bone!" Thus, family therapists could similarly point out that a technical term, "Family of Origin" is being directly misapplied to refer to a totally different concept. And unfortunately, it makes everyone affected by adoption who uses it, look ignorant of the technical meaning of the term.
If you were adopted as an infant or toddler, your Family of Origin is your adoptive family. What was your natural family? Certainly not your family of origin unless their played distinct and ongoing daily interactive roles in your life in a family system.
And, let's say, an adoptee went to a counselor, marriage therapist, psychologist, or what-not for help. When the professional asks them about their family of origin, they sure aren't referring to the natural family! So, once more, we're left without a term that we have been able to choose and apply to ourselves, as any other group in society is permitted to, without worrying about the frail and fragile egos of other social groups (brokers and their customers) that wielded power over us (in this case, the power to have taken our children and keep them from us).
If you are going to create a new term, don't steal an existing one from a reputable profession. A tibia is not a pancreas.
Murray Bowen would be rolling in his grave.
On a related note, if you read here, you would think that EBD has actually decided to use a term of respect for natural parents and natural families.
But two things: (1) they instead have substituted the term "families of origin" (see above for my comment on this), and also (2) I still count half a dozen uses of the b-word on their conference website, including the preposterous term 'birth child'. Not only is this a non sequitur as a child not give birth, but this term essentially reduces adoptees to being "birth products." If you are a natural mother, this term separates you from your own child. As the word "birth mother" is a term that intentionally defines us as no longer being mothers past the natal event, the implication of the term "birth child" it is not (no longer) your child you gave birth to (as you are not their mother, they cannot be your child) -- thus in terms of the natural family, are nothing more than a birth product that was expelled along with the placenta, blood, and amniotic fluid. That is what 'birth child' implies. Just as putrid as word as "birth mother" (i.e. incubator).
BTW, about that EBD conference, i see that several very "aware and awake" (i.e not brainwashed, not in denial) natural mothers will be attending it, including Claud. so, maybe it is not a lost cause. I don't hold out much hope that the brokers and adopters will listen to these natural mothers though. They haven't so far listened to any of us. ("But adoption is soo different, so wonderful these days! and you CHOSE to give your baby a better life!" ... puke)
I first encountered the term misused at "Soul of Adoption." Surprised the heck out of me. Since when was the natural family considered to be the family of origin for an adoptee, unless said adoptee had only been adopted as an adult?
A "Family of Origin" is a term with a distinct meaning and purpose. In psychotherapy (especially in what is known as "Family Systems Theory" or just "Systems Theory," i.e. counseling theory and practice expanded beyond the individual to examine that individual's part of a larger "system" of people in their lives), your "Family of Origin" is the family you grew up in. This interactive and ongoing system of people -- and hence communication, behavior, relationships, and especially roles in the family -- plays a large part in creating the person you have become as an adult. A huge part.
That is the purpose of the term "Family of Origin". To define a specific dynamic, interactive, and circumscribed network that a client belongs to and functions as part of, which not only affects them but which they also affect in return. You need the term, the concept, in order to find and identify Family of Origin issues that might be affecting an adult in their current lives. It is very often used in marriage counseling, career counseling, family therapy, and in general psychotherapy. Genograms are often added as well, to plot out relationships and areas of conflict and enmeshment.
Important Family of Origin constructs that are analyzed and explored in therapy include differentiation of self, triangulation, fusion, emotional cut-off, family projection process, object relations, life-cycle dynamics, etc. This is just a small part of it -- family therapy literature includes the work of Bowen, McGoldrick, Carter, the Milan Group, and many others.
"Bowen family systems theory is a theory of human behavior that views the family as an emotional unit and uses systems thinking to describe the complex interactions in the unit. It is the nature of a family that its members are intensely connected emotionally." -- From "Bowen Theory".
Unfortunately, once again it appears that a term was chosen and externally applied onto natural families for the sole reason that it would not offend people who have adopted. Once again, our rights, our dignity -- our worth and respect -- are ignored in order to please those whose consumer demand for our infants was considered more socially acceptable than our own desire and need and love for our newborns. And this time, it is with a term that was unapologetically lifted from therapeutic practice. And the problem is that it very much looks like whatever smarty-pants decided to use the term "Family of Origin" to refer to natural families had NO idea what the term means!
Just like if a lay-person decided to take a medical term -- let's say, pancreas -- and apply it to a tibia, it would not make sense. Doctors would say, "Listen, you have that wrong! A pancreas is an internal organ, and a tibia is your shin bone!" Thus, family therapists could similarly point out that a technical term, "Family of Origin" is being directly misapplied to refer to a totally different concept. And unfortunately, it makes everyone affected by adoption who uses it, look ignorant of the technical meaning of the term.
If you were adopted as an infant or toddler, your Family of Origin is your adoptive family. What was your natural family? Certainly not your family of origin unless their played distinct and ongoing daily interactive roles in your life in a family system.
And, let's say, an adoptee went to a counselor, marriage therapist, psychologist, or what-not for help. When the professional asks them about their family of origin, they sure aren't referring to the natural family! So, once more, we're left without a term that we have been able to choose and apply to ourselves, as any other group in society is permitted to, without worrying about the frail and fragile egos of other social groups (brokers and their customers) that wielded power over us (in this case, the power to have taken our children and keep them from us).
If you are going to create a new term, don't steal an existing one from a reputable profession. A tibia is not a pancreas.
Murray Bowen would be rolling in his grave.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
On a related note, if you read here, you would think that EBD has actually decided to use a term of respect for natural parents and natural families.
But two things: (1) they instead have substituted the term "families of origin" (see above for my comment on this), and also (2) I still count half a dozen uses of the b-word on their conference website, including the preposterous term 'birth child'. Not only is this a non sequitur as a child not give birth, but this term essentially reduces adoptees to being "birth products." If you are a natural mother, this term separates you from your own child. As the word "birth mother" is a term that intentionally defines us as no longer being mothers past the natal event, the implication of the term "birth child" it is not (no longer) your child you gave birth to (as you are not their mother, they cannot be your child) -- thus in terms of the natural family, are nothing more than a birth product that was expelled along with the placenta, blood, and amniotic fluid. That is what 'birth child' implies. Just as putrid as word as "birth mother" (i.e. incubator).
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
BTW, about that EBD conference, i see that several very "aware and awake" (i.e not brainwashed, not in denial) natural mothers will be attending it, including Claud. so, maybe it is not a lost cause. I don't hold out much hope that the brokers and adopters will listen to these natural mothers though. They haven't so far listened to any of us. ("But adoption is soo different, so wonderful these days! and you CHOSE to give your baby a better life!" ... puke)
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
PROTEST for Adoptees Rights
Please forward to all adoption/abduction forums and lists:
A DAY FOR ADOPTEE RIGHTS!
July 20 -27, 2008
New Orleans, LA
The National Conference of State Legislatures is the largest group of its kind, the national organization of STATE LAWMAKERS, the people who DECIDE whether you may access your records… OR NOT. We propose a one day PROTEST FOR ADOPTEE RIGHTS at the National Conference of State Legislature’s Annual Meeting in New Orleans, LA, on a date to be determined during the week of July 20th, 2008.
We propose a mass action of adoptees representing all fifty states, a one-day rally that will be an opportunity for adoptees demonstrate their commitment to adoptee rights and to meet their state delegation. WON’T YOU JOIN US?
WE NEED EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS THE RIGHTS OF ADOPTEES TO ACCESS THEIR RECORDS OF BIRTH TO COME AND SHOW THESE LAWMAKERS THAT YOU CARE! Adult adoptees, first families, adoptive families, friends and supporters… EVERYONE.
To find updated information and to sign up for AR 2008 New Orleans, please go towww.adopteerights.net . Organizations interested in participating and sponsorship are encouraged to contact Ron Morgan, bb_church@adopteerights.net.
See you there!
Adoptee Rights 2008 Committee
A DAY FOR ADOPTEE RIGHTS!
July 20 -27, 2008
New Orleans, LA
The National Conference of State Legislatures is the largest group of its kind, the national organization of STATE LAWMAKERS, the people who DECIDE whether you may access your records… OR NOT. We propose a one day PROTEST FOR ADOPTEE RIGHTS at the National Conference of State Legislature’s Annual Meeting in New Orleans, LA, on a date to be determined during the week of July 20th, 2008.
We propose a mass action of adoptees representing all fifty states, a one-day rally that will be an opportunity for adoptees demonstrate their commitment to adoptee rights and to meet their state delegation. WON’T YOU JOIN US?
WE NEED EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS THE RIGHTS OF ADOPTEES TO ACCESS THEIR RECORDS OF BIRTH TO COME AND SHOW THESE LAWMAKERS THAT YOU CARE! Adult adoptees, first families, adoptive families, friends and supporters… EVERYONE.
To find updated information and to sign up for AR 2008 New Orleans, please go to
See you there!
Adoptee Rights 2008 Committee
Friday, September 14, 2007
dropping in
Hi folks. Yes, i know I haven't posted for a while. Call it deep desire to avoid getting triggered by adoption-related issues.
I am the type of person who tries not to complain. "In real life," my friends know me as maybe being "too bubbly", "too nice." Complaining is something I seldom do. Being a "bitch" goes against everything I was brought up with believing, that to be "lady-like" you just don't do. My lace-gloved mother would be rolling in her grave if she knew I was actually speaking out about something. But then, my lace-gloved mother with her right-wing Baptist views about social propriety was the first to ensure that none of the relatives or her friends ever knew I was pregnant, who hid me away in a home, and most likely was the one who arranged for my child to be removed at birth. And I don't wear lace gloves - never have and never will.
But I have to complain, because a huge injustice was perpetrated on me, and on several million other mothers in this nation. We were coerced, forced, and otherwise fed live into the adoption machine, to be used as incubators and discarded as if we did not matter. But we do. And we have NEVER "gone on with our lives. Have you tried to live with severe PTSD? A disorder that many do not even realize can be caused by disembabyment, by losing a newborn to adoption? I live with it every single day. That, and unresolved complicated grief has almost destroyed my life. It physically affected my health to the point where i could no longer work (the pain hit and my gut responded in a way such that the pain is excruciating -- i won't go into details).
What can we do? Virtually nothing. Well, maybe not nothing: there are options: therapy, meds, EMDR ... In fact, it has becoming a running joke in some support groups: "What meds are you on?" Not "Are you taking antidepressants or anti-anxiety drugs?", but "Which ones?" Yeah, medical system, promote adoption so you have a never-ending stream of mental-health customers.
Sure there are some therapists who want to help and do their best Joe Soll and his Adoption Healing books comes to mind. The best, in my opinion. But not everyone is into "inner child work." And one approach does not help everyone. PTSD causes distinct changes to the structure and function of the brain. That is a fact. And not every natural mother is aware that books like these even exist, or that the pain she feels is not a sign of total moral and character failure. After all, we were told we would "get over it" -- we have not, and therefore we have failed, right? The social workers told us we'd get over it. Society and even our loved ones don't believe that we should feel anything:
"That was forty years in the past. Why do you care?"
"She had a good life, right? So why are you feeling this way?"
"I know lots of other breeders and they don't feel that way. They are okay with 'their decision'" (puke!)
"Move on"
" ... nothing but a Bitter Old Birthmother..." (thanks, C., for this one).
So, we hide our pain. We are not supposed to feel it. And we used denial, dissociation and repressing our emotions as survival mechanisms, in order to try to continue breathing. We create a false, fake self in order to present a "happy face" to the world and hide our pain (and our shame and guilt -- did you know that both of these are common responses in trauma victims?)
But often, for many of us, the only way to escape the pain is suicide. And frankly, I often feel that those who succeed are the lucky ones.
Not that anyone cares. Articles about our pain get published and then forgotten. No baby broker will tell an expectant mother that she stands a good chance of suffering lifelong unresolved grief, PTSD, severe depression, secondary infertility, or other such consequences.
I was sent two articles by a friend. Here are some excerpts from them.
“Relinquishing mothers have more grief symptoms than women who have lost a child to death, including more denial; despair, atypical responses; and disturbances in sleep, appetite, and vigor.” - Askren & Bloom (1999)
"Because society views the relinquishment of an infant as a voluntary choice, there is no acknowledgement that a loss has occurred, and thus no expectation for the birth mother to go through a grief process with subsequent adjustment " - Askren & Bloom (1999)
"“Results shown in Table 3 demonstrate that mothers relinquishing a child for adoption tend towards more grief symptoms than bereaved parents, especially if the method of adoption was open adoption.” ... "Table 3, comparing natural mothers in both open and closed adoptions with bereaved parents, shows that natural mothers suffer more denial, atypical responses, dispair, anger, depersonalization, sleep disturbance, somaticizing, physical symptoms, dependency, vigor." -- Blanton & Deschner (1990).
I am the type of person who tries not to complain. "In real life," my friends know me as maybe being "too bubbly", "too nice." Complaining is something I seldom do. Being a "bitch" goes against everything I was brought up with believing, that to be "lady-like" you just don't do. My lace-gloved mother would be rolling in her grave if she knew I was actually speaking out about something. But then, my lace-gloved mother with her right-wing Baptist views about social propriety was the first to ensure that none of the relatives or her friends ever knew I was pregnant, who hid me away in a home, and most likely was the one who arranged for my child to be removed at birth. And I don't wear lace gloves - never have and never will.
But I have to complain, because a huge injustice was perpetrated on me, and on several million other mothers in this nation. We were coerced, forced, and otherwise fed live into the adoption machine, to be used as incubators and discarded as if we did not matter. But we do. And we have NEVER "gone on with our lives. Have you tried to live with severe PTSD? A disorder that many do not even realize can be caused by disembabyment, by losing a newborn to adoption? I live with it every single day. That, and unresolved complicated grief has almost destroyed my life. It physically affected my health to the point where i could no longer work (the pain hit and my gut responded in a way such that the pain is excruciating -- i won't go into details).
What can we do? Virtually nothing. Well, maybe not nothing: there are options: therapy, meds, EMDR ... In fact, it has becoming a running joke in some support groups: "What meds are you on?" Not "Are you taking antidepressants or anti-anxiety drugs?", but "Which ones?" Yeah, medical system, promote adoption so you have a never-ending stream of mental-health customers.
Sure there are some therapists who want to help and do their best Joe Soll and his Adoption Healing books comes to mind. The best, in my opinion. But not everyone is into "inner child work." And one approach does not help everyone. PTSD causes distinct changes to the structure and function of the brain. That is a fact. And not every natural mother is aware that books like these even exist, or that the pain she feels is not a sign of total moral and character failure. After all, we were told we would "get over it" -- we have not, and therefore we have failed, right? The social workers told us we'd get over it. Society and even our loved ones don't believe that we should feel anything:
"That was forty years in the past. Why do you care?"
"She had a good life, right? So why are you feeling this way?"
"I know lots of other breeders and they don't feel that way. They are okay with 'their decision'" (puke!)
"Move on"
" ... nothing but a Bitter Old Birthmother..." (thanks, C., for this one).
So, we hide our pain. We are not supposed to feel it. And we used denial, dissociation and repressing our emotions as survival mechanisms, in order to try to continue breathing. We create a false, fake self in order to present a "happy face" to the world and hide our pain (and our shame and guilt -- did you know that both of these are common responses in trauma victims?)
But often, for many of us, the only way to escape the pain is suicide. And frankly, I often feel that those who succeed are the lucky ones.
Not that anyone cares. Articles about our pain get published and then forgotten. No baby broker will tell an expectant mother that she stands a good chance of suffering lifelong unresolved grief, PTSD, severe depression, secondary infertility, or other such consequences.
I was sent two articles by a friend. Here are some excerpts from them.
“Relinquishing mothers have more grief symptoms than women who have lost a child to death, including more denial; despair, atypical responses; and disturbances in sleep, appetite, and vigor.” - Askren & Bloom (1999)
"Because society views the relinquishment of an infant as a voluntary choice, there is no acknowledgement that a loss has occurred, and thus no expectation for the birth mother to go through a grief process with subsequent adjustment " - Askren & Bloom (1999)
"“Results shown in Table 3 demonstrate that mothers relinquishing a child for adoption tend towards more grief symptoms than bereaved parents, especially if the method of adoption was open adoption.” ... "Table 3, comparing natural mothers in both open and closed adoptions with bereaved parents, shows that natural mothers suffer more denial, atypical responses, dispair, anger, depersonalization, sleep disturbance, somaticizing, physical symptoms, dependency, vigor." -- Blanton & Deschner (1990).
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Family Preservation -- Guest Blog by Mirah Riben
In the beginning of each person’s journey to recovery from our traumatic losses, there is a need to find a shoulder to cry on and to know that we are not alone feeling the pain of our adoption losses. We need to scream, vent pent-up anger etc…all are extremely helpful, necessary and cathartic.
But we each reach a point where we can choose to remain whining, angry victims forever or channel that anger for change! There is no greater force for change than anger. Rosa Parks was damn angry and not about to take it any more. The gays are not taking it anymore and are demanding equal rights.
The second stage of our healing process is empowerment through making changes for others! I think about MADD which was founded by a small group of California women in 1980 after a 13-year-old-girl was killed by a hit-and-run driver.
I think about Maureen Kanka the mother of Megan who got sex offender registry legislation in every state in the union! Child Find, started by parents of loss and the nationwide Amber Alert system begun by parents and named after their abducted and murdered child.
I think about The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, Argentinean women who have become worldwide known human rights activists in order to re-unite with their abducted children.
None of these people came to their causes with any other “expertise” or special abilities other than passion and anger. They all had just one ting in common: They knew it was too late to reverse their own loses, but were committed to ensuring that others would not suffer as they and their children did! And they all succeeded in making very positive changes! They are my heroes and my role models. These mothers turned their righteous indignation and deep personal loss of their children into positive action to help prevent the same loss for others in the future. They ensured that their children were not lost in vain. Instead of wringing their hands, they empowered themselves and set themselves free form victimhood. They did something! They made change!
Maureen Kanka and her husband were able to do it with just the two of them because their cause had no opposition (except the ACLU). Protecting innocent children from potentially murderous pedophiles is pretty much of a no-brainer. Legislators were eager to support this very popular legislation.
We do not have that privilege! Adoption is big business and many are very happy with the status quo because it is filling a constant demand for their paying clients and voting constituents. Keeping the babies coming is in their best interest and they have power and money. Additionally, the Christian conservative evangelic movement is waging an full-fledged mass media campaign to promote adoption! They are teamed up with the National Council for Adoption who has opposed open records since we first attempted to open them.
We are in the midst of an all-out major propaganda war. (See blog post directly below, "The Quiet Revolution"). The only chance we have to combat this onslaught and save anyone from the pain of separation from family through adoption, is to put aside our personal likes and dislikes of others and our petty power struggles that have plagued the adoption reform movement for over 30 years…and UNITE! The silver lining in this could is that it might help us motivate and coalesce progressive/liberals on our side.
There is power in numbers and we need all the power can muster to combat those who want to continue profiting by exploiting mothers and commodifying children.
Blogging can be powerful tool when we all work together, as many of us are doing to help Stephanie Bennett. But we need to do more. A website and a blog have been established to serve as a repository for information needed for letter writing to newspapers and legislators. They are still in the process of accumulating the data but there’s a good start, especially in terms of Safe Havens, and the information will continue to be posted. The two sites are:
www.PPFFPP.org and www.FamlyPreservation.blogspot.com. Both are in their infancy.
PPFFPP stands for parents and Professionals For Family Preservation and Protection. This came about as a result of the (unexpected) international interest in the book The Stork Market: America’s Multi-Billion Dollar Unregulated Adoption Industry which is a no-holds-barred, powerful and well-documented report of the dirty business of domestic and international adoption, and the harm it causes ALL members of the triad. I wrote this book. It is not about me, nor did I write this book—or my previous book, ”shedding light on…The Dark Side of Adoption” (1988), or any of the myriad articles I have had published—to tell my own sad story, for any pity, or any personal glory or “fame”…and least of all not for monetary profit.
In addition to writing, I also created and support www.TwiceLost.org the adoption kinship memorial wall and encourage those who have lost a loved one to adoption who is now deceased to post a permanent memorial there for them. Donations to support it are accepted but not required to submit a name to be posted. I also created and support The BirthParentProject.org, a survey of over 500 mothers and fathers who have relinquished. This project is in need of the help of someone with expertise in statistical data analyzing, presentation and reporting. There are powerful results to be published here about what natural/original/first mothers and fathers want in terms of anonymity/confidentiality and open vs sealed reords.
I do everything I do to stop the damage that is being done to ALL by adoption! But I cannot do it all alone!
The book is the blueprint, the manifesto for Family Preservation. Read it! Encourage others to read it. Request your libraries and legislators order it and read it! If you cannot afford the discounted price (printed cost plus postage) please write to me. Review it online and for your local newspapers. Spread the word…and come together via FamilyPreservation.blogspot.com so we can ALL brainstorm our ideas to get the word out and battle the forces that want to keep selling our children!
We need to work TOGETHER! Power in numbers…power to the people!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead
You may think your actions are meaningless and that they won't help, but that is no excuse, you must still act. Mahatma Gandhi
The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people. Louis D. Brandeis
Reformers who are always compromising, have not yet grasped the idea that truth is the only safe ground to stand upon. Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little. Edmund Burke
Words without actions are the assassins of idealism. Herbert Hoover
Whatever you do may seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it. Mahatma Gandhi
In a democratic society, you're supposed to be an activist; that is, you participate. It could be a letter written to an editor. Studs Terkel
Activism is my rent for living on this planet. Alice Walker
How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it. Marcus Aurelius
When anyone steps out of the system and tells the truth, lives the truth, that person enables everyone else to peer behind the curtain too. Walter Wink
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when? Hillel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
