Feminists exploit anti-family adoption laws

Jane

 When I read Liz Latty's excellent piece on why mainstream feminism is pro-adoption* I was reminded of three strong feminists I've known in Oregon, all of whom served in the Oregon legislature and were adoptive mothers, I don't know why they adopted; two had biological children as well, suggesting to me that they saw adoption as both a way to save a child and a way to build their families without increasing the population.

From a few discussions with these women, I'm convinced of the sincerity of their actions, but also convinced that they wanted to accept the adoption industry Orwellian double think: Mothers love their children so much that they make the selfless decision to place them.

Hillary wrong on adoption, but Trump/Pence ticket threatens women's rights

                            --Courtesy of Lisa Roberts

Adoption came up last night in the second debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as she spoke of her 30 years in public life. After noting that eight million kids every year have health insurance because of her work to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program, she said:  "Hundreds of thousands of kids now have a chance to be adopted because I worked to change our adoption and foster care system."

Ouch, we collectively sighed. The law that she helped push through Congress in 1997, the so-called Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), was passed to address what child welfare experts claimed were the failings of an approach that kept families together. The claims were that children were kept in, or returned to, precarious family situations where the children were in actual danger of being injured or killed. The new law urged a get-tough approach to parents. 

The overall effect was to sometimes take children from mothers and families when unnecessary, and make it impossible for