Most people are aware that past practices in adoption were rife with human rights abuses. In the heyday of coerced adoptions, in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, millions of unwed pregnant girls and women were hidden away for the visible duration of their pregnancies, gave birth in shame and had their babies removed from them and given to married adoptive parents because their unwed motherhood was offensive to public morality. The coercion was overt and the pressure merciless. Any form of manipulation or lying was acceptable to get these mothers to sign those papers. First, social workers/parents/adults in a position of authority appealed to the mothers' love for their babies. "Don't be selfish. If you truly love her, give her a normal life with a normal family." If that was not effective, scare tactics were employed:

"Nobody will ever want to marry you with a bastard child."

"You will ruin your future."

"Your child will hate you later for not giving him a better life with an adoptive family."

"You are not setting foot back into this house with a bastard in your arms."

In fact, the above are examples of the milder forms of coercion. Hundreds of thousands of unwed mothers suffered outright abuse at the hands of doctors, hospital staff, nurses and social workers. They were lied to about their rights, denied independent legal representation, provided with biased "counselling", refused permission to see or hold their babies, tricked into signing papers, told that their babies had died, etc.

From the 1970s on, society became more accepting of single motherhood if for no other reason than rocketing divorce rates, which created millions of single-parent homes and made it almost impossible to distinguish unwed mothers from divorced mothers with children. In addition, welfare programs became less discriminatory toward unwed mothers.

So, adoption should have become something that only those who truly do not want to parent "chose", right?

Wrong.

Yes, there are, as there have always been, women who really do not wish to parent their child. Not all of them were able to protect themselves adequately against pregnancy, or to end their pregnancies. Some were raped, others were careless, and still more could not or did not want to get an abortion. Every year, babies are born to women who really do not want to become mothers. For these women, adoption is truly a freely-made choice.

Mothers who truly do not want to parent are in the very small minority, however. Most women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy typically spend months exploring their options and wondering what they should do. Their partner may have left when he learned about the pregnancy. They may be terrified of the responsibilities of single parenthood. They may be in dire financial circumstances. It is not at all unusual for these women to remain undecided until after they have given birth.

It is for these women that coercion comes into play, a much subtler, less obvious kind of coercion than the one that was applied to older first mothers. But why coercion at all?

Because there are many more hopeful adoptive parents than available infants, and because many groups see adoptable infants as a scarce and very profitable commodity.

As a result of the widespread availability of birth control and abortion and of the social acceptability of single parenting, most of the babies being born are wanted babies. Therefore, the supply of adoptable infants is at an all-time low. Yes, there are hundreds of thousands of children in foster care who are waiting for adoptive families. But the majority of hopeful adoptive parents are not interested in providing homes for these children, who often have "special needs". What they want is the perfect, healthy newborn they can parent from day one.

Where there is demand, someone is going to attempt to provide the "supply". Adoption is a very profitable business for the various adoption agencies, facilitators and go-betweens. Darlene Gerow, of Concerned United Birthparents, cites an industry analysis performed by Marketdata Enterprises Inc. of Tampa, Florida, stating that adoption provider revenues in 2000 were $1.44 billion with a projected industry annual growth rate of 11.5% to 2004. That is a lot of incentive to secure the product for the buying customers. From this profit motive on the one hand, and the fierce competition among prospective adoptive parents for the few adoptable infants being born on the other hand, have sprung a variety of practices designed to mentally manipulate women into "making an adoption plan". Here are just a few:

Showing the pregnant woman how much more you have to give to her baby. One of the leading causes of relinquishment is financial difficulty and being unsupported. Hence the current marketing of prospective adoptive parents on the Internet. Who hasn't seen these "birthmother letters" with idyllic descriptions of the life that these wonderful, perfect people are willing and ready to bestow on the unwed mother's baby? The message carried by these marketing practices is that the unwed mother should be selfless and give her baby all these advantages that she herself cannot provide.

Paying for the pregnant woman's expenses. This is manipulative and coercive because it may make the mother feel obligated to "repay" the prospective adoptive parents by giving them her child. She knows that they paid her expenses because they want her baby, not because they truly want to help her. By accepting their financial help, she may feel that she has tacitly agreed to let them adopt her baby and believe that she cannot morally back out of this unspoken agreement.

Developing a close relationship with the unwed pregnant woman. This practice is designed to "show off" and to make the pregnant woman feel beholden to the prospective adoptive parents for their support during this crisis period. What better opportunity to display all the advantages they have to offer and to lead the mother into feeling that they are such good friends that she can't possibly tell them no, that she owes them that baby. During the pregnancy, the mother's task is to think about how she is or isn't going to be able to care for this child, not to feel pressured into giving her baby to the people who are being so nice to her.

Promising that the adoption will be open and that the first mother will be allowed as much contact with the child as she wishes. An unwed mother who is unsure about adoption may be swayed by this promise, as she may conclude that she will have the best of both worlds. Her baby will have everything that she cannot provide and she will still have contact with the child. Unfortunately, open adoption arrangements are not legally enforceable. Hence, countless first mothers who thought they were entering into an open adoption agreement have found that once the adoption was finalized, the adoptive family unilaterally closed the adoption, cutting off all contact and even moving away without a forwarding address.

There are many more subtle manipulation tactics, their numbers limited only by the inadequate adoption control legislation and the imagination of the people who would gain from convincing an ambivalent pregnant woman into "making an adoption plan." Yes, coercion in adoption is alive and well in 2003.

For more information on this particular issue, I urge you to read the following document: http://www.cubirthparents.org/infant.pdf
 

Copyright © 2003 Josee Larose