AdoptSpeak
& Censorship

WHERE DOES "BIRTH" PARENT TERMINOLOGY COME FROM AND WHY?

Photo: Diane and her son John
at Santa Monica Pier.

Although author Betty Jean Lifton is credited with "coining" the term "birthmother," which she later stated she regretted, U.S. social workers had collaborated, more than 30 years ago, to invent their own list of contrived terms to appease the majority of their adopting clients -- and so no longer wanted anyone to use the original term "natural mothers."

Why? The following three reasons and commentary are excerpted from "Why 'Birthmother' Means "Breeder'" by Diane Turski: 1) it indicated respect for the mother's true relationship to her child - she could not be written-off as a convenient "slut" whose only value was reproduction, 2) it recognized that the sacred mother/child relationship extended past birth and even past surrender, and 3) it implied that the adoptive mother's relationship to the child was unnatural.

The adoption industry didn't want adoption to be considered "unnatural" - they could lose customers this way! After all, people were paying good money for "a child of their own." Adopters didn't want a reminder that the child they were adopting still had a loving parent somewhere else. After all, social workers had promised them a child "as if born to" them [and the falsified birth certificate "certified" it as true].

So social workers responded by creating a list of ridiculous "birth" terms meant to confine the mother's relationship with her child to simply giving birth, ending at that point. In other words, "birthmother" is simply a euphemism for "incubator" or "breeder."

Then, social workers deliberately disguised their disrespectful intent by calling it "Respectful Adoption Language." "Respectful" to adopters, who are now to be called "parents," as if the two natural parents no longer exist.....Adoption is built on lies and denials of truth, so mothers shouldn't be surprised that "Respectful Adoption Language" is just another deceitful ploy. However, one truth that cannot be denied is the truth that thousands of mothers and their lost children have found in reunion: that the deep spiritual/emotional mother-child bond between them has never been broken, despite the decades they were separated.... Adopters, feeling threatened by this, sometimes try to pressure adoptees to end reunions: instead, they should hold their brokers accountable for lying to them with the "as if born to" sales-pitch. [Note: Diane Turski is a mother who lost her newborn son to a sealed-record adoption in 1968. Thirty years later they happily reunited when he found her, proving that the mother/child bond can never be broken.]

THE CASE OF THE DISAPPEARING "ADOPTEE"

In 1988, the Maury Povich Show sensationalized the case of Marty Tankleff, adoptee accused of killing his "adoptive parents." But since pressure on media to censor adoption language, CBS-TV's "48 Hours" segment ("Second Chance," and "Prime Suspect" 3-13-05) investigated Marty Tankleff's possible innocence in the killing of his "parents." Sources include: print and video downloads at
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/11/48hours/main679576.shtml and www.courttv.com/news/tankleff/072104_ctv.html

On 7-9-05 Marty Tankleff wrote Lori Carangelo/AmFOR: "Thank you for your letter and article...Let me make something very clear, I do not consider myself 'adopted', nor does my family. While 'legally' that may correct, I find it offensive when people find a need to use that term in relating to my family. I don't have 'adopted' parents. My parents are my parents, and my 'birth' mother is just that--a woman who brought me into the world. I know the name of my 'birth' mother and what her profession was. So, if I wanted to find her I could. Since I was born in Brooklyn and the adoption was handled by an attorney that was a family friend, I could obtain records if I wanted, but I have more important things to handle right now. Thank you for your support.--Marty"

[AmFOR Note: With his adoptive family supporting his bid for freedom, and a family friend holding his adoption file, Marty's denial of his adoptive status sounds like he's in the typical Catch-22 between AdoptSpeak, adoptive family loyalties and the normal need to know....because, on the one hand, there's supposedly nothing "abnormal" with being "adopted," while on the other hand, one must deny adoptive status in order to appear or feel "normal."]

HOW ADOPTSPEAK ENABLES BABY BROKERS TO PROCURE BABIES
(excerpted from "Domestic Adoption Baby Boom - Exploiting Women and Families in America" by Laurie Frisch)

Marion, IA (PRWEB) June 9, 2004 -- The recent headlines must give hope to people who want to adopt a baby: "Local adoption agency has rare openings" and "Catholic Charities expands its adoption program". The first article describes a domestic adoption "baby boom"; the second article announces an expansion in a domestic adoption program. But by announcing domestic adoption "baby booms" these agencies might as well be announcing their role in the exploitation of United States citizens.

Not only do mothers who lose children to adoption have life-long problems so severe that some commit suicide as a result, but there is also a higher rate of suicide, childlessness, divorce, alcoholism, and other addictions among adoptees than the norm in society.

Those who profit from adoption blame the adoptees' problems on genetics....

According to statistics compiled on Adoption.com, the mothers who lose babies to adoption "often come from higher socio-economic backgrounds. These women come from intact families." (Stolley, 1993) These mothers and their families are more likely to be nave than to be genetically defective. Told "everyone benefits" from adoption and in the absence of any real information, they may think it's true. In poorer families, younger "adoptable" children and babies are systematically taken under the guise of child protection. The poverty frequently follows divorce or is related to medical problems of some family member. Most of the mothers have jobs. And although the people who know these moms may see a caring, wonderful, competent individual from the perspective of the government they are only a source of babies for adoption.

The fact that adoptees and natural mothers frequently have serious problems due to separation is well known to experts.

In a paper entitled "CHALLENGING THE SILENCE OF THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMUNITY ON ADOPTION ISSUES" published in the Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, Vol. II, No. 2. April 2002, Douglas B. Henderson (University of Wisconsin, Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychology) discusses some of the reasons for the experts' silence on the issue: Professionals not wanting to admit to failure, the money to be made in adoption, and an unwillingness on the part of adoptees to appear "ungrateful" to their adopters, are a few.

He explains the techniques used by the National Council For Adoption, which represents the agencies that profit from adoption, to silence others: "...the NCFA has attempted to marginalize and pathologize anyone who reports that adoption experiences are problematic. Setting themselves up as the national experts on adoption, while actually representing not the adoptees and (natural) parents who have lived adoption but rather the agencies making money on adoptions, the NCFA has long accused anyone who criticized adoption practices as being 'anti-adoption.'"

...Those in the health professions can become an "Adoption Specialist" after a free three-day training program. There is no requirement that this training inform trainees of the life-long emotional consequences of surrender/adoption to mother, child or other family members.

...By implementing the "Adoption University@" curriculum in high schools both mother and father may be influenced to "choose" adoption before they are even expecting. All risks are hidden and the implementation of this training in a group setting makes it possible for an opposing viewpoint to be squelched by the group.

...with all the adoption training now implemented, a pregnant mother is likely to encounter teachers, doctors, nurses, counselors and others who will not mention the joys of motherhood, but instead will pressure her to surrender all parental rights and will speak of surrender in glowing terms to her parents as well. Her baby's father is unlikely to support her when adoption has been presented as "better" than taking responsibility for his own child.

A young pregnant mother or her parents may be lured by a "dorm" with "park-like setting", "beautiful swimming pool" and "cozy fireplace". Separated from family and society to aid in "decision-making" and repeatedly hearing "It's your choice" the mothers will leave this maternity home still bleeding from childbirth saying "It was my choice". With their thoughts constrained by the carefully chosen phrases provided by the adoption industry, it'll be years before they comprehend that in the their best interest and the best interest of their child the risks of adoption should have been disclosed and the choice to keep children they give birth to should have been promoted.

Other coercive tactics used to obtain babies include having prospective adopters chosen in advance and even present at the birth (and we wouldn't want to disappoint them, would we?).

The cruelest tactic used to obtain a baby is the use of the open adoption "carrot", the promise to a mother or family of continuing contact with their child. Many parents don't know that the adoption may be closed at any time without their consent. Frequently, the adoption is closed immediately; the promise of openness made only to lure them in. For the natural family, it's devastating.

The intense solicitation to obtain babies now includes offers to pay "expenses" far beyond pregnancy-related costs. These "expenses" include scholarships, car payments, entertainment, house maintenance, credit card payments and personal loans. How does this compare to soliciting to buy children from families off the streets in Cambodia? THAT is considered criminal! After accepting this aid, a mother may be coerced by agencies or lawyers using the lie that she will have to pay all expenses back if she decides to keep her child. Not surprisingly, there is adopters insurance to protect the adopters.

...In his paper, Douglas B. Henderson concludes: "It is time for the silence of the mental health professions on issues related to adoption to end. Continuing the silence will serve the interests of no one, and will lead to further difficulties for all those touched by the adoption process."

...A domestic adoption "baby boom" should not be a source of pride, but of shame on the part of agencies, medical experts, the government and others for having exploited citizens of our own country, the United States, to obtain babies.

High Profile Case Could Infringe on Parents' Privacy
by Bill McClellan, St. Louis Post-Dispatch 3-11-94

When St. Louis Police announced that Patrick Hunter Ford had been arrested for the murder of Nora Lee Attaway, a boss from Channel 2 called Dick Ford at home.

"Channel 5 has already broadcast a report that your adopted son has been arrested. How do you want us to report it?" the boss asked.

Ford hesitated for only a second.

"I have never referred to Hunter as my adopted son," he said.

Here at the newspaper, we also wrestled with the question...

EXAMPLES of MEDIA CENSORSHIP in ADOPTION
by Lori Carangelo
(excerpted from her book, Chosen Children):

Because adoption is secret, non-adopted kids have at some time wondered if "maybe I'm adopted." So Warner Brothers' writers and producers decided "Maybe I'm Adopted" would be a cute title for their new Fall-2001 sitcom about a teenager with a zany family who sometimes wondered that very thing... Little did they anticipate that the word "adopted" would set off a firestorm of protest by apparently organized and heckling adoption supporters on Warner Brothers' viewer message board on Internet. Chris Everette, TV Gossip & News section writer for Variety reported on the fiasco, ("WB's Sitcom Slammed" 6-5-01):

The sitcom Maybe I'm Adopted hasn't hit the airways yet and it's already controversial. The comedy, scheduled to debut on W[arner] Brothers] in the Fall, has been slammed for its title and premise by visitors to the network's web-site, according to the New York Daily News. Maybe I'm Adopted is about a 15-year old girl who is surrounded by offbeat relatives, including a father with a drinking problem.

Irate visitors to the WB site complained that the show stigmatizes adopted children....WB spokesperson Paul McGuire thinks that viewers are condemning the show prematurely. "When we debut Adopted on Fridays at 8:30 PM [ET] this Fall, people will see it for what it is--a sweet comedy about a teenage girl and her big, lovable, eccentric family."

But Warner Brothers did not wait for the show to air in the Fall. In July, 2001, all promotion of Maybe I'm Adopted was replaced by Maybe It's Me, over the protests about censorship by many posters to the WB message board, including the Libertarian community, adoptees, parents, even some adopters. This author posted a suggestion to WB:
George Carlin can now change his famous comedy routine "Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say On Television" to "Eight Words."

Despite an organized effort to pressure the Associated Press (AP) and other media to use only "adoption language" approved by pro-adoption interests, most networks treat adoptees differently than the rest of us. Comedians, especially, continue to prove the "A" word, which is unacceptable on Warner Cable, is not sacrosanct and that many a "politically incorrect" truth is spoken in jest. Thus, the comeback "because I'm adopted" gets laughs because audiences know or assume that adoptees are "different" than their adopters and don't necessarily "fit in." The "A" word is not only acceptable, but also gets laughs when spoken by Jay Leno (ABC's Tonight Show), Drew Carey, Colin Mochrie, Ryan Stiles et al (Whose Line Is It Anyway?), and other comedians.

WHAT DOES "TRADITIONAL" MEAN?...
How Stereotypes Harm Us All
by Barbara Free, MA, LPCC, LADAC
excerpted from "Operation Identity" newsletter - April 2008 issue

"....This word "traditional" carries such powerful emotional weight that the accompanying messages are 'proper,' 'correct,' 'always been this way,' and 'should not be questioned or changed"... Applied to adoption, the middle class Anglo assumption is that 'traditional' means closed adoption through an agency by an Anglo, middle class, married, heterosexual couple....adopting an Anglo infant, relinquished at birth by a single, teenaged birth mother in hiding....and infertile adoptive parents receive the child hey have 'chosen'... This stereotype is so strong, so culturally imbedded, that it carries overtones of sanctity and eternity, as if this has always been 'how adoption is done.'...

...It has never been the norm in most other countries, and not in African-American, Hispanic, Native American, or other non-Anglo sub-cultures within the U.S....There have always been private adoptions, intra-family adoptions, adoptions at birth, informal adoptions, and foster placements at all stages of a child's life. We also have a 'tradition' in the past of orphanages (even though many of the residents had at least one parent living), 'foundling' homes, orphan trains, and since at least World War I, adoption of children from Asia, Europe and Latin America.

Ancient Roman laws and customs form the basis of many U.S. adoption laws, along with some Greek customs, rather than English common law, the more usual background of U.S. laws. Adoption was not legal in England at the time the U.S. was formed, because laws of primogeniture, concerned with inheritance of money and property, and titles of nobility, were so important in Great Britain at the time. Nevertheless, poverty, homelessness and famine in Great Britain led to exporting large numbers of children to Australia, Canada and the U.S., with or without families' knowledge or approval, if the children did have families....so that receiving countries could use them as free or cheap labor...

...the rise of social work as a profession and the desire to regulate it...coincided with the creation of the U.S. Social Security Act, which required persons to have birth certificates to document their birth dates in order to receive benefits...Records and documentation became culturally, perhaps even morally, important at that point. Hence, the 'amended' birth certificate for adoptees, to establish the adoptive parents as the parents of record and to give the adoptee legal standing, and possibly to relieve them of embarrassment, since officials might see the birth certificate. It was never to protect birth parents in any way whatsoever, nor were they promised Confidentiality, anonymity, or compassion of any sort...

...these stereotypes, assumptions, and fears are not just a thing of the past. They exist today, spoken or unspoken.

When 'traditional' means deceit, lack of information, lack of affirmation, and lack of contact between adoptee, birth family, and adoptive family, everyone suffers.

I have recently read several adoption support group newsletters about Positive Adoption Language and Respectful Adoption Language. These articles seem to have been written by professional adoption workers, or, in one case, by an infertility specialist. I see no documentation that these persons are triad members. ...using the term 'traditional' instead of 'closed' adoption seems not only inaccurate but an attempt to gloss over what a closed adoption really is. One such article recommends we not use the term 'reunion' when birth parents find their relinquished son or daughter, but use the term 'meeting' or 'make contact,' because, according to the article, if they don't already know us, it's not a reunion...A 'meeting' is something I schedule in my appointment book, and 'making contact' sounds very mechanical, not joyful or satisfying in any way. 'Reunion' means brought back together. We were, after all, together for nine months."

Federal Government as Accomplice in Separating Children from Parents Through AdoptSpeak

The Y-2000 Federal Census counted "adopted children (under age 18) in the household" in 1 of every 6 households and alleged that those adopted children tended to have more highly educated parents; a federal law has been enacted for mandatory "counseling" of mothers about adoption. Neither the Census nor any federal government agency has ever counted "all adoptees" of the past 6 or 7 decades who are still living; neither has anyone counted the number of adoptees believed to be overrepresented in our nation's psychiatric institutions and prisons. In fact, state and federal government has avoided studying adoptees' outcomes at all, in order to avoid mention of any "negatives" of adoption.

To understand how the process begins by brainwashing mothers, the following, from an existing Adoption Training Manual, from the section on "counseling" mothers to relinquish their children is excerpted from a web-site for "adoption trainers" ... at http://www.mechmri.org

"f) The number of residential centers for adolescent clients may be insufficient. According to clinical wisdom, client vacillation is quite common during the decision making process. Clients need an opportunity to work through ambivalent feelings associated with decision choices. Residential settings can provide a structure for resolving ambivalence and arriving at a satisfactory solution. The likelihood of adolescents keeping their children and going on public assistance is reportedly higher for girls counseled while living at home. In the comprehensive residential center, emphasis is placed on intensive counseling, peer support groups, and continued educational and vocational exposure. Typically a higher percentage of clients in residential centers choose adoption with a corresponding decline in welfare utilization. "

" Establish mandatory guidelines for adoption counseling for all adolescent pregnancy programs that receive federal funding. (Title X and Title XX.) Points considered important to include are: a) Require that a procedures/resources manual for counselors be maintained in which adoption is described as a positive option, and that any language in existing manuals that is considered negative and discriminatory toward adoption be deleted."

'c) Terminology such as "surrendering", "giving up", or "relinquishing" should be replaced by concepts such as "developing an adoption plan", "acting in the best interests of the child," "family building", and exploring "future plans and prospects" for the young mother. '

" Counselors should be encouraged to consider using social influence and interactional models of helping which establish an expectation with clients that adoption is to be explored as an option, irrespective of whether clients ask about adoption. "

" c) Expansion of Residential (Decision) Centers. "Encourage state and local jurisdictions to support the expansion of residential centers for pregnant adolescents. The aim would be to provide resources for pregnant unmarried minors to receive programs of structured services (including counseling, continued education, vocational training and job exploration) in a residential setting as a way of resolving ambivalence about options and facilitating decisions that are made consciously and from among alternatives with as much information as possible. "

http://www.mechmri.org; http://www.mechmri.org/adoptionlinks.htm

CYFs MANAGER SLAMMED AS ANTI-ADOPTION
(Excerpted from New Zealand Sunday Star-Times, 5-18-03):
www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/sundaystartimes/0,2106,2481295a6442,00.html
by Jonathan Milne jonathan.milne@star-times.co.nz

New Zealand's adoption boss is under fire for opposing adoption. With officials preparing for changes to adoption law, Social Services Minister Steve Maharey has received a complaint from a pro-adoption lobbyist about Child, Youth and Family adoption services general manager Mary Iwanek.

The complaint criticises her "outrageous" comments, saying she is "driven by a personal agenda based on her own experiences."

Iwanek is quoted in The Open Record [-Fall 2001] newsletter on an American adoption website, saying she was working to abolish adoption.

"I discovered there are always more things to do [like working for adoption change altogether -- doing away with it would be lovely]."

....National's social services spokeswomen Katherine Rich said if Iwanek had authorized the publication of such views, she would have to stand down.

"These views cannot be reconciled with her role as head of adoption services." she said.

Rand said CYF supported Iwanek's views. "She said she hopes to work towards a future where the adoption of children should no longer be necessary....

"THE OPEN RECORD" EDITOR'S REBUTTAL
(Excerpted from Rebuttal, 5-18-03)
For the complete story and Rebuttal, see The Open Record-Summer 2003
by Lori Carangelo

....The problem is that Ms. Rich believes it's in CYF staff's best interest to perpetuate family separations via adoption, to assure their jobs, rather than to assure "children's best interests." I suspect that if CYF terminates Mary over a speculative comment about the future of adoption, it's because she is effectively lobbying for children rather than for her own job security...and therefore has our support.

NCFA and THE ADOPTION "FACT" BOOK

The Adoption Fact Book is a publication by the National Council For Adoption covering a broad array of statistics, half truths, lies, stereotypes and misinformation. This following is offered to help readers understand their tactics and motives. Below are selected topics from the volume.

NCFA on Adoptee searches. Page 109 lists anecdotal heresy regarding the number of people who search for their families. The NCFA mentality seems to favor denial of the importance of relatedness by implying that people separated from family members do not search for them in large numbers.

NCFA Michigan statistics: In 6 years (1980-1986) 3,750 adoptees and 5,500 of their natural parents filed with a state search registry. (source given is a worker at the dept of social services) Also indicated that the searchers were 20-70 years of age and that the present annual number of "unrelated" adoptions (1986) was 2000-3000 a year. Citing an estimate of 100,000 adoptees in the state, the NCFA authors concluded that less than 4% of adoptees ever search for their lost family members.

The actual numbers (based on their data) indicate the following: 3750/6 or 625 adoptees per year use the state registry. (note the vast majority of adoptees are reunited through agencies) Of 2000-3000 unrelated adoptions a year this alone is approximately 20.8% to 31.2% of the number of annual adoptees--NOT 4%.

"Supply and Demand" of Adoptions and Abortion. NCFA defines "supply" as any out of wedlock birth, or unplanned pregnancy and calculates "Adoption Indexes" to measure how effectively they can get their agencies to force women to part with their children. (remember men are not considered important)

While their primary objective seems to be increasing the total number of adoption fees, this group has aligned themselves with the religious right. The NCFA actively promotes the view that closed-adoption somehow helps "supply" and diminishes the number of abortions (that is increases the total number of adoptions), while the overwhelming evidence suggests that American women are turning in droves to abortion rather than terminal-adoption.

Follow the Dollars. The NCFA has successfully lobbied for their special version of anti-family preservation and duped congress into a variety of funding initiatives which increase the numbers of "baby dollars" through tax credits. The NCFA, also claims to be interested in institutionalized children (as another area of supply). To this end they make many noble statements about the needy children and many outrageous statements about how we should take children from young or poor mothers.

The NCFA also supports deregulation of adoption for private agencies presumably to facilitate better delivery of product through back alley adoptions.

The NCFA supports the Uniform Adoption Act which would prevent people separated from their families from ever making contact and would criminalize searches.

ADOPTSPEAK and EMBRYO ADOPTION
by Lori Carangelo

In "Now British Couples Can Adopt An Embryo" (Evening Standard, 10-20-03) http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/7000761?source=Evening%20Standard - Mark Prigg reports that an American company, Snowflakes, based in Los Angeles, is providing unwanted embryos leftover from in vitro fertilizations to Britain for the first "embryo adoption service" by the end of 2003. JoAnn Eiman of Snowflakes revealed plans to launch the service worldwide.

As in all adoption parlance, embryo adoption relies on creative terminology. The child's parents become "donors" providing "gifts" of sperm and eggs through a "procedure" to dehumanize the child ("product"). Selling a product, or property, is a marketing concept that's easier for some to swallow than the less palatable reality that it's baby selling according to supply and demand of the marketplace.

More on AdoptSpeak, Adoption Censorship and getting past terminology to reality:

• http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/adoption/aspeak.htm
  
• http://members.tripod.com/ABORN.Webring/Aborn/AdoptioSpeak.htm
  
• http://www.cubirthparents.org/booklet.pdf

A few of several adoption agency, adoption attorney and religion-based sites that advocate "politically correct" adoption language...in order to increase adoptions:

• http://www.adoptlink.com/language.htm
  
• http://www.ppl.org/adoptlan.html
  
• http://www.adopting.org/article5.html
  

Journalist's Guide to Adoption: http://www.adoptioninformationinstitute.org

Date Last Updated: October 7, 2008
© 2001, 2002 and forward by Lori Carangelo.
All Rights Reserved
PO Box 401, Palm Desert, CA 92261 USA

Ads on this website are randomly selected and placed by Google as "site related." Some of the ads may actually be in opposition to viewpoints or ethics expressed on this website and none are to be construed as having endorsement by AmFOR or the owner of this website, Lori Carangelo.