Connecting a frazzled pregnant woman’s future baby with a calm married couple is almost cliche in our culture. We gaze on such a scene with the warm glow of wholesome goodness. At the core of this practice is a dark history that most of us don’t know about. If we did know, we may pause to question the rush to introduce vulnerable pregnant women to those who may not have her best interests in mind.
Matching as an adoption practice had its beginnings in the 20th century. Before that it was often the case that orphans were cared for within the community and had contact, as they grew up, with extended family.(1) Matching began as a way of hiding the presence, even the existence of the mother giving birth, so that the family who adopted could raise the child as though they birthed the baby themselves. (2)
As time progressed the process of harvesting babies in this fashion became more accepted and more streamlined. The baby scoop era, which began following World War II featured dormitories where young pregnant women could be sent to have their babies away from the prying eyes of their neighbors. (3) The parents of the pregnant woman would concoct a story about an extended visit to a distant relative and after the woman had given birth they would return home as though nothing had happened. (4) At the time psychologists believed that putting this life event out of their minds would allow these young women a chance to move on and have proper families going forward. (5)
We now know better. The children and the first mothers from this time period have grown to adulthood and informed us that such a separation often scarred them for life. (6) We know through multiple studies on the subject that it is far healthier psychologically for first mothers and adopted children to have ongoing contact with each other over time. (7) We know that children, even if they were adopted as babies can experience trauma as they grow, and often need extra help navigating their place in the world. (8)
Now most people encourage some sort of open adoption in light of this new understanding. One aspect of placement for young children hasn’t changed much, and may deserve more creative thinking than it currently gets.
Today, if a young woman finds herself pregnant, doesn’t want an abortion, but isn’t sure she wants to raise the child, it is still common practice for her to contact an agency, who connects her, before the baby is born, with families interested in raising her baby. There are many red flags when considering this scenario. First, Money is changing hands as a child moves from woman to adoptive family. That may not be a problem in every case, but it leaves the process vulnerable to those with less than pure motives. (9) Another issue is that this woman was not planning on being in this situation. She may have a lot to think about as she tries to make the decision about what to do with the baby she is about to have. Being surrounded by people who hope that she will choose adoption may not be the best place for her to think. Adoptive families and agency workers have subtle, if not intentional ways to drop pressure onto these vulnerable women to choose the path they represent. (10) Some women develop relationships with the potential adoptive parent and feel obligated to fulfill the couple’s dream of raising her child. There are even stories of women being told they will have to repay services the adoption agency has done for them if they don’t choose adoption.(11)
What if, as a society, we choose not to bring young pregnant women and potential adoptive families into contact until after a baby is born? What if women could give birth and a clock didn’t start ticking toward the final moment she could spend with her baby? What if we all got used to the idea that if a couple chose to grow their family through adopting a young child, that connection would normally take place when a baby was a week, or a month old. The trauma of adoption would remain. It wouldn’t lessen or increase in most cases. Estimates say that about 30 families are waiting for each baby available for adoption; there would be no shortage of options that a woman could choose from at any point in time. (12) The script is flipped in this scenario. The centerpiece of this new process would be making sure services were available for a first mother when she was fully ready. The pressure or ticking clock would be absent in the first week or month of the mother and baby’s lives. If stress mounted for the mother she could seek out and be matched with a family whenever she chose. She could give life with her new baby every effort and know that when she does come to her final choice she gave it her all.
This thought exercise helps us imagine a world without pre-birth matching. It wouldn’t be perfect. If adoption is taking place we already know something is not going according to plan. Adoption is no one’s plan A. But adoption is something that is the best option for some women. We don’t have a good picture presently of who those women are because too many women lack support from those around them to be able to spend an introductory period with their baby if they choose to. It is still a common belief in this country that there are babies available for adoption and the birthing room of a stranger is somewhere potential adoptive parents belong. Increasingly, it may be the healthiest environment for women if the adoption of babies were not seen as a path to choose.
There are babies in need of adoption in this country, and it is the best thing for the mothers of those babies to be able to connect with a family to raise their child if they so choose. For the other pregnant women out there, the ones who haven’t decided and were not expecting this decision to be thrown into their lives, we need to have more imagination than simply tossing glossy photos of smiling couples in their laps. We need to have other paths available to women that make them feel supported if they choose to keep their baby for a week, a month, or the rest of their lives.
Sources
- Eyler, Alexis. “Ethics in Adoption: Public Matching Announcements.” onyourfeefoundation.org, onyourfeetfoundation.org/education-outreach/newsroom.html/article/2022/08/19/ethics-in-adoption-public-matching-announcements .
- Herman, Ellen. “Matching.” Pages.uoregon.edu/adoption, edited by Ellen Herman, University of Oregon Department of History, 24 Feb. 2012, pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/topics/matching.html .
- O’connor Mcnees, Kelly. “What History Teaches Us About Women Forced to Carry Unwanted Pregnancies to Term.” Time, 30 Sept. 2021, time.com/6103001/baby-scoop-era-abortion/ .
- Cunningham, Shelby. “Smashed by Adoption (Baby Scoop Era).” originsnsw.com, 26 May 2010, http://www.originsnsw.com/id43.html .
- “Baby Scoop Era.” Wikipedia, 4 Sept. 2023, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Scoop_Era.
- Altschuler, Glenn C. “Adoption in the Baby Scoop Era.” Psychology Today, 26 Jan. 2021, http://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/is-america/202101/adoption-in-the-baby-scoop-era.
- Skandrani, Sara, et al. “The Search for Origin of Young Adoptees—A Clinical Study.” ncbi.nml.nih.gov, 23 July 2021, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8346243/.
- Dolfi, Marie. “Relinquishment Trauma: The Forgotten Trauma.” Mariedolfi.com, mariedolfi.com/adoption-resource/relinquishment-trauma-the-forgotten-trauma/.
- Root, Tik. “The Baby Brokers: Inside America’s Murky Private-Adoption Industry.” Time, 3 June 2021, time.com/6051811/private-adoption-america/.
- Guida-Richards, Melissa. “Birth Mothers Share What They Want Adoptive Parents to Know.” theeverymom.com, 22 Nov. 2021, theeverymom.com/what-birth-mothers-want-adoptive-parents-to-know/.
- Spiering, Charlyn. “Should We Rethink How We Care For First Mothers? a talk with Carlynne Hershberger.” AdoptionUncovered.com, 9 Oct. 2023, Should We Rethink How We Care For First Mothers? a talk with Carlynne Hershberger.
- Khazan, Olga. “The New Question Haunting Adoption.” The Atlantic, 19 Oct. 2021, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/adopt-baby-cost-process-hard/620258/.
Adoption Uncovered 