For the last week I have tried to write again about HB 2904; Why I support it, and the people who don't support it. But I just can't do it. Every time I sit down to the computer to type out my feelings, I become so frustrated, and so upset, that I just have to walk away. I seriously just can not understand how anyone can be SO against themselves, and others like them. How can a birth mother NOT support birth mothers, birth mother rights, and protections for birth mothers and the adoptee? I can not, and will not, EVER understand this.
So because I am too upset to put my feelings into words, I will instead post a comment made by an adoptee on a post over at the First Mother Forum. Please read her (I am assuming this adoptee is a female, please correct me if I am wrong!) entire comment, as she makes some very good points.
"Speaking of "not reading posts very well," how many times does Jane have to write a post explaining the legislation before people will read it and understand that their questions have already been answered?
If they have actually read her posts, and still have questions, perhaps they could clarify which ones were not cleared up, based off of what Jane said, instead of just saying Jane hasn't answered anything. She has. Good grief, I feel like I could write a master's thesis on this bill already.
--She has said who "Oregon Birth Mothers" are. She has named names. What is the claim that they don't exist based off of? Because they aren't registered non-profit status? Lots of groups aren't registered (e.g. "grassroots") and they very much exist. Some of the mother's stories were published in a magazine article which Jane has linked to at least once.
--Jane has stated the 8 day period does not interfere with bonding. The APs can take the baby home if that is what the mother wants.
--If time periods are waivable, then there's nothing to stop an unethical lawyer/agency from pressuring a mother to waive them. Do people understand this inability to wave the decision-making period is to prevent coercion to protect the mother and child?
--Jane has stated that both the 8 day period and 30 day period are not "anti-adoption" barriers to adoption, but recommendations by the Evan B. Donaldson adoption institute. How in the world is following the recommendations by one of the leading adoption policy groups in the U.S. "anti-adoption?"
--An issue with many institutions and industries is when one entity knows more than the individual making a life-long decision. I experienced this first-hand when buying my home and signing my mortgage (the unfair advantage is precisely why there's a mortgage crisis!). In adoption, agencies and lawyers hold the same advantage. Is it really that horrible that the law require them to give necessary information to a mother making a decision for her child?
--Just because one mother had an ethical lawyer/agency does not mean another lawyer will for another mother. What is wrong making one ethical standard so that ALL mothers can receive that same ethical treatment?
Why doesn't anyone who opposes the bill have answers to these questions?
Is anyone who opposes this legislation reading anything anyone writes to answer their questions? I would think that those who would want others to be as madly in love with adoption as they are, would support legislation that would enable women to make sound decisions and enable APs to know that the original mother made a sound decision so that there's a greater chance that they WOULD love adoption.
So many of we adoptees have mothers who were not given adequate time to make decisions because nothing was stopping the agencies from asking them to sign consents when our mothers were not ready and had not had adequate information (or any information at all). When I think of my mother pining all those years, wondering if she did the right thing, I don't see extended decision-making time as her automatically not choosing adoption. It's not "anti-adoption." I see it as providing her with time, when the agency couldn't have stomped into her hospital room, to really think about it and have had more peace with her decision. She deserved that peace of mind. I think it's sad that there was no law in my birth state that would have prevented the agency from treating her that way.
*** I have permission to post this comment. Any emphasis has been added by me (with the exception of the words in all capital letters). For more information on this bill you can go here and here. You can also read these blogs.