e-mail
Having worked in my educated field for a few years, I know that titles of articles or news stories aren’t always spot on. Sometimes they miss the mark slightly because they pick up on one idea within the story and run with it instead of stating an overview of the entire piece. So, I tried to keep that in mind when I saw the title of this article as I read my e-mail this morning:
Open adoptions ease pain for birth moms
In bold, block lettering across the top of the article that featured a smiling (birth) mother holding her baby. My heart stopped a little. I choked on my water. Anger immediately pulsed through my veins. Pain in adoption is not magically erased by an open relationship with the family and child. Without getting into an arguement over who hurts more (which is not my intention), some schools of thought state that open adoptions further compound grief because of the constant reminder and thus an inability to truly let go of the loss. (I personally can’t say one way or the other only having experienced open adoption.) Perhaps if the headline read, “Open Adoption Ease Pain for SOME Birth Moms,” I might not have a beef. Read on.
The truth is: open adoption still hurts. If you seek out the stories of birth mothers involved in varying forms of open relationships with their child’s family, you will still find pain, anger, discontent and fear. Yes, you will find a few who present themselves as fully happy and pleased with their decision. However, there are those birth mothers from the closed era who state the same things. I believe the myth that open adoption causes less pain was started by agencies trying to coerce expectant mothers into placing their children. It’s still touted today by many an agency, most likely also neglecting to tell you about issues surrounding lifelong grief and loss that may or may not be compounded by visits or contact.
Following the big bold headline is this still-bolded gem:
Maintaining contact with adoptive families is a benefit, an adoption official says.
Okay, I can get behind this statement a bit more than the headline. Unfortunately, this secondary line does not try to insinuate that the benefit is for all three sides of the triad: just the birth parents. In fact, the article is rather poorly written and the titles aren’t spot on for the entire focus of the piece. My favorite part is how the article actually starts out!
Heather Harjo surprised herself recently when she cried while discussing her decision to place her two children for adoption.
“There’s still some pain there,” Harjo, 33, said about the adoptions that took place in Tulsa four and two years ago.
Jessica Westfall placed her daughter for adoption at birth in March 2006, and a year later, she sometimes still aches for the infant who was adopted by a family in Edmond.
Most birth moms harbor a hole that almost nothing will fill.
Surprised herself by crying? Still some pain? Aches? Habor a hole that nothing will fill? Is anyone else having a hard time gleaning how any of this matches up with the initial headline of the article? Did the author(s) realize that the first few paragraphs of the article totally contradict the headline? So far, I would name this article, “Adoption Still Hurts for Birth Moms.” In fact, the article includes a quote from Adam Pertman, director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute that only proves the idea that birth mothers, no matter the contact, hurt.
For generations, we acted as though women could give up their kids and not have grief about it. We thought that you could create a life, give it up and forget about it. That’s not humane. That’s not real.
The article then kind of peters off, not really showing the benefit that birth mothers receive by open contact. Of course, there are benefits: For example, birth mothers in open adoption do not wonder where their children are (unless the adoption is suddenly closed, considering that open adoptions are not legally binding in all 50 states) or if they are growing up well. There’s no fear that they might have died or that they have a life-threatening illness. Birth mothers in open adoption are usually informed of such things. Visits can be fun yet, at the same time, they can also be emotionally draining and daunting. Having pictures of or with your child are a definite bonus and I don’t think anyone could argue that it was the same or worse than not having pictures. So, again, that’s a benefit. Yet, the article doesn’t really state these things.
Truth in journalism, if you Google it, seems to be falling by the wayside at times. It’s unfortunate, especially when dealing with something as life-altering as adoption. Perhaps an expectant Mother read that article headline and thought, “Maybe they’re right.” (Okay, one shouldn’t be so easily swayed but you catch my drift.)
In short, while it’s nice to see open adoption birth mothers spoken of without stereotypes in a news setting, it’s also disheartening to realize that they’re still getting it wrong. Again, perhaps its a step in the right direction but I can only hope that we start making leaps and bounds in the near future.
//
For more talk on articles concerning adoption and birth mothers, read:
1. More Negative Adoption Speak in the Media.
2. Another Diss of Open Adoption in the News.
3. Today I’m Famous.
