Skip to main content

If It's Not Baby Selling, How Do You Explain This?

Apologists for the infant adoption industry like to claim that the fees collected by adoption agencies are to cover expenses and so on, that there is no profit or profit motive involved in the practice. I usually counter this by pointing out that part of purchasing a car goes to pay the salesman, some pays the rent for the dealership, some goes to taxes, and so on. When money changes hands, and a product is delivered, it is selling. With infant adoption, the product is a human baby. The only difference between a for profit company and a non-profit is that one's books say "shareholder equity" and the other's say "retained earnings.'

But in light of this ABC News story that ran last Mar 12, I don't think even the "it's only fees and costs" story holds up:

When a couple seeking to adopt a white baby is charged $35,000 and a couple seeking a black baby is charged $4,000, the image that comes to the Rev. Ken Hutcherson's mind is of a practice that was outlawed in America nearly 150 years ago — the buying and selling of human beings.

The practice, which is widespread among private adoption facilitators, of charging prospective parents different fees depending on the race or ethnicity of the child they adopt is one that Hutcherson is fighting to change from his Redmond, Wash., church. The Antioch Bible Church has established its own adoption agency, and is lobbying state legislators to change Washington's laws.

"I've got championship Rottweilers. I sell them by supply and demand," Hutcherson said. "I raise thoroughbred racehorses. I sell them by supply and demand. I'm not going to let people sell children by supply and demand. What's the difference between that and slavery?"


Now why would it be that fees and costs would be lower for Black or Latino babies than for white ones? Are the court fees different? Social Worker's salaries? The only place I can see where there could be a difference is in profit margin. The higher demand for white babies commands a higher prices, even though the number of black infants relinquished is nearly zero.

And could it be that the demand is also driving the efforts to "encourage" white mothers to relinquish?

Indeed, what is the difference between infant adoption and slavery?

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Unknown said…
Nice post my friend. I think i am really glad I am not a Social Worker anymore. An infinitesimal fee for secular agencies was what I thought an evil of running a non-profit. However, only recently have I learned that that fee is far from nominal. How is it that the state will pay a person to foster a child but that person has to pay the state to adopt? That makes no sense. Worse though is a religious organization charging fees; that is what tithes are for. It should be a mission not a business.
The thought that there is a different fee for different ethnicity groups and one so vast is outrageous. The idea is to get these kids out of the system and into stable homes so they will stay out the of the system. How dare they put a higher price on one child over another.
Thanks for the enlightenment.
December 10, 2009 at 7:42 AM
Tad Wimmer said…
Elizabeth, Thank you for your comment. I'm afraid that this is only a small part of the whole puzzle. The demand for infants usually means they aren't in the foster care system, but relinquished directly to the agencies. Some states actually have funding to help support children adopted from foster care or with special needs, but there are still about 20,000 children per year that "age out" of the system, while there are 35-40 sets of adoptive parents for every infant relinquished.
December 12, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Agregate Demand and the US Savings Rate

In my last post, I touched on the differences between the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes and Ludwig von Mises. Immediately aftward, I was directed to this story in the New York Times. It seems that americans are saving more instead of spending the their money on consumer goods. Up until this downturn, about 70% of the US Economy was consumer spending, and in 2005, the US Savings rate was negative 2.7%. The "stimulus" is supposed to stimulate spending to get money moving again. But it isn't happening as planned. Folks are saving for down payments because they don't expect to get zero down home mortgages; they're saving to replenish their decimated retirement and college funds. The austrians believe that the best way to "fix" the economy is to allow the "malinvestment" created by the false signals in the economy (from the open market ops and deficit spending) to be liquidated and the resources repurposed into better investments. It...
Post a Comment
Read more

Adoption Bibliography

Eventually, I will post the rest of my paper, but I think it appropriate to post the Bibliography, and I have some use for having it available online. This represents only the sources used in my paper, not the full extent of sources considered. “Adoption is the Best Option” http://adoptionisthebestoption.yolasite.com/ (a really good example of misleading appeals to emotion.) Alternate Religions Educational Network. Alternate Religions Educational Network (AREN) http://www.aren.org/ . accessed Nov 26, 2009. Babb, L. Anne. Ethics In American Adoption. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey 1999. Baptist Children’s Home and Family Services (BCHFS) http://www.bchfs.com . Accessed Sept 9, 2009. Barrett, William P. “Americas Most (and least) Efficient Charities.” Forbes Nov 2004 Bender, Karen E., & Nina de Gramont, eds.. Choice: True Stories of Birth, Contraception, Infertility, Adoption, Single Parenthood, & Adoption. San Francisco, CA: MacAdam-Cage 2007 Berne, Emma Carlso...
3 comments
Read more

Once in an eclipsed blue moon with Mercury in retrograde, etc

For any of you that may be interested in astrology or astronomy, this is quite the New Years... Today at 12:13 pm Mountain Standard Time, the moon was at it's fullest, and all the way around the world in the darkness of night, it was eclipsed over much of Europe, Africa and Asia. Of course, today is also New Year's Eve, and the occurrence of a full moon on New Year's Eve hasn't happened since 1990. According to Spaceweather.com , an eclipsed Blue Moon on New Year's happens only once every 91 years! So this is truly a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence! So to recap, we have Mercury (and Mars) in Retrograde right now, adding to the energies of the Full Moon, which is falling on the global holiday of New Year's Eve, which is wrapping up the '00 decade, and then all of those factors are being amplified by the power of an extremely rare eclipse. Wow! We know that Mercury is Retrograde in Capricorn, and this full moon is in its natural home of Cancer. The sign of Can...
1 comment
Read more