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:

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

Haiti Adoption Story

Most of us have seen or read stories of adoptions of Haitian children following the earthquake last month. Some of the stories have had a positive slant (the charity has saved children...) other's have had a negative slant (the "missionaries" who kidnapped and tried to smuggle 33 children across the border into the Dominican Republic). At a family gathering yesterday, my wife heard a story about a couple that was "finally" able to adopt a child they've been trying to adopt for about 4 years. As the story was related to me, this couple had originally been matched with this child about 4 years ago, but the adoption was cancelled when the parents of the child took her back and parented her themselves. After about three years of caring for the child, the natural parents returned her to the orphanage because both of them had been diagnosed with tuberculosis; a death sentence in Haiti. (Mortality for untreated TB is about 67%.) The adoption was finalized just befo...
3 comments
Read more

Conventional Wisdom Meets Reality:
There Ought Not to be a Law

The "before" picture of an intersection near Bristol, England: Maximum traffic of 1700 cars per hour and about 300 pedestrians. Commute time for some people using the intersection over 20 minutes in rush hour traffic. The "after" picture: Traffic flow increased to 2000 cars per hour, and still handles the 300 pedestrians. Commute time reduced to just 5 minutes. In the eight months since the change, there have only been two minor incidents, and not a single person (motorist or pedestrian) has been injured in an accident. How did they do it? What new technology did they use to effect this miraculous change? They took out the traffic conrol signals! Yes, you read that right, the traffic lights were removed. By removing all of the red, yellow and green lights, the motorists became more courteous, more cautious, and more sharing of the road way. In complete defiance of the conventional wisdom. This experiment raises a lot of very interesting questions. First, do our pre...
2 comments
Read more