I think Heather's comment on Choosing Your Audience brought up some very interesting points to consider when you start thinking about adoption reform. I'd like to use it as a starting point to discuss what I'm often talking about here, without ever actually defining. I read so many adoption blogs that are pro-reform, I often forget that some people who read here aren't in that world.
Sometimes in the adoption world we talk about the painful irony that women who "should" place their children for adoption typically don't, while the women who place could typically be very good parents. I really believe that we should fight to keep a mother and child together, but not at any cost. Especially if keeping them together is damaging to the child, with no change for the better in sight. Let me tell you what I mean.
Heather discusses her experience working with parents who may be dealing with drug addiction, incarceration, and poverty. These parents are at risk from having their children removed from their custody. It is less common for parents living in these types of cyclical crisis to voluntarily place their children for adoption. They may have their children removed and their parental rights terminated.
I think that our society, as a whole, is sustaining racism that contributes to these kinds of situations. Statistically, (how cheap is it that I'm not going to look up the statistics!) African Americans are overrepresented in the prison system, in school drop out rates, in poverty, etc, etc. So I think there is the need for reform in our society so that everyone has more of a fighting chance for education and economic stability. I know of some cases where women that are in the ethnic minority, and also are impoverished, make adoption plans for their children because they can't survive financially with their existing children, if they add the expense of another child. That's just wrong. No one in the Western World (or anywhere else) should have to give up a child that they love and want because they can't afford to keep them. I also think that we should start providing better health care and birth control options so that fewer women have to separate themselves from a wanted child by an untimely pregnancy in the first place...but you've heard me talk about that before.
From my experience, the more common scenario that ends in a woman placing a child for adoption is this: a woman in between 18-30 years old, with some college education or with college plans in process, gets pregnant and does not feel that she can sufficiently provide for the baby. I don't mean the difference between living on the street or not, I mean providing things like private school education, family vacations, extracurriculars, and the like. While the mother might not have much in the way of finances at the time the child is born, she is often financially stable within a couple years.
An attitude that I saw and heard for years but didn't find alarming till recently is that, for a Christian girl, placing her child for adoption is a way to undo the wrong choice of premarital sex. Through the saintly act of blessing a childless couple with the baby they've always wanted, she is absolved of the guilt of promiscuity. I've heard it in memoirs written by Christian birthmothers, and I've heard is stated by Christian birthmothers. I also hear it a lot from random people I meet. The sentiment is "placing a child for adoption allows a woman to make amends for her mistakes, and get a fresh start on life." That may seem nice in theory, but tell a woman who has lost a baby through miscarriage or infant death "well this just lets you get a fresh start on all the things you wanted to do with your life." Placing a child for adoption IS LOSING that child. Open adoption helps to maintain a relationship, but a woman is losing the opportunity to be her child's mother.
Placing a child for adoption is a permanently life-altering experience. It is a loss you may grieve and learn to live with, but it is not something you "bounce back" from. It would make sense that women should be thoroughly prepared for this decision, and have ongoing support and counseling after they place a child. That is really the exception rather than the norm. For one thing, many adoptions are facilitated by attorneys and counseling for the mother considering adoption is sometimes non-existent. Then, in adoptions being facilitated by agencies, the mother is typically counseled by the agency staff. This is often a conflict of interest, a glaring conflict of interest in the case of for-profit agencies whose revenues increase with their number of placements. Also, many adoption counseling positions require a Bachelor's degree or less, while the type of experience and insight necessary to help a woman navigate a placement decision is something gained through lots of experience and or education.
Most women making voluntary placements do so through an attorney or agency (seldom through the state) but the adoptive families are the ones with the money, paying into the system. It makes sense that many (if not most) attorneys and agencies are biased towards the adoptive families and women making adoption plans get the short end of the deal. The life-long counseling resources they were promised might not materialize, they might have been told that they'd have a hard year and then a better life, only to struggle with extreme depression and suicidal thoughts, they might be promised an open adoption, only to have the door slammed in their face with no legal recourse.
That's why I care about reform. The girl at the barbecue I mentioned had a very clear delineation between us (the mothers that care and want our children) and them (the irresponsible girls who will abort if they can't give their child away). That line is really non-existent. The women making voluntary placements are our sisters, our nieces, our friends.