The Freakonomics of giving $500 to adopt, not abort
Well, sit me down and shut you up. One of the Freakonomics authors agrees with me that giving mothers who place their babies for adoption $500 is a fine idea. He thinks their having to nix abortions first is an unnecessary prequalifier, though. That’s ok, great actually. The less vulnerable mothers have to do with those vermin, the better. I also like Levitt’s suggestion that mothers confirm they have received prenatal care and not taken drugs….
A Texas State Senator has been ridiculed for his proposal to pay women $500 if they show up at an abortion clinic, elect not to have an abortion, and then give the baby up for adoption.
Honestly, though, is it really such a bad idea? What if he left out the part about visiting an abortion clinic? Does it make sense to subsidize women who were going to give up babies for adoption? I think maybe it does. There are large numbers of parents who want to adopt, and a shortage of mothers willing to put healthy babies up for adoption. There are laws restricting what prospective adoptive parents can pay the birth mother. Providing a subsidy to birth mothers (perhaps conditioned on testing negative for drugs and doing a full set of prenatal hospital visits) sounds like a pretty sensible thing to do.
The part about visiting the abortion clinic is just a waste of time. Any woman who knew she was going to give her child up for adoption would have an incentive to make an appearance at the abortion clinic just to qualify under this guy’s law. So why not just scrap that part of it and debate whether we should be subsidizing women who give their babies up for adoption.
I find it amusing that one of the criticisms of the proposed law is as follows:
Heather Paffe, political director of Planned Parenthood of Texas, said Patrick’s proposal “ii very cynical and insulting to women and their families.”
“It’s insulting to think women would make that kind of decision so easily,” she said.
It sounds to me like the crux of Heather Paffe’s argument is that $500 just isn’t a high enough price!
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I don’t know if there is a shortage of healthy babies and a surplus of willing adoptive parents.
Now, I would believe you if you said there was a shortage of healthy WHITE babies, but that qualifier didn’t make it into that post.
And yeah, just because your friend/neighbor/Angelina Jolie adopted a baby of another ethnicity doesn’t mean there aren’t a disproportionate number of minority children in the foster care system because those thousands of adoptive parents who have the money to adopt want a child that looks like them.
Lot of claims in your posts, Jill. Not a terrible amount of warrants.
I also have no problem with this idea, once you take away the requirement that the woman visit an abortion clinic. The amount cannot be set much higher, or you’ll have a problem with women getting pregnant intentionally.
Jen –
When it comes to adopting babies it doesn’t matter the ethnic background. Babies are not available. The waiting list is very long. My cousin had to wait 5 years for a baby and she didn’t have any ‘limitations’ on what she would adopt. (They adopted a gorgeous non-white baby. He was a “Crack Baby” and had many difficulites. He died when he was 5 years old.)
When it comes to kids (older than the age of 2 or 3) you are right about the number of minorities that are on the list. It is heart breaking. Especially the ones with disabilities and/or social difficulties.
Jill – I have to say that I agree with you and the article that women who choose adoption should be given compensation even if they never considered abortion. Giving a child up for adoption can be the greatest gift you can give your child and adopting parents, and probably one of hardest thing to do in a lifetime. Letting the mother know that she is supported by society might make that decision easier. We need to stop the stigma of giving your child up and reward the difficult decision.
Jen, 1:08p: Let’s step back. Here’s an idea even a pro-abort liberal supports: offer mothers in crisis situations $500 to adopt rather than abort. What is your problem? We’re trying to come up with solutions here, and the only one you support is abortion. You vehemently erect all sorts of roadblocks to any other solution than that.
Furthermore, you appear to argue for black feticide, because in your mind white babies are prized? Or are you arguing for white feticide so couples will be forced to adopt black babies?
It is my understanding, btw, there is a wait not just for white babies, but also for black and handicapped babies. That is why desperate couples are adopting their babies out of the country.
But it is your argument, so it is yours to prove.
You know, Paffe’s objection about the new law proposal really does work to undermine pro-aborts arguments about how a fetus is not human life.
If $500 is an insult, then you mean the ‘blob of tissue’ in the womb is worth more?? Hmm..
Maybe people need to just stop adopting new borns and try adopting some of the other 300,000 children waiting for ADOPTION.
Jill, you claiming that I support minority feticide has about as much weight as me claiming you eat babies for breakfast.
Those claims, I hope, couldn’t be more wrong.
I’m not saying white babies are prized for a good reason. I’m saying people can sometimes be subtly racist. They want to adopt a child in need, but will only take the ones who would fit in with their family. And since white families tend to be the ones with more money to adopt, logic follows that there are a disproprtionate number of minority children who never get adopted. I have a break between class, so I’ll hunt down some statistics in the next hour.
And I talked with one of my professors about celebrity adoptions of babies from out of the country. Some seem genuine in trying to do their part in giving that child a better life than they could have in their home country. Some do it because they exoticize foreign children and do so for their image. What I am saying, however, is that people are typically not adopting out of country because there is a shortage of babies here. Again, the statistics I am hunting for as I write will point us to the fact that there are plenty of babies in this country who need homes but get funneled to foster homes, both white and non-white babies alike. Though the non-white babies are there in disproportionate numbers.
My problem is not with the 500$ cash reward for carrying to term, so I’m not entirely sure why you pigeonholed me into that opinion. I’ve never made a comment on this specific matter, but I can do so now.
I’m just saying this reward system, while a good idea, shouldn’t be expected as a miracle cure or applicable in all situations. It’s fine that people want to implement it, but they should be wary of its shortcomings. Women who won’t accept the reward are probably aborting for reasons other than money. I brought up in another forum that some women don’t want to be taken off their anti-depressants or anti-seizure medications, both of which are harmful to a fetus. There are a lot of different reasons to abort. To assume that all are just poor women who would accept a small check is just not accurate.
So, Jill, be so kind as to throughly read my posts before you accuse me of minority infanticide or striking down ideas again. It’s poor taste and proves you don’t really read what someone who disagrees with you has to say.
Jill,
Here are the promised statistics about adoption. Cites follow at the end of the post.
The most recent estimates, which include inter-country adoptions, found that 8% of adoptions were trans-racial. (Stolley, 1993)
Over 59% of the children in foster care in 2005 (most not in pre-adoptive foster care homes) were non-white, with 41% of them
Jen,
That was an awesome report…
A lot of those children in foster care however are not adoptable. Don’t know how many, and maybe it wouldn’t make a significant difference. A lot of them are there because they are waiting to go back home or be placed with relatives.
So the next statistic we need is of the 462,000 children in foster homes, how many are eligible for adoption.
I agree though, it would be nice if every child had a home to call his own.
I myself was adopted and my mother had to wait 4 years on a waiting list for me…and each of my siblings…back in 1958. I know a woman in my parish who has adopted 5 children from China and Viet Nam because it was too hard to get a child in Chicago.
Also, how many of those children in foster homes have serious handicaps? Not that I’m saying that they shouldn’t be adopted but it would take special people to voluntarily take on this type of child.
mk
Sure, got that for you from the same source.
Of the 513,000 children placed in foster care, over 20% had case goals of “adoption”. That means 102,600 children should have been adopted, but only half actually were.
Jen,
Thanks.
Okay, I’m worse at math than science but 102,600 is a lot less than 513,000. And if half of those 102,600 were adopted that leaves about 51,000 adoptable babies/children.
(Also, I’m not clear, are these numbers for the whole country? Or just your state?)
Now of those, how many were under the age of two, and how many did not have handicaps (serious, ones that would require intensive and expensive care).
Then we need to know how many people want to adopt compared to that figure of 102,600.
Do you know where to find that?
I’m impressed you got as much as you did, so if not, I’ll start digging.
MK
The information listed from the US Gov did not list handicaps in their analysis. These figures are for the country as a whole.
The report I am using does not mention the amount of desiring adopting families. It might, I’ll keep looking.
I’ll get on finding the numbers for unadopted children who should be adopted according to their case goals under the age of two.
It won’t be a huge number, but it will be a number of children who didn’t have a reason not to be adopted. I feel bad for the kids who had everything in their favor but still couldn’t find a home.
From the same source:
Of the children waiting for adoption that had adoption listed as a case goal at the time of this report, 21,003 were under the age of 2.
Jen,
That’s helpful. Because do you see that 21,003 children under the age of two for the whole country, is really not very many children. And I would be willing to bet that many of those there weren’t adopted have something about them (besides race) that make them “less easily adopted.” I mean there are 10,000 kids in my son’s high school. So 21,300 adoptable babies is really a small number for a country of how man billion?
MK
MK,
I understand it’s a small number, but if there are so many adopting parents begging for a child that they have to adopt out of the country, what happens to these kids?
Plus, I did find something that might clear up the “easily adopted” question. Under the case goals listed, adoption was one, along with reuniting with family and so forth. One was institutionalization, which to me takes care of the kids who have problems that make them less readily adoptable. It is suggested that the ones with adoption as a case goal are perfectly fine, healthy children.
I could be wrong. I’ll keep looking.
Jen,
By no means am I condoning ignoring “the unadoptables”. I’m just saying that the number left is really quite small.
I’m not even disagreeing with you. This argument gets thrown around all the time, with both sides throwing around numbers and I’ve never really seen any hard evidence.
I appreciate you doing this, because I HATE when I say things promoting pro-life only to find out that they aren’t true. There’s not many, but every once in awhile. Sometimes, they end up being true, but I didn’t even realize that I accepted them simply because the pro-life side claimed them. I’ve got to better about checking sources. That’s why I like these debates. You guys challenge me (us) to back up what we say.
Lying, on either side, does nobody any good. Certainly, I don’t feel like we need to lie, because the fact that we are taking a human life should stand on it’s own.
But I seek the Truth and the truth (as SOMG puts it). I too have on occasion seen pro-lifers, in an effort to sway someones opinion not to abort, say things that are completely erroneous. I refuse to do that if I can help it.
The other side does the same thing. The breast cancer connection is real. I don’t want it to be. I don’t want any women to have breast cancer. But from all the evidence that I have read, it appears, unhappily to be real.
So it does no good, to the pro-life movement, the babies or their mothers, to promote lies for the cause.
Again, thanks for doing this. I myself have used the argument that there aren’t enough babies to go around and would like to continue to use it, but only if it turns out to be the truth.
MK
Jen,
This is an example of people making claims that cannot be backed up and when pushed to the wall, prove to be false.
I
The problem with this proposed legislation is quite simple: $500 in a pregnancy is not going to amount to much.
Perhaps if the state offered to pay the expenses of the pregnancy it would be better.
Just throwing the idea out there.
Ciao
Leah, the state and federal government already do. Medicaid, Welfare, CHIPS.
Chow.
Leah –
The majority of private adoptions (which is the majority of infant adoptions) have the adopting parents paying the expense of the child being born.
Jen, MK and everyone –
I have heard many times, my husband included, that the reason to adopt overseas is because no one can legally take the child away from you. In America there are so many reasons a birth parent can come back several years later and take the child. Even though the number of this happening is very low, it does stop many people from adopting here. Imagine, raising a child for 4 years and then the courts giving the child back to the birthparents and you cannot even have visitation.
Also, with so many adopting from countries like China and South America doesn’t that mean that the baby being white isn’t a factor?
I stand corrected.
I have no problem with offering women $500 to adopt rather than abort, provided the money is obtained from right-to-lifers only, not pro-choicers.
By “money” I mean both the $500 AND the cost of the labor-and-delivery which the abortion would have prevented.
If this bill were accompanied by a tax on right-to-lifers and right-to-life organizations, I’d be for it.
SOMG –
Okay! provided that pro-choicers pay for all the abortions and aftercare from the women who choose not to take the $500 for adopting.
Sounds good to me.
Valerie, we (pro-choicers) would benefit from that deal because the abortions (and “aftercare”) are cheaper.
You get what you pay for.
Choosy mothers choose…
SOMG –
I’d still go for it. Psychologist costs alot of money. Therapy costs alot of money. Antidepressants cost alot of money. All this is aftercare. If you don’t think women get depressed afterward then google “help after abortion” and you’ll see that they do.
Valerie, abortion has never been successfully linked to subsequent mental illness or need for therapy in any statistically significant way, although considerable effort has been expended attempting to establish such a link.
Most of the women who seek therapy after abortion would have sought it even without the abortion.
The threat of subsequent mental illness is just another bugaboo the right-to-life industry uses to try to frighten women out of having abortions, and to bring nuisance lawsuits against abortion providers.
It has no more validity than the alleged-but-disproved “link” between abortion and subsequent breast cancer, which is also featured on a large number of right-to-life-industry-funded web sites.
Except in rare cases, abortion requires no aftercare. Of any kind.
Don’t take my word for it. Read the report on the subject by Surgeon General C. Everett Koop–Ronald Reagan’s ultra-right-to-life Surgeon General.
From an article in the Washington Times commentary: http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060120-091648-6456r.htm
“In an interview, Mr. Fergusson said he believes the APA’s conclusions imply a greater certainty than is warranted by existing studies. In fact, Mr. Fergusson is generally critical of all research on postabortion distress, saying: “It borders on scandalous that one of the most common surgical procedures performed on young women is so poorly researched and evaluated. If this were Prozac or Vioxx, reports of associated harm would be taken much more seriously with more careful research and monitoring procedures.”
Why isn’t there better research on the effect of abortion on women? Mr. Fergusson says the political issues surrounding abortion crowd out scientific objectivity. In his view, “The abortion debate and its implications drive out the science.” ”
“So was Professor Fergusson out to link mental health problems with abortion? “I’m immune from that charge because I’m pro-choice,” he says. In a remarkably candid statement, Mr. Fergusson reveals, “I might rather not have found what we did, but we found it and you can’t be intellectually honest and only publish results you like.” ”
“About his views, the researcher says, “It’s one thing to have a civil right to do something and quite another thing is the consequences of doing it. It may well turn out that the procedure has risks we did not foresee.” ”
hmm…iteresting huh?
Here is more evidence of research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15999304&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9206861&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum
Wow! for something that is just a scare tactic from the Pro-life crowd, it sure gets alot of attention.
No aftercare really? hmm.. I wonder why these websites are here then?
http://www.safehavenministries.com/index.html
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/resources/
http://www.noparh.org/
http://www.hopeafterabortion.com/
All these organizations/websites started by people who are suffering from problems after abortion. I guess you should direct them to Surgeon General C. Everett Koop so they know they don’t have any problems.
When I was in gradeschool AD/HD-I was not recognized. I had to suffer from the ignorance of psychology. It is now diagnosed and recognised. I wonder how that happened considering alot of Dr’s said you couldn’t have it?
And to say that women who have problems after abortion would have had problems anyway is offensive and degrading.
Amen to that Valerie!!
Valerie, you wrote: “No aftercare really? hmm.. I wonder why these websites are here then?
… [list of web sites]
All these organizations/websites started by people who are suffering from problems after abortion.”
No, Valerie. These web sites were started by propagandists and are maintained by the right-to-life industry. And they all make the same (deliberate) error: they report on a small, highly self-selecting group–women who report adverse psychological conditions afterward–and draw conclusions (or invite the reader to draw conclusions) about the general population from patterns observed within this group.
It’s part of an effort to frighten women away from having abortions, and to bring nuisance lawsuits against abortion providers.
The web sites that argue for the thoroughly-debunked “link” between abortion and subsequent breast cancer–and there are many of them, including Jill Stanek’s–are more of the same.
Just because someone posts a claim on the web doesn’t make it true.
You wrote: “And to say that women who have problems after abortion would have had problems anyway is offensive and degrading. ”
That may be but it’s also true. One of the studies YOU posted states: “Of the 61 women, 52% were psychologically influenced before the abortion to an extent which indicated severe crisis or actual psychiatric illness. ” That’s from your posted reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9206861&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum
That means 52% of the women in the study ACKNOWLEDGED severe crisis or psychiatric illness before the abortion. Regarding the other 48%, no proof or evidence is given that they were mentally healthy before the abortion except their own self-evaluations.
By the way, your link to the Washington Times article returns “NOT FOUND” when I click on it.
In any case, the Washington Times is a right-wing, right-to-life rag owned by a cultist (the infamous Sun Myung Moon) and should not be taken seriously as a source of information on abortion.
Hate to break it to you, Jill, but wouldn’t paying mothers $500 to give their children up for adoption be considered “selling babies for adoption”? Last time I checked, that was illegal in this country.
I’m all for anything that would reduce the number of abortions, but I don’t think $500 is an adequate amount. That might pay for one pre-natal doctor visit without insurance. Might. I’d suggest enrolling them in a program that gives them free healthcare during and post-pregnancy to ensure the baby is born healthy. $500 will not go that far, and I can almost guarantee if we’re handing out cash, it won’t go to doctor visits…
Oh, as well…you’d be surprised how many expectant, poor mothers do not qualify for Medicare and other programs in this country.
The welfare system is highly abused and twisted by those who know how to work the system. Those who truly need it are usually left in the dust.
SOMG –
“…To an extent which indicated SEVERE CRISIS or actual psychiatric illness.”
Hate to tell you this, because I know it doesn’t fit in with all your conspiracy theory’s, but most women who are about to have an abortion are in ‘severe crises’ at the time because of their pregnancy. It does not mean they have had previous mental illness BEFORE getting pregnant. As stated on here time and time and time again, women do not WANT to have an abortion, they feel that they HAVE to have the abortion. Since a woman would not have an abortion without being pregnant, than the two go hand in hand. SOOOOOO…. Since billions of woman have given birth without any mental problems I would say that going through with the pregnancy isn’t as tramatic.
As for the breast cancer subject. I have had 3 natural miscarriages which occured after week 12. I was informed that because of my miscarriages I would be at a higher risk for breast cancer because of all the hormonal changes. Even one miscarriage that causes a drastic change in your homones can increase your risk. When a woman has an abortion, she goes through the same extremes in hormonal changes as a woman who miscarries naturally. How can one woman be at a higher risk but not another woman? The hormones react the same.
And for your comment that the post abortion organizations are just full of propagandists I just have one question? Why are you trying to degrade places that woman can go to for help after abortion? I know many women who have been helped by organizations like these. Actually, because my miscarriages were so traumatic my OB/GYN sent me to a therapist that runs one of these organizations.
Valerie, you wrote: “As for the breast cancer subject. I have had 3 natural miscarriages which occured after week 12. I was informed that because of my miscarriages I would be at a higher risk for breast cancer because of all the hormonal changes.”
Like Rick, who came to Casablanca for the waters, you were misinformed. Or maybe you misunderstood what they told you.
It’s true that you would be slightly less likely to get breast cancer if you had had three full-term live births, but having miscarriages does not increase your likelihood of getting breast cancer. Failing to have the live births is what (slightly) increases your chance of getting breast cancer. A woman who has ten miscarriages and one live birth is still (slightly) BETTER off, breast-cancer-wise, than a woman who has no miscarriages and no kids. Having kids protects you (a little tiny bit) regardless of whether or not you have miscarriages (or abortions).
All this hypothetical stuff about hormonal changes makes good copy, but it is not supported by any studies large enough to be statistically significant. On the contrary, the big studies all indicate no causal connection between induced abortion and subsequent breast cancer.
Look up, for example, the Melbye study done in Denmark, where they tracked the abortion histories and breast-cancer histories of ALL the women in Denmark for 28 years.
That’s why the AMA, the American College of OBs & GYNs, the World Health Organization, and the National Cancer Institute recognize no link between abortion and subsequent breast cancer. These organizations speak with greater authority than ad-hoc right-to-life organizations such as, for instance, Priests for Life.
“Since billions of woman have given birth without any mental problems I would say that going through with the pregnancy isn’t as tramatic.”
You’ve never heard of post-partum depression?
“Why are you trying to degrade places that woman can go to for help after abortion?”
Stating what something is is not the same as trying to degrade it–unless it is already degraded.
It’s not at all clear that any of these groups actually help the women who seek them out. Encouraging the patient to feel sorry for herself, and to feel guilty about her abortion, does not help her.
My Doctor gave me brochures on the subject of breast cancer. They were not from pro-life propaganda paranoid center. I have not been able to find them, but I am going to continue to look. (One down fall of being AD/HD-I, I can lose things in a heartbeat and find them 5 years later and can’t remember why I kept them!)
Yes, I’ve heard of post-partum depression. I had post-partum depression. I know post-partum depression first hand. Here’s the difference, post-partum depression is usually gone before 1 year after child birth. I’ve talked to women who have had an abortion 5 years ago and are still severely depressed because of the abortion.
Do I think that some of the after abortion healing organaizations do what you say. Yes. I would be a liar if I answered any other way. But because a some of them are like that doesn’t mean all of them are. I have known people who worked for them and have been to them for help. You saying they are all like that would be like me saying all abortion clinics are like Metropolitan Medical Associates in New Jersey.
Valerie, the article to read is
http://www.annals.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=sci&resid=248/4951/41
Science magazine on psychological responses after abortion. Science magazine, in case you don’t know, is pretty much the top scientific journal in the USA.
Unfortunately my web browser doesn’t recognize the site–I have a primitive computer! Maybe you could copy the text and post it here.
SOMG –
1st – I will never be convinced that women do not have severe depression difficulties after abortion. Why? Because I personally know too many women that have it. You can give me all the scientific studies you want, I KNOW too many women!
Also, as stated before, when in grade school my parents were told that I did NOT have a learning disability, and that I was just not applying myself. This has caused severe self-esteem issues. The FACT is that I do have a learning disability but the psychological studies back then PROOVED that the inactive form of AD/HD did not exist. (Just for those who may not know, AD/HD-I means that the hyperactivity is not physical like what you see on TV. The hyperactivity is internal.)
2nd – I don’t even want to imagine what these women have to go through because the very people that told her it would be okay and it was just a choice denies they have a problem and need help. Do you have any idea how many studies were done on AD/HD in the 80’s and 90’s and the inactive form is just now being recognized. Do you have any idea how many people it hurt because the psychological community denied our difficulties therefore we were just lazy?
Science is not perfect. That is why scientific ‘facts’ are always changing. It was a scientific ‘fact’ that women needed HRT (hormone replacement therapy) during menopause. Oops! They were wrong. It caused many difficulties. Ask my Mom – wait, you can’t, she committed suicide because of what going off HRT did to her.
It was a scientific fact that women did not have any problems when you go off HRT slowly. yea, right.
I can go on and on with how many scientific ‘facts’ have been bogus. I’ve just given you 2 examples, more than likely 3, when science was wrong.
Just think of how damaging it is to women who are told they are just crazy, (as I was just lazy), or that they had difficulties before the abortion and that is why they have problems now.
It let me post! It let me post!
woohoo!!!!!
Sorry, just been trying for a day now!
I’m glad you were able to post finally, Valerie! :)
Posted by: prettyinpink at April 28, 2007 10:22 PM
“Val, why did you decide to come back to the Church?”
Long story – but I will simplify.
Premature child = friends walk away because ‘they’ can’t handle it.
3 miscarriages with severe depression = more friends walk away because ‘they’ don’t want to deal with it.
Sister-n-law going through nasty divorce = parent-n-law sides with abusive SOB husband and family splits apart.
Mom going off HRT = Suicide.
We had no where to go. No where for help. No one to talk to. (my family is not around us, only his and we havn’t seen them in over 2 years. they are just 5 miles down the road from us too) Our marriage was falling apart. Divorce was being mentioned. Our dog (155 pound Mastiff) was becoming agressive from all the stress in the house. Danny’s autistic symptoms were getting worse because of the stress.
Stu decided he wanted to talk to someone about everything that was going on. He doesn’t like the idea of therapy, so I recommended he talk to a priest. So he made an appt. They talked for somewhere around 3 hours. When he came home, he was the man I married. It was amazing. So we started looking into going back to church (something his family never did). We have found friends that don’t turn their backs. We have found people that supported us when we needed it. We have found a great community that will be there no matter what. And we have found a purpose.
Trust me: never in my life did I think I would be one of “those people” who say “my life was spiraling out of control and then I found God.”
It has been an amazing ride!
OMG – That post wasn’t suppose to go here! I’m a dweeb. It was in response to a question here:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/04/convert_stories.html
I linked to this post from that post and confused myself!