The abortion debate used to be so simple. You were either pro-life, or pro-choice. Maybe you were a little conflicted, but you typically fell into one of two solid camps. When the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act (H.R. 3312) was coming together, there was a lot of bargaining and negotiating from both pro-choice and pro-life representatives. The legislation, which was introduced on Thursday, covers a lot of bases: “To provide for programs that reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, help women bear healthy children, and support new parents.”
It’s interesting that everyone is agreeing on the desire to reduce the need for abortion. Even the National Abortion Federation, a professional association of abortion service providers, issued a statement in support of the bill. And of course, whenever there’s talk about reducing abortion, the subject of adoption comes up as a possible alternative. Most of the media coverage I’ve seen about the bill focuses on the mish-mash of pro-life and pro-choice agendas and the way both sides have worked together to craft this thing. Check out the article Slate.com published summarizing how the bill came together and the reactions of various groups.
When I dug into the bill itself, I found that part of the bill includes funding a national campaign to educate the public about adoption, and it makes resources available to prospective and current adoptive parents, including a $5,000 increase in the tax credit.
Nonprofit organizations are eligible for $30,000 in grants if they meet a list of criteria, which among other things requires that:
- The organization must be research-based.
- It must dispel "negative stereotypes" while "promoting accurate, comprehensive positive information and messages about adoption, including foster care adoption.”
In the details about how to apply for the grant, one of the requirements is "A description of the positive messages for the proposed public information campaign." Uh, back up a second. It has to be research-based and comprehensive, but only talk about the positive part of adoption? How can a topic as complex and deeply emotional as adoption be represented comprehensively by focusing on only the positive aspects of it? It concerns me that there’s so much fear about the challenges in adoption that they have to purposely be minimized and silenced lest people choose abortion instead.
I’m all for re-educating and dispelling stereotypes. But if we’re going to get beyond stereotypes to the complicated and crazily beautiful part of adoption, we have to get real. Promoting adoption as all butterflies and rainbows isn’t real. Why do we need to paint over the many facets of adoption by declaring that we’ll only send out positive messages?
Photo courtesy of stock.xchng
I'm with you, sister.
ReplyDeleteI think sometimes good writers can give credence to the depth of issues, including those often-painful aspects of adoption, when they seek to show the whole picture, while seeming to come out positive when focusing on hope for the future. I find that hope works well with readers. Think you will apply for the grant?
That's a good point about the writing, Liberty. Thanks for that perspective.
ReplyDeleteThree Roots isn't an official nonprofit so I hadn't thought about the grant...although now you got me thinking about getting Three Roots set up as a nonprofit.