In repsonse to the Supreme Court's (Leaked) Draft Decision on Abortion

Written May 3, 2022, following the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion regarding Roe V Wade reversal: 

TW: "Infant supply,"  foster care, infant relinquishment, abortion

Lots of chatter about the "Domestic Infant Supply," recently....well, let me rephrase that. Lot's of chatter outside the adoption community happening now. Adoptees, birth parents, and yes, even adoptive parents, agencies, and governments have been aware of and discussing the "Domestic Infant Supply" for decades. Actually, nearly a century. This is not new information. Thanks for finally wading in, albeit, the shallows of the conversation. We still appreciate your passing interest. Thanks for reading this primmer on what is meant by "Domestic Infant Supply" because not everyone realizes all the nuances, history, and personal impact.

I've lived them.

Over the past week, I've seen several befuddled online commenters mulling over this issue of the "domestic supply of infants," as cited in the Justices' draft decision on the fate of Roe V Wade. Most of these conversational passers-by are scratching their heads since they know so little about the mechanics of adoption. The one thing they do know is many children are in foster care right now. The following primmer may seem harsh as I am using the same economic terms as the justices, by way of the CDC, felt comfortable using in their draft decision. But let me first explain from my perspective as an adoptee outside of what is defined as the "supply."

Let me illuminate. Babies labeled with disabilities, kids who entered foster care later, and black babies and children of color are apparently not considered as part of the supreme court's definition of the "supply," even though there is, as everyone knows, a surplus of these kids. They instead go into and often remain in foster care for years. In agency materials, infant adoptees are literally priced as "depending on desirability" and the less " desirable" cost less and take longer to find an adoptive home, if found at all. When the Supreme Court refers to the domestic infant supply" they are referring to the [mainly] white, able-bodied domestic supply of infants and lamenting that it is drying up because single women are choosing [the medically safer and less mentally scarring] route of abortion. The majority opinion of the court, the conservative justices, think this must stop and that women should be required by law to remain pregnant against their will, regardless of circumstance or a woman's preferenc and right to privacy and autonomy.

We know this ruling is largely about the industry of adoption because of the terms used, "domestic supply of infants," and also because most Christian fundamentalists and far-right conservatives think single mothers choosing to keep and parent their children in single-parent households is an abomination and is the root cause of our society's, ills. It is well known among adoption reform advocates that workers pressure single women to relinquish their child for adoption at so called "birthing centers" before they have even given birth by emphasizing the importance of "Gods plan" of a dual parent, [meaning man and a woman, make no mistake] household. Clearly the Supreme Court thinks all women need to carry their babies to term, risking their own [maternal] mortality, all so other people can have more "supply" to choose from. It must be noted that the members of the Supreme Court know full well that red states will outlaw abortion, and that these states are the ones with the highest rates of maternal mortality. Still they decry, "How dare they not carry to term when others are wanting, waiting for babies!" Some of these states have already passed trigger legislation that outlaws abortion immediately or 30 days after the Supreme Court passes this authority to the states. So if the Supreme Court issues it's decision in June, as expected, abortion will be illegal and women can be arrested for the offense as early as this month. 

As an adoptee with known disabilities in infancy, I was adopted into a chaotic dysfunctional adoptive home after spending 3 years in foster care. I can say, this Supreme Court opinion was not referring to children like me. Because of mild CP, a mental retardation diagnosis, and vision issues I was on the bargain basement sale rack. My parents were actually paid to take me, not the other way around. So there are kids available, there is a supply, just not the desired, fought after ones. The justices want more of the "desirable inventory"  available for prospective adoptive parents shopping the market to choose from. They decry the lack of untethered babies available to waiting couples. The disabled babies and older children aren't what their crowd and the for-profit agencies, are after, because they are not what sells. The other half of the equation of supply is demand, after all.

I am a burden, not an asset and the circumstances around my adoption's finances only prove it so. My parents were paid to take me, not the other way around. I am a drain and not a commodity. The many thousands of those in foster care do not factor into this court's decision. We are the born, but the unseen. 

More in this topic as things develop.... 

Uvalde, Texas' Children & Families Deserved Better

May 24, 2022

I should feel nothing but pure joy today. Instead my heart hurts.

No doubt you have heard the events of yesterday's shooting in Uvalde, TX. Twenty-one dead as I write this, just a little passed midnight. Nineteen of them children. The news came to me while I was at my son's high school graduation in Central Texas. Imagine my horror when I momentarily turned my attention during the graduation to my phone to post a photo to my Instagram and I see the horrific news. I still had most of the graduation to get through. I didn't tell my husband and daughter who were sitting right beside me because I didn't want to tarnish the memory of what should be our celebratory day with yet another tragedy - a luxury I feel guilty about now and a feat that has become harder and harder everyday for all parents - to pretend everything is just fine as we careen toward an uncertain future for us and especially for our children. 

The Sandy Hook shooting happened when he was still in elementary school - just 8 years old at the time. His entire school career has been overshadowed by the threat of gun violence in his school, like children all across America. There have been so many shootings in Texas and across the nation during his growing up years, not to mention the incessant active shooter drills at all levels of his schooling, kindergarten through 12th grade. How can this not be impacting our kids. Yes, "children are resilient,"  but not this resilient. Just look at the mental health statistics in this country. Yes, "children are resilient,"  but not if they are dead. Though we as a culture are desensitized, this is not normal. Not one bit of it.

As a parent I am heartbroken that my children have been traumatized in this way, at their schools and in other public places. As a constituent, I am outraged. Republicans have been in complete control of statewide political leadership in Texas for 30 years. The gun lobby is still permitted to funnel billions into our elections, essentially buying legislators, overriding public opinion. Our daily reality is a direct result of their political will. Enough with the thoughts and prayers followed by the loosening of gun laws each and every legislative session. Enough. 

As my son heads off to college, instead of breathing a sigh of relief that the threat of public school shootings is behind us, my worry continues. In 2021 Texas GOP lawmakers fought for and won a victory, a law that prohibits Texas public universities from banning guns from their campuses. Yes, you read that right. When concealed carry laws passed the legislature, Texas universities tried to institute sensible gun restrictions on campuses, but the Texas legislature, Lt Governor, and Govenor pushed back and passed a law that forbade state universities from instituting any sensible gun restrictions on campus. They also lowered the age for gun purchasing to 18. Yesterday's shooter was 18.

My heart hurts today. 

My heart hurts beyond measure for the parents of all those kids who will not have a graduation for their child like I've had for mine. Even if our day was marred by bloodshed, at least we had our day. My son got to walk. We, his family, got to see him cross the stage and hold dreams for his future, something I don't take for granted, not since December 12, 2014* and every day since. I hope legislators who believe in sensible gun reform are elected this November. I hope everyone gets out to vote. Our children's lives depend on it...literally. 

* Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. https://g.co/kgs/XfB3y4.

Copyright 2022 Marci Purcell. All rights reserved. This content is only to be printed in its entirety with express consent from the author or with proper citation given. 

A Reckless Message

Because of DNA and social media, the true gamechangers in our 21st century society, it is reckless and irresponsible for anyone, or any state for that matter, to even imply that someone could remain anonymous. Sending the message that lifelong anonymity is a reality for anyone in today's world is akin to a cruel joke, at this juncture. By continuing the practice of barring adoptees from their information in the guise of birth parent protection, the state wrongly sends the message that it has the ability to keep someone's identity anonymous. This could not be further from the truth. The state has never really had this ability or authority, and certainly cannot with the advent of these prolific game changers.

With 20 million DNA kits sold, all domestically born adoptees have to do is test with one of several DNA companies to be connected to biological family. If the test is financially out of reach, joining a fb high school reunion group from their year and town of birth is often all that is needed to find biological family. The need for these public searches is reduced in states that pass access legislation, replacing it with a much more private phone call or email, which avoids the need to contact high school friends and cousins, as is happening now. So, counter to what the few remaining dissenters argue, in the real world we live in, sealed records jeopardizes privacy, whereas access provides a more private path for those searching. Good government is about passing laws for the actual society we currently live in, not pandering to fictuous myths of a bygone era. We live in a new century requiring new laws.

Senator Campbell's testimony on SB 713

Can You Imagine...?

Can you imagine a contract that:

-two parties enter into that is used to justify barring a third person (party) from knowing anything about their history, ethnicity or genealogy without that third party's consent or foreknowledge, though, in fact, legally it does not?

-This contract is signed by the first two parties without the consent of the third party - the actual person losing access to their own personal, most basic information.

-The third party, the one resulting in being barred, is unaware of said contract, or its signing at the time of its execution.

-The contract is interpreted as barring them, the third party from their own personal information for life, although this is not actually what's in the contract.

-The third person (party) has committed no crimes. And that same third person is not allowed to even view the specific contract that they are being bound by for life.

When the third party questions the validity of the contract they are bound by, but never agreed to, they are sometimes shunned and humiliated by those close to them, misinformed strangers, and also by privileged persons in positions of power. The barred individual's motives are questioned. They are told to be grateful that the contract exists.  

The terms of the contract, as mistakenly interpreted by others, extend until death.

*often one or both of the two signing parties do not fully understand the scope, full intent, or implications of the contract at the time of its signing. The third party, when later notified of the existing signed contract and its implied and actual terms, is keenly aware of all its implications through lifelong exposure to discrimination and all that that experience includes.

You can't make this stuff up.
#ThisIsUs #adopteevoices #HumanRightsViolations

Adoptees Always Needed to Represent at the Capitol

I've gotten to know the Capitol fairly well, and in my travels through its halls I meet mostly supporters of OBC access. I think it is fairly accurate to say we have "overwhelming support" in the Capitol. Young people, people who respect personal autonomy, and those who are for honesty in government are especially supportive. However, I still meet a few who "do not see the need." That is personally why I go. To be seen. And heard. As I am no longer a child.

What opponents say to me as an adult adoptee regarding my rights to my information:

Nothing.

They say nothing.

Nothing that acknowledges that I am a voting, autonomous adult. They refer to me as "the adopted child," if they refer to me at all. I am unseen in the equation. I did not pay money to sit at the adoption table. I did not empower someone else to become a parent. I have no signature on a contract. I am to remain silent and be grateful that it "all worked out for the best," and ask no further questions.

They say nothing about our lack of family medical history, or that the state-created, current systems are inadequate and daunting. They say nothing about how not only do we not have our family medical history, but neither do our offspring. Our children are burdened as we are with inadequate information to provide to doctors.

They refuse to speak to my anxiety as a dating person, not knowing who I am related to in my community and whether I am dating a cousin....or closer. They find no problem with the law excluding me from an accurate or often ANY ethnicity information. Who am I really? They don't care that I want to know, that I need to know.

They say nothing to me. The adoptee. The perpetual child.

Birth parents need to testify because people are speaking for them. Adoptive parents need to testify because the assumption is they don't support. In the case of adoptees, no one is even bothering to speak for us....we are not even part of the narrative. Opponents are not even bothering to co-opt our voice on this issue. We are children. We are not to challenge the system. According to our opponents, any and all information can only come to us from the parents, no matter how old we are. Our birth certificate is not for us, not to be handled by us without special, whimsical permission, which my or may not be granted.

The few opponents will be there each session, and their dismissal of us-of adult adoptees, will be seen by those who are in support. This is perhaps one of the most powerful aspects of showing up. To see who is moved by our stories and who is not, and for others to see that, too. If you support, come lend your voice next session.

IN RESPONSE TO KWAME ANTHONY APPIAH

I posted this comment to the Jan. 24, 2018 NYT column by The Ethicist entitled, What if I Don’t Want to See the Child I Gave Up for Adoption?, By Kwame Anthony Appiah

Please remember, adoptees grow up to be tax paying, voting, adult citizens. We do not remain children. The "Ethicist's" casual dismissal of the need for family medical history would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that right now, in the present, adults and children alike, are searching for answers to rare genetic diseases, answers that they find when they gain access to their origin info. Vague mention of a someday when the genome is decoded is hardly an acceptable, well thought-out response.


Also, saying "some adopted children are curious" is like a slap in the face. THE MAJORITY OF HUMANITY IS CURIOUS. The non-adopted just have their answers readily available to them and so they don't give it a second thought. Even with the wealth of information available to most non-adopted, Ancestry, Family Tree DNA, 23&Me shows its latest numbers in the multimillions of people testing. Adoptees are only 2% of the population so it isn't adoptees buying up all those testing kits, right? Its everyone! Why? To find out all they can about themselves.


Please quit talking about adoptees as perpetual children and making them out to be some kind of freaks for wanting their origin information. It is normal and natural to want to know your beginnings and can be traumatizing living a life without this information. We are not asking for much. Just what everyone else has....and takes for granted. Next time, please do a little more research, "Ethicist." As a discerning reader of the NYT, I expect something a lot more fair and balanced than this pat, predictable, simplistic answer.