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....