Angela Tucker is a young black woman, domestically adopted in a white family and the subject of the acclaimed documentary Closure (http://closuredocumentary.com) (2013). The film is a riveting, moving and joyous account of her reunion with her birthfather first, her mother later and then her extended family. In the process Angela became the writer of an interesting blog on adoption: The Adopted Life.
One of Tucker’s last pieces poses an essential question about international adoption: ‘Is Adopting From Third World Countries Necessary?’ (http://theadoptedlife.com/...). She describes an organization in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, which changed its focus from adoption to welfare, to family planning and prenatal care, to support for women in labor, to post-partem needs and infant development care. Heartline Ministries, as the organization is called, shows that poor mothers in difficult situations are able, with some help, to safely give birth and to raise their children. Of the 350 women they helped only one gave her child up for adoption. Tucker ends her piece with the question: ‘What if we worked towards establishing more services like Heartline instead of more adoption agencies in […] areas [like Haiti]?’
Angela Tucker suggests that child welfare should be the core mission of international humanitarian social work, welfare seen as support for mothers in developing countries, as support to keep children in their families, extended families or at least in their communities. International adoption should be second choice, ‘a beautiful second choice solution to meet an unfortunate yet very necessary need.’
I imagine that many supporters of a in 2013 proposed law on international child welfare ‘Children in Families First’ sympathize with Angela Tucker’s assessment. This law, in short CHIFF, is aiming to help vulnerable children all over the world by ‘building international capacity to implement effective child welfare systems, with particular focus on family preservation and reunification, and kinship, domestic, and intercountry adoption.’ In words on paper that looks indeed great and close to Tucker’s ideas. However, elsewhere I have calculated that the budgets attached to this proposal will not be at all sufficient to set up such systems and will in fact give free rein to the second, less preferred option of international adoption (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...). Some critics interpret the bill even as just a mock up for the interests of the adoption industry, which saw over the last years a stark decrease number of adoptions and needs to survive more ‘supply’ (https://www.facebook.com/...).
The proposal for CHIFF is lauded by many political players and pundits, because it is ‘bipartisan’. Introduced by Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) in 2013 it got the support of Senators like right winger James Inhofe (R-OK) and left leaning Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and of Representatives like ‘Tea Party Favorite’ Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Congressional Progressive Caucus Member Jim McGovern (D-MA). There is however not one social issue in US politics where one can detect any bipartisanship: why would international child welfare be the only one? Well, it is not really, outside of the political world of mirror illusions.
First of all the celebrated togetherness is very limited: 17 Senators of 100 and 41 of 441 Representatives supported CHIFF since last September. Not a big hit that is. And there is hardly a chance that the legislation will ever reach a vote. The organization behind CHIFF (http://childreninfamiliesfirst.org) must be aware of the lack of success, since it seems allergic for criticism and sanitizes its Facebook site and Twitter hashtag #CHIFFforkids. I for one am on their FB black list and will not be able to post this piece.
The bipartisanship of CHIFF is based on a very superficial reading of the bill and it cannot hold if and when the bill gets any traction. Angela Tucker writes about Heartline Ministries: “[T]hey reorganized their mission and began teaching about family planning and birth control – offering free Depo-Provera [injected long lasting contraceptive]”. I am sure CHIFF sponsor Kristen Gillbrand (D-NY) would support funding contraception in the law. As would future presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren. But what is bill-introducer Roy Blunt going to do? The Roy Blunt of the ‘Blunt Amendment’ to the Highway Appropriations Bill (sic) that would have allowed any employer with moral objections to opt out of the obligatory birth control coverage in Obamacare?
And what about the recent CHIFF sponsor and ‘extreme personhood’ supporter Alan Nunnenlee (R-MS), who writes on his website: ‘Americans have certain inalienable rights; among them is the right to life. It is a national tragedy that in the 40 years since Roe v Wade, over 50 million Americans have been denied that right. I am a strong defender of the unborn because I believe that the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable and every life is sacred. I have voted to defund Planned Parenthood, cosponsored the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act and the Protect Life Act, which would ban federal funding of abortion.’ Counts extreme personhood also in international welfare?
Or Diane Black (R-TN) who proudly echoes Nunnelee’s statement on her website: ‘I will not rest until we put a stop to Planned Parenthood’s blatant abuse of taxpayer dollars to subsidize its big abortion business.’
And if birth control will not be the breaking point for this bipartisan coalition then will marriage equality and gay/lesbian adoption do the trick. How will these issues play out? Will the GLBT community be excluded in this law? James Inhofe (R-IL) who infamously campaigned in 1994 with the slogan ‘God, guns and gays’ and since then stayed the homophobic course, will definitely try, I am afraid. As will Roy Blunt, who supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. It will be hard to find, if at all, amongst the republican CHIFF supporters a pro gay marriage senator or representative, let alone a pro gay adoption candidate.
When push comes to shove this unholy bipartisan coalition will fall apart. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and so many other democratic supporters would estrange their voters if they would stay put. And, as said, future presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren can’t have in her 2018 campaign this in essence social conservative albatross around her neck.
The CHIFF legislation will politically slowly die or is already dead. But what this proposed CHIFF legislation and the criticism on it could result in at this point in time is a serious conversation about America’s role in international child welfare and the place of adoption therein. Until now the discussion was dominated by politicians, bureaucrats, the adoption industry and adoptive parents. Angela Tucker’s piece shows how important the voices of adoptees are in this discourse. So Senator Landrieu and - if he still wants - Senator Blunt reach out to her and other adoptees and just start anew.