First-in-USA Adoption Bills Signed in Idaho

Three “Pro Adoption” Bills S1308, S1368, and S1309 Passed the State Legislature;
Signed into Law by Idaho Governor Brad Little

BOISE, IDAHO, April 19, 2024 –– Today, less than 1% of American women facing an unplanned pregnancy make an adoption plan. This surprising statistic underlines the need for legislation to dispel the myths surrounding adoption, raise awareness about open adoption, and make it easier for women facing unplanned pregnancy to choose adoption.  

Three bills were developed by UnplannedGood.org to support future birth mothers, educate minors and young adults, and decrease costs for future adoptive parents. Bills S1308, S1368, and S1309 start an important conversation. 

Bill S1308 provides education on adoption to students from middle school through university regarding their potential future options. 
"Wherever and whenever contraception is discussed or dispensed, or both, or sexually transmitted diseases or sexually transmitted infections are discussed or tested for, or both" ... then, students will be educated on current adoption practices, resources, and the Safe Haven Act option. This will apply to students from middle school through University. Future generations will learn about adoption before the crisis, and will have more complete information about ALL their options.  

Bill S1368 protects future birth mothers from unlicensed out-of-state adoption facilitators, providing a safeguard against unethical practices. 
This new law ensures that unlicensed adoption facilitators from out-of-state will no longer be able to advertise in Idaho or match birth mothers with adoptive parents. This was needed because such facilitators take most of the adoptive parents' budget and don't provide the other services needed to finalize the adoption or to care for the birth mother. Plus, these intermediaries were operating without any kind of oversight. With this bill, people arranging adoptions must be licensed professionals, either agencies or attorneys.

Bill S1309 assists future adoptive parents and birth mothers by eliminating the financial limits placed on birth mother expenses at the state level.            
Removing the expense cap makes it easier to cover a birth mother’s expenses (with less delay and less hassle) while decreasing the overall cost of adoption by lessening the administrative burdens. This also removes the incentive for placing babies in any of the other 40 states that have already eliminated their caps on birth mother expenses, thus keeping Idaho babies in Idaho.

These bills were drafted and advanced  by Unplanned Good Inc., a national non-profit organization.  Most (or all!) of the adoption legislation in this country benefits the adoptive parents; we at Unplanned Good believe this is the first legislative effort done with the birth parents in mind.

We are thrilled about these bills, and believe they will have significant impact.

#  #  #

The Mission of Unplanned Good Inc.  

All too often, young women face unplanned pregnancies. When they do, they typically see only two choices: to become parents, often in their teens, or to terminate their pregnancies. It’s rare that they consider the alternative path – seeing the pregnancy through to delivery and placing the baby for adoption.

The mission of our organization is to promote adoption as a viable, reasonable option for those dealing with unplanned pregnancies, such that the result is good for all involved.

For more information, see UnplannedGood.org

To support our work, go to UnplannedGood.org/donate

PART THREE OF THREE: THE GEM BEHIND DOOR # THREE: ADOPTION

INTRO 

Each year, almost three million American women face an unplanned pregnancy. When a pregnancy is unwanted, and the woman is not ready, willing or able to parent, that is a dilemma with no perfect solution.

The obvious options for one facing an unplanned pregnancy are abortion, parenting and adoption, but few among us know much about the pros and cons of those three options. Let’s explore that third option. Making an adoption plan.

Adoption Practices of the Past

What most people know today about adoption is based on preconceptions rooted in the past. Before the 1990s, most US adoptions were ‘closed’: the woman who gave birth was not allowed any information about the adoptive family. She was not permitted to have any ongoing relationship with her child, and vice versa. In many cases, the adoption and the very existence of this new person were carefully guarded secrets, and all involved shared an unspoken pact never mention it again.

Some adoptions were closed as a way to protect the privacy of the birth mother, as well as the birth father and their families. Closed adoption meant no fear that the child could someday find them and ask questions or interfere with their lives.

In those days of closed adoption, the decision to place or to parent typically was not made by the pregnant woman herself: She was often forced into choosing adoption by her own parents who didn’t want the embarrassment. “What would the neighbors say?” The pregnant girl was sent far away to live with a distant relative until the baby was delivered and “given up.” Then things could return to “normal.”

Sometimes a closed adoption was the preference of the couple adopting because they wanted to pretend that the child was theirs from conception onward. The adopted child was often not told that they were adopted. He or she grew up assuming—or being told—that their story was no different than any other child born to any other couple. But the adopted child knows that something is off. It’s just hard to pinpoint exactly what. Since families are not good at keeping secrets, the adoptee would usually learn the truth eventually. With that revelation comes a tidal wave of feelings of betrayal: “My whole life has been a lie!” “My parents did this to me??”  

Secrecy was the hallmark of closed adoptions. And secrets are nearly impossible to keep.

Whether the closed aspect of the adoption was the will of the birth family or the adoptive family, it was a path often chosen out of fear—a fear that being honest would somehow result in rejection, shame, confusion or disapproval. For a myriad of reasons, the adopted child’s true story was buried and replaced with a carefully crafted tale.  

As a result:
1. The woman who placed her baby was never able to grieve. Imagine going through the trauma of parting with your child and never being able to talk it out, receive needed help, or heal. She was not able to know the next chapter in her baby’s life or to stay in touch and see how her baby fared in the new family she made possible. Nor did that new family even acknowledge her—or the gift she gave them.

The story just ended, abruptly and without any closure.

2. Many adopted children  eventually feel a desire to find and connect with the birth parents. All children want to know where they came from. It is an innate curiosity that causes children to want to know their story. For many, some milestone in their lives sparks the search. It might be their wedding, the birth of their first child, or the marriage of a child. Many search and wonder for years; many never find any results or closure. Many adoptees only find their birth parents after a great deal of research and effort. That long and painful search is a by-product of closed adoptions.

The search often leads them to sealed adoption records. Each state has different laws about opening these records. Recently, several states have chosen to “unseal” records. Other states do not allow adoption records to be unsealed and released. Sometimes the records are forever lost—destroyed in fires or moves. In these cases, the curious adoptee is left with many unanswered questions that can be painful for the rest of his/her life.

That is trauma layered on top of trauma. It’s no wonder that adoption horror stories abound.

We have come a long way since then.

We now know the harm that was caused by the practice of forced, closed, secret adoptions. Thank God those days are gone! Adoption has successfully evolved into something entirely different today.

A massive shift has taken place. The practice of adoption has completely flipped -- from the closed adoptions of the 1950s, 60s and 70s to the almost entirely open adoptions of today. If there is such a thing as a “typical” infant adoption scenario in the US today, that new norm nationwide is called open adoption.  

What does open adoption really mean?

It is actually a continuum of openness: Each family navigates the waters until they find the balance of contact and distance that works for them. Visits and privacy are a tradeoff, and geographical distance between the parties will require more work and planning to stay connected. Some want more contact, gathering regularly to celebrate holidays in person. Others are satisfied to exchange letters, photos, or social media posts.

At the core of open adoption is a world of possibilities. There are an infinite number of ways to structure any ongoing relationship. And adoption is no different. A continuum of options are possible. And when a family structures these new relationships in the way that works for all, inside the limits of their comfort zone, they know it. They can feel it.
Open adoption means ‘possibility’…

• For the Birth Parents

Open adoption means peace of mind. The birthparents can rest assured, knowing that their child is thriving with parents who overcame many hurdles before welcoming their new child into the family. Ideally, the transparency and openness of the adoption allows the birth parents to stay informed about the child’s progress. It often includes ongoing communication between the birth family and the adoptive family. In some cases, this is worked out gradually and informally. If both the birth parent and the adoptive family want an increased level of contact and visits, they can arrange that. In other cases, adoption agencies actually require a set schedule for birth family visits to be included in the adoption contract. Sometimes there are negative experiences when the birth family and adoptive family have different expectations and cannot find a compromise. Open adoption works best with open communication. 

• For the Adoptee

Open adoption means that the child’s questions are answered.  

The child will first ask, “Why did my mom choose adoption for me?” The reasons for that choice are as different as each woman who places her child, but the theme running through those stories is that the birthmother was not able to parent at that time in her life, and she loved her child so much that she wanted the best for him or her. She chose to place the child’s best interests above her own. It’s a brave and selfless act of pure love. Learning that the decision was extremely difficult and made from a place of love is very reassuring for a child.

• For the Adoptive Parents

Open adoption means information.

Some adoptive parents are lucky enough to share the last few months of the pregnancy with the birth parents—they get to know them and gather some insight into their stories. They can also access genetic and medical information to best care for their child in the future. They will be able to provide doctors with fuller history so they can then choose the right course of treatment. It’s also possible to gather and preserve cord blood at the birth.[1] It’s also helpful to know ancestral histories of various medical and genetic conditions and proclivities, such as alcoholism, asthma, arthritis, diabetes, heart conditions, and certain types of cancer. All of that can be very helpful. 

There is no ideal level of openness. As with any ongoing relationship, work and communication are required in order to strike the balance that works well for the adoptive family and the birth parents.  

The basic idea underlying open adoption today is transparency. In most cases today, children are aware of their background stories. They know they were adopted and why they were adopted. Their birth mother chose adoption at a time in her life when she felt she could not parent; she was not ready, willing, or able (perhaps all three) to parent well. So, she made the very difficult decision to go forward with her pregnancy, then thoughtfully chose parents for her baby, and then intentionally placed her child with them. The reward for making that huge sacrifice is knowing that she has helped to create a family, and being able to watch her child grow up, maybe even be treated like a member of the family.

Even when a woman doesn’t face pressure to place her child and the adoption is 100% her decision, it’s still quite challenging. Most birth mothers describe adoption as the most excruciating, difficult decision they have ever made, but one that they knew, with all their heart, was right.

These women go on to describe the rewards of seeing their baby raised in a happy, stable family. The ability to stay in touch and remain a part of the child’s life is one of the key benefits of open adoption. Observing the child’s upbringing is also a large part of the healing process for birth parents. After a necessary initial grieving period, the visits and other forms of communication can be helpful to both the birth mother and birth father, knowing that their child is well-loved.

In addition to providing transparency, another pillar of open adoption is ongoing communication. The open relationship makes this possible, but whether or not all parties opt to communicate regularly is up to those involved. This usually evolves over time. Some need distance in the first few years after the birth; some bond quickly and become a new extended family sooner. There are many possible scenarios, and there’s no “right” way to do this. Each open adoption is as unique as the humans that comprise it.

The bottom line is open adoption offers options. It offers connection. It offers answers. The people involved can forge the path and set the new traditions that work for them because everything is possible. Staying in touch is possible. Communication is possible. Loving relationships are possible. 

And in this world, who would turn down one more person to love them? And one more person to love?    
 

Summary

Current US culture presents two choices for women with unintended pregnancies with two choices and paints an unrealistic picture of both:  abortion as a safe, quick, painless answer, and (often single) parenting as a glamorous, empowering adventure. Then we dupe women into believing this mirage of “solutions” by withholding the rest of the story.

But there is another choice.

More widespread education about open adoption is needed to enlighten the public so they can better advise, assist, and advocate for open adoption. Understanding the upsides of adoption done well, and openly is key.  It has changed drastically in the last three decades and is a much healthier practice today. Understanding the downsides of both abortion and single parenting is another piece of the unplanned pregnancy puzzle.

The women and men who choose adoption for their babies do so out of a powerful love. They do work through the difficult times and often emerge stronger on the other side, proud of themselves and ready to embark on life’s next journey. Often the birth parents are happy that their child is being raised by people who are ready, willing, and able to parent well. And, they are often quite happy to become a part of the family they’ve helped create.

[1] Scientists believe that these cells may play a role in healing several diseases, including cancer. The cord blood in the umbilical cord and placenta can be collected at birth and placed in storage.

PART TWO OF THREE: THE HARSH REALITIES OF SINGLE PARENTING

INTRO 

Each year almost three million US women face unplanned pregnancy. Most believe their decision is between abortion and parenting. And most are single.

Solo Parenting

There’s a marked increase in the number of people taking on single parent roles. The growing number of women having children outside of marriage has been climbing over the last 50-60 years. In 1960 only 5% of mothers were unmarried, and in 2015, that rate was 41%. That’s an increase of over 800%. As a result, many more children are living with solo parents. On average, 6.8% of children around the world under the age of 18 live in a single-parent household. But in the US, that number is 23%. A recent 2019 Pew Research Center study of 130 countries and territories shows that the U.S. has the world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households.[1]

And the rise in births to unmarried women is celebrated.

The stigma surrounding single motherhood used to discourage women from choosing that option.[2] The message from Hollywood is that single moms are the personification of female liberation and independence. Article after article inspires awe for the woman who triumphs as a single mom, from Parenting Magazine[3] to Ranker.com.[4]

Bucking the trend, popular magazine Evie published “The Celebrity Lie Of Single-Mom Life As Glamorous And Empowering” in May 2021. In that article, Lisa Britton described “. . . numerous starlets [are] flaunting their solo-motherhood lifestyles on Instagram, making things seem glamorous and easy,”[5] while avoiding posting anything negative about their situations. Hollywood is framing solo motherhood as a form of female empowerment. One woman boasts on social media: “Week 2 of solo parenting and you can pretty much call me superwoman now, LOL. . . .”[6]  

____________________________________________________________________________

Hollywood is framing solo motherhood as a form of female empowerment.
___________________________________________________________________________ 

When Hollywood refers to single parenting as ‘glamourous’ or ‘fun’, they are speaking mainly about wealthy, slightly older women with established, successful careers. Of course, Angelina Jolie and Sandra Bullock can do it! But that’s very different from the teen who chooses to parent without a partner, without an education, and without a career.  

Now for a dose of reality.

More Children are Living with a Solo Mother

Once largely limited to poor women and minorities, single motherhood is now becoming a new “norm.” This is due in part to the growing trend of children born outside marriage—a societal development that was virtually unheard of just a few decades ago. And more than 80 percent of single-parent families are headed by single mothers. Those single mother households are far more likely be low income and food insecure[7] and nearly a third live in poverty.

In an effort to highlight this growing problem in America, then-Senator Barack Obama drove the point home in his June 2008 Father’s Day speech in Chicago when he said:

“Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it.

But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are, is missing—missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.

You and I know how true this is in the African American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled—doubled—since we were children. We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are:
- Five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime;
- Nine times more likely to drop out of schools;
- Twenty times more likely to end up in prison.
They are more likely to have behavioral problems or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.” [8]

The American family is changing in many ways: Cohabitation is on the rise,[9] more adults are delaying or foregoing marriage, and a growing share of children are living with an unmarried parent.[10]  In the U.S., about one-in-five children overall (21%) are living with a solo mother, up from 12% in 1968.[11]

The Reality of Single-Mother Households   

Single-mother households are far more likely to be poor than married-couple households. That is the reality. The poverty rate for single-mother families in 2018 was 34%, more than five times higher than the rate for married-couple families, which was only 6%.[12] Nearly three-in-five (58 percent) of all poor children lived in families headed by unmarried mothers. And one-in-three single moms spend over 50% of their income on housing, while 27% struggle to afford shelter. Forty percent of single moms in the U.S. have jobs that provide low wages and no paid leave. Almost one-third of single-mother families are food insecure.[13] Two out of three single moms receive reduced price or free meals. Among the homeless families in America, more than 80%[14] were headed by single women with children.  

It’s a grim picture of a hard life. Yet, it’s reality for those who don’t have the resources of someone like Angelina Jolie or Sandra Bullock.  

The Effect on the Children 

Parents who get and stay married tend to be different in many other important respects from single parents—including having more time, education, and income—and it may be these differences that lie behind the gaps in their children’s success, rather than the fact of marriage itself.

It’s not only the adults who pay the price of single parenting.  The Brookings Institute research shows that family structure plays a big role in the success of children at various stages of life, as evidenced by their data. Children at every age have a greater chance of success in a home where the mother is married, and a lesser chance of success in homes of never-married mothers. Children raised by married parents typically do better in life on almost every measure.[15]

In the United States, 24.7 million children live in a home where their biological father is not present. That equates to one in every three children in America.[16] According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 85% of children who exhibit some type of behavioral disorder come from a fatherless home, as do 90% of youth who decide to run away from home.[17] In addition, 75% of the long-term correctional facility inmates are from father-absent households.[18] 

Boys from Fatherless Homes
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 93% of our prison inmates are male[19] and more than half[20] of the youth in prison grew up without their father. Children who live in a single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to die from suicide.[21] 

In his article, “Why Young Men Become Shooters,” Park MacDougald writes, “Whatever the nominal motivations behind them, rampage shootings are nearly always a product of wounded masculinity.”[22] He quotes Ralph Larkin, a criminologist at John Jay College who has studied mass shootings for decades: “They are the most masculine of crimes.”[23] Warren Farrell, author and chair of the Coalition to Create a White House Council on Boys and Men, states, “There’s common denominators among mass shooters. The most obvious is that they’re male—98 percent are male.”[24]  

A second common denominator is that they’re almost all dad-deprived males, Farrell continues. “What we think of when we think of mass shootings is the people who are hurt. We don’t realize that all of these people are hurt by boys who are hurt, who are deprived of their dads, who are feeling neglected and depressed.”[25] 

Fathers are an important component in helping young males grow into productive men. 

Girls from Fatherless Homes
Girls need their dads too. Daughters from fatherless homes are four times more likely to get pregnant as teenagers[26] And twice as likely to suffer from obesity.[27] They’re far more likely to struggle with bad relationships, eating disorders, and depression. These glaring statistics paint a dreary, difficult picture of single motherhood for their children. 

As with all our options, there are also downsides to single parenting for the mother. Furthermore, if a woman drops out of school to have and raise a child, the picture is even more bleak. Single parenting is challenging—and even more so if one’s education ends, undermining career and job growth opportunities before they’ve begun. 

Summary: Let’s Be Honest about Single Parenting

One thing is certain: The women who choose to raise a baby on their own, thinking it will be glamourous and ‘fun’ to have baby at home, are starting on a long, arduous road. There may or may not be extended family support. There may or may not be a steady income for life’s necessities. Almost all will find that life as a single mom is an unimaginable amount of hard work -- exhausting and expensive. 

Most women find a way to make it work, mustering more strength and resolve than they ever knew they possessed. (We are resourceful that way!) Many will beat the odds, rise to the challenge, and become some of the best mothers ever. It is doable, just not glamourous or fun.  

The child, too, faces an uphill struggle, but not of his or her own making. Through no fault of his own, the child begins life with disadvantages to overcome, just by the nature of the family structure. The solo parent household cannot offer all the benefits and advantages that a two-parent household can offer. That’s the harsh reality. Two adult parents in the home means there is more of everything to go around – not only money and other resources but also one-on-one time and attention.  

We could not have predicted this massive shift toward single parenting, or the significant disadvantages that would result from it.  The last few decades’ revelations about single parenting and how those children are doing over the long-term are worth consideration.  

When faced with an unplanned pregnancy, many could think that parenting is a noble choice. With complete information, however, we might reconsider. Is it really the best decision for the child? Is it in his best interests? This is one situation where we can get a glimpse into the future and allow that new-found knowledge to affect our choices today, as well as the choices we encourage others to make.

*****

[1] Religion and household makeup around the world | Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/12/12/religion-and-living-arrangements-around-the-world/ 

[2] The ATLANTIC. Why So Many Women Choose Abortion Over Adoption. By Olga Khazan MAY 20, 2019

[3] https://www.parenting.com/pregnancy/celebrity-single-moms/

[4] https://www.ranker.com/list/most-famous-single-moms-in-hollywood/celebrity-lists

[5] The Celebrity Lie Of Single-Mom Life As Glamorous And Empowering | Evie Magazine https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/the-celebrity-lie-of-single-mom-life-as-glamorous-and-empowering

[6] Unnamed Insta feed

[7] IBID.

[8] Then-Senator Barack Obama June 15, 2008, Father’s Day speech, Chicago
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/06/text-of-obamas-fatherhood-speech-011094

[9] The landscape of marriage and cohabitation in the U.S.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/11/06/the-landscape-of-marriage-and-cohabitation-in-the-u-s/

[10] About one-third of U.S. children are living with an unmarried parent | Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/27/about-one-third-of-u-s-children-are-living-with-an-unmarried-parent/

[11] Ibid.

[12] PovertySnapshot2019-2.pdf (nwlc.org) https://nwlc.org/resources/national-snapshot-poverty-among-women-families-2019/

46 Single Mother Statistics (UPDATED 2022) (singlemotherguide.com) https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/

[14] more than 80%  https://bridgeofhopeinc.org/family-homelessness-in-the-united-states/

[15] Read more about both of those effects on kids here: The marriage effect: Money or parenting? (brookings.edu)

[16] https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/06/18/533062607/poverty-dropouts-pregnancy-suicide-what-the-numbers-say-about-fatherless-kids

[17] The Problem — Young Warriors  www.youngwarriors.org/the-problem

[18] IBID

[19] https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp

[20] Survey of Youth in Residential Placement: Youth Characteristics and Backgrounds (ojp.gov) https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250753.pdf

[21] https://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20030123/absent-parent-doubles-child-suicide-risk

[22] https://unherd.com/2022/05/why-young-men-become-shooters/

[23] Ibid. and Larkin, Ralph. Masculinity, School Shooters, and the Control of Violence https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226359341_Masculinity_School_Shooters_and_the_Control_of_Violence

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192513X03255346?journalCode=jfia&  

[27] Ibid.

PART ONE OF THREE: HOW ABORTION HURTS WOMEN

Adapted from the book,
Pro-Choice Pro-Adoption. It’s Time for a Loving, Positive Response to Unplanned Pregnancy  
by Terri Marcroft

 INTRO 

Each year, almost three million American women face an unplanned pregnancy. When a pregnancy is unwanted and those involved are not ready, willing or able to parent, that is a dilemma for which there is no ideal solution.

The obvious options for one facing an unplanned pregnancy are abortion, parenting and adoption, but few among us know much about the pro’s and con’s of those three options. Let’s explore.

HOW ABORTION HURTS WOMEN 

Abortion is presented as a safe, quick, painless answer. And we dupe women into believing that by withholding the rest of the story. During the last fifty years of unfettered abortion access in this country, we’ve learned what abortion does to the female body. We’ve been able to observe and study the side effects over time among large groups. Those findings reveal significant risks to women’s health.  

Yet we don’t hear about the side effects of abortion from those who are selling them. Society tells us that there’s no downside to abortion. That is simply not true.  

Elective abortions can exact an immense physical and emotional toll on women. Most women who undergo abortion procedures are not made aware of the long-term effects, but numerous studies have documented them in three categories—compromised mental health, preterm births, and increased risk of breast cancer. 

Compromised Mental Health
Hundreds of US studies have examined the association between abortion and mental health. The most comprehensive source is the research done by Dr. David C Reardon, Dr. Priscilla Coleman, and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, known as AAPLOG.[1]  

Both pro-life and pro-choice researchers agree that "the abortion experience directly contributes to mental health problems."[2] Large studies done with nationally representative samples and a variety of controls for personal and situational factors indicate abortion significantly increases risk for the following mental health problems: [3]

·        Depression

·        Anxiety

·        Substance abuse

·        Suicide ideation and behavior[4]

Suicide, specifically, is a serious risk, based on the much-studied correlation. Young women, under 18 years old, account for 15–30% of abortions and have a significantly higher suicide rate than their peers: compared with women who delivered, women were 6.5 times more likely to die by suicide during the year after an induced abortion.[5] AAPLOG says that another large study found a 155% increase in suicidal behavior post-abortion.[6]  

“Literally every large scale study of the abortion and mental health link has revealed higher rates of mental illness among women.”[7]
For many women who’ve chosen abortion, reconciling with the decision is a life-long endeavor. Dr. Coleman notes in a 2015 interview that about 50% of women who have abortions do believe that they are “terminating the life of a human being,” and that belief tends to make the aftermath more traumatic. As ultrasound technology improves, we’re able to clearly see the human formation even earlier.  

About 80% of Americans view biologists as the group most qualified to determine when a human’s life begins. A recent survey of 5577 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world showed a consensus: 96% of those experts in biology agree that human life begins at fertilization.[8] That makes it increasingly difficult for a pregnant women to deny that she is carrying a human life, a dissonance which can lead to compromised mental health issues and even PTSD-like trauma. 

The trauma is undeniable.

I saw this firsthand at a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat:  it was attended by 19 women, ranging in age from their 20s to their 80s. It made a lasting impression on me that women in their 70s and 80s sobbed as they shared their stories. They were still grieving their abortions, many decades later. These care programs and support groups give women a place to talk with others and share their experience, process their grief and forgive themselves. With this assistance, post-abortive women can finally get closure, heal and move on with their lives.[9] 

 Preterm Births

Abortion increases the risk of very preterm births—that is babies born between 22 and 26 weeks, at the edge of life—for any future pregnancy.

 As of November 2021, 168 studies have been published on the association between abortion and preterm birth (PTB).[10] These tiny babies require neonatal intensive care support to survive, and many of the 22–24 week-old babies don’t survive. Very premature births of post-abortive women result in over three million infant deaths worldwide each year.

AAPLOG writes on their findings[11]:

-         First trimester induced abortion is one of the top three risk factors for preterm births.

-         Surgical abortions are associated with a “dose effect,” meaning an increased number of abortions confer increasing risk of PTB (because the cervix is weakened with each subsequent procedure).

-         Two or more abortions increase a woman’s risk of future preterm birth by up to 93%, and her risk of VERY preterm birth by more than 200%. 

-         Preterm births can have health risks for a baby. Vital organs have not had enough time to fully develop. Also, preterm birth leads to an increased risk for short and long term complications such as cerebral palsy, impaired vision and/or hearing and impaired cognitive development.

The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (RCOG) acknowledges the association of surgical abortion and PTB, as does the AAPLOG. Despite the evidence presented in these 168 peer-reviewed science-based studies, the largest providers of abortions in the US do not inform patients of the association between surgical abortion and later preterm births. AAPLOG recommends that information about the increased risk of preterm births after surgical abortion should be included in informed consent practices prior to surgical abortion.

 Increased Risk of Breast Cancer

In their Committee Opinion 8: Abortion and Breast Cancer, AAPLOG states:

“The protective effect of a full-term pregnancy on breast cancer risk has been known since the Middle Ages when it was noted that nuns had a higher risk of breast cancer than women with children. Medical authorities agree that a full-term pregnancy lowers a woman’s risk of breast cancer. . . . These facts are not controversial and are acknowledged by all medical organizations.”[12] 

An abortion-breast cancer link passes every one of the standard criteria[13] which determine if causation can be deduced. These same criteria were used in 1964 by the U.S. Surgeon General to determine causality of cigarettes in lung cancer promotion. Today they prove causation of the link between abortion and breast cancer.[14]

America was not content to blindly follow when the tobacco industry denied a link between tobacco and lung cancer, based on its own studies. AAPLOG suggests applying the same wisdom here.

There is a scientific, biologically plausible mechanism for breast cancer promotion caused by electively terminating a normal pregnancy. Here’s that explanation in a nutshell:

Over the course of a woman's life, her breast tissue will develop into four different types of lobules. All women are born with Type 1 lobules, which mature into Type 2 lobules at puberty. The lobules type is important to note because 99% of all breast cancers arise in Types 1 & 2 lobules. Types 3 & 4 lobules are resistant to breast cancer.

During the first half of pregnancy, she will see a sharp increase in Type 2 lobules. Beginning at 20 weeks, her Type 2 lobules will begin to mature into Type 4 lobules. As pregnancy continues beyond 32 weeks, 70-90% of her breast tissue has matured into Type 4 lobules by week 40, and the risk of future breast cancer is reduced. There is a 90% risk reduction when she carries a pregnancy to term compared to if she remained childless.[15]

After lactation ceases, the breast forms Type 3 lobules. After menopause, these Type 3 lobules regress to Type 1 lobules, but the protection gained from earlier term pregnancies is permanent and provides lifelong protection to these Type 1 lobules.

What's the Risk?
Ending a pregnancy before 32 weeks stops the Type 2 lobules from developing into Type 4 lobules. That is, ending a pregnancy early stops breast development at a time when there is an increased amount of cancer-vulnerable Type 2 lobules. The longer a woman maintains Types 1 and/or 2 lobules, the higher her risk of breast cancer.

Ethical medical practice obligates a physician to counsel a woman considering abortion that this decision may increase the risk of breast cancer later in life.[16]

Chemical abortions

In 2000 the FDA approved the two-drug “abortion pill,” and women have been able to perform their own early abortions—up to 10 weeks of gestation—without leaving their homes.

 First, the woman takes the mifepristone pill, or RU-486. Then, 24 to 48 hours later, the woman takes misoprostol or Cytotec. Together, these drugs induce delivery.[17]

In 2021, the FDA made it easier to get a chemical abortions by phone: the “in-person dispensing requirement” -- stating that mifepristone be given only in health-care settings such as clinics, medical offices, and hospitals --  was removed.

Verifying that a pharmacy is certified does not replace in-person medical care. If the procedure is done at home, without a medical exam and without an ultrasound, then: 

• The viability of her pregnancy cannot be confirmed. If the pregnancy is ectopic (in the fallopian tube), she’ll need specialized medical care.

• The stage of her pregnancy is not confirmed. In practice, women are often unsure how far along they are. If she’s past that ten-week maximum, attempting a chemical abortion at home can be dangerous.

·        Taking these pills alone at home, she may be far from emergency medical care when it’s needed, which is often.

Intense pain, bleeding, and contractions may last for days and necessitate intervention: “Seventeen states maintain records of state Medicaid reimbursements for abortions and subsequent emergency room (“ER”) treatment within 30 days of the abortion. Based on this data, in 2015, the rate of ER visits per 1,000 women who underwent a chemical abortion in the past 30 days was an astonishing 354.8.”[18] Thirty-five percent go to the ER after attempting an abortion at home. Women taking these drugs at home alone, without medical supervision or access to a doctor, may be risking their health. And at-home, chemical abortions are growing quickly as requests for mail-order abortion pills surged after the Roe reversal. They now account for over half of the abortions in the US.

Summary: Let’s Be Honest about Abortion

The short-term and long-term effects on women from induced abortion—compromised mental health, increased risk of preterm births, and increased risk of breast cancer—are not well known. The dangers of at-home chemical abortions are also not well known. But they should be. Medical professionals are obligated to provide relevant information about the effects of abortion on women prior to any procedure as a matter of “informed consent.” In the area of abortion, they simply don’t.

We don’t do women any favors by suggesting that abortion is a quick, easy solution without negative, lasting effects on the women we love. 

[1] AAPLOG, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (www.aaplog.org/) AAPLOG ‘s mission is to encourage and equip its members and other concerned medical practitioners to defend the lives of both the pregnant mother and her pre-born child.

[2] National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207970/
Article: The abortion and mental health controversy: A comprehensive literature review of common ground agreements, disagreements, actionable recommendations, and research opportunities by David C Reardon

[3] AAPLOG Practice Bulletin No. 7, Abortion and Mental Health, December 30, 2019. FINAL-Abortion-Mental-Health-PB7.pdf (aaplog.org)
https://aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/FINAL-Abortion-Mental-Health-PB7.pdf

[4] IBID.

[5] Reardon, David C., et al. "Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women." Southern Medical Journal, vol. 95, no. 8, Aug. 2002, pp. 834+. Gale Academic OneFile. Accessed 26 Oct. 2022.

[6] https://aaplog.org/resources/patient-brochures/

[7] Reardon DC, Craver C. Effects of Pregnancy Loss on Subsequent Postpartum Mental Health: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(4):2179. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042179  

[8] Jacobs, Steven and Jacobs, Steven, The Scientific Consensus on When a Human’s Life Begins (November 29, 2021). Jacobs, S.A., The Scientific Consensus on When a Human’s Life Begins, Issues in Law & Medicine, Volume 36, Number 2, 2021., Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3973608

[9] (https://www.rachelsvineyard.org/)

[10] PB-5-Overview-of-Abortion-and-PTB.pdf (aaplog.org) https://aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/PB-5-Overview-of-Abortion-and-PTB.pdf

[11] Ibid.

[12] https://aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FINAL-CO-8-Abortion-Breast-Cancer-1.9.20.pdf 

[13] The Bradford-Hill Criteria for causation are strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence. experiment and analogy.

[14] https://aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FINAL-CO-8-Abortion-Breast-Cancer-1.9.20.pdf 

[15] Note: But if she never got pregnant, she would not have experienced that initial increase in the development of Type 2 lobules during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.

[16] For more information, please see the January 2020 publication, “Abortion and Breast Cancer” https://aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FINAL-CO-8-Abortion-Breast-Cancer-1.9.20.pdf 

[17] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tQZhEisaE&ab_channel=fsbcjc Noted board-certified OB/GYN Dr. Anthony Levatino testified before the US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary in 2015 and lead Congress through the steps.

[18] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/23333928211053965 A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions, 1999–2015

Update on Corporate Adoption Benefits

American Express shares why it offers up to $35,000 in adoption benefits to employees

There were more than 113,000 children in the foster system eligible for adoption in the US in 2021, and ~54,000 children adopted, as more people build families through adoption.

The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption recently released its annual Best Adoption-Friendly Workplaces list. In the 2023 report, they found “both an increase in the number of organizations that participated [in offering adoption benefits] and our first-time providers of benefits.” Also, financial reimbursement for adoption increased by 23.5% compared to 2022, bringing the average amount covered to $14,831, plus nine weeks of paid leave.

Some companies offer much more. American Express, for example, offers up to $35,000 in adoption benefits to employees. 

Read Kristen Parisi's full Jan 12, 2024 article here.