If paying an expectant mother's living expenses suddenly became illegal...

Question

would it have any affect on the number of women who eventually do choose to relinquish?

Why or why not?

Are there any other upsides or downsides to ending this common practice.

Answer 1

In many states it is already illegal to give cash to a potential birth mother, and in some cases, no help can be given from the potential adoptive families.

I think it would prevent us from a lot of scammers who are just in it for the money, but could be a disservice to some women who really just need the help.

Answer 2

ibu guru:  "Before welfare was handed out directly to juveniles, and when adoption was solely through agencies without any support to emoms (except maternity homes), there were far fewer teen pregnancies."

-source please.

i'll help you out:

teen pregnancy rates have DECREASED since the 60s (there was a "blip" around 90-91--yet, was not as high as the 60s rate). the difference is unMARRIED teen pregnancy.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/...

--------------------------------------...

personally, i strongly believe that any pregnant woman who needs assistance with basic needs should receive assistance from her family, or social services.  getting money from paps is coercive and opens both parties up to too much risk.

Answer 3

I don't think it should be illegal anywhere. As an earlier post said, they didn't understand with all the government programs out there why would anyone need to pay this. Well has anyone given thought that a parent giving up their child may not want to have to ask the government for that just to get turned down. In alot of states our government will not provide Food stamps, WIC, or welfare to a mom who has no intention of keeping her child. While not right, these programs were designed for those who will have a family. Also Medicaid will sometimes be denied to those wanting to place children up for adoption. Leaving the mom with the bills. If they are doing the right thing by not just aborting their child why should they have to struggle, have medical bills they can not pay. Isn't it true that caring for a child begins in the womb. If she gets sick and is placed on bedrest and can't work how will she pay her rent or mortgage? I think sometimes paying for living costs are understandable. Our government isn't that great thing some of you think it is.

Answer 4

Upside?: Paps and the agency get closer to seperating a mother and her child.

Downside: Mothers already struggling with her hormones/emotions gets pressured and guilted into providing her child with that "better life for the child myth".  

Paps and agency reps shouldn't be anywhere near an emother until she gives birth, has had time to bond, as well as had the time to think clearly about the "big picture".

More education and assistance is needed for teens before this happens. I would rather use my tax money for this than warfare.

Answer 5

I can tell you that my husband and I were not the richest couple that ever adopted, so it was tough on us- however I can tell you, it did not bother me to pay for our birth mom's living expenses for a couple of months.  She moved from where she was living and still was paying rent on her apt. there with children she had already- so we did not mind to pick up her living expenses.  She did not get any money in her pocket at all.

Answer 6

I don't think it would have a major effect on the number of women who choose to relinquish, but I do strongly disagee with the practice of havin PAPs pay for living expences. It sends the wrong message to both the couple hoping to adopt and the expectant mother, that the PAPs are simply providing for "their" baby.

The interesting thing is that I've heard complaints from both sides.

While some find it "coersive" and unethical for a woman considering relinquishing her child, others find it unfair and deceptive to expect PAP's to pay for the care of the unborn child as if it were theirs, even though the e-mom has every right to change her mind about adoption or the parents she chooses for the child. I think most adoptive parents in this situation pay the expenses because they feel they have to, not to guilt the woman into placing the child, and most of the e-moms accept it because they believe they have no other resources, not because they're trying to swindle people hoping to adopt.

I think if it was made illegal, the only complaints you'd hear were from agencies and lawyers with unethical practices.

Answer 7

Quite often the money goes through the agency, rather than directly from the PAP's.  What if that were the part that became law, that the money HAS to go through the agency, where the eparents wouldn't know if the PAP's are paying out money, or not.  They wouldn't feel obligated at that point to the PAP's to follow through with the relinquishment.  Of course, that is relying on honesty from everyone and certainly wouldn't be easy to control.  But, the PAP's could sign something, stating they will not divulge that information prior to finalization.  Then we have the possibility of an eparent who needs help getting the help, without the coercion of relinquishing out of guilt to the PAP's.

And why do we always hear that the PAP's are 'buying a baby', when it's rarely stated that the eparents are 'selling a baby'?  Why is it always assumed that the immorality lies solely with the PAP's?

[[[[  Don't you think that a woman who needs her ‘living expenses’ paid for is in a dire, desperate place in her life?  ]]]]

Yes, IF she truly NEEDS her living expenses paid for.

ETA:  [[[[  I have NEVER heard of a mother who gets a dime from the exchange!  ]]]]

Maybe I should introduce you to our children's bparents then.   Honestly, to be as interested, experienced, versed and vocal about adoption as you are, you have a lot to learn yet, if you actually believe that bparents DON'T receive any of the money that is given out for living expenses. It may not go into their bank account, or wallet.  But, if you consider a person who has their rent paid for, car payment, insurance, groceries, etc, NOT receiving a dime, then you are not willing to see the truth for what it is.  Yeah, 'get real'.

BTW, aren't you the poster who asked the question about the fraudulent 'expectant' mother who took money from a couple?  How you can you do that, then turn around and say that you have never heard of money going to the bparents? If that weren't or didn't happen, this fraud wouldn't have had the opportunity to con this couple, right?  (scratching head...)

Answer 8

If it were illegal to provide any funds to e-moms, and automatic welfare were abolished for e-moms, there would be a drastic decline in the number of "mistakes" and teen pregnancies.  Before welfare was handed out directly to juveniles, and when adoption was solely through agencies without any support to emoms (except maternity homes), there were far fewer teen pregnancies.  When people know they have to support themselves, and parents have to support their pregnant teen, they are far less likely to have kids they do not want.  Ever hear of birth control?  Abstinence?  Anyone who has a child they do not want and cannot provide for commits the most insidious and heinous forms of child abuse.

Answer 9

Good question.  

During our "research" phase of adoption, we were told by more than one adoption agency that if we were unwilling to pay for living expenses that we would be unlikely to be chosen by a mother.  One agency implied that unless PAPs are willing to front the costs of living expenses, they didn't truly care about the child.

We asked why this was so commonplace and "necessary" as there are many government resources available, particularly for pregnant women or women with children.  We were told that there were many "compelling" reasons why a woman would not want to use those resources, or her own insurance, or govt insurance.  We asked for an example of such a "compelling" reason and did not get much of an answer.  

So, at least in my experience, there are some adoption agencies out there that would have us believe that if PAPs weren't paying for living expenses, there would be a swarm of pregnant women in the streets.  

I'm not convinced this is the case. I don't think ending the practice would have a big impact one way or the other.  Women who need help can still make use of the resources at hand.  

Answer 10

Interesting question, Kazi! I DO think that it should be illegal because I find it to be a rather coersive and puts both parties in, for lack of a better word, "weird" positions.

I do think it would make it more difficult for a woman to feel as though adoption  will be "easier" somehow.  I'm not sure exactly how to word it, but I think that having someone pay your living expenses during the pregnancy can seem like an "easy fix" for a woman in a "crisis" pregnancy - especially very young or financially insecure women. The "payback" of a baby in exchange for having your bills paid (not including medical bills related to preganancy) comes across kind of like a Rent-a-Center type arrangement - it seems like a good idea but ends up being bad business. I think these arrangements create an sort of "ownership" situation as well as negative feelings in many situations, but it is often something that is not realized until it has already done it's damage.

If it were illegal I think it would definately have an impact on the number of women who choose adoption as "a way out".

Answer 11

Upside? Are you being facetious?

It's obviously not illegal, but it's most definitely immoral.  Don't you think that a woman who needs her ‘living expenses’ paid for is in a dire, desperate place in her life?  And that when she had the baby, should she change her mind, she would feel obligated to give the poor, infertile couple her baby, well, because she owed it to them?  

In my era of adoption (early 60s) everything was filtered through the agency.  The aparents paid a flat fee to adopt a child, and the mother had her "living expenses" (maternity home & delivery fees) paid for by the agency.

Seems like this new payment system is a laundering racket for the agencies to make the APs take the 'risk', all the while making the mothers feel more indebted.  

More indebted mothers + more relinquished babies =bigger profits. You can always find the answer if you just follow the money.

ETA: Adore Him: You say it "didn't bother" you to pay the mother's expenses.  Would it have 'bothered' you if she kept her baby?

ETA: John S: Are you really trying to imply that these mothers are SELLING their babies?  I have NEVER heard of a mother who gets a dime from the exchange!  My mother got nothing but unused breast milk, stretch marks, and a broken heart.  Get real.

Answer 12

No.  There would be a huge downside to this.  Why on earth should helping a birth mother pay her living expenses be illegal?!  The birth mother is dealing with her fair share of difficulties as it is.  I'm pretty sure she sacrifices plenty.  Plus, adoptive parents don't just pay all of the birth mother's expenses, no questions asked.  That IS illegal.  They pay for anything relating to the pregnancy.  I.E. prenatal vitamins, maternity clothes.  Then after the birth (up to six weeks) they pay for any living expenses that can't be covered by the birth mother due to not working.  That is, they don't just hand over cash, they pay any necessary bills directly.  I'm sorry, but I think any woman has a right to take time off work after giving birth, whether or not she kept her child.  AND be able live during that time.  

If the adoptive parents were pregnant themselves they would have to come up with ways to compensate for the extra expenses and lost wages due to pregnancy.  Why should that burden go to the birth parent?  

If the child is to be their responsibility, so should the expenses of the pregnancy.