Better Maternal Care = Less Orphans

[BlueChair]

If this shouldn't be in snark I apologize. I've observed that there has been a fair amount of conversation lately around these parts about adoption and orphans and the developing world. We've discussed the "rescuing" mentality, whether or not a questionable fundie home is indeed better than being raised in an orphanage, and that adoption from foreign orphanages doesn't do anything to solve the problems that put the children in the orphanages in the first place.

I am an atheist but actually enjoy reading the blog of a missionary family in Haiti because they focus their efforts on social justice rather than soul-winning (and keep their political opinions to themselves so I don't have to get ragey). They began working with a maternity center a few years ago that focuses on lowering maternal death rates and encouraging breast feeding and attachment, both to improve the health of the babies and lower the risk that they will end up in an orphanage.

Their most recent post speaks about a fundraiser that is happening to support their maternity programs (some guy is running a ridiculous amount of miles across Haiti to raise money) and included this paragraph:

please tell anyone that is even remotely listening to you that maternal health care in undeveloped countries is INCREDIBLY important.... It reduces the number of orphans. When mothers die, poverty worsens and children are scattered to family members and orphanages. The babies in the baby photo above ALL HAVE MOTHERS that LOVE and WANT them ... nobody needs to adopt them. They are right where they need to be, at the breast of their mamas. The dream of empty orphanages is a key motivational factor of the Heartline Maternity Center. Prenatal care and safe birth and postpartum care along with education and support in the first months of a baby's life equals (alive!) bonded moms that love their children well.

This. This is what should be happening. I've worked in the industry and I'm tired of the baby rescuers patting themselves on the back for "saving" children. When the focus turns from charity to justice a lasting impact can be made on the greater society as a whole. Wouldn't it be better if no children needed "saving" in the first place?

The blog I'm speaking of is livesayhaiti.blogspot.com and the individual post I'm referencing is livesayhaiti.blogspot.com/2013/01/tuesday-wednesday-blur.html The picture of the infants of the mothers being supported through their program is pretty amazing.

[Stickers]

This is a very good topic that will get buried in the drama, but I fully 100% agree. It's great that they realize they need to be there to help the kids and babies whose mother/families have been unlucky (to say the least) and working to make sure it's rare in the future.

[Effie]

Oh thanks for posting this. This is amazing.

[debrand]

I think that a lot of right wing conservatives' love for children ends with their birth. Any group that let's their ideology get in the way of facts is doomed to failure. In the case of many modern conservatives and right wing Christians, their ideology hurts a lot of people.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Thanks for posting. I absolutely agree.

The one thing that I would add is that this applies to more than just mere lifesaving. in developing countries, although that is crucial. The best way to save fetuses and babies, period, is to help and support the mother. Instead of endless attempts at "personhood" bills and rallies and protests and deceptive "crisis pregnancy" centers, I'd suggest that those truly interested in helping fetuses and babies focus on one thing: finding out what pregnant women need, and then providing it.

[Rosa]

that's fucking beautiful, and I'm always looking for good charities that work in Haiti. Thank you.

[YPestis]

It's long been known that raising the status and economic well being of women improves the lives of children and of society. Helping poor women, traditionally a very marginalized group in developing nations, disproportionately lifts up society. There's nothing really new under the sun there. It's just that there is a conservative strain in the US that dislike foreign aid, dislike aid to women because of implied help with contraception (i.e abortions!), or dislike the idea of "modernizing" these women with education and empowerment. The last portion is less common, but I still feel there's an underlying assessment by conservatives that helping a country should mean providing the husbands with means to lift the family out of poverty, not necessarily providing the wife with the means to provide.

As for foreign adoption, I hesitate to disparage anyone of it. As I've stated before, my parents are active members in the Chinese American club here and they know many adoptive parents of Chinese girls. These adoptive parents contacted their group years ago and asked that the Chinese club notify them of any Chinese activities going on so their daughters can participate. Many even send their daughters to the weekly Chinese school to study Chinese----not an easy thing for nonnative speakers! I know fundies are far less likely to do this but a few outliers shouldn't besmirch the good work done by the majority of adoptive parents.

These are wonderful people who've opened their homes to orphans and I think they *do* deserve a pat on their backs. For most adoptive families, it's not a self-serving thing that they want to spend thousands to adopt a child and give them a loving home. No, it doesn't resolve the issue at large, but it does make the world of difference for one child. Not everything we do can "change the world", but sometimes, it's just as good to expend effort on making a difference for one person.

I am a strong supporter of empowering third world women. My own family came from a third world country and I was raised acutely aware of the plight of women in my birth country. However, sometimes, helping others means helping one person at a time.

[Jinger Jar]

Thanks for posting. I absolutely agree.

The one thing that I would add is that this applies to more than just mere lifesaving. in developing countries, although that is crucial. The best way to save fetuses and babies, period, is to help and support the mother. Instead of endless attempts at "personhood" bills and rallies and protests and deceptive "crisis pregnancy" centers, I'd suggest that those truly interested in helping fetuses and babies focus on one thing: finding out what pregnant women need, and then providing it.

But, the personhood politicians and the folks protesting outside of Planned Parenthood already know what pregnant women need, dontchaknow. Just ask 'em. :roll:

OP, thanks for posting this.

[jenny_islander]

Yes, this! I saw an ad for one of those "send money to starving African kids" charities that including something I'd never seen before. The implication in the text wasn't, "Save this poor little hungry kid here in the photo because this is just awful," but "Make sure this kid eats and goes to school because he could be the next Steve Jobs."

THIS TIMES A MILLION.

[Miggy]

As a teenager I had this wonderful [ha] plan that I would have one child myself and adopt three to make up my perfect family of two adults + four kids. After having my first son, some friends adopted from Africa and the costs were amazing. Our friends spent over $30,000 in legal fees, health costs, airfares and accomodation while overseas. I did my own research and couldn't find anyway to adopt for under $20,000. Both my husband and I agreed that if we had $20,000 and gave it to an orphanage they could help hundreds of kids instead of just the one we could adopt. This idea of working with the mothers before the children even become orphans sounds even better. I am glad there are people out there working to solve the cause of the problem rather than just treating the symptoms.

(This is not attacking those who do adopt. All those I know who have adopted from overseas are doing a great job. We chose to do foster care instead and have had many children pass through our home. Some easy. Some difficult. All loved.)

[Emme]

I agree. I'd love to see better maternal care in many countries! If anyone has read Yes Chef by Marcus Samuelson, his mother died from TB, leaving he and his sister orphaned (turns out their father was alive, but they thought he was dead). He talks about how this one woman from the hospital took him in and got him a family in Sweden. His mother, seriously ill with TB, walked DAYS to get her kids to the clinic so they could be seen by a doctor, and then unfortunately died herself. Medical care HAS to become better. If there had been a closer clinic would his mother have lived? No one knows, but it would certainly help people.

[lilah]

There's a saying in adoptive circles that "You rescue a kid once, everything after that is called parenting" So I agree that some baby-collecting adoptive parents need to stop backslapping each other for collecting kids the way that other people collect shoes.

That said I think what this family is doing is different than adoption and it's not really fair to say that it's inherently superior. it's like if you had the choice of giving money to a say help pay for cancer screenings vs money to help cancer patients pay thier medical bills. One helps people who are in crisis to get out of a crisis, and one helps prevent a crisis.

Miggy- if you are interested in adoption but don't have 20,000 lying around have you thought about adopting through foster care? My aunt adopted three children from foster care.

[jenny_islander]

Yes, this! I saw an ad for one of those "send money to starving African kids" charities that including something I'd never seen before. The implication in the text wasn't, "Save this poor little hungry kid here in the photo because this is just awful," but "Make sure this kid eats and goes to school because he could be the next Steve Jobs."

THIS TIMES A MILLION.

Forgot to mention: Not "Get him out of horrible Africa to someplace safe and sane (and white)," but "You know, if he gets to stay home and be well fed and go to school, he could be up there with Steve Jobs someday."

[Miggy]

There's a saying in adoptive circles that "You rescue a kid once, everything after that is called parenting" So I agree that some baby-collecting adoptive parents need to stop backslapping each other for collecting kids the way that other people collect shoes.

That said I think what this family is doing is different than adoption and it's not really fair to say that it's inherently superior. it's like if you had the choice of giving money to a say help pay for cancer screenings vs money to help cancer patients pay thier medical bills. One helps people who are in crisis to get out of a crisis, and one helps prevent a crisis.

Miggy- if you are interested in adoption but don't have 20,000 lying around have you thought about adopting through foster care? My aunt adopted three children from foster care.

When we realised adoption was out we looked at other options and trained as foster parents. I did hope that we would be able to adopt children through the foster system. We have been carers for twelve years now. At first we only took babies and only did long term care but none of the kids we have cared for have ever come up for adoption. After the first few years I found I actually prefer older kids and we now take any age, any type of care; respite, energency, short term or long term. It can be hard at times but my heart goes out to any child who doesn't have a home. I hope that even if they only stay with me for one night they will learn that there is at least one person in the world who loves them. Adoption is not important now - just caring for the kids in whatever situation they happen to be in. (I have tears in my eyes now as I think about all the damaged kids that have passed through my family.)

[Rosa]

Lilah, the family's got 3 adopted kids, aside from their mission stuff. And the mom was also adopted (I think, i might have gotten the author tags mixed up) and writes about growing up as an adoptee and being an adult adoptee.

[BlueChair]

I wasn't necessarily making a statement about each individual family that adopts. I have worked with adoptions and may return to it professionally. What I was trying to do was point out the bigger picture. The "orphan crisis" is a big thing in evangelical Christian circles. How to "solve the orphan crisis" is a frequent topic of conversation and/or missions focus. The solution that evangelical Christianity has come up with to "solve the orphan crisis" is adoption.

The thing is, if solving the orphan crisis is your goal, adoption is not going to do it. Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere. U.S. State Department statistics tell us that 33 Haitian children were adopted by Americans in 2011. Only 33 children in a county of roughly 10 million people. What I'm trying to say is the massive amount of time, attention, energy, effort, and dollars that the Christian right puts into promoting adoption makes an incredibly small impact. If all of that promotion, awareness, and money was instead directed towards a systems change that would prevent these children from ever being orphaned in the first place, so many more than 33 children would be impacted.

I never used the words inherently superior, but if you want to put it in those terms, I definitely think it's inherently superior that children never have to go through the trauma of loss and abandonment in the first place. That families never have to be torn apart due to death and deprivation.

[Katiebug]

It's refreshing to see Christian missionaries who 1) don't scream Bible verses on every single post of their blog, and 2) focus on actually helping people rather than "church planting" or whatever the more fundie missionaries do. From going back a few months in posts, this family wears normal clothes (and swimsuits) and they don't come across as holier-than-thou preachy.

The maternity center that they support has at least one legitimate certified nurse midwife in charge (she appears to be American), so it's not a case of some poorly-trained lay midwife getting the grand idea to go deliver babies in a developing country. They offer prenatal care and support for new mothers. The ministry's other major program is literacy and job skills training for women - a far cry from the fundies who claim that all women are to be mothers in the home. It sounds like this crew has realized that in developing countries, educating and empowering women is a key to raising families out of poverty.

For women in the developing world, pregnancy and childbirth is the most dangerous experience of their lives. Stillbirth, obstetric fistula, pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, gestational diabetes, etc. are all life-threatening without having competent medical and midwifery care. Preventing orphans in the first place is a better thing than running orphanages (where many children may not even be true orphans).