Just in from the Adoption Professionals of Massachusetts:
Late last year, the legal definition of “placement agencies” was amended in Massachusetts to allow one well respected Massachusetts “for-profit” foster care agency to provide foster care placement services without the need to partner with a “non-profit” placement agency. However, that change also unintentionally allowed “for-profit” adoption placements in Massachusetts.
“This new legislation closes that loophole. Massachusetts will now remain a state that puts the welfare of children and families above the profit making motives of others,” said Amy Cohen, President of the Adoption Professionals Association of Massachusetts.
Ironically, a similar bi-partisan bill was sent to Governor Mitt Romney on his last day in office but he chose to pocket veto the bill- thereby allowing the potential abuse of birthmothers and families to remain open until the actions of Governor Patrick today.
“The notion that babies are not financial commodities that can or should be bought and sold may have been lost on a Governor who prided himself on his business background” added Cohen….
In states that allow for-profit adoption agencies, it is not uncommon for “for-profit” adoption agencies to “assist” birth parents by providing them with large sums of money, cars or even luxury housing accommodations if they make adoption plans for their child. Offering financial incentives to birth parents in exchange for the termination of their parental rights not only is morally and ethically reprehensible, but has the potential of significantly increasing the cost of adoption for families. In states where “for profit” adoptions are legal, the cost of procurement is often transferred to adoptive parents through increased fees.
Why in the world would Romney not have signed this bill?
stomv says
but I wonder how the “for profit” adoptions weigh on abortion vs. adoption decisions. Of course, I also wonder how they weigh on the birth control vs. adoption decisions.
laurel says
the answer to your questions probably depends on where the profit lands: with the mother or with the agency.
<
p>
i can understand anti-abortion people wanting to help mothers find a financial way to see a pregnancy through. however, it gives me the total creeps to think that a system is in place for essentially selling children. what a weird and creepy kind of slavery. forget pork bellies. baby futures are up! in related news, did you hear about the upcoming procreation days in russia? well, at least they’re not breeding them to sell.
raj says
…the only difference between “for-profits” and “not-for-profits” (there’s no such thing as a “non-profit”) is–who gets the profits. The “for-profits” have shareholders, who get some of the profits. The “not-for-profits” have employees, who get the entirety of what would be the profits. This was made extremely clear to me a few years ago when it was reported that the head of the not-for-profit United Appeal was being paid millions of dollars. I actually was shocked.
<
p>
Another example: the heads of some of the major hospitals in the Boston area are paid many hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions. The heads of the public hospitals are Beamter (government employees) and are paid at government employee salaries: much less.
<
p>
This press release in the blockquote is moderately interesting, but the last paragraph is devoid of any comparison between the practices of adoption agencies in states that allow for-profit adoption agencies and those that don’t. If the revenue to a not-for-profit adoption agency–and, hence the income to the management–is dependent on the number of adoptions that they arrange for, it really does strain credulity to believe that they do not also engage in practices that are described in the last paragraph of the blockquote.
peter-porcupine says
Isn't that a FEDERAL phenomenon?
Jim C – help me out. In Mass., if the Governor fails to take action on a bill in ten days, doesn't it just become law without his/her signature?
Of course, if this bill was so bi-partisan, why was it sent to the Govenor on his last day in office?
Or has it been law since mid-January, and just ressurected with fanfare for Deval to sign?