Religious influence and pressures in adoption are real. Now two authors are alleging in a book about Presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, that he participated in pressuring a mother to surrender her baby to adoption or else be ex-communicated from the church, in the post-scoop era. When you tell a religious woman her choice is to give a baby a "better life" or basically to go to hell, how much of a choice does that sound like?
Part of the story of mother, Peggie Hayes:
"But while Hayes considered Romney a friend, he was also her bishop—which meant it was his job to pass along sometimes-harsh church counsel. The tension between the two relationships came to the forefront one day when he came over to her apartment, and encouraged her to turn her son over to the church’s adoption agency when he was born. (The church’s position is that if a happy marriage between parents of a newborn seems unlikely, adoption is preferable to single parenting.)
Hayes was offended by the suggestion, and told Romney she would never give up her son. But, according to Hayes, Romney told her, 'Well, this is what the church wants you to do, and if you don’t, then you could be excommunicated for failing to follow the leadership of the church.'" (source)I remember browsing an agency website one time and seeing the phrase "do you know a 'birth mother'? Invite her to your Bible study group, pray with her, let her know that God forgives." To any random person, this might have been a little irritating. However, if you grew up in a very religious environment, you might have seen a whole different meaning. It means that being pregnant out of wedlock when you can't afford a baby is a big, fat, huge sin. When you make someone feel sinful, you're telling them their transgression was not only against their fellow person but against God. Transgressing against God to a religious person is a big deal. We're talking heaven and hell here, an entire afterlife. When I see something like that, I see manipulation. I see exactly how I would have felt had I gotten pregnant in high school or in my early 20's before I got married.
This is one big reason why I do not support candidates who want to incorporate religious values into law and practice. I do not want to be forced to live by anyone else's nor should anyone be forced to live by mine.
Should Romney be President, what would be in store for adoption in the United States?
What a great post. I agree 100%! Religion has no place in government and the candidates who run on religious platforms cause me to worry not only about adoption issues but many other important social issues.
ReplyDeleteAlso, very sobering example of when a choice is not really a choice and how young women in our society can so easily be disempowered.
Thank you! :-)
DeleteI do think that Romney has a good shot at being the next President of the United States. I don't think voters base their decision on adoption or even based on their beliefs about abortion. It is all about the economy. And Obama has not succeeded at what he set out to do.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right.
DeleteThis woman (and everyone else in America) has a First Amendment right to practice the religion of her choice.
ReplyDeleteChoosing to follow a religion is just that – a choice. Various churches have various tenets that they require of their members. If you want to be a member, you must follow their tenets.
If you don’t want to follow said tenets, you have the right to join another church that more closely follows your beliefs – or choose to have no affiliation with any denomination.
If she was living in sin with her gay lover and observing Satanic rituals, she might also expect to “lose” her membership in many churches. Not circumcising, baptizing or christening the child could also get you kicked off the membership roles of some churches.
So what? Exercise your choice to pursue an alternative house of worship. The model of religious affiliation is based solely on the concept of your belief system. If you do not “believe” in the church’s rites, ritual and rules…..why would you want to be a member????
You make it sound as though participating in an entire belief system is as simple as choosing which burger joint to go to for lunch.
DeleteThe fact of the matter is, it is not so simple. Spirituality and religion isn't just an "oh, I think I'll go do this now" matter. It is something someone truly believes and acts upon as a matter of the soul. This gives religious leaders unimaginable power. You have to understand that someone who is religious may truly believe that if they do X or X they will get into heaven and if not, they will spend eternity in hell. If you really, honestly, believe that one action or another decides your fate for eternity, you are going to act accordingly.
I grew up in a religious home, school, extra-curricular activities during the week, and church on the weekend. Not one day went by between my adoption and my 18th birthday that I did not have some sort of religious exposure or someone guiding what it was that I should believe. No in a cruel way for you see parents, pastors, leaders, and teachers who genuinely believe that X and X please God and will get you into heaven want their children to get into heaven too. So it is of utmost importance to, as the Bible puts it, "lead up a child in a way they should go." Religion was never a choice for me. Children involved in religious families often do not have a choice. Yet, when they become adults they're supposed to magically be able to throw off everything they've ever thought and believed about their very soul and the earth we stand on and just "do something different now?"
As someone who was raised in a religious home who is of a different religious view than I was growing up, I assure you this is not so simple.
BRAVO! You know that it the truth! You don't just make it up as you go... you have to believe beyond just believing that the sky is blue!
DeleteTo me, one of the more upsetting things about this story is the number of people who won't see anything at all wrong with it...
ReplyDeleteSo true!
DeleteYour story above is very one-sided. Later in the same article:
ReplyDeleteAccording to the book’s authors, Romney would later deny that he ever threatened excommunication, and a review of the LDS church guidelines shows that the church does not often excommunicate members in situations like this. As bishop, Romney didn’t have unilateral authority to excommunicate Hayes--that decision would have been made by a council of regional lay leaders after discussing the matter with her—and failing to give up a child for adoption is not considered a grave sin.
As a lifelong member of Romney's church, and with a father that was a Bishop and a Stake President, I can tell you that excommunication is not done in cases like Hayes'. Romney would have known that as a Bishop, so I can't imagine why he would threaten excommunication. It doesn't make sense.
"Should Romney be President, what would be in store for adoption in the United States?" you ask.
If Romney can do what Obama has failed to do--improve the economy--then more single mothers would have the economic resources to successfully keep and raise their children. More infertile couples would have the economic means for fertility treatments. The adoption rate might just go down.
I think what you are insinuating with Romney is a very cheap shot, so typical of liberals.
Megan,
DeleteI think the "typical of liberals" line you directed at me was quite a bit of a cheap shot as well and really not a necessary part of making your point.
The title of this post asks IF Romney did such a thing. If I was trying to be sneaky and paint a one-sided view of Romney because I'm liberal and therefore must have it out for all conservatives, I wouldn't have linked to the article. My issue with Romney is not his political party--I do not vote based on party lines and have in the past voted for Republican candidates. I am also working closely with several legislators in my home state on Adoptee Rights ALL of whom are Republican.
My issue is with the possibility that he treated a woman this way and thus, that is what I focused on in this post.
Sorry, I guess I misinterpreted your point. I tend to be on the defensive when it comes to attacks on Romney and his religion. Because cheap shots have been made. I also don't vote along party lines (I voted for Rod Blagovich!). If Romney did treat a woman in the way she claims, it would have been inconsistent with church policy and doctrine.
DeleteIt's OK, Megan, I am the only liberal in three different families full of staunch conservatives so I am a bit sensitive when it comes to my political stances because they're not readily supported by those immediately around me. I have to hear about liberals doing this or that constantly lol. :-)
DeleteThere are several Mormon original mom bloggers out there who said they felt pressured by their church to surrender. One mother I recently encountered said that single parenting was inconsistent with her beliefs as a mormon and that's why she had to choose adoption. That's why I can't help but wonder.
Every president so far has been a disappointment to me as far as adoption is concerned. People kiss babies and talk about children to get elected and but then nothing improves. Obama's weak gesture of offering a small amount of money to help single parents in the form of providing info on adoption was infuriating to me to say the least.
Most likely Romney counseled the Hayes to consider adoption, but I have a hard time believing that he threatened excommunication.
ReplyDeleteAnother blog reported that Romney also helped Hayes find odd jobs with other members of the church. More support for the Romney campaign. He knows how to create jobs and put people to work. Hayes gives a testimonial of this.
I have to say it... I have, and I commented on the FMF, no doubt in my mind Romney did threaten her.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I honestly fear for my grandchildren, in fact any child, that is raised in a religious country. We talk about it like we don't know what will happen, but we do.
Look at all the countries that are one religion - try on a little Moslem for a thought. In nations where Islam is the only allowed religion or at least the only respected religion and it has power in politics, what happens?
Our nation prides itself on it's people ability to have a choice. To allow religious leaders to become political leaders we are allowing those choices to fall by the wayside. When Christians become the leaders in the free world, they, like anyone else, allow their religious beliefs to guide their political decisions. This, no matter how much you would like to believe is bull, will happen. The individual will be unable to separate their beliefs from the needs of a country that is filled with a variety, every variety, of belief and religious groups.
Therefore, please note, as you argue about whether or not you think Romney did it, does it really matter if he did or not? Do you want someone running our country that believes that they are "helping" someone by forcing their religious beliefs down their throats? Or do you want someone that keeps their religious beliefs private and personal?
As for me, I still believe in Obama.
Lori, In nations where Islam is the only allowed religion or at least the only respected religion, there is generally no constitution or Bill of Rights. Nations where there are no allowed religions we typically call Communist. Again, no constitution or Bill of Rights. The blessing of our governmental system is that there are checks and balances so that no leader, whatever their religious affiliations, has too much power.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what Obama's religious beliefs are. He states he is Christian but some question it. The problem with him keeping his religious beliefs private and personal is that most of the nation doesn't know what they're dealing with. Whatever his beliefs, perhaps he has difficulties separating them from the needs of the Country. He has repeatedly stretched his executive powers beyond the intent of the Constitution, growing the Executive Branch of govt. in order to push his social agendas. I believe he has forced his agenda down our throats, and in the process racked up record deficit spending.
Megan and Lori,
ReplyDeleteObama is a member (or former member, I am not sure which) of a denomination of Protestantism called "United Church of Christ." It is very close to very liberal sects of Lutheranism and Presbyterianism (e.g. PCUSA) so much so that the PCUSA, a certain branch of Lutheranism, the UCC and one other denomination (which I can't remember off the top of my head) will hire pastors from each other's seminaries without issue. Obama may seem without religious conviction, either because he has none, or because the UCC does not emphasize a strict belief system or religious rituals as identifying someone as a member or "believer." They are also actually very close to my belief system of Christian Universalism. After I finish my MSW, if I pursue higher education, I will be choosing between a DSW or an additional Master's in Divinity at a nearby UCC seminary that I like.
If I were President, people would probably have the same critiques about me and religion as they do Obama. I do not operate on a belief system that holds my values or religious views as absolute, only truth. My beliefs cause me to ask others what they believe and try to be inclusive and respectful giving validity to everyone. So my White House would probably have a "holiday tree" or some homage to every major religion in it during the holidays seasons too, so on and so forth. It's not for lack of spiritual belief system; it's what my belief system is.
I do agree that Obama needs to be more forthright with what his spiritual beliefs are because people who do not necessarily understand liberal Protestantism (I do not personally consider myself to be Protestant though UCC technically is) or UCC might be confused about where he stands.
Quotes from Brigham Young
ReplyDelete"[A good government requires a leader who is] capable of communicating to the understanding of the people, according to their capacity, information upon all points pertaining to the just administration of the Government. He should understand what administrative policy would be most beneficial to the nation. He should also have the knowledge and disposition to wisely exercise the appointing power, so far as it is constitutionally within his control and select only good and capable men for the office. He should not only carry out the legal and just wishes of his constituents, but should be able to enlighten their understanding and correct their judgment. And all good officers in a truly republican administration will constantly labor for the security of the rights of all, irrespective of sect or party (Discourses of Brigham Young, 363).
"Whoever lives to see the Kingdom of God fully established upon the earth will see a government that will protect every person in his rights. If that government was now reigning … you would see the Roman Catholic, the Greek Catholic, the Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, the Methodist, the Baptist, the Quaker, the Shaker, the [Hindi], the [Muslim], and every class of worshipers most strictly protected in all their municipal rights and in the privileges of worshiping who, what, and when they pleased, not infringing upon the rights of others. Does any candid person in his sound judgment desire any greater liberty?" (Discourses of Brigham Young, 355)
Some common ground, maybe?!
Megan, Romney is described as violating the spirit of Exodus 20:17, 21:16, 22:22, 23:1 and 24:17 for starters. Do not forget that this depicts Romney as if he is one of the wicked whose acts are described in Job 24:9.
ReplyDelete