This is actually an older article, I remember reading it last fall. It's from here:
Foreign Policy: The Lie We Love And the author, EJ Graff, is out of Brandeis university (
The Front Page | Schuster Institute | Brandeis University)
She's got a major issue with international adoption. Another of her articles:
The problem with saving the world's 'orphans' - The Boston Globe
I agree with her to a point: If we had given the thousands and thousands of $$ we paid agencies and attorneys and doctors and foster mothers directly to our son's mother, she may have been able to raise him; and the idea that money or the lack thereof determines a family is sickening. How many of us can even wrap our brains around the idea of being so poor you would have to place your child simply out of poverty? That's not the case for all adopted children (social stigmas, lifestyle, illness, relationships,
life in general all present their own motivations and I don't want to debate those), but I do believe that if a parent wants to raise their child but lacks the financial or physical resources to do so then I would want all efforts made to enable that family to stay together. And people wanting to help should consider ways to enable those families to stay together and thrive.
However, my son was no less in need of a family simply because his birthmother (an educated, professional young woman) made a choice to place him for adoption. His need for a permanent safe home is not diminished by some seemingly more desperate cases. Yes, an older or special needs child might be more in need (as this article claims), but my family is NOT the right family for that child at this time; we ARE the right family for our son.