In your May 11 edition, Pamela Brant’s letter to the editor (Page A6) urges women to “weigh the choice of adoption” when experiencing an unplanned pregnancy. In a perfect world, this plan sounds worthy of consideration – a fairy tale ending to an unfortunate story.

In 1994, my husband and I adopted our daughter. At that time, with full choice for women in place, the caseworkers shared – with us and publicly via a local broadcast – that there would never be enough homes for all the children who needed them. A wall in Marden’s in Sanford shows poster after poster of children who are looking for their forever homes. What will these numbers look like if women have no choice but to give birth?

I have a friend who, along with his sister, was placed in an orphanage in the 1960s, before Roe v. Wade was made legal. His sister got adopted. He, for reasons unknown, did not. I fear a future where no choices are available for women and, thus, more children spend their years in institutions or unstable situations rather than a private, loving, permanent home. Our society should brace itself for an increase in funding for foster care and special services to house and educate children if those children are born under forced conditions.

Lucy Webb Hardy

Related Headlines

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

filed under: