On a lighter note from most discussions of late, Congress has some bills before that impact intercountry adoption. And yes, the sadistic humor was intended...
Of particular interest is the Families for Orphans Act.For that one, JCICS has issued a call to action for support. You can find all of the info on it here:
http://www.jcics.org/families%20for%20orphans.htm
But wait, not all things are clear cut and dry (is that the expression). While aspects and intentions of the bill may be good, what do they really mean? Well to get a viewpoint on that, Ethica has issued its dos quetzales against the bill here:
http://www.ethicanet.org/international-adoption-ethica%e2%80%99s-positions-on-pending-legislation
As for me, who never claims impartiality on matters of US legislation, I'm not sure. I have not read the bill yet and after reading both sides, my gut goes with JCICS. Removing hurdles is a positive thing and it seems like safeguards wouldn't really be jeopardized. BUT, I need to read the bill and ponder Ethica's position. There are some points to their argument that if I feel have teeth based on what's in the bill could very well sway me.
And why not have a public debate here for all those like me who are at this moment undecided....
Posted by Kevin at July 20, 2009 08:53 PMI think the lack of comments reflects the collective distrust in the folks in Washington. After all is said and done, it is impossible to know how these laws will affect us....after all is said and done.
Posted by: Steve at July 22, 2009 08:51 PMI don't understand the difference between bill 3070 and the Hague [it seems to be a slightly different version of the Hague or in support of it by establishing a central authority].
They say it would give financial incentive to send children abroad when this has same rhetoric of Hague which is family preservation and unification first, then domestic, then international. The incentives appear to be around lowering number of childen in need each year [I guess that could be an incentive if they didn't reunify enough families or provide domestic placement].
It has reference of time limited which I occasionally see mentioned in Hague literature but no specific time which could mean indefinate just like it did before [i.e. a child could age out of institution before ever being considered for even domestic adoption]. How could anyone complain about the amount of time you could leave a child institutionalized before considering other avenues? But since they don't specify a time what difference does it make?
How can Ethica argue "cultural norms to be taken into account" equates to disregard of cultural norms?
I also do not understand their position on s1359 but don't understand s1359 and how it replaces the current process either.
Posted by: lisa at July 23, 2009 08:44 AMNo, Steve, I think the lack of comments is due to a lack of time to read the bills or a lack of interest. Why assume it's collective distrust? These are bills proposed by child and adoption advocates, who could just as easily do nothing. Cynicism gets us no where.
Posted by: sjbj at July 23, 2009 11:42 AMI think naivety gets us into trouble!
Posted by: Steve at July 23, 2009 05:40 PMDismissing things out of hand is certainly easier.
Posted by: sjbj at July 24, 2009 10:56 AMI read them. But to be honest, I find it confusing. I'm interested in seeing what others have to say about it. Maybe their comments will shed some light on them.
Best, Cheryl
Posted by: cheryl at July 29, 2009 07:47 PMIn truth, immediately i didn't understand the essence. But after re-reading all at once became clear.
Posted by: Ventego at November 5, 2009 01:15 AM