Government run health care

[pomtzu]

So your "facts" are incorrect.

The article is from 1994.

Thank you!!!

So not only was the fact stated incorrectly - since "unwed" does not mean "on welfare", but the article is 15 years old.

So glad to see that you're keeping up with the times, Marigold.

[caseysmom]

I can think of at least one pettalker that wouldn't appreciate single mothers being lumped in a bucket with welfare mothers.

[Marigold2]

Voluntary Relinquishment for Adoption
Numbers and Trends
Author(s): Child Welfare Information Gateway
Year Published: 2005
Email Order (Free) Print (PDF 195 KB) Share
Rate This 4.8/5, 4 Reviews





Voluntary placement of children for adoption is relatively rare in the United States. This paper examines some of the more recent statistics and trends regarding the relinquishment of children by birth mothers.
How Many Women Place Their Children For Adoption?

The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) is the only national source of data on voluntary relinquishment for adoption. According to the 1995 NSFG, 1 less than 1 percent of children born to never-married women were placed for adoption from 1989 to 1995 (Chandra, Abma, Maza, & Bachrach, 1999).

• The percentage is higher for White never-married women (1.7 percent) than for Black never-married women (near 0 percent).
• Relinquishment by married and formerly married women is rarer still, and percentages are not available.

About 1.4 million children were born to unmarried women in 2003, comprising 34.6 percent of total births (Hamilton, Martin, & Sutton, 2004). If the relinquishment rate measured by NSFG in 1995 for never-married women were applied to all unmarried women who gave birth in 2003, this would mean that fewer than 14,000 children were voluntarily relinquished in 2003.
Who Are the Women Who Place Their Children?

Other than the NSFG data on mother's race, information about who relinquishes a child for adoption is limited, in part because relinquishment is rare and the numbers are so small.
Most research focuses on unmarried teens who relinquish a child. In addition to being disproportionately White, those who relinquish tend to have higher education and income levels, higher future career and educational aspirations, and a strong preference for adoption expressed by the teen's mother and/or the birth father (Miller & Coyl, 2000).

• Namerow, Kalmuss, and Cushman (1993) studied 592 unmarried pregnant women age 21 or younger. The sample was selected from maternity residences, clinics, and teen pregnancy programs or adoption agencies. Postbirth interviews with 527 of the teens showed that those who had personal experience with adoption or had spent time at a maternity residence were more likely to relinquish. The choice to relinquish was also heavily influenced by the preference of the teens' mothers and boyfriends.
• A study of 162 pregnant teens residing in a maternity home found that birth fathers' preference for adoption was the most powerful predictor of the mothers' consistency in their decision to relinquish (Dworkin, Harding, & Schreiber, 1993).

[Marigold2]

The article continues.
One study at a residential facility for pregnant teens found that a disproportionate number of those who relinquished were from upper-middle-class families, living in the suburbs or small cities, and from intact families with highly educated parents (Moore & Davidson, 2002). The 178 teens studied were heavily influenced in their decisions to relinquish by peers and siblings and by having personal experience with adoption (knowing someone who was adopted or being adopted themselves).
What Are Some Trends in Placing Children for Adoption?

Two trends stand out, as shown in Figure 1:

• A decrease in the percentage of children relinquished by never-married women
• A decrease in the difference between White and Black women in placement rates

RaceBefore 19731973-19811982-19881989-1995All Women8.7%4.1%2%0.9%Black1.5%0.2%1.1%near 0White19.3%7.5%3.2%1.7%
D
Since the mid-1970s, relinquishments have declined from nearly 9 percent to under 1 percent of births to never-married women. Among never-married women, relinquishment by Black women has remained very low-declining from 1.5 percent to nearly 0 percent, while relinquishment by White women has declined sharply-from nearly 20 percent to less than 2 percent.
Researchers offer various explanations for the dramatic decline in relinquishment. Some suggest that the increased social acceptance of single parenthood has led more unmarried women to keep their children (Miller & Coyl, 2000; Mosher & Bachrach, 1996). Also, a higher proportion of unmarried mothers are in their 20s rather than their teens, so the personal and financial stresses may not be as great as in the past (Freundlich, 1998). Several researchers agree that it is likely that relinquishment rates will not increase in the next several years (Miller & Coyl, 2000; Freundlich, 1998).
Chandra et al. (1999) hypothesize that informal adoptions are becoming more common. They suggest that transfer of custody from the birth mother to another person may be occurring increasingly in a variety of informal manners instead of through formal, permanent relinquishment of all parental rights and responsibilities. These authors cite Henshaw (1998) in suggesting that the decline in abortion rates shows that the decline in relinquishment is not a result of increasing selection of abortion over relinquishment.
The role of birth fathers in relinquishment decisions is unclear. Freundlich (1998) suggests that any increase in their role may be offset by other factors, such as court rulings that birth fathers have little right to veto relinquishment if they have not taken an active prenatal role and an active role immediately after the birth.
Future Research

The study of relinquishment is hampered by a number of limitations. Fisher (2003) notes several of these:

• The relatively small number who relinquish makes generalizations based on samples difficult.
• Many studies use biased samples of women who have self-selected by volunteering to report.
• Very little of the literature addresses the behavior and rights of fathers.

As the percentage of women who place their children has dropped, the opportunity to study this population has decreased, and it is increasingly difficult to generalize from the small numbers of individuals studied. Future research may concentrate on the characteristics of this group and the factors that influence their decision to place their children for adoption.
References

Chandra, A., Abma, J., Maza, P., & Bachrach, C. (1999). Adoption, adoption seeking, and relinquishment for adoption in the United States. Advance Data (No. 306) from Vital and Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved February 16, 2005, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad306.pdf
Dworkin, R. J., Harding, J. T., & Schreiber, N. B. (1993). Parenting or placing: Decision-making by pregnant teens. Youth & Society, 25, 75-92.
Fisher, A. P. (2003). Still "Not quite as good as having your own"? Toward a sociology of adoption. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 335-61.
Freundlich, M. (1998). Supply and demand: the forces shaping the future of infant adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 2(1), p. 13-46.
Hamilton, B. E., Martin, J. A.., & Sutton, P. D. (2004). Births: Preliminary data for 2003, National Vital Statistics Reports, 53(9). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved February 25, 2004, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_09.pdf
Henshaw, S. K. (1998). Abortion incidence and services in the United States, 1995-96. Family Planning Perspectives 30(6), 263-270, 287.
Miller, B. C., & Coyl, D. D. (2000). Adolescent pregnancy and childbearing in relation to infant adoption in the United States. Adoption Quarterly, 4, 3-25.
Moore, N. B., & Davidson, J. K. (2002). A profile of adoption placers: Perceptions of pregnant teens during the decision-making process. Adoption Quarterly, 6(2), 29-41.
Mosher, W. D. & Bachrach, C. A. (1996). Understanding U.S. fertility: Continuity and change in the National Survey of Family Growth, 1988-1995. Family Planning Perspectives, 28(1). Retrieved February 16, 2005, from http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2800496.html
Namerow, P. B., Kalmuss, D. S., & Cushman, L. F. (1993). The determinants of young women's pregnancy-resolution choices. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 193-215.
1The most recent NSFG includes data from a 1995 survey with a nationally representative sample of over 10,000 women. Data from 2002 (Cycle 6) have not yet been analyzed.back

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.

Email Order (Free) Print (PDF 195 KB) Share

[caseysmom]

Thanks that clears everything up.

[Marigold2]

About 1.4 million children were born to unmarried women in 2003, comprising 34.6 percent of total births (Hamilton, Martin, & Sutton, 2004). If the relinquishment rate measured by NSFG in 1995 for never-married women were applied to all unmarried women who gave birth in 2003, this would mean that fewer than 14,000 children were voluntarily relinquished in 2003.
Who Are the Women Who Place Their Children



This states 1/3 of women, there are tons of articles like this, one just needs to look, read, study, explore and believe the facts even if they are not how your life is or has turned out. These are the facts. Yes the article in Time was old, the problem has not gotten any better, it has probably gotten worst. Why do you have such spite and joy in trying to prove me wrong? What do you have to prove? I am just stating facts. If you are willing or thinking of giving your child up being on welfare or / and not being able to take care of said child is a good possiblitiy. Unmarried women are much more likely to be on welfare, not all but most.

[Marigold2]

Update March 19, 2009: 'Baby Boomlet'

According to www.cdc.gov:
The preliminary estimate of births in 2007 rose 1 percent to 4,317,119, the highest number of births ever registered for the United States. The general fertility rate increased by 1 percent in 2007, to 69.5 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, the highest level since 1990. Increases occurred within all race and Hispanic origin groups and for nearly all age groups.
The birth rate for U.S. teenagers 15-19 years rose again in 2007 by about 1 percent, to 42.5 births per 1,000. The birth rate for teenagers 15-17 and 18-19 years each increased by 1 percent in 2007, to 22.2 and 73.9 per 1,000, respectively. The rate for the youngest group, 10-14 years, was unchanged. Birth rates also increased for women in their twenties, thirties, and early forties between 2006 and 2007. The 2007 total fertility rate increased to 2,122.5 births per 1,000 women.
All measures of childbearing by unmarried women rose to historic levels in 2007, with the number of births, birth rate, and proportion of births to unmarried women increasing 3 to 5 percent.
By race of 4,317,119:
2,312,473 were white. 27.8% to unmarried women for a total of 642,687 fatherless children.
627,230 were black. 65.2% to unmarried women for a total of 408,953 fatherless children.
1,061,970 were Hispanic. 51.3% to unmarried women for a total of 544,790 fatherless children.
49,284 American Indian, etc. 65.2% to unmarried women for a total of 32,133 fatherless children.
254,734 were Asian. 16.9% to unmarried women for a total of 43,050 fatherless children.
Total fatherless children: 1,671,613 or 38.72% to unwed mothers.
US births break record; 40% out-of-wedlock
AP Mar 18, 2009
Births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older. For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher...
The new numbers suggest the second year of a baby boomlet, with U.S. fertility rates higher in every racial group, the highest among Hispanic women. On average, a U.S. woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. That's the "magic number" required for a population to replace itself...While the number of births in the U.S. reached nearly 4.3 million in 2006, mainly due to a larger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics, it's not clear the boomlet will last. Some experts think birth rates are already declining because of the economic recession that began in late 2007...
Meanwhile, U.S. abortions dropped to their lowest levels in decades.
Conclusion

What we have is a growing demographic powder keg. In other studies the high school dropout rate nearly mirrors the unwed mother rate. Like unwed motherhood, it's also self-inflicted and has nothing to do with racism. According to Charles Murray (1993) the white illegitimacy was 22% (707,502 babies in 1991) and black illegitimacy rate was 68%. Using the above figures, the white illegitimacy rate has risen about 5% and the black rate has held steady. The problem for whites is the illegitimacy rate is concentrated in the bottom tier of the population:

For white women below the poverty line in the year prior to giving birth, 44% of births have been illegitimate, compared with only 6% for women above the poverty line. White illegitimacy is overwhelmingly a lower-class phenomenon. This brings us to the emergence of a white underclass. In raw numbers, European-American whites are the ethnic group with the most people in poverty, most illegitimate children, most women on welfare, most unemployed men, and most arrests for serious crimes. And yet whites have not had an "underclass" as such, because the whites who might qualify have been scattered among the working class...The figure in low-income, working-class communities may be twice that.

Places such as Appalachia and Tri-Cities. Yet most social programs are aimed at non-whites only, such as Obama's Racist' Stimulus Package. The other big demographic nightmare is Hispanics whose illegitimacy rates, dropout rates, crime rates, etc. could overtake blacks in a few years. Their population (legal and illegal) is exploding in this region as well as they are used by cheap-labor employers to displace poor whites and blacks from their jobs and further depress wages. It would make more sense to deport as many illegal aliens (mainly Hispanic) as possible and secure our borders, while allowing much higher immigration levels from East Asia and Europe. But then Asians are too successful and don't form the permanent cheap-labor and welfare underclass so desired by big business and liberals.

[Marigold2]

Lots and lots of facts out there to check, read and explore. Does someone else have stats to post?

[pomtzu]

Why do you have such spite and joy in trying to prove me wrong? What do you have to prove? I am just stating facts. If you are willing or thinking of giving your child up being on welfare or / and not being able to take care of said child is a good possiblitiy. Unmarried women are much more likely to be on welfare, not all but most.

I don't know if this is addressed to me or caseysmom, but it hardly applies to me - a 65 year old retiree!

But you made some rather unfounded statements in Post #1 which I called you on, and you never answered sensibly. You stated that being on welfare means that you have declared yourself physically and mentally unable to care for yourself and you're asking the government to pay your bills. You never could answer where the unemployed person that perhaps needs some temporary help, fits in to your statement. Are they physically and/or mentally unable?? Doubtful - since they likely wouldn't have had a job in the first place. So you just saw fit to disappear for a while, and hope my question would be forgotten. Remember that?????

[Marigold2]

My post did not include those millions that had lost their jobs. It had to do with those that abuse the system. Those that take monies from deserving vets, the elderly or those that are truly ill and need money to live a decent and honorable life. We give money to teenage moms to care for their chidren instead of trying to convince them to give those children up for adoption. We need to educate young girls on the joys of life and education. Having babies is a wonderful thing but doesn't always remain so. Teenage girls should be thinking about school, purses, travel, what color nail polish to use and their future in this world. Not being a mom, they are children themselves and we the mom's and dad's should be helping them along. I love my grandkids but don't want to raise them. I raised mine and loved it but now it's me time. My friends have children who have children and they spend every free minute and dime helping them when they are barely making it themselves. Their grandchildren are beautiful and precious and they love them oh so much but they worry about themselves. Their parents are getting older, they are stuck in the middle between parents, children and grandchildren. They should never be in this postion. Even with their great love for their grandchildren I understand their concerns. They will have no retirement, no savings. No one to help them. They will spend years taking care of their mom and dad and their children and grandchidlren. Their children instead of taking steps to protect themselves against pregency have made generations take a new look at themselves and how they will servive. And this is in the best of families, in others the young girls are tossed out or not helped because the parents don't care or can't help. It's tragic all the way around.
I am home today not feeling well. I usually don't spend much time on PT not because I don't enjoy it but it's just that I am busy with family, friends and fun.

I don't know if this is addressed to me or caseysmom, but it hardly applies to me - a 65 year old retiree!

But you made some rather unfounded statements in Post #1 which I called you on, and you never answered sensibly. You stated that being on welfare means that you have declared yourself physically and mentally unable to care for yourself and you're asking the government to pay your bills. You never could answer where the unemployed person that perhaps needs some temporary help, fits in to your statement. Are they physically and/or mentally unable?? Doubtful - since they likely wouldn't have had a job in the first place. So you just saw fit to disappear for a while, and hope my question would be forgotten. Remember that?????

[Daisy and Delilah]

Unmarried women are much more likely to be on welfare, not all but most.

Forgive me if I've quoted this from a body of research. I believe this to be a statement made by you, Marigold, correct?

If this is from you, I think this is a very broad statement. This tells me that women without a man need to get help from outside sources because they can't make it on their own?

[Cataholic]

Forgive me if I've quoted this from a body of research. I believe this to be a statement made by you, Marigold, correct?

If this is from you, I think this is a very broad statement. This tells me that women without a man need to get help from outside sources because they can't make it on their own?

This is how I see Marigold's post. Some people find much comfort in tradition, the old way, etc. So, when someone else does something that is in opposition to that, it is threatening to that person's belief system. That person, with the threatened belief system *must* come out swinging in order to 'stay on top'. AND, that is totally okay, as we must all do what feels right or best for us. But, it shouldn't be that in order for one to feel better about ones' self, that one needs to make others feel bad.

Now, for the record, I do not 'believe' in marriage, per se. I mean, if you find that one special person, that is a wonderful, fantastic thing. And, I support you in your legally binding contract of marriage. But, that doesn't mean it is for me. Marriage is a state issue first and foremost- though many also have it religiously blessed.

I feel no 'need' to be married. I believe in other countries, "marriage" is less prevelant than here- but, I have not any research to link.

Many, many women find themselves in marriages that frankly- should anything happen to the male, will be in deep doo doo should the marriage fail. That would keep me up at night, fraught with worry. I think ALL people should be able to stand on their own two feed and provide for those they either bring into the world- or aquire along the way.

The larger issue I have with Marigold's 'research' (and I am not speaking solely of this thread, as she has made these comments at other times) is the large brush, and largely anti- human comments she makes about those she sees underneath her, status wise.

Insurance (LOL, I am pulling it back into topic) should be available to all. Even that poor guy that called her, asking about CareSource. I can imagine his frustration.

[Cataholic]

I can think of at least one pettalker that wouldn't appreciate single mothers being lumped in a bucket with welfare mothers.

LOLOL, I pretty much buck every 'statistic' ever thought of by Marigold. I imagine between the two of us, she is a bit more closer to those she scorns than I am.