Childcare/Adoption In History

1. Chris Hafner-Eaton and Laurie K. Pearce. 1994. “Balancing Individual Freedoms and Protection of the Public Health.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 19, 813-820.
2. Friedman, Lawrence. 2007. Who Are Our Children? Adoption, Past and Present. Pp. 272-281 in Arlene S. Skolnick & Jerome H. Skolnick (Eds.), Family in Transition (14th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
3. Sharon Hays. 2003. “Money and Morality." Pp. 9-24 in Flat Broke with Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Block, Fred, Anna C. Korteweg, and Kerry Woodward, with Zach Schiller and Imrul Mazid. 2006. The Compassion Gap in American Poverty Policy. Contexts, 5, 2, 14-20.
5. Dan Clawson and Naomi Gerstel. 2002. “Caring For Young Children: What the U.S. Can Learn from Some European Examples.” Contexts, 1, 4, 28-35.


According to Hafner-Eaton and Pierce, there are many reasons why some prefer to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife. Perhaps one of the most important reasons is that it has been proven through research that, "today 75 percent of births in European countries are attended principally by midwives...all of these nations have lower infant mortality rates than does the United States" (Hafner-Eaton and Pierce, 815). The fact that most of births in the United States are done in a hospital with the assistance of doctors would cause one to believe that here we would have the lower mortality rate; the fact that we don't should raise questions about today's medical care.
Another reason why many women choose to have a midwife present at their childbirths is because from the midwife's point of view, childbirth is a natural, life-cycle process, that needs support and coaching as opposed to domination and control, like the role of a doctor in a hospital. Midwives seem to disagree with the medical point of view that birth is dangerous, and thus prevent many of procedures from occurring that aren't necessarily needed by the mother; for example, the epidural. While having a baby in the hospital almost always warrants and Epidural anesthesia for the maintenance of pain, it "often slows labor, causes 'failure-to-progress,' and ultimately may necessitate cesarean section delivery" (Hafner-Eaton and Pierce, 817).
To go along with this, midwives provide the mothers with a sense of control over their own births. Midwives have knowledge about childbirth that many doctors would not have, seeing as men hold the majority of doctoral positions in this country. Women are able to learn about their own bodies, and the bodies of women they have helped, to teach to the almost-mother to know how to handle their own body during the birth (Hafner-Eaton and Pierce, 819).

Personally, I always thought that women who chose to birth their children at home were foolish, because they would not have the resources and expertise offered by a hospital and doctors. But after reading this article, I am questioning my position; I wonder now if childbirth is seen as dangerous and something to be cautious about because that is what society has turned it into, instead of natural, beautiful process. I am also reminded of one of my professors at BC, who recently had a baby; the hospital she gave birth in allowed both her husband and mother to be present, neither of whom were required to wear a mask/scrubs. Coincidentally, my professor and the baby developed a fever during pregnancy. Is this really a mere coincidence, or should there be cause for alarm at the present precautions for health safety in hospitals?

According to Friedman, legal ties between parents and children have drastically decreased over time. Parents used to have much more control over their children's lives; for example, in many cultures parents used to choose the people that their children would marry. Also, many would live with their parents until they got married, whereas now it is seen as unusual or unacceptable to live with parents after graduation from college.
In addition, the law has final say over the life of a child as opposed to the parents, to protect the child's well being. This could be in the form of taking the child away from the parents, mandating education, as well as regulating the homeschooling curriculum provided for the child. But, even with all of these changes and the emancipation of children from their parents, the law still resists taking the child away from the parents if it can.

The adoption laws have also undergone some changes over the years. First of all, there did not used to be any laws concerning adoption at all. Historically, the process used to be very basic, with a statement of intent that an adult would take charge of a child for economic purposed, or often to continue a family name. Today, the process is much more involved, as child-safety has become more of an issue. Another large change is that old adoption laws allowed adoptive parents to back out in five years if "the child developed 'feeble mindedness or epilepsy or venereal infection as the result of conditions existing prior to the time such child was adopted' " (Friedman, 275). The purpose of formal adoption today is not usually to carry on the family name, or for inheritance, but to grant parenthood to those unable to have biological children of their own, and to allow people with the resources and the desire to help children in need.

According to Hayes, the conservative views of welfare state that its recipients are lazy, morally deficient people who see welfare as the easy way out, a way to get out of having a job. They claim that the welfare system is too generous with these people who then think it is OK to live in dysfunctional family units, without a job.
The liberal view of welfare come from a different point of view, claiming that the moral problems the conservatives focus on are the result, rather than the cause of economic problems. They view welfare as being necessary, and generally want more economic assistance to the poor to help fix their immorality.

The main differences between the requirements introduced by the welfare reform of 1996 and the earlier welfare policies are that women are required to enter the workforce in order to support their family, and that there is a five year time limit that any family can be eligible to receive welfare throughout their entire lives. This is different from the earlier policies because women used to be given welfare as a substitution for the absence of a husband, so she could remain in the house with the children. This was her expected role, no one wanted to see the women outside of the home in the workplace. Today, she is required to, even if she cannot find adequate childcare or housing.

The two contradictory visions of the welfare system are the Work Plan, and the Family Plan. These two views seem to stem from the the conservative and liberal points of view. The Work Plan claims that the welfare system is meant to transform women from dependent caretakers to self-sufficient providers able to care for herself and her family without the help of a man. The Family Plan, however, sees this work requirement as a negative, punishing the woman for failure to have a husband to support her. Through working she is being deprived of her natural place in the home with the children. What makes these two plans contradictory is the fact that both "purposes" of the welfare system are derived from the same document; making it impossible for women to actually benefit from it.

The fact that this is true shows that there are really strong values in existence in the U.S.; both "sides" of views that were present in the formation of the welfare system had genuine desires for the accomplishments of women in today's society whether they had to do with work, or family. What needs to happen now is a connection of the two sides, to come up with a common goal. Only then will the welfare system be successful.

According to Block, Korteweg and Woodward, countries such as Norway understand poverty as a result of economic and structural factors in society, as opposed to mad behavior and morality as it is seen in the U.S. Here, many believe that people are poor because they would not work hard enough; because the prevailing view is that the American Dream allows those who really want it to pick themselves up by their "bootstraps" and "make it". Those who can't make it can only be labeled as lazy, because there is nothing stopping them from succeeding.
This theory operates as a self-fulfilling prophecy because when some people think that they can aid the poor, they then are overcome with the belief that they should be able to make it on their own, and help is again decreased. This lack of assistance then makes it necessary for poor people to cheat and make bad decisions, simply to survive. The idea that poor people are immoral is then reinforced, and the situation stagnates.
To make the American Dream more accessible to the poor, many adjustments have to be made in the United States. Some suggestions are universal health care, universal availability of childcare and higher education, affordable housing, and an overall readjustment of policies towards the poor. Minimum wage needs to be increased so those earning it will be able to survive in the country without assistance, and reauthorize TANF(Temporary Aid to Needy Families) to provide more money and provisions to those who are in need.

According to Clawson and Gerstel, we can improve the child care system in the U.S. by making is publicly funded and universal, with an appropriately paid staff, the school day lasting for "normal" hours, with cheap care available before and after school. While participation is voluntary, there should be space for all who want to; and additionally, in terms of family-centered child care, parents should be offered paid parental leave (Clawson and Gerstel, 34-35).