Help Origins-USA Produce an Educational Video

Please share!

Adoption is not about unwanted babies, it’s about unwanted mothers. We know this and now we have an exciting opportunity to tell others.

Award winning filmmaker Sara Aderhold has graciously donated her time to produce an Origins-USA promotional video featuring mothers telling their stories of surrender, loss, and reunion. Presenting these experiences is the most effective way to change societal views about adoption and birth. Messages of the video include:
  • The power of the bond between infants and their mothers.
  • Adoption should be a last resort.
  • Options to adoption that preserve natural families.
  • Adoption does not guarantee a better life, just a different one.
  • The right of mothers to know their children.
  • The negative impact of adoption on mothers and their children.
  • The extensive and expensive marketing by adoption industry to coerce mothers into surrendering their babies.
  • Open adoption is not a solution.
The video will be distributed to national news media, posted on the Origins-USA website and YouTube, and linked to blogs and other websites. It will also be sent in DVD format to Origins-USA’s members to share with family planning clinics and civic groups as well as women considering surrendering their baby for adoption, mothers, and their family and friends.

Origins-USA cannot complete and distribute this very important video project without your help. Although Sara is generously donating her time and talent, there are additional costs for transcribing the interviews and duplicating the final DVD.

For as little as $20 per member, Origins-USA can cover these costs. The names of those who donate $100 or more will be listed on the film credits.

Make your tax-deductible donation through the Origins-USA website, Just click on the “donate” button. Or mail your donation to Origins-USA Treasurer Kathy Aderhold, 2961 S. Kearney, Denver, CO 80222 and mark it “video”.

You can also help by donating some of your time to do some of the transcribing from video, as Origins-USA member Kay Johnson has generously done.

And, as you do your holiday shopping online, please be sure to use Origins-USA's CafePress, iGive and Amazon links.

Sara Aderhold - Producer & Director / Writer / Editor
Sara has been producing and editing award winning programs for six years. She was honored with a Heartland Emmy in 2004 for her documentary work and nominated for a National Emmy for co-editing a special for HBO. You can see her work on PBS, HBO, Comedy Central, MTV, Disney, and in educational settings around the nation. She is dedicated to storytelling and thrives on shedding light on otherwise unnoticed parts of the world. Sara has firsthand experience with adoption loss. Her mother is Origins-USA Board member Kathy Aderhold. Kathy and Sara have reunited with Sara’s half sister.


Suz said…
Thanks for posting. I was in Colorado at the filming of this. It was pretty amazing. I cannot wait to see the finished product.
Air said…
Hi Margie,

I am always curious when you post about groups but don't give your opinion on the stance. This group seems to be making the assumption that was is best of the parents is best for the child, which I don't think is necessarily the case (although I would be interested in seeing some data on this).

I think child rights always trump parent (bio or adopted) although I know that this is not always waht happens and what is best for the child can look very different depending on your perspective.
Margie said…
Hi, Air, thanks for commenting. I've written about Origins before, so I didn't think to add a note indicating that I do support the organization and its work. I need to remember to do that for new readers.

I think you are right about perspective, because I see Origins' position differently. Origins believes that the connection between mothers and their babies should be protected, and that adoption should be considered only when all other options for keeping mother and child together have been exhausted. I honestly don't hear the concern you note, which is that Origins believes that what's best for the parents is also what's best for the child. I DO believe that Origins is strongly in favor of family preservation, and believes it is best for people to be raised by their families of origin.

Also, regarding the phrase "what's best for the child:" the problem I have with using this phrase as a justification for adoption is that it's relative. Some people believe that being raised by a single parent is a good justification. Does that mean when a parent dies that children should be removed from their families into other two-parent families? Makes no sense, never mind that adoptive parents die, too.

Others believe poverty is a good reason to place children in adoption. In my opinion, if you follow that line of reasoning, you end up having to say that all poor families deserve to have their children removed from them.

I think everyone agrees that abuse and neglect are certainly appropriate reasons to consider adoption, but abused and neglected children are not the majority of those being adopted - infants are. And at the moment, demand for adoptable infants far outweighs supply, a situation that lends itself easily to unethical practices.

I hope that clarifies a bit. But if not, let me know and I'll try to post about it.
Air said…
Thanks for clarifying your point of view. I have actually been a lurker on the site for sometime, but didn't recall previous posts on Origins. I guess the section of the Origins web site that rubbed me the wrong was was the following

"Children placed with non-family members are not to be deprived of their names or their connection with their family and must be allowed unlimited visitation and contact with all blood relatives, with necessary supervision to prevent harm when deemed by the court as necessary. Depriving a child access to visitation with any blood relatives should be punishable by law."

I am a third mom as well. I believe that open adoption is best for the child. However, I think that the preceding statement is extreme. In adoption there has to be a point where the a-parent becomes the legal guardian and as such makes decisions about who their child should be around. I hope that a-parents would include first parents in their children's lives, but I worry about an attitude that they should be legally compelled to do so. A bio parent can choose to cut ties with other bio relatives for what they believe is in the best interest of the child and I think that a-parents should have that right as well.

I imagine that this statement is in reaction to a-parents who promise contact while "courting" the first family then cut contact once the child is legally theirs. This is wrong. I just don't think legally complelling a-parents is right either.

This is a difficult issue with many grey areas and complications, but is a good thinking challenge.

Popular Posts