•  
  •  
 

Abstract

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito relied on adoption as part of the justification for holding that abortion is not constitutionally protected. First, he said, “[s]tates have increasingly adopted ‘safe haven’ laws, which generally allow women to drop off babies anonymously.” Second, “a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home.” Using adoption as an adequate substitute for abortion is a long-standing strategy for the antiabortion movement, but it is often embraced by pro-choice advocates as well. This position is supportable only if the realities of adoption are ignored in favor of mythologized notions of adoption as morally superior to abortion. This piece explores the ambiguities in adoption, considering the issues of racism, patriarchy, and poverty that drive children into the adoption system. It also discusses the history and philosophy literature that link adoption and abortion, and how those who favor access to abortion have ceded the morality issue to those who are antiabortion. The piece also examines the psychosocial literature about birth parents and adoptees that reveals the experiences of these members of the adoption triad, and uncovers the false premise that adoption compares favorably to abortion because it causes no harm. Overall, this piece critiques the ways in which adoption is sanitized to erase issues of gender, race, and class, so as to present adoption as superior to abortion and thus justify ending abortion access

Download

Share

COinS