How Should We Understand Children’s Political Agency?

February 15, 2016 By Libby Anne

I don’t remember my first political activity, but my parents do. I’m told I was on the front page of the newspaper, campaigning against Hillarycare. Throughout my entire childhood I was thrust into the political spotlight, expected to campaign for my parents’ political candidates and parrot my parents’ views. At pro-life rallies, I made sure my smallest siblings held signs with slogans like “I’m a child, not a choice” or “Adoption, the loving option.” While still a child, my father left myself and my siblings behind at a rally to meet with a reporter while he got the car. I made sure my 9-year-old sister, the youngest there, had a chance to speak. Thrusting children in front of the microphone—and before the cameras—was just a part of life.

Today, my political views could not be more different from those of my youth. I cut my teeth opposing Hillarycare, and now I’m headed out to vote for her. When I look back at my childhood activism, I’m struck by how uninformed my positions were, and by how often I was used as a prop. This experience makes me profoundly uncomfortable with any pushing of children forward in campaigns, and any touting of children’s endorsements. Children are still figuring this world out, and while they should be allowed to engage in political activism if they want to, they should be understood as in process. There’s a balance between taking children seriously and understanding that children frequently have access to less information than adults, not to mention less freedom to reach out and explore.

Of course, there is a lot of variety within children. Teens have access to more information than first graders, and a child of sixteen will typically a better understanding of the world around them than a child of seven. And I am absolutely not saying that children should not be allowed to campaign, or to support a political candidate. What concerns me is when parents or politicians thrust children, especially young children, into the spotlight. How much agency do these children have, I find myself wondering? How much choice are they given? Are they simply meeting their parents’ expectations, or is this coming from them? And because I frequently cannot tell, I often find myself uncomfortable.

In this post, I want to look at four images tweeted by various presidential campaigns in the last few weeks. These tweets vary—some are obviously objectionable while others aren’t—but they are similar in that they each give us jumping off points for discussion of children’s political agency. When is a child being used as a political prop, and when are they not? What does it look like for a child to exercise political agency, and how can we recognize it?

Let’s start with this tweet:

This tweet includes a picture of a man standing by a boy of around five, covered in Hillary buttons. The text reads: “2ft high and even he knows what’s up.”

This kid can’t be more than five. A child of five rarely has access to more political information than that provided by their parents. This child knows his parents support Hillary, but it is extremely unlikely that he has anything near an informed grasp on the issues. I certainly didn’t when I was five. My own daughter is six, and while I’ve tried to explain some of the issues to her, I am well aware that the picture she has of the political sphere is simplistic and one-dimensional—and that’s too be expected. Her understanding of the issues will grow and develop over time—as will this child’s.

I suppose what I’m wondering is this: Why the need to push this child forward in this way? What story is the author of the tweet trying to tell? In what way does it add to the messaging to put a small child forward and say that child “knows what’s up” when that child can’t be more than five? This child may have political opinions—some five-year-olds do—but those opinions are shaped by the information he has access to and are very much fledgling opinions still in development.

Here’s another one:

The image shows Marco Rubio standing with a man and holding his baby. The text reads “Just 5 days until first-in-the-nation voters decide. At least a few more years until this young supporter can…”

I’m sorry, but this baby cannot be a Rubio “supporter.” This baby does not even know what a president is. And that gets to the root of what bothers me here—you should not assume that a child supports a political candidate just because their parents do. You should assume that a very small child does not have a political opinion one way or another, that a young child may have a very basic grasp of the issues but not more than that, and that an older child or teen will have a more developed understanding depending on how much information they have access to and how much freedom they are given to form their own understandings and explore various ideas.

Let’s change gears a bit with the next two:

This tweet showcases a picture of a father, mother, and daughter, both parents decked out in Bernie gear. The text reads “My family is with #BernieSanders.”

First, this picture is adorable, and second, this girl is absolutely not being used as a political prop in the way the others are. But given the tweet author’s statement that his family supports Sanders (and not simply that he and his wife support Sanders), I’m curious whether and to what extent this girl been allowed to choose for herself which candidate she supports—and how much she wants to be involved. If her parents have given her access to information and the freedom to make up her own mind and she has chosen for herself to support Bernie, and wants to help his campaign, the phrasing used here makes perfect sense. If she hasn’t, her parents are speaking for her politically.

What I’m suggesting is that we should think about to what extent to which we do or do not give children political agency. Growing up in a politically active family, it was simply assumed we children would support whatever candidates our parents did. We were never asked or given an option. I don’t know whether that is the case here—and even if it is, it’s not as big a deal as it is when parents are pushing their children in front of microphones—but I do remember what that was like. You can’t make a decision when you are offered only one option, or are never given a choice to begin with. What I’m trying to get at here is that we need to think consciously about the framework we use for understanding children’s political agency.

One final tweet:

The image shows a woman with two young daughters, a man holding a megaphone in front of the older child, a girl of about eight. The text reads: “Even @HillaryforCO’s youngest supporters came out to say: “it’s time for a woman in the White House!””

As with the girl in the previous tweet, I’m curious how much agency this girl has been given. Has she been coached by her mother in preparation for pushing her in front of a microphone? Does she have access to information? Does she have the option of supporting a different candidate, or of staying out of election altogether? My next-in-age sister hated campaigning, hated being pushed in front of microphones, hated the spotlight, but she wasn’t given a choice. Politics was not optional. Is politics optional for this girl? Does she have the option of staying out of the spotlight without facing pushback from her mother?

As an advocate for children’s rights, I would like to see us protect children’s agency without denying it. I don’t want children trotted out as trained ponies to speak on issues they are not informed on, but I also don’t want to see children denied access to politics altogether, barred from the microphone, or dismissed out of hand. I suppose I want two things. First, I want children to be given access to information and the space they need to make their own decisions. Second, I want adults to understand children’s grasp on politics as provisional and in flux, and to simultaneously take their opinions seriously and give them room to shift over time.

A lot of people expressed consternation when I changed my political opinions in college. They were upset with me and viewed me as a traitor of sorts. How could I have held so tightly to conservative political opinions all through childhood and my teen years only to change my politics so drastically as a young adult? What they didn’t understand was that college was the first time I had access to a full range of information and freedom to form my own opinions. It’s not that I didn’t mean the things I said as as a child, it’s just that my positions were both uninformed and formed in an environment that was not kind to disagreement—an environment that effectively limited my options.

In 2008, a young relative of my husband was a passionate Hillary Clinton supporter even though her parents were politically moderate. She told me then that she thought it was time we had a female president. I was impressed that her parents let her have her own ideas even when her ideas differed from theirs. This girl is a teen today, and is now a supporter of Bernie Sanders—once again in stark contrast to her moderate parents. Once again I am impressed by her parents’ willingness to let her form her own views without undue pushback or shaming. Still, even without parental pressure, she looks back on her elementary school positions as uninformed and perhaps even naive.

If we are going to be serious in our support for children’s interests, we need to give children both the freedom to make up their own minds and the freedom to do so on their own time. We need to give them the space to change their minds as they grow and mature and gain more information and perspective in the future, but we have to do that without dismissing the opinions or ideas they may have in the present—because if there is one thing a child does not need, it’s dismissal. Children should not be denied a microphone if they seek it out, but they also shouldn’t have it thrust in their face by their parents or other political activists. Simply put, children should be allowed to have political agency.

Norway’s Bodnariu Children Removed Over Child Abuse, Not “Christian Indoctrination”

January 6, 2016 By Libby Anne

Last Friday the Christian News Network published an article titled “Norway Officials Place Children Seized from Parents Over “Christian Indoctrination” Up for Adoption.” This article is yet one more case where evangelical Christians have shown more concern for maintaining their persecution complex than for the wellbeing of children. Buried in the middle of the article is this note:

[The children’s uncle] says that Norwegian officials claim that the children told them that they were abused, but the family rejects the notion.

Yes, that’s right, the key issue here appears to be not “Christian indoctrination” but rather child abuse. Child abuse reported by the children themselves, no less! According to the Romanian Journal:

The children, of which the smallest one has only a few months, were taken from their parents by the Department of Child Protection in Norway, Barnevernet in November, after the two girls, the eldest in the family, had said they get receive physical corrections from their parents. The parents are also suspected of religious indoctrination of children.

Spanking is banned in Norway, so it is possible that some of the alleged child abuse in question would not be considered abuse by evangelicals in the United States. The child abuse allegations go beyond spanking, however, and further, whether or not the alleged abuse took place is irrelevant to the larger point at hand—the it is grossly misleading to center accusations of “Christian indoctrination” as the key issue in this case when in fact the key issue is accusations of child abuse.

In fact, according to the children’s uncle, the formal accusations didn’t even mention religious indoctrination, focusing instead only on child abuse.

But what exactly was involved in the original allegations of religious indoctrination, you ask? It’s a bit tricky to say, given that Norway’s social services (Barnevernet) are bound by privacy requirements, and, too, given the fact that the case appears to currently hinge on child abuse rather than on claims of religious indoctrination. But according to the children’s uncle:

The process of confiscating the Bodnariu children started when the Vevring School principal, the middle school attended by Eliana and Naomi, called the Barnevernet and expressed her concerns regarding the girls’ religious upbringing, her understanding that the girls are being disciplined at home, and that she considers the parents and grandmother to be radical Christians; an overriding concern that the principal’s perception of the parents’ and grandmother’s religious beliefs inhibit and handicap the girls’ development.

Norway has a state church. The country’s constitution requires parents who are members of the state church to provide their children with a religious upbringing. Norway’s public schools include religious education. What is going on here, exactly? While it’s hard to find any information that does not come from the children’s uncle, the Bodnariu parents are Pentecostal and it appears that the principal was concerned that the children were being taught a debilitating and extreme fear of hell which she felt was stunting their development.

Whether or not we think the government should have the right to step in when a child’s religious upbringing is deemed detrimental to their wellbeing (think, too, of groups that practice child marriage, or of faith healing) does not change the fact that U.S. evangelicals are downplaying allegations of child abuse to focus almost solely on allegations of religious indoctrination. This is a problem. Also a problem is the fact that, regardless of the government’s right or lack thereof to step in, we should at least be willing to talk about the reality that certain types of or aspects of religious upbringings can be detrimental to children’s development. All of this is getting ignored by an evangelical media more interested in building a persecution complex than in protecting children’s wellbeing.

Interestingly, as the battle over the Bodnariu children is playing out across Europe, “pro-family” groups in the family’s native Romania have not shied away from addressing the child abuse issue. These organizations claim that parents have the right to use corporal punishment with their children, and that the Bodnariu parents should not have been punished for doing so. “We promote the right of biological parents to raise their biological children without state intervention. Once the state hijacks this relationship, the whole of society suffers and slides down a slippery slope,” wrote the president of Romania’s Alliance of Families, appearing to take a stand against the very existence of child abuse laws.

While the European Right is centering this issue on the parents’ right to use corporal punishment (considered child abuse in Romania), the American Right is centering on the religious indoctrination allegations in an apparent effort to add legitimacy to their persecution complex. There are literally dozens of articles about this situation on Christian websites and news sources in the U.S. (just try a quick google search), every one of them downplaying or ignoring the child abuse allegations making the story entirely about the allegations of “Christian indoctrination.” This lack of attention to children’s welfare is incredibly maddening.

If evangelical Christians want to be seen as a group that values and protects children—as they claim they are—they have got to stop doing this. Look, I understand the concern about the government dictating what you can and can’t teach your children about religion. Believe me, I do. But that concern does not justify downplaying or ignoring child abuse allegations. And you know what? This isn’t just about spanking. The children’s uncle has reported that the children told child welfare workers that their father shook their baby sibling like a rag doll. He writes that the children’s father (his brother) denies this, and U.S. evangelical Christian media sources have accepted that denial as fact.

Evangelical Christians today know way too little about the dynamics of abuse. For starters, abusive parents almost always deny that they are abusive. This should be obvious, but judging from the way the evangelical media covers child abuse, I’m starting to think it’s not. Because abusive parents will generally lie and deny that they are abusive, we have got to take a parent’s denial of abuse allegations with a large grain of salt and wait for the investigative process to sort out fact from fiction.

In addition, child welfare agencies are generally bound by privacy requirements, meaning that only the parent’s side of the story hits the media. Abusive parents take advantage of this to spin the story in their favor in an effort to win in the court of public opinion. Do innocent parents sometimes get caught up in the system? Sure. But that is why we have a system—to determine who is and who is not guilty. It is seriously problematic to decide that a parent accused of child abuse is innocent based on hearing only their side of the story rather than waiting for the investigation to play out. Is the system sometimes broken? Yes, but when it is there should be a call for fixing the system, not for bypassing it entirely.

Next, many evangelicals seem to assume that people who appear to be good evangelical Christians—saying the right things, showing up at church, following various rules—are automatically innocent in allegations of child abuse. This is false. Abusers are very good at putting on a specific image and completely deceiving even the most well-meaning people. They’re also very good at undermining the testimony of their victims and getting people on their side. In fact, this is how abusers generally operate. Evangelicals frequently use the term “wolf in sheep’s clothing” to discredit those who call for church reforms or point out abuses, but very rarely consider that the term in fact suggests that abusers will look like good upstanding Christians.

I’m tired—so tired—of seeing the evangelical media take evangelical parents accused of child abuse at their word when they say they’re innocent, ignoring or overlooking or failing to even ask about what their children have to say on the matter. In the gospels, Jesus said “let the little children come to me,” but many evangelicals today appear to take a “let the little children stay silent and out of sight” approach when one of their own is accused of child abuse. There is child abuse in the church—and a lot of it. It’s about time evangelicals stopped feeding their persecution complexes and started paying attention.

Jonathan and Alison Schumm Abuse Case Raises Questions

November 25, 2015 By Libby Anne

Given my interest in homeschool reform, I am familiar with many if not most of the entries at the Coalition for Responsible Home Education’s Homeschooling’s Invisible Children database. This database was started by homeschool alumni concerned about the role homeschooling can play in intensifying and hiding abuse by allowing abusive parents to isolate their children. (I suppose this is where I add the caveat that I am not anti-homeschooling, just pro-accountability.)

Anyway, I found the most recent entry interesting for several reasons. Let’s take a look:

Five children between the ages of 5 and 16 were physically abused by Jonathan Robert Schumm and Allison Nicole Schumm. Jonathan Schumm was a Topeka Councilman, Allison Schumm blogged extensively about their lives, and the Schumms had received an Angels in Adoption award in 2013. They had 4 biological children and 10 adopted children (two sibling groups of 5, adopted in 2008 and 2013), and were fostering 2 additional children when they were arrested. The Schumms’ biological children were homeschooled, and the adopted children were removed from public schools to be homeschooled as soon as their adoptions were finalized.

According to court documents, a 12-year-old child was tortured or beaten by the Schumms, and 4 others were also physically abused, in October 2015. The family had been previously investigated by child protective services in 2013 during their second adoption proceedings after a child’s foster family reported bruising on him and abuse of the other children. In her blog, Allison Schumm describes placing her other children with a relative during the CPS investigation so that they could not be questioned. The reports were ruled unfounded. Schumm also describes forcing some of the adopted children (younger than 10 years) to carry heavy burdens across the yard as punishment.

Jonathan Schumm was charged with one count of aggravated battery or child abuse for the 12-year-old and four counts of child endangerment for the other children. Allison Schumm was charged with the same crimes, though as an accomplice. The children were removed from their home by child protective services.

I was surprised that the family received an Angels in Adoption award with (apparently) so little vetting. I read through the linked posts in which Allison tells her family’s adoption story (part 1, part 2, and part 3) and found additional details. It seems the Angels in Adoption award was not the only one the family received. Shortly before adopting the second sibling group of five, the Schumms received the “Project Belong 2013 Adoptive Family of the year” award. I also learned that the Schumms were initially told they would not be permitted to adopt this second sibling group, because they already had eight children (three biological and five adopted).

A few short days later we were told that because of our family size and the needs of the children we would not be able to adopt them. Our whole family spent the day we found out terribly depressed, but God used worship music to encourage us. We sat in the van with 5 empty seats waiting to eat lunch at the park with the Hoffman’s and God used these words to remind us that he was in control of everything. “I know who goes before me, I know who stands behind, the God of angel armies is always by my side.” God knew this would happen and it was well within His hands, we just needed to trust and obey. The very next song we hear the chorus “Don’t give up, help is surely on its way, don’t give up, the dark is breaking in today, just keep on moving through these storms and soon enough you’ll find the door, just don’t give up, oh, and don’t give up” We later found out that before we even knew we were turned down God’s hand was moving. Many people had already been working behind the scenes to get DCF to change their mind about the adoption. Our friends and family wrote countless letters explaining our hearts and support system. Those who didn’t write lifted us up in prayer.

Ultimately, in the face of this support for the Schumms, DCF changed their mind.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-adoption. I have, however, read more than a few stories where couples have adopted oversized families, sometimes over concerns from DCF or other agencies, and have later been found guilty of abuse or neglect. I’ve also read more than a few stories where these oversized families are praised by politicians or given awards, and then turn out to be abusive. We’ve seen this before here on the blog, such as when I wrote my 2013 post, HSLDA: Man Who Kept Children in Cages a “Hero”.

In that post, I wrote about Michael and Sharon Gravelle, who adopted eleven special needs children and were found to be keeping those children in cages, beating them, and holding their heads under water in the toilet. According to the Akron Beacon Journal, as quoted in my post:

Scott Somerville, an attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association in Virginia, said he talked with Michael Gravelle before the story broke in the media, and he believes this is a family trying to help special children.

When a social worker visited the house last week, there was no resistance to an inspection, said Somerville, whose organization represents home-schooling families on legal matters.

“They had nothing to hide,” Somerville said. “He told me why they adopted these children and told me the problems they were trying to solve.

“I think he is a hero.”

There seems to be an automatic assumption that any family that would adopt ten or eleven children—and especially special needs children—must by definition be worthy of praise and honor. Here’s another example from Homeschooling’s Invisible Children, this one from 2005:

Wilson and Brenda Sullivan’s 17 year old mentally handicapped adopted son was found caged in a crib by investigators responding to an anonymous tip. He was severely malnourished and weighed only 49 pounds, less than what he weighed when the couple had adopted him at age 7 ten years prior. Two other adopted children, aged 10, were kept in similar cages. The family homeschooled. The couple had been praised for their willingness to adopt special needs children by the governor himself in 1995. Wilson died before the trial was completed, and Brenda was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

There is a serious problem with the assumption that everyone who adopts does so with good intentions and aware of their limitations—it’s simply not true. Another website database, Pound Pup Legacy, tracks cases of abuse among adopted children in an effort to call for reform of the adoption process. A quick perusal of their website should disabuse any reader of the idea that adoptive parents are always motivated by altruism.

Regular readers of my blog are familiar with the concept of childbearing as a form of child collecting. Within the quiverfull movement, large families are praised and the more children a woman bears the more highly the family is regarded. I grew up in a family influenced by this movement and I well remember the feelings of superiority that came along with being part of an oversized family. But children are a lot of work, and every additional child divides the amount of time a parent can spend on any individual child. There’s a reason the youngest Duggar children would run to their older sisters, and not their mother, if they were hurt or upset.

In some cases, adoption can function similarly, providing couples with a means to expanding their families far beyond what most people would feel capable of handling. Jonathan and Allison Schumm adopted five children and had three of their own and another on the way. With eight children and one on the way, most parents would focus their energy on the children they had, but the Schumms felt compelled to adopt more children. And given the awards they were receiving, I think it’s safe to say that their oversized family brought them attention and praise, and some degree of status within the adoptive community. And Allison herself wrote that she was not “done.”

It’s perhaps worth noting that the Allison used quiverfull language on her blog. Some segments of the quiverfull movement deify adoption and praise it as yet one more way to expand one’s family. I grew up reading Above Rubies magazine, with its stories of adoption and family expansion. It was only years later that I learned that many of these adoptions failed, given that they were initiated for the wrong reasons and carried out by parents with extremely concerning approaches to parenting and childrearing. You can read more in Kathryn Joyce’s seminal article, Orphan Fever.

In the end, I am left wondering about the process for receiving an Angels in Adoption award. It turns out that the Schumms are not the first family to receive this award and later be found to be abusive. According to Pound Pup Legacy:

Jerry Sandusky received an award out of the hands of Rick Santorum, a decision that needed to be reverted back in 2011, when it became clear Sandusky had molested several boys, including his own adopted son.

Senator Chuck Grassley, awarded Damien and Allonna Stovall with an Angel in Adoption, in 2012. Six months later, the couple was charged with beating their adopted children with belts and wooden spoons, although those charges were later dropped.

In 2007, Representative Patrick Murphy determined an award should be given to Steven G. Dubin, whom at the time was under investigation for fraudulent adoption practices . . .

In 2005, convicted criminal, Representative William Jefferson, nominated one of his cronies Renee Gill Pratt, and a year later, Senator Johnny Isakson awarded Faith Allen, the former “savior” of Masha Allen, who abandoned her adopted daughter in Washington DC, the day after the Angel in Adoption gala.

Does the process involve speaking with the adopted children? All I could find on the Angels in Adoption website was that you can nominate a family for the award. I was unable to learn anything further about the process, and that leaves me with questions. Is this award about the children, or about the parents? How about adoption? Is it about the children, or about the parents? Those two entities—and their interests—are not identical.

All-Options PRC: The New Pro-Choice Center on the Block

November 19, 2015 By Libby Anne

You’ve probably heard of “pregnancy resource centers.” The term itself is the rebranding of the older “crisis pregnancy center” label. These centers tend to be run by pro-life groups intent on dissuading women from having abortions. When I was young, my mother spent time as a volunteer at one of these centers, counseling pregnant women and urging them against abortion. These centers have often been accused of using misleading advertising or coercive tactics to bring women in and convince them to keep unintended pregnancies, and many centers lie about things like the risks associated with birth control or abortion.

But today, there’s a new pregnancy resource center on the block—All-Options PRC.

When I first came upon this name and logo, I laughed. Anti-abortion pregnancy resource centers sometimes take misleading names that include terms like “choice,” but this seemed too far! And it turned out, it was. All-Options Pregnancy Resource Center is a new kind of pregnancy resource center—one that really does present all options. The center is located in Bloomington, Indiana, and is run by Backline, a nonprofit organization that runs a toll free counseling and pregnancy options line.

According to RH Reality Check:

Backline Executive Director J. Parker Dockray told RH Reality Check that many of the women who call the talkline are seeking information about all of their options and how they are related to each other. “None of theses decisions are made in a vacuum,” said Dockray.

. . .

Backline chose Bloomington as the site of the new clinic in part because neither the town nor the state are havens of reproductive freedom.

. . .

Women facing unplanned pregnancies or other reproductive health-care concerns will be able to come to the center for counseling, free pregnancy tests, support groups, and resources such as diapers, baby clothes, care packages, and educational materials. Medical and legal services will also be available through referrals. The center also intends to provide unbiased information about reproductive health, with the goal of supporting women in whatever decision they make.

. . .

“We know so many people who have abortions already have kids, and that’s part of why they make that decision in the first place,” said Dockray. “Why is it that you can go to one place to get counseling and an abortion referral and another place to get free diapers, but there are very few places you can go to get both?”

The decision to approach the issue from a reproductive justice perspective was done purposefully. “These decisions are not just about our individual values,” said Dockray. “There’s so much context that has do with social issues and geographic access that it all has to be a part of the conversation.”

Can I say how excited I am about this new clinic? I love everything about the project. Here’s the video from their fundraising page:

One thing I noted in my viral How I Lost Faith in the Pro-Life Movement post was that both access to effective birth control and better safety net programs for parents (especially things like affordable childcare) are more effective ways to bring down the number of abortion performed than banning abortion would be. If we improve access to birth control we cut down on the number of unintended pregnancies, and if we improve support for raising children more women who want to keep their pregnancies but don’t feel like they can, for financial reasons, will be able to do so.

Supporting choice means more than keeping abortion legal—though it absolutely does mean that. Supporting choice means ensuring that women have unrestricted access to a range of options. After all, having choice but only one viable option is no choice at all. Supporting reproductive freedom, in turn, means promoting women’s ability to choose not only whether they want to stay pregnant once they are but also when they become pregnant.

Planned Parenthood does an excellent job promoting women’s access to birth control, and they do provide informational resources for women who want to keep their pregnancies or are interested in looking into adoption. Still, Planned Parenthood clinics are not set up to do much more than that. Women interested in diapers and other material resources are typically limited to pregnancy resource centers, which provide inaccurate information about both abortion and birth control. All-Options aims to change this.

Here are the services All-Options offers:

Free Pregnancy Tests

We know how daunting it can be to go to the store and buy a pregnancy test, especially if you aren’t sure how you feel about the possibility of being pregnant. At All-Options, you can get a pregnancy test for free. No strings – do it here, or take it home with you. And if you want to talk, we’re here!

Peer Counseling

Our trained peer advocates are ready to listen and support you with open hearts and open minds. Whether you want someone to help you talk through your options, or you just need a friendly ear, we’re here for you. If you need support around abortion, pregnancy loss, parenting, adoption, or infertility, you’ve come to the right place.

Material Support

We can help you with resources like diapers, baby clothing, kids’ books and toys, condoms, and more. Our Hoosier Abortion Fund can help with the costs of travel or medical care.

Referrals & Resources

Need help finding assistance to pay your utility bills? Need some leads on prenatal care or contraceptives? Breastfeeding classes? Abortion care? Adoption agencies? GLBTQI support? Free HIV testing? We can link you up with fellow Hoosier organizations who care.

Support groups

Pregnancy and parenting can be messy and complex. We want you to know that you’re not alone. Beginning in 2016, we’ll host support groups for after-abortion support, pregnancy loss, parenting, and other topics that are important to you. Let us know if you have an interest!

The next time someone says that the pro-choice position is also anti-pregnancy or anti-children, send them to the All-Options website. Tell them pro-choice actually means pro-choice, and that means pro-options. I can only hope that this model spreads, and that All-Options clinics can both support women and change the national conversation about abortion and choice.

One Million Moms Declares War on Children of Gay Parents

November 10, 2015 By Libby Anne

I was not at all surprised to read that American Girl is receiving criticism over including an article about a girl with two dads in their magazine, but as I read the criticism and then read the controversial article itself, I was profoundly saddened. I realize that on some level, the title of this article may seem like hyperbole, but bear with me, because what’s going on here is important.

Let’s start with a recent Washington Post article, Maryland family faces harsh criticism after daughter is featured in ‘American Girl’ magazine. As the article explains:

Rob and Reece Scheer of Darnestown, two white gay men, adopted Amaya and three boys — all of whom are African American and had been in foster care — several years ago and were recently featured in a magazine run by the huge toy chain Mattel and its popular dolls, called “American Girl.” In the article, Amaya tells of how she and her brother came to the Scheers in 2009 with their belongings in two trash bags. It was their third foster home in four months. The Scheers went on to adopt two other kids who are brothers — Greyson, who is now 8, and Tristan, now 6.

The article, by an adult writer for the magazine, is written through Amaya’s perspective. In it, Amaya promotes the charity one of her dads — Rob — started several years ago, called Comfort Cases, which provides backpacks filled with pajamas, toothbrushes, blankets, stuffed animals and other items for foster kids. The group has gone from providing about 300 kits in 2013 to donating 7,000 to kids in the District, Maryland and Virginia foster care systems last year.

It’s pretty clear why American Girl thought this would be a good family to spotlight in their magazine, which caters to tween girls and spotlights stories about girls making a difference in their local communities. The article came about after a writer for American Girl heard Rob Scheer speak at an event about adoption. Rob Scheer was himself a former foster kid, which adds another level to this story. An article like this has the potential to introduce girls to foster children in a humanizing and real way.

So, why are people upset?

After the recent article in American Girl came out and showed a photo spread of Amaya with her family, her parents said they got a call Friday from a family friend saying there was online criticism from a group called One Million Moms. The group said it is an online project of the American Family Association, based in Tupelo, Miss.

On their Web site, the group criticized the article, saying it should have focused “on the child and not about the parents since it is a magazine for children.” It went on: “The magazine also could have chosen another child to write about and remained neutral in the culture war.” The post goes on to say the magazine is trying to “desensitize our youth by featuring a family with two dads” and it calls homosexuality wrong. It also encourages subscribers to cancel the magazine.

One Million Moms’ claim that American Girl should have chosen another family and thus “remained neutral in the culture war” reminds me of those people who tell progressive parents that they need to force their sons to wear pants, because letting them wear dresses is “pushing an agenda.” Do you know what neutral looks like? It sure as heck doesn’t look like going out of the way to avoid stories about kids with gay parents. That’s taking sides. Remaining neutral means choosing stories based on their merit and their potential to educate, without paying any attention to family form.

Curious, I found a link to the American Girl article and read it. And I have to say, I was surprised, because it wasn’t what I was expecting based on the level of controversy. The article never mentions that Amaya has two dads. Not once. The only—and I do mean only—indication that she has two dads is in the picture at the end of the article. It looks to me like American Girl went out of its way to not be controversial. Here’s how the article, which focuses on Amaya and her father Rob Scheer, begins:

My daddy and I are very different, but we’re a lot alike, too. We both love animals. We like to help others. And we were both in foster care as kids. Foster care is a system set up to care for kids when their own parents can’t. Six years ago, my brother Makai and I were in foster care for three months. During that time, we lived with three different sets of foster parents. Then we got adopted.

My daddy and I do lots of things together, like caring for the animals on our little farm. We have ducks, chickens, goats, and two dogs. We also work to help kids who are in foster care today.

Throughout the article Amaya speaks of her “daddy” without mentioning the fact that she has two dads. The only mention that Amaya even has a second parent is the use of the word “parents” in several places, such as here:

Four months later, our parents adopted two more kids, Greyson and Tristan. I love having three little brothers. My parents feed us, love us, and give us everything kids in foster care dream of having someday.

Or in this closing sentence:

When I feed my dog, Kai-lan, or close the chickens up for the night, I give them love and lots of cheerfulness and happiness, just like my parents give me.

Now ordinarily, articles like this speak of “my mom and dad” rather than “my parents.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying American Girl should have made a big deal out of Amaya having two dads. I’d like to live in a world where having two dads isn’t a big deal. What I’m pointing out is that American Girl seems to have gone out of its way to downplay the fact that Amaya has two dads. It looks to me like they were trying very hard not to be controversial.

The only indication that Amaya has two dads is this picture at the end of the article:

Let’s return to One Million Moms’ complaints.

On pages 28-31 of the magazine is an article titled “Forever Family” about adoption from foster care, which would have been wonderful if they had not decided to include a large picture of a girl with her two dads, Daddy and Dada, and three other adopted children.

1MM supports adoption and taking care of orphans as we are biblically instructed to do in Psalm 82:3, but American Girl could have focused the article on the child and not about the parents since it is a magazine for children. The magazine also could have chosen another child to write about and remained neutral in the culture war.

One Million Moms is upset that American Girl featured a story about a girl with two dads, even though the article had nothing to do with the fact that she has two dads. Their criticism that the article should have focused on the child rather than the parents makes no sense given that that is exactly what the article did. While I have not read the magazine in some years, I am fairly certain that it is typical for American Girl to include a family portrait with an article of this sort. Simply including a family picture does not take the focus away from the child being profiled. Except, apparently, if she has two dads.

It appears that One Million Moms wants a world where existing in a gay family renders a child ineligible for inclusion in a magazine like American Girl, even if she has a powerful and important story to tell that has nothing to do with having two dads. Or, perhaps as a compromise, One Million Moms is willing to allow a child with gay parents to appear in an article like this if the article does not mention her parents and is printed without the conventional family portrait, thus rendering her parents invisible. And then they call this neutrality.

I call it erasure and blatant discrimination. But actually it’s even worse, because of what it means for the children involved. The Mormon church announced last week that children of gay and lesbian couples are ineligible for church sacraments. And in this case, One Million Moms has declared children of gay and lesbian couples ineligible from any sort of media visibility, even when it has nothing to do with their parents’ gayness. One of the key reasons the court struck down school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education was the negative impact segregation had on children through the messages it sent them about their worth. How does this not do the same? The answer is pretty obvious—it does.

I realize that there have been children in the U.S. growing up with gay parents for at least half a century now. In fact, the father of my daughter’s friends at school was adopted and raised by two moms. (Someday there will be a book about Heather’s daughter’s three grandmothers.) Children of gay parents facing discrimination is not a new thing. But we are at a point in the conservative opposition to gay rights where marriage has been for all intents and purposes settled, and discriminating against children of gay parents has become the next step. In some cases, schools have refused to enroll the children of gay parents. In other cases, pediatricians have refused to treat the children of gay parents.

This “war” rhetoric may appear bombastic, but the rights of children of gay parents are an emerging frontier in the battle over gay rights nonetheless. No longer content to take aim at gay and lesbian couples, conservatives have put their children in the crosshairs.

A Case for Calling the Duggars ATI Rather Than Quiverfull

September 4, 2015 By Libby Anne

I wrote recently about some of the many definitional issues surrounding the term “quiverfull.” If you have not already read that post, you can do so here. But in this post I want to go farther and argue that we need to be calling the Duggars ATI, not quiverfull, because their primary identification is with Bill Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute and their quiverfull beliefs stem from that organization. More generally, I would argue that accuracy demands that we be clear about what leaders and what organizations any given Christian homeschooling family follows. This is because umbrella terms like “quiverfull” or “Christian patriarchy” erase and blur distinctions that can be critically important.

Let me give you an example of why this matters. Take a look at the framing of this question InTouch recently asked No Longer Quivering founder Vyckie Garrison:

The way the reporter framed the question is a problem, because quiverfull is not monolithic. Instead, it is an ideology that is held and taught by a wide range of people. How a quiverfull person will feel about an illegitimate baby will depend on which leader and organization they follow. In this case, InTouch should be asking “How do people in ATI feel about an illegitimate baby?” But because they (and we) have gotten so used to using the umbrella term when talking about the Duggars, they may not even know that question exists.

Here is Vyckie’s response:

Vyckie was close to Nancy Campbell’s ministry, Above Rubies, and within those circles this answer makes perfect sense. Campbell emphasizes mothers and babies and childbearing. She writes constantly about what blessings babies are and urges women to accept all of the blessings God chooses to give them. In addition to her involvement with Campbell, Vyckie was heavily involved in a form of anti-abortion activism that emphasized that babies are always—always—a blessing. That this would have been her position on illegitimate babies when she was quiverfull makes perfect sense.

The problem is that the Duggars are an ATI family, not an Above Rubies family. Even though both groups can be termed quiverfull, they are in fact very different. ATI was founded by Bill Gothard, who spent decades dictating the minutia of ATI belief and practice, and that comes with very specific beliefs—beliefs not shared by Nancy Campbell or Above Rubies. That is why I said InTouch asked the wrong question. They needed to ask what ATI teaches about illegitimate children, but because the Duggars have been overwhelmingly labeled “quiverfull” rather than “ATI,” they didn’t know to ask that. And that’s a problem.

Several homeschool graduates who grew up in ATI families mentioned this differences at play here in comments on Vyckie’s post, explaining the specifics of ATI theology on illegitimate children:

Yes, that’s right—Gothard taught that the sins of the parents were passed on to the children. This was called “intergenerational sin” and it is why Gothard was generally negative about adoption—he argued that adopted children come with all sorts of problems because of the sins of their parents, and advised parents to only adopt children in situations where they knew their family background. Gothard’s specific teaching about intergenerational sin is crucially important to understanding how families like the Duggars—followers of Gothard’s ministry—would view an illegitimate child.

I suggested in my previous post that we need a new term for this overarching parallel universe that is the Christian homeschooling world of Bill Gothard, Michael Pearl, Nancy Campbell, etc. But now I think that maybe, instead, we need to focus instead on which leaders and organizations a given individual or family is following rather than making generalizations about the group as a whole. I am just as guilty of speaking in generalizations as anyone else, and it’s something I plan to work on.

Labeling the Duggars ATI rather than quiverfull may also help call attention to the cult-like and oppressive teachings of Gothard. The term “quiverfull” applies to only a specific aspect of the Duggars’ beliefs, and using that label minimizes the reality that the Duggars are quiverfull because they are ATI. It allows the public to focus on their large family rather than their cult-like beliefs. Drawing attention to ATI and Bill Gothard makes the problem more tangible. Changing the terminology we use may make it harder for the media and the public to ignore the harsh realities of ATI’s teachings when talking about the Duggars.

There is absolutely a place for attacking an overarching ideology, but those efforts must be supplemented with efforts to oppose and criticize individual leaders and organizations that promote that ideology. If our efforts skew too far toward addressing the ideology rather than the organizations that promote it, we become less effective. Quiverfull beliefs propagate through a network of leaders and organizations. They do not just appear out of thin air. We must be comprehensive, tackling both ideas and people, both ideologies and organizations.

And so as we go forward, let’s label the Duggars “ATI” and emphasize the importance of Gothard’s teachings to the Duggars’ beliefs while also addressing the problems inherent to quiverfull beliefs more generally. It can’t be either/or. It has to be both/and.

Can You Believe Premarital Sex Is a Sin without Stigmatizing Unwed Motherhood?

August 26, 2015 By Libby Anne

Several years ago, in a Facebook conversation with a family friend, I argued that pro-life individuals should favor reducing the stigma on unwed mothers. I argued that when an unmarried woman decides whether to keep a pregnancy or have an abortion, the stigma unwed mothers face factors into her decision (whether consciously or not), and that reducing the stigma would make women in this position more likely to opt to keep their pregnancies. This family friend disagreed vehemently, arguing that premarital sex is sinful and that unwed motherhood should be more stigmatized.

It’s only natural that I thought of this conversation when I read these lines in an article by Chad Ashby titled Brothers and Sisters, Unwed Pregnancy Is Not a Sin:

There is a glaring hole in our fight against abortion. It is found in our churches among the quiet pre-service whispers as she walks by. It is heard at Sunday dinner as her name bounces back and forth across the table among interjections like, “But she comes from such a good family!” It is seen in the averted eyes and not-so-subtle head wags. “Wait you haven’t heard? She’s pregnant!”

Could it be that there are pro-lifers who agree that the stigma on unwed motherhood should be reduced? Intrigued, I read on.

If you’ve experienced an unwed pregnancy in your church, your family, or your circle of acquaintances—who hasn’t?—you know the typical reaction. It’s a mixture of disappointment, condemnation, and pity. But there are places across the country where this is not the response to the girl who shamefully mumbles, “I think I’m pregnant.” They are called pregnancy resource centers (PRCs). The women and men who serve in these safe-havens have comprehended something our churches haven’t yet: unwed pregnancy is not a sin.

When a young woman walks into a local PRC, and she makes the painful admission that she’s pregnant by her boyfriend, and she’s afraid what her family will say, and she’s pretty sure her dad is going to kick her out of the house, and she’s worried her college dreams are shot, the response she finds from her counselor is surprising. It’s Christian love, understanding, and joy. Perhaps for the first time since she missed her period, she’s found someone who actually celebrates her pregnancy as a gift from God and does not judge her for carrying a tiny baby inside.

Wait. Wait wait wait. That certainly was not the response my fellow blogger Samantha Field received when she called her local crisis pregnancy center (what Ashby calls a “pregnancy resource center”). Instead, she writes that the woman she spoke with implied she was a slut and said she deserved what she got. Now I’m sure this varies from center to center, but Ashby has an overly positive (and overly omniscient) view of how these centers operate.

Besides, staff at crisis pregnancy centers tend to be drawn from local churches—just the sorts of congregations Ashby is here critiquing. They’re not a special breed of people.

And then there’s this:

It seems so obvious once it’s stated this way, but the Bible never condemns unwed pregnancies. In fact, the lineage of our Savior has several. Some of his ancestors were conceived through prostitution, incest, and adultery (cf. Gen. 38, Gen. 19:30-38, 2 Sam. 11:1-12:25). It is telling that Jesus himself was an unwed pregnancy. By the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary became the most vulnerable of women—an unmarried pregnant teen. She was deeply loved by God and in need of care and support. When she traveled to see family, she was not ostracized but welcomed with a beaming smile and these words from her cousin Elizabeth: “Blessed is the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:42).

PRC counselors seek to be like Elizabeth welcoming these expectant mothers with warm, receptive, and loving arms. They treasure the fruit of the womb as the wondrous gifts from God that they are—no matter how they were conceived. Many of our congregations couldn’t dream of responding this way—even when we are technically pro-life. How do we follow the example of the PRCs across the country? How can we create this kind of celebratory, supportive, and loving culture in our churches?

Again with the overly positive omniscience vis a vis crisis pregnancy centers, but I have to say, the use of Mary as an example is a good one. If pointing to Mary’s unwed pregnancy will help some evangelicals be more supportive of women with unwed pregnancies in their midst, that’s a good thing! But I do feel like it’s worth noting that most evangelicals will see a very very big difference between the two scenarios. Mary, after all, became pregnant through divine intervention.

First, we need to cultivate confession. Christians need to regularly confess sin to one another in concrete ways. In the typical church, the larger the sin, the quieter we whisper about it. However, there is freedom in the light of the Gospel—a light that shines on our sins and provides cleansing blood to wash them away (1 John 1:7-9). When an unwed expectant mother stumbles into this kind of fellowship, she will realize her problems are common to man. Her sexual past will not be gossiped about in the halls of the Sunday School wing or be the subject of dinner conversation. As she and others watch brothers and sisters confess their sins publicly before the church, they will see a church that joyfully celebrates the forgiveness—not condemnation—we share at the cross.

Confess . . . their . . . sins?

I wonder if Ashby is familiar with the story of Tina Anderson, a young Christian girl who was raped by a church leader when she was 15 and then forced to confess her sin of sexual immorality before the whole congregation when she became pregnant. Ashby claims unwed mothers in congregations that practice public confession will see others confess and realize that her problems are common, but she will still be required to confess her sins publicly. And given that evangelicals tend to see sexual sin as worse than other sins (like lying or coveting), that’s not going to be pretty. But maybe Ashby’s going to argue that evangelicals shouldn’t se sexual sin as any worse than or different from other forms of sin?

Second, we need to have a Biblical view of sexual immorality. Christians—parents especially—are often willfully blind to the sins of teens in their churches. We are able to keep up the charade until a swelling tummy appears in the youth group. The common reaction is to judge the pregnant high schooler, when it’s possible the only difference between her and the rest of her Christian friends is that her parents didn’t put her on the pill. When we overlook sexual immorality but condemn unwed pregnancy we spread Satan’s lie: “Fornication is fine, but babies are bad.” Churches and parents must be having honest conversations with their growing children about the temptations of sexual immorality. We must help them understand that it is both wrong and forgivable, and we must not allow our rightful stance against sexual immorality to taint our view of pregnancy.

First the obvious: Ashby may speak in the end of this paragraph of sexual sins being forgivable, but he also argues that evangelicals need to be quicker to condemn sexual immorality among teenagers. He simply wants all teenage fornicators condemned for their immorality, and not just those who get pregnant. Ashby is also creating a strawman. I am not aware of any evangelicals who believe that fornication is fine or should be overlooked unless it results in pregnancy. He’s right that pregnancy makes the fornication openly visible, of course, but his solution is that fornication that doesn’t result in pregnancy should be rooted out and condemned more strongly itself.

Finally, we must cultivate an atmosphere where all pregnancy is celebrated. Our churches should have the warmth of Elizabeth on that sunny afternoon as she welcomed Mary and her newly forming baby bump with open arms. Rally to support and encourage these expectant mothers by giving of your time and resources to help them prepare. Throw them extravagant baby showers. Pray for them. Send them letters, emails, and messages of Scriptural encouragement. Fold them into your congregation. Disciple their young children. Live what it means to believe Psalm 127:3—“Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.”

Ashby says that Christians must take a strong stance against sexual immorality but also celebrate all pregnancies, including those which are unwed. Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see girls like Tina Anderson have their pregnancies celebrated rather than, in her case, being sent away for the duration of the pregnancy and then forced to give the baby up for adoption. But I am wondering if it is actually possible for these things to go hand in hand. Could Tina’s church have both forced her to stand before the congregation and confess her sexual sin (as Ashby recommends) and celebrated her pregnancy as a joyous thing?

In other words, is it possible to both condemn premarital sex as a serious serious sin and celebrate unwed pregnancies? Is it possible to remove the stigma from unwed pregnancy while maintaining or even deepening the stigma against unwed sex? Look, I’m grateful that Ashby is trying to remove some of the stigma from unwed pregnancy, but I don’t think he realizes that unless he removes some of the stigma premarital sex, teenagers who have unwed pregnancies will be shamed for their sexual sin.

Ashby claims that a pregnant teenager’s past sexual sins will not be gossiped about, but he also calls Christians to take teenagers’ sexual immorality more seriously and condemn it more universally. Now Ashby’s absolutely right that all an unwed pregnancy does is make preexisting sexual sin visible, but in doing so it puts the teenager in line for condemnation—including condemnation from people like Ashby. Ashby may think he can separate the sexual sin from the resulting pregnancy, and condemn the one while celebrating the other, but does he really think the pregnant teenager will always be able to make that distinction, especially when she is expected to publicly confess her sexual sins?

We’re all familiar with the scarlet letter, right? Well, for evangelical teens, an unwed pregnancy is that scarlet letter. “Fornicator,” it says. “Fornicator.” I appreciate that Ashby is encouraging churches to support pregnant teens and celebrate their pregnancies, but as long as he urges these churches to also condemn fornication only more strongly, he is sabotaging his efforts. Unwed pregnancies will still be a scarlet letter. And really, that is why unwed pregnancy is so heavily stigmatized—not because evangelicals buy into Satan’s lie that babies are bad (really?!) but rather because for evangelicals, unwed pregnancies reveal sexual sin.

There may be some pregnant evangelical teenagers who receive added support from their families and church communities as a result of Ashby’s words. That’s a good thing! But what Ashby is missing is that unless he reevaluates his strong condemnation of premarital sex, he cannot entirely remove the condemnation that comes along with unwed pregnancy, and unwed pregnancy will continue to be a source of shame for evangelical teens.

Note: I just realized that I have not even addressed the reality that many unwed pregnant women will be pressured to marry the man involved. I also have not addressed the fact that many (I think most, in fact) unwed mothers are not teenagers. Unwed mothers in their 20s and 30s will likely face only more pressure to marry the man involved, whether or not they want to. Ashby does not address this at all. Can an evangelical celebrate an unwed pregnancy while pressuring the pregnant woman to marry the guy who go her pregnant without that pressure in some way tainting the celebration?

In addition, Ashby does not consider the number of teenage girls who become pregnant through rape. Instead, he assumes without reservation that a “swelling tummy” in the youth group is evidence of sexual immorality. This in and of itself is a problem.

One final note. Ashby probably assumes that Planned Parenthood is all about pressuring women into having an abortion or grieving pregnancy (as opposed to celebrating it). Not so. When a woman comes to Planned Parenthood for an abortion, she sees a counselor first. While I am sure the quality of these counselors varies, they are trained to present a woman with all of her options and encourage her to make her own decision. If a woman comes in with a pregnancy she wants but feels like she can’t keep, they are trained to point her toward resources that may enable her to keep it without compromising their housing, income, schooling, etc. This seems relevant given Ashby’s reference to Satan’s lie that babies are bad.