In the documents, organizers explicitly laid out a target audience with “the highest incidence of unplanned pregnancies”: low-income, single women that “skew African-American and Hispanic” between the ages of 12 and 34.

Adoptions are expensive. As the article says, between $25,000 and $50,000. That means the majority of potential adoptees of color would necessarily be priced out. So are there really enough white couples willing to adopt minority kids for this to make any sense?

I assume, since this is Texas, these also have to be CisHet couples, making the pool even smaller.

Longer article than I care to spend time reading. Texas still sucks, though. I’m quite certain that’s the crux of it.

The language that permeates the Modern Adoption website, describing mothers who relinquish their child as “brave” and “loving,” reflects how marketing tactics have changed around adoption over the last several decades, from a shame-based approach to one that makes women feel like they’re making the right choice, experts say.

But women primarily turn to adoption when they lack social support and feel they have no other choice, said Gretchen Sisson, a sociologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who studies adoption and abortion.

“It’s a constrained choice; it isn’t an empowered choice,” she said. “If you gave people the resources they need to parent their children, they’d be parenting their children.”

I feel like there are different parties having two totally different debates happening here.

1. Abort or put up for adoption.

2. Put up for adoption or get aid to raise oneself.

Can’t read the article since it wants me to disable my adblocker, and that ain’t happening.

But, if the campaign is skewing African American women… then why does the billboard for this article depict a white woman?