This slickly produced commercial has a companion spot that shows an attractive, older couple adopting a baby (all three are white). Many pregnant women, the announcer says, have “held to their belief that nothing is more precious than human life.“They decided to “tough it out” and found people to adopt their children. The two ads are infuriating many in the pro-choice movement, who consider them judgmental and manipulative, while delighting pro-life viewers who find them positive and life affirming. Many adoption agencies embrace the commercials, but some would rather not take sides. In an election year, and with the Supreme Court preparing to hear a ease that could result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, some people question the timing of the commercials, which are running on some local stations and nationally on cable. “We are just about to enter the battle zone on this issue,” says Terri Bartlett, director of Planned Parenthood in Louisiana, “and those ads are laying the groundwork.”
The force behind them is the Arthur S. De Moss Foundation of St. Davids, Pa., which has a longstanding policy of not talking to the press. De Moss did issue a brief statement that reads, in part: “This campaign … treats a delicate subject in a kind and gentle way. It seeks to change minds, not laws, by getting people to think about a difficult subject in a new light.” Barbara Listing, president of Right to Life of Michigan, agrees. “[The commercials] remind me of the Hallmark card ads,” she says. “Their aim is not to organize, but simply to educate.” But Chuck Fried, executive director of The Option of Adoption, a Philadelphia adoption agency, is troubled. “The implication,” he says, “is that if you decide to abort, you’re a bad person.”
The Arthur S. De Moss Foundation is almost invisible to the public, since it shuns publicity and doesn’t issue annual reports. Named for its founder, a born again Christian who made a fortune in the insurance business and died in 1979, De Moss funds various causes, most of them evangelical. In 1989 (the most recent year for which figures are available), its donations included $2.4 million to Campus Crusade for Christ, $500,000 to Walk Thru the Bible Ministries, $225,000 to the Pat Boone Foundation and $130,000 to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.
The ads would be less controversial were it not for the provocative adoption-abortion link. Critics dispute the notion that there’s a family waiting for every child brought to term rather than aborted, or that the social system could cope with as many as 1.6 million more babies every year. “I confess to some ambivalence about the connection,” says William Pierce, president of the National Committee for Adoption, “but there’s no escaping it in our society.” According to Marlene Piasecki, executive director of Golden Cradle, a Cherry Hill, N.J., adoption agency, “Some professionals are saying, ‘Don’t drag us into the middle of your fight’.”
Pro-choice advocates also argue that De Moss’s adoption spot is too simplistic, even unrealistic. Many babies, especially those born drug-addicted or with handicaps, are hard to place. And many women, particularly if they’re young, poor and have no health insurance, haven’t the resources to carry a child to term. “Regardless of how they feel about adoption,” says Mary Logan, director of information and education for Michigan’s Planned Parenthood League, “it’s just simply not an option for them at that point in their lives.” In the real world, rather than the rosy one painted by the De Moss ads, happy endings are not guaranteed.
