Olasky has some BS to feed you over at Town Hall:
November is National Adoption Month, but you'd never know it from reading the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune or USA Today. Total number of stories noting National Adoption Month in those five newspapers during the first 15 days of November: zero, according to Lexis-Nexis.
Well first, the Chicago Tribune isn't covered by Lexis-Nexis, and if you go into late October National Adoption Month pops up a few times in the Post, but not in major stories. But why is adoption so important? Martin explains:
That's too bad, because Americans should be aware of four troublesome trends in adoption that have emerged. First, while Americans are adopting increasing numbers of children from Russia, China and Guatemala, it is "exporting" black children for adoption in other countries." The Christian Science Monitor noted last month that "African-American babies have lagged behind in adoption rates because many Americans don't realize they're available."
Olasky sidesteps the obvious: people don't want black babies. It's unfortunate, but it's true. It also has an important role in one of his later points:
Fourth, the role of Christian and pro-life groups in adoption has received little coverage. Historically, American Christians have been highly involved in adoption, particularly of hard-to-place kids. I know, for example, Christian parents in Maryland who adopted seven children of different races with severe physical or mental difficulties, parents in California who adopted three Down syndrome babies and parents in North Carolina whose adopted children include one born so prematurely that he could fit in the palm of your hand.
I'll ignore the fact that Olasky apparently thinks Christian adopting parents should get significant media coverage. Olasky mentions pro-life groups. It's ironic to bring up abortion at all in the adoption debate when one is pro-life, as it seems apparently to most people that, upon banning abortion, the adoption market would flood. Now, moving back to the race issue. With so many poor American blacks unable to sustain a healthy environment for a child, African-American babies would surely get put up for adoption in significant numbers if abortion were outlawed. And the number of people who want to adopt black children would not change at all. Doesn't seem like an ideal situation at all, now, does it?
If you want to read Olasky's section on why gays shouldn't adopt, go ahead. The carelessness exhibited in the rest of his column speaks for itself.