Lately, I’ve been reading CallieJett Pro-life, Pro-Love, Birthmom on Facebook! Oh boy! Her FB name says it all. I know I shouldn’t spend my time with her, but I can’t help myself. As a child I saw a trainwreck, and I’ve been unable to bypass one since. I don’t issue trigger warnings, but if you want to check her out, I’m pulling the trigger on this one.
Calllie Jett, is a very out birthmother with a serious animus toward adoptees who aren’t “grateful.” She’s got a whole thread on that topic. Children (kept and adopted) should be forced by their parents to be grateful. Her’s forced her and see how good she turned out! Children and adults that criticize their adoptions and the adoption landscape in general, are brats wallowing in the sludge of victimhood. We are, in her words “perpetually dissatisfied adults who mistake every expectation for oppression and every correction for trauma.”
Referring to adoptee pests, she recently quoted noted intellectual giant, reality star, and failed LA mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt:
An entire generation of spoiled brats who’ve never built anything, stand on the crumbling empire they don’t deserve, built by great and courageous men who are now judged through the moral lens of the softest dorks living in the easiest time
Just suck it up, ungrateful bastard!
Ms Jett also has a hard-on for birthmothers who don’t tow her adoption-is-beautiful line, but those who do tow it are BBFs. Her birthmother and adoption experience, see, is peachy, (good for her!). Although she shows a modicum of empathy for those not basking in the sunlight of adoption love, she views those angry souls as wallowing around with us. Tote that barge, Lift that bale. Suck it up, buttercup (No links here. Just read her page)
Did I mention ungrateful adoptive parents? Those who disagree with her fluffy angel analysis of adoption can just suck it up, too.
At least she doesn’t tell anyone to seek therapy. I’m not into arguing adoption trauma myself because psychology of anything doesn’t particularly interest me, but adoption trauma is real for some. I’ve seen it close up. The “seek therapy” suggestion is never given in kindness.
Lately, Ms Jett has focused on griping bigly about a gang of adoptees and questionably competent birthmothers who want to outlaw adoption. Adoption abolitionists, she claims, want children stuck in abusive homes. Or they want to force mothers to parent when they don’t want to. She, however, doesn’t promote ways to decrease adoption relinquishment. Things like a living wage , free or low-cost medical services, non-directed counseling, and safe supportive communities. In fact, if its “ethical” she wants more relinquishments and more adoptees on the open market.
The root of abolition, she pontificates, is adoptee anger toward their bmoms, not adoption itself which she says abolitionists use to justify their own bad behavior. To her, adoption is a neutral thing. It’s adoptees and bmothers–the ones most affected by adoption–who weaponize it, turning a beautiful social benefit into a social evil. She, of course, opposes abortion. Misogyny boils in her soul. Jesus will redeem adoption abolitionists.
____________
I’ve remained quiet but for a couple of mild snarks that a few people liked, but Ms Jett never responded to. Last niight, though, when frantically looking for something for NAM/NAAM, I decided to respond to a couple of Ms Jett’s offensive and incessant posts. Maybe she removes the nasty comments she gets, but the convos on the page are pretty civil. In the cowboy days of alt adoption, however, she’d have been sentenced to porch bitch duty. (Old-timers might remember that).
Ms Jett might nuke me, so for the record I’m posting a couple of her posts and my responses below. I’ve moved her images to the top for format purposes. Everything else is unaltered
Callie Jett Pro-life, Pro-Love, BirthmomI can attest that if adoption abolitionists had the power or opportunity to dissolve your adoption and return your children to their biological families or foster care, they would do so without hesitation.
They would pursue every legislative avenue, challenge every legal protection, and advocate for policies that would completely dismantle the very foundation of your family.The years of love, the memories made, the childhoods nurtured, and the beautiful life flourishing within your home would offer little resistance to an ideology determined to undo it all. Your children’s happiness, safety, stability, and the beautiful life you’ve built together would not change their convictions or their choice. They do not care about your child’s needs, feelings or your family. Their idol is their personal pain.And yet, you continue to give them a voice.So I ask you: Why give a voice to those who would deny your family the permanence your child needs and what you have fought to protect?
Think about that
My response:
Marley Greiner
What is your criteria for those you designate as “adoption abolitionists” Do you consider those of us who demand the restoration of our civil right to our Original Birth Certificates, court records, and other government-generated and -held records about our births and adoptions to be “adoption abolitionists?” What organizations and individuals do you consider to be adoption abolitionists? How about plain old adoption reformers? I’ve been involved in the adoptee rights movement since the 1980s and can testify that there are very few hardcore-abolitionists. Those that I know have good reason to feel that way. It sounds like anyone who is critical of adoption–their own or of the institution of adoption in the US– is an abolitionist. to you
Post #2. She got taken to the woodshed for this one:
Can we please stop perpetuating the claim that adoption inherently constitutes the falsification of a birth certificate?
There is a significant legal distinction between falsifying a historical record and issuing an amended vital record to reflect a lawful change in parentage.In the United States, adoption has historically involved two distinct birth records: the original birth certificate, documenting the circumstances of birth as initially registered, and the amended birth certificate, reflecting the legal parentage established through adoption.Contrary to the repeated assertion that adoption simply “changes” an adoptee’s birth certificate, the process generally involves issuing a new, amended certificate following the legal finalization of adoption. The original is not ordinarily physically altered or destroyed. Instead, it is preserved separately within the state’s vital records system, often under seal, while the amended certificate becomes the operative legal document.
This is an important distinction. Although the official birth record is legally amended, issuing a new certificate is not equivalent to falsifying the original historical record.
In fact, the very existence of advocacy movements seeking access to original birth certificates demonstrates this distinction. These movements largely arose because original records were preserved but made legally inaccessible, not because they had universally been destroyed or replaced beyond recovery.
And that distinction matters.An amended birth certificate does not purport to be an unchanged reproduction of the original. It is a legally authorized record reflecting the parent-child relationship established by a court.We can have a legitimate conversation about historical secrecy, sealed records, and an adoptee’s right to access their biological history without mischaracterizing the legal recognition of adoptive parenthood as fraud.Adoption changes legal parentage. It does not change biological ancestry. And recognizing one does not require denying the other.The existence of an amended certificate does not negate the historical significance of the original, just as the existence of an original certificate does not invalidate the legal authority of the amended one.
Two records. Two distinct purposes. Neither inherently constitutes falsification simply because they reflect different legal realities.
My response:
A birth certificate is a legal document that registers a birth. Logically, “amended birth certificates” can legitimately correct misspellings or change a date, for instance, but the information on it is a lie when it says the baby was BORN to the adoptive parent (s). I believe that no states do this now, but years ago, some states not only changed the name of the bparent(s), but also the date and place of birth, or left off some information that appeared on the OBC. I used to do adoption searches. I once did one for an adoptive couple who were looking for information on their teenage ason’s parents. The aparents were young when they adopted him out of foster care as an older kid So, the ABC made it look like the aparents were 8 years old when he was born to them. How ridiculous is that? You are correct that the OBC is retained, but if it can’t be obtained by the adoptees to which they pertain, then it may as well not exist. BTW, some ABCs are not considered valid by various government services, including passport issuance, mainly because it was filed more than 30 days after the birth. They are forced to seek legal assistance or if lucky, their Congressperson or Senator has good constituent services to twist arms. I’ve heard that some states avoid this problem by backdating, if they can or issue a late filing form.____________
____________
Poke the Bear 2026
