FEATURE: Banned by CHIFF? Report it here. CHIFF cannot silence the truth!


Children and Family First Act proponents are removing comments and blocking individuals critical of CHIFF legislation, and the mis- and dis-information circulated by CHIFF proponents  from public forums such as Facebook and Twitter They believe that their”silencing”  of others means that  “others” don’t exist.

We do exist!

“We” are adoptees first parents, and adoptive parents in domestic, transracial, and cross country adoption,  We are adoptee rights, adoption reform, and adoption advocacy individuals, organizations and bloggers–those outside of the commercial adoption industry and evangelical “orphan crisis” movement. We  live adoption every day. We do not create crisis to fit our political and religious agendas or  make money off the personal misery of others.

If CHIFF has  attempted to render you invisible though, banning, blocking, and removing you opinion on the Children in Families First  Facebook page, on Twitter @ CHIFFforKids or on other public forums operated by CHIFF backers, please  post your name. the name of the page or forum that has banned you, and any comments you’d like to share here.  Your  information will be posted here, unless you specifically ask that your name not be made public. It will remain on file though.

Tweet of the day: Blocking FB comments is laughable. Can’t block Congressional switchboard #202-224-3121

Join StopCHIFF!

Stop Chiff


Join me on Twitter @DBastardette

17 Replies to “FEATURE: Banned by CHIFF? Report it here. CHIFF cannot silence the truth!”

  1. I have been banned from posting at pro adoption groups and twitter feeds of adopters that I gave websites to try and educate them about what they were going to try to do and the damage it wreaks on others. The adopters only used it for their advantage saying they must be becoming famous (who cares about them other than I tried to give some friendly advice? That doesn’t mean you are getting famous, please!) My posts to apps they create, book reviews, website and facebook comments are routinely removed. If you have been blocked, par for the course. I’m finding out who the people are behind the mask, what they are saying, where they advertise, when they meet publicly, where they get their funding and how they are lobbying our legislature and getting a leg up on critical boards, educational clout, seats at tables where decisions are made.

  2. My posts were deleted from the CHIFF facebook page, and I was eventually banned on February 27th. I commented and asked questions about specific provisions of CHIFF as well as the potential influence of Congressional sponsors.

  3. I was banned from CHIFF when I questioned a couple of things:

    1. Why is Keilu Yaldo mentioned as an advocacy group that supports CHIFF? Keilu Yaldo was, until a few weeks ago, a Facebook group for Jewish families involved with adoption. Whitney Reitz joined the group and suddenly they’re a Jewish advocacy group that supports CHIFF. They kicked all of the non-CHIFF supporting members of the group out, and created a webpage ( to legitimize themselves as something more than an online support group?)

    2. CHIFF is using dramatic photos of Russian orphans to support their cause. I asked if the photographer supported CHIFF and/or gave permission for the use of the photos.

    3. When CHIFF posted that they’d received support from Alan Nunnelee, I posted that I did not think the endorsement of someone who was against same-sex couples adopting was anything to brag about and was even untimely, as the Keilu Yaldo leader, Jane Aronson and likely several other supporters were openly gay.

    At this point, the dialogue ended. No one responded to my questions directly, only made vague statements that people who do not support CHIFF must be anti-adoption and want to see children remain in institutions.

    I then discovered that I could no longer post on the CHIFF FB page and that my comments had been removed.

    I then told several friends in the adoption world what had happened and they ( fellow adoptive parents, adoption advocates, etc. ) also posted and were subsequently banned.

    I am not some kind of anti-adoption crusader. I am a mother to two adopted special needs children who would love to see transparent and ethical international adoptions continue. I just don’t believe CHIFF is designed to do anything other than make unethical and corrupt practices continue unchecked so I cannot support it.

  4. I tried to post my HuffPost Captain America piece and it was removed within 5 minutes. When I tried to share some Wikipedia information on the carreers of certain political supporters my name was blocked.

  5. I was banned by CHIFF FB on 25 September 2013, when posting a link to the STOP CHIFF on their wall with the comment “Just another voice”.

    STOP CHIFF FB Page was launched in September 2013. This page is a joint initiative of Pound Pup Legacy, Against Child Trafficking, Claudia Corrigan D’Arcy, Marley Greiner and Adoption Truth & Transparency Worldwide Network.

  6. I don’t have an exact date, but sometime before Oct 13, 2013 I was banned and blocked from the CHIFF FB page after writing one sentence that there was opposition to the bill. https://bastardette.wpengine.com/chiff-blocks-bastardette-from-following-its-twitter-feed/ I was also banned from following and posting the CHIFF Twitter account.

    On Nov 11, 2013 I was banned from CAICW for defending ICWA and Indians rights.https://bastardette.wpengine.com/caicw-rejects-civil-discourse-bans-comments-from-adoptee-rights-activists/

    Marley Greiner, Exe Chair Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization
    Daily Bastardette blogger

  7. For a mail I wrote to the organizers of the NY Law School Conference I check Tweets on this subject and I found the following names: Marley Greiner, Gina Pollock, Claudia Corrigan D’Arcy, Maureen Flatley, Arissa Oh, Amanda Woolston, Shae Grimm, Karin Moline, Kevin Ost-Vollmers, Maureen McCauly Evans, Thaddeus Batt.

  8. This was my question that appeared and then was deleted from the CHIFF site on February 27: “The ‘beauty of CHIFF’ is that the creation of family should not include gay people as adoptive parents?”

    That comment was deleted, and then I was blocked from posting.

    I’m pretty certain that my blog post “CHIFF: LGBT Parents, Censorship, and the Disintegrating Umbrella” the same day (Feb 27) may have been what led to my being blocked.

  9. I posted to the Facebook page last week, as did several other PEAR (www.pear-reform.org) members and board members. My post was removed and I was blocked from any future postings, as were the PEAR members. The moderators claimed that posts were being removed if they were “disrespectful.” That is prevarication at its finest, as all postings were respectful and polite. They just weren’t written by the Landrieu/BEB/Bartholet Fan Club.

  10. Frank, forgot to mention. Your “banning” from your own piece on HuffPo reminds me of the experience that my film teacher Mojmir Drvota had when he was still in Prague. Drvota’s doctorate dissertation was on file at the university from which he graduated and taught., One day he was doing some research at the library and needed to check something he had written in the dissertation, but wasdenied access to it on the grounds that he wasn’t sufficiently qualified and Marxist-Leninist to read it.

  11. I was banned from the CHIFF page. Not sure exactly why. I guess because I asked questions about CHIFF and pointed out that some of their supporters only support children being in the “right” families – right religion, right sexual identity. It took a while for them to ban me, but I guess they got tired of people asking questions. I don’t remember that the questions I or others asked were disrespectful. I think it’s OK to be disrespectful there, as long as you are “disrespecting” CHIFF opponents, by calling them angry anti-adoption nuts who think children living in abusive institutions is just dandy. The funny thing is, there’s a woman posting on CHIFF who keeps saying that she wants to discuss and answer questions people have. But then they ban people. Clearly they don’t really want to discuss things. I know some of them have very good motives, but why won’t they accept any kind of dissent or questions?

  12. I was banned sometime in March for pointing out that the new adoptee group being touted as an endorsing org is run by an adoptive parent and has a mailing address of Nightlight Adoptions of Veronica Brown fame. So, no shock that I got the boom. Of course, right about that time I sent some people over to Whitney Reitz’s page via Twitter. I’m sure that wasn’t appreciated, either. 😉

  13. Pingback: Join Tweet-up, June 3. Stop CHIFF! | The Daily Bastardette

  14. I wish Anne Fessler’s book would have been written earlier when the evil selfish parents of the girls were still alive. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. They cared for public opinion than their daughters and grandchildren. They were such hypocrites because it is a 95% chance they had premarital sex.
    If those were my parents I would stop speaking to them forever. After a few years I would tell all the neighbors and freak the hell out of them.
    I heard that 2/3’s of surrendering girls came from abusive homes. Than is why they didn’t care than their daughters were abused during labor.
    The doctors and nurses were sadistic assholes who got a sexual thrill abusing those girls. They knew they would get away whit it because middle class whites were cowards and won’t defend their daughters. Some of those nurses were infertile and ugly. They had skeletons in their closets. Most people who judged so-called unwed mothers had skeletons in their closets. Those male doctors were woman haters. Unwed mothers became their targets because if the parents of the girls saw the abuse, they would probably praise the lord.
    Also, doctors have the highest rate of wife abuse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *