I had the same thought when I read this news article. To think people still do this now is just so frightening. It made me think also about that movie "The Magdalene Sisters."

A friend of mine in high school was sent to a maternity home. She was impregnated as a result of date rape, but instead of offering her any sort of support, her Mormon parents shipped her off to have the baby in secret (have to be able to lie about being pure for that temple wedding, you know).

The one time she talked about it, she said it was awful: the girls were shamed for being loose, they weren't allowed any outside entertainment (books, television, radio) and were forced to "pray" (reading off cards) for redemption and forgiveness, though those prayers stated they would never be forgiven. The girls were not allowed to speak to one another or have outside contact for the duration of their confinement. No letters home, no phone calls. Just prayer, correspondence school and prenatal check-ups. Prenatal vitamins and prayer, that's how she described it.

However, you might take this story with a very large grain of salt; post-baby, girlfriend had an enormous appetite for VC Andrews books and went on to major in creative writing. Still, for a 17-year-old to churn out such chilling details does give one pause.

I'm almost embarrassed to admit that the first thing that came to mind for me was Mercy House (from Saved!).

Did anyone else, upon reading "rural Utah," just think "Of course!"

Seriously, if there were one place in the country where you asked me to guess that this stuff happens, it would be rural Utah. I know it happens elsewhere, but... that place would be #1 on my list.

I looked at the website, and aside from the Utah warning bell, the following quote made my stomach clench:

Location.....Utah Valley, just North of Provo, Utah in the small community of American Fork. The benefit? In most cases, you need to act quickly to get your daughter out of her current situation and away from most of her friends. You don't want her to go where they will have access to contact her, and it is also a great benefit to be far away geographically. By taking her totally out of her environment into a new, safe and secure environment, she will be better able to start making better choices.

So you've got a kid who's in trouble, and has messed up her life. She's probably not really in a good headspace. What kind of person thinks the best thing for her is to isolate her with a bunch of strangers, in a place where she's watched every minute of every day.

Even if New Hope is as well-intentioned as the website wants us to think, these troubled teens are sent away from their (admittedly, potentially not very stable) support networks, and watched all the time. Hell, I'd run away.

Wow, this is a curious story. Does anyone know if the girls have been found? I hope they're safe.

As a native rural Utahn, I have to say that these sorts of "shelters" for "troubled" teenage girls are far too common. I'm quite unsurprised by the delusions associated with sending one's child to a place like New Hope.

What has shocked me more in this, was the AP article on the matter which essentially framed New Hope as an escape for victims of drugs and violence who just also happen to be pregnant, when clearly, that's not the case. I expect as much from local media, but on the national level? What kind of journalism is that? They don't even ask any questions about the place to try to understand what might drive three teenagers to commit such a crime against their alleged saviors?

I mean, really, you think this is all it is? "The home, which is a place for struggling pregnant teens, is in Utah County, about 30 miles south of Salt Lake City. Pregnant teens are typically sent there by parents to get away from problems with drugs or boyfriends, and they attend class and learn about prenatal care, childbirth and adoption while staying at the home, according to police."

There is a birth center like this in my home town of Santa Cruz, CA.
www.sienahouse.org

I've gotten the impression that it is primarly for teenagers, but I don't see that specification on the website now.

I think that places like this can be really useful for pregnant homeless women, if the care is mother-centered and not harmful. I can't imagine being pregnant on the street... (maybe this is a different topic, though).

So I'm in support of such places exsisting, it is just too bad that it seems most of them are so overtly religious...

And it is defintely no good if women in the centers feel they have to "escape" to leave!

I'd be more than happy to justify their violent actions, personally, were it within their power. Oddly enough, neither the article nor the web site indicate exactly why it would be necessary to restrain someone in order to escape the home, but clearly they were not there on a voluntary basis.

It sounds very much like a place to ship away a pregnant teen to both ensure that no one knows about the pregnancy and that she has no access to abortion procedures. Regardless, I'm more than in favor of violence to escape what's essentially parentally-consented kidnapping.

I hope I don't sound too flippant here, but now I've got that Thin Lizzy song in my head.

What Nick said.

Also, ticky, every girl in my high school had a large appetite for V.C. Andrews books, and I'm a fiction writer. I would hope that doesn't mean that my word on a traumatic experience is automatically doubted.

You know this girl, and I don't, so presumably you know better whether or not to trust her...I'm just saying that those aren't great reasons.

Logging in from So. Utah here - my understanding is these places are basically the same as the youth academies (troubled youth residential treatment centers) around here except that they're for pregnant teens only.

If I remember right from discussion in my psychology professional ethics course a couple years ago, Utah's licensing system makes it really easy to start these kind of youth programs, as well as troubled youth outdoor/wilderness programs, which also pop up like weeds around here.

I grew up with a couple girls who were shipped off when they got pregnant and it's questionable, I think, in a lot of cases, whether the trouble they have is anything more than simply shaming their families by accidentally getting pregnant.

Others may not be willing to justify what they did, but I am. these people were being held against their will. Parents shouldn't have this right. Parents too often take too many liberties they have no right to decide. I'm not some kid, so don't be telling me that. I'm a grown man. But I know wrong when I see it and when a persons unjustly imprisoned, they have every right to do whatever is necessary to liberate themselves. this is just, if someone who makes a living imprisoning children who've done nothing wrong gets hurt, they deserve what they get. I don't care if they cut off her head and danced on her charred corpse.

My cousin runs a Catholic home like that one (except less sketchy...I hope):
http://www.visitationhouse.org/

Although, it's in Massachusetts. and I don't know anything about it, really. except that it's super religious. But my cousin isn't a sketchball, soo....

?

EG, I was trying to say that when she got out of the experience, she developed quite the taste for the gothic, and I wonder if the outlandishness of her tale was prompted by a desire on to shock and titillate. What I was willing to believe twelve years ago now seems to border upon the absurd.

Then again, I am usually wrong.

Anyway, it was offered as a caveat and not meant to be an insult, and I am sorry if you feel I impugned your profession in any way.

Oh, ticky, I'm sorry. I was teasing. I know you weren't meaning to impugn writers!

Sometimes my internet poker face is a little too good...

Although, now that I think about it, if she developed a taste for the Gothic after being sent away...maybe it's because it jibed with her real-life experience!

EG, I was just thinking the same thing. A traumatic experience like that could EASILY influence someone's tastes in literature, pretty radically even.

I'm positive that a big part of my consuming love of dystopian fiction stems from being raised an evangelical fundamentalist -- complete with indoctrination in what scholars term "premillenial dispensationalism" (if I recall correctly) -- or, colloquially, divine rapture theology.

Law Fairy,

I too have a love dystopian fiction after escapting evangelical fundamentalism.

And thanks for dropping the term"premillenial dispensationalism". It's one of my favorites and I rarely stumble across it outside Biblial Studies anymore. And yes, you spelled it correctly.

Back to the topic at hand:
I knew a girl in high school who was sent away to a place like this that was extremely religious. She was completely different upon her return and while I know having a child and being forced to give it up for adoption can change you anyway, I think being imprisoned (cause that's basically what it was in her case) had the most damaging effect on her.

--->Did anyone else, upon reading "rural Utah," just think "Of course!"
hahaha exactly

Ooooh, very good theory, EG.

We used to have one, they were paying teenage girls for their babies and selling them. They ran an illegal pregnancy home out of their house.
http://alternet.org/rights/32367/

I shuddered when I saw their website. I agree with everyone above saying they make it seem like some rehab home.

It's awful. The girls get sent away to be hidden, influenced to give their child up for adoption (not that I think many teens are prepared to have a kid but still, there are given few options). What's supposed to happen? They come home, everyone thinks they were on vacation or something? And what a let out for the guys who got them pregnant. Zero responsibility for them. They don't even have to deal with them being around.

Honestly, I think these homes are evil. One of my mother's friends was sent away to one of these homes in high school (1970's) when she was 17. Even though she turned 18 while there they wouldn't let her leave, and was coerced into giving her baby up for adoption (they told her it was temporary, until she got on her feet). Well, long story short ended up having a c-section and was put under. She woke up hours later and her baby was gone, she never saw her. The adoption obviously wasn't temporary, and the lawyers she went to back then told her anyone hearing the case would just think of it as opposite 'buyers remorse' and she'd lose anyway.

It's a minor point compared to the suffering of the girls, but I feel bad for the parents, getting shamed out of $4000 a month that I'm guessing a lot of them can't really afford. It's the use of faith to force people to pay for their own degradation that really burns me here.

They aren't paying for their own degradation; my understanding is that the parents send them away to save face. The girls are degraded at these homes if it's anything like Magdalene Sisters.

Speaking as the person that cast that 30DAYS episode, I did a TON of research on maternity homes. It would be much tidier if I could demonize all of them, but as usual, the truth lies in a dense gray area. I did speak with the aforementioned home, who declined to do the show because the majority of girls are minors, and placed by parents.

A maternity home inot a bad thing if you are a girl who has gotten pregnant under 18. You wouldn't be there if anyone wanted you at home - which is its own entire separate problem, and should not be confused with the maternity homes and the services they offer. Some of these places cost money, some don't, most demand that you adhere to strict rules in order to stay there, and few of of the girls who stay there (in this day and age) are totally fuctioning mini-adults. They are usually girls with a history of difficult behavior and this pregnancy is just the last straw.

They usually have a history of dating innappropriately (old men, their dealer, guys over the age of 20, who statistically, btw, are responsible for most of the teenage unplanned pregnancies in this country), drug use, bad grades, and behavior problems. Parents just don't shove pregnant girls into homes these days because of disgrace to family name. Pregnant teenagers are a common sight these days.

More often than not it's because the parents want the girl to somehow get reprogrammed into a woman before the baby comes, so they don't end up taking care of it 24/7. Blame their methods if you want, but you can't blame their desire. You already have a problem teenager on your hands, and now you get to parent an infant all over again - who wants that? So the hope is that somehow you can get the girls to mature fast enough to parent their own kid.

The maternity homes usually have programs that involve training the girls to be responsible: they teach them how to handle money, they make them accountable through giving them chores. To stay there, they must do schoolwork (the majority hurry the girls along to get their GED if they have already dropped out of high school, or keep them caught up with their school work if they haven't.) Most of the exercises are about training a kid to handle all the adult responsibilities that come with having a child.

Really, some of the comments here are just plain stupid. This isn't the 1960's, and these girls are not abused EXCEPT for the fact that many of them have no allies in the pro-choice movement when they decide to keep their babies and they don't have the support at home. I called 250 maternity homes, and I can tell you that the best you can do is a choice-neutral home (one that does not support either side of the abortion issue), because pro-life folks set up maternity homes, and pro-choice folks don't. There is a definite need for these places - most of them have waiting lists.

As far as adoption goes, after my research, really - it's the best choice for a single girl who doesn't have either a job, an education or a supportive family. And mainly it's a shame that neither side has come up with an appropriate way to talk to young girls about it. The homes who offer adoption as an option are really the ones who care about mother and child the most, in my book. All the training in the world isn't going to make a 14 year old a good mother.

I don't know how many of you have been pregnant, but...there is hardly ever a time in your life when you are more vulnerable and when you need love and support. Especially your first pregnancy, especially so young.

It's criminal to isolate a girl with strangers while she goes through something like this. Especially for parents who don't believe in abortion--if they really believe their potential grandchild is so precious, why try to hide it, and why force your own child to go through this all alone? Those poor girls. If it had been me, my heart would have broken and I would never have believed my parents loved me again.

They usually have a history of dating inappropriately, drug use, bad grades, and behavior problems. More often than not it's because the parents want the girl to somehow get reprogrammed into a woman before the baby comes, so they don't end up taking care of it 24/7. The maternity homes usually have programs that involve training the girls to be responsible: they teach them how to handle money, they make them accountable through giving them chores. To stay there, they must do schoolwork. Most of the exercises are about training a kid to handle all the adult responsibilities that come with having a child.

So they're a combination of reform school and maternity home. It looks like the problems these girls have are preventable with more self-esteem which usually comes from home or a K-12 women's studies curriculum.

Pro-choice organizations offer a range of health services although they do not offer this particular service. Planned Parenthood has adoption counseling and services in addition to contraception and abortions.

Isolating them from their friends and peers will not prepare them to deal the pressure those negative people and situations will exert on them in the future whether they keep their babies or not.

Previewing your Comment

Actually, Planned Parenthood has pamphlets on adoption. This is not the same thing as adoption counseling. This is not a real resource. It is a PAMPHLET. I would love to hear of a branch of PP that has adoption services but in 4 months of research (and calling PP repeatedly) that wasn't anything I found to be true. At best, PP would give them a list of phone numbers to other organizations. Now, keep in mind these are 16 year old girls. The don't have the emotional maturity for the situation they are in. They usually don't have the concentration or transportation to get around and check out their adoption options.

The pregnancy crisis centers (who often send these girls to these homes when they come in pregnant and seeing assistance) know that it's a game of who gets there first. Usually the first place they go will win out. Adult women weigh their options and make choices. But teenage girls aren't so good at that.

You should talk to the girls and see how they feel about the homes. New Hope is an anomaly - most of the homes I talked to were free, or paid for by the state. Most of the girls were glad to have somewhere to go and were happy to be around other girls going through the same experience.

I am pro-choice, have had an abortion, so I have put my money where my mouth is, and I had a hard time with this subject. I don't believe in 90% of the philosophy or theology that the people who run these homes do, but I had to be the first to admit - they are nice people with good intentions who usually have mad skills when it comes to dealing with difficult teenage girls. Yes, they like Jesus, yes they believe that it's bettter if the girls weren't having sex in the first place. But again, if you aren't offering the girls a pro-choice option, what choice do they have? And yes, self-esteem training is part of the curriculum. It just has a lot more Jesus than any of us would most likely be comfortable with.

Most of the girls want to stay after the baby is born, and if there is anything criminal going on here, it's that most of the girls can only stay as long as the baby can fit in a bassinet in her room. Then - what happens to her is up to her.

Pro-choice is asleep at the wheel. Yes, we all know that the movement is pro- contraception and abortion. But when women are really in need, and not prepared to go that route, they need to have more to offer than pamphlets and lists of phone numbers to other social services agencies.

These houses seem find as long as women actually want to go there ... I mean, there'd be nothing worse than feeling like you _have_ to have an abortion - but from the jail break incident I take it these women are not there by choice. Also, I've been reading about teenage girls who feel like they have no choice but to give birth and then give their baby up for adoption, even though they want to keep it. That would be horrible, too.

skmccanles, I was actually thinking that it would be a great idea to have pro-choice people run homes like this. Do you think the parents and/or girls themselves would actually use a place like that if there were one? Or would it have to be disguised as a religious institution, with girls reading Bibles while parents are visiting but back in accurate sex-ed classes and the like as soon as the parents are gone?

Also, how would one guarantee that the staff did not pressure the girls one way or the other? I believe absolutely that each woman should be able to make her own choice - whether to abort, adopt, or keep a fetus/baby - but you say yourself that these girls are not responsible. In my own experience, 16-year-olds are mostly very gullible and easily persuaded, so even one staff member having and expressing a strong opinion about what the girls should do would likely have a considerable impact. It'd be a fine line to walk, and I can't help thinking that perhaps that's why pro-choice people have chosen not to walk it at all.

I think we can all agree that teens who are pregnant can always use more resources, whether counseling and personal, nutrition, or financial. I am still skeptical of these homes, although admittedly I haven't called 160 of them.

I do want to ask, though, whether "choice-neutral" is anything different from "pro-choice." To me, being pro-choice means respecting a woman's right to make her own decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy. Personally, it's hard to imagine myself saying to someone "You really ought to have an abortion" rather than "If you want to talk through the situation with me, I'm here for you." I think "choice-neutral" is default pro-choice. So if there is a difference, could someone please articulate it for me?

Obviously these homes, run like prisons by religious fundamentalists, are trouble.

But my question is, what would you do if you were the parent of a teen girl (or boy) who's life was slowly spiraling out of control and may be mixed up enough to get pregnant (despite the education you and the school system hopefully gave her on birth control) and possibly other trouble? I'd say removing the teen from the negative influences in her life would be a good start - even if that means relocating her far enough that her troublesome friends couldn't visit her. If the teen is pregnant and chooses to carry to term, a pregnancy house would probably be your only option if you wanted to move them somewhere else where they could improve their path in life.

So the real question would be is are there residential programs out there that *aren't* sketchy and really do provide the right kind of support for pregnant teens to improve their lives?

Sending girls away for bad grades, drug use and being pregnant? Yeah, that's one hell of a way to help your kid. Sending kids away for this kind of shit only makes the problem worse. These parents are delusional if they think they're helping. But then, they're not really trying to help. It's all about them, and the fact that their daughter has embarrassed them. It's all a punishment. And it may very well be the parents' fault in the first place for being shitty parents.

If your treat your child(ren) with love and respect, this "out of control" behavior would be alot less likely to occur.

And this is a topic that makes me pissy, because my mother had always threatened that if I were to ever get pregnant or become a "bad child", she'd send me away. She's told me this since I was 7 years old. Gee, thanks mom.

Yeah, Becca... Wonderful idea. Send her away from her "troublesome friends" so she can be surrounded by other "troublesome" people, far away from anything and anyone familiar. That makes a whole lot of sense... *rolls eyes*

This isn't the 1960's, and these girls are not abused EXCEPT for the fact that many of them have no allies in the pro-choice movement when they decide to keep their babies and they don't have the support at home.

That depends on how you define "allies." The pro-choice movement is supportive of whatever they choose and will help to whatever capacity it can, but it seems to me that they're pretty stretched financially as is. I'd hate to think of Planned Parenthood, for example, having to reduce their current services because of pressure to include pregnancy crisis centers in their budgets (to be fair, you wouldn't ask a church-run center to include termination options and birth control). Each side helps to eradicate the problem to the best of their ability, focusing on services they see as needed...I notice that politically/religiously neutral organizations are subject to more demands in regard to their services, since we still tend to give religion a free pass if an action goes against their particular philosophy.

As far as whether some of the comments are "stupid," you have to realize that a lot of us used to live (and still do) in such communities, and are shocked upon hearing about situations you DO associate with the 1960s. With all due respect to your extensive research, I'm sure a lot of these places ARE providing decent care. However, if you DON'T question their methods, who's going to keep them in check? In 2007, the sequestering of pregnant teens is a rightly questioned issue...if the father happens to also be a teen, do you see anyone shipping him off to a secret location?

Jane- I agree with you, that PP and other pro-choice groups are supportive in their ideals and policies. Unfortunately, this particular demographic needs diapers, and a place to sleep.

As far as questioning their methods, I would love to. Unfortunately, they are privately funded (for the most part) and our opinions just don't matter to them. There is no doubt in my mind that this whole setup is divisive. These girls are going into these homes in need, but they are coming out indoctrinated. And that's a terrible thing. But again, unless we give them somewhere else to go, what can we say?

As far as these places being "sketchy", if that means "fundamentalist Christian", your pickings will fall to social service programs in places like NYC and Massachusetts, the two states who had funded these homes (in Boston, however, they are still connected to the Catholic Church). In other states, like Kansas, the state pays for these religious groups to run their homes, so they can put their pregnant girls from juvey or foster care there. Which means, yes, the state is paying for the girls to be heavily indoctrinated while they get their pregnancy services.

And finally, yes, there is a NEED for this. I had no idea that there were so many homes. And most of them have waiting lists. The girls will definitely use the homes, both with the approval of and independently from the parents.

As for why the Utah girls skipped town - they probably wanted to see their boyfriends, watch R rated movies and not do chores. Who can blame them? But all those things are generally against the rules in most every home I spoke with.

If you really want a mind bender, there's a woman in Texas who has had 4 abortions, and has now opened her own home, adoption agency and thrift store. Yes, she is atoning for her abortions, it's a weird story.

Really, is this where we want our pregnant teenagers going? Don't think I dont' question it - I think it's a bad idea all the way around.

Oh, and for the person who thinks the girls are being forced to give up their babies - less than 1% of teenage unwanted pregnancies end with any kind of adoption plan in place.

Sorry to dump all this information on this discussion. I've had all this info in my head for a year with no one to dump it on, really.

Huh. So let's say you have a son who has sex with all kinds of girls, gets some of them pregnant. Do you send him away to a 'home' to teach him how to think of women as human beings?

Point taken that these girls need resources. OK.

But here's the thing--I cannot imagine sending my daughter *away* to go through effing pregnancy labor and birth *alone*. I mean...Jesus Christ. Where are the parents? Why aren't they with their daughter as she goes through this time? or are they "bad influences" too?

Of course if the parents were abusive, then the girl doesn't just need help through birth, but counseling and protection.

I spent a decent chunk of my teenage years living in a boarding house at a school that offered both boarding and day school.

There was a fairly universal rule - if a day student was acting out a lot, then went into the boarding school, a lot of his problem behaviour went away - why? Because he wasn't in his home situation any more and it was almost always his home that was the problem.

If your daughter has issues beyond bad luck with birth control, odds are that the parents are at the root of it.

Families can be kind and wonderful - they can also be intensely messed up. A well run institution (and yes, there are plenty that are badly run) treats people reasonably fairly - everyone is treated the same, there are few twisted psychodynamics being played out, and so on.

For a lot of these teenagers, being away from their parents is actually probably a good thing.

Because of the worship of "family" in the US people don't like to hear this - but it's people's families that can hurt them the most (the reverse is also true, of course.)

Assuming they're sincerely helping and not abusive, I don't think these places are such a terrible idea. I mean, I'd rather see the kind of pro-life people who would actively help a woman throughout her pregnancy than the kind that badger her into keeping the baby and then piss off, leaving her to deal with the consequences of that decision on her own. We complain that pro-lifers/anti-choicers are full of rhetoric but would never agree to pay higher taxes or offer to support the babies they're so eager to save...these people are at least acknowledging that there's a life beyond the "have it or don't" decision that must be considered and prepared for.

That said, I think it's likely at least some of these places are abusive, even if only emotionally. I also think saying these girls commited assualt and grand theft auto because they "wanted to see their boyfriends, watch R rated movies and not do chores" is a little ridiculous. If you want to do those things and aren't allowed, I think you're more likely to just sit around bitching about how unfair it is. Maybe I'm being naive, but I think if a denied desire to date, watch movies and avoid chores was reason enough to attack someone and steal a car, we'd see it happening a lot more often. Parents deny these sorts of things to their teenage children all the time, but most manage to avoid getting hit over the head with a frying pan as a result.
I think in this instance we're either dealing with an abusive environment, or else a pair of exceptionally troubled teenage girls.
That's my take on it.

Abuse isn't likely - if the girls are under 18, then these places need to be licensed and regulated by the state and especially if this place is for-profit (which it looks like it is) than it's being eyed pretty regularly. Also, the girls have social workers and regular phone calls with parents or whomever is responsible for them.

I think you underestimate the horror of being 16 and going from a life of relative freedom (which they obviously had, having had the time and lack of supervision to be able to get pregnant in the first place) to a place where you need to get up for worship at 6:30 am, eat meals when told, clean up when told, do homework when told, go to Good Christian Living study group when told - nope, not kidding. At His Nesting Place, they had bible study EVERYDAY, with a second purpose meeting later that was supposed to help them with everything from homework to weight loss. And this is a pattern that is pretty much duplicated at each home, where free time is considered the devil's playground.
The grown women at His Nesting Place regularly invented doctor's appointments and fake grandma visits to be able to get out of the complex. It's an intense environment with a steady diet of rules.

These girls are troubled - but we would probably consider tying the bastard up and making a run for it too.

Speaking as a teenage mom, if I had been sent away like these girls, I absolutely would have done what they did.

Most teenage pregnancies are the result of an age disparity - the girls are having sex with guys in their 20s or 30s.

I'm sorry, but I can really understand a parent who wants to get her daughter out of that situation. If she doesn't want to abort, then she's going to have to give the kid up for adoption. The parents don't want the guy pressuring her to move out, move in with him, and become a mom. They don't want her pressured to have an abortion she doesn't want. They don't want him making a mess out of the adoption procedures. Maybe the kids at school are absolutely horrible and would make her life hell for being pregnant.

For anyone who is familiar with rehab, the theory is the same: you remove the person from the situation that causes the problem while they heal and become strong enough to deal with it. You don't want the girls falling back into pregnancy, keep dating Mr. 32 Year Old, or the like.

Maternity homes have their place. That place, however, is a supportive environment where girls make a decision, along with their parents, as to the best course of action. IT isn't the parents "sending the girl away," so much as the girl and the parents figuring out the best way for her to get through the ordeal.

Nursing homes have their place, too - but that doesn't mean that the abusive ones aren't the epitome of evil.

Shouldn't it be the sleazy 20- or 30-something fellow who should be removed, then, to a little place I like to call jail? Statutory rape is still a crime.

The problem is how few rights minors have under the law. I'm not convinced that a pregnant teenager who isn't making the decision about her pregnancy that her parents want her to make is really the equivalent of a drug addict.

When I read the article I thought New Home was Stepfordisque. The reporting seemed so surreal. Obviously these girls were being held against thier will. From the interview the Moody's claimed they did not know how far along in the pregnancy the girls were. Would that not be something necessary given their services?

I found the Moody's statements curious. They spoke of the girls they had helped and how until now, their efforts were a resounding success. Yet, due to this one incident they quickly decided to close the facility. Wouldn't their counseling of pregnant teens include perseverance, not giving up, correcting errors and moving forward? Then how could they be so quick to throw in the towel?

The following is what I discovered in my quest to make better sense of the article.

I found "industry" related texts indicating Spencer and Jana Moody owned "New Hope Maternity Home" in American Fork.

I found two web sites for "New Hope Maternity Home" in American Fork. http://pregnantteenhome.com/Site/Home-1.html
http://www.newhopematernityhome.com/index.html

I found "industry" related texts indicating Spencer and Jana Moody owned "New Beginnings Maternity Home" in Kanab. The documents with information regarding New Beginnings Maternity Home seemed to pre-date information regarding New Hope.

I discovered the web site associated with New Beginnings was no longer functional.

http://www.nbmaternityhome.com

I am curious so I find a web archive of the New Beginnings web site

http://web.archive.org/web/20050901022930/http://www.nbmaternityhome.com/index.html

As you can see there apparently is very little difference between New Hope and New Beginnings.

I started looking for additional information for New Beginnings Maternity Home (Kanab).

In the minutes of a Kanab City Council meeting this description was given:

"The parents can use whatever means they choose to get them to the school. These kids are not criminals. They are kids who don’t get along with their parents and are rebelling against their Christian heritage."

Additionally, I found where New Beginnings is named in the WWASP class action law suit.

http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=22096

It seems apparent to me that perhaps the Moody's picture perfect world is a bit of an illusion. At this point, I have invested far more time into this than I should.

However, I am really disturbed that the runaway teens, which are obviously facing very challenging and difficult times in their lives, are going to face even greater difficulties and challenges if that their actions were their only recourse.

the girls are having sex with guys in their 20s or 30s.

Shouldn't it be the sleazy 20- or 30-something fellow who should be removed, then, to a little place I like to call jail?

Society encourages men to sleep with teens especially if they're "barely legal" at 18 or 19. It's time to hold men and the media responsible.

Well, after age 16 or 17, it's legal in many states. (The rule is often over 18/under 16.) While Donna is completely correct that it's time to change society, that change doesn't do much for any girl who is pregnant as the result of such a relationship.

A pregnant teen need not be the equivalent of a drug addict for the same treatment to be effective. Fact is, self-confident, stable teenagers don't often get pregnant, not in this day and age with contraception. If a teenager is pregnant, there are two problems: the pregnancy and the underlying situation that caused the pregnancy. If parents want to ensure that their teenager has a chance to get out of the bad situations that lead to the pregnancy, great. Ideally, this would involve spending time with doting grandparents on the beaches of Florida, realising that she's loved and wanted, pregnancy and all, and find the courage to, post-pregnancy, live her life to the fullest. Absent said doting grandparents, I see nothing wrong with trying to give her a safe area in which to recuperate and carry her pregnancy to term.

High schoolers can be incredibly cruel. Often, better to leave the school and return than to be the subject of teasing and mocking. Anything that makes a person different - height, weight, clothes, study habits, or a very obvious pregnancy are appropriate targets.

Society winks at men's obsession with teenagers, over 18 or not. And many teens say they're legal when they're not. The media and males definitely encourage sleeping with teenagers and this needs to change while girls need more love and self-esteem from home.

Sigh. Feminism (equality) solves everything doesn't it?

Not everything, but this particular problem, certainly. :)

For some teenagers, though, it's took late - i.e. they are pregnant by the creepy old guy.

Evening, women. Just sauntering. Heard about this article elsewhere and of course just have to put my 2 cents in. Some of you may know me from Father Markos' site and elsewhere, where I have posted about adoption issues in the past.

I've been called everything in the book on various sites when I post about adoption. Perhaps the worst name of all is that I have been called "pro-life." I'm not "pro-life." I'm pro- female autonomy.... and that means I am pro-choice. I am 56 years old, earned two of my degrees at Texas Woman's University, and have been a feminist since 1972.

I'm also a survivor of a maternity home, circa 1968.

I now work to educate anyone who will listen about "adoption" -- which is NOT what the media has told you it is. Adoption is a business. It is a for- profit industry that makes its money on the backs of women. It has little to do with helping women and much to do with profiteers helping themselves to women's babies.

I'm not going to go off on yet another long- winded post about adoption and how it exploits young women. I'm going to point you to a number of websites instead.

But before I do that, I'm simply going to mention that in the last six months there have been three high profile cases involving adoptionists trying to strip women of their children. The last is the case of these three young women who quite sensibly fled Utah. In December, we saw 49 year old Allison Quets, an unmarried systems engineer at Lockheed Martin flee to Canada with her 18 mo twins in order to keep them out of the grasp of people who were leaning on her (heavily) to allow them to adopt her kids. Alison spent her life savings of 400K on legal costs trying to get her kids back after signing surrender papers under duress, and then revoking her consent within hours.
She is now in custody and her kids are with the people who wish to adopt them. And last September, 17 year old Stephanie Bennett, who was raising her daugheter Evelyn with the help of her parents, approached her high school guidance counselor in Canton Ohio about her situation. Stephanie was introduced THE NEXT DAY, ON SCHOOL GROUNDS, to reps of a private adoption agency in Akron, Ohio who advised her to run away from home and sign away her baby. She did, changed her mind, and the matter is now tied up in court.

The take away from all of this is that if the industry can lean on a 49 year old woman with 3 degrees and 400K in the bank, it can lean on anyone. No one is safe from the adoption industry. The fact that three cases have come to the attention of national media in the last six months is proof positive that the adoption industry is alive, well, and actively exploiting women in America. Please be aware: The so-called "pro-life" movement LOVES adoption. CPCs are all about adoption. Don't be fooled by all the hapy talk. There are always people in the background who see dollar signs when they look at women and children.

Links for you all:
Google search on "maternity homes" yields 5.7 million hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=maternity+home&btnG=Google+Search

History of maternity homes in the US:
http://www.originsusa.org

Mothers Exploited by Adoption:
http://www.exiledmothers.com/

You can read about Stephanie Bennett here: http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/16356410.htm

Google search for Allison Quets:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=allison+quets&btnG=Search

One of numerous sites about the aftermath of forced child surrender:

http://www.artmarksofplano.com/demeter/

As a native rural Utahn, I have to say that these sorts of "shelters" for "troubled" teenage girls are far too common. I'm quite unsurprised by the delusions associated with sending one's child to a place like New Hope

Part of the reason is that Utah is very adoption friendly. A woman may sign as soon as 24 hours after birth ( see: http://adoption.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=adoption&cdn=parenting&tm=8&gps=110_2268_839_478&f=10&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.le.state.ut.us/%7Ecode/TITLE78/78_29.htm)
Once surrender papers are signed, there is no revocation period in that state. ( see: http://adoption.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=adoption&cdn=parenting&tm=8&gps=110_2268_839_478&f=10&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.le.state.ut.us/%7Ecode/TITLE78/78_29.htm ) Signed is signed, in Utah.
So, all anyone has to do is lean on a woman long enough to get her Jane Hancock on the dotted line, and that baby is free for once and all.

A recent case stemming from a quick Utah adoption is the case of Baby Tamia.( see: "Is Utah a Baby warehouse?" http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?t=13005)

It's a minor point compared to the suffering of the girls, but I feel bad for the parents, getting shamed out of $4000 a month that I'm guessing a lot of them can't really afford. It's the use of faith to force people to pay for their own degradation that really burns me here.

How far would that money go towards supporting the prego and her kid, should she want to raise her baby? If it's true that the girls were not visibly pregnant, then it's a good bet they weren't that far along, and would have had to stay there for many months.

It could end up being a lot of money.

this discussion is a really interesting one, as i am currently in a performance of amanda whittington's 'be my baby'
i wonder if anyone who lived through the 1960's (in england) could give me any information on the maternity homes? or perhaps any willing historians? the internet does not have much on them at all!

would be grately appreciated!

this discussion is a really interesting one, as i am currently in a performance of amanda whittington's 'be my baby'
i wonder if anyone who lived through the 1960's (in england) could give me any information on the maternity homes? or perhaps any willing historians? the internet does not have much on them at all!

would be grately appreciated!

Seeing this incident many parents are now looking for online resources for adolescent residential treatment , therapies or any programs that could help them to take care of their child really this is very upsetting things looking that the teens are going under some depression or stress and taking such a steps in their life.