According to a new report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the government bears “ultimate responsibility” for the pain and suffering of young mothers because it forced them into unwanted adoptions.
Ann Keen’s life took a turn when, to her embarrassment, her family physician confirmed that she was indeed pregnant.
Ann was 17 years old, Christian, and – most importantly – single.
For some, the 1960s in Britain are referred to as the “swinging sixties,” a time when many young people’s hearts and minds were dominated by a laissez-faire attitude.
But Ann, or Ann Fox, as she was known at the time, had no experience with the latter scenario.
She came from a proud Welsh working-class family and knew she had to do what was “right.”
Adoption was the only option presented to her. Adoption by force
“Or so I have been told. However, “for the best” has had the direst effects.”
In England and Wales, approximately 185,000 children were taken from their unwed mothers and adopted between 1949 and 1976.
Women and girls who were pregnant outside of marriage were viewed as shameful.
Families and institutions, including schools and churches, routinely sent pregnant women away from their homes to conceal their pregnancies.
According to a new study from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the government bears “ultimate responsibility” for the agony and suffering of young mothers since it forced them into unwanted adoptions.
Harriet Harman, a Labour member of parliament and committee chair, requests that the government apologize to these victims.
She said: “(It) must officially and unequivocally accept that what occurred to these ladies was wrong. It would never occur now, and it should have never occurred back then.”
The representative stated that acknowledgment would be a meaningful milestone not just for the women, but also for their children.
“It is significant for their children, who have been up hearing “your mother didn’t want you, she gave you away because you didn’t matter enough to her.”
She continued, “(An apology) would send a very clear message to the children: You were separated from your mother without her permission.”
Consent is the operative term here. Ann asserts that there was none and that the purpose was to “control women.”
She claims that she did not receive any pain treatment during her delivery, a reminder of her “wicked” nature.
A midwife informed Ann that she was becoming “too connected” to her son, which was problematic because he was about to be adopted.
Unbeknownst to Ann, he has thus whisked away from her to a different building a few days after his birth. She was heartbroken.
She said: “A midwife informed me that I will not see him again.
She led me into a frigid bathroom, ensured I was in the tub, and then grabbed my breast. She began to express my breast milk despite claiming I would never need to do so.
“I suddenly realized I had no rights. I felt so lost… And terrified.”
She claims that Ann’s experiences prompted her to become a nurse and eventually a member of parliament. She stated that what occurred to her could never happen to anyone else.
A representative for the administration asserts: “Everyone impacted by forced adoption has our sincerest sympathies.
While we cannot reverse the past, we have strengthened our laws and practices to be founded on compassion.
In 1996, Ann was reunited with her son.
“My baby. You have located my child. My kid, “She continued to repeat herself.
Of course, a 27-year-old male strolled in.
She stated: “He possessed my twisted sense of humor. My spouse Alan stated that we shared a similar political wit and that I had met my match.”
However, the former health minister has long grappled with her sense of self-worth.
She believes that an apology can aid in her healing process by providing closure.
“It is not too much to ask. However, they can give quite a lot. It’s a significant item that they can return to us.
