The poachers that abducted the baby orcas from their mothers were haunted by the sounds the mothers made when their babies were ripped away.

The public was furious to learn of the cruelty and demanded policy change.

But when the government does the exact same thing—to our own kind—no one blinks an eye.

The issues were brought to light only after Tillamook, a poached orca, ate his trainer in front of an audience at Disneyworld.

What will it take to make us see that our children are worth fighting for?

Are we really too busy being gaslit into supporting abortion in the name of healthcare, women's liberation, or opposition to the patriarchy? But of course.

So busy fighting for the glorification of terminating a life that no one's thinking about what happens when a baby is forced to foster a maternal bond with a stranger.

We're watching in real time what happens when children are raised with absent fathers thanks to the systemic degradation of Black family bonds.

What happens when Tillamook has had enough? What happens when a community is disproportionately reared by disregarding biological connections?

When will someone be brave enough to challenge the rampant foster and adoption system for failing to protect our most vulnerable?

When will they be exposed for exploiting and victimizing those they deem too weak to defend themselves properly? Whether it's because they are too poor, too trusting, too stupid, or just too beat down by the system itself.

Struggling mothers are supposed to be provided supportive services that the federal government has allocated generous funding for. Instead, these services have been weaponized into goal posts that are moved up a few feet every time a mother gains a little ground. The theme is consistent throughout the entire foster and adoption industry. Any service established to support the preservation of biological families ends up serving as an obstacle instead of assistance. In contrast, foster homes and adoption services are linked with the state through DCS and heavily incentivized with monetary gain. My research shows that the collective sum of federal funding per child is 1 million dollars. This was put in to effect by an executive order signed by bill Clinton in the 90s. These funds are only awarded when a child is fostered. I think it's worth noting that Hilary Clinton majored in family law, specifically child custody law. Her career in politics as well as law is heavily influenced by her involvement in custodial matters, and not the kind you think. She's not negotiating weekends for dad. It's States Custody that has been enforced by Hilary Clinton's body of work, and curiously she doesn't make a lot of noise about her impressive feat of awarding the state with more rights over children and less protection for the biological parents.

The opiate epidemic has added a complicated dynamic to this crisis that has provided new opportunities for perpetrators to exploit an uncharted market. They have not only managed to position themselves in a manner that escapes skepticism but one that actually garners praise and high regard.

No private organization, NGO, or 501-C should be receiving infants that were not officially discharged and transferred from the hospital. Opiate-addicted mothers have created a challenge for the medical community, one that requires policy revision. The old ways of dealing with neonatal exposure have proven ineffective and, in fact, more detrimental than the initial exposure. Successful and effective measures are not considered an approved mechanism for the medical community by and large.

It's in this disconnect we find ourselves in a space ripe with corruption, fraud, and, sadly, worse.

The 501-Cs are operating with no shortage of funding and expertise. The facilities are exquisite, and the amenities all top of the line. So what do they have that sets them apart from NICU? Why are they doing in 7 days what NICU fails to do in 90?

The mothers. The woman who heads up the 501-C recognized what hospital administrators all over the country haven't. That nothing reconciles opiate dependency with higher efficacy than a mother's love. That's literally it. That's their big secret. Where hospitals begrudge and alienate opiate-addicted mothers, the 501-C recognized the profound genius of the human body. And they go to great lengths to secure this for the purpose of the infant's recovery. But that is where their strong family values expire.

As the mother is participating in the recovery of the neonatally exposed infant, the 501-C is following strict guidelines to ensure the mother's comfort. This includes a locker to put her illegal drugs, a staff prohibited from exposing a hint of disdain, and promises of support in the face of DCS intervention. But in retrospect, these amenities feel disingenuous and the very apparatus employed to sound the alarm. By the time Mom realizes she got played, she's already knee-deep in a dependency case with no end in sight. The 501-C will have a hard time denying the report they filed to DCS against the mother. Unfortunately, by the time Mom sees it, it's already way too late.

Through sophisticated AI technology, data entry is able to determine and accurately gauge the probability that a court-ordered severance will be met with a challenge. Many factors are taken into consideration: socioeconomic status, family relationships, education is a big one, communication skills, believe it or not, employment, length of time in current housing, personality traits, specific characteristics—all these things are used to determine which mothers will most likely acquiesce to the foster system. These measurements are applied to create a three-tier system to identify the mothers according to the aforementioned speculation. This kind of accuracy and organization industrializes their output but more notably proves the ethical challenges I’m claiming.

I suspect there are also uncommon instances involving illegals or the homeless where the dealings would get pretty raw, unconventional to say the least. I have no solid proof of this, only circumstantial data that implies it. For example, during my stay, 4 of the 10 suites were accommodated by infants without a mother. It seemed so odd. Did they sign themselves in??? How did they arrive at this private establishment? I had to enroll at 4 months pregnant. It didn't make sense. Where did they come from? If they were not pre-enrolled as I suspect they were not, who made the determination they would be housed in a 501-C and not the hospital? And under what authority—if any? The most obvious question, where did they go when discharged? What kind of records reflect their stint at that 501-C? I saw one newborn arrive in a van after business hours. According to an employee of the hospital that has done insurance billing for decades—there is never an instance where a newborn is transported in anything other than an ambulance. So if that baby arrived in a van, it didn't depart from a hospital in Arizona.

Another time I saw one of the mystery infants depart the facility after business hours. I was outside smoking and the baby left the 501-C with a middle-aged woman wearing a lanyard and driving a non-descriptive typical state car, white 4-door domestic brand. Where did that baby need to be at 11 p.m. that it wouldn't be more appropriate to wait until after 9 a.m. to conduct a typical discharge? These incidents burned in my brain and kept me up at night.

If you were to observe this organization critically, it is hard to ignore how calculating and strategic someone had been for this establishment to exist. When you consider how truly vulnerable their target market is, it becomes difficult to see the objective as charitable. These are women that don't have a voice, don't have credibility, they don't even count. They won’t put up a fight for what is rightfully theirs, and convincing them that their baby is better off without them is easy. You're not likely to face challenges in securing a robust staff that will eagerly comply with this novel approach either. Critical thinking is scarce in medical schools these days, and empathy seems to be a scientific anomaly. Coupled with postpartum depression, it will be months before the woman realizes what has occurred, if ever. I imagine for many it became a painful, confusing memory they lacked the courage to examine with true prejudice. So I wasn't surprised to learn all of the 501-c Google reviews were 5 stars. That made sense. In the wake of your stay there, everyone was so kind and generous, and the service they are intended to provide is performed without error. However, my suspicion is reserved for the business conducted that has avoided being included in official records.

It took me about a year and a half post-birth to decompress and process this experience . About 6 months after our discharge, I received an email from the 501-c asking how I was doing; it was a standard mail-out. I carefully authored a reply and took the opportunity to dig really deep and ask the questions I thought would result in clarity, naively expecting an answer to why things had unfolded as they did. Instead, I was patronized, told that I was confused, and reminded that "sometimes plans change...".

But I wasn't confused. And the plan never changed. And I really didn't like being placated. This exchange made me go back and see everything differently. I went back to those reviews... there were 60 of them. I started thinking how long they had been open, their capacity in contrast to their turnover. At that time I estimated they could process 10 infants a week give or take. They had been open 3 years -well that was 1600 babies! Suddenly 60 reviews sounded insignificant. I knew it was likely my estimation was inaccurate, but it provided a scale I was pretty confident in. If they had processed half of my speculation-hell a quarter-they are reflecting just over 10% in positive feedback. I'm admittedly not a data analyst- I'm barely a high school graduate -but that determination was relevant I was sure of it. And I still am.

Grappling for answers, I looked into the philanthropic billionaires that fund several of these in Phoenix. I was disturbed to see that their list of donors on their website listed almost every troubled youth program in the state. They consistently funded Hope for Haiti. In the wake of the Lahaina fires, an organization in Hawaii became a regular donee. And annually, there was always funding earmarked for Camp Pendleton. I’m sure you're aware that since the suspicious fires in Hawaii, there are over 2000 missing children from re enrollment records to school. This accounts for transfers to other districts. And just like Haiti, this rich weirdo is suddenly heavily invested in providing support in that area. Camp Pendleton faces a public scandal almost annually that centers around child sex trafficking. I'm willing to agree that Camp Pendleton is not unique in that many military bases are plagued with scandals, but it is unique in that it's the only military base annually receiving grants on the list provided by the Parsons Foundation. The grants specify to be used for childcare, and maybe it's nothing, but I did look at Camp Pendleton's website and noticed they don't have a childcare program. There was an established tab for it, but it led to a 404 notice. Again, that could be a total coincidence.

Am I erroneously connecting dots like a sleep-deprived manic? I didn't have a smoking gun, but I certainly had substantial evidence to indicate the namesake donors were at the very least funding a suspicious collection of organizations that at some point had made mainstream news with scandals related to human trafficking. The truth is we will probably never have all the answers. But I don't think it's ambitious to seek policy change around some of these issues in light of the fentanyl crisis. Hospitals should consider revising their approach with neonatally exposed newborns.

After all, do we need a history lesson on the inception of the opiate epidemic? I personally was 18 years old when my doctor prescribed me 180 Ms contins every month in exchange for feeling me up during the visit . Doctors and the like are the last people on the planet that get to look down at me for my past afflictions and choices. When hospitals decline to treat neonatal exposure with compassion and efficacy, it doesn't deter opiate dependency. It just provides an avenue for the enterprising and ill-intentioned to exploit some of the most disenfranchised, all without the benefit of bureaucratic oversight and transparency.