I have a friend who is a surgeon, and he told me about a woman who had the wrong leg amputated. While it made the news in a big way for a while, but what they didn't say was that the woman had problems in BOTH legs, and the one they cut off was in much worse shape than the other one, it just wasn't causing as much pain. Apparently, she would have lost the second leg anyway in about six months.
The hospital (rightfully) had to pay up, big time, but he went on to explain that, sometimes, it is a bit more complicated than what you read in the news.

As an aside, the adoptive parents are the "real" parents. The biological parents are considered "birth" parents.
But to answer your question, not necessarily. I have never known an adoptive parent who would deny an adult adopted child contact with the birth parents, and if they deny the child contact while they are an older minor, there is typically a good reason. (And if they are a younger minor, say 12 and under, they typically trust their parents to make that decision.)

That is correct, they may not have, though nowadays, views on adoption being different than in previous generations, adoptive kids generally grow up knowing they are adopted. Ours does.

That's generally the reason why children are given up for adoption: the birth parents can't take care of the child.
The problem is that having the birth parent hanging around can be distraction and can interfere with the relationship between the child and his adoptive parents. While it may seem unfair to the birth parents to deny them contact, to allow it it would be even more unfair to the adoptive parents and most of all, the child, who needs a stable home to grow up in.

Not so much that they don't work, rather that even with them, there could still be problems.

Yeah, what some people don't understand is that most churches don't have much of what could be considered "profit," if you subtract expenses from income. While there are a few, like Joel O'Steen's crew, that seem to do rather well, most only have a little but left over at the end of the year.

It was originally directed towards whomever chose to answer. That means it is directed towards..... you. :)

Just for the record, I am completely in favor of enforcing IRS regulations concerning excessive lobbying and any other politcal activities that non-profits are supposed to stay away from.

Ok, so we were both partly right, partly not: Non-profits may engage in "some lobbying" but not "too much."
I keep going back to my original question: are you in favor of removing ALL non-profits' tax-exempt status that currently qualify for it?

According to the American Bar Association, non-profits, including 501(c)(3) organizations, are allowed to lobby congress as well as other legislative bodies. (Google it.)
So... back to my original question: would you remove all tax exempt statuses of all non-profits that currently qualify?

The vast majority of them are, and the question stands: would you remove all tax exempt statuses of all non-profits that currently qualify?

Just sayin'

I think it is. I googled this and found the actual review. Most people who responded labeled it as "funny."