 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / December 2006MA - NEWS - Finegold: Make law that has saved babies permanent
MASSACHUSETTS http://www.eagletribune.com/local/local_story_342120040 Finegold: Make law that has saved babies permanent By Ana Rivas , Correspondent Eagle-Tribune - December 08, 2006 BOSTON - In the two years the state's Safe Haven Act has been in place, four babies have been left safely at state hospitals, and hundreds of pregnant women who were thinking of abandoning their babies received help through a telephone hot line. But Rep. Barry Finegold, D-Andover, said the law allowing a parent or guardian to leave a newborn baby with an appropriate person at a hospital, police station or fire department is set to expire June 30, 2008 and needs to be extended. Finegold said he'll file a bill in January to make the new law permanent. "We are the only state in the nation that has a sunset clause in the law, and we want to make it a permanent fixture in Massachusetts," Finegold said. Finegold will expand the law to allow 911 emergency responders to receive a newborn infant. Finegold said he'll also ask for $400,000 to promote the law. "We need to get more people aware ," Finegold said yesterday at a press conference outside of a Boston fire station. "I'm afraid that if we don't get the money, bad things would happen." Although public awareness is considered to be crucial for the success of the law, no money was assigned for the fiscal year 2007, Finegold said. Finegold expects the Legislature to approve new funding. "So far, the support is overwhelming," he said. Reps. John Keenan, D-Salem, William Lantigua, D-Lawrence, and Anthony Varga, D-Gloucester are among the 25 co-signers of the bill. Denise Monteiro, a spokesperson for the Department of Social Services, said the state spent $200,000 in TV and radio commercials, rock concert sponsorships, stickers and billboards over the past two years. In a survey released in October 2006, 90 percent of the respondents were aware of the law, and 63 percent knew exactly what the law was for, Monteiro said. There were no abandonments in 2005, according to statistics of the Baby Safe Haven New England advocacy group. In the four years before the law took effect in 2004, 13 babies were abandoned, and six of them died. > MASSACHUSETTS > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > law, and we want to make it a permanent fixture in Massachusetts," > Finegold said. <snip> > Finegold will expand the law to allow 911 emergency responders to > receive a newborn infant. Finegold said he'll also ask for $400,000 to > promote the law. Odd that money isn't set aside for kids lingering in foster care. I guess they're not worth anything. How about $400,000 to promote prenatal care? Or better yet, let's set aside some for mom when she comes on down to the old fire station to legally abandon her kid so you can snag it for newborn adoption. > "We need to get more people aware ," Finegold said yesterday at a press > conference outside of a Boston fire station. > > "I'm afraid that if we don't get the money, bad things would happen." Oh yeah, like maybe a baby will get to stay in their family of origin. > Although public awareness is considered to be crucial for the success > of the law, no money was assigned for the fiscal year 2007, Finegold > said. How about public awareness for every child get a fair shake. Kathy (snip) > Finegold expects the Legislature to approve new funding. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > In the four years before the law took effect in 2004, 13 babies were > abandoned, and six of them died. > BOSTON - In the two years the state's Safe Haven Act has been in place, > four babies have been left safely at state hospitals, and hundreds of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hospital, police station or fire department is set to expire June 30, > 2008 and needs to be extended. In two years there have been all of 4 babies left at baby dumps? How many babies are illegally abandoned in MA per year, that are actually reported? Can anyone show that the four dumpees were in any danger of going in a dumpster rather than going into the adoption system? It is possible they were born to someone who distrusts authority or doesn't like to do paperwork but had no intention of harming the life they created? As a point of curiosity; if no questions are asked how does anyone know who the "adult" is that is dumping off the infant? If the newborn is brought in by a person who is obviously a teen or preteen is there any difference? If only 4 were dumped in the two years what became of the hundreds of babies from those hundreds of women who called the hot line? Inquiring minds want to know. Raymond > If only 4 were dumped in the two years what became of the hundreds of babies > from those hundreds of women who called the hot line? > > Inquiring minds want to know. > > Raymond Answers: 21+ women have used the hotline to counsel into adoption or parenting plans. The average ages were 16 to 21. Those 21+ instances averted any possible tragic results of abandonments. Don't forget every single woman who avails herself of the Baby Safe Haven law is fully immune from prosecution, and can return at any time to give medical history and familial backgrounds -- full adoption as a result. What makes you think that this may not have happened? $400,000 is not a lot of money when you consider when a baby is found dead, or near dead, in a trash can. Investigations cost upwards of $100,000 per, prosecutions can cost upwards of $100,000 per, incarcerations cost $30,000 per year per case, just one of those wipes out the budget used to avert 25 of these possible cases. That's a good investment! Ms babysafehavennewengland.com >> If only 4 were dumped in the two years what became of the hundreds of >> babies [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to give medical history and familial backgrounds -- full adoption as a > result. What makes you think that this may not have happened? Has it ever happened? How often does a mother who dumped her kid at a safe haven return and give non-ID & medical info?  SignatureRobyn Resident Witchypoo #1557 > > If only 4 were dumped in the two years what became of the hundreds of babies > > from those hundreds of women who called the hot line? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Ms > babysafehavennewengland.com You never address father's rights. Why is that? If a mother comes forward, does the law provide any thorough checking, like finding out who the father is? And furthermore, how do you know the woman who dumps off the infant is actually the baby's mother? Maybe the baby was taken without the mother and/or father's knowledge. Does anyone ever do DNA testing to the 'single woman', (whatever that means), to insure that the baby is that woman's child? Kathy > > > If only 4 were dumped in the two years what became of the hundreds of babies > > > from those hundreds of women who called the hot line? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Kathy Fathers' rights? What are you, a stinkin' humanist? <g> J. I don't understand the objection to the BHS laws...? I hear alot of animosity toward the whole thing, but WHY? >I don't understand the objection to the BHS laws...? I hear alot of > animosity toward the whole thing, but WHY? Because the kids are dumped - No history, no medical history, NOTHING. There's no evidence that it's even the kid's mother dropping off the baby. The big thing behind safe havens is that they're supposed to stop newborns being left in garbage cans - But, that still happens. Happened not far from where I live last year and believe me, there are safe haven posters all over the freakin' place. Not to mention, there's no evidence that babies dumped at safe havens would have ended up in a dumpster. That's just part of the problem with them. SignatureRobyn Resident Witchypoo #1557 I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet >I don't understand the objection to the BHS laws...? I hear alot of >animosity toward the whole thing, but WHY? Because the child ends up without a birth identity.. Major big problem.. The woman (man) ends up not taking responsibilty for their actions and becomes (maybe) emotionally unstable.. Another major big problem.. Why can't the attitude of the great unwashed be changed rather than trying to solve a human problem with a terrible solution.. Why can't the common human problem of an unwanted pregnancy be made human? Or why cant people understand that we all mess up so lets help this girl or woman and make sure the baby is okay.. or heck make abortion easy to acquire.. rather than a big drama of signs and horrible pictures.. As a birthmom I have an objection to the way the woman (man) is allowed to just give the baby into secrecy.. Encouraged to do this.. in some places.. Can you imagine living with this kind of secrecy? I can. And bottom line.. I do not think the crazy ones will use the safe haven law.. Paranoid people will have nothing to do with it IMO. Cameras at a hospital.. and I think Marley wrote about how some people have been sought out after the baby was safe havened.. The laws are very different in different states.. And we do not know the real statistics.. its all secret.. A woman that may have relinquished properly and may have gotten help on terms of therapy etc.. decides to hide the pregnancy.. decides to give birth in unsafe conditions because she can.. Consequences of actions.. no longer apply.. Jackie > I don't understand the objection to the BHS laws...? I hear alot of > animosity toward the whole thing, but WHY? Like Robyn said. History, personal and medical erased in one fell swoop, leaving just one vast gaping hole where these things should have been. It's not just legalized abandonment, it's just another form of identity theft. No hard evidence that these laws actually save babies either. It's all speculative. Women who abandon new-borns are in a seriously dissociative state. They haven't planned in advance to abandon. It's something they do out of sheer panic. And in fact, SH laws pose a danger to the health of both child and mother, because the possibilty of leaving her child in a so-called "safe haven" may very well influence a woman who wouldn't otherwise have done so, to conceal her pregnancy to the bitter end, and in the meantime to avoid obstetric care, sometimes with disasterous consequences. I remember a case a couple of years ago in which a gymnastics teacher in her late 20s was found dead besides her dead full-term new-born in a a motel bedroom. She'd concealed her pregnancy from her fianc? and her family, and although it's not provable it's very possibly that she was contemplating "safe-havening" her child since SH legislation had been enacted in her state. I'm aware of at least one other case where a woman was found dead after childbirth, this one with info. about SHs actually in her possession. The mantra is "If it saves just one, that makes it all worthwhile." Surely this is an irresponsible emotional and avoidant response to a problem that begs for a more rational (and IMO, caring) approach. It's one of those touchy-feely "thought-stopper" platitudes that makes people feel that if they dare to even question what's behind it they'll be revealed as unfeeling brutes. Laws *already exist* for women to relinquish through legitimate channels, laws that actually offer protection to all parties, mother, father and child. Why *encourage* women to embrace shame and secrecy, and deprive their children of information about themsleves and their history that the rest of us take for granted - and apparently don't have the imagination to even consider what it would be like to live without? Furthermore, if the person who 'drops off' the child isn't required to give proof of identity, how can it be possible to even *begin* to verify whether the child has been surrendered voluntarily? The 'dumper' could be anybody. Oh, all this and more. I mean, if reputable independent organizations that have no ax to grind, like the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Insititute, the American Adoption Congress, and others oppose SHs, wouldn't you think sensible people would be well advised to stop and take a closer look? > I don't understand the objection to the BHS laws...? I hear alot of > animosity toward the whole thing, but WHY? Simply stated,. it is a feel good all over law but in reality, little more than an irresponsible band-aid solution. It's a band-aid solution because there is no definitive way of knowing if the child's life would have been taken if the law did not exist. It stips away the childs identity and leaves him a foundling rather than a birthright which all citizens deserve. Legal dumpsters do not address the reason why women kill their babies. It further perpetuates the idea of shame, stigma, and may offer the adoptee a lifetime of wondering who he is, and why the law allowed his own mother to legally dump him as though he were Thursday's garbage. Kathy > > > > If only 4 were dumped in the two years what became of the hundreds of babies > > > > from those hundreds of women who called the hot line? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > J. Yeah, I know I'm bad. ;-P Kathy >> If only 4 were dumped in the two years what became of the hundreds of >> babies [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > parenting plans. The average ages were 16 to 21. Those 21+ instances > averted any possible tragic results of abandonments. How do you know? Did the callers admit that they were potential murderers? Did they threaten to kill their babies? If so, were the police called? > Don't forget every single woman who avails herself of the Baby Safe > Haven law is fully immune from prosecution, and can return at any time > to give medical history and familial backgrounds -- full adoption as a > result. Is she immune if the baby is abused? Does drug use count? What makes you think that this may not have happened? > $400,000 is not a lot of money when you consider when a baby is found > dead, or near dead, in a trash can. Investigations cost upwards of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ms > babysafehavennewengland.com With $400,000 I could overturn your laws. Marley Signaturehttp://bastardette.blogspot.com http://theoconia.blogspot.com > > If only 4 were dumped in the two years what became of the hundreds of babies > > from those hundreds of women who called the hot line? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > parenting plans. The average ages were 16 to 21. Those 21+ instances > averted any possible tragic results of abandonments. Like staying in bed decreases the likelihood of being hit by a car. The only thing you have to support the claim that a single one of these calls "averted any possible tragic results of adandonment" is wishful thinking. > Don't forget every single woman who avails herself of the Baby Safe > Haven law is fully immune from prosecution, and can return at any time > to give medical history and familial backgrounds -- full adoption as a > result. Full adoption? And here I thought that a full, ethical adoption process would provide the woman/girl/father with adequate time to assess the decision, not be final until at least some reasonable period after the birth, and carry with it a number of other assurances that the rights of all involved were adequately protected. >What makes you think that this may not have happened? The fact that if it had, you would have strumpeted it from the rooftops. > $400,000 is not a lot of money when you consider when a baby is found > dead, or near dead, in a trash can. Investigations cost upwards of > $100,000 per, prosecutions can cost upwards of $100,000 per, > incarcerations cost $30,000 per year per case, just one of those wipes > out the budget used to avert 25 of these possible cases. That's a good > investment! $400,000.00 is a huge amount of money for a program that has only optimism to support its efficacy, particularly when the money could be as well (or better) used by existing agencies, such as the dread Planned Parenthood. J. > Ms > babysafehavennewengland.com >> > If only 4 were dumped in the two years what became of the hundreds of >> > babies [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > after the birth, and carry with it a number of other assurances that > the rights of all involved were adequately protected. In the Janet Folger world of live baby good/dead baby bad, there are only two outcomes. Adoption or death. SH has as much non-directed counseling as do detainees at Gitmo have due proesss. >>What makes you think that this may not have happened? > > The fact that if it had, you would have strumpeted it from the > rooftops. Strumpeted? I'll have to remember that one. >> $400,000 is not a lot of money when you consider when a baby is found >> dead, or near dead, in a trash can. Investigations cost upwards of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > as well (or better) used by existing agencies, such as the dread > Planned Parenthood. Indeed it cost less than half lthat much to pass M58. Marley Signaturehttp://bastardette.blogspot.com http://theoconia.blogspot.com > > J. > >> Ms >> babysafehavennewengland.com > >> > If only 4 were dumped in the two years what became of the hundreds of > >> > babies [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Marley Yeah, but this is ALL about saving the babies, dontcha' know? So the sky is the limit! Kathy <snip> > -- > http://bastardette.blogspot.com [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> Ms > >> babysafehavennewengland.com > >> > If only 4 were dumped in the two years what became of the hundreds of > >> > babies [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Strumpeted? I'll have to remember that one. I knew that one wouldn't get by you. J. > > >> > If only 4 were dumped in the two years what became of the hundreds of > > >> > babies [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > > The fact that if it had, you would have strumpeted it from the > > > rooftops. Strumpeted? I'll have to remember that one. > I knew that one wouldn't get by you. > > J. Alas, it seems the Bard got there before me. So much for my shot at immorality. J. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.